And so to me there’s the fundamental erosion of…the definition of success to most peopletoday is what I call accumulation, acquisition and deception. It’s not about contribution. And,of course, I’m exaggerating. There’s plenty of times where people are contribution oriented.But for the most part, what people are being brainwashed to do is just ‘how much can I accumulate?’—not ‘what kind of a difference can I make?’ That’s why we’re running into the problems that we’re running into. I think until that’s straightened out, we’ll continue to have problems.
When I was with Special Forces, one of our key concepts was Hearts and Minds. Andthe US first talked about that back about the same time you were in Vietnam—maybe ita little before that. But that’s a phrase or concept that we remember, but then we tendto forget. And right now, with the conflicts going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, also withthe global war on terror, what can
offer the military and the nation in regards tothe concepts of Hearts and Minds and being a international global member?
When you talk Hearts and Minds, and I like history, but I’m no historian. But when I look back,the war insurgency that we won or sort of won was in the Philippines. And in the Philippines,you know, we were building hospitals and doing everything else. I’m not sure whether that can equate apples to apples with what’s going on in Afghanistan and Iraq right now, althoughI do know that—I listen to—a few months ago I heard the head of counter-terrorism for theUnited States, a 38-year old colonel. It was fascinating. He was talking about the current general’s philosophy really is about winning the hearts and minds of the people. So, can
add to that with the people? I think so. And I got faith in our military—you know, you see thisnoise at Guantanamo Bay and all the rest of it, but I think overall the military is pretty darngood at the hearts and minds.I think the military does a good job of that and can we add to it, sure. I think we definitely need to think the bigger picture, and I think that, like one of the huge ways that I see that wecan make an impact within that, and I’ll call it broader than the military. There is so much turf warfare, so to speak, within FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, whatever, and I see that as a huge problem. I mean, it’s a lot of times we’re collecting data, but we don’t take advantage of thedata, because one department doesn’t have access to the other, and I think that, you know,with all the exercises and games we do, that if we had the high enough people at that level doing their work, that I think that’s a significant, significant play or value-add that
canmake to the armed services.
Brian, I’d like to talk about the negligence in the news right now with British Petroleumand up here in Washington State—Washington Mutual. How does an organizationestablish a culture where mistakes are around, but the negligence does not occur?
Yeah, that’s a great one. I work on within
what I call high accountability with low judgment. What seems to happen in organizations is you either go high accountability and high judgment or no judgment but no accountability. And so—and then of course allowing people to feel responsible is always in my mind, I’m just taking what little I know in our company, if you have a safety net on the things, you can chances—it’s like in a circus. If you’ve got a safety net, then you can take chances. If you don’t have a safety net, you can’t take as many chances. You know, so, for example, the bigger cash reserves that I can build up for
, the bigger financial risk I can take, because I’ve got a safety net I’ll able to fall back on. If I have no reserves at all, then I couldn’t take any chances at all, because one littleerror and you put the whole thing out of whack.Now, safety systems are not just financial, they’re with people. One of the things I’m going to