Why Moral Leadership Is the New Requirement for Success

Posted on by Dr. Eileen Borris

With leadership crises all around us today, we need to ask ourselves who we want representing us and decide if we are willing to do the necessary work to get those people in positions of leadership.

Do you want a leader who will agree with everything you say and do, or do you want a leader who will do the most good and with whom you may not always be in lock-step agreement but are willing to accept? We must ask ourselves where America’s Zelensky is: Where are our heroic leaders? We all need to be engaged in society and understand the issues that matter to us. The more engaged people in society, the better the society functions in holding leaders accountable, and the more likely we’ll collectively push hidden heroes from obscurity to greater prominence and impact.

My call to action is this: Spend some time thinking about what you want in a leader and what is most important to you. You may also wish to journal about it, talk to your friends about it, or get clear in your mind about what is essential in a leader. David Gergen’s book, Hearts Touched with Fire: How Great Leaders Are Made, is a good starting point to help you think about what makes a good leader. We can all play a part in how we move forward as a nation, and we all have a responsibility to be informed and fight for what we care about.

The Importance of Moral Leadership

What is moral leadership, and how do we find moral leaders? I agree with David Gergen when he speaks of leadership as a journey that has to start from within. That thought struck a chord with me, and it sheds some light on why leaders behave as they do when they assume leadership roles. The way people lead reflects who they are. They need to understand themselves, control their emotions, and master their inner selves before they can exercise leadership and be of service to others. These elements develop character, help them grow, and develop a sense of purpose. For a leader, knowing their values and having the ability to follow their true north in a complicated world is important. This is essential for developing moral courage and moral leadership. The journey starts within.  

When you think of a leader, what or who comes to mind? Some will think of past leaders, and others will think of today’s leaders (many possibly not fitting the bill). If you think of what you would want a leader to be, on the other hand, what comes to mind? Many would say a role model and pillar of the community who dares to act, not in one’s self-interest, but in the interest of the communities they serve. Moral leadership is essential, and it’s about people making choices for the benefit of others while trying to convince others of the merits of different ways of thinking.

A leader who came to power at a relatively young age was the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, sworn into office at age 37. Key issues of concern have been cutting child poverty, homelessness, climate change, and equality. Ardern has forged a different path based on courage, strength, empathy, and compassion, stressing kindness and well-being as a governing virtue. She has sought to lead by example, demonstrated in the aftermath of the horrific attack in Christchurch on March 15, 2019, which took the lives of 50 people while praying in a mosque. She sent a powerful message around the world about New Zealanders’ shared values, that those who seek to divide us will never succeed and that New Zealand will always protect its strength’s diversity and openness.

The next generation is rising. Young people across the United States are becoming energized and inspired. They are demanding more from leaders and those in positions of power and are informed on the issues that will affect them in the coming years. Thrust into the world of activism by the largest school shooting in American history, Parkland school shooting survivor David Hogg has become one of the most compelling voices of his generation on gun violence and control. The co-founder of March for Our Lives, his call to “get over politics and get something done” challenges Americans to stand up, speak out, and work to elect morally just leaders, regardless of party affiliation.

Unfortunately, in today’s world, many leaders are more concerned with their status and solidifying their power base than with morality and doing what is right for the highest good of all people. We need leaders of moral courage, compassion, and character more than ever. The world has no shortage of challenges, and now is the time for strong moral leadership. How do these leaders emerge that we so desperately need? How do we develop leaders who will stand up and be courageous?

There is no simple answer to these questions, but perhaps a clue to the thinking we need is found in Dr. Timothy Shriver’s commencement address to Georgetown University’s College of Arts and Sciences in May: “People think, love your enemies? That’s for saints — not for the hard-edge reality I live in.’ But nothing about loving your enemies says you shouldn’t fight for justice, you shouldn’t fight for equity, and you shouldn’t work for peace. It does say you will not get there with hatred and contempt. You will not win the battles this generation must win for our country with hatred and contempt for your fellow countrymen and women. Love your enemies is no longer the strategy for saints; it is the new requirement for citizenship.”

Why Moral Leadership Is the New Requirement for Success

Posted on by Dr. Eileen Borris

With leadership crises all around us today, we need to ask ourselves who we want representing us and decide if we are willing to do the necessary work to get those people in positions of leadership.

Do you want a leader who will agree with everything you say and do, or do you want a leader who will do the most good and with whom you may not always be in lock-step agreement but are willing to accept? We must ask ourselves where America’s Zelensky is: Where are our heroic leaders? We all need to be engaged in society and understand the issues that matter to us. The more engaged people in society, the better the society functions in holding leaders accountable, and the more likely we’ll collectively push hidden heroes from obscurity to greater prominence and impact.

My call to action is this: Spend some time thinking about what you want in a leader and what is most important to you. You may also wish to journal about it, talk to your friends about it, or get clear in your mind about what is essential in a leader. David Gergen’s book, Hearts Touched with Fire: How Great Leaders Are Made, is a good starting point to help you think about what makes a good leader. We can all play a part in how we move forward as a nation, and we all have a responsibility to be informed and fight for what we care about.

The Importance of Moral Leadership

What is moral leadership, and how do we find moral leaders? I agree with David Gergen when he speaks of leadership as a journey that has to start from within. That thought struck a chord with me, and it sheds some light on why leaders behave as they do when they assume leadership roles. The way people lead reflects who they are. They need to understand themselves, control their emotions, and master their inner selves before they can exercise leadership and be of service to others. These elements develop character, help them grow, and develop a sense of purpose. For a leader, knowing their values and having the ability to follow their true north in a complicated world is important. This is essential for developing moral courage and moral leadership. The journey starts within.  

When you think of a leader, what or who comes to mind? Some will think of past leaders, and others will think of today’s leaders (many possibly not fitting the bill). If you think of what you would want a leader to be, on the other hand, what comes to mind? Many would say a role model and pillar of the community who dares to act, not in one’s self-interest, but in the interest of the communities they serve. Moral leadership is essential, and it’s about people making choices for the benefit of others while trying to convince others of the merits of different ways of thinking.

A leader who came to power at a relatively young age was the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, sworn into office at age 37. Key issues of concern have been cutting child poverty, homelessness, climate change, and equality. Ardern has forged a different path based on courage, strength, empathy, and compassion, stressing kindness and well-being as a governing virtue. She has sought to lead by example, demonstrated in the aftermath of the horrific attack in Christchurch on March 15, 2019, which took the lives of 50 people while praying in a mosque. She sent a powerful message around the world about New Zealanders’ shared values, that those who seek to divide us will never succeed and that New Zealand will always protect its strength’s diversity and openness.

The next generation is rising. Young people across the United States are becoming energized and inspired. They are demanding more from leaders and those in positions of power and are informed on the issues that will affect them in the coming years. Thrust into the world of activism by the largest school shooting in American history, Parkland school shooting survivor David Hogg has become one of the most compelling voices of his generation on gun violence and control. The co-founder of March for Our Lives, his call to “get over politics and get something done” challenges Americans to stand up, speak out, and work to elect morally just leaders, regardless of party affiliation.

Unfortunately, in today’s world, many leaders are more concerned with their status and solidifying their power base than with morality and doing what is right for the highest good of all people. We need leaders of moral courage, compassion, and character more than ever. The world has no shortage of challenges, and now is the time for strong moral leadership. How do these leaders emerge that we so desperately need? How do we develop leaders who will stand up and be courageous?

There is no simple answer to these questions, but perhaps a clue to the thinking we need is found in Dr. Timothy Shriver’s commencement address to Georgetown University’s College of Arts and Sciences in May: “People think, love your enemies? That’s for saints — not for the hard-edge reality I live in.’ But nothing about loving your enemies says you shouldn’t fight for justice, you shouldn’t fight for equity, and you shouldn’t work for peace. It does say you will not get there with hatred and contempt. You will not win the battles this generation must win for our country with hatred and contempt for your fellow countrymen and women. Love your enemies is no longer the strategy for saints; it is the new requirement for citizenship.”

Facing a Tough Problem With a Polarized Group? Try This Unconventional Approach

Posted on by Adam Kahane

In the sunny outdoor restaurant of a small country hotel, a former guerilla commander and a wealthy businesswoman greet each other by name.

The workshop organizer tells them he’s surprised they know each other. The businesswoman explains: “We met when I brought him the money to ransom a man who’d been kidnapped by his soldiers.” The guerilla adds: “The reason we’re at this meeting is so that no one will have to do such things again.”

How did these two very different people come together to solve their shared problem? A process called transformative facilitation enabled this breakthrough.

The workshop they attended brought together a diverse group of leaders to talk about what they could do to transform their country. Seventeen months earlier, in June 2016, the government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia guerillas had signed a treaty to end their 52-year war. Thousands had been kidnapped, hundreds of thousands killed, and millions displaced.

After decades of being at one another’s throats, Colombians were now trying, amid much turmoil and trepidation, to break through and work together to construct a better future. Our workshop was part of this effort.

The beginnings of their collaboration

In January 2017, in the troubled southwest of the country, two civic-minded leaders, Manuel José Carvajal, a businessman with connections to the elite, and Manuel Ramiro Muñoz, a professor with links to the grassroots, decided to organize a project to contribute to rebuilding the region’s society and economy.

Their idea was to bring together leaders who were representative of the region’s stakeholders: everyone with a stake in the area’s future and, therefore, an interest in making it better. They recruited 40 influential people from different sectors—politicians from opposing parties, former guerilla commanders, businesspeople, nonprofit managers, and community activists—who, if they could collaborate, could make a real difference in the region.

In November 2017, the first workshop of this group took place over three days at the country hotel. On the morning of the first day, the participants were tense. They had significant political, ideological, economic, and cultural differences—and significant disagreements about what had happened in the region and what needed to happen.

Some of them were enemies. Many of them had strong prejudices. Most of them felt at risk in being there; one politician insisted that no photographs be taken because he didn’t want it known that he was sitting down with his rivals. But all of them showed up anyway because they hoped the effort would create a better future.

To work together, the participants needed to create enough of a common language to be able to talk about the situation and how they could change it. We started by conducting open-ended interviews with every participant to enroll them in the project and hear their views on the key issues facing the region. We then compiled these views into a report containing a selection of their unattributed, verbatim statements, which we distributed in advance of the first workshop.

Our methods

On the first morning of the workshop, participants presented their perspective on the current reality of the region, along with a physical object they had brought (these included a stone, a book, a seed, and a machete), which produced fresh, symbolic images. They used toy bricks to build models of the social-political-economic-cultural system of the region in its larger context, enabling them to share and combine their different tacit understandings visibly and fluidly. And they wrote and organized their ideas on sticky notes, helping create and iterate their composite understanding of the current reality.

These methodologies created space for all the participants, including minority and marginalized ones, to express themselves equally and openly and make visible some of what had been invisible.

Most crucially, the participants needed to be willing and able to work together. To support them in connecting better with one another, we:

Agreed on a set of ground rules, especially about confidentiality, which helped them feel safer to make their contributions.

Ate our meals together at long tables, which created a space for informal conversations.

Invited them to go on walks in pairs, which enabled the development of personal connections across divides.

Introduced a framework for open, nonjudgmental, empathetic listening, which they practiced in pairs; the final step in this exercise involved looking into their partner’s eyes, and the unfamiliar and unexpected sense of connection in the room was palpable.

Facilitated an hour during which the participants told personal stories about their lives, which enabled them to understand better why some of them had ended up on opposing paths.

This approach—though unconventional—enabled the participants to contribute and connect equitably, and it helped this deeply polarized group move forward.

Facing a Tough Problem With a Polarized Group? Try This Unconventional Approach

Posted on by Adam Kahane

In the sunny outdoor restaurant of a small country hotel, a former guerilla commander and a wealthy businesswoman greet each other by name.

The workshop organizer tells them he’s surprised they know each other. The businesswoman explains: “We met when I brought him the money to ransom a man who’d been kidnapped by his soldiers.” The guerilla adds: “The reason we’re at this meeting is so that no one will have to do such things again.”

How did these two very different people come together to solve their shared problem? A process called transformative facilitation enabled this breakthrough.

The workshop they attended brought together a diverse group of leaders to talk about what they could do to transform their country. Seventeen months earlier, in June 2016, the government of Colombia and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia guerillas had signed a treaty to end their 52-year war. Thousands had been kidnapped, hundreds of thousands killed, and millions displaced.

After decades of being at one another’s throats, Colombians were now trying, amid much turmoil and trepidation, to break through and work together to construct a better future. Our workshop was part of this effort.

The beginnings of their collaboration

In January 2017, in the troubled southwest of the country, two civic-minded leaders, Manuel José Carvajal, a businessman with connections to the elite, and Manuel Ramiro Muñoz, a professor with links to the grassroots, decided to organize a project to contribute to rebuilding the region’s society and economy.

Their idea was to bring together leaders who were representative of the region’s stakeholders: everyone with a stake in the area’s future and, therefore, an interest in making it better. They recruited 40 influential people from different sectors—politicians from opposing parties, former guerilla commanders, businesspeople, nonprofit managers, and community activists—who, if they could collaborate, could make a real difference in the region.

In November 2017, the first workshop of this group took place over three days at the country hotel. On the morning of the first day, the participants were tense. They had significant political, ideological, economic, and cultural differences—and significant disagreements about what had happened in the region and what needed to happen.

Some of them were enemies. Many of them had strong prejudices. Most of them felt at risk in being there; one politician insisted that no photographs be taken because he didn’t want it known that he was sitting down with his rivals. But all of them showed up anyway because they hoped the effort would create a better future.

To work together, the participants needed to create enough of a common language to be able to talk about the situation and how they could change it. We started by conducting open-ended interviews with every participant to enroll them in the project and hear their views on the key issues facing the region. We then compiled these views into a report containing a selection of their unattributed, verbatim statements, which we distributed in advance of the first workshop.

Our methods

On the first morning of the workshop, participants presented their perspective on the current reality of the region, along with a physical object they had brought (these included a stone, a book, a seed, and a machete), which produced fresh, symbolic images. They used toy bricks to build models of the social-political-economic-cultural system of the region in its larger context, enabling them to share and combine their different tacit understandings visibly and fluidly. And they wrote and organized their ideas on sticky notes, helping create and iterate their composite understanding of the current reality.

These methodologies created space for all the participants, including minority and marginalized ones, to express themselves equally and openly and make visible some of what had been invisible.

Most crucially, the participants needed to be willing and able to work together. To support them in connecting better with one another, we:

Agreed on a set of ground rules, especially about confidentiality, which helped them feel safer to make their contributions.

Ate our meals together at long tables, which created a space for informal conversations.

Invited them to go on walks in pairs, which enabled the development of personal connections across divides.

Introduced a framework for open, nonjudgmental, empathetic listening, which they practiced in pairs; the final step in this exercise involved looking into their partner’s eyes, and the unfamiliar and unexpected sense of connection in the room was palpable.

Facilitated an hour during which the participants told personal stories about their lives, which enabled them to understand better why some of them had ended up on opposing paths.

This approach—though unconventional—enabled the participants to contribute and connect equitably, and it helped this deeply polarized group move forward.

3 Things to Never Ask a Military Veteran in the Workplace

Posted on by Merilee Kern

A veterans law attorney explains what critical questions to avoid when interviewing a military veteran for a job — and interacting with those already on-staff — to avoid legal landmines and to help foster a military-friendly employer status. While this story has a U.S. focus in honor of Veterans Day, these same questions can apply to any military veteran anywhere in the world.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in August 2019 the 3.4 percent veteran unemployment rate represented the 12th consecutive month this metric was lower than the non-veteran unemployment rate (currently at 3.6 percent). This is an indication that the hiring of veterans is going strong. According to NCSL.org, there are 18.8 million veterans living in the United States today, representing 7.6 percent of the country’s population. They are a robust, trained and skilled employee pool that have the potential to make a significant impact on U.S. industry and, in turn, the global economy at large.  

While the many benefits of hiring a military veteran have been well-publicized in the media, and U.S. employers are starting to take heed, there are a number of critical considerations business owners must keep in mind when considering appropriate language to use when dealing with a person who has served in the military. There are also some legal landmines to avoid when interviewing a veteran for employment — whether full or part time, contract, freelance or other.  

A Soldier with the Tennessee Army National Guard’s 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment, celebrates his reenlistment after swearing in a UH-60 Black Hawk, 200 feet above Tullahoma, Tennessee. Photo: US Army / Sgt. Sarah Kirby

According to retired Army Lieutenant Colonel John Berry of Berry Law Firm, you can improve your veteran hiring and retention by making small changes to your interview process. Berry, whose law firm became the first to ever receive the Department of Labor’s HIREVets Platinum Medallion, has filled his staff with veterans by following a few simple rules.  Among them are a list of questions to NEVER ask. These include:

• Do you have PTSD? Firstly, in an interview situation, it’s illegal to ask this mental health question before a job offer has been made under the Americans With Disabilities Act. It can’t be asked afterwards either, unless certain conditions are met. So, avoid this line of questioning (even after a hiring decision has been made) or risk exposing the company to legal repercussions. Second, it’s just disrespectful. The veteran will likely think they’re being stigmatized and labeled as “damaged goods” in some way, or regarded as the stereotypical “unstable veteran.” It will make it difficult to establish trust, a healthy rapport and a sustainable professional relationship going forward.

• Have you ever killed anyone? Most veterans who served in combat don’t want to discuss the details of their military service with a civilian, whether it be a boss or workplace colleague. This question can be offensive, disconcerting or generally uncomfortable to the veteran who did, in fact, have to take a life in the defense of his or her country. This question can be equally objectionable for veterans who made many sacrifices, but did not have to take the life of another. The idea of taking another human being’s life in the line of duty is a highly sensitive and emotion-evoking topic that demands the utmost courtesy and privacy.

Soldiers assigned to the 615th Engineer Construction Company, 4th Engineer Battalion, build Somali-style huts for a training area near Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, as part of Justified Accord 19. The accord is an annual joint exercise designed to strengthen partnerships, promote regional security and support peacekeeping operations for the African Union Mission in Somalia. Photo: US Army / Sgt. Aubry Buzek


• Have you ever been shot? While the veteran may not have a current disability from an injury, you don’t want to take the chance of touching on what could be deep-seeded emotional wounds and traumatic memories of physical distress that have been difficult to come to terms with. Furthermore, the veteran who was not in combat is likely proud of his or her accomplishments in the military, and, whether or not they’ve engaged in gunfire or been hit, may perceive the comment as belittling. In a DiversityInc.com workplace article, Army veteran Ryan Kules stated, “Far too often, people assume a level of familiarity with former military that not only breeches proper office conduct but also invades one’s ‘personal space’.”

U.S. Air Force Capt. Christa Lothes (left) hands donated materials for a sewing class to a local Afghan women during an afternoon tea. The regular event provides an opportunity to educate the local women on various humanitarian and security programs in place for them and their communities. Afghan women are very influential in their communities and talking with them is a powerful way to get information spread throughout the region. “They are just like us in that they want their roads to be free of bombs,” says Heather Kekic, the local military public affairs and information officer. “They don’t want their families hurt or killed by the violence.” Photo: US Air Force / Staff Sgt. Julie Weckerlein

With that in mind, according to a Military.com article, here are a few other things one should avoid asking military veterans in a job interview or any other form of conversation:

• Is it hard to get back to real life after being in the military?
• How could you leave your family for so long?
• What’s the worst thing that happened to you?
• Were you raped?

There are also some key concerns owners and managers should bear in mind when managing veterans who are already on the payroll as formal hires. According to Berry, here are a few main things to avoid:

• Don’t make combat references or analogies. It’s bad form to tell a veteran that dealing with a competitor or other professional foe is like “hand-to-hand combat” or that you’re taking “friendly fire.” Relating these kinds of serious phrases in the mind and heart of a veteran to civilian experiences can be distasteful at best — and even deemed utterly reprehensible. 

The night before American Soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy, Joseph Reilly and the 101st Airborne Division parachuted behind enemy lines. He and his fellow soldiers helped secure Utah Beach and the first foothold in America’s liberation of Western Europe. Joseph also fought in Operation Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge, and the battle of the Ruhr Pocket. He now lives in San Diego, California. Photo: White House / Keegan Barber


• Don’t make fun of any military branch if you didn’t serve. It’s generally accepted for veterans to lightheartedly make fun of the other branches of service with and among fellow veterans. You might hear a vet refer to Marines as “crayon eaters,” joke about the Air Force “not really being military,” and other such tongue-in-cheek remarks. However, veterans greatly frown upon a person who has never served making fun of their branch of service or any other. 

• Don’t bad-mouth military conflicts. You may think you are showing empathy by talking about “unnecessary” wars and deployments and that our veterans should not have had to make sacrifices. Political views aside, you may be speaking to a veteran who is proud to have served in that conflict and, irrespective of all, respects the governmental decisions made to go that route. Don’t risk degrading the veteran’s actual service — and choice to throw themselves into the fray — because you disagree with the nature of the conflict.

The ban on women in combat was lifted Jan. 23, 2013. Though 99 percent of the careers offered in the Air Force are open to women, the decision will open more than 230,000 jobs across all branches of the military. 2019 marks the 26th year that the Department of Defense allowed women to serve as combat pilots. Photo: US Airforce / Senior Airman Micaiah Anthony

Also as reported on Military.com, as part of American coffee company Starbucks’ growing commitment to empower military veterans, it advises civilians to, “Get to know somebody and take it slowly, just like you would with anyone else. Ask questions about who they are, where they’re from and what they like to do.” Conversation starters included on Starbucks’ list include:

• How long did you serve?
• What did you do (in the Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force, Guard, or Reserves)?
• Why did you choose that branch?
• Do you come from a military family?
• Did you visit any other countries?
• Where was your favorite place you lived?

A Soldier with the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) participates in a Joint Armed Forces Color Guard in support of Honor Flight Chicago at the World War II Memorial, Washington, DC. An Honor Flight is conducted by non-profit organizations dedicated to transporting as many United States military veterans as possible to see the memorials in D.C. of the respective war they fought in at no cost to the veterans. Photo: US Army / Sgt. Nicholas T. Holmes

“Veterans are some of the hardest working, dedicated and loyal employees you could ever hope to hire,” Berry notes. “I know, because I have hired dozens of them on my team. “In fact, they are the most important asset in my company. If you get the chance to hire a veteran, don’t mess up what can be a hugely fruitful and rewarding engagement by saying something distasteful — or downright stupid. As a hiring manager or a colleague, you can establish camaraderie with veteran coworkers by being a mindful and respectful person. The vet will undoubtedly ‘cover your six’ no matter what challenges come your way.”

3 Things to Never Ask a Military Veteran in the Workplace

Posted on by Merilee Kern

A veterans law attorney explains what critical questions to avoid when interviewing a military veteran for a job — and interacting with those already on-staff — to avoid legal landmines and to help foster a military-friendly employer status. While this story has a U.S. focus in honor of Veterans Day, these same questions can apply to any military veteran anywhere in the world.

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, in August 2019 the 3.4 percent veteran unemployment rate represented the 12th consecutive month this metric was lower than the non-veteran unemployment rate (currently at 3.6 percent). This is an indication that the hiring of veterans is going strong. According to NCSL.org, there are 18.8 million veterans living in the United States today, representing 7.6 percent of the country’s population. They are a robust, trained and skilled employee pool that have the potential to make a significant impact on U.S. industry and, in turn, the global economy at large.  

While the many benefits of hiring a military veteran have been well-publicized in the media, and U.S. employers are starting to take heed, there are a number of critical considerations business owners must keep in mind when considering appropriate language to use when dealing with a person who has served in the military. There are also some legal landmines to avoid when interviewing a veteran for employment — whether full or part time, contract, freelance or other.  

A Soldier with the Tennessee Army National Guard’s 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment, celebrates his reenlistment after swearing in a UH-60 Black Hawk, 200 feet above Tullahoma, Tennessee. Photo: US Army / Sgt. Sarah Kirby

According to retired Army Lieutenant Colonel John Berry of Berry Law Firm, you can improve your veteran hiring and retention by making small changes to your interview process. Berry, whose law firm became the first to ever receive the Department of Labor’s HIREVets Platinum Medallion, has filled his staff with veterans by following a few simple rules.  Among them are a list of questions to NEVER ask. These include:

• Do you have PTSD? Firstly, in an interview situation, it’s illegal to ask this mental health question before a job offer has been made under the Americans With Disabilities Act. It can’t be asked afterwards either, unless certain conditions are met. So, avoid this line of questioning (even after a hiring decision has been made) or risk exposing the company to legal repercussions. Second, it’s just disrespectful. The veteran will likely think they’re being stigmatized and labeled as “damaged goods” in some way, or regarded as the stereotypical “unstable veteran.” It will make it difficult to establish trust, a healthy rapport and a sustainable professional relationship going forward.

• Have you ever killed anyone? Most veterans who served in combat don’t want to discuss the details of their military service with a civilian, whether it be a boss or workplace colleague. This question can be offensive, disconcerting or generally uncomfortable to the veteran who did, in fact, have to take a life in the defense of his or her country. This question can be equally objectionable for veterans who made many sacrifices, but did not have to take the life of another. The idea of taking another human being’s life in the line of duty is a highly sensitive and emotion-evoking topic that demands the utmost courtesy and privacy.

Soldiers assigned to the 615th Engineer Construction Company, 4th Engineer Battalion, build Somali-style huts for a training area near Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, as part of Justified Accord 19. The accord is an annual joint exercise designed to strengthen partnerships, promote regional security and support peacekeeping operations for the African Union Mission in Somalia. Photo: US Army / Sgt. Aubry Buzek


• Have you ever been shot? While the veteran may not have a current disability from an injury, you don’t want to take the chance of touching on what could be deep-seeded emotional wounds and traumatic memories of physical distress that have been difficult to come to terms with. Furthermore, the veteran who was not in combat is likely proud of his or her accomplishments in the military, and, whether or not they’ve engaged in gunfire or been hit, may perceive the comment as belittling. In a DiversityInc.com workplace article, Army veteran Ryan Kules stated, “Far too often, people assume a level of familiarity with former military that not only breeches proper office conduct but also invades one’s ‘personal space’.”

U.S. Air Force Capt. Christa Lothes (left) hands donated materials for a sewing class to a local Afghan women during an afternoon tea. The regular event provides an opportunity to educate the local women on various humanitarian and security programs in place for them and their communities. Afghan women are very influential in their communities and talking with them is a powerful way to get information spread throughout the region. “They are just like us in that they want their roads to be free of bombs,” says Heather Kekic, the local military public affairs and information officer. “They don’t want their families hurt or killed by the violence.” Photo: US Air Force / Staff Sgt. Julie Weckerlein

With that in mind, according to a Military.com article, here are a few other things one should avoid asking military veterans in a job interview or any other form of conversation:

• Is it hard to get back to real life after being in the military?
• How could you leave your family for so long?
• What’s the worst thing that happened to you?
• Were you raped?

There are also some key concerns owners and managers should bear in mind when managing veterans who are already on the payroll as formal hires. According to Berry, here are a few main things to avoid:

• Don’t make combat references or analogies. It’s bad form to tell a veteran that dealing with a competitor or other professional foe is like “hand-to-hand combat” or that you’re taking “friendly fire.” Relating these kinds of serious phrases in the mind and heart of a veteran to civilian experiences can be distasteful at best — and even deemed utterly reprehensible. 

The night before American Soldiers stormed the beaches of Normandy, Joseph Reilly and the 101st Airborne Division parachuted behind enemy lines. He and his fellow soldiers helped secure Utah Beach and the first foothold in America’s liberation of Western Europe. Joseph also fought in Operation Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge, and the battle of the Ruhr Pocket. He now lives in San Diego, California. Photo: White House / Keegan Barber


• Don’t make fun of any military branch if you didn’t serve. It’s generally accepted for veterans to lightheartedly make fun of the other branches of service with and among fellow veterans. You might hear a vet refer to Marines as “crayon eaters,” joke about the Air Force “not really being military,” and other such tongue-in-cheek remarks. However, veterans greatly frown upon a person who has never served making fun of their branch of service or any other. 

• Don’t bad-mouth military conflicts. You may think you are showing empathy by talking about “unnecessary” wars and deployments and that our veterans should not have had to make sacrifices. Political views aside, you may be speaking to a veteran who is proud to have served in that conflict and, irrespective of all, respects the governmental decisions made to go that route. Don’t risk degrading the veteran’s actual service — and choice to throw themselves into the fray — because you disagree with the nature of the conflict.

The ban on women in combat was lifted Jan. 23, 2013. Though 99 percent of the careers offered in the Air Force are open to women, the decision will open more than 230,000 jobs across all branches of the military. 2019 marks the 26th year that the Department of Defense allowed women to serve as combat pilots. Photo: US Airforce / Senior Airman Micaiah Anthony

Also as reported on Military.com, as part of American coffee company Starbucks’ growing commitment to empower military veterans, it advises civilians to, “Get to know somebody and take it slowly, just like you would with anyone else. Ask questions about who they are, where they’re from and what they like to do.” Conversation starters included on Starbucks’ list include:

• How long did you serve?
• What did you do (in the Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Air Force, Guard, or Reserves)?
• Why did you choose that branch?
• Do you come from a military family?
• Did you visit any other countries?
• Where was your favorite place you lived?

A Soldier with the 3rd U.S. Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) participates in a Joint Armed Forces Color Guard in support of Honor Flight Chicago at the World War II Memorial, Washington, DC. An Honor Flight is conducted by non-profit organizations dedicated to transporting as many United States military veterans as possible to see the memorials in D.C. of the respective war they fought in at no cost to the veterans. Photo: US Army / Sgt. Nicholas T. Holmes

“Veterans are some of the hardest working, dedicated and loyal employees you could ever hope to hire,” Berry notes. “I know, because I have hired dozens of them on my team. “In fact, they are the most important asset in my company. If you get the chance to hire a veteran, don’t mess up what can be a hugely fruitful and rewarding engagement by saying something distasteful — or downright stupid. As a hiring manager or a colleague, you can establish camaraderie with veteran coworkers by being a mindful and respectful person. The vet will undoubtedly ‘cover your six’ no matter what challenges come your way.”

Respecting Diversity is Not What You Think. We Need Diversity Within Unity

Posted on by Anthony Silard

If respect for diversity brings about change, why is MLK’s dream still so poignantly unrealized?

We have been “respecting” diversity by paying lip service to it for decades with little reward for African-Americans. For many of us, this “respect” has been the “right thing to do,” a manifestation of evaluation apprehension, or our fear of how others will see us (and the social punishments we will receive) if we voice anything to the contrary.  

The social, economic, and political outcomes of this “respect” for diversity are visible everywhere. Go to your favorite restaurant and see who almost all of its patrons are sitting with: others who look like them.  

A friend who worked in a Palo Alto tech company experienced this respect firsthand. An African-American Yale graduate, he did not feel like he fit in with the predominately white-male culture and avoided going to the sports and rock bars with his coworkers at the end of the day. That’s where the deals were made. His choice was implicit: adapt to the dominant culture or fade into the background. After a year, he left. 

“Respecting” diversity isn’t enough. In an individualistic culture like the United States — where most people strive to display their uniqueness in all facets of their lives, including how they name their children — respect for diversity is interpreted as valuing individual rights no matter what.  

How, then, do we express this respect for the individual? By not encroaching upon their rights by engaging with them — which might have tragic consequences for your career if you say something that’s not politically correct and offend them. This approach does not create community. Nor does it truly create respect for diversity.  

As a clever study by Robin Ely and David Harrison of Harvard University found, when whites accept diversity for moral or ethical reasons, they subsequently cross it off their To-Do list — “accepted diversity today” — and move on with their lives. For this reason, people of color detest this rationale for diversifying organizations more than any other.  

When, on the other hand, whites engage with people of color by integrating them into decision-making processes and learning from their perspectives, they generate new ideas that can lead to innovation and meaningful change. 

This takes us to the etymological foundation of the word respect, which is “to see again.” If we wish to see each other again — which we need to do because, as Stanford psychologist Emma Seppala has found, social connection is vital to our well-being — then we need to do much more than respect diversity. We need to reach out to people of other ethnicities, income levels, genders, disabilities, and sexual orientations and try to understand the world through their eyes. In other words, we need to engage with diversity.  

It is not respect for diversity but diversity within unity that needs to be a healthy society’s goal. To achieve this goal — and also reduce the pandemic loneliness within yourself and others that has taken over our unprecedentedly polarized society — it’s imperative that you take the social risks involved with interacting more with people who look different. 

A Japanese proverb warns us that vision without action is a daydream, and action without vision is a nightmare. Without engagement, our respect for diversity creates this individualistic, mutually isolated nightmare where fear dominates and the potential for understanding and compassion remains unrealized.  

To truly understand respect, we must consider the wise counsel of Freud that “Those don’t believe who don’t live according to their belief.” To shift our own and other’s values around diversity, we can begin by asking people who look different from us how they are experiencing life and Then. Just. Listen.  

As former president Barack Obama admonished, this advice should also be taken to heart by the other side: if you are a member of the non-dominant social group (e.g., a person of color, a woman, gay, a vegan, the list goes on and on as there are so many demographic and social markers that differentiate us), you can make the transformative decision to perceive the ignorant verbal transgressions of dominant group members as an opportunity for discussion and learning rather than for “cancelling” further interaction — which only serves to send a message to dominant group members that it’s better to safely avoid than riskily engage. 

By crossing these psychological bridges with increased curiosity and sensitivity as we learn more profoundly about each other, we can come together to create a better world.  

Respecting Diversity is Not What You Think. We Need Diversity Within Unity

Posted on by Anthony Silard

If respect for diversity brings about change, why is MLK’s dream still so poignantly unrealized?

We have been “respecting” diversity by paying lip service to it for decades with little reward for African-Americans. For many of us, this “respect” has been the “right thing to do,” a manifestation of evaluation apprehension, or our fear of how others will see us (and the social punishments we will receive) if we voice anything to the contrary.  

The social, economic, and political outcomes of this “respect” for diversity are visible everywhere. Go to your favorite restaurant and see who almost all of its patrons are sitting with: others who look like them.  

A friend who worked in a Palo Alto tech company experienced this respect firsthand. An African-American Yale graduate, he did not feel like he fit in with the predominately white-male culture and avoided going to the sports and rock bars with his coworkers at the end of the day. That’s where the deals were made. His choice was implicit: adapt to the dominant culture or fade into the background. After a year, he left. 

“Respecting” diversity isn’t enough. In an individualistic culture like the United States — where most people strive to display their uniqueness in all facets of their lives, including how they name their children — respect for diversity is interpreted as valuing individual rights no matter what.  

How, then, do we express this respect for the individual? By not encroaching upon their rights by engaging with them — which might have tragic consequences for your career if you say something that’s not politically correct and offend them. This approach does not create community. Nor does it truly create respect for diversity.  

As a clever study by Robin Ely and David Harrison of Harvard University found, when whites accept diversity for moral or ethical reasons, they subsequently cross it off their To-Do list — “accepted diversity today” — and move on with their lives. For this reason, people of color detest this rationale for diversifying organizations more than any other.  

When, on the other hand, whites engage with people of color by integrating them into decision-making processes and learning from their perspectives, they generate new ideas that can lead to innovation and meaningful change. 

This takes us to the etymological foundation of the word respect, which is “to see again.” If we wish to see each other again — which we need to do because, as Stanford psychologist Emma Seppala has found, social connection is vital to our well-being — then we need to do much more than respect diversity. We need to reach out to people of other ethnicities, income levels, genders, disabilities, and sexual orientations and try to understand the world through their eyes. In other words, we need to engage with diversity.  

It is not respect for diversity but diversity within unity that needs to be a healthy society’s goal. To achieve this goal — and also reduce the pandemic loneliness within yourself and others that has taken over our unprecedentedly polarized society — it’s imperative that you take the social risks involved with interacting more with people who look different. 

A Japanese proverb warns us that vision without action is a daydream, and action without vision is a nightmare. Without engagement, our respect for diversity creates this individualistic, mutually isolated nightmare where fear dominates and the potential for understanding and compassion remains unrealized.  

To truly understand respect, we must consider the wise counsel of Freud that “Those don’t believe who don’t live according to their belief.” To shift our own and other’s values around diversity, we can begin by asking people who look different from us how they are experiencing life and Then. Just. Listen.  

As former president Barack Obama admonished, this advice should also be taken to heart by the other side: if you are a member of the non-dominant social group (e.g., a person of color, a woman, gay, a vegan, the list goes on and on as there are so many demographic and social markers that differentiate us), you can make the transformative decision to perceive the ignorant verbal transgressions of dominant group members as an opportunity for discussion and learning rather than for “cancelling” further interaction — which only serves to send a message to dominant group members that it’s better to safely avoid than riskily engage. 

By crossing these psychological bridges with increased curiosity and sensitivity as we learn more profoundly about each other, we can come together to create a better world.  

Peace Is More Than an Absence of Conflict

Posted on by Real Leaders

Landmines are among the most insidious and cruel weapons because they do not distinguish between armed soldiers, civilians, or even children. According to the Landmine Monitor 2020, explosive devices hidden in the ground killed or injured at least 5,554 people worldwide last year alone — that’s an average of 15 deaths and serious injuries per day.

With her International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), Professor Jody Williams (above, third from right) has been advocating a ban on landmines for almost 30 years. Together with her campaign for banning landmines, she received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her commitment.

Professor Williams, thank you for taking the time for this interview with the Faces of Peace initiative. First of all, we would like to ask you: What does “peace” mean for you?

Peace is not simply the absence of armed conflict. That is the baseline on which sustainable peace can be built. For me, sustainable peace is peace built on human security, not national security. We do not need more “modernized” nuclear weapons. We do not need fully autonomous weapons that, on their own, can target and kill human beings. We need to use our resources so that people’s needs are met, not the needs of arms producers. People should live dignified lives, with equal access to education, health care, housing, etc. We need to focus on human security for sustainable peace, not national security, to protect the state’s infrastructure. Peace and security should be people-centered!

On 3 December 1997, 122 states signed the treaty for the banning of landmines. You and your campaign received the Nobel Peace Prize for this. How did you, as an American, come on the topic of landmines?

I was asked by two organizations – the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and a German humanitarian relief organization, “Medico International” – if I thought I could create an international coalition of non-governmental organizations to pressure governments to ban antipersonnel landmines. It was a fantastic challenge that sparked my interest, so I accepted that challenge, and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines was born. Today, some 164 nations are part of the Mine Ban Treaty.

Speaking of the Landmine Monitor 2020: With 5,554 dead, the global death toll remains high 23 years after the ban on landmines. Is this a sobering figure? What else can the international community do?

It is a very sobering question and demonstrates how long it takes to clean up the mess of the chaos caused by war and violence. The international community must maintain its focus on supporting countries still plagued with landmines and working on mine clearance.

The danger of landmines – especially improvised explosive devices – still exists. And the world has not become more peaceful anyway. What are the biggest threats to peace in 2021?

To my mind, the global obsession with weapons and violence while at the same time painting people who believe that peace is possible as intellectual “light weights” who don’t understand the harsh reality of the world are the two sides of the double-edged sword that keeps the world believing that only more weapons will keep us safe. The biggest threats are the “modernization” of nuclear weapons and the new “revolution” of weapons – killer robots. The weapons are fully autonomous and can target and kill human beings on their own. A devastating “marriage” of artificial intelligence and weapons of war!

Bombs do not kill ideology: Just in office, U.S. President Joe Biden ordered an airstrike in Syria – and another was called off at the last minute. What are your thoughts about that?

As you point out, bombs cannot kill an ideology. In fact, bombing and other acts of violence can strengthen ideological conviction and make recruiting new people easier. I did not support Obama’s extensive use of drone warfare either.

And speaking of Joe Biden: The U.S. has so far not signed the Ottawa Convention. What do you think the chances are of this happening during Joe Biden’s presidency? Does the world need U.S. leadership?

I cannot predict what Biden will do regarding the Mine Ban Treaty. But he will likely roll back Trump’s policy and align his administration’s policy with that of the Obama administration, which brought the U.S. very close to compliance with the treaty even if it was not signed.

Professor Williams, you are also chair of the Nobel Women’s Initiative. What exactly does this initiative do, and how can one support your important work?

The Nobel Women’s Initiative was launched in 2006. It brings together five women recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. They use our influence and access to shine a spotlight on grassroots women’s organizations in conflict areas worldwide, working for sustainable peace with justice and equality.

This interview courtesy of the Faces of Peace Initiative

Peace Is More Than an Absence of Conflict

Posted on by Real Leaders

Landmines are among the most insidious and cruel weapons because they do not distinguish between armed soldiers, civilians, or even children. According to the Landmine Monitor 2020, explosive devices hidden in the ground killed or injured at least 5,554 people worldwide last year alone — that’s an average of 15 deaths and serious injuries per day.

With her International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), Professor Jody Williams (above, third from right) has been advocating a ban on landmines for almost 30 years. Together with her campaign for banning landmines, she received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997 for her commitment.

Professor Williams, thank you for taking the time for this interview with the Faces of Peace initiative. First of all, we would like to ask you: What does “peace” mean for you?

Peace is not simply the absence of armed conflict. That is the baseline on which sustainable peace can be built. For me, sustainable peace is peace built on human security, not national security. We do not need more “modernized” nuclear weapons. We do not need fully autonomous weapons that, on their own, can target and kill human beings. We need to use our resources so that people’s needs are met, not the needs of arms producers. People should live dignified lives, with equal access to education, health care, housing, etc. We need to focus on human security for sustainable peace, not national security, to protect the state’s infrastructure. Peace and security should be people-centered!

On 3 December 1997, 122 states signed the treaty for the banning of landmines. You and your campaign received the Nobel Peace Prize for this. How did you, as an American, come on the topic of landmines?

I was asked by two organizations – the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation and a German humanitarian relief organization, “Medico International” – if I thought I could create an international coalition of non-governmental organizations to pressure governments to ban antipersonnel landmines. It was a fantastic challenge that sparked my interest, so I accepted that challenge, and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines was born. Today, some 164 nations are part of the Mine Ban Treaty.

Speaking of the Landmine Monitor 2020: With 5,554 dead, the global death toll remains high 23 years after the ban on landmines. Is this a sobering figure? What else can the international community do?

It is a very sobering question and demonstrates how long it takes to clean up the mess of the chaos caused by war and violence. The international community must maintain its focus on supporting countries still plagued with landmines and working on mine clearance.

The danger of landmines – especially improvised explosive devices – still exists. And the world has not become more peaceful anyway. What are the biggest threats to peace in 2021?

To my mind, the global obsession with weapons and violence while at the same time painting people who believe that peace is possible as intellectual “light weights” who don’t understand the harsh reality of the world are the two sides of the double-edged sword that keeps the world believing that only more weapons will keep us safe. The biggest threats are the “modernization” of nuclear weapons and the new “revolution” of weapons – killer robots. The weapons are fully autonomous and can target and kill human beings on their own. A devastating “marriage” of artificial intelligence and weapons of war!

Bombs do not kill ideology: Just in office, U.S. President Joe Biden ordered an airstrike in Syria – and another was called off at the last minute. What are your thoughts about that?

As you point out, bombs cannot kill an ideology. In fact, bombing and other acts of violence can strengthen ideological conviction and make recruiting new people easier. I did not support Obama’s extensive use of drone warfare either.

And speaking of Joe Biden: The U.S. has so far not signed the Ottawa Convention. What do you think the chances are of this happening during Joe Biden’s presidency? Does the world need U.S. leadership?

I cannot predict what Biden will do regarding the Mine Ban Treaty. But he will likely roll back Trump’s policy and align his administration’s policy with that of the Obama administration, which brought the U.S. very close to compliance with the treaty even if it was not signed.

Professor Williams, you are also chair of the Nobel Women’s Initiative. What exactly does this initiative do, and how can one support your important work?

The Nobel Women’s Initiative was launched in 2006. It brings together five women recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize. They use our influence and access to shine a spotlight on grassroots women’s organizations in conflict areas worldwide, working for sustainable peace with justice and equality.

This interview courtesy of the Faces of Peace Initiative

0