A historic summit between the leader of the Free World, and a brutal dictator presiding over the world’s most repressive country deciding to “leave the past behind.” Can someone who is responsible for the death of hundreds and the imprisonment of tens of thousands of North Koreans in labor camps have a “great personality?” Should he be invited to the White House? Should we ignore past actions and present behaviors in hope for a better future? It brings up those high school moral dilemmas where students are asked to discuss the reasons and possible solutions to situations like the Trolley Problem (turn the trolley onto the one to save the five), or the Heinz dilemma (steal the medicine to save the wife.) Should we engage with a tyrant to promote democracy and peace in the world? I think it’s safe to say that most scientists studying human behavior would agree that past behavior is a good marker for future behavior. This is the premise behind behavioral interviewing. Employers have been hiring new team members for years based on interview answers to common behavioral questions believing that the best predictor of future performance is past behavior. I am not a psychologist nor a political analyst, but doesn’t it stand to reason that someone who is responsible for grave violations of international humanitarian law and the complete and utter rejection of democratic values and human rights would not be likely to change his stripes? Isn’t the summit essentially promoting the interests of countries like North Korea, China and Russia recognizing the legitimacy of governments infamous for their poor human rights record? Or is it a brilliant tactic to “keep our enemies closer?” History teaches us that using force to spread democracy always fails and results in violent resistance. Despite the great efforts of the United States and the European Union to promote democracy, it is in retreat across the world: In China, in Russia, in the Arab world, in Africa, and in Latin America. Through past failures we can learn two important lessons. The first one is that there’s no quick and easy way to change how non-democratic governments relate to their citizens. The second is to avoid engaging in direct conflict with governments trampling on human rights and focus efforts on promoting stability and positive change. People are won more easily by gentle persuasion and flattery than by hostile confrontation. The path to success in the world of politics and in business is to position ourselves to win the battle before it even starts. Inevitably, everyone encounters professional adversaries - people who compete with you for resources, who don’t follow through on commitments, who resort to dirty antics, and whose values you question and mistrust. Typically, confronting these people is an exercise in futility. They’ve cultivate their worldview, value-system, and attitudes through their own life experiences and thus are not likely to change. Ignoring these people is also likely to prove a bad career move as they tend to work behind your back to build alliances and support that can land you in a lot of trouble. A proven warfare strategy to deal with your work nemesis would be to keep them close and defeat them with kindness. Disarm them by doing the opposite of what is expected. The element of surprise will heighten your competitive advantage. Exert smart influence to get your opponents to help you. Forcing them into a Zero-sum game would never be as effective as working to create value through cooperation. In sum, it is important to keep such work “enemies” close for the following reasons:
Keep them close to provide an early detection system: when you relate to the “real person” within your nemesis you can slowly build some trust but also detect warning signs of any surprise attack against you.
Keep them close to understand their interests and drive: gain insights to add to your store of knowledge. Creating your own Personal Knowledge Management (PKM) is a highly impactful practice to gather, classify, search and retrieve knowledge.
Keep them close to sharpen your own thinking and understanding: challenging people, challenging situations, and adversity push us into learning new things and new skills.
Keep them close to establish reciprocal benefits: learning to disagree agreeably can clear the path to reaching mutually beneficial solutions in pulling together resources to effectively network and collaborate.
Keep them close to promote them: finding ways to promote your enemy will send the message that you are focused on the greater good and are well above internal politics and in-fighting.
In general, worrying about how things might go wrong, doesn’t help things go right. So, when we are given the opportunity to proactively try and break a vicious cycle, we ought to accept the challenge of replacing the “worst case scenarios” based on past events with “best case scenarios” to anticipate and influence future outcomes.
