Three Important Questions
Over the past year, it has been a great pleasure to work with KFLA in planning the Alliance’s 2011 conference on civic engagement, with the theme of leadership for the common good.
This effort has involved reflection on the theory and practice of social change, prompting me to think hard about my experiences developing community leaders and social entrepreneurs over the past fifteen years, primarily through the organization I founded in Pennsylvania in 1995, the Institute for Leadership Education, also known as “I-LEAD.” My work has involved teaching, curriculum development, and consulting in a range of initiatives involving education reform, workforce and economic development, neighborhood safety and public health initiatives. These efforts have gone hand in hand with practical work required in public and private sector initiatives, and in founding, developing and leading a nonprofit organization. Of course, ongoing contact with the real world enriches teaching. How important to know what it is like to actually do something as well as to talk about it! Knowledge that lacks grounding in experience is about as useful as reading a book to learn how to ride a bike.
We have stepped back from daily initiatives in order to think about the big picture: What have we learned? What is required for the important work of social change? What succeeds and what fails? Why?
My contention today is that effective social innovation and civic engagement depend initially upon framing the right questions as we approach our daily work. Further below, I am going to suggest three very specific framing questions.
In order to create a vivid contrast, however, I would like at first to describe three highly dysfunctional questions. Think of these as counterexamples, almost doppelgangers of the right questions. For those not steeped in German words invited into English, a doppelganger is sort of like the ghostly, evil twin of a person, a dark, anti-matter alternative to the living!
Unfortunately, people generally use these dysfunctional “anti-matter” questions to orient themselves within groups, at work, in relationships, in society at large, and even within the framework of their entire lives.
So, beginning with the questions from the dark side:
● First, what is wrong, and how did it get so wrong?
● Second, who is to blame, and how can they be stopped or punished or “held accountable”?
● Third, how do we prevent things from going wrong in the future?
If you find your mind and heart filled with these unfortunate questions, my advice to you is this: start over. These questions and their cousins generally lead the seeker into a dark psychological state filled with feelings of unhappiness, depression, anger, frustration, revenge and fear.
Nevertheless, these dysfunctional questions animate vast amounts of strategic thinking in our society. Turn on cable news, pick up a newspaper, watch Congress. Most of what you hear and read will be oriented with reference to these questions and these emotions.
As one example among literally thousands, consider the media’s coverage of the oil spill in the gulf in recent months. Our 24-hour news cycle has been devoted to recrimination, blame and wonder at the evil human beings who have caused the downfall of humanity and nature, and also to imagining all the terrible results of the catastrophe. What a world! The circle of bad guys gets bigger every day, as does the increasing legions of pretentious finger-pointers. “We knew better. Why can’t these dummies fix this problem?” So they say.
Lately, it has become fashionable to blame the President. Why can’t Obama swim under the Gulf of Mexico and stick a cork in the hole? After all, he is the leader of the free world. Barack, would you clean up this mess please? And make it snappy! It is so easy for us to address global catastrophes as we watch cable TV or read the newspaper while reclining in a big easy chair with a comforting cup of coffee.
The same pattern emerges in every domain of our existence: finance, health care, the economy, education and so on.
1. Find something very bad.
2. Focus on it intensely.
3. Call out the scoundrels who made it happen.
4. Talk endlessly about how to prevent its recurrence.
Begin again.
Not to say that this general negative focus, along with the media coverage it generates, and the dark emotions it produces, aren’t justified. Of course they are. The allure of the dysfunctional trinity is that an overall negative posture toward the world is entirely warranted. Orient yourself around these questions and you will find yourself falling into outrage directed against all of reality. Justified outrage. After all, the world contains no end of situations to bemoan. And if you should grow weary thinking about the past evils of the universe, there are always the present and future evils to consider. If you work just a little at this (not much effort required) you will turn your daily reality into the ultimate fear channel. Free horror movies, 24/7/52!
What is the better way forward? What alternative questions should displace these wrongheaded ones?
I submit that people who change the world have very different inquiries in mind at the start. Here are three specific questions at the forefront of effective social change movements:
1. What are we working together to create?
If, instead of seeking to know what is wrong, we start with the question of what we are trying to create together, we take up the critical inquiry about our shared vision for the future. Asking this question releases significant positive energy leading to very different outcomes than the question about what has gone wrong and how it became so. Here is the key insight entailed in this alternative question: understanding how things went wrong, and even fixing what is wrong, often fails to bring about what we truly want to create. For example, when we think about international energy, we may realize that we want to create sustainable, green power sources. Now, fixing the gulf oil spill and preventing another such spill is certainly important, but it won’t create sustainable green energy, will it?
Turning to a personal example, many Americans look at their health status and identify problems like losing weight, lowering high blood pressure, and eliminating painful symptoms such as indigestion and headaches (the annual world market for painkillers is expected to reach 35 billion by 2015!). But how would the quest for personal health change if we were to ask different questions: What kind of a life are we trying to create? What kind of life do we want to experience? What do we want for our energy levels and our sense of well-being? Asking what we want to create leads to a remarkably different set of behaviors than asking what to eliminate or what is wrong. Giving up cigarettes and drugs does not necessarily create optimal health. Especially if we replace them with chocolate bars and video games!
Answering this specific question about our shared creative vision is not easy. But the answers may fill us with hope and energy about the possibilities for positive change.
2. Working together, what can we do right now to start creating what we want?
How would the world change if, instead of asking who is to blame (and how to punish them), we were to ask what we each can do, concretely, right now, to move forward?
When we look for scapegoats, we work to externalize responsibility. Those searching for the guilty usually do not look in the mirror, because they remain remarkably certain of their own innocence. It is comforting to think that one bears no responsibility for the problems in the world. It is reassuring to believe that the world’s evils were all caused by others, and that our job should simply be to point this out, so that the evildoers can be locked up and compelled to pay for their crimes.
But here is the insight embedded in the second proposed question: finding the persons who caused the problems generally does not create any solutions. The processes of crime and punishment are necessary for the effective functioning of society, but alone, they do not bring about positive social change. Reform does not equal innovation. The wellsprings of human progress are generally not responses to the failed strategies of the past.
There are so many examples of this in history. We did not invent modern transportation systems because walking is broken. Electric power is not a fix for a failure of human metabolism. We did not create the Internet as a solution to a broken phone system. Innovation does not fix the world, it results when humanity strives to create something far beyond the world that exists. Progress inheres in our ultimate desire to transform human systems in ways that vastly exceed and completely reframe the problems and shortcomings of present realities. Transformational social change does not eliminate problems, it creates new and better problems.
When we focus intensely on seeking wrongdoers, on allocating blame, we fall back into old ways of thinking. As Einstein said so succinctly, “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.” If all we do is punish the guilty, then we will have simply guaranteed their return wearing new costumes.
On the other hand, when we ask “What can we each do, right now?” we discover resources we did not know about, and unleash the energy required for positive transformation.
3. What will be the shared measure of our success?
When we think together about how to measure success meaningfully, this inquiry grounds us in reality and helps us navigate as the world around us changes. This inquiry points us toward not only achieving our gains, but also building upon them.
In contrast, the effort to organize human society around the prevention of future evils exposes a third critical insight: success does not arise from avoiding failure. On the contrary, success often results from a daily assault upon failure, a commitment to endure defeat until one finally gets it right. Unfortunately, the effort to avoid problems often creates a culture of fear and paranoia in which no one takes action for fear of facing blame when things go wrong, as they inevitably do.
If we focus on achieving success, and let go of avoiding failure, we can tolerate many mistakes and false steps on the pathway to our destination, and as a result, find our path more surely and swiftly.
To see the differences in approach, think, for example, about national security. If we orient our approach around the idea of preventing acts of terrorism, this leads to the growth of security, police and military responses to terrorists. What has been the opportunity cost to human productivity of this approach? And as we have seen over the past decade, the effort to police and fight our way to national security may perversely reinforce terrorist opposition. While we have prevented a major incident of terrorism in the United States, the war on terror has served as a massively expensive factory of terror and terrorists around the globe.
But if we ask different questions‒what are we trying to create, what can we do now, and how do we measure success‒we may define progress in radically different terms, in terms of promoting positive international relations and strengthening the forces of moderation, diplomacy and peace.
At a personal level, we could think about health from the perspective of avoiding illnesses. This might lead us to an expensive, ongoing regimen of invasive disease tests and screenings. But if we think about measuring health in reference to what we want to create and what we can do proactively, then we might find ourselves exercising, eating and sleeping well, having fun, and generally enjoying the process of living instead of embarking upon a paranoid flight from disease.
There may will be a temptation to look at these questions and to ask, “Isn’t this just about words?” Is there really a difference between asking what we want to avoid and asking what we want to accomplish?
The answer is yes, and yes. It is about words. But in this case, words matter enormously. Of course they do. Words are ideas. Different ideas lead to radically different ways of thinking, choosing and being in the world.
But don’t take my word for it. Conduct an experiment in your life, in your intimate relationships, in your social circles, in your organizations, and in thinking about national policies. Try starting from a different place.
Move beyond what’s wrong, and ask instead, “what are we trying to create together?”
Move beyond who is to blame, and ask instead, “what can we each do, concretely, right now, together?”
Move beyond preventing evils, and ask instead, “what will be our shared measure of success?”
Watch the road fork. Find yourself going to a better place, on a faster path, with a brighter smile on your face.
The Ethics of Apologies
This article originally appeared on Businessweek.com on June 21, 2010. It was reprinted with the expressed permission of Dr. Weinstein. The Dr. Weinstein now offers this article in the greater context of our discussion about Shirley Sherrod’s wrongful termination.
These few simple rules will help you give apologies meaningfully and accept them gracefully
Every day, it seems, we learn of an apology from a prominent executive, celebrity, or political figure in response to an indiscretion of some sort. Those in the public eye have an unfortunate tendency to apologize only after they have been found with a hand in the cookie jar. When this happens, it is only natural for a skeptical (or cynical) public to wonder, “Are they apologizing for their conduct, or simply because they were caught?”
To make matters worse, the wrongdoer will often use the passive voice in his or her apology: “Mistakes were made,” rather than “I made a mistake.” It is more comfortable to use the passive voice here, but doing so relinquishes any sense of personal responsibility. It is a non-apology and is not very meaningful.
Of course, it’s not just those in the public eye who readily offer an insincere “I’m sorry.” You probably have at least one such person in your life. It may be the person working for you who spends too much time making personal phone calls or surfing the Web while at the office. Perhaps it is a friend who consistently cancels lunch dates at the last minute. Maybe you even find yourself offering apologies more than you should. Regardless of the circumstances surrounding the need for the apology, and whether you need to make one or feel you deserve one, the following questions arise:
• What makes an apology meaningful?
• Does apologizing make us look weak?
• How should you respond if you can’t avoid repeating the mistake?
• What may we rightfully expect from someone who apologizes to us?
To answer these questions, it will be helpful to keep two ethical principles in mind: “Be Fair” (what I have called Life Principle No. 4) and “Be Loving” (or Life Principle No. 5). Recall that fairness or justice requires, among other things, that the punishment should fit the crime, and some forms of wrongful conduct are so serious that a mere “I’m sorry” isn’t enough of a response. To be loving and compassionate in our professional and personal lives calls upon a different set of skills: We should do what we can to honor a person’s sincere apology, even though our anger pulls us in the opposite direction.
With these two principles in mind, I propose the following guidelines for giving and accepting apologies:
When You Owe an Apology
• Admit your mistake quickly and take personal responsibility for it. Don’t say “We made a mistake” when you mean “I made a mistake.”
• Apologize first to the person you have wronged. That is the person who matters most.
• Speak from the heart. An insincere apology is as bad as no apology at all. People can tell when you really mean it, even if you think you’re a good actor and can fool everyone.
• Realize that “sorry” is just a word. For that word to be meaningful, you must do your level best to avoid repeating the mistake. This means coming up with a strategy and sticking to it.
• Understand that a meaningful apology is a sign of integrity, not weakness. Anyone can blame others, or deny that he or she did anything wrong, or lie about what really happened. Only a strong, self-possessed person can own up to their mistakes, and only such a person commands true respect.
• Don’t be afraid to ask for help. If you can’t do something well on your own, invite others to work with you on the problem. If the problem is beyond your grasp, consider asking someone else to take it on, if it is appropriate for you to do so.
When You Are Owed an Apology
• If someone has done something wrong and apologizes to you, accept the apology graciously. However…
• You are also justified in expecting the person to avoid repeating the behavior that required an apology in the first place.
• Depending on the situation, you might need to make clear to the other person what the consequences will be if he or she makes the mistake again.
• “Three strikes and you’re out” is fine for baseball, but in other areas, it may take only one strike for someone to be justifiably banished from being a player. Some mistakes are so serious that you should not grant a second chance. For relatively minor slipups, however, or if the task at hand is unusually difficult, it might be unfair not to allow more than three opportunities to get it right.
• If the apologist continues making the same mistake over and over, you may have to say, perhaps regrettably, “I can’t in good conscience give you another opportunity to slip up,” no matter how much that person continues to apologize.
The 1970 film Love Story featured the memorable line “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” Even if this were true, there are many other areas where we do have to say we’re sorry—and mean it. The challenge for all of us is to admit we’ve made a mistake, to do our best to ensure that we don’t do it again, and to forgive others who sincerely regret their own poor judgment. No one is perfect, but most of us do have the capacity to right our own wrongs and to accept the imperfections in others.
Bruce@TheEthicsGuy.com Bruce Weinstein, Ph.D. is the corporate consultant, author, and public speaker known as The Ethics Guy. He has appeared on numerous national television shows and is the author of several books on ethics. His “Ask the Ethics Guy!” appears every other week on businessweek.com/managing/.
The Slippery Slope of Talking About Race in America
A couple of years ago I took on an assignment to write about racial equity and social justice in the food movement I have to admit, that I didn’t know much about the United States Department of Agriculture or its history of inequity. So I started with what I knew to do… research. I typed in race and farming. It made sense to me. I needed a background, a point of reference. To my surprise there was entry after entry on discrimination against black, Native American and Hispanic farmers. The discrimination resulted in a class action suit filed by black farmers, known as the Pigford Case. I went on to interview a few black farmers to get their take on this. For more information on the Pigford Class Action Suit go to http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS20430.pdf
Fast forward to July 21, 2010. It is the day that the first person to be fired for racist activity. Shirley Sherrod, a 25-year employee of the USDA was asked to submit her resignation because she told her truth. Back in March she made an honest and open speech in front of the NAACP about her personal journey and evolution around race.
I am sure that Ms. Sherrod never set out to be the next Rosa Parks. And I am sure that she never expected to lose her job, because she told her truth. Instead, the head of the USDA reacted to a snippet of a tape of her speech. The NAACP reacted, as well, throwing her from the bus for a speech that Ms. Sherrod made at one of their meetings months before). Working in rural Georgia, I am sure it couldn’t have been easy for her. I bet she has some stories about being called names and threatened by the white farmers she tried to help. Whatever she saw, and felt, she clearly was able to move past it. It is a lesson that we all need to hear. And we could have heard it, if the tape hadn’t been edited.
The rest of the tape addresses lots of things including Sherrod’s story of the death of her father in a racist act. She talks about having crosses burned on her family’s lawn. And she talks about her commitment to stay in the South to change things. Yet, if you read the Tea Party blogs, or watched only Fox News, you would have heard only a couple of lines of her speech, out of context.
When a spokesperson for the Tea Party admitted that it was their intention to embarrass the NAACP by editing and sending this tape out virally, they set in motion a firestorm that made a whole lot of people look bad. The house may be on fire, but remember there was somebody standing there with a gas can and a match. Will we continue to let the flame throwers set the Shirley Sherrods of the world on fire for sport?
If you think that we live in a post-racial society, now that we have the first African American president, then think again. My heart broke a little when I heard Ms. Sherrod say “I can’t believe I am out of a job.” Shirley, I can’t either. I am not surprised that extreme conservatives work tirelessly to stir up the tensions of race. But I am horrified that the NAACP and the USDA were so reactionary. Right now I am sure that Tea Party members all over the country are having a great laugh at the expense of a woman in her 60s who told a story about how she has come to view race and poverty.
As a child of the 60s, I have seen hate around race. I have seen how far we’ve come. But I see how much healing we need to do. As of this writing, Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack has apologized to Ms. Sherrod, and offered her a job. Not her job, but a job. The NAACP also apologized. But when will we stop being a PR machine, reacting to save funding, and chase a few public opinion points? I am sure that the USDA acted to curb any embarrassment to the Administration. How’d that work out USDA? Are you willing to shake the trees and go back to and chase out the hundred or so years of discrimination against black, Native American, Asian and Hispanic farmers?
I also want to thank CNN for doing real journalism. They teach us a lesson. Blogs and twitters are just sources. They are not the story. Real journalists roll up their sleeves and vet stories. They look at real tapes. They give balanced coverage. In fairness to other media outlets, it is true that there is a rush to get the story out there as quickly as you can in the 24-hour news cycle. We feed the beast as fast as we can. Some time we need to slow down and ask some questions, especially when we call for someone to get fired.
The media has a lot of work to do. And so do we, the advocates, the thinkers, the policy makers and the pundits. Race is an uncomfortable conversation. But I am now convinced that we need to have more conversations. We need to address our humanity and our diverse American culture. We need to find our own courage to be Shirley Sherrod in our own right. And then we need to heal. Today I found out how easy it is to be angry in cases like this. It is challenging to take a deep breath and move forward in truth and honesty. Thank you Shirley Sherrod for the lesson.