Kiwanis Key Leader Program

Not everyone is able to attend National FFA conferences. Schedules, traveling and money are often tough challenges to overcome. National FFA Organization recognizes that there are numerous opportunities for our members to learn and grow their leadership potential and some of them occur in their own backyards! Kiwanis Key Leader is one such program.

Kiwanis Key Leader is a weekend experiential leadership program for today’s youth leaders. It focuses on service leadership as the first, most meaningful leadership development experience. By participating in a hands-on weekend event, Key Leaders learn that leadership comes from helping others succeed. The program is designed to identify and empower emerging student leaders and move them beyond where most other leadership programs end.

Small and large group workshops, discussions and team-building activities take place over the course of these weekend retreats. Students learn leadership skills that will help them to change their schools and communities for the better. While exploring leadership in a new way, participants will make amazing new friends and have experiences they will never forget. According to one Key Leader graduate, Key Leader “awakened the real me. I was able to gain the self-confidence I never had.”

Since 2005 there have been more than 13,500 Key Leader graduates throughout the United States, Canada, Grand Cayman, Brazil, El Salvador and Malaysia. For Key Leader locations and dates, stories from Key Leader graduates, and registration information visit http://www.key-leader.org/, or find them on facebook at www.facebook.com/keyleaders.

Creating Real Value - Capitalism Quo Vadis?

I just got the transcript back from my talk in Brussels on Nov. 14 last year. It was at the European Parliament and the theme was "Being Bold - A Key to Sustainable Success?" as part of the International Business & Leadership Symposium, sponsored by the International Association for Human Values.

Here is my speech:

Thank you very much for having me here. It’s a delight to be here.

Who knows what the origin of the current financial crisis is? Raise your hand - zero.

Does anybody have a policy recommendation for the current crisis? Okay, zero.

I’m going to do a brief tour of the horizon. I apologize for my slightly American-oriented talk today. The crisis is believed to have originated in the United States, so I think it’s a bit appropriate.

So on the plane ride over here, I gathered a whole bunch of analyses of the current crisis, let me just give you a sort of tour of the horizon; from the least good to better. I’ll start with the publishing millionaire Steve Forbes. He believes that the main problem was bad monetary policy. The loose dollar, the dollar fluctuated too much and dropped in price, weakened, and he advises that America tie the dollar to the gold standard and lower taxes. He even proposes a flat tax. I even see that the value of this analysis, although I don’t agree with much of what he is saying, is that there is a need to lower taxes and create stability in order to drive incentives to do the right thing. Now, I don’t agree with his policy prescription, but I understand his goal.

Second guy, Martin Wolfe, it’s a bunch of white guys, sorry, but then again it’s an American perspective. Martin Wolfe, I think is a British economist, he’s a Financial Times columnist. He says the opposite of Steve Forbes. He says we need to grow the American deficit world-wide, we should also raise taxes, including a value added tax and tax energy consumption. And he says, we should demand fiscal stimuli from countries with trade surpluses while we keep trade open. Trade open is good but I don’t know how we demand fiscal stimuli from them. We’ll see how it works?

Next guy, Tom Friedman, columnist for the New York Times, has been going around talking about what he calls the need for a ‘green’ bubble. He subscribes to the idea that bubbles are inevitable and we might as well get some use out of it. Previous bubbles have included the railroad bubble in the United States, and then the IT bubble out of which both the United States enjoyed productivity gains. Generally speaking the current bubble resulted in a bunch of empty houses that we can’t really produce much out of. Related to that is former Vice-President Al Gore’s idea of looking at the crisis as three inter-related crises: energy, climate and finance. And that as far as technology and long term investment, and I’ll talk about long term investment later, you necessarily solve all the crises at once, i.e. if you have long term investment in energy infrastructure, you can solve the energy crisis, as well as the climate crisis.

Related to that and going a step further and looking at the causes of the crisis, Cass Sunstein, who is a major figure in the Obama administration and influential at Chicago and other universities, describes the current crises as what he calls a mixture of what he calls “bounded rationality,” which means you act rational but you don’t know what the environment is, so that limits the amount of rationality you can exhibit. And number two, “temptation or fragility of the human condition,” that if you are tempted to just take a little bit more, you will probably do it. So he suggests the need for more transparency in that to take these complex systems, not necessarily destroy them, but make them more easily understood.

That was just one stack I had and I hope that gives you a fairly ambivalent tour of the horizon. Now let me take it into the ethics part. Rather than going in to a policy prescription on how to save capitalism, as Steve Forbes tried to do in the cover article of Forbes magazine, let me give you some ethical principles that we might draw from, in order to reach a negotiated policy approach.

Okay, at the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs , a ninety-five year-old institution in New York City, we’ve started to espouse a set of three principles that we believe are helpful in the creation of policy formation and agreement. The three are: fairness; rights and responsibilities; and pluralism. And I’ll go quickly through them.

Fairness is basically a way out of prisoner’s dilemma. If you and your negotiating party both believe that you’re operating on the principle of fairness, then burdens and benefits can be shared equally. There’s a game called the ultimate game, it’s a little elaborate, I’m not going to go into it right now, but basically it’s an experiment with different people who have different control over the outcome, and people generally will prefer a fair outcome over one that benefits that benefits them unfairly or disproportionately.

Second, rights, you know God has been invoked here quite a bit and spirituality, and I’m okay with that, but I think that a lot of people, including the Dalai Lama, whose written this fabulous book, “Ethics for the New Millennium,” says something that we agree with at the Carnegie Council, which is that religion tends to make people angry, so we like to talk about ethics as a stand-in, or a practical way of going about it. And some people say that we are born with rights from God – that’s fine, but I think that rights are also a practical matter: if we didn’t have rights, we would need to invent them. Several atrocities in mankind’s history show that we need to have a concept of human rights, and with them goes the responsibility to protect other people’s rights, you can’t just have rights for yourself.

Third, pluralism. Pluralism is a way to get around monism and relativism. It’s in-between, and I like to call it a sort of golden mean – right in the middle. Monism is to say, “my way or the highway.” Relativism is to say that anything goes. We like to say that pluralism is a better way to address problems. It’s bringing everyone to the table, it’s creating a more sustainable and a better-informed solution.

I am going to propose something a little bit playful. I wrote an article about a year ago, an attempt to promote a new idea of fair trade. There was this idea in America, very popular among the Democrat congress members of creating a fair trade policy, rather than just a free trade policy.

Okay, what does that mean? It could be protectionism in disguise – how do we get from an unfair policy, one that cuts off the chance of poorer countries of tapping into the benefits of the trade system. How do we do that? Well, I suggested that trade might not be completely free, nor completely regulated. Again, something in the middle, a golden mean.

So, I talked about three freedoms that we might think about truncating or limiting or sacrificing: the freedom to trade with anybody; the freedom to trade anything; and the freedom to trade with impunity. This was something I put together for a trade policy paper, but I think it’s actually quite relevant for the financial crisis. The freedom to trade with anybody: if you’re selling something to somebody who doesn’t know what’s contained in this box, it’s a package that is opaque, it’s not a very good business deal. If you’re selling things that are shoddy or mysterious, that’s also not good business, and you should be responsible for your actions that result from the trade that you make. There is a great deal of business literature I can go into later on which suggests that if you’re benefiting from the externalities of your business relationships, then you do in fact have a duty to ameliorate them.

Now, I was going to go into a few concrete ways of how to make this practical. This came about a few weeks ago, Prof. John Ruggie of Harvard University, who is the United Nations representative for Human Rights. He came to our institute recently to explain his new mandate. His colleagues at the United Nations have been so happy with his work, which is essentially a survey of companies, that they have extended his mandate for another three years.

After he gave his impeccable, magnificent talk, on business and human rights and the challenges, I asked him: “Professor Ruggie, I am going to be talking about the future of human rights and capitalism in Brussels next week, can you tell me what I should say?” And he said, Okay, ethical capitalism, that sounds interesting, "well sure." He said that you can’t force people to be ethical on their own, rather you have to embed incentives in the system to encourage people to be ethical. And I would add to that that you have to create a system of incentives that are based themselves on ethics, and that’s the challenge. You know, I was watching TV the other day, a news report on these hedge funds, and the bosses saying, “Hey, you know, we didn’t break the law.” So, you have to give them the opportunity to do good.

So, I will just briefly go over some incentives: having prices reflect their true value; re-examining fiduciary duty – I know some of you might be a little skeptical about this. I have a forthcoming manuscript for a book, it’s called, “Sustainable investing: the art of long-term performance.” And the chapter I have here is Stephen Viederman's chapter on fiduciary duty, and one of the things he says is that we should take a look at the original words that we used to describe fiduciary duty. Number one was profit, and the other one was prudence, and both of them imply more long-term thinking. Profit was more for the welfare of people, rather than simply benefiting, and prudence was simply long-term strategic thinking. So his argument is that it is a return to basic principles.

Another one that hasn’t been talked too much about here, but I was going to mention it briefly, and that is a very hot topic in New York City, is Web 2.0, and it’s ability to supercharge corporate social responsibility. It’s an accelerator and a facilitator of what Bill Drayton, the found of Ashoka tells me he calls “the awareness tipping point,” where enough people are aware of what’s going on, they are aware of their connection, their interconnectivity with people, that they are going to create a new movement.

Web 2.0, which is social networking, social interactivity on the internet, is facilitating this awareness. I will just draw your attention to this article which is very popular, in the New York Times, about Google using its data from its search engines to track flu. Well, this reminded me of some of President-Elect Obama’s ideas, how he can connect with his massive database of emails. Beyond the “Walmart sucks!” type of websites, beyond that to a more positive engagement, politicians are thinking about this, to what was the result of a long-term workshop

I was engaged in with SAP, which is essentially how do corporations like technology companies help to build trust, which is again one of the main themes of this conference, between civil society, companies, consumers, investors, and with the understanding that has been mentioned earlier that all these identities are fluid and overlapping, they are not discrete. Finally, there is another theory about the way that emerging value is measured in this new economy – a more globalized, connected economy.

I have tried to coin a term I call the “empathy economy,” to describe a theory that processes are now global. That business processes, human resources, skills, knowledge, data are all part of ubiquitous computing, and it has driven down the price of data and knowledge, and driven up the value of empathy, design, innovation and ethics, broadly speaking. One study I saw on the impact of intangibles on valuation and brand, and I’ll conclude with this, was a survey of how intangibles affect brand, and therefore valuation. Number one was ethical leadership. The next two were social and environmental stewardship.

Thank you for having me speak today.

Alternative Leadership Still Requires Ethics

I responded to an article titled "A World Without the West" by Naazneen Barma, Ely Ratner, and Steven Weber in The National Interest inaugural online discussion Report and Retort. I am reposting my (admittedly cosmopolitan) comment below:

Being number one means you have to constantly look over your shoulder. Groups of bogeymen appear in the shadows and observers looking out for America’s interests are justified in assessing the potential threats they pose to U.S. power. Over the past 35 years, these groups have included China and the Soviet Union; communists; Islamic nations; China and Japan; Iran, Iraq and North Korea; China and India; and Asians more generally.

According to Barma, Ratner and Weber, China, India and Russia comprise the latest group on the watch list. The authors seem to riff off of the acronym "BRICs" that Goldman Sachs’s Jim O’Neill "dreamt up" in 2001. While O’Neill argued the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) combined could grow larger than the current G-7 economies by 2050, the authors suggest the accompanying growth in political influence is worth examining. Never mind that O’Neill’s BRICs was partly a marketing tool for investors—these authors are rightly concerned about what China’s rise and Russia’s political backtracking mean for international norms.

The authors’ concerns derive from characteristics they see as unique to China, India and Russia (call them RICs)—in these societies, "communal, rather than individual, traditions are strong"; "state stewardship of the economy is the dominant ideology"; and "raw power trumps contract law." But do these perceived characteristics mean that they will create a "World Without the West", with its own set of norms, rules, institutions and "currencies of power?" I offer a few factors that suggest we are not headed toward a world divided into two—the West and the rest—in the near future.

First, the World Without the West argument ignores the inevitability of economic change between the RICs. It is likely that one of the three economies will grow faster than the other two, changing their relationships and shared interests. Even the Goldman Sachs forecast for 2050 has China’s economy at 45 trillion dollars, India’s at 26 trillion and Russia’s at less than 10 trillion. The U.S. economy would be at about 35 trillion dollars. Meanwhile, the United States and Japan would remain the wealthiest (GDP per capita), while Russia would be the only RIC with wealth comparable to G-7 countries.

Second, while the authors mention states’ interests in the RICs, the three rising powers face pressures for more transparent, accountable governance from three sources—pressure from their citizens, bilateral partners and the international community. China, the one likely to have the greatest economic weight, just passed a more serious labor protection law last week and is facing calls from its economic partners all over the world for more transparency and accountability in its exports and foreign direct investment.

Investors, no matter where they are from, demand transparency and accountability. And human rights do matter in economic relationships: One of O’Neill’s recent reports talks about the roles and rights of women in the BRIC societies and their impacts on investment environments. Meanwhile, as nations acquire the capacity to contribute to global goods, calls for them to do so will grow louder.

The authors call the RICs communal and state driven, implying a model contrary to transparency and respect for human rights. But I cannot think of a better example of a communal and state driven economic success than Japan. Japan’s place in the world suggests that communitarianism is not inconsistent with supporting Western institutions.

Third, the RICs have little in common with one another at present. While China and India are manufacturing centers that are working to improve their human capital stock, Russia is banking on natural-resource-driven growth, making its economic future vulnerable to oil prices. India has a growing population, while Russia’s is shrinking and China will face a labor shortage. India is a democracy, Russia a quasi-democracy and China a single-party state. With China and Russia on the UN Security Council and Russia in the G-8, they are to varying degrees enmeshed in Western institutions. In the past week, I have tested the RIC thesis with senior Russian and Chinese experts and they said that lack of trust among the three RICs countries prevents them from teaming up in a meaningful way.

Fourth, the place of ethics in foreign policy has been growing globally for hundreds of years—and not just in the west. Justine Rosenthal and Leslie Gelb wrote in their 2003 Foreign Affairs article, "The Rise of Ethics in Foreign Policy: Reaching a Values Consensus":

From the dawn of human history, there have been laws about the initiation and conduct of war. The ancient Egyptians and the fourth century BC Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu set out rules on how and why to begin wars and how those wars should be fought. Saint Augustine argued that an act of war needs a just cause, and Saint Thomas Aquinas believed that battle requires the authority of a sovereign power and should be acted out with good intention.

Most international surveys show popular support for good governance and human rights—the liberal vision that is supposedly threatened by the RICs. Bruce Stokes, who recently gave a talk (listen here) with co-author Andrew Kohut at the Carnegie Council on their new book America Against the World, reported that, according to their surveys, "Support for democratic values is widely shared across the world." Those values include free speech, a fair judiciary and multiparty elections. Economist Marcus Noland wrote in a 2005 paper that he found a statistical correlation between acceptance of homosexuality and economic performance. Finally, groupings such as ASEAN are grappling with the need they feel for a codification of democratic values and the allowance for humanitarian intervention when necessary.

Barma, Ratner and Weber describe a mode of governing that may be attractive to individual governments but not necessarily to those governments’ citizens, the states’ bilateral partners and the international community. Moreover, they do not show how the "model" that the RICs are offering improves on current Western-led institutions, nor do they show how the RICs can solve the failures of those institutions. For the RICs to present a cohesive form of alternative leadership, they will need to be more than just big.