Lactose policing

In a year when 573 (as of August 7th) people have been shot and killed by the police, some of those live on social media, many in interactions with police that should never have ended in death, the Boston PD has decided that the way forward is through ice cream policing. 

The powers that be in Boston have determined that the best approach to the intractable problem that is Black and brown fear of police; Black and brown justifiable distrust of police and state actors; Black and brown complaints about extra-judicial executions and disparate weight and impact of current policing is to spend $89,000 on an ice cream truck. If it weren't objectionable as all hell, it would be funny. 

I'm trying to find out what actual steps police departments are taking around the country but the information - if there is any - is hard to come by. Let's just say this: when I do a basic Google search for "steps taken by the Boston PD to improve community relations", the first mention of Boston specifically is the story about the ice cream truck. That's it. There's nothing about the consultant they've hired to assist them in reviewing their use of force policy (cuz they ain't hired one); nothing about their community meetings with leaders (maybe they've had some but they ain't in the University of Google's listing); nothing about their attempts to work with an independent prosecutor to outline terms and conditions for investigation of complaints against officers (again, it may have occurred and just not made the news..........yeah, right). But the truck? That's in there. 

They've plopped down $89,000 for an ice cream truck. Rather than spend $15,000 (just guessing) on a consultant who can help them figure out how to reach out to the community in an authentic way, this is what they do with taxpayers dollars. My guess is that BPD will have to spend far more than that settling claims against police officers, this year alone. But what do I know? History seems to suggest that I might be right but hey, ice cream right? Yay! Butter pecan for me!

Meanwhile, out in the real world where efforts are being made to not shoot first ask questions later, Minneapolis PD has been measuring 'positive contacts' between citizens and officers, absent the use of the grating music of an ice-cream truck. According to city mayor Betsy Hodges, "This work of building community trust has a long-term deterrent effect on violence. The fact that we measure it at all is a sign of change in how we approach policing in Minneapolis." (emphasis mine) Have they succeeded in eliminating all negative interactions? Of  course not, but at least they're doing something reasonable, responsible and measurable. Boston on the other hand, ice cream.

I could probably wax on about the dangers of this policy, of the damage it causes to pretend to give a crap about the people you police only to later turn around and shoot 'em dead without so much as a by your leave, but I won't. My memo to Boston PD is simple: keep your ice cream. I'm lactose (and police abuse) intolerant. Ice cream is not about to mollify me or anyone else I imagine. 

And then there's this, hug diplomacy bull cacalaca. I can't even with this rubbish today. I can't. Not today Satan. Not today. Not tomorrow either. 

Happy New Year!

At the end of every year, I consider how things have gone over the preceding twelve months. Over the last three or four years in particular, I've not wanted to peer too closely at things as things haven't progressed as well as I would have hoped. 2010, though was quite a departure. Perspective is a heckuva thing.

Though by many measures, I haven't done all that I would have liked, I was blessed to complete a project which, frankly, I've been wanting to complete for about 5 years.  Instead of being hampered by unemployment, I was freed by it.

People talk all the time about how being fired or downsized opens up new vistas, well, it's true for me as well.  As a consequence of the blessings of 2010, economic uncertainty notwithstanding, I see 2011 as an open year, brimming with new opportunities.  For once, I don't see the closure of a bad year but rather the opening of a great one, greater still than the one just ended. 

I'm very excited about 2011.  I hope you are too.  Happy New Year.

Chaos and Calm

So I was reading this article some weeks ago in which the author posited that leaders need to be both 'clarity agents' and 'chaos double agents'.  I heard what the author was saying, but I really didn't quite agree.  Basically the author was saying that good leaders should create both clarity and chaos in their organizations as circumstances merit.  According to Mr. Dunbar the author of the article Clarity Agents and Chaos Double Agents, when we live in an environment of "volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity" (VUCA as he calls it), we need our leaders to create chaos when there is too much calm.

My problem with this notion isn't the philosophy of it, so much as it is the language of it.  It's great marketing/branding to have this almost alliterative title, but I reject the idea of 'chaos'.  Words have power and alliteration aside, another word (one with a less pejorative connotation), might just make for a deeper understanding of what the author is trying to convey.

Here's what my favorite online dictionary says about the word 'chaos'.

1. state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order
2. any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases 
3. the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe.

Synonyms offered for 'chaos' include: disarray, jumble, turmoil.  Related words include such lovely choices as bedlam, pandemonium. Who really wants to be associated with 'pandemonium' or the creation thereof?

To suggest that a leader deliberately create this thing called 'chaos' in her organization, implies that there is no other way to avoid becoming mired in a comfortable status quo.  According to Dunbar, "the enemy of improvement in performance and enabling the ability to innovate is being comfortable and allowing the status quo to maintain. In the future, successful organizations will be defined by leaders that are disruptive and creative."  While he will get no argument from me on the underlying premise of his thought, it is the use of those last two words together that makes me nervous.  Disruptive and creative?  Therein lies the very pejorative connotation I'm talking about.

I don't think it's playing semantic games to say that to use the word 'chaos' is to lend further credence to the notion that those who would seek to challenge the status quo (that's a better 'c' word right there), are necessarily being 'disruptive' (per dictionary.com = causing trouble, confusion).  The problem with this thinking is that it automatically presumes the transcendence of the existing state and subtly suggests that any challenges to same are necessarily mischievous in their intent.  Isn't there sufficient evidence abroad that status quos need to be challenged?  Moreover, the idea of leader as challenger of settled states also subtly reinforces the age old idea, that only leaders may challenge.  Other sources of challenge, from persons not granted fiat to do so, can be viewed as 'disruptions'.  That's the kind of thinking that entrenches stable states and leads to the eventual demise of previously thriving businesses.

In my response to the author, I wrote that the status quo is to be feared and that organizations and their leaders would do well to entertain ideas from everywhere and anywhere - both within and without their organizations.  Yes, it would be wonderful to have a leader who saw the stable state as problematic, but that isn't always the case.  Further, sometimes it is the leader him/herself, who is least interested in changing the way things are done.  Rather than look to the leader for challenge, an organization needs to create an environment where everyone from top to bottom, is seeking improvement all the time and feels comfortable offering a different perspective.  When the only lens through which different perspectives is viewed is the lens of 'creating chaos', you can be pretty sure there won't be much chaos created.

Words harm, words restrict and ultimately, words can kill action....and organizations.