There is currently much furore about the proposed building of a Mosque and Islamic Center two blocks from Ground Zero. The essential positions as best I can glean are as follows.

Those who feel the Mosque shouldn’t go up in that location are wielding signs saying things like, “You can build a Mosque at Ground Zero when we can build a Church in Mecca.” That’s of course palpably absurd. Why would citizens in the United States be barred from building a house of worship, contingent on an outbreak of tolerance in another country, over which they have no control? And who is this “you” and who are the “we”? If someone is a Muslim they don’t automatically become “you” surely. They may well be American citizens, i.e. “us”.

But more sanely there are those who say this is unnecessarily inflammatory and insensitive — why not build the Mosque and Islamic Center in another part of Manhattan? Why rub raw wounds or provoke unnecessary, even if somewhat misplaced, ire? If you’re not making a statement, surely this location wasn’t necessary.

On the other hand, there are two types of supporters. Those who defend the legal rights of those who are proposing this construction, and those who feel a statement of a very different kind needs to be made.

The legal side is clear. Those who rail against Mayor Bloomberg’s constitutional stance that the government cannot interfere with a lawful private group building a house of worship on private property, are really advocating a slippery slope. If mass appeal determines rights, rather than laws, we are all eventually undone. And hysteria against groups, Jews, Catholics, the innocent majority of Muslims in this country, is nothing to either have amnesia regarding, or to stoke anew today.

The other basis for support comes from those in the Muslim and interfaith circles who know that Osama Bin Laden and his murderous, bigoted, unholy thugs would like nothing better than to “hijack” the faith of a billion people and equate their savage barbarism with it. It is in no one’s best interests, whatever your theological beliefs or lack thereof, to allow them to succeed in this equation. Too few Muslim leaders have spoken courageously enough, clearly enough, about taking their faith back. If this Center becomes a symbol of healing, a way to promote true interfaith interaction, an alternative paradigm for the practice of Islam, the pain could be transcended, and we could potentially find hope among hatred’s debris. But if this is the case, those promoting this construction should make it, vociferously and unambiguously. That would be an effort worth joining.

Let me offer some unsolicited consulting counsel to both sides. To the detractors, beware that the same end of the pencil can erase things you hold dear as well. Paraphrasing something Thomas More once said, “I would give the Devil the benefit of the law, for my own sake.” Well these aren’t devils. These are people brought up in a faith that hopefully they hold dear, people who want better lives for their own children and families, just like anyone else. Defending their rights, even when unsavory to some of us, is the very nature of what makes a right. And for God’s sake and ours, let’s not make this about Islam. Simple statistics demonstrate that if just being  in this religion made people violent, then there would be a billion warriors. There aren’t, happily. There aren’t many Indian Muslim terrorists, or many Bengalis, or Singaporeans, or Sri Lankan Muslims on the front lines…it’s clearly about more than the faith.

On the other side, let’s tread softly. A desire to rehabilitate the perception of a faith precious to you, a desire to take a stand in creating a positively transformational dialogue (and we have to pray that’s what’s behind this) cannot be done with indifference to other people’s pain. Whether you feel others are inappropriately transferring their rightful loathing of the acts of the terrorists to a religion that is being unjustly abused and manipulated, the pain remains and has to be acknowledged on its own merits. And the sensitivities and the fears and yes, maybe a measure of paranoia, have to be outgrown, they cannot be bulldozed away.

It would be wonderful if in this clash of views, in this debate, we could accept we are facing a dilemma — a conflict between two rights, not between a right and a wrong. And if we could have the guts and humanity to ask for dialogue, if we could share our pain and our passion, reflectively and openly…we would potentially create a dynamic that could do real homage to heroes and victims here and elsewhere, and to all those who believe their values and their faiths call on them to ensure hatred and fear don’t have the last word.

I’ve taken a brief hiatus from posting — being inundated with guests, clients and the exhilarating billows of life.

We’re on the verge of the next trip: Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong, Mumbai, Dubai, London, Marseille.

I’ve waited 15 minutes for someone to call who missed a phone appointment last week and zealously promised to call this time. Last time the excuse proffered sounded reasonable — today I’m beginning to wonder if it’s pathological.

A key client asked me to help a colleague of his within their organization. He’s missed four confirmed, in the diary, phone appointments but continues to say he’s “very interested” in being helped. I’m beginning to wonder if he’s “very interested” in ticking a box that shows he made a requisite, even if token, effort.

A friend introduced me to a pal — foundering on various reefs in life. This externally successful over-achiever clearly had issues to grapple with — don’t we all? But his demons were quite visible — it seemed even to himself. He told me he didn’t like to dither and wanted to get started. I laid out a work plan. Deafening silence. Two weeks later he told my friend who had introduced us that he wanted a “few more clarifications” from me. How? Long distance mind reading? Responding to my email would have been a start. We spoke again, and he demonstrated he had only skimmed the details. No problem, I  was happy to walk him through it. He’s since disappeared once more…

I have to say this is less than 1% of the people I deal with — on purpose. I tend to move quickly on, and were it not for a close friend and a key client involved here, my forbearance wouldn’t have been nearly as forthcoming. That said, it makes for a fascinating case study.

Might it be that as NLP theorists suggested, we are made up of many “parts” — different psychological aspects with their own agendas, emotional lobbyists, paradigmatic blinkers and more? Could it be we are all Jekyll and Hyde to some extent? And might it be the part of us that gasps for help is over-ruled at times by other parts keen to perpetuate current plateaus?

It could indeed. And this then begs the question, are we just the sum of our parts, or is there a core “us” that can assert itself?

There is a core, the unifying wick emerges from the purposes that coalesce from our medley of appetites, values, impulses, ideas, desires and commitments. And from these in turn are generated, life priorities. And if the priority is strong enough, we can silence our inner nay-sayers.

We won’t become impeccable in execution, follow up, follow through and more overnight necessarily. But we will palpably advance as Thoreau said “in the direction of our dreams”. If we can’t continue taking steps to be and become more than our past, we’re sunk and we’re pretty much done.

So then we have to become fans of progress, of movement, of ways to outgrow parts of us that are really the detritus of past pain. Eventually we have to give up the fantasy that we can somehow manufacture a happier past. The only way to make the past any happier is move beyond its negative delusions — the ones we’ve been towing around since then — and choose better resources to take forward instead.

So pick an area where you’re stuck and tune in to the competing passions at play. Identify your largest priority and find it’s hook up to a key purpose in your life. Then advance boldly in that direction. If you fail, fail forward and keep moving. As Churchill said, “If you’re going through hell, keep going.”

And at least be impeccable in the small things that add up to larger things. Be responsive, keep appointments, beat deadlines, show up a little early, leave doubt at the door and engage creatively and courageously in key situations, tell these wailing parts you’ve heard them but can’t afford to indulge them any more.

Harmonize who you are through the actions you consistently take and the types of things you vivify by  taking daily aim at. Treat mistakes as detours not demos. Intention prevails, when we believe it is the greater truth about us than our doubts.

So, leave behind the excuses…or better yet, learn from them and use them as catalysts.

In other words…LEAD!

Organizations abound with teams. And no other area of organizational life, or shall we say recurring corporate chagrin, gets nearly as much attention in the literature as teams: functioning, malfunctioning, well formed, deformed, performance-enhancing or productivity-depleting.

A critical insight honored more in the breach than in the observance is that a collection of people is not by itself a “team”. A committee is not a team. An amalgam of individuals reporting to the same leader is not a team. It’s a team if they have to deliver something together, something impossible to deliver without some collaboration, cooperation and interaction. And if that performance merits it, then, and only then, should a team be formed, built, developed and sustained.

Sometimes groups act destructively and the solution to the problem is touted as “team building”. It’s not. What they need is perhaps communication coaching, perhaps they need to be held accountable for acts inimical to the goals of others. Perhaps they have to learn to challenge constructively. Perhaps a culture of one-upsmanship has to be dethroned. A team however does not necessarily have to be built.

When a team IS needed, we have to clarify what they are to do, and what they are accountable for.  Members then need to understand the degree of cooperation, consultation and co-creation required. I hasten to add, the political realities of most companies, and the intrinsic nature of innovation no less, argue for a measure of consultation and co-creation (in the sense of gathering early feedback re solutions we are prototyping or testing) regardless of whether a full-fledged team is needed.  But while this is wise anyway, relative to teams it has to be mandated. A team has, by definition, collective responsibility.

If indeed a team is needed, then teams have to be adept at two things. First, helping individuals deliver their contribution to the team. In other words, the team can’t succeed if the individuals that make up the team, don’t. And the quicker everyone is made to understand this palpably and incontestably, the better. Secondly, they have to learn how to interact effectively together to solve problems, or to execute decisions, or whatever the work is they have been assembled to deliver. A team can be helpful but inept. Or a team can be effective but siphon off unnecessary energy, time, goodwill and more.

Teams therefore need to provide real-time feedback to members and to the team as a whole. This can only be delivered with a true helping orientation and a true performance commitment. When these are there, we will inquire first and conclude second, invite first and challenge second, explore first and prescribe second. Teams can’t leave performance up in the air, it has to be non-negotiable. Teams have to challenge each  member for their best, individually and collectively. But teams have to do this in the spirit of encouragement and possibility, not cross-examination and undermining. Teams by definition are committed to the success of each member as well as the team at large.

Make sure therefore that we deploy teams only when we need to. And then, let’s make sure teams deliver both mutual helpfulness and grow in effectiveness to perform key tasks of strategic value to the organization. Anyone who impedes that has to be tackled. Teams that fail in this, can’t be allowed to malinger. They must be re-engineered, reformed, or dismantled and replaced. Teams that show these twin propensities, deserve all the coaching and development and support — not to mention the kudos — we can offer.

Teams in short have to provide a multiplier to individual talent. This is hard, onerous work. The only impetus powerful enough to drive this forward is real strategic work that needs doing, which commands the best of our best, and can’t be done without people operating AND cooperating with excellence…delivering consistently in concert.

Roger Cohen in the New York Times pined nostalgically for a time when elegant stylistic forays and purple passages were abundant. It wasn’t that long ago.

The character E.K. Hornbeck (meant to represent H.L. Mencken) in the play INHERIT THE WIND, said so wonderfully: “I do lovable things for which people hate me,  and hateful things for which they love me. I am the friend of enemies and the enemy of friends. I am both poles and the Equator, with no temperate zones in between.”  Once upon a time, a scant few decades ago, the theater going public not only could imbibe the nuances of such word play as they heard these sentences being uttered, they rejoiced in it too.

Even in reaction to sentences laden with too much excess and embroidery, Mark Twain could cause us a twitter (in a more venerable sense of the word) by enjoining us to “Eschew surplusage.”  What made that of course so amusing is that he used the very thing which he was advising us to “eschew”. But then Twain could do that so artfully precisely because he was such a master of the language.

Professionals take heed, global consultants in particular beware. Facility with language, albeit perhaps less vintage language — the ability to make points crisply yes, but compellingly as well, is a critical way to differentiate our value, to project our ideas, to broadcast our brand.

When companies write such tortured English as “deploy our intellectual capital and proprietary technologies synergistically across geographies and value domains to achieve competitive advantage” or outright sap like “we will win through empowering our people, serving our customers and teamwork” there is good reason to be bullish. If you can simplify prose and vivify it at the same time, you’ll find yourself without much by way of competition in this regard.

You might disagree, pointing to the fact that some poets even have opted to be grammatically dubious like E.E. Cummings. But remember,  the impact he achieved while doing so, came from his deep knowledge of and deft touch with the language…it was a deliberate “pattern interrupt” not someone ignorantly careening through the language.

Thoughts worth sharing are a precondition to adding value. But then being able to convey them in a way that lands with your chosen audience is almost as critical. In this age of anodyne inanities and bloviating braggadocio, anyone who thinks clearly, communicates clearly and perhaps memorably, will find themselves with an enormous advantage, globally and even locally. There’s no reason you shouldn’t join their ranks.

Immerse yourself in the speeches, the writing, of masters of the language, and you’ll get ever more attuned to the cadences and rhythms of language, and the luminous potential of the right words employed at the right time.

A wonderful example of this was a writer who suggested that since we are unable to predict so much of what happens, including our prosperity when it comes, then when we encounter good fortune, the only fitting response is not skyrocketing self-regard, but grateful service.

Language is an extraordinary gift. Why not respond to it with grateful study and put that gift to use in valuable service of your clients, colleagues, family and friends?