Craving Reliability in an Unreliable World

There was a time when life had a rhythm and a structure that provided a sense of stability. New automobile models from major manufacturers debuted in the fall, coinciding with the fresh lineup of television shows for the next year. Political campaigns had defined seasons, unlike the perpetual, endless cycles we see today. People consumed news in predictable doses – morning or evening newspapers and the 6 o’clock broadcast. Then came 1980, along with CNN’s 24-hour news cycle. 

I like a fast pace. I like action. But over the past few decades, the world has been accelerating toward a state of constant stimulation, creating a culture of immediacy, anxiety, and FOMO (fear of missing out).

The erosion of reliability and dependability – qualities that once defined institutions, businesses, and even personal relationships – has led to a more volatile society. When everything is in flux, from how we consume news to how governments operate, uncertainty becomes the norm. The modern political climate, typified by Mark Zuckerberg’s ethos of a “move fast and break things” mentality, exacerbates this instability, making it difficult to trust that the systems designed to serve us will endure.

The Cost of Constant Change

At the heart of reliability is consistency. Toyota outpaced U.S. stalwarts not merely by selling cars but by building its reputation on reliability. McDonald’s expanded nationwide and globally because customers always knew what to expect – a dependable product that felt familiar. Similarly, FedEx built an empire on the promise of guaranteed delivery times, reinforcing the idea that businesses thrive when they prioritize reliability over disruption.

Contrast this with today’s landscape: streaming services release entire seasons at once, disrupting the traditional weekly anticipation of new episodes. The news cycle refreshes every second, rendering yesterday’s headlines irrelevant before they can be fully processed. In politics, policies and positions can shift overnight, with leaders reversing their stances as quickly as a spreading rumor or a social media trend. This constant churn creates instability and fosters a culture where nothing feels secure.

However, this doesn't mean that change is inherently negative. Adaptation is essential for growth, and businesses, governments, and individuals must evolve in response to new realities. The key lies in understanding when and how to change in a way that preserves trust and stability. JCPenney serves as a cautionary example of how abrupt, poorly executed changes can backfire. In 2011, CEO Ron Johnson aimed to revitalize the department store by eliminating sales and discounts in favor of everyday low prices. Although his intention was to modernize the brand, the drastic shift alienated loyal customers who were accustomed to bargain hunting. The outcome was a significant decline in sales and consumer trust. This example demonstrates that while change is often necessary, it must be managed carefully to ensure it aligns with customer expectations and core brand values.

The Psychological Toll of Instability

Stability is not merely a luxury; it is essential for mental well-being. When individuals know they can depend on certain structures, it eases stress and anxiety. Now, work emails arrive at all hours, and the expectation for immediate responses intensifies burnout. The line between personal and professional life has become blurred, making it difficult to truly disconnect.

In the political arena, the unpredictability of governance has heightened public anxiety. Legislative norms that once ensured steady, incremental change have been abandoned in favor of radical shifts. The chaotic management of Twitter (now X) following Elon Musk’s acquisition illustrates the dangers of impulsive, reactionary decision-making. Abrupt mass layoffs, policy reversals, and inconsistent enforcement of rules have created an unstable platform where neither users nor advertisers know what to expect. Similarly, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), influenced by Musk, has eliminated government jobs without a clear long-term strategy, leading to service disruptions in crucial areas such as veterans’ affairs and nuclear security. This instability erodes public trust and intensifies societal stress.

The recent trend of dismantling policies without clear replacement strategies – whether in healthcare, environmental protections, or economic regulations – erodes confidence in institutions. People question whether today’s rules will still apply tomorrow, making long-term planning nearly impossible. The whipsaw of on-again, off-again tariffs, for example, has thrown the global economy into turmoil.

The Importance of Dependability in Leadership and Institutions

Strong societies rely on dependable leadership. The most outstanding leaders – from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Angela Merkel—are remembered not for their flashiness but for their steady hands during turbulent times. Their decisions instilled confidence because they were predictable and rooted in principles rather than short-term expediency.

An article titled “The Surprising Trait Google Looks For To Identify Potential Leaders” by Walter Chen emphasizes a similar principle in business. Chen states, “At Google, they're obsessive about looking at data to determine what makes employees successful, and what they found in the numbers was surprising. The most important character trait of a leader is one that you're more likely to associate with a dull person than a dynamic leader: predictability. The more predictable you are, day after day, the better.” Leaders who are erratic or reactionary create uncertainty, which ultimately undermines efficiency and morale.

In business, companies that uphold their commitment to quality and service withstand the test of time. Apple’s focus on long-term reliability in its products has cultivated a loyal customer base. Their ecosystem strategy ensures that devices work together seamlessly, reinforcing consumer trust.

Reclaiming Reliability in an Unstable World

To counter the chaos, we must collectively re-emphasize the importance of dependability. Businesses should prioritize consistent service, and governments should support measured, sustainable reforms instead of reactionary changes. Individuals can foster reliability in their lives by following through on their commitments, maintaining integrity, and building trust within their communities.

The world may never return to the slower pace of the past, but that doesn’t mean we have to accept unpredictability as the new standard. Stability is not a relic; it’s a choice. In an era marked by constant disruption, the ability to offer reliability and dependability is more valuable than ever.

Nuance Is Out – It Needs to Come Back

The Rise of Binary Thinking in Public Discourse

In today’s world, nuance is rapidly disappearing. Politics, media, and public debate have become dominated by black-or-white, yes-or-no thinking and communication. Leaders and decision-makers no longer have patience for complexity; instead, they opt for sweeping, sometimes incendiary language that may look decisive but often creates more harm than good.

The consequences of this shift can be seen in political rhetoric, media coverage, corporate decision-making, and public policy. From government leaders passing policies without considering long-term effects to social media reducing issues to simplistic slogans, the ability to grapple with complexity has all but vanished.

This lack of nuance is not just frustrating – it’s dangerous. It leads to policies, leadership decisions, and public conversations that fail to acknowledge the full scope of reality. It’s time to examine why nuance has fallen out of favor and how we can restore it before losing our ability to think and communicate critically altogether.

How Media and Politics Reward Oversimplification

One of the biggest drivers of binary thinking is the modern media landscape. The 24-hour news cycle and social media algorithms can prioritize engagement over accuracy, meaning the most extreme, emotionally charged language gets the most attention.

Consider the recent coverage of the White House’s decision to suspend all federal grants and loan disbursements. While some outlets reported the White House’s justification – that the move was necessary to prevent public funding of “wokeness” and programs it deemed wasteful – others highlighted concerns from critics who labeled it an unconstitutional overreach that would undermine essential programs. The framing of the issue quickly devolved into a polarized debate – either a bold crackdown or a reckless assault on public funding—rather than an analysis of the policy’s mechanics, trade-offs, or potential compromises. Few discussions examined the long-term implications or the specific programs affected, reducing the conversation to partisan conflict instead of policy substance.

Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky's research on cognitive biases helps explain another factor contributing to this mindset. People naturally prefer certainty over ambiguity. Instead, they want to avoid wrestling with complexity and seek quick, straightforward answers. Media outlets and politicians exploit this tendency by simplifying issues into a good versus evil narrative, where one side is entirely right, and the other is completely wrong.

Musk’s NIH Overhaul: A Case Study in Oversimplification

An example of the dangers of eliminating nuance in decision-making is Elon Musk’s attempt to restructure the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Musk, known for his aggressive and combative leadership style, took a “wood chipper” to the indirect research costs paid to grant recipients. 

Instead of carefully studying potential reform measures, he slashed funding, jeopardizing ongoing and future studies and the employment of scientists, medical researchers, and support staff across the country. His goal was to make the NIH more efficient. However, his approach ignored the social contract between the government and universities and the complexity of biomedical research, which often requires long-term investment rather than immediate results.

The result? Chaos. 

Many critical NIH programs were abruptly halted, scientists scrambled for new funding, and even private-sector partners expressed concern about the long-term impact on medical innovation. What Musk framed as a bold, decisive move was an oversimplified gutting of an institution whose work does not fit neatly into a profit-driven model. (See my article, Running Government Like a Business? Think Again.)

This is the kind of false clarity that dominates leadership today. Instead of making thoughtful, informed adjustments, leaders increasingly favor sweeping, disruptive action – a “move fast and break things” approach that disregards complexity.

The Death of Complexity in Public Policy

This problem is not unique to Musk. Across government and business, leaders are rejecting incremental progress in favor of dramatic, attention-grabbing moves.

Consider Donald Trump’s recent tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China. These tariffs were presented as a decisive strategy to pressure foreign governments on immigration, illegal drugs, and trade issues. However, the reality was far more complex – retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico, disruptions to supply chains, and an absence of clear benchmarks for success. Instead of tackling the root causes of economic and immigration challenges, the tariffs acted as a symbolic, high-impact maneuver with uncertain long-term effects. This type of performative, surface-level decision-making creates the illusion of action while failing to address the underlying issues.

How to Elevate the Conversation

If I weren’t such an optimist, I’d say we’re too far gone – too many people are invested in and profiting from the current state, where crude, simplistic messages persuade individuals to act against their self-interest and undermine democracy. We must find ways to elevate how we communicate and interact to restore civility and evidence-based decision-making. This will require a declaration of the need for change and a commitment from various stakeholders to a range of efforts over an extended period. Here are a few key steps communicators, policymakers, and business leaders can take:

1. Encourage Complexity in Public Discussions. Rather than presenting false binaries, leaders and the communicators who advise them should emphasize educating the public about trade-offs and long-term consequences.
2. Prioritize Incremental Change Over Blunt Action. Policy and decision-makers should recognize that big problems require thoughtful, long-term solutions.
3. Acknowledge That Emotional Appeals Can Oversimplify Issues. Emotions are a powerful tool in communication, but they can be even more effective when combined with rational analysis. Journalists and communicators must counter the clickbait, outrage-driven news model.
4. Teach Critical Thinking and Media Literacy. The public needs better tools to recognize when issues are being flattened into false binaries. This process should begin early by teaching students how to evaluate sources, recognize biases, and engage with complexity.

Nuance is fading because it’s tougher to sell, more challenging to explain, and harder to act upon. Additionally, it requires time. In a world where leaders seek quick results, the media wants engagement, and the public craves certainty, complexity has become an inconvenience. However, the cost of ignoring nuance is massive. If we want better leadership, policies, and public discourse, we must resist the urge for quick, flashy, or frenzied explanations and responses. We must embrace complexity, acknowledge trade-offs, and have the patience to address issues with the depth they deserve.

Running Government Like a Business? Think Again.

Hearing corporate leaders say, “The government should operate like a business," isn’t new, but the slogan has gained new significance with Elon Musk and Donald Trump promoting aggressive reforms. Now, Silicon Valley’s "move fast and break things" mentality has taken hold. While these statements may resonate with those frustrated by bureaucratic inefficiencies, enacting such approaches can lead to significant challenges and serious unintended consequences.

The Pitfalls of "Move Fast and Break Things"

Using the blunt instrument of mass terminations and freezing previously approved funding suggests that rapidly dismantling existing structures and addressing issues as they arise is an effective strategy. We’re being told that embracing a "fail fast" mentality – where rapid iteration and acceptance of failure contribute to innovation – is the solution to fixing a bloated government. However, this approach can lead to chaos and instability, particularly within complex systems like government. Interruptions in government services and commitments can cause widespread and severe hardships, affecting millions of lives and national stability. 

Musk, appointed (not vetted or confirmed) to lead the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), has launched swift and widespread cuts to the federal workforce. (Fearing a legal battle over challenges to Musk’s authority, on Feb. 18, White House official Joshua Fisher stated, “Mr. Musk is not the U.S. DOGE Service Administrator.”) In a recent press conference, Musk described federal employees as an "unelected" branch of government and defended DOGE's secretive operations. These actions have led to the termination of nearly 85,000 government workers – about 3% of America's 2.3 million civil servants – crippling essential services like veterans affairs, nuclear security, and tax administration. Critics argue that these cuts vilify dedicated civil servants and undermine the government’s ability to fund essential services, support public health, and fund vital research.

The aggressive downsizing has elevated national security risks. Musk’s influence now extends to critical government IT infrastructures managed by a wide range of government departments, raising concerns about the integrity and security of federal systems. Despite court orders and numerous warnings about insider threats posed by Musk’s appointees, enforcement remains uncertain, leaving essential government functions vulnerable.

Why the Government Shouldn't Run Like a Business

The idea that the government should function like a business is a common refrain among some business leaders. However, this viewpoint overlooks essential differences between public governance and private enterprise.

In his book Time to Get Tough, Donald Trump asserts that business experience can translate into governmental success, suggesting that corporate strategies can effectively address governmental challenges.

However, governments are designed to serve the public interest. They address issues that are not always profitable but are essential for societal well-being, such as public safety, education, and infrastructure. Applying business principles focused on profit and efficiency can undermine these essential services.

Furthermore, businesses operate under different accountability structures. While a company answers to its shareholders, a government is accountable to its citizens, requiring transparency, equity, and adherence to democratic processes. DOGE's sweeping budget cuts and agency closures have already sparked legal battles, with opponents arguing that such actions bypass congressional oversight and erode democratic checks and balances.

The Founding Fathers warned against rash governmental overhauls. James Madison, in The Federalist Papers, cautioned: "The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished." Madison argued that a well-functioning government requires careful deliberation rather than reckless disruption.

When one of his rockets blows up, Musk refers to it as a “rapid unscheduled disassembly.” We’re witnessing the government being blown apart and disassembled right now, right before our eyes, to the dismay of millions of Americans and to the delight of our adversaries.

Reframing the Message in the Fight for Research Funding

In the push to increase “government efficiency,” many of our elected—and unelected—leaders are equating cuts with savings. In the case of research, they could not be more mistaken, and it will cost us dearly.

The United States has long been a global leader in biomedical and technological innovation, a position driven by significant federal investments in research and development. However, under the new Administration, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recently announced a policy that caps indirect cost rates at 15% for all grants. If the court challenges fail, the new rule will replace previously negotiated rates, which often ranged from 25% to over 50%, with some institutions, such as Harvard University, having rates as high as 69%. 

Indirect costs, essential for maintaining research infrastructure, staffing, and resources, are not simply bureaucratic expenses; they form the backbone of America’s innovation ecosystem. Dr. Richard Huganir, the director of the Department of Neuroscience at Johns Hopkins University, characterized the cuts as "the apocalypse of American science," warning that they could lead to job losses and hinder future scientific discoveries. If we permit the gutting of the NIH and other scientific agencies, we risk falling behind in the global innovation race.

America’s leadership in science and medicine has never been an accident; it’s the result of decades of investment in research and innovation. Cutting funding under the pretext of fiscal responsibility is not only shortsighted but also economically and strategically self-destructive.

A Quick Look at a Few Facts

There are piles of data about the positive impact of basic and translational research. They include:

• Science Drives Economic Growth and Job Creation. The Human Genome Project, for example, had a $141 return for every $1 invested, contributing nearly $1 trillion to the economy and laying the foundation for modern genomics-based medicine.

• National Security Depends on Scientific Leadership. Research in biotechnology, cybersecurity, and quantum computing is critical to maintaining military and economic dominance. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funded the early development of the internet, GPS, and artificial intelligence—technologies that now underpin both commercial and defense industries.

• China Is Significantly Increasing its R&D Expenditure. It is on pace to surpass the U.S. in R&D spending, with China’s global share rising by 22% and the U.S. share declining by 8% from 2000 to 2023.

• Cutting Research Costs More in the Long Run. One of the most misguided assumptions about cutting science funding is that it will reduce government spending. In reality, preventative research saves billions in healthcare and emergency response costs. CDC data show vaccination programs save $10 for every $1 invested by preventing costly hospitalizations and lost productivity.

• Science Funding Benefits Every State and District. Science funding isn’t a partisan issue—it benefits communities across the country. NIH and NSF grants support universities, hospitals, and biotech firms in both urban and rural districts, creating high-paying jobs and fostering innovation hubs.

Science funding used to enjoy broad bipartisan support. Even prominent conservative voices have recognized the value of research funding. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich once called cutting medical research “irrational conservatism,” emphasizing that funding the NIH is one of the best ways to reduce long-term healthcare costs and improve national well-being.

Reframing the Debate

What should be determined by hard facts is now challenged by personal beliefs. Hyper-partisanship has widened divisions and built barriers to the point where facts matter less and opinions matter more. Maybe it’s time for a new approach.

Cognitive linguist George Lakoff emphasizes the power of framing in shaping public perception. He argues that how issues are presented dramatically influences how they are understood and acted upon. So, here’s a thought:

Instead of discussing science funding as government "spending," we should frame it as an investment in America's future—one that brings substantial economic, security, and health benefits. We could begin with messaging around:

• Public-Private Partnerships: Numerous biotech startups and Fortune 500 companies depend on federally funded research to catalyze innovation and create value.

• Fiscal Responsibility: Preventative research saves taxpayer dollars by reducing emergency healthcare costs and economic losses from preventable diseases.

• Global Competitiveness: Investing in research ensures the U.S. remains a leader in medical and technological advancements rather than ceding ground to China or other competitors.

Moving from Messaging to Mobilizing

With federal research funding at risk, advocacy must move beyond words to action. Scientists, healthcare professionals, business leaders, and the public all have a role to play in ensuring continued investment in innovation, economic growth, and public health. Here are a few ways you can get involved:

1. Engage with Policymakers: Lawmakers respond to constituent concerns, so make your voice heard. Contact your representatives—especially those on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees—to emphasize the economic, national security, and health benefits of research funding.

• Find your House representative: house.gov
• Find your Senators: senate.gov
• See who serves on the House Appropriations Committee 
• See who serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee

2. Participate in Science Advocacy Groups: Organizations dedicated to research advocacy offer resources, coordinated campaigns, and direct lobbying opportunities.

• American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
• Research!America
• Coalition for Life Sciences (CLS)

3. Share Your Stories: Public awareness can influence policymaker decisions. If you have stories to share, use social media, blogs, or community forums to highlight how research funding impacts patients, businesses, and scientific progress. Add hashtags like #FundScience, #ResearchMatters, and #InvestInInnovation to amplify your message.

4. Attend Town Halls and Public Meetings: Legislators frequently hold town halls—either in person or online—to engage with constituents. Participating in these events and posing relevant questions about research funding can encourage them to prioritize science in budget conversations. Check the dates and times through the offices of your elected officials.

Leaders and policymakers who genuinely care about America’s health, global competitiveness, national security, and long-term economic stability should regard science funding not as a cost, but as one of the most powerful investments we can make for our future.

False Equivalencies: The Danger of Treating All Information Equally

False equivalencies—presenting two sides of an argument as if they hold equal merit, even when one side is not grounded in facts—erode public discourse and trust. Whether in discussions about climate change, vaccine safety, or political violence, this action has damaging consequences for how the public engages with science, policy, and reality.

They’ve always been a pet peeve, but I was especially irritated when I read Malcolm Gladwell's interview with The New York Times about his new book, Revenge of the Tipping Point. At first, I was delighted when he said, “I don’t have any great hesitation about saying I was wrong. If you’re reading a book that is 25 years old, stuff should be wrong. If you don’t recognize that the world has changed in 25 years, there’s something wrong with you.”

I couldn’t agree more. The world constantly shifts, and we must adapt our thinking to new evidence and circumstances. Gladwell’s humility in admitting his mistakes is refreshing, particularly in today’s polarized climate, where admitting fault is often seen as a weakness. 

It’s what he said later that troubled me: “People increasingly want uncurated expertise. Now does that sometimes create problems? Yeah, a lot of people didn’t take the Covid vaccine that should have and died as a result. That’s really unfortunate. I am fully aware of what happens when you let a thousand flowers bloom. But I’m also aware that there is at times something beautiful about the fact that we are opening up access to people in a way we never did before.”

Unfortunate? It was tragic. It was political and medical malpractice. Millions died.

Yes, access to ideas is crucial, but without proper vetting or curation, it becomes dangerously easy for disinformation and propaganda to spread unchecked. The challenge is to balance the need for open dialogue with the responsibility to prevent the amplification of dangerous or unfounded claims.

The Politicization of Science

One of the most disheartening trends I’ve observed over the past few years is the politicization of science to the point of toxicity. A discipline rooted in creativity, curiosity, and fact-finding has become demonized; science is openly ridiculed, trivialized, and held in contempt. If not checked and reversed, this will have a growing impact on discovery, education, public health, and US competitiveness. 

The idea of “trusting the science” is under attack. Public confidence in science—particularly biomedical science—has declined significantly since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey revealed that only 27% of Republicans/lean Republican and 43% of Democrats/lean Democrat citizens have a great deal of confidence that medical scientists will act in the public’s best interest. This erosion of trust is partly due to the failure to communicate the evolving nature of scientific knowledge.

Science, by its nature, is fallible and self-correcting. It evolves as new evidence emerges. This is its greatest strength, but to the public, it can often seem like inconsistency or unreliability. This was evident during the pandemic when evolving guidance on social distancing, mask-wearing, and vaccines was often met with confusion and skepticism. 

Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the National Institutes of Health, has expressed regret that officials didn’t adequately convey that recommendations would evolve as new information emerged during the pandemic. This failure to communicate the provisional nature of scientific knowledge only deepened public distrust. For many, the changing advice felt like dishonesty rather than the natural course of scientific discovery. This misunderstanding about the nature of science created a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and misinformation.

And it will not get better. Not in the next four years, anyway. The public should be angry, even terrified, that objective science will be scrapped if Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the like-minded are confirmed by the US Senate and assume roles of enormous national and global consequence.

Social media platforms have given, should I say, a booster shot to the amplification of numerous scientific falsehoods. Elon Musk’s behavior on his X (formerly Twitter) is particularly troubling. According to a recent New York Times analysis, nearly a third of Musk’s posts in a five-day period were found to be false or misleading. X enables conspiracy theories and misinformation to spread unchecked. While Musk claims to support free speech, the reality is that false information spreads faster and reaches more people than the truth. Even when others attempt to correct the record, a debunked conspiracy post sits alongside a credible one, and for many people, it all looks the same.

Reclaiming the Narrative 

The public’s trust in science shouldn’t rest on believing in specific experts or static truths; rather, it should be grounded in understanding the scientific process itself. As Dr. Art Caplan, the head of Medical Ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center, explained, trust in science requires belief not only in the message but in the process that generates it. Caplan argued that scientists need to better explain their work with accessible language, relevant examples, and local engagement through schools, community organizations, and grassroots efforts. This is key to rebuilding public confidence.

I used to believe that presenting solid evidence would be enough to convince people of the facts. But I’ve come to understand that facts alone are not enough when false equivalencies dominate the conversation. The truth is that not all opinions deserve the same weight.

At the same time, we must hold those with power and influence accountable. Whether it’s Elon Musk spreading false information or Malcolm Gladwell embracing uncurated content, the truth matters. If we cannot differentiate between what is factual and what is false, we are in serious trouble.

So yes, I agree with Gladwell that more voices should be heard, but I cannot follow him down the path of always accepting unfiltered content as part of the solution. If anything, we need to take more care and responsibility in communicating the facts. Because right now, the stakes are too high to get this wrong.

The Failure of Joy: The 2024 Election and the Power of Fear

Democrats should spend less time blaming each other for their loss and more time on why Republicans won.

In the wake of the 2024 election, political analysts, journalists, voters, and interested observers worldwide are grappling with how Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party lost despite running a campaign imbued with joy and optimism. As The New York Times reported, “The nationwide repudiation of the party stunned many Democrats who had expressed a ‘nauseous’ confidence about their chances in the race's final weeks. As they sifted through the wreckage of their defeats, they found no easy answers as to why voters so decisively rejected their candidates.”

Not true. The circular firing squad assembled quickly, and the headlines screamed their verdict: “This Is All Biden’s Fault,” “Dems rage against Biden’s ‘arrogance’ after Harris loss,” and “Democratic strategist says her party has lost ‘common sense’ and the ability to speak to ‘normal people’.”

Sure, there are plenty of ways to blame the Democrats for their massive defeat. The party needs to learn a few crucial lessons. But people must remember how Rupert Murdoch/Fox, Elon Musk/X, and others amplified the flood of lies and distortions, which found no counterweight in the mainstream or legacy media. The muddle contributed to tens of millions of people choosing not to vote, abdicating their privilege and responsibility. 

And there’s one more critical factor: Joy alone cannot stand against the power of fear, which Republicans wielded effectively to secure victory.

The Limits of Optimism

Harris and her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, chose “joy” to set their campaign's tone and emphasized hope, unity, and progress. The Vice President highlighted a woman’s right to choose, economic growth under Democratic leadership, and floated new incentives for home ownership and business development. Walz’s persona—the Coach—complemented this strategy, projecting confidence and unwavering belief in a brighter future. 

In a New York Times opinion piece written during the campaign, Charles M. Blow noted, “‘Joy’ Is Working for Harris, but Can It Close the Deal?’” We know the answer. Another NYT piece pointed out that this hopeful approach often fell on deaf ears among undecided and swing voters. One voter said, “I’m not looking for a leader who just tells me everything will be okay. I need to know they understand what I’m worried about.” Another added, “Optimism is nice, but it doesn’t pay the bills or make me feel safer.”

I am a believer, a supporter of joy, and an optimist. However, for months, I have said that the Harris strategy needed to change. The campaign spent significant time talking about unifying the country and the many misdeeds of the 45th President when they should have focused on issues that matter most to middle-class, middle America and efforts to get out the vote. 

In our hyperpolarized world, too few will accept facts, listen to arguments, or ask probing questions. And history shows that two other “happy warriors” failed to win the presidency: Al Smith (1928, losing to Herbert Hoover) and Hubert Humphrey (1968, losing to Richard Nixon). 

The Politics of Fear

History and legend show that fear motivates more effectively than joy or optimism. In the book “Camelot, Inc.,” I discuss how those plotting against King Arthur recognized that emotion—particularly anger—is the most potent unifier. It was understood that to gain traction, people needed an emotional rallying point: “It has to be something broad and popular, which everybody could feel…so that everybody can be angry” (T.H. White, The Once and Future King). Modern-day Republican strategists have mastered this lesson, using the emotional glue of fear to build their base.

Consider how policy debates are framed not as opportunities for growth but as existential threats. During the Obama era’s debates over the Affordable Care Act, opponents shifted the conversation from increasing access to healthcare to an infringement on personal liberty – “taking away” Americans’ choice. Similarly, efforts to regulate firearms meet fierce rhetoric about assaults on constitutional rights, evoking a protective response that overrides fact-based discussions.

The 2024 election highlighted this dynamic. While Democrats emphasized what they could add to the richness of Americans’ lives—greater equality, better access to services, social progress—Republicans positioned their platform as a defense against perceived losses: the erosion of freedoms, security, and identity.

While the abortion issue resonated with many voters, it did not offset the Republican platform of fear. The Republican campaign amplified worries of economic instability, rising crime rates, and the erosion of traditional values, painting a picture of an America under siege. Their messaging resonated powerfully with the public, who sought certainty and protection. Slogans like “Take Our Country Back” and “Never Surrender” reinforced the narrative that the nation needed saving from immediate threats.

The Role of the Media: Sanewashing and Shaping Perception

The news media significantly influenced the 2024 election. While Democrats struggled to energize voters with optimistic messages, mainstream media often sanitized or “sanewashed” Donald Trump and the Republican agenda. The coverage overlooked inflammatory or incoherent statements and emphasized a more favorable narrative. 

This approach significantly affected public perception. While Democrats focused on facts and future-oriented policies, media coverage that downplayed the divisive aspects of GOP rhetoric allowed fear-based messaging to become normalized. This created a political environment where emotional, fear-driven narratives easily overshadowed messages of hope and unity.

On a critical policy issue, a New York Times headline announced that “Public Health Could Be Recast in Second Trump Term.” Recast? Slashing CDC funding, breaking up the NIH, and ending vaccine mandates would demolish public health. Undermining institutions, politicizing science, demonizing scientists, and shattering trust in vaccines will lead to a less informed, less healthy America.

The Need for a New Democratic Strategy

The Harris-Walz campaign fell into a common trap: assuming facts alone would inform and influence perceptions. Facts are crucial, but we see repeatedly that public perception, driven by emotion, often holds more sway. Climate change is real, vaccines don’t cause autism, and fluoride strengthens teeth and helps prevent cavities – widely known facts, yet millions choose to ignore them and sometimes fight against them.

If Democrats want to regain electoral ground, they must face an uncomfortable truth: joy alone is not enough. The GOP’s approach consistently demonstrates that fear, anger, and protectionist themes more effectively energize voters. Democrats should not abandon their values; instead, they should integrate emotional narratives into their strategies. To break the cycle of electoral disappointment, they must combine their vision of hope with the raw power of perceived threats.

Noble ideals must be matched with an emotional strategy that galvanizes as effectively as it inspires. Only then can Democrats hope to break the cycle and harness the energy needed for sustained political momentum.

Presidential Humor: 2024 Edition

Next to power without honor, the most dangerous thing in the world is power without humor. – Eric Sevareid

The only thing I found humorous about a recent NYT opinion piece called Trump Is Losing the Humor War was the title. OK, it’s more ironic than funny because the whole thing implied that Trump was winning the humor war at some point.

The author, Professor Leif Weatherby at NYU, wrote, “Over the past decade, there’s one truth that liberals have been loath to admit: Donald Trump is funny. …when you watch him at a rally, you can see he’s playing for laughs: jabbing at his opponents[…].”

Here’s the problem: playing for laughs does not always equate to being funny. Being funny is to amuse, to be comical. Hurling insults, making sarcastic comments, or mocking others are not humorous. They’re, well, insulting, sarcastic, and mocking; all of it is at the expense of others. Trump might be “playing for laughs,” but it is not through humor. 

Also problematic is the professor’s critique of the other side of the political spectrum. “The Democrats have been many things over the last few decades, but funny has rarely been one of them,” he said.

That right there is funny. In my 2011 book Camelot, Inc., I remarked that Democrats had humor pretty well sewn up. Look at the vast majority of stand-up comics and the long-standing successes of figures like John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Republicans, on the other hand, are masters of fear and anger. 

I agree with Professor Weatherby’s statement that “There’s something interesting about humor: We don’t get to choose what’s funny.” In a 2016 article, I wrote, “Be careful with humor in serious times. What’s funny to you may not be funny to someone else. It comes down to knowing your audience and having some compassion.” Compassion, like humor, is not one of 45’s strong suits.

Dr. Weatherby spoke about acknowledging the “truth.” But the truth is subjective. My truth about what’s funny, artistic, or cool will be the same for some and different for others. Facts and data, however, are not. Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway blew many minds when she said White House press secretary Sean Spicer “gave alternative facts” about the inauguration crowd size during a 2017 interview on Meet the Press. Host Chuck Todd responded, “Alternative facts are not facts; they’re falsehoods.” 

Will jokes or the manifestations of humor – Harris’ belly laugh or Trump’s happy dance – change any votes? Probably few, if any. Humor is a component of who we are; it’s one pixel in a complex picture. But there’s no doubt it’s essential. Michael J. Fox said, “I think the scariest person in the world is the person with no sense of humor,” and Robert Frost noted, “If we couldn’t laugh, we would all go insane.”

The Power of Not Knowing

The importance of asking questions and being curious cannot be overstated. A Harvard Business Review article by Allison Wood Brooks and Leslie K. John said asking questions “spurs learning and the exchange of ideas, fuels innovation and performance improvement, and builds rapport and trust among team members. And it can mitigate business risk by uncovering unforeseen pitfalls and hazards.”

When we know, we should want to know more. But what about when the well is dry? What do we do when there’s no foundation to formulate a plan or express an opinion? In my experience, a lot of people will make it up. They’re too embarrassed or their ego is too big to say, “I don’t know.” Too many people are conditioned to show no weaknesses or, worse, they’re plain ol’ bullshitters. Unfortunately, the B.S. artists frequently get away with their shams because others are too embarrassed (or too fearful or too much of a sycophant) to challenge them.

I like to surround myself with people who are comfortable – contented, really – about saying they don’t know, they don’t have an answer. They have a genuine interest in gathering facts and ideas.

I was reminded how important this was by my friend David. It wasn’t, “Hey, Paul, you should think about writing an article about the importance of having a curious mind.” The inspiration came from a long conversation about family, people we like (or don’t), food, books, music, movies, and politics. We got to a certain spot in the discussion, and he said, “I don’t know enough to have an opinion about that. What do you know?” 

I still feel refreshed when I think of that. His openness and honesty were, well, an inspiration. He’s a very smart guy, and smart people – confident and curious people – ask questions, dig around for facts and data, and seek out knowledgeable individuals for their perspectives. 

Einstein didn’t come up that day, but it hit me later that he said, “The important thing is not to stop questioning… Never lose a holy curiosity.”

A questioning, fact-finding mindset goes beyond friendships, of course. It should be a societal imperative. It’s a mentality that can lift everyone up. And it’s an essential element in mentoring. Good mentors know this, even in legend. When the future King Arthur asked, “Would you mind if I asked you a question?” Merlin (the wizard who was also his teacher and advisor) answered, “It is what I am for.” 

We should all be for it.

The Abnormality of the New Normal

Over the past couple of decades, we've experienced events that created a so-called “new normal”: 9/11, the Great Recession, and COVID-19 are examples. While I understood the use of the term, I never liked it; it rubbed me the wrong way somehow. But after thinking about what the new normal represents to me, the repulsion became clear. It’s the alarming rise in the normalization of intolerance and cruelty across our society. Political violence deemed "patriotic," exploitative workplace environments, plummeting civility, and justifications for the use of deadly force are disturbing shifts in our collective values and ethics.

The Cultural Shift Towards Intolerance

The rise of hyper-individualism, prioritizing personal success and self-interest over collective well-being, plays a significant role in the growth of intolerance and cruelty. Media portrayal of aggression and power as virtues (or even goals) further normalizes these behaviors. Reality TV shows, for example, often glorify ruthless competition and backstabbing. The pervasive influence of social media amplifies these trends. Platforms that thrive on sensationalism and outrage can desensitize users to violence and spite. The echo chambers created by algorithms often reinforce extreme views, making empathy and compassion seem like weaknesses rather than strengths.

Political Violence Is Not Patriotic

The attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, starkly illustrates how influencers can rebrand acts of violence as expressions of patriotism. For many, these acts of sedition and insurrection were profound assaults on the democratic process. However, a significant chunk of the population views it as a patriotic act, a defense against perceived governmental overreach and a “rigged” election. As Donald Trump fired up the crowd at the Ellipse in Washington DC, he said, "We fight like hell, and if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." At a different event, he said, "We will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, that lie and steal and cheat on elections."

This dichotomy reflects a broader societal trend that increasingly views violence and lawlessness as acceptable methods of political expression. The repercussions of this mentality are profound, undermining the rule of law and setting a dangerous precedent for future civil unrest.

Success Does Not Require Ruthlessness

In the corporate world, the relentless pursuit of success can come at the expense of employee well-being. Some CEOs and business leaders justify overworking their employees as essential to achieving corporate goals. For example, Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, X (Twitter), and SpaceX, is known for promoting punishing workplace environments. In an email to Twitter staff, he said they “will need to be extremely hardcore" to succeed. "This will mean working long hours at high intensity. Only exceptional performance will constitute a passing grade." A Tesla employee said, “Many of us worked tirelessly for him for years and were tossed to the curb like a piece of litter without a second thought.” 

The culture of overwork pervades many industries, masking employee exploitation as dedication and commitment. The glorification of such practices overlooks the severe mental and physical toll on workers, contributing to burnout, stress, and a deteriorating work-life balance. The noted organizational psychologist Adam Grant said, "Screaming at employees doesn't make you a tough boss. It makes you an asshole. Great leaders are demanding, not demeaning. They set high expectations and create accountability without abuse. Yelling is unprofessional. Treating people with dignity is not optional – it's required."

While some can keep pushing boundaries, there are limits. It appears that some potential Tesla buyers are snubbing the brand because of Musk’s reputation and penchant for promoting extreme political views.

We Need Just Plain Normal

Addressing these disturbing trends requires a fundamental shift in valuing and practicing empathy, compassion, and justice. Education systems should emphasize emotional intelligence and conflict resolution skills from an early age. Corporations should care more about employee well-being, recognizing that healthy, motivated workers are the foundation of sustainable success. Political leaders and influencers need to advocate for non-violent methods of protest and change, upholding the principles of democracy and the rule of law. 

The news media must concentrate more on facts and less on opinions. The public needs to recognize false equivalencies and news organizations must abandon them – no more giving equal time to, say, climate deniers when 97% of climate scientists agree that the use of fossil fuels is warming the earth. Let's do more to highlight the virtues of kindness, cooperation, and ethical behavior. Let's celebrate stories of resilience, community support, and altruism. 

Our society's growing coarseness and cruelty demand urgent attention. Whether in parenting, politics, corporate environments, or self-defense laws, normalizing harsh and aggressive behaviors reflects a more profound erosion of empathy and moral values. Mahatma Gandhi said, "The greatness of a nation can be judged by how it treats its weakest member." We can stop trying to win points by staging events meant to embarrass others or spitting out carefully word-smithed insults. I'm sick of the attention-seeking behavior of elected leaders. Let's foster a society that values compassion, justice, and mutual respect over spite and exploitation. 

Normal is kind, not cruel. It's inclusive, not exclusive. It's positive, not punitive.

1980: The Lesser-Known Inflection Point

There have been many inflection points in US history – events that significantly changed our future and behaviors – in the last hundred years. Throwing out some key dates affecting the trajectory of US history – 1929, 1941, 1945, 1954, 1955, 1957, 1963, 1964, 1968, 1969, 1973, 1974, 1981, 1991, 2001, 2008, 2020 – I'm betting most of you will understand their significance. (This is a small, subjective sample and my rationale is at the end.)

What about 1980?

My "This Day in History" email from the HISTORY Channel this past week reminded me of a lesson I covered when I taught Strategic Communication at NYU. In a discussion about crisis management, I said public relations tactics could only help rescue a reputation if systemic problems were addressed. I used the catastrophic explosion on BP's Deep Water Horizon oil drilling platform as an example. (The same situation when then CEO Tony Hayward famously, selfishly said, "I want my life back.") After discussing how PR Band-Aids wouldn't fix the underpinning safety issues, we pivoted to a related topic – how the media covered the story and how people consumed the news. I projected a multiple-choice question on the classroom screen:

After Deep Water Horizon in 2010, what was the biggest ocean oil spill in history?

A) Ixtoc 1 oil well, Gulf of Mexico, Mexico

B) Atlantic Empress – Aegean Captain collision, Trinidad and Tobago

C) Exxon Valdez grounding, Prince William Sound, Alaska

This was repeated in at least a dozen classes and every one of the graduate students chose the Exxon Valdez. The answer, ladies and gentlemen, is A) the Ixtoc 1 disaster in 1979. 1979 also saw the collision of the two oil tankers. The Exxon Valdez, occurring in 1989, didn't even make it into the global top 10.

Why the outsized memory of the Exxon Valdez? One could speculate on the recency effect but I'm going with CNN. CNN was born in 1980 and without its real-time, continuous, global coverage, the world missed a lot of news. 

Impact on Public Perception and Behavior 

Exxon (now ExxonMobil) stayed in the news because we were wired in – the impact on the Alaskan ecology, the investigation into the company and the ship's crew members, the months of tracking the clean-up progress, the lawsuits, the push for new regulations. It had an impact on legislators, policies, and public opinion. Several scholars called this and similar constructs “The CNN Effect.”

While the constant stream of news can shine a megawatt light on important issues, the effects on the public can vary. It can sharpen the focus for some and lead to positive interventions during natural or human-shaped disasters. But sensationalized headlines and the onslaught of breaking news alerts can create anxiety in others. How many have turned off the news because we wanted to limit the amount of negativity in our lives? As psychologist Mary McNaughton-Cassill noted, "The relentless exposure to distressing news can elevate stress levels and lead to a state of learned helplessness."

More Can Lead to Less

CNN, obviously, was on to something. Other dedicated cable outlets followed, with some focused on news while others honed in on sports, finance, cooking, the weather, etc. 

However, any network with a strong partisan bias can create echo chambers where some viewers are only exposed to information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs. Matthew Levendusky, a political scientist, has argued that this kind of selective exposure can exacerbate partisan divisions, increase hostility toward opposing viewpoints, and undermine democratic discourse.

Projecting news through an ideological lens can also lead to increased disinformation. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Fox News personalities frequently downplayed the severity of the virus and questioned the efficacy of vaccines and public health measures. Viewers were guided to mistrust the science and its messengers. This misinformation likely contributed to lower vaccination rates among its viewers and may have exacerbated the public health crisis. A research study found that regions with higher viewership of Fox News had lower compliance with public health guidelines, illustrating the real-world consequences of its editorial stance. 

This decline in trust is problematic for a functioning democracy, as a well-informed citizenry is essential for making informed decisions on policy and elections. Professor Jon D. Miller, now at the University of Michigan, warned us nearly 20 years ago that "people's inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to participate in the democratic process.”

Further Into the Unknown

Like so many inflection points, it's difficult to forecast where this arc of history will ultimately take us. CNN's arrival in 1980 – and the model it pioneered – has undeniably transformed news consumption and its impact on society. 

The world is broken in so many ways and the society that needs to repair it seems harsher and more divided. But I'm hopeful the state of journalism can one day return to the sentiment founder Ted Turner expressed at the network's launch. Call it woke or naïve, but he wished CNN would "bring together in brotherhood and kindness and friendship and in peace the people of this nation and this world."

------

1929, stock market crash

1941, invasion at Pearl Harbor

1945, end of WW II, liberation of Nazi death camps, first atomic bomb

1954, Brown versus Board of Education of Topeka

1955, polio vaccine

1957, Sputnik

1963, JFK assassinated

1964, all in on Viet Nam, Civil Rights Act

1968, RFK and MLK assassinated

1969, men land on the moon

1973, Roe versus Wade

1974, Watergate, Nixon resigns

1981, CDC publishes first report on AIDS

1991, Gulf War

2001, 9/11 attacks

2008, Barak Obama, first Black president elected

2020, COVID-19

What Pfizer’s Super Bowl Ad Should Have Been

There’s been a lot of discussion around Pfizer’s decision to spend an estimated $14–21 million on its “Here’s to Science” Super Bowl ad. I’d like to boil it down to two questions: Why did they do it? Did it accomplish their objective?

For the question of ‘why,’ STAT News reported, “The ad comes as the pharmaceutical company celebrates its 175th anniversary and looks to promote a dynamic, optimistic message about Pfizer’s future to the general public, investors, and the company’s own employees.”

Pfizer spokesperson Faith Salamon said the goal was to “celebrate science in a fun, engaging and uplifting way.”

Unfortunately, The New York Times didn’t buy it. In their review of Super Bowl ads, the NYT placed Pfizer in the category entitled, “The Flagrant Missteps: Famous people and millions of dollars that together can’t quite amount to mediocrity.”

Flagrant sounds too intentional. This is a case of missed opportunity (except for the soundtrack — who doesn’t love Queen’s “Don’t Stop Me Now”?).

I had an array of reactions, but these were the key moments:

Most horrifying: A corpse comes alive, with his arm dissected from shoulder to fingertips — depicted in Rembrandt’s The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp — looking like he wants to get off the table.

Most confusing: The inclusion of a tartigrade (“little water bear,” an eight-legged creature about one millimeter long) swimming across the screen.

Most inspiring: The positive message sent by highlighting four women scientists, one of color.

Most overreaching: It seems the ad makers knew most of the public couldn’t differentiate between famous scientists or science disciplines, so they threw some recognizable names out there. The relevance was questionable since half of the science luminaries depicted were mathematicians and physicists, yet Pfizer is a healthcare company.

Most jarring: The words “Here’s to the next fight” come across the screen but don’t connect to anything seen previously. The next words are “LetsOutdoCancer.com” followed by some video of a little girl being applauded for what must have been successfully completing treatment. (A lovely moment, to be sure.)

The Let’s Outdo Cancer website details Pfizer’s research pipeline and product portfolio. There’s also important information on how to participate in a cancer clinical trial and a partnership with the American Cancer Society to “improve health outcomes in medically underrepresented communities across the United States.”

There is no doubt that we’re benefiting from the discoveries made by Pfizer and their partners. We’re living better, healthier lives. There’s a ton of good information on the site but it doesn’t have much to do with “Here’s to Science.”

A one-off effort like a Super Bowl ad can help achieve specific objectives but, in my experience, plans need follow-through and messages require repetition. I don’t know their actual plan, of course. I’m not an insider. But if Pfizer seeks to promote a positive message and increase engagement with stakeholders, I have a suggestion. They have an enormous opportunity to create a more receptive public if they work towards increasing trust in science.

Engaging a wide array of audiences on the value of science is critically important to elevate trust. Dr. Marijn Dekkers, former CEO of Bayer and former Chairman of Unilever, pointed out at a financial conference several years back that “even the most outstanding ideas and scientific breakthroughs have no chance if people do not accept, appreciate and support them. All too often, people are afraid of — or uneasy about — new ideas, inventions, processes or products.”

The public acceptance of innovation is clearly at risk according to the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, an annual trust and credibility survey. It found that respondents believe innovation is poorly managed by nearly a two-to-one margin. And while technology as a whole is trusted by 76 percent, gene-based medicine is only at 50 percent. (It gets worse. GMO foods are trusted only by 32 percent.)

The issue goes far beyond industry interests. Poor science literacy can eat at the core of our democracy. Professor Jon D. Miller, now at the University of Michigan, warned us nearly 20 years ago that “people’s inability to understand basic scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the democratic process.” He continued that for many issues affecting society, “if you don’t know a little science [it’s] hard to follow these debates. A lot of journalism [will] not make sense to you.”

So, here we are. The current state is that science and scientists are under attack. Facts are being denied and misinformation proliferates. Critical thinking is being abandoned. Education is underfunded. Science is politicized and weaponized. It must stop.

It’s not a problem that can be addressed by a one-year budget cycle or even a five or ten-year plan. It will take a generational blueprint that needs to be comprehensive, coordinated, and well capitalized to see a return on the investment.

Getting the message out is only one side of the coin, though. Ensuring the message is received requires the same sort of effort. The Super Bowl ad should have been the kick-off of an ongoing effort to engage, inform, and educate the public about science and scientific principles. But it’s not too late. We need conveners. Partners need to be assembled and resources gathered. Objectives must be determined and milestones assigned.

Let’s get started.

Between posts I invite you to follow me on Threads @pauloestreicher.

Incremental Is Fundamental

Many of us are in occupations where innovation and creativity are essential. But an unnecessary divide exists between the valuation of sweeping changes and incremental advances. We should not need to choose – this isn’t a case of mutual exclusivity. Of course, we need big ideas and bold moves. Sure, throw the bomb for a touchdown, swing for the fences. But small things, measured steps, can be important and inventive, too. The Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu said, “The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.” 

Upsides to any method or process cannot be guaranteed, of course. It’s important to acknowledge that incrementalism can fail us or derail us, just as big ideas can. One of the most notable (and shameful) examples is the nearly hundred-year span from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution (and then another hundred to the 1964 Civil Rights Act). And while Lincoln deserves high praise for his role, we need to remember it took him a couple of decades to fully embrace freedom and citizenship for Black people. 

Fortunately, his vast and open mind let in powerful, righteous voices like Frederick Douglass, the freedom seeker who became one of the most important leaders in the fight for abolition and civil rights. It’s notable that Douglass wanted rapid change with the “brave march of a storming party” but came to grips with the “slow progress of a cautious siege.” He and Lincoln understood the political realities. The President knew he had to bring as much of the nation along with them as he could – what he called the “necessary preparation of the public mind.” 

Modern political leaders seem to be catching on to incrementalism but for the wrong reasons. While they often campaign on platforms of big ideas, political rivalries, limited resources, and the complexity of most problems squeeze progress into watered-down initiatives. Or, more common these days, an agreement to simply keep the lights on; passing a stop-gap budget is now viewed as a big win. Reaching across the aisle, finding common ground, and coming to a mutually beneficial agreement have become rarities or even signs of weakness.

Politicians are also helping to accelerate our ever-shrinking attention spans. Ideas are being crushed into attention-seeking social media posts. There is a lack of interest, will, or ability to explain complex ideas and to inspire wider acceptance. Ideologic pandering is replacing idea generation. If it can’t be turned into a catch phrase (“America First”) or a chant (“Build the Wall”), complicated, multidimensional ideas have little chance of being turned into a plan or program.

Preparation requires good communication, using messages that combine both rational and emotional elements. There are too many leaders, though, who get it terribly wrong. Deciding to make a change is often done without thought as to how the change will be communicated. They confuse change communication with checking off a couple of boxes. Sending out a memo to employees or a press release to the public overlooks the reality that change communication is a process – a process to be managed. 

The details, the message, and the messenger all influence the individual and the organization. It can rally a group around an idea or it can alienate the very people required to generate a successful outcome. John Kotter had it right in his book, “Leading Change.” Condensing and paraphrasing some of his eight incremental steps, leaders need to establish the need for change, gather and empower advocates, articulate a vision for what awaits, communicate up and down the organization, define the roles people will have and the processes needed for future success, and demonstrate wins along the way.

It’s great to have big ideas, it's OK to be impatient, we should embrace change. At the same time, we need to be thinking strategically and develop a plan about what needs to be accomplished, over what timeline, and with what resources. We need to define the milestones and recognize each accomplishment as we maintain a focus on the ultimate goal. Civil rights activist Alice Wine had wise words: “Keep your eyes on the prize.”

Between posts I invite you to follow me on Threads @pauloestreicher.

Stopping Ourselves from Mattering Less

Oh boy, was I wrong. “Who needs these humanities requirements?” I asked as a college student. I was going to be a scientist and wanted to place my attention on (what I thought was) my ultimate goal. 

Sure, I learned to appreciate the genius of Shakespeare and enjoyed the scrum in my political science classes. But I loaded up on the hard not the social sciences. I bought the promise that technology had the answers to everything. One couldn’t be a whole person without a rock solid background in math, chemistry, physics, biology.

Whole person, huh? I said I was wrong, right? I’m not sure I can say it enough. I’ve come to hate mutual exclusivity and false equivalencies and yet, there I was. It took me years to figure out (with no small contribution from my wife) that interesting people, valuable people, are a package. We should have an appreciation – a facility, even – with a multitude of subjects spanning STEM subjects to the liberal arts.

We need to know enough about both the humanities and science to be capable citizens. With the politicization of so many topics – vaccines, evolution, climate change, stem cells – a more roundly educated public is essential. 

We need to expect and demand more of our leaders, too. I wonder how many of them read books like David McCullough’s 1776 or John Adams that chronicled how the founding fathers built a nation on progressive values; Peter Watson’s Ideas with two million years worth of language, thought, and invention; Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll on the evolution of faith and systematized prejudice; Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time to make your head ache when contemplating the enormity of our universe, or Abe by David Reynolds to show us how personal evolution and compromise gave rise to one of our greatest presidents.

Social media and cable news echo chambers have made it all too easy to receive what the algorithms are trained to feed us. We suffer from inertia, from a lack of curiosity, from what used to be the common practice of debating the issues (and not the facts). If the facts don’t fit the person’s worldview or “frame,” as the cognitive linguist George Lakoff termed it, the facts bounce off like bullets shot at Superman’s chest. Your opponent deflects all the data, swears on what they believe to be true, while you get blue in the face.

But now comes the latest assault on holistic education. The New York Times recently reported that West Virginia’s “flagship school will no longer teach world languages or creative writing — a sign, its president says, of the future at many public universities.” What the WVU administration is calling a “transformation,” others are calling a “blood bath.” It’s frightening to think this could be the beginning of a very dangerous spiral.

The questions of how to educate, what to teach, and with what money are not new. But this is different. We’re looking at institutional changes that could take years, generations to repair. If we’re not careful, if we don’t invest in expansive, accessible education, we will be less able to govern, less capable of informed, civil discourse, and less capable of maintaining our competitiveness on the world stage. The hollowing out of education, and the under-budgeting and the reversal of opportunity are as grave a threat as any facing our country.

Author of Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table.

Between posts, I invite you to follow me on Threads.

Aaron Sorkin and I Have an Understanding

My eyes widened when I read the review in The New York Times. I was on the same page as Aaron Sorkin, writer of some of the most celebrated works of television, film, and Broadway. Well, the “same page” when it came to understanding what was really beneath the centuries old story of King Arthur and Camelot. 

A new version of “Camelot” is scheduled to open on Broadway in a few weeks, with its book rewritten by Sorkin. The NYT article said, Sorkin “has made the production one of the most anticipated on Broadway this year...”

A bold decision was made to eliminate the story’s supernatural elements. “That means Merlyn, who in the original is a magician who can remember the future... is now a wise tutor.” Yes! The hocus pocus in the Arthur stories is fun but there are much more serious and contemporary lessons to be drawn from Camelot.

“The most common description of Merlin is that of an elderly wizard with a long white beard, wearing a pointed hat and a flowing costume accented by stars and moons. He’s synonymous with magic and sorcery. But Merlin’s significance was not his ability to conjure or foretell the future. Above all else, this archetypal sorcerer was a mentor and adviser.” That was from my 2011 book, Camelot, Inc.: Leadership and Management Insights from King Arthur and the Round Table.

Merlin’s real mission was to educate Arthur, to expand his horizons, and prepare him for the challenges ahead. In T.H. White’s The Once and Future King (from which the play and Disney’s Sword in the Stone were derived), a young Arthur queried, “Would you mind if I asked you a question?” Merlin replied, “It is what I am for.” 

The magical part of Merlin wasn’t all fantasy writing, though. It helped tell the story of Arthur’s evolution from roughhousing boy to empathic leader. As a wizard, Merlin didn’t need to bring Arthur to other parts of the world to experience the different religions, cultures, and customs of humankind. Merlin turned him into a badger, fish, hawk, goose, and ant – creatures very different, more ancient, and with much wisdom to impart on the youngster.

The transfigurations into fur, fin, and feather (and bug) were a big part of the Merlin’s mentoring technique, which turned the learning process into adventures. Arthur was immersed in some dangerous places where he had to observe, adapt, and think quickly in his new surroundings. His abilities to react swiftly and smartly weren’t only important; they were essential. Later, as king, Arthur would leverage these experiences not only to better understand and connect with others, but also to win over doubters and adversaries.

Of course, much of the Camelot story revolves around the tortured relationships between King Arthur, Guinevere, his Queen, and Sir Lancelot, his best friend and general. “People think the show is about a love triangle, which of course it is,” said Alan Paul, artistic director of Barrington Stage Company. “But I really think it’s about the birth of democracy…”

Close, but not exactly. First, democracy was created in ancient Athens and second, Arthur wasn’t at all about abdicating in favor of elections. Arthur did, however, form a strategy of Might for Right – a way to channel the power of the knights to enforce his doctrine of fairness. But the people did not react well to what was coercion. 

“You will find,” he explained (in The Once and Future King), “that when the kings are bullies who believe in force, the people are bullies too. If I don’t stand for law, I won’t have law among my people. And naturally I want my people to have the new law, because then they are more prosperous, and I am more prosperous in consequence.”

Arthur did something we don’t see often enough in leaders today. He took ownership and had the courage to jump the rails when he saw the strategy failing. Arthur had the right intention with the wrong method. He realized the populace needed to embrace change, rather than have change forced upon them without proper communication. He evolved Might for Right into Equal Justice – the creation of a new civil code to change the very nature of civilization, and the relationship between the government and the governed.

Life’s lessons during the time of Camelot and the Round Table remain relevant because, at the core, they are about the human relationships that connect us, divide us, and drive us forward (or backward) in our various dealings – personal, business, or otherwise. Looking at the past, we can gain the accumulated wisdom from so many people, conflicts, and circumstances. The enduring qualities and complexities of human nature gave us guidance and assurance in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Searching for Optimism in 2023

I’m trying really hard to remain an optimist. As we grow older, conversations become graver. Life gets more complicated and less certain. There’s less talk about hopes for the future and more about missed opportunities. 

Our world gives us too many reasons to complain and I do my best to pull out of what is sometimes a very appealing spiral. Sometimes it takes a conscious, sustained effort to remain on a positive trajectory. When others try to engage me in a grumble session, yes, I will most likely join in – at least for a while. Then, I’ll usually catch myself. 

It’s not about ignoring the negative; this is not an exercise in mutual exclusivity. We must continue to confront and address personal and societal problems. 

But, let’s face it, there’s always something to whine about. If there’s no constructive effort to discuss a potential solution, I give people room to vent but then will likely ask, “Tell me something good.” (I adapted this line years ago from the movie Apollo 13. After an explosion rocked the capsule, alerts and alarms spewed at Mission Control and in space. Trying to get hold of an increasingly panicked situation, flight director Gene Kranz said, “What do we’ve got [sic] on the spacecraft that's good?”) 

It’s often a heavy lift to pick up and place yourself onto a different track. Complaining is easy, generally satisfying, and attracts a crowd. Once re-railed, though, new opportunities can open. Happiness for another’s good news might overwhelm your schadenfreude. Smiles can replace frowns. Hope may supersede regret. 

What passes for optimism, though, is largely in eye of the pessimist. It might take a little or it might take a lot but it shouldn’t always have to take years and cost billions of dollars. 

"Reasons for Optimism in 2023" (The New York Times) recognizes that we’re in “a world facing many challenges” but proclaims “there are reasons to be hopeful about next year and beyond.” Some of the reasons mentioned in the article are not exactly cheap or around the corner, however. Among the highlights listed include moving “a little closer” to nuclear fusion, advances in AI that “probably won’t take your job,” and “getting closer to cancer vaccines.”

That mislabeled article is not a prediction for breakthroughs in the next 12 months. It’s much better viewed through the lens of hopeful incrementalism. We limit our happiness and our satisfaction if the only measure of success is a home run or a touchdown.

We can enhance our lives exponentially if we remind ourselves that the little stuff matters – a lot. We need to invest in the essential steps along the way to a larger goal and celebrate when each are accomplished. Politicians, business leaders, and our friends and loved ones should consider expanding their definition of what is good cause for optimism. Searching for optimism in 2023 and beyond could get a whole lot easier.

The 4 R’s of Strategic Thinking

Thinking, like many other activities, occurs across a spectrum. We can think in ways that are concrete and narrow or we can be creative and visionary. There’s a lot in between, of course (and I’ve covered that in other articles). 

There’s another continuum, though: Time. Sure, there are plenty of occasions when you want things to speed up (like when you’re crawling along in a sea of traffic or sitting with your mouth open in a dentist’s chair) but we mostly wish for more time. 

Having, finding time is often the key to so many things and strategic thinking is among them. Dorie Clark wrote “If Strategy Is So Important, Why Don’t We Make Time for It?” in a recently reposted Harvard Business Review article. She cited a survey where 97 percent of senior leaders said, “…being strategic was the leadership behavior most important to their organization’s success.” Unfortunately, another study found “96 percent of the leaders surveyed said they lacked the time for strategic thinking.”

We should care that people don’t spend enough time thinking. We tend to focus on the actions, the tactics, before thinking about the strategies and objectives they’re supposed to support. What passes for thinking is often unfocused busywork, a churning of un-prioritized activities.

Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair spoke of one of the best pieces of advice he ever received about strategic thinking at a Stanford Graduate School of Business seminar several years back; it was from former President Bill Clinton. The president gave him one word: Scheduling. Mr. Blair channeled the guidance he received and remarked, “Where’s your thinking time? Where am I going? What am I trying to do? You have to create the space to be thinking strategically all the time.” 

Strategic thinkers ask questions and gain insight through rigorous analysis of information. They look around the corners, predicting outcomes and the potential unintended consequences of a particular course of action. They prepare scenarios, from those with high probability but little impact to those with low probability but a high potential for damage. They evaluate who might be an advocate and who could be an adversary. They make conscious, timely decisions about where to play offense and where to allow things to go undefended.

Carving out the space – the time – to think strategically takes effort; it’s much too precious to waste. That’s why we need a way to optimize, to guide and focus the strategic thinking process. Here are my 4 R’s of Strategic Thinking for your consideration:

1.     Risk – potential impact of doing, not doing

2.     Range – short, medium, long term issues and influences

3.     Requirements – data, time, money, personnel

4.     Return on investment – financial, reputation, safety/security

In fast-paced environments, we’re often driven more by deadlines than the importance of the task or issue. Using the 4 R’s, we can make more informed decisions and apply resources more effectively. So let’s not be too put-off by a little process; it’s not a dirty word. Discipline is needed in finding creative solutions to our challenges and opportunities.

But perspective and flexibility are crucial to finding success with this or any other methodology. The weight placed on any of these components may depend on where you are in the organization, your responsibilities and their scope, and what you have to lose or gain. 

Remember what George Bernard Shaw said: “Few people think more than two or three times a year; I have made an international reputation for myself by thinking once or twice a week.” With some dedicated time and thought, you have an opportunity to join ranks with the greats.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me @pauloestreicher.