The Life Changing Impact of Transformational Relationships and Experiences

A good friend of mine, Janet Reid, is about to publish a book (co-authored by her partner, Vince Brown) committed to improving the track record of organizations in advancing diversity and inclusion.  She asked me to write a Forward.  

In reading the manuscript, I was struck by a concept which Janet identifies as key to a person’s development, specifically the presence (or absence) in their lives of “positive transformational relationships.”  I find this a huge idea.  I’m going to elaborate on it here.

I think there are, generally speaking, three kinds of relationships which one person can have with another person. 

The relationships can be “transactional,” “personal” or “transforming.”  

Most relationship are transactional.  Dealing with a dry cleaner, or the clerk in the grocery store, or the waiter in a restaurant; they are transactional.  There are many relationships at one’s place of work that will be transactional.  

Over time, transactional relationships may become personal as one gets to know another person better.  

Examples of personal relationships would likely include a parent’s relationship with his or her children’s teachers; your relationship with your doctor or with your personal assistant or financial advisor.

These relationships rely on mutual respect, on a decent understanding of one another and a reasonably high level of trust.  Without these elements, a personal relationship is not likely to be satisfying or successful over time.  

Finally, at the top of the hierarchy, there are “transformational” relationships.  I will define what they are and what their impact is with a series of questions and answers.

• What distinguishes a transforming relationship?  For the recipient:  
• It elevates the expectation of what the individual can accomplish, and what they are capable of.
• It makes them feel they matter, that they belong, that they are “in the house.”  That, “I have a future here.”  
• The trust a person feels and the belief that they are valued enable a person to be freer to be themselves, to take risks, to feel that they are part of a team. 

• For the provider or initiator of the relationship:
• It affirms the reality of another individual’s ability to grow as a result of your trust and high expectations.
• It demonstrates “what is possible” as an individual responds positively and accomplishes more than before.

What have been the most meaningful examples of “trusting relationships” in my life?

1. My wife’s finding me worthy of marriage.  This literally made me feel that anything was possible.  It was the greatest possible validation that I was a worthy, loveable person.  

2. My first two-up boss and his wife invited me to his home for dinner many times.  His telling me not long after I joined the company that one day he felt “everyone may be working for you,” a statement I could hardly believe.  He made me feel I belonged in the company, that it could become a family for me, that I could succeed.  My relationship with him became a lasting one, right up to the time of his death.  

3. My house master and math teacher in high school clearly had higher expectations of me than I had of myself. He established high standards and did so in a way that I knew he was with me every step of the way.  My relationship with him, too, lasted right up to the time of his death.  

4. My three-up boss when I joined the company, and later the man I worked for for half of my career, Ed Artzt, was a tough taskmaster.  He allowed me to pursue an initiative that I felt he didn’t think would work but carried sufficiently high potential and such little risk that he let me try it.  He spent hours with me one-on-one.  We didn’t always see things the same way; he didn’t even always seem to listen to me, but I knew he respected me and believed in me.  It was a powerful transforming relationship even as it had its ups and downs.

5. My relationship with a distinguished judge, Nathaniel Jones, an African-American for whom my son clerked and whom I’ve known for decades, opened my eyes to the power of diversity and the qualities of integrity and courage, which he possesses at the highest level.  The mutual trust we have for each other is reinforcing and strengthening.  

These are just a few of the transforming relationships I’ve had.  

What about transforming experiences?  

A transforming experience, like a transforming relationship, elevates a person’s expectation of what they can accomplish.  It demonstrates that they are trusted and respected.  It affirms and validates their instincts to do what they think is right, as “being okay.”  Transformational experiences provide totally fresh insights on what matters most in an organization and life in general.  They highlight what values really count in the purpose of the organization and what makes it succeed.

Transformational experiences don’t always grow from a transformational relationship, but many do occur within one.

Here are examples of transformational experiences I have had:

1. Being asked to undertake the outfitting of PT boats for Vietnam when I was in the Navy, a task I felt totally unprepared for.  But reaching out to work with other experts, I did it.  It gave me enormous confidence.

2. Being challenged by a person in P&G down the line who told me that I should have taken a stronger leadership position on a particular issue.  He was right.  He made me reassess the balance of my leadership between getting input and moving on.

3. Bringing the union and management together when I was working at Yale to improve the condition of the Yale golf course, which had fallen in ranking among college golf courses in the nation from #1 to #75.  Folks told me we couldn’t get the union and management to work together. I disagreed.  I got everybody together and we showed we could.  The golf course has returned to #1.

4. Being asked by John Smale, who, at the time was my senior by many levels, to work with him to develop a new exhibit for the Cincinnati Art Museum.  This was transformational in many respects.  It showed John cared about me; before I wasn’t even sure he knew me.  It opened me up to the community; it made me see I could do something good in the arts area.

5. Ed Harness, then CEO, casually telling me to “take care” of myself, because someday “you might be leading the company.”  This was 15 years before I became CEO.  It was transformational in giving me a vision of what I might eventually be asked to do, which I had not conceived of.  

Another unforgettable transforming experience which Ed Harness gave me occurred shortly after I was appointed General Manager for the P&G Italian business.  Ed, who had recently been appointed to be CEO, was making his first visit to Italy.  It was a very difficult time.  Our business was in tough shape.  Inflation was high and the Communist Party was within one point of gaining majority control in the government.  There wasn’t a lot of good to talk about, other than our forward-looking plans, in which I had confidence.  

I don’t recall what I said to Ed during the business review.  I know I was uptight.  He must have sensed that.  As the two of us were walking together to leave the building, Ed paused.  He put his hand on my shoulder and, with a smile that one would have had to know Ed to fully appreciate, he said:  “John, sometimes you have to wait for the other shoe to fall.  You are doing the right things.  Everything will be alright.”  I’ll never forget that.  It gave me a sense of confidence and freedom that I had not had before.  I knew Ed cared about me, and I felt he valued me.

6. Francie and my being sent to Italy as General Manager, giving me a leadership position far beyond what I had before and putting us in a new environment of learning about people who were different from us but shared the same characteristics.  This experience transformed what I understood a “good life” to be in balancing personal relationships with the business.

7. In a diversity training class, I was asked to play the role of an African-American female at a P&G plant.  In the role play, I was supervised by a women who played the role of a white man who had two basic dislikes when it came to those working for him:  African-Americans and women.  I was the composite of both.  I remember what that felt like, though it’s more than 30 years ago.

8. My experiencing the death of family members (my sister and my parents) and a close brush with death myself in my battle with cancer conveyed the fragility of life and the overriding importance of family.  

9. I observed the company’s decision to withdraw the product Rely from the market, at great financial sacrifice, because the safety of our consumers matters more than anything.  This experience was one of many which cast P&G’s commitment to “do what is right” in stone.  It was transformational.

 Transformational Relationships I’ve had With Others

1. Influenced, I’m sure, by the recognition of the transformational experiences others had afforded me, I played the same role, sometimes without even knowing it.  

Johnip Cua was one of the most outstanding General Managers I ever worked with.  Years after the event, he reminded that when he was still a young Product Supply manager, I had observed him in a meeting and recommended to his line management that he undertake a training assignment in Marketing, leading to General Management.  Johnip recalled, “It took me two weeks to think through what I wanted to do, and what I thought I was capable of doing.  To be honest, I was not sure but, because you placed so much trust in me, I decided to accept the challenge; and the rest was history…”  And what a splendid history it became.  Johnip led the Philippines to record after record, year after year.

2. One of the longest-lasting transforming relations I have had has been with a long-term P&G associate, Beverly Grant, an African-American woman who became a key leader in P&G’s Sales organization and today serves as Chair of the Board of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center.  A couple of years ago, Beverly recalled a meeting we both attended in January 1987.  She had been with P&G for only two years.  As she remembers, “During that one hour meeting, you shared your perspective on your experiences here at P&G, as well as the potential you believe all employees have if they work smart, demonstrate leadership and develop their ideas and winning propositions for the company.  

Wow, did you inspire me as a second-year employee!”

Beverly has inspired me by what she has accomplished and by the person she is ever since.

3. Another reciprocal “transforming relationship” I have had is with Eugen Mihai.  I met Eugen some years after he retired from P&G.  I had first known him in Romania.  He reached out to me and said he wanted to help me translate a book I had written into Romanian.  He did that and we have been together personally and through correspondence for more than five years.  He has gone on to great accomplishments, including publishing a well-received book on negotiation.  He wrote me a note in the first week of October, accompanied by a picture of him with his negotiation training class.  The picture showed a photo of me and one of my most deeply felt beliefs: “Life is all about relationships.”

Eugen wrote this, “I could not pass the opportunity to say that it was your support and encouragement that made me publish the book (it is in its fifth edition) and start doing this (negotiation) training.”

4. Another “transforming relationship” I enjoyed was with Julie Grant.  Julie was a rising star in Yale’s finance group when I worked at Yale during 2004-05.  Upon my leaving Yale, she wrote me these heartfelt words:  “You have opened for me a whole new world in which personal values are important in the workplace.  You have made countless contributions to Yale but, for me, the one thing that will always stand out is how you referred to ‘men and women’ in the workplace.  That little thing goes a long way, in my mind, to our remembering that the people are the most important things about an organization and, without the people, the rest doesn’t get done.”

Julie went on to tell me that this experience had led her to change her future academic study and career.  She was an inspiration to me.

I was “paying forward” what others had done for me.  These experiences encouraged me to be more intentional in creating more relationships of this kind.

A recent event said it all.

The life-changing power of transformational relationships was on vibrant display on the night of October 4 in Cincinnati’s Music Hall as the Cincinnati Youth Collaborative held it’s “Dream Makers Celebration.”

Student after student came to the stage to tell us in utterly persuasive words how a relationship they had with a mentor had changed their lives and put them on a course to attend college and, above all, to feel good about themselves.

The audience, and I among them, rose from our seats to salute them, each and every one.  Our hearts were full and our spirits tingled and no small amount of tears were shed.

We were witnessing what’s possible when someone knows they matter and that they are cared for.  Dreams were being converted into reality right before our eyes.

As I attended this “Dream Makers Celebration” on October 4, I remembered my first mentee, Kevin Andrew.  I met him over 30 years ago, in 1988.  He was a sophomore in high school.  First a mentee, then a close friend of mine and my family.  I attended his wedding.  I saw his children grow up.  I wrote him last week to tell him I was thinking of him and hoping we could meet soon.  I told him how close I felt to him.

Kevin wrote me back:  “Your generous feelings about our friendship warm my soul.  I’m truly blessed and humbled to have the opportunity to grow and develop under your stewardship and wisdom.  The Cincinnati Youth Collaborative legacy and impact continues to transform and enrich lives on a scale that is incomprehensible.  Until we meet, may you and Mrs. Pepper continues to have joy and much happiness.”

How important are transformational relationships to the development of an individual’s leadership strengths?

They are very important.  They are critical to creating confidence, the freedom to act decisively, to be oneself.

At P&G, every employee enters the company with strong aptitude and attitude strengths as measured by the best screening tests we can develop.  Yet, some individuals progress further than others.  There are many reasons for this, of course:  their ambition, their aptitude for the work, their love of the work as they get deeper into it, their passion and commitment to continue to learn and to grow.

Beyond these factors, however, critical to an individual’s development are the number and the quality of the transformational relationships and experiences that impact their lives.

This begins with their boss.  How committed and how accountable do they feel to the development of the women and men working for them?  How do they understand them?  Do they interact in a way that creates a transformational relationship or is it more of a transactional or, at best, a personal relationship?

Are they conscious of how a transformational relationship will influence the employee’s progress for years to come?  Are they intentional in seizing opportunities to create a transformational relationship and provide transformational experiences?

Yet another reason why transformational relationships and experiences are important.

 As employees go through a career, they are, like it or not, likely to experience some relationships and experiences which not only fail to be “transformational” in a positive sense, but can be “transformational” in a negative sense.  If and as that has happens, it is vital that an individual have had sufficient positive transformational relationships and experiences to be able to identify the negative one as atypical of the company as it wants to be at its best.

I have encountered negative experiences, ones that left me feeling that the person I was reporting to was not listening to me at the moment or wasn’t giving me the respect that I was due.  I counselled myself in these instances:  “Don’t let this get you down, don’t let it lead you to feel sorry for yourself.  Remember the positive experiences.  Remember who you are.”

All of this is to say that positive relationships and experiences are essential to girding ourselves for what will hopefully be a minority of negative experiences.  Memories of positive relationships and experiences can pull us through challenging moments.

What does it take to create a transformational relationship?  

It starts by getting to know the other person as an individual.  Personally.  Thoroughly.  The individual’s background, their family, their goals, their worries.  I’m not suggesting you approach this with a check-list mentality.  That wouldn’t work.  It has to be developed with the mindset which amounts to an expression from your mind and heart, “I care about you.  I want to get to know you in any way that will help your development.  I feel accountable for your development.”

I have found creating a transformational relationship is not as time-dependent as one might think.  My relationship with John Smale is an example.  It was truly transformational even though he came in and out of my life at interspersed times, giving me, looking back, what were transformational experiences.  For example, I recall in the mid-1980s, proposing to John that we expand a new brand.  I proposed it two times.  Each time, he turned me down.  I was back for a third try.  This was his response to me:  “John, it looks like you continue to want to do this.  I put you in the job.  I will follow what you believe we should do.”  John had given me the benefit of the doubt.  He trusted me.  

It’s worth noting that I have had the benefit of transformational relationships with leaders of very different temperaments.  Some were very tough and demanding, others more overtly supportive.  It didn’t matter.  In every case, I knew they believed in me and wanted me to succeed.

At their most powerful, transformational relationships are shared and mutually reinforcing, a virtual circle if you will. 

My relationship with Janet Reid, whom I mentioned at the outset of this essay, is an example.  In a recent note to me, Janet wrote, “I have seen and experienced the power of relationships that go beyond being transactional to become transformational.  My relationship with you has been that way for me.  I have told our story many times to illustrate what would make a true difference in corporate America and in our communities.”  

In fact, I have told that same story about Janet, from my vantage point, many times.

The power of reciprocal transformational relationships is incredible.  

As I wrote in my book, What Really Matters, “Those relationships in which I have felt free to talk openly without fear of embarrassment have been amazingly productive.  We have been able to cut through the superficial chatter to the essence of issues, whether business or personal, quickly, imaginatively, and honestly.  Those relationships have been important to me in other ways, too.  They have made me feel in touch with another person whom I respect and trust and who respects and trusts me.  They made me feel alive.  They brought me joy and with that joy has come creativity, energy and determination I otherwise would not have had.”

Is the creation of transformational relationships and transformational experiences particularly important in the development and advancement of minorities?

Yes, I believe they are.  In fact, together with the basic sense of accountability every leader should have for the development of his or her people, I believe the creation of transformational relationships and the provision of transformational experiences are the keys to accelerating the advancement of minorities.

Even though arriving at P&G with equivalent credentials as majority employees, many if not most minorities enter the company carrying some fear that they may not belong, or that they may need to act differently in order to fit in with the majority.  Speaking generally, even more than majority employees, they will benefit from relationships and experiences that affirm, indeed elevate, their expectations, their sense of worth, their sense of belonging, and their confidence.

Yet—and here lies the challenge—it will often be harder for a leader to develop a transformational relationship with a minority, someone different than they are.

It is a fundamental truth that we feel more comfortable getting close to people who are more like us.  If we hold a measure of implicit bias, which virtually all of us do, our relationship with a minority can easily default to a transactional or, at best, a personal one.  It may feel uncomfortable getting close.  We have different social lives.  We don’t want to give offense.  All human traits.

What do we do about this risk?

 We recognize its reality.  We acknowledge the tendency to not risk ourselves in what might be an unpredictable, transformational relationship.

So what do we do?  We become intentional.  We recognize the power of building a transformational relationship and providing transformational experiences in other lives just as they helped us in our development.

We take the time to truly know the other person.  We give him or her the benefit of the doubt in a close decision, not with any caveats but right down the line.  We look for an opportunity to ask them to help us on a special business or outside of business project, as John Smale asked me decades ago to help him in developing a new exhibit for the Cincinnati Art Museum.

I believe there will be value in researching the incidence of transformational relationships and transformational experiences during the careers of majority and minority employees, at different levels of advancement.  

I believe we will find a greater presence of such relationships and experiences in the development of our majority employees.  I also feel sure that as we understand the source of confidence and career advancement for those minorities that have progressed the most, we will find they have been empowered by an abundance of transformational relationships and experiences. 

Hopefully, this evidence will help drive us to be more intentional in providing these relationships and experiences to all employees.  

A final word on this subject of transforming relationship and its relevance to advancing diversity and inclusion.  

In a chapter I wrote in my book, What Really Matters, I conclude my discussion of what it takes to make diversity and inclusion a reality with this reminder:

“Let us never forget the overriding importance of showing we care about one another…one by one.  We will not reap the benefits of diversity, personally or for the business, by simply checking off a ‘to-do’ list.  We need strong personal relationships founded on respect, trust and a belief in our common humanity.  We all have benefited mightily from such relationships.  They have heightened our expectations and our confidence and expanded our feeling of influence and belonging.”

For most of us, it is easier to have personal relationships like this with people who are the same as we are than it is with people who are different.  This is a tendency we must overcome. As Fellow Charles Handy of the London Business School wrote in his essay, Beyond Certainty:  “You don’t have much sympathy for those you never meet or see.  We need to rub up against people different from ourselves just as much as we need to join up with our own sort for comfort and security.”

I would amend Handy’s advice by saying that we need to do a lot more than “rub up against people different from ourselves,” especially for those who work for us.  We need to come to know them as individuals.  We need to be able to live in their shoes as best as we can.  We need to try to see the world through their eyes.  We need to listen to them.  In one way or another, we need to show we care and we need to convert that caring into advice and support, frank and constructive, that they will understand as directed at one objective:  helping them grow.

TransformationalRelationships100719

Pulling Ourselves Away from Moral Catastrophe—Marilynne Robinson—Syria

It would be challenging to identify the single act which most exposes President Trump's moral corruption, but if I had to choose one today it would be the decision to pull our approximately thousand troops out of Syria. 

I cannot recall a decision made by a President that is at once so diabolical in abandoning an ally, doing something so counter to our own Nation's interest (i.e. fighting ISIS) and forcing an ally to join up with an adversary. All of this being done by a President not consulting with the State Department of military or his most important supporters. 

And then, witnessing the killing of thousands and displacement of many more people, the President cruelly dismisses our former allies, the Kurds, thousands of whom died in the fight ISIS,  as not being "angels" 

This horrific turn of events reminded me of a passage in Marilynne Robinsons book of essays, "The Givenness of Things."

" I had always thought that the one thing I could assume about my country was that it was generous.  Instinctively and reflexively generous.  In our history, we have demonstrated fallibilities that are highly recognizable as human sin and error, sometimes colossal in scale, magnified by our relative size and strength.  But our saving grace was always generosity, material and, often, intellectual and spiritual.  To the extent that we have realized or even aspire to democracy, we have made a generous estimate of the integrity and good will of people in general and a generous reckoning of their just deserts.  I do believe we stand at a threshold that obliges me to speak about the gravity of our historical moment as I see it, in the knowledge that no society is at any time immune to moral catastrophe". 

At this late stage of my life, I hope and pray the American people will have the wisdom to pull our Nation away from the moral catastrophe which Trump's presidency represents in the election of 2020 if not before.   

 

Insights and Encouragement for Our Tumultuous Moment

I’m reading a splendid little book, on democracy by E.B. White.  I’ve read his essays collected in The Points of My Compass decades ago.  I’ve always appreciated his fresh thinking—and did again here.  

Writing this before entry into World War II, as Hitler’s reign creeped across Europe, he wrote:  “I just want to tell you, before I get slowed down, that I am in love with Freedom and that it is an affair of longstanding and that it is a fine state to be in, and that I am deeply suspicious of people who are beginning to adjust to fascism and dictators merely because they are succeeding in war.  From such adaptable natures, a smell rises.  I pinch my nose.”

  

What an apt description of how I feel about the Trump presidency and much that surrounds it.  

Writing in 1943, advocating the world coming together in a government, White writes:  “Were we ever to get one (a world government), it would impose on the individual the curious burden of taking the entire globe to his bosom—although not in any sense depriving him of the love of his front yard.”

“A world made one by the political union of its parts, would not only require of its citizen a shift of allegiance, but it would also deprive him of an enormous personal satisfaction of distrusting what he doesn’t know and despising what he hasn’t seen.  This would be a severe depravation, perhaps an intolerable one.  The awful truth is, a world government would lack an enemy and that is a deficiency not to be lightly dismissed.  It will take a yet undiscovered vitamin to supply the blood of man with a substitute for national ambition and racial antipathy; but (White optimistically concludes) we are discovering new vitamins all the time, and I am aware of that, too.” 

 (Unfortunately, his optimism on this point has so far proved to only be a dream. But we must never give up on this dream. The future of our planet depends on realizing it, I believe)

Eerily anticipating our own time, and commenting on the FCC’s regulation of radio, White writes, “This country is on the verge of getting news-drunk; the democracy cannot survive merely by being well informed, it must also be contemplative, and wise.” 

In October 1952, White writes, “We doubt that there ever was a time in this country when so many people tried to discredit so many other people.” 

Well, he ought to be around today. 

“About a year ago, we started to compile a handbook of defamation, but the list got too big for us and we abandoned the project as both unwieldy and unlovely.  Discreditation has become a national sickness for which no cure has so far been found, and there is a strong likelihood that we will all wake up some morning to learn that, in the whole land, there is not one decent man.  Vilification, condemnation, revelation—these supply a huge part of the columns of the papers, and the story of life in the United States dissolves into a novel of perfidy, rascality, iniquity and misbehavior.  The writing of this lurid tale commands more and more of the time of the citizens.”

In an essay titled on democracy, written in June 1960 in the midst of that presidential campaign, White writes that he has read the books and published speeches of many of the candidates for president, including Kennedy, Chester Bowles, Nixon, Stevenson and Rockefeller.  He observes something that I’ve felt for at least the last eight years.  “They speak of new principles for a new age, but for the most part, I find old principles for a time that has passed.  Most of the special matters they discuss are pressing, but taken singly or added together, they do not point in a steady direction, they do not name a destination that gets me up in the morning to pull on my marching boots.  Once in a while, I try a little march on my own, stepping out briskly toward a reputable hill, but when I do I feel that I am alone, and that I am on a treadmill.”

For my money, President Obama described a vision worthy of “pulling on my marching boots.”  It was a vision of inclusiveness, of living our nation’s highest values embedded in living to a fuller degree our nation’s founding principles embedded in the Declaration of Independence.  But sadly his administration, impeded by Republican opposition aimed at making him a one-term president, didn’t in the end fulfill that vision.  We were not united as a country.  And President Trump has divided this nation more than ever.  

Therein lies the greatest need for our next president.  We can’t just be driven by what we’re against even though the commitment to ensure that Trump doesn’t have another four years is correct.  We must anchor our vision and the plans to carry it out on the future, together united. 

The Risk and Danger of Turning Nations Who Are Competitors Into Existential Enemies

The Risk and  Danger of Turning Nations Who Are Competitors into Existential Enemies

What  Are We To Do Now

It was December, 1989.  I had just assumed responsibility for Procter & Gamble’s International business.  I was excited about the future opportunities, for P&G and for the world and personally.  Francie and I had always loved going to and understanding other countries and their cultures.  It was an exciting time.  

Eastern and Central Europe were opening for business as the Berlin Wall came down.  Presidents Bush and Gorbachev pledged mutual cooperation in reducing conventional arms and limiting the future development of new arms. 

At the same time, for P&G, China was opening for business at a rapidly accelerating pace.  

In hindsight, I, like most of the world, carried overly optimistic expectations into the transition underway in China and what was still the Soviet Union.

I hoped, and rather expected that, as China grew economically and standards of living increased, which they did far faster than we ever expected, it would bring increasing democratization and the freedom for people to speak out openly for their own interests and beliefs.

In Russia, I realized as the 1990s unfolded, that the country and its people faced enormous challenges.  Everything was changing.  How businesses operated.  People’s lives.  How they worked.  How they shopped.  Prices were set free.  Better products emerged.  But prices exploded.  The press opened to different views.  People could say what was on their minds.  It was liberating but for many frightening.  Long familiar support systems were eroding or vanishing.

Leaders, some eloquently pronouncing democratic values, emerged, none more so than where P&G began its business, in St. Petersburg, with its charismatic, brave mayor, Anatoly Sobchak. We knew the times were tough for people.  But we—at least I—didn't know the half of it. 

I didn’t know then, no one did, where Russia would come to stand.  It was clear to me that Russia would need to re-establish its identity.  I knew that Russia possessed too distinct and "grand" a history and too rich a culture and had too large a global presence to become just another Western European country.  But I did hope it would gravitate toward the West to which many of its leaders had a  strong affinity.

There were options which we hoped would not come to pass in Russia.  We realized we could have had a far right Nationalistic leader who opposed the U.S.  We welcomed the election of Yeltsin.  We saw him as a strong and brave successor to Gorbachev, fitting the mold of the strong leader Russians have always followed.  I did not realize then how Yeltsin’s life would be decimated by alcoholism.  And how weak a leader he would prove to be, especially during the last years of his presidency.

I had high hopes for Vladimir Putin.  He was smart.  I knew he was a Nationalist, but I thought Russia needed a Nationalist.  But I also believed he would lean toward being integrated in some way with the West. And in fact just as was the case with Gorbachev, this was also Putin's first instinct as well. An instinct pursued I am sure with some hesitation given Putin's background but pursued I believe it might have been if we had had leadership of the temperament of George H.S. Bush. 

That was not to be.  The chasm between Putin and the West grew, starting in 2003, to this very day.  It is a chasm marked by distrust on our part and by an increasing feeling on Putin’s part that “the West is out to get us.”  A Cold War view of each other as existential enemies has reemerged, bringing with it great risk to the world.

In reasserting its identity, Russia has returned in many ways to its past, even as it has come through a period of “gold-rush,” frenzied, all-too-often corrupt pursuit of capitalism.  As in the past, it has positioned itself ideologically as a pillar against overly-permissive, neo-left liberal values, even as a narrowing minority of Russians benefit from the pursuit of these values. It has positioned itself as a protector of established leaders, and increasingly as an opponent of what has proven to be the United States over-reach, even with the best of intentions, to help nations like Iraq and Libya and Egypt “change for the better.”

What we see today is that Russia is not only viewed as having certain ideological convictions that differ from the United States and the West but as a country that has become a dangerous existential enemy.  There are, of course, reasons for this.  The annexation of Crimea.  Russia’s military support of opponents to Ukraine’s central government in Eastern Europe.  Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections and evidence that that interference is continuing.  The alleged murder of Russia dissidents.  Russia’s incursion into Syria to support the Assad regime.  

Russia counters with its grievances. And many of them have strong foundations  The expansion of NATO to its very borders, even though  Secretary of State James Baker told Gorbachev that having  agreed to the reuniting of Germany, NATO would not be expanded east of Germany.  Then there was our unilateral decision to invade Iraq and drive Hussein out of office. And there was the overthrow of Qaddafi and cavalier dismissal of mutual nuclear control treaties. Increasing  sanctions in response Russia's incursion into Ukraine.

Taken altogether, there are real issues, compounding what are genuine ideological differences. 

Still we face the central question.  Are we right to conclude that Russia has become an existential enemy?  

I would argue strongly that the answer is no.

The only basis for reaching that conclusion is if we believe these actions and the ideological differences are forerunners and drivers of Russia’s strategic intent to expand its territorial domain or otherwise threaten the existence of the sovereignty or form of government of the United States or other free nations.

We have to ask ourselves:  Is this a credible scenario?  I see no evidence that it is—either in an objective analysis of what is in the interest of the Russian nation or in the pronouncements or actions by Russia leadership.

There can be no question that Ukraine has formed a uniquely historic part of Russia and that, within Ukraine, Crimea has and is today overwhelmingly populated by people of Russian extraction.  

On Crimea, we are where we are. I believe history will record that it was a mistake for Russia to annex Crimea. They could have protected Russian citizens without dong that, with all its negative consequences for Russia and the rest of the world.

However , what I believe is of no consequence.  There will be no going back.  Crimea will remain part of Russia.

 As to the nation of  Ukraine, any thought that Russia would seek to conquer it  it by force lacks any semblance of credibility. Russian leadership knows that Ukrainians would overwhelmingly reject and resist this.  Russia doesn’t need Ukraine.  It poses no threat.  We should face it:  Ukraine and Crimea are “one-off” situations.  

I believe Syria, too, is a “one-off” situation.  It provides the only access to the Mediterraean which Russia has.  The decision to support Assad, a horrible tyrant if there ever was one, was taken by Russia with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Mubarak and Ghaddafi fresh in their minds and without any evident alternative government that would have avoided the trauma that now exists throughout most of the Middle East.

I believe Russia and Putin clearly understand that economically they must be part of a multi-polar world, including Europe and the United States.

I believe  Putin means what he said: “Respect for the people’s national, state, spiritual and cultural identity is an indispensable condition for steady international environment that Europe and the world now need to cross the historic watershed and attain a new period of peace”.

Over the past fifteen years, I have seen Russia and Putin personally presented more and more as an existential threat and enemy.  This is being fueled by the media and Democratic and Republican leadership speaking with virtually one voice.  Only President Trump, for reasons which are hard to fully explain, advocates building a constructive relationship with Russia.  This message, which I embrace, could not have a less credible messenger. 

What worries me deeply is that this conception of Russia as an existential enemy will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. I worry that it will lead to our not having the tough but constructive conversations and negotiations necessary to ensure we and the world do not enter into potentially catastrophic armed conflict; conversations and ultimately cooperation to avoid nuclear proliferation, to combat terrorism and combat the threat of climate change.  

We are allowing legitimate ideological differences to morph into a perception of threat that has created a chasm of trust and creation of expectations that risk creating the very cataclysm now portrayed that never should happen.

The China story is in many ways similar to Russia’s, although the path to getting here has been very different. Thirty years ago, very few people, certainly not I, would have conceived of China’s becoming a threatening global economic and geo-political competitor, let alone an existential threat.  I, of course, appreciated the grandeur and uniqueness of China’s history and culture and appreciation of the significance of its almost one and a half billion people. I also came to quickly appreciate the superior caliber of China’s political leaders.  They were the strongest I had ever encountered in their intellect and focus on building partnerships and achieving economic growth. 

For me and many other business leaders, these strengths were exemplified in Vice Premier, Zhu Rongji. I would describe his stance as “a-political,” focused on doing what was needed to promote strong domestic growth needed to create jobs and lift people out of poverty. 

To that end and believing it was in the interest of the entire developed world, we supported and lobbied hard to have China brought within the global trading system, including through “most favored nation” status. 

Little did we anticipate the speed with which China’s economy has grown: decade after decade of close to double-digit growth in GNP.  It is not surprising that along with this has come increasing consciousness of China’s global presence and the desire for external influence and involvement especially as a means of driving the continued economic growth seen as essential to avoid unrest by its people. 

Like Russia, China has reverted to its past historical roots in important ways, including the tendency for strong centralized, autocratic leadership to keep this complex enormous country together.  That has been the story of China’s history.  China has always looked to strong central leadership to control the often warring factions that divided China over centuries.  Security, economic well-being and safety are dominant values for the great majority of people.  Most are willing to sacrifice a greater degree of privacy and independence to achieve these ends than we in the Western world would.  China’s massive expansion of economic investment in the world and the growth of its military and the flexing of its near-China territorial ambitions, e.g., in the South China Sea, have raised the specter of China as a military geo-political threat.

Let me return to this vital question.  Do the ideologies and economic and territorial interests of Russia and China have the potential to challenge and threaten the very existence and current way of life of the United States and the West?

In assessing whether Russia’s and China’s ideologies today are projectable to other countries, including our own, as Communism once was,  I believe we need to weigh two elements:  the inherent appeal of the ideologies and the intent of the leaders to expand these ideologies to other countries.  

Before weighing in on these two factors, let me differentiate between two dimensions of a country’s ideology.  

The first dimension concerns its governance philosophy—more specifically the position it occupies between the choice of very strong central control by a more or less autocratic leader on the one hand and, on the other, a highly distributed balance of power similar to what exists in the United States and most free countries.  

As I’ve written, the leadership of China and Russia (as well as countries such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia), attach far greater weight to maintaining tight central control than do countries such as the United States and the nations of Western Europe and Japan.  For historical reasons, this is not likely to change.   

The other dimension of a country’s ideology is cultural.  How do people live in the country day to day?  How attractive and aspirational is their way of life to people outside the country?  This is influenced by many factors, including what are perceived to be the opportunities for growth individually and as families?  What is the degree of personal freedom?

The appeal of a nation’s cultural identify is subject to change over time.  It can shift.  Different perceptions can emerge on how people live and the overall quality of their lives.  

The external view of the U.S. culture was different, for example, in the Great Depression of the 1930s than during the “Roaring” 1920s.  And race riots and the Civil Rights movement probably had an influence, as likely the plethora of mass killings do today.  Still, over time, I think it’s safe to say that the consistent prominent view of the U.S. culture has been one of being open, committed to the rule of law and self-expression and spontaneous in offering a relatively high degree of individual opportunity and freedom.

This is all background to address the question:  How attractive are the governance and cultural ideologies of China and Russia to the leaders and the people of other nations?  

I find the answers to this question to be clear.

The governance ideology which characterizes China and Russia is of definite appeal to leaders of other countries who, for whatever reason, aspire to exercise strong autocratic control.  They seek to create a political structure in their countries which enables them to achieve strong control.  Erdogan’s Turkey, Maduro’s Venezuela, Kim Jung’s North Korea are examples.

Russia and China have and I believe will continue to support and defend leaders of this ilk and the sovereignties of the nations they represent.  They will use social media to support such leaders and try to denigrate their opponents.  

But will they use military force to expand or sustain success of autocratic governments?

I believe they might, but only in  very qualified circumstances, including believing doing so is not in conflict with their long-term economic interests.  Russia’s involvement in Syria is probably a case in point.  Russia’s motivation in preventing Assad’s overthrow stems from such a motivation, and it appears to have worked.  I believe Putin’s decision to do this was particularly motivated by his having witnessed the downfall of Gaddafi in Libya, Mubarak in Egypt and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  

As I have written, I believe Russia’s incursion into Eastern Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, as well as Putin’s military support of Assad, are one-off situations driven importantly by the historical strategic importance and geographical proximity of Ukraine to Russia and Syria’s providing the only Russian access to the Mediterranean Sea.

I do not believe this constitutes evidence of a broad inclination by Russia to intervene militarily in support of autocratic rulers broadly. Nor do I believe China’s leaders have any such inclination. 

In this connection, I would underscore how any decision to intervene militarily, by either Russia or China, will be constrained by the embedded global economic system in which they are an integral part.  

The constraint on military action imposed by Russia’s and China’s economic health being inextricably tied to the global system of commerce is demonstrated—to date, thankfully—by Mainland China’s hesitancy in strongly intervening to combat the freedom movement in Hong Kong.   

The other consideration which rules against China’s and Russia’s being an existential threat is the lack of appeal of their ideological culture.  My appraisal could be challenged as being too high-handed.  But facts support it.  Ask yourself:  How does the number of people seeking to move to the United States compare to the number seeking to emigrate to China and Russia?  To be sure, many people have gone to China because of its economic opportunities.  But how many have gone because this is where they wanted their family to live and their children to grow up culturally?

I wouldn’t want this statement to belittle the culture of these two countries.  I have spent a lot of time in Russia and a considerable amount in China.  There is an enormous amount in their cultures and their people which I resonate to and deeply appreciate:  the history, the arts, the courage and stamina of the people, and strength and inspiration to be gained from friendships which, if not always quickly formed, can be deep and long-lasting if built on trust.

With all of this—where do we end up?

I have tried to convey my belief that, while China and Russia are and will remain competitors, in some ways very serious competitors of the United States and West, with important differences in ideologies, they are not existential enemies and should not be treated as such.  

This is not a semantic issue.  There is an enormous danger in approaching and dealing with these countries as existential enemies as opposed to competitors whom we should engage on the world stage to advance our mutual interests and those of the entire world. What is the danger I refer to?

To repeat for emphasis, it  is the risk that we will not enter into the necessary negotiations with these nations in order to minimize the planet-threatening risk of nuclear annihilation and terrorism and failed states and to advance preservation of the environment. We simply cannot come to grips with resolving these issues if we are not working to address them together, in concert with other nations. 

Our goal should be to establish a sustained, trust-based relationship at the highest level of government that will allow the identification of common interests and competing interests and how the latter can be best resolved.  Our preeminent objective should be to avoid military conflict and achieve policies which balance the interests of both countries. 

Our underlying mindset must recognize that we must go beyond co-existence to active cooperation in areas of common interest in order to achieve the peace and prosperity in the world that we seek. 

This will require a long-term view (10+ years, not 1 or 2 years).  It will require the willingness to share different views on issues such as human rights without crossing over into an attack on the other nation’s sovereignty. It will require a joint determination to make decisions based insofar as possible on a win-win and expand the pie view of what is possible rather than a lose-lose or zero-sum view. 

How do we proceed?

For starters, deep discussions within the leadership of the United States, China and Russia, in concert with our allies, should lead to a joint statement that the relationship among these countries will not be based on the premise that they are existential enemies but rather are competitors.  It would acknowledge nations’ differing ideologies but forcefully commit to collaborating to advance the interests and safety of the countries and the entire world.

The statement would explain the basis for this conclusion.  

This statement, in and of itself, would be huge news, comparable in impact to the announcements in the late 1980s from Presidents Reagan and Bush and Gorbachev that we would no longer regard each other as enemies.  That was an astounding conclusion to announce then.  It would, if anything, be more astounding today.  

This statement would be accompanied by a listing of common interests that bring the countries together and competing interests which remain and which would be the subject of ongoing negotiation.  

While far beyond my capability to identify, today these issues might include:

• For Russia and the United States – Resolution of the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and Syria.

Russia’s involvement in tampering with U.S. elections through the use of social media and other means.  Similarly, their involvement in what is seen as efforts to undermine democracy in Western Europe.  

• For China and the U.S. – Reaching a constructive agreement on the ongoing trade war, including the honoring of intellectual property.  Negotiation on the trade and intellectual property issues, of course, are ongoing.  However, the likelihood of reaching agreement on a path forward is far more likely to occur if the discussion were taking place in a context that we are not dealing with each other as existential enemies.  

• For all these countries, the control of nuclear weapons would be subjects for negotiation, with the understanding that this process would be a long and continuing one.

Some will say even trying to undertake this effort is a fool’s errand, for either of two reasons. First, because they believe that Russia (and perhaps China as well) is out to fundamentally undermine our form of governance, much as communism did. They will point to election interference as primary evidence. I agree Russia at some level has done this.and it needs to be confronted directly and strongly and actions taken to defuse whatever attempst are made. However, without claiming to be sure I have the right answer, I believe this is more a defensive reaction than a concerted strategic plan and most importantly I see it most unlikely to have a decisive impact on election outcomes.

The other reason for considering this a proverbial fools errand is that so many other efforts to do what I am advocating—the League of Nations and United Nations being two--have failed to achieve lasting peace. My proposal here could easily be looked at as another ill fated venture into Wilsonian utopianism.

I acknowledge this possibility.  I have lived longer than long enough to come to appreciate man's darker instincts including the quest for power and tragic instinct to see the "other' as an "enemy".  While previous efforts to prevent the outbreak of devastating global warfare though united action have failed, should we not keep open the possibility that now knowing the world-ending potential of nuclear weapons, and learning from failed previous efforts, we will be motivated to put in place a process that will work?

Really, what choice to we have? The alternative is sobering and frightening:   The three major powers of the world viewing ourselves as existential enemies, building up unending defense budgets, increasing the risk of accidental conflict, arguing from a win-lose frame of mind, cooperating only on the margin without established trust based on deep channels of negotiation.  That is an alternative we cannot and should not accept. Conscious of the possibility of failure but even more conscious of the importance of doing it right, we must try. We owe if to the generations of the future. 

*****

Even if we concede that Russia and China do not represent existential threats  the question presents itself: are there are other nations—or movements—that do represent existential  threats in terms of intent and capability.  Yes, I believe there are. The most significant threat I see comes from states or movements committed to the expansion of radical Muslim ideology and way of living. ISIS is such a movement and it has expansionary ambitions. I believe Iran is such a nation. Failed states, like Iraq and Syria, represent the natural prey of this threat and so does Pakistan. 

 What must be avoided at all costs is allowing these entities to gain access to weapons of mass destruction. The containment of this threat must be joined by the all theleading nations of the world. 

This should take place within multi-national networks such as the G-7 and United Nations.

.

Use of nuclear weapons should be renounced and treaties established to reduce the number of nuclear weapons which now exist and their delivery systems. The most important concrete objective which must be met to preserve the world as we know it is to minimize insofar as possible the risk of nuclear war, including by accident and long term deterioration of the earth’s environment by adopting protocols as the Paris Accord did informed by continuing learning and development of technology. 

USChinaRussia090919

 Reply  Reply All  Forward