Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 26 November 2010

I believe in strong leadership—but always with two corollaries, accountable leadership and strong leadership at all levels.

Accountable Leadership - All leaders should be accountable to someone or to some appropriate group. Even the President of the United States is accountable to the American electorate.

Unaccountable leaders too often fall victim to their own humanity. They can be captured by arrogance, which eventually, almost inevitably, leads to upheaval in their professional and perhaps personal lives.

On the other hand, good, effective leaders don’t mind being accountable to people with the right values. Being comfortable with accountability is a sign of competence and maturity in a leader.

Strong leaders need help. None of us is as smart as all of us. No leader can do it all and will fail if he or she tries. Weak leaders don’t understand this. But it’s always a precursor to trouble when leaders surround themselves with Yes-Men or Women whose loyalty supersedes their conscience, ethics, and compassion, thus their ability to truly help the leader and the organization. Strong leaders need to appoint people around them who are people with character.

Strong leaders who’re confident in their talent and assignment aren’t "threatened." Strong board members or directors, for example, do not bother them. Strong leaders don’t want directors who check their brains and their backbones at the boardroom door. Strong leaders with the right values and perspective want strong leaders around them, including people to whom they report, people who may be hard to please but for the right reasons like excellence, fidelity to the organizational mission, integrity.

Accountability is something God built into the fabric of human life, for he knew that sin would otherwise destroy us. I’ve always admired Charles Colson, whose organization, Prison Fellowship, exists because of him. He was not just appointed as an executive but was the founder of this organization. Yet he wisely created a board and voluntarily submitted himself to this board, allowing the board to establish policy and act as advisor. Such humility (Colson learned his humility the hard way after Watergate) protects both the leader and the organization.

Strong Leadership At All Levels - I also believe organizations are best served when strong leaders exist at all levels of the organization. Why? Because the stronger the links of the chain the stronger the chain. If leaders make things happen it’s logical to conclude that leaders working in a coordinated effort at all levels of the organization can make even more things happen.

Strong leaders at all levels also help balance the organization. Strong leaders at the top and in the leadership team strengthen the organization.

The fact that strong leaders exist on a board and strong leaders exist within the personnel hierarchy of an organization allows the person in the top executive position to be a strong leader. If strong leaders exist on the board, the top executive enjoys the liberty of accountability. If strong leaders exist within the organization, the top executive may exercise strong leadership without overpowering his or her co-workers.

Strong leaders don’t have to be narcissistic autocrats. Such people craft their own downfall.

Strong leaders who know and trust God, who gave them their talent in the first place, can get things done. They’re strong in leadership not for self-aggrandizement but to serve the Lord and others.

Excerpted from “Be One of God’s Unlikely Leaders—Live With Focus, Get Things Done,” my book in development.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2010

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow Dr. Rogers at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 24 November 2010

I work with SAT-7, a Cyprus-based Christian satellite television ministry broadcasting in Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish to 22 countries in the Middle East and North Africa, and 50 countries in Europe too. It’s a distinctive ministry methodology, using satellite broadcasts to beam uncensored Christian programming into a few open but many closed or largely closed countries in the region.

In particular, I serve with SAT-7 USA, the Easton, Maryland based American development arm of SAT-7. SAT-7 USA is what we call a support office. Others include SAT-7 Europe, SAT-7 UK, and SAT-7 Canada.

Christian satellite television is not your grandfather’s approach to missions. It’s been around for about 15 years, but it’s still viable. On the bleeding edge satellite television is converging with smart phones, social media, and other similar technologies, so who knows what the future holds? Still, satellite television in the Middle East is predicted to be viable for some years to come in a region of the world where more than 50% of the people are illiterate and the Internet has yet to make the infrastructure inroads it has in Asia.

While SAT-7 represents a creative and effective ministry paradigm, we still need in-country on ground missionaries, and God bless them for their work. But in many places in the Middle East and North Africa people involved in Christian work cannot safely carry out their assignments. In some countries like Saudi Arabia churches are banned. In some countries like Iran, churches exist but typically as secret house churches. Believers meet in small groups, are led by whoever is available, and sing in whispers.

These circumstances represent more reasons why I believe SAT-7’s capacity to edify the region’s Church and evangelize the lost via satellite television is such an incredible technological gift for such a time as this. It’s spiritually effective: we know this from the innumerable audience comments we receive testifying to changed lives. And it’s financially efficient: we’re able to reach viewers for about $1 per viewer per year. Incredible.

Allow me to speak personally for a moment. I recognize that even if God allowed me to live until I’m considered elderly, I’ve already lived most of my life on earth. Only God knows how long I will live. I don’t. But I do know that I want to finish well. I want to use my time for the Lord.

I want to be engaged in a ministry that brings the message of Christ to people in a way that changes their lives. I want to give money to a ministry that has integrity, exercises good stewardship, and aspires to do more for the Lord. I want to support and pray for a ministry that is at the center of global significance.

This is SAT-7. It’s getting the job done despite political, social, ideological, religious, and cultural obstacles. It works.

So with Thanksgiving tomorrow, I am glad and thankful God has placed me where he has. To serve him in support of such a spiritually strategic ministry is a privilege.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2010

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow Dr. Rogers at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 23 November 2010

I wrote recently that I considered TSA’s new enhanced body pats and the new Advanced Imaging Technology full body scanners over the top. I still think so, but I cannot support National Opt-Out Day, tomorrow November 24, primarily because I think it’s pointed in the wrong direction.

Full body scanners and the naked x-ray images they produce are, in my estimation, invasive and an unnecessary security measure. They’re unnecessary in that there are other ways, several of them, that TSA can employ to accomplish legitimate security checks. My point is: we’ve settled. Better technological tools are available to us.

But in the meantime, if I have to choose between going through a scanner I consider a virtual strip search or being patted down, which is to say groped, by some agent, which is to say some male person, I’ll opt for the scanner. I won’t opt-out of a scanner for a physical procedure I consider an even greater personal affront.

That’s what I mean by the wrong direction. National Opt-Out Day would make more sense to me if it called for opting out of enhanced pat downs. But then again, I resonate with people’s outrage about scanners too.

Still, I would not recommend people opt-out tomorrow or any other day from going through a scanner. Being seen by a stranger is better in my book than being touched by one.

Several things bother me about all this, including:

--the way TSA and the Department of Homeland Security have basically said, “This is it. Take it or be labeled uncooperative, not be allowed to fly, and be fined,”

--the lack of communication before this was leveled on the American public,

--the other options that have been set aside,

--the complete lack of moral or ethical discussion about these systems,

--the failure of TSA and Homeland Security to convince us this sort of Draconian measure will actually deter terrorism.

Again, in discussing these things I’m not contending there’s no terrorist threat nor am I attacking individual TSA agents who’re doing their job as they're told to do them.

I’m questioning TSA and Homeland Security’s policies and procedures. In a free society that once prided itself in its innovative spirit, both the policies and the procedures need reworked.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2010

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow Dr. Rogers at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 23 November 2010

The title of this blog may seem utterly obvious, but people still miss it. The recent firing of Dallas Cowboys Coach Wade Phillips and Minnesota Vikings Coach Brad Childress are cases in point.

Both men are, by all accounts, decent people and knowledgeable football professionals. But both let their teams get away from them. It didn’t take a genius or a leadership expert to see this. All one needed to do was watch their last three games before the firings. Problems were obvious: players not engaged, dissension on the sidelines, dissension in the locker rooms, dissension in the press room, players quitting on plays, and a look on both coaches’ faces like they didn’t quite know what hit them. It was sad.

Phillips got in over his head and didn’t lead because he couldn’t lead. Childress was a different story. He brought Bret Favre back and then handed the team to him.

Bret Favre, who’s enjoyed a remarkable 20 year All-Pro career, has repeatedly tainted his own legacy in the past two years: whining about and sniping at Green Bay when that team demonstrated enough leadership to know when it was time to move on, fussing with coaches and players on the New York Jets, allegedly sending salacious text messages to a woman working with the Jets, and tearing up the Vikings team whenever things didn’t go his way. Childress should have sat Favre down, sent him packing, or at a minimum had a “Come to Jesus” meeting with him. Apparently he did none of this. In other words, he didn’t lead.

So owners like the Cowboys’ Jerry Jones and the Vikings’ Zygi Wilf had no choice and opted for the best choice when they needed to take dramatic steps to change the direction of their team—they fired the coach. This gets everyone’s attention, quiets a few who wanted this result, and gives hope to others who want to win. It gives the owners a chance to put a leader into the leadership position, even if on an interim basis.

Leaders who don’t lead always get themselves and their organizations in trouble. And we saw that again in the Phillips and Childress stories. Leadership begins with leaders.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2010

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow Dr. Rogers at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.

Details

Written by: Rex M. Rogers

Published: 20 November 2010

“DFW female TSA searching a lot of women, thoroughly, pretty invasive, touching nearly everywhere, fingers inside belts, more”—my Twitter post from last Wednesday.

Later on Facebook, I reposted the tweet and added this comment: “I couldn't believe it when I saw it. Turns out, new Federal law requires this "enhanced body pat,” but in my book it goes beyond necessity and decency. Scanners already reveal all and it's only a matter of time before scan pics show up on the Internet. Got to be a better way than this to promote security.”

The reaction has been interesting. Most responders have agreed or offered some parallel sense of being violated, i.e., that enough is enough and this is enough. Some comments have been supportive of TSA if not the Federal government’s attempts to do what it can to make air travel safe from terrorists or other violent activists.

But public reaction is heating up now that about 300 full-body scanners are operational in 60 U.S. airports, and TSA is apparently planning to install up to 500 by the end of 2010.

The ACLU has called the Advanced Imaging Technology scanners a “virtual strip search.” Let the record show this is the first time in my life I’ve agreed with the ACLU.

In Germany, body-scanner protesters took off most of their clothes and walked through airports to dramatize their feelings. In San Diego, a young man recorded on his cell phone an exchange with TSA agents in which he refused the scanner, was approached for the “enhanced body pat” now required when one refuses the scanner, and said to the agents he’d have them arrested if they touched him inappropriately. Needless to say, he used other language. In any event, he’s now subject to up to $11,000 in fines.

Travelers claim the body pats and scanners are adding more delay to airport entry, treat them like criminals, embarrass them, subject their children to emotional trauma, make them extremely uncomfortable, and a lot more. I have to agree, because I’ve experienced it and seen it.

Meanwhile, the issue has become a national news story. “Anderson Cooper 360” debated the issues on multiple nights, including with guest Kate Hanni of flyersrights.org. She and her organization believe the scanners violate travelers’ rights.

Facebook features at least two related pages: Boycott Airports With Full Body Scanners, and another one that just shoots the moon to Boycott Flying.

The Boycott Flying page includes this introductory description of its mission: “This is a place for those of us who refuse to be treated like cattle, sheep, slaves or criminals by the TSA. We will not be poked, prodded, groped or nuked with naked scanning machines.”

Activist Brian Sodegren, an anti-body scanner or pro-airline traveler rights’ person (depending upon your point of view), has organized a “National Opt-Out Day,” next Wednesday, November 24, 2010. Sodegren’s website says, “The goal of National Opt-Out Day is to send a message to our lawmakers that we demand change. No naked body scanners, no government-approved groping. We have a right to privacy, and buying a plane ticket should not mean that we’re guilty until proven innocent.”

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has attempted repeatedly this week to defend the government and TSA’s position in all this, claiming security is paramount and that’s all that matters.

So we have a problem. Terrorists have made us afraid and with good reason. Planes have gone down due to terrorist activity. There are bad guys out there who hate us, so we need security.

On the other hand, people in a free society should not have to subject themselves to any and all techniques—and be quiet about it (Napolitano says “Everyone has to play their part.”) when someone plays the security trump card.

I’ve done a lot of traveling, been through more than my share of airport checkpoints. I’ve had to run the security gauntlet, gone through metal detectors, wind-poof machines, and body scanners. I’ve been wanded and been enhanced body searched.

I remember one security agent in Turkey—I didn’t know whether to thank him for his thorough search or punch him. Needless to say, he was more than friendly.

I was traveling with two international friends in California and an agent at John Wayne Airport in Orange County pulled the lady aside, touched virtually every part of her body in view of everyone and then made her take off her shoes and checked the bottom of her bare feet. For what? I can understand why and how people feel violated.

I think the latest efforts are over the top. I stood in Dallas/Fort Worth airport last week, shocked because I hadn’t seen this before. I’ll get specific. What prompted the DFW tweet was a female TSA agent who pulled aside three women in a row, made them stand arms out in front of everyone, ran her fingers insider their waistbands, ran her hands up their legs and into their private areas, and then did sculpting movements with her hands around and between the ladies’ breasts—this is all in broad daylight in front of the world. The women subjected to this looked embarrassed to say the least.

This should not happen, publicly or otherwise.

I also don’t think the new body scanners are justifiable in a society that values individual dignity and liberty or that they are morally defensible. These machines are a modern application of Superman’s X-ray vision, every teenage boy’s fantasy. They literally see through clothes exposing body parts. And no one really knows what kind of negative physical impact the scanners' radiation is making on people exposed.

The government says these scanner pictures are destroyed and will never move from the machine. Yeah, tell me about it. We hear the same thing re private documents in hospitals, yet we’re periodically treated to confidential information hitting the media. It’s only a matter of time before some celebrity’s body scan picture shows up on the Internet.

I think the public and maybe me too would be more amendable to this latest social experimentation if we actually believed it worked. But security is so inconsistent. One airport requires you to take off your belt, the next one not. One wands every other passenger, the next waves people through like they’re entering church. Sometimes you’re made to remove your bagged liquid bottles, other times not. Supposedly this inconsistency is a planned absence of pattern to confuse would-be terrorists, but I don’t buy it. More likely, it’s a mish-mash of policy applications as only big government is capable of doing.

Please understand: I am decidedly not criticizing TSA agents, at least none other than an occasionally overzealous individual. They are doing their jobs as best they can as they’ve been directed. I’m not saying security measures aren’t important or aren’t ever effective. I am saying that the latest amped-up effort has gone too far.

There’s other technology and other ways creative people can find to resolve this situation, even further enhance security. We just need to find them. Meanwhile, the enhanced body pats and virtual strip-search scanners should be put in mothballs.

© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2010

*This blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact Dr. Rogers or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com or follow Dr. Rogers at www.twitter.com/RexMRogers.