Amazing and inspiring article. Just adding national service as a way to bridge divides, foster civic engagement, and build servant leadership in our country.
An important article but I’m still left wondering how do we enact some of the suggestions. For example, we can agree that we need leaders who work for the common good as opposed to their own self-interest but how do we create systems/pipelines that produce such leaders?
Thanks for the words of support. To answer the last question, there are a lot of great leadership development programs out there. However, I’d suggest that we need to both expand their number and also harness existing professional development, education, and leadership programs to better cultivate the kind of leaders we want.. As one small contribution, my organization is hosting the 2019 Impact Fellowship Summit for organizations that want to get the most out of their leadership development and fellowship programs and I encourage participation. More info here https://www.irex.org/impact-fellowships-summit
The first “path to trust” is fairness.
For example, (1) The poor in the state of Washington pay a tax rate up to 7 times the rate that billionaires pay. (2) Black Atlanta teachers were sentenced to 7 years in prison for shading in bubbles on paper to help students graduate after billionaires enacted a testing regime that failed urban students in large numbers. (3) Economists identified 5 variables that affect economic mobility. Four of the 5 related to poverty. So, the billionaires selected the 5th discrete variable, schools. And then they plotted to privatize them. Money, intended for the vulnerable, was siphoned off for Wall Street. Under the circumstances, it is momentously unwise to trust American oligarchs, whatever area of community life attracts them.
“Accountability and transparency” imply opportunity to correct abuses. The politically powerless have no way to provoke enforcement of laws nor societal values. Has Ms.Lord thrown in the towel on fidelity to decency by politicians, businesses and, the “philanthropist’s” version of civic institutions? If so, I understand why, given the sources she chose to cite, Harvard and Pew. About Harvard- the neoliberal’s stronghold- a professor in the education department at Harvard received a million dollars from one of education’s privatizing billionaires. The professor was quoted as saying kids in urban areas should be tested everyday, but kids like his, in the wealthy suburbs needed to learn about Shakespeare and didn’t need the (soul-crushing) testing. About Pew- after Pew visited state capitols giving testimony against public pensions, it was found they were teamed up with an anti-public pension billionaire. And, Town and Country magazine, reported Pew and that billionaire are working together on community surveillance projects.
Ms. Lord’s article would have been improved with an example of Charles and David Koch, whose influence was explained by Jane Mayer.
The U.S. has the most incarcerated population in the world . The Koch’s ALEC played a significant role in that statistic. The number of children with a parent in jail is staggering in its implications.
I’m going to draw out and comment on one particular phrase in this otherwise good piece:
“By highlighting dysfunction and inequity, people may rise up with new coalitions and new solutions that, in turn, bridge social divides, realign power structures, and rebuild public confidence.”
I think you may have intended to say “Inequality” instead of “Inequity” here.
The concept that ‘equity’, that is to say, the equal outcome for any person involved in an endeavor is foolish, easily disproved and impossible to achieve without heavy-handed, tyrannical oversight and an equal helping of misery and, frankly, poverty for everyone except the tyrants overseeing it.
‘Inequality’, on the other hand, implies that all participants have equal opportunity to excel in any given endeavor, but their individual outcomes will be governed by their personal efforts and capabilities instead of stealing from other, more motivated or capable people.
Repair past issues of each society with confidence to deliver conclusive equality. the issue is connected to including of provide equal opportunity, controlling gender inequality and removing racial attitude.
Even though, politicians are improving rhetoric, policy makers are in policy corruption and administrators are lacking in practice in Nepal.
COMMENTS
BY Lois Phillips, PhD
ON January 31, 2019 02:04 PM
This was a brilliant summary of the importance of trusting relationships at all levels and in complex systems. Thanks so much! Well done!
BY Service Year Alliance
ON February 1, 2019 06:52 PM
Amazing and inspiring article. Just adding national service as a way to bridge divides, foster civic engagement, and build servant leadership in our country.
BY Carl Kruse
ON February 5, 2019 02:15 PM
An important article but I’m still left wondering how do we enact some of the suggestions. For example, we can agree that we need leaders who work for the common good as opposed to their own self-interest but how do we create systems/pipelines that produce such leaders?
BY Kristin Lord
ON February 7, 2019 06:12 AM
Thanks for the words of support. To answer the last question, there are a lot of great leadership development programs out there. However, I’d suggest that we need to both expand their number and also harness existing professional development, education, and leadership programs to better cultivate the kind of leaders we want.. As one small contribution, my organization is hosting the 2019 Impact Fellowship Summit for organizations that want to get the most out of their leadership development and fellowship programs and I encourage participation. More info here https://www.irex.org/impact-fellowships-summit
BY Linda
ON February 17, 2019 08:07 PM
The first “path to trust” is fairness.
For example, (1) The poor in the state of Washington pay a tax rate up to 7 times the rate that billionaires pay. (2) Black Atlanta teachers were sentenced to 7 years in prison for shading in bubbles on paper to help students graduate after billionaires enacted a testing regime that failed urban students in large numbers. (3) Economists identified 5 variables that affect economic mobility. Four of the 5 related to poverty. So, the billionaires selected the 5th discrete variable, schools. And then they plotted to privatize them. Money, intended for the vulnerable, was siphoned off for Wall Street. Under the circumstances, it is momentously unwise to trust American oligarchs, whatever area of community life attracts them.
“Accountability and transparency” imply opportunity to correct abuses. The politically powerless have no way to provoke enforcement of laws nor societal values. Has Ms.Lord thrown in the towel on fidelity to decency by politicians, businesses and, the “philanthropist’s” version of civic institutions? If so, I understand why, given the sources she chose to cite, Harvard and Pew. About Harvard- the neoliberal’s stronghold- a professor in the education department at Harvard received a million dollars from one of education’s privatizing billionaires. The professor was quoted as saying kids in urban areas should be tested everyday, but kids like his, in the wealthy suburbs needed to learn about Shakespeare and didn’t need the (soul-crushing) testing. About Pew- after Pew visited state capitols giving testimony against public pensions, it was found they were teamed up with an anti-public pension billionaire. And, Town and Country magazine, reported Pew and that billionaire are working together on community surveillance projects.
Ms. Lord’s article would have been improved with an example of Charles and David Koch, whose influence was explained by Jane Mayer.
The U.S. has the most incarcerated population in the world . The Koch’s ALEC played a significant role in that statistic. The number of children with a parent in jail is staggering in its implications.
BY John
ON March 26, 2019 08:18 AM
I’m going to draw out and comment on one particular phrase in this otherwise good piece:
“By highlighting dysfunction and inequity, people may rise up with new coalitions and new solutions that, in turn, bridge social divides, realign power structures, and rebuild public confidence.”
I think you may have intended to say “Inequality” instead of “Inequity” here.
The concept that ‘equity’, that is to say, the equal outcome for any person involved in an endeavor is foolish, easily disproved and impossible to achieve without heavy-handed, tyrannical oversight and an equal helping of misery and, frankly, poverty for everyone except the tyrants overseeing it.
‘Inequality’, on the other hand, implies that all participants have equal opportunity to excel in any given endeavor, but their individual outcomes will be governed by their personal efforts and capabilities instead of stealing from other, more motivated or capable people.
BY shiv jee shah
ON June 26, 2020 03:44 AM
Repair past issues of each society with confidence to deliver conclusive equality. the issue is connected to including of provide equal opportunity, controlling gender inequality and removing racial attitude.
Even though, politicians are improving rhetoric, policy makers are in policy corruption and administrators are lacking in practice in Nepal.