Don’t Occupy Wall Street—Transform It
It’s time for a new generation of social change leaders to move beyond occupying Wall Street to transform it.
It’s time for a new generation of social change leaders to move beyond occupying Wall Street to transform it.
Occupy Wall Street has done a great job of shining a light of truth on the failed leadership of our greedy, crony capitalist business sector. Inadvertently, it shines an equally unflattering light on what’s missing in the leadership of our nation’s social justice sector.
There’s no debate that our business culture has failed Americans. The last time this small number of people held this level of power and wealth while the average citizen felt powerless, we held a revolution to overthrow a monarchy.
Though its members have been lampooned as left wing nuts, OWS has garnered a majority of the American public’s support. However, lacking a clear plan of action, they risk forfeiting their ability to lead. Already, their most embarrassing participants define them. Their messages are lost to a turf war against liberal mayors who will shut them down as public opinion turns against them. They confuse awareness with actual real change, believing that rhetoric is action.
There’s no shortage of brilliant ideas to change our broken world, but there is a shortage of leadership skills to actually implement them.
Polarization makes things worse. Labeling each other as good vs. evil, profit vs. not for profit, the 99 percent vs. the 1 percent, or Republican vs. Democrat do not move us forward. It keeps us from finding common, complex solutions to difficult problems.
A rising new generation of social change agents will defy the labels as border-crossers, oxymorons, paradoxes, jacks-of-all-trades, and masters of none, speaking the language of the free market while giving voice to those suffering from crony capitalism. They will change the rules by collaborating across sectors, demonizing none, and accepting support from all. They will learn the rules, and then change them.
Where will we find this new generation of leaders? Try Wall Street.
Meet Bobby Shamsian, who can easily traverse the most profound teachings of spirituality, cutting-edge green technology, and the state of international markets in a single conversation. Having succeeded in the financial services industry over the past 10 years, Shamsian is using his knowledge to save the environment. Passionate about climate change, he helped launch TerraVerde Capital Management, one of the first hedge funds in the world dedicated to global change that invests in strategies across the entire supply chain of clean tech, renewable energy, and water.
“We are in the early stages of a technological revolution that will see the way in which we produce and consume energy dramatically,” says Shamsian. Harnessing the power of the free market, he believes that this new cycle will be marked with success and failure. “Many companies will survive while many simply won’t make, and TerraVerde can capitalize on both through a diversified portfolio of hedge fund strategies that focus on sustainability.” The more money prudently invested in this sector, the greater the chance that systems changing innovation will be real in our lives.
But Shamsian still faces challenges. He says, “Most socially conscious investors still do not understand how the terms hedge fund and sustainability can be used in the same sentence, and choose to do business the same old way by putting their money into companies that do nothing to improve sustainability. They don’t understand the markets, so they just rail against them. We can create a new model of capitalism to bring more value and benefit into the world, but it’s a hard sell.”
It may be a hard sell, but this boundary-crosser has an action plan, and it’s exactly the kind of new social sector leadership we need.
Rich Tafel is Founder of Public Squared a training organization that trains world-changing leaders.
Employers who provide workers with tangible ways to make a positive social or environmental impact will find that it pays off.
Long-term investment in organic agriculture will provide above-market returns, environmental impact, and—in the developing world—enormous social impact.
Q&A with KoAnn Skrzyniarz of Sustainable Brands.
Merck for Mothers—a 10-year, $500 million initiative—aims to improve the odds for vulnerable women around the globe.
A "reverse innovation" guru provides anecdotes and advice about how to succeed in emerging markets.
How The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation approaches high-risk philanthropic ventures.
Elizabeth Littlefield heads up OPIC, a federal agency that helps steer billions of dollars of private investment capital to developing countries.
How the UK’s social investment bank will harness entrepreneurship and capital to solve societal problems.
Social entrepreneurship provides a path to transform Lebanon’s challenges into opportunities for change and development.
COMMENTS
BY Mike Goodenow
ON November 19, 2011 08:50 PM
Totally agree. Great article by Rich Tafel. Since getting a few million people to switch from a bank to a credit union, the Occupy movement seems to have lost any positive and constructive agenda. A new social vision that includes the finance sector and is even led by it is exactly the way important progress will be made.
BY Steve Aminoff
ON November 20, 2011 03:31 AM
Transform Wall Street…right…sure…but the people Wall Street doesn’t particularly want sitting at its desks still need a roof over their heads and something to eat…what bankers could do, if they wanted to be part of the solution and not a despised huge chunk of the problem, would be to facilitate getting warm bodies into those thousands upon thousands of homes the bankers’ greed made vacant!
BY Douglas Stinson
ON November 21, 2011 01:59 PM
Nice article, Rich. It’s wonderful that Mr. Shamsian can put his talent to work in a socially responsible way. However, from what I can learn of the last financial meltdown, I conclude that most of the people involved knew what they were doing was morally questionable and was not sustainable. However they were embedded in a social system where the only metric was “who made the most money yesterday”. They were trapped on a treadmill from which there was no escape short of financial collapse. Until that social system changes, this tragedy will inevitably repeat. That’s were OWS comes in. The rhetoric hurled aganst OWS is remarkably similar to that used against the civil rights movement, women’s rights, and gay rights. But that seems to be a phase we need to go through before a change of attitude gets embedded in our psyche.
BY Susan Mooney
ON November 22, 2011 11:49 AM
The author manifests the dynamics he critiques, by discounting the continuing possibilities of ows in favor of the more familiar and socially acceptable leadership style of one who can effectively “corporate speak”. The authors insistence in marginalizing and discounting the leadership that is present in ows in favor of the leadership of someone who is a wall street insider is unproductive. Rather than perpetuating the either/or (good/evil) paradigm he is critical of, I challenge him to produce a more nuanced and complex analysis of leadership that recognizes that many different strategies, leadership approaches, voices and perspectives are needed to break through the mess we have created in this country. The author presents as just as much of a “true believer” as those he characterizes as the “most embarrassing participants” of ows. Every social change movement is imperfect, this article does little to contribute to moving us all forward.
BY Susan Mooney
ON November 22, 2011 12:00 PM
The author manifests the dynamics he critiques, by discounting the continuing possibilities of ows in favor of the more familiar and socially acceptable leadership style of one who can effectively “corporate speak”. The authors insistence in marginalizing and discounting the leadership that is present in ows in favor of the leadership of someone who is a wall street insider is unproductive. Rather than perpetuating the either/or (good/evil) paradigm he is critical of, I challenge him to produce a more nuanced and complex analysis of leadership that recognizes that many different strategies, leadership approaches, voices and perspectives are needed to break through the mess we have created in this country. The author presents as just as much of a “true believer” as those he characterizes as the “most embarrassing participants” of ows. Every social change movement is imperfect, this article does little to contribute to moving us all forward.
BY Mieka
ON November 23, 2011 08:21 AM
“Where will we find this new generation of leaders? Try Wall Street.”
It’s true, partially because they have the wherewithal to lead social change, but also because a growing number of people on wall street have lived to see both sides of the financial inequity coin. Wes Moore, author of “The Other Wes Moore” is a great example of somebody who comes from quite humble beginnings and is simultaneously employed on Wall Street and leading social change.
BY Jon Umstead
ON November 23, 2011 08:38 AM
Rich, you’ve hit the nail on the head regarding OWS. This is a great article. We need someone like YOU to lead.
BY Rich Tafel, Public Squared
ON November 23, 2011 08:50 AM
Susan Mooney
I think that’s a very valid critique. I think the downside of an oped is that it often lacks nuance. I didn’t intend to attack OWS, rather I fear that they will lose ground because of the lack of a plan. Since this piece came out the story has shifted to the turf war discussion and away from their original mission. Change is chaotic and messy and there are many parts to play, I think that’s a valid critique of my piece in not doing more to say it. I am trying to make a larger point that social change movements need to get beyond awareness and symptoms to changing systems. So thanks for the very valid comments. Maybe I could work up a column on tangible things OWS might do to move their agenda forward. Maybe you’d like co-author it?
Rich
BY Joy Barnitz
ON November 23, 2011 08:53 AM
Great story! There are many opportunities for change and many people are needed to fill those opportunities with their focused passion. I agree with D. Stinson that until there is a will for change expressed by enough people (think labor being locked into car production facilities, think civil rights marches, think women’s rights marches) there is insufficient will for change. Ironically, corporations will change if it becomes the path of least resistance. Government can handicap this by its policies and laws that maintain a status quo. Many corporations lobby for ‘both sides’ as they want to be seen as ‘green’ and ‘socially conscious’ and they want to deliver the most $ to their shareholders. Sometimes they can have both, it takes a ‘long term’ perspective. That’s what is needed: identify goals and support them with behavior. Keep telling these stories Rich!
BY Audrey Seymour, Clear Change Group
ON November 23, 2011 12:09 PM
Great article, Rich. I completely agree that we need systems thinkers who can see the whole picture rather than polarizing factions. While awareness alone can’t change the system, it’s half the battle. Having gotten to this point of collectively acknowledging the extent of the growing economic inequality and corrupt practices is a huge gain. We’ve reached the limit of the “enlightened self interest” model for capitalism; I don’t blame individuals as much as the system that has simply outlived its usefulness. It’s exciting to see the new models emerging these days, whether called conscious capitalism or social entrepreneurship or the triple bottom line. And we need all hands on deck, from every sector of society.
BY Ian Curtin, Project Director of the Inner Activist
ON November 23, 2011 01:36 PM
I think it is not so much that we need a new model of leadership. We need a radically larger perspective in our decision making processes that holds compassion for self and others as a key principle of our decisions and actions. We need to keep asking the question, have we included enough perspectives to generate a long term view that supports actions that enhance the “greater good”. So many decisions seem to be based on “my greater good” than “our collective (all species and future generations) greater good”. Perhaps the first step is for everyone to acknowledge the obvious. None of us has the whole picture and we need each other to more fully comprehend life. With this humility, we might be able to listen to each other more closely for the gems we each have to offer. And just maybe if we don’t try and control everything, new models of decision making will emerge through the opening of our hearts.
BY W. Hunter Roberts
ON November 24, 2011 02:50 AM
Fascinating about this green Hedge Fund. I think it’s anybody’s guess which way things will go at this point—but I am not averse to calling things forces for good or evil. Clearly this is a force for good.
However, I must beg to differ with you about OWS leadership. They, too, are a force for good, and a powerful one! While in NY a few weeks ago, I paid a visit. I walked around for about an hour, watching and listening. There were plenty of hopeless and homeless, some clearer than others about why they were there, and some downright scary, movement scabs, coming only from anger and resentment, justifiable or no.
Then I had the privilege of observing, and even participating in, the nightly consensus meeting. It was the most effective, sophisticated and genuinely democratic use of consensus process I have ever witnessed. Young people, trained in the process and rotated in order to eliminate personality-based leadership, facilitated a process in which hundreds of people participated, smoothly, passionately, and intelligently. Safety concerns were raised and addressed. Discussion of aims, objectives, and positions ensued. It was direct democracy in action, something I had not seen used so well in my thirty plus years of activism.
I did not stay through the meeting to see the results, as I was not one of the occupiers, but just an interested bystander and perhaps a cheerleader. Nor do I know if it will disintegrate into a movement based on hatred and anger. But I left with real admiration for the people in leadership I saw that night. If I were in NY now, I would be cooking OWS a big turkey dinner.
BY Greg Berry
ON November 28, 2011 12:18 PM
Rich, thanks for putting together and sharing your POV. I don’t agree with much of what you said, and am glad to engage the opportunity to have a mature discussion about why.
1. I have a different POV on OWS. Although the vagabonds and hangers-on are giving it a bad name (with the help of a greedy media), I think W. Hunter’s perspective is the one I share. Also, they have a plan of action - https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ (yes, i understand the specific details and status of this document, and it’s a work-in-progress).
2. We share the perspective that OWS is not enough for change, by itself. I argue, differently than you, that OWS will ultimately fail because they are “against” something, not “for” an alternative. We agree that something has to come thereafter.
3. But I strongly disagree that the answer will come from within Wall St. Even though I, too, know many good people from the finance community who are thinking up innovative solutions, I don’t believe that a free-market (and it’s not really free, it’s heavily regulated in favor of wealth-holders) solution will ever fully embrace the social and environmental “externalities” that make it fundamentally unjust. I think that as long as the profit motives are primary (as they are in any market-related activity), that compromises will be made on environmental and human justice issues. (Also, there are already green hedge funds, which have out-performed the market in the past few years)
All of which is to say that I don’t believe incrementalism will get us to a balanced global ecosystem in the time we have before the trajectory of food, climate and energy systems are permanently turned in a direction that drastically reduces the number of people who can survive on our planet.
I believe the innovations will come in re-localization of food and energy systems, massively reduced consumption, and an ongoing boycott (“move your money”) of the global banking system.