“We’ve become, now, an oligarchy instead of a democracy. I think that’s been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards to the American political system that I’ve ever seen in my life.” Jimmy Carter
“States are not moral agents, people are, and can impose moral standards on powerful institutions.” Noam Chomsky
“Right action tends to be defined in terms of general individual rights and standards that have been critically examined and agreed upon by the whole society,” Lawrence Kohlberg
We’ve been hearing a lot of talk about standards and systems these days. For me, they have been some of the most convoluted conversations I’ve ever heard. And that’s saying something, because I have heard far too many crazy conversations in my life.
The conversations, however, are not new. For example, Jimmy Carter warned us that oligarchies damage the moral and ethical standards of our political system many years ago. I would add that they can do great damage to other social systems as well. In 2009, Noam Chomsky challenged the people to set moral standards for powerful institutions instead of the other way around. Clearly, institutions, like the Supreme Court, are now setting those standards. Lawrence Kohlberg, the moral philosopher who died in 1987, believed that individual rights and standards should be critically examined and agreed upon before being imposed. It certainly doesn’t feel like the new administration is engaging in critical examinations or seeking consensus on the standards they are imposing or “systems” they are implementing.
But let’s start with the words of a poet. In 1962, Bob Dylan wrote A Hard Rain is Gonna Fall, in which he asks, “where have you been my darling young one?” Two of the responses are: “I’ve been out in front of a dozen dead oceans and I’ve been 10,000 miles in the mouth of a graveyard.” Then he asks, what did you see? The response is, “I saw 10,000 talkers whose tongues were all broken, and I saw guns and sharp swords in the hands of young children. He goes on to ask, “Well, what did you hear?” The son responds, “I heard 10,000 whispering and nobody listening, and I heard the song of a poet who died in the gutter.” He follows up with, “Who did you meet? The response is, “I met one man who was wounded by love, and I met another man who was wounded by hatred.” Finally, he presses, “Well, what’ll you do now? And the response is, I’m going back out before the rain starts falling where the people are many, but the hands are all empty; where the pellets of poison flood all our water, where hunger is ugly and souls are forgotten; and I’ll tell it and speak it and think it and breathe it, but I’ll know my song well before I start singin.” Wow, that’s what I call prescient, except that what we are facing now is more like a tsunami than a hard rain.
Dylan’s song invites us to live in the questions we should all be asking ourselves: How did we get here? What are we seeing? What are we hearing? Who are we? And what are we going to do? As I have said in previous posts, I’m going to focus on local issues where there is some chance of having a small impact. For me, it’s about helping to set standards and create systems that have a chance of surviving the “rain” that keeps falling. Thus, in an attempt to think this through, here are some thoughts that provide some context for the standards and systems that need to change. Then, I will turn to where we are now and what each of us must decide re: what are we going to do?
This century has already been marked by a pervasive sense of decline, a feeling that the standards governing our lives – how we live, learn, and work – have eroded. While pinpointing a single cause is impossible, a confluence of factors, from technological disruption to shifting societal priorities, has contributed to this perception. Focusing solely on raising standards, however, without addressing the systemic issues that underpin them is akin to treating the symptom while ignoring the disease.
The perception of declining living standards is complex. While material wealth has increased for some, many experience stagnant wages, rising costs of living, and a widening gap between the rich and poor. Data from the Pew Research Center (e.g., their work on middle-class income stagnation) consistently highlights this disparity. Furthermore, the erosion of social safety nets and the increasing precariousness of employment contribute to a sense of insecurity, even for those who haven’t experienced a direct decline in income. This feeling is further amplified by concerns about access to affordable housing, healthcare, and education, all of which contribute to a sense that the baseline for a decent life is slipping away.
In education, the debate about declining standards is equally fraught. While standardized test scores may show incremental improvements in some areas in some places, many argue that these tests fail to capture the full picture of student learning. Concerns about grade inflation, screen time, the devaluing of humanities education, the erosion of support for public education, and the increasing burden of student debt all contribute to the narrative of declining standards. Critics like Alfie Kohn (e.g., his book “The Schools Our Children Deserve”) argue that an overemphasis on standardized testing has led to a narrowing of the curriculum and a focus on rote memorization rather than critical thinking and creativity. Furthermore, the increasing reliance on technology in education, while offering potential benefits, also raises concerns about digital equity and the potential for distraction and superficial learning. Closing down the Department of Education and ramping up vouchers won’t help.
The workplace, too, is often cited as an arena where standards have declined. The rise of the gig economy and the decline of traditional employment models have led to increased job insecurity and a weakening of worker protections. And, the pressure to be constantly “on” in our hyper-connected world has blurred the lines between work and personal life, leading to burnout and a sense that the quality of work has suffered. While some studies suggest improvements in certain areas, the overall narrative is often one of increased stress, decreased job satisfaction, and a decline in the sense of community and purpose in the workplace.
It’s crucial to recognize that standards exist within a larger system. Simply raising standards without addressing the underlying systemic issues is unlikely to produce lasting change. For example, demanding higher academic achievement without addressing issues of poverty, inequality, and inadequate funding for schools is unlikely to yield significant results. Similarly, expecting higher workplace performance without addressing issues of work-life balance, job security, and fair compensation is likely to be counterproductive.
Research in organizational systems theory emphasizes the interconnectedness of different elements within a system. A change in one area, such as raising standards, can have unintended consequences in other areas. For example, raising academic standards without providing adequate support for struggling students may lead to increased dropout rates. Therefore, a systems approach is essential for understanding and addressing the challenges we face. This means looking beyond simply raising standards and focusing on creating environments that support individuals and enable them to thrive.
Organizational systems, whether they be businesses, non-profits, or government agencies, are complex networks of interconnected elements working towards a common goal. Understanding these systems requires recognizing the intricate interdependence of their components, functions, processes, conditions, and standards. A system cannot function effectively, let alone achieve its intended outcomes, without considering the interplay among them, particularly the establishment of clear and measurable standards.
Consider the components of a system as the various programs, projects, or initiatives undertaken to achieve the organization’s objectives. These components are not chosen arbitrarily; they are selected to fulfill specific functions. The function represents the purpose or reason behind implementing a particular program. For example, a “customer retention program” (component) might serve the function of “increasing customer loyalty.” The connection is clear: the program exists to achieve a defined purpose.
However, simply having a program and a purpose is insufficient. Processes are the methods, procedures, and workflows that translate the program into action. They define how the function will be achieved. In the example above, the customer retention program might involve processes like personalized email campaigns, loyalty point systems, and customer feedback surveys. The effectiveness of the program depends on how well goals are set, input gathered, information discussed, plans developed, and outcomes achieved.
These components, functions, and processes operate within a specific context – the conditions. Conditions encompass the internal and external factors that influence the system, such as market trends, regulatory environments, resource availability, and organizational culture. A customer retention program might be highly effective in a growing market but struggle in a declining one. Ignoring these conditions can render even the best-designed programs ineffective.
Finally, standards define the desired outcomes and provide a benchmark for evaluating the success of the system. They represent the measurable expectations against which performance is judged. For our customer retention program, standards might include metrics like “increasing repeat customer rate by 15% within a year” or “achieving a customer satisfaction score of 4.5 out of 5.” Without these standards, it’s impossible to determine if the program is achieving its intended function or if the resources invested are yielding the desired results.
With all those definitions as context, let’s go back to tsunami of the current administration – the executive orders, the press conferences, the confirmation hearings, the closings, the freezes, the purges, the disabling of checks and balances, and the narrative that all the problems can be blamed on DEI standards -a disgusting convolution of facts as well as thinly disguised racist dog whistling and gaslighting. In a recent post, I offered a defense of DEI that summarizes the important outcomes of diversity and inclusion efforts. In a recent article in the Harvard Business Review, Lily Zheng suggests a reframing of DEI that centers on the standards of Fairness, Access, Inclusion, and Representation (FAIR) outcomes in the context of a systems approach instead of on training participation and equity as one-offs. I highly recommend it.
In the Inauguration, we saw the standards that were set for front row seats: money and power, not morals and ethics. I’m not sure what combination of rich, smart, crazy and evil landed preferred seating, but I’m sure it wasn’t the combination of decency, generosity or humility that got you the best seats. To add insult to injury, the flood of executive orders have been driven more by the standards of retribution and meanness, than by fairness and justice. And the selection process for our cabinet leaders was grounded in loyalty and obsequiousness; not experience, expertise or cultural role modelling. Michelle Goldberg goes as far as saying, “Under the new standards, diversity is taboo, and racism is not. This stark reversal of values is a signature of the Trump restoration.”
What does it say about the health of our systems when inauguration attendees have done more to shift wealth to the richest among us than anyone in history, when the succession planning system produces candidates with a pathetic lack of experience – where one person can freeze spending on agencies throughout the world and can purge career FBI agents who faithfully carried out their duties to investigate an insurrection. As Healther Cox Richardson said, “The replacement of our constitutional system of government with the whims of an unelected private citizen is a coup.” It sure feels, to me, more like a tsunami than a hard rain.
While we have to wait two years to change the balance of power, we can take action on the local level to set high standards and to change dysfunctional systems. Community leaders need to come together to engage in meaningful conversations about the impact of this administration’s decisions, the issues they will need to address, and the ideas for moving forward together. As concerned (if not horrified) citizens, we need to stay informed, stay invested in positive change, and stay inspired by the purposes and principles on which this country was founded.
I’m hoping we can resist the oligarchy and techno-bros who are damaging our moral and ethical standards and governmental systems. I’m hoping that, as a people, we can insist on moral standards for our institutions. I’m hoping we can critically examine our rights and standards, and agree on more compassionate and harmonious systems that will enable us to move forward. And, finally, I’m hoping that we will listen more to the poets than to the posers. May it be so.
Also published on Medium.
Wow! May it be so indeed! Really worried my friend…