Here's a little riddle for you: what do William "Hootie" Johnson, Tim Finchem, and President Donald Trump have in common besides a love of golf?
You're certainly familiar with the US President, but are certainly forgiven if you don't recall Finchem and Johnson, so let me re-introduce them to you.
Tim Finchem is a lawyer who was the head of the Professional Golfers Association from 1994 to 2016. By all accounts I've seen, he did a very good job leading the organization. The one "asterisk" in an otherwise distinguished career involved a professional golfer named Casey Martin. About 20 years ago, Martin qualified to play on the Pro Tour. Nothing particularly noteworthy about that except that Martin has a serious disability – a birth defect called Klippel-Trenaunway Syndrome in his right leg - that makes it extremely difficult for him to walk. He plays outstanding golf, it's just that he needs a cart to get around 18 holes.
Finchem, in his role as PGA Commissioner, said Martin couldn't play on the tour, ostensibly because he couldn't walk the course like every other player. Finchem said, "First, The Tour should always have its own rules and regulations. Second, walking is an integral part of the game and shouldn't be lost." Needless to say, Finchem and the PGA Tour suffered withering criticism for its decision.
William "Hootie" Johnson likewise had a distinguished career. Like Finchem, he is best known for leading one of golf's greatest institutions. Johnson served as chairman of the Augusta National Golf Club in Augusta Georgia for many years. In case you're not familiar with it, Augusta National is the home of The Masters, one of the four most important tournaments in all of golf.
Since its founding in the 1930's by golf legend Bobby Jones, Augusta National has been one of the world's premier golf clubs. People throughout the world are forever beating down its doors to join the club. However, one could be a gazillionaire, and/or be highly recognized jut about anywhere else, but if not a male, ineligible to be a member of the Augusta National Golf Club.
In the early 2000's a woman named Martha Burk decided it was time to end the policy of "no females", so Burk sued Augusta National. By coincidence, as a child Martha Burk supposedly also went by the nickname "Hootie", so it became a case of "Hootie" versus "Hootie", even though it was not a familial dispute. Johnson defended Augusta National's policy against admitting women partly on the same grounds Finchem did with respect to Casey Martin: a private club/organization should be able to set its own rules. Johnson said, "Our membership is single gender just as many other organizations and clubs all across America. These would include junior Leagues, sororities, fraternities, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and countless others. And we all have a moral and legal right to organize our clubs the way we wish."
You probably have also heard that President Trump loves golf. I don't know how good a golfer he is, but he certainly owns some beautiful golf courses.
So if it isn't just a love of golf, what then is the answer to the riddle? What else exactly do Tim Finchem, "Hootie" Johnson, and Donald Trump have in common? Not one, not two, not three, but four things: 1) being factually correct in their positions; 2) but in that correctness, being very small-minded; 3) over-focusing on their respective "bases", and 4) needing to re-frame the issue at hand to take advantage of a far greater opportunity, if only they could see it. Let me explain my thinking.
Part 1 of the Riddle's Answer: Being factually correct
Finchem, Johnson, and Trump were/are all correct about the rules/laws. In the case of both Finchem and Johnson, private organizations can and should be able to set their own rules. Finchem was right in pointing out that the PGA Tour had a hallowed rule saying that pro golfers need to walk the course, so if Casey Martin didn't walk, he was dis-qualified. Donald Trump is correct in pointing out that the government can and must set rules about who can enter and remain in the USA.
Part 2 of the Riddle's Answer: Being very small-minded, saying, "You're Not Welcome"
So the three are/were all factually correct in their positions. The problem is, each of them was/is being very small-minded. By not providing an accommodation to Casey Martin, and insisting that Martin walk the course like everyone else, Finchem sent a loud message to the world, one that wasn't very well received.
"Hootie" Johnson sent the very same message.
Donald Trump is doing the very same thing.
"You're not Welcome".
So why do I say that "You're Not Welcome" is a small-minded way to think? In the case of "Hootie" Johnson, it's pretty clear. After all, 51% of the population is female. As a leader in the world of golf, did he really want to send a message that half of the potential customers for golf are unwelcome? I doubt he really wanted to do that, but that's what he did. Think about how many bags of golf clubs, balls, and rounds of golf weren't purchased because half of the world was effectively told, you're not welcome?
Tim Finchem's "you're not welcome" to Casey Martin said in effect, the golf world doesn't care about those who are disabled. We're not making accommodations. If you're in public relations, imagine trying to spin that one? While the number of people who are disabled is certainly less than half the population, the number is not insignificant. Again, an awful lot of golf clubs, golf balls, and rounds of golf that might never have been purchased because of that.
Which brings us to Donald Trump. In effect, the Trump Administration has put out a "You're Not Welcome" to a lot of people seeking asylum from an awful situation in Central America. You recall those famous words of Emma Lazarus inscribed on a plaque at the foot of the Statue of Liberty:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Is there now an asterisk by those words, one that says, "maybe, maybe not"?
In all three cases, by focusing so much on the "rules", each has created a "You're Not Welcome" message with unintended consequences.
Part 3 of the Riddle's Answer: Over-focusing on Your "Base"
In order to be effective, every leader needs to have a base of support. The problem is that if the leader over-focuses on that base, he/she may miss something really important.
Tim Finchem and Hootie Johnson both over-focused on their respective "bases". These were the people who felt the issue was about protecting the right of private organizations to set their own membership rules and, by the way, keep the rules the way they'd always been. For the PGA, it was that you just had to walk the golf course, and for Augusta National, it was that you had to be a male.
Donald Trump has had his version of the very same thing. He deserves credit for looking out of the interests of his "base". But leaders sometimes need to see beyond the perceived narrow interests of a "base". That's why we call them leaders. Unfortunately, like Finchem and Hootie Johnson, President Trump has over-focused on the needs/interests of the "base" and missed something important, which leads to the part four of the riddle's answer.
Part 4 of the Riddle's Answer: Needing to re-frame the issue in order to take advantage of an historic opportunity
By over-focusing on the perceived needs of the "base", each of these three has created unintended consequences out of his position. Finchem and Johnson created very negative perceptions of golf. Trump is giving the world the impression that the USA is now small minded, inward looking, and unwelcoming, even when it's pretty clear that he would be very happy to welcome immigrants to the USA who are of European ancestry, Christian, and well-educated (and, I guess, especially if they are Norwegian).
There is a way out for each of the three, and the answer is to "reframe the problem". Finchem and Johnson, I believe, should have asked the following question: how could we accommodate a new reality in golf (women and the disabled) while still being true to our traditions? Rather than fighting in the courts, and the court of public opinion, The PGA Tour could have embraced Casey Martin with open arms. After all, how Martin played a round a golf, not how he got around the golf course, is what really matters. Augusta National could have done the same with women. In fact, to the credit of the leaders of Augusta National, they've now done that. Not only that, they've now even held the very first golf event involving only women in the club's history.
Likewise, I believe the solution for Donald Trump is to reframe the immigration debate. The best place to start on that is to get a bi-partisan group in Congress to write and sponsor an immigration bill, then let Congress craft the legislation. That was actually done in 2013, before Trump became President. A so-called Gang of Eight, including both Democrats and Republicans, introduced a piece of legislation. The Senate actually passed the bill, garnering 68 votes out of 100, including 14 Republicans. President Obama would have signed it, IF the Republican-controlled House of Representatives had acted on the measure. Unfortunately, it never saw the light of day.
I'm not saying that that particular piece of legislation needs to be revived. What I'm saying is that some piece of legislation should, and it should be done on a bi-partisan basis. After all, the laws of the land are written by Congress, not be Presidential decree. There's no other way to get past the entrenched positions today on the issue. Re-frame the issue. The best way to do that is to demand that Democrats and Republicans create a new bi-partisan "Gang of Eight" that includes members of both the Senate AND House. In the meantime, each side should stop blaming the other.
The new "Gang of Eight" should begin by re-framing the issue. A simple way to think of this is to change the mindset from "Yes, but …" to "Yes, and …" Finchem, Johnson, and Trump have all engaged in "Yes, but …" thinking: they've based their arguments on a correct reading of rules and laws, but failed to think through the implications. Instead, they should consider "Yes, and …": yes, the rules and laws say one thing, but how can we incorporate a bigger, re-framed vision?
Let me share an example of an organization I'm connected with that has successfully gone through this process. The organization is Rotary International.
Founded in 1905 in Chicago, Rotary is the world's largest organization of business, professional and civic leaders. It has more than 1.2 million members and operates in nearly every country in the world. In the middle 1980's, Rotary began the effort to eradicate polio from the world. Since then, Rotary has been joined by the World Health Organization, Unicef, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in the effort. The disease has nearly been eradicated.
From its founding in 1905 until the mid-1980's, Rotary was like the Augusta National Golf Club – a strictly male only institution. The US Supreme Court brought the organization kicking and screaming to admit women, much as the courts brought the PGA Tour kicking and screaming to accept Casey Martin.
The average Rotarian today will tell you, it was the best thing that ever happened to the organization. Rotary, and everyone in the world served by the organization, has been immensely enriched by the addition of women. It only happened because the organization went through its own reframing.
Casey Martin successfully sued the PGA Tour under the Americans With Disabilities Act and played on the Pro Tour for a few years. Later, he went on to become the head coach of the University of Oregon's men's golf team. Martha Burk and her allies finally prevailed, and Augusta National admitted its first women members in 2012 and, as noted earlier, the club has now hosted a women's golf event.
The outcome of the immigration debate in the USA? A riddle all its own. How can we welcome foreigners, even if they're not European, and not very wealthy, and not necessarily Christian, and do it according to the rule of law? There's an answer to the riddle, but only accessible if the key players would stop the blame game and name-calling game, take time to reframe the debate, and envision a future far better than one that rests solely on a narrow reading of the rules.
