I watched a TED talk by speaker Simon Sinek called, “Why good leaders make you feel safe.” I really enjoyed his speech. He basically talked about why he believes that leaders should be more than just authority figures; that “leadership is a choice. It is not a rank.” In his message he points out altruistic figures such as Mother Theresa and Gandhi. I believe he chose those figures specifically because they are ultimately altruism incarnates. They exemplify sacrifice and selflessness which are qualities that humanity should attempt to achieve and aspire to have. He says that good leaders worry about others before they worry about themselves.

He goes on to correlate this with the workforce and why employees trust their bosses (leader) with their job and not only count on them to make the best choices for the company but for them as well too. He connects this with the example of the army and how troops are expected to follow their leaders into battle and trust their decision-making skills with their lives. So in his speech he explains why organizations should make their employees feel safe because that is key characteristic of a leader. He then goes on to describe that in the business world, people are awarded bonuses for sacrificing others for their own benefit. This method are not characteristics that will truly inspire people to follow. This shows that the real dangers of humanity is injustice and lack of empathy towards another person. 

Link: https://ed.ted.com/lessons/why-good-leaders-make-you-feel-safe-simon-sinek

This interview-style TED talk featured Dr. Larry Brilliant talking about the global pandemic and the numerous mistakes made by governments worldwide. The video opened with a clip of him in 2006 explaining how a pandemic originating in South Asia may spread around the world, highlighting the importance of the first 2-3 weeks where most contaminating contact is made. The general trend was the governments who received a better “grade” from Dr. Brilliant (yes that is his name) but aside their fear, accepted the reality of the situation, and acted quickly within this 2 week window. This reminds me of some of the leadership concepts that we’ve talked about regarding decision making. Just like in the reading, he believes that taking steps immediately, even if they are smaller steps does more than waiting to find the perfect solution because the virus will not wait for our governments to catch up.

Another important point he touched on was the need for coordinated efforts across governments. Our world is the most global it has ever been; people trade and travel worldwide all the time, meaning every nation needs to coordinate with one another. I think it will be interesting to observe how global leaders handle the next few months because as more tests and potential treatments emerge, every one will want access to the same technology which might create more competition than collaboration. We will simply have to wait and see.

In Paul Kramer’s TED talk, he explains the dangers of how the “insider vs. outsider” mindset we have adopted about immigrants influences our discussions of immigration. He starts by talking about handing out flyers as a graduate student protesting legislation that would threaten the rights of immigrants. While their flyers had good intentions behind it, Kramer explains that they were a problem. He goes on to explain that the arguments that they were using, such as, “they work hard, they pay taxes, they’re law abiding” are arguments that we hear every day, and it makes sense that these would be the kinds of claims that defenders of immigration would use. However, he claims that in the long-term, these arguments can be counterproductive, as it is “always an uphill battle to defend yourself on your opponent’s terrain”. By playing into the narrative that immigrants are “outsiders”, Kramer claims that they are playing into the anti-immigrant game.

He explains first the historical contexts that have led up to this moment, and how these ideas have become so divisive. He explains that throughout history, the three harmful questions that have been the focus of immigration debates are whether immigrants are “useful tools”, whether or not immigrants are “others”, and whether or not they are “parasites”. The phrasing and ideas behind these questions spark debate that is harmful in the end and does not serve to achieve anything productive. However, at the end, he proposes three questions we need to start asking instead. If we focus on workers’ rights, responsibility and equality, we can look at society as a whole, and not create an in-group/out-group bias that exist in the earlier questions.

I thought this talk was very important and prevalent today, and explains how we can change the conversation surrounding immigration into something that is more productive on both sides of the spectrum.

Here is the link to anyone who’s interested: https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_a_kramer_our_immigration_conversation_is_broken_here_s_how_to_have_a_better_one/details

I watched a TED talk by Drew Dudley called “How to be a Great Leader”, and I thought it was so powerful. At first, I assumed it would be another talk on influence and followership and how to create that persona of a leader. However, he opens by talking about his “lollipop moment”. He told the story of a moment when a girl came up to him before he left college and told him that he said something that completely changed her perspective, and she wanted to thank him for being an incredibly important person in his life. However, he doesn’t remember that moment at all. It’s crazy to me that we can have that kind of an impact on someone’s life, and you may not even remember it. In a world where what we say matters so much, I think that’s important to keep in mind.

He goes on to say that all of us probably have that “Lollipop moment”, and that moment where someone said or did something that you believe fundamentally changed you or made your life better. But we rarely tell the person that impacted us so greatly. It goes to show just how powerful words and actions can be, no matter how small. I talked about this in another blog post, but it reminds me of Jepson and how we strive to show that leadership can manifest itself in so many different ways.

Dudley concludes his talk by asking the audience to start to value the profound impact we can have on each other, and to redefine leadership into these “lollipop moments” because, “we’ve made leadership about changing the world, and there is no world. There’s only six billion understandings of it. And if you change one person’s understanding of it… you’ve changed the whole thing”. I think that especially during these stressful times, it’s important to remember that we are not alone, and even the smallest act of kindness can greatly impact someone.

Here’s the link to the video! https://www.ted.com/talks/drew_dudley_everyday_leadership/transcript?referrer=playlist-how_leaders_inspire

https://www.ted.com/talks/regina_hartley_why_the_best_hire_might_not_have_the_perfect_resume

For my final event blog post, I decided to watch another Ted Talk, this one called “Why the best hire might not have the perfect resume.” I thought this could be very applicable to not only leadership, but also college students. Regina Hartley discusses why the “silver spoon” candidate, who has the impeccable education, experience, and skills may not always be the best person for someone to hire. In fact, she says it is the job of a boss or leader to look a bit further into the potential employees, and weed out the “scrappers” in order to find future workers who will not be successful despite their adversity, but because of their adversity.

Hartley goes on to say that a series of odd jobs or a lower level education may indicate inconsistency and unpredictability in a candidate, but it also has the potential to indicate “a committed struggle against obstacles.” The question then becomes, is the leader willing to take a risk? According to Hartley, taking this risk has many possible benefits. She says that it is more likely to be beneficial to have an employee or follower who will be passionate, hard-working, and determined to perform the task at hand properly. The  candidate with the picture perfect resume may be able to complete the job, but their passion and focus may be at a lesser level because it is simply another job to them.

I watched a TED talk called “Why Good Leaders Make You Feel Safe”. Simon Sinek, a management theorist, talked about how throughout time, humans have relied on creating trust and safety with those around us. It is in those circumstances where leaders emerge and we choose to trust them. He opened his talk with an example about Captain William Swenson, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in 2009 for his heroic actions in the military. Sinek wondered where these kinds of people come from, and initially thought that these “better people” are attracted to the military and the idea of helping others. However, Sinek concluded that, “if you get the environment right, every single one of us has the capacity to do these remarkable things, and more importantly, others have that capacity too”. I thought the idea of the environment being right was really interesting. I think that when people think about leadership in the general sense, they immediately think of presidents or CEOs – people in power and who have authority. However, it is important to note the difference between authorities and leaders, and understand that even the smallest gestures are examples of good leadership.

Sinek also uses an example of a company that was hit extremely hard by the 2008 recession, and they lost about 30 percent of their sales overnight. When the board was pushing layoffs, the CEO refused to do that to people. Instead, they worked to create a furlough program where every employee was required to take a four-week unpaid vacation whenever they wanted. By implementing this program, they saved 20 million dollars, but they also solidified the trust between employees and employers. One thing I thought was really interesting was how the CEO chose to announce this plan. He said that it was better that we all should suffer a little than anyone should have to suffer a lot.

One of the most interesting things that came out of that furlough program was that morale was boosted, and people began helping each other. Those who could afford an unpaid vacation, for example, would take a five-week vacation so someone who was struggling more only had to take three weeks off. At the end of the day, position does not matter in a leader, but your actions can really affect others. At the end of his talk, Sinek said that when he asked people “why would you do that?” everyone said the same thing, “because they would have done it for me”. This sense of trust and camaraderie runs so much deeper than we may notice, and has a lot of power.

Here’s the link for anyone who’s interested! https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_why_good_leaders_make_you_feel_safe/details?language=en

The Ted Talk that I watched was called “The Revolutionary Power of Diverse Thought.” It is by the novelist Elif Shafak from Turkey. She starts by describing her answer to the question “can we taste words?” She explains that she initially avoided the question because it was a complicated answer. She knew what she wanted to say but did not know how it would be perceived by others because it was not an uncomplicated answer. People tend to do this when they have mixed emotions or complex situations. It is much easier when they have the ability to choose between one option or another. To resolve the complexity of thought, people force opinions, identities, solutions, etc. into “binary oppositions,” where one cannot choose more than a singular option. This is especially true in politics. These binary oppositions deny the human right to be complex, to have mixed emotions and to not be polarized which is something that has become extremely normalized in Western society especially.

Mainstream political analysists neglect emotion and focus solely on data, as Shafak says, and this perpetuates the attitudes of polarization. Initially, I was confused by this claim. I think of all the times that my family has gotten into political debates that have exploded with emotion. I think of the leadership classes I have taken, including this one, where we analyze political arguments and draw conclusion on how they use emotion to outweigh logic. However, as Shafak continued and I thought more about what she was saying, I realized that despite the fact politics revolves around emotion, there is a rejection of admitting this. Politicians and analysists mask the emotion behind data. Shafak says that underestimating emotion and ignoring the fact that feelings have a major impact is a mistake. People would naturally become less polarized if they acknowledged the emotions that drive their argument.

I think that there is definitely a fear of emotion. Within the last few years, there has been more discussion of why emotion is not evil. For example, feminist theories related to emotion and the movement for men to embrace emotion (rejection of toxic masculinity). I think Shafak would agree that these are steps in the right direction, but removal of emotion impacts much more than we give it credit for. Shafak’s ideas are centered around indecision, for lack of a better word, but this is not a bad thing. It may be uncomfortable, but I think she was right in saying this mindset is extremely beneficial.

https://www.ted.com/talks/elif_shafak_the_revolutionary_power_of_diverse_thought/up-next?language=en

This TedTalk was given by Alexandra Auer, discussing the effects of physical borders and barriers between nations and their effects on relations.  She claims that walls and fences only provide a feeling of security – they establish a division amongst people, instead.  Auer asserts that physical empower mental walls and mental walls empower physical walls, showing that this recent increase of building borders has increased mental disposition against “others”.  She also speaks of gated communities, serving as models of small-scale countries.  This point was made as an explanation that although these living conditions are made by choice, they have serious mental effects on the individuals who live there who do not open themselves up to interacting with those outside their gates.

Auer tells of her field experiment at an elementary school that had put up a gate between the two groups of kids who were of different ethnicities.  She explored idea of how to influence individuals to find the commonality amongst them.  In this, she begins to break the mental wall and challenges the us-versus-them mentality.  We have had discussions like these in our class, but I have always wondered how exactly you get people to realize the things they have in common.  Auer was able to answer this with a small sample group of children, and I realized that the answer is different depending on the individuals.  Especially when considering how people put up their own walls against others for various reasons, there cannot be one single way to resolve the division amongst a multicultural society.  Auer concludes that walls do not solve the root of our issues; rather it only divides a group of people on culture and geography that has large intergenerational implications.  I think this was a great point to leave on, as our international community has become a lot more vulnerable to security issues.  Officials’ solutions are to ensure the safety of their citizens through a defense, but this only perpetuates a difference principle that never will foster a united force.

https://www.ted.com/talks/alexandra_auer_the_intangible_effects_of_walls_apr_2020/up-next#t-691218

This TedTalk by Heather C. McGhee discussed her exploration of systemic racism in the lens of her background in economic policy as it complements the relations amongst individuals in a culturally diverse society.  She tells the story of a white man named Gary from South Carolina, who wanted to explore his prejudice and reverse its debilitating effects on his life.  This lead McGhee to wonder whether a nation with systemic racism so deeply embedded in its culture has backfired to harm the ones it was initially meant to advance.  Her conclusion is that racism leads to bad policy; racism harms all individuals in the society.

McGhee gives many examples of local governments that destroyed public goods just to avoid an integrated society.  She tells of how this racism developed and contributed to the 2008 financial crisis, explaining that the subprime mortgages were racially-influenced and targeted.  She claims we would not have had a financial crisis if it were not for racism.

I found this TedTalk to be really intriguing because McGhee spoke of the one issue that continues to stress the United States in many aspects of society.  Racism is prevalent, and it, unfortunately, has been a relevant topic since the beginning of our nation.  McGhee concluded on an interesting point that the harm to one is harm to all, and we should let the proximity of diversity share in our embrace of a common humanity.  It was beautifully spoken that these systemic issues are not only at the fault of policy makers – individuals are responsible for their own prejudices, like Gary.  This idea relates a lot to our class discussions on the role of followers in initiating greater change.  Followers tend not to understand the influence they hold over leaders, and it is about time we realize our actions (or lack there of) have consequences.  We need to mobilize in changing social norms and recognizing prejudices to flood the structure of our society with these values.

https://www.ted.com/talks/heather_c_mcghee_racism_has_a_cost_for_everyone/discussion#t-202349

This was the response I wrote to this lecture series that Jepson hosted early in the semester.  It discussed the truth and representation in the internet age through the particular medium of journalism as a catalyst for social change.

Michael Paul Williams serves as a local columnist for the Richmond Times-Dispatch, dedicating his talents to share an uncommon perspective through a written medium and to relate with Richmond communities.  Accomplished journalists utilize resources and their platform to present the “truth”, regardless of biases.  In a city founded upon deep and systemic divisions, nondiscriminatory information is pertinent in sharing diverse experiences.  During the panel discussion, Williams expressed challenges of representation within reports and the lack of shared experiences amongst the greater Richmond area, perpetuated by rigid policy and infrastructure.  

After the journalism company that employed Williams was bought out, his experiences and passions persuaded him to continue his writing career to make certain the large person-of-color readership was properly represented in the media.  The racial divides in Richmond originate from the depths of the city’s founding.  Williams’s work shines light on the underrepresented perspectives of overlooked communities, yet policy that was enacted years ago continues to restrict these communities in submission of the privileged communities.  Many minority communities were structurally marginalized from “urban development” plans, resulting in the social and infrastructure divides we observe.  At-risk minority communities do not come in contact with wealthy, predominantly white communities, preventing the opportunity to create shared experiences.  From this, individuals fail to alter their perspective despite evidence.  In addition, Williams stated the evolution of technology numbs individuals to ethically considering their anonymous contributions on divided issues.  These uninformed prejudices are fueled by decades of propaganda and implicit biases.  To Williams, journalism opposes these under-qualified news sources to reveal truths, a large challenge for local writers.  Community members remain resistant to opposing perspectives when the view fails to support their own.  Williams attributes this injustice to policy and non-complacency of privileged communities; I assess the injustice originates from the cumulative advantage Anglo-American ensured themselves in Richmond by marginalizing minority communities with infrastructure.  These communities were obliterated by big promises that failed to deliver, leaving communities vulnerable and submissive to the growingly influential majority.  Williams acknowledged this progression through the example of a close-knit community destroyed by urban renewal construction.  Due to the lack of perspective sharing, policy-makers contributed more destruction than progression to the city.  Knowledgeable policy cannot be proposed if people fail to recognize differences and to confront these perspectives in difficult discussions.  Knowledgeable representation in published works and equalized influence in policy-making creates mutual understanding across perspectives, despite mutual agreeances, and establishes a basis of more-fair policy.  

As a journalist, Williams faces difficulties of pleasing different “truths” people possess while also seeking the facts of a story.  In the past, systemic disadvantages of marginalized populations eliminated culture-rich communities due to a lack of shared perspective across the local area.  For journalists today, the objective is to expose these routinely underrepresented perspectives to create a basis of mutual understanding.  To give a voice to the previously reduced populations balances influence on policy-making for the future and advocates to reverse restrictive policy from the past.