TED Talk: ”How prisons can help inmates live meaningful lives”

The speaker of this TED talk, Dan Pacholke is Deputy Secretary for the Washington State Department of Corrections, and even more importantly: a leader. He had spent his entire career working in different roles for the Department of Corrections. He identifies his vision: changing the prison system so that it actually lives up to its name “Corrections.” Throughout his talk, he was able to answer those key questions we read about in the Harvey reading (Who are we? Where are we? How are we doing? etc). In that same reading, Harvey spoke about how leaders are forward-thinking, and have to get the followers, who are often more focused on the present day, to see the vision, and care about it. I think Dan does that very well in this TED talk.

He begins with his want: he wants to change the way we think about our prison system, because that will allow us to envision new possibilities. He explains that our “Corrections System” is focused on “detaining and controlling,” rather than correcting and improving, “we (prison guards), meet violence with force, and chaos with chaos.” And that is why our current prison system does not work, and does not earn the name: “corrections.”

He spoke about an experiment that he developed with human behavior researchers. They trained staff in teams, focused on deeper training including verbal de-escalation training to decrease the use of force. And then they trained the inmates on the same skills, empowering them. He explains the changed environment and how that resulted in changed behavior. Changed training, along with a more humane living environment (bathrooms separate from cells), resulted in a safer space for both inmates and workers. After this change, he began a project in one of the prisons he was superintendent of. He teamed up with local scientists who needed help with their work and research. Inmates assisted scientists in re-populating endangered species, working on environmental restoration, and training service dogs.  He was able to answer the question: “Could inmates live meaningful lives, and if so, what difference would that make?” The work the inmates are doing currently in his projects has a positive impact on society, and also gives purpose to their time spent in corrections.

The most interesting idea I got from this talk was this: we, as a society, have to rely on a lot of different institutions to reduce the crime rate. If we just rely on prisons, we won’t get anywhere, and I think that is where we are currently at. Rather, prisons can be the source of innovation and improvement, MEANINGFUL work. And crime rate reduction needs to start in schools, with teachers, with job opportunities, etc. Overall, I would recommend this talk to others, this talk gave me a new perspective on the corrections system and what it could be.

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

This piece is hyper-relative to the times that we live in, though I have mixed feelings towards the suggestions it makes. It seems somewhat undeniable that the United States currently exists in a state of political paralysis. This piece largely talks about how leaders have worked to somewhat perpetuate this paralysis, but I think they have largely piggybacked off of our own human imperfections. It is impossible to think about political paralysis without thinking about he literal gridlock that often takes place within congress. This simply occurs because representatives self-interest in their own ideas has grown larger than their desire to create any policy whatsoever. This can largely be attributed to increased polarization, as well as our faulty democratic system, yet the effects have been widespread nonetheless. It will be extremely difficult for average citizens to realize their power if political parties cannot do so themselves. Throughout the last forty years, as opposing parties have been voted into office, they spend a great deal of time undoing the actions of their previous leaders, before ever contributing to progress. Without progress coming from leaders, people will have a tough time contributing themselves.

When it comes to what citizens are capable of, I do not know if I truly believe in the power of the people. Surely their are examples of single individuals sparking widespread change, though nothing seems more integral to this progression process than effective organization, something average citizens are not so great at. Average people looking to become leaders must present causes in such a way that people will think that it has an effect on them for them to truly care. Along with this, they must effectively target those who will truly contribute to any kind of movement. Given organizational difficulties, it seems pessimistically difficult for the powerless to become powerful. The institutionalization of the internet will hopefully begin to reverse this pattern, as it clearly already has, but until this happens more, I am not convinced in the ability for average citizens to create change. Our leaders and institutions are responsible for making this more possible in the future.

For my final external event, I watched a recording of Yasha Levine’s talk that he did at UR earlier this year on “The Internet as a Weapon.”

I found the talk really interesting. Levine focused on the history of the Internet and how it was originally created as form of spyware. The idea was that the US government could gain information on political organization through the Internet and then use that information to put an end to the organizations. Within the United States, the Internet was mostly accepted, aside from some against it in the 70s, because it is an American invention. URLs are in English, websites were created within the United States, and the United States was the main exporter of information via the Internet. I had never thought of this aspect of the Internet prior to watching this talk. Other countries did not experience the same ease of acclamation to the Internet and were much more weary of it. However, this information about the creation of the Internet is not represented when reporting on the history of the Internet.

This information raises concerns within two major topics that we have discussed: ethics and the representation of history.

If the Internet was created with the intent of being used as spyware, is anything that is now done on the Internet really ethical? On top of that, websites such as Facebook (and really most others) gain information about its uses that they then sell to create a profit. (This also ties into an issue the Levine notes about how the Internet was marked as a great equalizer of socioeconomic classes but it has actually created a whole other group of elites–Zuckerberg, Gate, Bezos, etc.). With the intent and the current actions of the Internet being unethical, is there any way to justify its use as ethical? Or is it just one of those things that is so ingrained into society that there is no real way to avoid it even though it is unethical? After watching the video, I’m leaning towards the latter, the ethics of the Internet cannot be justified but it is necessary within today’s society.

In history, we’ve established that it is important to share all sides of the stories. In the case fo the Internet, this would include knowledge of the original intent behind the creation of the Internet, not just the unity aspects that are mostly shown. However, with the original intent not being fully known, the full history of the Internet is not be accurately shown

Here’s a link to video, I really recommend watching it, I thought that it was really interesting.

I watched Katie Hafner’s talk at the Jepson Leadership Forum entitled “The Origins of the Internet.” In just under an hour, she summarized how the Internet, the most ubiquitous technological advancement of the 20th century, was born. She described how the origin of the government project that resulted in the Internet was the result of a frustrated psychologist working for the Department of Defense Advance Research Project Agency (ARPA) who wanted his computer terminals to be able to communicate with each other. That psychologist was named Bob Taylor, and he subsequently hired Larry Roberts, a computer engineer, who developed some of the core concepts that would allow computers to communicate with each other. The project yielded a network, called ARPANET that connected the computers of the federal government and universities across the country, allowing them to communicate and share resources. ARPANET was the precursor to the modern Internet, as its concepts were adopted by the telecommunication and computer industry to create today’s world-wide network.

The most insightful part of Hafner’s talk was her commentary on the debate over the origins of the internet, based on two key questions: who gets the credit and why was it created?  She noted how many people significantly contributed to the creation of ARPANET, all in different ways. Taylor and Roberts were at the head of the project in ARPA, but Donald Davies, Paul Beran, and Leonard Kleinrock each made advancements, all of which were necessary for the dream of ARPANET to be fully realized. Hafner recounted a story, told to her by Paul Baran, that compared the process of building ARPANET to building a cathedral. All of these individuals came along and laid a few bricks, and at the end of it all, a cathedral was built. To me, this was an interesting example of how a vision can be more of a leader than an individual. Taylor was hardly the first to come up with the idea, but he did have access to the necessary ARPA funding to get the project going. But rather than focus on directly leading the project with more hands-on action, he simply tried to hire the right people and let his vision lead the way, which allowed those other contributors to come onboard and add their pieces. A shared vision can be more powerful than one individual, but it also shows that Taylor understood how to fulfill his role as a leader.

Reading about Goska’s ideas on political paralysis made me think of many topics we talk about in my political science class. Most namely the emergence and effects of political polarization. I think the paralysis is an effect of the polarization. More often it is become “mandatory” for legislators to vote along party lines. Compromise with the other party is seen as weak and traitorous. This form of thought makes it virtually impossible to pass bipartisan bills and is detrimental for the public because change is becoming harder and harder to initiate. Steps toward fluidity among parties would make it much easier for the government to take action. If the polarization in our government continues to grow, I believe one party (most likely whoever has the presidency) will dominate Capitol Hill, making the voice of the minority party unheard.

Once this happens, as Zinn describes, the people/party will be able to control the narrative. Dorner’s systems theory is virtually impossible to execute at this point, as views and rules are pretty much only produced by the single party. The more I lay this scenario out, the more it sounds like some sort of dictatorship, but that is what a single- ideology government produces. In that case, the political competition we have is important in preserving our democracy, but the polarization is much more detrimental than common competition.

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

This Ted Talk was an obvious link to leadership, but was also very eye-opening and informative about what good leadership can look like. Simon Sinek’s talk called “Why good leaders make you feel safe” chooses to emphasize the benefits of a supportive, considerate leader or boss in order to demonstrate the positive outcomes within the followers. He first discussed a personal anecdote in which he was boarding a plane, and one of the flight attendants was extremely terse and authoritative over a passenger who tried to board too soon because if she said she needed to perform her job with 100% accuracy. Sinek then discussed how this employee was scared of her boss, of her leader, causing her to have a negative, fearful time while working for the airline, which was then relayed to the passengers. However, had she not been so panicked over making one mistake, the experience of the customer could have benefited, improving the overall potential quality rankings of the business.

After giving an example for a leader who instills fear in their followers, Sinek then gives an example of a boss who gives their workers a sense of support and comfort. Charlie Kim started a tech company called Next Jump implemented a policy within the company of “lifetime employment.” If someone were to receive a job at Next Jump, they could never be fired for performance issues. Rather, if an employee did run into performance issues, the company will provide support and coach you through the problems. Kim relates his policy to the idea of how we would treat our children if they were to make a mistake. If your kid creates an issue within the family or household, you do not simply “lay them off.” Instead, you help them through the problem, so that you can solve it together. Sinek then says that a good leader would never sacrifice his people in order to save the numbers, but would sooner sacrifice the numbers to save his people. 

If this idea were to be implemented in companies and societies worldwide, there may be a positive impact such as an increase in community within the followers. It does not necessarily seem feasible to implement Charlie Kim’s “lifetime employment” within every business, however ridding of the fear tactics that are installed to followers in order to benefit the leader is a good step in the right direction for any company.

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.

This Ted Talk was called “A 12 Year-Old App Developer.” It was just that- a 12 year-old talking about developing apps for Apple products. He explained how kids his age grew up playing digital games and are now wondering how to make their own. He started by learning coding languages such as Python (apparently this is a more basic one). Once he felt comfortable coding in a few different languages, Apple released the iPad, and the iPad development kit, which allowed users to develop apps for the App Store. This speaker decided to make apps called “Earth Fortune” and “Bustin Jeiber” (apparently his peers don’t like Justin Bieber).

Once this speaker was a pro at making his own apps, he wanted to gather information about what other apps his peers wanted to see, and even produce themselves. So, he made an app development club at school. He thinks that these days, students are more technologically advanced, and can use apps to their advantage in their learning. Teachers, he says, should support this pursuit.

I think this Ted Talk is relevant to leadership because it shows how no one is too young to make an impact. This 12 year-old had a desire for new apps and he made them. Certainly if a middle schooler can have any kind of impact on the world, then anyone can. I think this returns to the point that sometimes our actions feel small. However, it is important to keep doing things, and specifically doing good. Eventually these small actions (like making Apple apps) can have a larger impact.

Link:

This Ted Talk was entitled “Got a Wicked Problem to Solve? First, Tell Me How You Make Toast.” The speaker had a program where he would ask people to draw out something that everyone knows how to do- make toast. He showed examples of some of the responses that he has gotten in the past. These responses vary greatly. While most were just the basic steps on how to make toast (put bread in the toaster, take it out, put on butter), some focused more on the mechanics of the toaster. Some went back to the wheat being grown in the field. Others went all the way back to the Big Bang. I thought it was interesting how this simple exercise shows how differently peoples brains work.

The speaker explained that each “step” is called a node in the person’s thinking. He explained that there is a “correct number of nodes” for any given project. Too few and the project won’t be clear, and too many and it will be confusing. He explained that when participants were asked to draw out the process on sticky notes, there were many more nodes on average. This is a good thing and can then be paired down so that there are not too many nodes. This process, the speaker claimed has been used to reconstruct entire companies.

I think that this Ted Talk is very relevant to Leadership. We have talked about this a lot in this class, but sometimes problems seem to overwhelming to take on and overcome. This process of “making toast” shows how different leaders brains work differently. If a leader can figure out how their own brain works, they will be able to utilize their skills to solve the problem. Also, leaders may feel overwhelmed at time, so breaking down a larger problem into nodes and then organizing them into steps to take helps turn a huge problem into little, manageable steps to work towards the larger issue. I think this is the key to successful leadership.

Link: