For my final event, I watched a Ted talk entitled “What it takes to be a great leader” by Roselinde Torres, a senior partner and managing director at “Big 3” consulting firm BCG. Torres first addresses the common “Big Man” theory of leadership, which – despite being outdated – still pervades in our society. In order to evaluate how effective current leadership development programs in major companies are today, Torres conducted a survey of 4,000 companies and asked them about the effectiveness of their leadership development programs. Of those 4,000 companies, 58% of them reported “significant talent gaps for critical leadership goals”. Despite all of the measures these companies have taken, they still have not updated their leadership programs effectively to meet the needs of modern companies. 

In order to understand the widening leadership gap despite enormous investment in leadership programs, Torres took time off of her job to travel around the world, meet leaders from all parts of the globe, and study this issue in depth. From these experiences, Torres believes she has found exactly what differentiates effective leaders from ineffective ones. She believes effective leadership in the 21st century is defined by three questions: Where are you looking to anticipate change?, What is the diversity of your network?, and Are you courageous enough to abandon the past? These three questions highlight the importance of being willing to adapt your thinking to your specific context, being able to expand your thinking to understand the perspectives of the people around you, and being able to anticipate challenges ahead instead of simply reacting to them. Being an effective modern leader requires us to push ourselves outside of the boundaries of past leadership ideals and be able to think flexibly and creatively.

https://www.ted.com/talks/roselinde_torres_what_it_takes_to_be_a_great_leader/transcript?language=en

The second event I attended was the Wyatt T. Walker and the Politics of Black Religion symposium on February 21, 2020. I was shocked that despite the instrumental role Dr. Walker played in the black freedom movement, I had never heard of him before this symposium. Serving as chief of staff for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Dr. Walker was a pastor as well as a civil rights leader. He was pastor for 37 years at Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem, New York where he used his voice to preach for tolerance and social justice in both the United States and other countries like South Africa undergoing apartheid. During this time, Dr. Walker joined with a New York businessman to found the first charter school in New York state, which still operates today.

Dr. Walker lived a fascinating and very important life that I am glad I finally learned about. One of my favorite parts of the symposium was that it brought together faculty and experts from different universities around the country to share their expertise on Dr. Walker. One of my favorite parts of the presentations was the presentation of a series of photographs taken of Dr. Walker as he was in the March on Washington, we he helped to organize and lead alongside other civil rights leaders. The photographs were beautiful and captured the emotions of those marching so clearly and vividly. Reading and learning about these events is one thing, but getting to see them captured as they happened offers an entirely new perspective. I really enjoyed getting to learn about such an influential leader and hope more people take advantage of the same opportunity.

The first outside event I attended was the InterPoint discussion “Who Even Cares About Race?” that occurred early in the semester. I had a class with Lauren Stenson, the sophomore who worked incredibly hard to put the event series together, first semester this year where she told all of us about the event so I had already been planning on going. While this event had been planned for months, it turned out to be especially timely as it occurred the week following the racist attacks that happened on campus. The turn out for the discussion was overwhelming and students of all racial and ethnic backgrounds came to share, learn, and support our community.

Going into it, I wasn’t sure exactly how the discussion was going to be facilitated. Attendees were asked how they identified racially and then divided into groups led by trained student facilitators. After playing ice breakers, our group leader posed a series of questions that anyone in the group could respond to. While I didn’t share anything personally, it was such an amazing way for me to hear the voices and stories of my classmates and better understand their experiences both on campus and in life in general. I was impressed both by the openness of those in my groups who shared and by the level of preparation that went into the event. It was incredibly well run and hard to believe that it was solely put on by students. I know that there were supposed to be two more of these discussions this semester that unfortunately were not able to happen given the circumstances, but I hope when we return to campus more discussions like this will be facilitated. 

The Impossible chapters reminded me a lot of a saying I encountered a few months ago: “Anything worth doing is worth doing poorly”. My perfectionist tendencies immediately reared their head reading this. Why would I do an assignment if I wouldn’t get a good grade or try something if I wasn’t sure I’d be able to do it? I had to challenge myself a lot to open myself up to this saying and eventually understood that even if I couldn’t do something perfectly, if I thought it was a worthwhile endeavor I should try, regardless of the outcome. If the options are missing out on an opportunity to do something or potentially failing or doing that thing imperfectly, there is a lot more to be gained from at least trying.

The reading reinforced that idea. It can be overwhelming to think about the enormity of the problems in the world, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t at least try. While we can’t completely solve climate change single-handedly, that doesn’t mean that we should throw our hands up and accept climate change as a fact of life. We can still recycle, shop sustainably, or whatever options are accessible in our lives. We may not be able to pay for our neighbor’s surgery, but we can still give them a ride home when they need one. As Zinn says in chapter 5, “Not to play is to foreclose any chance of winning. To play, to act, is to create at least a possibility of changing the world” (64). There are no guarantees in life, but when we try in any small way, we open up possibilities that don’t exist if we choose not to act at all. Small actions have the possibility to spark big change, but that requires us to do something. Life is unpredictable, power can change hands in an instant, ordinary people banded together have the power to do incredible things, so we kid ourselves when we say we aren’t capable of making a meaningful impact. Even if we don’t make changes on a national scale, improving the life of just one person is better than not helping anyone at all. 

I don’t really have anything to say about this quote but I had to write it down in my notes on my phone because I found it so moving/inspiring/whatever you want to call it so I thought it was worth including in my final blog post: “The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory” (72). I think that’s a fitting message to take away as we wrap up the semester. 

Watching the 1984 campaign ads, Reagan’s ads are much more calming and enjoyable to watch, while every single one of Mondale’s ads are focused on attacking Reagan and they take an aggressive, too informative approach. While I don’t doubt that what Mondale was saying about Reagan was true, his approach was certainly off-putting, especially in contrast to Reagan. The economy was doing well under Reagan and in 1984 there was finally peace in the nation after WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam all took place within Reagan’s lifetime. The American people craved comfort and stability, which is exactly what the Reagan ads portrayed and the exact opposite of what the Mondale ads portrayed.

Even when discussing difficult topics, Reagan’s ads did so in a comforting manner. My favorite ad from the campaign was Reagan’s entitled “Bear”. Part of why I liked it so much is that it took a completely different approach than any of Reagan, Mondale, or quite frankly any other ad I’ve seen has. The ad is 30 seconds long and consists of footage of a bear roaming around a forest with a very soothing, yet firm narration and slightly ominous music. The narrator at one point says “Some say the bear is tame, others say it’s vicious and dangerous.” It’s clear that the bear referenced is referring to the threats posed by the Soviet Union and appeals to the logic of viewers. Even if there isn’t a bear, shouldn’t we be prepared just in case? Without being overly alarming, the ad is able to make a convincing appeal that even though the nation was currently at peace, the United States should still be prepared for whatever dangers may lay ahead. I found this ad to be extremely effective and very different.

http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/1984

My favorite ad would have to be the ads from the Allstate mayhem campaign, in particular the one about the cat. In this campaign, an actor plays “mayhem” in all of its various forms which in this case is a cat. The ad depicts a fully grown man living in a house with a couple acting like a mischievous cat would – riding around on the roomba, scratching at the owners – all while wearing a suit, talking to the camera, and interacting with the couple as they pretend to have no idea of any of the things he’s saying as he’s just a cat to them. The ad ends with the “cat” turning the faucet on, flooding the bathroom, and causing the upstairs bathroom to collapse into the living room. He cautions that without the right insurance, the couple might not be protected “so get Allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like meow”. 

While I’ve always liked this ad just because I find it funny, looking at it after doing the readings definitely sheds some new light on why it’s effective. As discussed in Teavey, this ad seems to employ the third of the four tricks of effective advertising: solution. If homeowners wish to avoid having to pay for unusual damages out of pocket, they should get Allstate and be covered completely. In this series of ads, they’re giving solutions to problems homeowners, drivers, and others who need insurance don’t even know they have or now fear that they might have. They’ve also created an effective campaign by ending every ad with the same phrase – “So get Allstate and be better protected from mayhem, like me” (the meow was just for the cat ad which I found much funnier than I probably should have). By using the same tagline, they’re reinforcing the notion that Allstate is the best equipped insurance agency to protect consumers from unexpected events. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHXL8A1dowo

I think the Bezio article brings up an important point when evaluating history and historical leaders. It can be easy to glorify the accomplishments of past “Great Man” leaders without considering the context they lead within. As we talked about in our discussion group on Monday, many people are quick to praise Thomas Jefferson and label him as an American hero for the work he did and structures he put in place at the formation of our country. However, that does not include the fact that he was an abusive slave owner who built his accomplishments upon the forced labor of other human beings. Understanding that context is hugely important when looking at Jefferson. Knowing those facts, it is clear that that is not the type of person that we should praise as a nation and should not regard him as one of the “Great Man” leaders of American history. 

Harvey’s chapter also echoes the importance of understanding “Where are we?” when studying leadership. The context that a leader is trying to lead within is going to enormously change what is appropriate for that circumstance. Being the CEO of an international company is going to require hugely different leadership strategies than a teacher leading a classroom. Even the age group that a teacher is teaching will have an impact on what methods are appropriate and successful for leadership within that context. Like Bezio, Harvey emphasizes learning about our position in the world as well as other questions directed at learning about ourselves before we can look to the future and envision our goals. Understanding how leaders – whether that is a historical figure, contemporary, or ourselves – fit into the world around them is the first step in learning about them and becoming more effective.

I think the Zinn chapter was a refreshing account of Columbus and the era of Spanish and English colonialism. Not refreshing in that the content was uplifting, but refreshing in its honesty on both sides. They don’t hide that the Aztecs sacrificed thousands of people, but also provide a complete account of the utter havoc and destruction that was brought in by Spanish conquerors. History is often framed in a way that makes excuses for the actions taken. It’s time that the goal of telling history is changed from excusing wrongdoings to owning up to mistakes and providing accounts of how events affected minorities and common people, not just how it served the wealthy often white elite.

Just as Spanish and English settlers in the 1400s did everything to consolidate power, the same thing was happening  in mid-20th century Richmond. White residents were doing everything in their power to maintain segregation and prevent black Richmonders from gaining any measurable political power, implementing everything from poll taxes to annexing a 97% white county in order to dilute the power of black votes. While the effects of the annexation were eventually resolved to a single-member district system that guarantees fair representation with majority-minority districts, that resolution took seven years and is currently trying to be repealed. Both of these articles are powerful examples of the lengths people, particularly white people, will go to to attain and maintain power, often on the basis of blatant discrimination and racism. This is clearly a pattern that has been in place for hundreds of years and we must continue to actively fight against it.

I read the Stanford Prison Experiment as a cautionary tale more than anything else. Average “boys” when placed into either situations of previously unknown power or lack thereof for no reason other than random assortment, completely fall into their role of either a power-hungry prison guard or a prisoner with few human rights that trusts no one. They perform these roles so well the experiment had to be stopped early. If this is what can happen in a psychology department basement within 5 days using college students with no criminal past or previous exposure to the US correctional system, imagine what a real US prison would be like. Like many actual prison guards, these “guards” had no formal training and simply relied on their own instincts and turned the prisoners against each other to deflect the anger the prisoners felt from their inhumane conditions.

I am particularly fascinated by the guards in this experiment and how readily they embraced their role. Goethals and Allison state how “depending on context, mystery can arouse either thoughts of frightening danger and villains, or positive, hopeful expectations and images of wonder, awe and heroic leadership” (3). By giving the guards mirrored sunglasses that prevented the prisoners from seeing their eyes and providing them all with the same uniform – both of which added an air of mystery to the guards’ identity – the experimenters were able to make villains out of randomly assorted college students using the fear-inducing context of a prison. The researchers were so successful in constructing these villains that the guards began to view themselves as actual prison guards, not just students participating in a study. This makes me wonder how much the context of the world around us/what is placed on us by people around us influences our identities, how we present ourselves to the world, and how we see ourselves. It makes me think that our environment has the ability to completely change our behavior and attitudes, which is part of why I believe that by continuing to treat prisoners this way instead of focusing on actual rehabilitation the US justice system is merely perpetuating a vicious cycle of crime and incarceration. 

Since I have only ever known living in a large-scale society, I often forget how recent of a development they are. For most of human history, we have existed in small-scale societies and much of the world still does. So Von Ruden and Van Vugt did the not-so-obvious obvious thing to do if we want to understand modern large-scale leadership – analyze how the leadership of small-scale societies operates and see what parallels there are that might explain the development of the leadership we see in large-scale societies today.

It’s fascinating to see how much of the leadership we see in large-scale societies is a result of the traits that are valued in small-scale societies. For example, even though we pretty much never will come face to face with the President or expect the President to himself or herself lead the country into battle, we still prefer taller and more masculine leaders because those are the leaders that had greater success in small-scale societies. Or how in small-scale societies the average population is about 150 people and in successful large-scale leadership leaders within big companies are generally responsible for about 150 people. 

However, one aspect of large-scale leadership that did not develop from small-scale societies is the enormous amounts of money these large-scale leaders are paid and the extreme wealth inequality that creates. Leaders in small-scale societies were most certainly rewarded and held a higher social status in many ways, but that distinction did not come at the expense of others as it does in modern large-scale leadership. Yet, these exorbitant salaries may result from our natural desire to be better off relative to the people around us, as is present in small-scale societies. It’s still interesting to me that our new social differentiator is monetary wealth as that was not necessarily the case in small-scale societies.