COVID Misinformation and Absence of Facts Fuels Herd Mentality

Recent debates and disagreements with close friends and family about the COVID19 pandemic have indicated a couple of things to me. First, I have not been effective in the way I presented my arguments, and second, many people have neither the time nor interest in seeking scientific facts. So here’s an attempt to remedy both. It’s important to remember that for issues/challenges where scientific data and research are available, our individual opinions are irrelevant. Unless we can disprove the existing science, what we think or feel holds no weight. We’re entitled to our own opinions; not to or own facts.

This is a short summary of  why I believe the failed policies of economic shut-down and blanket isolation mandates represent a gross mishandling of the virus, and consequently, serious infringement of human rights. The following are pertinent facts I’ve located, and also a few important questions left unanswered by governments, health authorities and the media in most countries.

Important COVID-19 Facts

  • Most importantly: whenever faced with any type of problem, any leaders’ responsibility is to a) gather as much factual data as is available, b) determine the true risks associated with the problem, c) decide and effect a response commensurate to mitigate that risk

 

  • COVID19 is not anywhere near as risky to human health and life as were SARS, MERS, and certainly not a virus like Ebola.

 

  • Per that logic, most governments have attempted to kill a mosquito with a bazooka, and the unanticipated peripheral damage has been significant

 

  • Media continue to only report confirmed cases, and sometimes nominal deaths, and rarely even the Case Fatality Rate (CFR), which regardless is the least reliable indicator of true death experience. It greatly overestimates the true death rate. But sensationalism sells more media.

 

  • What we should be tracking and hearing about daily is the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR), as that gives a more accurate picture of risk of death. ““Now, numerous studies — using a range of methods — estimate that in many countries some 5 to 10 people will die for every 1,000 people with COVID-19. “The studies I have any faith in are tending to converge around 0.5–1%,” says Russell.” Nature  https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01738-2

 

  • The governments, health agencies and mainstream media (MSM) continually broad-brush the death statistic, implying there is an equal death risk distribution across all age groups. This is blatantly false. Data from many studies (see below) clearly show that the most severely ‘at-risk’ population globally is that of seniors, most of whom have medical pre-conditions. Yet that is exactly the population whom our governments have completely failed to protect, while instead severely impeding the rights and freedoms of the majority, who face minimal risk of death.

 

  • One of the first and worst hit countries is Italy, with early available data that most other countries ignored. Why has the MSM and government messaging failed to tell us that the extremely high death rate in Italy can be attributed to a high relative percentage of seniors in their population (at 22%, the oldest country in Europe) and that 96.43% of their tragic 35,000+ deaths were of people 60 years of age and older, with 77% between 70 and 90? (Scroll half way down the Euronews link below for the Italy COVID-19 death rate by age distribution chart.)

“In 2019, Italy was the European country with the largest percentage of elderly population. That year, 22.8 percent of the total population was aged 65 years and older.”

https://www.statista.com/statistics/785104/elderly-population-in-italy/#:~:text=The%20oldest%20country%20in%20Europe,aged%2065%20years%20and%20older.

 

https://www.euronews.com/2020/07/22/covid-19-coronavirus-breakdown-of-deaths-and-infections-worldwide

  • Far from using the Italian data to focus on those most vulnerable seniors, other governments decided to treat the virus as equally dangerous for everyone. They could easily have educated the public of the danger to seniors, devoted huge financial, equipment and staffing resources to that sector, isolated them with care and comfort, protecting them until a very low risk herd immunity in the general public was achieved. But they did the opposite, ignoring that segment until it was too late for many of them. In New York, Governor Cuomo passed a by-law that actually caused the deaths of many seniors, only to back-pedal and reverse it when he realized the damage it caused. https://nypost.com/2020/05/12/calls-for-independent-probe-of-gov-cuomos-nursing-home-policies/

 

  • Globally, testing continues at differing rates in different countries. Testing is the key to defining the correct denominator in the IFR, because it identifies all categories of confirmed cases, asymptomatic people, those with viral anti-bodies (e.g. they had the disease and overcame it naturally), and those who did not catch it. In other words, a truer picture of the actual spread and fatality of the virus. Estimates now indicate that number could be as high as 80% of the population.

“At least 15,007,291 total cases were recorded, with 617,603 deaths and 8,351,373 people reported to have recovered from the disease. The number of reported infections reflects only a fraction of the actual number of cases, as many countries are using tests only for tracing purposes or do not have sufficient resources to conduct extensive testing campaigns.”  EuroNews July 23,2020

Using the above global numbers of July 23, the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) would be 617,603/15,007,291 or 0.041 or 4.1%. If the 80% infection rate (IFR) estimate is accurate, the denominator grows to .80 X 7,700,000,000 (global population), or 6,160,000,000. Dividing 617,603/6,160,000,000 gives a death ratio of 0.0001, or 0.01% (one hundredth of one percent). Does this or any number close to it justify the egregious response of global governments shutting down the economy and forcing long-term isolation of the majority of society for whom the true risk of death or serious illness is extremely low?

In summary, I am not dismissing or belittling the deaths of those whose lives COVID-19 has claimed. When I take my 86-year-old uncle to the hospital for a check up. I follow the full rigorous protocol to minimize his risk. I am saying that our governments, for various reasons including incompetence, ignorance, and possible conflicts of interest, have completely overblown and mismanaged this crisis, actually causing more deaths among the seniors population than were inevitable, and that we have been misled by them, health agencies like WHO, CDC and NIAID, and the mainstream media as to the true facts, perhaps to deflect attention away from the mismanagement.

While my research indicates there may be more nefarious reasons at play (follow the money), at this stage it is only my opinion, and I won’t burden you with that unless and until I have facts to validate it. If you choose to respond to this, please only direct me to other facts I may have overlooked. In these matters where scientific facts are available, opinions, including mine are meaningless.

After writing this article, I stumbled upon this interview of two veteran Oxford epidemiologists, who review the very same science, challenges, and policy failure I’ve alluded to above. So perhaps listen to their explanations if mine does not suffice. If 45 minutes is too long, please at least consider the last 6-7 minutes about effective policy going forward.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3plSbCbkSA&t=1631s

Important Unanswered Questions to Ponder

  • Why, 7 months into this pandemic, with plenty of actual data available, are we still hearing about only the confirmed Cases, with deaths and death rates only sometimes mentioned as an afterthought? Why no mention of the data shown here?
  • Why is there no reporting on “excess deaths” (e.g. those above the normally experienced pre-COVID deaths from annual viruses)?
  • Why have some countries (e.g. Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea) managed to contain the virus without shutting down their economies, and in some, without mandatory social distancing? They’re living proof that effectively managing the virus was possible without the sledge-hammer approach of many governments.
  • Why do we not regularly receive updated data on the cases and death rates by age group? For the IFR? If I was able to provide it, why not governments, Health agencies, MSM?
  • Why do we hear nothing about the peripheral damage the shutdown is causing: rising suicide rates, anxiety, stress, potential trauma to young children, bankruptcies, evictions, financial-related stress. Who is measuring this damage, especially to children, as a comparative to the risk of COVID damage, to guide future policy?
  • Why, if masks are truly effective, do those who choose not to wear one, pose a health risk to those who do wear one? Does the mask work or not?
  • Why, after 7 months and a proliferation of scientific COVID-19 White papers, do we still not know whether the virus was lab created? Yes, it makes a big difference.
  • Why are the budgets of supposed regulatory agencies like the CDC, FDA and NIH in the US funded up to 50% by the very pharma companies they’re charged with regulating?
  • Why do each of those agencies have financial interest through patents and royalty arrangements in any developed vaccine?
  • Despite much controversy and disagreement within the scientific community regarding vaccines, and their effectiveness, even for the regular annual influenza, why the rush to develop a vaccine. (Follow the money).
  • Finally, why after 40 years of scandal, deceit, lies and unconstitutional acts by our government, business and media ‘leaders’ that clearly proves they cannot be trusted, do we trust what they’re telling us about COVID-19?
  • I don’t.

 

The Troubling Case of Jared Kushner

Perhaps the poster child for our societal condition is Jared Kushner, recently profiled in Netflix’s Dirty Money series. It isn’t so much the despicable things he has done; every generation produces hordes of such people. What is unique is how we collectively shrugged it off as Trump brought him into his Administration and gave him access to all important information, decisions, and even illegal security clearances, that he has since used to further enrich himself. No conflict of interest there at all.

Forget that he at 36 years of age has zero political experience. His irresponsible father-in-law has nevertheless assigned him the following duties: Middle East peace, resolution of the opioid crisis, criminal justice reform, liaison with Mexico, liaison with China (where wife Ivanka happens to own a clothing business), and liaison with the Muslim community. When will the boy sleep? And never mind that in prior administrations, each of those issues were the sole responsibility of highly experienced and accomplished civil servants. But super man can handle them all? Methinks we’re being royally screwed here.

Far from realizing that the people are the employer of the government, Kushner was quoted as saying “the American people are the government’s customers.” That telling statement reflects just how disconnected and condescending our so-called leaders have become. It is imperative, especially for our youth, that we replace them with qualified leaders of integrity.

It’s ironic and discouraging that Kushner, himself a Millennial, has such ignorance of the plight of most of his generation. To be fair, he grew up in a bubble of extreme wealth, to unscrupulous parents (his father went to prison for entrapping and extorting his own brother-in-law with a prostitute) whose material ambitions knew no bounds. As the Jesuits famously said: “give me a child until the age of seven, and I’ll show you the man.” So maybe poor Jared didn’t have much of a chance from the outset.

Nevertheless, by 39 years of age one has had ample time to question earlier values and decide which to keep and which to discard. This is extremely difficult to do, and very often requires an existential crisis to force one to face their mortality. From all accounts, Jared has yet to face such a crucible experience.

The issue facing his generation is not so much him as a person as it is his mindset, and the accompanying danger he represents. We stand at a crossroads in human history where the choices and actions we take regarding climate change, income inequality and unpredictable technological innovations can either save or sink us as a species. Jared Kushner likely understands this, but does not care.

And while we all sleep, Kushner and Trump continue to get away with their devious activities. In the recently passed Stimulus Bill, an obscure clause was inserted deep among the 880 pages, that will yield $170 billion worth of tax relief to the real estate development industry over the net ten years. What has that to do with rescuing distressed employees and employers during the pandemic? Nothing. Who are the biggest real estate developers in New York and New Jersey? Donald Trump and Jared Kushner. And that’s how our ‘leaders’ like Kushner view the world and every event they face: as an opportunity for further self-enrichment.

It is truly time for us to ensure we become informed of what is really taking place in our society, (perhaps start by watching the Dirty Money Kushner episode?) and to take action, radical if necessary, to remove these miscreants from positions of power.

Michael Darmody is a leadership consultant and executive coach. More detail on the challenges we currently face can be found in his new book The Boiling Frog: How Complacency and Ignorance Created Our Leadership Crisis and What We Can Do About It. https://amzn.to/2kh9GdM

The Bizarre World of America

“The Framers intended that the president “be like a fiduciary, who must pursue the public interest in good faith republican fashion rather than pursuing his self-interest, and who must diligently and steadily execute Congress’s commands,” as a recent Harvard Law Review article puts it.”    The Atlantic October 3, 2019

The lengthy article noted above was written by American lawyer George Conway, who offers a deep dive into the various psychological dysfunctions of Donald Trump, and strongly suggests that those traits render him incapable of holding the office of President. He seems deeply concerned about Trump’s competence even then, and the article was written prior to the impeachment and subsequent acquittal (I will add: by a corrupt GOP Senate), and to the botched handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conway quotes a psychology expert as saying “Trump displays the extreme behavioral characteristics of a pathological narcissist, a sociopath, or a malignant narcissist”, and Conway spends thousands of words describing the many medical definitions and offering specific examples of Trump’s behaviour that would support the claims of mental illness.

As full disclosure, I must say that I agree with pretty much everything Conway contends; there is plenty of video evidence to substantiate his claims. But I must add that even as a vehement Trump opponent, I am surprised at the lengths to which Conway goes to make his point. The article IS obsessive, which of itself is not an issue, especially considering the seriousness of the subject.

What astounds me is the degree of cognitive dissonance involved in the writer’s life. Such a severely critical attack on Trump would seem completely normal, except for the fact that Conway’s wife, Kellyanne, for the past two years, has been the renowned Counsellor to the President! The omnipresent talking head apologist on Fox News and other media outlets unabashedly defends Trump no matter what the lie or behaviour of which he is guilty. She, the inventor of the phrase “alternative facts” is either suffering from similar narcissistic dysfunctions as Trump, or is amorally pursuing whatever necessary to ensure her own fame and fortune.

Either way, in my view the situation is quite telling of the bizarre world in America. How can one be so passionately against Trump and all of his behaviour, yet be married to the monster’s chief apologist? What do they discuss at breakfast? At what point does someone’s (a partner’s) behaviour run so anathema to one’s own values, that the relationship must be dissolved?

America’s collective cognitive dissonance displays as a high mistrust of Congress and The Beltway, yet votes for a populist liar like Trump, or despite DNC corruption and manipulation of the democratic process, ‘votes blue no matter who’ is jammed down their throats as the anointed candidate.

Were George Conway simply dissatisfied with some of Trump’s ideas or behaviours, it would be very different. But his article emphasizes his complete disdain and deep concern for the Constitution and the country’s well-being. Rightly so.

It is not my place to judge the Conways, but I guess I’m doing it anyway here. Disagreements are a valuable part of any society that values and seeks truth. But at some point, if for no other reason than to preserve credibility, we need to pay more than lip service to our opinions and values. Conway eviscerating Trump in an article while his wife’s presumably large salary helps pay his mortgage is somewhat disingenuous, and certainly arms his critics with an indefensible retort.

In his masterpiece The Divine Comedy, Dante wrote: “The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.” As long as his wife continues with her atrocious escapades, George Conway is really remaining neutral.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/

Leadership in a Crisis

March 26, 2020

Management legend Peter Drucker once wrote about leadership that at all times, but particularly in crises, good leaders always first ask two questions:

  1. What needs to be done?
  2. What can, and should I do about it?

Implicit in his statement was the assumption that leaders have as their motive, achieving the greatest good for the greatest number of their followers. That implies honesty and integrity, which sadly, don’t appear to apply to our current leaders.

When the motive is different, as we are witnessing today, the answers to those two crucial questions change dramatically, and therefore so do the outcomes of their decisions.

For Trump, the answers are 1) get re-elected to continue using the Presidency to feed my ego and enrich myself, and 2) includes: lie about the seriousness, rate of spread, and government actions related to the pandemic. Keep infected Americans off-shore on a cruise ship so “the numbers look good.”

What about Joe Biden? 1) Get elected President no matter what. 2) Use the crisis to leverage my election chances. Biden, a 40-year veteran of Establishment politics characteristically applied his ‘finger-to-the-wind’ practices by adopting last minute the policies of some of his competitors, in order to convey a human empathy that his prior policies and actions did not include.1 While the answer to question 2 may indirectly benefit the public, it would merely be   circumstantial. Disappear for a week during the height of the pandemic, then host a feeble address offering only vacuous platitudes, no specific solutions.

Note that both these perspectives, as lenses of their leadership responsibilities, are myopic and self-serving. Trump’s solipsistic sociopathy leaves him completely oblivious to the needs of the people. Biden will flip-flop as needed to ensure his own solid place in the game; if the people benefit from that, it’s an incidental plus.

It is naïve to think that this type of behaviour has not always existed in society in varying degrees. But is has usually been the purview of lesser leaders, limited by their lower station in the damage they can inflict. Our problem today is that we have permitted and elevated such weak leaders to the highest positions in the country, at a time of serious crisis.

Lincoln once said “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” I would modify that to say “give him/her power, then add a crisis.” This pandemic is pulling back the curtain on our wizards of Oz. The silver lining is that it provides the public with a first hand opportunity to witness leadership decisions and behaviors that cannot be lied or PR spun away. You either resolve the crisis in a successful manner, or you don’t. It places character flaws on display for all to observe.

How are our two top leaders doing so far?

Let’s close with another Lincoln quote that our leaders hopefully will read: “you cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today.”

1 https://newrepublic.com/article/156905/coronavirus-test-joe-bidens-ideas

Michael Darmody is a leadership consultant and executive coach. More detail on the challenges we currently face can be found in his new book The Boiling Frog: How Complacency and Ignorance Created Our Leadership Crisis and What We Can Do About It. 

https://amzn.to/2kh9GdM

A Proposal for Generation whYZ

Dear Millennial and Gen Z people everywhere,

You don’t know me, but I’m likely what many of you might fondly refer to as an “old fart”.

At 64, I am a middle Boomer, child of the Sixties, MBA of the Eighties, and (former) unabashed proponent of free market capitalism. Born and raised in Canada, I vigorously supported the original free trade agreement, NAFTA, chased after the materialistic lifestyle that economists assured us was the only sustainable economic system, and beneficial to everyone.

But now I’m back in Canada after living in the U.S. during the Clinton and Bush II years, witnessing the 2008 financial meltdown, decline of the American middle class, destruction of the planet, obscene income inequality, and widespread international corruption, I have a confession to make:

They lied. I fell for it.

That’s the not so good news.

But there is still hope. And so, I have a proposal to make to each and all of you. I’d like to refer to you in future as Generation whYZ, because you are the two age groups that are about to inherit the power and responsibility for running the world, and because I think you are wise beyond your years. A very good thing!

While never the worst capitalist offender, I do take my responsibility for the mindset and behaviour that led us to this place in time. And taking responsibility always involves asking two key questions: 1) What needs to be done? And 2) What can and should I do about it?

After much reflection, I decided that my love of reading and learning about world affairs could help make amends.

So, what needs to be done?

In my view, there is a lot of important info that’s likely not currently on your radar.

Well aware that you’re far too busy and (understandably at your ages) interested in other issues and pursuits, I’m concerned that you may not be necessarily aware of just how precarious are these times. And they are.

And the threats we face will impact you far more than older folks like me. That means YOU have a deep, vested interest in ensuring politicians are persuaded (forced if necessary) into taking aggressive action NOW to ensure your future is safe and prosperous.

So I concluded that if I know a lot of this stuff already, and enjoy keeping up with it, and you have an important and urgent need to know, why not post short, factual, crucial information in the social media places you usually hang out?

What you decide to do or not do with the info is completely up to you, but I’m pretty certain that once you learn about some of what has been going on, you’ll agree that some remedial action is required, and fast. I will benefit from knowing I at least tried to be proactive in spreading what I believe is an urgent, yet hopeful message.

Like Dumbledor passing timely and relevant information along to Harry Potter and the young wizards, I’ll do the same for you, hopefully giving you the knowledge you need and the motivation to start.

 Michael Darmody is a leadership consultant and executive coach. More detail on the challenges we currently face can be found in his new book The Boiling Frog: How Complacency and Ignorance Created Our Leadership Crisis and What We Can Do About It. 

https://amzn.to/2kh9GdM

Why the Entire World Should Be Holding Its’ Breath About the U.S. Election

As a dual Canadian (born)/U.S. (naturalized) citizen, it is understandable that others here in Canada and elsewhere in the world do not get anywhere near as concerned about the upcoming U.S. election as am I.

Yet they should be.

The human race has reached a point where, while still plodding along as geopolitical nation states, information and capital flows have long flowed as if no national boundaries exist. The legal profession struggles with issues of intellectual property (IP) protection in the global playing field. Flows of desperate refugees (often rendered so by the widespread war-mongering of developed nations) flood into any country that might take them.

The old paradigm of localized crises is rapidly changing: our most serious current challenges cannot be solved without highly integrated global collaboration.

Climate crisis and global income inequality and corruption recognize no separate countries and borders, nor do risks like the current coronavirus COVD19.

Here’s our existential dilemma: when never before has it been so urgent to attack mega-problems collectively, the leaders of our biggest countries are entrenching myopic, self-serving agendas.

And the very worst of these is Donald Trump.

Example: Climate crisis. How will the world have any chance at holding temperature rises to 1.5 or 2.0 degrees Celsius without the aggressive technology and willful participation of the world’s only superpower? How will Trump’s mendacious approach to foreign relations (and everything else) facilitate coordinated global strategies and efforts to combat it?

No.

This is not like the times when most countries could sit safely and comfortably by and watch the U.S. go to Viet Nam. It’s not even like the World Wars, where strategic decisions to participate or not were possible, as long as you were comfortable with the risk.

There is no disconnected spectating from the sidelines now.

And speaking of World Wars, a despotic alliance of Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo and Stalin sought eventual world dominance. It is smug and naive to think that today’s global income inequality, left unchecked, cannot result in a global 1% that wields sufficient power to dictate policies and impinge human freedoms. How much of the world does the Davos crowd already unofficially control?

Nonsense, you say? The three largest countries are already run by oligarch despots: Xi, Putin, and post-acquittal Donald Trump. These kindred spirits would love nothing better than to form a global order that cements and expands their control while satisfying their shared interests.

Love or hate America, we cannot meet and conquer our current crises without its clout and enlightened, humane leadership. Donald Trump is the antithesis of that leader.

So hold your breath, world. Because the sabotage, fraudulent election processes, dark money PACS, systematic misinformation and fake news, corporate media, cronyism, and a corrupt Congress are all hard at work to ensure the re-election of the dangerous sociopath tyrant Trump.

Four more years of his criminal behaviour won’t just damage America; it could ruin the entire world.

Michael Darmody is a leadership consultant and executive coach. More detail on the challenges we currently face can be found in his new book The Boiling Frog: How Complacency and Ignorance Created Our Leadership Crisis and What We Can Do About It. 

https://amzn.to/2kh9GdM

Debates at the crossroads

So, Canada and the U.S. both hosted debates last evening; Canada for it’s national party leaders, in advance of the upcoming Federal Election in October, and the U.S. Democratic National Committee (DNC) for candidates seeking the Democratic nomination in the March 2020 Primary.

These debates are significant for one simple yet existential reason: choosing the ‘wrong’ leader at this crossroads of history will have repercussions the likes of which humans have never before experienced.  The reason: climate emergency.

For those who have not yet checked out the findings of the scientific community, do so, before you vote. This is not a hoax, scam, or money-making scheme for businesses in the Green sustainability industry.  It is very real, and human caused. If you have not read the summary of the October 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, do so, before you vote. In the short year since it’s publication, scientists have alarmingly stated that the recommendations in the report are already understated. Earth is warming even more quickly than that radical report cautioned.

Canada, as a historically fossil fuel-driven economy, faces a fundamental ‘paradigm shift’ away from resources to a knowledge-based sustainable one. Fossil fuel workers, who contributed to our national prosperity for decades, need to be retrained and protected during the transition. Massive capital and human resources need to be devoted to this change initiative. We face also a rare opportunity to step up on the world stage by demonstrating that we have the courage and leadership to show that major transformation is possible, even from a fossil fuel economy, to a cleaner one.

America, leader in fracking and oil production and consumption, remains the unilateral global power to whom the world (at least pre-November 6, 2016) looked for guidance and responsible, measured action in emergencies. Yet collusion between Congress, Wall Street, the fossil fuel industry and mainstream media has kept the climate issue well off the public radar until the last two devastating hurricanes forced them to address it. Their puerile president insists it’s a Chinese hoax.

In both countries the level of public ignorance and feckless leadership is startling and unnerving.

Canada’s glamour-boy Prime Minister, being influenced by the fossil fuel industry, used taxpayer funds to actually buy a pipeline contract from a U.S. company, when he saw that public sentiment was shifting in the other direction. Then, true to courageous leadership form, he failed to even show up for the first debate last night, being represented instead by an empty podium. As for the public, a quick post-debate poll showed that 76% of Canadians thought the Conservative leader (who is also beholden to the fossil fuel industry) won the debate, and they also ranked the climate issue far behind those of immigration and taxes. They don’t get it.

Down in America, the DNC earlier refused member demands to host a separate debate solely on the climate emergency, leaving CNN to step up and do so. And while that debate did have substantive discussion about very important issues (health care for all, gun violence, immigration, racism, corruption) the participants failed to drive home the point that should we fail to curtail this climate emergency, all the efforts on those other issues simply become an exercise of re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Every once in awhile, society encounters events that slap it awake from its sleepy day-to-day concerns. Whether the Biblical story of the Flood is historical or allegory, imagine the stress and courage experienced by people facing that catastrophe. Less dramatic, and definitely real, were the World Wars, Great Depression, the 2008 Great Recession. Each of those required the emergence of strong leaders to guide the public to safer ground. Yet none of those involved existential consequences for failure. Only the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis comes close, and fortunately for us, both Kennedy and Khrushchev had the moral courage and leadership strength to make the right decisions and ease back from the brink.

Here’s the critical fact: scientists say that at most we have an 11 year window in which to hold the global temperature increase to 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-Industrial Age levels. Should we fail, we won’t experience severe disruption immediately, but the momentum will be irreversible, and the consequences catastrophic.

Yet our current global ‘leaders’ seem more preoccupied with maintaining the status quo, with incremental change, with the financial minutiae topics of Davos, with personal enrichment. If we fail to elect the right leaders this time around, the window for remedial action will close, and we will deserve to be cursed by our children, if they survive.

We are at the crossroads of human existence, created by us, and manageable by us. But we need to elect the right leaders, and the will and courage to support them. NOW.

Michael Darmody is a leadership consultant and executive coach. More detail on the challenges we currently face can be found in his new book The Boiling Frog: How Complacency and Ignorance Created Our Leadership Crisis and What We Can Do About It. 

https://amzn.to/2kh9GdM

The Insidious Conspiracy of Conspiracy Theorist Labels

“Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not really out to get me.”

The easily predictable prison death of Jeffrey Epstein has resulted in mainstream media (MSM) once again peppering their reporting with the term ‘conspiracy theory’. This is a good thing; many a wildly imaginative or opportunistic charlatan has hoodwinked the public by spinning intriguing tales out of nothing, in pursuit of a quick buck. We all chuckle at tabloid headlines while standing in line at the supermarket. So the proper use of the term can serve as a caveat that we should use healthy skepticism before blindly accepting just any old unfounded story.

That said, in many cases, the term is used also at times by the ‘elites’ and MSM in a pejorative sense, followed by smug, condescending smiles or even eye rolls with the intent to intimidate those who raise serious questions. It did not take long for people in government and the military in the 1940’s to gap in that the best way to deflect attention away from Roswell was to imply that those asking serious questions were nut jobs, not to be taken seriously by any sane person. As the technique was refined, agencies that did in fact engage in criminal or clandestine activity became quite adept at using ridicule, condescension and aspersions to silence skeptics. Yet YouTube now offers many interviews of aging military and government personnel, down-to-earth decent old guys with nothing to prove or gain from telling their stories, which they’re now legally cleared to do, and verifying what they saw at Roswell.

And I will never forget sitting in my apartment in 1983, around 3 am, reading a section of a book called Best Evidence, that provided exhaustive research that indicated that the body of JFK was altered to make it look like he was shot from the rear by Oswald. I still feel the chills that ran up my spine at that thought. And yet, for a couple of years after, when I tried to tell everyone to read the book, their eye-rolls eventually intimidated me into silence, except with close trusted friends. Now of course, 56 years and an Internet later, many of those witnesses and participants who were legally forced or intimidated into silence are clearly proving that that is exactly what happened. The JFK assassination was an inside coup d’etat. I strongly encourage you to watch the video below (right to the end) to hear doctors who were present in Parkland hospital swear that the wounds shown by the Warren Commission were altered versions of the actual ones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq0DrQ77Ni8

Serious journalists like James Douglass, in JFK and the Unspeakable, David S. Lifton in Best Evidence, and Russ Baker in Family of Secrets have doggedly tracked down key eye witnesses, FOIA documents, and ordinary people involved in the aftermath, and connected the dots to show that the CIA and Alan Dulles, J. Edgar Hoover, the Mafia, Cuban ex-pats, and LBJ and long-time Texas thug friends of his were all complicit in JFK’s removal from office. The web is complex and the tale old, but the facts are there nevertheless.

Rolling your eyes? Of course you are. Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological stress that accrues to holding two conflicting thoughts or values in mind at one time. We don’t want to hear things that could shatter our deeply held beliefs. And yet, the facts show that a good many of those so-called ‘conspiracies’ actually did happen! The CIA did sell arms to Iran in order to fund contras in Nicaragua, Bill Clinton did “have sexual relations with that woman.” The autopsy doctor for RFK said the lethal wound came from a shot fired from 3 inches away from the back of his right ear. Many witnesses swore that Sirhan Sirhan only approached RFK from the front left, and 4-5 feet away. Perhaps the greatest current example is 9/11. Are you aware that the 9/11 Commission Report did not even mention the collapse of WTC building 7? Not a word. Yet thousands of architects, structural engineers, demolition experts, metallurgists, physics academics and other professionals have signed a petition stating that the Commission Report defies the laws of science, and calling for a new investigation. (https://www.ae911truth.org/)

No. Many of these so called conspiracy theories were labelled such by the guilty perpetrators, knowing that such a label would effectively intimidate or embarrass nay-sayers into silence.

At the Watergate Hotel, a security guard walked past a door that had had the latch duct taped flat. He was puzzled, but removed the tape and continued on his rounds. It was only upon passing again and seeing the door taped a second time, that he called the police. Now imagine if he hadn’t, and the burglars had not been apprehended. If anyone ever suggested later that the burglary had happened, they would have been shown a padded cell, or at least laughed out of the room. And yet, it actually did happen. And for a couple of years afterward, those who suggested it was sinister and that the White House was trying to cover it up, were labelled conspiracy theorists. Then someone said “hey, doesn’t the President record everything?” So much for conspiracy theory.

Getting back to Epstein, while it is inappropriate for the impetuous, American child-President to implicate Bill Clinton, the late night talk shows automatically label it conspiracy theory. And yet Clinton has lied about the number of trips he took on Epstein’s plane; he says four, independent flight logs say twenty-six. And remember Pizzagate? The conspiracy theory that outrageously claimed the Clintons and other powerful people were involved in a pedophile sex ring? Of course, it could be simply coincidence that the Clintons moved in the circle of pedophile sex trafficker Epstein, but I suspect there is a lot more here than meets the eye. Then again, Trump has also been implicated as a participant with Epstein in earlier times, and what better way to deflect attention away from himself than to implicate Clinton. Watch carefully to see how Trump’s AG Barr goes about this investigation. Watch to see whether the video from Epstein’s cell mysteriously disappears. (By the way, were you aware that in 1966, when investigators sought to measure the wound in JFK’s brain, in order to determine bullet trajectory, the brain, bullets and other evidence had disappeared from the National Archive? Imagine that.)

This month, I launched a book about poor leadership, suggesting that we the public have been lulled to sleep for that past 50 years, shrugging off and tolerating egregious neglect of responsibility and duty by our leaders. It’s called The Boiling Frog: How Complacency and Ignorance Created Our Leadership Crisis and What We Can Do About It. There are several messages in it, but the Epstein death, and subsequent rush to judgement by the media about conspiracy theories has sufficiently concerned me that yet another serious crime against society could well be underway.

Let’s follow this closely. Let’s demand a serious, objective investigation, and serious answers to the question of how a high-profile prisoner, with damning information on extremely powerful people around the globe, could possibly be removed from suicide watch and left un-monitored with sufficient material in his cell that he could commit suicide.

There is a lot more going on here. Focus clearly on those who roll their eyes and insist we are conspiracy theorists, and ask what they have to hide and why.

A Vibrant Culture Requires Strategic, Systematic Conversations

Published on July 24, 2017

“Shortcomings in organizational culture are one of the main barriers to company success in the digital age… cultural obstacles correlate clearly with negative economic performance.” McKinsey article on the importance of Culture

It is reassuring to see that venerable, traditionally ‘quant’ consultancies like McKinsey are finally lending credence to the intrinsic power of organizational culture. Other writers like Tom Peters, John Kotter, Jim Collins, Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner have railed about it for decades, yet it took the intensity of a VUCA world to finally raise broader awareness.

The authors cite three main areas of concern: silos, risk aversion, and lack of a customer-centric mindset, as being collectively detrimental to organizational success in a digital world, and offer some excellent strategies and anecdotes as remedies.

But a deeper dive would show that true cultural development and sustenance requires not only strategic policies, but organic, strategic and systematized conversations, that deepen relationships, clarify mission, values and expectations, and foster accountability.

Digital strategy, while requiring much faster creation than traditional strategic plans, still requires agile and resilient execution. First, individuals must clearly understand and take personal ownership of the strategy and policies, and then agree as to how teams and tribes will share accountability to drive results. The power of effective culture lies at that granular level. It is not a top-down, one-off process.

In speaking of his famous 8-step change management model, Harvard professor John Kotter lamented that he witnessed many companies drive the process well, right up to Step 7 (Consolidating Gains and Producing More Change) and Step 8 (Anchoring New Approaches in the Culture), only to see senior managers or champions leave or let up on communication, and watch the organization slip back into old habits within a year or two. Devastating. But the main reason was that no systematic method of continual communication was built into the structure and policy, to ensure the change took deep root.

To guard against this, one company, Actionable Conversations, has hit upon an effective solution. Their logic states that better conversations lead to deeper relationships,which lead to higher employee engagement, which improves any performance metric you can think of. They prescribe one-hour, leader-led conversations, once a month, that help teams apply cutting-edge business thinking to their current challenges and opportunities. Employees then enter a small behavioural change commitment into a platform that provides progress metrics over the course of the following month.

The key is to implement vertical and lateral conversations, across teams, functional and departmental silos, and on a regular basis, so that strong, trusting relationships are simultaneously built, while employees discuss the most pressing issues facing the company. Regular strategic conversations act like a massage, keeping key messages front and center in mind, and facilitating the gradual behavioural changes that eventually become the fabric of a new, stronger culture.

It is somewhat surprising that it took so long for the competitive advantage of a strong, positive culture to be more widely recognized and deployed, but perhaps that is because creating and nurturing such a culture is hard, relentless work. But in VUCA world, as the article says, solving these cultural problems is no longer optional. And that, in the long run, will be a very good thing.

Powerful, Elusive Employee Engagement

The CEO of Rapid Corp., astonished at recently reading in a Gallup report that North American employee engagement levels sat at a miserable 33%, quickly inquired as to the engagement level of her own employees. Learning that her company did not measure it, she immediately ordered that a survey be conducted.
The resultant 43%, while a tad better than the national average, prompted a hasty call to action. A top leadership development consultancy was sourced, survey results analyzed, and a custom-tailored program created, including cultural/values clarification, programs and messaging, and leadership workshops, all launched with sincere fanfare and highly visible senior team involvement. The launch and workshop facilitators were expert, knowledgeable, and gifted speakers, and delivered the highly relevant content with empathy and humour.
The launch and workshops were judged resounding successes, (a post-launch and initial workshop survey yielded very favorable data), and even more important was the elevated energy level that could be tangibly felt throughout the company following these activities. The CEO cautioned her team to remain vigilant and involved, so as to sustain and nurture this new energy and commitment.
Unfortunately, by the time of the next engagement survey a year later, to score fell to 38%, and the CEO and senior leadership team were both disappointed and puzzled.
What Happened?
Sadly, what happened at Rapid Corp. is not an uncommon experience. Their world moves incredibly fast; definitely a VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) world company. So despite raised energy, hopes and the best intentions of all involved, it fell prey to the 10/20/70 rule. Research shows that we learn and retain 10% of what we see and hear, 20% of what we’re coached or shown how to do, but 70% of what we practice on a continuous basis. We learn and retain by repetitive doing.
After the activity of the program launch, the workshop delivery, and the immediate short-term follow-up, life at Rapid Corp. slowly drifted back to ‘normal’; to old habits and patterns soon resurfaced. People returned to the frenzied pace of their jobs, once again pulled into the vortex of their respective tasks, and all the well-targeted and intended information that had been delivered faded in both memory and priority. No villains here; just a relentless, crazy-busy, demanding work environment, and normal human learning entropy. Behavioural transformation could not take root.
But how could their score be even lower than before they took any action? Another pitfall in the effort to transform a culture: employee emotion, following the hope, excitement and elevated expectations generated by the initial programs, sank lower due to the disappointment of having been first introduced to a ‘better’ world, yet then slipping back into the old norms. The disappointment was accompanied by some degree of cynicism among some employees as well.
The Solution
Rapid Corp. did almost everything right. What they overlooked was the 70% learning rule. Whenever attempting to transform behaviour, we need a program or system that structures regular conversations between leaders at all levels, and their employees, and between the employees themselves. All learning content and theory, while extremely important, only has meaning when discussed and experienced within our specific context. We have to actually digest theory and content, and then discuss among ourselves what it means for us in our department, division, company. We then need to apply theory to our own situation in order to get excited, take ownership and sustain interest; to become engaged.

Here are a few steps Rapid Corp. might have taken to sustain the employee engagement they worked so hard to generate:
1. Create and launch the program exactly as Rapid Corp. did, but…
2. Structure program learning material into short modules that can be delivered by manager/leaders to their own teams and groups, in a conversational format
3. Require leaders to hold monthly meetings (one hour can suffice) where the program material is discussed, debated, critiqued by everyone in the group, asking “how can this theory help us right now?”. Gain consensus as to how the new information can improve the group’s own performance.
4. Ask each employee to make a personal commitment to practice one small behavioural/habit change, based on the conversation of the meeting.
5. Deploy digital technology to track and support the behavioural transformation, as employees make their efforts to change. There are apps and platforms available today that facilitate this process.

The key here is that small, persistent incremental changes gradually become new habits, and yield the broader, deeper behavioural transformation that will shift, strengthen and sustain employee engagement. And incremental change starts with conversations. “Are there better ways to do what we’re doing? How will they make my life at work better? What’s involved in changing to that way?”
Using our leaders for content delivery in small group conversations builds their knowledge, skills and confidence, and brings them closer to their employees and the issues most important to them. Conversations, being two-way, allow employees to engage in the issue, to feel included and involved. Using technology to monitor progress adds rich data on the health of your employee engagement in real time, while giving guidance as to what additional conversations (instructional, motivational, remedial) can be arranged to support those employees in need.
While the work of building employee engagement can be difficult, especially in the early stages, the formula is quite simple: good conversations build strong relationships, which strengthen employee engagement, which delivers outstanding performance and results.

Michael Darmody, Principal of Darmody & Company, is a seasoned leadership consultant, executive coach and public speaker who helps clients bridge their performance gaps by aligning Purpose, People and Process. He lives in Mississauga, Ontario. www.darmodyandcompany.com michael@darmodyandcompany.com