$2.5 billion is a lot of money even for a self-styled billionaire like the current occupant of the White House. That’s how much he convinced various departments at Deutsche Bank to lend him, according to an NPR Fresh Air interview with David Enrich, New York Times finance editor and author of the forthcoming book, Dark Towers: The Inside Story Of The World’s Most Destructive Bank. The article reveals quite a bit of the psychology of these bankers, as well as of DT himself.
Climate marchers in front of Trump Hotel, Washington DC 4-29-17 (Clamshell Alliance’s spiritual heirs)
It’s even more remarkable because “Don the Con” is not a good credit risk. Even before the New York Times revealed that he squandered and lost $1.17 billion just in the ten years from 1985-94, the banking industry was well aware of DT’s long history of failing to pay back large loans (and his other habit of failing to pay his subcontractors). Yet, DT burned Deutsche Bank several times. When the sourced documents finally go public, things are going to get VERY interesting.
This is one very good argument against siloed businesses, by the way. If these people had only talked to each other, they’d have been at far less risk for the subsequent loans.
So many times, I’ve seen smart people saying we should not impeach or invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment (the Constitution’s presidential removal clause). Here’s why I think we should.
But if he is sworn in after impeachment, he will be very, very careful. He will have to be seen as the unifier, and he will have to walk very carefully to avoid falling into the pit he created by his own actions, his own complicity. I think he will be quite cautious. And if he is not sworn in, the next in line is the very competent and moderately liberal Nancy Pelosi.
The possibility of a maniac like DT in office is why we HAVE the impeachment, emoluments, and removal-for-incompetence/incapacity clauses. We damned well better use them if they are anything other than ink on paper. Not using them forfeits our rights as citizens and makes it harder to challenge the next incompetent narcissist. I wonder: would this presidency have even been possible if GWB had been impeached for his incompetence, the actions of his competent but evil henchmen like Cheney and Rumsfeld, or for the fraudulent justifications for the Iraq war—or if the Democrats had fought hard enough in 2000 to prove that the election was fraudulent and should be overturned, thus preventing the GWB presidency in the first place?
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
In short, a legal maneuver to get DT out of office (and perhaps behind bars) is well justified, even though it will only succeed if several Senate Republicans desert him. Because they will, if a people’s movement demands it and they’d rather not lose their own jobs.
In other words, just because the GOP made a bad strategic decision to embrace the devil doesn’t mean we’re stuck with him. If they see the public swinging strongly against DT, they’ll abandon the sinking ship—but they need to hear from their constituents, loudly and often. They could have reined DT in early and firmly but they didn’t want to annoy his “base”—which as a result thinks those members of Congress are weak and don’t care much, and therefore continue to push the envelope on making very bad behavior acceptable. It’s time to push back and demand accountability for letting an incompetent maniac sack our democracy, burn bridges with our allies, collude with our enemies, and lash out at those who can’t defend themselves.
The faster the Republicans move, the easier it will be to re-cage the monster.
We hear lots of talk about being customer-centric—but then we see far too many examples of companies that DON’T walk their talk. I still remember seeing a sign inside a Blockbuster Video store, maybe 20 years ago, talking about their empowered employees. I went up to the counter clerk and asked permission to snap a picture of the sign; I wanted to use it as a positive example in the customer service section of the marketing book I was writing—and the clerk said I’d have to call corporate headquarters. What kind of empowered employee is that? I was so disgusted I never set foot in another Blockbuster.
Most companies will need to make three shifts at the same time to become truly customer-centric. All three are challenging but bring very big returns.
Create a culture where employees feel valued and listened to—where what they do makes a difference. Empower them not just to fix customers’ problems but to harness their own creativity to create preemptive change. IN the trenches every day, employees often have the best ideas for improving things. But they will only share those ideas if they think management will pay attention and that they won’t get punished in any way. No matter how crazy an idea may seem, give it a full airing. Often, you can modify it to be practical, and implement those pieces. Consider implementing a reward system for any idea. The reward doesn’t have to be monetary. It could be as simple as naming the employee with the best idea, or with the most ideas, Employee of the Month. However, if the idea saves or makes the company a big pile, the originator should get a money reward too. For hierarchical companies, this means letting go of command-and-control and making line employees feel that management really wants their ideas—which can be discussed in public meetings/assigned to study/IMPLEMENTATION committees and NEVER dismissed out-of-hand by a manager either 1:1 or in public. This takes training, of course.
Really listen to your customers. Don’t just wait for them to complain. Go out and ask them what they love about working with you, and what they’d like you to improve—and why.
A woman on a customer service call, taking handwritten notes
Treat this seriously and publicize the way their suggestions become innovations (including honoring them by name, if they consent). Not only will this show how responsive you are, it encourages more people to jump in with their own ideas.
Align your company with a higher purpose. If people feel that you’re making both a difference and a profit, they will become much more enthusiastic Employee turnover drops while productivity goes up, customer retention increases, and you might even become a media darling. For instance, can you identify, develop, and market a profitable product or service that actually helps turn hunger and poverty into abundance, war into peace, or catastrophic climate change into planetary balance?
Bonus tip, because I like to overdeliver: shift from a scarcity to an abundance mindset. Replace “yes, but” with “yes, and”: expand the possibilities, build off that suggestions until you’ve co-created something wonderful. Then go implement it!
Need help? This is what I do in my consulting, writing, and speaking. I’m really good at finding opportunities for almost any company to “do well by doing good” (old Quaker saying): to find profitable niches that make the world better, and to create the products and services to fill those niches. Here’s my contact info. Want to learn more? Drop by https://goingbeyondsustainability.com/ and have an explore.
Go watch this short clip from futurist Jamais Cascio in a Fast Company forum. It’s only 2 minutes and 22 seconds (once you get past the ad). Here’s an excerpt:
If you want to find out how to use a new emerging tool, don’t ask the people who invent it, because they have a very narrow view of what it’s supposed to be used for. The people who are hacking it–the people who use it for crime, who use it to have sex, who use it to do something fun or different–those are the people who are going to find out the little interesting variations.
This kind of thinking has been noticeably absent until fairly recently. Look at the early coverage of the Internet of Things, for instance. It’s all pretty rah-rah, this is great, and nobody was wondering about what to do if someone hacked your refrigerator and set all the food to spoil.
Yet we so often see unintended consequences, not only in the ability of evildoers to exploit those weaknesses, but also in not thinking through all the ramifications of a new technology. For instance, those who developed fossil fuels never thought about health effects from pollution, or catastrophic climate effects from increasing CO2 levels, or about how a society built around the idea of mass private vehicle ownership and a network of roads that go everywhere would be different (better in some ways, worse in others). The people who developed the very exciting 3D printing world probably didn’t think about the consequences of being able to build weapons that don’t show up on X-ray scans, using a device you can have in your own home. People running massive charity programs may not have considered the impact of subsidizing goods on the local, indigenous producers who are essential to a thriving local economy.
This is a good time to remind ourselves of the Precautionary Principle (scroll to page 10 when you open the link): if there’s a chance that major harm will come from an action, choose not to perform that action.
Europe has widely adopted the Precautionary Principle; the US has been lagging behind even under more forward-thinking administrations, and the current administration is actively hostile to the environment.
Brazil’s lush, multispecies rainforest sequesters enormous amounts of carbon–and is at risk of being bulldozed for short-term private gain (courtesy NPR)
the Precautionary Principle (which Brazil followed for about the past 15 years) is about to be thrown out. The consequences, though, aren’t limited to Brazil. The above link documents the extreme negative effects this will have on the climate issue worldwide.
One difference with the unintended consequences Jamais Cascio discusses: the consequences won’t be unintended. They are deliberate. This new leader simply doesn’t care. And he’s not likely to listen to activists in the US or even governments in the EU. But he will have to listen if the people of Brazil turn out in huge and constant demonstrations demanding climate justice and rainforest preservation. I wish them luck; we’ll all need it.
After I posted something opposing Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, I received this comment from someone who prefers not to be named:
I voted for Hillary and most Democrats. Hillary lost. Trump won. The Republicans won. They get to govern and part of governing is choosing and confirming a judges. You can voice opposition, but when you are not in the majority, there is little else you can do. You are best advised to stop tilting at windmills with meaningless protests, petitions, and propaganda and instead find better candidates, finance them, work your precincts, get out your vote, win your elections, and become the majority again.
US Supreme Court building, Washington, DC
This is my response:
1. A little history lesson. Judges on both sides of the spectrum have been successfully blocked if enough people see them as extremist. Nixon failed to get Hainsworth and Carswell. LBJ couldn’t get sitting SCOTUS Justice Abe Fortas into the Chief Justice seat. Reagan failed with Bork.
2. Kavanaugh’s positions on presidential power alone disqualify him as extremist. He wants to preclude any possibility that DT can be held accountable for his many crimes. Even some Republicans are saying Helsinki was treasonous. And DT was fully aware on the day he took office that he was violating the domestic and foreign emoluments clauses of the Constitution. And then there are DT’s consistent violations of so many other laws. (Click here for a listing of specifically criminal activity and here for an Atlantic Magazine piece on DT scandals, many of which involve criminal activity; both contain several source links–and both were published well before the current kerfluffle.) Since he is an Executive Branch absolutist, it would not surprise me if Kavanaugh even wanted to overturn 215 years of precedent and say that the courts have no power to declare something unconstitutional–something John Marshall created as Chief Justice during Thomas Jefferson’s presidency in his ruling in Marbury v. Madison, 1803 and does not actually appear in the Constitution. Right now, the courts are our best check on executive overreach or criminal behavior other than public pressure.
3. Lawrence Tribe, noted legal scholar, has stated that a president under investigation should not be allowed to appoint the person who will ultimately decide his fate. This has gained some traction and makes more sense to me than attempting to use the despicable McConnell precedent that allowed the theft of one seat from the Democrats (with the cooperation of Obama, who should have fought it much harder).
4. You talk about majorities. Let’s remember that even as weak a candidate as she was, Hillary won the popular vote with about 3,000,000 more than DT. If that group were a city, it would be bigger than the in-city-limits population of every city in the country other than NYC or L.A.. Bigger than Chicago or Houston, nearly twice as big as Philadelphia.
Why This Matters: A Metaphor for Something Much Deeper
Why am I going on about this? Why does it matter? Isn’t it just some people having fun making a feel-good film?
Answer: I do marketing and strategic profitability consulting for green and social change organizations, as well as for authors and publishers–and I’m also a lifelong activist. This combination of activism and marketing gives me another set of lenses to filter things, as well as a magnificent toolkit to make the world better. My activism also brings a strong sense of ethics into the marketing side.
Both as a marketer and an activist, I pay careful attention to how we motivate people to take action–to the psychology of messaging, One category for this post is psychology; click on that category to get posts going back many years. I worry deeply about our tendency as a society to crowd out facts with emotions. (I also worry about another tendency, to crowd out emotions with facts, but that’s a different post.)
And this is an example of crowding out facts with emotion. While this particular instance is innocuous as far as I can tell, we see examples of overreach on both the left and right, and they work to push us apart from each other, talk at each other instead of seeking common ground, and push real solutions farther and farther out of reach.
My inbox is full of scare-tactic emails from progressive, environmental, or Democratic Party organizations. Because I’m in the biz and understand what they’re doing, I leave most of them unopened. I just searched my unread emails for subject lines that contain the word “Breaking” and came with hundreds, including this one from a group called Win Without War:
An unarmed man with a small flag stops four Chinese tanks in Tiannanmen Square, Beijing,
It’s a clear attempt to generate hysteria, to have people perceiving tanks in the streets with their guns pointed at dissenters.
Only in the body of the email do we find out what’s really going on:
Shel —
Last night, the Washington Post broke the story that Donald Trump has ordered a giant military parade with tanks, guns, and troops taking over the streets of our nation’s capital. [1] This is the kind of parade that dictators around the world use to intimidate their enemies and, more importantly, their own citizens.
This is what authoritarian dictatorships look like.
But Trump can’t change the fact that we still live in a democracy — which means Washington, D.C.’s local government gets to have a say before Donald Trump’s tanks roll down its streets.
Note the use of mail merge software to appear personal. Does that really fool anybody anymore? But OK, even when you know it’s a mail merge, it still generates at least a small warm fuzzy.
More importantly, note that the actual content is totally different from the expectation in the headline. We can argue the foolishness of Trump wanting a military parade (I think it’s foolish, and an expensive attempt to stroke his ego)–but in no way is this the same as attacking demonstrators in the streets of Washington, DC.
The right wing is at least as bad. I don’t subscribe to their e-blasts, but I found this juicy example (with an introduction and then a rebuttal by the site hosting this post) in about ten seconds of searching.
And then there are DT’s own Tweets, news conferences, and speeches, both during the campaign and since he took the oath to uphold the constitution as President of the United States (an oath he has been in violation of every single day of his term). They are full of lies, misrepresentations, name-calling, bullying, and fear-mongering. They are hate speech. I will not give them legitimacy by quoting them here; they’re easy enough to find.
As a country, we are better than this..
How You Can “Vaccinate” Yourself Against Sensationalist Fear-mongering
Before sharing any news story or meme, run through a series of questions to help you identify if it’s real.And if it passes that test, pop on rumor-checking site Snopes and check its status. For that matter, go through a similar questions for advertising claims.
The questions will vary by the situation. Here are a few to get you started:
Does the post link to documentation? Are most of the linked sites reputable? If they advance a specific agenda, does the post disclose this? (Note that THIS post links to several reputable sites, including NPR, New York Times, history.com, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google, CNN, Snopes, and my own goingbeyondsustainability.com and greenandprofitable.com. Yes, I am aware of the issues in using Wikipedia or Youtube as the only source. I am also aware that Google gives them a tremendous amount of “link juice” because on the whole, they are considered authoritative. For both those citations, I had plenty of documentation from major news sites.) Strong documentation linking to known and respected sources is a sign to take the post seriously.
Does the post name-drop without specifics? See how the Win Without War letter mentions the Washington Post but leaves out the link? Remember that ancient email hoax citing longtime NPR reporter Nina Totenberg? Name-dropping to buy unsusbstantiated respect is not a good sign.
Are the language and tone calm and rational, or screaming and sensationalist or even salacious?
Is the post attributed? Can you easily contact the creator?
And last but far from least, the most important question: Who benefits from the post’s point of view ? What are their relationships to the post’s creator? (Hello, Russian trollbots!). Don’t just follow the money. Follow the power dynamics, too.
I could go on but you get the idea. Please share your reactions in the comments.
Back in 1995, I cast a vote that had long-lasting consequences. We all did.
I’m speaking, of course, of the vote to add the color blue to M&Ms. Looking back, I realize now that it was the Brexit of candy votes.
But let me back up. For most of my childhood, M&Ms were as colorfully bland and reassuring as a 1970s kitchen.
Just dark brown, tan, orange, yellow and green. No red. Those caused cancer.
But by the time the 90s rolled around, America was in full 70s rejection mode, and M&Ms decided it was time to add a new color to the fabled mix.
And we got to vote on what it would be: pink, purple, or blue.
It wasn’t much of a decision, really: pink or purple clearly didn’t “go” with the rest of that harvest goal palette. I mean, really.
And so blue won in a landslide.
But the day they made that announcement, they told us something they hadn’t told us before: this “new color” was going to… replace… TAN.
And all of a sudden, this silly little vote had real consequences (as far as candy colors go, at least). And I didn’t like those consequences.
And I really didn’t like that I didn’t know about this whole “sacrificial tan” thing ahead of time.
I have no idea what the real reason was for M&M’s leadership to sacrifice tan. But whatever the reason, apparently it was a decision they made BEFORE they announced the results of the vote… and likely before they even decided to have a vote at all… because they had already decided to get rid of tan.
And yes, one of the truths of leadership is that sometimes there are these binary either/or choices we have to make in order to make a successful change. Opening a new office here means not opening one there. Hiring this person means not hiring that one.
But binary choices aren’t the problem. The real problem is when a binary choice isn’t presented as one. When we don’t give people full information about the change they’re about to make.
Why? Because we — all of us — are not rational decision makers, we are rationalizing decision makers.
We make decisions based on how we feel in the moment… and then we go back and think about them.
Which means, no matter how good you may make a decision feel in the moment, once people start really thinking about it, those once-happy, once-accepting people… aren’t.
Because they’ll feel manipulated, not led. And every time they do, they’ll be just a little less willing to trust the next change you put in front of them.
Do it enough? And you’ve lost your ability to lead change entirely.
So what can we do?
In the case of M&Ms, one single line might have made the difference between me happily eating blue M&Ms and my carrying the torch for tan all these years…
Here it is: “We’ve decided it’s time to replace tan…but, now you can help us decide what color we add next.” It’s a small addition, but a critical one, because it shows both sides of the choice. And we can only fully embrace change when we fully understand it.
So, if you’re a leader or manager, don’t shy away from the truth. Tell it. And where possible, give people real options to choose from. I know the “real options” part isn’t always possible — that’s back to the hard truths of leadership.
But even telling people that helps them better understand a change, because they’ll better understand where you’re coming from. Either way, the change will be more successful as a result.
The latest nonsense emanating from the keyboard of Our Shameless Tweeter
DT’s Tweet on Democrats failing to pass gun control
is a good chance to parse out what he really means when he says or posts something. I’ve watched what he does pretty closely for the past 2+ years, and I’ve spotted some patterns worth sharing. Let’s start with five that show up in this Tweet:
He blames his failure to act on others
He deflects by bringing in unrelated issues (DACA, this time)
When he creates a mess, he blames others—and almost never accepts responsibility or offers a meaningful apology (DACA wasn’t a problem until HE yanked the rug out from under those kids—and oh yeah, it was none other than DT who revoked the Obama restrictions on people with mental illness acquiring guns))
If he feels criticized, he defaults to bullying or name-calling
He sees anything connected to Obama as hopelessly tainted
And plenty of others:
He takes credit when others accomplish something
He attacks randomly at the first whiff of criticism—lashing out even at those who’d thought of him as a friend or ally—and his wrath extends both to individuals and entire populations (women, people with disabilities, Mexicans, Muslims…)
Having lived his entire life in extreme monetary privilege, he has zero understanding of the hardships people at the bottom of the ladder endure, and zero empathy for those who endure them
He loves to waste taxpayer money on grandiose, useless (or even harmful) projects like the border wall , the politically suicidal move of the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, or the massive military parade he demanded recently
Driven by Id, he acts impulsively, often in direct opposition to the few of his advisors willing to risk giving him honest advice—and doesn’t mind risking a war or other extreme negative outcomes in the international arena
He acts in a vacuum, without studying trusted journalistic sources or even reading intelligence briefs
He appoints people with little or no relevant experience and charges them with destroying the agencies they are supposed to run
He shows no understanding of checks and balances, freedom of the press, the reasons why government officials aren’t allowed to take money from foreign governments, or of constitutional law generally; he seems to think he should have absolute power and that he can use the presidency to enrich his personal fortune
Last in THIS list but certainly not least, he has been accused by at least 20 women, including his first wife, of being a sexual predator (this doesn’t count the many consensual encounters, including the recent disclosures involving Stormy Daniels and other porn stars)—and acknowledged his predatory behavior in the infamous Access Hollywood video
In short, the man has a disgraceful personal reputation as a serial liar, molester, and fraud—before we even look at his terrible handling of domestic and foreign issues as president.
Will someone please write a guide for me now? Please explain how this backstabbing, hypocritical incompetent cheater can still find people who thinks he is doing a good job.
For decades, I’ve told anyone who’d listen that doing the right thing for the planet and its inhabitants can be the core of a highly successful business strategy. In my latest book, Guerrilla Marketing to Heal the World, I cite dozens of studies that show this.
Now, AdWeek reports on a powerful new study that reinforces this key truth. 65 percent of respondents—2 out of every 3 consumers—rate the need for brands to “take a stand on social issues” either very or somewhat important, and especially so when discussing brands’ social media presence. Of the self-identified “liberals,” the number went up to 78 percent, or nearly four out of five.
Concern for the planet—and the living things that ride “Spaceship Earth”—is good for business
You know all those messages that say “This call may be monitored or recorded to ensure quality?” I always used to wonder what that actually meant. My best guess was that it was to make sure customer service reps (CSRs) toed the party line.
Yesterday, I found out.
I called my cell phone provider to complain about hundreds of dollars in international charges. Back in May, before my wife and I went traveling abroad, I’d called the company to ask about what is or isn’t chargeable when traveling out-of-country, before the first of several trips abroad.
At that time, the customer service person assured me that any call made TO a US number would be free. But our bills showed charges of 20 cents per minute, and my son was on a three-month European tour as a traveling musician this fall, and because we thought it was free, he used the phone. A lot!
My son checking his phone (at the Women’s March in Washington, January 21, 2017). Photo by Shel Horowitz.
The first person I spoke with yesterday told me it was only free over wi-fi. This was very annoying, because I had switched to this company largely because of the promise of seamless international service. When I got put through to a supervisor, he told me he wanted to track down the original phone call and listen to it. He called me back about an hour later with the good news that he was crediting everything I asked for. Here’s a piece of his email confirmation.
Hi Shel,
It was good speaking with you earlier. I know these past few bills caught you by surprise, but I am so glad I could help you out with some of these charges. I have submitted two requests to cover these charges that came out to a total of $419.58. The first request will remove $229.28 from your latest November 14 Project Fi bill. I have also submitted a request to refund a total of $190.30 from your previous two Project Fi bills.
I did suggest that the company be considerably more forthright in its marketing, and the supervisor said he’d run across other similar situations and agreed. But I certainly can’t fault the customer service, and am very happy to learn that recording a customer service call actually can lead to happy outcomes.
Lesson for the future: any time I am in a customer service dispute involving an oral promise, I need to remember that *I* can ask them to go back and listen to the original call. The worst they can say is no.
