Masculinity versus Aggression

With a local football hero in trouble for his drunken behaviour in South Africa, it seems appropriate to reflect on what really maketh a man. Contrary to popular perception, to me a strong man is not necessarily someone who is physically intimidating, is not necessarily a 'success' in the conventional sense, and is certainly not inclined to aggressively dominate those around them.

Whether physical or emotional, so many of our role models today are either manipulative and untrustworthy, or abuse their strength through aggressively dominating those around them. To me, that's not what being a man is about. Without claiming to be exhaustive in any way, I note three characteristics that I think are particularly important for men:

1. Purpose
2. Peace-seeking
3. Legacy-driven

I can certainly see links to Stephen Covey and David Deida, though like most of us, I trace most of my own perceptions to the role models - starting with my own father and grandfathers - that I have been fortunate enough to have observed. The attached file contains a more detailed exploration of the topic (albeit using mostly American examples); what do you think?

Harvard Business Review on China

Since returning from China, I continue to notice how oblivious most of us are regarding the impact of the Middle Kingdom on our future. In reading the HBR today, I noticed that they report from the Gallup study's findings that showed a few interesting things that undermine popular Western stereotypes (though confirm my impressions):

1. Chinese people are focused on working hard and getting rich - collectivism is on the way out???
   Collectivism is on the way out, but is being replaced with the expression of individualism rather than the pursuit of wealth.
   
   
2. The workers flooding the offices and factories are highly ambitious and actively engaged???
   Workers are not as engaged as the world might think.
   
   
3. Prosperity is allowing Chinese consumers to buy what they want???
   Finding: Average income is just US$1,800pa, so it's only the uber-rich that have enough money to buy one of those US$5,000 suits.
   
   
4. There remains an almost endless thirst for household basics???
   The average Chinese consumer is more interested in luxuries and entertainment than they are in buying household necessities.

In the same edition was an interesting piece on middlescence, a term to describe those of us who are 35 to 55 years old, and are starting to search for a life of meaning amid the balancing of responsibilities... this group is half the workforce, yet only a third of them actually feel energized by their work. Wouldn't it be nice if we could build companies around uplifting, empowering and energizing our workers, especially those with the skills and experiences that we're going to need to support our aging baby boomers.

And if you remember Kaplan and Norton, you might want to know that they've written a piece on implementing strategy without disrupting your organisation. Naturally (considering they invented it), they see the Balanced Score Card and Strategy Maps as the way to deal with this.

FastCompany got into the act too with their story on the rise of Shanghai Tang...

Islam in our backyard

I have been reading Tony Payne's book, Islam in our Backyard. It has got me thinking about a few things that I've outlined below. Note that this is a summary of my thoughts in relation to his book and not a summary of the book itself.

Also, please do realise that I have enormous respect for Islam. I have many Muslim friends, and have both enjoyed their company and learned a great deal about life and God from our discussions. The following is not in any way a critique of Islam - or Muslims - but rather my thoughts in response to a book.

• A core principle of Islam is the union of church and state. This is irreconcilably opposed to the liberal democratic notion of separation of Church and state. If this is the case, could Islam's teachings be considered as treason?
• We live in a society that favors conformity and pluralism over truth and discussion. Yet is really being respectful to other people to leave them in ignorance. Surely it is more arrogant to dust something under the carpet than it is to discuss something in the open?
• Evangelicals will compare Islam and Christianity. Payne highlights that Islam teaches that Christ was not crucified; Christianity teaches that he was. This was an historical event, with a true answer - either Christ was not crucified or he was not... there is no 'in between'. Note however that the truth of this event does not support the remainder of each's belief systems, rather that the truth would deny one of them. Payne argues that the support of the first century Jewish historian (Josephus) and an eminent Roman historian (Tacitus), in addition to the New Testament provide better evidence for the Christian perspective. And when compared Payne's suggestion that Islam believes that he wasn't based almost purely upon Mohammed being divinely inspired to such an outcome... I can see why. That said, I would like to better learn the Muslim response to such assertions.
  
  There is some room for both being true, but far as I can see it, that relies upon the conspiratorial sounding notion of Jesus being drugged and seeming to have died.
  

Reading this book has led me to acknowledge better that there are some fundamental conflicts... and turning a blind eye to those differences may yet yield dire consequences.

Or not.