Last night I attended a dinner to bid farewell to Jean Noel Perrault who has successfully completed his contract term with the supermarket chain WAY.

The farewell dinner party allowed me to be reminded of the friendship and work association I had with this wonderful gang of hardworking entrepreneurs: the WAY group.

When I was handed over the responsibility of SPAR supermarkets way back in 1997 in my capacity of Cluster Director of Rogers & Co, with my team, we devised some scheme to grow the supermarket business that Rogers owned. Rogers, at the time, owned 3 supermarkets and had to face the competition of the hypermarket Continent, the chain of Winners stores from Ireland Blyth, and the GSR chain of supermarkets. How to grow the business without investing in it?  Operating a Franchised SPAR chain supermarket was the decision taken. The team managed mostly through external growth, in a span of 2 years to create a SPAR chain of 11 supermarkets. Later Rogers cashed in with a hefty profit by selling off the SPAR business to Bourbon group’s Jumbo hypermarkets.

In 2003, the franchised members of SPAR became uncomfortable with the new management of Jumbo. We met and thrashed out a solution. After some work, together we decided to create and build up a new chain under the name WAY. Since its opening in October 2004 WAY has been growing from strength to strength to stand today as a chain of 11 stores will a yearly turnover of 2.2 billion rupees.

WAY is now positioned to grow further with the internal 20 % annual growth experienced in the last year. Possibilities are now opened for external growth too. Should WAY seize the opportunities, further development & growth would occur to become the largest supermarket group of the country. That is the WAY.

How was it possible to  build up the present notoriety of WAY in Mauritius in such a short span with minimum expense?

Trust me. Dr. Karen Stephenson, who I am still reading, like most business Gurus insist that human interactions flourish only when the trust level is high. Here again a short extract from her on “The Role of Trust in Transferring Tacit Knowledge”. I am fond of her story of a cocktail party to illustrate the social human behavior.

I have stated that tacit knowledge is the source of innovation. A catalyst for the creation of tacit knowledge is trust. Unarticulated, tacit knowledge can find expression in collegial discussions with others, in which experiences are shared. This knowledge transfer is subtle and mediated by the trust among colleagues. Thus, trust is the medium and knowledge the message. In this way, experience is transferred from those who have it to those who don’t.

This is the primary reason why mentorship and apprenticeship are critical practices of knowledge transfer, Mentoring is the oldest form of knowledge transfer and still the most efficient when exchanging knowledge between humans. It is made tangible by the trust relationship that develops between mentor and mentee. How does it happen?

To understand how mentorship works, let’s take a view from afar. Imagine a cocktail party which you have been persuaded to attend by your spouse. Your spouse needs your moral support at this business function as he or she plans the tactics for their next promotion and your subsequent vacation to the Bahamas. Being a selfless and loving spouse (and imagining the wind against your face on the beach) you go. Hundreds of people are in full party by the time you arrive. Lit faces, rooms and cigars create a three-ring circus. At the periphery you take a deep breath and give a sidewise glance to the space by your side that was filled by your spouse only moments ago. Now vanished, your spouse is working the room, making that promotion happen, So there you are. Stranded! A server places a glass of wine in your hand. You hurriedly gulp the wine to take the edge off your discomfort and have already started on your second glass when your feigned knowing nods and smiles invite the ‘small talk’ of others. “How do you know our host?’ and other bland queries lead you to a third, even fourth glass of wine and more meaningful discussions about such things as educating the next generation, public elections, neighborhood issues and global warming. By the time the fifth glass of wine is making its way to your brain and you no longer recognize your spouse, you’re in deep conversation about more intimate matters such as marriages, divorces, parenting, etc. These and other life -threatening situations are the times in which trust (and, sometimes trouble) are forged.

Let’s step back and analyze the situation closely. In the small talk of cocktail parties, humans are at random walk, desperately seeking points of similarity through visibility: height, girth, dress, gender, race, accent, hair and eye color, etc. Reading the audience and working a room are ancient skills encoded in us by our forebears who sat cheek by jowl around the campfire; an earlier and more primordial form of cocktail party. I confess to having attended countless cocktail parties and continue to be amazed how, after just a few drinks, I end up with people who are like me in some way – same experiences, same clothes same interests, etc. It’s not the alcohol talking, but the ancient drive of seeking similarity: ‘You look like me, you think like me, you dress like me … you’re one of us.‘ When people connect at this basic level, they are engaging in an embryonic form of trust with each other. What began as a room full of disconnected people may end up as a network of people connected in invisible lines of trust.

These invisible lines of trust don’t just operate at cocktail parties. They also surreptitiously galvanize people in an organization by connecting them to each other. These connections, or networks, of trust are the veins of a natural resource of knowledge, a honeycomb of collective consciousness which is mined for hidden sources of innovation. The challenge is to detect them, render them visible, understand their underlying structure and leverage them to increase productivity.

The practice that I have used and recommend to build trust and better human interactions in organizations as well as families is that of creating frequent occasions for cocktail parties or similar gathering activities. In the corporate world set up, the ‘small talk’ where important issues are discussed happens very often in the relaxed environment at the water fountain or around a cup of coffee or tea at the break.

Avons-nous la même vision de la scène ou d’un festin quand nous sommes placés au dernier rang ou à la première place? A la première place, certainement, je suis livré au regard de tous; tout au contraire, dans les derniers rangs je suis spectateur et participant comme la plupart de mes frères. ‘De la prépondérance à l’humilité’ serait la leçon que je prends de la première partie du texte. Mieux encore que ‘la prépondérance’ citée,  le contexte d’un repas chez les pharisiens,  évoquerait  la réputation pharisienne proverbiale de l’arrogance et de l’hypocrisie. Or Jésus dans sa venue sur terre, s’est fait le dernier des derniers. Il est né dans une étable et s’est retrouvé, à la fin de sa vie, en croix et tué comme un dernier des derniers avec des bandits notoires. La contemplation de Sa vie comme le dernier des derniers nécessairement m’invite à plus de compassion pour nos frères démunis. C’est bien l’humilité qui devrait être le maître mot.

 Pour enchaîner la leçon, dans le texte de ce dimanche, et plus encore, Jésus m’encourage d’être humble tout en ayant un regard de compassion dans un amour inconditionnel pour les démunis.

« Seigneur, purifie mon cÅ“ur du levain des pharisiens: l’hypocrisie et l’orgueil. Conduis-moi sur le chemin de la vérité, c’est-à-dire de l’humilité, en dehors duquel je ne peux te plaire. Accorde-moi la grâce de considérer les autres supérieurs à moi, et de trouver ma joie dans leur service. Ne permets pas que du haut de ma suffisance, je repousse avec mépris l’humble Pain eucharistique; mais donne-moi de pouvoir y discerner ta présence, toi le Dieu tout-puissant qui te fais le Serviteur des serviteurs, pour nous ouvrir le chemin de l’amour et de la vie. »

I received and read the article Optimum Strategies for Creativity and Longevity by Sing Lin, Ph.D.

He is a Member of National Council of Chinese Institute of Engineers – USA/Greater New York Chapter, and Member of Board of Director of the National Taiwan University Alumni Association – Greater New York.

 

The conclusion of his article reads as follows:

 

4. Conclusion and Recommendations. The most precious, creative and innovative period in your life is the 10-year period around the age of 32. Plan your career path to use this precious 10-year period wisely and effectively to produce your greatest achievements in your life. The pace of innovations and technology advances is getting faster and faster and is forcing everybody to compete fiercely at the Internet speed on the information super-highways. The highly productive and highly efficient workplace in USA is a pressure-cooker and a high-speed battleground for highly creative and dynamic young people to compete and to flourish. However, when you get older, you should plan your career path and financial matter so that you can retire comfortably at the age of 55 or earlier to enjoy your long, happy and leisure retirement life into your golden age of 80s and beyond. In retirement, you can still enjoy some fun work of great interest to you and of great values to the society and the community, but at a part-time leisure pace on your own term. On the other hand, if you are not able to get out of the pressure-cooker or the high-speed battleground at the age of 55 and “have” to keep on working very hard until the age of 65 or older before your retirement, then you probably will die within 18 months of retirement. By working very hard in the pressure cooker for 10 more years beyond the age of 55, you give up at least 20 years of your life span on average.

 

His study, based on statistics, was worked out in US corporations such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, AT&T, Lucent Technologies and their respective pension funds.

We could interpret his findings in many ways. Whilst we assume that the statistics are correct, they are not translated in each individual case. Looking back in my own life, I reckon my most creative and innovative period in my life where I achieved my greatest achievements, were around the age of 40- 50. At that time, opportunity knocked, all the factors were present for me to catch the opened window. I seized it. Was I a late developer?

On the other hand, what about the longevity of workers beyond the retirement age of 60 or 65, who are coolly collecting their salary whilst not under the pressure of the cooker? I am lucky to have passed my 18 months of retirement. Do I conclude that I was not pressured enough before my retirement?

I have always been skeptical in what people can make out of statistical studies? All told, it is always  helpful and wise to take into consideration the statistical findings in one’s decision making process.

Dr Karen Stephenson has been capturing my reading attention for the last 2days. Her anthropology back ground tints her understanding of human networks and render her work very interesting. She suggests ways of using human networks to increase our power of leadership and to leverage our man management skills. You can understand how excited I could be, as these are precisely themes of my prime interests.

Knowledge and understanding it from her point of view is the starting point. From the documents, I have come across the term “tacit Knowledge” which she defines very explicitly, also rank very highly in my need to understand and to master. I shall summarize daily, my understanding for her papers as I note them for my memory’s sake.

In a nutshell, this is what I have retained today from her:

Knowledge economy, knowledge organization, knowledge networks, knowledge by any other name I call a fad. After listening to knowledge gurus spout less and less about knowledge, I have come to the conclusion, that we are going ‘knowhere’ with knowledge. Too much knowledge without integration tears us apart. The wisdom to integrate knowledge by assembling key people and skills remains the ancient art.

Experience has long been considered the best teacher of knowledge. Since we cannot experience everything, other people’s experiences, and hence other people, become the surrogate for knowledge. ‘I store my knowledge in my friends’ is an axiom for collecting knowledge through collecting people. ‘A friend of a friend is a friend’ or ‘an enemy of a friend is an enemy’ are two more axioms for knowledge transfer through people via their entrusted relationships.

We can summon knowledge from ourselves, but how do we elicit knowledge on demand or ‘just in time’ from others? This becomes salient in knowledge driven organizations where critical knowledge is not only stored in computers, database, facilities, files, etc. but in people. A major obstacle for organizations is that of linking the knowledge stored in people to that in organizational processes. Why? Process knowledge can be transferred on demand and does not necessarily depend on the presence or absence of people. Thus the employee is free to take that needed vacation and the organization is able to go about its business. This knowledge transfer is not well understood for tacit knowledge, the subject of our discussion here.

Tacit Knowledge

When you teach a child to ride a bicycle, there are certain inexorable truths that you convey about the skill, such as where to put your feet (on the pedals, not the handlebars), where to put your hands (on the handlebars, not the pedals) and where to sit. There is much more to riding a bicycle that cannot be adequately articulated – balance, control, the sensation of riding, etc.

The same could be said of alpine skiing. The basic premise of putting your feet in your boots, your boots on skis and pointing downhill is a fearsome scenario that would hardly suffice as advice for anyone learning how to ski. When you can’t define what you know, how do you teach it? I watched on a DVD with awe, the lessons given by Erik Decamp, on the transfer of knowledge in an alpinist context.

Not being able to define what you know usually comes from embodied experience – ‘felt knowledge’ – and is often called tacit knowledge. The adjectives ‘felt’ and ‘tacit’ are meant to convey the ineffable and unarticulated forms of knowledge which come from experience, such as learning to ski or cycle. As we experience life, we store our learning as tacit knowledge in memories and intuitions. What we don’t experience or learn, we can glean from others. Thus, people become knowledge storehouses from whom we can ‘indirectly’ learn, making them our surrogates for direct experience.

In rapid, radical change, this form of knowledge becomes a critical resource for innovation. We don’t realize what we know until the immediacy of the moment forces to the foreground knowledge we weren’t aware we had. If business could methodically and efficiently mine this type of knowledge from its people, then managers and executives could more strategically steer the evolution of innovation. Since business is only as good as its next new idea or suite of ideas, this know-how is essential in a knowledge economy.

‘Quand on est polyglotte, on a plus de chances d’être ouvert d’esprit’ écrit Chin Lee Choo Foo dans la presse québécoise.

Ainsi, avoir vécu dans ce bouillon de culture mauricienne, et de posséder plusieurs langues sont indéniablement des atouts qui trouvent des valeurs appréciées hors de notre île.

A lire dans la parution de La Presse du 26 aout 2007.

I recently discovered the works of Karen Stephenson. She advocates that “Too much knowledge without integration tears us apart. The wisdom to integrate knowledge by assembling key people and skills remains the ancient art.”

It will take me sometime to digest what she teaches about knowledge and more importantly how to  make good use of knowledge which abounds today.

 

Karen Stephenson, Ph.D. is president of NetForm, Inc, recognized as one of the top 100 leading innovation companies by CIO in 2001. She is internationally recognized for her pioneering work in detecting, diagnosing and designing human networks to solve a variety of problems: (1) engineering tipping points in open markets and communities of practice (CoP), (2) remediating acquired organizational deficiencies within large-scale public and private organizations and, (3) developing novel techniques for building trust and collaboration among communities (interagency cooperation in the U.S. intelligence community and with NGOs and local governments in the United Kingdom).

She has been featured in the media and press, most notably, The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, The New Yorker, The Financial Times, The Guardian, Strategy+Business, CIO, Fast Company and Wired. She has taught at several universities including but not limited to the UCLA School of Management, MIT’s Sloan Management, Imperial’s School of Management and most recently at at Harvard’s Graduate School of Design. She received her Ph.D. in Anthropology at Harvard University, an M.A. in Anthropology at the University of Utah, and B.A. in Art & Chemistry at Austin College, TX.

I read on the last edition of the Mauritius Times the action of the ‘Forum Citoyen’ led by Dick Ng Sui Wa. The first affirmation was:  “Effecting civil disobedience in the Gandhian manner cannot be illegal”. Without being legalistic, as I have no pretensions to be nor have I the  legal competence to do so, I am of humble opinion that civil disobedience can only be illegal else it will not be a civil disobedience.  

Have we reached in this case the limits of democracy? How do we get over the apparent tyrannical act of the lawful authority? Is there some legal or otherwise mechanism that would save us from this situation?

This situation has given me the opportunity to rethink of Civil Disobedience with its legal and morale aspects. In the world of today, at least in the western world, the education inculcated to our youth makes them more and more individualist freethinkers. This accrued importance of individual conscience could well be confronted to the majority rule causing more cases of civil disobedience. I wonder whether the relationship of individuals to authority is evolving in new forms that would require new understanding of society.  Is not the best authority being the authority one does not need to avail of? Is not the abusive use of authority  itself an act of violence? How can we be a ‘civil disobedient’ without causing violence to the other parties and ourselves?

An essay comparing Thoreau and Gandhi on the theme has retained my attention.

Civil Disobedience in Thoreau and Gandhi

Ashu Daftari*, Davis, USA

Henry David Thoreau’s classic essay, “Resistance to Civil Government” developed ideas that eventually became influential to thinkers and reformers of the twentieth century.  Thoreau’s tract not only serves as a social commentary on the governments’ support Of slavery and its participation in the Mexican War, but also as a treatise on the individuals’ relationship to government.  Much of Thoreau’s ideas are similar to the moral and political writings of Mohandas K. Gandhi.  Both writers advocated the superiority of the individual conscience and stressed the need for individuality.  Both writers not only conunented on the duty of the individual to lead a life of principle, but also argued for the right to resist an unjust authority.  However, it was Gandhi who adopted Thoreau’s ideas into a system that stressed political rebellion through individual self-suffering and bir non-violent means.

Throughout much of Thoreau’s essay, the idea of individual conscience accumulates into the centrepiece and foundation from which most of his ideas are built upon.  Thoreau often displays a distrust in the actions of a government based on majority rule.  Thoreau maintained that the majority have access to the most power “not because they are more likely to be in the right… but because they are physically the strongest”.  He further explains that government “in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice…… Essentially, the author’s inability to trust the actions of the majority rule further leads him to believe in conscientious superiority.  In the beginning of his treatise, he asks : “Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right or wrong, but conscience?”.  Thoreau, without leaving the question unanswered later remarks that ‘we should be men first, and subjects afterwards.  It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.  The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right”.  From this point of view, Thoreau maintains that the individual conscience inherits a morally superior characteristic than the government of the majoritv.  Thus, Thoreau establishes his entire political philosophy on the idea that the conscience is ultimately the most trustworthy criterion of what is politically accurate.

The ultimate consequence of Thoreau’s belief of the superiority of the individual conscience is its assertion for radical individualism.  Thoreau maintains that the individual relying on his selfconscience, rather than the majority, will attain a better understanding of moral truths.  Thus, “any man more right than his neighbours, constitute a majority of one already.” Thoreau also proclaims that the individual living by conscience will not only understand moral truths, but will also attain the ability to lead a “life by principle.” For Thoreau, this form of existence is the most ideal state of living.  Furthermore, it becomes an important step in rebellion against the State.  He states that action from principle creates a strong impact in political rebellion because it “not only divides states and churches, it divides families; aye, it divides the individual, separating the diabolical in him from the divine.” In this passage, Thoreau implies that an individual must be free thinking in order to develop his own ideas and understand clearly the unjust practices of the State.  Action from principle, as Thoreau maintains allows the individual to understand that to ‘ commit actions, supposedly against the State, based on fundamental principles would have a stronger impact on the values of society than any other form of resistance.  He maintains that action from principle would force society, as well as the individual, to re-examine its values and compare them to the moral truths.  Thus, action from principle becomes a powerful force in the process of civil disobedience.

In the various writings of Mohandas K. Gandhi, the idea of the importance of the individual conscience and its influence on a life stemming from principle is often similar to the viewpoint of Thoreau.  Gandhi, also had a distrust for the majority rule and believed in moral growth through the dependency of the individual conscience.  Like Thoreau, he also felt that this form of growth would lead to individualistic tendencies that would be morally beneficial for the individual and for society.  His distrust for the majority stemmed from the belief that the majority rules without conscience and without regard for the minorities.  By doing this, he believed that numerical strength savors of violence when it acts in total disregard of any strongly felt opinion of a minority” (quoted in Iyer, 142).  Thus, Gandhils vision of the State of majority rule is one that not only remains unsympathetic to the minority, but builds a foundation built on violence.  Because of Gandhi’s belief in the non-violent State as the ideal, he ultimately rejects the notion of the majority rule.

Like Thoreau, Gandhi also believed that conscience living would eventually lead to a life of action from of principle he also stressed the importance of individualism in order for the process of spiritual and moral growth to occur.  However, Gandhi distrusted the more radical form of individualism that separated the person completely from society.  In 1939, he stated “Unrestricted individualism is the law of the beast of the jungle.  We have leamt to strike the mean between individual freedom and social restraint.  Willing submission to social restraint for the sake of well-being for the whole society, enriches both the individual and the society of which he is a member” (quoted in Iyer, 115).  For Gandhi, individualism meant the ability to place the conscience in a higher priority than the State and still remain an active member of society.  By combining “individual freedom” and “social restraint” the individual would attain the ability to influence the ethics of society within the confines of law and order.  Gandhi’s vision of individualism slightly differed from Thoreau who argued, in Walden, that “If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer.  Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.’ Thus, Tboreau’s idea of individualism sought an existence that could potentially disregard society completely, while Gandhi sought ‘ an individualism that simultaneously remained a morally responsible member of society.

From his essay, Thoreau implies that action from principle germinates into the beginning seeds of civil disobedience and later expands his argument in order to show its deeper significance in society.  He attempts to display how ideology should eventually transform into practical application.  As stated earlier, Thoreau believed in the superiority of the individual conscience over the rule of the majority.  He further states that if the individual’s morally conscience beliefs conflict with the beliefs and practices of the State, then that person must consider it a duty to disengage from the injustices committed by society.  He states the individual bears no responsibility in eradicating all the injustices of the State, but must “wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.” He further states that not only must the individual refuse his allegiance to the State, but must also “withdraw their support, both in person and property.” For Thoreau, the individual existing by conscience would attain the inability to conform to a inhumane society.  By the very act of living from principle, it would not allow a person to harmonise a conscientious life while being a member of an unjust State.  Thus, the individual must live according to his nature even if it means a complete removal of oneself from the State.  This idea becomes the central point in resisting the civil goverrunent.  In one particular passage, Thoreau states: “I know this well, that if one thousand, if one hundred … if ten honest men only-aye, if one honest man, in the State of Massachusetts, ceasing to hold slaves, were actually to withdraw from this copartnership, and be locked up in the county jail therefore, it should be the abolition of slavery in America.” Through this proclamation, Thoreau implies that the mass of individuals who practiced the right to disengage from society would not only resist the immorality of the State, but would coerce the reevaluating its ethical procedures and forcing them to reform.

In this matter of refusing allegiance to the State, Gandhi hardly differs from Thoreau’s convictions.  In his philosophical worldview, Gandhi also embodied a distrust for the State.  He viewed the State as a inhumane infrastructure of individuals that 11 represent violence in a concentrated and organised form.  The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its very existence” (quoted in Iyer, 254).  Gandhi, like Thoreau, implies that a State that exists as a “soulless machine” does not have the ability to exists as a moral and just institution.  In this case, he, like Thoreau, believes it to be the duty of the morally conscience individual to resist the corrupted authority.  In fact, he states that “an evil administration never deserves such allegiance.  Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil.  A good man will therefore, resist an evil system of administration … Disobedience of the laws of an evil state is, therefore, a duty” (quoted in lyer, 257).  In this system of thought, both men imply this form of resistance as the obligation of the conscience minded individual.

In general, both writers would agree that the moral violent manner and absorbed physical and spiritual individual disengaging from an unjust State would be an ideal form of civil disobedience.  Thoreau believed that this form of action would eventually influence the conscience of other individuals and ultimately lead them to disengage from society (Iyer, 268).  Gandhi, however, did not completely embrace Thoreau’s convictions and also felt such actions to be a limited form of resistance.  In 1931 he discussed Thoreau in an written essay and stated : “…Thoreau was not perhaps an out and out champion of nonviolence.  Probably, also, Thoreau limited his of statutory laws to the revenue laws, i.e., payment of taxes.  Whereas the term Civil Disobedience as practised in 1919 covered a breach of any statutory and unmoral law.  It signified the resister’s outlawry in a civil i.e., non-violent manner” (quoted in Iyer, 275).  Essentially, Gandhi felt that he was extending Thoreau’s ideas on civil disobedience.  He felt that the individual conscience ultimately influencing the conscience of mass individuals could lead to a violent rebellion against the State.  He also felt that this type of action was an appeal to reason.  Gandhi felt that reasoning to an individual conscience was sometimes ineffective because an “appeal to reason does not answer where prejudices are age-long.  ” ” (quoted in lyer, 289).  Thus, in order to embrace T’horeau’s ideas of disengaging from society without causing a violent resistance, Gandhi developed a system of civil disobedience, which he called Satyagraha.  In this system of resistance, Gandhi believed that the resister could reform individuals in an unjust State by undertaking a process of selfsuffering.  In 1932 he stated : “Suffering is the law of human beings … the penetration of the heart comes from suffering.  It opens the inner understanding of man” (quoted in Iyer, 287).  Gandhi felt that self-suffering would lead to a non-violent form of disobedience that would change the attitude of society by appealing to their emotions rather than reason.  In this system, Gandhi stressed a form of civil disobedience that would not violate the unmoral laws of that particular institution.  He believed that the individual that acted in a non-suffering without violence would be practicing the ideal form of civil disobedience.  Through the suffering of the resister, Gandhi argued, the individuals of society would realise the injustices of the State’s laws, thereby causing reform in an unanarchistic manner (Iyer, 276).

Comparatively, the philosophy of Thoreau and Gandhi to the relationship between the individual and  to the relationship between the individual and the State.  Both advocated individualistic free-thinking and the importance of individual conscience over the belief of a majority ruled State.  Both, also believed that conscience individuals could only prosper in a State that contained minimum intervention.  Gandhi’s vision of an ideal State was one where ‘everyone is his own ruler … In the ideal State, therefore, there is no political power because there is no State.  But the ideal is never fully realised in life” (quoted in lyer, 254).  Thus, his belief in a limited government very much coincides with Thoreau’s idea that “government is best which governs not at all.” However, the difference between the two writers falls mostly on emphasis.  In Thoreau’s case, he not only held the individual conscience as the highest test of truth, but also felt it “would culminate in conduct that would arouse and ppeal to the conscience of others” (Iyer, 268).  This form of arousal could lead to a state of anarchy and a violent form of resistance to a unjust authority, an idea that Thoreau does not deny in his essay.  Gandhi, however, felt that an individual following his own conscience could not be ‘dependent on social recognition” (Iyer, 268).  He envisioned a form of resistance that would not lead to violence and anarchy.  While Thoreau discussed the end and the means, Gandhi placed heavy emphasis on the means. While Thoreau discussed the rights of the individual to rebel against authority, Gandhi expressed the duty of individuals to reform an unjust authority while maintaining law and order.  Thus, through his political system, Gandhi was able to use Thoreau’s ideas in a non-violent manner.

Does the name Pacelli ring a bell to you? Pacelli brings back to me a horde of souvenirs of my childhood. I still can see in my mind’s eyes, up to now, the copies of Paris Match magazine clued to the wall of the class room in the attic of my primary school where I used to attend classes with Monsieur Laval. There was this picture of Pope Pius XII born Pacelli in company of the famous celebrities of the day and head of states. He was dressed up with his papal tiara and seated on his throne.

With great pomp and reverence, Monsieur Laval told us that the pope had passed away and we were given the details there of and procedures that had to be followed by the church for the election of the new pope. I must have been very impressed by his story as up to now I can relive this moment vividly and with very great details. The cardinals will be assembled in a conclave in Vatican to pray, to discuss, and vote for a new Pope. After each meeting, if no consensus was reached a dark smoke will be released from the chimney of the Vatican. White smoke would be released only if the new Pope was elected.

There are many reasons to my very special interest to the life of Pope Pius XII:

-Pope Pius XII was born on the same date as I did: 2^nd March;

-He was made Pope on the 2^nd March 1939;

-The Pope of my early childhood and post 2^nd world war reconstruction;

-He moved for the church to allow the moral use of family planning through the rhythm method;

-and was an energetic proponent of the theory of the Big Bang.

Pope Pius XII leadership of the Catholic Church during World War II and the Holocaust remains the subject of continued historical controversy. Before election to the papacy, Pacelli served as secretary of the Department of Extraordinary Ecclesiastical Affairs, papal nuncio and cardinal secretary of state, in which roles he worked to conclude treaties with European nations, most notably the Reichskonkordat with Germany. After World War II, he was a vocal supporter of lenient policies toward vanquished nations, including amnesty for war criminals. He also was a staunch opponent of communism.

Pius is one of few popes in recent history to exercise his papal infallibility by issuing an apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus, which defined ex cathedra the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. He also promulgated forty-six encyclicals, including Humani Generis, which is still relevant to the Church’s position on evolution. He also decisively eliminated the Italian majority in the College of Cardinals with the Grand Consistory in 1946. Most sedevacantists regard Pope Pius XII as the last true Pope to occupy the Holy See.

The unprecedented rate of change that we are experiencing today has resulted in making the future more uncertain. How will the entrepreneurs cope with this new situation? What skills will be needed?

‘The uncertain future we all face demands that executives develop the ability to listen, learn, and lead’ said Vincent P Barabba, Author of Meeting of the Minds: Creating the Market-Based Enterprise and more recently ‘Surviving Transformation’.

You will recall in the 70’s the most sought persons of the corporate world were IT technology wizards. After the burst of the internet bubble, the financiers took over the control of the corporate boards. The ‘Enron’ scandal pushed further the control of lawyers and financiers to have a strong hold on the world of business. The world business leaders are now backing the human aspects for growth of their enterprises. We are back to basic leadership skills.

I found that the 3L’s: Listening,Learning,Leading, coined by Vincent P Barabba to be a very worthwhile motto that all leaders, entrepreneurs or managers could be reminded of. More importantly, one has to be mindful of the sequence of the 3L’s. Listening is the first.

William E. Halal, professor of management at George Washington University, and author of ‘The New Management’, is of opinion that Leaders are above all great listeners. In an article he wrote towards the end of the 90’s, he insisted on the development of listening skills by managers to strive in this ever fast changing environment.

Here is an extract of the article which is today still pertinent and valid:

When visiting a major American corporation recently, I was privileged to witness a vivid demonstration of the leadership that is so badly needed today. Seated at a conference table were managers, labor leaders, suppliers, distributors, and officials from the local government. What was most striking is that the president of the company did not seem to be a particularly imposing person. He had no commanding presence, was clearly not a genius, and showed little charisma. How did he manage to pull this diverse group of big egos together into a harmonious team?

As the meeting progressed, it became clear that he saw his role as encouraging the talents of others, and so he rarely spoke himself but was more intent on asking people for their views. What was most remarkable is that he really listened. Unlike most leaders, this man was genuinely humble. He focused on understanding the reality of the situation. It was like a breath of fresh air! A leader who cares what people really think? Who wants to hear the messy truth? Who does not impose his solutions? Surely this was either a ruse or it didn’t work, I thought.

But it did work. It energized the meeting. People brought out their problems, their ideas, their doubts, their misunderstandings, and all the other hidden agendas we normally keep contained within us. The president simply asked an occasional question, made a few suggestions for their consideration, and tried to clarify what they were doing. Otherwise, the group controlled the meeting. Most importantly, the meeting affirmed that this was their organization. They were responsible for its success or failure, so they did whatever was needed to make it work.

Okay, this humble approach really works, but what about the leader, I worried. He was obviously not “in charge,” and in fact he seemed a bit uncomfortable at times. Little wonder when people would say harsh things to him, such as complain about some aspect of the company and criticize his behavior. Occasionally they even called him by his first name! How could he maintain his dignity and self-respect, much less the power needed to be effective?

Beneath this appearance of casual disregard was a deep sense of respect and affection. Not because this leader held the power of the president, but precisely for the opposite reason. He had voluntarily yielded his authority. The heart of this relationship was that the president was genuinely concerned about others, and he provided a subtle, supportive guidance that helped them find the way ahead. Ironically, by giving up his formal power, he was given far more real power as a “servant leader” rather than a boss. They would do things for him that no ordinary boss could even ask for.

A Key Principle

This highlights a key principle of leadership today: in a world of escalating complexity and empowered people, leaders must cultivate the art of helping others to share the responsibilities of management. But the price of their support is to relinquish that old sense of control while patiently listening to others for understanding.

The knowledge revolution is creating a world in which teams of skilled workers must manage complex business ventures, solve technical problems, and probe the boundaries of a global economy. Not only are economies becoming complex, a more educated knowledge worker is appearing, who is motivated by achievement, creativity, and control over the work.

A historic upheaval in power structures is underway. Jack Welch, CEO of General Electric, summed up the need: “In a world where we must have every good idea from every man and woman, we cannot afford management styles that suppress and intimidate.” This power shift comprises a peaceful revolution. Employees are gaining control over their time, have access to the financial records, determine how to perform their jobs, choose co-workers and suppliers, and even evaluate their superiors. Customers make new demands for quality and service. Major investors replace CEOs.

The problem is especially visible on the communication networks that are penetrating business. It is somewhat like the “flaming” that goes on over the Internet. One CEO convened an “electronic meeting” to spur open discussion, only to see top management attacked so viciously that he had to pull the plug.

Obviously, leaders will have to be far more skillful to direct this raw energy into productive directions. The most unsettling change is that they will have to shed their mask of authority to meet people directly, facing all the stinging criticism and outrageous demands that have been suppressed by authority. And employees will be equally unsettled at seeing that leaders are not demi-gods with all the answers but fallible humans; they will then have to assume the responsibilities that managers are being asked to relinquish. With both leaders and followers stripped of their old illusions, both may then settle in for the hard but realistic task of learning to work together.

Today’s leaders must facilitate a shared decision-making process by encouraging open discussion, clarifying issues and resolving conflicts, summarizing key themes, and drawing out a satisfactory conclusion. The most crucial requirement is to listen to understand the messy complexity of problems and the different ideas others hold about them.

The art of listening is seldom practiced because it is a demanding discipline. Most people feel chronically deprived of being heard in a way that fully appreciates their unique views and struggles. When some caring soul comes along to listen, the average troubled individual will so eagerly unburden themselves that the listener may have a hard time disengaging. If the leader gives up prior expectations and listens with a careful, receptive mind to capture subtle meanings, the most outlandish points can prove to be nuggets of good fortune.

For instance, there is no better way to confirm an argument than to be challenged by a strong objection, and then to turn that objection into support. If one can listen carefully and ask probing, honest questions, a resolution usually appears. The role of a wise leader is to nurture this greater truth and present it as a gift to his or her followers. The resulting sense of their gratitude and heightened trust can be palpable.

How little we understand the wisdom of traditional sayings, such as “The meek shall inherit the earth.” The very thought seems ludicrous in today’s high-stakes power games. But the real message is not that “weakness” will become widespread, but that a gentle, trusting humility is more realistic than self-pride for coping with a world that is too mysterious to comprehend. Rather than a sign of weakness, humility is a virtue of strong people who do not need to prove their might, so they are open to new understanding.

In a knowledge society, leaders will have to reverse what was once considered admirable. Rather than acting with bold determination and extending a brilliant vision to guide others, leaders must direct attention away from themselves to focus on their followers. They should certainly offer their own ideas. But if they can unite their vision with the many other visions also waiting to be realized, the resulting synthesis of views is invariably far richer and more powerful.

We are all creatures of belief, and we are usually trapped inside of our own heads by limited, outmoded beliefs. The first responsibility of leaders today is to understand that it is okay to admit we are ignorant. Let’s make the search for understanding not only acceptable but praiseworthy, and show the way by modeling this ability to learn through honest interaction.

If this painful exploration can be sustained through its twists and turns, a new clarity of awareness, or a “vision,” may be given us to guide the way ahead. Leadership must be nothing less than a creative process by which isolated souls can touch one another to set off sparks of insight, initiative, and social energy to cope with a far more demanding world. For all its pain and peril, coming to grips with unpleasant realities and with each other is essential to create the needed breakthroughs in awareness for managing a complex world.