Do the right thing

There has always been a strong sense amongst the CSR movement, that doing the right thing is the right thing to do. If it does not make profits, does it make it the wrong thing to do? Why do we need to have to have a better reason to do something than the reason that it is the right thing to do?

Well now, in the current crisis, it is pretty clear that the right thing to do is going to work out as the right thing to do in the future, even if it is not clear now. So, if you are looking for a reason to do the right thing, then you need to remember that you don't need a reason -and if someone requires a reason, then you can tell them that the reason will be apparent in the future, as those banks that did the right thing and have still survived have now realized!

Mallen Baker's blog article covers this, and some other nice tips on responsible leadership here

Building communities

Community, to Block [the author], is about membership, feeling part of something larger than oneself, feeling at home, relating to the rest of the world — and participating in, owning, and being accountable for what one creates with others. It matters not whether the community is a small group, a neighborhood, a city, a multinational corporation, a global governance organization, or any other structure. Organizing any human enterprise is an exercise in developing community.

Block has applied rigor and years of experience in honing his understanding of how people can work together to create what they need and desire, “a future distinct from the past.” He focuses on the structures of belonging, giving detailed attention to the many elements of design, location, and process that contribute to having productive conversations, gatherings, and relationships. He says, for instance, that conversations should be structured around questions that evoke not answers, but commitment, accountability, and the possibility for transformation. These include questions of invitation (not mandate, coercion, or persuasion); questions about possibilities, how we wish to live in the future (not problems to be solved); questions about ownership that lead people to accept responsibility; questions about dissent that leave space for authentic doubt and reservations; questions about commitment that evoke promises and accountability for observable results; and questions about gifts that surface what we and others can bring to the quest for a different future.

Very interesting perspective here, especially in light of the traditional view that we should identify problems and try to solve them. Here we need to inspire people to come together to imagine something better, give them a stake in developing a successful outcome, encourage alternative opinions and create mutual accountability and commitment which should be recognized. Some lessons to be learned.

taken from a review of Best Business Books 2008: Capitalism and Community, by strategy + business

In bad times...

If the Tragedy of the commons is a real problem, and has been especially so in recent times as everyone gets rich from the growing economy and if there has been a dash for wealth almost everywhere; a dash to cut up the 'economic pie' so to speak... well then, in bad times will the situation be worse or better? Will people get desperate and have even greater disregard for common property?

It seems to me that in good times we are selfish and in bad times, even more selfish. But there could be a tiny chance a few people might realise that if we all act less selfish we could all get to better times much quicker. The chances of that happening? Well, we just have to look at the past ... and hope the future is brighter!

Personally there is always some hope, as Margaret Mead said:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

Indeed, the only people who have changed the world are people -and people is a collective noun for many persons, which is a group of ONE person. ONE person who starts something, carries something on, supports something or does something... we must hope we can realise a balance between each of us acting as individuals (hopefully for good) and each of us releasing our responsibility and acting as a group (generally not for good).

How can a corporation make a difference?

If a corporation takes a broad aim of 'to improve the environment, to support education, to increase transparency' or anything else, for various reasons -selfish and altruistic, what are its best options?

Well, ultimately the biggest difference occurs from systemic changes and behaviour changes -none of which are easy, but which a corporation can support by working with government, with business associations and with initiatives (i.e. research, pilots, advocacy).

The next step would be to support others that are helping make systemic change; they are often doing this by raising awareness or improving accountability (naming and shaming, for example) and this could be the media or civil society or initiatives to build participation in decision making. This, again, often requires supporting existing initiatives and helping scale them up -or it could be to seed something new (but that will be sustainable or will have a defined end date).

Next could be to improve the ability for enforcement of laws and to improve the ability to meet legal requirements or implement legal reforms which may mean supporting NGOs, training government officials, training teachers, supporting training institutes, organising skills sharing etc. Supporting Universities can be a good way to support promising research, build capacity in teaching institutions etc.

Next, is the difference the corporation can make itself through its operations and its products. Making its operations more sustainable (Reducing waste, improving safety etc) and by developing products that are more sustainable.

Finally, once the corporation has got itself to a decent level it needs to start helping others reach this level, it needs to raise the bar. Not only does this provide massive benefit for the company in terms of PR, but it also raises the standard and forces its competitors to meet it. Best practise needs to be shared and others inspired to achieve. Influence should be used, especially on business partners and suppliers.

Ultimately it is the market that affects businesses and if the market mechanism is used to force others to improve, whilst the corporation stays ahead of the market, the corporation will always be first to market (since it is creating the market!). It is thus in its best interest to effect legal change that influences the market and to support the implementation of that legal change.

Responsible leaders need to influence others

Tony Robbins suggests you can only move yourself and others to action once you understand the invisible forces that shape ourselves and others. To do this we need to understand what influences people in the short-term (their state) and in the long-term: their NEEDS, their BELIEFS, and their EMOTIONS.

He suggests everyone has the same needs, but prioritizes them differently and this thus shapes who we are, along with our beliefs which shape how we will try to meet those needs.

6 practices of high impact nonprofits

From an excellent article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review Fall 07 edition:

1. Serve and Advocate in order to achieve large-scale social change. It does not matter which angle you start with but to have a high impact you need both [my note: agree, but advocacy is much harder, costlier, unmeasurable etc than serving as well as less attractive to funders -unfortunately]
2. Make markets work: tap into the power of self-interest and laws of economics. Understand how to influence the market through working with different partners e.g. changing business behaviours, earning income.
3. Inspire supporters to help in whatever ways they can and nurture supporters' groups to maximum benefit.
4. Nurture networks; share ideas and information and harness the power of partnerships.
5. Be adaptive by responding to external changes; make sure you listen to others and understand the changes as well as evaluating activities and incorporating learnings.
6. Share leadership within the organisation and with other organisations by building strong leaders internally, building strong executive teams and powerful boards. This is crucial for sustainability.

Other important management principles:
-diversified, sustainable, financial support
-invest in HR and build reliable infrastructure (even if this means higher admin costs)

One area the article touches upon but I believe is the most crucial practice of all, is the use and leverage of other organsiations and other resources through the use of mutually beneficial (or 'strategic') partnerships. Finally an excellent point is made about the need to focus less on process and more on impact!

An inspiration, a hero, a role model.... Anita Roddick died yesterday

Anita Roddick, the founder of the Body Shop is one of the few people I could call either a hero, a role model or an inspiration to me. Way before people were talking about CSR she was doing it (1976) because it needed to be done for business reasons and for social and environmental reasons.

Her whole life has been devoted to issues she truly believes in and issues her company truly believes in. Lets just have hope in others like her and hope that there are many many more people like her still to come.

For Dame Anita, the truly exceptional entrepreneur, business and ethics came together. "Businesses have the power to do good," she wrote. "That's why The Body Shop's Mission Statement opens with the overriding commitment, 'To dedicate our business to the pursuit of social and environmental change.'" Capitalist with a Conscience

Leverage points

Another aspect of Systems theory centres on identifying key aspects of a system which not only allow you to be able to make a difference to this aspect, but subsequently have an impact on other elements in the system.

Of course, this means you need to be careful about how changing 1 aspect of the system impacts upon other elements; but if you can identify an early aspect of the system and change that, great leverage can be achieved. It is risky, but it could be rewarding. Seek out those leverage points and apply some leverage, but be careful about what happens!

Are Leadership skills transferable?

Maybe not. Apparently there are 3 aspects of leadership: personal leadership skills, relational leadership skills and contextual leadership skills. The point being that personal leadership can be transferred along with the leader, but the relational skills the leader has will depend on those who the leader must related with or to -with different people, the leader may not be effective. Similarly, the ability to lead varies in contexts especially different cultures. Cultures may or may not be country based, but of course, can vary between organisations too -and that could be the big killer and the major hindrance of leaders successfully leading other organisations, other than their current one.

Decline in leadership- what next?

When your leadership role decines, and this seems inevitable, what do you do? Try to postpone the inevitable; try to prevent it through eliminating the competition; accept the decline and manage it to your own benefit or are there other options?

Some could argue the USA faces this option in the next 20-30 years. As sure as people cannot live forever, empires cannot live forever and the USA will need to sacrifice its individual dominance of the World at some point -maybe to China, maybe to China and India combined, or maybe it will just have to share its dominance with either of those (or Europe etc)?

Previous empires have tended to implode through over-stretching or because the competition beat them (often in a group) or because someone else just developed to be better.

Let me introduce: The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle. Now this seems to imply that the USA will not give up its leadership position.

Fair enough -let PNAC research this (and who knows how much support it actually has from the 'powers that be'. But what would be better for the USA is to also have another think-tank entitled: Project for the Non-American Century which could explore what the future might look like under a different country (or group of countries)'s leadership. It could explore what the US could do to ensure it still benefits from this decline, how to deal with the psychological implications, how to prevent a nuclear attack on the (overtaking) competition and so on.

Even more interesting it could explore peaceful means of how the US could retain its leadership role in a way that is good for itself and others; in partnership with others. Unfortunately political international partnerships (e.g UN) rarely work due to the inherent fundamental need to preserve one's self-interest over all else... simple game theory does not adequately explain irrationality based on human kind's selfishness; or if it does (I am not an expert) then why has no one put forward suggestions to make partnerships like the UN Security Council or WTO work better?

The Leadership of the US needs to be responsible to itself and to others by creating several scenarios of the future and explore each one in detail. Instead of just presuming there is only 1 possible scenario (continued dominance) and exploring how to best ensure that scenario happens. As we are slowly, slowly realising we are an interconnected species on a small planet (witness climate change) and we have to put the 'whole' ahead of ourselves. Other species seem to be able to do this. Are human beings up to the task?

I would hate to see yet another cold war of some king... one that might end up warming up just a little too much..

Management problems

When writing my ideas for submitting an essay to the China CSR Map's essay competition I started thinking about CSR in China from an objective, long-term perspective: trying to think about why CSR is growing, is it growing and where is it going...

One of the issues I draw upon is related to the State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) in China. The largest national ones have all been put under the control of SASAC (State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council) in order to reform and restructure the SOEs. The question I posed was oringnally just about CSR: If the government wants to encourage CSR then it should tell the SOEs and they will do it, or not?

Now ignoring the issue of CSR and just looking at the issue of owners telling the managers to do something, you come to several problems. Key, for me (especially in a CSR context) is that it is likely that some of the instructions will be beneficial to the SOE, but not to the manager. If we presume that implementing CSR has negative short-term implications (financial and human investment required) but positive long-term implications, then the Manager might not care about the long-term. In addition, they might not want to accept more responsibilities or more targets, or anything that makes their life harder, more complicated or more difficult. How much power does the owner wield? For non SOEs, the bigger issue is that short-term investments often lead to lower profits and lower stock (share) prices; both of which managers are measured against to judge their success.

Presuming that current governance models, therefore (either government owned or publicly owned) have these inherent problems (and many more, that I will not delve into right now), what can be done?

There are 2 focus areas. The first is to try to create an organisation that acts responsibly, which can mostly be done through creating such an organsiational culture (as mentioned many times before on this blog), but this is not easy -especially if you have to change the current culture of a large organisation. It would be easier to try to create the necessary processes that create a responsible organisation. This could be creating a reward system that rewards the kind of beahviours or results that you want, or it could be from the 'stick' approach: through governance and reporting systems.

The second is to create individuals who act responsibly which is also tough. Responsible leadership is important: since setting an example and acting as a role model can really make a difference. You need to create people who see what is best for the company, and do that -even if it is not best for them. Create the culture of 'what is best for the company is best for me'. This is not easy though... so there are some little tricks that can be employed.. For example, try creating buy-in from the individual by tapping into their loyalty to the organisations or by instilling a little fear.

At the end of the day, this problem is one that is inherent and wide-spread, with no simple solution. The solution is tough and demanding: the solution is to recruit and employ individuals with an ethical stance, with the sense of responsible leadership. Create the framework and the system for this attitude to thrive and this should mitigate the ownership-manager conundrum.

Organisational Culture

Since CSR is an attitude, it must start with a personal attitude (which each organisation could help develop) but of course, it must also be the organisational attitude.

I say attitude which of course means 'culture' but is more than that. Organisational Attitude is how the oganisation approaches decisions and stakeholders. Decisions should be approached with a view to be fair, to be balanced, to look for the best (long-term) answer. Decision-making processes need to consider so many factors I can hardly list them here, but if employees are aware of the concept of considering the impacts of their decisions on them, on other employees, on other decisions then they might just make better decisions. And these decisions could also be more responsible on a personal, and organisational, level. A good start for decision making could be to look at consequences from a few different models: Triple Bottom Line (Social, Environmental and Economic), Stakeholder (Employee, Customer, Supplier, Shareholder, Community and others), Time (Past, Present, Future) or more 'academic' ones such as the 3 lenses framework* (Contribution to Purpose, Consistency with Principles, Inmpact on People).

According to the World Bank online course on CSR and Sustainable Competitiveness, there are a few other interesting considerations such as Why do 'good' Managers make bad choices? Apparently because they believe the decision is ethical, or it's in the indivudal/organisation's best interests or no-one will discover its impact. An organisation needs to consider issues like these in light of how the people it recruits makes decisions, how it encourages or rewards certain types of decisions and how it creates the frameworks for company decisions as well as personal decisions.

Then there is how an organisation approaches its stakeholders. Does it communicate, and is the communication effective? Does it appreciate or respect them? Are stakeholders able to impact each other (and therefore provide a motivation to manage each other)? How much control can one have over stakeholder's actions (like media, government etc which are not equal to the organisation)?

Crucially with the issue of organisational culture is to start with the most important thing in the organisation: its people, and this is what the term commonly refers to. Some leading organisations tie culture in with branding, since culture is normally internal, and branding normally external. Realising that the 2 are actually the same ensures a cohesive message is portrayed to all stakeholders. Entire courses are written on both branding and culture, so what could I write in 1 paragraph or even claim to know (having not read many of those books)?

Well, as always, I like to focus on the important things: having a culture defined, communicating it to others ALL the time and not just tangibly, but also intangibly. Intangible company culture -hmm, not the easiest of topics -but one that I truly believe is what defined an organisation. Its what you feel when you walk into the organisation's building, its how people talk about their organisation (with love or hate!) and its what keeps employees, keeps customers and creates a team spirit -an attitude of working together towards common goals, or doing so responsibly!

The problem with CSR is that how many organisations have the ability or the time to consider issues like these? Not many -and this typicalises why CSR is currently still dirven by large organisations; those with smart people and the money to pay for people to spend their time on these issues. These are crucial issues. Surely the businesses that can consider them will be more successful than those that cannot, thus ensuring larger businesses go from strength-to-strength but smaller ones might find it much tougher to grow or compete! There are of course many cases of how this cycle is broken (every large company was once a small company!), it would be interesting to find out how?

There is also the problem of outsourcing. Where are the limits of the organisation and how much control does an organisation have? Does it force new employees to change their values? The perils of outsourcing are that you lose control over creating a culture, and this is the reason behind outsourcing failing: conflicting objectives, lack of team spirit towards common goals or passion towards the organisation, no feeling of belonging, trust or respect. In fact, the reason why so many SMEs are so successful and have no 'obvious' CSR' is because they are small, often dominated by the personality of their leader and work closely in a team with a great culture. They don't need to have to analyse so many issues related to decision making or creating and communicating a culture since it happens naturally. But when they start transitioning to becoming larger companies then they face these problems. In fact when any organisation goes through change it faces problems, and this is a topic for a later post.

*For more information on this framework, refer to Lynn S. Payne, Three Lenses for Decision Making, Harvard Business School, August 7, 1996, 2-396-200.

Responsible influencing

Reading this article (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GE11Ak01.html) brought back to my mind one topic that I feel very strongly about, and have a great interest in. It is, the role of the media. As much as I would love to talk about this in more detail (based on several essays written at University), I want to focus on this article and on the lessons for responsible leadership.

I'll briefly state I am a big fan of ATimes, since many of its writers are the kind that are not in mainstream media - they do not have a particular standpoint and many guest writers are welcomed. Thus to read about Iran from the viewpoint of an Iranian professor based in Iran is always refreshing.

His example is of the US Media's coverage of Iran's nuclear threat. Granted the example is of Fox news (one of the most right-wing media outlets, and the most criticised for its uncritical support of the Bush government), but this media source is also one of the most widely viewed in the US -it has massive influence.

To create a 'special feature' on Iran, would presumably mean to do some in-depth research and create the time for a proper assessment of Iran and its nuclear threat (more so than the usual brief news items), so it is shocking that these 'specials' can be so subjective.

The media plays a crucial role in democracy, and it provides leadership to many people who follow the media, what they learn impacts how they act. Thus it plays a crucial leadership role. In a market system, poor leadership, would be noticed, and that leader would be changed. In the media, it is not so simple. It is not so easy to criticise back, not so easy to get heard if you disagree, and so on.

Responsible leaders should provide information to their followers that is objective; especially if it is claiming to be objective, or if their very position as a leader depends on them being objective. No objectivity = no respect = no leadership. Thus in this situation, more than others, objectivity would be crucial. Consider it almost the same as truthfulness. A lack of objectivity is equal to being incorrect.

Responsible leaders need to deliver on what they promise; they need to create channels for feedback, they need to protect their position and reputation. They should not rely on other's lack of knowledge and lack of ability to discover the leader's flaws. One hopes that the 'market' will eventually provide avenues for the followers to discover that they are being led astray, and to provide alternative options. If a media source is proclaiming to be objective, it should (at least try to) be. If the media has such an influence on people, it has a global responsibility to do this. Leaders in other fields can take strong lessons from this!

An example of a Responsible Leader...and managing his legacy

Leon Sullivan is a special person. He was a responsible leader.

A brief Biography: He was a Black American Man who stood up for what he believed in, a man who fought for what he believed in and a man who had principles. He played a massive role in ending Apartheid in South Africa (where racism was an official policy, and black people were not as important as white people).

He was just 1 man, but he made a huge difference; and he believed that business was 1 of the ways to make a difference in the World. He believed that everyone has equal rights, that everyone has the right to work, and that everyone should be treated with respect.

He organised a boycott in Philadelphia of companies that refused to hire black workers. They started hiring black workers. He organised training for those who had no skills. They got skilled and found jobs. He told American businesses that they should treat South Africans the same as American. The businesses agreed. He told them to stop doing business in South Africa, unless the government changed its policies. The businesses stopped doing business and the Government changed its policy. Black people in South Africa were equal with white people for the first time in over a century.

To learn more about this man, whose 'Sullivan Principles' are now officially proposed and supported by the UN, go to www.revleonsullivan.org.

Here you will find out what his principles are, what he said and what he did. In addition, you can learn more about some of the tools he believes are important for individuals to leave a life of principles:

-The Power of Positive Thought, -The Importance of Involvement, -The Importance of Self-Help and Self-Respect, -The Role of Mentors, -Change Through Non-Violent Action, -Discrimination and Diversity

This website seems to be a fantastic example of how to use the internet and how to create useful and interesting educational materials with an excellent purpose. What is better than leading a
responsible life? Leaving a responsible legacy as well.

I am impressed by those who set up the site -for being able to use Leon Sullivan's life to inspire more people. I hope it helps generate more responsible leaders. Indeed I hope to discover more people and more sites of a similar nature!

The UN

Well, if there is one Organisation that exists that requires (and should demonstrate) responsible leadership, this is it. Its ironic really that the organisation designed to prevent further conflict by encouraging debate has turned out to be so ineffective.

Or has it? In short the UN shows that democracy is a complex thing; how do you ask 200 or so nations to agree on anything (and how do you define 'agree', is it a majority?)? How do you ask people to work for an Organisation without showing bias or subjectivity, when every man or woman has their own history and perspectives? How do you make an Organisation representative if half its representative countries struggle to have more than a few Universities to educate its envoys? Should the UN have more or less power? Should it be directly elected? What bodies should do what, where should the UN intervene and on who's behalf? The list could go on and there are many questions that equally apply to the European Union/Commission (another blog...).

In the end the UN can only do what those who control it want it to do, or will let it do. It seems to me to be somewhere between a company which is not democratic and a government which 'is'. Yet the UN has few powers but a broad agenda, it has little direct impact but massive stature and it has 6 billion different points of views on what it should achieve, and how; yet 6 billions people refuse to let it do anything at all.

For the UN, which more than anything else exists in order to represent 'good', 'ethics', 'responsibility' or however else you want to call it, the ongoing debate about corruption within it is eve more destructive than the everlasting debate as to its role and functionality. For if the UN suffers from corruption and abuse, then there is no point having it at all. If there is no corruption, but the UN achieves something, then at least it achieves something. Nothing that is corrupt can be a positive force in the World.

I would hope that those within the UN should realise their responsibility to the World, that they directly have, more than any other human beings. I would hope they would be the kind of people who would think carefully about their actions, and uphold the highest standards (that they are so keen to promote). For a crisis like the one currently in the media to even have come so far is a disgrace. For the investigation to have to be called its a disgrace, and for it to be called over a decade after the allegations of corruption began is ridiculous. I am very sure that no-one or no Organisation can be perfect, but some things are so basic that most people or organisations can get them right. For the UN to be involved in sexual abuse amongst its peacekeepers puts a mockery on the Millennium Development Goals aiming at male-female equality!

I hope that this issue can encourage debate on how best people can serve such an organisation (or 'the greater good') -how can people be objective and not abuse friendships? how can they be less selfish? how can ethics be installed in a workforce covering the globe, yet still remain locally relevant and culturally sensitive? how can an organisation hope to have a bigger impact without spending so much time and effort on internal management ensuring compliance?

Should Kofi Annan stay or go? No-one is perfect and most seem to believe in him as the right leader (or did until theis new evidence arose) for the UN. However if he, and his organisation, loose the respect and status that they currently have; a new leader must be required. For without the respect people have for an organisation designed to improve the World, the UN has nothing.

Zimbabwe...

This post could be a long one....Zimbabwe is the country led by Robert Mugabe. Who undoubtedly is the World's worst, most irresponsible leader, currently alive.

Although Mugabe has 'only' been responsible for around 50,00 deaths (there are surely individuals alive and free who have killed more); personally, I cannot think of a subject that frustrates me more than Mugabe. 1 man, who for 16 years ruled a country that seemed to do all right. It produced a surplus of food and has wonderful natural touristic resources, such as the Victoria Falls (on the border with Zambia). Ever known a tourist go to Zimbabwe in the last 4 years? This is when he forced the White farmers to give the farms to the State. Now they are run by inexperienced black farmers, who got the farm based on their relationship to Mugabe. It seems that the farms could still produce food, but those running them do not know how to, and do not want to.

They have no incentive when they are handed as much as they want from Mugabe; a corrupt dictator who steals money, food and anything else given in aid, investment or handouts. In fact inflation is in the hundreds of % and unemployment is around 80%. It is a tribute to the people that they are still alive (although apparently, within 12 months, the situation will turn from dire to deadly).

How can 1 man let his country become the worst place in the World to do business? How can they justify 'free' elections when voters names are made up, food not given to those who vote against him and opposition candidates openly murdered (this seems rare, as most are already in prison)....the list could go on. Journalists rarely are allowed in officially, and unofficial ones face 2 years in prison. So how can any leader justify this to himself, or to others?

How can he be personally happy with what the direct consequences are of his actions? Unless he has not left his palace in 4 years, and therefore genuinely unaware of the situation, I cannot believe such a person exists. Its not that he has a misguided vision (for example, Hitler), its that he is deliberately locking up his own countrymen, starving his own people. It is not that he is just killing the 'white farmers' (like man of the ethnic or racist wars globally), its that he personally profits from the unhappiness of 90% of his country (the other 10% are those he pays to deprive the 90%!).

I would like to presume that every person is a genuinely 'good' person inside, and only does bad things due to misguided teachings, influences, psychiatric state or beliefs. I don't know Mugabe personally. I wonder if any of these categories fit him, or if he is genuinely a bad person? A misguided person might believe in reclaiming land from colonialists; but would be aware (after 4 years) that the policy needs altering when output falls so dramatically.

So responsible leaders need to be aware of their actions. They need to engage with others in order to determine the consequences of their actions (then they could make informed decisions). Responsible leaders need to have a moral conscience; they should act on it. They should allow others the freedom to be themselves -allow them the freedom to life, to choice, to speech, to work. They should not deceive others, they should not deliberately (or accidentally) harm others (in this case, needlessly).

Lastly, I believe this is the 1 country where so little from the rest of the World, could so easily make such a big difference. Where are the responsible leaders in this World who are willing to make a moral stand for what they believe is right. In some cases, personal morals are not global -people disagree. In this situation, I would like to find someone who thinks that Mugabe should stay in power and is a positive force for the World. Anyone out there believe that?