As someone with decades of experience in organizational design and leadership, the simple truth is that without a unified and binding organizational culture the organization will become too fractious and ungovernable. Without this, the organization becomes much too difficult to make needed change and course correction. Productivity suffers.
However, the same risk exists on the other side of this principle where the work culture becomes too rigid and hierarchical, it stifles needed creativity and the ability be nimble in response to needed change.
The key is to do both... to have a binding culture that is limited to being foundational and not more than it needs to be. And to welcome diversity of experience, thought and perspectives that result in the outcome of people being better than the sum of their parts.
Because these two things are always in conflict with each other, that is were effective leadership is important. Good leaders ensure a balance.
The US has been infected with terrible leadership for decades until Trump was elected to restore balance from the extreme pull of previous politicians and government officials toward the multiculturalism globalism side. The primary motivation for this has been money... trillions being made on Wall Street chasing corporate profit maximization and corporate shareholder return maximization. This has benefited the top10% at the expense of everyone else, but the top 10% - the Professional Managerial Class - wants more and thus is determined to stop Trump from implementing the needed balance.
Just look at it today... unemployment is increasing and yet the stock market keeps hitting new highs.
The cry of "nationalism" and "fascism" are just hyperbolic lies to try and prevent the return to a balanced country with a foundational culture and set of moral values. However, the pull back from the clearly failed multiculturalism globalist project is a threat to the big money oligarchs that are primarily supported by the Democrat party machine. And so they will keep up the myth that "diversity is strength" when the evidence that the best countries to live are those with a more homogeneous base culture that demands immigrants assimilate to.
I agree absolutely with what the author says about the climate change ideologues. But he repeatedly accuses an amorphous "new right" and "populists" of also being intolerant and censoring. Who is he talking about? Names and examples would be helpful?
Rubio, Trump and Vance rightfully took a strong stand about the absurd European censorship of dissenting opionions. But they really betrayed their own values by doing censorship of Israel critics. But where else on the right is there this alleged unity ? The right is quite fractious, witness Tucker Carlson, MTG, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Ron Johnson, etc. There is a battle between neo cons and America First foreign policy. Kennedy and MAHA are pushing for more regulation, or banning of dangerous chemicals and additives in food as well as a less captured FDA and NIH. Traditional republicas ( called RINOS by MAGA and MAHA) are comfortable being cozy with big Pharma, Ag and chemicals.
So I am confused what the author means? If you cite voices on the righ who are intolerant and dont accept diversity ( there are surely some). Please explain how these outweigh the others who are themselves dissenting.
As someone with decades of experience in organizational design and leadership, the simple truth is that without a unified and binding organizational culture the organization will become too fractious and ungovernable. Without this, the organization becomes much too difficult to make needed change and course correction. Productivity suffers.
However, the same risk exists on the other side of this principle where the work culture becomes too rigid and hierarchical, it stifles needed creativity and the ability be nimble in response to needed change.
The key is to do both... to have a binding culture that is limited to being foundational and not more than it needs to be. And to welcome diversity of experience, thought and perspectives that result in the outcome of people being better than the sum of their parts.
Because these two things are always in conflict with each other, that is were effective leadership is important. Good leaders ensure a balance.
The US has been infected with terrible leadership for decades until Trump was elected to restore balance from the extreme pull of previous politicians and government officials toward the multiculturalism globalism side. The primary motivation for this has been money... trillions being made on Wall Street chasing corporate profit maximization and corporate shareholder return maximization. This has benefited the top10% at the expense of everyone else, but the top 10% - the Professional Managerial Class - wants more and thus is determined to stop Trump from implementing the needed balance.
Just look at it today... unemployment is increasing and yet the stock market keeps hitting new highs.
The cry of "nationalism" and "fascism" are just hyperbolic lies to try and prevent the return to a balanced country with a foundational culture and set of moral values. However, the pull back from the clearly failed multiculturalism globalist project is a threat to the big money oligarchs that are primarily supported by the Democrat party machine. And so they will keep up the myth that "diversity is strength" when the evidence that the best countries to live are those with a more homogeneous base culture that demands immigrants assimilate to.
I agree absolutely with what the author says about the climate change ideologues. But he repeatedly accuses an amorphous "new right" and "populists" of also being intolerant and censoring. Who is he talking about? Names and examples would be helpful?
Rubio, Trump and Vance rightfully took a strong stand about the absurd European censorship of dissenting opionions. But they really betrayed their own values by doing censorship of Israel critics. But where else on the right is there this alleged unity ? The right is quite fractious, witness Tucker Carlson, MTG, Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Ron Johnson, etc. There is a battle between neo cons and America First foreign policy. Kennedy and MAHA are pushing for more regulation, or banning of dangerous chemicals and additives in food as well as a less captured FDA and NIH. Traditional republicas ( called RINOS by MAGA and MAHA) are comfortable being cozy with big Pharma, Ag and chemicals.
So I am confused what the author means? If you cite voices on the righ who are intolerant and dont accept diversity ( there are surely some). Please explain how these outweigh the others who are themselves dissenting.
Republics are invariably more powerful than kingdoms. They are almost never killed, but very often they suicide.