GCI Series: Marisa and Good Work

The Global Citizens Initiative hosts an annual Fellowship Summit to cultivate young “global citizens” to become “lifelong leaders of positive change.” In July of 2019, 28 high school students from 15 different countries gathered together for a 10-day experience in Tokyo, Japan.  These students are each responsible for the design and development of a service learning project to be carried out over the course of a 10 month period.  Their projects are “glocal” – addressing a global problem at a local level.  In Tokyo, the students were supported by a group of Teaching Assistants, themselves all alumni of the GCI Fellowship Program.  The Good Project has been in consultation with GCI since its formation, and we follow the work of its participants with interest.  We recently had the opportunity to catch up with several GCI alums and ask them about their work, their thoughts about Good Work, and reflections about their experiences with GCI.

---

My name is Marisa Nakagama, and I am a rising senior studying Animal Science and Nutrition & Health at Cornell University. I was born in Westchester, NY but have lived in Connecticut, Illinois and even Saba, a Dutch Carribean island! I love studying the connection between animal, environmental, and human health and hope to become a doctor who emphasizes this significant intersection. Outside of school, I have a huge passion for weightlifting and exploring different cultures through cuisine.

What does it mean to do “good work” today? 

As simple as it sounds, I think doing “good work” today starts from a yearning to learn about others, but also yourself, and then take action. Whether this work represents the quality of your workplace or charitable acts, this “goodness” stems from trying to improve yourself or the community around you, and this starts with learning. By “learning,” I do not necessarily mean education. I am talking about genuinely sitting down and listening to what people say and think while also understanding yourself and recognizing what you have to offer as well.

Everyone experiences life differently, which means everyone has a story to tell and lessons to share. Through the simple act of listening, you connect to different people, career industries, and cultures. With productive listening comes respect and appreciation for each other. I think this inevitably leads to stronger self-esteem, but it also builds stronger relationships. All these little steps, from self-confidence to stronger connections with the people around us, can help us learn about the communities around us.

Tell us about your understanding of community.  What are the communities of which you feel a part?

To me, a community means a group of people, a place or space where I belong and where I can learn and grow. A community doesn’t judge or coerce me into changing who I am, but it appreciates my individuality, keeps me in check, and continuously motivates me to be better. One community I am a part of is my university. This community, from my professors to my peers, constantly pushes me to expand my knowledge, challenges me to get out of my comfort zone, and is shaping me into the person I am becoming. This community is not only academic but social, one where I can continue to strengthen my relationships with my friends.

GCI has been a community I have loved being a part of since 2014. Even though its members are all over the world, the sense of community and tremendous love I feel from GCI shows how strong this community is. It’s incredible to see it grow every year. I’m so grateful for social media and technologies such as Zoom because I can stay connected to this community no matter where we are in the world. With COVID-19 this year, unfortunately the summit planned for 2020 was cancelled. However, GCI and its members didn’t fail to stay connected, through Zoom virtual harkness sessions and hangouts! A great session I got to participate in was with a pharmacist, Dr. Tavajay Campbell. While we all got to learn more about the virus and its vaccine development from him, we also got to engage in further discussions such as the recent BLM movement. It was wonderful to be able to remain connected with the GCI family and continue to hear international perspectives all from my room in New York.

Another community I am a part of is my family. I am extremely fortunate to have such a supportive family behind me. I recognize that I wouldn’t be half the person I am today or even where I am today without all the hard work my parents, grandparents, and others (the list goes on) have accomplished.

Finally, another community important to note is my local community. Whether that be the friendly chef at the local deli who always makes my day with the most delicious lox bagels, or the loving neighbors I always see during my walks with my dogs, these people and the small but exciting interactions I get to have with them make me happy, and shape the person I am, every day.

Is there a particular role model who has helped inspire you to do “good work,” either real or fictional? What is it about this role model that has inspired you?

My dad has always been my role model. When he first graduated university in Japan (with a major in American History), he took the stereotypical Japanese white-collar road to work in finance. Although things are different now, back then it was pretty standard that most college graduates simply found an office job within the country. During his time working in finance, he had a business trip to attend in New York City. Once he got to New York, he quit his job. He realized it wasn’t what he wanted to do at all. He returned to college and ultimately attended medical school in a new country where chemistry and anatomy weren’t nearly as challenging as the language. Though it was a daunting challenge, my dad recognized and followed his own dreams. When applying the idea of “good work” to his journey, I think what resonates is that he learned about himself and recognized his finance job wasn’t fulfilling. Though he was significantly older than most medical school students, he was able to step forward and take on a challenge. Rather than continuing work in a field he wasn’t very interested in, he used his passion to accomplish productive “good work” by helping patients through medicine. Making such a drastic career change can be difficult for some. Personally, I’m not sure if I could take such a sudden turn in my life if I had already been working within a field for over ten years. He inspires me to push myself out of my comfort zone and pursue my long-term goals. as long as I have a passion for it, even if the journey might be difficult.

Tell us about your work. What projects are you currently involved with? How might what you are doing now relate to the work you began with GCI?

Currently, I am involved with a public health project that emphasizes the importance of outdoor education for the mental health of school children. Outdoor education has substantial benefits for children ranging from increased confidence to higher empathy towards others. Through literature reviews and advocacy research, we are finding ways to make a change in school curriculums locally (and hopefully nationally) to include more time outdoors.

Within my preprofessional fraternity, we support the Gift of Life Marrow Registry and hold blood drives, knowing that as students, taking a little time out of our days to donate blood and stem cells could change someone else’s life. We also consistently hold fundraisers for many other local and national organizations, such as the Finger Lakes Cancer Resource Center and the International Medical Corps. Additionally, we hold educational events for our school community. Our most recent event was a professional panel related to the COVID-19 pandemic, led by our university’s notable virologists.

Finally, another club I am involved with is Merlin’s Kids, an organization that trains rescued shelter dogs to become service dogs for special needs individuals, disabled war veterans and other candidates who need physical and emotional support. I adore the organizations mantra: “Saving two lives at a time.”

While all of these projects aren’t necessarily related, I believe they are small but significant changes I can make in my community and definitely relate to the GCI goals of empowering lifelong leaders of positive change. I have definitely utilized the skills, lessons, and stories I learned from GCI, such as leadership and communication, for the projects I am involved with today.

How do you feel your current projects are connected or not to this view of “good work”? 

I think all of my projects aim for positive outcomes and consistently recognize that nothing is perfect—there is always room for improvement whether that be challenging myself or challenging society. Talking to teachers and principals and learning how local schools operate, I can contribute to improving children’s early mental and physical development by trying to get them outside, challenging the norm of the current curriculum. Preparing philanthropic events and attempting to make the most of my time within my university community, I might be a catalyst in finding a donor for someone who needs a bone marrow transplant. Getting to know a sweet lady with anxiety problems, I can help find her the perfect fluffy helping hand (or should I say paw?). Rather than focusing simply on myself, learning about others’ lives and seeing how I can help others is, I think, “good work.” Ultimately, it makes me feel confident in myself as a great individual who can make productive small changes in society.

How and where do you find meaning in your work? 

I find meaning in my work by recognizing that my ability to have the time, the resources, and the support system to pursue actions in order to help others is a gift. I am so grateful that I get to go to a wonderful university, experience the experiences I have been offered, and am cherished by the people who surround me. By appreciating what I have, I feel the motivation to try and make a difference in others’ lives. I know I wouldn’t be where I am today without the sweet helping hands that were offered in my life. The most satisfying feeling is receiving a smile from someone else and that is what I aim for every time I work.

Tell us about your biggest challenges, and how you work to tackle them. 

My current biggest challenge is the MCAT. When I write it out, it seems silly: it’s just a “test,” right? But it seems like a ginormous hurdle for me and my future goals because, without a good score, how can I become a doctor? It has been the test I have dreaded ever since I decided, “Yes, I want to become a doctor,” and it’s perhaps the most terrifying thing to me right now. Biology. Biochemistry. General Chemistry. Organic Chemistry. Physics. And more. It sends shivers down my spine.

I just recently started studying, and I think the thing that has helped me the most is to create a schedule and keep myself accountable. The more I study consistently, the less scared I am. Another way I’ve been tackling the challenge is to not doubt myself so much. A problem I continuously have is that I doubt myself. When I feel this way, I try to reward myself for even little accomplishments. For example, if I was feeling completely unmotivated and unproductive one day, I’d push myself to at least go through some flash cards and call it a day. While I didn’t get through as much as I should have, I tell myself that I at least did something which will definitely show in my progress overall. Again, little steps!

Have you ever faced a dilemma where you weren’t sure what the “right” course of action was? How did you handle this situation?

Recently, the BLM movement has gained huge momentum on Instagram, with users and influencers posting infographics, quotes, and more. I absolutely loved the idea of using such a powerful outlet to promote the movement, believing I could further educate myself, both on the movement and on the history of black oppression in the country. However, I came across a dilemma. Some users aggressively call out those who chose to “stay silent” on the app, those who choose not to post anything on their profiles in support of the movement. I was one of those people who “stayed silent,” but I didn’t “stay silent” because I didn’t care about the movement. Though I was silent on Instagram, I was, and still am, proactive and constantly trying to read, watch, listen to many different sources to educate. I didn’t feel as though I needed to post every day to show my support and people in my friend group also felt the same way. Unfortunately however, our silence on a social media platform caused the loss of a friend within our group:  we were “unfollowed”, “unfriended” and “blocked”. At that point, I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t want to lose a friend. But I also asked myself, if I posted a picture all of a sudden, would I be doing it just “for the trend” and to prevent losing a friend? I had heard plenty of stories of broken friendships and individuals who were ostracized, simply because they didn’t post a black photo for #BlackoutTuesday. After days of thinking, I decided to post one post, one that explained that I support the movement but that I also believe that now is not the time where people should be causing more animosity. Now is not the time where we should judge one another based on what we say or do on social media. Now is not the time to cause more separation between people. Now is the time for everyone to come together, regardless of race, gender, sexuality, and be better in solidarity, whether that be on social media or outside of it. While at first I was torn about the “right” action, I was brave enough to post something about my thoughts without changing who I am or what I was doing based on a social media trend.

John F. Kennedy and the Rings of Responsibility

by Howard Gardner

For those of us over the age of 70, the name “John F. Kennedy” brings back vivid memories: his youthful energy,  meteoric rise to the presidency,  apparently storybook marriage, event-filled 1000 days in his office—and of course, his tragic assassination and the ill luck that plagued and has continued to plague the Kennedy family.  As his aide Daniel Patrick Moynihan reflected shortly after Kennedy’s death, “We’ll laugh again but we’ll never be young again.”

Of course, for those a generation younger, Ronald Reagan is vivid while Kennedy is but a distant name—just as, for my parents’ generation, Franklin Roosevelt dominated their consciousness, while his cousin Theodore was just for the history books... and the face of Mt Rushmore.

But whether you know the details of Kennedy’s life, or just some headlines from movies or  stories, you probably have an opinion of his presidency:  how successful it was, whether he achieved what he wanted, whether what he achieved was good for the country, how he related to persons, institutions, and issues—to put it bluntly, whether, as a president, he carried out “good work”, was OK, or not up to the task.

I’ve wondered this myself for many years—and my own views have swung back and forth. 

On the ‘"good Kennedy” side of the scale:  he was highly intelligent and articulate, made excellent appointments, and after some early blunders, reached wise and courageous decisions, particularly with reference to foreign affairs.  Of critical importance, once he realized that the struggle for control over Vietnam was a never-ending morass, he would have found a way to withdraw American forces…. and the latter part of the 1960s would have been entirely different

On the “not good” side of the scale:  he was a spoiled East Coast playboy.  His father, a person of great wealth and questionable ethical standards, “bought” his son elected offices, including the presidency.  JFK himself was an ardent cold warrior; he displayed cowardice with respect to the case of Senator Joseph McCarthy and was as diffident as possible on civil rights.  And as a man of the mid-century, who had accused the Republicans of allowing a missile gap with the Soviet Union, he would never have had the courage to withdraw from Indo-China .

But now I have two new tools with which to ponder this question: a biographical tool—an impressive biography of the young Kennedy; and a conceptual tool—the rings of responsibility

A Biographical Tool

I had thought that we had our fill of books about JFK, but now Swedish-born Harvard historian Fredrik Logevall has written a hefty volume on the first part of Kennedy’s life—up through his unsuccessful bid for the vice-presidency in 1956. (Still to come in Volume 2: JFK’s run for the presidency in the late 1950s; his closely won election in 1960; and the 1000 days before his assassination). The book is thoroughly researched, carefully argued, and well written. I doubt that we will need to have another book on young Kennedy. Unlike Robert Caro, author of five volumes on Lyndon Johnson, Logevall has not devoted most of his writing life to a single President—and yet, the Logevall volumes may well become the definitive life of JFK.

As one who has become increasingly critical of JFK over the years, I can affirm that Logevall does not attempt to hide JFK’s weak spots—his reckless womanizing,  even with women whose other political or criminal liaisons were being investigated by the FBI;  his careless treatment of one-time friends, his startling insensitivity to wife Jackie’s wants and needs, his reluctance to speak out on issues of civil rights,  the dispute about how much he  himself wrote of the Pulitzer Prize winning “Profiles of Courage,” and most damningly, his unwillingness first to denounce and then to vote to censure the reckless demagogue Senator Joseph McCarthy (who was  a friend of the senior Kennedy and for a time the boss of brother Robert Kennedy).  At the same time,  JFK seems to be admired by the author—I expect that the Kennedy Presidency will get high marks in volume 2.

I’m neither an historian or a biographer.  I was engrossed by the book (read it in two sittings) but don’t feel competent to comment on it critically. But as a social scientific researcher—one long interested in what it takes to carry out “good work”—I was struck by an unusual and unexpected aspect of young JFK’s life.

The Rings of Responsibility  

In our studies of ‘good work (thegoodproject.org), we denote and analyze individuals’ recognition of the “rings of responsibility”—these are the areas of life experience about which individuals show (or do not show) concern.  For the most part, young children are interested in and concerned about themselves and their immediate family—psychologists often speak about the egocentrism of the young. Our research has revealed that circles gradually expand—as they grow, individuals become concerned about friends; then about neighbors and those who live in their community; then as they become adults, about the atmosphere and relations at their workplace and the health of their profession; and gradually, in the most impressive cases, about their relation to the wider world, including individuals and even regions of which they do not have much personal experience.

On this analysis JFK turns out to have been very unusual. From a very early age, he was interested in large scale adventures involving conquering heroes; and while many young people, especially boys, admire super-heroes, JFK was equally interested in live historical figures—most particularly, by Winston Churchill. (It helped that as a youth he had met many political and religious leaders, including the Pope, but so had dozens of other young persons who came from powerful families).  Nor did he simply echo his father’s views—while his father clashed repeatedly with Winston Churchill, JFK admired Churchill’s foresightedness and his conduct in the 1930s and thereafter.

An indifferent student throughout his formal education (though he was talented enough and wealthy enough to gain access to elite institutions), young JFK  focused on what he found most intriguing:   political and historical events and figures—the outermost rings in our scheme. That’s what he thought about, studied in depth, wrote about, identified with—from childhood on.

JFK’s family was incredibly close knit. He was the third of nine children; they all spent a great deal of time together and were tightly bonded with one another.  Within the family, the boys took unquestioned precedence; no matter how personally impressive they might have seemed to others, the girls were almost considered decorative. Father Joseph Kennedy was a  lifelong womanizer, whose covert and overt infidelities were tolerated by his wife, and the five sons clearly saw this pattern as one to be emulated—sometimes fathers and sons even competed for the affection of the same woman! 

Tellingly, when any non-family member attempted to broach the family circle in anyway, these ‘intruders’  were clearly and sometimes roughly rebuffed. Indeed, throughout her relatively short and (we learn) very tumultuous marriage to “Jack”, Jacqueline Kennedy never felt that she belonged in the family. The inner ring was very tight and not easily broached. Tragically,  Rosemary,  the one disabled child, was lobotomized and essentially expelled from the family.

Once his older brother Joseph had been killed in an air crash in World War II (when JFK was in his middle 20s), JFK clearly became the family member destined for politics. And indeed, right after the War, with ample help from his father’s financial base and from all members of the family, he was elected to the House of Representatives. He began a rapid rise to the Presidency, indeed at the time of his ascendancy to that office, he was the youngest person ever to win a presidential election.

During his relatively brief terms in the House and Senate, JFK worked hard and was deemed competent; but biographer Logevall  suggests that (unlike most Massachusetts politicians who gained national stature) JFK was really not interested in local or regional issues—and, as noted, the young politician steered away from issues which were controversial and might lose him votes in forthcoming elections.  From his first days in the House of Representatives he had his eye on the Presidency and – with whatever help he could garner—would do what was necessary to achieve that goal. 

Importantly, in addition to the assistance of  cash and kin, Kennedy also had incredible human help along the way—friends, hired staff assistants, and above all Theodore Sorensen, a gifted young lawyer who essentially devoted his life to JFK from the time that they first met in 1953 until Kennedy’s assassination and indeed, one could add, until Sorensen’s own death almost  half a century ahead.

It must be stressed that Kennedy gained the support of such individuals not only for his intellectual and political acumen because of a property that cannot be purchased or faked—personal charisma. Logevall presents numerous vivid examples of how young JFK was able to attract and retain the affection of others—men and women, young and old,  from his own Boston-Irish class and from demographies remote, in person or via the media, notably television . Indeed, few of us who were enamored of Kennedy in the late 1950s and early 1960s knew him personally (I once got a letter from him, no doubt signed by an office machine, and actually spied him at a  Harvard football game a month before he was assassinated); but we felt a strong attraction to him, his photogenic family, and his “New Frontier”.  

Returning to the rings of responsibility, JFK seems to have been quite unusual. I find little evidence in the biography for a concern with the feelings and reactions of peers that transcends the transactional: JFK was charming but when individuals—male or female—were no longer of use to him, he had few qualms about removing himself from their circle. (I should acknowledge his heroic efforts to save members of his naval crew when their boat PT109 was sunk). By the same token, while he paid lip service to the issues that arose in Boston or in the New England region, these clearly did not compel his attention. And when there were national issues on which he might have spoken up—specifically civil rights and McCarthy—he found it convenient to mute his tongue and pocket his pen. 

Perhaps we can say that Kennedy was destined to occupy the widest circles of responsibility—dealing with issues of war and peace across the international landscape—but that does not indicate whether he would handle them effectively. For one person’s considered view, we must await the second volume of Logevall’s biography.

The case of JFK raises intriguing further issues. How usual or unusual is it for individuals who seek and attain the highest rings of power to move easily to that region or even to skip the intermediate rings altogether? Comparisons  could be instructive: with others who attain national and international leadership roles at an early age—Churchill, deGaulle come to mind; as well as with others, like Richard Nixon,  Ronald Reagan, or Bill Clinton—who were able to transcend a childhood with few of the supports that the Kennedy children took for granted.

© Howard Gardner 2020

Tackling Dilemmas at Work

by researcher Kirsten McHugh

We at The Good Project talk a lot about ethical dilemmas and how these sorts of difficult scenarios can make achieving good work so challenging. My colleagues and I have recently formalized our approach to confronting dilemmas at work. We refer to this approach as “The 5 D’s” and touched on it briefly in our group post, “The Good Project and COVID-19”. 

To bring this tool to life, let’s take a look at how we might apply The 5 D’s to one of The Good Project narratives: A Tale of Two Lawyers.

In this real-life narrative, Joseph is a lawyer presented with the opportunity to represent a large bank in his city with a new acquisition deal. Unfortunately, the terms of the agreement required Joseph to withhold information from a colleague representing a competitor to the bank. With financial and professional gains at the forefront of his mind, and along with the support of senior members of the firm, Joseph accepted the offer from the bank. At the same time, he also only provided a half-truth to the colleague representing the bank’s competitor when this individual directly confronted him about the specifics of his dealings. Eventually, the full story came out, and his colleague was furious. The relationship remained icy, and thereafter others at Joseph’s firm were wary of working with him. While sharing the story, Joseph admitted he wishes that he had acted differently.

Joseph believes he did not technically cross any ethical lines according to lawyers’ ethical code of conduct, but he still regrets the outcome of his actions. In this way, Joseph’s dilemma is one that does not have a technically “wrong” or “right” answer that he could simply “look up”. This is precisely the type of dilemma that we had in mind when we envisioned the 5 D’s.

In his account, Joseph admits that he felt “torn” about what to do after his initial meeting with the bank. That being said, he did not explicitly categorize the situation as a dilemma. Realizing that you are in the midst of a dilemma is vital to recognizing that you need to slow down and consider the terrain before moving ahead with any gut reaction. Without this first step, it’s unlikely to find a path to the next stages of discussion and deliberation. In Joseph’s case, it’s clear that his jumping to a quick decision cost him his reputation among some of his coworkers.

How might have this story unfolded if Joseph had instead followed the 5 D’s? Let’s imagine a different series of events for Joseph and how they might have led to a more considered outcome.

1. Dilemma: Recognize a difficult decision in your daily life that may not have a “right”  course of action.

As discussed, Joseph felt torn, but that feeling unfortunately did not tip him off that he was in the midst of a dilemma. Had he been aware of the 5 D’s, perhaps he would have recognized that this was a situation with serious implications involving others—implications of which he might not be fully aware—and that he should stop to consider the landscape more carefully.

2.   Discuss: Consult with others regarding possible options, pros and cons and probable consequences of various courses of action.

Had Joseph known he was facing a dilemma, his conversation with the firm’s upper-management might have been presented as a genuine question regarding the appropriate next steps instead of as a “pitch” for approval of his taking on the bank as a client. Ideally, senior partners of a firm are aware of the various matters other lawyers are involved in and would have voiced concern over any competing loyalties. They may have also shared their wisdom and long-view regarding the value of a trustworthy reputation among peers versus the short-term gains of one lucrative contract.

Obviously, to be effective this type of conversation requires “good workers” as colleagues. The senior partners would need to put the firm’s financial gains to the side and be prepared to give honest—even if possibly disappointing—advice to their colleague.

3.  Deliberate: Engage in self-reflection and consideration of the various options available.

If Joseph had engaged in thoughtful discussion with his superiors, he might have then taken time on his own to sift through their advice. Allowing different opinions to settle and to reflect on his own priorities and responsibilities, Joseph may have been able to carefully think through the repercussions of each available course of action.  

4.  Decide: Make and potentially carry out your decision

Joseph says that if he could go back, he would do things differently. He has already written an alternative ending for himself. As Joseph describes in the original narrative:

“I probably would have gone back to the new client, and I probably would have said to him, ‘Look, everyone in our firm is a professional. In order for us to make an intelligent decision about this, I have to have a complete and open conversation with all of my partners, including partners who are connected to the other bank. And you have to just trust my partners that they will not disclose this confidence.’ And then if he had said, ‘Sorry, you’re either going to keep this to yourself or it’s not going to happen,’ then I probably would have declined.”

5.    Debrief: Reflect on the consequences of your decision and how you might handle similar decisions in the future.

Joseph says that over the years he has “told this story many times” and that “most people have advised him that he did the right thing”. We can assume that he is referring to others within the legal profession, but it’s not clear whether or not they are simply trying to console him.

If Joseph had followed the earlier steps, it’s possible that he could have debriefed with the senior partners he spoke with during step 2. This conversation might have also involved the colleague working with the bank’s competitor. It could have been an opportunity to build trust and comradery as a team, feeling like the decision was a group effort.

At the end of the narrative, Joseph describes his regret in how handled the situation:

“I felt that I owed the highest duty to the client, to follow their instructions in terms of not disclosing the matter. I felt I executed my duty of loyalty and candor to my partner as best I could under those circumstances… I think I touched all the right ethical bases, and everything I did was by the book, but it wasn’t necessarily the best way to handle it.”

Perhaps if Joseph had originally recognized this situation as a dilemma and been able to use the 5 D’s as a tool at the start, he would have saved his reputation and salved his conscience.

The problem with a dilemma is that there often isn’t one right or wrong answer. The 5 D’s don’t promise to bring us the “right” answer; but hopefully they help guide us towards the best available option based on our own personal values and ethical framework. And if things did not turn out as well as one had hoped, one still feels one did one’s best and will be better prepared for the next dilemma—assuming it’s recognized as such!

September Wrap-Up: 5 Articles Worth Sharing

by Danny Mucinskas

With the arrival of autumn in the United States, the weather has been turning a little cooler, and a back-to-school season like no other has been underway. While this month was a difficult one on the national stage (COVID cases rising, wildfires ravaging the West, and the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg), we recognize that, oftentimes, tumultuous situations provide the impetus for people to do good work in the future. We are collecting here a few recent articles about ethics and good work that we found to be thought-provoking to share with our readers.

1.      Who Should Get the COVID-19 Vaccine First? In the race for the development of an effective COVID-19 vaccine, some nations like the U.S. seem to have embraced “vaccine nationalism,” whereby priority would be given to a country’s own citizens in distribution. Ethicists argue that resources should be shared internationally, but also draw a distinction between equal sharing of vaccines relative to population size, which the WHO recommends, and equitable sharing of vaccines in accordance with need.

2.      “The Social Dilemma” Director Says the Internet is Undermining Democracy. Several members of our team have watched Netflix’s new docu-drama “The Social Dilemma,” a portrayal of the dangers of social media, including addiction and mental health crises among users, as well as misinformation campaigns and resulting political instability, that are often overlooked when we focus on the positives of online communication. Jeff Orlowski, the director of the film, argues that social media may threaten democracy itself by creating a climate of outrage and engendering a lack of shared truths.

3.      Are You Lying More in the Pandemic? Some Certainly Are. Research indicates that people are not always honest with each other about their COVID status or possible symptoms. Experts believe the reasons people lie are complex and involve factors like desire for social contact when sick and mental calculus that takes advantage of excuse-making.

4.      Putting Common Sense Back in the Driver’s Seat. Much of the discourse surrounding the use of self-driving cars has focused on dilemmas that look a lot like the classic “trolley problem,” in which a car’s algorithm would have to decide between two groups of people to hit. Julian De Freitas, a Harvard doctoral student, makes the case that these types of dilemmas are oversimplified, unrepresentative of real-world situations, and would require algorithms to recognize ethical dilemmas in a way that is unlikely in practice in the first place.

5.      What is Good Teaching? Author Kristina Rizga presents the case for “good teaching” from The Atlantic’s “On Teaching” project, for which she spoke to a number of veteran educators around the United States in an effort to collect their wisdoms before their retirements. She finds that effective teaching involves navigating a world constantly in flux, addressing student needs with individuality and attention, and overcoming the challenges of funding cuts, inequalities, and a policy landscape that does not often invite teacher perspectives.

ON GOOD LEADERSHIP: REFLECTIONS ON LEADING MINDS AFTER 25 YEARS

by Howard Gardner

Once I had begun to write about the varieties of human intelligence (Gardner, 1983/2011), people frequently asked me about the intelligences that leaders have—as well as the ones that leaders lack or do not need. As I pondered this question—which I’ll return to below—I formulated ideas about how leaders function, what makes for an effective leader, which leaders I have admired and why. As a lifelong citizen of a democratic society, it seemed natural for me to focus on voluntary leaders—people who are able to get, to persuade, to inspire others to think and act differently without forcing them to do so.

In Leading Minds (Gardner, 1995/2011) I portrayed 11 leaders whom I admired—ranging from university presidents, to military leaders, to individuals who—despite lacking an ascribed platform—succeeded in changing the minds and behaviors of many individuals. According to the cognitive view that I proposed in that book, leadership takes place as an exchange between minds. The powerful vehicles that leaders wield are not tangible weapons—they are stories. Leaders create stories—and they embody these stories in the lives that they lead. These “lives of saints” (and of “sinners”) are “existence proofs” so to speak. The evocative stories told and exemplified by effective leaders affect people; and, in turn, the people come to behave and act differently as a result of encountering the stories.

Today, I still believe this account in general. But events of the past 25 years have given me considerable pause.

By 2010, some wrinkles or challenges to my account were already becoming clear. In an edition of Leading Minds published the following year, in a section called “Leadership in the era of truthiness, twaddle, and twitter”, I reflected:

No leader today can afford to ignore this powerful trio: The ease of promulgating false statements; the detritus that permeates the blogosphere; and the prominence of the ad line and the gag line. Indeed the challenge to the leader is to counter these forces when they are inimical to his or her goals and to put forth a powerful counter-story that highlights truth against truthiness, clarity against twaddle, and a developed and substantiated story as opposed to a twitter-length teaser. As I write these lines, US president Barack Obama clearly understands these challenges; but it is uncertain whether he—or, indeed any thoughtful leader capable of complex thought—can be heard and understood above the din. (Gardner 2011, p. xii)

Of course the threats to authentic stories, compellingly told, and actually “lived” have been exemplified by the persona and behavior of President Donald Trump. But I don’t want to focus unduly on Trump because we hear similar contrived stories, and encounter analogous faux embodiments around the world—consider the words and actions of contemporary leaders—Bolsonaro (Brazil), Duterte (Philippines), Orban (Hungary), Erdogan (Turkey), Xi (China), Putin (Russia)… and the list could be easily extended.

Nor are these threats limited to the early twenty-first century. My cautionary words of 2010-2011 could (and perhaps should) have been applicable in the 1930s—in the years leading up to World War II—and no doubt in earlier eras as well. It has long been tempting for leaders to create powerful myths—posing as heroic loners, arrayed against the forces of evil—and to persuade an impressively sizable cohort of followers that what they say is true and that, as a consequence, their edicts should be followed. (Niccolo Machiavelli would not have been surprised). And as I pointed out in Leading Minds, a simple or even simplistic story all too often prevails over one that may be more accurate and more appropriate and more truthful, but also more complex.

 An Approach to Good Leadership

In recent years, as part of what we call The Good Project (thegoodproject.org), my colleagues and I have shifted our focus from what makes for an effective leader to what makes for a good leader. And in this line of research, we have identified the three key features of a good leader:

Excellence: The good leader knows the field in which he occupies an influential role, keeps up with developments, and draws on his knowledge appropriately.

Engagement: The good leader cares about her work, finds it meaningful, looks forward to carrying it out effectively even at times when conditions are not favorable.

Ethics: The good leader ponders the ethical implication of contemplated words and actions, strives to do the right thing, reflects on consequences, and seeks to do better the next time.

It’s not always easy to determine whether someone is a good leader. With respect to excellence, many leaders rely on previous knowledge and/or do not know how to proceed when conditions change significantly. With respect to engagement, one may well be deeply engaged in carrying out work that is compromised or even malevolent (see Shakespeare’s histories and tragedies).

My colleagues and I have been particularly concerned with the ethical dimension. In almost any position of leadership, there are certain well-established norms and rules which can and should be followed. In following such norms, one does not need to exercise one’s ethical muscles. 

The “ethical test” occurs when challenges arise for which the standard procedures are not adequate or appropriate, and when the leader recognizes this conundrum. I’ve termed this recognition the ethical “A-ha.” Indeed, if you don’t recognize and then attempt to deal with the new situation, there is no possibility of an “A-ha” nor, accordingly, for pursuing a better course of actions. 

In such challenging situations, leaders need to reflect on intentions or motives, the means at their disposal, and the necessity of dealing with the consequences of the actions that they undertake or choose deliberately not to undertake (Nye, 2020). Accordingly, we judge the “goodness” of leaders in terms of recognition, action, consequences, and lessons learned. And of course, the cycle continues throughout the tenure of the leader.

Here’s  a rough metric that one can apply in an evaluation of whether leaders qualify as good leaders:

1. They seek to determine the truth and tell the truth; and when they have made errors, they admit it and try to make amends.

2. They recognize the existing norms and abide by them, or are willing to challenge them openly and bear the consequences (which might entail civil disobedience).

3. When the norms are not adequate, or new issues arise, they publicly acknowledge this situation—I call this awareness The ethical “A-ha”.

4. They articulate and ponder the dilemma—they don’t claim to have all the answers.

5. They search for the best input—expert and political—including advice from a “team of rivals’’.

6. They make a decision openly, anticipate the consequences, are poised to change course as necessary, and to revisit the consequences of actions taken or not taken.

7. They indicate their willingness to repeat this cycle and, ultimately, help to bring about a new or revised norm of ethical awareness and reflectiveness with respect to the conditions with which they have been dealing.

A Word on Intelligences

As mentioned, once I began to carry out scholarly work on leadership, I was asked about the kinds of intelligences that leaders had. I formulated an answer to this question: Leaders need linguistic intelligence, because they are essentially story tellers; and they need interpersonal intelligence, because they have  to put themselves in the place of audience members or followers and appeal to their better angels. It is helpful as well if they have intrapersonal intelligence—though, as illustrated by the case of President Ronald Reagan, one can be an effective leader even if one has little inclination toward introspection. Other intelligences (musical, spatial, etc.) are fine, but they are optional.

When asked about Donald Trump’s intelligences, I was initially stumped—because he has modest gifts in language (several commentators have suggested that he is dyslexic, and his vocabulary seems to be quite limited); and clearly he has not an inkling of intrapersonal intelligence. This is not a new story at all—the long-standing saga of populism in the US.

Perhaps we should postulate a new intelligence—media intelligence. Because even if one wants to castigate Trump, one must concede that he mastered the medium of television via his long-running show The Apprentice and has used Twitter in a way which is astoundingly successful (Trump 2020). Media intelligence might be a form or strand of interpersonal intelligence, but one entirely devoid of empathy or of understanding of particular individuals (as contrasted with an appreciation of “the crowd”). And indeed, in the past, successful leaders have displayed mastery of the new media—Franklin Roosevelt (and, alas Adolf Hitler) with respect to radio, John F Kennedy with respect to television, Ronald Reagan with respect to movies, and so on.

It’s also been suggested that Trump has the ability to read the “spirit of the times”, a more significant achievement. That may be so. On the other hand, it’s equally possible that he has long had a litany of complaints and proposals over the decades and—for reasons unconnected to his persona—the spirit of the time intersected with his program.

Concluding Note

My goal in this essay is not to denigrate Trump or to raise other leaders to a higher status. Rather, I have sought to revisit my initial conception of leadership. Specifically, I have emphasized the need to take into account a fast-changing landscape; and the pressures to master the most popular media of communication. Also, I no longer take for granted a democratic society with clear standards of right and wrong and with a faith in the importance of the truth. Rather I have focused on what it means to be a good leader and on the properties and processes that a good leader needs when faced with challenging dilemmas. In a phrase, we don’t need more leaders—we need better ones; and we need to help those with leadership potential to deploy their gifts in pro-social ways. 

 ©Howard Gardner 2020

References

Gardner, H. (1983/2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (1993) 1993). Creating Minds. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner. H (1995/ 2011). Leading Minds. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner, H. (2011). Truth, Beauty and Goodness Reframed. New York: Basic Books.

Gardner H. Ed. (2010). Good Work; Theory and Practice. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5c5b569c01232cccdc227b9c/t/5e7e1b520a5e5d2a3e0677fc/1585322850147/GoodWork-Theory_and_Practice-with_covers.pdf

Nye, J. (2020). Do Morals Matter? New York: Oxford University Press.

Trump, M. (2020). Too Much and Never Enough. New York: Simon and Schuster.