Photo source: www.EZZAL.com

I came across an interesting article by Michael Schrage titled "The Creativity Crisis? What Creativity Crisis?" in which the author challenges a frequently expressed fallacy that America is short on creativity. Citing as evidence amazingly creative activities taking place at university labs, 10K business planning competitions, Silicon valley incubators, Texas industrial parks, and all across America, Schrage concludes: "The most important thing to understand about America's 'crisis of creativity' is that there isn't one." As a general rule, Americans are just as creative as ever and perhaps even a bit more creative as companies seek ways to survive and thrive in a broken economy.

I found Schrage's article to be refreshing and encouraging. After all, we hear so many negative things said about America today, shockingly most of which are coming from our leaders in Washington. This brings me to the main point of this post. You see, I disagree somewhat with Schrage. I think there is one sector of our nation that seems to suffer from a lack of creativity. I'm talking about the liberal/progressive left.

To understand why I say this, you have to look at the big picture. For as long as the earliest empires in human history, dating perhaps as far back as the Akkadian Empire of Sargon the Great in the 24th century BC, mankind has known the type of political government that controls every aspect of the lives and activities of its subjects. There were some notable exceptions to this and some amazing political experiments, perhaps the most notable being the brief period of democracy in ancient Sparta which was championed by the great Socrates (although Plato reports him later as rejecting democracy but there is debate about whether Plato put those words into the mouth of Socrates, Plato being the one who really hated the idea of democracy). The point is that a free people is a relatively new concept on planet earth. Though the following diagram is not intended to be a scientifically accurate depiction, it does portray the general concept that I'm talking about.

The reason I say that the liberal/progressives are lacking in creativity is that all they seem to be able to come up with for solutions to our nation's problems is more government control which expresses itself as more regulations, higher taxes, less individual freedoms, and the demonization of Capitalism. Looking at it from the larger picture depicted in the diagram above, there is nothing new or progressive about it. Those who seem to hate Capitalism these days, are looking at things from an extremely myopic point of view. Prior to Capitalism (or the Free-Market system), people were not free to create their own businesses and make and sell products to fill the needs of their neighbors without having to worry about government intervention. The American experiment that narrowly limits government's span of authority and allows business to developed freely brought about the greatest influx of creativity that planet earth has ever seen.

But now, we are in the process of slowly but surely, drip by drip, "progressively" regressing to the statism of pre-1776. We are like the Israelites who, when faced with the challenges of taking Canaan, cried out to Moses:

Why is the LORD bringing us into this land, to fall by the sword? Our wives and our little ones will become plunder; would it not be better for us to return to Egypt? (Numbers 14:3).

Like them, we face many giants to overcome and, like them, it seems that many people in our country today want to "return to Egypt," where their "masters" took care of them, where they were provided three meals a day by the state, and where they did not have to think or create for themselves.

Liberal/progressives apparently think that it is an effective strategy to constantly accuse conservatives of not offering real solutions. That is patently false. I contend that the most creative solutions today are coming from the business world (not the academic world of esoteric political theory, but the tire-meets-pavement world of entrepreneurship) and from the states (not from the Federal Government).

For example, a recent Harvard Business Review article asks the question: "Should your business be 'for benefit'?" The article describes a marvelously creative solution to the problem of long-term business stability and environmental responsibility. One of the core reasons why companies are failing in both of these areas is U.S. corporate law that forces them to put the financial interests of their shareholders above all other considerations. Of course, the shareholders are interested first and foremost in immediate profitability. This has made it very difficult to plan for the long-term health of the company and to choose strategies that are more healthy for the environment.

The state of Vermont, however, has come up with a potentially effective solution to the problem called the "for benefit" company. What this bill does is it gives the company a level of legal protection to make investments with an eye to long term sustainability and not just quick returns payable to shareholders. This is creative and it flows not from the Federal Government but from a state which is, believe it or not, quite interested in the success of business in that state. Notice also, that it's not about imposing more regulations on these companies but it's about protecting their freedom to make decisions and plans as they see fit. It is a liberating legislation that is good for shareholders (in the long run), good for employees who can count on a stable workplace, and good for the environment.

This is just one example of the many ways that Americans are being creative and finding solutions without turning over their freedom to Big Brother. I would like to challenge some of my liberal/progressive friends to see if they could possibly suggest a solution or two that does not involve bigger federal government, more regulations, and less individual and/or corporate freedom. Is that possible?

As I have mentioned in previous posts, I am becoming acquainted with the writings of the Danish philosopher and theologian, Søren Kierkegaard. In this post, I share a passage that hit me pretty hard as I read it. He has reminded me that ministry to the needy is the heart of true religion. In this passage from Training in Christianity, Kierkegaard is talking about Jesus' invitation to "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give your rest" (Matthew 11:28, KJV). As you read it, think about your organization's policies and practices regarding the disabled and the forgotten of our society. Do our organizations have peripheral vision, the ability to see the people who are suffering? Or are we so busy striving for our own success that we overlook the needs of the hurting who live all around us?

Cathedral in Cefalu, Sicily, Italy

Mere intellectual belief often does not have the power to change anything. What is lacking is the kind of belief that transforms reality through action. Jesus tried to help his disciples understand this concept when he talked about "continuing" in his word (John 8:31). The idea is that true belief does not occur until we make a commitment to the truth we seek to understand.

So you're the manager and you have a problematic employee. Though the situation calls for a response, you don't know whether to be the good, the bad, or the ugly. You are reluctant to take direct disciplinary action because it's just not that serious. The solution might be worse than the problem. Yet, you have to deal with the situation somehow. So, what do you do? You might get some help from Max Weber.

It seems that race-baiting has become second nature to the left. Perhaps the most flagrant recent case was that of the NAACP in their resolution condemning alleged Tea Party Racism. If left alone, the American people are a fundamentally good people and judge people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. We have won a tremendous victory in this country for freedom and equality through the abolishment of slavery and then the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s.

In discussions with almost anyone these days about almost any topic, it has become monotonously habitual for some parties to accuse others of lacking balance, as though the goal of balance were the only and ultimate criterion for attributing value to one's opinion. Underlying this accusation is the unspoken assumption that a balance of opinion is always superior to an opinion that weighs heavier in one direction or the other.

I love pie, particularly blueberry pie. When I was a kid, the dividing up of the pie was always an ordeal because there were seven of us including Mom and Dad. But if there were only one portion left and it had to be divided between my brother and me, then my Mom came up with a great idea (or borrowed it from someone). She had one of us cut the pie and the other had the first choice of which piece he wanted. I think the attempt to cut a pie so that its portions are equal illustrates the worldview of many people when it comes to economics and politics.

Guest contribution by Alexis Bonari

I would love to have seen the faces of the twelve disciples when Jesus, the Son of God, leaned over to wash their feet as He explained in John 13, that "a servant is not greater than his master, nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him." Jesus goes on to say "If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them." To me, this is a great example of leadership and its true meaning. What makes a great leader? Who better to consult than the greatest leader ever, Jesus Christ.

I ran into an article by Peter Bregman in the Harvard Business Review blog in which he cites research done by Bronnie Ware. Ware spent many years nursing people who had gone home to die. Being in the presence of those who were dying, she often heard them express their greatest regrets.

When I went on vacation two weeks ago, I took with me several books that I had on my shelves that I intended to read, one of which is A Kierkegaard Anthology edited by Robert Bretall. A quote from Kierkegaard's "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" got me thinking about the nature of understanding and its political implications. Kierkegaard wrote:

I just finished reading Linchpin by Seth Godin and I must say that there is a lot in this book that I found disagreeable, which I won't go into right now. However, the author does make a good argument for the need today for innovative, tradition-breaking individuals in the workforce. The environment today is changing so rapidly, that companies simply cannot afford to do business as usual.