Escombros, explained my driver in Spanish, are waste products from construction. The sign meant, “Don’t throw out trash or debris.”

The atmosphere is health – take care of it.

Every kilometer or so, we passed another brown sign. The messages were different but the theme was clear. “Nature is life,” said one, “care for it.”  “Water is life,” said another, “protect it.”  “Nature is our lung” was followed by “Look after the trees.”  Signs with at least a dozen different messages lined every Ecuadorian highway I traveled, from northern mountains to central coast.

I asked whether these signs had been in use for a long time. No, my driver told me. This was the work of President Rafael Correa. In his first term, Correa and his administration had rewritten the country’s constitution. Ecuador had become the first nation to constitutionally protect the rights of nature. The signs were simply part of the cultural change; of transforming words to deeds.

“En los Estados Unidos, no tenemos letreros como estos,” I said, finding my new Spanish words slowly. In the United States, we do not have signs like this. “Tenemos letreros que dicen…”

“MacBurgers!” said my driver, grinning and ending my sentence with the real name of an international fast food chain. In the United States, we have signs that say, MacBurgers!

“Y ‘Cerveza es la vida!’” I said. And beer is the life!

From Words to Action

Truth is, what we see and read every day matters. The more we are exposed to words, images or ideas, the easier it is for related words, ideas and – ultimately – behaviors to be evoked.

Our minds are “associative machines.”* Whenever we are presented with a word, image or even a partial idea, a complex set of responses occurs very quickly. This is called associative activation: ideas that have been called to mind trigger many other ideas in a cascading flow of activity in our brains. Each element is connected; it supports and strengthens the other. We don’t will it. We can’t stop it. And much of time, we’re not even aware it is happening.

Breakthroughs in measuring the mechanisms of this “associative machinery” happened only in the last few decades, but the deliberate manipulation of public consciousness rapidly accelerated around 100 years ago. Edward Bernays, a double cousin of Sigmund Freud’s, was the first to systematically use the discoveries of psychology to appeal to unconscious needs and maneuver the behavior of the public.** Bernays invented the term the “public relations” as an alternative to “propaganda.” He also developed a means of molding public opinion that he called, “the engineering of consent.”

Back in the U.S. at a recent conference, I spoke about these processes and about structuring the workplace, community environment or social movement to evoke and support the behaviors one wants to see. An audience member questioned whether it was “fair” for organizations or employers to influence thinking and behavior this way.

Fair has nothing to do with it. It is how the human mind works. The more we know about the workings of the mind, the more of ourselves we can bring under our own conscious control and the more safeguards we can put in place where conscious control is not possible. The real question is, do we want to ignore what is known about human cognition and behavior – and be subject to manipulation of biases and vulnerabilities in our automatic ways of thinking?  Or will we embrace this knowledge and make use of its power?

Jody Alyn works with organizations that want to bridge gaps, solve complex problems and seriously improve results. She is pictured here with some trees in Machalilla National Park, near Puerto Lopez.  Contact

This is the fifth post in a series.  Read previous posts

* See Daniel Kahneman’s complete discussion of  “the associative machine” and priming in his 2011 book, Thinking: Fast and Slow.
** http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/

I was with my Spanish teacher on a crowded bus in Quito. I strained to both hear and understand him as we conversed en español.

Every bus ride in Ecuador had a sound track. On the coast, we rumbled along to the beats of Columbian cumbia, to the boleros and valses of Julio Jaramillo or to the sounds of current Latin artists, depending on the driver’s tastes. In the big city, it was the rhythms of voices in a language just becoming familiar to me.

Alberto had broad knowledge of Ecuadorean history and culture as well as a talent for speaking Spanish in ways a beginner could understand. He was offering options for the next day’s lesson when, in mid-sentence, he stopped talking. His eyes went far away and his attention elsewhere.

“Did you hear that?” he asked. He looked at me with wide eyes. “Hugo Chávez is dead. They just said it on the radio.”

The news was on, but I had missed it. To me, it was just another voice in the background that I did not understand.

I watched Alberto’s face closely. Success at language learning depended at least as much on the attention paid to nonverbal cues and context as to vocabulary or grammar. Alberto’s face showed pain and incredulity.

He said again, “Hugo Chávez is dead. I cannot believe it.”  He motioned for silence while he listened. Then he repeated what he heard on the radio. There would be an election in thirty days.

As we rode to our stop, Alberto talked about Chávez’ vision for a more united Latin America, and about two organizations Chávez founded to encourage action toward this end; he talked about the free public health clinics Chávez established with oil revenues, and about the oil pricing strategies Chávez put in place to benefit developing nations. Every few minutes, Alberto would interrupt himself and say, “No puedo creer que Hugo Chávez está muerto.”

To certain U.S. interests, Chávez was a long-time persona non grata. U.S. media of all stripes portrayed him in death as they had in life: either as a bombastic buffoon or as ineffectual. In fact, Chávez often played to this role. But over fourteen years, he had formed – then led – a more inclusive government; he had built new international alliances and improved the lives of his citizens. To many informed and engaged people in Latin America, Chávez was a trusted leader with a vision of a different future. Chávez’ death for them was like the death of a Teddy Kennedy or Ronald Reagan in the U.S. Not unexpected, but profound.

I might have missed this but for a choice to learn from someone who was different than me, someone for whom my background music was a main performance.

Fast Forward

Thirty days have now passed. Venezuela held its election and Chávez’ successor won by a surprisingly small margin. Tensions are rising; chaos and violence appear to be gaining the upper hand. The outcome is uncertain.

Meanwhile, many people in the U.S. strain to hear and understand what’s even being said in our own country, community, organization or family. We assume that everything else is just another voice on the bus that we do not, and do not need to, understand. Sometimes, though, that stuff in the background can lead to new understanding and new ways of thinking. And we can all use more of that.

Jody Alyn works with organizations that want to bridge gaps, solve complex problems effectively and improve results. This is the fourth post in a series. Contact

“I don’t know much about that country,” said more than one colleague.

“What’s in Ecuador?” others asked. One or two added: “And where is that again?”

I myself knew embarrassingly little about this country, which has much to teach the world about cultural diversity, leadership, economic inclusion and change.

Without reading further, answer these questions:

1. Where is Ecuador?
2. What is its capital?
3. How big is it?
4. What are the main cultural influences in Ecuador?
5. Name two things for which Ecuador is famous.
6. Who is Ecuador’s current President?

I am not sure how many of these questions I could have answered two months ago.

Ecuador, as some might remember from middle-school geography, gets its name from its location on the equator.  It sits on the west coast of South America between Columbia to the north and Peru to the south and east. Ecuador covers an area about the size of the state of Oregon, and is improbably diverse in its biology, geography and culture. In one hectare of the Yasuni National Park, for example, there are as many insect species as are known in all of the U.S. and Canada put together. (BTW: One hectare is a little under 12,000 square yards, or a little less than two football fields, and only three countries have not officially adopted the metric system: the United States, Myanmar and Liberia.)

Ecuador is made of up four distinct regions: the Sierra (Andes), the Oriente (Amazon), the coast and the Galapagos. Evidence of multiple indigenous cultures can be traced back more than 9,000 years. By the 1500s, however, invading Incas had consolidated control over the region and colonized local communities. When the Inca ruler died in 1526, that empire was unconventionally divided between his two sons. The split inheritance led to civil war at just about the time that Francisco Pizarro and the Spanish Conquistadors arrived. The weakened Incan empire was easily conquered.

Because of their importance in both pre-colonial and colonial periods, the capital city of Quito and the historic town of Cuenca have both been declared UNESCO World Heritage Sites. The Galapagos, however, was the first property to ever receive this designation.

Courtyard of the Palacio de Carondelet, seat of the Ecuadorian government

Ecuador fought for independence during the early 1800s, freeing itself from Spain in 1822 and joining the visionary General Simón Bolívar’s Gran Columbia for eight years before becoming the Republic of Ecuador in 1830. I didn’t know this history, though, so when I saw Quito streets named after certain days, I asked my driver what day independence was celebrated. He shook his head and said, “We have many days.” I thought he was covering his own uncertainty but it was likely my own ignorance showing.

While Ecuador has had a turbulent history since independence, perhaps no period saw greater tumult than the latter part of the 20^th century. Prior to the ascent of current president Rafael Correa in 2007, Ecuadorians had seven presidents in 10 years.

Correa, an American-trained economist, and his administration rewrote the Ecuadorian Constitution by public mandate in 2008. It was the country’s 20^th constitution and the first in the world to protect the rights of nature. It is written in perfectly inclusive language, beginning with the Preamble, and there is a full chapter entitled, “Inclusion and Equity.” 

Poverty remains high, particularly among Ecuador’s indigenous people, but the country now enjoys greater stability than at any time in recent history. Ecuador is in the process of a transformation and its people are engaged. In February, Correa was overwhelmingly elected to a second term with 58% of the vote and a voter turnout of more than 81%.

When I returned to a U.S. airport after travel delays and other difficulties, I talked with two police officers about a solution to a minor challenge of the moment. One of them stopped me as I spoke and said, “Where did you say you were you coming from again?”

“Quito,” I said.

He said, “That’s in Japan, right?”

Jody Alyn works with organizations that want to bridge gaps, solve complex problems effectively and improve results. She is pictured here above Quito, Ecuador. Contact

This is the third post in a series.

Think about this question. Maybe jot down an answer.

Yoga instructor Hope Allred posed this question to her class in Ogden, Utah last January. Each class participant answered differently, and not just because they would or would not change different things. It was as if each person heard a different question.

In fact, they might as well have. Each of us perceives the world through filters of our predispositions (what we come with) and our experiences (what we learn). An internal model of our personal world builds over time. We form ideas, associations, identities and cultures that influence our perceptions.

To get a quick sense of what happened in Hope’s class, read her question several times and emphasize a different word or phrase each time. For examples:

• What ARE the parts of yourself you are willing to give up in order to be who you wish you were?
• What are the PARTS of yourself you are willing to give up in order to be who you wish you were?
• What are the parts of YOURSELF you are willing to give up in order to be who you wish you were?

Keep going. Take time to emphasize other important words like YOU, WILLING, GIVE UP and WISH. How do your answers to the question change each time?

To add to the complexity, people had unique associations with different aspects of this question. Some thought of physical parts of themselves. Others went elsewhere. One person was looking forward to an impending change. Another was dreading one. Someone had to adapt to a challenge presented by a loved one. Someone else heard the question through the filter of having been pressed to change to suit a parent’s purpose. In Hope’s class, a few of us heard words that weren’t even part of the question – and we answered in ways that were completely surprising.

Hope asked the class to assume more and more difficult yoga positions. She carefully drew attention back to the question: what parts of ourselves were we willing to give up in order to be who we wished we were? Caution? Habit? Belief? Disbelief? Fear? More? People in the class began to do things they had not done before, and had not thought they could do.

Making a Change

Before this experience, I had been hoping to make a change. I was examining my approach to the work of diversity, inclusion and equity. I wanted to step outside the boundaries of familiar ways of thinking – and of my own culture. Sometimes, though, it seems the more we need creative time, the harder it is to take it. I also had both excitement and trepidation in facing the unknown, alone.  So many habits and patterns of thinking kick in when considering change.

After the class, I bought an airplane ticket to Ecuador.

Change is hard. Even if it is eagerly anticipated, it is uncomfortable to take a risk; to let go, do things differently and form new habits. Organizational change may seem different than personal change. Yet both require awareness, careful questioning, preparation and commitment. Both involve human behavior and the workings of the human heart.

Jody Alyn works with organizations that want to bridge gaps, solve complex problems effectively and improve results. Contact

This is not easy to do.  One way to become aware of those limits is to interact with people who have different ideas and perceptions.  Books, films and classes may also help push on the boundaries. Becoming immersed in a different culture, when possible, is one of the best ways to open a window on assumptions and habitual thought patterns that can affect personal and organizational progress.

Habits of thinking can get us in trouble.  We rely on what social psychologist Daniel Kahneman metaphorically calls “fast thinking,” or System 1.  Fast thinking is that set of essentially effortless mental activities and processes that allows us to make quick decisions, do things on automatic pilot and conserve energy while generally functioning well – except for those errors in judgment to which fast thinking is prone.  Sometimes System 1 answers easier questions than what was asked.  It also draws on what is familiar or available, rather than what is logical or probable, and it can’t be turned off. Most System 1 errors happen routinely; we don’t experience fast thinking as conscious choice. We don’t even know the errors are there.

Fortunately, we also have the ability to stop and take stock.  Kahneman identified a second “thinking system” which he calls “slow thinking.”  Slow thinking, or System 2, is that complex set of activities and processes that do more complicated things – like complex math problems, parallel parking and reflective thought. Slow thinking encompasses many different operations. All of them take effort. This means that while we identify ourselves more with System 2 competencies, we don’t use System 2 unless we have to. Yet slow thinking can override the automatic responses of fast thinking. It can help us avoid serious mistakes.

Slow thinking is indispensable in an environment where the solutions you arrive at today could be irrelevant by the time you can implement them. It ensures successful innovation and informs more effective cultural change by helping us recognize and go beyond the limits of our own thinking.

Una nueva ventana
Casa Mojanda, Otavalo

A Personal Application

I recently took a month to challenge my own habits of thinking; to reflect on language, culture, the business of diversity, the world we have entered and the planet we share. I’ve just returned from Ecuador. Viajé solo.

Ecuador is not just the Spanish-speaking country with the Galapagos claim to fame. It is a small nation with a turbulent history and great cultural, geographic and bio-diversity. Its political approach is also different. Ecuador has a surprising amount to teach about diversity, inclusion, equity and positive cultural change.  In coming posts, I will write more about this.

The grief is relentless. The holiday season and our sense of ourselves have been upended by the slayings at Sandy Hook. The response must not be a pendulum swing. It must be the end of the cycle.

Increasing and unthinkable mass murders, along with some 30,000 additional gun deaths in the U.S. annually, have perhaps finally awakened the nation. Yet the usual finger pointing comes right along with the shock and horror. Gun control advocates, unsurprisingly, want weapons bans and better background checks. Gun owners, riffing on an old tune, note that spoons are not blamed for obesity so why should guns be blamed for what people do with them? Thus far, folks in these camps have also blamed video games, unarmed teachers, media coverage, godless schools and a culture that glorifies violence.

Other factors, too, rise to the surface. Along with stigma and shame, those with mental illness and their families face a mental health and social service system decimated by cuts and inattention over decades. More broadly, what is the predominant demographic of the mass shooters? Are we failing an entire segment of society that has fallen off the radar?

The solution lies not in polarization of the public square. Nor does it lie in blame of one thing or another. The problem is complex. There is a constellation of contributing factors, each interacting with others. True and lasting solutions will be found when we have an inclusive conversation, informed by both diverse opinions and data. True solutions will reconcile apparent differences and forge them into shared resolve.

Research links guns with deaths. According to the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, more guns simply mean more murders – across homes, cities, states, regions and nations. Economist Richard Florida’s research busts some myths and shows that firearm deaths are not associated with mental illness, drugs or immigrant status. It also confirms that gun deaths are substantially lower in states with stricter gun control laws.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Amendment II was strengthened by landmark Supreme Court decisions in 2008 and 2010. Gun ownership is deeply embedded in U.S. history and culture. Over 280 million guns are owned, legally and illegally, by individuals in the United States. More than 4 million new guns enter the market annually.

It is not possible to reconcile these two sides unless we include both, and then go beyond them. One side isn’t enough to fix this problem. Too broad bans could be unenforceable or could engender negative reaction instead of buy-in. And the status quo is killing people.

Clearly, raising the bar for getting a gun and lowering the bar for getting mental health treatment must be part of the plan, but these actions alone cannot be the entire plan. The NRA’s combined assets total almost $392 million while the Brady Center’s total less than $6 million, and 9 out of 10 movie marquees on any given day glorify weapons, so we must mitigate the effects of money and media. Legal gun ownership may mean food, sport, history or freedom to some, so we must account for cultural differences and create a shared vision for a shared society.

As images of children’s funerals now merge with symbols of the season, might we consider entwining our fingers rather than pointing them?  By coming together in a spirit of respect and regard, we may begin to address root causes of our fractured society and purposefully shape a new ethic for a new era.

Jody Alyn is president of Jody Alyn Consulting and a former psychotherapist. She works with organizations that want to bridge gaps, solve complex problems effectively and improve results. Citations for this article may be furnished on request. Contact

“Give Where You Live”

Giving to local organizations with “friends and neighbors” is a way to help improve and shape your home community.  Coast to coast, north and south, there are more than 650 community foundations across the United States that have been helping donors easily and effectively support local causes for many decades. The Council on Foundations advances diversity and inclusive practices in philanthropy, and in its own organization, with a comprehensive plan and D&I guidelines for philanthropists.

Local giving initiatives are growing. One example, the Indy Give! campaign, highlights specific nonprofits as it builds a habit of giving close to home, especially among young people. The Community First Foundation in Colorado launched GivingFirst.org to assist donors in their research of local organizations in the state, as well as a designated day to inspire local giving. This year, its Colorado Gives Day donations were up 20 percent over last year to $15 million.  There are efforts like this across the country.

Give with a Big Picture in Mind

Some issues transcend local community.  If you are looking to support organizations that address national and international issues in diversity, inclusion, innovation and equity, here are just a few remarkable options to explore:

• Venture for America addresses issues of job creation and talent development by mobilizing recent graduates as entrepreneurs.
• Librotraficante responds to the Latino Studies ban in Arizona and promotes Latino literature, literacy and history as well as “a fuller understanding of all the histories that make up the United States.”
• The Color of Change advocates for the engagement of Black Americans to bring about positive political and social change for everyone.
• The Media Literacy Project advocates for media justice and accountability, and provides educational resources for deconstructing media messages and their impacts.*
• The Mary Robinson Foundation works to address climate change and to secure climate justice, under the leadership of the former president of Ireland.
• The Pachamama Alliance empowers indigenous people of the Amazon – “the lungs of the planet” – to preserve their lands and culture, and uses knowledge gained from that work to educate and inspire others to action.
• Shining Hope for Communities combats gender inequality and extreme poverty in the Kibera slum of Nairobi, Kenya by linking tuition free schools for girls to accessible social services for all.
• Occupy Sandy. The movement once characterized as “disorganized” and “anarchist” has provided some of the most effective hurricane response. It has been a “go to” resource for FEMA, the Red Cross and others.

Align Giving with Goals

The array of worthy organizations can be dazzling, and there are innumerable ways to further inclusion and equity through philanthropy. Only you can decide what’s most important to you or your business. Make your own list according to your own priorities. Then do the research and follow up. What do you want your philanthropy to accomplish? How will you make sure your gifts count?

Reply below and add your favorite non-profit or foundation for promoting the change you want to see in the world.

At issue is what’s called “The Top Ten Plan.”  UT fashioned this plan in response to an earlier lawsuit (Hopwood, 1996) that successfully challenged its affirmative action policy.  Under the Top Ten Plan, students in the top 10% of every Texas high school’s graduating class who apply to UT are automatically admitted.  It’s not perfect, but the Top Ten Plan attempts to equalize some factors across school districts and economic circumstances.

There’s still a surprising amount of confusion about affirmative action (AA). Simply put, AA is a legal program designed to prevent or correct discriminatory practices and historical patterns that harm certain groups of people.  This does not involve quotas, lowered standards or reversed discrimination. This does involve, when all else is equal, choosing to increase representation of historically disenfranchised groups.

The confusion extends to the contemporary field of diversity and inclusion (D&I).  In comparison with AA, D&I is a voluntary process of creating a culture where everyone can be engaged in the work. D&I ensures diverse contributions toward shared goals. It improves outcomes and benefits all.

Certainly, progress has been made toward easing the adverse impacts of historical discrimination. But we’re not there yet. And the clock is ticking ever backwards with the Supreme Court’s consideration of Fisher.  This case could end higher education’s ability to promote the vital role of racial and ethnic diversity as part of the academic experience for all students.

Three Reasons Why This Matters

1. Business quality.  Decades of research show that superior outcomes result from inclusive practices and diversity has become almost synonymous with innovation. Should Fisher prevail then, at the very least, businesses looking to recruit and retain highly qualified applicants with backgrounds and perspectives that fit the changing economic, demographic and social environment – and that drive innovation – will have a harder time filling those positions.  Goodbye competitive advantage.
2. Education quality.  Diversity is also a compelling interest in education. A review of that research “consistently demonstrates that a diverse student body adds value to the educational process and to institutions of higher learning” as well as to a broader democratic society.* Texas Monthly reporter and lawyer, Paul Burka, poses a question:  is it time to allow colleges and universities the freedom to decide which students they admit, and how?
3. E-quality. Finally there are those pesky American promises of freedom and equality.  Are bright, motivated young people from economically imbalanced environments – in which kids of color are still grossly overrepresented – equally free to pursue their goals?  Of course not.  The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, on which AA is based, is a tool by which they can be.

Digging Deeper

Changes in the AA landscape have not been driven by actual progress. Rather, they’ve been orchestrated by those who use the language of freedom and equality to undermine these principles.  This is the source of the confusion.

In his book, The Assault on Diversity, legal expert and researcher Lee Cokorinos documents the complex network of think tanks, private foundations and legal advocacy groups that has systematically worked to eliminate social justice and equity gains in the U.S. since the early 1980s. The effort is highly organized and extraordinarily well funded. It has engineered and executed sophisticated and highly effective political, legal and media strategies. And its roots are entwined with shadowy parts of U.S. history. Deeper thinking and careful attention are required to combat its effects.

AA and D&I can both be traced to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and ‘60s, though a few visionary companies took voluntary steps to improve race relations as early as the ‘40s. When I look back over my years in the D&I field, all of the concepts that have been so important now pale in comparison with the phrase:  “a few visionary companies.”

While more organizations today are engaged in voluntary processes to foster inclusive cultures, few examine the root causes of the push-back that permeates so much of the environment in which they operate. Indeed, few see it. That push-back has fast become the newest normal. Cokorinos would tell us: this is all according to plan.

In this environment, how does one remain among the visionaries?  Keep thinking about that question.

As we wait for the verdict on Fisher, one can only hope the Supreme Court’s activist bent will be mediated by an understanding of constitutional principles of freedom and equality, and by a longer view of what’s really best for business.

Whaley and Malott were innovators in behavioral psychology. The first edition of their textbook, Elementary Principles of Behavior, was published in 1968. In it, they presented formulations about discriminative stimuli, behaviors and schedules of reinforcement in folksy and sometimes funny ways. They made behavioral principles accessible to wider audiences.

Fast forward through decades of conceptual refinements and advances in cognitive psychology, neurosciences and computer technologies (plus five more editions of Principles of Behavior) and you arrive at the work of B.J. Fogg, a Stanford professor who specializes in persuasive technologies and in using computers to change behavior. Think Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. The troika of behavior change in Fogg’s model is “trigger, ability and motivation.” The principles are the same.

Fogg and his colleagues have made ten fundamental behavioral principles even more accessible. They’ve condensed these principles into language that is as easy to understand as clicking and reading these 10 simple slides.

From philosophers to parents to presidents of corporations and nations, everyone is interested in how to change human behavior. Learning theory and cognitive/behavioral psychology have shown the way with proven principles.  If you apply these principles, you will be able to change behavior. You may also become more aware of influences on your own behavior.

Regarding inclusion….

Diversity is a quality. Inclusion is the behavior. Effective team performance, positive organizational change and inclusive workplace cultures are all made up of individual and group behaviors that can be shaped.  It’s not rocket science, but it takes time and sustained attention. There are many moving parts.

To change behavior, situations must be analyzed and structured so that the behavior you want is more likely to occur, and be rewarded, than any other behavior.  Whether the behavior you want to change is that of your organization or your own, the principles are the same.

Watch here for more information coming soon on this topic!

“Goldman Sachs?!” I said.  “My son just asked if I wanted to go to New York City and Occupy Wall Street with him on one of the only two days I’ll see him at college while I’m out there.  Goldman Sachs?”

I told Jacob this story on the train into New York City that Saturday. Deciding to tell the rest of the story publicly was more difficult.

“Fear suppresses the truth.”  – Anonymous comment on live streaming channel, 10.08.11

October 1, 2011 was a soggy Saturday. The subway station nearest our destination was unexpectedly “closed for construction” so I raced down Broadway after my long-legged son, dodging umbrellas. We got to the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge and stood with a growing crowd while over 700 marchers were arrested on the bridge.

The New York Police Department is, visibly, a highly diverse workforce.  Many NYPD officers were visible that day.

Diversity and the Police

There’s a unique business case for diversity in police departments. When these departments reflect the diversity of the community they serve, officers in them may establish trust or communication more quickly. That trust adds flexibility for responding to critical situations and achieving the public service mission.

At the Brooklyn Bridge, the uniform was more salient than any other identity. Officers of different ages, races, ethnicities, genders and accents formed a blue barrier between those on the bridge and those off the bridge.

Musings on Police Work

Municipal police forces do jobs that most of us don’t want to do.  When I came face to face with a man cutting my screen door in an attempted break-in as I worked late one summer night, an officer was on the scene within minutes and gave chase by foot.  When I went to administer a cultural climate survey to a division of one PD, two officers met me at the door apologizing profusely for leaving. They had just received a hot lead on a hit-and-run in which a child had been killed days earlier. They had to respond immediately.

These incidents barely touch on what’s involved in police work.

Police have to be prepared to deal with a wide range of emergency and potentially dangerous situations while also using relational skills to safeguard public interests. Enforcing the law includes both fighting crime and protecting constitutional freedoms.

Not all officers are equally good at using such a complex skill set under any circumstances.  In the past few years, police duties have become more complex while municipal budgets have shrunk and “homeland security” demands have grown.  The median salary for a typical patrol officer juggling these demands is $50,031.

This year, JP Morgan Chase donated $4.6 million to the NYPD Foundation. It is the largest donation in the foundation’s history.

Inclusion and the Public

Jon Stewart says that the media today appears to have only two settings: “blackout” and “circus.”  Someone flipped the switch on that October 1.  News teams were all over the place, capturing stories as isolated individuals began to walk off the Brooklyn Bridge.

The stories did not reflect the noblest side of the policing profession. Were marchers indeed invited onto the bridge in a friendly fashion and then closed off by the police from in front and in back?  Where they indeed picked randomly one by one for arrest?  Were other intimidation tactics and excessive force employed?  Reports from those who had been on the bridge were consistent.

On the ground, a peaceful crowd continued to grow. The police tried to move people along. Uniformed hands went up to block cell phone cameras.  “When we’re done with them,” an officer said to my son and others for  no reason I could determine, “we’re arresting you.”

In the crowd, a call and response began.

“Whose streets?” a protester shouted.
“Our streets!” the crowd responded.

“Whose city?” came the shout.
“Our city!” the crowd answered.

“Whose police?” came the shout.
“Our police!” the group answered.

Then the group chanted, “Join us! Join us! Join us! Join us!”

There was something I didn’t anticipate. A call for inclusion. No more “us” and “them?”

As we stood in the chanting crowd, I thought of my many different colleagues and clients, including those in police departments. I couldn’t help but wonder: what they would think if they knew I was here? The media portrayals had been so different from the reality.

Occupy Wall Street had been portrayed as a disorganized gathering of the young and disheveled.  The “Tea Party of the Left.”  A drumming circle.  A message-less band of malcontents. But it was not any of that.  It was multi-generational, multi-racial, multi-faceted and quite thoughtful.  It was then, and is now, a movement like the U.S. has not seen before.  Said one sign, “We’re not Democrat, we’re not Republican, we’re American.”

Without permits for microphones or loudspeakers, protesters use the now-familiar “People’s Microphone.”  Anyone can choose to communicate with the crowd by shouting, “Mic Check.” The crowd repeats, “Mic Check.” Once attention is focused on the speaker, the speaker then puts forth their idea in half sentences.  The crowd repeats the half sentences, amplifying the speaker’s words, so that everyone can hear.

Marchers who had been held on the wet bridge for hours slowly gathered.  Some were upset; some seemed dejected. It was getting dark. Then a man shouted, “Mic Check!” He said, and the crowd repeated, “It’s time we march…   on Police Plaza One!” He was referring to NYPD’s headquarters, a few blocks away.

The crowd was restless.  Some people started to move in that direction, but a woman shouted, “Mic Check!”

Some of the moving crowd said, “Mic Check!”
“MIC CHECK,” she said again until the full crowd responded.

“We are not…”
“We are not…”

“A mob mentality!”
“A mob mentality!”

“I suggest…” she politely shouted.
“I suggest…” the crowd politely repeated.

“We march back to the park….”
“We march back to the park…”

“Regroup, and rethink our strategy.”
“Regroup, and rethink our strategy.”

As soon as the crowd finished repeating her words, everyone turned and marched back to Liberty Plaza – on the sidewalks, stopping for lights.

Meaning of the Message:  Equity in the United States

“We are the 99%” is a reference to Nobel Laureate and economist Joseph Stiglitz’s study showing that the top one percent of Americans control over 40 percent of U.S. wealth.  It is also a simple but powerful statement that tells a coherent story.

“We are the 99%” speaks to a shared humanity.  It acknowledges that a successful economy is driven by the many rather than by the ultra elite.  And it calls attention to the undermining of equity, of shared prosperity.  While hand-held signs across the country in this movement may seem on the surface to speak in different voices to different  issues: joblessness, poverty, sustainable energy, degradation of the environment, bailouts, the mortgage crisis, Citizens United and corporate personhood among them, they have in common a call for the equity that is the promise of this nation.

Back to Business

Since my trip to NYC, Occupy Wall Street has become a household phrase.  While large OWS encampments have been dismantled, often with unnecessary – and sometimes shocking – force, and while some small OWS groups have made real mistakes that turn off even staunch supporters, there’s a lot to learn from this movement. These lessons can even be applied to building a high-functioning team or a business. Let me put it this way: if OWS was a product that had spread across the country this rapidly, my financial advisor would be buying stock in the company for my retirement plan.

Here are a few of the top line lessons:

• Lesson 1.  Question what you think you know. Make decisions based on data rather than on assumptions, fear of what people might think or what you see in the media. Go ahead.  Go to New York – or whatever that equivalent step is to get out of the box in your thinking. Gather new information and apply it to current challenges.
• Lesson 2. When confronted with conflict, include. Many formal conflict resolution methods begin with prioritizing the relationship between those in conflict. An invitation to “join us” – to work together on a shared problem or to at least consider commonalities between opposing sides – can defuse conflict.
• Lesson 3.  Make space for different viewpoints. Better results happen in environments that accommodate opposing voices.  Under those conditions, even a lone voice may raise a better idea and steer the team onto a more productive path.
• Lesson 4.  Stay focused on your mission. There will always be obstacles and forces bigger than your endeavor.  While these obstacles may seem to demand immediate and dramatic response, it’s often wise to step back, regroup and rethink your strategy according to the bigger picture.

It’s taken me months to decide to post this blog, in part because the Occupy Movement has been so miscast that I feared repercussions in my business.  Yet, truth will out.  There’s increasing evidence that equity offers a superior model for economic growth, and that some corporate diversity efforts have missed these and other key lessons that would allow them to achieve equity – the ultimate diversity goal.

“The choice today is not ‘are people scared or not.’ People are scared. The problem is who will determine the meaning of this fear.  This is our work.” – Philosopher and critical theorist, Slavoj Žižek, speaking at Liberty Plaza on 10.08.11.