Living in a House Divided
The January 6, 2021 riot at the Capital Building is unmistakable proof of a problem—one that few of us may be willing to acknowledge.
Note: This post called for more than my usual 400 words. Hopefully, you’ll agree it’s deserving.
– – – – –
The riot at the Capital Building on January 6, 2021 is unmistakable proof of a problem that’s been brewing for a while. It’s a problem few of us are willing to acknowledge–and the consequences of our unwillingness are dire.
Many will place the blame on Donald Trump. Doing so would be expected—and perhaps justified in some regard—but it will do little to bring about a lasting solution. That’s because the events of January 6th are just the symptoms, not the core issue.
“The events of January 6th are just the symptoms, not the core issue.”
Any consultant worth their salt will tell you that specific individuals are rarely the root cause of a problem. Though individuals certainly play a part, they are merely evidence of a deeper—and usually systemic—set of processes and assumptions that are in play.
And Your Point Is…?
The core issue is not Donald Trump and/or his supporters or detractors. The core issue is that we have embraced division as a way of life.
We live in a house divided.
“Specific individuals are rarely the root cause of a problem.”
So What?
As a nation and society, we have embraced an attitude of division as a way of life. Though this goes way beyond the political arena, politics perfectly reflect the issue.
In observing news, social media, talk radio and conversations at the water cooler and across the kitchen table, we talk and act like our society falls into two polarized camps. These camps have opposite views on almost every issue with virtually nothing in common. Graphically it might look like this:
The outcomes of this approach are predictably self-evident. Nothing gets done. Priority, long-term issues become politically radioactive and get kicked down the road in favor of securing short-term gains. Policies, positions and programs swing wildly from one election cycle to the next.
Both sides view each other as radicals and extremists. They advance their position by destroying the credibility of the other side. Everyone’s broadcasting but no one’s listening; dialog and diplomacy get squeezed out by diatribe.
The modern presidential election strategy is to do enough to maintain your base (keeping those states in your corner), and target the undecided moderate voters in the key swing states—which can boil down to a relatively small number. This turned the tide in Biden’s favor in 2020. Likewise, in 2016, Trump won by getting 77,759 more votes than Hillary Clinton in three key counties across the three swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania—in spite of actually losing the popular vote.
“Everyone’s broadcasting but no one’s listening.”
The game comes down to one of two plays:
Leverage power to maintain majority, or
Obstruct the agenda of the majority until you can get it back.
Each election cycle we slip further and further into the crevasse of division, and the results become increasingly combative. Ultimately, the people suffer—and those most impacted are the ones with the least influence and affluence. Our standing and reputation as a nation suffers; no one wins.
Consider: Would you want your family to operate this way? Your football team? Your company? Not if you cherished it, wanted it to be competitive or have a lasting legacy.
As Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”
“Would you want your family to operate this way?”
The Big Picture
This state of division doesn’t reflect who we actually are. Our society is more of a spectrum of perspectives. We are, generally speaking, a majority of either left- or right-leaning moderates with the more firmly-entrenched perspectives further out from the center. It actually looks more like this:
Though this sounds idyllic and panacean, we actually have much more in common than not. We could make tangible progress if our politics and society were guided by that truth, instead of the fear-based convenience of division.
Take any major issue facing us: Health care, immigration, social security, etc. What if our default approach were to be:
Start with what we have in common,
Then cooperate to identify a realistic outcome (even if it’s far from ideal) that isn’t tainted by political expediency or right- or left-leaning policy objectives,
Then work together to achieve that outcome, at perhaps the expense of each side’s agenda.
We are a diverse society in thought, perspective, history and experience. Diversity makes for a stronger team, as long as they share a mutual respect and a unified goal. Surely, we can identify some common ground on which we stand, can we not? For consider: If we can’t, we’ve already lost, no matter which side we’re on.
“We can identify some common ground on which we stand, can we not?”
The main point of this whole discussion is that unity is a leadership issue. Moving from division to unity won’t just happen. It’s a massive change that will come only from courageous leaders inspiring it, modeling it, exhorting it, challenging it, motivating it … And it’s bigger than any one leader can generate. It requires a collection of leaders, working collaboratively.
I appreciate the current calls for unity as we see the onboarding of a new administration. But if we don’t make the decision—as an entire society—to reject division as a collective way of life, then we’ll never achieve unity. I mean no disrespect to the Biden administration (most new administrations in recent memory have made similar calls), but a call to unity without changing the underlying we’ve-got-the-majority-now approach will only further increase the divide. One person can’t fix this problem.
The solution requires nothing less than a cultural transformation. Leaders in news, media, industry, society, neighborhoods, families must all engage. Parents must train their children on the importance of unity over division. Ordinary citizen-leaders must stand for unity in their circles of influence and expect the same from its elected officials.
Who are the leaders that will step into the gap?
“A call to unity without changing the underlying we’ve-got-the-majority-now approach will only further increase the divide.”
Your Next Step
Lincoln was advised not to deliver the “House Divided” speech, out of fear that it was too radical and may cost him the 1858 U.S. Senate seat in Illinois. Lincoln replied that “The proposition is indisputably true … and I will deliver it as written.” His opponent, Stephen Douglas, widely used his speech against him and eventually Lincoln did lose.
Curiously, it’s also been observed that while it may have cost him the Senate seat, it probably gained him the Presidency two years later. Unity will not be quick, easy or expedient. Unity will, however, establish and maintain our legacy.
C’mon, y’all … we can do this.
“The proposition is indisputably true … and I will deliver it as written”
Want more leadership insights?
Check out:
What Commuting Taught Me About Leadership – You Hit What You Aim For
If you don’t have a clear picture of what kind of leader you want to be, is it really a surprise that you’re not as effective as you could be?
recently left a position with a great company, but with a long daily commute. This is the fourth post of an 8-week series on things about leadership that I learned on those long and tedious hours on the road.
– – – – –
It’s easy to get bored driving the same road every day. To break the monotony I started attempting to avoid the reflectors when I changed lanes (when there were no other cars around, of course!).
After months of trying I had some occasional successes. But truth be told, I sucked at it—which troubled me because I knew I was a better driver than that.
Then one day I had an epiphany: Instead of aiming to miss the reflectors, I needed to aim for the stripe between them. The difference was instant and amazing.
As soon as I adjusted my aim point, I had almost immediate success. I could predict where my wheels were going. I could anticipate when to initiate the lane change and intentionally drive where I wanted to go. Ultimately, getting really clear on my target allowed me to get better.
And Your Point Is…?
You hit what you aim for.
“Getting really clear on my target allowed me to get better.”
So What?
First (and most obvious), not aiming is the same as aiming at nothing—you’re going to hit something, you just don’t know what it will be. When I first started my game I tried to “feel” my way into the next lane and hope for the best. Didn’t work.
Second, if your aim is off target, that’s what you’ll hit: everything except the target. This was my aha experience with the reflectors: In attempting to miss them, I was actually still aiming for them. The reflectors is what I was concentrating on. In focusing on the challenge, I was blind to seeing the solution.
“Not aiming is the same as aiming at nothing—you’re going to hit something, you just don’t know what it will be.”
The Big Picture
Consider how your aim comes into play when you compare A) aiming for success (the stripe), to B) aiming for avoiding failure (missing the reflectors). Aiming to NOT fail is NOT aiming for success.
“In focusing on the challenge, I was blind to seeing the solution.”
Some simple real world examples might be “I’ll be less critical in my feedback” or “I’ll be more aggressive in producing outcomes.” Typically, any goal stated in such squishy terms is likely not to be met. Not only is the outcome not measurable, the path to achievement is obscure. This is a common concept in managing performance (a la setting SMART goals), but for some reason many people have difficulty applying the concept in managing development—especially their own.
Your Next Step
What’s an area you’d like to improve in that you’ve set goals around not failing? How can you reset them so they’re focused on the target?
“Aiming to NOT fail is NOT aiming for success.”
Want more leadership insights?
Check out:
What Commuting Taught Me About Leadership – Watch Out For People Advancing Their Own Position
When it comes to your leadership, do you really want to be known as the aggressive driver trying to get ahead of everyone else?
I recently left a position with a great company, but with a long daily commute. This is the third of an 8-week blog series on things about leadership that I learned on those long and tedious hours on the road.
– – – – –
At one point in my commuting history I was averaging close to one major evasive maneuver per week. “Major” meaning that had I not taken significant action I would have been calling my insurance company—if not the ambulance.
Usually it was someone changing lanes (see my last post: Stay Visible). Often it was somebody “shooting the gap” to cross two lanes of traffic (rarely a good idea). More than once I’ve had pickups or service trucks pull alongside me then without signaling move into the “space” between me and the car in front of me—even though they hadn’t yet cleared my front bumper.
Almost always it was someone trying to get ahead of everyone else. Even though traffic was heavy, they felt compelled to zig-and-zag, forcing themselves ahead, expending a lot of effort to get in front of others.
And Your Point Is…?
I get competitiveness and wanting to win, but is getting ahead of the people you’re driving with really worth the potential damage?
“They felt compelled to zig-and-zag, forcing themselves ahead, expending a lot of effort to get in front of others.”
So What?
The marketplace is competitive (duh). Aggressiveness is often (usually?) seen as a strength; it gets you noticed. In particular, I think of business development roles where being a competitor is a desirable trait. But for most other roles, you should reconsider using competitiveness as your primary MO, because it comes with lots of potential—and usually hidden—damage.
You can damage relationships. When you push people aside to get ahead of them, you make it incredibly hard for them to trust you again. You’ll have to put in much more effort to overcome the perception that you’re really only interested in yourself.
“When you push people aside to get ahead of them, you make it incredibly hard for them to trust you again.”
You can damage your opportunity to influence. You’re not building into people; it doesn’t build a mutual purpose, accountability, motivation or camaraderie.
Your competitive approach may bring short term results, but it will eventually boomerang. You’re feeding a cutthroat culture where people become expendable and teamwork is transactional, not relational. And when you most need people to respond to your call to action, they simply won’t.
“When you most need people to respond to your call to action, they simply won’t.”
The Big Picture
When it comes to your leadership behaviors, what goes around comes around. If you honor people and their effort they will respond in kind. If you push them aside in pursuit of your own interests you’ll find yourself very alone.
Your Next Step
How can you be hungry for results but in a way that makes others better (instead of pushes them aside)?
Want more leadership insights?
Check out: