[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/CHiGJrMwOc0" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
Jepson School of Leadership Studies Professor Douglas A. Hicks discusses his new book “Money Enough: Everyday Practices for Living Faithfully in the Global Economy.” March 1, 2010
Our global social safety net, that helps people gain access to education and health care and assists with meeting basic human needs, depends on private funding in the form of philanthropy.
Three national experts in nonprofit leadership and philanthropy will speak April 8 at the University of Richmond on the topic of “Private Money/Public Causes: Leadership, Philanthropy and the Common Good.”
The conference is free and is the last program for the 2009-10 Jepson Leadership Forum season that is exploring the concept of The Common Good. The session, which includes a networking luncheon, will be 10:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. on campus at the University of Richmond. Registration is required and seating is limited. Details.
Speakers:
Sometimes we need an adversary to vanquish to turn our I and me into an us and we. We may think of ourselves as independent individualists, yet we can be transformed into enthusiastic citizens, fans, members, or followers by a team championship, a vaunted NCAA ranking, or a team victory when failure was expected.
Researchers call it Basking in Reflected Glory. After a team victory, far more students show up to classes wearing clothes with their university's name and symbols plastered on them. When they talk about the team's win, they are more likely to use the pronouns "us" and "we" instead of "them" and "they." They stress their connection to winners, but after a loss they cut their ties.
The social psychological perspective on community and fan loyalty stresses the positive impact a common commitment that is shared across the community on relationships and overall well-being. Rooting for a team is entertaining, but when everyone is rooting for the home team then it builds cohesion and strengthens relationships. Remember in the old days TV with only three channels, when everyone watched the same programs and sporting events? The next day at school and work, people could talk to each other about shows they followed, the games they watched, and even the commercials they loved and hated. Now there is little to bring us together, so that we don’t share the same focus and set of interests. Unless, our team is capturing everyone’s attention, and giving everybody–both traditional fan and new initiates–a commonality.
So, its the impact of this shared identity–as a supporter and fan of the team–that brings people together. People can wear team-related clothing, they can talk about the team in their everyday conversation, and they can even change their day so that they can do things that are connected to the game. They become one with others, and so they escape the feeling of isolation and individuality that sometimes plagues us in these hard times. But its the increase in social connections that counts, and not just the distraction that having a winning team brings. People who root, alone, for the team don’t prosper, whereas those who share their interest with others find that their “social capital" climbs.
Psychologists even offer some evidence to support the idea that rooting for a sports team can be healthy. My favorite statistic pertaining to being a sports fan and mental health comes from the 1980 Winter Olympics. Fewer people committed suicide on February 22, 1980 than on all other February 22s from 1972 to 1989, perhaps because on that particular day the U.S. Olympic Hockey Team beat the Russian national team. There is, of course, a down side. Researchers have found that in some towns–towns that are known for having extremely committed fans–that when the Florida Gators or the Ohio State Buckeyes teams rose up in the sports rankings suicides decrease in Gainesville and Columbus, but when the teams dropped in the standings suicides climb. One should not forget that the word fan derives from a slightly longer word: fanatic.
Donelson R. Forsyth is Professor, The Leo K. and Gaylee Thorsness Chair in Ethical Leadership at The Jepson School of Leadership Studies University of Richmond
This week around campus, athletic endeavors–the Richmond Spiders basketball team along with the Olympic games (even curling)–are common topics of conversation. In the Jepson School, we’re wondering what people think of fans, followers and the impact the shared experience of sport can have on groups of people. How can the shared experience matter to leadership and community?
Leadership studies and religion scholar Douglas a. Hicks will talk about faith and finances Monday, March 1 at 11 a.m. on campus at the Jepson Alumni Center. The presentation is free and seating is limited. Please register
Attendees may also join the author and the University chaplain for a Dutch Treat lunch ($7.25) in the University dining hall immediately after the presentation.
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/38_yass9ga0" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
About the Book:
In "Money Enough: Everyday Practices for Living Faithfully in the Global Economy," the scholar of religion and economics addresses nuances of one of society’s most taboo topics: Money. Citing voices ranging from Aristotle to Bono and Adam Smith to George W. Bush, he writes about greed, sharing, spending, consumerism, fairness, and justice. He writes about money as it relates to religion and values, and politics and public policymaking.
"Money Enough" is part of the Practices of Faith Series from Jossey-Bass, a Wiley imprint, and is expected to become popular with church forums and discussion groups. For people who seek to unite their workday lives with their worship, the book offers thoughtful reflections for connecting Christian faith to economic life in a world of both unbridled consumerism and widespread poverty. Hicks' practical insights go further than simply rejecting the market or accepting its excesses. Readers are encouraged to engage with their daily pressures, questions, and anxieties of economic life and look to the source of their faith for answers.
About the Author:
Douglas Hicks studied religion, ethics and economics at Harvard under noted theologian Ronald Thiemann and Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen. Hicks' work on religion in the workplace has received national media coverage, in outlets including The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, Diversity Inc., CBS Evening News, NBC Today, and CNN International. He is the author of the widely praised "With God on All Sides: Leadership in a Devout and Diverse America." Hicks teaches at the Jepson School of Leadership Studies at the University of Richmond and is a Presbyterian minister.
This event is hosted by The Jepson School of Leadership Studies, the Department of Religion, and Craig Kocher, Chaplain of the University of Richmond.
In some circles it’s considered rude to talk about money, religion or politics at the dinner table. With his new book “Money Enough: Everyday Practices for Living Faithfully in the Global Economy,” Douglas A. Hicks, Jepson School professor of leadership studies and religion, provides a framework for people to break that rule and engage in meaningful conversation about these taboo topics. Short interview taped: February 18, 2010
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/38_yass9ga0" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]
Talk about a fresh voice from the academy. Two professors, social psychologists George R. Goethals and Scott Allison, introduced Hereos: Who They Are, Why We Need Them, a blog tied to their forthcoming book of the same title. In the book and in the blog they reportedly will explore “the psychology of herorism, shedding light on wht heroism and villainy mean to most people and why heroes are so vital to our lives.”
They had timing on their side and published opening commentary on Tiger Woods. Check it out:
Tiger Woods' news conference today revealed that he is a long way from completing his journey toward healing himself and his personal life. There was a searing honesty in Tiger's words that suggest a genuine desire to repair his personal life, even at the cost of his golf career achievements. Tiger would not say when he would return to the golf course, and at age 34, the clock is ticking on his quest to eclipse Jack Nicklaus's records.
When will Tiger Woods play golf again? From his words at the new conference today, the question is almost irrelevant. He devoted 99% of his words to what he's doing to improve himself as a person, as a husband, and as a father. Clearly, his career comes second. Tiger spoke more about returning to his Buddhist roots than returning to Pebble Beach. His contrition was powerful and his priorities are now clear and in the right place.
As human beings every bit as flawed as Tiger, we applaud the great humility he showed at today's news conference, and we wish him well on his emotional and spiritual journey. As golf fans, we can be patient for his return. First things first.
We suspect that Tiger is in the midst of completing a 12-step program, and if so, we give him great credit for embracing a highly proven way of undertaking personal growth. What are the clues that give away his program? He admitted he had a problem (Step 1). He cited the tenets of Buddhism as a path toward healing (Steps 2 & 3). He admitted his wrongdoings and what he is doing to correct them (Steps 4-7). He acknowledged who has has hurt and how he will make things right (Steps 8 & 9). He then alluded to what he needs to do to remain a good person and to help others as well (Steps 10-12).
If there is one thing we learned today, it is that Tiger Woods is just as hungry to achieve the same success off the golf course as he has achieved on the golf course. How many world-class athletes put their careers on hold until they get their personal houses in order? Very few if any. If Tiger fulfills his personal goals with the same relentless drive that he's shown with his professional goals, we'll be witness to a remarkable transformation. We wish him well.
Today's meeting of Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama will be framed by most commentators as a political event. Indeed, the symbolic impact upon U.S.-China relations of the American president's outreach to the Tibetan spiritual leader is well documented. Also fascinating and vital, however, is the moral dimension of this encounter of these two leaders. After all, this is the meeting of two Nobel Peace Prize laureates.
A tension remains between the views of peace-and-conflict espoused by the Dalai Lama (the 1989 recipient) and the complex perspective offered by Barack Obama in his December 2009 Nobel address. Obama's view on the particular obligations of a political leader€”who may need to declare war to defend a just cause€”led Obama to distance himself, in the presidential role, from the strategies of a movement leader like Martin Luther King, Jr. The Dalai Lama is neither a political leader nor a social movement leader, though he is in some ways both of these. Will he make any public comments on Obama's leadership? What will Obama say about the Dalai Lama's vision and values? These are the key moral and even perhaps spiritual questions at stake in the meeting.
In the Washington Post’s blog “On Leadership,” Jepson School of Leadership Studies Professor Joanne B. Ciulla writes about Sarah Palin and “The genius and pitfalls of charisma.” The posting is cited here:
“In response to the On Leadership question: As Sarah Palin goes about laying the foundation for a possible presidential candidacy, what could she do to burnish her leadership credentials beyond her conservative base?
A leaders’ credibility depends on how well he or she fills follower’s expectations in a variety of contexts. Presidents lead in settings ranging from town hall meetings to cabinet meetings. Each context requires them to possess the appropriate personal affect and relevant information.
At the Republican Convention and the recent Tea Party gathering, Sarah Palin exemplified the qualities that people want their leaders to have in such contexts. She demonstrated a keen sense of the emotional state of the room and effectively united the crowd – mostly by attacking a common enemy. Palin makes her audience feel good about themselves and empowered, but most importantly, she makes them want her as their leader. She does all of this with caustic humor moderated by a down-home charm (that her followers call “authenticity”), and a plain speaking style that conveys the idea that “The truth is simple and I have the truth.” Palin likes to call herself a “maverick,” but her leadership style has the hallmarks of a charismatic leader.
In the context of rallying the troops and preaching to the converted, she has plenty of leadership “cred.” The media coverage she gets adds to that credibility in the eyes of followers. Pundits of every stripe speculate about whether Palin will run for president. This gives the impression that they regard her as a credible leader.
The question is, what happens when Palin finds herself in contexts where people expect leaders to be knowledgeable about the issues and propose solutions to the nation’s problems? How does she expand her base?
The obvious answer is to hire consultants, crank up the conservative think tanks, and create the Palin platform. Palin says that she has been studying up on the issues. If she runs, she probably will hire policy wonks, but how much will she study?
As Max Weber observed, charismatic leaders play by their own rules. They do not recognize or value competence, and they see their authority residing outside of the realm of every day concerns. Charismatic leaders get into trouble when they become overconfident in the power of their emotional appeal and personality. If Palin wants leadership “cred” she will have to avoid this trap and remember that being a great cheerleader does not mean that voters will let you play the game.”
People attending a meeting on altruism, cooperation, philanthropy and The Common Good reflect on how their scholarship relates to tragic events in Haiti and suggest things to think about. More about the conference
[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ps09TXKajDw" width="425" height="350" wmode="transparent" /]