© Copyright 1995-2023 Brahma Kumaris
World Spiritual University
I recently came across a story with Oriental origins that offered some insight into what makes for an excellent leader of an organisation. Before you click to another page saying ‘this doesn’t apply to me, then read on!
The CEO of a large international organisation was looking for an able and wise person who would take over the running of the business after he had retired. He earmarked the best managers from his own company and hired recruitment consultants and head-hunters to find him additional ones who might fulfil the required criteria.
On a particular day, all the possible contenders were assembled in the vault of the bank with which the organisation did business. The CEO addressed the assembly stating that he wished to set them a task to identify which among them had the necessary skills, acumen and wherewithal to play the role of guiding the company in the future. Indicating the huge vault door behind him, he invited the assembled individuals to open it, unassisted.
Some of the managers just shook their heads and withdrew. Others examined the door more closely, cited theories of problem-solving learned in business school, discussed aspects of leverage and mass but ultimately admitted that it was an impossible task.
However, one manager approached the door and gave it a thorough examination. He tapped it while listening carefully, assessed its dimensions and noted the hinges and their lubrication before applying his weight to the door. The door didn’t move. Once again he examined the door, its frame and the space around the door. There, trapped between the door and the floor, was a tiny piece of grit which was just enough to prevent the precision-made door from opening. Once removed, the door, despite its huge size and mass opened effortlessly.
The CEO had his successor.
Addressing those in the vault, the CEO said, “Success in industry depends on certain key things which you have just seen demonstrated! Firstly, rely on your senses to fully understand the reality of what is going on around you. Second, do not make false assumptions. Third, be willing to make tough decisions. Fourth, have the courage to act with boldness and conviction. Fifth, put your powers into action. Finally, do not be afraid to make mistakes.
If these are the keys to success as a captain of industry, then it begs the question as to how many people working with offenders also have the capacity to become CEO’s of an international organisation?
Troy Davis was at the centre of an international controversy this week as he was the latest person to be executed in the US state of Texas. But why the controversy - or perhaps that should be, why more so than usual?
For the past 22 years, Troy Davis has been vigorously protesting his innocence, a protestation that continued right up to the point of execution. The US Supreme Court had rejected his final request for a stay of execution just half an hour earlier; to the family of the victim, who were in the viewing gallery to the execution chamber, he said, “I am not the one who took the life of your father, brother, son.”
The death penalty remains controversial and hopefully always will for the duration of its existance!
Davis was originally found guilty of shooting an off-duty policeman. However, since then, the case has been reexamined an number of times, most recently after witnesses withdrew their statements.
There was no physical evidence against Davis, and some witnesses now say they were coerced by police. Such withdrawals of testimony were a contributing factor in the generation of a petition calling for Davis to be spared, citing grave doubts over his guilt. More than a million people had signed the petition.
It would appear that in the US, to overturn the decision of the court, the ‘offender’ has to show innocence in the light of any new evidence by applying a rule whereby they have to ‘establish that no reasonable juror would have convicted them.' As such, this ruling is a 180° turnaround from the rule of law applied at the time of trial i.e. that of proving guilt, not innocence. Davis was unable to do this.
However, because of his inability to establish his innocence doesn’t mean he was proven guilty. That said, observers and commentators of the case suggest that, in all probability he was a guilt man.
Davis was strapped to a gurney, injected with a lethal cocktail of drugs and 15 minutes later pronounced dead. His execution took place because he probably was guilty! I’m sorry, when it’s the matter of a man’s life, probably isn’t good enough for me! Yet, often, ‘probably’ is the best that can be said about the guilt of those killed by the state.
Almost as a tailpiece to this story, at a recent political debate, the Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, when asked about his record of 234 executions that he had sanctioned during his term of office, said, “I’ve never struggled with that.”
Perhaps Gov. Perry hasn’t struggled with that but I would sincerely hope that he is in a significant minority with such views.
Following along the lines of the recent theme – our use of language - these funny quotes are allegedly real extracts from courtrooms. In each case the questions are from lawyers or barristers; the answers are from witnesses appearing in the witness box.
These anecdotes are amusing examples of language barriers and verbal confusions, and also examples of the communications misunderstandings which can occur between two people from different ‘worlds’, approaching a subject from different perspectives. The quotes are funny in themselves but also illustrate the importance of good communicating, listening and understanding skills.
The point is: when we want information, we must ask questions which convey meaning that is appropriate for the listener, not just the speaker. The quality of my communication reflects the quality of my relationships.
1. Probing Questions that Bring Clarity to a Case!
Q: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
A: Yes.
Q: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
A: I forget.
Q: You forget! Can you give us an example of something that you've forgotten?
--------------------------------------------
Q: So the date of baby's conception was August 8th?
A: Yes.
Q: And what were you doing at that time?
-----------------------------------------
Q: How was your first marriage terminated?
A: By death.
Q: And by whose death was it terminated?
-------------------------------------------
Q: Can you describe the individual?
A: He was about medium height and had a beard.
Q: Was this a male, or a female?
----------------------------------------
Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
2. So That Cleared That Up!
Q: Did you kill the victim?
A: No, I did not.
Q: Do you know what the penalties are for perjury?
A: Yes, I do. And they're a hell of a lot better than the penalty for murder.
-----------------------------------------
By the Court Clerk: Please repeat after me, "I swear by Almighty God ..."
By the Witness: I swear by Almighty God.
Clerk: That the evidence that I give ...
Witness: That's right.
Clerk: Repeat it.
Witness: Repeat it.
Clerk: No! Repeat what I said.
Witness: What you said when?
Clerk: That the evidence that I give ...
Witness: That the evidence that I give.
Clerk: Shall be the truth and ...
Witness: It will, and nothing but the truth!
Clerk: Please. Just repeat after me, "Shall be the truth and ..."
Witness: I'm not a scholar, you know.
Clerk: We can appreciate that. Just repeat after me, "Shall be the truth and ..."
Witness: Shall be the truth and.
Clerk: Say, "Nothing ..."
Witness: Okay. [Witness remains silent]
Clerk: No! Don't say nothing. Say, "Nothing but the truth ..."
Witness: Yes.
Clerk: Can't you say, "Nothing but the truth ...?"
Witness: Yes.
|
|
|
Clerk: Well? ... Do so.
Witness: You're confusing me.
Clerk: Just say, "Nothing but the truth ..."
Witness: Is that all?
Clerk: Yes.
Witness: Okay. I understand.
Clerk: Then say it.
Witness: What?
Clerk: "Nothing but the truth ..."
Witness: But I do! That's just it.
Clerk: You must say, "Nothing but the truth ..."
Witness: I will say nothing but the truth!
Clerk: Please, just repeat these four words "Nothing," "But," "The" "Truth."
Witness: What? You mean, like, now?
Clerk: Yes! Now. Please. Just say those four words.
Witness: "Nothing. But. The. Truth"
Clerk: Thank you.
Witness: I'm just not a scholar you know.
I recently read that Lemos & Crane is working with the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities, with support from The Esmée Fairbairn Foundation, on a three-year project looking at harassment of people with learning disabilities.
A range of organisations have been invited to take part in the action research and to describe the nature and extent of harassment of people with learning disabilities that they are aware of. Their responses indicate disturbingly common expressions of harassment. These include:
• Verbal abuse and imitative behaviour intended to humiliate, with schoolchildren often being the perpetrators.
• Shopkeepers and staff losing patience and abusing people with learning disability who they perceive to be rude.
• People with learning disabilities being approached and ‘befriended’ for financial exploitation (stealing benefit money, for example).
All of this is, without doubt, profoundly disturbing to the person on the receiving end of such harassment. However, there are many individuals for whom it is not readily recognisable that they have a learning disability. Some time ago, I encountered such a person within a seminar that I was running.
After having outlined what was required for a particular group exercise, one lady approached me and told me that she was unsure what was required of her, explaining that she had a learning disability. Once again, I gently reiterated the instructions. She again affirmed to me that she had a learning disability and how she would struggle.
Patiently, I once more walked her slowly through what was being asked of the groups, asking her to indicate where she was unsure of what was required of her. Given the one-to-one attention, it was clear that she had, in fact, understood clearly what was being asked of her but her self respect had caused her to doubt it. She thanked me for the clarification, again drawing attention to the disability and then proceeded to engaged with the group satisfactorily.
Reflecting on the situation, it appeared to me, that this lady was conditioned to expect not to understand such instructions because she had ‘a learning disability!’ Yes, of course, there would be times when she would need special guidance and attention. That would be part of her needs at various times.
However, language is a powerful tool and, used in the wrong way, can be detrimental to the vision we hold of ourselves. This lady saw herself as someone who was dis-abled, un-able, who had a dis-ability and it was negatively influencing her sense of self-respect. Imagine if we were to change the language so that she was described as ‘someone who has specific or special learning requirements.’ It carries a very different feel to that of being referred to as one with ‘a learning disability.’ Put yourself in her shoes for a minute…….
More than 1.5 million people in the UK have a learning disability. Should we start a campaign to change the descriptor towards a more positive vocabulary and maybe contribute, to whatever extent, in positively effecting self esteem?
© Copyright 1995-2023 Brahma Kumaris
World Spiritual University