Amway/Quixtar is spinning again and I have decided to set the record straight.  In Quixtar’s never ending attack on my character, they have insinuated that I have:

1. Taken funds from the Quixtar Legal Defense Fund.

2. Received profit sharing from Team while the rest of the leaders have suffered.

3. Received profits from the Launching a Leadership Revolution book.

4. Filed the Quixtar lawsuit to smear the good name of Amway/Quixtar.

5. Solicited other IBO’s to leave Quixtar.

6. Stole confidential information from the IBOAI Board.

These and probably other allegations have been posted all over the internet with no concern for the truth, objectivity or facts.  This reminds me of a Ronald Reagan quote where he stated, “The facts are pesky things.”  I am sorry Quixtar, but the facts are too pesky for these baseless allegations and I must refute the many errors.  I will not attack any individual or company, but will not allow lies against me or my friends go unaddressed.  I will address each of them now.

1. I have received no money from the Quixtar Legal Defense Fund and have provided money to various individuals who have been attacked legally by Quixtar before the QLDF was set up.  I did not set up the fund, but have verified the money is being allocated for the defense of former IBO’s who were counter sued by Quixtar.  Numerous IBO’s were seeking TRO’s to stop Quixtar from destroying their organizations by email threats, ultimatums and intimidation.  Quixtar counter sued for damages against nearly every IBO who filed for a TRO.  I feel morally bound to help in anyway I can and asked for my friends to support the Quixtar Legal Defense Fund on their behalf.

2. Profit sharing for the whole Team has been down for obvious reasons over the last seven months.  Between the numerous lawsuits, throwing away Quixtar specific tools, reduced special orders, no opens, etc. - the profit sharing pot has suffered.  Profit sharing is just that – Profit Sharing.  No one gets a special deal and everyone must bring their numbers to the table to be run through the profit sharing formula.  When there is a profit the leaders will share based on the formulas—when there is no profit then we cannot share what is not there.  Every PC member has donated from 33% to over 75% of every profit sharing check to help maintain the bonuses of the smaller profit sharing members.  The round table received their full checks (less than before but 100% of earned profit sharing.)  The smaller profits sharers received 50% or more of the actual total checks thanks to the PC leaders’ donations.  I personally refused any profit sharing on several occasions and donated over $700,000 of my personal funds to ensure others received profit sharing.  My belief is that we profit share when we win and only the top leaders should loss share when we lose.  I refused to ask anybody else on the Team to give money so I funded any exorbitant losses out of my own pocket.  The worst is over and I fully expect the profit sharing to increase as the numbers are exploding currently.  I thank all the PC members for the sacrifices they made for the good of the whole Team.

3. Chris and I have received no royalties from our book and gave 100% of the proceeds to All Grace Outreach which gives to various charities.  This is well known and I am disappointed Quixtar or their cronies would have insinuated anything but the truth here.

4. Our goal on August 9^th was to have an amicable separation.  I refused to go forward into the Amway business against my will regardless of Quixtar’s threats and intimidations.  There were less than 100 people on my personal organization that had ever been in Amway and I felt it was immoral to force people to join a business they had not signed up for.  I asked Amway/Quixtar to give people a choice just like they had when Quixtar was launched.  IBO’s were given a choice to be in Amway or Quixtar originally in 1999.  Since Quixtar had repeatedly threatened their leaders if they attempted to leave—I had our lawyers prepare a lawsuit with a standstill agreement.  The lawsuit and standstill agreements were to ensure Amway/Quixtar negotiated in good faith and would not just terminate us or pursue litigation against us.  Quixtar did not negotiate in good faith and the subsequent damage - I believe - must be laid on the shoulders of Quixtar lawyers.  All of the subsequent lawsuits and controversies on both sides could have been avoided had Quixtar management known anything about statesmanship.  Billy Florence and others called back repeatedly to Quixtar lawyers begging them to come back to the table and avoid the lawsuit.  We had no desire to smear the Amway/Quixtar name.  The company in England (DTI Illegal Pyramid Scheme), India Hyderabad(Illegal Lottery scheme), Pokorny (Pyramid and RICO violations), Nitro (Federal Anti-trust violations) – had ruined their own reputation in my opinion and did not need any further help from us.  In fact, I would argue that Chris and I as best selling authors cannot afford our name to be associated with Amway’s.  I didn’t think it would look good on our resume’ to have ‘promoters of an illegal pyramid scheme’ on it should Amway/Quixtar be shut down by any of the government agencies investigating them.  It has been over 7 and 1/2 months and I find it curious that not one point from the Quixtar Pyramid lawsuit filed in California has been refuted.  I will gladly rescind any statement from the lawsuit that Quixtar can prove with facts to be false.  Maybe the strategy of Quixtar was - if you can't refute the facts from the message - settle for an attack on the character of the messenger.

5. I have not solicited any Quixtar IBO’s and still believe strongly in the freedom to choose what business you desire to be in.  It is unconscionable in my opinion to hold people against their will in a business they do not wish to be a part of.  Quixtar has had many court dates and has not provided even one example of an IBO I have solicited.  The reason for this is because I have not solicited anyone.

6. I did not steal any information from the IBOAI Board and any information that I used in the California case was known by many non-board members.  The networking industry is a word of mouth business and nothing is ever kept secret.  Numerous board members would text their upline leaders in the middle of board meetings.  The IBOAI Board knows this and I personally believe it is ridiculous that we are being sued by our former colleagues.   We purposely left the IBOAI Board off of any litigation and realized that many Board members were intimidated by the Quixtar threats.  But 40% of the IBOAI Board chose to make a stand!  We could not sit by idly and watch the little IBO whom the board members were sworn to serve and represent be churned through a failing business.  The IBOAI board knew the business was not working – the Board confronted Quixtar – Quixtar not only refused to fix it, but changed the name back to Amway.   I feel it would be patently immoral for the Board to then sit back and do nothing about this!  The actions of Quixtar were WRONG in my opinion and not in the best interest of the field IBO’s.  I believe Confidentiality agreements should never be used to protect immoral business practices to the detriment of the field we are supposed to be representing.  As Board members we had a moral responsibility to confront the company or we were not doing our elected duty and the Board is a toothless sham.

I am sure the character assassinations by the Quixtar Spin machine are not over, but I will continue to serve people and provide the pesky facts when needed.  I love the quote, “Reputation is what other people say about you, but character is what you are.”  Quixtar can attack my reputation, but they cannot touch my character.   I hope this clarifies the facts from the spin in our ongoing issues with Amway/Quixtar.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

The last week was spent in a confidential arbitration proceeding that I am not free to discuss.  I am free to say that the Woodwards and the Brady's received word on Wednesday night that our injunction has been lifted on both the non-compete and the non-disparagement clauses.  WE ARE SO EXCITED!  This is one of the best birthday gifts I have ever received.  We have already announced our intention of joining MonaVie when possible and now it is possible!  I want to thank all of my friends for their incredible encouragement and support through one of the toughest times of my life.  Now that I am free to talk about business and competition, I would like to share a few thoughts for moving forward.

1. Remember when you are joining a new MLM to always act with humility and class towards crossline organizations already in MonaVie.  Our goal should be to edify their leadership and come in as students.  Yes, we are excited about the opportunity, but we will let our actions speak for us not our words.  Humility is much more attractive than arrogance.

2. Remember that we are not at MonaVie meetings to sell training materials to crossline groups.  They have their own training systems and we must respect their training as we would expect them to respect ours.  Character, Class and Competence are the three C's to focus on.  Yesterday, I met with Dallin Larsen and many of the top leaders in MonaVie.  What an impressive group of leaders!  Leadership is about providing value to everyone you come into contact with.  The leaders of MonaVie have provided incredible value to people through a great product and servant based leadership.  Let's lift one another as a rising tide lifts all ships!

3. Remember to review you reasons for starting in your own business.  Nothing happens but first the dream as Carl Sandburg states.  What is your dream and why did you get started in your own business?

4. Let's focus on building communities of people who will move products through their communities and customers.  We have an opportunity to build a million people community and to get paid great money to do so.  The distributors are focused on building the communities and that is what we intend to do!

5. Get with your upline in your new business and develop a gameplan to build your business.  I will be personally running PDCA cycles to develop the best training system possible to support people in building the MonaVie businesses. 

6. I will be updating this Leadership blog two to three times a week.  This site is a Leadership blog and any specific business building techniques or business questions should be addressed to your upline.  I love the comments and discussion and plan on continuing the blog.  I won't be as active because I intend to be more active in building a million people team.  Building communities is the best way to positively change people's lives and through them change our culture! 

I want to thank you again for the incredible encouragement and support during this valley experience.  It is now time to climb the mountain.  We are not Quitters - we are not Campers - we are Climbers!  Are you ready to climb the mountain!!

God Bless, Orrin Woodward

I read a fantastic article by Rick Beneteau on giving and listening.  It reminded me of the role of mentoring in helping someone think properly through their life.  Life can be tough and it certainly isn’t always a bed of roses.  If life is tough for everyone, why do some people seem to ride the waves from peak to peak, but others are buried by the waves?  I believe it is not what happens to you in life, but how you think about what happens to you in life that matters most.  Do you see your current challenges, roadblocks, and setbacks as evidence of no opportunity or do you see the same situations as evidence that God has a BIG plan for you!  Think about it for a minute!  If God is calling you for a big assignment—wouldn’t it make sense that He would place some major challenges in your life to develop character first?  God must develop the person for the assignment given and challenges are a great way to develop the necessary character for advanced assignments.  Instead of fighting our fate, let’s be drawn to our destiny! 

When Laurie and I sit down to mentor couples, we tell them to share with us the good, the bad, and the ugly.  We are not listening so we can have a pity party with the couple.  We listen to celebrate the good, make adjustments for the bad and address the ugly immediately.  Every great leader has had good, bad and ugly things happen to them, but the key is how they are thinking through the situations.  How are you thinking through the good, the bad, and the ugly in your life?  Do you secretly enjoy the bad and the ugly things that are happening?  Many people surprisingly do!  The reason for this secret enjoyment is they feel it justifies their lack of results and causes others to feel sorry for them.  DO NOT EVER PLAY THE ROLE OF VICTIM!  It may feel good to have others feel sorry for you, but it is a drug that creates a harmful life addiction.  YOU are a champion and all champions will have to overcome the bad and the ugly in their life.  We are not training people to be victims, so take the bad things that happen to you as God’s way of developing character.  The greatest gift a mentor can give to you is the absolute belief that you have what it takes inside of you to overcome your present difficulties and win in the game of life.  Laurie and I believe strongly that all of us have what it takes and we have dedicated our life to teach others how to think through their difficulties to be champions in the game of life!  We must give to others, but the best thing to give to others is a champion’s way of thinking through life.  Anything else that we give to them is giving less than our personal best!  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

"Give 'til it hurts." You've probably heard this a thousand times. I know I have. A well-intentioned expression that I always found somewhat strange as "giving" and "hurt" are concepts that seem to be polar opposite.

I want to share with you a personal story where "giving" in fact "hurt" a person I was trying to help. In order to do that, I need to give you a little background about myself. Please indulge me.

For whatever reason the universe has, I have been blessed to have had many people seek my counsel during my fifty years of living. They trusted that I could help them in some way.

I've been told that I am a good listener. Coupled with an inherent desire to help others, even during my high school days, I seemed to become the counselor of choice for many of my peers.

I vividly recall private chats I had with my high school cohorts, normally conducted in my sooped-up '67 ‘Cuda, during lunch, spare periods or skipped-out classes. Problems about girlfriends, boyfriends, teachers and parents were the norm. Usually self- esteem issues were at the core, as is the case with most problems thirty years later.

And later, my twenty-and-thirty-something friends and family members, as well as many of the employees in my drycleaning business, could always count on complete confidence and my objectivity when discussing problems that they had in their personal lives.

As life moved along, I was faced with a myriad of not only challenges to overcome, but tragedies to deal with. The death of two of my siblings, my father and many close family members and friends, business losses, divorce and being the parent of a special needs child were among them. The lessons learned and the strength gained from these life experiences ultimately led to what I have chosen to do with my life today.

But being pretty well-schooled in life does not always mean that one has the right answers though.

He has been in my life a long time. I was mostly always on the listening end. Conversation after conversation he would laundry-list his assorted problems. And, as many "victims of life" have it, they were never in short supply. I would allow him to "share" his stories of suffering, time after time, consuming much of mine. Like the traditional psychologist, I would just listen, as I felt listening was a large part of "my role" in trying to help him.

Thing was, no matter what suggestions I would offer to try to help him, the problems not only remained, but amplified over time. He never acted on my advice and I eventually began to feel rather impotent and confused about how I could make a difference in his life.

Suddenly, in a conversation last year, at a point where I became very irritated at listening to his negativity, it struck me. This person was receiving so much more benefit from knowing I was listening to him spew about his miserable life than he ever would from finding solutions and improving it. It finally dawned on me that he LOVED having problems!

I hadn't helped him. Not one bit. In fact, for years, I was simply feeding this need in him. I was helping him to have a great time at his own pity party. All this time my giving was, in fact, hurting him!

He was shocked when I interrupted him mid-sentence and blurted out that I didn't want to listen to any more about his problems. There was an awkward silence but when he finally asked me "why" I quickly reassured him that I was still interested in helping him. But it was not going to be on his terms anymore. The new deal would have to be that from this conversation forward, we would not discuss the past. Only the present and future. We would address current issues by working on solutions. He would need to act on my suggestions. Things such as reading certain books or listening to certain tapes and making small adjustments in his thinking that would produce positive results. Our future conversations would consist only of discussing the changes he would sincerely attempt to make to improve his life. He seemed somewhat stunned, and reluctantly agreed.

Those next few times we talked though he tried very hard to steer the conversation down his familiar road attempting to inform me of the latest, greatest grief in his life. But I didn't allow that, sticking to the agreed-upon plan and changing direction to our new proactive approach.

You know what? It really didn't take too long before the tone of our conversations became more positive in nature and soon he was beginning to "get" some important concepts about how his mind, and the universe, really worked. He started reading and listening to materials I suggested. He was beginning to learn that his current results were the product of his current thinking and that he was never a victim of life – not for one minute! That growth has continued.

Now we have great talks, often upbeat, and any real problem he has is briefly outlined and then discussed in such a way that a solution can be found and acted upon. In fact, I've become comfortable sharing some of my problems with him! More than once he's reminded me to take some of my own medicine!

It's both magical and comforting to me at the same time to know that when the simple truths of how things work in this world are realized, things can really begin to change for the better and in a big way. It's unfortunate that it took so long for me to realize how I could better serve my friend, but then, the universe has it's own timing for things like this.

It is my hope that if you have been trying to help someone like my friend and find yourself doing a lot of "listening", that just maybe, your giving is hurting.

Read an announcement from Dallin Larsen today from a MonaVie website.  I am extremely impressed with the character and class that Dallin displays in all situations.  Winning is important, but John Wooden teaches - winning is not winning if you lose your character and class by resorting to mean spirited tactics.  Dallin Larsen is a leader of character and I am not shocked that his business enterprises have been blessed abundantly.  MonaVie is a fast growing company with a vision of going to 20 billion in their first 20 years.  I believe deeply in the life principle—“you reap what you sow.”  Dallin has reaped many rewards in life by first sowing love, respect and belief into people.  We can all learn from the example of Dallin Larsen on character based leadership.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Dear MonaVie Family,

I hope this letter finds you well and enjoying the benefits of MonaVie on a daily basis.

The reason for this communication centers on recent legal filings between MonaVie and Quixtar, a sister company of Amway. I've had a hunch for some time now that with the thousands of distributors joining us on a weekly basis, along with our extraordinary growth over the past few years, that we would, unfortunately, ruffle the feathers of a few of our friends in other direct selling companies. Having previously served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Direct Selling Association in Washington, D.C., I can assure you that the vast majority of people I have worked with from other companies have been highly professional. I'm optimistic that this recent disagreement between MonaVie and Amway/Quixtar will be resolved amicably.

Many of our distributors have enrolled in MonaVie with no prior connection to any direct selling company, while others have had prior experience. For whatever reason, certainly not because we've targeted Amway/Quixtar, various individuals previously with Amway/Quixtar have chosen to join MonaVie. However, in our constant desire to operate as a responsible member of the direct selling industry, we recently went so far as to change our online enrollment form to specifically mention Amway/Quixtar by name, letting prospective MonaVie distributors know that we would not accept their application if they were still under a "non-compete" clause with Amway, or any other company for that matter.

Graden Jackson, General Counsel for MonaVie, has been in communication with various attorneys engaged at Amway's headquarters over the past several weeks. He informed them that we added specific language to our online form, which prohibits current Amway distributors from joining MonaVie. We did this even though we believe we had no legal obligation to show this level of support. In addition, I personally sent an official communication to every North American distributor in MonaVie stating that we have no desire to cause harm or consternation to Amway or any other direct selling company. I spoke the same words on stage at the recent regional meeting in Anaheim.

MonaVie doesn't need Amway distributors or any other company's distributors to grow a successful business. Furthermore, to my knowledge, we have never attempted to recruit another Amway distributor into MonaVie. Have some of their former distributors joined us? Yes. Have some former MonaVie distributors left MonaVie for other opportunities, perhaps even Amway? I'm sure they have. As I stated in my recent letter, and on stage at the Anaheim Regional Meeting, I refuse to attempt to require any disenchanted MonaVie distributor from staying in MonaVie against their will. If they believe their dreams are better served elsewhere, I would say: God bless you; we'll leave the door open should you ever choose to come back to MonaVie for another season in your life, or for the rest of your life.

I believe the reason for our success is because of our exceptional product, our rewarding compensation and incentive package, and the fact that we keep our word. Also, I believe we're successful because of the freedom we offer to our distributors. MonaVie distributors: you are independent distributors in MonaVie, not employees. I would be more than happy if every direct selling company in the world, including Amway, would remove "non-compete" clauses once and for all from their Policies and Procedures. It's my view that these policies are too often unfair to well-intentioned people who simply choose to pursue their dreams with another company, only to be told they are not free to do so, even after dedicating months—or even years—of their lives. At MonaVie, we will continue doing everything in our power to stick up for the rights of distributors.

On Monday, March 17, 2008, out of our commitment to protect the interests of MonaVie—and because we felt we had no other choice—we filed a complaint in the District of Utah, asking for a ruling on Amway's "non-compete" clause and whether or not it is enforceable. The following day, Amway filed a complaint of its own against MonaVie, claiming that we had inappropriately recruited distributors from Amway. We desire to resolve this matter in a professional, timely, and respectful way. To this end, and because I always believe that open communication leads to understanding, I have offered to meet with Amway's President in hopes that we can reach a win-win solution. In the meantime, I would ask that all of your communications continue to be above reproach.

In today's Internet world, I'm sure there will likely be some mean-spirited words spoken about me, our company, my kids, parents, and maybe even the dog I had in high school! Rest assured that I know to whom I turn for strength. I believe in a merciful God who has blessed me in countless ways, one of which is the relationships I have with so many of you. As an Eagle Scout, I try to live by that oath I took 35 years ago. We are doing a good work on so many levels. We're helping the kids in Brazil, and we're helping families around the world through our product and opportunity. I am proud of who we are and our company's culture.

In today's litigious environment, the larger we become, the more we will be challenged. With that in mind, I ask you once again to please represent this product for what it is: a food, not a drug. MonaVie is not intended to treat, cure, or mitigate any disease.

Finally, on a lighter note, we are having another record month at MonaVie! The 20/20 Vision of MonaVie marches onward. May we reach our goals as a company, always operating with integrity and speaking positively of each other and other companies, including Amway.

Warmest regards,

Dallin A. Larsen

Founder and President, MonaVie

Here is a true story of "little David" defeating "Goliath".  I have always pulled for the underdogs vs. the over-confident champs.  America loves a great upset and has provided many examples of them.  One of my all-time favorite sports moments was the "Buster" Douglas vs. Mike Tyson fight.  No one gave Douglas a chance, but he had dedicated this fight to his recently deceased mother.  When a person knows "why" they are doing something: they can endure almost any "how".   I am attaching the first of a series from HBO on the fight.  There are moments in every person's life where they must defeat their Goliaths.  Are you stalking your Goliath?  We need more David's in leadership - they will stand for truth and conviction instead of ease and comfort.  Here are some special lines from the video.

1. Mike Tyson's opponent, as usual, was paid little heed.  - Champions are knocked out when they stop respecting the competitors and develop a deity complex--thinking they are infallible and can do no wrong.

2. Opponents were terrified of Mike Tyson - Opponents should let the champion read the press clippings.  The opponent should be focused on strategy to beat the over-confident champ.

3. Another heavyweight that looked like a "sitting duck".  - It is not important what the crowd says, but what you feel and think inside your own mind that matters most.

4. Douglas was for this one big occasion going to be the fighter of his dreams! - When a person knows why they do what they do and focus on the end goal: great things can happen.

5. Fear was a lot of Tyson's weaponry. - Tyson relied on the fear of his opponent to mentally defeat them.

6. Fighters came in frozen like the prey of a cobra. - "Buster" Douglas did not fear Mike Tyson.

7. "Buster" Douglas's mother had just died and he felt he had nothing to lose by giving his all in memory of her. 

8. Tyson had begun to go on emotional rampages - This occurs with people and companies who develop a deity complex.

9. Tyson refused to run and develop his lung capacity - Champions who fall no longer feel they need to do the disciplined work.

10. Manager told Tyson, "You are not superman and the things you are doing - you are heading for a butt whuppin.

11. Announcers thought "Buster" was going to his doom, but "Buster" knew better!

12. Incredibly, the self proclaimed "Baddest Man on the Planet" was struggling in the ring.

I read an informative article this morning from Paul B. Thornton on the 7 Secrets of Leadership Success.  All the points are on the mark and every leader will improve by applying these principles to their life.  Leadership in one sense is simple, but in another sense is extremely hard.  What is the reason for this?  I have a one word answer: discipline.  Learning the principles are not enough—true results will only occur when the principles are applied consistently and this requires self-discipline!  Enjoy the article. God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Fortune magazine once published an article entitled “The Best Advice I Ever Got.” It was a great article that offered wit and wisdom about achieving business success. I liked it so much, that it motivated me to produce my newest book, Leadership: Best Advice I Ever Got, which describes the best leadership advice 136 successful CEOs, coaches, consultants, professors, managers, executives, presidents, politicians, and religious leaders received that most helped them become effective and successful leaders.

Here are seven secrets to leadership success:

1. Leadership is about making things happen.

If you want to make something happen with your life – in school, in your profession or in your community, do it. Perceived obstacles crumble against persistent desire. John Baldoni, Author, Leadership Communication Consultant and Founder of Baldoni Consulting LLC, shared this advice that had come from his father, a physician. He taught him the value of persistence. At the same time, his mother taught him compassion for others. Therefore, persistence for your cause should not be gained at the expense of others. Another bit of leadership wisdom!

2. Listen and understand the issue, then lead.

Time and time again we have all been told, "God gave us two ears and one mouth for a reason"... or as Stephen Covey said, "Seek to understand, rather than be understood." As a leader, listening first to the issue, then trying to coach, has been the most valuable advice that Cordia Harrington, President and CEO of Tennessee Bun Company has been given.

3. Answer the three questions everyone within your organization wants answers to.

What the people of an organization want from their leader are answers to the following: Where are we going? How are we going to get there? What is my role? Kevin Nolan, President & Chief Executive Officer of Affinity Health Systems, Inc. believes the more clarity that can be added to each of the three questions, the better the result.

4. Master the goals that will allow you to work anywhere in today’s dynamic business world.

Debbe Kennedy, President, CEO and Founder of Global Dialogue Center and Leadership Solutions Companies, and author of Action Dialogues and Breakthrough once shared this piece of advice that was instrumental in shaping her direction, future and achievements.

She was a young manager at IBM just promoted to her first staff assignment in a regional marketing office. For reasons she can’t explain, one of her colleagues named Bookie called her into his office while she was visiting his location. He then began to offer unsolicited advice, but advice that now stays fresh in her mind. He mentioned that jobs, missions, titles and organizations would come and go as business is dynamic - meaning it is always changing. He advised her not to focus your goals toward any of these, but instead learn to master the skills that will allow you to work anywhere.

He was talking about four skills:

The ability to develop an idea;

Effectively plan for its implementation;

Execute second-to-none;

Achieve superior results time after time.

With this in mind, Kennedy advises readers to seek jobs and opportunities with this in mind. Forget what others do. Work to be known for delivering excellence. It speaks for itself and it opens doors.

5. Be curious.

Curiosity is a prerequisite to continuous improvement and even excellence. The person who gave Mary Jean Thornton, Former Executive Vice President & CIO, The Travelers, this advice urged her to study people, processes, and structures. He inspired her to be intellectually curious. He often reminded Thornton that making progress, in part, was based upon thinking. She has learned to apply this notion of intellectual curiosity by thinking about her organization’s future, understanding the present, and knowing and challenging herself to creatively move the people and the organization closer to its vision.

6. Listen to both sides of the argument.

The most valuable advice Brian P. Lees, Massachusetts State Senator and Senate Minority Leader, ever received came from his mentor, United States Senator Edward W. Brooke III. He told him to listen to all different kinds of people and ideas. Listening only to those who share your background and opinions can be imprudent. It is important to respect your neighbors’ rights to their own views. Listening to and talking with a variety of people, from professors to police officers, from senior citizens to school children, is essential not only to be a good leader in business, but to also be a valuable member within your community.

7. Prepare, prepare, prepare.

If you fail to prepare, you are preparing to fail. If one has truly prepared and something goes wrong the strength of the rest of what you've prepared for usually makes this something easier to handle without crisis and panic. One of the best pieces of advice Dave Hixson, Men’s Varsity Basketball Coach at Amherst College has ever received and continues to use and pass on is this anonymous quote -“Preparation is the science of winning."

Along with this are two expressions from Rick Pitino's book Success is a Choice, which speaks to preparation. Hixson asks his teams every year: "Do you deserve to win?" and "Have you done the work?" This speaks to the importance of preparation toward achieving your final goal. If you haven't done the work (the preparation) the answer to the second question is an easy "no!"

Great advice comes from many sources – parents, other relatives, consultants, bosses, co-workers, mentors, teachers, coaches, and friends. The important point to remember is to stay open, listen to everyone, but also develop your own leadership style.

Dr. Boice is one of my favorite authors, preachers and teachers.  His way of stating truth left you defenseless before God.  We need more men and women who will live the truth of God’s word in their lives.  Laurie and I are on a full court press to find a God honoring, Biblical believing church in Florida.  The assignment is turning out to be much harder than we originally expected.  We have attended numerous churches and all of them have positive aspects.  My one non-negotiable is—are they doing God’s agenda for the church or world’s agenda for the church?   It is easy to determine the world’s agenda.  You will hear things like seeker friendly, great kids programs, excellent plays and skits, etc.  I have nothing against these, but what should be the number one focus when looking for a church?  If they have the best kids program in the world, but do not preach and teach the Word of God is it acceptable?  If they have thousands of seekers at church week after week, but they never learn their sinfulness and need of forgiveness—is this acceptable?  I don’t understand a seeker friendly church.  In order to be friendly to seekers then we must not offend their worldly nature, but the cross in an offense to the world.  It must be or the church would not be different from the world. 

For the church to have true influence and to make a difference in our culture as the salt and light then we must be different!  I am all in favor of bringing as many unconverted into the church as possible.  But I am not for watering down the message and developing a weak, man-centered theology that sacrifices the worship of the true God for the idols of our own imagination.  Truth is truth.  We may disagree with one another on what a text says, but we can’t just throw away the text!  What is your specific intent for going to church?  What is the number one criteria you used when finding a church home?   The church is a place where God is honored as God and people worship with a thankful heart that their sins have been forgiven.  When an unconverted person attends the church they should hear a message of forgiveness of their sins by the finished work of Jesus Christ.

This is why the community generated by Christians is so special.  When we realize that we have been forgiven by grace, then we have nothing to boast about.  Humility ought to be one of the key characteristics of a converted person.  Humble people do not view themselves as better than others and thus true service to others occurs.  The ground before the cross is flat and whether you are a billionaire or broke—you still need Jesus Christ perfect life to substitute for your imperfect life.  This makes service to others possible because there are no superior positions in God’s church.  We are all servants!  The Church must model this serving community for the watching world.  The world is dying for true community and the Church is forgetting that it is called to build this community.  We must love the Lord with all our hearts and love others as ourselves.  If more churches would stop catering to the world and start catering to their God—we would see a revival in the church and an impact in society of God only knows proportions.  We are responsible to obey God’s word and God is responsible for the consequences of our obedience.  I apologize if I sounded harsh—these words convict me as much as anyone!   Let’s read our Bible’s and do our part, because I know God will do His.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

[Earlier this year (2000) the late Dr. James Montgomery Boice delivered a series of three messages — the Den Dulk Lectures — at Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, California. The following are his opening words which appeared in Update, the Westminster Seminary in California magazine and used by permission.]

These are not good days for the evangelical church as three recent books agree: No Place for Truth by David Wells; Power Religion by Michael Horton; and Ashamed of the Gospel by John MacArthur. Though the titles speak clearly, the subtitles are even more revealing. Respectively, they are: "Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology?", "The Selling Out of the Evangelical Church", and "When the Church Becomes like the World." These three careful observers agree that evangelicalism approaches abandoning its truth-heritage.

A Thirty-Year Perspective

I returned to the United States from Europe in 1966 to work at Christianity Today. The 1960s were a time of rising influence for evangelicals. Under the leadership of Carl E H. Henry, Christianity Today challenged the theological trends in liberal churches. Evangelical seminaries grew large and numerous. Evangelical churches emerged from their suburban ghettos to engage selected aspects of the secular culture. One decade later, Newsweek magazine would call 1976 "the year of the evangelical." From 1968 to 1980, I was part of a mainline church. Like other churches, it was declining because it had adopted the world's ways in the four following areas:

The World's Wisdom

Liberals ceased to seek wisdom from God through the Scriptures and became deaf to the reforming voice of God in the church. Undermined by rationalism, they were no longer able to receive the Bible as God's Word to man, only as man's word about God.

The World's Theology

I will define the world's theology as the view that human beings are basically good, that no one is really lost and that belief in Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation, though it is helpful for some people. Liberal churches could not abandon biblical terminology and still pretended to be Christian. But biblical terms were given different meanings. Sin became ignorance or the oppression of certain social structures. Jesus became a pattern for creative living — an example or a revolutionary. Salvation became liberation from oppression. Faith became awareness of oppression and the willingness to do something about it. Evangelism meant working to overthrow entrenched injustice.

The World's Agenda

The theme of the 1964 World Council of Churches was: "the world must set the agenda." Liberals believed that the church's concerns should be the concerns of the world, even to the exclusion of the gospel. Hunger, racism, ecology, aging — whatever issue was crucial to the world was to be of first concern to Christian people.

The World's Methods

God has given us methods to do his work: participation, persuasion and prayer. But mainline churches jettisoned these methods in favour of power, politics and money. A cartoon that appeared in The New Yorker got it exactly right. One pilgrim on the Mayflower said to another, "Religious freedom is my immediate goal, but my long range plan is to go into real estate."

The Worldly Churches

What hit me like a thunderbolt several years ago is that what I had been saying about liberal churches in the 1960s and 1970s now can be said about evangelical churches too. Have evangelicals now fixed their eyes on a worldly kingdom and chosen politics and money as their weapons? About ten years ago Martin Marty, a shrewd observer of the American church, said that by the end of the century evangelicals would be "the most worldly people in America:" He was probably too cautious. Evangelicals fulfilled his prophecy before the turn of the millennium.

The World's Wisdom

Evangelicals are not consciously heretics. Is the Bible God's Word? Of course! Is it authoritative? Yes, that too. Inerrant? Most evangelicals will affirm inerrancy. But many do not think the Bible adequate to meet today's challenges, or sufficient for winning people to Christ. They have turned to felt-need sermons, entertainment or "signs and wonders." The Bible is insufficient for achieving Christian growth; so they turn to therapy groups or Christian counselling. It is insufficient for making God's will known; so they look for external signs or revelations. It is inadequate for changing our society; so they establish evangelical lobby groups in Washington and work to elect "Christian" congressmen, senators, presidents and other officials. They seek change by power politics and money.

The World's Theology

Like the liberals, evangelicals are giving new meaning to the Bible's words, pouring secular, therapeutic content into spiritual terminology. Sin has become dysfunctional behaviour; salvation, self-esteem or wholeness; and Jesus, an example for right living. Sunday by Sunday people are told how to have happy marriages and raise nice children, but not how to get right with God.

The World's Agenda

Francis Schaeffer said that happiness is the maximum amount of personal peace and sufficient affluence to enjoy it. Forget world hunger, racism or ecology. The world's agenda is to be happy. But is not this the message of much evangelical preaching today? To be happy? To be satisfied? Though its most extreme expression is found in health, wealth and prosperity preachers, the gospel of the good life permeates evangelical preaching, failing to expose sin, and to drive men and women to the Saviour' True discipleship is hard.

The World's Methods

Evangelicals now emphasise numerical growth, physical plants and money. Pastors tone down the hard edges of biblical truth and use bizarre evangelistic methods and entertainment to attract more people. Many support a National Association of Evangelicals lobby in Washington and social action groups to advance specific legislation. One church attracts worshipers by imitating radio news programs that promise: "Give us twenty-two minutes, and we'll give you the world." Their Sunday "Express Worship" service is, according to the pastor, "not one person delivering the truth to you, but a shared experience."

When you put these contemporary evangelical characteristics together - pursuit of the world's wisdom, acceptance of the world's theology, adoption of the world's agenda and utilisation of the world's methods — it is hard to escape feeling that today's evangelicals have fallen into the trap of the liberals before them.

Yet, as Gene Veith writes, Christianity thrives "not by trying to offer people what they already have, but by offering them what they desperately lack — namely, the Word of God and salvation through Jesus Christ."

The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals exists to call the church, amidst our dying culture, to repent of its worldliness, to recover and confess the truth of God's Word as did the Reformers, and to see that truth embodied in doctrine, worship and life. Central are the five solas of the Reformation: Scripture alone, Christ alone, faith alone and glory to God alone. the evangelical church must repent of her sin and recover her historic Christian faith. Like the Reformation, we must move forward by the power of the Word of God. We can experience the same blessing and influence the reformers had if we hold to a full-orbed gospel and do not compromise with the culture around us, as we have been doing. if we hold to these doctrines, our churches and those we influence will grow stronger, while other churches go the way of the liberals before us, not vanishing entirely but becoming increasingly significant as an effective religious force.

I am finishing the research in anticipation of getting approval by lawyers, judges, and arbitrators to share the MLM benchmarking study with the public.  A few of the key areas researched were leadership character, compensation plans (reward vs. work index), product value & demand, publicity in the press, publicity on-line and vision for the future.  MonaVie has designed one of the best compensation plans for the new distributors in the entire industry.  By paying out 50% actual vs. other plans of less the 30% theoretical—they are able to reward both new and established distributors with equitable compensation for the work performed.  Here is an article from Fortune magazine writer Tim Arango.  Sumner Redstone is the leader of Viacom and CBS and understands a good company when he sees one.   On March 25, 2008—I will turn 41 years old and look forward to the best years of my life working with people who understand win-win principles and the true meaning of partnership.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Sumner Redstone's anti-aging secret

There may be some debate about future control of Viacom and CBS, but the media mogul doesn't plan to bequeath his empire anytime soon - thanks to a little purple elixir.

By Tim Arango, Fortune writer

September 4 2007: 5:14 PM EDT

(Fortune Magazine) -- As the years tick by, Sumner Redstone just gets more optimistic. Earlier this year the 84-year-old said he planned to live another 50 years; two years ago he was predicting another 20.

His age has been in the spotlight lately because of the recent public spat with his daughter over his succession plans, but the controller of Viacom (Charts) and CBS (Charts, Fortune 500) has lately been getting a bit of help in the form of a little-known superjuice called MonaVie. "It's a miracle drug," he told Fortune. "I feel great."

A dark-purple elixir with a cult-like following, MonaVie is an antioxidant-rich concoction whose main ingredient is the Brazilian açai berry (pronounced ah-sigh-ee), long touted among health nuts for its anti-aging ingredients.

Vitamin-water it's not: MonaVie costs $40 a bottle, and you can't get it in stores; it's marketed only through the company's network of thousands of individuals who sell it out of their homes (think Avon or Tupperware).

Redstone first heard of the juice from Viacom exec Bill Roedy on a trip to Germany in January. After learning that his butler's sister-in-law was a devotee too, Redstone ordered some up and started drinking four ounces a day. "Since I've been on MonaVie I haven't taken a sleeping pill," he says.

New crack in the house of Redstone

He even considered investing in Utah-based MonaVie after its CEO, Dallin Larsen, came to visit him at his Beverly Hills mansion. Redstone decided against it - because it would present a conflict of interest to recommend it to friends - but Larsen, a veteran nutritional-products salesman who founded the company in 2005, has no better ambassador.

At a recent party, Redstone gave bottles to Bill Clinton and celebrity chef Wolfgang Puck. "Just about every friend I have is on it," Redstone says - a group he says includes Viacom and CBS board members as well as cancer survivor and former junk-bond king Michael Milken. (It can also be found in the clubhouse of the Boston Red Sox; pitcher Jonathan Papelbon is a fan.)

So is it a fad, or is there something to it? Nothing proves that MonaVie cures any ailment, but in one of the first academic studies of açai's benefits, University of Florida researcher Stephen Talcott found that the berry's antioxidants destroyed leukemia cells in a laboratory. But Talcott has since distanced himself from MonaVie and its junkies.

Larsen is careful not to cross the line. "It's not a drug," he says. He touts the juice as a way to "increase energy in a natural way" and to alleviate "the everyday aches and pains from inflammation."

Redstone says he's never felt better. "I know I look a lot younger than I am," he says. "I feel like I'm 40 years old."

Here is an excellent article on a book that teaches the seven self-destructive habits of successful companies.  Many highly successful companies create bad habits through reading their press clippings.  Jagdish Sheth’s book is full of anecdotes and examples of formerly successful companies falling on hard times.  Habits are very important!  Create good habits and your good habits will produce excellence.  Create bad habits and your bad habits will produce failure.  It is only a matter of time.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Jagdish Sheth outlines the seven self-destructive habits of good companies

Why do good companies go bad? Honestly, I hadn't thought too much about this question. Then a CEO friend of mine brought up the 62 "excellent" companies praised by Tom Peters and Robert Waterman in their early 1980s bestseller In Search of Excellence. A great many of them—including such stalwarts as Sears, Xerox, IBM, and Kodak—had faced serious hardships in the 20-odd years since. Some of them recovered. Some, as I write, are struggling mightily to recover. Some are dead or, in all likelihood, soon will be.

So why do good companies go bad? This heartfelt and insightful question launched me on a journey of discovery. I started by conducting archival research on companies that had failed during the past several decades, interviewed people from some of the failed companies, and eventually came to the conclusions presented here.

Although it is commonly believed that institutions are (at least potentially) immortal and humans are mortal, I found that the average life span of corporations is declining, even as that of humans is rising. Others have come to similar conclusions. In the best-known work in this area, The Living Company, Arie de Geus found that one-third of the companies listed in the 1970 Fortune 500 had vanished by 1983, either through acquisition, merger, or being broken up. De Geus quoted a Dutch survey showing that the average corporate life expectancy in Japan and Europe was 12.5 years. Another study found declining corporate life expectancy across the major European economies: from 45 to 18 years in Germany, from 13 to nine years in France, and from ten to four years in Great Britain.

Much of the decline in corporate life expectancy is the result of a heightened level of merger and acquisition activity in recent decades. However, most of this activity is due to distress selling rather than strategic buying because so many companies are in trouble.

Let me say at once that I have no intention of discounting the need to learn the underlying causes of success—the "good habits" of good companies. Nor will I second-guess de Geus or Peters and Waterman or others, like Jim Collins. For very good reasons, they singled out certain companies as models of success—companies that, for very different reasons, have since fallen on hard times. My purpose is not to reexamine why these companies were considered "excellent" or "visionary" in the first place. I am interested in what happened to them afterward—why they fell, why they failed, why they lost the magic touch. What happened?

In my view, when companies rise to excellence, they often unwittingly develop self-destructive habits that eventually undermine their success. As with people, these self-destructive habits are learned, not innate, and we can watch as companies adopt patterns of behavior that are self-destructive. Sometimes these habits get worse over time and become, in effect, addictions. But self-destructive habits can also be broken and overcome, and companies can be put back on the road to improved health.

Often the turnaround is precipitated by a crisis. Our self-destructive habits creep up on us, if you will. We overeat, fail to exercise, maybe even smoke, but we think we're still doing okay—until we have that minor heart attack, that potent reminder of mortality. Suddenly our self-destructive habits are gone, and we're eating salads and walking five miles a day. In the case of corporations, the crisis might take the form of an emerging competitor, a sudden erosion of market share, or a technological advance that threatens to leave the company behind. Such developments can spell doom, or they can serve to shake companies out of their destructive behavior patterns.

We'll see plenty of examples of companies that are actively working to curb their self-destructive habits, to change their behavior, as well as companies that have already done so and are "in recovery." Our message is positive: if you're willing to examine yourself honestly enough to discover your weaknesses, you can ultimately transform yourself.

So what are these self-destructive habits? We'll enumerate them one by one in the following chapters (and they're summarized in Figure 1-1). But first, let's see them in action by examining three companies in the technology sector.

Digital

It's one of the great success stories in the annals of American business. In 1957 Kenneth Olsen, a 31-year-old engineer at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory, asked for $70,000 from American Research & Development to start a new firm he wanted to call Digital Computer Corp. He got the money, but the venture capitalists made him change the name. They pointed out that too many big companies, like RCA and General Electric, were losing money in the computer business.

So Digital Equipment Corp. set up shop in an old wool mill in Maynard, Massachusetts, and Ken Olsen set about to pursue his dream: to revolutionize the computer industry with the introduction of the "minicomputer"—a smaller, simpler, more useful, and far cheaper device than the bulky mainframes that were the industry standard.

In its first year, Digital had sales of $94,000. Five years later that number reached $6.5 million. In 1977, the company hit the $1 billion mark. Digital found itself leading an industry boom rippling from the Boston area that created so many high-paying jobs it came to be called the Massachusetts Miracle. At the same time, the reputation of its founder grew. He was brilliant and eccentric. He protected his innovative engineers. He instituted a no-layoff policy. Digital was known as "a fun place to work."

No wonder that when Tom Peters and Bob Waterman went "in search of excellence" for what became their 1982 bestseller, Digital not only made the list of excellent companies but was also considered one of the 15 "exemplars" that basically did everything right. It was one of the companies that represented "especially well both sound performance and the eight traits [of excellence]" the authors identified. Such high accolades appeared to be borne out when Fortune magazine, in 1986, declared Olsen "arguably the most successful entrepreneur in the history of American business."

Let's jump ahead to the end of that decade. In January 1989, Digital announced it would introduce a range of personal computers, along with their more powerful cousins, workstations. The question was, had Olsen already waited too long? One thing was certain: the stock was trading at $98, down from $199 just a year and a half earlier. Another certainty was that the minicomputer, the radical innovation on which Olsen had staked his company, was rapidly becoming a high-tech dinosaur. Today it's clear that the writing was on the wall. But Olsen had erased it and scrawled his own message: "The personal computer will fall flat on its face in business." Now his company appeared to be acknowledging its failure to see the future.

Despite the eleventh-hour about-face, the hemorrhaging at Digital continued through 1991. Top executives were fleeing, and the company that abhorred layoffs was in the process of cutting 10,000 employees from the payroll. By then, Olsen had been in charge for 34 years and still entertained no thoughts of retirement. Instead, he used the annual shareholders' meeting that year to introduce the company's next-generation "Alpha" computer chip, which Olsen claimed was four times faster than the top-of-the-line chip from Intel. But the shareholders probably weren't heartened because the stock was now trading at $59 a share.

In the spring of 1992, the company flabbergasted Wall Street with the news that it had lost $294 million in the quarter that had just ended, only the second time in its history that Digital had reported a loss. Olsen responded with a massive restructuring of top-level management. It didn't help. By the end of April, the stock had fallen to $46, its lowest price since 1985, and takeover rumors were circulating.

That same spring, the Wall Street Journal seemed to be working on its first draft of Olsen's obituary. The Journal noted that a secret meeting between Olsen and Apple's John Sculley—a meeting that might have produced an alliance with much potential for Digital—had come to nothing. Instead, Apple had shocked the industry by inking a broad technology-sharing agreement with archenemy IBM.

The Journal described this as another opportunity apparently lost to Digital and Olsen. His persistent doubts about the PC—"he used to call it a 'toy'"—had crippled the nation's second-largest computer maker when the market turned to PCs. The Journal also noted that Olsen's resistance to another major trend of the last decade—so-called "open" systems that use standard operating software—had similarly impeded the company's performance.

Digital was now faced with the danger of being left behind by the industry it was instrumental in creating. As it struggled with huge losses on declining sales, repeated restructurings, and the exodus of key executives who questioned Olsen's decisions, the company watched its value plummet, with shares trading at one-fourth of their 1987 high.

At the same time, Olsen's autocratic style was drawing widespread criticism. John Rose, who a month earlier had resigned as manager of Digital's PC unit, told the Journal that the company "has everything it needs to turn around—good people, good products and great service—but it won't happen while he's still in charge." And one of Digital's former computer designers described Olsen as the Fidel Castro of the computer industry, adding that he's "out of touch, and anyone who disagrees with him is sent into exile."

One who had fallen into disfavor amid the recent turmoil was Digital's chief engineer William Strecker, who had opposed a mainframe project that Olsen backed, despite the fact that it was proving a costly failure. The disbanding of Strecker's group was viewed as an especially strong signal of disarray in the executive suite. A former Digital manager told the Journal that it was a "criminal shame," because Strecker was the only member of the inner circle who could develop a coherent product strategy.

The Journal suggested that Olsen's support of the ill-fated VAX 9000 mainframe, which cost $1 billion to bring to market but attracted few buyers, was partly responsible for Olsen's failure to work out a deal with Apple. Roger Heinen, an Apple senior vice president who was privy to the meeting, blamed the stalemate on Olsen's disinterest and lack of understanding of the importance of the personal computer industry. The Journal concluded that Olsen's vision of the computer industry was lacking and that his choices were leaving the company at a disadvantage in a market that was rapidly transforming.

Just two months later, in July 1992, Digital announced that Olsen would retire as president and CEO, effective October 1. Olsen quickly followed with his own announcement that he would also vacate his seat on the board at that time, thus severing all formal ties to the company he had led since its inception. His resignation would also give a free hand to his successor, Robert Palmer, who faced the unenviable task of rescuing a company that had reported a loss of $2.79 billion in fiscal 1992.

Would the seven-year Digital veteran prove up to the challenge? He certainly seemed to be giving it his best shot. After six months on the job, Palmer had reorganized, slashed costs as well as jobs, recruited a new management team from outside, changed the color of the Digital logo, and, most radically, sold the old mill, the company's first and only home base. Palmer also announced a fundamental change in philosophy: a 19 percent spending cut on product development and engineering. No longer would Digital put competing teams to work on the same or similar problems (a practice highly praised in In Search of Excellence). "We have to rationalize our spending, have less redundancy in hardware and software design," Palmer told the business press.

Early results were promising. In July 1993, the company announced quarterly earnings of $113 million. The stock price was rising back into the mid-40s. Even more important in many analysts' minds, wrote the Washington Post, was that "under Palmer the company is no longer in denial."

Too little, too late. Ultimately, Palmer couldn't stop the bleeding. In January 1998, the crippled giant was acquired by Compaq—ironically, the world's largest maker of PCs—for $9.15 billion. The great Digital was dead.

All the postmortems agreed that, in the last analysis, the visionary's vision had failed: the company blinked and missed the PC revolution; blinked again and missed the change to open, rather than proprietary, systems; and, in classic denial, continued through the early '90s to pour money into developing a new mainframe.

As C. Gordon Bell, one of the chief engineers in Digital's early days, told the Boston Globe, the company's success bred its failure. "The VAX [minicomputer] took over the company, and what it allowed them to do was not think. No one had to think from 1981 until 1987 or '88 because the VAX was so dominant."

Jim Rohn is another success coach that is teaching the same message of developing leadership skills for the 21^st century.  Here is an informative article that will help inspire you to develop all of your abilities.  Success is success which is success and the principles from numerous different leaders all converge into several basic points.  Enjoy the article and develop your skills!  Remember, when opportunity and preparedness meet—success must happen.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

I find it's important to not walk into the beginning part of this 21st Century without multiple skills.

But what I also find is that if you are already in sales, network marketing or have an entrepreneurial business (or plan to in the future), you can gain the needed skills for the future while you create your income now.

Here's my short list for on the job training, so that you can learn while you earn.

1) SALES

I began my journey with sales, which of course dynamically changed my life back at age 25. The first year I multiplied my income by five. I was raised in farm country. I knew how to milk cows, but it didn't pay well. But sales altered the course of my life, learning to present a valid product in the marketplace, talk about its virtues and get somebody to say "yes." And then give them good service.

2) RECRUITING

Then came recruiting, how to expand my business, build an organization. We have all heard the question, is it better to have one person selling a $1000 or have 100 people selling $10? If you ask me, I'll take the 100 at $10. Recruiting, the ability to multiply your efforts, once mastered, is one of life and leadership's greatest time management resources.

3) ORGANIZING

Then I learned organizing. Keeping your own schedule can be difficult at times, but now you have to balance multiple tasks and people to get maximum results. But you will find that the payoff is massive once you have tapped into the synergy and momentum of group dynamics and teamwork.

4) PROMOTION

Next is promotion. First it's the spring campaign and then the fall campaign, and then it's this month's objective's campaign. You never know when it's going to click for someone to want or need to buy from you or be a part of what you are doing, so having the offer or the special or the contest going when they're ready can make all the difference.

5) RECOGNITION

Then it's the recognition. Some people work harder for recognition than they do for money. It's the chance to belong. Getting people to do something that ordinarily on their own, they wouldn't think of doing. They could, but they don't think of it. You come along with a little promotion for this month or this quarter and everything changes for them, and I found that paid big money.

6) COMMUNICATION

Then I learned communication. How to do the training, how to do the teaching, and probably the greatest gift of all is learning how to inspire with words. Inspire people to see themselves better than they are; all of those gifts, all of those skills. Being the voice that tells them they have made a wise decision and here's why.

Now, I believe that as you walk into this century with just that little short list I've given you, you'll be equipped. We've all watched what has happened the last 15 years. The guy had one skill - the company downsizes. His division is eliminated and since he only had one skill, now he is vulnerable. He's wandering around saying, "Oh my, the last few years I should have taken some classes that would have taught me a couple of more things and I wouldn't be here in this vulnerable position."

So my admonition -- learn some multiple skills, or should we say, back-up skills for the 21st Century and no better place to learn them than in what you’re already doing now.

To Your Success,

Jim Rohn

Here is one of my all-time favorite business books from Michael Gerber called E-Myth.  I remember the first time I read this book and realized I was not thinking about business properly.  I focused on what I could get done.  I should have focused on creating a system to teach anyone how to get things done.  This paradigm shift began the creation of the Team training system and the results that followed.  Thank you Michael Gerber—you taught me to think through a business in a systematic fashion and this produced long-term results!  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Ever wonder why most small businesses-- no matter how huge effort they put in their endeavor--still fail? Michael Gerber reveals the answers in this book. Accordingly, the future of small businesses revolves in only three philosophies: the e-myth (entrepreneurial myth), the turn-key revolution, and the business development process.

The E-myth

The e-myth, or the entrepreneurial myth, evolved from one very fatal assumption-- that the success of every business is simply achieved by summing up the following: an entrepreneur's desire to own a business plus the certain amount of capital he puts in plus the knowing the amount of targeted profit.

Little did the entrepreneurs know that this assumption spell DISASTER rather than SUCCESS. Entrepreneurs need to learn to focus more on the business—the people involved in it and the phases it normally undergoes. Knowledge on these can save small businesses from experiencing entrepreneurial seizure—a stage wherein an entrepreneur goes through feeling of exhilaration, exhaustion, and despair.

Small businesses basically consist of three main characters namely: the technician (the doer and builder), the manager (the planner), and the entrepreneur (the dreamer, visionary). Moreover, small businesses have different life phases. These are: infancy (the technician's phase); adolescence (getting some help phase); beyond the comfort zone; and, maturity and the entrepreneurial perspective.

The Turn-key Revolution

As implied by the term itself, Turn-key Revolution speaks of the distinct transformations on the way businesses are managed and should be managed. One very prominent example is the introduction of McDonalds the idea of business format franchise to the business world.

The business format franchise has set dramatic turn around on the future of small businesses. Here, the franchisor entitles the franchisee to owning rights to his entire business system. This format is anchored on the belief that the real product of a business is its sales technique rather than what it sells.

The Business Development Process

The business development process is the response to the unending dynamism of the business world. It equips the entrepreneur with the necessary tools to preempt the continuous changes happening around. The process is comprised of three elemental stages: innovation, quantification and orchestration.

The business development program requires the following aspects to be defined:

Your Primary Aim. The owner's primary aim should center on what he really wishes, needs and wants for his life. Defining this will push the owner to pursue his defined entrepreneurial dreams.

Your Strategic Objectives.

This contains standards that help the owner achieve his goals for his business. This should answer the question: What purpose will this serve my primary aim?

Your Organizational Strategy.

Business owners should learn how to appreciate the value of organizational structures. Some points to consider are organizing around personalities, organizing your company, and position contract.

Your Management Strategy.

As the owner you should recognize the truth that the successful implementation of a management strategy is not dependent on the people who could implement it but on the system instead.

Your People Strategy.

This refers to the approach you take towards your people and their work. To make people appreciate the work they do, you should make them understand the idea behind each of their task assignments.

Your Marketing Strategy.

Here is the stage where all attention suddenly shifts from owner to the customer. You set aside your personal goals first and start focusing on the customer's needs.

Your Systems Strategy. There are three kinds of systems in a business: the hard systems, the soft systems and the information systems. The hard systems refer to all those in your business that are inanimate and has no life. The soft systems refer to all those that could be living or inanimate. The information systems are everything else in the business that provides you with data relating to how the two earlier systems interact.

Laurie and I have laughed so many times at this video that we have decided to share it with all of our reader audience.  The lightening lady is doing fine and is recovering nicely.  Jay Leno called her and she gave permission to play the video clip to his viewing audience.  The newscaster's facial expression after the defective clip is priceless.  How he maintains his composure at all is incredible.  You can hear the other newscasters laughing in the background.  Listen to this a couple of times to get the full effect.  Anytime Laurie and I are taking things too seriously we watch this video.  We believe you should take your purpose seriously, but not yourself.  The Team is on its way to a million people and will Have Fun, Make Money and Make a Difference!  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Read a great article from Steven Hayward on the Berlin Wall.  It is incredible to me that tyrants genuinely believe they can keep a group of people against their will in a tyrannical system.  Any cursory glance at history would clearly prove the illusory nature and unenforceability long term of any tyrannical scheme.  It takes one’s breath away that tyrants would believe they can deny the people their freedom and not suffer the consequences all tyrants eventually must face.  Here is the article with my comments on the philosophy of oppression and captivity after each paragraph.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Ten years ago this week the Berlin Wall started to come down, and it was immediately evident that the Communist empire would come down with it. A few years before the Berlin Wall went up in 1961, the Russian writer Ilya Ehrenburg offered what would become a fitting epitaph for Communist tyranny: “If the whole world were to be covered with asphalt, one day a crack would appear in that asphalt; and in that crack, grass would grow.” The crack in the Wall in 1989 proved to be the fatal fissure.

Tyranny can only survive by threats, intimidation, and by blocking the free movement of people, ideas, and money.  Tyranny is based upon lies and when the lies are called lies by the courageous people—the end is near.  Tyranny relies on the masses of people to sit by quietly and allow the walls to be built up around them.

When President Ronald Reagan went to Berlin in 1987 and said “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” (a line his foreign policy advisers tried several times to delete from his speech), most observers thought, “There he goes again.” Reagan had predicted back in 1983 that it would be Communism, not western democracy, that would end up on the ash heap of history. Almost no one thought the beginning of the end would come before the decade was over. How did Reagan know?

Leaders are typically criticized for standing up to tyranny.  Many managers think a program of détente with tyranny is acceptable.  True leaders know that détente with tyranny enslaves people in an unnatural system that denies people their God given rights.  Reagan courageously called the Communist system what it was—an Godless materialistic system that denies people their freedoms and humanity.  Reagan understood that tyranny only survives by counting on the passivity of the masses.  Reagan awoke the masses to the hope of a better tomorrow!

One other modern statesman predicted the demise of communism before the century’s end—Winston Churchill. In the mid-1950s, when Churchill was Prime Minister for the second time, he told a young aide that if he lived his normal span of life he would surely see Eastern Europe free from Communism. How did Churchill know?

Winston Churchill understood the lies of communism also.  Both of these great statesmen knew that any system that denies people the right to freely choose their futures is tyranny—no matter how much it is justified by propaganda.  Human freedom is a God given right.  If the freedoms are taken from the people, then any leader with a historical perspective will know it is temporary.  Tyranny is a system that forces people to do what the managers say, regardless of the people’s desires.

Reagan and Churchill came to their assurance about the fate of Communism by the simple recognition that a social system so wholly unnatural could not long endure, even with the powerful scientific props of modern tyranny. The Berlin Wall was the ultimate artifact of this unnatural system: unlike the Great Wall of China or other bastions, the Berlin Wall was the first bulwark intended to keep people in instead of out. Reagan had noticed the significance of this back in the early 1960s, and his resolve was bolstered by a visit he made to East Berlin before he was president, during which, his traveling companions said, Reagan shook with rage at the tyranny he saw first hand. He resolved that “We must do something to free these people.”

Walls are typically built to keep invaders out, but tyranny builds walls to keep people in!  The tyrants will claim the wall is to keep people out and this is exactly what the East German government did.  They claimed the wall was to keep the West Germans out of East Germany and told the lie repeatedly to their constituents.  Reagan could not believe the hubris of the East German communist government.  What kind of system would force people to stay in a system against their will and lie about the purpose of the wall?  Any courageous leader would resolve to do something to free the people from the Godless tyranny.  What type of leader would continue to allow the people to suffer while they benefitted by others loss of freedoms?  Reagan vowed to do something about this and he did!  The world has benefited from the courage and resolve of this great President.

As Churchill contemplated at the end of World War II the division of Europe that would necessarily come with Soviet occupation of the East, he remarked to Charles de Gaulle that while the Soviets were a hungry wolf now, “after the meal come the digestion period,” and that the Soviet Union would not be able to digest the peoples of Eastern Europe. Sure enough, every few years, like a burp of indigestion, a part of Eastern Europe would flare up and require to be put down forcibly—Hungary in 1956; Czechoslovakia in 1968; Poland in 1981.

Tyranny is not capable of maintaining their power base.  They may implement a tyrannical system, but the people will eventually wake up to their plight.  They will throw the tyrants out of power and give freedom back to the people.  In every system based on tyranny there is a history of revolts and flare ups.  This is a sign that the people are dissatisfied and will eventually overcome the tyrants.  Each revolt builds in power and resolve until the innate dream for freedom cannot be held back.

By early 1989 it was time for another period of Eastern European indigestion. It was no longer possible for the Soviet Union to check the desire of Eastern Europeans to be free. A military crackdown would have made a hash of Gorbachev’s program of glasnost (“openness”) and perestroika (“restructuring”) and ruined Soviet-American relations at a crucial time.

Repeated waves of resistance to tyranny and lack of results in the communist systems eventually produces change.  It becomes no longer possible for the tyranny to resist the desire of the people to be free.  A forceful crackdown on the aspirations of the people makes a mockery of the alleged slogans and value system of the tyranny.   Tyranny is always hypocritical—claiming freedoms and independence to the people while building walls and ruling with fear and intimidation. 

The beginning of the end started in Hungary. After Solidarity had swept an election in Poland, reformers within the Hungarian ruling Communist party pushed for a genuine multi-party election there as well. A divided Communist party was unable to blunt the momentum for a process that it knew was likely to be its death sentence. But reformers knew that they faced great hazards during the transitional phase, and they feared that another 1956-style military crackdown might be in store, perhaps from East Germany (whose Stalinist leadership never did sympathize with Gorbachev’s program) if not the Soviet Union.

Tyranny is a house of cards and will fall when freedom loving people act with courage.  The more light that shines into the hypocritical behavior of the tyrants the faster it will fall.  The reformers know they will be subject to attacks through the press, judicial system, police, etc, but continue the course because they know the truth and history is on their side.

So the Hungarians decided on a bold stroke. They opened their border with Austria, and stopped detaining East Germans who transited through Hungary en route to Austria. A back door around the Berlin Wall had opened up, and thousands were pouring through. The Hungarians did not inform the Soviet Union or East Germany in advance. “We were pretty sure,” Hungarian reformer Imre Pozsgay said later, “that if hundreds of thousands of East Germans went to the West, the East German regime would fall, and in that case Czechoslovakia was also out.”

The Hungarians opened their border with Austria and people by the millions departed.  They did not need to be solicited by the Austrians, but they freely left when given the choice.  This is the fatal flaw in every tyrannical system—the majority of the people will choose freedom over tyranny and will leave if given a choice.   Communism fell—not from an outside attack—but from the internal rot. 

They were right. Throughout the fall protests in East German cities were growing, reaching a climax on November 4, when a million people took to the streets of East Berlin. East Germany’s aging tyrant, Erich Honecker, had stepped down in October, but it was too late. His successors bowed to the inevitable on November 9, and announced the opening of the borders to the West. Within hours thousands of Germans from both sides of the Berlin divide descended on the Wall with picks and hammers. “We did not suspect,” the East German foreign minister wrote, “that the opening of the Wall was the beginning of the end of the Republic.” He was clearly oblivious to Ehrenburg’s prophecy that once a blade of grass poked through the concrete, the Wall would come tumbling down.

When enough people rise up against their tyrannical masters, the system will fall.  Over a million people took to the streets and in the end the wall tumbled down—just as Reagan and Churchill said it would.  The tyrants had no idea how many people hated their regime and how quickly it would be discarded when given a choice.  A free people will choose freedom and opportunity over oppression and slavery every time.  Ronald Reagan said it best, “Mr. Gorbachev, Tear down this wall!”   Like the good Book says, “The Truth will set you free.”

I watched an interesting video on the way new ideas meet resistance and overcome them.  Achieving anything of lasting value means you will go against the grain and think outside the existing patterns.  Your ideas will go through four phases if you persist.  First, they will be ignored - second, they will be laughed at - third, they will be fought - fourth, they will win.  This is why it takes courage and backbone to do anything new.  Here is a video from Linux that explains the process of new ideas. God Bless, Orrin Woodward 

Here are my favorite quotes on overcoming criticism.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. - Theodore Roosevelt

“When we judge or criticize another person, it says nothing about that person; it merely says something about our own need to be critical.” - Anonymous 

Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving. - Dale Carnegie

Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin

He has a right to criticize, who has a heart to help. - Abraham Lincoln     

If you have no will to change it, you have no right to criticize it - Anonymous

One mustn't criticize other people on grounds where he can't stand perpendicular himself - Mark Twain quotes

Ridicule is generally made use of to laugh men out of virtue and good sense, by attacking everything praiseworthy in human life. - Joseph Addison    

Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves. - Brendan Francis Behan    

Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. - H. Jackson Brown    

It is better to be making the news than taking it; to be an actor rather than a critic. - Sir Winston Leonard Spenser Churchill    

I criticize by creation - not by finding fault. - Marcus Tullius Cicero

A successful person is one who can lay a firm foundation with the bricks that others throw at him or her. – David Brinkley

The man who is anybody and who does anything is surely going to be criticized, vilified, and misunderstood. This is part of the penalty for greatness, and every man understands, too, that it is no proof of greatness. – Elbert Hubbard

To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. – Elbert Hubbard

Criticism is prejudice made plausible. H. L. Mencken

We are never more discontented with others than when we are discontented with ourselves. – Henri Frederic Amiel

You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one. – John Wooden

Read an informational article on envy from Ayn Rand.  Ayn Rand was a gifted economist/philosopher who wrote several best selling books.  She has hit the nail on the head for managers who desire the attributes, respect or possessions of leaders—without the hunger to develop the corresponding skills necessary to lead.  Envy is like taking poison and expecting someone else to die.  Envy kills the host organism and ruins their ability to think, lead and function properly.  I have attached Ayn Rand’s original article and placed my thoughts on leaders vs. envious managers after each paragraph.  If you plan on excelling in leadership—plan on dealing with envy.   You can either learn from leaders or envy leaders.  The choice is yours.  Have you dealt with envy on your leadership journey?  Keep growing as a leader and on your way to the top, you will. God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Superficially, the motive of those who hate the good is taken to be envy.  A dictionary definition of envy is: "1. a sense of discontent or jealousy with regard to another's advantages, success, possessions, etc.  2. desire for an advantaged position possessed by another." (The Random House Dictionary, 1968.)  The same dictionary adds the following elucidation:  "To envy is to feel resentful because someone else possesses or has achieved what one wishes oneself to possess or to have achieved."

A leader is someone who has a following.  The hungry student desires to learn from the leader to develop their own following.  This is natural and why mentor-mentee relationships are so important.  If someone desired to have a following, but was not willing to develop into a leader—they have a major problem.  Groups will only willingly follow leaders—not managers.  If the manager desires the following of a leader, but the group follows the leader—the envious person will attack the leader (object of envy) through slander, libel, legal system, etc.  The envious manager would attack the leader and attempt to bribe, cajole, threaten and intimidate the followers to convince them to stop following the object of their envy and to start following them instead.

This covers a great many emotional responses, which come from different motives.  In a certain sense, the second definition is the opposite of the first, and the more innocent of the two.   For example, if a poor man experiences a moment's envy of another man's wealth, the feeling may mean nothing more than a momentary concretization of his desire for wealth; the feeling is not directed against that particular rich person and is concerned with the wealth, not the person.  The feeling, in effect, may amount to: "I wish I had an income or a house, or a car, or an overcoat) like his."  The result of this feeling may be an added incentive for the man to improve his financial condition.

If a manager desired to be the leader of a group of people—they may experience a twinge of envy against the real leader.  This desire is natural and if used to seek counsel from the object of envy—they would learn to lead and perhaps develop their own following.   Recognizing the vast gap between the leader’s influence and the manager’s influence is called confronting reality.  All the manager would have to do is ask the leader how they developed their influence.   Successful leaders are always willing to help managers develop into influential leaders because they do not envy others success.

The feeling is less innocent, if it amounts to: "I want this man's car (or overcoat, or diamond shirt studs, or industrial establishment)." The result is a criminal.

This is where envy can eat at the manager doing the envying and destroy their ability to influence.  The manager no longer desires to develop the skills necessary to lead their own group of people—instead, the manager’s envy drives him to take the followers from the leader against their will.  People will not willingly follow the manager which creates an environment of threats and intimidation to force people to do the envious manager’s will.  The result is criminal as Ayn Rand states. 

But these are still human beings, in various stages of immorality, compared to the inhuman object whose feeling is: "I hate this man because he is wealthy and I am not."

The manager states, “I hate this leader because he has influence and I do not.”

Envy is part of this creature's feeling, but only the superficial, semi-respectable part; it is the tip of an iceberg showing nothing worse than ice, but with the submerged part consisting of a compost of rotting living matter.  The envy, in this case, is semi-respectable because it seems to imply a desire for material possessions, which is a human being's desire. But, deep down, the creature has no such desire: it does not want to be rich, it wants the human being to be poor.

When the manager is consumed with envy—they no longer desire to develop influence.  Their only desire is to destroy the influence of the leader they envy.  The followers see the manager for what he is: a small person that is not capable or willing to learn leadership.

This is particularly clear in the much more virulent cases of hatred, masked as envy, for those who possess personal values or virtues: hatred of a man (or a woman) because he (or she) is beautiful or intelligent or successful or honest or happy.  In these cases, the creature has no desire and makes no effort to improve its appearance, to develop or to use its intelligence, to struggle for success, to practice honesty, to be happy (nothing can make it happy).  It knows that the disfigurement or the mental collapse or the failure or the immorality or the misery of its victim would not endow it with his or her value. It does not desire the value: it desires the value's destruction.

The managers continued envy eventually develops into hatred of the leader’s character and virtues.  The manager drops all pretence of attempting to help the followers.  The manager only seeks to destroy as many people following the leader as possible.  The manager realizes the leader’s followers will never be his followers, but this is no longer the goal.  The goal is not to maintain the value of the community: the goal is only to destroy the value of the community. 

“They do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live, they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence ..."(Atlas Shrugged. – Ayn Rand)

The manager does not want to own your community of people, they want the leader to lose it; they do not want to succeed as a leader, they want you to fail as a leader; they do not want to survive, they want you to die; they desire no leadership, they hate leadership.  

What do you do when a manager envies your leadership and influence?  I believe you must answer personal attacks with a restorer’s heart.  The envious manager seeks to destroy, but the principle centered leader seeks to restore.  As a leader, you are responsible to follow God's law—let Him be responsible for the consequences of your obedience.

Here is another super video on the benefit of failures for future successes.  I believe every great achiever had to go through a significant failure to learn from.  Failure forces you to confront the brutal reality and make the necessary changes to win.  Failure is not final, but only a stepping stone to further success.  Don't be afraid of failure - be afraid of playing it safe.  People who play it safe in life still end up dying, but they never end up living.  How about you?  Are you busy living (and failing) or are you are busy dying (and playing it safe)?  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

This Sunday’s article is from R.C. Sproul.  I had the opportunity several months back to have lunch with R.C. Sproul along with Tim Marks and Chris Brady.  I enjoyed the lunch and learned so much in the couple of hours we spent together.  This article on Duty and Honor exemplifies the leaders of the Team.  You do not hear the words duty and honor used much in this cynical culture.  I believe a restoration of our culture is possible when we begin to speak of duty and honor again.  Enjoy the article and ask yourself about your sense of duty and honor. God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Today, the word honor has all but disappeared from the English language. I speak about honor because the dictionary lists the term honor as the chief synonym for the word integrity. My concern in this article is to ask: "What is the meaning of integrity?" If we use the pedestrian definitions given to us by lexicographers, such as we find in Webster's dictionary, we read several entries. In the first instance, integrity is defined as "uncompromising adherence to moral and ethical principles." Second, integrity means "soundness of character." Third, integrity means "honesty." Fourth, integrity refers to being "whole or entire." Fifth and finally, integrity means to be "unimpaired in one's character."

Now, these definitions describe persons who are almost as rare as the use of the term honor. In the first instance, integrity would describe someone whom we might call "a person of principle." The person who is a person of principle is one, as the dictionary defines, who is uncompromising. The person is not uncompromising in every negotiation or discussion of important issues, but is uncompromising with respect to moral and ethical principles. This is a person who puts principle ahead of personal gain.

We also see that integrity refers to soundness of character and of honesty. When we look to the New Testament, for example, in the epistle of James, James gives a list of virtues that are to be manifested in the Christian life. In the fifth chapter of that letter at verse 12, he writes, "But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath, but let your 'yes' be yes, and your 'no,' be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation." Here James elevates the trustworthiness of a person's word, the simple statement of yes or no, as a virtue that is "above all." What James is getting at is that integrity requires a kind of honesty that indicates that when we say we will do something, our word is our bond. We should not require sacred oaths and vows in order to be trusted. People of integrity can be trusted on the basis of what they say.

We look back to the Old Testament to the experience of the prophet Isaiah in his vision recorded in chapter 6 of that book. We remember that Isaiah saw the Lord high and lifted up as well as the seraphim singing the Trisagion: "Holy, Holy, Holy." In response to this epiphany, Isaiah cried out, "Woe is me," announcing a curse upon himself. He said the reason for his curse was because "I am undone" or "ruined." What Isaiah experienced in that moment was human disintegration. Prior to that vision, Isaiah was perhaps viewed as the most righteous man in the nation. He stood secure and confident in his own integrity. Everything was being held together by his virtue. He considered himself a whole, integrated person, but as soon as he saw the ultimate model and standard for integrity and virtue in the character of God, he experienced disintegration. He fell apart at the seams, realizing that his sense of integrity was at best a pretense.

Calvin indicated that this is the common lot of human beings, who as long as they keep their gaze fixed on the horizontal or terrestrial level of experience, are able to congratulate themselves and consider themselves with all flattery of being slightly less than demigods. But once they raise their gaze to heaven and consider even for a moment what kind of being God is, they stand shaking and quaking, becoming completely disavowed of any further illusion of their integrity.

The Christian is to reflect the character of God. The Christian is to be uncompromising with respect to ethical principles. The Christian is called to be a person of honor whose word can be trusted.

I read another fantastic leadership article by Executive Coach Carol Giannantonio.   Carol is a success coach to the executives at major corporations.  There are a couple of key points in the article and it is nice to see more leadership gurus in the world referencing the thoughts from Chris and my book - Launching a Leadership Revolution.  The readers of this blog deserve the credit and praise for promoting the book and selling over 100,000 copies for charity.  Keep it up and let’s see who else will reference the leadership principles.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

"The world needs transcendent leaders whose eyes we trust, whose heart we know, whose soul is rampant in all that they do" - Robert Rabbin.

What does it really take to be a great leader?

As an Executive and Business Coach, I ask my clients this question when setting leadership goals. One of the first steps in achieving success in leadership is creating a vision of what a great leader means for you. This vision, along with a plan, continuous action, courage and commitment create some of the "greatest" leaders.

Many of these great leaders "follow in the footsteps of other great leaders and use coaching to reach their leadership goals. Why? Because coaching is a powerful tool that involves lifting a person's vision to higher sights, raising their performance to a higher standard, and building a personality beyond its normal limitations to its full potential.

So as you set off on your quest to becoming a great leader, here are two steps you may want to "follow".

1. Develop "Double vision" - Great leaders have a "vision" of what being a great leader means for them. They know what it looks like and feel like and they act accordingly by practicing good leadership skills. It also means having "vision" In this case I mean the ability to talk about the future as if it were already here. Steve Jobs often does this. He creates a clear picture in people's minds of how a new product will change the world -- before it's even launched. He gets people excited about the future he sees in his mind. That's an innate talent. Stepping out on a limb like that comes much more naturally to some people than to others. The good news is, if you haven't got that skill, you can develop it!- It's not so much about your own technical expertise as it is about inspiring other people to be better at what they.

2. Become a great follower. Along with the skill of vision and leading comes the skill of "ability to follow". What I mean by this is the ability to identify and follow the patterns of success within your organization-follow the footsteps of others who are "great leaders".

Here is what other great minds say about this concept.

In "Reinventing Leadership", Warren Bennis wrote, "Good leaders should also be good followers. If you're coming up within an organization, you must be a good follower or you're not going to get very far. Leaders and followers share certain characteristics such as listening, collaborating, and working out competitive issues with peers."

In "Launching a Leadership Revolution", Chris Brady and Orrin Woodward, stress the importance of becoming a Performer in leadership development-the need to create a record of performance. "You need to become a great follower, a great contributor."

According to Brady and Woodward, the quickest way of gaining a track record of performance is to master the patterns of success already established in your organization.

Thus, the goal of every leader is to become a "Performer" who successfully works with and master the existing patterns of success within the organization.

As a successful "Performer" you have the knowledge and expertise to help others accomplish similar results. You gain recognition, respect and power in the organization. You have influence, another key ingredient to successful leadership.

Sam Rayburn says it all in this wonderful quote: "You cannot be a leader, and ask other people to follow you, unless you know how to follow, too." 

This is my all time favorite movie scene!  William Wallace teaching the Scots that life without freedom is no life at all.  Honor is not a subject that is covered in today's schools, but it should be.  Never take our God given freedoms for granted.  Freedom from tyranny is never free and eternal vigilance is the price to maintain the hard earned freedoms won in Western civilization.  Study the history of your country and study the history of man's quest for freedom against tyranny.  Do you know the price paid for our freedoms?  Very inspiring stuff!  What is your favorite inspirational moment from the movies?  Remember that our lives are not dress rehearsal and we only have one life to live.  How you live that life will echo throughout eternity.  Live a God honoring life and make a difference in your sphere of influence.  Here are my favorite freedom quotes.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward 

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. - Thomas Paine

History does not teach fatalism.  There are moments when the will of a handful of free men breaks through determinism and opens up new roads. - Charles de Gaulle

Freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed - else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

The patriot's blood is the seed of Freedom's tree. - Thomas Campbell

Here is my advice as we begin the century that will lead to 2081.  First, guard the freedom of ideas at all costs.  Be alert that dictators have always played on the natural human tendency to blame others and to oversimplify.  And don't regard yourself as a guardian of freedom unless you respect and preserve the rights of people you disagree with to free, public, unhampered expression. - Gerard K. O'Neill

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. - Abraham Lincoln

It is easy to take liberty for granted, when you have never had it taken from you. - Dick Cheney

We on this continent should never forget that men first crossed the Atlantic not to find soil for their ploughs but to secure liberty for their souls. - Robert J. McCracken

For what avail the plough or sail, or land or life, if freedom fail? - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. - Thomas Paine

In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved. - Franklin D. Roosevelt

We have to call it "freedom": who'd want to die for "a lesser tyranny"? - Mignon McLaughlin

Freedom is the oxygen of the soul. - Moshe Dayan

There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought. - Charles Kingsley

No one is free when others are oppressed. - Author Unknown

Nations grown corrupt

Love bondage more than liberty;

Bondage with ease than strenuous liberty. - John Milton

Most people want security in this world, not liberty. - H.L. Mencken

Men fight for freedom, then they begin to accumulate laws to take it away from themselves. - Author Unknown

Liberty has never come from the government.  Liberty has always come from the subjects of it.  The history of liberty is a history of resistance. - Woodrow Wilson

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

We have enjoyed so much freedom for so long that we are perhaps in danger of forgetting how much blood it cost to establish the Bill of Rights. - Felix Frankfurter

No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck. - Frederick Douglass

Let freedom never perish in your hands. - Joseph Addison

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. - James Madison

Freedom has a thousand charms to show,

That slaves, howe'er contented, never know. - William Cowper

The contest for ages has been to rescue liberty from the grasp of executive power. - Daniel Webster

Men fight for liberty and win it with hard knocks.  Their children, brought up easy, let it slip away again, poor fools.  And their grandchildren are once more slaves. - D.H. Lawrence

I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slavery. - Author Unknown

Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it. - George Bernard Shaw

The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion. - Edmund Burke

Freedom is never free. - Author Unknown

Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom.  The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. - Thomas Macaulay

Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - Holy Bible

Rocky Balboa's shares his view of life and the attitude to win!

Do you have an attitude of victory or defeat?  If we are going to make a difference in the world, we must first start with our own attitude and thinking.  Here are my favoritie quotes on attitude.  What is your favorite quote on attitude?  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Attitude is reframing the thinking about the events in your life to empower you towards victory, instead of disempowering you towards defeat. – Orrin Woodward

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.  - Herm Albright

Attitudes are contagious.  Are yours worth catching?  - Dennis and Wendy Mannering

Wherever you go, no matter what the weather, always bring your own sunshine. - Anthony J. D'Angelo

If you don't get everything you want, think of the things you don't get that you don't want. - Oscar Wilde

If you don't think every day is a good day, just try missing one. - Cavett Robert

Oh, my friend, it's not what they take away from you that counts.  It's what you do with what you have left. - Hubert Humphrey

Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference. - Winston Churchill

Every day may not be good, but there's something good in every day. - Author Unknown

Happiness is an attitude.  We either make ourselves miserable, or happy and strong.  The amount of work is the same. - Francesca Reigler

If you don't like something change it; if you can't change it, change the way you think about it. - Mary Engelbreit

So often time it happens, we all live our life in chains, and we never even know we have the key. - The Eagles, "Already Gone"

The only people who find what they are looking for in life are the fault finders. - Foster's Law

He who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by changing anything but his own disposition will waste his life in fruitless efforts. - Samuel Johnson

Think big thoughts but relish small pleasures. - H. Jackson Brown, Jr.

Every thought is a seed.  If you plant crab apples, don't count on harvesting Golden Delicious. - Bill Meyer

To be upset over what you don't have is to waste what you do have. - Ken S. Keyes, Jr.

Defeat is not bitter unless you swallow it. - Joe Clark

The only disability in life is a bad attitude. - Scott Hamilton

If you aren't fired with enthusiasm, you will be fired with enthusiasm.  ~Vince Lombardi

I don't like that man.  I must get to know him better. - Abraham Lincoln

There are no menial jobs, only menial attitudes. - William J. Bennett

To be wronged is nothing unless you continue to remember it. - Confucius

I don't think of all the misery but of the beauty that still remains. - Anne Frank

The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes. - William James

Could we change our attitude, we should not only see life differently, but life itself would come to be different. - Katherine Mansfield

Enjoy the little things, for one day you may look back and realize they were the big things. - Robert Brault

Whenever you fall, pick something up. - Oswald Avery

Success is due less to ability than to zeal. - Charles Buxton

We awaken in others the same attitude of mind we hold toward them. - Elbert Hubbard

We plant seeds that will flower as results in our lives, so best to remove the weeds of anger, avarice, envy and doubt... - Dorothy Day

I am an optimist.  It does not seem too much use being anything else. - Winston Churchill

[W]hat counts is not necessarily the size of the dog in the fight - it's the size of the fight in the dog. - Dwight Eisenhower

I have learned to use the word impossible with the greatest caution. - Wernher von Braun

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.  One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise. - F. Scott Fitzgerald

The human spirit is stronger than anything that can happen to it. - C.C. Scott

Too many people miss the silver lining because they're expecting gold. - Maurice Setter

We cannot direct the wind but we can adjust the sails. - Author Unknown

The block of granite which was an obstacle in the pathway of the weak, became a stepping-stone in the pathway of the strong. - Thomas Carlyle

Misery is a communicable disease. - Martha Graham

The world is full of cactus, but we don't have to sit on it. - Will Foley

If you have the will to win, you have achieved half your success; if you don't, you have achieved half your failure. - David Ambrose

A happy person is not a person in a certain set of circumstances, but rather a person with a certain set of attitudes. - Hugh Downs

Very often a change of self is needed more than a change of scene. - Arthur Christopher Benson

Some people are always grumbling because roses have thorns; I am thankful that thorns have roses. - Alphonse Karr

If you call a thing bad you do little, if you call a thing good you do much. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

I never really look for anything.  What God throws my way comes.  I wake up in the morning and whichever way God turns my feet, I go. - Pearl Bailey

Men who never get carried away should be. - Malcolm Forbes

Become a possibilitarian.  No matter how dark things seem to be or actually are, raise your sights and see possibilities - always see them, for they're always there. - Norman Vincent Peale

Surrounded by people who love life, you love it too; surrounded by people who don't, you don't. - Mignon McLaughlin

Physical strength is measured by what we can carry; spiritual by what we can bear. - Author Unknown

We all live under the same sky, but we don't all have the same horizon. - Konrad Adenauer

We can destroy ourselves by cynicism and disillusion, just as effectively as by bombs. - Kenneth Clark

The impossible can always be broken down into possibilities. - Author Unknown

An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered.  An inconvenience is only an adventure wrongly considered. - G.K. Chesterton

Impossible is a word only to be found in the dictionary of fools. - Napoleon

Things turn out best for the people who make the best out of the way things turn out. - Art Linkletter

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. - Galileo Galilei

The man who has no inner life is a slave to his surroundings. - Henri Frédéric Amiel

Toughness is in the soul and spirit, not in muscles. - Alex Karras

People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character. - Ralph Waldo Emerson

I have found that if you love life, life will love you back. - Arthur Rubinstein

I read an article by Mark McNeilly that captures the principle of character and how it flows into the long-term results of an organization.  Without character, all the flowery words and images will ultimately backfire against the leaders.  Hypocrisy is not a value system that followers will support.  The question is, “Are you who you say you are?”  If not, you will be found out.  If yes, people will buy into your vision because they have bought into you.  All true leaders should work on their personal character first, followed by relationships and task—rounding out the Tri-Lateral Leadership Ledger.  Chris Brady and my book - Launching a Leadership Revolution -covers the Tri-Lateral Leaderhip principles in depth.  Over 100,000 copies of the hard cover version of LLR have been sold and all of the royalties have gone to various charities.  The readers of this blog are making a huge difference and getting character based leadership into the hands of industry leaders.  Enjoy the article and decide to live a life that can be written in the clouds for all to see!  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

What do character and strategy have to do with one another? To successfully carry out a strategy that will bring long-term benefit to your company, one must have character.

Sun Tzu had this to say about character:

"And therefore the general who in advancing does not seek personal fame, and in withdrawing is not concerned with avoiding punishment, but whose only purpose is to protect the people and promote the best interests of his sovereign, is the precious jewel of the state...Few such are to be had." Sun Tzu

To become such a leader, to put others before yourself, is not an easy task. It demands sacrifice. You must be willing to build your character and not just your image, to lead with actions and not just words, to share your employees trials, and not just their triumphs, and to motivate emotionally, not just materially.

Much has been written in the last few decades about management methods, devices and tricks one can learn to manipulate people to do what one wants. However, little has been said about what true leadership is really based on--character. To lead and command properly, a person must have certain character traits and virtues.

"By command I mean the generals' qualities of wisdom, sincerity, humanity, courage, and strictness...If wise, a commander is able to recognize changing circumstances and to act expediently. If sincere, his men will have no doubt of the certainty of rewards and punishments. If humane, he loves mankind, sympathized with others, and appreciates their industry and toil. If courageous, he gains victory by seizing opportunity without hesitation. If strict, his troops are disciplined because they are in awe of him and are afraid of punishment."

In business there are many unknowns. Therefore, wisdom is important for it allows a leader to clearly define the company's strengths, weaknesses and opportunities and build a solid strategy. Courage is essential because, without it, a leader cannot take advantage of wisdom with bold action when the time requires it. Sincerity and humanity are crucial because, at the heart of it, leading a team, department, division, or company means accomplishing success through other human beings. Discipline is necessary, for it is required to ensure that strategy is executed successfully. All these traits are a manifestation of a strong, positive and well-developed character.

A study that looked at hundreds of North American companies concluded that "after 4 years, 15%-25% of the variation in profitability was due to the character of the chief executives." So character is therefore critical in being successful in your business (and I might add, your personal life). As Sun Tzu said,

"Those who excel in war first cultivate their own humanity and justice and maintain their laws and institutions. By these means they make their governments invincible."

I loved this Stanford commencement speech from Steve Jobs.  Success is success in any area that you pursue.  You will have dreams, struggles, victories, defeats (which winners turn into experiences), and increased wisdom to start it all over again.  Steve Jobs was adopted.  I can't help but think of what the world would have lost had Jobs been aborted instead of adopted.  To us it is a societal issue, but to the babies it is a matter of life and death.  I think Steve Jobs would have fit right in at the leadership event in St. Louis.  Jobs is creative, humble, and constantly stretching his boundaries.  Enjoy the commencement speech and ask yourself: are you living your life to the fullest?  I encourage you to give this world the best you have and make a difference with the gifts God gave you.   Grab a notepad and take some notes on this speech.  Please share what you have learned with the rest of our readers!  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

The Solidarity Movement was successful in forcing changes to the inept, inefficient and un-productive Polish Communist Party.  Tyranny comes in many sizes, shapes and forms, but displays several uncanny common characteristic wherever it is practiced.  Leadership in corporations and governments is not any different at its core principles.  Leadership in both fields is responsible to lead with character and produce long-term results.  When this doesn’t happen, there will be resistance and eventually the incompetent “leaders” will be ousted.  Here is a fantastic article on the Solidarity movement in blue with my analysis on Solidarity's resistance and tyranny's oppressive principles after each paragraph.  Enjoy the article and learn about the brave men and women from Poland who stood up for truth against their Communist Tyrants.  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Established in September of 1980 at the Gdansk shipyards, Solidarity was an independent labor union instrumental in the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, and the primary catalyst that would transform Poland from a repressive communist satellite to the EU member democracy it is today. The Solidarity movement received international attention, spreading anti-communist ideas and inspiring political action throughout the rest of the Communist Bloc, and its influence in the eventual fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe cannot be understated or dismissed.

When people cannot communicate freely with those in power—they are forced to resists the dictatorial powers who will not listen to the needs of their constituents.  Leaders are responsible for results and if the titled leaders will not produce results, then others leaders with purpose  and results will replace them.

Solidarity's cohesion and initial success, like that of other dissident movements, was not created overnight, or the result of any specific event or grievance. Rather, the emergence of Solidarity as a political force in Poland was spurred by governmental and economic difficulties that had continued to deepen over the course of an entire decade. Poland's 'shortage economy' put stress on the lives of everyday people who were unable to purchase daily necessities, such as bread or toilet paper, and faced endless queues for which there was rarely a reward. In July of 1980, the Polish government - facing economic crisis - was again forced to raise the price of goods while curbing the growth of wages. This was essentially the "last straw" for much of Poland's labor force, with strikes spreading almost at once across the country, in spite of the absence of any organized network.

When the people responsible for the management of a country or company cannot produce results—this leads to many grievances and events that place stress on the people following the inept “leaders.”   When in charge, take command or you will be held responsible.  There does not need to be an organized network, only a common complaint among all members like the inept Polish Communist Regime.  People unite around the incompetence of the current administration to drive change.

In Gdansk, at the then 'Lenin Shipyards', the shipyard workers were unified by the additional outrage of Anna Walentynowicz's firing. The dismissal of Walentynowicz - a popular crane-operator and activist, combined with the previous firing of Lech Walesa - an outspoken electrician, galvanized the workers into taking action. A strike began on August 14th, led by Walesa, who gave voice to the workers' demands for the legalization of independent labor unions, the raising of a monument to the 80 workers brutally murdered in a 1970 labor dispute in Gdansk, and the rehiring of both Walesa and Walentynowicz.

The first action of the oppressors is to fire or murder the leaders that are most vocal in their resistance to the incompetent management.  By firing the leaders of the resistance, tyrannical "leaders" expect the followers to passively surrender their ideals.  Anna Walentynowicz and Lech Walesa were both fired for addressing the lack of results of the Polish Communist Regime, but the Polish people did not surrender their ideals and convictions.

Despite nation-wide censorship and the severance of all phone connections between Gdansk and the rest of the country, several underground presses succeeded in covering the story and spreading the shipyard workers' message throughout Poland and the Eastern Bloc. On August 16th, several other strike committees joined the Gdansk shipyard workers and the following day 21 demands of the unified strike committee were put forward. These demands went far beyond the scope of local concern, calling for the legal formation of independent trade unions, an end to media censorship, the right to strike, new rights for the Church, the freeing of political prisoners, and improvements in the national health system. The movement's news-sheet, Solidarnosc, began being printed on the shipyard printing press at a run of 30,000 copies.

The second action of all dictatorial powers is to censor the free speech of the resistance to kill the truth about the inept management of the enterprise.  Tyranny's biggest fear is that the truth about the administration's incompetence and hypocrisy would be publically exposed. 

On August 18th, the Szczecin shipyard joined the Gdansk shipyard in protest, igniting a wave of strikes along the Polish coast. Within days, most of Poland was affected by factory shutdowns, with more and more unions forming and joining the Gdansk-based federation on a daily basis. With the situation in Gdansk gaining international support and media coverage, the Gdansk shipyard workers were able to hold out longer than many of their compatriots. Poland's Soviet government capitulated, sending a Governmental Commission to Gdansk, which on September 3rd signed an agreement ratifying many of the workers' demands. This agreement, known as the Gdansk Agreement, became recognized as the first step in dismantling Soviet power. Achieving the right to form labor unions independent of Communist Party control, and the right to strike, workers' concerns would now receive representation; common people were now able to introduce democratic changes into the communist political structure.

Tyranny counts on the passive behavior of the masses and will not yield to gentle requests.  History teaches that a God-less power hungry elite must be met with an equal but opposite Godly force to cause tyranny to relent.   The Polish Communistic regime only capitulated because of international support, media coverage, and a unified Solidarity.

With an upsurge of momentum in the wake of their success, workers' representatives - with Walesa on the pulpit - formed a national labor union on September 17th and Solidarity ('Solidarnosc' in Polish) was born. The first independent labor union in the Soviet Bloc, Solidarity's existence was remarkable to people the world over who had previously thought such an organization could never exist under communism. In Poland, millions of people hopeful for change rallied around the union and in the 500 days following the Gdansk Agreement, 10 million people - students, workers, intellectuals - joined Solidarnosc or one of its sub organizations (Independent Student Union, Craftsmen's Union, Farmer's Union, etc.). A quarter of the country's population bravely became members, including 80% of Poland's workforce, marking the only time in human history that such a percentage of a country's population voluntarily joined an organization. With the country behind them, Solidarity slowly transformed from a trade union to a full-on revolutionary movement, using strikes and other acts of protest to force change in government policies. The movement was careful, however, never to use violence, for fear of encouraging and validating harsh reprimands from the government.

Tyranny only recognizes a threat when the people stand so strongly with the resistance—they realize attacking the leadership is attacking everyone under their adminstration.  One, two, ten even a thousand dissidents can be thrown in jail, but not millions of the Polish workforce.  The Polish people called the bluff of the dictatorial threats and intimidation by standing together against the overt tyranny.  Over 80% of the Polish workforce bravely stood up to the Communist dictators by joining the Solidarity movement and this forced the Polish Communist to negotiate.

As quickly as December 1980, the Monument to Fallen Shipyard Workers was erected, and the following month Walesa and other Solidarity delegates met with Pope John Paul II in Rome. After 27 Solidarity members in Bydgoszcz were assaulted by the state police during a state-initiated National Council meeting on March 19th, news spread throughout the underground press and nation-wide strike was planned. This action, involving over half a million people, brought Poland to a standstill and was the largest strike in the history of the Eastern Bloc. The government was forced to promise an investigation into the Bydgoszcz beatings and allow the story to be released to the international press.

When tyranny realizes the leaders of the resistance will not back down—they will attack the next line of leaders, hoping to break the unity of the resistance.  27 Solidarity members were assaulted, but it only strengthened the will to resist.  Solidarity insisted the beatings be released to the media to the shame of the oppressors.  Every dictatorial mis-step by the oppressors must be met by united actions by the oppressed people.

After the Gdansk Agreement, Moscow stepped up pressure on its Polish government, which continued to lose its control over Polish society. The Soviets put General Wojciech Jaruzelski in the driver's seat, expecting a crackdown on the Solidarity movement. On December 13th, 1981, Juruzelski delivered, declaring martial law and arresting some 5,000 Solidarity members in the middle of the night, Walesa and other Gdansk leaders among them. Censorship was expanded and police filled the streets. Hundreds of strikes taking place throughout the country were put down harshly by riot police, including several deaths during demonstrations in Gdansk and at the Wujek Coal Mine. By the end of 1981 strikes had ceased and Solidarity seemed crippled. In October of 1982, Solidarity was delegalized and banned. The Polish people were bowed, but not broken....

Tyranny will never willingly give up power and will attack on all fronts - in as many un-ethical ways it can think of to maintain power - regardless of their alleged principles.  In the Polish Communist Government's case, the communist had always claimed they were for the common workers, but the behaviors proved they only cared for their special perks and power.  Ideology is thown out the moment their tyrannical power is threatened.

Upon the arrest of the Solidarity leadership, more underground structures began to form, including Solidarity Radio and over 500 underground publications. Solidarity managed to persevere throughout the mid-80s as an underground movement, garnering extensive international support which condemned Jaruzelski's actions.

The more the resistance is attacked—the more it unites and goes underground.  The Solidarity movement created Solidarity radio and over 500 underground publications.  This ensured the truth about the un-Godly behavior of the oppressors would be made public.  The Solidarity radio and publications did not need to create lies about the oppressors as the truth is damning enough.

No other movement in the world was supported by such a wide gamut: Reagan, Thatcher, the Pope, Carrillo (head of communist Spain); NATO, Christians, Western communists, liberals, conservatives, and socialists - all voiced support for Solidarity's cause. US President Ronald Reagan imposed sanctions on Poland, which would eventually force the government to soften its policies. The CIA and Catholic Church provided funds, equipment and training to the Solidarity underground. And the Polish people still supported what remained of the movement, demonstrating through masses held by priests such as Jerzy Popieluszko, who would himself later become a martyr of the cause.

Resistance to tyranny always brings other principle-centered Godly people to the freedom movement’s aid.  The French people helped the Colonials in the Revolutionary War.  The free-enterprise, freedom loving, people of the world helped the Solidarity movement against the power hungry, anti-freedom, intimidation filled Polish Communist Regime.  Tyrannical "leaders" must wake up and realize they will not be tolerated by freedom loving people of the world.

By November of 1982, Walesa was released from prison; however, less than a month later, the government carried out an attack upon the movement, arresting 10,000 activists. On July 22, 1983, martial law was lifted, yet many restrictions on civil liberties and political life remained, as well as food rationing which would continue until the late 80s. On October 5th, Lech Walesa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, despite the Polish government's attempts to defame him and their refusal to allow him to leave the country and accept the award.

Tyranny cannot survive unless Civil Liberties are revoked, violated and repressed.  Oppressors must defame the leaders of the resistance for fear that the people will learn the truth and refuse to follow the incompetent leaders.  Awards and recognitions given to the resistance leaders will be disparaged, minimized and excused away.  Tyranny can have only worship one god and that is Self.

When Mikhail Gorbachev assumed control over the Soviet Union in 1985, he was forced to initiate a series of reforms due to the worsening economic situation across the entire Eastern Bloc. These reforms included political and social reforms which led to a shift in policy in many Soviet satellites, including Poland, and led to the happy release of hundreds of political prisoners connected with Solidarity. However, Solidarity members continued to be the objects of persecution and discrimination.

The only reforms ever implemented in a tyrannical power-hungry regime are those that are forced upon the oppressors by a united resistance.  Gorbachev only relented to the political and social reforms from political expediency to maintain power.  As Lord Acton stated, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

By 1988, Poland's economic situation was worse than ever due to foreign sanctions and the government's refusal to introduce more reforms. A new wave of strikes swept the country after food costs were increased by 40%. Finally on August 26, the government announced it was ready to negotiate with Solidarity and met with Walesa, who incredulously agreed to call an end to the strikes. In preparation for an official negotiating conference with the government, a hundred-member committee was formed within Solidarity, composed of many sections, each of which was responsible for presenting specific demands to the government at the forthcoming talks. This conference, which took place in Warsaw from February 6th to April 4th, 1989, came to be known as the 'Polish Roundtable Talks.' Though the members of Solidarity had no expectation of major changes, the Roundtable Talks would irreversibly alter the political landscape and Polish society.

Years of no results in leadership will produce wave after wave of resistance, until the necessary changes are implemented.  Incompetent management will ultimately fail, because it does not meet the needs of those it claims to serve.  The Polish Communist blamed Solidarity for their fall, but their demise resulted from their own incompetence and pride.

On April 17, 1989, Solidarity was again legalized and the party was allowed to field candidates in upcoming elections. With its members immediately jumping to 1.5 million after legalization, the party was restricted to fielding candidates for only 35% of the seats in the new Sejm. Despite aggression and propaganda from the ruling party, extremely limited resources and pre-election polls that promised a communist victory, Solidarity managed to push forward a campaign that surprised everyone, including themselves. The party won every contested seat in the Sejm and 99 of 100 Senatorial seats: the new 'Contract Sejm' as it was called would be dominated by Solidarity.

Even after concessions, the tyrannical power will still utilize un-ethical propaganda and aggression to fear the populace into following their demands.  Tyranny never learns the lesson that a free people with a choice will never cower to threats and intimidation.  Solidarity won 99 of 100 Senatorial seats in the Polish Communist Regimes first free elections.  Throughout history, tyranny is clueless on how much they are hated by the people—even those who claim to be on their side.  Passive-aggressive behavior is rampant throughout any tyrannical system.  To the tyrants face it is: oaths of allegiance - hypocritical lies to pacify.  Behind their backs it is: Don't ask and don't tell.  The tyrants are saluted to their face and laughed at behind their backs.  An un-ending store of resentments and blatant hypocrisy by the followers surrounding the dictator; giving the tyrant the constant affirmations needed to affirm the lies and the liars conscience.  The lie continues until the first free elections - where the people rise up in mass and boot the tyrant unceremoniously out of power.

As agreed beforehand, Wojciech Jaruzelski was elected president; however the communist candidate for prime minister now failed to rally enough support to form a government and the Sejm elected Solidarity representative Tadeusz Mazowiecki as Prime Minister of Poland. Mazowiecki became the first non-communist prime minister in Poland since 1945 and the first anywhere in Eastern Europe for 40 years. Under Mazowiecki a Solidarity-led government was formed, and only Jaruzelski remained of the old regime. Communism had collapsed in Poland and within months the famous Wall in Berlin would do the same.

The only way tyranny endures is through the intimidation and fear of the masses threatened with reprisals if they tell the truth.  Lech Walesa and other brave men and women had the courage to tell the truth.  The King has no clothes on period!  Through many personal attacks, imprisonments, and financial hardships—the leaders of Solidarity stood for truth, until the lies were fully exposed and the Polish Communist regime collapsed.  Shortly after, the whole Eastern Bloc of Communist Countries collapsed like dominoes under the weight of their own lies. 

The fall of communism in Poland thrust Solidarity into a role it was never prepared for, and in its life as a political party it saw much infighting and a decline in popularity. Walesa decided to resign from his Solidarity post and announced his intent to run for president in the upcoming elections. In December 1990, Lech Walesa was elected president of Poland and became the first Polish president ever elected by popular vote. The 1990 elections in Poland, which scored astonishing victories for anti-communist candidates, set-off a string of peaceful anti-communist revolutions throughout Central and Eastern Europe which led to the fall of communism is these regions. In the Baltic’s people were joining hands in solidarity, and the cry for freedom could be heard in the Estonian Singing Revolution and its Lithuanian and Latvian counterparts. The example of Solidarity had emboldened the oppressed peoples of the entire Eastern Bloc to stand together and demand their independence. By Christmas of 1991, the USSR had ceased to exist, and all the former communist territories across Eurasia became sovereign entities once again.

When brave people stand, it grows the spines of all oppressed people around the world to speak the truth against the oppressors, who feed them only lies.  Tyranny cannot stand against the light of reason and truth.  Tyranny is an outmoded form of leadership that will not survive in today and tomorrow's information age.

Today Solidarity's role in Polish politics is limited and the organization has again reverted back toward the role of a more traditional trade union with a membership that currently exceeds 1.1 million. Summer 2005 marked the 25th anniversary of the historic Solidarity movement, remembering the hardships of its humble beginnings and celebrating the changes those hardships inspired across the continent.

The thing we most learn from history is that we do not learn from history. – George Bernard Shaw

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. – George Santayana

Here is a superb interview with Noel Tichy from Computerworld in 2006.  I believe Dr. Tichy captures the essence of the Team difference in this interview.  The leaders on the Team have developed a Teachable Point of View (TPOV) and recognize that true leadership is developing other leaders.  This is one of the main reasons why I believe we will go to millions of people—the leaders recognize their calling is to build others as well as themselves.  I love the quote by Dr. Tichy, “The job of a leader is to win today while making the organization better for tomorrow.”  Are you developing as a leader?  As a leader, are you developing other leaders?  The Team is Launching a Leadership Revolution and it starts with you!  How many parallels do you see between what Professor Tichy teaches and what the Team teaches?  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

A lot of leadership advice is too high-minded to be readily applied. But not the advice of Noel Tichy, former head of General Electric Co.’s famed leadership development center, Crotonville, as well as a professor of organization and management at the University of Michigan. Tichy has also written many leadership books, including Cycle of Leadership and The Leadership Engine. Tichy’s focus is on what leaders can do to ensure that they develop other leaders while still yielding a business return. Computerworld contributing writer Mary Brandel asked Tichy to pass along some wisdom to today’s IT leaders.

What is the best thing a leader can do?

Be a teacher and develop other leaders while the organization keeps winning. The worst people in the world to do this are consultants, professionals and training staff. It is up to the leaders of an organization to be the teachers. Only small minorities of leaders do this, but the ones who do are role models. And they don’t teach Harvard Business School cases; they get their leaders to work on real projects as part of their development. This is what former CEO Jack Welch and now Jeff Immelt at GE do. GE has sent teams to Southeast Asia to look for acquisitions and to Korea to assess the GE strategy. Roger Enrico, former CEO at PepsiCo, sponsored over 200 growth projects at Pepsi that resulted in over $2 billion in new revenue growth.

What is the worst thing a leader can do?

Not develop other leaders. We have a terrible track record in the U.S. on this front. At the CEO level, it means not having a successor, thus indicating a broken leadership pipeline. Think of the examples: John Akers gets fired at IBM, and they have to go outside the organization to get Gerstner. Merck had to go outside and get Ray Gilmartin, who failed. HP went outside twice: Fiorina, who failed, and then Hurd came in from NCR. The job of a leader is to win today while making the organization better for tomorrow.

What is the most important lesson you’ve learned as a leader of leaders?

I learned the most from Jack Welch at GE. In the mid-1980s, I left the University of Michigan for two years to transform the GE Leadership Development Center — then a 30-year-old corporate university — into an action learning platform for change. Then, because the center only dealt with about 5,000 of GE’s 320,000 employees per year, we needed ways of getting everyone engaged, so Welch and a team of us launched Work-Out, a program in which line executives ran their own workshops on leading change. We also developed a program that prepared the top 10,000 GE leaders to teach and lead change. The point is that organizations need multiple mechanisms of leading and teaching that along the way must yield growth and/or productivity improvements.

What is the most important thing you try to teach leaders?

I try to teach them to articulate what I call their “teachable point of view.” That is, what are their strategic ideas for their organization? What values do they expect members of the organization to exhibit? What is their emotional energy, in terms of energizing thousands of people around their ideas and values? And what is their edge — how do they plan to make the tough yes/no calls on business and people issues? In addition, I help them design and prepare them to teach multiday workshops with their own people.

For our Sunday edition of the Leadership blog, I would like to share the late Francis Schaeffer - one of my all-time favorite authors.  Whether a person is a Christian or not—the thinking of Francis Schaeffer in the areas of history, art, philosophy and theology—is second to none.  This address was delivered by Dr. Schaeffer in 1982 at the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. It is based on one of his books, called the Christian Manifesto.  Being a Christian was more than just having a title to Dr. Schaffer and he has inspired many others to live out the truth of the Christian life.  The Christian Manifesto is an appeal for Christians everywhere to be the salt and light in their communities.  Take your time and think deeply on what Dr. Schaeffer is saying.  A rejection of God creates many other unforeseen catastrophic consequences in a society.  I believe strongly the Team will play a major part in bringing absolute values back to society.   When a community honors God—God honors the community.  God will raise up a group of leaders!  Why not us, why not now?  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Christians, in the last 80 years or so, have only been seeing things as bits and pieces which have gradually begun to trouble them and others, instead of understanding that they are the natural outcome of a change from a Christian World View to a Humanistic one; things such as over-permissiveness, pornography, the problem of the public schools, the breakdown of the family, abortion, infanticide (the killing of newborn babies), increased emphasis upon the euthanasia of the old and many, many other things.

All of these things and many more are only the results. We may be troubled with the individual thing, but in reality we are missing the whole thing if we do not see each of these things and many more as only symptoms of the deeper problem. And that is the change in our society, a change in our country, a change in the Western world from a Judeo-Christian consensus to a Humanistic one. That is, instead of the final reality that exists being the infinite creator God; instead of that which is the basis of all reality being such a creator God, now largely, all else is seen as only material or energy which has existed forever in some form, shaped into its present complex form only by pure chance.

I want to say to you, those of you who are Christians or even if you are not a Christian and you are troubled about the direction that our society is going in, that we must not concentrate merely on the bits and pieces. But we must understand that all of these dilemmas come on the basis of moving from the Judeo-Christian world view -- that the final reality is an infinite creator God -- over into this other reality which is that the final reality is only energy or material in some mixture or form which has existed forever and which has taken its present shape by pure chance.

The word Humanism should be carefully defined. We should not just use it as a flag, or what younger people might call a "buzz" word. We must understand what we are talking about when we use the word Humanism. Humanism means that the man is the measure of all things. Man is the measure of all things. If this other final reality of material or energy shaped by pure chance is the final reality, it gives no meaning to life. It gives no value system. It gives no basis for law, and therefore, in this case, man must be the measure of all things. So, Humanism properly defined, in contrast, let us say, to the humanities or humanitarianism, (which is something entirely different and which Christians should be in favor of) being the measure of all things, comes naturally, mathematically, inevitably, certainly. If indeed the final reality is silent about these values, then man must generate them from himself.

So, Humanism is the absolute certain result, if we choose this other final reality and say that is what it is. You must realize that when we speak of man being the measure of all things under the Humanist label, the first thing is that man has only knowledge from himself. That he, being finite, limited, very faulty in his observation of many things, yet nevertheless, has no possible source of knowledge except what man, beginning from himself, can find out from his own observation. Specifically, in this view, there is no place for any knowledge from God.

But it is not only that man must start from himself in the area of knowledge and learning, but any value system must come arbitrarily from man himself by arbitrary choice. More frightening still, in our country, at our own moment of history, is the fact that any basis of law then becomes arbitrary -- merely certain people making decisions as to what is for the good of society at the given moment.

Now this is the real reason for the breakdown in morals in our country. It's the real reason for the breakdown in values in our country, and it is the reason that our Supreme Court now functions so thoroughly upon the fact of arbitrary law. They have no basis for law that is fixed, therefore, like the young person who decides to live hedonistically upon their own chosen arbitrary values, society is now doing the same thing legally. Certain few people come together and decide what they arbitrarily believe is for the good of society at the given moment, and that becomes law.

The world view that the final reality is only material or energy shaped by pure chance, inevitably, (that's the next word I would bring to you ) mathematically -- with mathematical certainty -- brings forth all these other results which are in our country and in our society which have led to the breakdown in the country -- in society -- and which are its present sorrows. So, if you hold this other world view, you must realize that it is inevitable that we will come to the very sorrows of relativity and all these other things that are so represented in our country at this moment of history.

It should be noticed that this new dominant world view is a view which is exactly opposite from that of the founding fathers of this country. Now, not all the founding fathers were individually, personally, Christians. That certainly is true. But, nevertheless, they founded the country on the base that there is a God who is the Creator (now I come to the next central phrase) who gave the inalienable rights.

We must understand something very thoroughly. If society -- if the state gives the rights, it can take them away -- they're not inalienable. If the states give the rights, they can change them and manipulate them. But this was not the view of the founding fathers of this country. They believed, although not all of them were individual Christians, that there was a Creator and that this Creator gave the inalienable rights -- this upon which our country was founded and which has given us the freedoms which we still have -- even the freedoms which are being used now to destroy the freedoms.

The reason that these freedoms were there is because they believed there was somebody who gave the inalienable rights. But if we have the view that the final reality is material or energy which has existed forever in some form, we must understand that this view never, never, never would have given the rights which we now know and which, unhappily, I say to you (those of you who are Christians) that too often you take all too much for granted. You forget that the freedoms which we have in northern Europe after the Reformation (and the United States is an extension of that, as would be Australia or Canada, New Zealand, etc.) are absolutely unique in the world.

Occasionally, some of you who have gone to universities have been taught that these freedoms are rooted in the Greek city-states. That is not the truth. All you have to do is read Plato's Republic and you understand that the Greek city-states never had any concept of the freedoms that we have. Go back into history. The freedoms which we have (the form / freedom balance of government) are unique in history and they are also unique in the world at this day.

A fairly recent poll of the 150 some countries that now constitute the world shows that only 25 of these countries have any freedoms at all. What we have, and take so poorly for granted, is unique. It was brought forth by a specific world view and that specific world view was the Judeo-Christian world view especially as it was refined in the Reformation, putting the authority indeed at a central point -- not in the Church and the state and the Word of God, but rather the Word of God alone. All the benefits which we know -- I would repeat -- which we have taken so easily and so much for granted, are unique. They have been grounded on the certain world view that there was a Creator there to give inalienable rights. And this other view over here, which has become increasingly dominant, of the material-energy final world view (shaped by pure chance) never would have, could not, has, no basis of values, in order to give such a balance of freedom that we have known so easily and which we unhappily, if we are not careful, take so for granted.

We are now losing those freedoms and we can expect to continue to lose them if this other world-view continues to take increased force and power in our county. We can be sure of this. I would say it again -- inevitably, mathematically, all of these things will come forth. There is no possible way to heal the relativistic thinking of our own day, if indeed all there is is a universe out there that is silent about any values. None, whatsoever! It is not possible. It is a loss of values and it is a loss of freedom which we may be sure will continually grow.

A good illustration is in the public schools. This view is taught in our public schools exclusively -- by law. There is no other view that can be taught. I'll mention it a bit later, but by law there is no other view that can be taught. By law, in the public schools, the United States of America in 1982, legally there is only one view of reality that can be taught. I'll mention it a bit later, but there is only one view of reality that can be taught, and that is that the final reality is only material or energy shaped by pure chance.

It is the same with the television programs. Public television gives us many things that many of us like culturally, but is also completely committed to a propaganda position that the last reality is only material / energy shaped by pure chance. Clark's Civilization, Brunowski, The Ascent of Man, Carl Sagan's Cosmos -- they all say it. There is only one final view of reality that's possible and that is that the final reality is material or energy shaped by pure chance.

It is about us on every side, and especially the government and the courts have become the vehicle to force this anti-God view on the total population. It's exactly where we are.

The abortion ruling is a very clear one. The abortion ruling, of course, is also a natural result of this other world view because with this other world view, human life -- your individual life -- has no intrinsic value. You are a wart upon the face of an absolutely impersonal universe. Your aspirations have no fulfillment in the "what-isness" of what is. Your aspirations damn you. Many of the young people who come to us understand this very well because their aspirations as Humanists have no fulfillment, if indeed the final reality is only material or energy shaped by pure chance.

The universe cannot fulfill anything that you say when you say, "It is beautiful"; "I love"; "It is right"; "It is wrong." These words are meaningless words against the backdrop of this other world view. So what we find is that the abortion case should not have been a surprise, because it boiled up out of, quite naturally, (I would use the word again) mathematically, this other world view. In this case, human life has no distinct value whatsoever, and we find this Supreme Court in one ruling overthrew the abortion laws of all 50 states, and they made this form of killing human life (because that's what it is) the law. The law declared that this form of killing human life was to be accepted, and for many people, because they had no set ethic, when the Supreme Court said that it was legal, in the intervening years, it has become ethical.

The courts of this country have forced this view and its results on the total population. What we find is that as the courts have done this, without any longer that which the founding fathers comprehended of law (A man like Blackstone, with his Commentaries, understood, and the other lawgivers in this country in the beginning): That there is a law of God which gives foundation. It becomes quite natural then, that they would also cut themselves loose from a strict constructionism concerning the Constitution.

Everything is relative. So as you cut yourself loose from the Law of God, in any concept whatsoever, you also soon are cutting yourself loose from a strict constructionism and each ruling is to be seen as an arbitrary choice by a group of people as to what they may honestly think is for the sociological good of the community, of the country, for the given moment.

Now, along with that is the fact that the courts are increasingly making law and thus we find that the legislatures' powers are increasingly diminished in relationship to the power of the courts. Now the pro-abortion people have been very wise about this in the last, say, 10 years, and Christians very silly. I wonder sometimes where we've been because the pro-abortion people have used the courts for their end rather than the legislatures -- because the courts are not subject to the people's thinking, nor their will, either by election or by a re-election. Consequently, the courts have been the vehicle used to bring this whole view and to force it on our total population. It has not been largely the legislatures. It has been rather, the courts.

The result is a relativistic value system. A lack of a final meaning to life -- that's first. Why does human life have any value at all, if that is all that reality is? Not only are you going to die individually, but the whole human race is going to die, someday. It may not take the falling of the atom bombs, but someday the world will grow too hot, too cold. That's what we are told on this other final reality, and someday all you people not only will be individually dead, but the whole conscious life on this world will be dead, and nobody will see the birds fly. And there's no meaning to life.

As you know, I don't speak academically, shut off in some scholastic cubicle, as it were. I have lots of young people and older ones come to us from the ends of the earth. And as they come to us, they have gone to the end of this logically and they are not living in a romantic setting. They realize what the situation is. They can't find any meaning to life. It's the meaning to the black poetry. It's the meaning of the black plays. It's the meaning of all this. It's the meaning of the words "punk rock." And I must say that on the basis of what they are being taught in school, that the final reality is only this material thing, they are not wrong. They're right! On this other basis there is no meaning to life and not only is there no meaning to life, but there is no value system that is fixed, and we find that the law is based then only on a relativistic basis and that law becomes purely arbitrary.

And this is brought to bear, specifically, and perhaps most clearly, in the public schools (I'll come to that now) in this country. In the courts of this country, they are saying that it's absolutely illegal, from the lowest grades up through university, for the public schools of this country to teach any other world view except this world view of final material or energy. Now this is done, no matter what the parents may wish. This is done regardless of what those who pay the taxes for their schools may wish. I'm giving you an illustration, as well as making a point. The way the courts force their view, and this false view of reality on the total population, no matter what the total population wants.

We find that in the January 18 -- just recently -- Time magazine, there was an article that said there was a poll that pointed out that about 76% of the people in this country thought it would be a good idea to have both creation and evolution taught in the public schools. I don't know if the poll was accurate, but assuming that the poll was accurate, what does it mean? It means that your public schools are told by the courts that they cannot teach this, even though 76% of the people in the United States want it taught. I'll give you a word. It's TYRANNY. There is no other word that fits at such a point.

And at the same time we find the medical profession has radically changed. Dr. Koop, in our seminars for Whatever Happened to the Human Race, often said that (speaking for himself), "When I graduated from medical school, the idea was 'how can I save this life?' But for a great number of the medical students now, it's not, 'How can I save this life?', but 'Should I save this life?'"

Believe me, it's everywhere. It isn't just abortion. It's infanticide. It's allowing the babies to starve to death after they are born—if they do not come up to some doctor's concept of a quality of life worth living. I'll just say in passing -- and never forget it - it takes about 15 days, often, for these babies to starve to death. And I'd say something else that we haven't stressed enough. In abortion itself, there is no abortion method that is not painful to the child -- just as painful that month before birth as the baby you see a month after birth in one of these cribs down here that I passed -- just as painful.

So what we find then, is that the medical profession has largely changed -- not all doctors. I'm sure there are doctors here in the audience who feel very, very differently, who feel indeed that human life is important and you wouldn't take it, easily, wantonly. But, in general, we must say (and all you have to do is look at the TV programs), all you have to do is hear about the increased talk about allowing the Mongoloid child -- the child with Down's Syndrome -- to starve to death if it's born this way. Increasingly, we find on every side the medical profession has changed its views. The view now is, "Is this life worth saving?"

I look at you... You're an older congregation than I am usually used to speaking to. You'd better think, because -- this -- means -- you! It does not stop with abortion and infanticide. It stops at the question, "What about the old person? Is he worth hanging on to?" Should we, as they are doing in England in this awful organization, EXIT, teach older people to commit suicide? Should we help them get rid of them because they are an economic burden, a nuisance? I want to tell you, once you begin chipping away the medical profession... The intrinsic value of the human life is founded upon the Judeo-Christian concept that man is unique because he is made in the image of God, and not because he is well, strong, a consumer, a sex object or any other thing. That is where whatever compassion this country has is, and certainly it is far from perfect and has never been perfect. Nor out of the Reformation has there been a Golden Age, but whatever compassion there has ever been, it is rooted in the fact that our culture knows that man is unique, is made in the image of God. Take it away, and I just say gently, the stopper is out of the bathtub for all human life.

The January 11 Newsweek has an article about the baby in the womb. The first 5 or 6 pages are marvelous. If you haven't seen it, you should see if you can get that issue. It's January 11 and about the first 5 or 6 pages show conclusively what every biologist has known all along, and that is that human life begins at conception. There is no other time for human life to begin, except at conception. Monkey life begins at conception. Donkey life begins at conception. And human life begins at conception. Biologically, there is no discussion -- never should have been -- from a scientific viewpoint. I am not speaking of religion now. And this 5 or 6 pages very carefully goes into the fact that human life begins at conception. But you flip the page and there is this big black headline, "But is it a person?" And I'll read the last sentence, "The problem is not determining when actual human life begins, but when the value of that life begins to out weigh other considerations, such as the health or even the happiness of the mother."

We are not just talking about the health of the mother (it's a propaganda line), or even the happiness of the mother. Listen! Spell that out! It means that the mother, for her own hedonistic happiness -- selfish happiness -- can take human life by her choice, by law. Do you understand what I have said? By law, on the basis of her individual choice of what makes her happy. She can take what has been declared to be, in the first five pages [of the article], without any question, human life. In other words, they acknowledge that human life is there, but it is an open question as to whether it is not right to kill that human life if it makes the mother happy.

And basically that is no different than Stalin, Mao, or Hitler, killing who they killed for what they conceived to be the good of society. There is absolutely no line between the two statements -- no absolute line, whatsoever. One follows along: Once that it is acknowledged that it is human life that is involved (and as I said, this issue of Newsweek shows conclusively that it is) the acceptance of death of human life in babies born or unborn, opens the door to the arbitrary taking of any human life. From then on, it's purely arbitrary.

It was this view that opened the door to all that followed in Germany prior to Hitler. It's an interesting fact here that the only Supreme Court in the Western World that has ruled against easy abortion is the West German Court. The reason they did it is because they knew, and it's clear history, that this view of human life in the medical profession and the legal profession combined, before Hitler came on the scene, is what opened the way for everything that happened in Hitler's Germany. And so, the German Supreme Court has voted against easy abortion because they know -- they know very well where it leads.

I want to say something tonight. Not many of you are black in this audience. I can't tell if you are Puerto Rican. But if I were in the minority group in this country, tonight, I would be afraid. I've had big gorgeous blacks stand up in our seminars and ask, "Sir, do you think there is a racial twist to all this?" And I have to say, "Right on! You've hit it right on the head!" Once this door is opened, there is something to be afraid of. Christians should be deeply concerned, and I cannot understand why the liberal lawyer of the Civil Liberties Union is not scared to death by this open door towards human life. Everyone ought to be frightened who knows anything about history -- anything about the history of law, anything about the history of medicine. This is a terrifying door that is open.

Abortion itself would be worth spending much of our lifetimes to fight against, because it is the killing of human life, but it's only a symptom of the total. What we are facing is Humanism: Man, the measure of all things -- viewing final reality being only material or energy shaped by chance -- therefore, human life having no intrinsic value -- therefore, the keeping of any individual life or any groups of human life, being purely an arbitrary choice by society at the given moment.

The flood doors are wide open. I fear both they, and too often the Christians, do not have just relativistic values (because, unhappily, Christians can live with relativistic values) but, I fear, that often such people as the liberal lawyers of the Civil Liberties Union and Christians, are just plain stupid in regard to the lessons of history. Nobody who knows his history could fail to be shaken at the corner we have turned in our culture. Remember why: because of the shift in the concept of the basic reality!

Now, we cannot be at all surprised when the liberal theologians support these things, because liberal theology is only Humanism using theological terms, and that's all it ever was, all the way back into Germany right after the Enlightenment. So when they come down on the side of easy abortion and infanticide, as some of these liberal denominations as well as theologians are doing, we shouldn't be surprised. It follows as night after day.

I have a question to ask you, and that is: Where have the Bible-believing Christians been in the last 40 years? All of this that I am talking about has only come in the last 80 years (I'm 70... I just had my birthday, so just 10 years older than I am). None of this was true in the United States. None of it! And the climax has all come within the last 40 years, which falls within the intelligent scope of many of you sitting in this room. Where have the Bible-believing Christians been? We shouldn't be surprised the liberal theologians have been no help -- but where have we been as we have changed to this other consensus and all the horrors and stupidity of the present moment has come down on out culture? We must recognize that this country is close to being lost. Not, first of all , because of the Humanist conspiracy -- I believe that there are those who conspire, but that is not the reason this country is almost lost. This country is almost lost because the Bible-believing Christians, in the last 40 years, who have said that they know that the final reality is this infinite-personal God who is the Creator and all the rest, have done nothing about it as the consensus has changed. There has been a vast silence!

Christians of this country have simply been silent. Much of the Evangelical leadership has not raised a voice. As a matter of fact, it was almost like sticking pins into the Evangelical constituency in most places to get them interested in the issue of human life while Dr. Koop and Franky and I worked on Whatever Happened to the Human Race, a vast, vast silence.

I wonder what God has to say to us? All these freedoms we have. All the secondary blessings we've had out of the preaching of the Gospel and we have let it slip through our fingers in the lifetime of most of you here. Not a hundred years ago -- it has been in our lifetime in the last 40 years that these things have happened.

It's not only the Christian leaders. Where have the Christian lawyers been? Why haven't they been challenging this change in the view of what the First Amendment means, which I'll deal with in a second. Where have the Christian doctors been -- speaking out against the rise of the abortion clinics and all the other things? Where have the Christian businessmen been -- to put their lives and their work on the line concerning these things which they would say as Christians are central to them? Where have the Christian educators been -- as we have lost our educational system? Where have we been? Where have each of you been? What's happened in the last 40 years?

This country was founded on a Christian base with all its freedom for everybody. Let me stress that. This country was founded on a Christian base with all its freedom for everybody, not just Christians, but all its freedom for everyone. And now, this is being largely lost. We live not ten years from now, but tonight, in a Humanistic culture and we are rapidly moving at express train speed into a totally Humanistic culture. We're close to it. We are in a Humanistic culture, as I point out in the public schools and these other things, but we are moving toward a TOTALLY Humanistic culture and moving very quickly.

I would repeat at this place about our public schools because it's worth saying. Most people don't realize something. Communism, you know, is not basically an economic theory. It's materialistic communism, which means that at the very heart of the Marx, Engels, Lenin kind of communism (because you have to put all three together to really understand) is the materialistic concept of the final reality. That is the base for all that occurs in the communist countries.

I am wearing a Solidarity pin -- in case you wonder what this is on my lapel. We had two young men from L'Abri take in an 8 ton truck of food into Poland -- very bad weather -- they almost were killed on the roads. They got in just three days before the crackdown. We, of L'Abri, have taken care of small numbers of each successive wave of Europeans who have been persecuted in the communist nations, the Hungarians, Czechoslovakians, now the Poles. A dear wonderful Christian schoolteacher that we love very much (she's a wonderful, wonderful Christian young woman, brilliant as brilliant, and she studied at L'Abri for a long time and she was one of the contact points for the destination of the food) -- thought that the crackdown might come. So she sent me out this Solidarity pin. This wasn't made in Newark! This came from Poland. I have a hope. I hope I can wear it until I can hand it back to her and she can wear it again in Poland. That's my hope! But all the oppression you have ever heard of in Mao's China, Stalin's day, Poland, Czechoslovakia -- any place that you can name it -- Afghanistan -- all the oppression is the automatic, the mechanical certainty, that comes from having this other world view of the final reality only being material or energy shaped by pure chance. That's where it comes from.

And what about our schools? I think I should stress again! By law, you are no more allowed to teach religious values and religious views in our public schools than you are in the schools of Russia tonight. We don't teach Marxism over here in most of our schools, but as far as all religious teaching (except the religion of Humanism, which is a different kind of a thing) it is just as banned by law from our schools, and our schools are just as secular as the schools in Soviet Russia -- just exactly! Not ten years from now. Tonight!

Congress opens with prayer. Why? Because Congress always is opened with prayer. Back there, the founding fathers didn't consider the 13 provincial congresses that sent representatives to form our country in Philadelphia really open until there was prayer. The Congress in Washington, where Edith and I have just been, speaking to various men in political areas and circles -- that Congress is not open until there is prayer. It's illegal, in many places, for youngsters to merely meet and pray on the geographical location of the public schools. I would repeat, we are not only immoral, we're stupid. I mean that. I don't know which is the worst: being immoral or stupid on such an issue. We are not only immoral, we are stupid for the place we have allowed ourselves to come to without noticing.

I would now repeat again the word I used before. There is no other word we can use for our present situation that I have just been describing, except the word TYRANNY! TYRANNY! That's what we face! We face a world view which never would have given us our freedoms. It has been forced upon us by the courts and the government -- the men holding this other world view, whether we want it or not, even though it's destroying the very freedoms which give the freedoms for the excesses and for the things which are wrong.

We, who are Christians, and others who love liberty, should be acting in our day as the founding fathers acted in their day. Those who founded this country believed that they were facing tyranny. All you have to do is read their writings. That's why the war was fought. That's why this country was founded. They believed that God never, never, never wanted people to be under tyrannical governments. They did it not as a pragmatic or economic thing, though that was involved too, I guess, but for principle. They were against tyranny, and if the founding fathers stood against tyranny, we ought to recognize, in this year 1982, if they were back here and one of them was standing right here, he would say the same thing -- what you are facing is tyranny. The very kind of tyranny we fought, he would say, in order that we might escape.

And we face a very hidden censorship. Every once in a while, as soon as we begin to talk about the need of re-entering Christian values into the discussion, someone shouts "Khomeni." Someone says that what you are after is theocracy. Absolutely not! We must make absolutely plain, we are not in favor of theocracy, in name or in fact. But, having said that, nevertheless, we must realize that we already face a hidden censorship -- a hidden censorship in which it is impossible to get the other world view presented in something like public television. It's absolutely impossible.

I could give you a couple of examples. I'll give you one because it's so close to me. And that is, that after we made Whatever Happened to the Human Race, Franky made an 80 minute cutting for TV of the first 3 episodes (and people who know television say that it's one of the best television films they have ever seen technically, so that's not a problem). Their representative presented it to a director of public television, and as soon as she heard (It happened to be a woman. I'm sure that's incidental.) that it was against abortion, she said, "We can't show that. We only shoe things that give both sides." And, at exactly the same time, they were showing that abominable Hard Choices, which is just straight propaganda for abortion. As I point out, the study guide that went with it (as I quote it in Christian Manifesto [the book] with a long quote) was even worse. It was saying that the only possible view of reality was this material thing -- this material reality. They spelled it out in that study guide more clearly than I have tonight as to what the issue is. They said, "that's it!" What do you call that? That's hidden censorship.

Dr. Koop, one of the great surgeons of the world, when he was nominated as Surgeon General, much of the press (printed) great swelling things against him -- a lot of them not true, a lot of them twisted. Certainly though, lots of space was made for trying to not get his nomination accepted. When it was accepted though, I looked like mad in some of the papers, and in most of them what I found was about one inch on the third page that said that Dr. Koop had been accepted. What do you call that? Just one thing: hidden censorship.

You must realize that this other view is totally intolerant. It is totally intolerant. I do not think we are going to get another opportunity if we do not take it now in this country. I would repeat, we are a long way down the road. I do not think we are going to get another opportunity. If the Christians, specifically, but others also, who love liberty, do not do something about it now, I don't believe your grandchildren are going to get a chance. In the present so-called conservative swing in the last election, we have an opportunity, but we must remember this, and I would really brand this into your thinking: A conservative Humanism is no better than a liberal Humanism. It's the Humanism that is wrong, not merely the coloration. And therefore, at the present moment, what we must insist on, to people in our government who represent us, is that we do not just end with words. We must see, at the present opportunity, if it continues, a real change. We mustn't allow it to just drift off into mere words.

Now I want to say something with great force, right here. What I have been talking about, whether you know it or not, is true spirituality. This is true spirituality. Spirituality, after you are a Christian and have accepted Christ as your Savior, means that Christ is the Lord of ALL your life -- not just your religious life, and if you make a dichotomy in these things, you are denying your Lord His proper place. I don't care how many butterflies you have in your stomach, you are poor spiritually. True spirituality means that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Lord of all of life, and except for the things that He has specifically told us in the Bible are sinful and we've set them aside -- all of life is spiritual and all of life is equally spiritual. That includes (as our forefathers did) standing for these things of freedom and standing for these things of human life and all these other matters that are so crucial, if indeed, this living God does exist as we know that He does exist.

We have forgotten our heritage. A lot of the evangelical complex like to talk about the old revivals and they tell us we ought to have another revival. We need another revival -- you and I need revival. We need another revival in our hearts. But they have forgotten something. Most of the Christians have forgotten and most of the pastors have forgotten something. That is the factor that every single revival that has ever been a real revival, whether it was the great awakening before the American Revolution; whether it was the great revivals of Scandinavia; whether it was Wesley and Whitefield; wherever you have found a great revival, it's always had three parts. First, it has called for the individual to accept Christ as Savior, and thankfully, in all of these that I have named, thousands have been saved. Then, it has called upon the Christians to bow their hearts to God and really let the Holy Spirit have His place in fullness in their life. But there has always been, in every revival, a third element. It has always brought SOCIAL CHANGE!

Cambridge historians who aren't Christians would tell you that if it wasn't for the Wesley revival and the social change that Wesley's revival had brought, England would have had its own form of the French Revolution. It was Wesley saying people must be treated correctly and dealing down into the social needs of the day that made it possible for England to have its bloodless revolution in contrast to France's bloody revolution.

The Wall Street Journal, not too long ago, and I quote it again in A Christian Manifesto, pointed out that it was the Great Awakening, that great revival prior to the founding of the United States, that opened the way and prepared for the founding of the United States. Every one of the great revivals had tremendous social implications. What I am saying is, that I am afraid that we have forgotten our heritage, and we must go on even when the cost is high.

I think the Church has failed to meet its obligation in these last 40 years for two specific reasons. The first is this false, truncated view of spirituality that doesn't see true spirituality touching all of life. The other thing is that too many Christians, whether they are doctors, lawyers, pastors, evangelists -- whatever they are -- too many of them are afraid to really speak out because they did not want to rock the boat for their own project. I am convinced that these two reasons, both of which are a tragedy and really horrible for the Christian, are an explanation of why we have walked the road we have walked in the last 40 years.

We must understand, it's going to cost you to take a stand on these things. There are doctors who are going to get kicked out of hospitals because they refuse to perform abortions; there are nurses that see a little sign on a crib that says, "Do not feed," and they feed and they are fired. There's a cost, but I'd ask you, what is loyalty to Christ worth to you? How much do you believe this is true? Why are you a Christian? Are you a Christian for some lesser reason, or are you a Christian because you know that this is the truth of reality? And then, how much do you love the Lord Jesus Christ? How much are you willing to pay the price for loyalty to the Lord Jesus?

We must absolutely set out to smash the lie of the new and novel concept of the separation of religion from the state which most people now hold and which Christians have just bought a bill of goods. This is new and this is novel. It has no relationship to the meaning of the First Amendment. The First Amendment was that the state would never interfere with religion. THAT'S ALL THE MEANING THERE WAS TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT. Just read Madison and the Spectator Papers if you don't think so. That's all it was!

Now we have turned it over and we have put it on its head and what we must do is absolutely insist that we return to what the First Amendment meant in the first place -- not that religion can't have an influence into society and into the state -- not that. But we must insist that there's a freedom that the First Amendment really gave. Now with this we must emphasize, and I said it, but let me say it again, we do not want a theocracy! I personally am opposed to a theocracy. On this side of the New Testament I do not believe there is a place for a theocracy 'till Jesus the King comes back. But that's a very different thing while saying clearly we are not in favor of a theocracy in name or in fact, from where we are now, where all religious influence is shut out of the processes of the state and the public schools. We are only asking for one thing. We are asking for the freedom that the First Amendment guaranteed. That's what we should be standing for. All we ask for is what the founding fathers of this country stood and fought and died for, and at the same time, very crucial in all this is standing absolutely for a high view of human life against the snowballing low view of human life of which I have been talking. This thing has been presented under the hypocritical name of choice. What does choice equal? Choice, as I have already shown, means the right to kill for your own selfish desires. To kill human life! That's what the choice is that we're being presented with on this other basis.

Now, I come toward the close, and that is that we must recognize something from the Scriptures, and that's why I had that Scripture read that I had read tonight. When the government negates the law of God, it abrogates its authority. God has given certain offices to restrain chaos in this fallen world, but it does not mean that these offices are autonomous, and when a government commands that which is contrary to the Law of God, it abrogates its authority.

Throughout the whole history of the Christian Church, (and again I wish people knew their history. In A Christian Manifesto I stress what happened in the Reformation in reference to all this) at a certain point, it is not only the privilege but it is the duty of the Christian to disobey the government. Now that's what the founding fathers did when they founded this country. That's what the early Church did. That's what Peter said. You heard it from the Scripture: "Should we obey man?... rather than God?" That's what the early Christians did.

Occasionally -- no, often, people say to me, "But the early Church didn't practice civil disobedience." Didn't they? You don't know your history again. When those Christians that we all talk about so much allowed themselves to be thrown into the arena, when they did that, from their view it was a religious thing. They would not worship anything except the living God. But you must recognize from the side of the Roman state, there was nothing religious about it at all -- it was purely civil. The Roman Empire had disintegrated until the only unity it had was its worship of Caesar. You could be an atheist; you could worship the Zoroastrian religion... You could do anything. They didn't care. It was a civil matter, and when those Christians stood up there and refused to worship Caesar, from the side of the state, they were rebels. They were in civil disobedience and they were thrown to the beasts. They were involved in civil disobedience, as much as your brothers and sisters in the Soviet Union are. When the Soviet Union says that, by law, they cannot tell their children, even in their home about Jesus Christ, they must disobey and they get sent off to the mental ward or to Siberia. It's exactly the same kind of civil disobedience that's represented in a very real way by the thing I am wearing on my lapel tonight.

Every appropriate legal and political governmental means must be used. "The final bottom line"-- I have invented this term in A Christian Manifesto. I hope the Christians across this country and across the world will really understand what the Bible truly teaches: The final bottom line! The early Christians, every one of the reformers (and again, I'll say in A Christian Manifesto I go through country after country and show that there was not a single place with the possible exception of England, where the Reformation was successful, where there wasn't civil disobedience and disobedience to the state), the people of the Reformation, the founding fathers of this country, faced and acted in the realization that if there is no place for disobeying the government, that government has been put in the place of the living God. In such a case, the government has been made a false god. If there is no place for disobeying a human government, what government has been made GOD.

Caesar, under some name, thinking of the early Church, has been put upon the final throne. The Bible's answer is NO! Caesar is not to be put in the place of God and we as Christians, in the name of the Lordship of Christ, and all of life, must so think and act on the appropriate level. It should always be on the appropriate level. We have lots of room to move yet with our court cases, with the people we elect -- all the things that we can do in this country. If, unhappily, we come to that place, the appropriate level must also include a disobedience to the state.

If you are not doing that, you haven't thought it through. Jesus is not really on the throne. God is not central. You have made a false god central. Christ must be the final Lord and not society and not Caesar.

May I repeat the final sentence again? CHRIST MUST BE THE FINAL LORD AND NOT CAESAR AND NOT SOCIETY.

Today I am posting a message that is uncomfortable for me personally.  I believe strongly in giving to others, but do not enjoy asking for anything in return.  Every leader must confront reality and reality tells me the former Board members will be litigating with Quixtar until a court or arbitrator rules on the merits.  The battle is not just for those in current litigation.  I believe the battle is over the global contract and whether a company has the right to add additions into the contract without the signed agreement from the field IBO’s.  I believe the leaders in various litigations fight this battle for all IBO’s (current & former) to give them the ability to choose their own futures.  The ongoing litigation strategy of Quixtar is designed - in my opinion - to drain anyone associated with me of the financing, time, and will to continue on to one million people.  Here is a partial list of lawsuits currently being litigated:

1. Quixtar Arbitration – Estimates of millions of dollars to defend.  Quixtar can at anytime bring someone into arbitration and the vast majority of the IBO’s would be bankrupted through the process.

2. IBOAI Lawsuit – The remaining IBOAI Board members are Suing former IBOAI members for allegedly breaking the confidentiality agreements.  Defendants claim they are being sued for whistle-blowing on a long list of abuses.

3. Quixtar vs. Team – Quixtar sued the Team training company claiming it orchestrated all the resignations and is running a competing MLM against Quixtar rules.  Team states it did not make anyone resign or have a competing MLM.  Team claims Quixtar has a rule to ensure the training organizations are not considered a competing MLM.

4. John Doe Blogger Suits – Quixtar sued bloggers who stood up for the defendants publically against the written attacks on the Alticor blog, newspapers, emails, and press releases. 

I do not feel Quixtar intends to settle and in my opinion, I believe this has developed more into a punishment strategy meted out on those who dared to stand up to them.  I have done all that I know to do to settle peacefully, but have been rejected at every turn.  I can only assume based on Alticor’s actions that the desire of Alticor/Amway/Quixtar is to eliminate people whom they believe will be a competitor.  We have two choices.

1. Unconditional Surrender – Give up our dream of 1 million changed lives.

2. Fight for what we think is fair and just.

I have chosen the second option.  This is a matter of moral principle.  If you are reading this and wish to help, I appeal to you make a pledge of money to the IBO Legal Defense Fund.  Many leaders have given tens and some hundred of thousands of dollar during this litigation.  I personally pledge my honor, my fortune and my future to this cause.  We are committed to raise the money and go the distance in this litigation.  We will not bow our knee.  You can choose to play your part in the cause.  As the great Martin Luther King said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.”   The former Board members have willingly suffered the criticism of our enemies, but we will not remember them.  I ask for your pledge that we have no cause to remember the silence of our friends.   God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Update: Quixtar has insinuated that the funds generated for the Legal Defense Fund would be used to support my personal lawsuits.  This is incorrect and more spin on their side.  I support the Legal Defense Fund because it raises funds for any one that is threatened by Quixtar legally.  I have said for years that if you pick on my friends, then you are picking on me.  Quixtar does not seem to be too happy with the many comments on the monthly donations given to support David vs. Goliath. 

I read an enlightening article on the constructive/destructive leadership patterns from Greg Thomas.  Greg describes the key differences between an encouraging growth culture and a fear based dictatorial culture.  I have worked with both types of cultures and emphatically agree that organizational cultures are created at the top.  What type of leader are you?  Do you believe in the potential of others or do you need to control, dictate and intimidate them?  In my opinion, the command and control organizations are dinosaurs and the talented individuals will run from the fear based cultures to find a growth based culture.  Leaders do make the difference.  To paraphrase Jim Collins, “Get the right people on the bus—get them in the right seats—then determine what the team’s objective is.”    What are your personal experiences with cultures created by both Constructive and Destructive Leaders?  Which type of organization brought you the most rewards in your personal and professional life?  God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Many years ago I worked for a division (called a unit) of a Fortune 100 corporation. This large corporation allowed each division to operate independently with their own president and executive team while expecting certain profit and margin accountabilities. The division I worked for had a president named Harry. He was truly a legend in his own mind and believed, as a paternalistic leader, he was beloved by the employees. But virtually all employees I knew despised him and resented his arrogant, authoritarian and demeaning behavior. I was told that Harry was brought into this unit as a “hatchet man” in the 1950’s to reduce bloated overhead, and that he settled in to a 30-year career of tyranny and fear.

Harry was famous for the many people he abruptly terminated, often out of anger or rage. By the mid 1980’s the corporation decided it was time to terminate him and this was done suddenly on a day when an unannounced corporate executive showed up and told Harry he was fired. The employees could hear shouting through the closed office door and soon Harry stomped out angry and resentful. He later told some friends that it was the way he was terminated that bothered him! He was upset that he wasn’t allowed to say “goodbye” to his friends and co-workers.  It struck me as a paradox that Harry didn’t think this was important for the literally hundreds of employees he had terminated during his 30 year reign of terror, yet he felt that he had a “right” to say goodbye. Actually, almost everyone wanted to say “good riddance” to Harry rather than goodbye! Harry exhibited destructive leadership, and the effects on all the stakeholders of the organization were obvious.

This true story of Harry reminds me of an absolute law of leadership. A single leader can’t personally motivate others for very long. A good leader promotes a positive culture that allows others to be motivated and people must use this upbeat atmosphere to motivate themselves. But, on the other hand, a single destructive leader can personally destroy the motivation of others and promote a negative organizational culture.

Allow me to discuss the difference between destructive and constructive leadership. The chart below shows some of the differences. Compare this chart with your organization and see how you measure up.

Type of leadership:              Destructive Leadership              Constructive Leadership

Type of motivation used:     Fear/Force and bribery              Empowers and inspires

Vision provided:                   Short-term focus                      Long term focus

Result of leadership:            Instills passive aggression         Instills empowerment

Environment:                       Creates negative workforce      Creates trust and openness

Effects on managers:           Managers promote fear             Managers promote “win-win”

We will begin by examining destructive leadership. Unfortunately this is by far the most common type of leadership exhibited in the world today. Fortunately, it is slowly beginning to lose ground in the Western world. It is typically centered around a philosophy of control. The destructive leader doesn’t truly believe in the potential of others. In an authoritarian hierarchy, those at the “top” are considered enlightened and important. Those not at the top are considered to be inferior in intelligence and value. Destructive leaders often look upon themselves as the father-like benefactors to the dependent average workers. They view the average employee as childlike, simple and in constant need of strong motivation. The type of motivation used by a destructive leader is usually fear or force. Fear is maintained by making the workers feel disposable if they refuse to conform to the dictates of the leader. Therefore workers must be controlled by an elaborate number of “do’s and don’ts” to force compliance. In this environment workers must also be suddenly terminated as an example to others that it can come at any time or for virtually any reason. 

In the company I mentioned at the start of the article, this was the mentality of the destructive leader named Harry. When I joined the organization in the 80’s, males at the headquarters office were not “permitted” to have facial hair, all were expected to wear dark suits and it was forbidden to have a cup of coffee at your desk. Even though there was an elevator to the 2nd floor of the office building, employees were not allowed to use it.  Employees were also forbidden to post calendars or pictures on the walls of their small cubical. Harry even designed the office to be wide open with short glass partition walls so he could see what everyone was doing! Only Harry and his executive team had offices with real walls and doors.

Since turnover is high in this kind of environment, bribery is used to keep the best employees. In lieu of a positive working environment and fulfilling work, the destructive leader knows they must bribe the most talented with above average salaries to keep people they need. Promises of exclusive perks and large bonuses are used to control the managers that are considered the most valuable. It is more important to buy their loyalty than risk them pointing out genuine problems or questioning poor decisions. Even a destructive leader knows the organization needs the talents of others to operate effectively and profitably. Therefore they buy off the managers they believe they need in order to mute their independence or a challenge to the leader’s authority. The subliminal message given is, you can make more money and perks here than anywhere else, and if you lose this job you may not be able to make this kind of money again!

In contrast, the constructive leader deeply believes in the growth and potential of others. Everyone is considered an important part of the team that makes the organization work. Constructive leaders look upon themselves as coaches and mentors. They believe in their people to the degree that they are willing to invest in constant training and the development of a learning organization. They don’t consider others to be workers, employees or children, but valued stakeholders. Those who inspire constructive leadership recognize that everyone has a stake in the growth and success of the company. They nurture the development of a positive culture where others are empowered to make responsible decisions without fear or reprisals. Of course, the organization has strong values and sound policies but these exist to provide order and mutual respect, not to control or limit others. The constructive leader believes in a fair and generous compensation package for everyone and not simply the selected few.

Some recent surveys have indicated that most workers claim they would be willing to work for 15% less income if they worked for an organization and job they really loved! Constructive leaders work very hard to engender a fruitful working environment and don’t need to bribe others to keep them in the organization.  From the most talented to the least experienced, most stakeholders enjoy what they do and where they work. The subliminal message is, you may be able to make more money somewhere else, but this is a great place to work with outstanding people. Grow and develop your career here!

The next difference in the two types of leadership is vision. The destructive leader views the organization and worth of others in the short-term. There is always an emphasis on “profits or margins” for the next month or next quarter, often at the expense of the future. When results don’t meet with these short-term goals, people or offices are easily disposed of. Yet no matter how many hard working employees are terminated, no matter how bleak the financial picture, there is always plenty of bribe money to pass around to the executive team or managers in order to keep them from bolting to greener pastures. Because of this lack of real vision, destructive leaders typically leave organizations weaker when they depart than when they first arrived. Oh yes, the financials of the organization may look stronger on paper, but its future has been stunted and gutted for the brief short-term gain of a few.

The constructive leader has both short-term goals and long-term goals, but the long-term vision of the organization takes precedence! Profits and margins are certainly important goals but people are more important than profits! The future of the company is more important than the sales or profitability of the next quarter. The constructive leader knows that the bottom line to being the best is not simply having the latest technology or finest products. Your competitors can quickly catch up or surpass you in these attributes in a rather short period of time. The bottom line to being an excellent organization with a phenomenal future is having the best and most highly motivated people.

The end result of these two types of leadership is the difference between night and day! The destructive leader creates an environment of passive aggressive behavior within the organization. These are employees who are de-motivated and performing only enough to be considered acceptable. Since many are frustrated and angry they pretend to accomplish more than they actually do. They resent being controlled and subliminally sabotage policies or change forced upon them. They put their efforts on “auto-pilot”, resist change and take a “wait and see” attitude toward anything presented as new or different. The managers become politicians and obsessed with protecting or growing their own “empire” rather that serving the overall needs or goals of the organization. Communication suffers since it only moves vertically within departments rather than horizontally throughout the organization. When it does move horizontally, emails are often larded with too many “cc:s” in order to compensate for severe communication flaws.

The constructive leader creates an environment of trust and competence. People feel good about their roles and potential within the organization. Teamwork is not a trite buzzword, but a reality. Communication is open and shared throughout the company. Decision-making is promoted at the lowest possible level of work activity. When poor decisions are made they are turned into learning experiences, not humiliation festivals. The constructive leader wants to know what when wrong and what can we learn from it rather than who is wrong! In this culture people feel free to serve the needs of the organization rather than waste precious resources in office politics or protecting their “back-sides”. 

What about the managers in both of these types of organizations? Sadly, the destructive leader promotes and nurtures a clone of himself/herself. Since the managers are motivated by fear and bribery they tend to manage others the same way. Employees and their talents are under appreciated, the policies and values of the organization are one sided and often against the best interests of the employees. If dire situations require the termination of an individual or a group, it is usually done suddenly. There is often little sensitivity demonstrated and the termination package is minimal and scanty. In contrast, the constructive leader promotes a tutoring and respectful approach toward the managers. In turn, they tend to manage others the same way. Employees and their talents are considered a great asset and resource and the policies and values of the organization reflect this attitude. If dire situations require the termination of an employee or a group, it is done predictably and not as a “shot out of the dark”. There is great sensitivity and compassion demonstrated because the constructive leader acknowledges that the life-style and family of these employees are also affected.  The termination package is generous and indicates a sincere appreciation for the years served at the company.

So how do you compare with these traits? Does your organization reveal the effects of constructive or destructive leadership? Now, how about your family or local community? Don’t forget the principle of cause and effect. If what you see is negative and discouraging, there is a root cause for this effect. Looking back on Harry it is sad to believe he spent his entire life as a destructive leader. He never understood how wrong he was and he never changed.

But, we can!