Translate

Sunday, April 26, 2015

Power At Any Price the case of Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly

The following article from Talking Points Memo is a few years old, but I wanted to share it because it illustrates what my friend and writing partner, Allen Laudenslager, and I have been preaching for years. Senior managers often promote and keep people in positions of power despite knowing their abrasive, immoral, and unethical management styles. It's willful ignorance on their part because they like the results. In other words, the ends justify the means. And it happens more often than you'd think in most organizations.

You have to ask yourself, "How did Lt. Gen. O'Reilly ever get past Lt. Colonel?" Simply put, he produced results. But at what price? He figuratively left a trail of bodies on his rise to the top. Well thankfully (now unceremoniously retired) Lt. Gen. O'Reilly's bad behavior finally caught up to him.  As for his superiors...well let's just say they all pleaded ignorance.

TPM MUCKRAKER




Missile Defense Agency Chief Was Nightmare Boss, IG's Office Says


Gqwlcwt2sltucfehm6lh


The report, by the Defense Department's Inspector General's office, found that O'Reilly's leadership style was "inconsistent" with Defense Department and Army ethics and leadership regulations, that he "yelled and screamed at subordinates in both public and private settings," and that he "demeaned and belittled employees." It also found that O'Reilly's conduct "resulted in the departure of several senior staff members, and caused his senior officials to hesitate to speak up and raise issues during meetings with him."

The report was completed in May 2012, but not released to the public. It was obtained by Josh Rogin of Foreign Policy's The Cable blog. The IG's report recommended that the Secretary of the Army consider "appropriate corrective action" in regard to O'Reilly.

O'Reilly's leadership style is described by one person as "management by blowtorch and pliers." The same person compared O'Reilly to a "wife beater," meaning that he would "beat you in private, but -- you know, where the public can't see."

One incident the report examines in detail occurred in February 2010 in Tucson, Arizona. MDA personnel were in town for an executive steering committee meeting, but travel delays kept them from checking into their hotel, the JW Marriott Starr Pass Resort, until 2 a.m. on the morning of the event. It was around then that several witnesses said they heard O'Reilly berating an employee for several minutes, demanding that the employee admit that they "fucked up."

"You fucked up, you tell me you fucked [up], you admit you fucked up," O'Reilly told his subordinate, while they stood near the hotel's elevators, according to one witness.

The issue? O'Reilly told investigators that he had previously informed MDA staff not to book hotels that used the word "resort" in their titles, because they created a perception of waste. He said he had been "dead tired" during the conversation, and that he only lost his temper when he felt that he wasn't getting the acknowledgement he wanted from the employee. From the report:

...O'Reilly further described the incident, which he stated took place in a private and secluded area of the resort. During the last minutes of a 10-20 minute conversation, he lost his composure, yelled, and cursed at two employees. He did not demand that the employees should use profanity and was surprised when one of them said she, "fucked up." He immediately apologized. 

The MDA employee in question, meanwhile, said that O'Reilly never apologized for the incident, but that O'Reilly did later thank him or her for arranging the meeting, and gave them a "Director's coin."

Most of the witnesses interviewed for the report said that O'Reilly is personally very intelligent, "even brilliant," but eight witnesses who spoke with the IG's office made statements along the lines of: "the worst manager I've ever worked for in 26 years of federal service," "as a leader, as a director, whatever, he's the worst," and "in terms of leadership, bottom." One witness said O'Reilly treated external stakeholders well, but staff poorly, and described him as "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde."

In a response to the preliminary report in March, O'Reilly disputed the the IG office's conclusions and questioned the objectivity and accuracy of witnesses. He denied ever yelling or screaming at anyone, or ever forcing a subordinate to use profane language. He called witnesses' versions of events "extrapolations of inaccurate perceptions of isolated incidents." Even after O'Reilly's response, the IG's office decided to stand by its conclusion.

O'Reilly, who became the director of MDA in 2008, began his career at the agency back in the 1990s. He is a a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy and has Masters Degrees in Physics, National Security and Strategic Studies, and Business. Lieutenant General O'Reilly is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and Staff College, the U.S. Naval College of Command and Staff, and the U.S. Army War College. According to Foreign Policy, O'Reilly is scheduled to retire in November.
The MDA's mission is to "develop, test, and field an integrated, layered, ballistic missile defense system (BMDS) to defend the United States, its deployed forces, allies, and friends against all ranges of enemy ballistic missiles in all phases of flight."

37 witnesses were interviewed as part of the IG office's investigation, including 24 current and former MDA senior officials.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Cxoqmqruutzqxfj1fv2b
Eric Lach is a reporter for TPM. From 2010 to 2011, he was a news writer in charge of the website?s front page. He has previously written for The Daily, NewYorker.com, GlobalPost and other publications. He can be reached at ericl@talkingpointsmemo.com

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

A Civil Discussion on a Faraway Law by Todd Neva

A Civil Discussion on a Faraway Law
April 23, 2015, by Todd Neva, guest blogger

It was a noble cause, a valiant effort, but it failed.

An Israeli law entitled “Protection of Literature and Authors,” which passed the Knesset in early 2014, establishes an eighteen-month protection period from the date of first publication. The Ministers of Knesset picked winners and losers.

Americans can look at the pros and cons of a faraway law and make a reasoned decision. We might not agree with each other, but we don’t get emotional. We don’t question each other’s motives. There was plenty of that in Israel.

The proponents of the law were called ignorant and stupid to think that a law of the Knesset could change the laws of economics. The law would increase prices, which will hurt sales. Established authors would do just fine (and, in fact, supported the law), but new authors would be shut out of the market. People will read fewer books.

The opponents of the law were called immoral. Well, not directly: Netanyahu said, “As the People of the Book, we are committed to maintaining the income of the authors who create our cultural treasures.” God was on the side of passing the law, because literature is valuable and should not be treated as a commodity. Literature is too important to subject to free market conditions. Authors deserve a fair wage, and higher prices will attract more authors. Culture will flourish.

The law was designed to boost author income and break up a duopoly between a large, established chain and a newer, discount chain. Those two giants controlled 80% of the market, and they deeply discounted books with such deals as 4 for 100 shekels ($25).

During the protection period, publishers cannot change the recommended price marked on books. Retailers may not discount books — higher prices will result in more profits for the authors. Authors get a minimum royalty of 8% of the retail price for the first 6,000 copies sold and 10% for each copy thereafter. Over a seven-year period, the author will be paid no less than 16% of the actual payment received by the publisher for the books sold.

Both proponents of fixed book pricing (FBP) and free-market advocates wish to promote “bibliodiversity” and to cross-subsidize new authors. How is that common goal best accomplished? Fortunately, we can assess FBP laws in other countries and over the last ninety years. The first FBP law was passed in 1924, and no fewer than eleven countries currently have FBP laws.

France implemented an FBP in 1981 to protect independent booksellers. The law’s credited with preserving 2,500 small stores, representing 22% of sales.

The UK, which abolished its FBP law in 1996, saw one third of independent bookstores close by 2005, and the remaining stores represent only 4% of sales. However, since revoking the law, the book market in the UK has grown significantly and is more vibrant than in France. Finland also saw significant growth in its literary market after it abolished its law 1971.

FBP laws have unintended consequences: Mexico passed a law in 2008 to freeze book prices and save retailers from closing, but without adequate enforcement or penalties for noncompliance, law-abiding retailers closed anyhow.

Countries with FBP laws publish fewer new titles. “A comparison of 14 European Union countries reveals that those with price-setting laws release significantly fewer book titles per 1000 citizens than do countries with… unregulated literary markets,” reported Michael Jaffe in a blog published by The Times of Israel.

Who were the winners and losers a year after the Knesset passed its FBP law?

Prices have risen. New book sales declined about 50%. Fewer titles are planned for new authors. Overall book sales are down 20%. Children’s book sales are down 25%. Established authors continue to do fine. The publishing industry is in financial turmoil — they used to complain about small profits for a large volume of books, and they now commiserate over no profits for a small volume of books. The established chains are smarting, and one even suffered so much financially it was sold to investors for a fraction of its pre-FBP value. Independent booksellers, which did not deeply discount to begin with and mostly catered to niche markets, are holding their own.

The law’s proponents, which are now much fewer, say results are mixed, it will take more time to evaluate, and the law might need a few tweaks. Once enough time has passed, the Israeli book market will reach equilibrium. People will forget how many books they used to read. They will forget that Israeli publishers used to publish as many new titles per year as publishers in the United States.

FBP laws create winners and losers. They help small, independent booksellers. Established authors benefit, too. However, they suppress sales and profitability in the market, and publishers take fewer risks on new authors, because they have fewer marketing levers to promote books. Consumers pay higher prices and read fewer books.

Price-fixing always creates winners and losers. In the United States, antitrust laws prohibit businesses from fixing prices, but then other laws fix prices or set certain market conditions. Our government picks winners and losers when it intervenes, rather than leaving that job to the cruel, invisible hand of the free market.

Minimum wage is an example of price-fixing. Like fixed book pricing, minimum wage laws prevent workers from selling their labor for less than $7.25 per hour, or more in some states and cities. And like FBP, minimum wage laws create winners and losers. Established authors benefit = skilled workers benefit. New authors are shut out of the market = low skilled workers are shut out of the market. Overall book revenue decreases = overall employment decreases. As Americans assess whether minimum wage should be increased, it would be beneficial to have a discussion on the winners and losers without questioning each other’s motives or framing it as a moral argument.

Todd Neva has a Bachelor of Science, Business, and Master of Business Administration from the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. He worked for sixteen years in the fields of marketing research and finance until becoming disabled. He co-authored Heavy: Finding Meaning after a Terminal Disease, which was discounted by Amazon for a year after publication in January 2014. He blogs on the topics of suffering, grief, and disability at nevastory.com, and he typically avoids comment on politics or economics so he can focus on his message of a higher calling.

Sources:

Featured Post

Capitalism vs. Socialism vs. Distributism

Capitalism vs. Socialism  vs. Distributism by Bryan J. Neva, Sr. Since ancient times, people have bought, sold, and traded land,...