An Apprentice in the China Shop

In my 30 plus years of professional life there are several lessons about management I have learned that continue to pay great dividends.  The first is to never make assumptions.  I have often been surprised by outcomes that I could never have foreseen.  Another is to remember that no matter how bleak the situation may seem, a positive attitude and approach will go a long way.  Not only does remaining positive feel better personally, it also generates confidence in those around you, particularly those who look to you for leadership. Another, more nuanced lesson is that every team member you lose as a leader, for better or worse, is a reflection on your leadership.  Even if a team member departs for reasons that have nothing to do with you or your management, how you handle their departure matters. Unfortunately, the current President of the United States never learned any of these lessons, particularly the last one.  But I guess that makes sense when you’ve built a career on a catch phrase like “You’re Fired!”

But “You’re Fired” isn’t a management strategy.  The fact that this phrase seems to be the only tool at Donald Trump’s disposal is a tragedy for our government or our nation, and also for the world.  Fans of The Apprentice (many of whom I’m sure make up the Trump base) are attracted to the bravado, the swagger and the sweeping, dictatorial behavior that was rewarded in that television show.  It was a program that was built on a 1980’s ethos of winner-take-all that may have appealed to many people’s aspirations of power, wealth and agency.  But real world management requires none of that behavior and in fact, that behavior, which is easily summed up as bullying (thank you, Melania) is a recipe for failure.  Management requires strategic empowerment and proper balance of that power among the people who are most capable of sharing their influence to cultivate effect.  A true “leader” in a management environment is one who can inspire leadership throughout a team and take charge when it is appropriate.  This is the case on sports teams, in corporations, in educational institutions and (in theory) in government.

Unfortunately, the 45th President of the United States is still concerned with ratings and hoping that he might get an Emmy Award for his performance as Chief Executive.    He seems oddly invested in maintaining his brand as the corporate “terminator” by attempting to leverage each staff departure as an opportunity to score media points.  But that is not how management works.  Multiple departures in an organization simply create an environment of insecurity.  If any of the reports from inside this White House are true, insecurity and anxiety are at a premium.  Personally, I question the effectiveness of any administration of government that is simultaneously deciding my taxes, healthcare, justice, global interactions and engagement with warring global factions while washing down a handful of Xanax with a swig of Jack Daniels just to get through the day.

There have been recent comparisons between Trump and Nixon.  But like him or not, Nixon was a savvy 30-year veteran of electoral politics with a track record and world class negotiating and management skills.  Donald Trump, however, is merely a bull in the china shop of national trust.  Although it is certainly no requirement of the President or any executive to be buddy-buddy with their team, there must be a baseline of trust that allows work to get done without the sense that the ceiling might at any time come crashing down.  This sense of trust then permeates out to the people who a business serves, in this case the people of the United States.  Sadly, this president’s “base” is not interested in trust or understanding government; they are interested in good entertainment that makes them feel like they are “winning”.  This is all summed up in the big red daddy of all catch phrases that insists that the United States somehow needs to be made great again.

As we watch the parade of departures from the administration, as we try to wrap our heads around the irresponsible ego driven international policies, as we witness our government become more and more responsible for humanitarian crises instead of alleviating them and as more and more trust is eroded among the people of this country and around the world, I’m convinced that the only real way we can make America great again is by saying to Donald Trump, sooner than later “You’re Fired!”


Resilience.  This is a term that is new to me in the context of my current job.  I work for a non profit organization that is focused on equity.  All day long, I am surrounded by a brilliant and diverse team of analysts, coordinators, managers, associates, assistants and directors who are deeply engaged in asking questions of our government and our society that will lead to better outcomes for people who are poor and or disenfranchised.  My understanding, from a totally non policy-wonk standpoint is that “resilience” is the built in capacity for someone or a system to overcome or survive adversity.  When we talk of New Orleans after Katrina, we speak of resilience; or the earthquake in Haiti, the tsunami in Japan or Indonesia…again the question of resilience.  This also goes from the macro to the micro level, when we look at human beings in poor neighborhoods or unhealthy situations…we ask the question of why some people not only survive, but manage to thrive while others become mired in patterns of un-success.

In a recent meeting to explore this word and its applications, understandings and questions, I was privileged to hear some incredible perspectives that related to everything from housing to health as well as our political structure and disaster relief.  This was a fabulous introduction for someone like me coming from a theological perspective, to the very specific way in which resilience is assessed in circles that deal with equity.

But what struck me about these very practical and tangible examples of resilience in a socio/economic related context, was how much this concept resonates with the spiritual and physical realm that is much less tangible and often regarded as totally impractical.

It is a proven fact that babies and children who are not touched do not thrive.  We must experience human touch to have a sense of safety in our world.  Without this, we have no boundaries and we are deprived of our most basic form of communication.  I would argue that above all the senses, our sense of touch is the most highly developed.  Within touch we are able to receive information about intention that can escape inflection in the sound of words, or expression in the faces we see, and so on.  I would imagine that this is one reason we have words in our language that come from this sense and apply directly to our emotions: feeling, holding, embracing, touching….But there is also touch that is not healthy and “bad” touch can do as much damage as no touch at all.  Children and people who are abused or deprived of agency in touch do not learn to trust the world around them or themselves.  It is a long road to recovery when someone has been taught that this basic interaction with the world around them is a constant threat.

I was recently reading the book The Emotional Incest Syndrome: What to Do When a Parent’s Love Rules Your Life and in it Dr. Patricia Love gives extensive detail on how parents who have inappropriate emotional relationships with their children, can do as much damage as those who have inappropriate physical relationships with them.  This is a perfect example of the bridge between the physical and the emotional aspects of touch.  In the book it is very clear that if a child is deprived of the unconditional love of the parent child relationship…if they are given a conditional relationship or are asked to “parent” their parents, they do not thrive in a balanced manner.  Likewise, if they are given too much contact (the emotional incest element) and asked to fill the role of surrogate “spouse” in a family relationship, they are equally damaged.  These structures, based on how we learn to touch one another physically and emotionally are what I see as a basic part of how we navigate our world.

In theological circles, we deal with the concept of resilience every single day.  Among other reasons, people come to religion to be sustained in times of trial, or to be “born again” or to find parts that are missing in their lives.  In short, spirituality is one of the most basic sources of human cultural resilience.  The church is often the first resource for communities in distress, whether that be emotional or physical; whether there is a tornado or a mass murder.  Churches, synagogues  mosques and temples are full when communities face disaster.  The reason for this is simple: unconditional love.  This is what we seek in religion, just as we seek this in our family relationships.  Christians speak of the unconditional love of Jesus that sustains and rebuilds them.  There is an assumption and security in how this love will always be present.  Like a child of the best parent, a believing Christian (and I would imagine any other devoutly religious person, or person with a solid belief structure) knows they will always be loved.

In Jim Wallis’ book Rediscovering Values on Wall Street, Main Street and Your Street, he talks a great deal about how religion and faith in community should be the moral bedrock for creating resilience in our culture.  He wrote the book at the height of the economic downturn and highlights both scripture and economic data to support the moral and ethical argument against big impersonal business and the robber baron mentality that brought our financial system to a collapse.  He points to personal moral obligations driven by both faith and conscience as a beacon to lead individuals and on a larger scale, business and even government toward equitable practices.  His formula has validity and we are seeing it now play out as communities are rediscovering small business and farmer’s markets and ways to make what is essentially “small town America” the hub of our culture.

I would take this all one step further.  Equity, that is balance throughout our economic and social structures, cannot exist unless we create an environment that is based in what is essentially unconditional love.  The “market” is not real; it is only a reflection of our relationships with each other.  If we have a financial system that is based on “I’ve got mine, who cares about you”, that is how we are relating to one another.  The market cannot “self correct”…we must correct it by entering into properly balanced relationship with one another.  We as individuals must understand that all of our actions do not exist in a vacuum. This goes for finances, for government, for local business, for education, for parenting and for how we relate to one another.  Young people graduating from college are burdened with lifetime debt before they have had the joy of properly earning a wage and feeling like a contributing part of their communities.  This is a classic example of how we are in an emotionally incestuous relationship with our society, where the “parent” (greater society) is asking them (recent grads) to provide parental stability when they have only just learned to walk; how can they succeed?  How can we succeed?

We will need to examine our cultural relationships.  Our most successful models are families/relationships with balance between parent/provider and child; an environment of unconditional love where we learn to trust and thrive; and a language of touch/interaction where we communicate a clear intention for mutual success.  These are important  foundations of our humanness and we must respect them on on levels of our existence.


Jim Wallis’ books are available at Sojourners (

Patricia Love’s books are available at her website (