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...

Acute awareness

I thought I would blog more upon my repatriation to the U.S.A. However, I realized today that the persistent view that I didn’t have anything to say was more about my awareness. Looking back on blog posts from 2005 to 2015 (wow, 10 years of blogging!), it is obvious that I blogged more during periods of acute awareness which usually came during periods of transition to and from the U.S.A. to Europe, back again, and then the longer period of enculturation in Qatar. However, was the issue the stimulus (i.e. change) or was it awareness? I now think that it was awareness, something that has been stirred for me through some interesting experiences over the last week.

Over the last 2 months of being back in the U.S.A. I’ve noticed a couple of cultural differences that are not profound but nevertheless important. Americans are much more respectful and comfortable with lines (no crowding, cutting, or impatience), they tend not to engage informally with strangers, and their interactions are often quite transactional (get the task accomplished rather than establish a relationship). While I appreciate the respect for lines (especially when it comes to auto driving safety), I’ve been uncomfortable with the lack of engagement. My first attempt to cross the line was introducing myself to staff at the fitness center I joined this last week. The very first introduction resulted in a series of discussions with a fascinating guy, Chris, who is transferring from a local community college to the University of Southern California later this week. When he found that I had worked in higher education, he started pumping me with questions that took me back to the wonderful conversations I used to have in the fitness room in Doha. He asked about choice of major, where he should live, and how to make the most of his education. This is a young man who I assume is of relatively modest means but who now sees himself at a critical juncture of opportunity.

The encounter with Chris contrasted with an a cappella group performance this last Sunday in Wilmette. The group was from Yale and they were good enough musically but it was who they were and the way they presented themselves that caught my attention. First of all, all the 12 singers were White, something that just is not part of my worldview these days. Then when they each introduced themselves by indicating their hometowns, majors and aspirations, they proceeded to minimize the importance of their majors and often referenced very trivial aspirations compared to the weight of the institution they attend. I’m confident that the light introductions were intended to keep things humorous and entertaining but the impact for me was very different. What I saw was young White Americans taking their great privileged for granted and perhaps not even taking themselves as seriously as they might.

How do these fragments fit together? First of all, it feels good to return to a more reflective place where I am actively aware of what’s going on around me. Being acutely aware in a different cultural context is in many ways more natural and spontaneous but I can choose to be more aware in any environment where I am willing to cultivate perspective. Secondly, I am eager to reinforce the impression that I know many U.S.A. educators have – that American students are often complacent about their privilege and therefore miss great opportunity. This complacency of privilege occurs across cultural and national borders as well. I do not assert this concern as a criticism of contemporary students but as a challenge that educators need to address. The bombardment of information in today’s world is overwhelming. Whether it’s the hyperbole of news media turning everything into an event (i.e. the need to now name every storm front that moves across the U.S.A.) or the profusion of personalized messages and perspectives coming into our cell/mobile devices, how to sort through what is important and matters is a huge task and requires considerable discipline. While I know there is a place for light conversation and relaxation, it seems to me that acute awareness rather than complacency is what we should seek. This acute awareness would then hopefully (Insh’Allah) result in discerning and critical analysis, seeing ourselves and others more realistically and compassionately, and engaging in leadership and membership that has the potential to shape a justice and caring world.

The "C" between "B" and "D"

I’ve spent the weeks since returning to the U.S. acclimating and preparing for the Christmas holiday with family. With our holiday drawing to a close, Diane and I attended the Trinity United Methodist Church in Wilmette for what would be the last of the Advent and Christmas observances earlier today. The message was provided by an intern from China who contrasted Asian cultural perspectives based on Budism with those of the West. The point he made was that Budism views life as a constant unfolding circle of experiences while Western culture, significantly shaped by Christianity, is more linear – birth, life, death and the promise of a life after death that varies according to the theological view of the Christian. He advised that Christian faith calls believers to reflect carefully on the “C” between “B” and “D,” “C” being the choices one makes between “B” (birth) and “D” (death).

It struck me that the message of paying careful attention to our choices is central to the idea of advent - a time of preparation. Islam has an equivalent concept in the month of Ramadan that culminates in the Hajj pilgrimage to Medina and Mecca for those who can make the trip. A wonderful PBS documentary captured the journey of a group of Muslim pilgrims from Boston, reflecting the struggles of spiritual reflection that are such an important part of the Hajj journey. Advent and Hajj provide the opportunity for a very profound experience if the time is used to prepare, to reflect, to grow in patience and self-understanding, and to ultimately connect with God.

The close of the holiday season and the return to life’s routine is in some ways a sad time. However, the most important loss is perhaps ceasing the intentional preparation for what we intend to do. Paying attention to what I intend to do takes on greater importance tomorrow more than perhaps any time thus far in my life. Because all my time has been focused on Advent and the preparation for Christmas over the last six weeks, I hadn’t really thought about how important the choices I will make in the coming days will be. For the first time since starting my career in 1973, I have broader choices to make about how to use my time. Sure, we have choices in our work and careers but in some ways the choices we make outside of our work are the most important decisions we face.

Qatar taught me many things about the worth and dignity of all people, about sacrifice, and about hope in the face of challenging odds. There were so many people I encountered who were in Qatar because they had no other choice in order to feed their families. More often than not, these friends made a choice for hope and constantly had a positive outlook that was humbling. I cherish these memories and look forward to making choices to contribute to those around me here in Chicago and for those who are scattered across so many other nations who are striving for opportunity.

I will strive to live by the lesson of Advent this year, of my return to the U.S., and of the message we heard at church today – intentional preparation for spiritual encounter, for career, and for service to others requires being aware of the constant choices we have to make.

Repatriation - one week later

It seems strange to know that I've been back in the U.S. for a full week now. Strange because it feels as if I've been here forever but also strange because the experience of living in Qatar is always on my mind. The unnerving part of this strangeness is that I frequently catch myself thinking that I will return to Doha. Simple things like buying something at a store and immediately wanting to make sure we take delivery before I have to return. And then I realize I'm not returning. Besides these moments of realization, I've been very busy settling back into our home, taking delivery of my shipment, and placing things around our home that were part of my life in Doha.

I've actually been surprised throughout the last week that I've had relatively few moments of remorse about leaving Doha. I assume it is because I was so excited to get home to be with Diane and the rest of the family. What I miss most about Doha are the people with who I interacted on a daily basis. Everyone from my work colleagues to security staff, cleaning staff, trainers and workout friends in the fitness room - I miss them all and have moments when I simply long to see them and exchange good wishes.

The funniest part of my return occurred the first night back. I went to bed early after the 14+ hour flight and woke up at 1:30 a.m Chicago time. My mind was racing on all sorts of things from work-related, to acclimating to Chicago, to things I wanted to do. Obviously, 1:30 a.m. was not a time that I could ask Diane to get up to talk or for me to go to the piano for a little practice. I knew I couldn't get back to sleep so I decided to start a list of things on my mind. Well, seven pages of hand-written notes later, I had a full list of tasks I want to dive into, ways I want to influence U.S. higher education, places I want to go, and volunteer/enrichment activities I want to pursue in retirement. After Diane got up 5 hours later, she asked me what I had been doing. What exploded from me was a bit overwhelming and later when I described the scene to Devin (oldest daughter) she commented that maybe I should consider taking my foot off the accelerator!

I plan to keep track of how things unfold over the next weeks and months through my blog. Understanding the process of repatriating is as important as understanding how expatriate choose to work abroad and how they engage the experience. Thus far, repatriation and reverse culture shock seem to be less of a hurdle than I anticipated.

One week left

Over the last couple of months I began the logistical and emotional journey of repatriating to the U.S. after seven years in Qatar. Since this isn’t only a journey to a different place but a journey to a different way of being, I haven’t really known what to expect. As of this last weekend, the logistics are pretty much in place – had a garage sale, sold the car and piano, and completed the preparation for shipping my belongings. I still have the processes of cancelling my residence permit, clearing my ville, arranging bank closure, and a couple of other things but the week is manageable.

The emotional journey has been a mix of everyday life coupled with occasional moments where I suddenly react, “Oh, this is the last…” Because I am so excited about being back with my family, the idea of not seeing some of my friends and colleagues here has not been bad but I anticipate that, as the time nears, I am likely to struggle.

An odd emotional moment occurred in bidding farewell to my piano on this last Friday morning. I had to leave early to participate in a student leadership development desert challenge so I left my ville key with the family who bought the piano, allowing them to pick up the piano whenever they could. As I was waiting to be picked up at 7:30 a.m., I played several Rachmaninoff pieces, ending with the Rachmaninoff Prelude IV, Op. 23, No. 4. The Prelude IV was the first piece I picked up when I began to get serious about practicing again so it has a special meaning to me as the invitation to what has been a rediscovery of music in my life.

The Prelude IV, Op. 23, No. 4 concludes with a last crescendo from pianissimo to mezzo forte, a silent (and in my interpretation prolonged) pause, and a very simple a-major 7^th chord resolving into d-major. My body reacts to this final phrase by gradually releasing a deep and long breath as the last crescendo rises. Then my body automatically draws in a quick a renewing breath in the pause and then releases a final exhale as the final two chords resolve quietly in a never- ending and peaceful silence. The notes and the entire experience of breathing with the music are a relief to my body and my heart. I hope that the little piano that gave me so much pleasure understood what I was saying…

I have been so privileged to work in Qatar, to discover worlds I never imagined, and to rediscover music as a central part of my life. Many, many years ago I thought I wanted to be a concert pianist but the pressure of performance made me too nervous to play my best when performing for others; thus, I moved to higher education. The journey of higher education has been incredible and fulfilling, ending with this last crescendo in Qatar. Perhaps, I’ll have a last crescendo with music when I return to be with Diane, the girls, our sons-in-law, and little Reese…

Reeves - Brookings Institute paper on the American dream

Analysis and concern over the impact of the growing disparity of opportunity and income in the U.S. is addressed in Reeve's Brookings Institute paper.

Maximizing participation - in all ways

Pursuing leadership is about understanding leadership from a variety of perspectives.  Lately I've become more curious, and concerned, about economic and political leadership because of what I fear is a dangerous trend of growing privilege held by few and maintained/exaggerated by an oligarchy of political influence.  Before pointing any fingers, I own that I am privileged by comparison to many in the world.  I also want to assert that there isn't anything wrong with wealth, as long as it came deservedly to those who work hard, innovate, and contribute to the public good while privately benefiting from their effort.  It is isolated and protectionist wealth that concerns me.

Nick Hanauer refers to himself as a plutocrat who was lucky by birth, experience, and opportunity.  And he warns his fellow plutocrats that "trickle-down economics" never has, nor will, work and that maximizing participation for those who are not part of the plutocracy is the only way to create sustainable prosperity for all. He's the one who is advocating for an increase in minimum wage so that more people can have the means to spend into an economy that can grow.  He owns that he makes 1,000 times the average worker and then makes the logical assertion that there is no way he could spend all he has.  The only way to increase economic vitality is to spread wealth, rather than holding it and using it in ways that exacts "rent" from those who are not so privileged.

Responses to Nick Hanauer's TED talk have been mixed, with one criticism in Forbes being very strong.  The claim is that Hanauer's analysis is shallow and more about taxation than economic participation.  It's probably worth reviewing both perspectives.

I plan to come back to this topic after finishing Joseph Stiglitz' The Price of Inequality.  Stiglitz makes many of the same points as Nick Hanauer but with more evidence.  Once I finish my reading, I'll again post my thoughts on maximizing participation as a critical and necessary part of economic and political leadership in today's world.

Morgan - Lost History

I was so enthused after reading Michael Morgan's Lost History: The Enduring Legacy of Muslim Scientists, Thinkers, and Artists (2007) that I searched for other reviews to make sure I wasn't missing something - I didn't so I heartily encourage readers to dig in for an introduction to a different view of Islam than is perpetuated in most contemporary media.  Morgan provided meticulous and authoritative documentation in this resource for those who want to understand Islam, its emergence, history, and movement throughout the Middle East, Europe, and Asia.

Each major segment of the book is introduced with a contemporary (21^st century) story and then reflects back to the historical period related to that example.  The first example of this was in Chapter 1, “Rome’s children.”  The contemporary context was a family outing in Tours, in the Loire Valley of France.  The family, originally Moroccan and now living in France, had no idea that Tours was the site where much of the Muslim world’s technology advantage was transferred to Europe.  An early settlement in Roman Gaul, Tours was where Christian forces, led by Charles Martel, encountered the highly developed organization and technology of advancing Muslim military forces.  Against all odds, the Christian forces persevered and were the beneficiaries of Muslims leaving their devices and armaments behind as they fled in the night.  These abandoned resources would first be adopted in the military but would also spur other technology advances never before seen in Europe.

One of the most revealing aspects of Lost History is its tracking of the various groups within Islam.  Particularly of interest in this time of conflict between Sunni and Shiite in Iraq, Morgan traces the slaughter of the Umayyad (predecessor of Sunni) Caliphate in Damascus at the hands of the Abbasid (predecessor of Shiite) Caliphate which would result in Damascus being abandoned and the Umayyad starting their great center for learning and culture in Cordoba, Spain, and the Abbasids doing the same in Baghdad.  The Umayyad legacy will include support of the Christians of Spain who would become the linguists translating Latin, Greek and Hebrew classics into Arabic as well Jews fleeing Visigoth persecution who would become the traders and financiers for their Muslim protectors.

The twists and turns that resulted in shifting centers for the Muslim world ultimately may have contributed to the advancement of Islamic learning and innovation.  Even though the conflicts destroyed many things, each time conflict arose, new centers emerged as knowledge and inquiry unfolded in mathematics, astronomy, geography, music, and medicine.  The revival of Lost History that Morgan recounts documents that much of the base on which European advancement was built was derived from the major centers of learning and advancement of the Muslim world.  The only thing that obscured this contribution was the Anglicization of names that Europeans could not pronounce, denying the real benefactors their rightful place in intellectual history.

Although Lost History charts many conflicts and battles both within Islam as well as across other religions (most notably Judaism and Christianity), there have been multiple voices within Islam that declared the importance of inter-faith understanding and cooperation, including the Prophet Muhammad himself.  Sufi mystic Jalal ad-Din al-Rumi, declared in mid-13^th century (page 243):

In the adorations and benedictions of righteous men

The praises of all the prophets are kneaded together,

All their praises are mingled into one stream,

All the vessels are emptied into one ewer.

Because He that is praised is, in fact, only One.

In this respect all religions are only one religion.

Because all praises are directed toward God’s Light,

These various forms and figures are borrowed from it.

The last chapter, “Enlightened Leadership,” is particularly poignant in advocating a view of leadership that most leadership educators today would quickly endorse.  It gives credit for the many advancements in knowledge and understanding throughout the period so heavily influenced by Islam to a vision of leadership based on “democratic behavior, consensus building, conflict resolution and responsiveness to public opinion.” (page 254)  Abu Bakr, the first Caliph to follow the Prophet Muhammad, left a legacy of “humility, compromise, incorruptibility, and a dedication to charity and public welfare” (page 255) that would shape the faithful practice of Islam for the 7^th century as well as today.

Lost History was not only an informative read but it stimulated deep hope that Islam’s future will unfold to embrace the intellectual vigor, commitment to peaceful coexistence, and humble leadership that have echoed among its Muslim brothers and sisters over the ages.

Kellerman - The End of Leadership

“while the leadership industry has been thriving – growing and prospering beyond anyone’s early imaginings – leaders by and large are performing poorly, worse in many ways than before, miserably disappointing in any case to those among us who once believed the experts held the keys to the kingdom.”  A pretty sobering assessment of the impact of the work of educators, consultants, coaches, and institutions which over the last 40 years dedicated considerable time and resources to leadership learning.  Is Kellerman on target in her End of Leadership (2012) or was the book intended as provocation for serious questions that will improve the field?

Kellerman’s perspective isn’t only about the ineffectiveness of leadership programs but it is also about disillusionment with government and business, the academy and in the professions, and even religion.  As a result of failures in leadership in so many areas, the esteem in which leaders used to be held has eroded and for some evaporated.  “Power and influence have continued to devolve from the top down – those at the top having less power and influence; those in the middle and at the bottom having more.  For their part, followers, ordinary people, have an expanded sense of entitlement – demanding more and giving less.”  The point – focusing on the heroic role of leader is not effective, or practical, in the 21^st century and the importance of followers, or collaborators, has become much more important – especially as an antidote to bad leadership.

I have been a great fan of Kellerman’s work and have cited her widely in my writing, especially in Deeper Learning in Leadership.  I embrace her perspective as a challenge that all need to hear.  Her recommendations include, “the leadership industry must, at a minimum, make four changes.  It must end the leader-centrism that constricts the conversation.  It must transcend the situational specifics that make it so myopic.  It must subject itself to critical analysis.  And it must reflect the object of its affection – change with the changing times.”  Things aren’t good and we appear not to be making progress in cultivating good leadership and followership.  However, I wish she had included reference in The End of Leadership to the work of student affairs educators who, in many ways, have embraced the values and perspective she advocates from the very beginning of their work in leadership learning. 

The omission of student affairs as part of the “leadership industry” may be a good thing considering Kellerman’s critique.  However, the student affairs programs deserve both the same recognition and critique that Kellerman delivered to the rest of the industry.  Kellerman has been aware of student affairs at least from 1998 forward when she chaired and  I attended the first conference of what would eventually become the International Leadership Association.  The first conference was focused on the scholarship of leadership; it was very exciting but I made the point to Kellerman at the close of the meeting that there was an entire cadre of student affairs staff who had been involved in leadership learning for quite some time.  She was very responsive and asked me if I would help to draw them into the organization.  I was delighted at her response and proceeded to tap the network of student affairs people to get them involved the next year.  The influx of student affairs people the next year boosted the attendance and led to the creation of the “Leadership Educator” interest group that has provided the structure for member involvement since that time.

The End of Leadership is a compelling and eye-opening indictment that 40+ years of leadership learning efforts in all sectors has failed!  All those who are interested in leadership and followership should heed Kellerman’s provocative critique and should double-down to make certain that these efforts are worthy of both critique and accolade.

Molinsky - Global Dexterity

Although intended as a resource for expatriate workers, Molinsky’s Global Dexterity (2013) proposes a model that can be used for a variety of purposes – understanding the cultural differences among international students, affirming colleagues whose way of interacting is shaped by their family culture, or navigating cross-border educational initiatives.  Molinsky’s approach is based on his own fascination with the expatriate worker experience as well as research, consulting and coaching he has done to help workers in foreign settings acquire the adaptive responses to allow them to be effective.  The “global dexterity” model is not a developmental sequence of growing understanding, as some other cultural development models propose; instead it is a very intuitively understandable model that allows the “foreigner” to diagnose an environment, discern what is different about the new environment, and find an adaptive approach that maintains the guest’s authenticity and values while increasing the potential of being effective in a “different” place.  As an expatriate worker with a short experience in Europe and a longer period in Qatar, I found the model very useful in reflecting on the various cultures I have encountered.

The “global dexterity” model has a six-dimensional framework that includes; directness, enthusiasm, formality, assertiveness, self-promotion, and personal disclosure.  While there are certainly other clues one might use to understand another culture, including low/high context, physical space and power/SES consciousness, the six dimensions are very revealing.  The diagnosis stage using the model involves determining if the culture one is visiting is high or low on each of the six dimensions.  As just one example from the Arab world using the first dimension of directness, Westerners (particularly Americans) tend to be very direct in their communication, making statements or making requests in very specific and direct ways.  So, if someone had something you liked, an American would say, “I really like that – I wish I could have one like it.” The statement was direct but, in America, the other person would not likely offer it as a gift.  By contrast in the Arab world, indirectness is valued, most often as a way of avoiding embarrassing or putting the other in a difficult place.  So instead of being so direct in offering a compliment, the world “mish’Allah,” which means “God has blessed you with this,” always follows the compliment.  The reason - if one doesn’t say mish’Allah, the other person is culturally obligated to give it to you.  This is a form of indirectness that is highly valued.  Indeed, gifts are part of the culture of hospitality and visitors are often overwhelmed by these gestures.  However, the gifts are to be given freely and generously without any expectation of return.

The dilemma that Molinsky explains is that there are three core psychological challenges as foreigners attempt to adapt to a different cultural environment.  The first is authenticity, the second, competence, and the third resentment.  When trying to modify one’s behavior, even when we know we might be more effective if we adapted, the new behaviors don’t initially feel authentic, sometime they are delivered in clumsy ways, and some people just plain resent having to adapt.  These psychological obstacles have to be overcome in order to adapt in ways that will allow one to have dexterity in adapting to other cultures.

Molinsky’s book is deceivingly simple, most likely as a way to appeal to a wider audience beyond academics.  However, the reader should not be lulled into thinking this is a pop-psych book without substance.  The author has degrees from Columbia and Harvard but does not make his academic credentials the central feature of his credibility.  Global Dexterity stands on its own, with a heuristic model that can be very helpful, tools to use for analysis, many examples, and recommendations for how to walk the path of becoming a person of global dexterity.  His last piece of advice - “customizing your perceptions around cultural adaptation is quite simple: embrace the new culture’s logic.  Don’t just change how you behave: change how you think.”  From my experience, truer words have seldom been uttered when seeking to be a more effective global citizen.

Goodwin - Bully Pulpit

Double-biography, political history, leadership study, romance and the struggle of progressive journalism and governance all wrapped into one.  Doris Kearns Goodwin hits it out of the ballpark with Bully Pulpit: Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the Golden Age of Journalism.

As a renowned author and scholar of the American Presidency, Doris Kearns Goodwin’s latest presidential study is of two presidents who were great friends and colleagues before they served as successive Presidents.  Teddy Roosevelt was fascinating for his courage as an American aristocratic who turned away from his conservative roots and colleagues to champion his “Square Deal.”  This progressivism was spawned by the extreme gap between rich and poor arising from the Industrial Revolution.  Roosevelt had observed the rise of the likes of J.P. Morgan, Nelson Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt and others who gobbled up the wealth emerging from America’s innovations and new productivity.  Faced with the conservatism of the dominant Republican machine of the day, one purchased by special interest elites, he fashioned a new kind of presidency – one that relied on going to the people for moral authority by engaging the media, particularly McClure’s Magazine, to “muckrake” the misdeeds of the rich and powerful.  Hearty by comparison to all those who preceded and succeeded him, he was loved by the public for his honesty, decisiveness, willingness to challenge the dominant conservative message, and dedicated to serving the common man.

While I knew more about Roosevelt before starting this book, I grew to respect Taft for many of the positive things he achieved.  He was the first Governor General of the Philippines and was profoundly influential in establishing its government after the Spanish-American War of 1899.  As President, he was also extremely effective as an executive engaging with legislators to pass important legislation.  He was one of the most likable of American Presidents, although his struggle with weight control is more often noted than his affable personality.  His wife, Nellie, much more socially and politically ambitious than Edith Roosevelt, was a great partner, establishing cultural programs in the U.S.A. (founding the Cincinnati Symphony) and the Philippines and creating Potomac Park and the legendary cherry blossoms that remain today.  Unfortunately, she was devastated by multiple strokes that prohibited her from fully engaging during the formative, and more difficult, years of Taft’s Presidency.  Ultimately, Taft’s dream, and most likely his most effective service in leadership, was when he was appointed as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during the subsequent Harding Presidential years.

So popular as President that he considered, and the public perhaps wanted him to pursue, a third term, Roosevelt demurred and threw his full support to his close and trusted colleague, William Howard Taft.  Embarking on a year-long safari immediately after leaving the Presidency, Roosevelt returned to an adoring populace who loved the substance and image of Teddy, a man with a ballooning ego that would be his undoing.  Once in office, William Howard Taft attempted to sustain the Roosevelt legacy of progressivism but struggled to advocate a new role for government that would still retain the essential elements of constitutional law.  This tension ultimately resulted in Taft making decisions that his mentor began to question and eventually openly challenged.  In some ways the most illuminating portion of Bully Pulpit was the period when Roosevelt came out against Taft and ultimately ran against him when Taft sought his second term.  As a reader who had grown to like the Roosevelt character very much, I was saddened by seeing an ego grow so big that Roosevelt was literally willing to risk everything – his popularity, legacy, dignity and ultimately one of the best true friends he had ever had – William Howard Taft.  The period of the Roosevelt/Taft story when Roosevelt broke from the Republican Party to form the Bull Moose Party is profoundly sad in its impact on both men.  It’s hard to determine which is sadder – the loss of the progressive movement or the destruction of a deep friendship.

Regardless of the turmoil between these two Presidents, first deep and then divided friends, the progressive politics of Roosevelt and Taft would “continue to influence American politics for years to come,” with passage of the progressive income tax, popular election of senators, and women’s right to vote unfolding as part of their legacy.  In the final pages, I found myself cheering along with the diners at the Blackstone Hotel who witnessed the historic restoration of the Roosevelt/Taft friendship when Taft  crossed the room to a small table by the corner window exclaiming, “Theodore!  I am glad to see you.”  A journalist who witnessed it said, “recognizing the significance of the meeting, the chamber erupted into applause” so raucous that it could be heard in the hotel lobby.

Bully Pulpit should be read by any serious student of leadership.  It captures courage, bravado, conviction, folly, loyalty, sacrifice, steadiness, disgrace, forgiveness and much more.  Goodwin provides wonderful illustrations of the best and worst of leadership and all of it is portrayed with the compassion of an author who fully grasps the crucible of leadership.  After drawing so much insight from this wonderful book, I am left with only one question – the question of timing.  When I reflect on Goodwin’s choice to publish Bully Pulpit now, I can’t help but wonder if her intent was to shed light on America’s recent plunge and slow recovery from economic chaos borne of exploitive economic practices that are so similar to the conditions of the early 20^th century.