Don McMinn

Many have heard of Henry David Thoreau’s place of refuge — Walden Pond — where he would retreat for deep thought and reflection. In his own words, “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.” 

Celebrated impressionist painter Claude Monet also had a sacred space—a lily pond—that offered him succor and inspired some of his greatest paintings.

What we may not know is that Walden Pond was only a mile and a half from the town center of Concord, Massachusetts. Monet’s place of refuge was at his house in a French town, Giverny, just an hour from Paris.

When I visited each sight, I sensed the beauty and tranquility, but I was surprised to discover that they were located in common, somewhat mundane neighborhoods. They weren’t hundreds of miles from civilization in the midst of a primordial forest. They were … in the backyard.

In the past several years I have developed an appreciation for the therapeutic value of spending time in nature, both alone and with a few family members. My daughter and son-in-law have created a nature preserve on two acres at a local lake about 60 miles south of Dallas. We enjoy observing wildlife, noticing the consistency and beauty of the four seasons, the sounds and smells of nature, and the calm conversations that the environment engenders. 

Similar to what Thoreau and Monet experienced.

My point is, when seeking your own personal refuge, don’t think it need be a faraway, exotic, awe-inspiring place. Your backyard might suffice, or a local park. 

Thoreau wrote in Walden, “It is not worth the while to go round the world to count the cats in Zanzibar.”  Connect with nature close by.

[Here’s an interesting article titled The Therapeutic Power of Gardening.]

 

I admire someone who says, “I made a mistake.” I have little regard for those who make mistakes but refuse to admit them. Politicians and leaders, in particular, are reluctant to admit mistakes. When Richard Nixon commented on Watergate, when Ronald Reagan talked about the Iran-Contra affair, and when Hillary Clinton spoke about Whitewater, they used the phrase, “Mistakes were made.” That doesn’t quite hit the nail on the head, does it? There is no “I” in that phrase.

Compare those responses to one of the most famous unsent messages in history. General Eisenhower penned the following memo before the invasion of Normandy. Fortunately, it was never posted because the invasion was successful.

“Our landings…have failed…and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that bravery and devotion could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone.”

I recently read a news release in which Steve Green (chairman of the board, Museum of the Bible), admitted that the museum had unwittingly acquired thousands of documents that lacked proper provenance. Acknowledging their mistake, the museum is returning over 11,000 documents to their rightful owners: Egypt and Iraq.

I have never heard or read a more clear and sincere confession and plan of restitution. Green’s handling of the problem was both refreshing and instructive. We can learn from what he did.

Individuals and corporations should learn how to properly respond to their mistakes. Below are some characteristics of a good confession. I’ll give examples of how each might sound in a marriage relationship and also include snippets from Steve Green’s corporate statement.

1. The scope of confession should equal the scope of the offense.

When admitting fault, speak to everyone who was affected by your mistake. If you speak harsh words to your spouse, confess to him or her. But if three other people witnessed the incident, you need to confess to four people.

Museum of the Bible—Instead of hiding the offense, the Museum of the Bible made a public announcement. A news release from the organization was posted on its website on March 26, 2020 and subsequently reposted on numerous media channels.

2. Confessions are most effective when we take the initiative to confess without first having to be confronted and challenged by those who were offended. 

Can you sense the difference between these two scenarios?

Scenario 1

Joan: Hey Bob, got a minute?

Bob: Sure, what’s up?

Joan: When we were having lunch yesterday, you said something that really offended me.

Bob: Oh yeah? What did I say?

Joan: It was the comment about my work on the Meyers project.

Bob: Oh, that bothered you? Well, okay, perhaps it did come across a bit tacky. Sorry about that.

Scenario 2

Bob: Hi Joan, got a minute?

Joan: Sure, what’s up?

Bob: Yesterday, when we had lunch together, I made a tacky comment about your work on the Meyers project. It was wrong of me to say what I did. Would you forgive me?

In the first scenario, Joan confronts a clueless Bob. In the second scenario Bob initiates the conversation. There’s a huge difference.

Museum of the Bible—Beginning in late 2017, we also engaged with officials in several countries, including Egypt and Iraq, to open a dialog regarding items that likely originated from those countries at some point, but for which there was insufficient reliable provenance information.

3. Be specific; name the offense.

Hurts don’t come in generalities; they are specific. So the confession must be specific. Can you sense the difference between these two statements?

“Honey, if I’ve ever done anything to offend you, would you forgive me?”

“Honey, I realize that I have had a critical spirit toward you. Last night I criticized you about the hotel arrangements you made for our vacation. I should have been grateful that you took the initiative to plan such a nice trip.”

A good confession will mention a specific wrong.

Museum of the Bible—One area where I (Green) fell short was not appreciating the importance of the provenance of the items I purchased. 

4. Properly address the emotional hurt that your offense has caused.

Offenses are not only technically wrong, they hurt the offended person. So when we offend someone, we should confess our wrong and address the hurt that we caused. For instance, if I yell at my children, I have not only wronged them, I have hurt them. I must deal with both the technical aspect of being wrong and also the emotional dimension. That’s why a good confession will often involve empathetic words such as, “I’m so sorry that I hurt you by my harsh words.”

5. In your confession, use the phrase “I was wrong”; not just “I’m sorry.”

Just saying “I’m sorry” can compromise and even neutralize a confession. For instance, in the following sentences, the words in parenthesis might not have been spoken but could have been implied.

• • • “I’m sorry what I said offended you (but it wouldn’t have offended you if you weren’t so hypersensitive).”
    • “I’m sorry you feel neglected (but after all, you are overly needy).”
    • “I’m sorry you were upset by my teasing you at the party (even though everyone else thought my story was hilarious).”

Use the phrase “I was wrong” because it admits personal responsibility for the offense and conveys a sense of seriousness.

Museum of the Bible—These early mistakes resulted in Museum of the Bible receiving a great deal of criticism over the years. The criticism resulting from my mistakes was justified.

6. Don’t dilute the confession.

When confessing an offense, don’t include any statements that would dilute the confession. Don’t:

• • • Minimize the offense: “Yeah, I got angry and yelled at you, but that’s not the main issue.”
    • Rationalize/justify: “The reason I yelled was…”
    • Blame others: “I wouldn’t have become angry if you hadn’t…”
    • Offer a trite confession: “Okay, okay; I’m sorry.”
    • Ignore the offense: “Let’s talk about something else.”

7. Ask forgiveness.

For a confession to be complete, we should ask forgiveness. The best way to do this is simply to say, “I was wrong. Will you forgive me?” Hopefully, the offended person will forgive you. If he or she does not, and you have genuinely and properly confessed, you have done all that you can and should do; it is now the other person’s decision whether or not to forgive you.

8. Make restitution.

If possible make restitution for your action. Try to return what was stolen and/or restore what was damaged. If someone’s reputation was impaired, try to make it right. 

Museum of the Bible—I long ago made the decision that when our research revealed another party had a better claim to an item, I would do the right thing and deliver such items to that party. We have already proactively made several such returns. Today, I am announcing that we have identified approximately 5,000 papyri fragments and 6,500 clay objects with insufficient provenance that we are working to deliver to officials in Egypt and Iraq respectively.

The world would run more smoothly and be a better place to live if all of us simply owned up to their mistakes.

 “A-players hire people even better than themselves. It’s clear, though, that B-players hire C-players so they can feel superior to them, and C-players hire D-players. If you start hiring B-players, expect what Steve Jobs called ‘the bozo explosion’ to happen in your organization. Start hiring B-players and you end up with Z-players.” – Guy Kawasaki, former chief evangelist at Apple

A favorite toy among Russian children, the matryoshka doll is a series of wooden dolls that nest inside each other and get progressively smaller and smaller. Open up the largest doll and you’ll find a smaller, identical doll. Open up that doll and there is yet a smaller one. There may be as many as 15 dolls inside the largest one.

I’ll use the matryoshka doll as an analogy for how insecure or uninformed leaders can inhibit the growth and health of their organization by choosing weak team members and how good leaders do the opposite.  

Recruit people who are “bigger” than you.

If the person at the top of the organization intentionally hires someone who is “smaller” (less qualified with less potential; I’m still using the matryoshka doll illustration), and that person recruits someone who is “smaller” than herself and this selection criterion continues to cascade down through the entire organization, eventually it will produce a dumbed-down organization.

Instead, recruit people who are wiser, more capable, and more informed than you, and insist that your direct reports follow suit.

Recruit people who are different than you.

Except for their size, all of the dolls inside a matryoshka doll are identical. The implication for leaders is: if you only recruit team members who are similar to you—in personality, gifts, age range, perspective—your team will not benefit from the critical element of diversity.

Instead, mix it up. Compile a diverse team and then don’t squelch their individuality but embrace and encourage their differences.

Choosing quality team members is the leader’s most important job.

Leaders make two types of major decisions: strategy and people. The people decisions are the most important because if you get the right people on your team, they will help set the right strategy. The success of your organization will rise and fall on the quality of your team.

When I was a kid, we often played an impromptu game of softball or basketball after school. Everyone who wanted to play gathered, two captains were chosen, a coin toss determined which captain chose first, and then teammates were selected one at a time. The captain who chose the best players, won. Sometimes a captain would choose a less-skilled player early in the selection process so as not to hurt the person’s feelings (no one wanted to be chosen last). While that might have been the kind thing to do, it wasn’t the smart thing to do if you wanted to win.

Leaders, choose the best and the brightest to serve on your team and your organization will prosper.

This suggestion is not for the insecure and paranoid; it takes a lot of emotional fortitude and self-confidence to recruit and empower people who are smarter, more competent, edgier, and more connected than you. But if you don’t, you and your organization will suffer from the diminishing-expertise syndrome.

You may wonder, “Won’t that make me look bad?” No, it makes you a competent leader. Remember, leaders get work done through other people, so having an A-team will produce top results. Also, surrounding yourself with top-flight people will motivate you to continue to grow and become better; it will keep you sharp and accountable.

In her book Team of Rivals, Doris Goodwin reminds us that when Abraham Lincoln was elected president and began compiling his cabinet, he chose strong and competent men. Some of them had run against him in the primaries, men who had hoped to have his job—essentially, he chose a cabinet of opponents. Lincoln reasoned, “I have looked the party over and concluded that these men were the very strongest men. I had no right to deprive the country of their services.”

Business consultant Warren Bennis says, “Great teams are led by people confident enough to recruit people better than themselves.” 

Surround yourself with great people.

On a recent visit to Israel, our group visited the Qumran Caves in the Judaean Desert, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947. It’s a fascinating story. 

There’s a nice, modern visitor’s center on site. On my way to the bathroom I had to walk through the gift shop. (I deplore tourist gift shops; bladder control is one of the only reasons I enter.) I glanced down at one of the advertising displays and saw this picture of Mariah Carey. I was amused, surprised, and reminded once again of the idiocy of being influenced by the celebrity effect. 

Mariah has been hired as a spokesperson for Premier Cosmetics Laboratories, an Israeli cosmetics and skincare company that manufactures its products using mineral components extracted from the Dead Sea. I smiled at the tagline “I call the shots and I think I know the best.” (See this webpage for more information on this debacle.)

It’s sad that our culture is so infatuated with famous people that we succumb to advertising campaigns that exploit our naivety. I sort of understand the connection between Michael Jordon and Nike shoes, but when Roger Federer poses as a coffee machine expert and Jennifer Aniston promotes Smartwater, we should recognize the disconnect. 

The celebrity effect is the ability of famous people to influence others. Companies use that star power and influence to boost their own products and services. 

No doubt, it works. When Chanel signed Nicole Kidman in 2003, global sales of the perfume they promoted increased 30%. When Nike and Tiger Woods inked an endorsement deal in 2000, Nike’s market share went from 0.9% to 4% in six months.

The celebrity effect is used in about 14-19% of advertisements aired in the U.S. 

Let’s resist.