Each day began the same. I woke up and pulled the curtains open, looking across the Manhattan skyline from the 28th floor of the Marriott Marquis. Down on the street directly below my room, the lights at Junior’s Restaurant were already on, inviting me to step back in time. Just like the diners of the ’50s and ’60s, you don’t go to Junior’s only for the food. You go knowing you’ll get great music and a waitress who asks “What can I get you, honey?” while filling up your cup with strong black coffee. What I didn’t expect was that my morning ritual would so strongly resonate with the theme of the Association for the Advancement of International Education conference I was attending, one that called us to examine diversity and difference, and how our institutions and systems both encourage and inhibit these.

In his poignant essay “America Needs a Miracle,” writer Andrew Sullivan details two radically different takes on the state of American society, both of which agree on a fundamental point: the political and social crises we now face in the United States originated in the laws enacted in the 1960s, setting us on what was perhaps an inevitable trajectory. While the Civil Rights Act and Immigration & Nationality Act of 1965 have undoubtedly done great good, they also opened the floodgates. In the decades that followed, the shifts in population and protections for minorities expanded opportunities for many, creating far more diverse communities that often lacked the tools and understanding to easily adapt.

Globalism brought this to a head, amplifying differences not only in ethnicity, but also socioeconomic status. More importantly, it also replicated the tensions and conflicts we faced in other countries around the world. as cultures negatively reacted to unprecedented levels of migration and technological advances, and in turn diversity. In many cases the animosity is grounded in legitimate concerns: job losses, economic inequity and cultural misunderstandings. It’s not an issue of whether our systems were, and are, right or wrong. It’s about acknowledging that they’ve pitted us against one another, creating clans that ultimately define us: liberal and conservative, left and right, black and white, and countless other allegedly diametric opposites.

Sullivan captures this eloquently: “If humans simply cannot help their tribal instincts, then a truly multicultural democracy has a big challenge ahead of it. The emotions triggered are so primal, that conflict, rather than any form of common ground, can spiral into a grinding cold civil war. And you can’t legislate or educate this away.” Yet legislate and educate are precisely what each side has attempted, but with a blunt hammer swung with insults and blame. Through it all we forget that our issue is no longer solely a lack of diversity. It’s the failure to recognize that we all have differences, and that those differences will always exist. We should be seeking to understand these, not using our voices and positions to dominate in a vain attempt to create utopian communities and workplaces.

The opening “un-keynote” of the conference, delivered by Berkeley professor Dacher Keltner, clearly highlighted our shifting understanding of power wielded in this manner. As opposed to the traditional Machiavellian conception based in fear, coercion and force, Keltner argues that we are increasingly understanding how empathy, courage and generosity allow us to more effectively influence others and instigate change. Far from simply being a theory, this stance is grounded in research. From children in a classroom to billionaires on Wall Street, numerous behavioral studies consistently point to the universal way in which those we are most willing to respect and follow draw upon this common set of tools and, crucially, use gratitude and humility to ground themselves as their power grows.

In one of my previous positions, I worked for an owner who believed, and openly stated, that his employees were lazy and his customers lied. His approach to running the business consisted of making decisions without informing anyone beforehand, and he disliked communicating directly with staff members. As you can probably imagine, he inspired little loyalty and even less affection.

The Scandinavian Journal of Management published an insightful paper by Crevani, Lindgren and Packendorff in 2010, arguing that this taciturn, individualistic model of leadership prevalent throughout the 20th century has largely yet to be overturned despite the many models that have been proposed since. The issue lies in the fact that we too often pay lip service to buzz words like collaborative leadership and positive engagement but rarely implement any true changes.

Leaders instead plod onward, making decisions and micromanaging based on the bottom line and their own well-being, all too clear from record corporate profits and CEO pay. Compounding the issue, they fail to realize that technology and social media have changed the playing field. Their archaic standards are inherently focused inward, disregarding the fact that the business world, and the world at large, has fundamentally transformed.

Whether they accept it or not, this authoritarian approach will become extinct. Openly engaging a well-informed, critical public and employees is now critical to the success of businesses. Modern leadership and communication will continue evolving toward greater transparency, a willingness to expose the inner workings of the company and their leaders’ decisions in order to build success.

Don’t think it will happen? Consider these three points:

Transparency is already here whether leaders want it or not.

When we live in an era when personal and corporate secrets can be unraveled with a few lines of code or clicks of the mouse, it is only a matter of time before the public discovers the facts.

Technology and globalization haven’t been game changers solely through the ability to save time and money. They’ve revealed the inner workings of companies, exposing not only their operations, but also the public and private lives of their leaders. From Donald Sterling to J. Patrick Doyle, the words and decisions of CEOs, executives and managers can and will become public. Our collective knowledge will continue to grow, and they ignore that at their own peril. And because we know much more than in the past…

We want to see more than cheap prices and higher returns.

Old-school leaders must really hate social media. Whether through shared Facebook content or Twitter blitzes, many companies have been skewered for their pay structures, lack of ethics and poor customer service. More investors make decisions that align to their own values, and employees want to work for companies they feel contribute something to society. CEOs like Howard Schultz understand that implementing and publicizing major initiatives that benefit employees and the public lead to greater success for companies as a whole. A little good will and basic human decency go a long way. In line with that idea…

Transparent leadership and communication get results.

As the recent flood of articles about Walmart versus Costco demonstrate, leaders who take a long-term view of corporate profits and responsibility, passing on value to employees and customers, may ultimately fare much better than those who seek to maximize profits through cost cutting. Companies that take the initiative by going above and beyond are coming out on top more often than not, particularly when they realize the intangible value that comes with clearly communicating how they stick to their core values and embrace social responsibility instead of focusing on the bottom line.

Published in The Bangkok Post

I’m an incredibly opinionated person. Whether politics, religion, psychology, education or virtually any other topic, you can be almost certain that I’ll have a view that I’m willing to defend. Debate and dialogue play a critical role in my personal and professional life, from my time as a debate coach to my interactions with friends and colleagues. Yet as I’ve gotten older, I’ve become much more aware that however much knowledge I may gain, I could always be wrong–as could we all. Watching the debate rage over the coup in my adopted home of Thailand, never have I been more reminded of our collective fallibility.

The well-known expatriate blogger Richard Barrow posted a Tweet in the fourth day after the military coup, asking “Why are so many expats political extremists on both sides of the spectrum? Can’t we just let the Thais sort out their own future?” The responses, ranging from glowing support to scathing sarcasm, ironically reflected the question itself: why do we adopt such extreme views?

As humans we naturally gravitate toward polarized positions, seeking affirmation of our own views through the rejection of others. But how is that in any way conducive to actually overcoming social and political issues? Few would argue that Thailand–and many more countries around the world–desperately need reform, changes that will benefit the majority rather than an elite few. But actually working together to bring about that transformation continually eludes us, leading to a cycle of finger-pointing.

Within the context of education, research indicates that learning is best accomplished through questioning, self-reflection and collaboration with others. A far cry from the static delivery of knowledge, passed from the authoritative teacher to students, learning demands fallibility. And just as our children learn most effectively when freed to explore and engage positively with their peers, we too as adults accomplish the most not by imposing our view upon others, but through working together with those of different background and opinions. As an administrator I had to learn firsthand that staff I supervised did not always need my direct guidance; they needed someone who would listen and question as they themselves worked out the best way to solve issues.

The cycle we have witnessed in Thailand shares little in common with modern education. It too often reflects the opposite, a battle of words and opinions in which no ground can be given and no compromise can be reached. Leaders refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of any other views and, in the process, implicitly lay claim to the absolute truth. Their example leads to polarization, frustration and anger. The reality is that both sides have done good, and both have faults. When neither can accept that, it should come as little surprise that the military finally chose to intervene.

As a foreigner in Thailand, I don’t believe I will accomplish anything by utterly condemning either political party or the actions of the Thai military. Doing so merely fuels the root of the conflict. This is the message I took from Richard Barrow’s words–a plea to end the cycle and let real healing begin.

Do I agree with the coup? No. But neither do I believe continuing to absolutely condemn any one group or individual–whether Prayuth, Thaksin, Suthep or anyone else–will initiate any positive change. There’s nothing wrong with having an opinion, but demonizing others for not sharing it accomplishes nothing. If we truly wish to convince others to consider our perspectives, and to learn from mistakes, we must lead by example, with humility and a simple willingness to listen. Thailand will overcome its problems, and we can best support it by engaging in humble dialogue with one another, ready to listen, empathize and accept. That is true leadership.

Though A Game of Thrones frequently explores the darker side of human nature, as well as the many failings of those in power, the most recent episode, “Breaker of Chains”, offers an interesting discussion on the qualities of a good leader. Engaging his grandson in Socratic questioning, Tywin Lannister asks “But what makes a good king?” Holiness? Justice? Strength? Each is analyzed and discarded until young Tommen grasps the answer: wisdom. Tywin’s definition of a good leader is not the most noble or powerful, but the one who listens to others. The irony of course lies in the fact that each of the leaders in George R.R. Martin’s world most often demonstrate precisely the opposite.

I love the exploration of these themes in fantasy fiction. Having been read Tolkien while still in the womb, I devoured the trilogy before I was ten and graduated to a long list of other authors, including Brooks, Eddings, Feist, Jordan and many more. But Martin is different. Traditional fantasy, though occasionally touching on the darker sides of human nature, rarely explored it in such depth. He has no such compunction. Flaws drive his characters, whether simple arrogance or monstrous acts that few of us would even dream of committing. While the lords and ladies of his world may have the best of intentions at times, these deficiencies ultimately destroy their plans – and they certainly do not demonstrate the wisdom lauded by Tywin.

Several of the characters, most notably Joffrey, simply shouldn’t even be considered leaders in the traditional sense. With psychoses that would land them in an asylum or prison, they are tyrants on par with the Hitlers and Stalins of our world. A second group comprises drunkards and lechers, including Robert Baratheon. Though undoubtedly powerful in some cases, it’s hard to imagine that they would be able to maintain their roles for long, at least not with any degree of success. Both of these groups form the individuals who live in their own worlds–a disconnection from others that inevitably leads to failure.

A more interesting group includes the ambiguous leaders who may reveal significant flaws, but have also developed the acumen to succeed in a highly competitive, and even deadly, world of intrigue. Littlefinger and the Lannister family–for all their cold ambition and questionable ethics–quite often appear to maintain an upper hand over all others. But what drives their success? More to the point, is it because of that lack of morality, or in spite of it? Tellingly, these individuals single-mindedly pursue their goals at the expense of others, disregarding the advice of even their most trusted confidantes.

The reality is that we thankfully no longer live in the medieval world that A Game of Thrones emulates, and the Lannisters of our world typically encounter only short-term success. The stock market wolves embody this personality type, and their eventual downfall serves as a good reminder that the unscrupulous pursuit of power and wealth at the expense of others is thankfully not tolerated in modern society. (The extent to which it is, of course, is another debate entirely.)

In that case who in Martin’s world most closely embrace the leadership insights that Tywin identifies? One in particular comes to mind: Eddard Stark. Though he encounters an unfortunate end, he reveals integrity and a collaborative mindset that nearly every other leader in the series lacks. His death actually served to highlight just how out of place he was among the scheming lords of Westeros. If any character of Martin’s could be said to be a true leader, one who inspired others to be better, Eddard would undoubtedly be first on the list.

What sets both him and the Stark family apart in the series is not simply their integrity, but also the commitment they have toward fostering that value in others. Their followers in turn demonstrate a loyalty that few other leaders can inspire. Though in Martin’s dark tale their values lead to ill-fated consequences, we thankfully live in a world in which doing the right thing usually won’t end with our heads rolling.

If we want to better ourselves and inspire others to do the same, perhaps siding with the Starks is not such a dismal prospect after all.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” From ancient Greece and China to modern-day churches and mosques, the Golden Rule—in varied forms—has played an indelible role in human culture, serving as a foundational guideline for ethical behavior. Simple in concept, it nonetheless creates profound implications for our actions in our personal and professional lives. Yet this common principle often fails to appear in our modern schools and workplaces despite its ubiquity.

Why? Quite simply, the transformation must come from within. Before any leaders of any sort can create lasting positive change, they must first embody that change.

In 2008 Richard Boyatzis and Daniel Goleman, famed for his theory of multiple intelligences, penned an article for Harvard Business Review that explored research into mirror neurons. (See Social Intelligence and the Biology of Leadership) Discovered accidentally by neuroscientists, these cells quite literally cause us to mirror the emotions and behaviors of those around us. The implications for leadership are obvious. Leaders who expect staff to collaborate, maintain civility and act ethically must exhibit those behaviors themselves. Common sense? Surprisingly, no. Modeling expected behavior is quite often absent in the workplace, on both the individual and organizational levels, and we too often see leaders who talk a great deal but accomplish far less.

While observing the head of discipline at one school deal with a fight between students, my jaw dropped when he adopted the tactic of bullying the aggressor, the whole while asking, “How does it feel?” I can imagine the student could only wonder why it was okay for the staff member to do exactly what he was being berated for. The tactic is unfortunately not uncommon.

One need go no further than Enron to demonstrate systematic adoption of unethical behavior across an entire organization, beginning at the very top. Kenneth Lay, Jeffrey Skilling and their lieutenants not only lied, cheated and stole millions, but also fostered a workplace that encouraged employees to do the same. Lies and deceit spread from a select few through a vast network until the company simply imploded. By the time the smoke cleared, billions of dollars were lost and lives destroyed.

A growing consensus among educators and business leaders centers on the need for a new model, one that does not merely focus on vocational learning and traditional academics. Ethical considerations, intercultural dialogue and engaged activism are now recognized as central to education and business, and by extension, the future of our society. When we fail to address social issues, inequality and injustice on a personal level, we perpetuate apathy. When we take advantage of others, seeking personal gain, we contribute to the very culture of greed and excess that we seek to avoid.

If we as leaders want to make our organizations better, we must first look in the mirror.