The words that matter
A few weeks ago I did a quick poll on facebook. I asked in a status update, "An experiment: what are the most powerful words in the English language? I'll explain my angle in a ex-post blog entry." This is that ex-post blog entry.
Here's a summary of what people said:
Them
Us
Love (x2)
You
Repudiate
Quintessence
Yes
No
Profound
Frat <-- This was a good joke, sort of indicates the power of humor, actually
Hello
Goodbye
Hate
Trust
Redemption
Rape
Fag
N-word
C*nt
It doesn't take outrageous vernacular to have power. In fact, many of the words on this list are surprisingly simple. They are words that create in-groups and out-groups. Words that elicit primary emotion and common understanding of the world we live in. They are words about the human condition, or reflections of the human condition (e.g., take "frat" for example...humor is part of our humanity).
There are also words that have jarring connotation and are by their nature incendiary. This is what SB pointed out when he posted his words on my wall. "I think the negative words tend to carry a lot more power than the positive ones," he said. I don't think these are truly the most powerful words (in an enduring sense, they certainly are at the point of use).
One of my former colleagues (really, he was my "bosses boss" haha), John Hagel, is making a presentation at this year's SxSW about moving from story to narrative. I happen to think we crave narrative because it helps us create our own meaning in our own lives. If we did a study of story communication versus narrative communication, I think we would find the language to be different. A story is much more needing of powerful, emotional, connotative words because you have to control the perspective of your audience.
On the other hand, I think narrative requires the sort of simple ideas and language that most folks listed above. These words help the shepherd of the narrative include other people, and give them the building blocks to create their own meaning in their own words.
Think about President Obama's first election campaign. His narrative device was simple, and conveyed an idea that others could build upon, create meaning with, and act upon - "Yes we can."
I don't think we need crazy powerful words to change the world, if we're after creating narratives that others can participate in. The most powerful words, I think, are the simplest ones that help ourselves and others get to the unfettered noble truth of the aspirational, virtuous idea we are trying to rally around.
That was kind of long, so here's the punch line. I think the most powerful words, truly powerful words, are the simplest ones that get to the essence of who we are as humans, because those words help everyone think clearly enough to create their own stories and beliefs. Not the words that project meaning onto others' beliefs.
I don't think we want the words of stories, I think we want more agency than to be the subject of a story that's told unto us. I think we want narratives, the language of their discourse, and the freedom they provide to make meaning in our own lives. Maybe humanity wasn't fully ready to embrace narrative (but maybe we were) before, but I think we certainly are ready now. And now, it's possible.
---
Thanks for the fodder for discussion, all.
Here's a summary of what people said:
Them
Us
Love (x2)
You
Repudiate
Quintessence
Yes
No
Profound
Frat <-- This was a good joke, sort of indicates the power of humor, actually
Hello
Goodbye
Hate
Trust
Redemption
Rape
Fag
N-word
C*nt
It doesn't take outrageous vernacular to have power. In fact, many of the words on this list are surprisingly simple. They are words that create in-groups and out-groups. Words that elicit primary emotion and common understanding of the world we live in. They are words about the human condition, or reflections of the human condition (e.g., take "frat" for example...humor is part of our humanity).
There are also words that have jarring connotation and are by their nature incendiary. This is what SB pointed out when he posted his words on my wall. "I think the negative words tend to carry a lot more power than the positive ones," he said. I don't think these are truly the most powerful words (in an enduring sense, they certainly are at the point of use).
One of my former colleagues (really, he was my "bosses boss" haha), John Hagel, is making a presentation at this year's SxSW about moving from story to narrative. I happen to think we crave narrative because it helps us create our own meaning in our own lives. If we did a study of story communication versus narrative communication, I think we would find the language to be different. A story is much more needing of powerful, emotional, connotative words because you have to control the perspective of your audience.
On the other hand, I think narrative requires the sort of simple ideas and language that most folks listed above. These words help the shepherd of the narrative include other people, and give them the building blocks to create their own meaning in their own words.
Think about President Obama's first election campaign. His narrative device was simple, and conveyed an idea that others could build upon, create meaning with, and act upon - "Yes we can."
I don't think we need crazy powerful words to change the world, if we're after creating narratives that others can participate in. The most powerful words, I think, are the simplest ones that help ourselves and others get to the unfettered noble truth of the aspirational, virtuous idea we are trying to rally around.
That was kind of long, so here's the punch line. I think the most powerful words, truly powerful words, are the simplest ones that get to the essence of who we are as humans, because those words help everyone think clearly enough to create their own stories and beliefs. Not the words that project meaning onto others' beliefs.
I don't think we want the words of stories, I think we want more agency than to be the subject of a story that's told unto us. I think we want narratives, the language of their discourse, and the freedom they provide to make meaning in our own lives. Maybe humanity wasn't fully ready to embrace narrative (but maybe we were) before, but I think we certainly are ready now. And now, it's possible.
---
Thanks for the fodder for discussion, all.
The Time Problem - Part 2 (Observations)
Context
A few weeks ago, I started a post investigating some data I pulled from the American Time Use Survey and some other sources. At the time, I just laid out the context. Before I lay out some observations, I'd like to qualify this post (even though it weakens the persuasiveness of this post) by offering that this is pretty back of the envelope data. Despite that, however, it's still interesting and does have some explanatory power.
Anyway, here are some observations. Here's the data. Apologies that my write up is pretty fast.
Observations
For this post, I set out to try to understand what the deal is with people's time and why it seems like everyone is short of it. Time, it seems, is a critical resource in making communities stronger and in my real-life observation...everyone seems over committed.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to access data about time use that precedes 2003. This is limiting, but I was able to find a study with an abstract suggesting that Americans' time use hasn't changed that much over the past several decades.
As far as volunteering time goes, it's increased modestly (about 11%) from 2003 to 2011. At the same time, volunteering seems counter-cyclical to the economy - when the economy is under stress, volunteering time seems to increase. Similarly, average volunteer hours per capita increased about 8% from 2003 to 2001 - from 51.1 hours per year to 55.1 hours per year. So overall, volunteer hours have increased a bit, but that figure could be tied to the country's economic health. Also, this data cuts across the entire population and there could be huge disparities between different demographic groups (e.g., employed vs. unemployed, old vs. young, etc.).
Before this next part, note that US GDP increased 35% from 2003-2011 and the US population increased 7% from 2003 to 2011.
While the US GDP grew 35%, reported revenue of all not-for-profits (as reported on form 990s) clearly outpaced US GDP growth and increased 62% from 2003 to 2011. I wonder if these revenues are driven by government grants or donations from private citizens, I couldn't find the data.
The number of not-for-profit organization also increased during that period - overall, there were 15% more not-for-profits in 2001 than 2003 and there was a 99% increase in the number of not-for-profits with revenues less than $100,000. Controlling for population, not-for-profit revenue per capita increased 51% and revenues per not-for-profit increased 41% from 2003 to 2011.
Here's one more stat. The total number of hours volunteered by Americans divided by the number of not-for-profits in the US has be surprisingly stagnant. It's only increased by 1% from 2003 to 2011.
Conclusions
I think it's pretty strange that revenues have exploded in the sector and so have organizations, but, Americans use of time hasn't really change that much. Moreover, it seems that if the sector doesn't have a reputation for impact (which obviously varies from organization to organization)...why aren't our volunteer hours per organization focusing more...why aren't we trying to improve the organizations we already have?
It almost seems like volunteering is supply-driven, rather than demand driven, which is to say it's dictated by the number for not-for-profits that exist, rather than by the amount that citizens want to volunteer. Which is wild. Wouldn't we want growth in the sector to be mirrored by organizations increasing their brand profile to the point where more people want to spend more time volunteering for the same number of organizations? Especially because the value of a volunteer per year (assuming an average of 50 hours volunteered per year and a $10/hr value of time) is about $500.
If you look at the average hours volunteer per not-for-profit divided the average volunteer hours per person, the amount of people volunteering with each not-for-profit is about 200. Combining this with the value of an individual volunteer (which is conservative because $10 isn't even close to the hourly rate of a skills-based volunteer) shows that volunteers are big boons to any organization.
Anyway, this data could be useful when determining some baselines for determining whether an organization is paying too much to manage a volunteer (given their value).
Overall, I don't know that this really gets at the time problem, save for saying that not-for-profits haven't really improved (at the macro level) in engaging volunteers. ROA for volunteers (which is the amount of hours divided by assets, which in this case I'd say is the number of not-for-profits) is stagnant. It's declining if you look at assets as NFP revenues. Improving this volunteer ROA could yield huge benefits for not-for-profit organizations, that could actually be measured financially.
---
What do y'all think? Why have revenues exploded whereas volunteer hours haven't? Are volunteer hours even important?
That's actually a very relevant question - does it matter if volunteer hours aren't growing as fast as revenue? My intuition says that buying social sector activity is probably a bad thing (because the social capital created by connections and engagement probably has immeasurable benefits).
Any other datasets which would be good to mash up?
A few weeks ago, I started a post investigating some data I pulled from the American Time Use Survey and some other sources. At the time, I just laid out the context. Before I lay out some observations, I'd like to qualify this post (even though it weakens the persuasiveness of this post) by offering that this is pretty back of the envelope data. Despite that, however, it's still interesting and does have some explanatory power.
Anyway, here are some observations. Here's the data. Apologies that my write up is pretty fast.
Observations
For this post, I set out to try to understand what the deal is with people's time and why it seems like everyone is short of it. Time, it seems, is a critical resource in making communities stronger and in my real-life observation...everyone seems over committed.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to access data about time use that precedes 2003. This is limiting, but I was able to find a study with an abstract suggesting that Americans' time use hasn't changed that much over the past several decades.
As far as volunteering time goes, it's increased modestly (about 11%) from 2003 to 2011. At the same time, volunteering seems counter-cyclical to the economy - when the economy is under stress, volunteering time seems to increase. Similarly, average volunteer hours per capita increased about 8% from 2003 to 2001 - from 51.1 hours per year to 55.1 hours per year. So overall, volunteer hours have increased a bit, but that figure could be tied to the country's economic health. Also, this data cuts across the entire population and there could be huge disparities between different demographic groups (e.g., employed vs. unemployed, old vs. young, etc.).
Before this next part, note that US GDP increased 35% from 2003-2011 and the US population increased 7% from 2003 to 2011.
While the US GDP grew 35%, reported revenue of all not-for-profits (as reported on form 990s) clearly outpaced US GDP growth and increased 62% from 2003 to 2011. I wonder if these revenues are driven by government grants or donations from private citizens, I couldn't find the data.
The number of not-for-profit organization also increased during that period - overall, there were 15% more not-for-profits in 2001 than 2003 and there was a 99% increase in the number of not-for-profits with revenues less than $100,000. Controlling for population, not-for-profit revenue per capita increased 51% and revenues per not-for-profit increased 41% from 2003 to 2011.
Here's one more stat. The total number of hours volunteered by Americans divided by the number of not-for-profits in the US has be surprisingly stagnant. It's only increased by 1% from 2003 to 2011.
Conclusions
I think it's pretty strange that revenues have exploded in the sector and so have organizations, but, Americans use of time hasn't really change that much. Moreover, it seems that if the sector doesn't have a reputation for impact (which obviously varies from organization to organization)...why aren't our volunteer hours per organization focusing more...why aren't we trying to improve the organizations we already have?
It almost seems like volunteering is supply-driven, rather than demand driven, which is to say it's dictated by the number for not-for-profits that exist, rather than by the amount that citizens want to volunteer. Which is wild. Wouldn't we want growth in the sector to be mirrored by organizations increasing their brand profile to the point where more people want to spend more time volunteering for the same number of organizations? Especially because the value of a volunteer per year (assuming an average of 50 hours volunteered per year and a $10/hr value of time) is about $500.
If you look at the average hours volunteer per not-for-profit divided the average volunteer hours per person, the amount of people volunteering with each not-for-profit is about 200. Combining this with the value of an individual volunteer (which is conservative because $10 isn't even close to the hourly rate of a skills-based volunteer) shows that volunteers are big boons to any organization.
Anyway, this data could be useful when determining some baselines for determining whether an organization is paying too much to manage a volunteer (given their value).
Overall, I don't know that this really gets at the time problem, save for saying that not-for-profits haven't really improved (at the macro level) in engaging volunteers. ROA for volunteers (which is the amount of hours divided by assets, which in this case I'd say is the number of not-for-profits) is stagnant. It's declining if you look at assets as NFP revenues. Improving this volunteer ROA could yield huge benefits for not-for-profit organizations, that could actually be measured financially.
---
What do y'all think? Why have revenues exploded whereas volunteer hours haven't? Are volunteer hours even important?
That's actually a very relevant question - does it matter if volunteer hours aren't growing as fast as revenue? My intuition says that buying social sector activity is probably a bad thing (because the social capital created by connections and engagement probably has immeasurable benefits).
Any other datasets which would be good to mash up?
Where bureaucracies have led us / Introducing #Stoos
I've recently come across the Stoos movement, a group of management thinkers from across disciplines who are trying to save the organizational world from itself (not joking). I happen to agree with their point of view, so I'll be publishing a bit over the next few month in the spirit of their work. Check out:
http://www.stoosnetwork.org/
https://twitter.com/stoosconnect
Anyway, back to the post.
---
A lot of the time, I get really upset when I think about the world the Baby Boomers are leaving us. Here's some of the laundry list of messed up things manifesting in the institutional world right now:
http://www.stoosnetwork.org/
https://twitter.com/stoosconnect
Anyway, back to the post.
---
A lot of the time, I get really upset when I think about the world the Baby Boomers are leaving us. Here's some of the laundry list of messed up things manifesting in the institutional world right now:
- Crumbling infrastructure
- Sovereign Debt
- Unbridled financial system
- Vulnerable Social Security
- Exorbitant Healthcare Spending
- Unprecedented partisanship and inability to pass pragmatic policies
- Growing income and social inequality
- Climate change
- US K-12 Education is the nation's most under performing asset
And the list goes on.
The way I see it, is that these issues are able to be influenced. We can make headway. We're not doomed, necessarily.
Again, we're not doomed...but I don't think bureaucracies will get us to where we need to be, however. Those are the structures that made huge gains in the 20th century, but also left us with a load of messy problems. "Flat" organizations won't help us either. Flat organizations are the worst kind of bureaucracy (because it's a bureaucracy parading around as if it is not a bureaucracy).
Don't get me wrong, bureaucracies aren't inherently bad. They're just ill-equipped to do what we need in the organizational world, now. There are fewer and fewer problems, in my humble opinion, that require standardized results and gains from economies of scale (which is what bureaucracies are awesome at). I'd venture the opposite, we have more and more problems that require non-standard results.
If we follow this assertion to its end, we need to think about organizations in a radically different way. Bureaucracies, and all that comes with them, shouldn't be our frame of reference of what an organization is. We need something different. This will be hard, because we swim in bureaucracies and probably don't even realize how beholden we are to thinking about organizations through the lens of bureaucracy.
I have an alternate point of view and so do the other Stoos thinkers. Over the next few months I'll try to start articulating this viewpoint of a "new organizational world." Kind of a book preview, but that's getting ahead of myself.
The Time Problem - Part 1 (Data)
So, I'm too geeked about this data to write a full post before sharing, so I figured I'd split this post up into a few parts.
Here's the context:
I've been really fascinated by "The Time Problem" (my words, nothing official) in civic engagement. It seems like time is a limiting factor for a lot of people when it comes to citizens participating in their communities. So, I wanted to investigate this to see how we use time and how we use time is changing.
Thankfully, the American Time Use Study has some of this data. I also wanted to run some calculations to try to account for the effects of changes in the number of non-profits, population, GDP, etc., so I built a few other datasets into my spreadsheet.
Anyway, I figured I'd share the dataset before writing a post with observations. You can find it here: http://bit.ly/Wu7KZO. It's currently editable so please note your changes if you make any. Also, apologies in advance, I didn't name my calculations / variables terribly clearly but if you follow the formulas you should be able to figure out what's going on.
Full disclosure: there datasets are definitely imperfect (GDP is not Real GDP, the NFP count data isn't pulled from the same months each year, it's not a large dataset etc.). That being said, I only wanted to look at trends and am doing the best I can with the dog food I have. I think it will be interesting, regardless...I'm already starting to see some interesting stuff in the data.
In the next post - hopefully later this week - I'll talk more about my hypothesis, the data, and some observations.
Probably should have done some work this evening instead of be a huge nerd. Woops.
Here's the context:
I've been really fascinated by "The Time Problem" (my words, nothing official) in civic engagement. It seems like time is a limiting factor for a lot of people when it comes to citizens participating in their communities. So, I wanted to investigate this to see how we use time and how we use time is changing.
Thankfully, the American Time Use Study has some of this data. I also wanted to run some calculations to try to account for the effects of changes in the number of non-profits, population, GDP, etc., so I built a few other datasets into my spreadsheet.
Anyway, I figured I'd share the dataset before writing a post with observations. You can find it here: http://bit.ly/Wu7KZO. It's currently editable so please note your changes if you make any. Also, apologies in advance, I didn't name my calculations / variables terribly clearly but if you follow the formulas you should be able to figure out what's going on.
Full disclosure: there datasets are definitely imperfect (GDP is not Real GDP, the NFP count data isn't pulled from the same months each year, it's not a large dataset etc.). That being said, I only wanted to look at trends and am doing the best I can with the dog food I have. I think it will be interesting, regardless...I'm already starting to see some interesting stuff in the data.
In the next post - hopefully later this week - I'll talk more about my hypothesis, the data, and some observations.
Probably should have done some work this evening instead of be a huge nerd. Woops.
Essays #2
A few months ago, I posted one of my graduate school essays in an effort to be more open about my thoughts and feelings - and connect more with others. Now that I'm done applying, I wanted to post a few more essays which reveal some things about me which I normally shy away from talking about.
I feel so lucky to have applied because the process of reflecting to write these essays was incredibly therapeutic to me and have helped me understand who I am and what I value much better than I ever have before.
Here are three things to consume. This will be my last post about this topic on Civic Yuppie, but I'm planning to do more reflection about all this stuff on Scraps.
1 - This is a multimedia essay that I never submitted. It was optional and instead of a video, I submitted a short essay instead. Ever wonder why I have an Orange Juice obsession? Here's the story. This is only a draft cut; I never made it professional grade because I never submitted the essay.
Here are the other two pieces. I invite your remarks:
What matters most to you, and why?
More than anything, spending time and having deep relationships with other people makes me happy. For example, I love hosting people – whether it’s cooking them dinner or meeting up before a night on the town. I love being part of great teams; the feeling of doing something extraordinary with other people exceeds the measure of any extrinsic reward. Speaking personally, I hope with all my heart that I’ll be blessed enough to be a good husband, father, and citizen someday and that I’ll have deep, committed relationships in each of those realms [Author's note: I almost wrote an essay about the notion of wanting to be a good husband, father, and citizen (It's a really powerful hierarchy of identity in my life). I didn't work because it wasn't "deep" enough and the essay never flowed correctly.]
Because deep relationships are my greatest source of happiness, telling the truth is far and away what matters most to me. I don’t think deep relationships – let alone any relationship – can exist without trust. Trust can only exist between people, I think, when all parties tell the truth and act honestly. As I see it, telling the truth is the magic ingredient that unlocks the possibility of having deep relationships at all.
Even though I’ve always had a sense of why deep relationships and the truth are important to me, I finally understood how the ideas connected while on a trip to Thailand in August of 2011. On the trip, two friends and I visited a Buddhist Temple and we talked for a few hours with a group of Buddhist monks. We immediately started asking them about Buddhist philosophy and our conversation, fortunately for me, quickly turned to the subject of happiness.
The monks drew a link between happiness and permanence. Their view was that only “permanent” things, the pinnacle of which is a relationship with God, can lead to happiness. This is because impermanent things, like wealth and fame, are always fleeting. One can never feel secure – or happy, ultimately – by impermanent things because they must constantly be maintained and the longevity of impermanent things is never guaranteed. I’ve realized that this is why I’ve come to find happiness in deep relationships with other people – next to a relationship with God, they’re probably the only things in life that even have a chance of being permanent.
This gives truth tremendous importance in my life because it is the anchor to which my greatest source of happiness, deep relationships with others, is tied. Truth is the foundation from which everything that matters to me is built. To me, truth is a prerequisite for deep relationships and thus a prerequisite for happiness itself.
In addition to underpinning my individual happiness, telling the truth guides my thinking on how to rebuild communities and institutions, which is what I hope to do in Detroit over the course of my adult life. In my experience, communities and institutions – whether it is families, companies, or cities – crumble when people do not, or are compelled not to tell the truth.
I don’t think it’s possible to rebuild institutions without designing systems which support and encourage honesty or think it’s reasonable to expect institutions to function effectively if individuals act dishonestly. In my hometown, Detroit, this hypothesis has been disturbingly accurate; over the course of decades, dishonest behavior has triggered everything from the crippling of city finances to the fueling of racial tensions between Detroit and its suburbs.
But even beyond its implications to my happiness and my aspirations to rebuild institutions, telling the truth matters to me because it makes me feel like I’m respecting the gift of life. I’ve come to value my life a lot because of the many examples of beauty, suffering, loss, and joy I’ve witnessed or experienced as I’ve come of age. By this I don’t even mean that I’ve come to value the opportunities I’ve had because I was born into a middle class family in the United States of America, instead of abject poverty. More simply, I mean that I value the fact that I’ve woken up every day for over 25 years and can take a deep breath as I emerge from underneath my bedcovers. That’s a privilege I appreciate and I think that trying to live as a man of character – which starts with honesty, I believe – is something that honors that privilege.
What do you want to do – REALLY – and why [School Name]?
In our world today we’re trying to solve 21stcentury problems which are complex and fast-changing, with 20thcentury institutions which are siloed and slow and it’s not working. In particular, if Detroit’s institutions are not rebuilt, I worry that all of the City’s resurgence and revitalization will evaporate and that another generation of Detroiters will be lost in the shadows of economic, political, and social decline.
Quite simply, I am determined to prevent that from happening – I intend to build institutions and communities which unleash human potential rather than perpetuate human suffering. In my career, and civic life, what I want to do (REALLY) is rebuild Detroit’s institutions so that they are enduring and meet the City’s needs in the coming century. More specifically, because Detroit struggles to address cross-sector issues – like talent development and homelessness – I want to create new models for solving cross-sector problems and engaging citizens. Moreover, rebuilding Detroit’s institutions is something I feel a duty to do because too few young Detroiters understand that it’s necessary.
Detroit is the first city being rebuilt in a world of constant disruption, so I don’t just see transforming Detroit’s institutions as a regional matter, either. I consider Detroit to be a testing ground for the next wave of community redevelopment which will occur in coming decades. In addition to serving Detroit, I want to make a broader impact in the world by reforming institutions in Detroit and helping others adapt and adopt our models elsewhere.
After thinking about the audacity of wanting to do something like rebuild the institutions of a major American city, I’ve realized that the most critical thing I need to develop further – more than any set of business skills – is my passion, courage, and confidence. I know I can learn what’s necessary to accomplish my goal to rebuild Detroit’s institutions, so long as I have the motivation, tenacity, and fortitude to go after something so difficult. That is why I want to attend the [School Name] – in my view it’s a place which cultivates passion, courage, and confidence in its students and helps them get a management education as part of that that larger, more important aim.
I noticed this ethos most clearly when visiting the [School Name] for a prospective student day. I was grabbing a bite to eat at an outdoor buffet and I started chatting with a student passing through on her way to the library. The first question she asked me was what I was passionate about and interested in, making it very clear to me that passion is truly what drives [School Name] students. This theme extended to all the people I met and all the programs I heard about, like “[Program #1]” and “[Program #2]”. Passion, I think, is part of the [School Name]'s DNA. That is exactly the type of community I want to be part of, want to contribute to, and feel like I need to be part of to have a fighter’s chance of rebuilding Detroit’s institutions.
Everything that happens after
Don't let my scampering of election-related disillusionment on social media fool you, I care deeply about our nation and about public service. But now that the election is over, I'd like to weigh in on the election and plead for follow-through and pragmatism. For persistence, inclusivity, tenacity, and grit.
This is a yelp for governance.
Without going on a tirade on why I'm incredibly disillusioned by elections and the electoral process, let me tell you why I think governance matters more. Let me start by painting a picture.
There are people in our country who are suffering. They are hungry, broke, ill, or worse. There are people in the shadows of the shadows who are voiceless or who are voiceless in practice, because they're spending all their time trying to survive and physically cannot participate in the affairs of our republic.
There are also people who aren't suffering. I'm lucky enough to consider myself one of them. Our lives certainly aren't perfect (as those of you who read my other, more personally introspective blog can probably attest to) but we're doing well. We can eat food consistently. We have a roof over our heads, consistently. We can spend time, energy, and money toward leisure activities. We are in decent health or at least have access to health care.
Finally, there are people in our country who are on the cusp of suffering and not suffering. Some folks will fall backwards and suffer, and others will move toward health and prosperity.
Governance affects all these groups. For those suffering, governance provides needed relief to help them simply survive and also can provide a path upward. For those who are not suffering, governance has more than likely aided their station and opportunity in life. For those that are on the cusp, the difference between bad governance and good governance can mean the difference between good and awful life outcomes in the short and long term. For us all, governance affects our well being and happiness.
Elections, by contrast, don't actually tangibly help people. Elections don't feed the hungry and they don't defend our border from threats foreign and domestic. Elections certainly have the potential to nourish our hope and belief in America but they don't do anything in the real world. They are a fleeting sort of moment, they don't keep the lights on.
We can't tap out after the elections because elections don't help people. They are are event which sets the stage to help people.
Let me cut to the chase. The election was important, but now it's over and it's time to refocus on good governance. What really matters and makes a material difference in people's lives are not elections, but everything that happens after.
This is a yelp for governance.
Without going on a tirade on why I'm incredibly disillusioned by elections and the electoral process, let me tell you why I think governance matters more. Let me start by painting a picture.
There are people in our country who are suffering. They are hungry, broke, ill, or worse. There are people in the shadows of the shadows who are voiceless or who are voiceless in practice, because they're spending all their time trying to survive and physically cannot participate in the affairs of our republic.
There are also people who aren't suffering. I'm lucky enough to consider myself one of them. Our lives certainly aren't perfect (as those of you who read my other, more personally introspective blog can probably attest to) but we're doing well. We can eat food consistently. We have a roof over our heads, consistently. We can spend time, energy, and money toward leisure activities. We are in decent health or at least have access to health care.
Finally, there are people in our country who are on the cusp of suffering and not suffering. Some folks will fall backwards and suffer, and others will move toward health and prosperity.
Governance affects all these groups. For those suffering, governance provides needed relief to help them simply survive and also can provide a path upward. For those who are not suffering, governance has more than likely aided their station and opportunity in life. For those that are on the cusp, the difference between bad governance and good governance can mean the difference between good and awful life outcomes in the short and long term. For us all, governance affects our well being and happiness.
Elections, by contrast, don't actually tangibly help people. Elections don't feed the hungry and they don't defend our border from threats foreign and domestic. Elections certainly have the potential to nourish our hope and belief in America but they don't do anything in the real world. They are a fleeting sort of moment, they don't keep the lights on.
We can't tap out after the elections because elections don't help people. They are are event which sets the stage to help people.
Let me cut to the chase. The election was important, but now it's over and it's time to refocus on good governance. What really matters and makes a material difference in people's lives are not elections, but everything that happens after.
Community Narrative - The Deep Infrastructure of Civic Engagement
I posted this up on Civic Commons but wanted to cross-post here, for tracking purposes. I really think there's something to this idea. I'd appreciate any feedback you have, if the topic piques your interest.
---
New idea to explore, thoughts? | Community Narrative - The deep infrastructure of civic engagement http://theciviccommons.com/conversations/community-narrative-the-deep-infrastructure-of-civic-engagement via @civiccommons
---
New idea to explore, thoughts? | Community Narrative - The deep infrastructure of civic engagement http://theciviccommons.com/conversations/community-narrative-the-deep-infrastructure-of-civic-engagement via @civiccommons
A (mini) Detroit Manifesto
The motto for the City of Detroit - Speramus Meliora Resurget Cineribus - means, "we hope for better things, it will rise from the ashes." This motto was coined after a June 1805 fire burned the city to the ground. Now, curiously enough, the motto fits the precarious predicament that the City is in as well as the undying optimism of its residents.
Detroit is on the leading edge of the social and economic shifts that will disrupt our country and perhaps our world. It is a city being rebuilt in a new mold - it uses a blueprint without powerful central institutions, a pioneering new industry, or social homogeneity. In my humble opinion, it’s the first city being rebuilt in a new world of constant disruption.
For that reason, I think it's an incredible opportunity to visit Detroit, a metropolis in flux, to learn about the deep shifts occurring here and how they are manifesting in the lives of everyday people. By visiting Detroit, one can get an intimate look at an amazing and interesting city, but also get a glimpse of what's to come elsewhere.
I firmly believe that when America looks in the mirror, it sees its reflection as Detroit. Consequently, I think Detroit's story is one that is frighteningly important, not just because the City's revitalization is critical to residents for its own sake, but because our collective fates are tied up in what Detroit represents: a new world where shi[f]t has already happened.
Detroit: Transformation or Revitalization?
I'm working on a grad school essay, and I got to thinking about the words we, meaning Detroiters and Michiganders, use to characterize the turnaround efforts in the City of Detroit.
More often than not, we talk about "revitalizing" Detroit. To me, this means refreshing and returning Detroit to the state it once was. It's re-energizing what's already there. It's not changing what's there, per se, it's just "bringing back" Detroit.
I think there's something off about this frame.
As far as I'm concerned, Detroit - and other cities across the country and world - have outdated institutional frameworks. The way organizations and governments run is built for an older world. To put it bluntly, the institutions in Detroit are built for a time without digital infrastructure and ubiquitous internet connectivity. Instead of being built for a world that's constantly changing, current institutions are built for a world that changes slowly.
Rather than claiming that it's a story of revitalization, I think we should characterize Detroit as a story of transformation. Why? Because we need a transformation, not a revitalization. The workings of institutions in Detroit, and again, other cities too, has to fundamentally change. Of course, I could be wrong about this...but I dare you to try convincing me. (I think about institutions all, day, every day and consequently have sharp, thought-out arguments and a fierce, cavalier, even bulldog-ish attitude about the subject).
Now, transformation doesn't have to mean wiping out the people, culture, and community sovereignty that exists in Detroit. I mean this in a technical sense (literally, transformation doesn't have to wipe out culture, there are other ways to go about it) and I also think it would be a tragedy if elites in the city used transformation as an excuse to wash over the character and spirit Detroit currently possesses.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I think Detroit needs to be a transformation rather than a revitalization and I think we should use language that reflects that.
More often than not, we talk about "revitalizing" Detroit. To me, this means refreshing and returning Detroit to the state it once was. It's re-energizing what's already there. It's not changing what's there, per se, it's just "bringing back" Detroit.
I think there's something off about this frame.
As far as I'm concerned, Detroit - and other cities across the country and world - have outdated institutional frameworks. The way organizations and governments run is built for an older world. To put it bluntly, the institutions in Detroit are built for a time without digital infrastructure and ubiquitous internet connectivity. Instead of being built for a world that's constantly changing, current institutions are built for a world that changes slowly.
Rather than claiming that it's a story of revitalization, I think we should characterize Detroit as a story of transformation. Why? Because we need a transformation, not a revitalization. The workings of institutions in Detroit, and again, other cities too, has to fundamentally change. Of course, I could be wrong about this...but I dare you to try convincing me. (I think about institutions all, day, every day and consequently have sharp, thought-out arguments and a fierce, cavalier, even bulldog-ish attitude about the subject).
Now, transformation doesn't have to mean wiping out the people, culture, and community sovereignty that exists in Detroit. I mean this in a technical sense (literally, transformation doesn't have to wipe out culture, there are other ways to go about it) and I also think it would be a tragedy if elites in the city used transformation as an excuse to wash over the character and spirit Detroit currently possesses.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I think Detroit needs to be a transformation rather than a revitalization and I think we should use language that reflects that.
Leading in the public and private sectors - challenges
I had a very interesting (and serendipitious) conversation with a colleague of a friend/colleague on the way to the train station today. After a few other topics, we got to talking about the importance of vision vs. execution in the public sector which got us talking about the importance of results-driven leadership in the public sector. Moreover, he was commenting on how sometimes what it takes is to keep your eye on the goal and even drop a few "screw you"s if you have to and just get something done.
Over the course of the conversation he triggered in my mind a fairly interesting model for what leaders/organizations have to go through with any decision they make. It's simple, but that's a good thing.
Step 1 - Visioning: here you have to decide what the organization is going to do and why
Step 2 - Scoping: here, you figure out who in the organization (or country) is going to do it and/or buy-into it
Step 3 - Executing: here, you have to decide how to get people to actually act on the vision
So, I think there are some interesting observations here and implications for business and public/social sector organizations -
Visioning - this is hard no matter what. In the public sector it's especially hard because the vision involves large, large numbers of unique people. In the private sector it's hard because your vision has to turn a profit. These are very different problems, but both are compelling.
Scoping - this becomes easier if you can limit the scope of people that are included in the issue because you can cut people out of the benefits or decision making process. It's kind of "Jobs-ian" view as my friend said...you can say "screw you" to people who just don't get things done and cut those people out of the rewards. Unfortunately, in the public sector/social sector it's hard to do this because the cost of excluding people from the activity / reward has real human costs and moral implications.
Executing - things "get done" voluntarily or involuntarily. In the public sector almost nothing is fully involuntarily. Even taxes are something you can avoid for awhile. In the private sector many organizations have the luxury of getting people to do things involuntarily, in the public sector a lot more inspiration and persuasion is required. The tough part for private sector is, the ability to force people to do things is corroding - eventually (and this is happening already) probably all employees (or at least a whole heap of them) will have leverage over their employers. As a result, "force" won't really work because those employees (e.g., members of the creative class) will just go elsewhere. (Credit where credit is due, John Hagel, John Seeley Brown, Lang Davison and others publish about...the original idea is not mine).
Now, what are the implications?
1. I think this framework helps to understand why leadership in the public/social sector is so hard: each step (visioning, scoping, and executing) involves a lot of people that the leader doesn't really have control over.
2. If it's getting harder and harder to "force" people to do things, the private sector will probably have to learn how to get people to do things without forcing them. That's hard.
3. I sometimes struggle to see the "visioning" of public sector organizations, namely government. It seems like that a lot of the time politicans focus on policy outcomes (a la execution phase) rather than the broader vision of what we're doing and why. Maybe that's why our outcomes often seem to go awry...they're not informed by the dynamics which occur at the system level, which is to say they're not informed by a comprehensive vision.
4. There are three real competencies here that leaders and organizations seem like they need to master, especially in a world where it's hard to force people to do stuff: crafting an insipring vision which people want to buy into, how to really connect with large and diverse groups of people to understand their needs, and figuring out how to get people to do stuff without being able to use force.
5. In addition to number four, you actually have to communicate this stuff, too, so that's a fourth competency.
Anyway, just some musings. Anyone have any thoughts? Am I whack? Is this helpful?
Purpose is permission
In the many arenas I play in - work, community, family, civic society, etc. - I always seem to reach consensus with peers that defining purpose in an organization is important. In some organizations, like not-for-profits, defining purpose is even expected.
There are many reasons to define a purpose, such as:
Let me explain.
In organizations, lots of people don't ever bring all their skills and talents to their work...not because they don't want to, because they can't. They're subdued by their organization's culture or by fear of reprimand. Given the choice, people often opt for lesser-risk activities and behaviors. They believe they have to "follow protocol" to get something done. They have to please their bosses and don't want to "step on their colleagues toes". Because they've been taught to value perceptions in the workplace, employees don't give it their all - they can't because they're suppressed by organizational norms.
So, here's the cool thing about aspirational purpose, it gives employees orders from a higher authority, if you will, that supersedes oppressive organizational norms. By conveying a loftier, aspirational purpose, it provides political cover to employees who want to do something different to achieve that purpose (assuming they are sincere in their efforts). If someone questions employees' unorthodox behavior (which bucks the convention of the organization) those employees can point to the purpose of the organization as justification for their behavior. If the organization's leadership truly values the organization's aspirational purpose, achieving that purpose is tremendously important and they are probably more likely to let unorthodox behavior slide. In effect, to employees who are truly motivated by the organization's aspirational purpose that purpose is freeing - the higher purpose gives them implicit permission to break cultural norms to achieve it.
How an organization defines and truly embraces aspirational purpose is the topic of another post, I think. That's a huge question that has intense impacts on life in that organization.
There are many reasons to define a purpose, such as:
- It provides focus - by clearly defining purpose organizations can focus their efforts on what really matters to them
- It is empowering - employees feel more engaged when they feel like they are working for a purpose
- It aids recruiting - by championing a specific purpose, employees (and probably customers too) can self-select more easily into your organization's ecosystem. Recruits show up to you and are more likely to stay if they are pre-disposed to support your purpose
- It builds brand - I'll defer to my marketing friends on this one...but if you have a clear purpose it probably helps you be distinctive in the marketplace?
Moreover, based on my observations of the organizational world, organizations with bold exclamations of purpose which appeal to loftier aspirations than shareholder value and operations excellence usually have better results on all the levers I've listed above. I'd also posit, however, that aspirational gives employees implicit permission to unleash their potential - which is awesome.
Let me explain.
In organizations, lots of people don't ever bring all their skills and talents to their work...not because they don't want to, because they can't. They're subdued by their organization's culture or by fear of reprimand. Given the choice, people often opt for lesser-risk activities and behaviors. They believe they have to "follow protocol" to get something done. They have to please their bosses and don't want to "step on their colleagues toes". Because they've been taught to value perceptions in the workplace, employees don't give it their all - they can't because they're suppressed by organizational norms.
So, here's the cool thing about aspirational purpose, it gives employees orders from a higher authority, if you will, that supersedes oppressive organizational norms. By conveying a loftier, aspirational purpose, it provides political cover to employees who want to do something different to achieve that purpose (assuming they are sincere in their efforts). If someone questions employees' unorthodox behavior (which bucks the convention of the organization) those employees can point to the purpose of the organization as justification for their behavior. If the organization's leadership truly values the organization's aspirational purpose, achieving that purpose is tremendously important and they are probably more likely to let unorthodox behavior slide. In effect, to employees who are truly motivated by the organization's aspirational purpose that purpose is freeing - the higher purpose gives them implicit permission to break cultural norms to achieve it.
How an organization defines and truly embraces aspirational purpose is the topic of another post, I think. That's a huge question that has intense impacts on life in that organization.
Ambition vs. Actualization in the Social Sector
A few weeks ago John Hagel tweeted a link to a Huff Post Blog Post titled: Is Your Ambition Making You Stressed?
The post is a good one, you should read it. The takeaway is that there is a difference between ambition and actualization. Here's an excerpt:
The post is a good one, you should read it. The takeaway is that there is a difference between ambition and actualization. Here's an excerpt:
My colleague, coach Lianne Raymond, has something brilliant to say about this.
She differentiates between actualization and ambition.
Actualization or Ambition?Lianne writes that characteristics of ambition include:
- the need to impress
- status-seeking
- pursuit of acclaim
Ambition is rooted in insecurity. What we do from a place of ambition tends to feel heavy and stressful, and leads to very short-lived satisfaction.
By contrast, characteristics of actualization include:
- authenticity
- vitality
- playfulness
- meaning
I think this is especially important to be self-aware of if doing community work, because the stakes are high and the pain one can cause is real. In the social sector people who are "ambitious" translate into power seekers who seek to influence over serving others, in my opinion. This is problematic when the opportunity to influence or serve becomes a tradeoff. If you are ambitious you might do something that's not in the interests of those you're serving so you can gain influence. This sort of act is hurtful...some might even say it's exploitative.
For that reason, I think that it's our responsibility - if you're looking to influence, serve, or both - to determine whether your goals are ambitious or actualized. If they're solely ambitious, get out of the game. Don't put yourself in a position to be a community steward. It's not fair to be surreptitiously ambitious and pretend to be actualized - it insults people's trust and puts them in a position where they think they are protected from harm when they're really vulnerable to it.
It's hard, I admit, to be self-aware enough to determine if one's motivations are ambitious or actualized. But we have to try to figure it out so that we can minimize the hurt we cause to our neighbors who need the most help.
Service to others is about precisely that: others. I worry that people who have ambitious intentions care more about themselves and their influence than they do about others. That tragically flaws their judgement, regardless how talented they are, because when push comes to shove, they may choose aggrandizement over helping others.
I suppose this may be an impetuous cry, but I really do think it matters. Community stewards need to be able to make sacrifices for others, not the converse. Commitment to helping others must run deep and be able to persist through any circumstance or level of pressure.
So, my community-oriented friends, ask yourself why you do community work. Is it for you (ambitious) or the community (actualization)? Ask yourself this often.
Preventing Volunteer Classism
Over the past year, I've come to think a lot about skills-based volunteerism as the result of the pilot program we've started to scope and plan projects. For that reason, I've come to strongly value skills-based volunteering and the potential impact (it's really big) the movement can have on transforming communities. For skills-based volunteers, however, I think it's incomplete to simply volunteer skills - hands-on volunteering should not be forgotten.
Now, there are a lot of reasons to take this tack - hands-on volunteering's inherent value, the practicality of diversifying the types of volunteer experiences, the speed at which hands-on volunteering can be executed, etc. - but i'll pick one. Hands-on volunteering prevents skills-based volunteering from becoming uninformed of reality and helps skills-based volunteers stay grounded.
Simply put, understanding what really influences a social problem - at the ground level - is a really important perspective to have when addressing a social problem. Understanding the inner-mechanics of a community hones your instincts, if you will. Because hands-on volunteering can help volunteers understand community needs (when done right) in an authentic, and even visceral way, skills-based volunteers should do it - it helps you use your skills more effectively.
The more important reason, as I see it, for hands-on volunteering is humility...for skills-based volunteers I mean. I've seen (and felt personally) the creation of classes between types of volunteers as skills-based volunteering becomes more high-profile. Surely, skilled-based volunteering is super valuable and perhaps more valuable, in dollar terms, than hands-on volunteering. But that does not mean that skills-based volunteers are more valuable human beings. Unfortunately, I think skills-based volunteers are starting to think exactly that. I worry that this sort of attitude is the undercurrent of a "volunteer classism".
In my time swimming around skills-based volunteering, I get the feeling that no small amount of folks (whether they be from not-for-profit organizations, companies, or among the citizenry) think that skills-based volunteers are better people, and that hands-on volunteers are lower sorts of people. I think that's false. I think there's a clear distinction between someone's inherent worth as a person and their value as economic and social actor. Which is to say that the type of volunteer you are has no bearing on your worth as a person.
Hands-on volunteering, in it's propensity for doing simple and usually manual labor, puts every sort of person side-by-side with each other. It brings people of different social identities into a team working toward a common goal. To me that's anti-thesis of volunteer classism, if you will, and it puts the issue in the right frame - volunteering is not about being a better human being than another, it's about achieving common community goals.
Putting moral reservations about classism aside, if doing volunteer work is intended to abate the distance and conflict between classes, we ought to do our volunteer work in a way that's not classist. For that reason I think hands-on volunteering is important (even, and almost especially) for skills-based volunteers. Hands-on volunteering can prevent classes from forming by helping skills-based volunteers that your value isn't tied to your vocation and that every type of volunteer is an equally valuable human being
Now, there are a lot of reasons to take this tack - hands-on volunteering's inherent value, the practicality of diversifying the types of volunteer experiences, the speed at which hands-on volunteering can be executed, etc. - but i'll pick one. Hands-on volunteering prevents skills-based volunteering from becoming uninformed of reality and helps skills-based volunteers stay grounded.
Simply put, understanding what really influences a social problem - at the ground level - is a really important perspective to have when addressing a social problem. Understanding the inner-mechanics of a community hones your instincts, if you will. Because hands-on volunteering can help volunteers understand community needs (when done right) in an authentic, and even visceral way, skills-based volunteers should do it - it helps you use your skills more effectively.
The more important reason, as I see it, for hands-on volunteering is humility...for skills-based volunteers I mean. I've seen (and felt personally) the creation of classes between types of volunteers as skills-based volunteering becomes more high-profile. Surely, skilled-based volunteering is super valuable and perhaps more valuable, in dollar terms, than hands-on volunteering. But that does not mean that skills-based volunteers are more valuable human beings. Unfortunately, I think skills-based volunteers are starting to think exactly that. I worry that this sort of attitude is the undercurrent of a "volunteer classism".
In my time swimming around skills-based volunteering, I get the feeling that no small amount of folks (whether they be from not-for-profit organizations, companies, or among the citizenry) think that skills-based volunteers are better people, and that hands-on volunteers are lower sorts of people. I think that's false. I think there's a clear distinction between someone's inherent worth as a person and their value as economic and social actor. Which is to say that the type of volunteer you are has no bearing on your worth as a person.
Hands-on volunteering, in it's propensity for doing simple and usually manual labor, puts every sort of person side-by-side with each other. It brings people of different social identities into a team working toward a common goal. To me that's anti-thesis of volunteer classism, if you will, and it puts the issue in the right frame - volunteering is not about being a better human being than another, it's about achieving common community goals.
Putting moral reservations about classism aside, if doing volunteer work is intended to abate the distance and conflict between classes, we ought to do our volunteer work in a way that's not classist. For that reason I think hands-on volunteering is important (even, and almost especially) for skills-based volunteers. Hands-on volunteering can prevent classes from forming by helping skills-based volunteers that your value isn't tied to your vocation and that every type of volunteer is an equally valuable human being
Making friends, building community
My friend JBC sent a few of us an interesting article from the New York Times yesterday about the difficulty about making friends after 30.
Overall, the basic rationale for why it's difficult to make friends later in life, makes sense. Here's a clip from the article:
Overall, the basic rationale for why it's difficult to make friends later in life, makes sense. Here's a clip from the article:
In studies of peer groups, Laura L. Carstensen, a psychology professor who is the director of the Stanford Center on Longevity in California, observed that people tended to interact with fewer people as they moved toward midlife, but that they grew closer to the friends they already had.
Basically, she suggests, this is because people have an internal alarm clock that goes off at big life events, like turning 30. It reminds them that time horizons are shrinking, so it is a point to pull back on exploration and concentrate on the here and now. “You tend to focus on what is most emotionally important to you,” she said, “so you’re not interested in going to that cocktail party, you’re interested in spending time with your kids.”
As external conditions change, it becomes tougher to meet the three conditions that sociologists since the 1950s have considered crucial to making close friends: proximity; repeated, unplanned interactions; and a setting that encourages people to let their guard down and confide in each other, said Rebecca G. Adams, a professor of sociology and gerontology at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. This is why so many people meet their lifelong friends in college, she added.
I don't think focusing on relationships that matter most is scornful, either. What does seem like a miss on the part of the journalist, however, is the way the issue is framed. It presents friendship as something someone should pursue for only their own benefit and neglects the importance of building new relationships as a community imperative.
Let me explain.
The way the interviewees/author of the article present the construct friendship is that you do what makes sense for you. You mix in people that fill gaps in your life. You put forward the effort to make friends as long as its what you want and what feels good to you.
Which is sensible. Like I said before, I don't think it's unreasonable to put forth effort in certain types of relationships or relationships with certain people.
I think we should push ourselves harder, though. If we extend the idea of being friends with people because it's what we want or benefits us, it probably takes us to a place where there are people who are in a "friends deficit". It probably leads to have fragmented communities and less-than-vibrant neighborhoods.
I think it takes a little extra effort on everyone's part to make sure people aren't left out. A little investment into the community bank, if you will. If we don't make an effort to create new relationships, people who aren't already plugged-in will be left out. This could be people from all the scenarios the author mentioned - someone who moved to a new place, a recent divorcee, or many other life transitions which cause friendships to reset.
Being a person that's constantly alone - I travel for work all the time - I'd be miserable if other people didn't make the effort to try to make a new, random, friend. My parents also have to live separately for work (My dad lives in California because of a job) so I've also seen first hand the devastating effects of going to a place and not having friends - maybe not even friends, just other people that you can lean on for support - later in life. I'm really thankful for people who are okay with meeting someone new, even if it's just in passing.
I also think we'll all be in a place at some point in our lives where we have a deficit of friends. For that reason, I think it's important to think of friendships as more than just an individual concern, but as a community investment that we should all make - we'll probably all be beneficiaries of someone who doesn't have to be friends with us but does, someday.
It also just seems like the right thing to do. If we're healthy and happy, why not take a little extra energy to affirm someone else new who may not be totally healthy and happy?
For the record, I'm not suggesting we all spread ourselves so thin to the point of not having deep relationships with a small group of people. What I am suggesting is that we always try to make an effort (with time, or letting our guard down, etc.) to invest in new relationships that help keep communities connected and vibrant...even if it's not always easy.
Political debate and global citizenship
Most of the time, I agree almost decidedly with John Linkner (he's really smart and pretty divergent in his thinking). Today, he had a post titled Why I Don't Care About Obamacare (or Abortion or Gun Control) on Forbes and I disagree pretty strongly with some parts of his remarks. Given that his post is somewhat about dialogue and disagreement I thought it'd be worth remarking / responding. Before that though, let me outline what I do agree with.
In my respects, I don't disagree with Josh's conclusion - why bother worrying about controversial topics like abortion or gun control (note, I've excluded healthcare from this list - I also think it's curious that Linkner uses "Obamacare", a politically charged term, in an article where he criticizes pointless, inflammatory political debate). My rationale is different however - I don't think the dialogue is wasteful or causes a diversion of focus, I just think there are other issues that take priority. Moreover, I suspect a lot of the issues that are hotly debated are predominately raised to mobilize latent constituent groups instead of to actually debate them, which is disheartening and divisive.
I also agree with Josh's statement a few paragraphs in:
"Our country’s decisions are determined by a majority; the people making these determinations were put into place by the ultimate majority: public opinion. Once our officials are put into place, it is their job to make decisions for the greater good on our behalf – your anger or support after the fact won’t adjust their choice"
Indeed. Legislators are agents who vote on our behalf (a la "little r" republicanism) and I think it's good that way. It makes it easier to make tough choices. Also, I agree, anger or support after the fact will not adjust a previously made choice. That's a matter of fact.
Anyway, allow me to disagree with two sentiments Linkner presents:
1 - "Wasteful: Think about how much time, energy and emotion people spend heatedly discussing these issues. What does it accomplish? Not much. If the same logic went into a company’s decision-making, nothing would ever get done."
2 - "Refocus: If you take all that emotional capital and re-invest it into something more relevant to you personally, think about the dividends that could result. Simply ignore the debates in the larger political climate that affect your success a lot less than the time you spend on them. Instead, repurpose that energy into your true passion, no matter what that may be. Think about what riches would flow from this type of attitude"
We live in a world with global problems that need (in the words of Gordon Brown's TED Talk) a global ethic to solve. Plainly said, there are many different opinions on how to solve these global problems - many of which which conflict with each other. More than that, there are different outcomes that different people desire from different situation (e.g., authoritarian dictators desire something a lot different for their nations than the people within them desire).
All in all, there's a lot of potential for conflict. Conflict, rather, is truly inevitable. And we have a choice, we resolve it or we don't. I think we have to, because to get anything done without resolving conflict requires coercion, deception, or both. I happen to think that "getting things done" and avoiding coercion/deception are both worthy aspirations.
So, I've presented an undefended claim above: that things don't get done if there's unresolved conflict (unless actors are coerced or deceived). I think this is true, think about every argument you've been in - can you move forward with a plan unless the conflict is resolved? For example, can you plan a trip with your friend if you both want to go to different places? Can you raise your kids in a single faith if you're in an inter-faith marriage and you don't reconcile your views with your wife? Can Europe even begin to prevent financial meltdown if they don't agree on a plan of attack?
So, I'd disagree with Josh's contention that heatedly discussing issues accomplishes nothing. On the contrary, I'd suggest that nothing is accomplished unless we hotly discuss issues. Without hotly discussing issues we don't resolve conflict, unless we coerce or deceive. And if we don't resolve conflict, we don't get things done. Consequently, we'd better hotly discuss issues. The discussion doesn't necessarily yield immediate results, but I don't think results would happen at any point in time without the discussion happening to lay the path for action.
I also don't think that the answer is to take the energy we would spend and channel it into something more relevant to us personally. I think doing so leads people to be aloof to broader concerns and circumstances beyond their own backyard. Maintaining a global perspective (i.e., a perspective where we empathize with people across the globe) is essential, I think, to solve global problems. I think channeling all our energy into our own interests probably cultivates an attitude which does the opposite and degrades our global perspective. Linkner doesn't advocate for all people avoiding political debate (in fact he encourages people with a such a passion to pursue it) but I suggest a more extreme position. I think it's important for all people to engage in political debate which elevates a global consciousness.
Now, this argument falls apart with the claim that only a limited subset of people need to really address broader problems and have a broad perspective. I disagree. We are incredibly connected by our actions and our ideas. We won't solve climate change unless we all change our behavior. We won't have safer neighborhoods unless we all watch over our streets. There may be many policies which only need to be decided by a few people, but we all have influence (whether we like it or not, and think so or not) on the outcomes. Call me naive or optimistic, but I think a global perspective makes it more likely and easier to follow-through on our responsibilities as global citizens.
Bear in mind, I think focusing on passion is important (and agree with Josh in this respect). But, I think there's also a place and importance for spending time refining our collective global consciousness - there's a need to discuss conflict.
Toward the end of his post, I start to agree with Josh again:
"The point I’m making isn’t to avoid proactive involvement. If you are passionate about a political, social, or community effort, by all means you should dive in and make a difference. Individual citizens ranging from Rosa Parks to James Brady have played a key role in shaping our nation. However, if you plan to do nothing but complain, it is a total waste of your time. The bitch-and-moan club has millions of members, yet creates nothing but anger and frustration. If you chose to delegate policy making to the politicians, stop your indignant rants and start repurposing that energy into something productive for both you and society."
Obviously, narrow-minded ranting with no intention of listening to other people isn't really helpful in developing a global consciousness. But the answer to stopping ranting isn't to shut up, it's to push harder and harder to listen to each other and have enlightened dialogue.
Don't agree with me? Let's chat.
In my respects, I don't disagree with Josh's conclusion - why bother worrying about controversial topics like abortion or gun control (note, I've excluded healthcare from this list - I also think it's curious that Linkner uses "Obamacare", a politically charged term, in an article where he criticizes pointless, inflammatory political debate). My rationale is different however - I don't think the dialogue is wasteful or causes a diversion of focus, I just think there are other issues that take priority. Moreover, I suspect a lot of the issues that are hotly debated are predominately raised to mobilize latent constituent groups instead of to actually debate them, which is disheartening and divisive.
I also agree with Josh's statement a few paragraphs in:
"Our country’s decisions are determined by a majority; the people making these determinations were put into place by the ultimate majority: public opinion. Once our officials are put into place, it is their job to make decisions for the greater good on our behalf – your anger or support after the fact won’t adjust their choice"
Indeed. Legislators are agents who vote on our behalf (a la "little r" republicanism) and I think it's good that way. It makes it easier to make tough choices. Also, I agree, anger or support after the fact will not adjust a previously made choice. That's a matter of fact.
Anyway, allow me to disagree with two sentiments Linkner presents:
1 - "Wasteful: Think about how much time, energy and emotion people spend heatedly discussing these issues. What does it accomplish? Not much. If the same logic went into a company’s decision-making, nothing would ever get done."
2 - "Refocus: If you take all that emotional capital and re-invest it into something more relevant to you personally, think about the dividends that could result. Simply ignore the debates in the larger political climate that affect your success a lot less than the time you spend on them. Instead, repurpose that energy into your true passion, no matter what that may be. Think about what riches would flow from this type of attitude"
We live in a world with global problems that need (in the words of Gordon Brown's TED Talk) a global ethic to solve. Plainly said, there are many different opinions on how to solve these global problems - many of which which conflict with each other. More than that, there are different outcomes that different people desire from different situation (e.g., authoritarian dictators desire something a lot different for their nations than the people within them desire).
All in all, there's a lot of potential for conflict. Conflict, rather, is truly inevitable. And we have a choice, we resolve it or we don't. I think we have to, because to get anything done without resolving conflict requires coercion, deception, or both. I happen to think that "getting things done" and avoiding coercion/deception are both worthy aspirations.
So, I've presented an undefended claim above: that things don't get done if there's unresolved conflict (unless actors are coerced or deceived). I think this is true, think about every argument you've been in - can you move forward with a plan unless the conflict is resolved? For example, can you plan a trip with your friend if you both want to go to different places? Can you raise your kids in a single faith if you're in an inter-faith marriage and you don't reconcile your views with your wife? Can Europe even begin to prevent financial meltdown if they don't agree on a plan of attack?
So, I'd disagree with Josh's contention that heatedly discussing issues accomplishes nothing. On the contrary, I'd suggest that nothing is accomplished unless we hotly discuss issues. Without hotly discussing issues we don't resolve conflict, unless we coerce or deceive. And if we don't resolve conflict, we don't get things done. Consequently, we'd better hotly discuss issues. The discussion doesn't necessarily yield immediate results, but I don't think results would happen at any point in time without the discussion happening to lay the path for action.
I also don't think that the answer is to take the energy we would spend and channel it into something more relevant to us personally. I think doing so leads people to be aloof to broader concerns and circumstances beyond their own backyard. Maintaining a global perspective (i.e., a perspective where we empathize with people across the globe) is essential, I think, to solve global problems. I think channeling all our energy into our own interests probably cultivates an attitude which does the opposite and degrades our global perspective. Linkner doesn't advocate for all people avoiding political debate (in fact he encourages people with a such a passion to pursue it) but I suggest a more extreme position. I think it's important for all people to engage in political debate which elevates a global consciousness.
Now, this argument falls apart with the claim that only a limited subset of people need to really address broader problems and have a broad perspective. I disagree. We are incredibly connected by our actions and our ideas. We won't solve climate change unless we all change our behavior. We won't have safer neighborhoods unless we all watch over our streets. There may be many policies which only need to be decided by a few people, but we all have influence (whether we like it or not, and think so or not) on the outcomes. Call me naive or optimistic, but I think a global perspective makes it more likely and easier to follow-through on our responsibilities as global citizens.
Bear in mind, I think focusing on passion is important (and agree with Josh in this respect). But, I think there's also a place and importance for spending time refining our collective global consciousness - there's a need to discuss conflict.
Toward the end of his post, I start to agree with Josh again:
"The point I’m making isn’t to avoid proactive involvement. If you are passionate about a political, social, or community effort, by all means you should dive in and make a difference. Individual citizens ranging from Rosa Parks to James Brady have played a key role in shaping our nation. However, if you plan to do nothing but complain, it is a total waste of your time. The bitch-and-moan club has millions of members, yet creates nothing but anger and frustration. If you chose to delegate policy making to the politicians, stop your indignant rants and start repurposing that energy into something productive for both you and society."
Obviously, narrow-minded ranting with no intention of listening to other people isn't really helpful in developing a global consciousness. But the answer to stopping ranting isn't to shut up, it's to push harder and harder to listen to each other and have enlightened dialogue.
Don't agree with me? Let's chat.