My Path to leadership

Would you follow Daenerys?

2019-05-25T11:31:00.003+02:00

The final season of Game of Thrones has received a pretty negative response from a large portion of viewers, at least those audible and visible online in my surroundings.

There are gripes with pacing, character arcs, plot holes and inconsistencies. Hard to argue with that. But I don't think that's why people are actually unhappy. The reason we are unhappy is because Daenerys isn't the character and leader we had decided she was. And it is all the writers fault.

Now hang in there with me. Most will argue and even convince themselves that this is not the reason. That they have no problems with Daenerys turning out to be a tyrant or dying but that the way it happened needed to be different. Fine. Tell yourself that and be happy.

But I think the arc of Daenerys is one of the best, most realistic and powerful in a TV series I have seen. In fact, it accurately depicts our human history of masses following leaders.

We have to start by looking at why we loved her. We loved her because we followed her journey from the start, and her journey was our journey - identification. We loved her because we understood her intentions as good. Get rid of slavery. Free cities. Remove tyranny. We loved her because she was beautiful. Both in person, but also in style - her dresses, her hair, her face and smile, the visual esthetics of everything around her. It was a beautiful world to be in and around. And the opposite to the dirty mess of Westeros. We loved her because she had power. And she used it. Finally someone who was willing to do what was needed.

And on her journey we stood behind her. And not only did we behind the screen, but everyone she met did as well. When they gave her counsel that she ignored they would later admit she was right. When they gave her counsel she followed, it was her wisdom to do so. The decisions she took had outcomes we agreed with. Her values seemed to drive them. And all along it was destiny. In fact, from young age, she experienced only confirmation of being right, of being righteous and of being destined to free the people of the world. And we took the knee in front of "our queen".

If we look at authoritarianism in the real world, this is pretty much a blueprint of it. Leaders that emerge from circumstance that followers identify with. That point to the wrongs in society and gathers momentum as they are fought. That contribute to building a better world with tangible benefits for the people around them.

The most famous example is Hitler. In 1938, five years after taking powers, three years after the Nuremberg laws had been put in place against Jews, 15 (!) years after the first attempt to take over power in a democratic society by force, European leaders negotiated with Hitler and still saw in him some good. So did Germans - and not only "Nazis" that were brainwashed or crazy. Living standards had gone up, normal people had food on the table, society seemed to be moving in the right direction. Yes there were some "issues" but overall Hitler seemed to be on the right path. It is hard for us to imagine now, because in retrospect everything he has done has been analyzed through different glasses, but the rallies, symbolism, flags, salutes etc were considered "beautiful" - a part of the intoxication of the times. In fact, Hitler could do no wrong. He became a demi God to those around him.

When Hitler annexed Czechoslovakia, and later attacked Poland it was as if he had gone "mad". Even more so when he attacked the Soviet Union (so mad in fact, that Stalin would not believe the reports - it made no sense...). In fact, he "needed" to free the whole world. And they had the chance to shape the world the way they wanted. Freedom as they saw it. What about others' perspective of freedom? They don't have that choice, as Daenerys would say.

This is totalitarianism. The belief that "I know better" what is good, and people and institutions around that support this psychologically through re-enforcement as well as the lack of checks to power.

What were Daenerys checks and balances? Institutionally there were none. The closes were her advisors, who one by one died and were killed. By the end she had nobody and the institutions were not built for her to be challenged. She became trapped in her path of destiny. And in fact, just like Hitler, she never "went mad". There was never a moment.

Now, to the question of this post: Would you follow Danerys?

Based upon the reaction to the Game of Thrones (coupled with how we interpret the world around us), my observation is that so many are longing for a Daenerys to come along. And of course it will be the "right" Daenerys, who never turns mad (that's just the bad writers!!!). She will be beautiful and righteous, use her powers for good, and rid this world of evil.

When she comes - will you follow her?

On hypocrisy and projection

2016-11-11T14:25:00.003+01:00

Before I start this blog post I want to come with some qualifiers.

First of all the main reason that I am writing it is probably a need to get my emotions out there. Let me explain. I was not at all surprised that Donald Trump won the election, and in fact did not feel very much in the immediacy of the election result being announced - it was as I expected. However, the reactions that came to the elections triggered a lot of emotions in me. As I had expected the result I thought I was emotionally fine, but after a couple of days now, I realize I need to put my thoughts and emotions down in a more structured manner. Possibly, you don't really want to read those - if so, I suggest you stop reading here.

A qualifier on Trump himself. I find Donald Trump to be spectacularly unqualified to lead. More than anything, he represents a lack of humanity and care about people, which is the complete opposite of what I believe the world needs more of. I do not hold the right to vote in the US, but if I did, there is no combination of circumstance that would have me casting a vote for Trump. When I write about some policies later one, I want to re-emphasize this - I personally find Donald Trump to be the very representation of what I believe is wrong with leaders, perhaps in particular political leaders - but I would extend it also to business and NGOs, - today.

In the parallel universe where I have a vote, I would normally not vote for Clinton either. There are many things I admire about her, primarily I think she is actually highly competent for the job in question, in terms of analysis, decision making, experience etc. However, I also find that she lacks the qualities to unite people behind a common purpose, to engage people beyond her own followers emotionally, and that she very much plays the political game as opposed to seek to lead the world. Therefore, I would normally not vote for Clinton. However, in these elections, I absolutely would. I would possibly even campaign for her. For two reasons. Firstly she is running against Donald Trump - see above. And secondly, because she is a woman. I have often read, both before and after the election, that you should not vote for someone because of their gender (man or woman). In some future utopia I may hold that to be true. In this world, in this day and age, I would absolutely vote for someone because they are a woman. Not only if "all other things are equal" (that sentence anyway makes no sense whatsoever in reality). But because I really believe the world desperately needs more women in leadership roles, more female role models, and less leadership from a male world view (which I, being a man, represent if I want to or not). Therefore I would absolutely vote for Hilary Clinton because she is a woman. And I would absolutely vote for her because she is running against Donald Trump. And I think she is genuinely competent. I just wouldn't vote for her in most other parallel universes.

I mentioned I am writing this because I need to get out some emotions. The qualifiers are a part of that. As with some many contentious issues, we have gotten to the point where we (or at least I) are so afraid of being categorized, that it is almost impossible to give an honest opinion without any qualifiers. That's a shame, really. But I live in this world, so I do the same. You may choose to categorize and typecast me anyway. For the record, I am 34 year old white, privileged man. I have had access to education, I have been lucky enough to be picked up from the floor by society and other people when I have failed, and most of my success, if I have had any, I would ascribe to luck of the draw and to external circumstance. I understand that everything I write in this post will be deeply provocative to those who feel that someone like me will just never understand. I would tend to agree - I think I never will. That is also why I realized I needed a channel to sort my thoughts properly. In the last 48 hours I have posted random, probably passive-aggressive posts and comments on various social media, which has in fact been because of my lack of self-insight into my emotions on this, and the need to vent. To you that have seen those and wondered "what the fuck" - sorry about that.

So here goes.

6 months ago there were three "highly unlikely events" where people around me were asking "could it really happen?"

Could the UK really choose to leave the European Union? (Brexit)
Could Trump really become the next US President?
Could Leicester City really win the Premier League?

In conversations with friends and family I honestly feel that I was the only one that said. Yes, not only CAN the UK choose to leave the European Union - I honestly think they will. And yes, not only CAN Donald Trump become President, I genuinely believe he will. But no, there is no way that Leicester City can win the Premier League - trust me.

Now, for the record (for those that don't give a hoots ass about football), Leicester City won the Premier League. In my world view, this event was about 100 times less likely than any of the other outcomes. The reason being that winning a league title is really not random at all. It requires very consistent atheltic and technical performance over a long period of time by a lot of players. And those players are set together mainly based upon a completely unfair and uneven financial funding model. And Leicester City, being a small football team in England, just really did not have any chance at all to win the Premier League. For the record, the odds of them winning with the bookmakers were 5000/1. While people may think that Brexit and Trump were surprises, the odds did not approach anything in this stratosphere. Leicester winning the Premier League just doesn't happen. Except it did.

Now, this immediately puts my two other "predictions" into context. It is not as if I understand something fundamental that nobody else "gets". It is just, that from my point of view, Brexit and electing Trump makes a lot of sense. Actually, the opposite makes no sense at all. Britain's voting to stay in the European Union? Americans electing Hilary Clinton? If anything at all, looking back at this, I am surprised that the margins weren't bigger. Probably that's because people actually were scared by Nigel Farage and the Brexit brigade and landed on "remain", and people actually could not possible accept Trump as President and therefore voted for Hilary. I think that's why it was quite close. I know this is very opposite to most views, which go that people were scared into Brexit and lied to and manipulated into voting for Trump. Each their own reality I guess.

So how about Brexit and Trump then?

When discussing these events with close friends beforehand I stated quite clearly that I thought they would happen. Most of my friends reacted with some level of curiosity as they know me well enough to generally not represent those opinions. I think there are many levels to approach this, and I will try to explain it from a couple of different angles. Let me just start (and close) with stating that this is a result of real fundamental things about our societies not functioning at all. And I really mean at all.

But I will start somewhere else

In the last months I have said that if nothing else, Trump is right about one thing. The polls are way off. I think that those who believe some radical shift happened in the last minute or days are really just not seeing polling for what it is. Rubbish. In my opinion, and I stated this to everyone I spoke with before the elections, the main reason Trump will score lower in polls is because it is socially unacceptable for many people to vote for him. If you survey men on whether they watch porn on the internet, and even the amount of porn they may watch, even in completely anonymous surveys, you will get quite low numbers. For most men, not only are we embarrassed towards others stating that we watch porn. We are embarrassed towards ourselves. Therefore it doesn't really happen. Not really at all. Not even if we surveyed ourselves would it happen. And it happens even less if we are surveyed. Nobody votes for Trump. Or at least, for very many people, voting for Trump is just "not who I am". Psychologists call parts of this cognitive dissonance. Angry media call this lying. Well, call it what you want. The polls are way off. I think a real interesting question (for someone else to explore), is why something that we want to do (by instinct, habit, emotion or otherwise) becomes taboo. When stating your opinion in a poll becomes taboo, most social scientists know that the results cannot be used in quantitative analysis. At best, you may be able to draw some qualitative conclusions from them.

Yet here we are, surprised by the polls being wrong. Last night, on Norwegian television, there was a statistician on, who boldly predicted that "now that we have another data point, all we need to do is re-calibrate our models, and then they are better and more accurate for next time". Oh my dear God! My reaction to this was that I wanted to apply for a visa to the planet he lives on. Because in that planet everything must just make perfect sense. And that must be such an easy life. I haven't found the visa application yet, and probably they wouldn't let me in. I would be a really bad cultural fit there. I want that life, but I just don't fit in - that's the truth.

So, really, on a simple level - stating that Brexit would happen or that Trump would win, was quite "easy". All you had to do was look at the polls. It was quite close there (a few percentage points). Given taboo on the one side, just bump that side up a bit compensating for the taboo answer, and that side will win.

So come yesterday morning, Trump being President, I was not surprised at all. In fact, some of my friends wrote me straight away - "Wow, exactly like you said". Smug satisfaction was in fact followed immediately by a really shitty feeling. I wish I had been wrong. Trump as President really sucks. Brexit really sucks too. For the record, I was quite happy Leicester City won the Premier League.

Starting to read some media, opening Facebook and reading comments, however, I was shocked. People genuinely lived on a different planet than me. Most of my friends were both sad, and very surprised. I found this a bit strange, but I guess the combination of the media telling us the truth we want to hear (about the polls, possibly unwillingly) combined with our own world view (No Trump! Go Clinton) will make all of us believe the world we want to believe in. That goes for liberals, Breitbart reading conspiracy theorists, Daily Mail readers, Berlusconi voters, Football fans or anyone else. If we are told the world we like is also what is happening, we tend to believe it. So people then being surprised is not just a question of "getting the odds wrong", but also of what those odds meant to us emotionally. I realized today that all this triggered a lot of emotions in me - and this is a response on that.

When people are asking "why" Donald Trump won the election, I think the answer is right in front of our eyes. Yet, we are looking somewhere else, in some strange corner. Also, as the answer to this is obviously complex, we are emphasizing all the additional reasons, which - while being completely true - obscure the elephant in the room. I will get to the elephant, but let's look at some of the other reasons.

Discrimination against women?

I think that if you broke down the two candidates and controlling for all other elements than gender, (if that was possible), you would find that Hilary Clinton would probably win if she "was a man", and Trump would lose if he "was a woman" (The last mental exercise is particularly difficult, I find, which in itself says a lot about gender roles and how we - in this case me - project them). I have been lucky enough to grow up in one of the most gender equal societies in the world. My mother was working when we were small, Norway has significant parental leave for both parents, kindergarten is heavily subsidized and there are many other structural and cultural elements in place to encourage more equal participation in the workforce, as well as in other areas of life (ie. childcare). Despite all that, statistics are quite clear, even in Norway, that there are loads of differences. Over time, I have come to experience, mainly through the indirect experience of knowing so many talented women, that this discrimination is deep - very deep. In fact, most of it is hidden not only from view, but from consciousness, meaning it is actually not "bad people behaving like assholes", but rather projections that we don't even realise until we reall examine ourselves. Women, systematically, face huge discrimination across a huge number of areas, the most apparent of which is access to power in our societies (leadership roles, political roles, equal pay for equal work, social rights, right to decide over own body etc.). There is no doubt in my mind that Hilary faced discrimination throughout her career for being a woman, that in this particular election many of those deep rooted elements were present, and that all other things being equal she would have won the election. OK, so what's your point? Well, I think if you broke this discrimination down to "percentage" points, you would explain perhaps 3-10%, depending a bit. That's significant - significant enough that she would have won the election. But let's turn it around.

The real question about "what happened", is not really about "How did Donald Trump get more votes than Hilary Clinton?", although in our results-only-matter culture (it is sickening) that is all we seem to care about. The real question is why 60 million people voted for Donald Trump? 60 million! Take away 3% (1,8 million) or 10% (6 million), and the question still stands. Why did 54 million people vote for Donald Trump? While gender discrimination definitely can explain the result, it does not explain what is happening at heart. In fact,assuming Trump doesn't by accident launch nukes against Iran because he isn't getting enough Twitter replies in the middle of the night, it may actually help us in the long run that he won (I don't believe that, but hang with me for a second). If Trump had gotten 54 million votes, our media, ourselves would have just "proceeded as normal". No problem, right? It's just 54 million people. A couple of rednecks in one town and a couple of idiots in another village. Doesn't matter. The march to progress continues!

Racism and fear of immigration?

Yes. Simple answer to a complex question. The United States (and all other countries that I have been to, actually) has a huge amount of racism. Most of it is deep (as above). In addition to that this is mixed in with fear of immigration, which is partially racism, but also related to fear of the "other" more generally. The political analysis usually just lumps these elements into one big pot. "The minority vote" etc. etc. Well, more than 30% of Latinos in the swing state of Florida voting for Trump shows that things are not at all this simple. When it comes to immigration, my particular issue is the with absolute hypocrisy of Europeans. In fact, the "emigrate to Europe" (although probably Canada is mentioned even more frequently) is particularly ironic. European immigration policy is in fact so hostile, that most Americans would be denied migration to Europe, and if they were allowed they would quickly find that if the reason they did so was because of racism/fear og immigration in the US, they would quickly want to migrate back to America.

But what am I really getting at?

What has happened with Trump getting elected, or Brexit, or a number of other democratic developments in Western Societies in the las few years is not really that difficult to explain. On a very simple level, many people, in fact most people, feel that society is not working for them - it is working against them. Now, what makes this particularly complex is that while a majority feels that way, that is also the only thing that unites this majority. Some, illustrated by the #blacklivesmatter campaign, will break this down to fundamental structural inequalities based upon race and systematic discrimination. #himforher will highlight that woman are getting the short end of the stick - across the world. Others will point at trade deals and speak about communities being systematically torn apart, as stable jobs and families give way for Oxycodone abuse, domestic violence, alcoholism and decay. Others will talk about immigration, and the undercutting of jobs through foreigners - ie. the Polish plumber in the UK (btw - in Norway, we are very happy with our Polish plumbers usually). Others again, will speak about different values brought by people of other religions, of headscarves and Burkinis, the difficulty of integration and of urban ghettos in the outskirts of European cities. Others, again, will speak about corrupt politicians, or at best - politicians out of touch with the people. Uniting most people, big corporations and banks are to blame for everything, as surely those bonuses and trading schemes are incompatible with our current lives. And as quickly as we find the problems we have the ready made solutions.

More distribution to the poor! Build a wall to Mexico! Scrap those trade deals! Break up the banks! Drain the DC political swamp! Curb migration! Bomb Putin out of the Kremlin! (ok, I added that one, but it fits the picture). We are the 99%, so the saying goes.

But the awful truth is, there is no "we". We project our own insular communities, constructed on Facebook, in our limited social circles, in our small town or at our workplace and we project it upon a vast "other", where "I am like most people". That's why we (meaning liberal elites) are so shocked by Brexit and Trump. Nobody around me would vote for that. And actually, we don't even identify ourselves as elites. Most Millennials, and in fact most people I know will categorize themselves as victims of society along one or several fault lines - be it age, gender, sexual orientation, income bracket, property ownership, wealth, job security, ethnicity and many others. In fact, the only thing that unites us is our belief that others are better off, they are arrogant and don't understand our plight, and finally we will get our comeuppance.

My experience, post-Brexit, post-Trump, is that we seek to explain the world's events through the actions of others. Those other people that ruined things for us [me] unfairly. Rarely do we turn the mirror around on ourselves. Is it actually so that there is something I do not understand? Could it be that my behavior as a citizen is breaking my community apart? Is it possible that I am genuinely wrong about the people voting for Trump - that they are different than I think?

At the ultimate level of rethink. If the system isn't working for so many people. As in, fundamentally not working. May it be that actually they (others) are right? May it be that what is needed is not more fighting for what I believe in? May it be that we are not looking at a tweak and a turn? May it be not that the system is basically OK, and we just need to change some things? May it be that we have gone so far down the rabbit hole that we don't even know which way we came from?

The only thing we can honestly do something about is ourselves. But changing ourselves, being disciplined and open about that, is genuinely the hardest thing to do in the world. It requires a lifetime of commitment just to challenge yourself a few centimeters. So what can we do? I think that a fundamental solution is not to point at the system not working, but at ourselves and how I am a part of the system. How can I be more loving and caring? How can I listen more? How can my primary motivation for action be the well being of others? How can I choose to give up money and fame? How can I invest into my community?

These are only questions. No answers. But it is somewhere along this line that my frustration with election of Trump reached a boiling point. Because the opposite was / is happening. My liberal friends are angry and showing hatred towards Trump and those who voted for him. While that is fully understandable - it is the very behavior that has led to this dystopian society where he is elected. We must stop.

Post-hoc ad-hoc the "popular vote argument" pops up. The US is a federal system, which is why there is no overall popular vote winner takes all. While that might make more sense to many, I think people who make this claim are not aware neither of the presuppositions nor of the consequences of their hypothetical thoughts. First of all, if that was the system the election itself, including voter turnout, distribution of votes would be different. Perhaps even the actual candidates would be different. That is such a big variable shift, and not an independent one from the outcome, meaning that to insert it afterwards makes no sense. It is just an excuse to make you feel better. Secondly, if that was the case, that in practice means that the US would not be a federal republic. The US has always been a very diverse country, along many fault lines. One of them has already resulted in a civil war in the nation's history. If you over-night changed the way the President was elected, I genuinely think the result would be secession or civil war. I mean, perhaps that would be better for everyone? Why do you think that Europe is full of small little nations that can't agree on almost anything? Because we all want our own President. And even within our small nations we don't get along. But to just bring the "popular vote" argument to the table afterwards is really an off the chart bad argument. And wasn't that the whole argument a week ago? "Trump may not accept the result of the vote". Careful where you are going with this...

What about Trump's policy?

In my assessment (and let me be clear, I think some of this is really really complicated so I am not sure at all), much of Trump's policy seems quite inaccurate (as in, I think they deal with the symptoms of problems, not with causes). However, the whole "this is stupid" argument, I don't buy

Let's start with immigration.

There are basically three main policies that Trump has put forward on this field, all of which are met with absolute outcry. 1. Deport undocumented migrants 2. Build a wall to Mexico 3. Prevent Muslims from coming to the US. As policies they are inhuman, opposites to the ideas of freedom and opportunity, and despicable. However, to hear Europeans shocked by this is about as credible as neighbors of Auschwitz claiming they did not know what was happening next door.

In Norway (my own liberal, very open society), the estimates are that there are approximately 20,000 undocumented migrants. All political parties in parliament, bar none, completely agree that irregular (they call them illegal) migrants cannot live in the country. In fact, that makes sense. The whole idea of nationality and different rights for "us" and "them" based on that, is based upon the idea that "my country for me and my people". The Norwegian police is working every day, tirelessly to deport as many of these people as they can. In fact, that is their role. And while nobody "likes to see it", it is commonly accepted as something that needs to be done. Now, to put this into context, that means that in Norway (with 5 million people), around 1 in 250 people you may see on the street is an undocumented migrant. In the US, according to estimates, the number is approximately 15 million. That means that 1 in 20 people are. And the US, being actual much more liberal than ALL European countries when it comes to migration (now, before and probably in the future as well), this is an issue to many people. Call it racism, because yes - it is. But don't give me this hypocrisy that this is some sort of crazy Trump policy.

The wall to Mexico is particularly interesting. First of all, as a policy idea, it is probably quite bad (although, I am not expert). The cost of such a wall, compared to its impact, probably doesn't make much sense. However, there is nothing in that policy idea that is actually "wrong" compared to current laws and intentions of US policy (under the much beloved liberal leader of the free world Barrack Obama). US already implements very stringent border control, which anyone who has waited for hours on the Mexico-US border knows. The wall may not be smart policy, but it is tangible. And in fact, it is neither new, nor something we don't know about. Europe (that haven of liberal policies), has walls all around its Schengen borders. Australia, while adrift in South Pacific, pushes boats back with people trying to break that wall - to Nauru and other places. I mean, come on. On these policies Trump isn't even controversial.

Banning Muslims entering the US? I guess there is a pattern here. In fact, Western countries (other than the US and to some extent Canada), have already put in place immigration policies that, while not explicitly targeting Muslims, in practice make immigration of Muslims less likely than migration of all other people. The exception being refugee policy (as currently a lot refugees, at least on Europe's borders, come from predominantly Muslim societies), and we can all see where this wind is blowing.

My point is not that I agree with Trump's policy on any of these. In fact, if you were to discuss migration with me, you would probably find me so liberal that you would find it difficult to place me in any current political context. I am just saying that outrage on these policies is in fact most hypocritical. We are projecting some idea on Trump and drawing conclusions. At no point are we looking towards ourselves, and our role in this.

What about cancelling trade deals, NAFTA, TPP or whicherver, rebuilding trade barriers and walls? I think most people at some point have read something about Ricardo and competitive advantage, and overall, world GDP growth does point at some benefits of global trade. There are so many levels of complication here, though, which we just don't seem to be willing to engage in. The first, which is quite commonly discussed, relates to re-distribution. On one hand, that's obvious. Currently the real benefactors of trade surpluses in developed countries are a very small top percentage. This is related to systematic differences of capital and resource distribution, and ultimately most analysis, which I tend to agree with, end up at some need of redistribution, re-training, free education, tax reform, ownership reform etc. While I agree with these, to me they are all inside the box thinking - not outside the box.

Above I was speaking about the system fundamentally not working. Redistribution might sound like a fundamental shift to some, but I would claim it is not. The reason that people are so unhappy is not just a balance account and real time income - although for sure real-wage decline and erosion of the middle class definitely hasn't helped. At a real fundamental level there are expectations on increased wealth amongst a part of the world (essentially me, and you who is reading this), that is both unsustainable and selfish. We believe we deserve more. How much more? Not sure. But a bit more. That house. Or that car. Or that vacation. In fact, our relationship to wealth and money is fundamentally perverted. And it means that the relative impact of wage stagnation is much more severe on life quality than actual poverty (when we get above the bread line). That is unbelievable, but seems to hold true in many studies. That mens that we have created a system where our relationship to money and wealth is determining the worth we ascribe to relationships, to our government, to our local community. Often removed one or two levels, but still clear. Full re-distribution would be a pain-killer that for sure would lead to regular parties staying in charge

The Trump vote down by another 6-7 million, and he would be a joke) - only 30%? My god - what a walkover, you know. That would mean ONLY 45 million voted for him. That's almost nobody. Except, you realize quickly, 45 million is a lot of people. A lot of people. At the same time, this system is destroying nature around us, putting an enormous spiritual stress on humans, basically out of touch with our natural habitat.

We look for solutions, such as re-distribution etc. - but they are dealing with symptoms - again. And again it's external. It's the fault of the banks, or the politicians, or the big companies or whoever. But it's not me, you know. Because I am a victim. And for sure I am not part of the 1%, so then I am part of the 99%. As if we are a coherent one.

The hypocrisy of all this anti-protectionism is also interesting - again. My own country, and all that I know, consciously and specifically has trade and competition barriers in place to protect specific industries and specific people. In fact, outsourcing is find as long as it is removed from things I see. And there-in lies the crux. How many people are spending Tuesday afternoons in a ruined neighborhoods on the outskirts of Cleveland? How many people there do we know? In your country - what is your Cleveland called?

The real realization here is that the only people who believe the system is working is the people for whom the system is working. If you are my Facebook friend, which is probably how you found this, I can all but guarantee that you (and I) are part of the global elites. While that line may not go at 1%, overall speaking, just as little as white, male, incredibly lucky me can never understand the true discrimination and challenges of a black single mother, everyone reading this really is living a privileged life. Yet we put that down to our own hard work. It is what we deserve - nothing less. And probably we deserve a bit more - not less for sure. And the projection continues. Because the 50k $ + American who overwhelmingly voted for Trump will ascribe his wealth to hard work. And taxation and re-distribution will then by definition go to those who have worked a little bit less hard, right? So how is that right? Why should I suffer that others aren't pulling their weight? Surely - the banks should pay!

Ah yes, the banks. I remember very well in an AIESEC congress in Russia in 2012 (some of you may have been there), a representative of UBS was speaking about the wonderful role of banks in bringing credit and capital to the world and bringing millions out of poverty. In his world view, he was helping the world! And he believed it. He is wrong, right? Because we know, of course, how the world works.

Again the mirror turns. My large amount of frustration in these last few days come at the fact that we do not see that we have created this world. That I (not others) had to change if I want the world to change. The Michael Moore rhetoric of "now we fight" is exactly not what the world needs. Not because we shouldn't fight racism, bigots and (in general) Donald Trump, but because it puts the focus on others - again.

So what do I think of this Trump presidency? Well, hard to know. Honestly, I think Trump policy is not going to be significantly different in terms of impact of much other policy. To that, American checks and balances are too strong. I think there are some impacts of his presidency that are awful though, and the question is what to do about that.

The first is the rhetoric. The way he was spoken about human beings, be they immigrants, homosexuals, women, minorities, disabled, is very dangerous. Because it makes it normal. Studies of concentration camp officers in the second world war highlight how they truly did not see the captives as humans. And this view of people can shift dramatically quite quickly. And it already is. I heard the Norwegian Foreigner Police (not Trump!) speak about how they deport people the other day (remember, above). I was disgusted. Not at all by the deportation methods, given the inhumanity of the policy, the methods were quite humane. No, I was disgusted because she continuously referred to the people the met (in real examples) as "the foreigner". And nobody reacted. This rhetoric is dangerous in any context, but once it is given a microphone on the world stage (first for a campaign, and now for at least 4 years - my guess is 8), its impact can be unbelievably bad. I think this is where Barrack Obama excelled. On many things I thought he was not a great President. But he spoke about humans as humans. Always.

But if we are to fight the rhetoric in 4 or 8 years, we need to do just that. Michele Obama said that "when they go low, we go high". But in fact, Clinton didn't do that when she spoke of the "basket cases" that would vote for Trump. Going high means listening to people you disagree with. Showing love to those you think are wrong. And challenging your own perspective and opinions. And I see little willingness to do that. The rhetoric seems to be "an eye for an eye". The anti-foreigner, anti-woman speak on Melania Trump (who, honestly, to my knowledge, hasn't even spoken badly about anyone in this whole drama) is a point to show.

The second is the lack of a woman at top. I do think having a woman President and role model is a missed opportunity for America. It may not come around again so soon.

On the positive side, perhaps the sheer anger of the American heartlands can be channeled into dialogue with Trump at the top. Not by Trump, I believe, but perhaps by moderates in Congress, by NGOs, and through other channels. As anyone who has been angry knows, in the moment the blood is boiling it is hard to have dialogue with anyone. Perhaps some emotions have calmed a bit. The question there is whether "the other side" is able to have dialogue now?

What has happened? Donald Trump got elected democratically. Of all the ways and in all the circumstances to have such a leader, perhaps this is the best one. The alternative, through a coup d'etat, civil war could be even worse.

Why has it happened? At least now we cannot hide anymore. The problems of our society is in our face. Perhaps we can awaken and realize that all is not ok. Perhaps we can stop fiddling at the edges and talk about fundamental issues of the way we have constructed our world. From the rampant capitalism, to the eco- unfriendly growth policy, to the lack of spirituality, to the break-up of family and love, to the selfishness of Me, to the suspicion of all others, to the ownership of production, to the belief that technology can solve all ills. Something is fundamentally not working.

The problem is not Trump. The problem is me. And I need to change. My very need to write this rant, in fact, demonstrates my lack of emotional control, my lack of ability to listen, my shortcomings in the face of this break down of society.

So the mirror is on the wall.

Sylvi Listhaug - behovet for strengere kontroll

2016-01-05T12:12:00.001+01:00

Sylvi Listhaug har rett. Vi kan ikke lenger se på at våre hjem blir overtatt av mennesker med helt andre kulturelle forutsetninger og verdigrunnlag enn våre. Altfor lenge har vi stilltiende godtatt at hvem som helst kan komme og bosette seg her. Manglende lokalkunnskap, manglende evne til å snakke det lokale språket - ja til og med et ønske om å endre på navn på steder her vi har vokst opp er en del av denne pakken.

Vi trenger både en bedre integrering men først og fremst bedre kontroll ved yttergrensene.

Jeg snakker her, selvfølgelig, om grensene inn til Oslo by, og spesielt den som går vi Gardermoen og flytoget, helt ukontrollert til sentrum av Oslo. Derfra er det ingen som vet hvor mennesker blir av. Dette er en helt uholdbar situasjon. Spesielt de som kommer fra Møre og Romsdal utgjør en stor trussel - og jeg fokuserer her på Ørskog hvor Listhaug kommer fra. Listhaug selv kler seg som enhver annen Oslo-beboer men så snart hun begynner å snakke forstår vi innfødte at hun ikke kommer herfra. Hennes kulturbakgrunn virker rett og slett ikke forenlig med vår egen og det må vi gjøre noe med.

Vi må få på plass kontrollinstrumenter umiddelbart:

Bedre grensekontroll. Dette gjelder både bedre kontroll vei innfartsveier, spesielt de som kommer langs fylkes og europaveiene.E136 burde kontrolleres sterkere, og helst allerede ved grensene til Møre og Romsdal. Jeg foreslår f. eks. en transittleir for de som kommer over fjellet ved Dombås og en annen ved Skjåk, på E15. Vi kan være noe mindre strenge langs E16 - det oppleves som mindre truende når Sogn og Fjordingene kommer hit - sannsynligvis har de mindre storhetstanker enn Sunmøringen. Det kan naturligvis hende at noen vil ta veien vi dit, men da kan vi returnere dem til Sogndal.
Umiddelbar retur. Det er ikke ok å komme til Oslo uten å ha en jobb - og en som vi ikke kan rekruttere fra her i byen. Vi har mange flotte mennesker, både fra Somalia, Sverige, Pakistan og Vietnam som opplever det som vanskelige tider å få jobb nå. Da kan vi ikke godta at Møringer tar jobbene fra våre egne. Jeg foreslår at kun de som har en jobb som oversetter til og fra nynorsk, og dermed fyller et behov vi ikke kan fylle selv her i byen (dvs. NRK jobber, stort sett) får lov til å oppholde seg lovlig i Oslo
Slutt på "gullstol med flytoget" inn i storbyen. Hvis man kommer med fly og dermed setter hele vårt humanitære system på prøve må det ha konsekvenser. Jeg har flere ganger opplevd å måtte stå på Flytoget og slik kan vi ikke ha det. De som virkelig trenger vår hjelp (og det er ikke de fra Volda og Ørskog, Ålesund eller Molde. Snarere de fra enda mer rurale strøk - sannsynligvis strøk hvor det ikke lenger bor mennesker fordi de i generasjoner har blitt undertrykt av disse bandittene vi snakker om.) må kunne få det uten å dele et Wideroe fly med slike som Listhaug. Mitt forslag er dermed at vi oppretter egne sentre på flyplassene i Møre og Romsdal hvor vi siler ut de som virkelig har behov for hovedstadens beskyttende armer og de som kommer hit kun som lykkejegere, for å jobbe som politikere eller andre mindre akseptable jobber.
Forøvrig bør flytoget legges ned, evt. begrenses til de som har permanent opphold i Oslo. Det er ikke ment som en "lett vei til våre lommebøker". Det hele framstår som et "Flytogsgodhetstyranni". Hele samfunnet vårt er på randen av sammenbrudd pga. denne naive politikken. De som kommer fra Møre og Romsdal kan ta flybussen, evt. rutebuss via Lillestrøm. Hvis det ikke er bra nok får de ta hest og kjerre. Jeg har jo ikke vært overalt i Møre og Romsdal, men jeg regner med at det er vanlig i nærområdene og de er vant til det fra før.
Kun midlertidige tillatelser. Det er klart det er vanskelig å være fra Ørskog. Men det er ikke alene en god grunn til å komme hit. Og det er ingen grunn til at Listhaug ikke kan returnere dit når situasjonen bedrer seg. Derfor burde hun kun få midlertidig tillatelse i f. eks. 3 uker av gangen til å oppholde seg i Oslo. Evt. kan vi skape en "Grønn Sone" hvor hun kan jobbe og rapportere. Vi kaller det "feriekoloni" og etablerer den på Grini. Der har vi hatt godt hell med dette før og det er ingen grunn til at det ikke skal fungere like fint for Listhaug.
Under ingen omstendigheter ta med familiene hit. Det er velkjent at det øyeblikket man tar med seg familien så tar man med seg alle mulige gammeldagse tradisjoner som ikke passer i et moderne samfunn. F. eks. er det sikkert helt greit å spise fisk til tid og utide på kysten. Men vi er blitt Veganere alle sammen her, og hvis ikke de kan tilpasse seg vår urbane vaner får de heller bli der de kommer fra. Det er DERES valg å komme hit - tross alt.
Bedre integrering. Dette gjør vi først og fremst ved å bedre kontrollen, skape telteire i Gubrandsdalen, lange feriturer til Grini, ransakelser på åpen gate og generelt å gjøre det mindre attraktivt å komme hit. Ikke noe integrerer bedre enn å vite at man er uønsket. Hvis vi lykkes med dette kommer det ingen - og da kan vi si at vi har lykkes veldig godt med integreringen av alle som kommer. I det hele tatt er det dumt å tro at bare fordi man lærer at det heter MajorstuEN så kan man forstå hva det egentlig betyr å være fra Oslo. Her vil en samfunnstest være på sin plass - og den vil bli utført på Oslo dialekt - den de forstår dårligst hvis det er tvil.
Konvertering. Vi kan ikke ha det slik at folk med helt andre politiske holdninger enn vi er vant til (f. eks. mennesker som stemmer, eller til og med leder Frp!) kommer fra andre deler av landet og skal tvinge sine doktriner på oss. Som en del av "integreringen" foreslår vi at det blir forbudt å gå med Frp-pin og andre klær som kan hentyde på at man stemmer Frp. Det vil si at de aller fleste etter en helhetsvurdering desverre ikke kan komme til Oslo. Vi kan ikke ta imot så my harry folk på så kort tid selv om det naturligvis er hjerteskjærende historier vi hører.

Eller ønsker jeg å presisere at det naturligvis ikke gjelder alle fra Ørskog. Kun alle jeg har hørt om. Og det er Listhaug. Og dermed å anta at alle andre er slik også er ikke en urimelig antagelse. Vi fra Oslo kan ikke forventes å forstå samfunn som ligger helt på andre siden av landet hvor vi hverken kjenner oss trygge eller hjemme. Videre skal vi naturligvis ha en human og ordentlig politikk.

Godt nytt år!

Hierarchy and its misunderstandings

2015-12-29T10:41:00.000+01:00

One of the most interesting learnings I keep coming back to is the cultural dimensions model of Hofstede. While it is easy to put question marks on scientific validity (ask about what I think of social science and be prepared to hear an outpour...) and rigour of these types of work, I have rarely come across a more applicable tool of understanding cultures, people and contexts.

One of the dimensions is "power-distance" and it describes to what extent people accept that different people in society or a context hold a difference in power. Many societal structures, conditioned by this cultural dimensions can be drawn from that. My own Norway, a network society, has notoriously low power distance. For a Norwegian it generally makes no sense why any person would have more power than another person - surely such a state is as temporary blip and a mistake.

But even in Norway, while that may be the accepted world view, real power distance exists and it often expresses itself in formal hierarchies. The one we are the most used to is the hierarchy at a work place. We report to superiors, we supervise employees and the higher up the food chain the more power you have.

One of the most interesting experiences in AIESEC is to constantly switch roles from project member to team leader and back again to a team member. It gives you a constant roller coaster of formal power changes, which, for sure, is not always easy to deal with. All of my three years at AIESEC International the immediate reaction of most team members who had been leading their national/territory association (called MCPs) was a relief to "be able to just be a team member". Leading a whole entity was tough and to be allowed to be "part of the team again" was seen as a better life. Within months (sometimes days!), however, the fingers would start tickling. Why is the boss doing it like this? Why do we plan like this? Why the team is run like that? How come we are not….? I remember when I was MCP, we….".

The most interesting thing was to see how this patterns repeated itself in the three years, more or less without exception. Every year there were about 15 people who came into the global team as team members who were used to being their own general manager. So that's around 45 people I observed going through this over a 3 year period.

The contrast to the team members who came from team roles was stark. Those who had been team members on a national level and came into the team were much less critical of specific ways things were run or done - especially in the first weeks and months. However, conversely, with time the ones who had the general manager experience would be more likely to start taking charge, sometimes invited, sometimes uninvited. For sure, it was an interesting fish bowl to observe.

One of the things that I learned, having led AIESEC in Norway before, being a team member again on a global level and then leading the global team, was that hirarchy is a temporary structure. And while having formal decision making follow some hiererchical structures is sometimes necessary, it is important to realise the limitations of ones own understanding and knowledge, no matter the role one is in. If leading, there are things only you experience, only you see and can make better decisions based up. When you are being led, there are things only you see (and the leader does not), which is great as well. Both the leader and the led do well to apreciate their own limits of view and acknowledge the superior position of the other in seeing some things.

In fact, because if this, the greatest teams I was ever on were the ones that could change their hierarchy internally based upon the context, or even the specific argument on the floor. Where sometimes the leader became the curious challenger, where sometimes the team member was the authority but where other times team members "sucked it up" based upon an understanding that the leader sees somethings I don't. To get to that level, however, requires many things which can only be gained the hard way. First of all trust - and trust is that most precious of resource. Trust in intention, trust in competence.

To go a bit of topic a bit - I always loved the example of the man coming into the room asking "Do you trust me?" and the other person answering "Yes". Surely, the right answer is "trust you with what". Trust is a character thing but also a question of domain. You may trust me to support you if you are struggling, but probably you wouldn't (and shouldn't!) trust me if I asked you if I could be your brain surgeon. The best brain surgeon in the world might be cheating on his wife, but perhaps you still trust him to drill inside your head - but you might not invite your wife to have a talk with him about your health state while you are out after the operation.

Back to hierarchy. The experience of going in and out of formal hierarchical roles, as well as seeing fluid hierarchies within teams was a great learning for me. 18 months since being "President of the World" (as I jokingly refer to it as), I have little or no formal hierarchical position in my current role. What I do see, however, is that hierarchy is perhaps not well understood in many organisations I observe. Sometimes formal hierarchies are not respected when they should be by team members, other times those in formal positions use hierarchy to make decisions independently of what is a good process. More than anything, it is little discussed - the formal power distance is just "a fact" - that is just "how it is", and it is a rather static concept.

Even more interesting is to observe that in most organisations the "path" of a career only goes one way - up the latter or out. That means that you gain ever more authority and power in a rigid hierarchy - or you fall completely out. This is in stark contrast to the more cross-team collaboration as well as the fluid learning I had in AIESEC. I think this rigidity is bad for everyone. To long as a team member, the respect for how hard it is to lead disappears. To little shifting of powers and leaders lose sense of what matters.

Power distance - it explains a lot of things. Understanding power, in a formal settings and in societal structures might explain even more.

The dublin agreement and why it is fundamentally wrong

2015-09-10T15:30:00.001+02:00

The Dublin agreement is getting much press these days, and as with many topics in the ongoing migration and refugee debate this too is one subject to imprecise or lack of knowledge.

This means, in fact, that much conversation either derails or is stopped at that barrier - simply because it is not understood in practice. And by that I refer not so much to the legal elements of it, as of how it affects policy implementation in practice.

What is the Dublin agreement?

The Dublin agreement is a pan-European agreement on Asylum seekers. The intention of the agreement is in theory to ensure that those asylum seekers that have the right of protection as a refugee under the refugee convention will be provided that status more quickly, while those who do not will be processed only once, and not have the ability to apply and re-apply to many different countries inside of the Schengen zone. This is practically done through fingerprint collection and deportation back to the original country of registration if found by police or authorities in another European country.

Intention:

The intention is primarily to make the asylum process more efficient and less resource heavy, as people will only apply once inside Schengen. Secondly it is to make the seperation of "real refugees" from "mere migrants" more effective, as Europe has effectively decided that we don't want "migrants" and we will tolerate refugees only because it seems to be the right thing to do.

Sidebar:

First and foremost we must recognise one thing - that the very existance and justification of the Dublin agreement is based upon the presumption that some reasons to migrate we are fine with (people fleeing persecution according to the conventions) and others we don't like (people escaping from their place of birth of home country because they are unable to build the life they dream of there, for social, economic or other reasons). Personally I have deep misgiving about this antiquated world view, I do not see fleeing from persecution as inherently more of a right than to migrate freely upon the earth that was created by forces of nature, not by states mankind. But I will leave this personal opinion out of this specific post.

Case 1: Help, my name is Miran and I am a refugee from Syria

Hi Miran. The main thinking behind the agreement is that you have the right in fact to escape from Syria to (basically anywhere) where you are not persecuted. You are desperate (right?) and so should be happy with any life that does not include persecution or immediate death by Mr. Assad or ISIL. Therefore, f. ex. Living 10-15 years in a refugee camp locked up, without the possibility to build a life is something you should be grateful for.

If you think I am making this up, I would suggest you to read a bit about Somalis living in Dadaab for decades f. ex.

Picture Getty Images

Therefore, it should not matter to you where you are granted asylum, where you flee to - because, after all - you should be grateful you are alive at all, right? So from a European perspective "any country will do" - and in fact the country that will do is the country you enter into first (a map of Europe will then tell you that physically speaking that explains where people enter.

Of course we have airplanes, right? Why don't people just fly to the country they want and apply to asylum there? Because without a visa you cannot buy a ticket, and without a ticket you cannot fly. So unless you are renting an airplane (and believe it or not, some people choose this for that very reason) you can only arrive where you can get physically with your own two feet (or in a boat, effectively).

In practice therefore, my dear Miran, you will arrive to "the country he happens to get to" (read: Greece, Italy, Spain) and applies for asylum there. In fact, you will give your fingerprints for that, and have no choice but to do so. Either you apply for asylum where you entered Schengen (illegally!) or you will be immediately deported - as an illegal immigrant. Moving on? Not on our watch.

Case answer: If you are a "real" refugee you will be registered where you enter Schengen and that is where you will apply to asylum. After all, you should be grateful to be alive and your imagination that you are somehow allowed to shape or influence your life beyond your heart still beating should not concern you. Welcome to Europe, btw the land of brotherhood, equality for the law and brotherhood (eh… I didn't mean for you!)

---

Case 2: Help, my name is Adamou and I am escaping from poverty and desperation in Niger

Here our Dublin agreement has found it's "real target". First of all, my dear friend Adamou, poverty is no reason at all for you to escape. We are very sorry that you are poor but, really, that is none of our concern. Yes, I hear you say there is Boko Haram in your country, but unless you can prove that they are targeting you specifically, that is just something you will have to "live with". From what we know they haven't reached your village yet, so really you are quite safe. Yes, you may be afraid for your life, but really, you should stay where you are.

Picture from BBC

Previously you would perhaps thing of applying for asylum in Italy, and, if rejected, would move to France and do the same. Then to the Netherlands etc. In fact, it was quite common for "bounty hunters like you" to "shop around" (more accurately travel around in constant search for asylum), as you were rejected by one country and then the next. European countries found that this was no good - for two reasons

The same people were taking up a lot of resources (immigration departments as well as resources of hosting people) in several countries with "having the right to protection"
These people (that's you Adamou) shouldn't be here anyway! "They are migrants" you might hear people say with a voice that sounds like they are describing a vicious disease, not human beings.

The solution was that we had to "separate the real refguees from the migrants" and therefore we make sure that once you have applied (read: forced to give your fingerprints) in one European country, that's it - you will never have the chance to apply again in another. This would ensure these "migrants" stay at home in the first place, less resource waste and if they come we can deport them back, faster than you can say "Help, I am in Europe, get me out of here".

In fact it was mainly Northern European countries, always the highlight of human civilization (yes, you are supposed to hear the sarcasm in my voice here) who would pay for this system and it would be implemented through Frontex on the borders of Schengen.

Keep them out
If they come send them back
If they absolutely have to come, well - ok they get one chance where they arrived

Case answer: If you dear Adamou are not a "real" refugee, you will anyway be registered where you entered Schengen, and you should be grateful that we didn't bomb the boat you came on (we are still considering that option, by the way). Yes, you had your chance to apply, but now the fun is over. Oh you think you can explain your case again? No my friend, we have your fingerprints - it's over for you.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, so what happened to this marvelous system?

After a while, countries on the outskirts of Schengen realised that they were the only ones taking real numbers of asylum seekers as by the process. As they were getting paid based on the number of fingerprints etc. it made a lot sense to register people short term, but long term that led to issues. So they started letting people through. "Here's 50 EUR, take a train to the next country, we wont say anything and they can take care of you." Ever wonder why France kept closing their border to Italy? "Merde! These Italians are just not doing their job properly! They should be dealing with their own deportations".

Picture by Deutsche Welle

Let's speak again to our migrant from Niger, Adamou. European countries were processing asylum claims from refugees based on the same conventions - however, their implementation (and therefore interpretation) in national law was vastly different. So of course, being on a quest to build your life, you would find out which country had the most lenient interpretation of persecution by Boko Haram. How? Information is worth it's weight in gold my friend. And this information can be bought, with a high degree of accuracy in a country called…. Libya.

Wait a minute, I hear you say - what about the government of Libya…? Ah you mean the one that we removed with NATOs bombers to leave a country EVEN worse of for the popultation than under Gadaffi (that's quite a feat, you wouldnt think it possible, but we managed…). Yeah, well "that" government isnt really governing much.

Picture: USA Today

For smugglers this system is fantastic. I mean the Schengen agreement and European asylum policies are almost as profitable as the US war on drugs in Central and South America is for the drug cartels. And the good they are importing is much better - it pays BEFORE it's delivered, and if it doesnt arrive, it's "just another migrant" in the statistics books. We humans relate with emotion to individuals dying, but with numbness to thousands and millions.

For our Syrian this system means something else. As a refugee you would have the same rights as the population of that country. Sure, but the thing is, Europeans will be the first to know that having "rights" as a Swede is different than having "rights" as Greek. Sure, the passports have that same beautiful "Citizen of the European Union" stuff, but the refugee does NOT become a citizen of the European Union. He becomes a refugee in that country only. So while a Greek (f. ex.) has rights both in Greece, as well as in Europe as a European citizen, the Syrian will have only rights in Greece. Even if granted legal stay, and possible even the right to work (isnt it nice to have the "right" to work - especially in our lovely continent with all its opportunities?) that right is ONLY for Greece. So therefore, you better inform yourself about European countries BEFORE you let your fingerprints be taken. It matters a lot if they are taken in Greece, Hungary, Italy, France, Denmark or Sweden. Yes, it does.

"But come on, shouldnt you be happy just to be alive? If you are not careful we will send you back to Syria you know! Anywhere will do."

------

In simple terms the Dublin agreement means there are some common governing factors, but the real human issues at hand are not common, f. ex.

Interpretation of refugee and human rights conventions - meaning difference in chance of getting asylum
Rights as a refugee in the European countries differs
Possibilities of family reunion (perhaps you didnt bring your pregnant wife on the boat over to Italy, because you didnt want her to die? Well, be careful where that boat ends up because you may or may not have the chance to bring her with you later)

Ultimately you have a complete lack of a common system, despite its pretty words. Perhaps refugees and migrants dont "shop around" anymore. But instead we have created the most inhumane and growing market for trafficking and people smugglers seen in history. It is our policies that is leading to the people dying. It is our policies that is leading to the collapse in our own systems. It is our system that should make us stay awake at night.

Find your partner

2015-08-11T15:06:00.001+02:00

This morning I was sitting on the bus on my way to work and dozing off, texting morning messages to my girlfriend as is usually the case.

You see, I have been with my girlfriend for more than 3 years now but still we don't live in the same place. Luckily modern technology - and ever increasing travel budgets means that we are seeing more and more of each other, both through a screen and face to face. Recently, she was spending her vacation in Norway while I still had to work, and yesterday she went back to work as well. I already miss her, although I will see her again this weekend - and most weekends.

That's why the morning messages, naturally.

But I didn't start this post to describe the nature of our long distance relationship. Rather, as I had been getting used to having her around every morning when I woke up and every evening when I fell asleep I noticed that she was not there this morning.

There are many things that have been said about love and relationships and there are many singers, artists and poets have said it better than I ever could. But I will add one penny worth of thoughts to that.

How do I know if it's for real?
If you are dating someone for the first time, or just meeting them and have that tingling sensation, or if you are in a relationship and wondering if it could be serious - you know - if it's "meant to be", how can you know?

I think we often try to find a match based on who we are. F. ex. - do we share the same values or do we have the same interests? Can I be myself around this person? Can they be themselves? Can we date and not have to change?

Actually, I think those are valid and worthwhile thoughts. But there is one aspect that is missing.

Who do we grow to become together?

The reason I know my relationship is "meant to be" is because every single day we grow together to become something more than the two individuals that met some years ago. And speaking of my part of that relationship, every day I am growing to become a better person in that symbiosis. I am becoming more caring, more considerate, more ambitious, more purposeful, more determined - more of all the things that I wish to become.

When the going gets tough...

Another thing I often hear is how a relationship is either good or bad. And often, it starts good - and gradually becomes bad. Well, I think that's based on some wrong expectations. If you are truly invested with your whole being into growing and become a symbiotic one, then obviously that's going to be both fun and frustrating, both exciting and difficult. What I have learned is that I have to invest every single day. Because a relationship is not a "status", it is a way of living - and it is something you shape every single day. That means to be everything you can be to help your partner grow. That means to enable and empower them to become their best selves. And that means to not ask "what am I getting out of this". You are NOT a customer. You are a partner. And partners invest, lead and manage together.

And if you do that, the returns are staggering, what you get is amazing.

In fact, I think the best leadership development course I ever took was the one I am living every day with my amazing girlfriend. Thank you for making me a better person. Thank you for being a part of us.

"The Asylum Institute" - a tool for apartheid?

2015-07-14T16:49:00.003+02:00

Any tips and tricks on blog posts and articles will tell you to use a catchy title, and hopefully I caught your attention.

Apartheid is and Afrikaans word literally meaning "apart-hood" and came to symbolise the political and social system of South Africa where society, rights and physical acccess was separated based on racial classification and so-called nations. It has, rightfully, become one of the most criticised forms of government organisiation in modern times, yet little attention is paid to the same when it comes to migration policies in Europe and the developed world.

In reality, we have created a global apartheid, not by race, but by passport (and by proxy, race and culture are definitely correlated variables) where certain parts of the earth are for certain people only. An interesting distinction is often made between "legitimate" refugees and "other" migrants, often referred to as economic migrants.

In Western countries, Norway for one, refugees "the real ones" are held in very high regard and their genuine need for protection is often held up as the reason why strict immigration policies are necessary. Only then can the refugees receive the support needed. Here it is often called the "protection" of the asylum institute, in order to maintain its legitimacy.

However, a little numerical analysis and brain work will quickly dispell these myths.

First of all, European countries are taking so few refugees that it's literally a drop in the ocean (no tasteless pun intended). Even with the current migrant crisis taking place both on the mediterranean, on the border between Hungary and Serbia and throughout the continent the numbers are unimpressive. Norway has just increased the annual quota for UN refugees from Syria slightly (8,000 Syrians over 3 years),something which itself is creating huge waves both nationally and locally in this outskirt of Europe. In comparisson UNHCR just "celebrated" the 4th million refugee from Syria - which is only the ones counted officially, and does not include Internally Displaced Persons. Lebanon, a small country of around 4 million people has received more than 1 million of them. In stark numbers that means that there are around 500 Syrian refugees in Lebanon for every 1 in Norway.

In addition to refugees classified (notice the word..) by the UNHCR Norway, like most European countries, processes asylum claims where some refugees are given the status as a refugee if they have been able to "somehow" get to a Norwegian border and make the claim. Combined the two numbers are still below 10,000 per year.

However, when applying for Asylum in Norway, and all European countries, the requirements are strict. Strict according to what? A document made 64 years ago called the Refugee Convention. It's very ironic, because the Refugee Convention was made in order to offer a minimum of protection to people who had no choice but to flee from their country. Today it is being applied as the only legitimate reason to move across our global apart-heid. Everyone else is a "migrant".

I have even heard people say "he is a refugee - not a migrant" to explain that someone truly has a good reason to give up everything in their life and move across borders, bariers and cultures to rebuild their lives. Migrant, said with a sort of disdain in the voice.

In fact, the asylum institute, and the plight of refugees (there are around 59 million of them according to the latest statistics by UNHCR and NRC), is being used politically to classify and reject humans genuine nature given right to choose how and where to build their own life.

If you meet refugees - support and help them. But perhaps "migrants" you meet need your understanding even more - after all, they are "just migrants".

When migration becomes hip

2015-06-23T20:23:00.002+02:00

I am two months into my starting point for changing migration in Europe and I am more certain than ever of the path that I am on. My hunch, that I need to learn and experience much before I can dream to understand or change is proving to be right every day. Not a day goes by where I am not taking notes, where I am surprised, where I see people's lives interacting with a broken system, sometimes on purpose, sometimes by accident.

I guess one of the key realizations I am having is that I knew even less than I thought. And that this is a field where there is a really big gap between opinions and knowledge.

One of the elements that fascinates me is telling people about my job. It doesn't matter if it's family members in Germany, people I meet on the bus, people I used to know from AIESEC, my own family, my driving teach, people I stay with while I travel or taxi drivers late at night. Everyone I meet has an opinion about migration, about refugees, about the politics, about the people. Everyone is interested to talk about it, asking me my opinion, what do I do and what do I think?

I guess it makes sense, it's a hot potato kind of topic. But it's also scary. Because everyone having an interest does not mean that everyone is spending time to become genuinely informed. Everyone having an opinion does not mean that the opinion is grounded. So any conversation very quickly is just an exchange of rumours, hearsay, political debate. Very little is about real life solutions, even less is concrete.Most is about statistics or meta-subjects or money, next to nothing is about real people, psychology or values.

I think part of the "opion-makers" that irritates me the most is the media. They really do live up to the modern liberal stereotype, of meaning the politically correct, while having no real interest at dealing with the very issues at hand. In a conversation about migration dichotomised on an axis I would probably be the most liberal of all - but the liberal media is a disappointing read. In that context actors in the field, whether political, administrative, including immigration services who I may differ widely with on a matter of opinion, at leas approach the topic with a certain level of intellectual and moral honesty based on their own set of values and world view.

If it's one thing I have learnt in two months, it's that my dad was right. You have chosen a "growth industry", and everyone is involved. Migration has become hip, it has become the outrage and the stick with which to beat each other politically (amongst many). It has also become a debate stuck in "for and against" trenches that haven't moved much over a long period of time.

Today, after speaking to a desperate migrant during one of my trips I realised that I am glad my legal future is not "currently under consideration" by a government, especially not a European one including my own. The Kafkaesk legal and bureaucratic reality of migration policy is genuinely disrespectful and when I am asked about it as a citizen I am ashamed of it.

I guess migration has become hip. But migrants remain a number in a statistic (also known as DUF number in Norway).

-----
PS. If you are interested, check out the campaign, first started in Denmark, now in Norway #EnGangVarJegFlyktning , loosely translated to #IUsedToBeARefugee

Denmark: https://www.facebook.com/EngangVarJegFlygtning?fref=nf&pnref=story
Norway: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Engangvarjegflyktning-Norge/634140826687347?fref=nf&pnref=story

Values driven life

2015-06-07T19:06:00.001+02:00

Last week I was lucky enough to participate in a podcast series about living a values-driven life in work as well as at home. Here is the recording if you want to listen :)

Why I do what I do...

2015-04-28T12:17:00.001+02:00

A new job

Just two weeks ago, I began in a new job. To me, however, this job is not just a job - it's the beginning of the fulfillment of my life purpose.

I will work as an Outreach Officer at the International Organization for Migration in Norway. In practice, it means that I will work with providing on IOM's Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration programme to irregular migrants. It is usually people who sacrificed everything, left behind home and family, and who have applied for asylum status in Norway, but subsequently have their application refused. In this case, these people face impossibly tough choices. IOM provides an Assisted Voluntary Return Programme, which gives the possibility to travel with dignity and humanity, get travel covered as well as some financial support to rebuild lives back home. For most, this "option", is cruel and meaningless - nobody migrated to Europe overcoming the most difficult of journies, to be given the option to "return voluntarily". Legally, however, they are required to return home (leaving Schengen), the alternative to which is often deportation by police. Faced with this tough choice at he programme offers a chance to take control of parts of the uncontrollable.

It is not difficult to find strong opinions on Europe's migration policy, whether it comes to the lack of human policies on saving migrants drowning in the mediterranean, the wall that the continent has built around itself towards the rest of the world, the lack of generosity and humanity amongst citizens of Europe towards people from different cultures and background, or the impossibility to migrate here for most of the world who wishes to do so. I share both an outrage and a strong opinion on this. More importantly, however, I have decided that I will dedicate my life to do something about it. Therefore, much of this blog will start talking a lot about these issues over next few months, years and decades. I hope you will enjoy the ride with me.

How to find your life purpose?

I find it curious to reflect upon how I became so clear that this is what I want to dedicate my life to. I guess Steve Jobs taught us that we can only connect the dots looking backwards, and I know that is the case for me. Here is an extract I wrote on the morning of my very first day at my new job, because I wanted to make sure I entered it with purpose and dedication.

Why I do what I do?

I am the son of a father who migrated to Norway so that my mother and him could build a better life for me once I was born. I still remember growing up being insulted on the bus home from school for being a 'German Nazi pig' - I was 7 years old. I spent my life growing up between cultures and have lived in 6 countries. But at the age of 22, I ended up living on a park benc, cold, along and desperate, after emigrating to Italy in search of a dream. I am a child of Europe, who could overcome all this because I had equal opportunities for education, because I had freedom to grow and fail, and because time and time again a brotherhood of friends, family and strangers supported me and picked me up when I had fallen. I believe in the Europe that empowered me to become who I am.

But this Europe does not believe in migrants who come here in search of a dream. It does not provide freedom at its borders or rights within it. It does not provide opportunities for equality through education and growth for fellow humans. And we have long ago forgotten about providing a brotherhood of man to those who need it and seek it amongst us. This Europe lives against itself, against its own values, against it own dreams.We live in fear.

I want to change the story of migration in Europe because it is what I was meant to do, it is who I am meant to be.This is why I do what I do.

While I can connect the dots going backwards, I also know that from all the experiences and learnings I had in AIESEC, this is the greatest debt I have to the organisation. In particular there is one failproof way to discover your purpose in life. Spend a whole year of your life asking the question to yourself and just sit and think about it. What do I mean?

Delivering a session 50 times...

When I was President of AIESEC International, on every trip I went, and in every conference and interaction I took part in, I delivered a session we named BIG AIESEC. It was an integration of the purpose of AIESEC itself in developing leadership in young people, with what kind of organisation would be able to deliver such youth leadership on a massive scale. In the beginning of the session, I would ask the participants to reflect upon their own world, their city or country, and what were the issues they cared about. I would then ask them to imagine that same world in 50 years from now, which I defined "more or less" as our scope of impact from young adulthood to the day we are old.

On each of the two reflection questions, music would play (typically Beyonce's I was here) and (Some die Young by Laleh). This 10 minutes of reflection may not be much. But when you yourself are delivering it around twice a week for 9 months, it adds up. Each time I would be sitting in the front (waiting for the participants while they were taking notes), and my mind would wander. Gradually I started bringing my notebook with me to the front when delivering the session, because every time there were so many thoughts running through my head. Things I cared about, the world I saw, and the world I dreamed about. Every time I was asking "what will you do with your life" that question reflected back to me. And the notes kept coming.

To me, the dots started connecting. Both as a result of the most purposeful year of my life and because I took time after the year to reflect upon it.

As I said, I just started a new job. But, yeah. It's not really a job. It's the beginning of the fulfillment of my purpose in life.

Detention of Asylum Seekers

2015-03-04T11:25:00.000+01:00

Last week I attended a presentation by NOAS (Norwegian Association of Asylum Seekers, www.noas.no/en ), regarding the detention of asylum seekers. The presentation was of a report, Freedom First (Frihet først) which was looking into to what extent detention was being used as a method for asylum seekers in Norway. There were many interesting findings of the report itself an I will not spend time to go through all of them. There were, however, some that stuck with me.

The first was that detention is primarily used in relation to forced return (tvungen retur) of asylum seekers after their application for asylum has been first rejected and they have then not followed the instruction of the government to leave the country within a certain period of time voluntarily. Here, the report highlighted that one of the key reasons for that is because many Asylum seekers perceive that the "real fight" to stay in Norway only starts after their application has been rejected, whereas in a legalistic country like Norway the "real fight" is the one that goes until your application is rejected. In fact, statistics show that very few asylum seekers have any chance of staying in Norway after the rejection of their application, and the majority will be returned to their country of origin, either voluntarily of through force.

This reminded me a lot about challenges regarding both expectation setting, cultural and systemic understanding, and channels of influence I learned about and discovered while in AIESEC. The very concept at the basis of this process is the "rule of law", where a society like Norway is principally based upon the idea that the law is the primary and only basis of the use of force by government, and therefore the neutral an objective treatment of all subjects according to that. For most parts of the world, while this may be something people subscribe to principally on individual level, most people have just never experienced what this means in practice. It means there is no or almost no room for individual wriggle room, subjective influence through people, back channels of this process etc. This is in stark contrast to how 90% of the world works, and for sure in contrast to how the world works in countries and areas where asylum seekers come from, where the very lack of "rule of law" is often the primary reason for the esacape in the first place. So while the "rules of the game" may be very clear to Norwegians, these rules are almost impossible to understand for someone who has never experienced it. This is a very difficult paradox, because it means that Norway seeks to treat asylum seekers according to a system they have no basis to understand in practice. And the approach to explain through that same language and process only leaves the asylum seeker more alienated to his own process of applying for asylum.

This goes back to the very challenges of culture and background ,whether in business interactions or misunderstandings.

The second thing struck me in the presentation was the question and input of one of the audience. She worked for the Foreigner Section of the police and described herself as a "practitioner" of the system that was being described. She was genuinely in disagreement with some of the conclusions, because as she described the forced detention (typically 24 to 48 hours before forced return - which practically means people are forcefully put on a plane home with police escort), often is less traumatic and stressful, than a pickup at 4 am in the morning, 2 hours to pack, and direct accompanying of the rejected asylum seeker (+family) to the airport. This became particularly difficult in the case of children (usually applying with their parents), where the children too are detained for the 24h- 48h. (The report also goes into the unacceptable detention of children for longer periods than this, which I will not go into in this blog post, but talk about at a later point).

How do you solve this problem? The report was talking about the need for children to be treated as independent legal subjects, as according to the UN Convention of Children's rights, but here we run into real complications, both related to culture, and what is the "child's best". Picture the moral dilemma

A family of asylum seekers (f. ex. two parents and two children) have had their application rejected and have been told to go home.
They have chosen "to fight" (see the first point), and stay in the country.
After a period of time, government decides that they will be forcefully deported as they are not following the rule of law that has been applied. The police make the assessment that they cannot tell the family exactly "when" they will send them abroad, as typically asylum seekers who have decided to stay of course do not want to return home. If they know they will be picked up, the police fears, they will disappear and go underground. (and yeah, wouldnt you?)
Based on this the police have to decide whether to

Turn up at 4 am, pick up the family, tell them to pack, escort them straight to the airport and airplane

(the problem being according to the police woman, that this is extremely traumatic and brutal for the family and the kids)

Turn up the day before, give the family some hours to pack and call without a "departing plane waiting", and then take the family to a detention center (in practice a prison, although never described as such) for 24-48 hours until the plane is booked. This includes detaining children and people who have not committed any other crime than to seek asylum and then to not accept that their application has been rejected

In either case, the solution is brutal and heart wrenching. I don't know the answer. And again, somehow how do we end up as a society where we have to chose between two solutions which we don't want to? It's like the "given a gun and asked to choose between shooting your mother and father".

There are many points of entry, politically and policy wise

Politicians are looking to limit the numbers that enter in the first place. If we never see them, then we don't have to make difficult choices at home politically. This is clearly immoral and unacceptable - Norway proudly announced we are taking a few thousand more Syrian refugees this year - out of 13 million (!) who have escaped, of which more than 1 million are in Lebanon. Clap, clap, clap Norway. Yet, such is the political reality, that a problem not seen is a problem solved, right?
Build asylum centres in the countries of origin or transit country- if they apply there, get rejected, they never have to be returned FROM Norway. This is an advanced version of the same absurdity. Lets keep "their problems" over there
Change the number of refugees we take by a little bit - this is a bit like the "temporary opening of the Berlin Wall" on the night of the 9th of November 1989..
Change the processing rules, application process, way we detain etc. This is treating symptoms, definitely not causes. It might make some things less painful, and hopefully more humane, but morally it doesn't address the issue

My main thinking is that we are in the wrong place of discussion in the first place. There are some principles that have to be challenged.

Our way of life and culture cannot be maintained/will die if we accept many people from other cultures & countries into our country
It is not our problem / responsibility / fault
Immigrants and asylum seekers come to exploit and destroy our societies

I have some concrete ideas regarding these, but I will not go into them now. To start, just with the challenge, that these premises, which are at the very basis of why we end up with these horrendous moral choices, must be challenged.

Why must either my mother or father die, the kid may ask you? Do you have a good answer?

Je suis Charlie. I am Ahmed. Enlightenment and its traps. And the folly of confrontation.

2015-01-09T23:46:00.000+01:00

On January 7th liberal Europe liberals had its own 9/11 moment. And since we have had our own version of G.W. Bush famous"With us or against us" rhetoric. And the world is becoming a darker place by the minute.

"Do you agree that I offend you or do you hate my democratic society?"

"There was no recoil or blood on the shooting of the police man - it's a hoax - did you see the dust?."

"The only way Muslims will ever understand European ideals is if they have their own 30-year religious war like we did 400 years ago."

"Insulting is terrorism on the same line as killing is terrorism. They provoked it - what comes around goes around"

"We call white mean psychos and muslims terrorists. The rest of the world is against Islam, and this is just another proof of it"

"Only at the limits of what I can say, can I feel true freedom of speech. True freedom of speech means I must use it to insult to prove I can. If not, what is freedom?"

"If muslims are not protesting in their thousands on the street against this terrorism then it means they don't really understand the values of the societies they live in"

--------------------------------------------

Believe it or not, all of the above statement are real statements. I have paraphrased to make the point clear, but I have not made them up. And these are not stated by right wing radical racist friends of mine, of which - of course - I have lots. Nor by all my Al-Qaeda sleeper cell terrorist network brotherhood that I keep on speed dial.

In all seriousness. Some of the most intelligent, culturally sensitive, caring human beings, many of whom I would trust my life to without blinking have said or written this over the past 48 hours.

I wonder if I am living in some parallel universe, where human beings have chosen to see how far we can play this game until our world, as fragile as it already is, will simply implode. I wonder if we really think that once we are immersed in the greatest catastrophic socially constructed conflict, by arms, words, economic or other, we can just "press pause" and say "Hahahaha. I was just kidding! Yeah? You too! Yeah, of course I didn't mean that. We knew all along right? Who would ever behave so stupidly?"

I find it difficult to observe and see this world in front of me today. I thought last summer, that the "pretty little Cold War" that we thought it was a good idea to reconstruct between Russia and Western nations was the top of tension. How naive I was. How naive I have become.

--------------------------------------------

Let's play a strategy game for a second. Let's pretend we are fundamentalists (for the sake of this game, let's be Islamists, f. ex. Al-Qaeda because it fits the narrative of the day). Ok, let's look at our overall global objectives for this Monday Morning Strategy Meeting.

Primary strategic objective

1. A fundamentalist interpretation of our beliefs to be implemented in absolute terms across the world

Primary barriers to success

1. Muslims around the world striving for peace, harmony and practicing of Islam alongside other religions and beliefs.

2. Liberal societies that accept multiple religions and ways of life to love alongside and love each other

Opportunities for tactical advancement

1. Latent fear and misunderstanding amongst western countries due to segregation (language, culture, religion) of people of muslim faith in parts of Western countries and cities

2. Lack of opportunities for young muslims in western countries for education and to embrace both a western AND a muslim identity because it is not "possible" according to the western beliefs/culture which has become largely secular

3. Dictatorships with lack of education, language, economic opportunities, dividing neighbourhoods and people along sectarian lines within muslim and other religious groups in the Middle east and North Africa for political purposes.

4. Weak western societies that preach one set of values (freedom of speech, liberty of beliefs, equal opportunities, equality for the law, brotherhood of man) but has constructed a society completely different, with disillusioned youth on all sides.

Potential Allies

1. Extremist parties in Europe that see the world as a confrontation of civilizations, just as us.

Follow up: Does somebody have the emails of Molotov and Ribbentrop available so we can email them for how they did the Best Case Practice in 1939?

2. Unemployed and insulted youth who rebel against their parents decision to emigrate to Europe 30 years ago, as the proof of daily discrimination and lack of opportunity surely shows them that there is no "western future" for them

Minutes

- Anyone have any ideas how we can reach our objective for "a fundamentalist interpretation of our beliefs to be implemented in absolute terms across the world"

- Well, what if we tried to exploit the misunderstandings between groups and people? Make them feel like they are fighting each other?
- That sounds like a good idea, but why in the world would people who share these same "tolerant" values start fighting?
- Well, the key is not to make them disagree. But to make them think they disagree. And by the time they understand they don't it will be too late!

- And what do you propose?

- Well, we really just need to light a spark. How can we provoke these so-called liberal Europeans so they will react against the muslim population?

- Hmmm. Perhaps we should attack something that they feel is their values.

- Yeah, but how can they feel it's from muslims in Europe? People living amongst them?

- Ah, that's the brilliance! We have all these young, unemployed, undereducated people - they anyway don't see a future. Let's give them one in martyrdom!

- That's brilliant. Nothings seeds fear like suspicion towards everyone!

- Yeah, but even if the liberals will feel attacked, the muslims will surely explain that it wasn't them, no?

- Not if they feel under attack too! We need to create an action that will create a reaction so fast that people quickly feel squeezed between their set of values. Where there is no compromise or dialogue and people HAVE to chose sides.

- But what action could possibly achieve all this at once?

--------------------------------------------

How peaceful it will be when we have proven the other side wrong. Right?

-------------------------------------------------------------
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"

"Pull up the ladder and let them drown..."

2014-10-30T15:25:00.000+01:00

That seems to be the policy decision made by the UK government, announcing that they will not prolong their support for the Mare Nostrum search and rescue operations by the Italian navy in the Mediterranean.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/27/uk-mediterranean-migrant-rescue-plan

For humanitarians it is a pleasure to see the humane Italian response, despite the country being in severe Economic difficulties

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/italian-navy-refugee-rescue-mission-mare-nostrum

----

But let's rewind a bit. What is this, and what is going on here? Let's summarise (and oversimplify) centuries of history, geography, current events etc.

1. The dream of a better life (economic opportunities, safety from persecution etc.) continues to draw migrants, especially from Africa, but also from the Middle East, South America and Asia to Europe, and the EU in particular.

2. Over the past half century, coinciding with the building of the welfare state and decolonisation in (initially Western) Europe, European countries have increased restrictions and closed borders on migration from the rest of the world, while increasing to open and expect open borders for trade and investments.

3. Gradually the only real migrants to Europe from outside the continent fall into 4 broad categories

Asylum seekers according to the UN refugee convention
Family reunions (children or parents of asylum seekers or people marrying European citizens etc)
Highly skilled migrants (doctors, PHD professors, nurses, Engineers etc)
"Illegal" immigrants (often referred to as economic migrants)

Common for most of the immigration is that they seek a better life, because of lack of opportunities, persecution, insecurity or other reasons.

Ok, let's turn it around - what is this leading to?

Asylum seekers, by definition, are humans who have gone through some of the worst things we can imagine for fellow humans. War, genocide, persecution. People who have seen family die, who have been subject to famines, who have been child soldiers themselves, who have been raped and enslaved. In other words, people who come as asylum seekers need all the opportunities, safety, support and help they can possible receive. I image myself as a refugee, and I am pretty sure I would be messed up, physically, mentally or probably both.

However, for many "Europeans" (whatever that may mean in our messed up Continent where we have spent most of history trying to kill each other) , what we see is therefore that most people from "elsewhere (ie. those who look different than us) are "fucked up". And the conclusion becomes "people from elsewhere are fucked up". This lack of empathy, and jump to judgement is shocking, but yet perhaps very human. Reality is what we see and perceive.
Family reunions, especially of people who are "from elsewhere", is an extension of this lack of empathy. "Why you need to build your life here? Can't all of you just go back where you came from?" It leads to a further lack of empathy and understanding. In fact, we see the family reunions as "proof" that it's "too easy to come to Europe, there are too many coming".
Highly skilled migrants: Essentially the most brutal of destruction of the very countries where people should "go back". We need nurses? Let's bring them here from Burundi. We need Engineers? Let's get some Indians. Need some Engineers? Let's import half of the Philippines. And this is "fine", because after all, it is "these individuals choice to emigrate, and surely it would not be right to restrict their personal choices" (imagine ironic voice while reading)
Illegal immigrants. Before we progress here, let's taste that word. Illegal immigrant. That we have even let such an expression enter our language is shocking. Let's be honest and call them what they really are. Humans in search for a better life. Imagine if your European ancestors getting on boats to the US where called illegal migrants? Or if in the large people wanderings that made you settle where you now live made your ancestor an illegal human being? Without rights, without dignity, without opportunity. Well, having already branded them as illegal (it's nice when you make laws that by definition can't be applied to yourself because you are born with a citizenship, right?) they are obviously criminals by definition. Without ability to work or live legally, to create a future within the parameters of our societies, their options are simple. Go underground, hide and work with whatever is hidden. And then we are shocked that they end up working in criminal organisations (most of which have their origins in the rest of our beautifully sarcastic legal society). "They come here illegally, commit crime. They deserve no sympathy, no rights, no support. There are legal ways of coming here" (which let's face it, there are not really at all for most of these people).

What actually happens is that the migration to Europe can only lead to one thing. More xenophobia, more crime, less society, more division, more fear and less social cohesion. Because honest people with the intention to come and build a future here cannot. Because we have no way of making our societies integrate and work for them.

So what's our solution?

Let them all drown in the Mediterranean Sea. After all, that'll teach them....

----

In my short experience I learnt something about values and authenticity. One of the biggest problems Europe is facing is that Europe is not authentic to itself and its own values. Modern Europe is based upon the heritage of the Enlightenment, and more modernly upon the values of the French revolution.

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité

Liberty, Equality (before the law originally), Brotherhood.

Freedom for who? And equality for whom? And what laws? And who are our brothers anyway?

A society that preaches one set of values, but acts against them, is a society doomed to failure. Immigration is difficult, and I don't preach a simple solution. But I do predict a simple death of the society based upon these principles and values that we love and treasure so much for ourselves and our families if we do not align our actions to our words.

First of all, not rescuing humans who are drowning, and not spending money on that is just not an option. (Thank you Italian Coast Guard, and no thank you Mr. Cameron, we will not be led by you)

Second of all, when are we going to figure out a long term solution on how we can build societies that not only can be admired from afar across a treacherous Mediterranean, but where both the values (the ones we love to talk so loudly about) and our systems (yes, we will have to change the way we run our countries, our welfare states, our immigration policies, our integration), to welcome every human on earth to be part of a European values system if they so choose. And we will welcome them and build this world together because we are proud of where we come from.

Let's find out how we can break down these walls that we have built.

Time to reshape habits

2014-10-21T18:33:00.001+02:00

It's been three months since the end of my term as President of AIESEC International. It has been some of the best months of my life.

I made a decision last Christmas, that I would consciously not jump into anything straight away after my term. I have lived a life at full speed more or less since 2006 - last five of which in a full time leadership role in AIESEC. I love and thrive with the adrenaline and thrills that come with such speed and intensity. And for sure I will seek such experiences throughout my life. However, sometimes we have to slow down to understand what is there, to understand who we have become and to prepare properly and start again.

Habits of life
One of the key things I realised during the past couple of years is that there were some life habits that I never built for myself which ultimately will make me unhappy and eventually kill me. I am serious. I am talking about three simple concepts - nutrition, exercise and relationships.

Nutrition
I have realised now that I have never eaten well. I found cooking too boring or time consuming, other times I was looking for a cheap and quick fix, and most importantly I didn't know a lot about nutrition. How does your body truly work? What lifestyle are you actually living and what are the facts and myths you "know" (or rather, have been told by your mum, your government and the media) about nutrition? Well, you don't know what you don't know, and I know know that I didn't know anything. I spent around 10 days in the beginning of September literally reading about nutrition, diet, metabolism and biology online the whole day. I was honestly amazed. I mean, it is kind of obvious, but I never really paid attention, but what you put into your mouth, translates into every other aspect of your life - physical, mental, psychological, stress etc. It translates into your ability to live and lead the way you want to as well. Right now I am actually amazed at the performance up until this point in my life given how I have been treating nutrition. After those ten days I decided to make a change for me (note: don't copy any nutrition approach of anyone without reading and understanding a holistic picture - trust me, it's very individual).

I have completely cut or heavily reduced all added sugar (including all sodas, juices, pastries etc. etc), high starch-high carb products (potatoes, rice, pasta, corn and bread), cut all processed food (that's basically more or less everything in the supermarket) and have converted to a low carbohydrate, high nutrition, vegetable and unprocessed meat based diet. I drink water (and tea). In 6 weeks I have lost around 10 kgs, but I don't care so much about that. Much more importantly I feel great. I have stable energy throughout the day and I feel great. I am cooking every single meal myself, from ground up, and the only thing I will basically eat out is salad. Overall, I was amazed to learn so much about food and nutrition, and I think I was shocked at how bad the food we eat actually is (I mean, we all know that fast food is bad, but basically almost all the food we eat is bad!). I am not prescribing for anyone else to do anything in particular, but if you want to know what you don't know which will directly impact your life - day to day and long term - start reading about nutrition.

Excercise
On AIESEC International we had this running joke, that while we were all members of a gym, for many of us (although to be fair, my last team had a lot of impressive peeps that worked out a lot!) it was more like a CSR project supporting Dutch employment through our monthly membership fees. In the past 18 months, converting membership fee to times at the gym, I literally spent more than 100 EUR on average per visit to the gym - wow. Anyway.

I have realised that I am probably never gonna enjoy going to fitness classes, lifting weights or running on a treadmill. That's just me. But I do enjoy playing sports, especially football, and even skiing. I have joined a football team here (no worries, I don't think I will be making any headlines in your local newspaper), meaning I am getting a good run for around 1,5h at least twice a week. Yeah, it's not "working out every day etc etc" but it's definitely a good nudge up from 1,5h per 6 months. I even prepared my skiing equipment and am so looking forward to the first snow falling here in Oslo so I can start skiing again. We used to do that a lot as kids, every winter - especially cross country skiing - but ever since I moved to the States at the age of 16 (and let's face it, that's half of my lifetime ago!) I haven't had a full winter of skiing. Also, I am taking the opportunity to go swimming, especially when I go to Sweden to see my girlfriend.

Relationships
That brings me onto the third "habit", and I will call it a habit. I think many people who have known me for some years will have realised that I haven't always been very good at maintaining relationships. There's probably some deep rooted psychological reason behind that, but if there is one thing I have learnt, it is that you have the power - 100% - to change yourself. I think one of the key learnings I had through AIESEC International, where you work with so many people from collectivistic cultures, is how you define yourself changes. From just an individual in the world, to a part of a group or a family. Literally, your whole outlook changes. And I have changed in this sense, because I now define myself very much through the relationships I am in. I am not investing more time with my parents, my friends, my girlfriend and my brother than I ever have. And it really is very simple- what are you consciously choosing to invest your time in?

---
The reason I am talking about these three aspects - nutrition, exercise and relationships - is because over the past three months I have consciously prioritised them, not only half heartedly or in between, but actually and every day. I haven't prioritised "looking for jobs" or "figuring out what I want to do", because I believe that the best investment I can make in my life, is to build habits in these areas that last for the rest of my life. Three months is not forever, but it's a good start.

I have learnt to cook some meals (and I can tell you, it is quick, and once you are used to it, not really boring), I look forward to playing football (just waiting for that snow!!!) and I am spending time with people I care about.

As a random side project, I have been renting out my apartment on Airbnb when I have been out of town. I am just in the beginning of that, but it's pretty cool. Firstly because you meet people, but also because you start setting really high standards (and habits!) for your own home, and you become the side - benefactor of that. F. ex. what you may consider "ok cleanliness" for yourself, is definitely not the same when you are renting it out for money, or what you consider practical or beautiful changes as well. So as a result I have invested money, and lots of time into my apartment, and I can honestly say I have never lived so well as I am right now.

Yeah, but what am I going to be doing?

Actually, finding balance and structure brings a lot - and I have just last week started my baby steps towards my next steps. I will let you know in due time, but for now - I am happy with reshaping my habits.

The world as a football match...

2014-07-24T01:25:00.000+02:00

For the past 3 years I have been on AIESEC International and for the past year I had the privilege of being President of AIESEC International. For sure the most intense and amazing leadership journey I have been on. Still, I was unable to write about it while it was happening - really. Grateful to AIESEC I am now embracing "life after AIESEC" as they call it.

I am back in Oslo, in what is perhaps the warmest and sunniest summer in my memory. Yet this particular summer is not a very peaceful one in the world. Right now there are two conflicts that are dominating the news. One is the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, in particular the conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. The other is the conflict in Eastern Ukraine (civil war?) - which has rumbled on for months, but taking a bigger spotlight in the newspapers when a civilian airplane was shot down. Having just moved from the Netherlands (where most of the victims came from) a couple of days before it happened, I have gotten an extra close view to this event.

There are many thoughts I have about these conflicts and the world as a whole right now. In my year as President of AIESEC International, which is a truly global organisation, I had the ongoing and clear perception that the world is definitely not becoming a more peaceful place. It is getting worse. The level of frustration, conflict and violence, internally in countries and externally between countries, as well as people in general seems to me to be increasing - and quite rapidly. It is a big concern. Young people, unfortunately, rather than being part of the solution, seem to often be part of the stoking of the fires. Passionate, intensely so, we demand change.

I am a politically interested person, and I can for sure have many political opinions about what is happening. However, I think that is actually the least interesting, and least helpful contribution I (and frankly anyone) can make at this moment in time. Rather I would like to make some observations based on my leadership learnings in my year as President of AIESEC International.

It is very natural for us to focus on "other people"
"The Russians are arming the rebels". "The Ukrainian government is provoking the rebels". "Hamas is attacking Israeli civilians with rockets". "The Israelis are killing children in Gaza". "The EU needs to change its policy to Russia".

However, we tend not to focus on ourselves and our own behaviour. This is particularly interesting, as our real influence is over our own behaviour and say (actually 100%) whereas we cannot control at all how other people behave or what they say. By accusing others of XYZ what behaviour am I displaying? What is the best way that I can behave to help the world be more peaceful? What is the thing I can do that will actually contribute positively? This is the most powerful question - except we often answer it by "The best thing I can do is to do something to influence others", by which we have (again!) turned the shoe on its head again (ie. protest, speak out, demonstrate, write on facebook what I think, discuss etc.). But what can I do (focusing on the I - not on "them"?).

Speaking of myself the best thing I can do is to spend more time to understand, read more - especially from sources that have different opinions than me - to understand others point of view better - to remain calm and empathetic - not to try to be right and prove my point of view - and in fact not to try to discuss or be right. Finally it is to demonstrate understanding, empathy and calm - because I can bring that, and it seems like it is needed.
We like to be fans - but the World Cup is over!

Who do you support? Israel or the Palestinians? Russia or the rebels or Ukraine? US or Russia? Europe or Russia?

I mean, this is absolutely absurd. It is not a football match. It is not a question of supporting one side. It is a question of supporting all sides. And to stop standing in the stadium shouting insults at the other fans, put away our flags and our banners, and walk away from the match. It's not a spectator sport.

I support all humans. I support the end of violence. And I support dialogue and understanding. And it starts with me.

These two perspectives might seem very simple and straightforward. They are. And I do not intend them as an instruction to anyone but myself. Leadership is about understanding people, where they come from and why the world is as is it is. It is also about withholding judgement, and granting empathy, trust and love. And finally about focusing on my own behaviour and actions.

May the world calm down so we don't repeat the "July crisis" on the 100 year anniversary of the hottest and most devastating July the world ever saw.

Running for President of AIESEC International

2013-03-01T00:40:00.000+01:00

My name is Rolf Schmachtenberg and I am running for President of AIESEC International. I am not here to talk only about the future of AIESEC but rather to talk about the future of youth leadership. As much as we love AIESEC, it belongs not only to us, but to this world. AIESEC promises to provide a platform for young people to explore and develop their leadership potential for positive impact in society. AIESEC promises to be the Youth Leadership provider of the world.

I discovered this organization only at the age of 25. My relationship with AIESEC was going to be that of an EP, seeing the value of a work abroad opportunity. At that time I was back in university studying, after having spent the previous 5 years first losing and then finding myself again.

I stepped out at Milan Central Station in Italy on Monday the 30th of August. My ticket to Italy was a one way ticket, and I was moving to a new country. There was no TN form or job description waiting for me, nobody picking me up at the train station, and no accommodation was provided. There had been no EP preparation or expectation setting before I went. But wait a minute. This was not an AIESEC internship. The year is 2004, I am 22 and have just moved to Italy. I would only discover AIESEC 3 years later.

Moving to Italy was a life changing decision. I was running away from the biggest disappointment of my life – failing my university degree. I had failed a promise to my parents, to my friends and to everyone I knew. But more importantly I had failed a promise to myself.

In Italy I went from hopeful to hopeless to homeless.

It is an experience that I wish for nobody, but that was the strongest of my life – to sleep outside on a bench in a sleeping bag in a park in Milan in November as the cold crept in and the rain starting pouring down.
It was also in that moment I truly discovered who I am and what I stand for. I am proud to say that I had the luck and the strength to turn this experience around. I found a job, then a flat, and then I built a life. I left Italy feeling like I could do anything.

My two years in Italy I still consider the proudest achievement of my life. I learnt that determination can bring even the weakest human being, as I felt I was at the time, to great heights of personal accomplishment.
My experience in Italy shaped me deeply.

Even today I am not afraid of dreaming big or of not succeeding. I believe that achievement is a conscious choice. I believe that growth is a conscious choice. I believe that acting according to principles and values is a conscious choice. In my experience, the biggest difference between success and failure is a clear purpose behind every action. In my experience, action translates dreams into reality. I believe it is a conscious choice.

When I found AIESEC at the age of 25, the stereotypes would tell me that it was too late. But actually that was my second year at university, fulfilling the promise made to myself 6 years earlier – of getting a university degree. Getting a university degree, the second time around, was a promise made to myself. Fulfilling that promise made all the difference to me.

I walked straight into a Local Committee without understanding what AIESEC was about. Immediately I was struck with AIESEC’s promise of peace and fulfilment of humankinds’ potential. I mean, what kind of organization makes that kind of promise?

It took my own AIESEC Experience to understand this promise fully.

I mentioned that I am not only here to talk only about the future of AIESEC but about the future of youth leadership.

Our promise is to make this world a better place. It is a promise of youth leadership for the world.
Our promise is to develop change agents. It is the promise of the AIESEC Experience.
Our promise is be the organization that can provide 1 million Experiences. It is the promise of AIESEC 2015.
Our promise is that each of this experiences will be a high quality AIESEC Experience. It is the promise to our customers.
Our promise is that every young person taking this experience can develop leadership. I call it the promise of our generation.

I believe that to fulfil this promise, and every promise, we must choose to fulfil all of our promises. To our members, to our customers, to ourselves, to young people and to the world.

Perhaps you are wondering what is new? Isn’t this is what we are already doing? I don’t think we are. 86,000. How many unfulfilled leadership development promises did we make to our members in 2012? 10,500. Promises made to companies in 2012 for taking a GIP intern. 5,300. How of those promises we could not fulfil. 2 out of 3. 2 out of 3 students that raised their GIP internship form and never went on an internship. 1 out of 3. Students that their form for a GCDP internship and never had a life changing exchange experience, never lived an exchange experience. In 2012, did AIESEC fulfil its promise to the world?

These are tough questions and many promises. But that does not mean we should not make them.

Remember all the promises, not only in AIESEC – but in your life - that you ever made and for some reason you couldn’t fulfil. Imagine what kind of person you would be if you could fulfil all those promises. Imagine if AIESEC fulfils all the promises we make, what kind of AIESEC we would be. Imagine if we would match all our EPs, what impact we could have. Imagine if we would deliver to all our partners, how sustainable we would be. Imagine if the promise of leadership was inside every TMP, how beautiful our LCs would look. Imagine if every GCDP was a leadership development experience, how powerful AIESEC could become. Imagine when every number represents a life changed.

For me, this is the idea. The idea of fulfilling all of our promises would change AIESEC fundamentally.
The world is full of promises. It is time for us to fulfil ours - to be the youth leadership provider of the world.

And I know we can because I believe that achievement is a conscious choice. I believe that growth is a conscious choice. I believe that acting according to principles and values is a conscious choice. In my experience, the biggest difference between success and failure is a clear purpose behind every action. In my experience, action translates dreams into reality. I believe it is a conscious choice.

I am Rolf Schmachtenberg and I am running for President of AIESEC International.

Eldorado

2013-01-14T02:22:00.000+01:00

Gaily bedight,
A gallant knight,
In sunshine and in shadow,
Had journeyed long,
Singing a song,
In search of Eldorado.

But he grew old-
This knight so bold-
And o'er his heart a shadow
Fell as he found
No spot of ground
That looked like Eldorado

And, as his strength
Failed him at length,
He met a pilgrim shadow-
"Shadow," said he,
"Where can it be-
This land of Eldorado?"

"Over the Mountains
Of the Moon,
Down the Valley of the Shadow,
Ride, boldly ride,"
The shade replied-
"If you seek for Eldorado!"

--Edgar Allan Poe

The year that was

2012-12-31T17:32:00.001+01:00

2012 will be over in around six hours. And we will start again. I am grateful for all I have and all I have lost to miss. I am grateful for all I have gotten and found along the way. And I wish you a very very happy new year. Thank you, see you on the other side.

My leadership journey in the last 2 months (4/4)

2012-12-27T07:48:00.002+01:00

This is the 4th of 4 parts in this long post/series. Refer to the first three to get the context or enjoy this on its own. :)

Product specific Impact on those working with the product/for the organization

What is it?

If you compare two car companies, let’s take BMW and General Motors, on an overall level they are in the same business. How is it different to work for one of these companies or the other – or how is it different to work for a bank instead – let’s say Citigroup? Now much of that answer will lie in the organizational cultures, the specific ways in which the businesses are run, how decisions are taken etc. And all this, business schools around the world make a fortune trying to tell its students about. I argue that there is another, fundamental, difference, and it lies in the product itself. It will be a different experience working in a company that has a product that is defined physically by the car rolling out the factory, than a company that is defined by its services. There will be a fundamental difference in working for BMW and GM – because the products are different. What is that difference? The key here Is for the businesses themselves to identify what it is that is unique about working with their specific product. What is the specific learning that you can get from working with BMW which you cannot get from working for Citigroup – for sure – and you will never get even working for GM? Depending on the answer, that will change a lot about what kind of strategy you implement. The hard part is to identify what is product specific, and what is just contextual. Most of the obvious things which are different today, aren’t actually permanent, such as f. ex. Company culture. Most things which are obvious could be the same. But some things are different and cannot be the same – because it is defined by the product. It can only be the same if the product is the same. Now – this is harder to identify the more similar the product is (ie BMW and GM), which leaves temptations to identify the other things instead. But herein lies the magic.

An example from my life (skip or read –you know the drill)

In the alarm company I worked for, there were real opportunities of learning related to things such as public policy on crime, on sensor technology, on psychology of people related to the concept of safety. These were product specific – because if we had been producing chocolate, nobody could have learnt about those things. The HR and learning strategy should have been built around that. Because for those genuinely interested in these things in terms of learning, there could have been no better product in the world to work with. At the same time we had competitors in the same industry. What I know that was specific about our product (although, surprise, surprise, nobody in the company made any particular effort in telling me), was the direct tie between the alarms themselves and the security guards. This meant that as a product of “feeling safe” the product had advantages over its competitors, independent of technical merits.

Why it matters?

It matters because it is what makes the company special to work for. From a learning perspective and from an impact perspective. By identifying and highlighting the product specific aspects of the organization, it is possible to develop a competitive and independent HR strategy, attracting the right people, and retaining them. Learning will be tied to the product itself – meaning that the companies growth and individual learning is directly linked to on another. Powerful, ey?

AIESEC context (skip this if you aren’t so interested in those specifics):

In AIESEC, the membership experience (TMP/TLP as we call it), is designated as a leadership development experience. But, of course, it is possible to develop leadership in a number of different ways in the world, and even working or volunteering in other student organizations or NGOs. So what’s special? The products – different sub products of exchange – all involve 3 specific processes that develops leadership in a very unique way. (1) An exchange involves leading another young person to leave their home country and embrace an experience in another country based on what you tell them. That is a pretty significant leadership experience. (2) An exchange involves leading another organization, a company or an NGO, to actually change the way they run their business – by taking in a student or graduate from another country. This is never on the top of the strategic priority of a company. Lead that! (3) To deliver an Exchange successfully, a young person, 18-25, has to deliver an experience together with another young person, 18-25, across the world. Co-create customer value and leadership development where previous there was none. Yeah, that’s product specific leadership development. And product specific impact.

Conclusion

There are many things that have happened in the last 2 months in my life and in my experience. The reason I wanted to put these four points down is that I see them as my specific leadership learning that somehow came to fruition at the end of this period. Is that all? Hopefully not. Will they evolve? Hopefully so.

The obvious question for myself is - what is around the next corner - or even - what's the next turn? All I know right now is that I am grateful for this last period, as in my own mind I have realized things that at least to me where never as crystal clear as they are right now. For all those reading who have helped me learn in the last months and years - thank you.

I wish you a great end to the old and a wonderful entry into the new year.

My leadership journey the last 2 months (3/4)

2012-12-24T17:54:00.001+01:00

This is the third part of this post. To read the first two go here for one and here for two

As this is posted on Christmas eve, just before we are going to have Christmas dinner - all suited up is the tradition in our family - I wish you a very Merry Christmas (if you celebrate) or otherwise a wonderful holiday period.

Co-delivery and coordination of “organizational why” and “customer value”

What is it?

When two organizations are cooperating to deliver a product, the more aligned the “Why’s of the organizations” and the “Customer value” is, the better the quality of the product. Think of any situation where you have two companies or similar influencing the delivery of your product. Individually they might be providing great customer value and alignment to their “why” but together they might not match. An example I can think of is airports. So f. ex. Airline companies usually have quite different customer values and “why’s” than the shops in the airport or the airport itself. The airport itself has an interest in you being there and basically shopping, meaning that they would not have any interest in designing a security check where you could pinpointedly estimate when exactly to be there, so you could walk through and walk straight to the plane. The airline company, on the other hand, is usually trying to provide you an on time service as fast and pleasant as possible. The more disaligned these two are – the worse the quality of the product – Paris CDG airport (for those who know it), is probably the world champion at this.

An example from my life (read this, as this is a more complex learning and more examples might help)

In the security alarm company, the guys who were installing and maintaining the alarms on the ground were independent contractors, who through some (surely complex) model of payment that I never was explained of course, would be paid the installation fee and a portion of the service fee per month (this is very the real money was, of course, as any subscription based service will tell you). On the other hand, the contractor was himself responsible for maintaining and servicing his clients specifically on behalf of the whole brand. The customer would know only one company, and when calling the customer service centre, where I sat, would speak to us as one. I would take a complaint or request, feed it into the system, and the installer/contractor in the end was responsible for delivery. The problem, of course is that sometimes these incentives can be dis-aligned, depending on customer behaviour, and the why of different parts

F. ex. If an installer saw his “why” as providing a technical installation, that is quite different than “providing the feeling of safety”. If the customer value was the “price of a smoke alarm hooked up to an alarm centre” as opposed to “having an maintenance guy that knows me and will listen to my concerns”, that is different too. Now – compare that to the why of the head office itself or the customer value that I believe I am providing on the phone. Imagine if on the phone I am delivering what in theory is a good product – “providing the feeling of safety with a local guy you know and trust”, and the installer believes he is delivering “a good technical installation at a good price”. Both can be quality products. But co-delivered, the result, if disaligned, will lead to a quality complaint.

Why it matters?

It matters for two reasons. Firstly because a strong belief in the why of the organization, internally and externally, gives the organization its strength to grow as well as strength to overcome difficulty. If this why is aligned that builds trust and opportunities for co-delivering growth and value. As for the coordination of the customer value this lies at the heart of putting the customer first. Alignment will lead to better quality, stronger and more promoters, and simply – growth.

AIESEC context (skip this if you aren’t so interested in those specifics):

In AIESEC, every Exchange experience is co-delivered. That means that automatically there is an organizational “Why” of the sending entity, and an organizational “Why” of the incoming entity. If a Turkish IT Engineering student is coming to Hungary to an IT startup – is they why of this experience co-delivered and aligned? Are we on the same page of what kind of leadership we are trying to develop through the experience, and why that is relevant to Hungary, Turkey – or both? At the same time, is the customer value for the Turkish student corresponding to the customer value of the Hungarian company? These are 4 circles. And when they are aligned, we deliver powerful leadership development experiences and our customers are happy. When they are not – we don’t – simple as that. Practically, it actually means (what we already know) that “matching“ is not only a question of skills or competencies, but of experiences.

My leadership journey the last 2 months (2/4)

2012-12-23T13:28:00.001+01:00

This is the second part of the main leadership learning I had in the past two months. Missed the first part? See here

Clarity of purpose in a sub- or specific product

What is it?

This is very connected to the above mentioned point. It simply means that every single product that is rolled out in the market, has to have its own “why” that is connected to and derived from the overall organizational why. An obvious way for this to happen is if there is an embedded why in the product development and if it is a clear requirement that this has to be formulated clearly and convincingly, internally and externally, before any product is launched or run. A simple example is to have a product description that includes the Why of the product itself.

Example from my life (just skip if you don’t care)

I will go back to the same company as above. There would be new versions launched all the time, obviously. But often, it was not so clear to explain the independent why to the customer externally of the product. Internally, sometimes, the customer value was more strongly on other products than the newly launched ones, and the organizational value was unclear on both. It might be clear that alarms in general brought a feeling of safety. But why would this specific alarm have a specific type of safety? An example could be an alarm that worked even if electricity or the phone system was down. A point would be how that alarm ensured the why to a higher extent. But instead it was often marketed internally and externally in terms of costs/campaigns etc. If you were a product expert and long in the company you might know the specific why of the sub product, but if you were new or not a technical expert, you would usually just assume. And as it was an assumption, after a while it became bland, uninspiring and mundane.

Why it matters?

As it is actually a part of the embedding, many of the reasons are the same as above – keeping the organization true to itself, reinforcing itself and keeping everyone happy. In addition it is crucial for product understanding. Because in the end, all sub and specific products are the ones actually competing in the market – very rarely a general product. You don’t look to buy “a car”, normally, but you look between two different Sedans – f. ex. So if you don’t understand the specific why of the Sedan (in addition to the customer value), then you cannot distinguish yourself organizationally from the other Sedan – only on customer value perhaps (ie. price etc.)

AIESEC context (skip this if you aren’t so interested in those specifics):

It is easy to say that “By going on exchange you challenge your world view, learn about other cultures, develop self-awareness and learn about the world. It is less easy to explain and understand exactly what a Turkish IT Engineering graduate would learn by going on a internship in an IT startup company in Hungary, as opposed to what a Swiss student of Marketing would learn by going on an internship in an NGO in Ghana working on Child rights. Why, in terms of leadership development, are we trying to offer one experience or the other? Is it to impact the IT industry in Turkey? Or in Hungary? To create more entrepreneurs? To expose Ghanian NGOs with perspectives of Swiss marketing? Or to impact the way Swiss young people think of human rights? The first step is to ask these questions.

My Leadership journey the last 2 months (1/4)

2012-12-22T22:34:00.002+01:00

My journey – leadership development in the Global Office

Six months – don’t they go by in a jiffy?

Today (written Tuesday 18^th Dec) we had the second day of our AIESEC International Team days. 21 people, all together, for the first time in over two months. And suddenly we are off – to a million different directions, in our own reflections. My boss today retold what of course in theory I have heard before, but which resonated very strongly today. It is about the leadership journey and development that happens inside as a result of being put in difficult, challenging and uncomfortable situations on the outside. The theory is always there, but I guess like with any theory, sometimes it strikes more authentically than other times. Today it hit home with me. Like a home run in the last inning of World Series final.

We were sharing 3 moments each today, not of strategy or tactics, not of AIESEC or of exchange. 61 moments of our journeys during the last 8 weeks. 61 images of emotions. Of feeling great. Or awful. Hardship and friendship. Of success – and of failure. And of dealing with it all. Questions asked, and many not answered. I guess – it resonated a lot today. Suddenly I realised that in the last 2 months I have grown a lot. I have learnt a lot. I think I have learnt about things that I came to AI for – 20 months ago. Global Strategy of a head office. Perhaps it sounds superficial or strange, and I wouldn’t know how to describe it clearly yet – hopefully soon I will, but learning how a global association really works, somehow, and how to drive things. One year ago, I remember looking for external literature on the topic of global headquarter strategy, and except some academic dribble, could not really find anything useful. I guess that those that actually know something useful about this, are actually too busy doing the job and accomplishing something great, instead of writing academic thesis about it for a narrow audience.

It took me something like 14-18 months in my role on AI to start truly understanding and seeing some of these things – which I guess goes to show that a 2-year role is not just about “spending much more time in AIESEC and a huge commitment”, but actually about having the chance to learn something much more complex and profound than perhaps most other roles. In AIESEC we always talk about learning fast and delivering in one year. Personally, I think I am quite a fast learner and I have been delivering quite well from the start in my role. Certain understandings and realisations, however, are only appearing and crystalizing themselves now.

The last few weeks I have realized four things, which I think are quite universal actually, and not just “AIESEC” insights – although they came through that. Some of these insights might seem very obvious, I guess all insights are once they are insights, but my experience tells me they are not at all. I will make each of them a blogpost the next few days - as I don't want to overload the reader with all at once.

The first, which I wrote about in a post a few weeks ago is the “Embedded Why”.
The second is about importance of clarity of purpose of sub/specific products – not just overall organization.
The third is about how a quality product that is co-delivered between separate business units requires coordination both on the customer value side and on the organizational purpose side (don’t worry, I will try to explain).
And the fourth is about how the product of an organization itself has a specific impact on the people working on that product, because it has specific attributes – and that one needs to know the uniqueness of those connections (between the product and the people) to identify and build those people’s experiences. Everything else you can read about in a text book, and might actually be quite generic. Problem is – that depending on the product itself, it might be completely irrelevant (don’t worry again, I will try to explain)

For each of the four I will use the following pattern:

What is it?
An example from my own life (I will mostly stick to one specific completely non-AIESEC work experience, which I think is quite universal)
Why it matters?
AIESEC context

Happy reading! I would much appreciate your comments if you have any.

The “embedded Why”.

What is it?

I already tried to explain this in a previous non-elegant post. I guess, in the end, it’s simple. Actually, I think this is what many companies try to do through their “values”. But actually I don’t think that works unless the values are directly connected to the purpose of the product and the business itself. I mean, it is very straightforward. It just means that inside all your operational processes and actions on the ground level, there are key milestones, questions and hurdles related to the why of the organization itself, which directly connects action to purpose. An simple example is to integrate customer feedback into daily operations themselves, and not separate them out as a different operation. Or to ask key check questions related to the purpose.

Example from my life (just skip if you don’t care)

I used to work for a security alarm company, in the customer complaints department. Now, the purpose of this company was usually not communicated so clearly anyway, but I always assumed it to be something around providing the feeling of safety and comfort. If that is the case, then a key point should have been in the customer complaints department to evaluate “how safe does the customer feel?”. Or for the sales department to evaluate – would we help this customer feel safer with this system (and I am not talking about scare-tactics here), just the simple question.

But what happened instead, on the sales, I guess, is that the customer segmentation for sure focused on “customers that might feel unsafe” – like elderly people or so – but that the process itself was not so focused on actually ensuring they felt safer, but rather on the conversion of the sale itself, whether they felt safer or not. The follow up, and upgrade system as well, very much linked to the same. The segmentation and strategy might be there, but it’s not embedded. So on one hand the organizational purpose is there, and probably stated at seminars and conferences in the company. On the other hand, it is not embedded.

Why it matters?

When the Why is embedded, organization purpose is clear to everyone, every day, without anyone having to ever really explain it. And it helps refine and improve the understanding of the Why on a daily level, at every level of the organization. It motivates everyone who is working in the organization to do more, to be better. When it is not embedded, the result is the opposite. The theoretical “why” can easily be forgotten – or worse – corrupted, at any level of the organization. Even one business unit can turn rotten and spread like a cancer throughout, or simply exist as non-performing.

The understanding of this why, and it’s value in the world and to the customer is naturally not refined on an everyday level, as it is not present every day. Therefore the organizational purpose is detached from the market it operates in, which means oblivion or irrelevance over time. Usually resulting in lack of sales and, eventually, closure. And thirdly, people will not really feel connected to the organization. Because even if the organizational why in theory is good, the daily operational why is missing, and therefore cynicism sets in. This leads to lack of retention etc.

AIESEC context (skip this if you aren’t so interested in those specifics):

In AIESEC it would mean that at the every process, at every team, EB and MC meeting, at every growth chart, at every strategic discussion, the question about “what type of leadership development experience are we trying to provide?” would appear. Alternatively, it would be an evaluation of that question – ie. “are we providing experience XYZ”.

Clarity of the why - in theory and practice

2012-12-07T01:52:00.000+01:00

The most important "project" of our term as AIESEC International this year is to bring clarity and belief in the why of our organization.

Up until now we are driving this at every interaction in the organization, at conferences, at summits, at country visits, at virtual calls, and all communication. And I think it is a very important and right strategy. We are feeling the results, as the organization is taking it in, and responding to it. But, of course, in an organization of 80,000 young people, rotating on a yearly basis, it takes time - a lot of time - and it's a process, not an end state.

Last week it came to my mind, that there is another way. It is not instead, but in addition. Because one thing is to talk about and clarify the why and support change in operations and motivation as a result. For it to trickle down and spread.

Another way - perhaps simpler and more powerful is just to provide operational tools where it's embedded. Then instead of people comparing practical operations with a theoretical why it will be opposite. The theoretical why will reinforce what's already there in the operations.

Let me explain. Here is the clarity and the why.

1. AIESEC envisions peace and fulfillment of humankind's potential.
2. As an organization we believe in a constant and fundamental shift in the world through better leadership.
3. Therefore we provide leadership to students and graduates, so that they can be equipped to impact the world. We define leadership broadly, through values, skills, management ability, cultural understanding, execution ability.
4. We develop these leadership skills by (1) taking a professional internship or (2) volunteering experience abroad or (3) working in teams to deliver these experiences or (4) lead teams and manage the organization through that.
5. We know from our organizational past that these experiences are powerful and that (1) AIESEC should grow its physical and virtual reach to provide more of these experiences, that (2) AIESEC really must have the ability to actually deliver on entrepreneurial and responsible leadership, and (3) that a collaborative environment high quality experiences can be delivered.
6. We ensure that our programmes are defined to develop entrepreneurial and responsible leadership through operational definitions, we ensure that all experiences are co-delivered in collaboration, and we make sure that we measure the quantity and the quality of experiences provided.

Hmmm. Clear. Kind of. But it's still theory.

The Embedded Why
When I plan an exchange experience I start by asking the following questions:

What kind of leadership development am I trying to provide through this Exchange and why do I want to deliver that impact on a young person to come here?
What kind of impact can that development have on my country/the world/issues?
How can that experience provide customer value to an organization providing that experience and fundamentally deliver an immediate value to the student experiencing it?
What leadership will I, or anyone working on delivering this experience and providing this customer value learn?

These questions repeat - and are evaluated - regularly. In planning, at sales, at delivery, at arrival, during the internship, after and reported upon throughout.

The session above when I hear it after having delivered one exchange? It's clear - because it is just reinforcing operations.

I think by embedding the why in operations, in a simple way, the clarity becomes obvious. And it won't be hard to remind people - as it will be part of the feedback loop into the organization itself.

Now - how to implement?

Travelling...

2012-11-09T22:07:00.001+01:00

The last couple of weeks I have traveled a bit, and I will tell you some of that story.

Around 2 weeks I had the privilege to be invited for a weekend to Germany, for a conference for Local Committee VP Finance. The functional purpose of the conference was to prepare for the closing of the books at the end of the calendar year, and it was really exciting to discover this youth organization at local level doing its utmost to demonstrate integrity while running our global programmes. In addition the weekend gave me the chance again to interact with what I consider the heart and soul of AIESEC - our Local Committees.

It was also a chance to talk about the connection of the why - and the clarity of purpose. I believe that in a support role in any organization, such as Finance, HR or Communications, it becomes even more important to be very clear in one's mind about the organization's bottom line - even clearer than in core roles. This is because support functions can so easily lose themselves in their own jargon, own world and own rules - and forgetting what brings home the bacon for the organization.

Last week I traveled to France for the second time in 2 months. I have literally seen nothing of Paris the 8 days or so that I have been there, but I have seen a lot of AIESEC France. It is a special investment project this year to support and grow AIESEC France - to bring clarity of purpose and excitement around the core of AIESEC to their leadership - and to help them find that magical spot where they can grow - and grow fast.

I spent 2,5 days with the MC - mostly talking about sales and delivery. Together with the MC we created a customer promise for corporate stakeholders interacting with AIESEC France based upon the customer experience we wish for them to have. It turned out to be a base consisting of, (1) available, (2) customer oriented, (3) flexible in delivery, (4) professional and (5) reliable, with 2 cherries on the top to make it an extraordinary experience: (A) Purpose driven business and (B) Exciting and interesting interaction spaces.

I think this was a huge move, actually. It is so simple, but so powerful. Imagine if that is your customer interaction with AIESEC in France? It would make me happy. The next step is for them to translate the principles into concrete actions for each and every product - to make sure each interaction actually looks like that.

In the weekend, I had the chance of getting to know LCPs of AIESEC in France. Ever since I was MCP of AIESEC Norway, I have not had the chance to impact LCPs so directly, and I must say I enjoyed it. What remains important in any organization is that we remain clear on the bottom line. Then strategy and tactics can follow.

We spoke with LCPs about AIESEC's impact model - indirect impact on people through leadership programmes - as opposed to other organization's direct impact.

Ww spoke about why we measure the number and the quality of those experiences - because in the end that's what measures the indirect impact that we can have.

We spoke about the connection between those measurements and our mid-term strategic ambition - AIESEC 2015 - and how each of the measures connects with quantity and quality of experiences provided to young people and to the roots of success AIESEC identified.

We spoke about the role of a "local branch manager" - an LCP: (1) product implementation (2) managing people to achieve that (3) organizational alignment on the bottom line.

And we spoke about how to find that value - to break organizational programmes into products for the customer. To be clear that a product must provide:

Organizational value to AIESEC - which is individual leadership development through practical experience
Customer value for that organization or that EP or any supporter of that - according to their bottom lines
Desire on the part of a member of AIESEC to actually deliver that - because of the impact it has or the learning one has - or both.

My learning...

This might all sound awfully technical and internal. But actually it is directly connected to my learning. Because I don't think there is anything here that is particularly about AIESEC. I think these are universally true values - for any organization - any tribe that wishes to achieve impact or simply to make money.

Know you core: Clarity of the Why
Connect the why to your measures to the roots of your success
Implement the product
Align
And to it all - again and again and again and again

What brings organizational success?

This, I believe...

Purpose of Global Internship Programme

2012-10-25T12:40:00.001+02:00

Dear AIESECer (or non-AIESECer if you are interested)

We run two separate exchange programmes in AIESEC:

Global Internship Programme
Global Community Development Programme

In both cases, young people - students and recent graduates, leave their home country for several weeks and months and have an experience of working and contributing in another country.

For the Global Internship Programme, the internships are inside of corporations (anything from startups, to SMEs to national champions to multinationals), inside government sector in adimistration, in the education sector as a teacher or even as a journalist, nurse, researcher or similar. There is a third party organization that decides that getting a highly motivated, dynamic student with a global world view from another country will help my business in one way or another.

For the Global Community Development Programme, the focus is on volunteering and bringing value to that local community. Typically, AIESEC partners with local or national NGOs to deliver community development projects related to specific issues and topics - be it HIV/AIDS, ecological challenges, cultural exposure, helping disadvantaged groups in building competencies, challenges around immigration - or any other issue that is relevant in the local community. AIESEC brings, again, a highly motivated and dynamic student or graduate for a period of time to that community to deliver change and impact.

Why does AIESEC do this?

The purpose, in both cases, of AIESEC doing this - is to develop young people - the interns and students that get these opportunities. AIESEC believes that in both cases young people will develop a set of values, competencies, skills, professional experience, cultural understanding, work habits etc. which makes this person better. We call it leadership development. It's practical, experiential leadership development. Not through a classroom or through a textbook, but by having to deal with challenges and applying yourself in another country, in another context or organization.

And we believe that young people with these experiences become better people. Better leaders. And that the world will be better of because of it.

Global Internship Programme

When AIESEC started, in 7 countries in Western Europe, in 1948 - AIESEC started with internships of these kinds. Back then, the opportunities for young people to go to another country to get a practical work experience was limited, if existing at all, and it immediately became a "hit on campus". Companies, too, saw this as something new and interesting - AIESEC grew rapidly. Throughout our 64 years, the ability of AIESEC, on a local level, to ensure relevance both to students and to companies, has driven this programme. In the cases where the relevance has been found, and the value delivered, partnerships and student reputation has grown. Where it hasn't, AIESEC has been less successful.

At the very core of this programme, however, one thing must remain clear to AIESEC - and AIESECers, everywhere. The reason AIESEC does this programme is only 1 reason. To impact students and graduates. And the only way that can happen, is if the company sees value, and the student and graduate (A) has the opportunity in the first place and (B) what is delivered on the ground corresponds to that value.

The reason that AIESEC does GIP is NOT MONEY

Now - to run AIESEC as a social business, the business model is centered around companies (especially) and also students (to a certain extent) contributing financially to when these internships happen (if there is value for both, then that makes sense anyway). If AIESEC isn't able to apply that business model, then the organization cannot succeed either.

However..

If any (and I mean any), AIESEC office forgets that the purpose of the programme is the opportunities it provides, and that the money is about running the programme and organization sustainably, then the value delivered on the ground level will not work out. And companies will not work with you. And students will not have a good experience. If you are in an LC or MC right now - do you know exactly how are the experiences of each and every one of the interns that is on a GIP internship in your country? Do you know how the students you have sent abroad and are there right now are doing? Does someone speak to them and their companies on a weekly basis? Are they taken care of? Are they experiencing your country the way you would like them to? Are you experiencing them - are they challenging you with their world views? Why are you doing Global Internship Programme in the first place?

Get your priorities straight. Deliver great experiences.

What about me? I was VP Business Development on national level, responsible for the incoming GIP Programme in Norway just 3 years ago. Where were my priorities? Honest answer: Not always in the right place. Why? I didn't focus enough on that. Did I know every intern in the country? No. Did I focus on everyone being delivered a great experience? Probably not to a high enough extent. I was too focused on making new promises to new companies, rather than fulfilling the ones that had already been made - by me or someone else. Our Internship programme was operating at extremely high marginal profits - and we needed them to - because our scale and sustainability on other aspects was insufficient. And we weren't even looking to investing those margins in the experiences themselves, because we felt pressured.

I would go back, if I could, and change some things. In general, I still speak to many of the intern we brought to Norway - and I hope they had great experiences (perhaps someone reading this is one of them). However, I would have done more. I think the companies would have seen more value - and would have taken more interns had we done that. I think the interns would have become better promoters of AIESEC in Norway and in their companies. And I think we could have had even more impact.

Thanks for reading.

Remember why you are doing Global Internship Programme.

This morning, I had a call which reminded me.