Tag: leadership

Featured

The Empire Strikes Back, or, Revenge of the Woke

This country is never going to move forward unless we end Republican rule in the House and Senate. ~ Bernie Sanders

In this series, I am presenting scenarios that represent possible Futures. In the last post of this series – the Triumph of the Trads – I laid out a “high resilience” scenario. This scenario was based on a resurgence of more traditional American values, and the muting of “woke-ness.” This post is thus the inverse of the previous ones.

In this scenario, President Biden and Vice President Harris are re-elected in 2024. Shortly after the election, a highly embarrassing on-screen moment leads the Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment. President Biden then resigns, admitting that his downward spiral is irreversible; within months he dies.

Harris becomes President at a difficult time. While the Democrats have won the White House and the House of Representatives, the Republicans have won the Senate, making it difficult to ram through legislation. The Russian-Ukraine war is dragging on. China has stepped up its provocations against Taiwan. While Hamas has been destroyed, Iran has found other ways to ratchet up its proxy war against Israel. And the border crisis rolls on.

The Sestercentennial celebrations in 2026 are marred by protests (many violent) and a variety of demands that all have some form of “social justice” in common. More disturbingly, in 2027, the BRIC counties band together to knock the US dollar off its perch as the global reserve currency. As a result, the cost of imports skyrockets, resulting in stagflation – high inflation and a jump in unemployment – in 2029.

The President counters all of this by

  • Colluding with the media to hide or obfuscate all of the potential bad news;
  • By Executive Order, directing federal departments to establish Offices of Information Management to “counter the flow of mis- or disinformation;”
  • Setting up a new office in the Department of Justice to aggressively pursue those who “knowingly spread mis- or disinformation.”

As a result, American free speech becomes something like that in Scotland under its Hate Crime Act. You can say anything you want, but it is likely that you’ll be prosecuted if someone is offended, especially if that someone is a federal bureaucrat.

In 2028, things take a turn for the worse – in a lightning raid, China seizes Taiwan before we can even mobilize our naval forces. This is barely mentioned by the mainstream media, but it is a rude awakening for our allies. NATO effectively splinters; Ukraine falls; in spite of US opposition, Israel bombs the Iranian nuclear sites touching off a major war in the Mid-east.

The 2028 Presidential election finds Governor Newsom of California against Governor DeSantis of Florida. In October, DeSantis suddenly withdraws because his wife’s cancer recurs. This means that the Republicans are not on the ballot in several states and Newsom wins. As a result, he begins to implement what had been done in California in the rest of the country.

Ballot harvesting becomes the Law of the Land. Illegal immigrants are given the right to vote in federal elections. In the 2030 elections, the Democrats win control of both houses of Congress. In 2032, Newsom is reelected, and the Democrats win supermajorities in both the Senate and the House, realizing Bernie Sanders’ Dream. As in California, only “woke” opinions are allowed – Congress passes and Newsom signs a law that makes it illegal to say anything that offends anyone of any protected class.

After being reelected, Newsom is faced with the potential insolvency of Medicare and Social Security. He solves the former by replacing Medicare with a new National Health System. He replaces Social Security with a Universal Guaranteed Income. He pays for the latter by seizing the bank accounts of everyone worth $400,000 or more.

This scenario is perhaps the worst for communities. They are under extreme stress. Those economies that have relied on exports find that their products are no longer cost-competitive. Under this scenario, any brakes on the federal bureaucracies are effectively eliminated. The federal government effectively decides what communities can and cannot do in the face of Wild Things. Instead of a Culture of Accomplishment, communities take on a Zero Sum mentality (like the South after the Civil War) – no one can gain anything unless everyone does. The quality of life in our communities tanks!

This is the “Low Resilience” scenario. Communities have few resources, much less say in how they can be used, and a polity best characterized as cynical and full of resentment.

My personal view? Our country now stands at a crossroads looking at signposts toward the Future. One signpost points to the Triumph of the Trads: a reaffirmation of the American Dream – a government and a society that functions as if people – you, I, our kids, all of us – matter. It points to a country that provides plenty of opportunities to achieve our dreams, and in return asks only that we respect each other’s aspirations.

Another signpost is toward a land of supposed equity – the Revenge of the Woke. No one can advance unless all do. A country willing to be mired in mediocrity that not only disrespects our aspirations but actually seems to fear those who dare to Dream.

There is another road leading off from the crossroads into a dark forest that has no signpost, one that finds us muddling through without a coherent direction. In the next in this series, we’ll look at a “Muddling Through” scenario.

Featured

An Age of Corruption

People who live in an age of corruption are witty and slanderous; they know that there are other kinds of murder than by dagger or assault; they also know that whatever is well said is believed. – Friedrich Nietzsche

As some of you may know, my daily routine starts with a 4-5 mile walk every weekday. This is my time to cogitate and try to make sense of what I know, have read, or have inferred about the world around me. Few distractions (almost no cars on the road at 615) in the darkness.

The other morning I was thinking about what the age we’re living in should be called – Anthropocene, Ignoramuscene … the Age of Stupid? Nietzsche’s quote, however, seems an all-too-accurate description of our modern world. We’re witnessing the attempted murder of Responsibility. Our culture has become a caricature of what it once so vibrantly was, corrupted by a lack of accountability.

When parents turn raising their kids over to the educational system or social media or …, the kids go from being Johnny, Mary, Lakeisha, and Juan to White male 53, White female 27, Black female 31, Hispanic male 22, i.e., they become identitarian statistics. No one is ever held accountable for mistreating or not educating statistics.

Our history has either been forgotten or so badly distorted by Hannah-Jones’ bastardization of Howard Zinn’s communist re-imaginings to be unrecognizable. Our “leaders?” A demented dolt and a braggadocious narcissist. Our “humorists” – whether Colbert on the Left or Gutfeld on the Right – are indeed witty but simply aren’t funny. Their mean-spirited sarcasm is more aimed at de-platforming – a form of social and economic murder – than of satire. Our supine press publishes the verbal scraps handed them by Government without questioning or probing their veracity. Even our Science is perverted by partisan politics.

We know that many of our educational institutions at all levels are failing too many kids. The disadvantaged have probably been hurt the worst. When the majority of kids in schools in our largest cities get social passes but “graduate” without being able to figure or read – or think! – something’s wrong. When over one-sixth of our young women contemplate suicide or have other mental health issues – something’s wrong. When our health establishment pushes “gender affirming care” as the answer to our kids’ mental health crises – something’s wrong. When the pill pushers pump our young men full of Ritalin or Adderall to tame their “toxic masculinity” – something’s wrong.

Perhaps the most atrocious indicator that we are living in an Age of Corruption is how seemingly blasé we have become to Corruption itself. In my youth, a muck-raking journalist exposed that the Chief of Staff to our President had received gifts of $1,000 in paid travel and a vicuna coat; Congressional pressure forced him to resign. Today, we have the sad spectacle of Congressional sophists ignoring millions of dollars of bribes to our President’s son by hostile foreign governments, and billions of dollars to be “managed” by a President’s son-in-law from a shaky ally. And the press seems unable to muster the muckrakers to uncover what these foreign governments have received or hope to receive.

A dark portrait of our Age, but one we can brighten. First, we must rebuild trust in our institutions. This starts by electing real leaders – intelligent people who are worthy of our trust; who care about our communities, our nation, and all of our people; who have the courage to make the tough choices; who hold themselves and those they work with accountable regardless of party.

But at the same time, we as parents have to take responsibility for raising our kids. That starts with recognizing that we – and no one else – are responsible for their passage from child to adult. Yes, the schools should play a role – teaching the kids to read, write and think critically. But if their schools aren’t doing that, or if the schools are indoctrinating them rather than teaching them, then we have both a moral and legal obligation to ensure the kids’ education in some other way.

One of the things that we as parents can do is make sure that the schools set standards and hold our kids accountable for reaching them. I recently read a nice piece in the Free Press about the Classical Education Movement. It is sort of “Back to the Future;” its foundations in the classical trivium and its focus on enabling critical thinking as preparation for training in a vocation. People on both the Left (Cornel West) and the Right (Ron DeSantis) have seen what this could mean for our future generations.

Our institutions need firm standards firmly enforced as well. For example, we need to nail shut the revolving door between regulators and regulated, lawgivers and those bound by the laws.

Most importantly, we need a resurgence of wisdom:

  • Understanding what is known, and recognizing what is uncertain;
  • Assessing conditions based on facts as we know them, not someone else’s idea of what the facts are, no matter how well said;
  • Using reason and logic – not emotion – to make decisions; and,
  • Holding ourselves to a high ethical standard.

If we can start on these, we can eventually pass out of the Age of Corruption.

==========

On a related note: several weeks ago, I was notified that Transparency International had published their new Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). The CPI reflects perceived corruption in the public sector of 180 countries around the world.  I had seen previous versions (the first was in 1995) but hadn’t looked into the making of the Index. It’s really an interesting piece of work.

Transparency International uses 13 different sources of data relating to corrupt behavior (e.g., diversion of public funds), or mechanisms to prevent corruption (e.g., legal protection of whistleblowers). TI vets its sources based on their reputation, methodological reliability, focus on corruption, quantitative scalability, cross-country comparisons, and repetition over time. TI then standardizes the data to a 0-100 scale, where “0” indicates the high level of perceived corruption and “100” the lowest (I know; this does seem a little bass-ackwards!). In this year’s compilation, Denmark was the least corrupt (CPI = 90), and Somalia the most (CPI = 11).

We all “know” that corruption is an enemy of freedom and free enterprise. But we really haven’t paid attention to what that means in the real world. One way to do that is to plot the CPI against the GDP per capita of the 180 countries (GDP, adjusted for price parity, available from the CIA World Fact Book).

The blue line indicates that a country’s economy (as measured by its GDP) apparently is constrained by its public corruption. Although I haven’t found any comparable data for communities, the plot at least suggests that economic developers should pay attention to community corruption. Certainly there are other constraints – the wide range of GDP’s for countries with a CPI ~ 75 attests to that. However, eliminating corruption may be crucial, esp. for those with poorly developed economies.

Featured

The Coming Crisis: A New Age Now Begins

What rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

William Butler yeats

In my previous “Coming Crisis” post, I presented evidence from a variety of sources that we are approaching a tipping point that will profoundly impact our lives and our communities. In this and the next few posts, I’ll provide a sort of answer to Yeats’ question: what the crisis (the rough beast) will be; what its aftermath will be.

Why do I say a “sort of answer?” Because I will lay out what they might be, rather than what they will be. Our communities and, indeed, our societies are complex adaptive systems. One of the great paradoxes of these systems is that while we can explain their past, we cannot predict their future very well. In general, the path a community takes is deterministic – if we know the cause, we can predict its effect and vice versa. However, a community’s interdependencies and path dependence prevent us from accurately predicting how a community may evolve in a time of turbulence – too many causes pulling in competing directions. And in this case, we cannot even predict the nature of the coming crisis very well. There are too many trends and counter-trends swirling around so that our crystal balls are permanently clouded!

What we can do, however, is develop scenarios representing possible futures and then gauge how our communities will be impacted. While there is an infinite variety of scenarios, there are some simple rules to follow in developing one. First and foremost, it has to be plausible: there has to be a clear path of cause and effect – “and then a miracle occurs” is not allowed. It also should be consistent with current trends; it may accentuate one or more, but needs to explain why the Conservation of Momentum has been disrupted. This implies that a useful scenario is based on (and acknowledges) a set of plausible assumptions about its starting point and the relative strength of existing trends.

In this series of posts, I’m going to create four scenarios and look at their impact on our communities. As a foretaste:

  • The Triumph of the Trads. The current social war is eventually resolved in a return to more traditional values.
  • The Empire Strikes Back. The “Empire,” i.e., the Establishment, take away whatever victories the Trads have won, and the US becomes even more like Canada under Trudeau. The CCP succeeds in brainwashing our kids and the US becomes hyper-isolationist. The Common Man and Woman are faced with head-spinning changes depending on who’s being paid by whom. Our kids aren’t reading – but are living – 1984.
  • Muddling Through. We stay poised on a knife’s edge, “a bug looking for a windshield” (HT John Mauldin) but never finding it. No one really wins.
  • The Age of Scarcity. We’re way too close for comfort to this. Our depleted arsenals, our Woke military, and flabby (both physically and mentally) youth mean that a military loss (e.g., to China) would be too likely. Our unpayable debt will continue to eat up an increasing portion of our tax revenue. And the American Dream becomes something of a nightmare. Our kids get to relive the Depression like their Great Grandparents did. Social Justice Warriors starve along with the rest of us.

To set the stage for the following posts, I want to highlight the trends that will help to shape my scenarios (and potentially our future).

  • Millennials displacing Gen X-ers (and Baby Boomers), or in Neil Howe’s terms, Heroes displacing Nomads. The coming crisis is likely to have social, economic and political aspects. The Heroes will have to resolve them.
  • Underlying this transfer of power is a potentially more important trend – the passing of the Baby Boomers. The largest generation in history is slowly “shuffling off this mortal coil.” Our outsized impacts on everything from culture to the welfare state will live on. However, our outsized portion of the federal budget impacting Medicare and Social Security’s solvency will slowly disappear.
  • Our current “government by experts” is revealing just how inept its experts are. It is being assailed across the spectrum from the Far Left to the Far Right. Too many blinkered Hedgehogs, too few far-seeing Foxes. Adding to our political instability is the over-production of potential elites, each competing for power, leading to omni-directional distrust.
  • An underlying trend that is receiving far too little attention is the search for meaning. A result of each of the great crises of our past is some form of a spiritual revival, whether religious (after the Civil War and the Spanish Flu Pandemic) or cultural (the “Age of Aquarius” after Viet Nam). The unreasoning dogmatism of the climate cultists and of the Far Woke is similar to the Inquisition’s rigidity in their mindsets. I often think that Savonarola and Kendi would be kindred spirits.
  • Finally, I think it is important to recognize the similarities between the 1920’s and the 2020’s. The Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918-19 had profound impacts on the “Roaring Twenties” just as Covid had had on our own ’20’s.

Some of these will seem silly to some of you; they may all be unlikely (although Muddling Through seems quite possible). The important thing is that developing scenarios such as these can prepare us for the Future’s uncertainties; can point us toward safer paths; and can lead us, and our communities, to greater resilience.

Featured

Five Pillars of Community Resilience

Optimism is a strategy for making a better future. Because unless you believe that the future can be better, you are unlikely to step up and take responsibility for making it so.

Noam Chomsky

The other week, Claire Rubin sent me a link to an article from Beaumont resilience training – Here’s How to Use Resilience to Move out of Your Comfort Zone. The author – Laura Ponting – focuses on the personal growth of the individual, but her “five pillars” seem to fit well with my own conception of community resilience as a springboard for growth – development or strengthening – of a community, i.e., for making a community more Future-fit.

I apologize to Ms Ponting – I’m reorganizing her order to suit my [sometimes – often?] warped logic. I’ve also taken some of her words out of context, to help make my points. I’m also couching this in terms of systems; after all, communities are first and foremost complex adaptive systems (CASs). I’ll also use the Seven Community Capitals as a way to clarify some of my points.

First Pillar: Purpose. Future-fitness – growing in strength and capability – requires not just action, but purposeful action. Action — to strengthen the individual or the community. Since a community is only successful if it provides the quality of life its members want, the purpose of becoming more resilient is to safeguard that quality of life, and to improve it if possible. This is often called a vision; the community’s conception of what that stronger community will be. The community as a whole has to buy into that vision, or else it is likely that it won’t be realized.

In particular, this requires cultural capital. A common language to describe and understand that future state. A common self-confidence that breeds optimism. As Chomsky implies, without that confidence and the optimism it engenders, the community won’t work together to achieve it.

Second Pillar: Self-awareness. “Know Thyself” is not just an inscription on a Greek temple; it is the zero-th step for any community plan. For the community as a system, self-awareness means knowing who its members are. It means knowing how they are connected – or not. It means knowing the “balances” in each of its capital accounts, and the constraints or limits on the use of each capital. Most importantly, it means that the community’s leaders know how to make decisions and take action (human and institutional capital).

Third Pillar: Mindfulness. “Mindfulness” for a community equates to situational awareness. Communities as systems are in dynamic environments, with trajectories conditioned by both internal and external forces. “Mindful” communities recognize not only where they’re headed, but the forces that are driving them. The fine people at ResOrgs in NZ consider situational awareness one of the four enablers of effective crisis strategic planning.

Situational awareness rests on the community’s social capital. It requires “ears to the ground” within the community to gauge the community’s mood and its ability to move. Situational awareness also requires linchpins keenly tuned in to sources of information outside the community. They can warn the community about new sources of stress and alert the community to unexpected opportunities.

Fourth Pillar: Self-care. As individuals, we know we have to take care of ourselves. We exercise (well, some of us do). We have physicals to tell us whether we’re overweight, have high blood pressure, are pre-diabetic or any of the other warning signs the doctor looks for. And if we’re wise, we take action to avoid further damage to our vitality.

The same holds true for our communities. We know that if we fail to maintain our homes or our physical and natural infrastructure, they may be damaged in a severe storm, or even collapse from neglect. But the same holds true for our “softer” infrastructures.
• our community’s culture that, at its best, brings us together and gives us the confidence to act;
• our community’s social networks that enable us to communicate with each other, and – in times of crisis – tell us where resources are needed;
• our community’s economy that provides us with the financial capital to take action.

And just as we as individuals have physicals to point out where action is indicated to strengthen us, so too should we in our communities be aware of those signs that point out that action is needed. More frequent maintenance of physical systems, rising crime, a fraying social fabric, or growing poverty each are indicative of the need for “self-care” for our communities.

Fifth Pillar: Positive relationships. Ms Ponting couches this in terms of finding people to support us, esp. as we strive to better ourselves. The same holds true – in spades – for communities. It is simply a reflection of the economy of scale. The more resources we can bring together, the more we can do. If we work smartly (after all, two heads are better than one) we can make our communities more functional and better places to live for all of us.

But there are also traps for the unwary in this. First, “working smartly.” If we let ideology overrule reality, in other words if we don’t couple Purpose and Mindfulness/Situational Awareness, then we may actually harm our community. The debacles that so many of our big cities have become – crime, filth in the streets, the ugliness of the hopeless homeless – are monuments to failed ideologies not rooted in reality.

The second trap seems to be endemic in our age of “engagement.” Even the best of ideas can die the death of a thousand cuts in a committee. When egos are engaged, everyone wants to see a little of themselves in what’s done. That leads to inefficiencies and sometimes even alters the idea so much that it no longer supports the Purpose.

A third trap is the difficulty in overcoming the distrust and mistrust that seems to be endemic in our not-so-civil civil life. It sometimes seems that no one has the authority to act but everyone has veto power over any action. Relationships ultimately are grounded in trust. In our age, however, Trust has become a rare commodity. Thus, building positive relationships particularly in our polarized polity is not for the faint of heart.

Five Pillars for strengthening us as individuals; Five Pillars to move our communities toward a better and more secure future. That should be our Purpose. Achieving the Purpose has to be grounded in self- and situational-awareness, so we can set a realistic path from today to that better tomorrow. As we advance upon that path we must maintain those strengths we rely on to move forward – self-care. And if we can find willing partners to support us, these positive relationships can help us to advance more rapidly.

Featured

Embracing Complexity

… actually a complex, adaptive system (CAS) which is constantly evolving, never in equilibrium.

Wiliam White


William White has been called the “Central Banker for Central Bankers.” I first became aware of him when I read the transcript of a speech he gave in Philadelphia. His understanding of practical macroeconomics is probably second to none.

Many of his writings in the last few years have been focused on the global economy as a complex adaptive system (CAS). However, his insights apply just as well to communities as economies. As some of you know, I’m hip deep in a book-writing project on systems thinking for community professionals. One of its themes is that communities are CASs, and have to be understood as such. What distinguishes “complex” from the merely (!) complicated is that the system’s behavior can’t be predicted from that of its parts. CASs web of interdependencies and their open-ness mean that their behavior can be spectacularly non-linear. CASs – as their name implies – also have the ability to adapt. They can change their structure and thus their behavior in response to stress.

In the following, I’ve provided excerpts from White’s “Simple Lessons for Macro Policymakers from Embracing Complexity,” and suggested what they mean for community leaders.

Policymakers’ multiple objectives make trade-offs inevitable. Ultimately, the job of a community leader is to provide their community’s residents with the quality of life they want. Without infinite resources community leaders must make choices – balancing priorities.


Policymakers can affect structure, and structure matters. As I’ve posted previously, “Form Follows Function.” But the converse is true, as well. Changing “form” – how the community is wired – leads to changes in what the community can do. When some new problem arises, one of the knee-jerk reactions of community leaders is to add a new organization to deal specifically with the problem. Unfortunately, that makes the community as a CAS more complex, and even less predictable. Whether recognized or not, this creates new interdependencies and a high likelihood of unintended consequences. This is what I see when I look at a city like New Orleans where it seems that no one is responsible anything but everyone has veto power over everything.


Policymakers should minimax not maximize. When we want to introduce new policies (e.g., “Defund the Police”) we need to think in terms of the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm. We can’t predict how a system may adapt to a change, but we can foresee negative ways it may do so. Community leaders need to find ways to protect against them.


Policymakers should act more symmetrically. Simply put, avoid both the high highs and the low lows. Build up rainy day funds in good times to tide the community over in bad times.


Policymakers should expect the unexpected. Stress can come from the darndest places. And its impacts can resonate throughout the community’s web of interdependencies.


Policymakers should focus on systemic risks more than triggers. Quite simply, “follow the trend lines not the headlines.” Rather than trying to guard the community against every possible stressor, focus on inoculating the community against changes in its environment, loss of community capital, changes in demand for its common functions, new constraints imposed by state or federal governments, and, of course, against entropy – the ravages of time.


Policymakers should be guided by multiple indicators. Communities adapt by a “Learn-Plan-Do” process. An important part of learning is gathering information about potential stresses. Since there are many sources of stress, community leaders need several ways to look for them.


Policymakers can’t forecast. Community leaders are as unlikely to accurately predict the future as economists. What they can do, however, is to use trends to develop scenarios of what the future might be, and then shape their communities to be Future Fit.


Policymakers should be prepared for breakdowns. Crises are built into the DNA of a CAS and a community. Communities in which leaders work through various scenarios to minimize pain and eliminate suffering are the ones which are truly resilient. It’s not so much that they develop specific plans to deal with each scenario but that they build the collective experience of working together for the community. This is cultural capital of the highest order!


No policymaker is an island. In the modern world, every community is connected to others. Every community is embedded in a state or province, and that in a nation. Every community is made up of neighborhoods and other community systems, many of which are also complex. Ultimately, each of these is a group of people bound together for a common purpose. Thus, when community leaders take action in their community – hopefully to improve it! – the impacts may be felt in their residents’ homes, in neighboring communities, and up to the halls of government. Thus, evaluation should be part of action, especially looking for unintended consequences.


A community’s resilience resides in its ability to adapt – both to the stresses inherent in its connections to the rest of the world and to the Wild Things it faces – those extreme events that can permanently alter a community’s quality of life. White’s “Lessons” make the point that communities as CASs may be unpredictable, but that policymakers – community leaders – can devise means to see where the community is going, and to influence the outcome. Ultimately White’s most important lesson is for community leaders to embrace the complexity of their communities. His “Lessons” provide community leaders with a practical playbook they can use to build their communities’ adaptive capacity and to make their communities more resilient.

Featured

Bureaucracy and Community Resilience

The purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of vision.

Jim Collins

Bureaucracies are inherently anti-democratic. Bureaucrats derive their power from their position in the structure, not from their relations with the people they are supposed to serve. The people are not masters of the bureaucracy, but its clients.

Alan Keyes

I’ve had way too much experience with bureaucracies in my almost fifty years working with the federal government.  In the next couple of blogs, I’ll be looking at bureaucracy through the lens of community resilience.

First, a word of disclaimer.  My view of bureaucracy is well summarized in some of Moore’s laws of bureaucracy:

  • Bureaucracies have no heart.
  • Bureaucracies are perverse.
  • Bureaucracies will thrash about, causing much cost, pain and destruction.

If I (and so many others) feel this way, why do we still have bureaucracies?  There are two reasons for this that more or less mirror the quotes above.

  1. Most importantly, bureaucracies exist to carry out routine functions efficiently and in a consistent manner – bureaucracies are the wheels that keep organizations (governments, businesses…) running more or less smoothly.  But this also implies a more fundamental role for bureaucracies.  Their rules, regulations, and procedures encapsulate the organization’s corporate memory of what works, at least within a bureaucracy’s domain.  However, the more rigid this procedural structure, the more resistant the bureaucracy is to change.
  2. Bureaucracies tend to be self-perpetuating.  As formulated in Jerry Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy:  In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.  In other words, in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representatives who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.

Larger organizations – and communities – tend to be more bureaucratic because they tend to do more things on a routine basis. All too often, however, their bureaucracies are rigid and resistant to change. But resilience is all about managing and adapting to change.  Achieving resilience thus means tearing down the walls between balkanized bureaucracies that are busily making their silos into fortresses.  This leads to a paradox:  if a community is working to become more resilient, it will try to take action through its tried and proven bureaucratic channels, the ones least prone to change.  Further, since adapting to major disruptions (e.g., pandemics, recessions) generally does not neatly fit into a single bureaucracy’s purview, it forces bureaucracies to interact with one another in non-routine ways.  If the community’s bureaucracies are flexible, the community is likely to be more resilient; if not, any efforts to enhance the community’s resilience become much more difficult. 

Of course, these are general thoughts.  However, they lead to some specific things to consider in determining whether a community’s bureaucracies will help or hinder efforts to become more resilient.

  • History.  If a bureaucracy is a sort of corporate memory container, then look at the challenges the community, esp. the bureaucracy, has faced.  Were they varied?  Were some of them relatively recent?  Were they successfully met?  “No” answers may indicate that the bureaucracy is too rigid.
  • The age of the bureaucracy.  Just like people, a bureaucracy can get “hardening of the arteries” with age.  It can accrete documentation requirements, for example, that continue on long after the need for a document has disappeared.  In a crisis, these will sow frustration in both the public and the bureaucracy and slow down recovery.
  • Collaboration.  Has the bureaucracy worked with others outside their domain to solve crosscutting problems?  City governments such as San Diego and Baltimore that are managed in a fashion that forces bureaucracies to work together toward common crosscutting goals are likely to be more resilient than ones that are managed in a more stovepiped manner.
  • Leadership.  Is the leadership of the bureaucracy open to new ideas?  Does the leadership have experience working outside the bureaucracy?  Has any of the leadership come from outside the bureaucracy?  Again, “No” answers raise red flags.
  • Innovation.  Has the bureaucracy periodically changed how it does business?  Is continuous improvement a part of its culture?
  • Number.  More bureaucracies imply more organizations that must be aligned to actually make something happen.
  • Accountability. Do community leaders hold their bureaucrats accountable for how they have served the people?

Bureaucracy can be a boon or a bane to community resilience. It’s up to the community – through its leaders – to determine which it is to be.

Featured

For Want of a Nail – Uvalde

For want of a nail the shoe was lost,
for want of a shoe the horse was lost,
for want of a horse the knight was lost,
for want of a knight the battle was lost,
for want of a battle the kingdom was lost.

Old English saying

The mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, has been the proverbial grain of sand that, in falling, has caused an avalanche of action toward making our schools safer. The media coverage has focused on guns and the police response. In the following, I’ll use the old saw above to provide a slightly different framing of what happened. There are aspects of this sad incident that have broader implications and applications in our communities.

In what follows, I’m using the publicly available information as of this date. Some details may later be found inaccurate, but the big picture is unlikely to change. The interpretation of the events and their context are mine.

Nails (linchpins and keys)

Several organizations work together to provide security to the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District. The District has its own seven-person police force, whose officers play a similar role to School Resource Officers. The Chief is also the communications linchpin* between the school district and the Uvalde Police Department, and with the Uvalde County Sheriff’s Department. He is expected to facilitate communications among these organizations so that actions are properly coordinated.

The District’s police department had participated in joint active shooter training exercises with other law enforcement organizations in August, 2020. In March of this year, the District itself hosted a similar joint training exercise for local law enforcement agencies. However, it appears that teachers and staff have not had similar “live” training.

The District has software for monitoring students’ social media accounts and for visitor control. The district also has several security policies and procedures, as well as physical protective measures: fences to limit access to school grounds and doors that can be locked to prevent access to classrooms. District procedure is for classroom teachers to keep their classroom doors locked.

Robb Elementary (now closed permanently) had a chain link fence to limit access and entrance doors that automatically lock when closed. The doors to the classrooms could be locked from the inside; School District security policy states that teachers are to keep them locked. The classroom doors had a steel jamb intended to prevent an outsider from breaking into a classroom. None of the local law enforcement agencies had master keys to open the doors.

Knights and Battle

The shooter, once he turned 18, purchased two AR-15s from a legitimate gun dealer, and over 1600 rounds of ammunition – some in stores and some on-line. On the day of the incident he posted his intent to shoot his grandmother on Facebook. He then shot her about 30 minutes before the carnage at the school began. Though severely injured, the grandmother called 9-1-1; it’s unclear whether she knew of his intent to go to the school.

The shooter then took his grandmother’s car and drove toward the school. He crashed into a ditch and shot at two witnesses coming out of a nearby funeral home. He then apparently scrambled over the chain link fence into the school’s parking lot. At the school, one of the teachers had propped open one of the auto-lock doors with a rock. While closing the door, the teacher saw the shooter crash his car, and start shooting. The teacher then called 9-1-1 reporting that a man with a gun was in the school’s parking lot. Ironically, a patrolling Uvalde police officer heard the 9-1-1 call and pursued a person he thought was the shooter. Unfortunately he was mistaken – he had driven past the shooter.

When the teacher closed the outside door, its lock did not engage, allowing the shooter to enter the building. Shortly thereafter, seven police officers entered the same way, and took gunfire from the shooter. Two of the officers were wounded. The shooter also fired ~100 rounds into a classroom, immediately killing a teacher and several children.

The shooter then closed the door to the classroom, and locked it. The shooter fired a few shots at the door and through the walls of the locked classroom, and then more or less went silent. The School District police chief concluded that the situation had changed and had become a barricaded shooter with hostages incident, and calls were made for tactical equipment to breach the doors.

It is important to note that the School District police chief did not consider himself the Incident Commander. He considered himself to be a first responder and had left his radio and protective vest in his car so that he could move more rapidly. However, as the first police chief on the scene, others expected him to play that role.

Some of the police officers set up a perimeter around the school. Parents had been notified via social media, and asked to go to another location to be reunited with their children. Unfortunately, many parents went directly to the school to retrieve their children. The police officers at the perimeter did everything they could to keep the parents away from the building.

Almost immediately after the shooter locked the door to the classroom, a search for a key began. A rather futile search – apparently a janitor had several key rings with keys but they were unlabeled. No one knew which might be the master. The School District police chief thus had to try each on the door to a classroom across the hall until he found the right one. As a result, police officers were not able to enter the classroom until almost 80 minutes after the gunman entered school grounds.

In the meantime, children in the classroom had managed to call 9-1-1 at least five times, detailing the carnage and asking for help. Since the School District police chief did not have his radio, he knew nothing of these calls.

Kingdom lost, and lessons to be learned

Once the right key was found, a tactical team entered the classroom and killed the shooter. Nineteen elementary school children and two teachers ultimately died. One of the teachers and, perhaps, some of the children who died could have been saved had the police taken down the shooter sooner.

I do not want to second guess the police – I’m not qualified to do that. But there are some clear (and not so clear) lessons that emerge to me as I dig into what happened.

School District police should have had a master key. This likely would have saved the lives of some of those (e.g., one of the teachers who died in an ambulance after the shooter was killed) who were shot but not killed outright. Many school districts ensure that their resource officers or local law enforcement have keys. More generally, schools and other public buildings need to make sure that police and fire and other emergency responders have ready access to their facilities. In particular, it’s good practice to have police and fire personnel do walk-throughs of public buildings. They can point out potential vulnerabilities, and be able to more rapidly and accurately respond to emergency situations. This applies to any building where the public may congregate and which provide a tempting target: schools, libraries, hospitals, government buildings, hotels and event venues. This is a lesson that incidents such as the terrorist attacks on hotels in Mumbai should have hammered home.

It’s laudable that local law enforcement had had an active shooter training exercise in the school just two months before the incident. Clearly though, the exercise did not simulate the actual events that occurred; for example, the shooter locking himself in the classroom. Further, teachers and staff weren’t involved in that training. Teachers – and school librarians, and others in direct contact with large numbers of students at any one time – are truly first responders in these situations. Their instinctive reactions can be crucially important in saving lives. The teacher’s action in propping open the door the shooter entered through was probably wrong; her calls to alert police were certainly correct. Both were instinctive; training hones the instincts and builds mental muscle to make the correct response.

Students also need to have some training – we hold fire drills (we do, don’t we?) and we should provide some age-appropriate instruction for active shooter incidents, as well. For example, very young children need to see policemen in tactical gear – and firemen in firefighting equipment – so that they understand that these aren’t monsters coming after them, but rather potential saviors.

The police have been severely criticized for their efforts to keep parents away from the school. This Monday-morning-quarterbacking is wrong! The social media messaging from the school specifically asked parents not to come to the school because it would potentially put them in danger and hamper the police.

The decision to treat the incident as a “barricaded subject” event once the police realized they didn’t have ready access to the classrooms may have been theoretically incorrect but, in the circumstances, it matched the situation on the ground as they knew it.

The School District police chief has deservedly received a great deal of criticism. As the situation unfolded, he had two overlapping roles to play – Incident Commander and linchpin for communications among all of the law enforcement agencies involved. From his own remarks, it is clear that he did not recognize that, as the first police commander on the scene, he became the Incident Commander. Coordination at the scene devolved into whispered conversations, attempts to negotiate with the shooter, and a shambling scramble to find a key. The School District police chief’s split-second decision to leave his radios in his car meant that he could not act as the linchpin either: he could not be informed that there were still children alive in the classrooms. Had he known this, the decision to treat the event as a “barricaded subject” situation might have been changed.

More generally, we too often ignore how important linchpins are in our communities, especially in crises. They may not be leaders (as the School District police chief was supposed to be here), but they are always the key connectors that hold our communities together. 9-1-1 operators, the complaint departments for our road and water systems are important – and often overlooked – parts of what we call our community’s social capital. By explicitly recognizing them and their importance, we can strengthen our communities. And by recognizing a lack of linchpins, and filling those gaps, we can help community leaders make better decisions. In this event, one man – flawed as all of us are flawed – didn’t understand his role. Tragically, his misunderstanding may have cost lives.

In the coming months, I intend to do a deeper dive into “social capital.” Within the research community terms like “social capital” and “bonding, bridging and linking” are too often glibly tossed around. Some researchers massage a mixture of measures with statistics, trying to torture out whether one community has more social capital than another. Lost in this effort is a simple truth: a community’s social capital is all about people and their connections to one another. The statistics mask the trust or distrust, the respect or disrespect, and the laughter and the tears that mark all connections between real people. I firmly believe that building a community’s social capital must be rooted in this simple truth, and want to explore this further with you.

*In systems science, linchpin connections are what social scientists call bridging or linking social capital. These are simply boundary-spanning connections from one system – here the School District’s police department, to other systems – the other law enforcement organizations involved. The linchpin in this context is the member of the School District’s police department who is connected to the other law enforcement agencies. If we think of communities as small worlds, then linchpins are crucial elements for rapid and accurate communications.

Featured

Defining Victory

To a man without a map all paths look the same.

Loose translation of an African proverb

A recent column in my local newspaper really resonated with me. The author discussed several lessons from the Viet Nam War. Since my service there, I have thought much on what we should have learned from that experience. Thus, I was disappointed that the writer didn’t cite what I believe was the war’s most important lesson: you need a clear picture of what Victory looks like. Without that anchor, policies are like a boat beating on a dock, doing little good and damaging both the dock and the boat. In Viet Nam, this resulted in way too many “We have to destroy this village in order to save it”s in a war that ultimately ended in failure.

One of my Beloved’s favorite jabs at the Bush Administration is that they didn’t have an exit strategy for Iraq – and she’s right. What started out as taking down Saddam Hussein (and looking for weapons of mass destruction we never could find!) evolved into a complicated mess involving nation-building and terrorist-hunting. In other words, we never seemed to have a clear picture of what we were trying to achieve, so we never got out until we just basically said, “To Hell with it! We’re leaving.”

In my User’s Guide to Expert Advice, I pointed out that clearly describing Victory is a prerequisite for success for community leaders. In one of my examples, I contrasted the US and Swedish approaches to dealing with the pandemic. The US approach to the pandemic has been to “flatten the curve,” i.e., victory was [sort of] defined as no Covid-19 deaths due to lack of appropriate medical care. The Swedish approach has been much more “Whole of Society” – balancing protection of the most vulnerable with maintaining an acceptable quality of life. We had the same dichotomy of approach among the US states. In general, the red states strove to limit the impacts of the virus on everyday life, while protecting the most vulnerable. Conversely, the blue states imposed strict lockdown and masking measures for much longer to prevent the spread of the disease (In fact, cities in some blue states are actually re-imposing masking requirements.).

In today’s inbox I received the results of a study (by the National Bureau of Economic Research) looking at each state’s overall performance during the pandemic. The authors looked at each state’s excess mortality, economic performance, and educational impacts. The states that took draconian actions to prevent infections did somewhat better in fighting the pandemic’s infectiousness than the others. On the other hand, those states’ economies took bigger hits and have taken longer to recover – some still have not. The biggest difference was in educational performance – kids in states that kept them out of school longer fell further behind academically and had more negative mental health incidents (and more suicides!) than their peers in more open states.

This echoes the results of international studies with similar findings. We now have a lot of data indicating that defining victory holistically leads to better overall outcomes than a single focus on just one aspect of life.

Going to the community level, several major US cities defined victory as defunding the police. They succeeded. But what did they achieve? Spikes in crime, officers’ resignations, loss of economic activity. In this case, “Victory” [=defunding the police] was easy to achieve but the cost to these cities is already outrageously high and getting worse. For example, just today it was reported that Seattle is not able to investigate sexual assaults because there are not enough police officers to do so. Rapes can be reported via an automated messaging system, but nothing happens with these reports. Experience indicates that single women and families will begin to flee the city in increasing numbers, further hollowing out its economy and making it less and less attractive for tourists.

To me, defining victory can be a cornerstone of community resilience, if done properly. We unfortunately don’t pay enough attention to it – it’s that “vision thing” we tend to ignore. So let me offer a few simple guidelines for community leaders.

• While Victory may not be measurable, it has to be clearly defined. Not only you as community leaders must understand what victory looks like, but its description has to be clear and understandable for everyone who cares about the community. Otherwise, it is unlikely that any progress toward it can be sustained.

• Victory has to enhance the quality of life in the community – for everybody. Doing something to help one group at the expense of another will ultimately help neither (see Seattle’s example). This implies that Victory needs to be thought of in a “Whole of Community” manner. Community leaders should ask, “Will the entire community be better off if we reach this destination?” If the answer is no, the community leaders need to regroup.

• Since Victory is a destination – an endstate – there needs to be a realistic path to get there. A rural community generally doesn’t have the resources to implement “big city” programs for health or economic development. So setting up the goals of those programs as the target for community policies simply isn’t realistic. In other words, no path = no victory.

• Although it’s not a formal part of their qualifications, the community expects its leaders to implicitly obey the first tenet of the Hippocratic oath: Do no harm. If Victory entails great sacrifices or harm greater than its benefits, or is perceived as such, then community leaders need to go back to the drawing board.

Above all, community leaders need to recognize that defining Victory in essence draws a roadmap for the community to follow toward its Future. It points to a destination and sets a path toward it. Thus, the brief guidelines I’ve drawn above can be summarized as:

  • If you can’t clearly describe the end-state you’re aiming for, don’t start down the path until you’re sure you’ll know it when you get there.
  • If the end-state isn’t good for the entire community, you need to rethink it.
  • If reaching Victory means needless suffering, then you need to rethink the path – and maybe the endstate.
  • And, finally, be damned sure to do no harm to any member of the community.

Without that roadmap, all paths will look the same, and almost all will lead nowhere.

Featured

Trust

We need to trust in order to make any decision.

The Risk Monger

Trust has been the most critical casualty in the Western world’s culture wars. We sense its loss in things big and small in our daily lives. We see the suspicious and disapproving looks of the masked at the unmasked in our supermarkets. We hear the shouting parents at school board meetings who no longer trust their schools to educate their children. We can almost taste the mutual disdain and dehumanization of the Right and Left, driven by a lack of trust. And we recognize that this same lack of trust is preventing too many of our communities from taking the decisive actions needed to improve their quality of life.

When confronted with a problem or an opportunity, without trust different parts of the community may see things very differently. Action won’t be taken in a timely manner. Bounded rationality will abound.

But while we viscerally feel the loss of trust that the pundits (Oracles of the Obvious!) loudly proclaim, we wish that they would show us – or at least give us some hint – how to rebuild that foundation of community action. In this post, I look at the nature of trust and uncover clues to building it.* I’m going to put this in terms of what we should – and shouldn’t – do. After all, if we want to be trusted, we have to be trustworthy.

One of the key facets of trust is consistency. As someone put it (I can’t find the source):

I do not trust words. I even question actions. But I never doubt patterns.

Unknown

Thus, to be trustworthy, I need to be consistent, even predictable. One of the best compliments (at least I took it as one!) I ever received was from a consultant I had just let go. “John, you know how to make a deal – and keep it.”

Another important facet of trust is familiarity. If you don’t know me, you have no reason to trust me. You may not distrust me (= trusting me to do something you won’t like), but you are unlikely to even listen to a voice never heard before. Thus, to be trusted by someone, I have to establish a connection with that person.

If a connection is going to engender trust, it has to be based on respect. I have to respect your opinions, even if I don’t agree with them. Not only do I have to listen to you, but I have to try to understand where you’re coming from. April Lawson’s Braver Angels Debate approach (There’s a link at the end of this post.) has value precisely because she tries to have participants really listen to each other. One of the reasons the CDC is so distrusted is that they disrespected the legitimate concerns of so many: they haven’t listened. “Big Brother Says So” may work for some, but in the face of uncertain science it’s not the way to build trust.

Bernd Numberger (see link at the end of the post) provides some interesting thoughts about how to build (or destroy) trust. With apologies to him, I’ll paraphrase some of them, and add to them:

Trust builders
• Collaboration. Actions speak louder than words. Working together is an excellent way to build trust, especially in the community context. Find small problems where there is broad agreement, and get warring factions to work together toward solutions. Enough of these, and trust can follow.
• Shared success and celebrations. Or, as I like to say – never underestimate the power of a party! Celebrating small successes along the way builds trust, and can lead to much greater success.
• Openness. We have to be willing to let others know who we are in a personal sense, what we value and what we believe. This can be hard to do in the face of “woke” cancel culture (especially on college campuses) but it is a form of public duty.
• Sharing. We have to share in conversations – that means we have to listen – really pay attention to what others are saying – as well as speak. We have to show that we respect the opinions of others. We have to show that we value their opinions as well – perhaps not so much for their content, but certainly for others’ willingness to be open with us. This echoes several of the thoughts above.
• “Trusted” opinions. Recommendations from trusted third parties, meaningful awards, or certifications can help build others’ trust in us. But don’t cherry-pick your sources – where there are honest differences in data sources or interpretations, admit them.

Trust breakers
• Playing the blame game. Can you ever really trust someone who always blames others when things aren’t going right? Or is always making excuses (Certain politicians come to mind?), and never takes responsibility?
• Shooting from the lip. It’s hard to trust someone who seems to always be jumping to conclusions without checking their facts.
• Sending mixed signals. It’s also hard to trust that a reed that bends to whichever way the wind is blowing will stand firm for you (Certain other politicians come to mind?).
• Not caring about others’ concerns. Would you trust someone to do something that you value if he/she is only concerned about what’s good for him/her?

All of this implies that building trust is a contact sport, and it takes time and effort. Above all, it requires that each of us is trustworthy. Trust is the glue that binds communities together; lack of trust cements barriers in place that can block community action. Trust is essential for community resilience, and for Future-Fit communities.

*I’m basing this on three sources as well as my own experience.

Bernd Numberger:
http://cocreatr.typepad.com/everyone_is_a_beginner_or/2012/02/community-of-practice-and-trust-building.html

A recent post by the Risk Monger:
https://risk-monger.com/2021/11/16/trustbusters-part-1-precaution-and-the-demise-of-trust/

An article by April Lawson (tip of the hat to Bill Hooke who highlighted this article on New Year’s Day):
https://comment.org/building-trust-across-the-political-divide/

Featured

Effective leadership

The undeserved hype around Cuomo reflects the dangerous way in which style has triumphed over substance in politics. It also reflects the way in which, when it comes to leadership, we reward charisma and confidence over competence. … I do hope that if we’ve learned one leadership lesson from Cuomo it’s that we desperately need to rethink what a real leader looks like.

Arwa Mahdawi, The Guardian

Several years ago a reporter for a Mobile newspaper asked me what were the essentials for community resilience. My answer was “There are five things: leadership, leadership, leadership, connections and capital. And the last two don’t count without effective leadership.”

Last June, I took a sort of zen look at the attributes of a leader. But that left open the question implied by the quote above: how do we recognize leadership. More importantly in terms of our communities, how can we recognize effective leadership. In one way, it’s surprisingly easy to recognize a leader because the one unmistakable hallmark of any leader is – followers. But having followers doesn’t mean that the leader is effective. Some leaders recognize where people want to go and simply get out in front of them (President Trump might be a good example). In effect, they let their followers push them along. Others – perhaps more visionary – pull their followers toward what they believe is a better place (Both President Roosevelts are good examples). These are the ones who are most likely to be effective leaders.

So let me advance an hypothesis: an effective leader is one who strengthens the community. We can thus evaluate our leaders’ effectiveness by looking at our community’s trajectories; i.e., by determining whether the community’s social, economic, human, cultural, governance and environmental capital accounts are increasing, decreasing or staying the same.

Strengthening the community also means that the community’s resilience is also increased. More capital means that the community can better resist chronic stresses, and has the wherewithal to more rapidly recover from acute crises. Further, it means that the community can seize the opportunities inherent in our changing world.

Thus, evaluating our leaders’ effectiveness is analogous to balancing your checkbook, or looking at how your investments in your retirement account are doing. For each type of community capital, look at the bottom line. Ask whether it’s growing or – hopefully not – shrinking.

There are a few key indicators that are easy to determine:

Community growth. If more people are coming into the community than leaving, then leadership must be doing something right. If we dig a little deeper, we may find that growth is due to business leaders transforming the community’s economy (like Hugh McColl and John Belk in Charlotte), or cultural leaders increasing the “livability” of a city (e.g., Mayor Joe Riley in Charleston).

Conversely, if the community’s population is decreasing, it is a sign that the community is not functioning at an acceptable level for many, in one or more ways. Fewer people mean fewer connections, meaning less social capital. And if those who are leaving are taking their money and their businesses with them, less economic capital as well.

Economic vigor. Communities with vigorous local economies tend to have a buzz about them. At the local level, money changing hands at a restaurant, a barber shop, a small store is as much a social as a financial transaction. In the chaos caused by our responses to the coronavirus, too many leaders seem to have forgotten – or ignored – the intimate tie between the economic and the social health in our communities. Those communities whose leaders did not forget this are the ones most likely to recover the soonest. And as our communities slouch toward their rebirth, effective leaders will find ways to strengthen this tie.

Built environment. Effective leaders maintain their community’s built capital. They know that boarded up buildings, streets acne-ed with potholes, and colored water coming from the tap “incentivize” those who can to leave the community.

Human environment. Especially in times of stress, communities rely on a skilled populace to function. Effective community leaders recognize that they have to keep those with essential skills from leaving the community. Most importantly, they must nurture new generations with future-ready skills to take their place. The loss of meaningful learning is just one of the consequences of covid. Also being lost in some communities are opportunities to challenge the best and brightest in the community to fully develop their skills.

Effective leaders will find ways to make up the lost time, e.g., with extra school days, summer sessions and educational “boot camps.” Ineffective leaders will see spikes in dropouts in their community; and a depressing loss of skills especially in poorer sections of the community.

Governance. Leaders have to make choices. If the community’s leadership is making choices that increase the community’s capital accounts, or that protect them in times of stress, then they are being effective leaders. There are plenty of barriers to making good choices: conflicting groups vying for power within the community; ideology; a lack of accurate information for decision-making. Effective leaders overcome them.

We all have seen the sorry spectacles of the elected leaders in some of our major cities refusing to take decisive action to protect their communities from destructive riots. Too often, it seems that, as Blake Carson puts it, “We live in a time when governments seem to lack the will and the competence to do hard things.”

Effective leadership is essential if a community is to be resilient. Determining the effectiveness of your community’s leadership is as simple as answering – “What’s in your community’s wallet?”