Author Archive

Wikinomics – Creative Destruction

Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 17, 2008

I am reading a book called WIKINOMICS by Tapscott & Williams. My good friend Bob Dickie III, the CEO of Team, bought it for me for Christmas. I have not finished it, but the first couple of chapters were enlightening. The world is changing and the command and control organizations are going the way of the dinosaur. Peter Senge stated, “The only competitive advantage is your organizations ability to learn faster than the competition.” I
have stated, “The only way for your organization to consistently learn faster is to engage as many minds in thinking and learning as possible!” How can you get any faster than engaging the entire world to help you? Read what the authors said in WIKINOMICS:

A new kind of business is emerging—one that opens its doors to the world, co-innovates with everyone (especially customers), shares resources that were previously guarded, harnesses the power of mass collaboration, and behaves not as a multinational but as something new: a truly global firm. . . The new art and science of wikinomics is based on four powerful new ideas: openness, peering, sharing, and acting globally.

Let’s discuss the first concept today and as I read further, we can
discuss more of the concepts. When you think of openness, you think of candor, transparency, freedom, flexibility, access, and sharing. The old industrial age companies believe in confidential information, hierarchical structure from top to bottom, authoritarian command and control, and contracts to control people and other companies. Today’s informational age companies that make their boundaries porous to external ideas and human capital outperform the dinosaur companies that rely solely on their internal resources and capabilities. Here is what the authors expressed in their book:

Yet another kind of openness is exploding: the communication of previously secret corporate information to partners, employees, customers and shareholders, and other interested participants. Transparency—the
disclosure of pertinent information—is a growing force in the network economy. . . People and institutions that interact with firms are gaining unprecedented access to important information about corporate behavior, operations, and performance. Armed with new tools to find out, inform others, and self-organize, stakeholders are scrutinizing the firm like never before.

Customers can see the true value of products better. Employees have previously unthinkable knowledge about their firm’s strategy, management,
and challenges. Partners must have intimate knowledge about each other’s operations to collaborate. Powerful institutional investors who now own
or manage most wealth are developing x-ray vision. And in a world of instant communications, whistle-blowers, inquisitive media, and Googling, citizens and communities can easily put firms under the microscope.

Leading firms are opening up pertinent information to all these groups—because they reap significant benefits from doing so. Rather than something to be feared, transparency is a powerful new force for business success. Smart firms embrace transparency and are actively open. Our research shows that
transparency is critical to business partnerships, lower transaction costs
between firms and speeding up the metabolism of business webs. Employees of open enterprises have higher trust among each other and with the firm, resulting in lower cost, better innovation, and loyalty.

The old adage, “information is power” has changed to “information shared is empowering.”   So why do some companies conceal and control all information from their customers? I talked earlier of the benefits of social capital, but a firm that controls all the information loses its ability to create social capital. The market today will reward the companies who are open and punish companies who are closed.   It is hard to trust a person or company who
keeps secrets from others. This is why I love the NY Times test. If what you are doing cannot be written on the front page of the NY Times, then why are you doing it?   Joseph Schumpeter described free enterprise in a concept he called, “Creative Destruction.”    Creative Destruction according to Mr. Schumpeter is what makes free enterprise so effective in creating long-term
wealth. The underlying principle is that old wealth and ideas will be replaced by new wealth and ideas. The new creations will destroy the old businesses.   This has happened numerous times over the years. Look at the record industry; how is that idea doing today?   How about the carbureted automobile? Is anyone making money with carbureted cars today? New ideas and money moved in to create CD’s and fuel injectors. The opening thesis of the WIKINOMICS book is: the future will be created by the open and transparent companies and the firms who guard their information will be destroyed.   I strongly believe the future belongs to the company who will learn and adapt the fastest. Slow companies who guard all the information necessary to improve the company are committing corporate suicide.
Is your company, job, or business in the (Open) information age or the
(Closed) industrial age?   I advise you to take Mr. Schumpeter’s principle of Creative Destruction seriously—it will make all the difference whether you are created or destroyed financially in the information age. God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Posted in Finances | 1 Comment »

Mavens, Connectors, Salesmen – Malcolm Gladwell

Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 16, 2008

I am re-reading a fantastic book I read several years back called The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. I believe the Team is at a tipping point and is about to explode and go mainstream. Gladwell calls a community tipping point a social epidemic and states that there is only a small percentage (5%) who create it. Gladwell documents three traits that cause an epidemic: contagiousness, little causes having big effects, and changes happening not
gradually but at one dramatic moment. The third trait is called a tipping point. There are three types of people involved in a social epidemic: Connectors, Mavens and Salesmen. Any business that expects to grow must focus on serving these three crucial catalysts—No business will survive long-term that mistreats these irreplaceable community influencers. Malcolm states:

In a social epidemic, Mavens are data banks. They provide the message. Connectors are social glue: they spread it. But there is also a select group of
people—Salesmen—with skills to persuade us when we are unconvinced of what we are hearing, and they are critical to the tipping of word-of-mouth epidemics as the other two groups.

To create a tipping point we need the thinking and actions of all three groups. Not long ago, I attended a conference in Hawaii where I heard Mr. Gladwell speak live. His concepts of the tipping point are mind expanding and ought to be read and understood by any company expecting to grow their market share. Let’s read what Gladwell has to say about the three categories of people involved in tipping points.

Connectors

What makes someone a Connector? The first—and most obvious—criterion is that Connectors know lots of people. . . Six degrees of freedom doesn’t mean everyone is linked to everyone else in just six steps. It means that a very small number of people are linked to everyone else in a few steps, and the rest of us are linked to the world through those special few. . . . In fact, I go down my list of forty friends, thirty of them, in one way or another, lead back to Jacob. My social circle is, in reality, not a circle. It is a pyramid. And at the top of the pyramid is a single person—Jacob—who is responsible for an overwhelming majority of the relationships that constitute my life. . . These people who link us up with the world, who bridge Omaha and Sharon, who introduce us to our social circles—these people on whom we rely more heavily than we realize—are Connectors, people with a special gift for bringing the world together.

In the graph below, notice how Louise connects almost every other person.

Mavens

The word Maven comes from the Yiddish and it means one who accumulates knowledge. In recent years, economists have spent a great deal of time studying Mavens, for the obvious reason that if marketplaces depend on information, the people with the most information must be the most important. For example, sometimes when a supermarket wants to increase sales of a given product, they’ll put a promotion sticker in front of it, saying something like “Everyday Low Price!” The price will stay the same. The product will just be featured more prominently. When they do that, supermarkets find that invariably the sales of the product go through the roof,
the same way they would if the product had actually been put on sale. . .

But if we’ll buy more of something even if the price hasn’t been lowered, then what’s to stop supermarkets from never lowering their prices? . . . The answer is that although most of us don’t look at prices, every retailer knows that a very small number of people do, and if they find something amiss—a promotion that’s not really a promotion—they’ll do something about it. If a store tried to
pull the sales stunt too often, these are the people who would figure it out and
complain to management and tell their friends and acquaintances to avoid the
store. These are the people who keep the marketplace honest. . . One name for them is “price vigilantes.” The other, more common, name for them is “Market Mavens.”

Salesmen

Part of what it means to have a powerful or persuasive personality, then, is that you can draw others into your own rhythms and dictate the terms of the interaction. . . . I felt I was becoming synchronized with him. . . . But the essence of the Salesmen is that, on some level, they cannot be resisted.
“Tom can build a level of trust and rapport in five to ten minutes that most people will take a half an hour to do,” Moine says of Gau. . . What was
interesting about Gau is the extent to which he seemed to be persuasive in a way quite different from the content of his words. He seems to have some kind of indefinable trait, something powerful and contagious and irresistible that goes beyond what comes out of his mouth, that makes people who meet him want to agree with him. It’s energy. It’s enthusiasm. It’s charm. It’s likability. It’s all those things and yet something more.

What role will you play in the tipping point of the Team leadership community? Are you a Connector, Maven or Salesmen/Saleswomen? Everyone plays a part on our way to 1 million and beyond! Our communities deserve the best and it is our responsibility to develop our gifts and skills. We all have roles to play and promises to keep!
God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Posted in Life Training | 3 Comments »

Presidential Candidates – Economic Freedom

Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 14, 2008

A major plank for any presidential candidate is how they view government’s role in the economy. Some candidates view the
government as the insurer of the people’s welfare; while others, view government’s role more like an umpire to ensure all citizens play by the rules of free enterprise. This discussion could develop into many separate books so I give an overview with a couple of
specifics cases that will validate the principles. I feel strongly that no government can insure the welfare of its citizens. By the very nature of government, it only receives money from the citizens. How can a government take from its own citizens, pay for all the bureaucrats and still provide more than it has taken? It is economically impossible, which means the plan is to take from those who have money to give to those who don’t. There is not one example in the long history of mankind where a reward for laziness has produced more wealth. Not one, ever!

Collectivism, regardless of what name you give it—communism, socialism, fascism, Nazism or modern liberals—derives it support from what Albert Jay Nock termed “Epstean’s Law.” Epstean’s Law states, “Man tends always to
satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion.” What could be better for some uninformed voter than to vote for some politician who promises free food, health care, housing, ET all, under the guise of compassionate care for the less fortunate? Big companies also get
involved by throwing money to politicians who promise special monopoly deals in the marketplace for their product or business. Epstean’s Law applies to everyone rich or poor and must not be wrongly catered to or our whole country will suffer. Look at all the well-intentioned government programs that fail and
perform the opposite functions of originally planned. This is why democracies with time become collectivist, as mass-man votes against private property rights and for government welfare for all. But Epstean’s Law also is the driving force behind every material improvement and labor saving device. It is highly beneficial when directed by a competitive free-market economy based on the right of private property and equality before the law. Henry Ford understood Epstean’s Law and stated, “I give the laziest man in my factory the toughest job, because he will find an easier way of doing it.” This is the positive side of Epstean’s Law.

Government cannot provide for the welfare of its citizens and survive.
Even today we see the results of collectivist action in destroying our great country. The taxes paid by
Americans are at an all time high—when you include all the hidden fees and charges. The people are drowning through over taxation and are desperate to see their individual financial lives
improved. It is tempting to believe that government can solve their issues and politicians are tempted to promise this to get elected. DO NOT BE FOOLED! All we should ask of government is to ensure that everyone plays by the rules and allows human beings to enjoy their God-given rights to grow as fast and as far as they are willing to work. No one should get a free ride from the government. But Orrin, what about the unfortunate who need charity? I am all for charity and we are commanded in the Bible to provide for those in need. Charity ought to be a private affair and not government directed. The only thing that has saved this country from collectivism is the inefficiency of the bureaucracy in implementing the collectivist policies.

Thomas Jefferson said, “The government governs best, which governs the least.” The Soviet Union was government control of everything and we can see how miserably this failed. If drinking the whole glass of poison kills the patient, what doctor should argue to only drink half a glass? But this is exactly what we see happening in our government today. We are not communist collectivist, but we are seduced in to thinking collectivism would be good in some areas. In an Opinion Journal article, the economic freedom of all 50 states was compared. Here is a snippet of the article, “In 2005, per capita personal income grew 31% faster in the 15 most economically free states than it did in the 15 states at the bottom of the list. And employment growth was a staggering 216% higher in the most free states. It hasn’t
been a “jobless recovery” in states that have adopted pro-growth tax and
regulatory policies.” Economic history constanty re-proves and old truth. The more government leaves the fruit of the harvest to the citizens, the more fruit is produced.

Let me give an example from a congressman
who understood this principle well. Davy Crockett, the famous outdoorsman was also a congressman from Tennessee. After the war of 1812, Congress proposed a bill to appropriate ten thousand dollars to Stephen Decatur’s widow. The war hero’s widow had fallen on hard times
and Congress discussed giving the money to ameliorate her distress. Only a hard heart would vote against such a
compassionate measure, but Davy Crockett had his reasons. Here is Crockett’s speech he delivered to Congress:

We must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. . . . Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give
away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but. . . . We have no
right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. . . Mr. Speaker, the
deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of
his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to
him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. . . . But if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as this one. .

Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased
when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. . . We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate as charity. . . I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.

Crockett knew that “Hard cases make bad law.” The widow bill was defeated and some members did donate money for her hardship. Not all of the congress participated with their private funds. It seems most of congress is more willing to be compassionate with public funds than personal funds. Imagine if Bob Dickie, the Team CEO, started taking Team funds and donating to charities of his choice. These are Team funds and not at the disposal of any one of us. In the same way, government funds are the citizen’s money held in a trust to provide the basic infrastructure for all of the people. Politicians should not spend the public funds on pet projects or anything that creates a special deal for some against others. This divides people and initiates Epstean’s Law in a detrimental way.

Any candidate for president that proposes more government to solve the ills of the people is a direct descendant of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao. Whatever else government is, it is the society’s apparatus of coercion. Government has monopoly power to enforce the rules of the game. If someone enters a bank and attempts to illegally withdraw funds by violence—the police have authority to coerce the bank robber out of his actions through force. To quote Edmund Opitz, “The business of society is peace; the business of government is violence. So, the question is: What service can violence render to peace? The
libertarian answer is that violence can serve peace only by restraining peace
breakers.” If you don’t think the business of government is violence then stop paying your taxes and see if violence occurs. Remember, every law passed also passes corresponding punishments for not obeying the law. Every law passed means more government intervention to ensure the law is followed.
I am not for a lawless society, but am for reducing the quantity of laws
and the controls that bind the human spirit and liberties needlessly.

To sum up, government provides for defense, ensures God-given rights, and allows the pursuit of happiness. Government cannot ensure the welfare of its
citizens and any politician promising the government will take care of you is
either lying or hopelessly ignorant. We as Americans must insist that our candidate for president allows America to do what it does best—freely solve our own problems. A moral people following the principles of the Bible does not need a new Sovereign. The more people follow God, the less they will need government regulations & rules to enforce a myriad of issues. The American phenomenon is based upon free people thinking, doing and solving issues for themselves with minimal government involvement. Ronald Reagan
said it best, “The ten scariest words to hear—‘This is the government and we are here to help.’” God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Posted in Finances, Freedom/Liberty | 1 Comment »

Presidential Election 2008 – Principles – American Patriotism

Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 10, 2008

I have enjoyed the comments flowing to the posts on Presidential Principles for
Candidates. The readers of this blog are clear, articulate, and logical thinkers. Here is the original list of the four
questions for review purposes.

1. Does the candidate believe in God and
understand the blessings this nation has enjoyed because of our faith in
God?

2. Does the candidate have a proven track
record of personal and professional integrity and character?

3. Does the candidate believe that a free people not a controlling government is responsible for our economic blessings?

4. Can the candidate lead people and supply a principle-based vision for America?

Let’s continue our analysis on question number one. Patriotism for our country
flows from an understanding of the underlying principles our country was founded upon. For a person to be qualified for the president’s position—certainly a love of country and understanding of the founding principles is required. I get upset when I hear people making character attacks on our founding fathers. The basic argument goes, “What hypocrites, saying they believe in freedom and yet enslaving the blacks and committing genocide on the Indian nations.” It doesn’t take a genius to prove that human beings are fallen and do not live up to their ideals. Hypocrisy is part of the human condition. All of us judge others on the very same issues we ourselves are guilty of. For example, how many readers have been upset at another’s pride and yet we have a wrongful pride ourselves at times. Believe me, I am talking to me as much as you. Although America is not perfect—America did fight a bloody war that freed the slaves and has brought many Indians into the free enterprise system. We must constantly focus on our ideals and not allow self-centeredness to overcome our principles. But this is much different than giving up on ideals, because we haven’t lived up to them!

America was founded on ideals. Ideals like, all men are created equal before an Almighty God. Ideals like, you will be paid based on your service to others. Ideals like, representative government, innocent until proven guilty and freedom of the press. Ideals like, justice, mercy, peace and
honor. Being an American is more a way of thinking than a specific nationality. Anyone can be an American, regardless of race, creed, color, etc. America is a land of opportunity—an idea that people should not be judged on the color of their skin; the way they worship God; or their family lineage; but by the content of their character – to quote Martin Luther King Jr. It makes no difference whether your ancestors were kings, queens, nobility, farmers, paupers, prisoners or slaves, because in America you have an opportunity to rise above your roots. In a free enterprise society, you are rewarded based on your willingness to serve others. People from all nationalities would come to America for the opportunity to be rewarded for their efforts. Yes, many were poor immigrants and lived hand to mouth, but they sacrificed so their children could learn the American principles and prosper. We owe a huge debt to our ancestors who came to America for the dream of a new start. Some came as indentured servants, some as slaves, some as poor immigrants, some were here as Native Americans, but we are all joined together as Americans because of our founding ideals. In other untries, you are a citizen if you are that nationality. You may live and even have citizenship in France, Germany, or Italy, but you will never truly be French, German, or Italian. When you learn the ideals of America, you become part of the great melting pot known as Americans. This is what we are losing in today’s love affair with multi-culturalism. Don’t get me wrong, I am fascinated with all cultures and can learn something from all, but when people come to live in America they should learn the principles that made America great. I have said all this to bring you to my point! The American president must
respect and encourage people from all nationalities living in America, but lead in the assimilation of all cultures into the guiding principles that has made
America the freest, wealthiest and most generous nation on earth. If our
own president is not proud of our heritage, how can the people following the
presidential leader be proud?

Research every candidate and ask, “Do they know our history
and love our country?” Is their goal to
bring all cultures together to create a better America? Or is their goal to have a divided
America, where people speak their native tongue, do not buy into American principles and fight to change the very principles that made millions of immigrants come to America in the first place? My ancestors came from England, Germany, Ireland and some were Native American, but I am an American! If you buy into the ideals discussed earlier, when you too are an American also. Why do we apologize for the principles that led millions to abandon their homelands to come to our American shores? I want a president who will be proud of America and help us be proud of our
heritage. No, we are not perfect, but no nation is or ever will be. I will put
our founding principles against any other country in the world and not apologize for them. I am proud to be an American and proud to enjoy the corresponding freedoms. I am free to write this article without fear of reprisals from an over arching government. You are free to disagree with me without fear of retaliation. If I could choose a country to live in, I would do no better than the gift God blessed me with of being an American. I hope you feel the same about your country.

We as a nation, have a responsibility to protect these principles and leave our country better than we found it. This is why I feel so strongly about the media war. The media war is designed to teach our citizens the principles that God has honored and blessed. Will you help me and the rest of the great
leaders of Team educate our people on these guiding principles? If you will, then we must find a candidate who supports and encourages theses principles also. One of my biggest fears is to be near death and having my great grandchildren around me and ask, “Grandpa, tell us again what it was like to live in a free America?” We have much to do and we are the Team of
leaders to do it. Yes, it is time to Launch a Leadership Revolution!

God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Assignment: What do you love about America? What candidates believe in our founding
principles and remind us of what it means to be an American? Please share.

Posted in Freedom/Liberty | Comments Off on Presidential Election 2008 – Principles – American Patriotism

US Senators Vote Against English as America’s Official Language!

Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 10, 2008

I just read another incredible article. On June 6, 2007 33 senators voted against the English language being America’s official language. What is up with that? America has for centuries been the melting pot of the world. People from all nations have come to America and learned our culture
including our language. Why would so many senators reject something as basic as the English language for the official language of America? Retired US Colonel Harry Riley was extremely upset at the lack of patriotism displayed by these senators and wrote:

Senators:

Your vote against an amendment to the immigration Bill 1348……to make English America’s official language is astounding. On D-Day, no less, when
we honor those that sacrificed in order to secure the bedrock, character and
principles of America.

I can only surmise your vote reflects a loyalty to illegal aliens. I don’t much
care where you come from. What your religion is. Whether you’re black, white, or some other color…..male or female……Democrat, Republican or
Independent.

But I do care when you are a United States Senator representing Citizens of America….and Vote against English as the official language of the United States.

Your vote reflects Betrayal. Political Surrender. Violates Your Pledge of Allegiance. Dishonors historical principle. Rejects Patriotism. Borders On traitorous action and, in my opinion, makes you unfit to serve as a United States senator, impeachment… Recall……..Or other appropriate action is warranted or worse.

Four of you voting against English as America’s Official Language are
Presidential Candidates: Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, Senator Dodd and Senator Obama.

Four Senators vying to lead America, but won’t or Don’ t have the courage to cast a vote in favor of “English” as America’s Official Language when 91% of American Citizens want English officially designated as our language.

This is the second time in the last several months this list of Senators have disgraced themselves as “political Hacks”, Unworthy as Senators and certainly unqualified to serve as President of the United States.

If America is as angry as I am, you will realize a backlash so stunning it will literally “rock you out of your panties”……… And preferably totally out of the United States Senate.

The entire immigration bill is a farce…

Your action only confirms this really isn’t about America…..it is about self-serving politics……despicable at best. It has been said: “Never Argue with an Idiot….They’ll drag you down to their level!”

The following Senators voted against making English the official language of America:

Akaka (D-HI)

Bayh (D-IN)

Biden (D-DE) (Wants to be President)

Bingaman (D-NM)

Boxer (D-CA)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Clinton (D-NY) (Wants to be President)

Dayton (D-MN)

Dodd (D- MN) (wants to be president)

Domenici (R-NM) coward. Protecting his senate seat

Durbin (D-IL)

Feingold (D-WI) – not unusual for him

Feinstein (D-CA)

Harkin (D-IA)

Inouye (D-HI)

Jeffords (I-VT)

Kennedy – (D-MA)

Kerry (D-MA) (tried to be president)

Kohl (D-WI)

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Leahy (D-VT)

Levin (D-MI)

Lieberman (I-CT) Disappointment here …..

Menendez (D-NJ)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murray (D-WA)

Obama (D-IL) (Wants to be President)

Reed (D-RI)

Reid (D-NV) Senate Majority Leader

Salazar (D-CO)

Sarbanes (D-MD)

Schumer (D-NY)

Stabenow (D-MI)

PRESIDENT ABRAHAM LINCOLN~“Congressmen who willfully take actions
during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or Hanged!!!

Assignment: I am not for hangings, but why do you think so many senators voted against English as the official language of the USA? What do you think of Colonel Riley’s letter? Are some of the leaders of our nation no longer proud of our American heritage?

Posted in Freedom/Liberty | 1 Comment »

American Culture – The Melting Pot – Australian Culture

Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 9, 2008

I received this email and believe this is true news from Australia. It looks like Australia is cracking down on radical Islamist in their country. I know and am friends with many peace loving Muslims and this is not meant as an attack against my fellow Americans. This radical wing of Islam does not accept
the laws of the host nations and pledges to bring Sharia law to each country. America is the great melting pot and immigrants must buy into the American culture to unify the melting pot. If I move to another nation, I certainly would pledge to live by the rules of that country. If I did not like the culture, then I should not move to the country in the first place. This is common sense to me, but I have heard that common sense is the least common thing. Here is the article.

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques. Quote:
‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It or Leave It I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians.’

‘This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom’.

‘We speak mainly ENGLISH; not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the language!’

‘Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.’

‘We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.’

‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.’

‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.’

Assignment: Do you believe the culture of the host nation should be followed by immigrants moving into the country? Did your ancestors immigrate to the
US or Canada? Do you feel a full citizen even though your ancestors were immigrants?

Posted in Faith, Freedom/Liberty | Comments Off on American Culture – The Melting Pot – Australian Culture

John Maxwell – Leading by Example – Revised 21 Laws

Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 8, 2008

Here is a great article by John C. Maxwell from one of my favorite leadership books – 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership. This ties right in with the quote, “Example isn’t everything, it is the only thing.” John has some phenomenal points to contemplate on your leadership journey. John’s article agrees perfectly with Chris Brady and my thoughts in the best selling book, Launching a Leadership Revolution. This proves that leadership is leadership in any area and when you learn to lead—you are invaluable to any business.

This fall I had a rare opportunity to update and revise a book I wrote 10 years ago. When I wrote The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, I attempted to share everything I knew about leading people by teaching the timeless principles I had discovered. The book became very popular, appeared on The New York Times best-seller list and remained on the Business Week best-seller list for nearly two years. It is by far the book I’m best known for.

However, not long after the book was published and I began teaching the leadership laws internationally, I realized that I had left out a couple of very important concepts. When my publisher, Thomas Nelson, invited me to revise the book, I jumped at the chance. I had learned so much in those 10 years, and I wanted to share it. What began as a minor update turned into a major revision in which I rewrote about 70% of the book.

One of the concepts I included in the new edition is something I call “The Law of the Picture: People Do What People See.” It deals with the importance of the examples leaders give to their people. You see, good leaders must communicate vision clearly, creatively, and continually. However, the vision doesn’t come alive until the leader models it.

Good leaders are aware that others do what they do. And they always keep in mind that:

1. Followers are Always Watching What Leaders Do

If you are a parent, you have probably already realized that your children are always watching what you do. And just as children watch their parents and emulate their behavior, so do employees who are watching their bosses. If the bosses come in late, then employees feel like they can, too. If the boss cuts corners, employees cut corners. People do what people see.

Followers may doubt what their leaders say, but they usually believe what they do. And they imitate it. Former U.S. Army General and Secretary of State Colin Powell observed, “You can issue all the memos and give all the motivational speeches you want, but if the rest of the people in your organization don’t see you putting forth your very best effort every single day, they won’t either.”

2. It’s Easier to Teach What’s Right than to Do What’s Right

Mark Twain quipped, “To do what is right is wonderful. To teach what is right is even more wonderful — and much easier.” That’s one of the reasons why many parents (and bosses) say, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

One of my earliest challenges as a leader was to raise my living to the level of my teaching. I can still remember the day I decided that I would not teach anything I did not try to live out myself. That was a tough decision, but as a young leader I was learning to embrace the Law of the Picture. Norman Vincent Peale said, “Nothing is more confusing than people who give good advice but set a bad example.” I say, “Nothing is more convincing than people who give good advice and set a good example.”

3. We Should Work on Changing Ourselves Before Trying to Improve Others

Leaders are responsible for the performance of their people. The buck stops with them. Accordingly, they monitor their people’s progress, give them direction, and hold them accountable. And to improve the performance of the team, leaders must act as change agents. However, a great danger to good leadership is the temptation to try to change others without first making changes to yourself.

As a leader, the first person I need to lead is me. The first person that I should try to change is me. My standards of excellence should be higher for myself than those I set for others. To remain a credible leader, I must always work first, hardest, and longest on changing myself. This is neither easy nor natural, but it is essential.

4. The Most Valuable Gift a Leader Can Give is Being a Good Example

A survey conducted by Opinion Research Corp. for Ajilon Finance asked American workers to select the one trait that was most important for a person to lead them. Ranked No. 1, with 26% of votes, was leading by example. Second, at 19%, was strong ethics or morals. More than anything else, employees want leaders whose beliefs and actions line up.

Leadership is more caught than taught. How does one “catch” leadership? By watching good leaders in action!

So as you approach the end of the calendar year and start thinking about the performance of the people you lead, stop for a moment of honest reflection and ask yourself this question: What kind of example am I setting? If you’re setting a high standard for integrity, competence, work ethic, and professional growth, if you’re being all that you desire your people to be, then you’re setting up yourself, your people, and your organization for success. If not, you need to make some changes.

Assignment: Are you leading with character and integrity? Would you want 100 people in your community who lead, act and respond exactly like you do? For 2008, what areas of leadership will you personally improve in the most?

Posted in All News | 4 Comments »

Presidential Candidates – Developing Principles for Analysis

Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 5, 2008

I have been asked by many to comment on this year’s presidential elections. I can certainly comment on the principles involved and share some of the major issues with you. Because I am constantly thinking about the future and reading about the past—I am not the best guy to talk to about current events. I will not be recommending a candidate for you to vote for, but I will share the principles for you to analyze each candidate by. For the sake of clear writing I will not place he/she every time it is needed, but I do recognize the president can be either a man or woman.

When I look for a leader of the most powerful country in the world—I look for four major things:

Does the candidate believe in God and understand the blessings this nation has enjoyed because of our faith in God?
Does the candidate have a proven track record of personal and professional integrity and character?
Does the candidate believe that a free people not a controlling government is responsible for our economic blessings?
Can the candidate lead people and supply a principle-based vision for America?

There are many subsections to each of these four points that I will expound on over several post. Let’s start with the candidate’s Faith. Faith in the Biblical God will shape a person’s world-view and how he or she sees people. If people are made in God’s image, then they have God given rights and responsibilities and the president ensures justice for the game of life. If people are merely higher forms of animals, then they have no inherent rights or responsibilities and the president is more of a zoo keeper. The president’s world-view will affect every decision he will make during the presidency. I am surprised that more people do not study the leader’s world view before supporting them. What could be more important than understanding how he will weigh the pros and cons of every issue he confronts?

What is a world-view? Francis Schaeffer in his classic, How Should We Then Live described a world-view as a grid:

People have presuppositions, and they will live more consistently on the basis of these presuppositions than even they themselves may realize. By presuppositions we mean the basic way an individual looks at life, his basic world-view, the grid through which he sees the world. Presuppositions rest upon that which a person considers to be the truth of what exists. People’s presuppositions lay a grid for all they bring forth into the external world. Their presuppositions also provide the basis for their values and therefore the basis for their decisions.

Can you see why a person’s world-view would be critical in analyzing whether to vote for them? When I meet new people, my goal is to get to know them. I do this by asking questions and listening to determine their world-view. In order to lead people, you must know where a person wishes to go and where they are starting from. I believe all mentoring breaks down to: determining a person’s current world-view, determining what a person wishes to accomplish, and determining the world-view necessary for them to achieve their goals and dreams. In several future post, we will delve into each of the four bullet points and develop a grid to analyze the candidates. God Bless, Orrin Woodward

Posted in All News | 1 Comment »

Intelligent Design vs. Darwinism – A Rational Discourse

Posted by Orrin Woodward on January 3, 2008

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTlihcs89IM]

Intelligent Design: Unlocking the Mysteries of Life.

I am going to change subjects in our quest of knowledge. Socrates, the gadfly of Athens, said his wisdom came from knowing that he did not know all the answers. I find it interesting that so many scientist and academia behave as if they have all the answers. In the scientific field, absolute certainty is difficult to obtain since another experiment may prove your studies incomplete or outright wrong. I love the quote from F. A. Hayek that states, “Nothing is more securely lodged than the ignorance of the experts.” Have you ever wondered what ignorance might be lodged in our current beliefs in different fields of study? Imagine living before the Copernican revolution, the starting assumption was that the earth was the center of the solar system and it was dangerous to believe otherwise – I refer you to Galileo. Imagine before the germ theory in medicine, where a doctor would work on cadavers and then deliver a baby without disinfecting or washing. Right ideas and wrong ideas both have consequences. If you begin with the wrong assumptions, it is very hard to arrive at the right answers.

Socrates genius engulfed the idea of questioning your assumptions to protect yourself from securely lodging your ignorance. The goal of this blog is not to tell you what to believe, but to help you question your assumptions. We must study the current dogma poured forth from the academia, media, and ruling authorities to truly think. I occasionally will get (hate filled) and (thinking empty) comments on this blog. Why is that? Most likely, the commenter is fearful of questioning their assumptions and thus losing the certainty of their ruling beliefs. With less than 40% of Americans reading even one entire book in a year, I am concerned that we will swallow whatever we are told from the experts. My goal is to get people reading and thinking again. By providing access to different thoughts through articles, books and videos, perhaps we can turn the tide. This blog gives me hope that all is not lost. The comments from people who are reading and thinking inspire me to continue to discuss ideas that have consequences. Why do you read this blog? Are you one of the rare Americans with the courage to think? I have started a list of areas to discuss the beginning assumptions. Please help add to this list. Here is my list to date:

1. Economics – Ruling dogma is Keynesian

2. Science – Ruling dogma is Darwinism

3. Medical – Ruling dogma is prescription drugs

4. Political – Ruling dogma is democracy and the rule of 51%

5. Christian – Ruling dogma is post modern theology

6. Philosophy – Ruling dogma is post modern thought

7. Success – Ruling dogma was University education & Corporate job – Breaking down

8. Leadership – Ruling dogma is positional authority – Breaking down in flat world conditions

9. Marriage – Ruling dogma is that love is something you feel not something you do – Added thanks to commenter Matt

10. Law – Ruling dogma is judicial activism vs. Rule of Law

11. Education – Ruling dogma is centralized education

Today’s discussion will be on the dialogue between proponents of Intelligent Design and the proponents of Darwinist (chance plus time). As I read the discussions on both sides, I am amused at how dogmatic the Darwinists are that there is no room for Intelligent Design. What is there to fear in genuine discussion? Their initial assumptions preclude them from rationally discussing or thinking through the case for design. The Intelligent Design scientists are treated very similar to Galileo, when he had the alleged hubris to question the reigning Ptolemy based (earth at center) hypothesis of the solar system. Thinking can be dangerous to the reigning assumptions, but I would argue it is much more dangerous to not think. You don’t have to be a scientist or engineer to enjoy the discussion on both sides. The attached article and video are explained at a level that will help you grow immensely in your understanding of the issues in the scientific field.

As you read the discussions on all sides, ask yourself what are the underlying assumptions that are beyond question. Everyone has their initial assumptions and beliefs that build their world-view, but some people have a harder time admitting this. Very rarely will you find a neutral science because the experimenter’s world-view invades their science. Only a few researchers are honest enough to admit this. I have a world-view that states God created the world and created us. This world-view should not preclude me from a discussion on science anymore than a materialist world-view, that believes we are a random grouping of atoms that can think, precludes them from the discussion. Discussion and dialogue makes all of us better, name calling and closed mindedness only secures a person’s ignorance.

Here is an article by James M. Kushiner on the Intelligent Design revolution and some of the key leaders/scientist in the field. I have also included my favorite video in the field of science that discusses evolution and intelligent design. Pay particular attention to bacterial flagellar motor in the cell. Michael Behe states his thoughts on the irreducible complexity of the motor. As an engineer, I worked on fuel pumps that had a shaft/bearing interface, commutator/brush interface that looks eerily similar to the bacterial flagellar motor assembly. I received four U.S. Patents for my work on fuel pumps. If anyone would have said that chance plus time could have created the new ideas into a working assembly, I would have thought they were smoking something. But this is exactly what the Darwinist, by faith, must believe or their ruling assumptions must be thrown out. Study the design of the motor that is displayed in the video and ask yourself if this level of complexity can be created by chance, regardless of how much time is given. Enjoy the article and video and please share your thoughts to enhance the discussion, not create new names for me. 🙂 God Bless, Orrin Woodward

The Last Days of Darwin?

A Brief History of the Revolution

by James M. Kushiner

In 1959, Sir Julian Huxley, grandson of “Darwin’s Bulldog” T.H. Huxley, was in Chicago to celebrate the centennial of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Taking the pulpit of Rockefeller Chapel at the University of Chicago on Thanksgiving Day, he declared that man no longer needed to “take refuge in the arms of a divinized father-figure.” Evolution was the key to reality. The university’s “cavernous, Baroque Mandel Hall was packed for performances of an original showboat-style Darwinian musical, Time Will Tell.”

Here begins Larry Witham’s By Design, a history of “science and the search for God” in the twentieth century. Little did Huxley and the other celebrants know what time really would tell, least of all that 1959 would likely prove to be the high-water mark of Darwinism. But after the festivities ended, continuing developments in science itself, from many quarters, would begin to threaten Darwin’s monopoly and, eventually, his theory.

Witham, an award-winning journalist on religion and society, points out the cracks in scientific orthodoxy that developed well before the intelligent design (ID) movement began in the 1990s.

As early as 1951, biophysicist Harold Morowitz was trying to find the cell’s “information content.” He eventually concluded that it was impossible for life to have arisen without some large infusion of information. Not a theist, he nonetheless created space for an Intelligent Designer.

At the Darwin centennial, naturalist Ernst Mayr and geneticist Sewall Wright could not agree on the mechanism of Darwinism (genetic change or natural selection), yet everyone swore fealty to “gradualism,” even though no one really knew what the gradual steps were. Gradualism was the crucial feature of Darwin’s theory, as it claimed that minute random steps, accumulated over time, eventually produced a wide variety of species.

Unbridgeable Gaps

Mathematicians using the newly invented computer soon threw a monkey wrench into gradualism. Witham recounts the 1966 debate at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology in Philadelphia. Both Murray Eden of MIT and Marcel P. Schatzenberger (later a member of the French Academy of Sciences) argued that it was “mathematically impossible for Darwin’s tiny variations to add up to a new organism.” Their opponents “could not explain the major gap in their theory: How does the random shuffling of a one-dimensional string of genetic codes create a highly coordinated multidimensional organism?” Eden and Schªtzenberger declared “this gap to be of such a nature that it cannot be bridged within the current conception of biology.”

Wider gaps appeared: The fossil record was not what Darwin predicted. Paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould created a theory of “punctuated equilibrium” to explain the sudden appearance of species in the fossil record and their relative stability over time. It was another direct assault on Darwinian gradualism. Paleontologists, but not the public, knew what the fossil record really showed.

Paleoanthropologists could not (and still cannot) agree on the supposed lines of human descent based on fossil finds. Louis Leakey’s son Richard “acknowledged his father’s tendency to alter criteria to make his fossils Homo, and said the Homo habilis category was ´a grab bag mix of fossils; almost anything around two million years that doesn’t fit the robust [ape] definition has been tossed into it.'”

Witham also reviews the discoveries and emerging debates in physics and cosmology, especially as they inched closer to the “God questions” of purpose and design in the universe.

The understanding of science itself was also evolving. In 1958, chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi published Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, an effective assault on the myth of a purely materialistic and objective science. In 1962, Harvard physics instructor and historian Thomas Kuhn started a great debate among scientists by arguing in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions that, “far from being magisterial in its objectivity, science was conditioned by history, society, and the prejudices of scientists.”

Breaking New Ground

In the 1980s, two books broke new ground. Charles Thaxton, who took a doctorate in chemistry with him when he went to study with Reformed theologian Francis Schaeffer at L’Abri, Switzerland, was quite taken with Polanyi’s claim “that the information in DNA could no more be reduced to the chemical than could the ideas in a book be reduced to the ink and paper: something beyond physics and chemistry encoded DNA,” an observation that suggests an underlying intelligence at work. Together with Walter Bradley of Texas A&M and researcher Roger Olsen, Thaxton published The Mystery of Life’s Origin (1984), which was unique in that it laid out all the current origin-of-life theories and their shortcomings. Also, the epilogue became the opening shot for ID: As a “concrete alternative,” it proposed “intelligent causation.” Mystery appears repeatedly in the footnotes and bibliographies of the ID books published in the last decade.

Then, in 1987, the second book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, by Australian biochemist Michael Denton became a scientific bestseller, and the debate that had been kept mostly between scientists now became public. Though Denton was an evolutionist of sorts, he wrote that claims about Darwin’s tree of life did not match the evidence—and the crisis was that scientists could find no acceptable alternative.

Meanwhile, key relationships for the ID movement were being formed. Dean Kenyon, author of Biochemical Predestination (1969), eventually lost faith in Darwinism and by the 1980s was supporting dissenting views. He wrote the foreword to Thaxton’s Mystery. In 1993, Kenyon, a tenured professor at San Francisco State University, “was stripped of his right to teach biology courses because he criticized some aspects of neo-Darwinian theory.” About a year later, he was reinstated by a full faculty-senate vote after a piece on the affair appeared in the Wall Street Journal by Stephen Meyer, a young geophysicist.

Meyer had been influenced by Thaxton and was studying in Cambridge in 1987 when a mutual friend put him in touch with a Berkeley law professor on sabbatical, PhillipžE. Johnson. Meyer put Johnson onto Thaxton; Johnson had already read both Denton’s book and Richard Dawkins’s The Blind Watchmaker. Using his lawyer’s training in evidence and rhetoric, Johnson began a public campaign to unmask Darwinism as a fraud.

If T.žH. Huxley was Darwin’s bulldog, Johnson became ID’s pit bull. In 1991, he published Darwin on Trial, which artfully exposed many of the cracks in evolutionary theory and became “a lightning rod for the origins debate.” In 1993, Johnson initiated a “smalltime Manhattan Project for the ID movement” at Pajaro Dunes on Monterey Bay in California, in which a group of young scientists met to strategize on how to break the neo-Darwinian hold on science. These men became the core of the ID movement. Among them was Meyer, whom Bruce Chapman of Seattle’s new Discovery Institute soon hired to head its Center for Science and Culture, which has been instrumental in the success of the ID movement.

A new generation of scientists, many mentored by Johnson, began to participate in public conferences presenting ID arguments, in some cases alongside the responses of orthodox Darwinist speakers. In 1999, Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Meyer gave papers at a conference sponsored by the Wethersfield Institute, collected in Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, in which they presented what have become signature arguments for design.

Dembski applied developments in the information sciences to argue that “specified complexity” can be used objectively to detect evidence of intelligence in events and artifacts. Meyer dealt with information-rich biological features, including DNA and RNA, which exhibit a level of complexity and specificity that could not have evolved through natural causes. Behe presented some of the material from his acclaimed 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box, arguing that the “irreducible complexity” of some biological mechanisms suggests that they could not have evolved in small steps, since the imagined intermediate phases would not have been functional (survivable) mechanisms.

Behe noted that mainstream scientists often describe biological components as “designed machines,” and then asked: If they “strike scientists as looking like ´machines’ that were ´designed by a human’ or ´invented by humans,’ then why do we not actively entertain the idea that perhaps they were indeed designed by an intelligent being?” Scientists don’t do so because that would “violate the rule,” stated baldly by Christian de Duve in his 1995 book Vital Dust: “All throughout this book I have tried to conform to the overriding rule that life be treated as a natural process, its origin, evolution, and manifestations, up to and including the human species, as governed by the same laws as nonliving processes.”

By Design’s closing chapters on the Human Genome Project and the “mind and brain” debate also make it clear that the ID movement itself is part of a larger revolt against a science rooted in nineteenth-century naturalism.

The growing rejection of Darwinism was the natural result of honestly facing the findings of scientific research. While orthodox Darwinists and materialist science still dominate the scientific establishment, it is clear that a revolution has been in the making.

In the following pages, we have attempted to provide as thorough an explanation as possible of the precise nature of this insurgency, exploring each of the various facets of the intelligent-design movement with the assistance of the very scientists, philosophers, and attorneys who are at the forefront of the battle for scientific integrity.

Are these really the last days of Darwin? In keeping with the precedent established by true ID proponents, we’re content to let the facts speak for themselves.

Posted in Faith | 1 Comment »

Next Entries »

Orrin Woodward on LIFE & Leadership

Inc Magazine Top 20 Leader shares his personal, professional, and financial secrets.

Orrin Woodward

Orrin’s Latest Book

7 Day Free Access to Leadership Audios!

Email Me

NY Times Bestselling Book

Mental Fitness Challenge

Categories

Favorite Blogs

Favorite Sites

Social Media

Archives