A Modern Paradigm for Candidates
and Other Leaders
A Modern Paradigm for Candidates
and Other Leaders
Introduction
This is a paradigm (model) within which political and government leaders can function in a range of topical areas in a consistent and productive manner. As you will see later, the "Steps" are simply my way of describing the updated, integrity-based paradigm that has been used for the last 200 or so years. The update takes into account the impacts of modern technology, which is perhaps a key source of much of our frustration (e.g., 10 second sound bites; instant communications; the ability of emerging entertainment modes to get ahead of our ability to absorb them into the culture in a responsible manner).
I have spent the last three years working on this and have made the necessary simplifications to ensure that a candidate can respond effectively with or without revealing the underlying methods and concepts. Interestingly enough, the simplifications are such that a candidate can easily come up with an appropriate statement on just about any subject.
While I am trying to keep it simple in order to explain its complexities, it is anything but simple to produce and explain an updated paradigm that meets the many requirements of our modern technical society. Nevertheless, once the basics are explained and practiced a little, I am confident that they will be viewed as being simple, as are all paradigms with which we are comfortable. The unique aspect of what I am explaining is that you can function within the updated paradigm while not making this apparent to others. They will just think you are another Margaret Thatcher. Yet, you can communicate your thoughts more quickly, concisely, and accurately.
The only warning is that one must try to be positive while clipping opponents off at the knees. Viciousness is not consistent with being ethical. If you are truly the better candidate, you will be gracious first and play hardball only when one is tossed in your direction. It will take me several pages to lay out all the suggestions, and I suspect only the most patient and hardy readers will focus, understand, and appreciate this guidance, as well as suspend judgment until the whole picture is drawn.
Since the picture will not be drawn until the end, it is best to read
through these pages a second time with the entire mental picture available
for reference. You should treat this like studying for a test (gag!), but
it will save you time and frustration in the long run if you master the
basic concepts now! The original version of this discussion was about 300
pages,
single spaced, so take the time to read this Executive Summary prepared
just for you.
Step One: Self Assessments and Self Scores (SS)
The first step is to do a self assessment and an assessment of the opposition. Are you the better candidate or not? Are you better educated, more experienced, more ethical? If you can quantify this assessment, you have a quick way to show superiority. You would be able to say something like, "My self assessment score is 85 out of a hundred. Using the same criteria, my opponent is only scoring at 55." Further, you could say, "Even if each of us is given the maximum points for integrity, my real-life experience and education still result in a significantly higher score for me."
Scoring forces the opposition to argue directly for more points and allows you to be gracious and dignified. If true, the opposition candidate who argues will appear to be petty and juvenile. The best many can do is claim more experience points based on a career of politics. One retort here is that the Founding Fathers were wary of career politicians.
To facilitate quantifying the assessments of competing candidates, I
created such a self assessment scoring mechanism. Using it relative to
the candidates in the last presidential elections, Ross Perot had a higher
score than the other candidates. He just had no means with which to engage
the media in assessing basic candidate qualifications. He also had no substance
behind his proposal to "look under the hood" of the federal government.
Self Assessments and Leadership Evaluations:
Evaluation: Maximum Points = 100
Please enter below the number of points that you believe you deserve for each trait, achievement, or experience. I suggest that you consider the following guidelines in your assessment.
Completed High School (10 points): _____
Obtained a Four Year College Degree (10 points): _____
Obtained a Graduate or Professional Degree (5 points): _____
Experience (other than polarized advocacy work such as partisan government and political activities) one point for each 2 years, up 20 years and 10 points for each area:
Career Oriented Industry Experience (to 10 points): _____
Military Experience (to 10 points): ______
Age Over 30 (to 25 points): ______
Good Health (to 10 points): _____
The final category is INTEGRITY (to 20 points)
One approach to determining the points for integrity is to start at
10 points and try to think of strengths and weaknesses, adding and subtracting
a point accordingly. You should document your approach and rationale.
We all would prefer that everyone have 20 points for integrity, but realistically this can only be an achievement objective for most of us. Anyone who places a career on the line for a noble principle (e.g., government whistle blowers) might achieve 20 points, assuming that alternative methods "to do the right thing" were undertaken as part of the process of standing up for the right thing.
If you claim 20 points for yourself, you might have been an Eagle Scout, but you will also have anecdotes or other evidence that describes selflessness. Keep in mind that it is easy to be generous if you are rich. We are looking for character traits more than actions of generosity.
Factors to consider in determining points for integrity are those that are important to you. Discussions with others on integrity provide you only with general information as to what integrity means to them, perhaps allowing you to adjust you own thinking. You can define integrity in your own terms.
If a candidate for political office, you may need to explain how you arrived at your final overall score
Points for integrity (to 20 points): _____
MY SELF SCORE - (to 100 points): _____
Now score your opponents against the same criteria. In the interest of being forthright, you could even make an appointment with them to discuss your criteria and perceptions, soliciting theirs as well. It is difficult to lose since you can take advantage of any response given by your opponents, especially a refusal to talk about it. Nevertheless, it is important to maintain your integrity and your sense of fair play.
Being able to quantify ones qualifications relative to the opposition
is fundamental to being concise and effective in sound-bite politics. The
people understand numbers better than they understand opinions. With a
little imagination, you can extrapolate this short discussion to various
situations that a candidate might face. It is important to remember that,
whatever the final result of such an exchange, you have established the
importance of having experience and education (wisdom) as well as integrity.
Step Two: On-the-Level
In Step Two, the candidate must decide whether the opponent is on-the-level or polarized by politics or other special interests. This seems fundamental in that everyone seems to be polarized by something. To achieve the superior position that one needs to have to appeal to all of the voters, it is customary for politicians to tell each group what they want to hear, and then they hedge both sides of the issue. That has always been an effective approach, but it is not the only way to achieve a superior position.
The great strength of military leaders who go into politics is that they are viewed as having integrity. They have had great responsibility and, hopefully, effectiveness. They are not polarized. They are not into special interests, except perhaps the support of a strong military.
John Wayne could have been a successful politician because his image is one of high integrity, and he was already well known. Although otherwise totally unqualified and unprepared for the office, many people would have voted for him, even over Clint Eastwood. Of course, John Wayne had too much integrity to go into politics, recognizing his real-world limitations.
If your opponent is both a John Wayne and experienced in the real world, you will have a hard time beating that opponent. Most candidates and incumbents do not have such a head start, but you can appreciate the high value American voters place on integrity.
If your opponent has little or no integrity, perhaps this is one motivation for putting the rest of your life on hold while you take your turn at representing the people.
Step Two involves understanding what it means to be on-the-level and learning to recognize when others are off-the-level. To the extent that classic politicians are serving themselves and special interests, they are OFF-the-level. News media people are almost always off-the-level in that they are paid to slant things toward titillation and excitement. News media people thrive on controversy, and they are not above making up their own.
In my self assessment scale, I weighted integrity with 20 point out of the hundred. This is how important it is in doing the country's business. Since I have worked just outside the DC beltway since 1981, I have a few interesting stories about integrity, but perhaps they will have to wait. In short, I have often detected a lack of integrity on the part of politicians, government leaders, and even military officers when their careers are threatened by their failures. This leads them to do things that violate their oaths of office or their commissions.
Nevertheless, there are many good people in government. Most of them are still trying to maximize their pay checks even when they are not maximizing their efforts to do good work. But they are generally truthful and mean well.
Thus, while each of us is polarized toward meeting our own needs at the expense of others, there are many things that we can do to be seen as being on-the-level. Staying married when times are tough, raising kids in a straight path, spending time helping others even when we do not think we are being watched.
Step Two means that you get out all of that stuff that is hiding in boxes. If you were a member of the National Honor Society in high school, get out the certificate. Get out all the evidence that you have that you are of high integrity, smart, dedicated, and trustworthy. A candidate can even admit to getting these things out as evidence of experience, hard work, integrity, and good will. Frame everything and place it on the wall so that news media and others will have a background against which to photograph you.
This is all well and good, but the most important part of Step Two is developing that understanding of when people are on-the-level and when they are off-the-level. Those who are off the level are simply dismissed as not being credible. For example, you might say that "My honorable opponent has made some good points on that topic, but I am afraid that he is not being on-the-level and that many of those points are exaggerations produced by his special interest contributors in his camp. I support gathering all the facts, especially those that my honorable opponent has probably chosen to ignore. This will take work because it is easy for those who are in control of information to manipulate things for their own benefit."
I know this sounds like a routine answer, but you will be able to do
a lot better by Step Nine. To support Step Two, each candidate should spend
some time this summer teaching notions of integrity to the youth in their
area. Many schools are into character building, and it would not hurt to
carry some of this into the summer. It will test your organizational skills
and your ability to interact with people and get things done. For those
interested in such an adventure, I have some additional ideas on the Internet
at http://Technidigm.org. Just select
the links for mentors and teachers.
Step Three: Identifying and Using Principles
Principles remain when objectives have been achieved. Principles are, indeed, the foundation for all good things. The Constitution is full of principles as are the Bible and other religious documents. We usually keep all of these principles in our heads, so it is not surprising that they suffer from objective creep.
A candidate should be conscious of principles and objectives and should keep them separate. The reason for this is that principles are relatively self evident and need not be achieved. Objectives must be achieved, which requires a plan to do so. With a little thinking, most of us can come up with dozens of principles in a few minutes. Objectives are more difficult to state, and the generation of a plan for achieving them is where most people fall apart.
Getting back to principles, I should point out that people of integrity act based on principles. At the Naval Academy, Ross Perot was taught that "When principles are involved, be deaf to expediency." This means that sometimes we have to take the more difficult path if we are going to uphold a basic principle. The political arena violates the "tell the truth" principle all the time. If you are honest, it is easier to lose.
Again, since a good candidate aspires to such principles, you must be prepared to climb a steep slope to get to the top of the mountain. As you will see, frequent reference to basic principles when coupled with a realistic plan for what it takes to achieve objectives in a manner consistent with those principles are the keys to capturing the imaginations of the voters while thwarting the opposition.
As an exercise, a candidate should sit down and list principles on the left side of a sheet of paper and objectives on the right side. Then connect principles to related objectives. This is not as easy as it sounds.
Another exercise each candidate should undertake is to evaluate their own political party's stated principles. A couple of years ago, the Reform Party's (perhaps one of the most idealistic parties) principles were summarized by Ann Manly, which I quote below.
The bracketed summaries that are interjected are also hers.
[Quote]
1. We shall seek to reform our electoral, lobbying and campaign practices to ensure that our elected officials and our candidates owe their allegiance and remain accountable to the people whom they are elected to serve ...
[I'd identify the principle here as POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY]
2. We shall require ethical conduct by all our government officials with respect to the acceptance of rewards from special interests ...
[ETHICAL GOVERNMENT]
3. The positions of our party will be chosen in accordance with the best interests of our country, its people and its future generations ...
[Important aspect of NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY in my view.]
4. The foundation of our party is the activity of grassroots citizen volunteers. ... open to participation by all who wish to join us to work toward our goals.
[Internal DEMOCRACY and INCLUSIVENESS.]
5. We shall restore integrity, accountability and fiscal responsibility to government and its leadership.
[POLITICAL ACCOUNTABILITY, ETHICAL GOVERNMENT and FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY]
6. We, the members of the Reform Party, celebrate our heritage of individual liberty, recognizing that one of our greatest strengths is our diversity; ... tolerance of the customs, beliefs, and private actions ... which do not infringe upon the rights of others.
[Unquote]
Of the six principles stated here, only two (4 and 6) are actually pure
principles. As I have noted, this confusion of objectives and principles
provides a poor foundation for challenging entrenched incumbents. The other
four items sound good, but they are really objectives, which need to be
supported in a plan, which needs to be developed and be better than that
of the opposition. These objectives have a few embedded principles, but
as stated they all require specific plans and actions. This is not all
bad, but the opposition now can more easily use your thoughts to get ahead
of you.
Step Four: Understanding Time
Time and timing are (obviously) critical to winning elections. A good "smear campaign" the day before an election can be very effective. However, people of integrity do not resort to such things! Thus, candidates seeking high esteem need to bring to bear other types of time advantages.
Perhaps the well known practices of timing events and comments to make the evening news or to avoid news media interest over a weekend are the most popular ways to use time to an advantage. Yet, such strategies are relatively obvious and pose questions about integrity. Nevertheless, having integrity does not require one to be blindly open, either.
The time perspectives that go beyond the obvious will impact (1) issue resolution and (2) being able to explain yourself effectively in 10 seconds -- on any issue.
Time is the "fourth dimension." Timing is as important to issues as physical location, and for many issues it is more important. We can run out of time for achieving a common frame of reference and an agreeable consensus. When this happens, we may end up with compromise rather than consensus.
As will be discussed in later steps, it is important to be able to stop the issue resolution process at a point (referred to later in this discussion as a level) sufficient to provide an adequate path forward. The more important the issue, the later the point (the higher the level) and greater the need for responsible decision making or consensus.
The usual result of political decisions is often compromise, often when everyone has been worn out by debate and want to go on to something else. We too often confuse the more elegant concept of consensus with the semi-failure state of compromise. Compromise occurs when we are forced to make a decision in the absence of consensus, often because time is limited, or the potentially losing side insists on a quick compromise to salvage their position.
The candidate who understands this will be able to deal better with the issue of compromise. People of integrity are not supposed to compromise on their principles (Step 3), so the word "compromise" should trigger thoughts (red flags) about the differences between compromise and consensus. A compromise may be appropriate in lieu of consensus only if principles are not violated.
If a decision or mutual agreement violates principles, time factors may be involved, perhaps indicating that we have not reached far enough into the problem to identify a path forward that does not violate our principles. It will take more time to reach further, but if we have to violate a principle for a good reason, everyone should be willing to admit to the violation before proceeding.
A candidate might say, "I would normally agree with my honorable opponent that we should find a way to minimize the transitional difficulties faced by immigrants [objective]. But his bi-lingual solutions have been tried with no success and with many failures, failing in large because they are compromises which violate some of the basic principles that have made this country great. No country can reach its highest potential if its citizens can not communicate with each other. [A common sense principle.] It is difficult enough for us to communicate with some people who have been speaking English all their lives. Liberal methods have been encouraging more people not to learn English. There has never been adequate consensus on this subject so I think we need to objectively step over all of this emotionalism and spend some TIME together to identify the path to finding an optimal solution. It may involve a little tough love, but this may be the best we can do as a nation seeking to take in the world's huddled masses, even illegal immigrants."
With all of the Steps in mind (later), this argument can be stated more concisely and clearly. The important thing to keep in mind is that it takes time to reach consensus when principles are involved. Again, goals and objectives are achieved over a period of time. They are all likely to change. Basic principles survive the test of time and are codified most often in religious documents such as the Bible, describing the basic principles learned through many generations of trial and error.
Mankind does not have the luxury of being able to reinvent basic principles during each generation. There is not enough time for trial and error development of principles in one generation, certainly not enough to match the hundreds of generations of historical trial and error already documented for us. Yet, we think we have to interpret the Constitution such that we must ignore such religious documents in schools and in government.
Importantly, without a firm foundation in historically validated basic principles, rapid (within a single generation) technological developments have tested an increasing number of us in the areas of morality and integrity. There has been less time to assess and the technology induced impacts that have been made across the culture. Rather than having the luxury of first testing changes within isolated pockets of the culture, everyone is subjected to changes at the same time, often without any basis in principle or objective, other than commercial profits.
One result of our continuous failure to support basic principles is that students in all parts of the country are taking weapons to school and using them. All of us can explain it but none of us wants to take responsibility for it. We are responsible for such problems due to our neglect and failures to contribute and insist on common sense principles in the commercial sector and in the government's regulatory efforts. Due to our poor use of time in a world of accelerated time frames, we are only now starting to react to the outrageous results of our neglect.
No candidate is perfectly moral or without blemished integrity at some level, but the better candidates will recognize the general cultural decay and will feel obligated to continue to improve in this area.
Fortunately, TIME ENABLES THE PAST TENSE! Many personal issues raised by an opponent are best dealt with as past-regrets-much-improved-upon-at- this-time-thank-you-for-forgiving-me. Just ask Bill Clinton about the forgiveness of the American people over time. He seldom expresses any regret at all.
However, never forget that the righteous are held to a higher standard. Bill Clinton may be able to get away with not expressing deep regret for his moral sins, but you can't. You are likely to have the opportunity to express regret for past misdeeds, and your little sins will be made to sound like big ones. The opposition may have an advantage of being able to lie overtly, but people of integrity do not even get to conceal or obscure facts.
Building integrity and receiving credit for integrity take time. You have heard that "Rome was not built in a day." This thought serves as a universal key to common sense as it relates to time. It serves to tell impatient people to accept the fact that big projects take time to accomplish. It also tells those who dare to undertake big projects to expect to have to work hard and for a long time. It applies to objectives, not to principles. Your objective is to be viewed as a person of integrity, but this takes time. Have you used your time wisely or not?
In addition to taking time to develop a reputation for integrity, you should have also reached other important objectives by now. The processes needed to reach objectives or solve problems are also dependent on time for their success. Yet, waiting does not always result in improvement. Without positive corrective actions along the way, problems may just languish in time and start to grow -- they can get worse.
Time is needed for most projects to be successful. Just as it takes about nine months to produce an independent human baby, some things just can not be rushed. Also, they can not always be delayed successfully. Each potential mother and father have a limited "window of opportunity" for producing offspring. If you are ready to be a candidate for office, now is the time to get your objectives and plans aligned with your principles.
Such familiar issues as raising families are instructive in our understanding of time. Time and timing can be critical to success in any project, but a range of different approaches and results may be described as being acceptable and they may even be highly successful. What is an acceptable approach?
We often hear that the end justifies the means when someone has just trampled on principles in the interest of saving time. One of the reasons for the success of many oriental cultures in achieving their goals is their patient application of basic principles over time. They know that without a basis in principles, the objectives and approaches of the opposition can be changed. Time is on their side. Thus, the end only justifies the means when principles are not violated by the means. Also, without principles, there are no solid objectives.
Some time-related constraints can not be changed, but many time-related constraints are artificial and may even be self-defeating. In this age of instant gratification, it is easy to be persuaded that a project has already failed when it has hardly begun. To achieve a goal, an investment of resources and effort for several years may be needed.
For example, if it takes three years to build an aircraft carrier, it is probably not very efficient in the absence of an emergent problem to argue about funding it each year simply because each year has an official budget of its own. Every change in direction costs more money and more time. A commitment to a long term project must be firm, which means that it must be based in principles. Unless the principles are likely to change, a project should be funded fully and without offering continuous opportunities to reverse direction.
It is important to have objectives, but it is also important to provide time to achieve those objectives. President Kennedy set the man-on-the-moon objective, but he also suggested a reasonable but challenging amount of time to achieve it -- by the end of the decade. Between the time that an objective is identified and the time it is actually achieved, there may be thousands of obstacles to overcome, each of which takes time.
Timing is also important but not necessarily essential to reaching the objective. We do not send a child to college until that child is ready to go, but most of us realize that there is an optimal time to do so. Yet, people successfully go to college over a wide range of ages. Just because the timing is not optimal does not mean that the objectives will not be met or that we should not try to accomplish a task.
Contrary to all of this time-dependent thinking, one of our biggest problems in solving problems is that some people think the job is done as soon as the task is approved for action. We see presumption of accomplishment every time the president signs a bill into law. Politicians are fond of saying that they passed a bill to do something, but this is usually less than one percent of the work needed, and it probably conflicts with or is redundant to previous bills that also went nowhere. In short, the answer to "What have you accomplished?" is poor if it only mentions bills passed.
The second aspect of time has less to do with issues and more to do with explaining your position on them in less than TEN SECONDS. As will be explained in more detail in Steps 6-9, there are four possible status levels for each issue, assuming that the issue is being addressed on-the-level. The four levels are (1) opinions, (2) facts, (3) research, and (4) solutions. By making reference either to the number of the level (1-4) or the associated word, a candidate for office can quickly compose and deliver a sagacious answer to most questions.
Without stealing from later discussions, here is a handy example of a ten second sound bite: "While my honorable opponent has recently raised questions and challenges on that topic, most of it is not on the level and is derived from special interest groups. I have been collecting facts and doing research, and my detailed solution is being (or has been) assessed by an independent study team at MIT." -- Ten seconds.
The importance of time is far more complex than this short discussion
implies, but it is one of the most important elements in any campaign or
project. An ability to perceive the timing aspects of an issue or communications
situation can mean the difference between success and failure in modern
debate and in the news media. Moreover, the ability to deliver a timely
and complete statement avoids doubt and uncertainty. You can not lead in
an environment of doubt and uncertainty.
Step Five: Using Context with Integrity
The Fifth Dimension: Context
The x/y/z coordinate system provides three dimensions, time is usually the fourth, and context can be considered to be the fifth. The notion that context is the fifth dimension is mostly cute, but it is intended to elevate context to a more profoundly important level. Context is important in politics and in issues of integrity.
If politicians and other special interest groups are to achieve universal respect and acceptance even by their opponents, then they are well advised to discuss and deal with issues in their proper context. This is not to say you will immediately be a successful political party when you start ensuring proper context in your day-to-day excursions into political debate. It simply means that, without paying attention to context as part of integrity, the voting public will be less able to hang their hats on your high-level integrity hook when they cast their ballots. Perhaps fortunately for you, none of the other political parties may have a high-level context and integrity hook either.
A political party or candidate perceived by the public as having to resort to taking things out of context can lose votes, so it is important to be ready to apply the context argument in debates and media responses. Unfortunately, the opposite may not be true: You may not get a lot of spontaneous, direct credit or admiration for avoiding out-of-context tactics since this is perceived as normal behavior by most people. People just do not go around saying, "I like that candidate since he keeps things in context." It is also only slightly more likely that people will go around saying that they would not vote for a particular candidate since the candidate has to resort to taking things out of context. The power of understanding context comes in being prepared to recognize instantly when it is being violated and reacting accordingly.
If every social problem were a physics problem, we would have no problems.
We would just apply mathematical and physical principles and find the only
possible answer. Unfortunately, many important problems are strictly social
or moral. The difficulty with social problems is that much of what is going
on around us is based on totally different frames of reference. Things
that impress one set of fair observers may not impress other fair observers
in their different environment or surroundings. My context is not
necessarily your context for any given subject.
Proper Context Is Elusive
It is the issue of proper context that causes the most confusion in modern society, making it quite difficult for most people to find a place to apply their basic notions of common sense. Now that we have a significantly larger population, rapid changes in technology, and a more complex government, it is quite routine to do the right thing in the wrong context. Generic methods of achieving goals sometimes impact specific situations in a way that directly contradicts the underlying principles.
OSHA need not apply its industrial safety rules in your home just because you work at home once in a while or even full time. Yet, the familiar safety context and mindset of some OSHA officials caused serious embarrassment when that agency sought to extend its powers into private homes. They had not respected the common sense notion of context that most of us take for granted but for which government inertia is ill prepared. Such out-of-context thinking brings to mind the admonition that "They can not see the forest for the trees." One cannot appreciate context without standing back and looking at the entire horizon.
But modern context concepts are even more elusive than that and are much more intellectually challenging. The application of generalized solutions to specific situations is often based on what engineers and mathematicians refer to as "simplifying assumptions." The difference between this technical use of assumptions and the social or governmental use of assumptions is simply a matter of application and context. Engineering solutions are problem-specific, and simplifying assumptions reflect the fact that extreme mathematical accuracy usually exceeds any practical need. Approximate calculations are all that are needed for most projects, because accurate numbers are generally either not possible or not useful.
In social matters, generalized approaches often conflict with the individual's personal situation or context, not because the approach is wrong, but because there are many more contexts within which the approach must be applied. This suggests the need for creativity and flexibility, but laws and regulations are seldom cast with adequate flexibility to accommodate complex possibilities. Moreover, social workers and other government functionaries are often constrained by limitations in time and authority even when they are aware of a unique context. Indeed, there are often as many unique contexts as there are people involved.
More importantly, the future aspects of currently in-context situations can not be accurately anticipated in engineering, in social programs, or in government. Thus, experienced and well-intentioned people must have the authority and the opportunity to intervene as needed to ensure that the principles and objectives envisioned in a project are being met or that they are being modified to meet the changing situation, including a change in context. In general, laws and regulations are best when they present principles and generalized approaches to achieve the related objectives.
Using an extreme example to make this point, few of us would view a mandatory death penalty as being the proper punishment for all homicides. Even though all would recognize the need to meet the objective of punishing killers, and that the objective of inflicting some kind of punishment is based on the principle that it is not right to kill people, the method used to apply the punishment needs to reflect the crime's context. While this is obvious to most of us, a rapidly changing social and technical context can lead to confusion.
For example, the relatively new test tube baby technology and evolving notions of when life starts could make a "mass murderer" out of a laboratory technician who deliberately unplugs critical laboratory equipment. While this crime might seem relatively insignificant today, a hundred years from now such an action might legitimately result in a death penalty. Context is time dependent as well as fact dependent.
While it is only fair that laws should apply equally to everyone, it is only the principles and objectives that must be enforced relative to a given context. The prescribed methods for doing this must not violate any individual's personal freedoms and rights, and such methods should be as flexible as possible to achieve the intended results in the context seen by the individual. When principles and objectives are ignored in the personal context, we have a "one-size-fits-all" solution that is self-defeating, over-simplified, wasteful, and quite possibly shameful.
For example, a county government in Virginia imposed a "hiring freeze" because of budget limitations. They later discovered they had wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars because the hiring freeze prevented the replacement of expensive consultants with new county employees. The county employees who were aware of the ongoing waste did not believe that they had the power or the responsibility to seek an exception to the hiring freeze even in instances where costs could be reduced. They were aware of the hiring freeze objectives, but the underlying principles were not stated clearly and, thus, the implementation methods did not include in-context flexibility needed.
Principles and objectives are usually both context independent, but
understanding context is especially important to achieving objectives without
violating the underlying principles. Said another way, any action contrary
to the principles and the related objectives would violate the guidance,
so hiring new employees to replace expensive consultants would be expected,
verbiage about a hiring freeze (a cost-saving method or option) notwithstanding.
Out-of-Context Equals Off-the-Level
There are many issues of context to address, and some professions are more context sensitive than others. For example, political debates and campaigning often involve the use of out-of-context facts. Political campaigns thrive on the deliberate misuse of facts since it is easy to find situations somewhere in a political opponent's life that are not consistent with the current situation. People know the current situation far better than they remember (if they ever knew) the previous situation, and it is often too difficult to defend oneself by trying to explain the previous context.
The user of out-of-context facts almost always has the advantage in a debate simply due to placing the opponent on the defensive. The deliberate use of out-of-context strategies to gain advantage is dishonest and off-the-level. You can not have much integrity if you do not bother to understand the context of the topic at hand, but you are really down there when you deliberately distort the context of a situation or issue. If you are going to have a high level of integrity, you should be looking for proper context and not grasping for out-of-context arguments.
Again, it is crucial to be prepared to recognize and characterize an
opponent's out-of-context arguments, pointing out the connection between
taking things out of context and the poor foundation of the opponent's
campaign. It is either a dishonest campaign or an inept one, while
your campaign strives to be fair, even handed, honest, and responsible.
In a debate environment, it can be critical to be able to articulate your
anger when things are being taken out of context and used against you.
Thus, a successful candidate will have practiced his generic response to
"surprise" accusations that are based on out-of-context arguments.
Forecasted Contexts Can Be Off-the-Level
One frequently used and powerful out-of-context strategy is the combination of an in-context fact with an exaggerated projection. It is easy take a simple fact, apply it to a new or hypothetical circumstance, and then forecast the most dire consequences. Such practices are common in politics, making the political arena a continuous source of frustration to many voters.
An emphasis on integrity and, thus, proper context provides a powerful tool for turning such political tactics around. Unfortunately, only the voting public has the power to assert a requirement in this area. Political parties usually just use the word integrity loosely and do not often capture votes from voters by simply mentioning it in their platform. Nevertheless, a single instance of taking something out of context is much more interesting to the public because it shows a lack of integrity. A sensitivity and readiness to point out such context violations is important to a candidate who is on the defensive in this area.
Unfortunately, in our modern, rapid pace society, out-of-context facts are often highly competitive with the actual facts of a situation, especially when out-of-context facts are offered as proof that a negative outcome can be expected. Misleading, out-of-context facts are readily generated and can be very damaging, especially when it is not easy or timely to consider the facts in their full or original context.
This is why we hear a lot of "revelations" announced in public the day before election day, especially in close political races. Context is hard to sort out at the last minute, but a candidate can effectively defend against such strategies by emphasizing the out-of-context nature of the facts and, also, the low level of integrity required to stoop to such tactics. In some cases it would even be prudent to openly challenge your opponent not to resort to last minute attacks when time limitations would inhibit a response. This approach can provide a powerful "heads up" to the media and the voters, changing the subject back to basic integrity regardless of the charge.
While all of this may be viewed as stating the obvious, the intent here
is to elevate the importance of context in the minds of political candidates
such that they are always ready to use it properly and to recognize instantly
when it is being abused -- which is often!
Steps Six through Nine: On-the-Level Four Ways
You already know the first of the "LEVELS concepts" -- being on-the-level! There are also the four levels themselves: (1) OPINIONS, (2) FACTS, (3) RESEARCH, and (4) SOLUTIONS. These four levels apply once you know that the problem is being addressed on-the-level -- honestly and with integrity. You should memorize the four levels, an easy task since they represent common sense.
Interestingly, the four levels provide a framework within which we can
readily communicate and determine who and what are on-the-level!
We value on-the-level OPINIONS, but we recognize that they are a far cry
from effective SOLUTIONS.
Level One - OPINIONS
Most of us have an opinion on just about anything. Pollsters and on-the-street television crews can collect and assess opinions quite easily, but they seldom come up with any useful SOLUTIONS to problems. On the contrary, poorly considered opinions can be counterproductive.
To the extent that any opinion on anything has any positive value, that value is made possible only when an opinion is on-the-level. Unfortunately, random opinion gathering, even if representative of the population, can convince the audience that a popular path is the right path. For example, it is popular to suggest that women should be in physically demanding combat roles during warfare. A thousand people offering poorly considered opinions can do a lot of damage especially when, as is likely in this example, these people have never been in combat and are not volunteering for it as a career move that appeals to them.
If you polled 500 women who had (somehow) combat experience in the trenches AND polled 500 who did not, how would those 1000 opinions be presented? The answer is often "In a manner that supports the agenda of the pollster." Thus, on-the-level opinions in the hands of off-the-level people are still going to produce off-the-level results. Moreover, an opinion poll on something that has not yet occurred is really just a speculation poll.
In any case, there may be as many people with opposite opinions but with better experience, leaving us with a poll that compares significantly unequal opinions. News stories often simply include an opinion from two sides of an issue, without regard to the validity or representative nature of those opinions. Opinions, even those that are on-the-level can be a useful tool, but they are not sufficient for success and must always be classified as mere opinions, even when offered by experts. When people with different levels of expertise are asked to provide opinions for public consumption, things can become very distorted. The news media personalities mediating these discussions on daily news programs are not generally able to discern different levels of expertise and are really not motivated to state them. When is the last time you heard a news media person mediating such a discussion between two sides state that Mr. White is ten times more qualified to discuss this topic than is Mr. Black?
Opinions, even on nationally televised news shows, are often no better
than gut-reactions, which can be wrong even for apparently simple issues.
I have a little engineering problem which I have given to a couple of hundred
experienced engineers over the past 25 years. Almost all of them
give a wrong, gut-reaction answer, even after long contemplation.
It is not until I ask them to apply their experience (facts) that they
start to realize their error. Even then, many do not suggest doing
an experiment (research) or applying their theoretical knowledge to come
up with additional information (research) that might be useful. Opinions
are a good first step but a poor last step in resolving an
issue of importance.
Level Two - FACTS
Facts are not particularly useful unless they are complete and unless they are being applied in a proper context and with wisdom. A thousand misapplied facts are not as good as a single fact that is properly applied, although they can be more effective if allowed to be. Interestingly, out-of-context facts are available for almost any situation, allowing off-the-level people a factual foothold from which to influence decisions.
When we do not have all the facts or when we do not know which facts apply where, then we may need to conduct research or theoretical studies to get all the facts and potential facts and to put them into a reasonably fair perspective. In the nuclear industry, safety inspection teams spend most of their time collecting facts and assessing them from several different functional perspectives. Facts are often conflicting and require tradeoffs to achieve the best overall solution to a particular problem.
When we allow the facts on one side of an issue more weight due to the vociferous style of its proponents, we find ourselves falling off-the-level into a polarized state of confusion. This state of confusion lends itself more to off-the-level politicians than to good government.
Insurance salesmen are known for providing lots of facts that lead you
to buy insurance. Thus, facts provided by special interest groups
are always suspect, yet many politicians and government leaders are dependent
on special interest groups for their information. This is also true
of many people in the news media, and they do not necessarily realize this
dependence.
Level Three - Research
Trying out facts to see if they work in a new situation is one form of research. We can also try to develop new facts tailored to a new problem. Sometimes we do not know when we have completed all of the required research, so we have to ask experienced problem solvers whether they think we might be getting close to developing the basis for a good solution (level four).
With a lot of contemplation and hard work, level three researchers might be able to develop enough information to support the development of a good solution to an issue. With a necessary and sufficient set of facts, a solution becomes feasible. It is at level three that we attempt to produce the new facts and relevant methods for answering problems. We may even have to return to level three over time to keep the facts up to date and in context.
Once again, a thousand researchers working on a problem are not as important
in producing a solution as the person that uses that research. Conducting
research does not often solve profound social problems. Solutions
come from experienced leaders, who used to be referred to as elders or
wise men.
Level Four - Solutions
Finally we get to the top level, the one with the possibility of finding appropriate solutions to problems. Making decisions based on adequate research can lead to solving problems adequately. By this time, it is apparent that the people who claim to be functioning at this level must be blessed with an additional portion of integrity and wisdom. How can we trust someone who is not trustworthy? Even if someone is trustworthy and well-intentioned, how can we trust their decisions when they are not also wise and able?
Two hundred years ago people were more able to distinguish personal qualifications of their leaders because they were more often in direct contact with then. That is, leaders could not hide behind edited television spots and expensive public relations campaigns. Many spent their time managing farms and developed strong work ethics, large families, and strong value systems to pass on to their kids. Thus, forcing people to admit to their real qualifications using a standard self assessment method provides an alternative that brings out key strengths and weaknesses. Even if they use another scale, they have to define what that scale is.
Whether a leader is a candidate for political office or a level four independent decision maker, it is always important to understand their experience, their education, and their level of integrity. Level four decision makers are dependent on level three research, but they are also dependent on their independence from preconceived conclusions. They must apply their experience and knowledge impartially in resolving an issue. They become technical judges in deciding the best path forward, everything being considered.
One key to identifying a level four decision maker is whether or not level three research has been completed. Any decision made at level four will be consistent with level three, or the level four decision maker will be able to explain why it is not. Also, several such decision makers will independently arrive at similar solutions, and any differences can be understood in terms of their differing knowledge and experience.
Most importantly, if level four decision makers consult with each other,
they will be able to define a solution to a problem that is not simply
a compromise between two poles or special-interest positions. Any compromises
will be in degrees of the same direction. Importantly, the paradigm thus
lifts us from off-the-level compromise to on-the-level good solutions.
A 4.0 Grade
As you can see, the four levels increase in validity and usefulness from one to four. Moreover, the four levels have multiple applications, depending on the situation. There are these four levels of communication and a corresponding four levels of knowledge and ability. We can use these communications and abilities individually or collectively to form opinions, assemble facts, perform additional research, and produce solutions.
A doctor is expected to replace a patient's apprehensions (level one: opinions) with a comprehensive set of relevant facts (level two). The doctor develops additional facts from tests (level three research), and defines the overall problem (the diagnosis) before attempting to come up with a remedy (level four solution).
The key question for most physical illnesses is less related to the problem than to the doctor. You are welcome to get a second opinion, and you should choose your doctors wisely. You will definitely not be inclined to rely on the personal opinions of your friends and neighbors!
Chances are that you will get the same diagnosis regardless of the doctor. However, depending on the doctors' predisposition, you may get a different course of treatment. A surgeon might recommend surgery, and a doctor of internal medicine might write a prescription. Nevertheless, each option might be a good solution to the problem. For example, a thyroid problem can be treated by surgically removing the thyroid or by irradiating the thyroid with radioactive iodine.
Sometimes the specific path forward is best selected by the patient.
Sometimes a level four solution system will have several options of equal
value or effectiveness. Sometimes solutions reach the same objectives
but in a different manner.
Simply Put: Four Levels of Communication and Ability
There are only four levels, making the paradigm as simple and effective as possible. Each of the four levels includes an inherent communication component that defines the general character of the level. There is also a corresponding component that reflects an individual's ability relative to a given topic.
For each issue or problem, there are often four experience or competence levels that correspond to these four information levels. It is easy to find people with enough experience to offer opinions at level one, but it is difficult to find someone qualified to produce solutions at level four.
A gross approximation to the four levels of ability can be made in terms of education and experience. Level one approximates the competence of a high school student. Level two might be viewed as the competence of a college student. Level three might be similar to the competence of a research scientist. Level four would be the competence of someone who is able to apply extensive experience and academic knowledge to get useful results.
Ability also varies with the topic. Most of us never get beyond
level one on most topics, but we periodically achieve level four in our
own fields of endeavor and expertise. We are amused and sometimes
appalled observing other people functioning at lower levels in our own
fields. Nevertheless, it is often quite difficult to tell what is
happening in other fields because we just do not know who is at what level.
Self assessment scores and a dialog based on levels are effective in developing
credibility and understanding across different disciplines.
Fact Filters
Again, all discussions involving levels one through four presume that the opinions and facts associated with an issue are on-the-level. Those readers who have paid attention to all of the details to this point already know what this caveat means. As soon as someone deliberately raises an opinion or a fact that is known by that person to be untrue or distorted, the entire discussion becomes invalid. This is a very important and powerful consideration because it is the primary underlying difficulty that we have with current social paradigms, such as those involving politics and special interest groups.
Under this new paradigm, Technidigm-2000, the unprincipled will either
have to convert to the truth or they will be increasingly recognized for
what they are and will be ignored. For example, tell-them-what-they-want-to-hear
politicians have less influence under an integrity based paradigm.
They are off-the-level and can not easily be restored to credibility.
Also, depending on how we constitute the self assessment scoring criteria,
many life-long politicians will not be able to claim commercial self-reliance
experience or military experience, so their overall level of wisdom is
not well founded. There are many more-qualified people ready to take the
places of off-the-level politicians.
Level Four Perspectives
Getting to level four solutions usually requires leaders and decision makers to have much more experience and wisdom than their supporting workers at the lower levels. Wisdom primarily consists of education and experience. For some issues and problems, a level four leader or decision maker must have a special level of education or set of experiences.
For example, it is not likely that someone who is not experienced in the nuclear power industry could provide effective leadership for that industry even with all of the facts in hand. This is because different facts have different weights in determining the path forward. Deciding how much weight to assign to each fact requires experience.
As for most endeavors, you can not fairly judge that which you do not understand. Nevertheless, everyone understands the need for responsible and detailed solutions to problems, and most can appreciate the differences between special interest groups and independent, experienced people of integrity working on level four solutions. The shock for some people is finding out that many news media personalities that they trust are not as experienced and profoundly insightful as they pretend to be on television, radio, and in the print media. They are trying to make a living through conflict not through level four solutions.
The last four elements of the paradigm address what it is that makes
good solutions work. With all of the elements in mind, a candidate
should be able to handle just about any issue. The candidate will also
be more sensitive to situations in which the candidate does not have enough
information but be able to describe what has to be done next. Most
importantly, the candidate's dialog will flow quickly, logically, and clearly.
The Final Four
Notwithstanding our wisdom, there is a visible feebleness in some
of our proceedings which gives encouragement to dissensions.
Thomas Paine, Common Sense
For those who have been patient, you can take heart in knowing that the "feebleness" is almost over. Below are listed the 13 steps in the candidate functional paradigm (model) that will enable some political candidates to be more effective in today's fast paced election environment. Before taking up the last 4 steps, a little review is in order.
The first step, self assessment, is relatively static and is useful in developing your self confidence in the fact that you are more qualified than your opponent. Of course, if you are not more qualified, you have an even more difficult battle, but this is also important to know.
The other 12 steps are the Technidigm-2000 elements and are much more dynamic in that they may change quickly. They may also be used for different purposes and at different points during a discussion, debate, or interview. I suggest dividing them into 3 groups of 4, as below, making them easier to remember.
The 13 steps are also easily assembled into a picture or diagram (also below) that makes them even easier to remember. You will always have at least 12 points to make on any issue, and you can quickly identify which ones are more relevant to the interview or discussion at hand!
Understanding yourself and your opponent(s):
Four SYSTEM ELEMENTS:
SOLUTION SYSTEMS
To simplify SYSTEMS for the reader, I will only address the four basic
elements of systems: RESOURCES, COMPONENTS, FEEDBACK, and OBJECTIVES.
Yet, any engineer will tell you that system design must be based
on fundamental
principles, a lot of facts, and even a little
research (testing). There are many ways to arrange all of
these topics to facilitate memorization and future use, one of which is
shown in the diagram below. Do you see how nicely systems
fit into the paradigm framework?
|
|
|||
| O
N * T H E * L E V E L |
|
|
P R I N C I P L E S |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
With this diagram of the 13 steps in mind, a candidate and other leaders can quickly visualize an issue or question and come up with an effective response. The only difference between this diagram and the one I usually show (http://Technidigm.org) is the addition of the SELF ASSESSMENT element.
Candidates of political office must do at least a self assessment
(and usually an assessment of the opposition) if they are going to be able
to identify why a voter should vote for them rather than their opponent.
What is it that you are trying to show the voters? Are you much more
qualified or is it marginal and subject to debate? Be ready to debate
relative candidate experience and abilities.
SYSTEMS
For those who may need further explanation of systematic solution systems,
further discussion is provided below. While the concept of systems
is familiar to many of us in this technical world, there are many other
people who do not appreciate how important systems thinking can be in the
social environment and in managing government programs. Thus, the
following short discussion may be of use to everyone.
RESOURCES
Resources are probably the easiest system concept to understand. Nothing happens without an input of sufficient materials, labor, and money to get the job done. A program can be good or bad, but without resources to implement the program, it has no impact. Resources are required over the entire life of the program, and the true cost of a program includes the life-cycle cost of its required resources. A social system promotes its principles through the use of resources and in achieving objectives efficiently.
Many programs get launched based on their initial low cost, with little regard for life-cycle costs. The nuclear power industry was launched on a much smaller budget than is needed to meet its life-cycle requirements and related considerations. Significant upgrades were then made in safety programs and in end-of-life requirements, including the disposition of radioactive wastes. We went from cheap nuclear power to expensive nuclear power due to unforeseen expenses or by assuming that all the problems could be worked out later with little difficulty.
The level of resources needed by a program or system can also be dynamic. When we make major changes to a program in an effort to meet the same objectives, the total cost of meeting those objectives is likely to increase. Major changes are often the same as starting over and usually require increases in life-cycle costs. When we make minor changes to a program to increase its efficiency, the overall costs could be reduced. Minor changes are often simply ways to make the system work better, so minor changes usually pay for themselves.
None of this is a mystery. We make resource decisions every time we pay for something. Indeed, the application of resources over the life of a project is not a mystery to any of us who have raised children. Parents will do what they can for their children, but major repeats or revisions are not usually undertaken when the resources are likely to be wasted for a second time. For example, most parents who can do so will gladly help pay for a college education, but only once.
Likewise, society has little tolerance for financial waste. This emphasizes
the importance of planning ahead when we assign resources to major projects.
Again, this is probably the easiest part of systems to understand. Nevertheless,
resource limitations emphasize the need to deal effectively with the more
obscure parts before applying the bulk of those resources.
COMPONENTS
Resources are used by system components. System components perform functions intended to meet the system objectives without violating applicable principles. Sometimes a new government project results in an entirely new agency to perform the related functions. NASA was created to meet space exploration objectives, so it is a component of the space project. Other components include the various contractors and other government agencies that provided hardware and assistance.
Components are organized to perform their functions based on certain principles that make the overall system as reliable as needed to meet the system objectives. A system's reliability goals can impact cost and efficiency goals. In most cases, perfect reliability is not attainable even when resources are unlimited. We often must make decisions regarding how much reliability we can afford.
Special interest groups can not easily be effective components of a
good solution system. The reason for this is that, for every special interest
group, there is usually a competing special interest group making a vigorous
case for the exact opposite position. When opposing special interest groups
exist, they can be involved in the development and implementation of a
solution system only across insulating interfaces, providing facts that
must be carefully screened and tested for accuracy and completeness. Even
then everything contributed by special interest groups is inherently suspect
and should be viewed, at best, as level one opinions. Level one opinions
have little direct impact on level four solution systems.
FEEDBACK
When it becomes apparent that the system is not meeting its objectives, it is feedback that makes it possible to take corrective actions. Feedback can be either internal to the system, or it can be external. System internal feedback should be included in a solution system design so that the performance of the system components can be improved over time. In some cases, the corrective action might be to cancel the program, but this kind of feedback represents failure, making program cancellation based on internal feedback one of the least likely courses of management action.
No one likes failure, unless it is failure of the opposition. Thus, program cancellation is the type of feedback that comes from external sources, and it is often directed at eliminating the resources for a program. Political parties are notorious for canceling the programs created by opposing political parties, in some cases resulting in frequent changes and waste without meeting any program objectives along the way.
The good kind of feedback critically important to any successful system is the kind that ensures the success of the program, including making the program efficient in its use of available resources. Engineering systems often have continuous feedback, using highly sensitive instruments to constantly control all of the key parameters of the system. For example, multiple sensors and layers of backup controls and checks are essential to ensuring the safety of nuclear plants, but they are also essential to many other safety-related industries and systems.
It is difficult to find any human activity that does not require feedback to be successful. We keep an eye on progress of cooking our dinner. Athletes strive for good scores relative to the competition during the game as well as at the end. Many home electronic devices have self-tuning circuits that depend on feedback signals.
For many government programs, feedback is probably the most neglected and most misused element. Even when there is timely evidence of poor performance available, the government's path of least resistance is often either to reorganize or to spend more money. In many cases these easy paths avoid more difficult courses of action as well as avoid assignment of responsibility for problems.
For the average citizen, some feedback on a range of social problems
is available from the news media, but the average citizen often has only
indirect power to filter and assess this information and make the needed
changes. In our modern, more technical society, chances are that the average
citizen is not capable of deciding what is working and what is not working,
much less how to correct problems. The news media should be of some help,
but they are increasingly profit-and-loss special interest groups that
depend on controversy rather than solutions.
OBJECTIVES
Objectives, the last of the system elements, are to many people closely related to principles. Oversimplified, objectives are the what and principles are the why for those objectives. Principles are often associated with several objectives and several different systems. Objectives are far more changeable than principles.
Thus, when someone has principles, we expect them not to change much over time. A change in principles is likely to indicate the absence of character or integrity. However, a change in objectives has nothing to do with character or integrity as long as a principle is not violated. Politicians avoid stating their principles because principles can later be used as litmus tests for their credibility or integrity.
It is difficult to corner a politician regarding principles unless we
can identify and assess their principles in terms of the associated objectives
and how they are actually going to be achieved. Due to the nature of politics
and the limitations of the voters, the absence of basic principles has
often worked in a politician's favor. Understanding the difference between
objectives and principles provides a powerful tool for a political candidate.
CONCLUSION
This concludes the description of the candidate issue and debate paradigm. With a little practice, the 13 steps will automatically flood your mind with relevant thoughts even when you are under a lot of pressure to say something quickly. Even when your opponent is using the same or similar techniques, you will find that the debate has been elevated, with each participant engaged in a meaningful discussion.
You should now also be able to open any newspaper and evaluate any article or editorial in terms of the key elements, levels, and systems. You will find some of the articles loaded with special interest group off-the-level opinions, but you should also be able to extract enough facts to start your own file of level two information. You will be able to pick out principles and objectives and sort them accordingly. You will look for time and context issues to determine credibility.
With enough effort in doing your homework, you will be the most effective candidate in the race!
Updated 1/2000
cjones@Technidigm.org
Technidigm-2000
A Modern Paradigm for Political Candidates
and Government Leaders
By Charles R. Jones
Germantown, MD
tech2000@ix.netcom.com
SS: 84
Copyright June 1998 - Not for Commercial Use or Publication
Return to Technidigm.org Home Page