Leadership, Race and Equity: Understanding the Flint Water Crisis

Leadership decisions have consequences. Sometimes deadly consequences.

This is what is examined in a riveting film by U.K. filmmaker Anthony Baxter who’s documentary film “Flint: Who Can You Trust?” chronicles a series of poor leadership decisions that led to a cascade of problems for the city of Flint, Michigan and its residents, over a span of five years. The film, which was screened at Chicago’s One Earth Film Festival earlier this month, spawned series of broad community discussions about leadership, race, science and the environment.

OVP Management Consulting Group, Inc. had the good fortune of being able to facilitate one such discussion with Mr. Baxter, columnist with Mother Jones Magazine Nathalie Baptiste and water activist and Flint resident Nakiya Wakes this month.

One of the most significant issues that came to the surface during our hour-long talk was the role that leadership plays in being able to address complex problems facing communities and organizations. The documentary highlighted the disparities that exists between well-resourced communities seeking to make changes and resource-strapped communities that often are at the mercy of larger forces. These disparities laid bare the importance of equitable leadership and how it can help organizations and people make better decisions.

We would encourage our clients and partners to watch the film. It offers a great example of how poor decision-making can result in catastrophic outcomes for organizations of all kinds.

Watch the panel discussion here.

Courage of Convictions: A Response to Terror

Now what?

It's the question that many have been pondering since the insurgent attack on the United States Capitol on Wednesday, January 6, 2021.

Many I've encountered are hoping "we can all just get along". They see January 20, 2021 as a time to "turn the page" and "hopefully, put this dark chapter behind us." Others suggest that "enough is enough" and "once Joe Biden and Kamala Harris take office, we will get back to the business of normal government".

What I find telling about these perspectives, often uttered by both well-meaning people, as well as cynical opportunists, is that they rely on wishful thinking. There is "hope" things can get back to normal. This is the problem.

Many of us believe that this Democratic Republic can be wished back into "normalcy". But the irony of that perspective is that it belies the truth about the "norms" that we rely on to call ourselves a free, fair and open society: The laws that undergird this Democratic Republic.

Instead of reliance on laws, far too many of us are being influenced by "fears" of what could happen. And if I can be frank here, I think that is the epitome of lazy citizenry. In effect, we're allowing the Democratic Republic that is the United States of America to devolve into what can be boiled down to "prison politics", where the strongest rule the roost, the weakest are forced to choose "sides" and there is no room for alternative perspectives or thoughts.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America."

It goes on to lay out the legal foundations that dictate our civil society. It is the wellspring of the laws that govern our behavior and orders our responsibilities as citizens. Article 1, Sections 1-10 of the Constitution lay out the role of Congress in our government. It is only in Article 2 that the role of the Executive Branch is described.

What we all witnessed on January 6, 2021 was an assault on all of our Liberty, affirmatively instigated by a despot - Donald Trump - who seeks to overthrow the system of government in our Republic. The idea of hoping that he will go away and his followers will recede into the darkness is foolhardy. Affirmative action must be taken to not only resist a fascist takeover of our system of government on our own soil.

Now what?

I have said this over and over in conversations with friends and colleagues: We must go back to our First Principles. In our homes, schools and communities, we must ask the questions of those that represent us.

We must interrogate ourselves and ask why we believe the things we believe. We should ask why it is that anti-democratic ideals have infected such a large section of the U.S. populous, who mistakenly believe they, themselves are embodying democratic values. We must inquire how an attack on the symbol of our democratic system could happen in a manner where law enforcement was "caught off guard".

We should also examine why beliefs of racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, violence and generalized hate resonate so broadly amongst those that instigated, supported and participated in the attack on the United States Capitol. I submit that these are "unifying" ideals that despotic leadership capitalize on to create narratives of misplaced grievance, victimhood and fear. They are wielded as weapons to intimidate and control.

I believe we must seek justice under the law to ensure that no person is above the laws of the United States. It is not enough to wish for a despotic leader to exit public life, so that we can get on with life as normal. Just as with other U.S. citizens that break laws in this country, the system of justice must hold that person or persons accountable.

What happened on January 6, 2021 was not an isolated incident or a flashpoint. It was a continuation of the longstanding attempt to restrict democracy to a small few, who believe themselves to be patriots and "real" Americans. For us to "turn the page" or "move on" after January 20th, we will have to confront our own fears and begin living our democratic ideals and convictions in the open.

We must acknowledge and agree upon certain truths, among them that "all men are created equal...and that governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

What Crisis Leadership Looks Like

For the past seven years I’ve owned and managed a residential and commercial cleaning service in my hometown of Oak Park, IL.  I’ve run the business on three basic principles, take care of your clients, take care of your community, but take care of your staff first.  These principles have allowed us to grow to servicing over 350 clients a month while giving back to our staff and community.  Recently, in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic and shelter in place orders, we have seen 90% of our clients cancel or pause service.   As a result, I’ve seen my business go from growing and profitable, to barely breaking even, to running at a significant loss, in the course of about 13 days.  All of this has caused me to ask a lot of questions but the one I keep coming back to is, ‘How do I lead my company right now?’  Or better put, ‘What does leadership look like right now?’ 

On the one hand being a good leader right now means remaining open so that my staff can still generate income for their families.  On the other hand staying open means putting them at risk of potential exposure even with all the precautions we are taking (gloves, masks, shoe covers, etc).  And of course the burning question is, since the business is losing money, is it better to cut our losses, close our doors and lay everyone off?  

In 2018  I attended a Chicago Ideas Week event titled “Raising your Hand: What Leadership Looks Like in 2018”.    Among many powerful speakers that night a man named Jose Antonio Vargas spoke about his experience being an undocumented immigrant in America.  Jose is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist, a renowned author and former reporter at the Washington Post.  Jose discussed how he had navigated the workforce as an undocumented immigrant and used fake documents to get hired at the Washington Post. 

After he had been working there a while, his boss, managing editor Peter Perl, discovered the documents were illegitimate.  Peter had a decision to make, fire him or be silent and allow him to continue to work.  The correct legal decision in this case would have been to fire him since he was not authorized to work in the U.S.  However, Jose was an amazing writer, asset to the organization and had been moved to the U.S. as a child and had been paying taxes and contributing to social security for over 10 years.  Needless to say Peter was dealing with an internal and external crisis that could affect the reputation of the Washington Post.  “I had to make a decision and right on the spot: And I pretty quickly made the decision that his future was more important than the risks I was gonna take by remaining silent”.

In situations like this, true leadership may mean biting your tongue, it may mean putting yourself at risk and it may even mean doing something considered illegal.  Although I can’t advocate that anyone commit a crime, this line of thinking has led me to believe that before making any decision in a time of crisis a leader must ask themselves three questions.   Is this the best decision possible for the people I lead? Does this decision allow me to be true to myself?  Will this decision have a positive impact on my community?   If you are able to answer yes to these three questions and understand that every situation is unique, you are likely making a quality decision.  

Our firm OVP Management Consulting Group, helps guide organizations and leaders through quagmires like these in a time of crisis.  We use a systematic approach to identify the issues, reveal all possible outcomes and come to the best solution for everyone.  As you continue to work through these trying times we are here to assist and look forward to working with you.

Christian Harris is a Senior Consultant with OVP Management Consulting Group, Inc. His speciality focus includes non-profit leadership and equity, diversity & inclusion issues. He can be contacted at Christian.Harris@ovpmanagementconsulting.com.

Reflections On Violence in America

The natural question of why people are protesting and demonstrating using violence is a constant refrain when analyzing the genesis of the response from people following the murder of George Floyd. Many are incredulous about why a community would commit acts of violence upon itself and others.

Renowned author and psychiatrist Frantz Fanon offered an answer to the question that comes up every time we are confronted with violence in American cities following extra judicial killings of people of color by law enforcement.

Frantz Fanon

In one of the English translations of his 1961 book The Wretched of the Earth Fanon opens his first chapter, entitled On Violence, as follows:

"National Liberation, national reawakening, restoration of the nation to the people or Commonwealth, whatever the name used, whatever the latest expression, decolonization is always a violent event. At whatever level we study it - individual encounters, a change of name of a sports club, the guest list at a cocktail party, members of a police force or the board of directors of a state or private bank - decolonization is quite simply the substitution of one "species" of mankind for another. The substitution is unconditional, absolute, total and seamless. We could go on to portray the rise of a new nation, the establishment of a new state, its diplomatic relations and its economic and political orientation. But instead we have decided to describe the tabula rasa which from the outset defines any decolonization. What is singularly important is that it starts from the very first day with the basic claim of the colonized."

This perspective on violence as expressed by colonized people rings true today. The marginalization of black people's rage - regardless of economic station - is a convenient way to limit discussion and debate about rudimentary causes of the spasms of violence we are living through.

Assuming the Enlightenment-era presumption that human kind's one great "superpower" is reasoned thought, then a simplistic characterization of protestors as "thugs" or "looters" misses the larger truth that systems of colonization (i.e. in the United States that takes the form of Jim Crow) intentionally construct and maintain racial cast systems that permanently keep many black people's lives in a constant state of violence (e.g. "underserved communities"). After all, the goals of rational humanity were considered to be knowledge, freedom and happiness. How surprising are violent responses to sustained violence meted out by state actors on singular communities?

Protesters in New Mexico following the death of George Floyd

The world has watched with curiosity the protests in Hong Kong in recent months. The concept of "one country, two systems" seems to chafe against the desires of many in the former British colony. Yet, casual observers of the happenings in Hong Kong often use terms like "democracy", "freedom" and "human rights" to describe their understanding of why protests are taking place.

Similarly, the resistance of black South Africans in the face of apartheid spanned decades of violent confrontations. While the intricacies of how freedom was won for all South Africans may not be well understood by most casual observers, what is clear is that the struggle there, which was originally framed by colonial masters as "terrorism", became recognized as a legitimate response to need for universal suffrage, equal liberty and justice under law.

Interestingly, in both circumstances the notion of violence was studied, debated and later acknowledged as having a role in the evolution of the discussion - and eventual achievement - of democratic freedoms.

Of course, these concepts continue to evolve. One cannot draw a direct line between violent uprising and expansion of liberties. Yet, one can reasonably ask the question: What role, if any, does violence have in the discussion of achievement of greater democratic ideals?

Fanon's controversial writings on the subject were confronting a different era with different imagined potential outcomes in the larger discussion of decolonization. He likely didn't envision the specific manner in which violence and violent response would continue to reflect the difficulty of throwing off the yoke of colonialism. But, I think his work on how human beings come to violence (through trauma), and how we are made to feel about violence is sobering.

Today, the world is grappling with the reality that the most powerful nation on earth is being dragged to the river’s edge and forced to look at its collective reflection. And like the character from Greek mythology Narcissus, the United States of America appears to be so enamored with itself and its own image that it risks melting away from the passions burning inside it.

I don't pretend to have the answer(s) that would help get American society on a path towards truthful confrontation of the systems that permanently oppress many. But, I would encourage folks to read (or reread) The Wretched of the Earth, as it feels very prescient at this moment.

Alejandro Bodipo-Memba is Founder & CEO of OVP Management Consulting Group, Inc.