TRUMP AND THE POPE

The obvious of drama of a collision between these two men lies in the contrast among them: The celibate and the lecher, the ascetic and the billionaire, the mystic and the billionaire materialist.

But we shouldn’t forget that their similarities are also fascinating. For all the ways Trump and the Pope differ as figures on the global stage, they’re also strangely alike. For all the ways in which Francis and Trump differed, you should know that I quarreled with myself whether to title this short essay as “Trump and the Pope” or “The Pope and Trump.” Then I decided I would focus on both their similarities and their differences and decided it really didn’t make any difference.

Their differences began when the pope, in a rambling press conference on the papal plane recently, mentioned that Trump was “not a Christian” for wanting to build a wall on the U. S. and Mexican border. That brought a retort from Trump when he explained that only his administration would save the Vatican from ISIS.

The Pope  and Trump differ, as figures on the global stage, but they’re also strangely alike there too – in the forces that they’re channeling, their style of public salesmanship and their relationship to the institutions they either head or aspire to lead.

This resemblance begins with their status as “outsiders bent on shaking up their establishments,” which they (and many others) deem to be sclerotic and corrupt. When Trump attacks Republican elites and breaks with party orthodoxy on trade and foreign policy or campaign finance, he’s mirroring the way Francis “challenges the hidebound Vatican bureaucracy and flirts with revising settled Catholic doctrine.” Both messages appeal to the same type of exhaustion we have with institutions, the same desire to somehow “make a mess” as Francis likes to put it, and to start anew.

This mirroring extends to their rhetoric, where both men have a fondness for “name calling” that is rare for presidential candidates as well as among popes. However, the insults differ: Trump calls people “low energy” “liar” and “loser,” while Francis prefers “Pharisee” and “self-absorbed Promethean neo-Pelagian” (though he is not above using “whining” and “sourpuss”) as well. But their pungent language reflects a shared mastery of the contemporary media environment, in which controversy and unpredictability are the great currencies, and having people constantly asking, “Did he really just say that?” Questions like that are the surest ticket to getting the world’s attention.

The public style of both of these men that produces these “say what” moments can get both of them in different kinds of trouble. But the billionaire and the pontiff both seem to believe that a little troublemaking is the best way to make the disaffected pay attention.

And by reaching people who usually tune out churchmen and politicians, they have each become leading populists in our increasingly populist society. The popular constituencies they speak for (ant to) are very different, of course. Trump is a nationalist, speaking on behalf of the unhappy Western working class while Francis is a Latin American and a globalist, speaking for the developing poor – which is why immigration policy seems to naturally puts them at loggerheads.

However, they do face a common enemy: Not just as specific guardians of business as usual, whether Catholic or Republican, but the wider Western ruling class. Whether it is Donald attacking “the very stupid people” making policy in the United States or Francis deploring the greed and self-interest of rich nations and wealthy corporations, the pope and the mogul are now leading critics of the neo-liberalism that has governed the West for a generation or more.

Said another way, the Republican Party needs reinvention and the church needs reform, but the message they are both delivering has a way of downplaying the value of rules, customs and traditions in protecting people from the rule of novelty and whim.

Populism is always perilous because it relies too much on the power of charisma, and tears down too much of the shared quest to make American great again or similarly, making Catholic Christianity great again.

But in the final analysis, the last thing they have in common is this: Everything that makes them interesting makes them dangerous as well!!

THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX

As we continue to think of our colleges and universities as being the backbone of American economic and scientific growth, we also continue to rely on them to be on the cutting edge of innovation and other new ideas.

Following World War II the government doubled down in its investments in our nation’s colleges and universities, helping drive needed corporate growth, intellectual property and technological innovations that became the envy of the world. And since the technological boom of the 1990s, we’ve been sitting on a golden opportunity – an imperative, really – to evolve the university model once more.

But now our universities are falling behind our own expectations. Legacy thinking, outdated teaching models and poor facilities, among other things, leave us at risk for failing our students – some of whom are given low scores for preparedness across key learning outcomes, such as analytical thinking and applying their skills to the real world. Furthermore, bureaucracy and red tape are hindering our research efforts. According to one study, investigators working on federally sponsored research projects spend 42% of their time doing administrative tasks surrounding their respective research projects.

For example, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, researchers spend roughly $170 million a year complying with too-often vague, complex or duplicative state and federal regulations.

If we are to keep pace with a fast-changing world, we need to take quick and drastic actions to make our universities more nimble. How can we do that? How can we be more efficient? What’s inhibiting us? And where do we have opportunities to make the educational experience more relevant and practical?

Perhaps the first step is to look at ways to improve the key aspects of undergraduate and graduate education. One possible thing is to “flip” classrooms – move away from the lecture-style format and toward “learner-centered teaching” where students watch lectures at home and spend class time solving problems and debating issues. When that is done, it has been shown that some instructors have been able to completely eliminate the achievement gap between first-generation students and the other students in the same classroom. It has also resulted in cutting the achievement gap for African-Americans in half.

Currently we have a “winner-takes-all” mentality in student tests and college grants. This tells us that we need to embrace a team-based model of problem solving –one that represents the way work is done in the outside world where partnerships and varied perspectives are encouraged to solve complex problems.

Additionally, universities must find new ways to accelerate their “basic” research and make it “applicable” to the larger world quicker. The bulk of “basic” research takes place on our college campuses and once it moves off campus, the research and development sectors of private industry find funding, resources and spaces to move it along to the “application” stage much quicker.

If we can find a way to involve students in the entire process, as research moves along from being “basic” to the commercially viable stage of making it “applicable,” we can make education more practical; especially when we bring together the private sector with the education process in various forms of partnerships.

As Charles Darwin said, “the species that are the most likely to survive are those that are best adapted to change.” Thinking this way should compel our colleges and universities to prepare students to address both new and pressing societal challenges as well as emerging opportunities head-on; whether it is in the classroom or outside of it.

THINKING BEYOND THE NEST EGG

Many of us “old folks” who have scrimped and saved enough money to see us through our retirement years, then face another hurdle when we pull the trigger on retirement, which is that of finding meaning, identity and purpose in the remaining years of our life.

It has been proven that having a “nest egg” is not enough and virtually all of us find something is missing – beside our work schedule. When we choose to retire early and before we reach 65, that “something” can actually haunt us. This causes folks to look back and understand that their entire focus for their retirement years has centered on money and the amount they would need; giving short shrift to these other important personal needs.

Much of this relates back to the emphasis that the media and the people who pay for that media (think advertisers) put on the importance of having enough retirement money in the bank; creating a focal point that is hard to change once we retire. It is not hard to figure out why advertisers are so direct with their message, because it is how they make money themselves and realize that advertising “meaning, identity and purpose” are not quantities they can sell to make money.

When people find themselves having enough money, but little else, they typically find themselves asking what they will do for the rest of their life if money wasn’t an issue and they only had one day or just a few years left to live. The answers are difficult, but also give them a renewed focus on what is “really” most important to them.

However, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that statistics show that, while money is important to survive in our retirement years, few of us have the problem I am speaking of in this essay – having enough money but not being prepared for the intangibles of meaning, identity and purpose.

At any rate, real experts say that preparing for retirement is a process that involves self, family and community. Having these things in front of us can only help us attain a human setting based on comfort and support. This might involve asking ourselves: What am I wired for? Responding to this question leads us to take an inventory of who we are. This in turn, revolves around our aptitudes and what our active pursuits are that involve the mind, body and spirit.

Another aspect of retirement is that there is an abundance of anxiety that surfaces when we retire. So, this means we need to ask ourselves: How we can make ourselves be at ease and what makes us comfortable? Going through this process, helps us live through the myth that once we retire, we are going to leave our work behind us. We forget that our work was really our identity in life and we should understand that we cannot make the change to retirement without a series of bumps in the road.

Moreover, we need to remember that retirement is an individual venture, even though we might be married or have a partner. Part of it is also different for men and women. In my case, the pursuit of writing on a daily basis and making pottery have filled my needs just as reading and making jewelry has fulfilled Carol’s desires. However dangerous it might be, I even think of my writing as being similar to having a job. But when I think of other things I might do in my retirement years, writing takes so little physical energy and it helps keep my mind occupied each day – giving me the feeling I will be able to write up to the end.

It is important to remember that retirement is not about being busy, it’s about being engaged.

r

THE “UBER” EFFECT

That process now starts with a call on  a smart phone. As a country, we have pretty much accepted the role of “Uber” as a ride sharing alternative to buses and taxis, and even our cars.

Now it has also effectively tapped into the “car pooling” business too. Unlike a standard “Uber” ride, in which a single rider starts a one-time trip, the company now envisions the car pooling business as the future of transportation in America.

The app, and unlike a standard “Uber” ride, in which a single rider starts a one-time trip, this new service, called “Uber Pool” works like a party line for cars. When a rider specifies a destination, a significant discount becomes available when other riders are going to the same place or even to a different place along the way. In effect, it becomes like a bus line where pickups and drop-offs are made along the way, creating a certain economy for the company as well as the driver, and obviously the riders.

The closest thing I can think of when describing this service was when I was attending college and I would ride the bus home on certain week-ends and request the driver let me off before my destination so my parents would not need to come to the next town to pick me up.

In effect, “Uber Pool” is very similar to a kind of instant bus line created through a new kind of collective urban demand. It is a way the company benefits by collapsing four or five different rides into a single one with the trade-off being cheaper rides for a person who does not have a tight schedule. The company earns more money from the multiple riders, even though the amount collected from each rider is less than what would be collected from a single rider going to a single destination.

“Uber” and “Uber Pool” benefit when rides get cheaper, because it means that for more riders in more cities, “Uber” becomes cheaper than owning a car. And when that happens, the ride sharing company can easily become a transportation mainstay in that city.

It is no secret that “Uber” has had a polarizing effect in many cities. Though it is beloved by many riders, with the way it has muscled into cities and the public consciousness, and the manner in which it has altered labor relations and urban planning has had the effect of rattling urban planners, lawmakers, activists, and sometimes, even its own drivers.

Now, the advent of “Uber Pool” raises the stakes another notch because it reduces prices and increases volume and carries the notion that if it ultimately succeeds, the company could have a much larger impact on urban mobility, labor, the environment, local economies and the national transportation infrastructure than we have thought of – and its effects could confound the expectations of its harshest critics.

Today, in the 29 cities where “Uber Pool” is operating, the concept is profitable. In fact, in cities like Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and San Francisco, it now accounts for more than half of “Uber” rides. Lyft, “Ubers” main competitor, says that its car-pooling service, called “Lyft Lines” has also become a sustainable business. Now, Lyft has introduced a separate car pool service focusing only on daily commuters – a direct assault on public transportation.

Both of these companies have goals of getting people out of their cars when they drive individually to work each day. The economies could be enormous and the wear and tear on our highways could be diminished greatly.

With the possible reduction of traffic as part of their mission, these two companies could have an enormous impact on how all of us get around in the future. I even have trouble getting my head around what will happen when driverless cars come on the scene.

That will add another dimension to how we choose to travel.

 

THE SEASON OF NUPTIALS

As it turns out, if January is our cruelest weather month here in Minnesota, then June is often the happiest – at least for those hoping to say, “I Do.” Surveys show that in America, about 16% of all wedding occur in June, making it the most popular wedding month. In many parts of the country, flowers area at their peak and the weather is perfect in June. What could go wrong?

As it turns out, a great deal. With so much riding on a particular day, weddings occupy a curious place in the human psyche, wedged somewhere between the heights of ecstasy and the depths of despair. It brings to mind the notorious “Red Wedding” episode a few years back in HBO’s “Game of Thrones,” in which the host Lord Frey massacres his helpless guests, may have pushed the envelope too far in terms of good taste, but its bloody denouement came as no surprise to lovers of tragic opera – or the classics.

The ancient Greeks regarded weddings as potentially very dangerous. Too much happiness was thought to incur the wrath of the gods. Only a prodigious number of sacrifices could stave off disaster, and even then the slightest mistake could upset all of the careful preparations. Having a wedding day transformed into a funeral was a stock theme in Greek mythology and poetry. In one version of the Trojan War narrative, Iphigemia, the daughter of King Agamemnon, walks to the altar dressed as a bride, unaware that she is about to be killed to appease the goddess Artemis, who had held up the warrior’s voyage to Troy.

Many cultures have linked weddings with death, often in the form of a bridal dirge about saying farewell to the family. In China, bridal mourning endured up until modern times. According to custom, the bride, about to be thrown to the mercies of her mother-in-law, spent her final three days of freedom curding and crying. With the help of other female members of her family, she sang a series of “kuge” (weeding songs,) and “hunge” (marriage laments) for the death of her old happy self.

However, the idea of wedding mourning never caught on in America, although Consuelo Vanderbilt wasn’t too far off the mark with her uninhibited display of miserly conduct before her marriage (arranged by her mother) to the Duke of Marlborough in 1895.

Of course, it isn’t just women who have regarded their wedding day with an impending sense of doom. Lord Byron managed to put his off for six weeks until he ran out of excuses and married Annabella Milbanke in 1815. His deep gloom was so contagious that as the couple drove away with their horse and buggy, Byron’s best man said that “he felt like he had just buried a friend.”

At least Byron had remained sober, unlike King George IV, who was so drunk during his wedding to Princess Caroline in 1795 that he could barely stand up. He compounded that insult by leering at his mistress, Lady Jersey, throughout the entire ceremony. His marriage, like that of Byron’s, was not a success.

But all is not lost for those of us who began planning for the “Big Day” in elementary school. We can still take heart from Shakespeare’s confidence that, “all’s well that ends well in any wedding.”

THE SABBATH

Sadly, the Sabbath has taken many turns in my life after it was ordained to be a day of rest as commanded by the bible for many years.

Sunday was a dichotomy in my early life at home. My dad’s family had a history of working on that day and my mom’s family had observed the day as a day of rest, only interrupted by the need to feed the animals on the farm and milk the cows on that day. As I have grown older, I not sure my mother was ever able to embrace the change that my dad brought to her life.

Although I never knew my grandpa Horihan (my mother’s dad), because he died when I was very young, I heard may stories about how he would get up to do the farm chores early on Sunday morning and then change into dress clothes (suit and tie) to attend church and remain in those clothes the rest of the day until it was time to milk the cows in the evening. That meant that he would always be ready to greet anyone who might come to their farm on Sunday for a visit and not need to apologize for his attire.

On my dad’s side of the family, just the opposite was true. While they dressed appropriately for doing the farm chores in the morning, they also changed clothes to attend Mass; but immediately after Mass, they changed back into their work clothes and devoted the rest of the day to work on the farm, never needing to change clothes again that day as they would always be ready to do the evening chores. In deference to the farm families who would go to town to attend Mass, the local grocery store in Fountain (where my dad’s church was located) would open for 30 minutes after Mass so those farm families could purchase necessities and save another trip to town later in the week.

It was no secret that my dad’s way of conducting ourselves on Sunday followed his earlier pattern. I can almost still hear his voice in the car on the way home from Mass on Sunday morning when he would exhort me to hurry up and change my clothes because we had work to do. However, that exhortation was usually preceded by his demand that I catch a couple of roosters and get them ready for my mother to cook for Sunday dinner. I also recall that most of the work that I did on Sunday was a type of “make work” that he might have thought of at Mass – like getting the sythe out and sharpening the blade so I could cut thistles in the pasture. Considering the size of our pasture and the number of thistles, that was a full day’s work in its own right.

All of the stores in Lanesboro were closed all day Sunday as were all other commercial businesses. However, after the war, our town (Lanesboro, Minnesota) voted to have the sale of beer available after 1 p. m. on Sunday, so that meant the taverns in town would be open for four or five hours each Sunday. The sale of beer on Sunday in Lanesboro was an anomaly in our county in that our town was the only one that had voted to sell beer, so Lanesboro became a magnet for all of the people who desired to purchase beer. That eventually led to the popularity of our local town baseball team, which played their games on Sunday. Fans would drive down to the ballpark and sit in their car all around the outfield and drink beer during the game – their version of having a good time on Sunday.

As the years passed, merchants in town saw the possibility of selling other items to the crowds’ assembled in Lanesboro on Sundays and many of them eventually opened their doors for customers.

This trend eventually cascaded into virtually all stores being open on the Sabbath and that day no longer having any particular significance in the minds of many people. It also gave rise to people arranging schedules for various other events on Sunday afternoon at first, but it also led to the complete abandonment of Sunday as being a day of worship only.

Today, Sunday has evolved into just another day on the calendar and there is no stopping when it comes to scheduling almost any activity on that day. My grandparents on my mother’s side of the family would be appalled by the change.

THE RULE OF LAW

The rule of law always seems to have exceptions that sometimes tug at our hearts. The recent Supreme Court decision to not allow President Obama’s “Executive Order” to override a piece of settled law on how undocumented immigrants are to be handled is a prime example.

Obama’s use of “Executive Orders” to see life as he sees it has always been an example of “overreach” in a government that has built in “checks and balances” supported by a tested constitution. It is sometimes pointed out that he has not used this type of governing more than most other presidents, but we forget that Obama seemingly only uses it for political reasons. It is difficult to point out any use of “Executive Orders” that is not a vote getting adventure into the unknown.

It is argued that he has no personal interest in the next election because he is not running for any office, but that is not totally correct. It is evident that he is using this vehicle to preserve his legacy. His presidency has been suspect from many different fronts – from his handling of foreign affairs to the fact that he has introduced so many onerous regulations on the domestic economy – that he has much to fear if another Democrat is not elected to the office he currently holds.

As for the immigration law, Obama feels he can corral several thousand votes by not deporting illegal Mexicans and other illegal immigrants who have entered America through our southern border. He has not followed the law for several years, allowing these folks to marry and have children; which binds them further to the United States.

That is where the importance of “exceptions” comes in. Obama understands that any exception will have a “heart-tugging” aspect that will give his position an advantage over the law. His constant agitating against the law is the way he has always operated ever since he was a community organizer in Chicago before pursuing elective office.

There are many cases where illegal immigrant mothers have been in this country for years, working as housekeepers for wealthy families, taking their kids to work because they could not afford a babysitter. Yet, they became a target for exploitation because they could do nothing if they ever got “stiffed” by some equally wealthy matron because she (they) could not use the court system to right some wrong.

In another way, housekeepers may have been the heroes of the immigrant economy we all live in – they do their work silently, efficiently and then find money on the table after their work is done. But this too, presents another problem. These housekeepers do not add anything to our economy when they do not pay taxes on the money they receive, yet they are never turned away when a medical emergency arises nor are they ever asked any questions at the food shelf they frequent.

We might feel sorry for these folks, as Obama certainly does, but they add little to our economy and are willing to take a lot. Yet, Obama only sees them as a vote and as preservers of his desired legacy after he leaves office.

 

THE RISE OF NEW WOMEN

Everyone from market experts to census analysts are telling us that an important new demographic is emerging in America. They are women happily pursuing the solo life into their 30s and 40s – and loving every minute of it.

At the same time, it is a far cry from prior decades, when marriage bought women a pass from one family home to another. Marriage vows were a potential ticket to economic stability not easily attained by an un-tethered woman, and above all, it was what society demanded.

Even as feminism took root, women were largely expected to jump into a lifelong contract with someone of the opposite sex while still in the throes of their youth. When they didn’t do that, they were ridiculed, called spinsters, or made to feel like their time was running out.

Young women today are reclaiming singlehood as a point of pride, not shame. They are marrying later, or not at all. And they are doing it in shocking numbers, changing the course of modern dating and relationships.

The road to remaining single differs for everyone. Some women faced with all the opportunities once withheld from their mothers and grandmothers, fall in love with their careers first and foremost and found that their career provided the necessary satisfaction they desire.

In an era where women can easily own property and launch businesses, more of them are seeing dating and marriage as being unnecessary. That’s not to say they might change their mind someday, but they remain perfectly happy taking the tortoise’s pace in the race to the altar or, if they decide to take it at all.

This recent demographic shift has actually been monumental. Ten years ago, one on three women ages 25 to 34 had never been married. Today, it’s more like half. And while it was expected in 1960 that women would get married around the age of 20, today most women who chose marriage, wait another seven or more years before marrying.

That gives these women a decade or more of independence than their mothers had. Plus, American’s attitude toward marriage has become more ambivalent. According to a Pew study, 46 percent of Americans say it is better for society if marriage and children are a priority, but 50 percent say society is just as well off without such a priority.

Some women find that it has taken them a long time to realize that they don’t want to share their life with another person, but merely want to be a part of other people’s lives without being the main focus. Friends and family are enough in their lives. Some also realize this might be thought of as a selfish attitude, but they are comfortable in their current state.

The only drawback to a single life is that as women get older, they don’t have anyone to take care of their physical needs; so for many of them living in our transitory society, it is important that they assume some type of communal living arrangement in an apartment or condo where someone can look in on them daily to make sure everything is okay in their life.

 

 

THE REAL FIGHT IN WASHINGTON

There is a fight going on in Washington that is seldom, if ever, spoken about. It involves the political order in America.

Entrenched politicians and the mainstream media don’t view it as fight as much as it is their effort to preserve the political status quo in America. It is really just a battle to maintain a comfort zone that these folks have become accustomed to and feel should be preserved to meet their individual interests. That means it is about elections and jobs.

The politicians see it as a necessary vehicle to ensure their re-election and the media types see it as a way to protect their domain for dispensing the nightly news. For the most part, the battle lines that are drawn are most evident among and by Republicans who remain unwilling to embrace Donald Trump and his thoughts and words about the future of America. They view him as one would a tornado – difficult to deal with and unpredictable.

The same thing is happening on the Democratic side of the table with Bernie Sanders, but it exists for different reasons. His message might be just the opposite of that proclaimed by Trump, but when we consider everything they are both “disrupters” in the field of politics.

We have become fond of “disrupters” in the technological world because new entrants have surfaced to tear down the existing barriers so the public can enjoy more conveniences at lower costs than currently exist in the regular order of events. Sure, Uber, Lyft and Airbnb are having their own troubles getting their businesses developed, but they will eventually succeed as people in our democratic society find ways to tear down regulatory barriers to give themselves a chance to enjoy the services of these companies; governed only by increased efficiency and low participation costs.

The barriers to change that exist in the political world may even be greater and higher, but when they come down, the noise will be loud because those barriers and the people who currently enjoy them are so embedded in their ways. This means that our Washington based politicians are so entrenched with their ideas of how things are supposed to work that they actually fear change more than people in the private sector do. We saw this played out earlier this week when Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, called out Trump for criticizing a judge and then again when Trump himself, called for a ban on allowing Muslims into our country with little or no vetting by our government.

The latest example of a politician trying to protect us with his “political correctness” was President Obama who got so caught up in his choice of words of criticism toward Trump at a news briefing yesterday (June 15, 2016) that he forgot to speak directly to the victims and their families in Orlando – failing to offer them a sense of renewed unity and comfort for their losses. His words were over politicized and under moralized. Once again, the scene he created was nothing short of being juvenile.

Right behind the politicians are the folks in the mainstream media. It was interesting last week when Donald Trump called out an ABC reporter at his press conference for being a “sleezeball,” the evening news program with David Muir harshly criticized Trump in subsequent programs, by putting news about the reporter in a bad light. This type of retribution was also nothing more than juvenile and showed how protective the networks are toward preserving the status quo, especially when their responsibility is to merely report the news, not make it.

Trump is no panacea for our country, but the responses he prompts from politicians and media types is confirmation that he is not only hitting a hot button, but the reaction from these folks is defensive and protective –and maybe ripe for change.

Jesse Ventura punched through the thick wall of the political world to capture the governorship of Minnesota as a Reform Party candidate in the gubernatorial election of 1998, and we survived. Who can say that an outsider might be good for our country at this time?

 

THE POWER OF “WHY?”

It may seem unusual, but many chief executive officers (CEOs) quietly express concern when their senior managers do not ask questions like, “Why? or “What if?” They know these people are smart, experienced and competent, but they don’t often express themselves enough when tough issues are surfaced at work.

Some of it may relate to the actions of the chief executive officer not being open enough emotionally enough so that these people can feel free to ask their questions. Most of us have had experience with this as many chief executives are not comfortable enough in their own skin to allow a completely free flow of discussion happen around business related decisions.

This may not have been a bad thing in the business world of a few years ago, where the rules for success were: Know your job, do your work and if a problem arises, solve it and don’t bother me (the CEO) with a lot of questions.

But increasingly business leaders actually want the people working for them and around them to be more curious, more cognizant of what they don’t know, and to be more inquisitive – about everything including “Why am I doing my job the way I do it? And “How might our company find new opportunities?”

Some of this relates to the boss wanting affirmation of his/her previous decision or, as is the case with an increasing number of bosses, they recognize that they don’t own the corner of good decisions so a little help might also help them keep their job.

Solid research shows that there are real forces in business today that are causing people to value curiosity and inquiry more than in the past – and smart bosses are recognizing that change and incorporating into their operating policies.

Most companies in many industries must contend with such rapid changes and rising uncertainties that the executives find themselves with a need to keep learning what’s new and anticipate what’s next. They are finding that it is difficult to do that without asking and entertaining questions from subordinates.

Moreover, asking and responding to questions can often spark innovative ideas that most companies hunger for in today’s business environment. Business books are full innovative ideas that were commercialized as highly successful products and services that emanated from some curious soul in the company who looked at a problem and asked insightful questions about it and how it might be tackled.

On a simply human front, we know that children ask questions well as preschoolers, but once they get into school our education system prides answers over questions so they lose the art of asking questions easily. Then when these people enter the workplace, they tend to confine their questions to fundamental ones that will reinforce their job status, but they also don’t ask a lot of questions because they are afraid it might show their ignorance or even slow things down at their company.

This gives rise to the concern: How do CEOs get people to ask more questions? Much of it can relate to rewarding these folks by merely giving them credit publicly for asking a good question. Other leaders find that if they are curious and inquisitive themselves; questions will natural flow at meetings all up and down through their company.

Needless to say, but this can happen at all levels of the hierarchy of any company and it doesn’t just need to happen only in the for-profit companies. It can happen in non-profits and even churches when their leaders embrace the idea of being open to new ideas.