Full disclosure: this is not the first time someone has told me that what I have written is too negative or pessimistic. This has been a conundrum for me for more than two decades. Because my writing is generally based on research findings, my objective is neither to be optimistic or pessimistic, but accurate and realistic. Honesty is more important to me than popularity. My desire is to inform leaders about the way things are, and my belief is that a genuine leader prefers truth to sugar-coated niceties or carefully shaded presentations. My approach has been to put the pieces on the table and let leaders refashion the puzzle as they see fit. In my way of thinking, that’s what leaders do; all they need is accurate information about conditions and options so they can make decisions and get others involved in the solutions. But there has been a steady flow of people who have protested that my “glass is half-empty” perspective is too discouraging to be helpful.

I thought it’d be interesting – for me, at least ☺ – to get your reaction to the portion of the piece that was rejected. (FYI, this portion was preceded by an exhaustive description of trends and followed by prescriptions for addressing these challenges; I did not just “lower the boom” and walk away.) How do you react when you read something like what appears below?

The Section in Question
America is changing significantly, and the nature of those changes is complex and chaotic. The historical foundations on which our society was developed are undergoing severe challenges. It’s not easy to be the kind of Christian that Jesus longs to have as His ambassadors in this place, at this time.

After all, our lifestyles are more narcissistic than ever, characterized by coarser language, selfish behavior, contradictory values and attitudes (e.g. simplicity vs. materialism, protect our time vs. wasting it on excessive media consumption), and heightened self-reliance due to our mistrust of other people and a loss of confidence in our leaders and institutions. We want more close friends, but are loath to commit to them. While we wrestle with debt and struggle to save, we devote enormous amounts of time to shopping.

We admire functional families, but doubt we’ll ever experience one ourselves, so we cohabit, have children outside of marriage, divorce at will, and are warming up to homosexual marriage. Psychologically, we cherish our children, but in practice we abandon them to the television and the lowest common denominator in values and education. We say we’re satisfied with our core values and spiritual beliefs, but we fail to adequately and intentionally pass them along to our offspring during their formative years.

We argue that we believe in God, then push Him aside and assume His throne. On occasion, we’ll engage in true worship, but mostly of celebrities. We say we are Christians, but aren’t sure if Jesus is relevant for today; claim to believe what the Bible teaches, but deny the existence of Satan; and settle for going to church rather than being the church. We adopt the label “Christian” at the same time we admit that God is our safety net rather than our first love, and that our church relationships are an addendum to our real social networks. Church leaders are frustrated by the lack of transformed lives produced under their guidance, but they do little to significantly change their routines, and even seek to block new ways of doing ministry and advancing the kingdom of God.

We have access to more information than ever before, and can retrieve it with stupefying quickness, but we refuse to acknowledge anyone else’s ownership of that information. We admit that the news reports we receive are hopelessly biased, but we continue to rely on them for our understanding of the world. The same tools that give us an avalanche of data have also stolen our privacy and leisure time, and our response is to keep buying the latest technological innovations.

We promote tolerance at the same time we freeze out anyone who firmly disagrees with us. We say there is no absolute moral and spiritual truth except our own, which of course is a contradiction in itself but one we are stubbornly trying to live with. We care about social justice and the suffering of the poor, but not enough to do much about it if such reforms require us to sacrifice our comfort or to confront the conflicts of interest that provide our satisfaction.

Our population keeps growing, but rather than seeking to learn from each other, we champion ways of separating from the fools who came before us. We worry about the moral fabric of the country at the same time we tear it apart through our unbridled efforts to grasp personal pleasure and unrestrained experiences. We value education even while we dumb it down, and we welcome the benefits of a melting pot culture as we fortify our borders and debate the real meaning of fairness. We publicly rail against the rich, despite secretly (or not so secretly) wanting to be like them. We experience rising levels of stress, medicate ourselves into a stupor, and wonder where the world went wrong while we remained so steady and sane.

With the 2010 mid-term election approaching, I have watched in dismay at the nature of the political conversation that has emerged in several key states, the national media, and the blogosphere.

While I am not a fan of some of the public servants who are being excoriated in the media, I am nevertheless saddened by the superficiality and coarseness of the conversation related to their performance in office and their re-election prospects. Perhaps the most disturbing monologues are those that savage various public officials for outcomes over which they have no control. Among those who seem to be skewered most unfairly are Arnold Swarzeneggar, Ben Bernanke, and even Barack Obama. Yes, I am aware that all three of these gentlemen, and many other officials like them, asked for and willingly accepted the jobs in which they are serving. And I certainly realize that when you campaign for and then are given the mantle of leadership, criticism is part of the package.

But don’t we, as American citizens, have a responsibility to be well-informed before we hurl our criticisms as these people? Don’t we have an obligation to accept some share – and frankly, sometimes a major share – of the responsibility for the unfortunate results that plague the jurisdiction in question? Isn’t it part of the bargain that before we insult or criticize a public official we should do some fact checking and be measured in the tone of our critique? Add another layer of responsibility – that of being a Christ follower – and we have to consider if our task is to criticize or the assist those who seek to do good, regardless of your party affiliation or ideological leanings.

We have become an attack dog society, happy to take unfair shots at those who are striving to serve us. To my knowledge, few elected or appointed officials – even those whom I do not care for, ideologically or in character – have ever claimed to be perfect or capable of solving all of our problems without some missteps. Together, we create absurd expectations and then declare those who fail to meet them to be incompetent, an enemy, or an incompetent enemy.

We live in a complex age. It is also an age when communications opportunities abound. Perhaps one of the lessons we ought to teach our children – and, of course, personally master – relates to self-restraint. There are times when a public response or critique is appropriate and other times when it is not; it’s important to know the difference and to behave accordingly. Ours is not only an over-stimulated society but also an over-communicated society. Just because we possess an idea or feeling, and the tools with which to share it, doesn’t mean it should be broadcast to the world. Self-restraint will help us filter those comments that make us feel good from those that produce good.

And, of course, the challenge for leaders is to know whom to respond to, when to do so, and with what content and tenor. Leadership is not about having the last or the loudest word. Just as there are times for people to raise their voice in protest, so there are times when it makes sense for leaders to not respond to specific charges. In the course of speaking with many leaders over the years, and most recently in the interviews for the Master Leaders book, I learned that leaders are sometimes better off absorbing the body blows of criticism and continuing to move forward than halting their progress in order to strike back. The media love to cover a good blow-for-blow confrontation, but great leaders do not get distracted by the public’s morbid curiosity about such battles.

Knowing when to resist the temptation to respond or retaliate depends upon the self-control of the leader as well as his/her capacity to read the situation and discern whether a response would add value to the lives of the people being led. Effective leaders also realize that should a response be desirable there are different ways of responding that might defuse an explosive situation. Understanding the different types of responses available (e.g., through a spokesperson, using a different medium, by providing facts and figures that expose the absurdity of the criticism, etc.) is a significant part of the leader’s cache of tools.

All leaders must be able to take the heat. No matter who you are and what you lead, if there are people involved then there will be criticism. Some of it will be unjustified, based on inaccuracies, emotion, competition, or irrelevancies. Having enough confidence in your motivations and choices to handle such criticism wisely – i.e., knowing when and how to engage your critics – is one mark of a good leader.