E-M8 Entrepreneurial Management for Eternal Mission

The statement that we should be skeptical toward facts since most people view scientific theories as facts and theories are often later proven inaccurate, combines in it a few imperfect assuptions to arrive at an innacurate conclusion.

First, just because many or most people do something, it does not make it right. Second, when a theory is refined upon, it does not always mean that it was wrong; it may be inaccurate only in the degree in which it defines the world.

Scientific theories are not facts, even if majority of people consider them in that way. We can easily make distinction between fact and theory in that facts can be measured, counted or recorded; whereas theories are the proposed explanations of what happened or will happen. For example, in biology, we can observe variety of species, but we cannot with 100% certainty attribute that variety to evolution.

At the same time, while theories are not facts, theories are useful in a number of ways. Theories are good approximations or models of what is really happening and can give us a level of insight in to the events in question. They can aid our decision-making up to a point where we must improve upon existing theories before we can make better decisions.

Thus, being skeptical with regard to theories can be useful, but only if the goal of that skepticism is to identify a better theory or refine the existing one. Otherwise, skepticism for the sake of skepticism will add little value.

Greatness of a leader is assessed by condisering how well each particular leader has been able to withstand the challenges with which that leader has faced. So, on the one hand, the challenges that a political leader faces are critical in measuring their greatness, but on the other, it is overcoming of the challenges that is the measure of perceived greatness of a leader.

As we consider American history, the presidents that stand out are war time presidents: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt. Yet there are a number of other war time presidents, typically ones that did not handle the challenge in quite as dramatic of a way, that are not particularly well known. This is true of world history as well, in Rome or in China or anywhere else, it is victorious leaders that capture the attention of the public.

But what about a leader like Kennedy, whom, in spite of wars that transpired while he was in charge, we would not consider a war-time president. He faced relatively few crisises, the biggest one largely being of his own creation, but even before JFK was elected president and had an opportunity to face the challenges of worldwide signifcance everyone could agree that he was a great leader. Certainly, his assasination has influenced his legacy, but even when he was only rising to power, people would readily acknowledge that he had an ability to inspire that only great leaders possess.

As we look at other American presidents we can see something else, amazing leaders did not typically have a challenge accedently thrust upon them, instead they rose to the challenge. Washington gained his reputation because he has successfully overcome challenges on the field of battle. Lincoln, in a way, caused Civil War, by refusing to compromise on a number of issues that many presidents prior to him compromised on regularly. FDR sought power in the midst of one of the worst economic crisises in the history of the modern world. It is as though, each of them sought out a challenge that would make them shine and overcame it in a way that really highlighted their ability to lead and inspire.

Many other leaders faced a challenge and chose to avoid it, ignore it, compromise with it, or have failed to resolve it in a way that was satisfactory. Majority of those leaders, in spite of having an opportunity to prove themselves, are virtually unknown today.

There is also another kind of leadership, one of building small but sustainable solutions consistently. It lacks the pizzazz of Roosevelt or Kenedy, but often has more long term impact. It is a leadership that is not often perceived as leadership though, so it may not matter with regard to the statement in question. Outside factors such as challenges that a particular political leader faces do matter, but it appears that they only extenuate the leadership qualities of truly amazing leaders. Perceived greatness of a political leader, thus, is while influenced by the challenges that a particular leader faced, is even more influenced by the leader’s ability to cope with those challenges.

High expectations of others impact behavior, though not always translating to high performance and respect. There are a number of variables to consider that can influence the response. Different people may be motivated differently: some people are motivated by external expectations, while others are only motivated by their own expectations; for some people, the plank can be set with expectations alone, while others will adjust the plank based on the performance of the peers and of the person who sets the expectiation. For example, in my teaching practice I noticed that in some classes, high expectations produced excellent performance by few, with the rest remaining apathetic; in other classes, high expectations caused the whole class to shape up, with people challenging themselves as they saw their peers trying harder; in yet other classes, high expectations resulted in many students giving up, throwing in the towel, and dropping out. For some students high expectations really challenged them, while for others outside expectations made little difference. For some students, high expectations were perceived as an insurmountable challenge.

Expectations, apart from enablement will not produce results. Regardless of one person expecting the other to jump twenty feet, unless they are on a moon, it is not going to happen. Thus, expectations alone are not enough. However, pairing expectations with resources, training and an incremental path to get to the goal, can and often does produce excellent results.

Expectations in word, but not in action, even with enablement may not work, though. If a trainer is coaching an athlete to run for two hours a day, yet does not get up off the chair, it would be surprising for the athlete to take such a trainer seriously. An average person, for example, will be leary of fitness instructors who are not fit.

Gaining someone’s respect has even less to do with high expectations for others, but rather it has to do with personal achievement, contribution toward achievement of others, and the attitude of people in question. Some people will not show respect under majority of circumstances, while others are eager to respect anyone who demonstrates some level of respectability, yet others often respect someone more because of their role or title than because of who they are. In either case, high expectations toward others will not directly translate in to respect.

On the other hand, contributions toward the growth and development, as well as, high expectations toward self, may translate in to qualities that are respected.

High expectations toward others are only one of the factors that impact performance and respect, but in a way that is more complex than can be expressed with one short statement. The results will vary based on the person setting expectations, interpreting expectations, and context in which expectations are communicated.

The idea of US Government  paying tuition for anyone who would like to go to university or college, while it may sound very appealing, has the possibility of producing a number of negative consequences if it is not implemented correctly. Like in anything else, the devil is in the details. While we can point to countries like Netherlands and show how government paid tuition has been a boon to their economy, producing a growing high technology environment with highly content, highly compensated citizens, applying the concept without thinking through the details may achieve highly negative results.

So, what could go wrong?

Since we would be removing the market and substituting government for allocation of college seats, either overproduction or underproduction that would not be self-correcting in the short run will likely occur. Currently, there is already a tendency to overproduce some majors and underproduce others. In the environment where anyone could just keep going to college, we may get lots of people who while having lots of education are still not very employable. On the other hand, ability to subsidize targeted programs, like rural medical practitioners would be diminished.

If private, particularly for-profit colleges can get in on the act, they are likely to accept anyone, without regard for their qualifications and push them through the system. So, colleges get paid, people who are not qualified to get a degree get a degree, and very little learning happens in the process. This is already happening with American Army money that is being piped in to those colleges. On the other hand, if we restrict this system to Government schools, we create a tremendous encouragement for cheating and corruption by concentrating power in few hands, that are not transparent and corrupt. This is what is happening en masse in Russia, India and China.

While a small country like Netherlands can afford to overproduce PhDs, since they can take care of more entry level work by allowing some migration from outside, United States already has a shortage of people with trade and Associate degree level technical skills, while producing a lot of graduates with bachelor degree that are underemployed. Making education free, would only encourage the trend of overeducation.

Final challenge to this idea is from a libertarian point of view: Why should we all be taxed, to pay for one’s tuition? After all, what if I build a successful business without going to college? What if I feel that colleges are deplorable institutions that do not aid learning, why should I be forced to subsidize them? After all, there is a fair amount of evidence that people who have not attended college, but have gained similar learning through hands on activities, self study or by virtue of apprenticing in a work environment should be penalized and people who learned in a classroom rewarded. There is no evidence that classroom learning is in any way better, and for many people it is the least effective way of learning and developing practical skills. Canada, for example, has done a tremendous job of creating a system of learning that allows one to bypass traditional college route.

So, while there is a tremendous evidence that people with four years or more of post secondary education tend to earn more and pay more than adequate taxes premium to in the long term cover the costs of subsidizing their tuition, paying completely for anyone’s education is going too far. A much better approach if we choose to subsidize college at all, is to pay for majors that are needed, create work-study programs, commit people to performing social service upon graduation, create loan programs that enable people to go to school, yet put responsibility for the quality of their learning and their future incomes on them. Alternative paths to traditional college education, should receive similar subsidies, so that a person who commits to self study but can pass the same assessments as a person who completed college, should not be penalized for choosing not to go the college route. Quality standards have to also be transparently implemented to insure that people are actually getting what the government is paying for.

In short, while subsidizing everyone’s tuition may sound initially appealing, this is not a simple issue and therefore, it needs extensive analysis before implementation.

Just as we were ready to head down the path, leading us out of the village, Niko chased us down and said: “My dad want to speak with you.” He ran up to my dad and catching his breath repeated: “My dad wants to speak to you.” We stood and we stared at each other for a while. Maybe it was the begging look in Niko’s eyes but my dad set the cart down and turned to walk back toward the village. We set down our bags and walked behind him. Niko ran past us to go get his dad.

His dad must have walked out to meet us, because we saw him only 300 feet back on the path. He took my dad’s shoulder as he spoke. “You defied me. That is not OK. I have no idea what that Nano did with your daughter and what to expect from whatever it is standing back there.” – he pointed at me – “But I am a dad, too. I can understand why you did what you did. Besides, if that Nano wanted to harm us, he would likely have done it already. That’s what my son argued anyways. My son, he is too wise for his years. But I am wise too. I listen when I hear insight, even when it comes from lips of a child. He is right, you know, my son that is.

You have set out on the long journey, yet it is night outside. With no where to go, and no time to pack, you will surely perish, or be embittered against us. We have taken you in as one of our own and have been better off for it.

So, I have a dilemma. I don’t want you to go, my friend. And it is my son, not you who should be punished for bringing a Nano so close to our village. Yet, that thing behind you” – he pointed at me again – “she could not be your daughter. Your daughter was too badly wounded to recover so quickly.

I will tell you what I will do. Keep her in your yard, without leaving her home. Keep her from any of the people in the village. I will arrange for someone to come and take her to the Nanos. But you, you come back to your home. Where else will you go with two weeks till winter?”

My dad was about to scoff at this offer, but he caught a glimpse in my mother’s eyes, and he loved her too much to put her in danger of mountainous winter. After all, like chieftain said, it was already May, beginning of winter in southern hemisphere.