COROSATIONS

I was watching the Obama inauguration-- or rather, I was watching one television network's coverage of the Obama inauguration-- in a South African restaurant in Brooklyn near my apartment. The restaurant was so packed that even the people standing in the aisles couldn't move. One comical thread running through the morning involved the busboys bringing supplies up from the basement storeroom-- they had to hoist the food over their own heads to clear those of the spectators. The funny part was as the crowd grew tighter the food items happened to increase in "mess-level-if-spilled." The first few shipments--leafy greens, some flatbread--brought some mutters of annoyance from the patrons, but then came a large busboy with a several-gallon vat of tomato soup, and a few minutes later a medium-sized busboy balancing two trays of little dipping sauces, and finally, like a commedia-del-arte scene, the smallest busboy carrying aloft no fewer than six stacked pallets of quivering white eggs. Though people's annoyance increased through the soup delivery, by the time the eggs came a communal sense of hilarity--I must assume heightened by the ironic contrast between the food parade and the momentous events taking place on the projector-screen--had taken hold.

That was one medium through which I experienced Obama's inauguration. The other, the one I first intended to write about, was created by the noise level and the requisite use of subtitles on the screen. The whole thing was being sent through the air onto the screen from a hanging digital projector. There were speakers relaying the sound, but until Biden's swearing-in there was too much noise to hear anything. So you had these long shots of various individuals coming out to stand on the Capitol steps, and the visual was a bit washed out from ambient light, and then you had the subtitles, white text on a black background, floating in the upper-left corner. What struck me was the absolute uselessness of the dialogue accompanying the images. As a regular CNN viewer I am familiar with the patter of the announcers and their guests. But I had never seen those exchanges spelled out. I will try to recreate a snatch of what I read:

"So this day, historic, yes-"

"And yes Anderson I think, I think that's what most people are thinking-"

"Yes and when you-"

"Just really, history being made-"

"And you know, I had never watched the whole King speech"

"Oh yes and you know I don't think many people-

"Have, right, have watched it all. But when you see the first ten, fifteen minutes"

"Right, absolutely"

"Right, before I have a dream- Oh, and now we see Cheney coming out"

"So in case viewers are wondering, apparently he threw"

"Yes, threw his back out, but it really, you know, heightens the power of the I have a dream and-"

"And we should, and really the American people should"

"Right, all Americans, really, and not just on this day, or on Dr. King's day"

"Ah, and now we see Cheney being wheeled-"

"Around, a ramp, yes, they installed-"

If you have ever watched CNN with subtitles, you may not be as surprised as I was. It really made me wonder. I mean, if this is what the announcers are really saying, I sure hope I am getting a lot from the visuals. Perhaps it's not a fair example. After all, what candle could any coverage of the inauguration hold to the thing itself, much less in a long build-up period where nothing really is happening. But what was stranger, and I believe negates the possibly poor quality of the example, is that I have never before been aware of similarly gap-filling dialogue (for instance, the various vocalizations accompanying the ubiquitous pictures of the Twin Towers in the days after 9/11) being poorer than anything else on TV news. So if such ludicrous and empty voiceovers did not distract me, the point is not that they are always bad, but that the experience of watching the news on television orients one so much towards the visual that it takes subtitles to realize how empty the dialogue may in fact be.

Now, you may say that conversation or transcribed natural speech is subject to wholly different standards than written communication (so perhaps the injustice is only to those forced to watch subtitles all the time). But I don't think that holds much water, because as viewers and listeners we are as reliant on the words and their meanings whether they are spoken or written. The more obvious conclusion seems more sensible: that TV news by its nature relies in large part on the image, and thanks to the image's attention-drawing power, the associated language can waver on the spectrum between meaningful conversation and empty vocal gibberish without the viewer (indeed, the viewer) noticing to the degree he or she would otherwise, or at all. The risk is that we watch TV news and walk away assuming that we have consumed useful information, while in fact we may not even know what we heard. Projected to a societal scale, this seems rather terrifying.

Many people, from academics to every-day observers of media, have said in various ways that TV news is a different animal than written news. The above simply relates my own most recent brush with the issue.

Step 1: Jot down criteria to consider and compare them against each other using the following value scheme to produce a criteria weight ratio.

Numerical Value	Meaning
10.0	Much More Value
5.0	More Value
1.0	Equal Value
0.2	Less Value
0.1	Much Less Value

 

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	Total	Ratio
1	High-profile leader	X	5	5	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	1	5	16.4	0.06
2	Breakfast	0.2	X	5	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	5.8	0.02
3	Conference room aesthetic	0.2	0.2	X	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	1	0.00
4	Candor of leader	10	10	10	X	0.2	1	5	10	10	56.2	0.19
5	Challenge of the exchange	10	10	10	5	X	5	5	10	10	65	0.22
6	Leader's knowledge	10	10	10	1	0.2	X	0.2	5	10	46.4	0.16
7	Inspiration from leader	10	10	10	0.2	0.2	5	X	10	10	55.4	0.19
8	Fellows' harmony	1	10	10	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.1	X	5	26.5	0.09
9	Fellows' directing of holding environment	0.2	10	10	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.2	X	20.8	0.07
	Totals	42	65	70	6.7	1.1	11.6	10.7	36.4	50	294	1.00

 

Step 2: For each criteria, compare the different interviewees against each other

	High-profile leader	1	2	3	Total	Ratio
1	Robert Catell	X	5	0.1	5.1	0.204
2	Stanley Litow	0.2	X	0.1	0.3	0.012
3	Ed Koch	10	10	X	20	0.8
	Total	11	17	3.2	25.4	1
	Breakfast	1	2	3	Total	Ratio
1	Robert Catell	X	1	1	2	0.333
2	Stanley Litow	1	X	1	2	0.333
3	Ed Koch	1	1	X	2	0.333
	Total	2	2	2	6	1
	Conference Room	1	2	3	Total	Ratio
1	Robert Catell	X	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.009
2	Stanley Litow	10	X	1	11	0.5
3	Ed Koch	10	1	X	11	0.5
	Total	20	1.1	1.1	22.2	1.009
	Candor of leader	1	2	3	Total	Ratio
1	Robert Catell	X	5	1	6	0.353
2	Stanley Litow	0.2	X	0.1	0.3	0.018
3	Ed Koch	1	10	X	11	0.647
	Total	1.2	15	1.1	17.3	1.018
	Challenge of the exchange	1	2	3	Total	Ratio
1	Robert Catell	X	5	0.1	5.1	0.204
2	Stanley Litow	0.2	X	0.1	0.3	0.012
3	Ed Koch	10	10	X	20	0.8
	Total	10	15	0.2	25.4	1.016
	Leader's knowledge	1	2	3	Total	Ratio
1	Robert Catell	X	0.2	1	1.2	0.1
2	Stanley Litow	5	X	5	10	0.833
3	Ed Koch	1	0.2	X	1.2	0.1
	Total	6	0.4	6	12.4	1.033
	Inspiration from leader	1	2	3	Total	Ratio
1	Robert Catell	X	0.2	5	5.2	0.248
2	Stanley Litow	5	X	10	15	0.714
3	Ed Koch	0.2	0.1	X	0.3	0.014
	Total	5.2	0.3	15	20.5	0.976
	Fellow's harmony	1	2	3	Total	Ratio
1	Robert Catell	X	0.2	1	1.2	0.1
2	Stanley Litow	5	X	5	10	0.833
3	Ed Koch	1	0.2	X	1.2	0.1
	Total	6	0.4	6	12.4	1
	Fellow's directing of holding environment	1	2	3	Total	Ratio
1	Robert Catell	X	5	1	6	0.5
2	Stanley Litow	0.2	X	5	5.2	0.433
3	Ed Koch	1	0.2	X	1.2	0.1
	Total	1.2	5.2	6	12.4	1.033

 

Step 3: Multiply raw scores with criteria weight ratio to produce a weighted score

	Raw Score					Weighted Score
	Catell	Litow	Koch	Ratio		Catell	Litow	Koch
High-profile leader	0.2	0	0.8	0.06		0.011	0.000	0.045
Breakfast	0.3	0.3	0.3	0.02		0.006	0.006	0.006
Conference room aesthetic	0	0.5	0.5	0		0.000	0.002	0.002
Candor of leader	0.4	0	0.6	0.19		0.076	0.000	0.115
Challenge of the exchange	0.2	0	0.8	0.22		0.044	0.000	0.177
Leader's knowledge	0.1	0.8	0.1	0.16		0.016	0.126	0.016
Inspiration from leader	0.2	0.7	0	0.19		0.038	0.132	0
Fellows' harmony	0.1	0.8	0.1	0.09		0.009	0.072	0.009
Fellows' directing of holding environment	0.5	0.4	0.1	0.07		0.035	0.028	0.007
Totals				1		0.236	0.366	0.376

 

Step 4: Graph the sum of scores

 So, after about an hour analyzing these leadership breakfast interviews, I can visualize that I value the interview with Stanley Litow’s about as much as I do with Ed Koch. And while I enjoyed Robert Catell’s (0.236) interview, it didn’t stack up with Litow (0.366) or Koch (0.376).

Here’s the dilemma: I had a qualitative idea of the results before I started deconstructing and processing what I valued in these interviews, which makes me wonder what the point of this tool was in the first place. Even if the results did not match up with my initial qualitative perception, I probably would not allow myself to make a judgment based off of numbers alone. This type of measurement tool is eerily similar to the one I am currently using at my placement to assess and prioritize different initiatives in 2009. While I can see the value of these tools, I see the costs, more than ever before.

I question the practicality of measurement of things immeasurable in decision making processes. When is it useful and when is it just analytical masturbation? With regard to using measurement as policy a la New York City Department of Education’s annual progress reports which determine whether or not schools close, when is it useful and when is it dangerous?

 

For what it's worth, I think this blog is great, FG jr. I didn't grasp until I read this what you say about the lack of documented principles that explicitly bind a group together, much less the particular fact of Latino being a fabricated term. This gives me a lot to think about and it also puts much of today's interview into perspective.

I would also propose these challenges as a topic for our supposedly upcoming debate/discussion series-- how to articulate shared values among a diverse group and create social structures that help people live authentically in line with these values. What more is there to politics?!

 -nick

This week we met with a member of the Jewish community involved in fundraising for the many human services, and political activities of interest to that community (and others). Listening to him describe the groups of Jewish people in the US in the early teens, you would never have guessed that he wasn't talking about the large Latino immigrant populations we've seen coming into the US over the past several decades. For that particular reason I became interested in dissecting the general Jewish human services model to identify some of the factors that allowed it to become so successful. Without a doubt, having a large group of donors who are committed to their community helps. If we were to assume that was a given, what are the others factors at play? and how could that model be projected onto other groups.

In thinking about Latinos in America, I started to realize that there is no unifying factor as strong as religion binding this group together. In fact, the term Latino having been a fabrication and a title which many people never really self-identified with could not serve the same purpose as the Jewish religion as a binding factor. Without that binding factor, it's difficult to create the base of donors needed to produce human services programs that helps groups move toward "maximizing social and economic equity."

Another thing I noticed is that the binding factor, in this case Judaism, also comes with a set of principles and values which are clearly documented and more or less standardized. Within other groups, there is no such thing, and if there is its not written or communicated well enough so that everyone buys into the idea.

 What would Latinos need then in order to achieve similar success in the realm of improving human services, alleviating poverty and improving living conditions? As our interviewee put it: (1) community mobilization (2) political mobilization (3) organize the "Elites", the guys with the money. I would like to add a 4th and 5th thing to the list: (4) create a unified identity (5, maybe 4.5) an organized form of tying values into that identity.  The next question would be; Is this possible given the spectrum of cultures and identities that already exist within the umbrella term "Latino?"

Last seminar, we took a leadership test that identified my style as that of an "Analyzer" (as opposed to a Counselor, a Persuader, or a Decider). It's true; I like to gather information and develop a nuanced sense of an issue before taking practical steps. But the style has definite liabilities; especially in complex situations, where information abounds, I can get caught up in analysis and drift from the goal. Sometimes this tendency results in unexpected insights, but often, I end up having willfully followed a line of inquiry for its own sake and not for its relevance to the task at hand.

Fitting, then, that my corporate placement should present me with an adaptive challenge filled with opportunities to distract myself. My task is to write a competitive analysis and marketing pitch for an educational video game. The internet teems with websites devoted to this topic, covering a wide spectrum of perspectives, from academic pedagogy researchers, to software developers, to amateur journalists, to Second Lifers talking about the ontology of avatars. I'm up to my ears in information-- and yet rather than buckle down and concretize things, I keep running down rabbit holes of blogs, journal articles, and Javascript math-blaster clones.

Meanwhile, there's the challenge of finding a distributor for the game, and for a product which has not yet been fully developed, this appears to me like a chicken-and-egg problem. And yet, I can easily see that I spend more time contemplating the uncertainty of the situation than I do making the phone calls that would start eliminating variables. My one hope is that writing a self-revealing blog about my unproductive tendencies will give me the inspiration to name them and start being effective.

Our trainer closed the leadership-style discussion with the advice that successful leaders are those who can "flex" between styles as needed by the situation. My style is diametrically opposed to that of a "Persuader," who might have written the pitch on the fly and only later realized the gaps in his coverage. But hard as I know it will be, I also know it's time to flex.

 
 

I am now well into my second week in my business placement and hate to admit that...I am actually enjoying the rigour of corporate America. Who would have thought that one day, I would be sitting at a desk, staring at a computer until my eyes stream tears, and I would be having fun. Now granted this isn't actually my first "business" placement (I've worked many hours much like this with non profits but in those situations I was stuffed in a garage office with little to no air supply writing grant proposals), but there is something different. Maybe its the fresh fruit or the sparkling water machines. Maybe its the industrial chique office and my very comfortable chair. Or maybe...it's the work. While there is always a motive of profit, I am, for the first time, looking at people who practice corporate responsibility. This business, while I'm sure has its flaws, is showing me the better side of it. Granted, the hours of energy expended on PowerPoint and Google may not be the most efficient use of electricity, things get done. And they get done right. Unlike government or unions (which hit wall after wall after wall of mundane bureaucracy) hierarchy seems to work. As I write this, I think about how much my friends at Hampshire would scorn me. But sadly its true. Complicate the project with profit and results appear. And good ones at that. Now believe me, while I may enjoy my hourly espresso shot, I remain skeptical of my surroundings. I still don't completely understand the use of consultants. I mean I get it, but really it just seems like a whole lot of people with researching skills and an insane ability to make beautiful flow charts. Yet, business keeps coming and presentations keep being made. Regardless, with week 2 almost done, I'm starting to see the appeal in going corporate.  

I had a friend who faced a dilemma on how to spend her gap year-whether to accept a very prestigious well-known scholarship or to accept an offer to do exactly what her heart wanted to do. This, to me, was a clear example of external versus internal validation for "why we do what we do." External factors would include recognition, prestige, and social inclusion while internal factors would include personal goals and desires outside of immediate external stimuli. I do not argue that these are both mutually exclusive, but I do believe we can draw a distinction for the purposes of a discussion.

This past week, I ran across a few more ambiguous internal/external validation scenarios to think about concerning the pursuit of graduate education-specifically of the top schools according to the US News and World Report. These days, a bachelor's degree becomes relatively commonplace, adding pressure to recent grads to pursue higher levels of education to stay competitive (I would think the current status of the economy adds to this as well). I look at my fellow Fellows and friends, and I have no doubt that the majority us will pursue an advanced degree within the next 5 years.  

The notion that people will spend the extra energy to become a part of a fellowship or a "top ten" school simply because of its competitiveness and exclusivity rather than the content of the education provided bothers me. In a wine tasting study, people much preferred wine A, which they were told cost 10 times the amount of wine B, even though both wines were actually the same. Somehow a "fellowship" connotes something more elite and prestigious than an "internship," even though the actual work may seem quite identical. I believe many of us can attest to this. These examples present a problem to me mainly because of its detachment from authenticity.

I can understand the irony of me saying this-someone who blindly chose to go to Yale over BU or Tufts (I use these to compare only because they were the two other East Coast schools I was also accepted at). As a high school senior, my career pursuits were in flux; so I chose the option that offered me the most flexibility, and yes, a name like Yale offered a sense of security. It didn't hurt that the school offered significantly more money either. As I apply for medical school now, I don't feel as burdened of getting into a "top ten," mainly because my career pursuit is more focused, and I know where my heart is. Quality medical education happens outside of Harvard.

My point is not to dismiss the external factors because they do have real affects-as Cheryl Dorsey mentioned, an M.D. from Harvard does turn some heads. I imagine a couple more letters after the B.A. from a competitive and exclusive graduate school would as well. My point is rather, to shed light on content rather than label and on self validation that arrives internally rather than externally.

To conclude, my friend with the dilemma eventually chose to pursue the prestigious scholarship.

I feel a renewed sense of conviction, purpose, and clarity.

Since starting the Coro program, or more honestly, since the start of my senior year of college, I have lived in a space of ambiguity concerning my long term future. It's almost as if I can't imagine my life post college and as though all the planning that I originally did for graduation is no longer relevant. I have always been a focused, driven, and goal oriented person, but upon graduation and the start of Coro I've only been able to set short- term goals: what I want out of Coro this year, what I want out of each placement I'm given, where do I want to spend thanksgiving and Christmas break.-not really concrete life decisions. I am not accustomed to "in- the- moment living" and as I look at the economy and my personal finances I can not afford a "in- the- moment" lifestyle.

 I began by saying that I've been renewed, so I guess its best to bring it back to that. I went to see the movie The Secret Life of Bees (Starring Queen Latifah, Alicia Keys, Jennifer Hudson, and the little girl from Man on Fire- I can't remember her name) and I was overwhelmed with several emotions---this surprised me because I am not the "cry at the movies" type of woman (even though I have cried more during Coro than I think I've cried in my entire life- no drama-real talk.)  My emotions flowed in several ways that could best be articulated as follows: indebtedness, fear, pride, vindication, and anger.

 More times than not during the Coro program I have felt as though I've needed to legitimize, validate, itemize, and explain my "anger." More specifically my worldview that is founded on my identity as a Black Woman within an institutionally racist democracy that was founded and created by racist, white patriarchs. The movie reminded me that I am not crazy, I am not "unduly" angry and that it is not just by my own creation and fantasy that I've developed the narrative of a violently racist America.

 All the time spent in the Coro setting has made a sistah question her sanity, made me forget Garvey, Washington, DuBois, Delaney, Dyson, West, Davis, Giovanni, Angelou, Hooks, Lourde, and countless others who have written and re-written the REALITY of America. I was reminded that YES there is a reason that I abstain from work and shopping on Black Solidarity Day, there is a reason that I feel the need to directly and indirectly question and push back on white patriarchy and white- skin privilege, there is a reason why I assert my Black Womanhood and ask that others take me as that- and not as a color-less, gender-less being- and that these reasons are not wack, obscure, dated, or wrong. They are justified. It is not a question of efficiency but a necessity of reality and history and more pointedly RESPECT for those who didn't have the luxury of asserting a color-less, gender-less identity but who were forced by the very laws and practices of this nation to be defined to the point of nothing else but their race and gender. It has irritated me and I have been unable to articulate this irritation that "effectiveness" has been discussed without much critique within our group. I question if I can really AFFORD or rather have the social currency to be concerned with "civility" which I attach to an emotionless, without passion, easy going, and "effective" way of thinking and communicating.

 I have been pushed by the group and the program into asking myself what is effective- as if that is the only thing at stake. In my reality, effectiveness is relative to your audience and environment. Why should I, or anyone for that matter, place more value on one who is able to tailor their speech, thoughts and actions to a prescribed audience within a certain environment. I guess my take-a-way from this thought process is offering that effectiveness can be re-measured and/or qualified. I now think about effectiveness being gaged not on the level of how at ease/comfortable a person/audience is in receiving a particular message but rather to what degree are they prompted to the action of change after receiving a particular message.

I guess I am an angry black woman- but my gurls bell hooks and audre lourde tell me that not only am I justified in this anger but that I should be angry in order to be my most "effective." So I'm gonna "rock on wit my bad self."
 

There are often times that I walk around New York and wonder what it really is that we are all working towards. In a program like Coro that is meant to address inefficiencies and gaps in functioning systems, I can't help but to compare the US with other nations. Perhaps it was being brought up in a family of immigrants, but walking the streets of New York feels worlds away from the stories of my father. With differing realities of poverty and life, I often find myself stepping outside of leadership breakfasts thinking: how is it possible that everyone with such complex minds can lead such insular lives. As I listen to some of the most powerful women and men in New York City discuss their careers and personal interests, I find it fascinating that in order for some of even the richest members and companies of society to give back financially, there have to be personal gains involved. For example, while IBM's innovative ways to combine technology and community service are admirable, there is an underlying goal of profit tied into the mix. Yes, it is ridiculous and naive to think that businesses would do something that wouldn't necessarily increase profits, but I often think of how stuck we are in such a specific mode of functioning. It's in these moments that I wonder, will anything really change? And more importantly, is there even any room for it?

Last week we went to an interview with the president of a publicly traded business who is on the Forbes list of richest people in the U.S. Asked a question about his involvement, he replied that he had no interest in public affairs because of its inefficiencies (well, besides having brunch with city council members). His contribution was through his projects and interests. Later that day at my placement, I read through the files of laboring immigrants who so badly wanted to find some avenue through which to participate, they were all running for only several open positions within the non-profit's board of directors. Maybe it’s not as ironic as I make it out to be, but it's still interesting. While my own life has been a testament of nuanced upbringings, I can sit among the Forbes richest or go to work in a small non-profit and still be comfortable sitting behind a wobbly plastic picnic table.

 
 

This past Friday, we had the pleasure of talking to Stanley Litow, IBM's vice president for corporate citizenship and corporate affairs.  Going into the interview, I don't think many of us expected too much, but we were quickly floored as Mr. Litow explained IBM's innovative strategy for integrating philanthropic activity into the company.  Afterward, I felt like one of the satisfied customers endorsing a product on an infomercial.  It was a little scary how much his message had resonated with us, and how sold we were on IBM's strategy.  

Among other things, IBM integrates philanthropy into their company by bringing together their research and development team with leaders in the non-profit and government sectors to design cutting edge technologies that address critical problems that our world faces.  For example, IBM has developed voice recognition software to help adults and children around the world gain essential literacy skills.  Because projects like these garner IBM media attention, attract talented and dedicated staff, and result in products that can be used in IBM's for profit ventures, Litow says IBM's philanthropic efforts generate a 3 to 1 return for the company.  Because of this, his division is seeing its budget increase even in these tough economic times.

It seems clear that many companies could learn a lot from what IBM is doing.  Most companies could probably make greater contributions to charity by taking full advantage of their skills and service areas when considering philanthropic work.  In addition, if philanthropy was more integrated into corporations, it would help curb the impact that economic downturn has on the non-profit world.  Corporate giving would perhaps no longer be the first cut made by many companies.  

Overall, the interview left me wondering what other companies are using strategies like IBM, and thinking about ways that voluntary, government, and private sectors can more effectively collaborate to achieve change.