Imagine being on a tropical island with everything you wanted … ten wives (Solomon had 700 wives, but we won’t be greedy), exotic gardens and fruit trees, crystal spring water, herds of cattle and horses, rooms stocked with electronic gadgets, and ancient silver and gold mines with limitless, untapped veins of ore.

Still, you have one problem. There are three other islands in the area, all with substantially fewer resources than yours. Some populations are barely subsisting with intermittent periods of famine and starvation. Increasingly, the other islanders have begun to raid your island by night, stealing food, livestock, and precious minerals, even kidnapping a couple of your wives (luckily, the two nagging wives with perpetual honey-do lists). The more the word spreads about your prosperity, the more invasions you experience, the more property losses you suffer. (Spanish conquistador Hernán Cortés kept hearing about the gold and riches of  the Aztec Empire and eventually overthrew them.) Word gets around.

Your initial reaction might be to build up your defenses; hire mercenary soldiers to guard the coastline, and perhaps, build a wall. But, within the context of Safe Island thinking, these solutions are both shortsighted and hypocritical in addressing the real problem.

The real problem is the clash between wealth and poverty, the haves versus the have-nots. In the distance, starving islanders see you eating steak and lobster. They become desperate, resentful, and demand a piece of the action … by any means necessary.

Thousands of years of history, hundreds of books on theocracy, modern clinical research, and personal profiles of successful individuals express the same sentiment. Predominantly, almost without exception, people living prosperously feel no innate obligation to share. Whether earned through inheritance, unscrupulous dealings, or years of sacrifice and hard work, it’s THEIR PROPERTY. They resent the idea of someone coming along, expecting a free ride.

Safe Island thinking seeks to bridge the gap through compromise and pacification. Rather than building a wall to keep out invaders (at least, temporarily, as they will eventually find a way
over it or under it or around it), Safe Island thinking tries to resolve
the problem by eliminating the reason invaders want to come in the first place. The objective is to take away the incentive.

Brace yourself. Your subconscious mind is about to scream in agony.

To the dismay of many Americans, the United States has been employing Safe Island thinking for many years, sending billions in foreign aid to places like Mexico, Haiti, Central America, Africa, and Russia (yes,
Russia), and signing trade agreements such as NAFTA to give regional poor countries a boost.

Back in the 60s and 70s, when the United States was on the verge of a race war, the U.S. government used policies grounded in Safe Island thinking (Affirmative Action, Job Corps, and free college grants and tuition) to get angry black protesters off the streets and into the workforce. For potential protesters involved
in the fight for equality, the stakes (historic, unprecedented employment offers) became too high to get involved in daily marches or join the Black Panther Party on the front lines. You had to choose between social activism and your new role as the first black face in Exxon’s accounting department, making $80,000 a year, and planning a family trip to Disneyland. It was personal risk/reward assessment at its most basic tier.

Historians agree these sophisticated Safe Island strategies were not only instrumental in averting another civil war, but, as an unexpected payoff , brought an invaluable source of diversity to corporate America, allowing U.S. companies to compete more vigorously in the global market.

As far back as the end of World War II, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin used Safe Island thinking to carve up the world into three domains, with each leader agreeing NOT to interfere in the affairs of the other leader’s territory. Churchill could colonize countries rich in minerals like Palestine, South Africa, India, and Cameroon. Russia could crush independence movements and annex eastern countries like Albania, Bulgaria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary. Roosevelt would get help from Russia to fight the Japanese whose ancient Samurai, fight-to-the-death culture did not embrace surrender of any kind, and have (defeated) Germany split into zones favorable to the U.S.

During the early years immediately after the War, the United States spent billions (trillions in today’s dollars) frantically rebuilding England, Germany, and Japan, even Russia, to a smaller degree. With the massive influx of immigrants trying to enter the U.S., Safe Island thinking was an easy sell to American taxpayers.

“Let’s get these war-torn countries rebuilt and in order so their people won’t come here, flood the workforce, and drive our own economy into the ground.”

In this instance, the overriding objective of compromise and pacification was summed up in one word … treaty. In corporate America, however, managers refer to the same type of arrangement
as an … alliance contract. As a new business owner, unless you understand the value of these contracts, you will forever find yourself building walls and fi ghting unnecessary wars.

In 2004, sworn competitors Samsung Electronics and Sony signed an agreement to split the cost of research and development to build flat-screen LED televisions. In 2013, Ford and Toyota formed an alliance to jointly design a new futuristic hybrid vehicle. Apple and Microsoft formulated an alliance to design a mobile operating system. Amazon (Kindle) and Apple (iPad) forged an agreement to allow the distribution of Amazon e-books through an iPad/Kindle app.

Safe Island thinking requires a conscious and deliberate detachment from ego-driven outcomes. Force (to contend with bad actors) is still on the table, but viewed as a last resort. The whole idea is to have potential adversaries so intrigued with the benefits of their own island, they have neither the time nor desire to invade yours.

Admittedly, Safe Island thinking has become a much harder sell. In 1961, President John F. Kennedy used it to find his way out of a nuclear standoff with the Russians. This approach totally inflamed his Joint Chiefs and military advisors who saw no other viable solution except to go to war. Safe Island thinking is similar to a chess move that voluntarily relinquishes short-term power for a long-term gain. However, within our human evolution, is an overriding instinct to conquer rather than compromise. Passively working out a deal that benefits both parties just doesn’t FEEL the same, nothing to facilitate a round of cold beers for the heroes and a victorious slap across the back. Our subconscious will remind us that to the victor go the spoils … all of them, including the right to dictate the terms, and punish the opponents who had the audacity to challenge us.

 So many new business owners go under, choosing the hard road instead of the smart road.  Don’t allow your “them vs us” ego to drive you out of business. Keep up your guard. But remember. Sometimes building a bridge can be far more profitable than building a wall.

-Leander Jackie Grogan –

(Join the Over-50 Entrepreneur Master Group here: 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1087477241691912

Let’s GO!!!

I GOTTA SHARE THIS ONE…