Arthur - Malevolent Muse: the Life of Alma Mahler

Alma Schindler Mahler (1879 – 1964) was to be wed to three of the great creative geniuses of the late 19^th and early 20^th century – Gustav Mahler (composer/conductor), Walter Gropius (architect), and Franz Werfel (writer). Beyond these three marriages, she also had relationships or affairs with many other men, taking pride in identifying men of promise and inspiring, urging, or taunting them to greatness - at least her diaries reflect this intent. Her life was beyond fascinating, attracting admiration from some and disdain from others but there is no question, she was constantly evolving and searching for her own place in the world.

The author of this biography (2015), Donald Arthur, does not spin a polite story. Characterized variously as superficial, narcissistic, impetuous, sexualized, and anti-Simetic, one might not expect Alma to attract a wide circle of friends; somehow these qualities were overlooked or may even have enticed many men who would be prominent artists. Alma was a survivor, having lost a beloved father, tolerating a disinterested step father (Carl Moll, one of the founders of the Secession movement in Vienna), romanced as a teen by Gustav Klimt (painter), and struggling throughout her life to be satisfied with any lover, no matter how dedicated they were to her.

I was left wondering if Alma’s life might have been different had her ambition been directed at her own creations rather than wrapped up in those she loved. I also wonder if her criticism and abuse of others might have been subdued had the times in which she grew up not been so tolerant of classicism and discrimination. Arthur described Alma as imperious, prone to jealousy, and haughty, all feigned to obscure her own insecurity.

Although Alma was only married to Gustav Mahler from 1901 to his death in 1911, she returned throughout her life to his name in order to command the social position she believed she warranted. Even in her final days in New York City, Leonard Bernstein would invite Alma to performances of Mahler’s symphonic works. Exploiting Mahler’s name and growing prestige while he was still alive, she complained that he did not recognize her musical talent, which by most accounts was modest. Although Mahler is now one of the most widely performed composers in the modern day, he had ups and downs during his years conducting the Vienna State Opera, the Metropolitan (NYC), and eventually the newly formed New York Philharmonic. The pinnacle - Mahler’s eventual reputation would command an astounding 1.5 million dollars for his last three years in New York City. Gustav Mahler left Alma a rich and prominent widow who would immediately pursue Walter Gropius with whom she had an affair while Gustav was still alive.

Oskar Kokoschka, Alexander von Zemlinsky, Wassily Kandinsky, Arnold Schonberg, Bruno Walter, Thomas Mann, Bertolt Brecht, Erich Wolfgang Korngold, Eugene Ormandy, and others were all to encounter Alma Mahler. Their association with this complicated muse would aid some of their careers and others would only brush with the flame that had consumed others. Upon her death in 1964 the Washington Post would publish:

Alma Mahler-Werfel, 85, who was married to, or, by her own admission had love affairs with many of Europe’s great men in the early 1900s, was the widow of the composer Gustav Mahler, and was called “the most beautiful woman in Vienna” at the turn of the century.

To have known so many, and influenced them through her social networks, must be counted for better or worse as a peculiar, and sometimes sinister, form of leadership. Alma Schindler Mahler rose to the top of elite circles and was intimate with giants of arts and culture most of us could only fantasize the chance to encounter.

Impact of economic inequality on Millennials

I continue to be fascinated and deeply concerned about the impact of economic inequality - both in the U.S.A. and world-wide. Business Insider looked specifically at Millennials' ability to purchase homes and found one characteristic in common - those purchasing homes had very rich parents who helped them. The article describes in essence three tiers - no, moderate and extreme privilege. Those with no economic privilege take out significant loans to finance their educations while those with moderate privilege attend university at little to no cost to them (scholarship or parents handle it). Once no and moderate wealth Millennials enter the work world, they find that owning a home (which is the dream for most of them) is out of reach as a result of high real estate costs coupled with the down payments required to begin home ownership. Those who qualify as "double lucky" have parents whose wealth affords debt-free education and allows them to launch their children into home ownership as well - this is 9% of the total college-attending Millennial population (which is less than 50% of the total and something less than 4.5% of the Millennial cohort).

The "funnel of privilege" that is described in this article confirms what Picketty and Stiglitz have already written. The difference is that it looks at the population that is entering the most productive periods of their lives and it paints a cloudy scenario for anyone outside the top, top strata of economic privilege. If something is not done to provide broader opportunity, stimulating economic vitality for the future will become even more difficult - an economic environment that pays not only for one's own family and living expenses but may also have to accommodate greater public spending on eroding infrastructure, retirement of their parents, and a flattening world economy.

Humility and leadership

A repeated or imbedded theme in my exploration of leadership has been the importance of humility. The reason I've been fascinated with it is that the idea of humility may seem contradictory to many of the public models we see of leadership - the people who seem to seek visibility and iconography through their presumed acts of leadership. What may be confused here is notoreity versus leadership. If someone is visible and known, some people assume they are seeing leadership. I tend to think that, while visibility might come to someone exhibiting real leadership, it is not at all a distinguishing characteristic of those who are successful in leadership. Further, there is a possibility in my mind that those who seek visibility might be some of the more dangerous to follow, primarily because the pursuit of attention is likely to reflect a more deep-seeded insecurity that, when fed with adulation, could become very destructive.

My experiences of observing very simple and powerful leadership has drawn me to look more carefully at this idea of humility. A friend of mine uses the word "proudy" when referring to people who draw attention to themselves. In his culture and religious view, being "proudy" reflects a focus on self and a purpose that undermines the true spirit of leadership. A number of leadership models have emerged over the last 30+ years that suggest the importance of humility in leadership - servant leadership, the social change model, authentic leadership, connective leadership and the very important concerns that have been raised about bad leaders. These and other models help us to understand how a focus on others, both in persona and action, is a promising indicator of those worthy of our trust.

An amazing phenomenon is underway with the emergence of Donald Trump as a candidate for President of the U.S.A. in 2016. His numbers are rising in the polls, attributed by some media to his candor and the public's desire to hear direct and straight messages from their political leaders. While calling it as he sees it may be attractive to some, what Tump is actually saying is far more important. Trump's proclamation that "I'm very rich" and that his driving concern in the race is to reclaim America is very telling - and probably not an indication of humility.

Coelho - The Alchemist

Paulo Coelho’s The Alchemist has been around for quite some time but, for whatever reason, I just got around to reading the 25^th anniversary edition (2014).  That it took me so long to discover The Alchemist is strange because of my previous use of the “Presence” model coupled with other ideas about how important it is to seek one’s own purpose (Coelho’s language is “personal legend”) in life as a way of exhibiting authentic leadership as well as living a fulfilling life. Reading Coelho’s words often felt so familiar that it seemed as if I had read the book before or that I was reading my own words.

The main character in The Alchemist is a shepherd who travels from his home in Andalusia (the region most influenced by Islam when it spread from the Middle East through Northern Africa and across the Mediterranean to Spain) across to Africa and eventually to the Great Pyramids of Egypt, only to return again to where he started in Andalusia. These are places that are familiar to me in culture, language, dress, religion and so many other ways – they are comfortable places with many beautiful people who have led difficult yet fulfilling lives, always striving for better ways to be in the world.

The shepherd boy meets an unassuming man early in the book; the man ends up being a wise king who reappears numerous times throughout the book but in different personages. The wise man challenges what he says is a common belief and repeated lie – that we are all controlled by fate, a power beyond ourselves. The myth of fate is countered by the real truth – that “whoever you are, or whatever it is that you do, when you really want something, it’s because that desire originated in the soul of the universe. It’s your mission on earth.” Through many difficult and sometimes catastrophic experiences, the boy gains and loses fortunes, finds and loses loves, and encounters fascinating guides along the way. When things don’t go well, the shepherd has to decide if he will let himself be a victim or will rise above the calamity to see himself “as an adventurer in quest of his treasure.” Ultimately, he chooses to be an adventurer and adopts the “language of enthusiasm, of things accomplished with love and purpose, and as part of a search for something believed in and desired.”

If making the choice to pursue our personal legend and adopting a positive outlook is all it takes, why don’t more of us surrender to the potential within? When the shepherd boy finally meets the alchemist in his journey to the Pyramids, the alchemist explains, “People are afraid to pursue their most important dreams, because they feel that they don’t deserve them, or that they’ll be unable to achieve them… Tell your heart that the fear of suffering is worse than the suffering itself. And that no heart has ever suffered when it goes in search of its dreams, because every second of the search is a second’s encounter with God and with eternity.”

The Alchemist is a short and powerful read. I wish I had read it earlier in life but I guess it’s message has been in my soul all along…

Harris - International Bank of Bob

Bob Harris was a travel and tourism writer, traveling the world as if he could afford to stay at the luxurious hotels and eat at the fancy restaurants he would visit and then review. All that came to an end when he encountered Dubai. The extreme wealth and privilege, contrasted with the desperate lives of those who built and served the city shocked him into wondering what matters in life. Then it caused him to take a journey to understand the KIVA organization, an organization dedicated to providing opportunity to those who seek economic opportunity but whose prosperity was cut short by the cross-generational and cross-national birth lottery.

Some within the U.S.A. and many outside its borders turn to risky strategies to improve their lives because they love their families. Those who serve as common laborers in places like Dubai sacrifice the most. They are compelled by images of financial gain and they risk everything they have for that chance, often going into great debt to do it and many times risking their health and safety just in the hopes of a better life. They always leave their loved ones back home and end up living away for many years and perhaps an entire adulthood. Although places like Dubai allow for the exploitation of these desperate seekers, Dubai isn’t where the problem started. The root of the problem is the level of poverty and lack of opportunity back in India, Nepal, the Philippines, or elsewhere. That’s why KIVA’s focus has been on providing resources for husbands, wives, and family to stay home and to have access to low-interest loans to create their own businesses.

While other strategies are available to help those in perpetual poverty to have a better life, many (certainly not all) of them are wrapped in a veneer of pity that mostly makes the donors feel good about themselves. The KIVA approach is one that views those who lack economic opportunity as creative, smart, strong, resourceful, and resilient – it recognizes their dignity and worth which is one of the major preconditions to self-sufficiency. KIVA not only provides funding but requires coaching of those who receive loans to help them be successful and it reinforces that every success results in funds returning to the pool to be reallocated to help others. The International Bank of Bob is packed with examples of success from around the world and reflecting the many cultures and religions where poverty has struck. The book also provides honest examples of failure or “over-reach” where some have been too ambitious; it is realistic and does not claim any special truth or cure.

I identified a lot with Harris’ stories, particularly since his journey started in a place with which I am so very familiar, it traversed other places I’ve been, and it ended in Chicago (ACCION) where I now live. It’s strange how a book can so closely mirror your own experience, bringing both greater insight and gravity to your own lived experience. The extremes of wealth found in some places in the world go beyond “any sane human comfort and starts touching lunacy,” as Harris noted early in his book. Is KIVA a way for those who have relative wealth to share their prosperity and alleviate the poverty found in so many, many places? And if it worked, it wouldn’t cost a dollar – only a simple loan that would regenerate itself and eventually be available to others to pursue their own dreams of crossing from poverty to dignity.

4th of July in America!

On the 4^th of July in 2007 I was on a plane most of the day, returning to Dulles International on a Qatar Airways flight after having taken the first step in considering a move to Qatar. I still needed to explore the possibilities with family but it was very clear that the Qatar Foundation opportunity was pretty extraordinary, so extraordinary that I was already leaning toward trying to find a way to make it happen if given an offer. It was kind of crazy because in 2007 all that existed was a handful of staff who had been invited to come on board, a temporary office area, and lots of amazing vision for what student affairs might look like for Education City in Doha, Qatar.

It was a bit surreal returning to the U.S.A. on the 4^th of July, especially in a year when the Presidential election was very inflammatory, when bipartisanship was pushing toward a fever pitch, and when (unbeknownst to most) the economy was slipping toward a dangerous cliff. Things were comfortable at Miami and it looked as if I was going to be there for the long haul but, as the months between July and November unfolded, it became infinitely clear that Qatar was the right choice – and it was!

As I reflect on being out of the U.S.A. for 7 years and now being back for the quintessential day that celebrates the principles of America, I hope I’m a better citizen than when I left. Being outside of the U.S.A. exposed me to a level of complexity in the world that I had never grasped before. It exposed me to both the shortcomings and strengths of the U.S.A. and it helped me to understand that acknowledging where we fall short is one of America’s greatest strengths. Many other countries are unable to have spirited debate and maintain tensions that serve many complicated and competing stakeholders. While the contentiousness of American politics can be troubling, we make progress despite the roadblocks.

We went to a pre-4^th celebration on the shores of Lake Michigan last night and witnessed thousands reveling in food, music, sports, and friendship. The response to hearing a community symphonic band play patriotic American standards demonstrated a real appreciation for what the 4^th means. And the bus we road back to our neighborhood was driven by a delightful driver who engaged those on board in our own songfest. However, the interesting thing was that it was a little harder to find songs that everyone knew than when I was a kid growing up in Boulder, CO, attending the community songfest and fireworks at the Colorado University stadium. In those days, it appeared that everyone knew the words and the sound of thousands singing together is something I’ll never forget.

What’s different about the 4^th in the 1950s and 1960s in Boulder and the 4^th in 2015 in Chicago? Those with whom we shared the 4^th last night were far more diverse than those of years ago, so diverse that sometimes it ‘s hard to find elements of a common culture. My belief is that the greater diversity that is now obvious in America is a strength and, even though somewhat harder to negotiate, it is a strength that will serve America going forward in the 21^st century. The key is recognizing and welcoming many voices with different songs, customs, and perspectives, all embracing and striving for an America that not only stands on important democratic principles but lives them as well.

Revisiting expatriate life in Qatar

It has now been over six months since I left Qatar. I thought that I might blog more often to reflect my thoughts as the months unfolded but I’ve reentered relatively easily and have waited for something of significance to blog about. I received a message this morning with a link to a very interesting article by Dane Wisher, an expatriate from the U.S.A. who worked in Qatar for three years and recently repatriated.

Dane’s reflections took me back to many of the thoughts and feelings I had about being in Qatar. Since returning to the U.S.A., I've not really talked to that many people about what I'd done for the last 7 years. Most people don't ask and I don't volunteer. I don't volunteer at least partially because I'm ambivalent about the experience. All the time I was in Qatar I held hopes and dreams that I would be able to contribute something that would be lasting and that would fundamentally change many of the conditions with which I was so uncomfortable.

The author of this article, Dane, was in Qatar in her early career while I was there in late career. The timing of expatriate work makes a lot of difference in what you experience. The most provocative section of the article for me was the following:

Expat employees generally get used to the dissonance between the rhetorical fanfare of the higher-ups and the actual administrative fickleness that plagues local management structures and cripples the abilities of employees to do their jobs. But more than than, as a human being you get used to passing emaciated workers on construction sites on the walk to the Kempinsky or the Four Seasons. You get used to seeing Qatari men browbeat—and sometimes actually beat—South Asian drivers on the side of the road. You grow accustomed to watching workers on break line up in the shade of a single palm tree as the dirt sizzles around them in August. You stop registering the busses with no air-conditioning carrying the laborers to and from their cramped quarters. You stop noting the way the men press their dusty faces out the open windows for air.

The reality of this segment is that the first sentence so clearly and sadly captures my experience. Unfortunately, I fear some might say I was part of "rhetorical fanfare of the higher ups." I actually believed that we were making a difference and I believed that drawing others into seeing the possibilities was better than cursing the darkness. However, I depart from the author on the rest of the paragraph. I never got used to the chasm between the privileged Qatari/expats and the Southeast Asian workers. Reading the words even now brings back deep emotional connections - I see the faces and the yearning of those trying to build a better life. What the article does not address is that at least some proportion of these workers (I suggest significant) have a better life because they went to Qatar; the fact is that the U.S.A. and other Western countries are certainly not opening their doors to help those who are desperate for economic opportunity. The problem of inequality is vast and the worst in the world today is the U.S.A. If you look at the U.S.A. in comparison to the rest of the world, it gets even worse. Because I saw the difference and experienced the tolerance of inequality so profoundly in Qatar, I now see it much more clearly in the U.S.A. Something has to be done and I pray that the shifting political environment in the U.S.A. will result in our being a better country and in the U.S.A. and its citizens understanding our role in the world in different ways. The faces of others will never leave my memory and it is for them that my work is now about trying to bring substantive internationalization to U.S. higher education.

I have written, and continue to write, about the Qatar days. I don't go into the details of the things that made me ambivalent, primarily because I still hold hope that change will eventually come. Becoming cynical about the experience doesn't work for me nor does voicing it help Qatari leaders in their quest to change. The good Qatari who I knew deeply and still admire greatly are attempting to serve their country and bring modernity to its people. The thing that Westerners generally don't get is that being a Qatari leader is extremely volatile, challenging, and potentially dangerous. The pace of change has to be at a rate that the mainstream Qatari citizen will endorse, not as Qatari leaders or Western expats would hope. It is a long, slow and difficult path.

Diamond - Collapse

The good news of Jared Diamond’s Collapse (2011) is that no generation in human history has had more information available to it about how other societies and cultures failed to meet the crises of their days. The bad news is that leaders in societies across time and culture have often sought only to make sure that their elites or family were the last to survive while the broader society faltered and ultimately collapsed. Daimond’s hope, and I assume ours as well, is that contemporary societies will recognize the challenges we face and deal with them in ways that protect us all.

Diamond identified eight factors that placed societies at risk over history; deforestation and habitat destruction, soil problems, water management problems, overhunting, overfishing, effects of introduced species on native species, human population growth, and increased per-capita impact of people. The weight of each of these variables has varied across the cultures he analyzed but the pattern of past collapses has generally involved population growth that led to intensified focus on food production, expanded farming that became increasingly unproductive, and continuing pursuit of unsustainable practices that ultimately destroyed the living conditions required to support the population. Some societies dwindled and died where they were while others moved on to another place to begin the cycle all over.

To these eight natural conditions, Diamond added several new factors that he asserts are impacting current societies – human caused climate change, buildup of toxic chemicals in the environment, energy shortages, and full human utilization of all the photosynthetic capacity of the planet. The human complicators include the presence of hostile neighbors, decreased support from previously friendly neighbors, and the response of the society to the problems it has encountered. Diamond noted both societies that have negotiated difficult circumstances and survived as well as other societies that did not.

At the core of most of the societal failures there has been a conflict in values – either conflict among sub-groups within a society or conflict between what was valued and the reality that those values did not work. The latter dynamic has been particularly interesting in the examples of European societies that failed because they did not heed and respect native cultures they encountered as they expanded their reach throughout the world. The ability to recognize the value tension, and adjust as necessary was the key to success. The challenge that has never loomed so ominously before is that previous societies could fail and only their populations suffered the consequence. In today’s world, the potential for failure has moved to a much grander scale – even when one society attempts to shift its own failures to another society, the shifts are only temporary solutions that eventually wreak havoc for all. The other crushing reality is that first-world economies have already overutilized resources and damaged the natural environment and now are trying to push more austere consumption off on developing economies; those in these other places see the hypocrisy of encouraging restraint when they, themselves, were unwilling to change their ways to reduce the negative impact on our shared eco-system.

The bottom line is that the complications we face around the globe require leadership – and a particularly courageous kind. The leadership required to negotiate the conditions that have caused other societies over history to collapse will anticipate growing problems and will take bold steps to address the problems before they reach catastrophic levels. As Diamond says, “Such leaders expose themselves to criticism or ridicule for acting before it becomes obvious to everyone that some action is necessary.” This kind of leadership is essential if we are to avoid the reality that conflicts across contemporary societies may well result in very unpleasant outcomes “such as warfare, genocide, starvation, disease epidemics, and collapses of societies.”

OECD report confirms world-wide economic inequality

Confirming the sentiment of my previous posts about economic inequality primarily in the U.S.A., OECD's new report on world-wide economic inequality is sobering. This report, coupled with the analyses of economists who have already rung the alarm bell, identifies the countries where inequality has grown most dramatically even in the face of the 2008+ world recession. The richest have only grown richer and this poses a significant threat to the world's economies. Economies stagnate from those with the greatest wealth holding and growing their own net worth while middle class citizens would stimulate economic vitality by actively using their resources to purchase products and services.

Stiglitz - The Price of Inequality

Joseph Stiglizt paints a picture that many do not want to see, particularly those in the U.S.A. In The Price of Inequality (2013) he admits that it was hard to acknowledge “that the United States was no longer the land of opportunity portrayed by Horatio Alger stories of ‘rags to riches.’” One of the most important points of his book was that the blaming and framing for individual advantage that has become so much a part of the American debate has to stop. In its place we need a substantive conversations informed by “self-interest properly understood” (Alexis de Tocqueville) that has the potential to return U.S. economic policy to one that serves many, rather than the few. Before offering some reflections, no personal indictment is intended to anyone – I’m a humanist trying to understand economics and, more importantly, attempting to find ways to devise an economy that can serve all people more equitably.

The parallels between the Gilded Age of the late 19^th and early 20^th century and what is now occurring at the beginning of the 21^st century is striking. The statement, “America’s concentration of wealth at the top was a result of rent seeking – including monopoly profits and the excessive compensation of some CEOs and, especially, that of the financial sector” is applicable across both times. Think of the names of the Gilded Age – Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Frick, Morgan, Rockefeller – and now those of the 21^st century – Buffet, Walton, Gates, Trump… Using one example, the Waltons who are heirs to the Walmart empire control 69.7 billion dollars of wealth, equivalent to the total wealth of the bottom 30% of the entire U.S. economy. And what does Walmart do? It purchases and moves products made by others and makes them widely available at below market prices (sometimes) because of economy of scale. Walmart adds nothing to the general welfare of society and creates no innovation or advancement – it’s only a broker of the sweat and effort of others.

Rent seeking is extracting a natural resource or controlling access to a service or product that shifts wealth simply by taking it away from others. No contribution is made through innovation or the provision of any product or service. Countries that have abundant natural resources have classic rent seeking economies that gain access to their resources at prices and with terms that are lower than fair market value. The question about the rent-seeking economies is who owns these resources, especially when their extraction creates other impacts that create costs that are then laid at the feet of the public.

What happens among some of those with extreme wealth is that they credit their success to themselves, not recognizing the free gift of generations ahead of them, the opportunities of education and work they were accorded, and the infrastructure of a government and society that makes innovation and commerce possible. When this generational and public gift remains unrecognized, it becomes a sort of corporate welfare that no one acknowledges. “When the oil industry pushes for more offshore drilling and simultaneously pushes for laws that free companies from the full consequences of an oil spill, it is, in effect, asking for a public subsidy.” Beyond the financial costs associated with rent seeking, the greatest cost may be the “erosion of our sense of identity in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important.”

Ronald Reagan started the repositioning of the U.S. economy when he reduced taxation at the highest levels from 70% to 28% under the premise that the benefit to the rich would trickle down to the lower economic strata of citizens. The extreme inequality that is derived from the Reagan era, contradicting the trickle-down idea, has created a parallel and dysfunctional divide in the politics of the current generation. Those who have obtained great wealth are now able to more easily buy politician’s votes through campaign support, a dynamic that creates misinformation campaigns to manipulate the middle and lower class into thinking that maintaining an unrestricted economy that benefits the wealthy is in the interest of common citizens.

The solution that Stiglitz recommends is dramatic – focus “on community rather than simply on self-interest – both community as a means to prosperity and as a goal in its own right.” Return to an achievement model of income determination, one based on rewarding in income those who make the greatest contribution to society. Then reverse the government’s fiscal position by raising taxes at the top to reasonable levels, cut out corporate welfare and subsidies, increase taxes for corporations that don’t invest and create jobs in the U.S., impose taxes/charges on polluters, stop natural resource give aways, cut military waste, don’t overpay through government procurement (whether it’s a drug company or a defense contractor). Then invest in infrastructure, education and technology that will establish the base for growth in the future.

While these measures may seem draconian to some, they are likely in everyone’s best interest – even those with extreme wealth. The growing economic divisions among us all are dangerous because they result in hopelessness for some (resignation to poverty), unrest among others (public protest and violence), and complacency for those who do not recognize that economic disparity is one of the greatest dangers we face in terms of political and military conflicts around the world.

April 9, 1939 - Marian Anderson's act of conviction

Seventy-six years ago today, Marian Anderson sung before an audience of 75,000 at the Lincoln Memorial because the Daughter's of the American Revolution (DAR) refused to allow her to sing in Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C.  Howard University had invited her to sign; because they didn't have a venue large enough to hold the crowd they anticipated, they asked for the use of Constitution Hall which was denied because of a policy that only allowed whites entry. First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt immediately resigned from her DAR membership and helped to move the much-anticipated concert to the reflecting pool in front of the Lincoln Memorial. While Anderson did not see herself as an activist for civil rights, her courage in proceeding with the concert in 1939 turned into what many recognize as the first-ever public protest concert in American history. Acting on principle turned a concert that would have been great into something even greater when both the music and message reached so many hearts. As Jessye Norman noted (in her memoir, Stand Up Straight and Sing) in reference to Marion Anderson, "When I think about how, despite the pervasive prejudice she experienced, she did not allow hatred to dampen the song within, I can only be grateful." Those who act on conviction should not allow resistance in any form to dampen the song within.

Still a question - Can you learn to lead?

The conversation about how, or if, we can learn to lead is raised by advocates and cynics alike. The latest version in the New York Times poses responses from Professor Cunliffe at the University of Bradford (UK) who says that leadership is essentially "being passionate about what you do" to that of Professor Van Maanen at MIT (USA) who is quoted as saying that the "idea that (leadership) can be transmitted... is ideologically vacuous." Articles like this continue in the litany of provocations that may eventually lead to concluding that we should give up, or that we have no choice but to try harder. Unfortunate that the author references Joseph Rost as proof that there is no agreement about what leadership really is. Duff McDonald's use of Rost for this purpose declines to acknowledge Rost's more important and prophetic role in proposing that leadership is more than privileged individuals with position and status in comparison to leadership that is often demonstrated as an unfolding dynamic among people seeking to work together toward a common goal.

Encountering power

I recently had the opportunity to work with some colleagues in conceptualizing and refining a new approach to leadership studies and development that they intend to launch as a point of distinction for their college’s student recruitment programs. The goal to increase enrollment was convincingly undergirded with the aspiration to improve students’ learning and better prepare them for the 21^st century world they will encounter upon graduation. After review of planning documents, I determined to focus my remarks to this group substantially on the core ideas I advocated in Deeper Learning in Leadership (Roberts, 2007) – Leadership as “conviction in action” and supported by a framework of fostering habits or dispositions of presence, flow and oscillation in students’ lives.

During the question and response time after my remarks, a thoughtful political scientist raised the question of why I had not addressed power as an important dynamic of leadership. I responded in the moment but wasn’t really satisfied with what I said so the question has lingered in my thinking.

Over the years I’ve read untold numbers of leadership books and articles and entered into conversations that recognized power as an important dynamic of leadership. I have also experienced the exercise of power in many and varied forms – coercive, manipulative, challenging, undermining, and facilitative. The advocacy to include power in the conversations about leadership often comes from political scientists with Ron Heifetz and Barbara Kellerman of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government being my favorites.

In my response to the question about power I acknowledged that power is an aspect of leadership that needs to be recognized and I asked the colleague who raised the question to work with others at the college to make sure that the political scientist’s perspective on power is, indeed, included in the leadership studies curriculum they are designing. I went on to say that I still believed that helping students find conviction in their lives and pursue it in ways that allow for authenticity (through presence) was the core of the question, as opposed to focusing on power as a controlling variable in leadership.

Models such as I’ve advocated in leadership as conviction in action, or Greenleaf’s “Servant Leadership,” or the “Social Change Model of Leadership” may seem naïve or uninformed among those whose discipline it is to study politics and power. In fact, the models focused on advocating for the common good rather than individualistic benefit may need to focus more on power and how it can be used to advance or undermine compassionate leadership efforts. The reality is that throughout history and in our own times there are those who seek to fulfill their own power hungers and these people have had a profound impact on us all.

On the other hand, the use of power to achieve ends that serve the needs of few to the exclusion of the broader good is quite often a short-gain proposition. History and international dynamics we now see demonstrate that self-serving, divisive or abusive use of power in the name of leadership will ultimately result in decline and failure. By contrast, compassionate leadership that considers the greater good will eventually surface and will defeat power wielding in the end. I propose that focusing on leadership learning that cultivates conviction among today’s students is the long-term strategy that will foster many who see themselves as capable of leadership and will encourage them to stay the course even when power dynamics may not temporarily be in their favor. And, leadership educators need to help those who aspire to leadership to understand power, its positive and negative uses, and to assist students in determining the costs and benefits when they encounter power.

Inequality of economic opportunity

Whether analyzed over history in Thomas Picketty’s, Capital in the 21^st Century (2013), in relation to the patterns of inequality in the U.S.A. today by JosephE. Stiglitz’ The Cost of Inequality (2012), or from the stories of those who sought to challenge exploitive systems that perpetuate inequality in Michael Lewis’ Flash Boys (2014), the message is clear – inequality of economic opportunity, and how many of those privileged with wealth protect and exaggerate it, is one of the most entrenched and volatile problems we face in the modern day. I am not an economist and so qualify my reflections by acknowledging that I am a novice and was previously uninformed about economics and its impact. However, reading these three books has allowed me to integrate a variety of perspectives and to learn enough to know that economic opportunity is a problem that we must all face.

As a backdrop to my reflections, the intent is not to criticize anyone but to face honestly a system that is inherently unfair and perpetuates itself, with those fortunate enough to enter the ranks of extreme wealth acquiring opportunity that most others have no idea even exists. Some people with great wealth use it productively, putting it to use in providing services and products that offer employment opportunity to others. This is the legendary “trickle-down” economics theory that many espouse when they say that wealthy people should not be taxed on their worth but, instead, allowed to put it to work by feeding an economic system that benefits all. The sad reality is that “trickle-down” seldom works, with the seriously wealthy of today most often holding their wealth or putting it in places that create only more money rather than active investment that builds a vibrant economy.

Picketty’s analysis included review of tax records going back 250 years to determine patterns of inequality and how they shifted as a result of world phenomenon such as the French Revolution, World Wars, and depressions. The bottom line is that those lucky enough to gain a hold of even modest wealth in the developed world are automatically destined to proportionally increase that wealth over time. His assertion is based on the simple fact that capital return has always out-paced growth in all countries and all historic periods. So, if you have it, you will keep it and add to it. Thus the lower or middle class seldom break the bonds of their socioeconomic class. His proposal is to consider a world-wide progressive tax on the very, very wealth (.001 of the population) so that they still have return on their investments but not at the extreme levels that has allowed them to emerge from the 2007/08 world recession with more money than they had going in. Why world-wide – because extremely wealthy people have ways to hide money so that it cannot be taxed. Thus, a universal tax would require all countries to report deposits that can then be traced back to their owners. The revenues would be invested in infrastructure ranging from education to highways that extremely wealthy individuals/corporations use to make more money but invest little to establish or maintain.

Stiglitz, a Nobel Laureate credited for his insights on economics and an influential leader in U.S.A. and international organizations (chair of Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, the World Bank, and others) is credited for challenging the concept of free market economies, indicating in a 2007 interview that "The theories that I (and others) helped develop explained why unfettered markets often not only do not lead to social justice, but do not even produce efficient outcomes. Interestingly, there has been no intellectual challenge to the refutation of Adam Smith's invisible hand: individuals and firms, in the pursuit of their self-interest, are not necessarily, or in general, led as if by an invisible hand, to economic efficiency." Picketty's book described the way economic inequality has influenced politics in the U.S.A. in recent years, indicating that allowing campaign donations at unprecedented levels has resulted in “pay for hire” politicians who no longer represent much of a constituency beyond those who economically benefit from their policy actions. And the campaign funds spin the candidates’ images, making it look as if common citizens are being protected by these politicians. One of his assertions was that high wealth individuals frequently believe that they got where they are because of superior ability or hard work when, more likely, they prospered as a result of inheritance or utilizing systems provided by the government to support their businesses. One particular group within the high wealth strata are the managers who now command astronomical salaries by historic comparison and continue to demand more under the assumption that they possess unique and therefore highly coveted talent, even when their corporate ledgers reflect otherwise.

Lewis’ Flash Boys tells the story of an individual who discovered the practice of high frequency traders, realizing that HFT added nothing to the economy other than making more money for themselves and their clients simply by getting to information about equities trading before others did and then manipulating purchases in ways that resulted in positive yield not as an investment but as a timed intervention in financial transactions.  Flash Boys had a positive ending in that a team of insightful and cunning economic and technology experts established a new market that could not be manipulated by HFT, thus leveling the playing field for all investors, regardless of how fast their trading speed was. One of Lewis’ most disturbing assertions was that analysis of financial markets and the corresponding regulation of them over time indicates that every time policy is put in place, those involved in the markets go to work to undermine or to find other ways to produce their financial gains.

These three books have informed and disturbed me in very significant ways. The implications include:

1. Extreme wealth perpetuates itself and offers little opportunity to strive for the “American Dream” that was so much a part of the identity of many in the U.S.A. from its founding.
2. Those with extreme wealth, whether through their own action or more likely their advisors, intervene in public policy to protect and to add to their wealth, resulting in a system that cannot be self-corrected.
3. As those around the world enter the economic elite circles, they often do so without a real understanding of the implications for their own citizens.
4. Extreme wealth is often acquired by those who access publicly-provided systems and infrastructure, and worse they exploit natural resources or create environmental damage, for which they do not pay.

The point for those of all socio-economic strata and nationality is how a world economy will be created that is balanced and offers the opportunity of advancement that hard-working individuals/families seek. The global economic environment in which we now live has resulted in everyone being able to see the disparity that exists, a disparity that leads to hopelessness among some and for others becomes a catalyst for resentment – potentially planting the seeds for anarchy. Whether you are rich or poor, it’s hard to avoid a conclusion that the economic systems of the world needs to be monitored, improved, and based on fairness, stewardship of resources, and contributing to the public good.

Who are "expats" anyway?

The Guardian carried a short article on the term "expat" or "expatriate" related to privilege. Having just passed my 3-month return date from 7 years in Qatar, I tend to agree with the assertion that expatriates are a privileged class of workers by contrast to others who are labeled migrant or immigrant workers. It is a mark of the privilege of an expat that I had never noticed the difference in language; however, I know I was never called a migrant worker and many of the really good people I knew were never dignified by being called expats.

For those who are accorded the expat title, perhaps a little reflection is in order. The article has a picture at the top which says it all. When expats work abroad, what kinds of systems and stereotypes might they be perpetuating? One of the benefits of expatriate work in Qatar was that salaries were good and the pay scales of migrant workers were very low - allowing the expats to hire nannies, house keepers, cooks, and drivers that they would never be able to otherwise afford. The rationalization was that the migrant workers benefitted from the extra pay they could earn from the many odd jobs they took in order to scrape by while sending most of their earnings back to their families. This rationalization is real - the migrant workers needed the extra income in order to support their families. But the reality of perpetuating classism and subjugation remains.

I have to admit that the privilege of being an expatriate worker was something I enjoyed. This article calls me to reflect on how I treated those around me. Did I treat these friends/colleagues with respect? Did I offer fair compensation for their labor? Did I do anything to challenge the systemic conditions that resulted in the migration of so many people from their homes? For those who have never worked abroad, the numbers are huge - primarily among Southeast Asians and Africans. Because of economic or political conditions in their home countries, these "expatriated" workers had no other choice. They had to take the risk of going to a place very different from their home, spending extended periods away from family and loved ones, and hoping that in the end they would be able to provide for their families.

Sobering thoughts...