Entrepreneurism has a strong and positive brand…and it should. Its contribution to the growth of the economy and by extension to the betterment of lives is immeasurable. Counting the total costs of national goods and services only begins to calculate the value of entrepreneurial activity. 

A harder metric to identify, but no less important, is the qualitative significance of longer, healthier, and happier lives we collectively enjoy due to the innovation, risk taking, and intelligence of successful entrepreneurs. 

It could be said that the popular image of the entrepreneur is the self-confident driven performer productively balancing inspiration and perspiration, flawlessly timing the market, persevering with a laser-like focus, and venturing forward willingly into uncertainty, all leading to the realization of sweet success and generous profits as a just reward. We value that illustration. It is reassuring. It goes a long way to shaping our national and cultural identity. 

It is known too that start-ups with an eye toward growth furnish boosts in hiring, strengthened competition, and improved productivity by injecting fresh products, services, and business designs into new markets. 

Given the near universal gains we receive from entrepreneurism what possible improvements can be expected from the practice? Well, I can suggest one. A quarter in which we desperately need entrepreneurs’ creative problem solving is in the promotion of shared prosperity. The time is right for an entrepreneurism that cares less about concentrated wealth and more about dispersing capital, particularly to key stakeholders such as employees and citizens of communities in which businesses operate. 

We do not need corporate social responsibility manifestos to get there, just energetic, aware, and engaged business owners who choose to direct their talents toward providing a greater degree of distributed benefits over the more common asset consolidation we more typically associate with entrepreneurs. An alternative form of enthusiasm and sense of reward can be derived from constructing enterprises that intentionally advance expanded economic growth and strong job creation among the greatest number possible. 

The political pressure to confront wealth inequality is growing and looks to be a key issue in the upcoming election season. If the current trajectory of wealth amassing does not change, then the call for government intervention will only increase. Some or most governmental intercessions will undoubtedly be seen as interference and obstruction among many in business. Encouraging executives both young and old to integrate into a shared prosperity ethic may mitigate policy making coercion. 

It is not as if entrepreneurs and business leaders have not practiced this approach before. It has been widely reported that the period from the end of World War II until the 1970s was more economically stable due largely in part to the relative lack of discrepancy between management and rank & file. Granted this was a time of strong unions and more widespread political endorsement of income flattening approaches by government. However, one cannot help but wonder if the shared sacrifice evident during the war spurred a nationwide value system whereby wealth distribution was more easily realized. Can we care for each other similarly now? 

Perhaps the most endearing gift entrepreneurs give us is tangible creativity. They model and encourage thinking, which develops into options from which consumers can select the most solution-oriented or life augmenting potentialities. This has historically sparked human progress. It continues to do so.  

Given the current and ever-present range of problems in the world calling for answers and resources we look to the influencers, thought leaders, and groundbreakers to develop and implement transformative strategies, services, and products. 

Purposely including and addressing those Americans being left behind by a shifting and segregating economy could turn out to not only be nationally unifying, but also good business. 

Albert Einstein elegantly once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly but expecting different results. This adage comes to mind when we see that yet again work requirements are being used as a bludgeon to combat Americans who live in poverty and who need safety-net programs like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), HUD housing assistance, and if President Trump has his way, even Medicaid. 

The White House Council of Economic Advisers has recommended work requirements for the most extensive welfare programs and the current administration has mandated that federal agencies alter their presumably lax welfare program standards. These moves are premised on the continuing notion that the poor are a drain on federal resources due to their laziness, recklessness, and lack of ambition. So here we go again, concluding that the poor are so, solely because of their own deficient behavior and must be made to work harder to receive assistance from this government. 

It is not that simple. 

Is this work requirement approach fair that those recipients of aid (excluding children, elderly and disabled) should be made to show an attempt to earn their government supports, which allegedly incentives people to not be poor, or is this a kick to the poor and disenfranchised when they are already down? 

It is worth examining a few of points about welfare work requirements: 

1. According to the US Census Bureau the 2017 poverty rate was 12.3%, a 0.4% decrease from the year before. Since 2014 the poverty rate has fallen 2.5%. So, if the current trend line is a declining poverty rate why is a harsh condition like work requirements for the poor necessary currently?
2. This effort was last tried under Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich with their 1996 welfare reform legislation. We have had a couple decades to see how that has gone and studies like those from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and in the book Making Ends Meet (Edin and Lein) show that despite short term marginal improvements in employment they were not sustainable, mostly due to necessary and increased living expenses, absorbing any work generated financial gains.
3. Where are these jobs that the poor are supposed to get? If you have spent most of your life in poverty, chances are quite low you can pick up a knowledge-economy job quickly. We have all heard how the traditional manual labor jobs are drying up, so what is left? Lousy-waged part-time jobs with unpredictable and changeable hours is what’s left.
4. If the government feels the need to pick on somebody shouldn’t it be the employers of vast numbers of unskilled and low-skilled who pay their workers, including the working poor, insufficient wages that in turn need to be underwritten by the American taxpayers?

Now one place where there could be political agreement is in the government providing subsidized high quality work training requirements targeted to helping the poor get the knowledge and skills needed for a globalized and digitized economy. Currently, training requirements can be in lieu of work requirements, but their effectiveness remains questionable. 

The causes and cures for poverty are varied, complex, and far beyond the scope of this piece. But if we as a society are truly interested in ameliorating the condition of poverty (as we should be!) we need to be looking for demonstrably beneficial interventions that measurably make positive differences. Requiring the poor to get a low-end job that increases their childcare and transportation costs just to prove they are not milking the system or making them pay unreasonably for a hand-up from those of us with tax paying means is not a humane way to go about it. 

In rural 19th century Sutton, New Hampshire population declined following the sheep boom in the late 1840s as farmers abandoned their farms in search of better land in places like Ohio and Indiana. Sutton was not alone. Rural living was proving to be too difficult for many New Hampshire residents of small towns. Young women, if they could, were among those who traveled to Lowell, Massachusetts to work in textile mills and live in boarding houses. This was seen as a step up and better than a life of struggle on desolate unproductive farms. 

At America’s Credit Union Museum on the west side of Manchester is a turn of the last century photograph of hardscrabble young boys posing not in front of their school, but rather beside one of the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company’s mills in which they worked. Injuries, death, and child labor among both boys and girls, were common then. The closing of the mills in 1935 hit the Manchester economy hard as did the closing of the Nashua Manufacturing Company in Nashua and the Brown Company paper mill in Berlin, both of which occurred in the 1940s. 

During the summer of 1987 Allied Leather Corp. of Penacook, NH announced it was closing, putting 300 out of work. The New York owners referred to the “tight labor market” and “continuing problems” treating the tannery’s waste. The company had been fined the year before for moving chemicals without a permit. Most of the employees were on their summer vacation when the news of their job losses broke. Plans were made for combining the tannery’s operations with other plants in New York and Pennsylvania. 

New Hampshire has many such economic hardship tales from its 230 years of statehood. When I was young in the 1960s and 1970s, and from Massachusetts, we would hear of the poor people in New Hampshire or “Cow Hampshire” as it was disparagingly called. The people were known as tough, conservative, and independent, but hardly prosperous. 

So, it caught my eye when U.S. News and World Report released its rankings of the Best States for Opportunity this fall. And guess who came out on top, Numero Uno, King of the Hill, #1 out of 50…you guessed it, New Hampshire! To quote them, “New Hampshire, which enjoys among the highest median household incomes in the nation, stood out as No. 1 for opportunity.” 

Let us take a moment to soak this in. Yes, we are surrounded by rancor, political polarization, culture wars, stagnant wages, opioids, automation, globalization, white nationalism, and on and on, but here on this rocky, thinned soiled, forested, mountainous, tick infested, small patch of America we are in the estimation of one journalistic source, with a methodology to back up their claim, the best state in the nation for opportunity. Wow! 

What happened? Some fun facts may help to explain why New Hampshire is now enjoying the most prosperous time in its history. Advanced manufacturing, technology, professional services, healthcare, and of course tourism are strong economic sectors here. Median household income in 2016 was $70,936. Given that the national average that year was $57, 617, we are not doing too badly. 

No personal income or sales tax probably helps, but that has been the case for a long time. Lots of retirees like it here. In fact, we are among the top 3 states with lots of old people. During the Great Recession and its aftermath 246,000 people moved away, but another 247,000 moved in. 

I cannot say exactly what has been New Hampshire’s secret success sauce, but one obvious observation is that modernity is being kind to the state. Somehow, we seem to be converting economic, social, and demographic changes into prosperity. Despite all the bad sky-is-falling news we are bombarded with daily this is a cause for all 1.3 million of us in NH to celebrate. 

Human contact, whether through professional networking, social connections, or by earned reputation still matters significantly and should in no way be minimized when describing the recruitment and hiring process. If anything, it is paramount. However, another very important track to cover when developing one’s career is the one driven by existing and emerging technologies meant to streamline and optimize the employment process. 

Today this ranges from online job boards advertising positions to Applicant Tracking Systems (ATS) that parse resumes for HR and recruiters. Also, Artificial Intelligence (AI) and machine learning tools, designed to assess the employability of candidates, are now present.  

How to advantageously position yourself for these digital aides and gatekeepers needs to be a key component of a well-planned career growth strategy. Let us take a current look at each of these technical features. 

Online job boards are not very new, in short supply, or complicated. They are little more than interactive web sites that post job descriptions from employers. More recent are job search engines like Indeed and Simply Hired that rummage the internet aggregating job postings from a variety of sources. 

These sites are seductive in that they give the appearance of a job store with profuse amounts of positions just ready for you to pick up while shopping. A common and ineffective ploy is to spend hours responding to jobs on the boards with the only thing generated being recruiters trying to lure you to high turnover 100% commission sales jobs.  

Nonetheless, working with job boards is not a complete waste of time and decent jobs can be yielded. Recommended is to spend about 10% to 20% of your job search time utilizing the boards while being careful and discriminating about what you respond to. 

ATS software allows recruiters to organize vast lists of applicants and their pertinent criteria such as qualifications, employment history, degrees earned, etc., which are most useful to hiring managers when determining who to contact for interviews. For those of us trying to secure an interview we need to be mindful of preparing resumes (and LinkedIn Profiles) that are keyword-rich with contextually used terms aligning our skills and knowledge with responsibilities and deliverables mentioned in job descriptions. 

Therefore, given the need for an ATS-friendly resume that simultaneously is attractive for human readers the challenge is to strike a visually appealing format that won’t confuse the ATS. This can be tricky. If you want a designer resume that looks like those on Pinterest, then forget about passing ATS muster. And with so many companies employing ATS the best strategy may be to pay homage to the many conditions needed to not be digitally rejected in a millisecond, while adding enough optics, and of course solid content, to not have your resume look like just another slice of white bread. Achieving this level of resume optimization is a necessary goal. 

The latest trend, which is expected to proliferate in use and sophistication, involves the impact of AI in hiring decision making. There is a growing perception that relying on a candidate’s skills alone is not consistently producing better employees. The evolving thought is to assess personality more with the goal of finding a well-rounded and compatible colleague.  

To this end, AI is being deployed to identify personality traits gleaned from resumes, online profiles, social media presences, video appearances, you name it. Apparently, this is seen as less biased than human observers. We shall see. (Cannot algorithms be biased too?) 

At any rate, developing a consistent brand and value proposition that includes both your technical talents and your work style/interpersonal characteristics across all platforms may be wise for presenting to human and technological appraisers alike. 

Being prepared for the changes and encroachment of technology into hiring decisions, and by extension career development, has become imperative in today’s employment world. 

Earning a Master’s in Business Administration or MBA has long been considered both a difficult challenge to confront, but also a career boosting achievement. An MBA has been shown to increase promotion and employment opportunities and to jump start compensation. However, by the time most business professionals consider returning to school to earn the degree chances are good there is a family with children in place needing considerable attention and a mountain of bills to juggle, including a mortgage. Not to mention, MBAs can cost from $25K up to $100K in tuition, fees, and transportation costs. 

The inevitable question business managers ask themselves is, “Is this worth it?”. Don’t you hate it when someone answers such a question with, “Well, it depends.” So here goes, the answer to whether an MBA is worth pursuing or not is, “Well, it depends”. 

The value of an MBA should depend on more than compensation and promotions as alluring as those are. To obtain the most benefit from the work and expense of earning the degree largely comes down to if you think it is in your career’s interest to develop your talent in several key areas. And it turns out, these are the same attributes many executive managers look for when considering whether to hire a candidate who holds an MBA. 

You probably think I’m talking about astuteness in topics like organizational behavior, finance, accounting, supply chain management, enterprise IT systems, and economics. Of course, these and other subjects comprising an MBA curriculum are important, but what really sells the executive hiring managers are competencies like leadership, communication ability, strategical thinking, interpersonal relationships, and entrepreneurial spirit. These traits can be thought of as the building blocks to managerial excellence. Therefore, it is important to select an MBA program that assists you in developing these strengths. 

Some other useful facts about MBA programs can assist one in their decision making about whether to take the plunge or not. MBA programs most often occur over 18-month to 2-year time periods with students typically earning approximately 40−60 credits representing about 500−600 class hours of graduate-level work. Some programs allow up to 6 years to complete the program. 

A full time student must be dedicated to a concentrated approach but given that many mature MBA students are full time employees there are several alternatives. These include: 

Accelerated: Fast-tracked program with a greater course load and more condensed class and examination schedule over one year. 

Part-Time: Taking three or more years students attend classes after usual working hours, including weekday evenings and/or weekends. 

Modular: A tightly prescribed approach involving a progressive curriculum of class components presented in one to three-week segments. These programs seemed most often to be aligned with EMBA degree programs (see below) or Accelerated programs and are most often to be completed within one to two years. Also, modular often means on-site residency for the length of the given module. 

Executive MBA (EMBA): Designed for working professionals with 10 or more years of management or executive experience. These programs allow earning the degree in two years or less while working full time. 

Distance Learning: Involves classes held off-site from a campus and can include courses held via correspondence, broadcasts, videos, teleconferences, videoconferences, and online formats. 

Hybrid: Also known as blended programs these are a fusion of distance learning with traditionally styled face to face classroom instruction. 

Mini-MBA: This method combines on the job training regimens and requirements that can also be counted as credit-earning coursework toward a university MBA program. Typically, this requires a partnership between a work setting’s training program and a university MBA program. 

Finally, it is important to make sure the program you select is reputable within your industry. Not all MBA programs are of the same caliber, and you do not want to work hard only to find out later that your degree is not enthusiastically embraced by your superiors. 

It is a lot to consider but seeking this level of mastery may just lead to the breakthrough your management career needs. 

Much is made of the dearth of economic opportunity and income equality across the U.S. workforce. Though a perennial issue, the conventional wisdom these days more than most appears to be that there are segments of the American population for whom high paying jobs are elusive or non-existent. This belief persists despite the lowest unemployment rate we have seen in nearly twenty years. 

The primary reason, we are told, for this situation boils down to the fact that an automated, globalized, and corporate-led economy produces winners and losers — a somewhat different set of winners and losers apparently than the more nationally-based economy of yesteryear. 

Inequality, or even the perception of it, tends to raise the hackles of key constituencies such as left-leaning individuals and nowadays working class folks who find that many low to mid-skilled jobs are evaporating. These groups agree there is a fundamental unfairness to inequality, and they are inspired to fight against it, sometimes in dramatically different ways, whenever possible. 

One element of inequality that I do not see getting too much attention however pertains to the number of people with a college education vs. those without one. As we look over the last half century or so we can see that this is a significant economic phenomenon. Indeed, the discrepancy between those with and without higher education impacts a variety of inequality factors, including not just income, but housing, community makeups, cultural upbringing, socioeconomics, and social status. 

The number of working-aged Americans with college degrees is steadily rising and now is at or slightly above 40% according to the Lumina Foundation. That is ten times the number compared to a hundred plus years ago when Andrew Carnegie, of all people, claimed college was irrelevant and even damaging. Despite the high cost of college, projections are that attendance will continue to grow another 15% by 2025 (Inside Higher Ed). 

Bruce Cain, a Stanford University political scientist, points out that people with knowledge-based characteristics attributed to being college educated, such as professionally oriented behaviors, digital familiarity, an understanding of financial services, and innovative inclinations, tend to congregate residentially and in employment. In today’s world the “Haves” are most often the ones with a college education, and they like to stick with and hire others of their own kind. It is easy to see how this can appear unequal. 

Many Baby Boomers were raised with the notion that getting a college education would lead to greater economic gain. Although the message is more nuanced these days the central point remains the same. One unintended consequence of this virtue is that it also leads to economic inequality and resentment among those not sharing in the bounty. This acrimony can sometimes be heard among those who have taken an anti-intellectual / anti-education stance, such as when expressing skepticism (to put it politely) regarding the viewpoints of the “elites” and the “establishment”. 

Addressing this imbalance requires initially a level of respect and acknowledgement that we all have something of value to offer. Working toward an economic system that honors and tries to achieve an opportunity-for-all ethic could arise from such a belief. Those who benefit from the hard work and commitment of pursuing higher education can assist those for whom college has not been a viable option through assistance measures designed to encourage greater and more affordable college attendance. 

And for those not choosing to pursue higher ed? The means of providing employment training, entrepreneurial support, and apprenticeship alternatives, along with other opportunity options, could be made more available. Full employment across all socioeconomic groups should always be our collective objective. 

Sharing prosperity across all segments of a pluralistic society is a great challenge. Perhaps we need to see more committed action from those who have succeeded, many of whom profess liberal leanings, to drive opportunity-for-all programs so that no one’s economic prospects are left behind. 

It is widely agreed that burning out on the job, any job, is anathema to a satisfying professional life. To be clear, by burnout I am not referring to boredom or lack of inspiration with work, but rather the fear-based high anxiety and psychological debilitation that is the result of overly stressful attributes associated with your job. 

There are some broad points to highlight about employment burnout. For starters, it leads to depressed economic activity. Also, it arises following repeatedly demoralizing dynamics that taken together is negative for the individuals involved and for those close to them. Finally, efforts to structure workplaces and assist people in making wise career choices so that burnout does not occur is progressive. 

I suggest approaching the issue by looking at mitigation solutions that can be practiced by both employers and employees. My premise is that employment burnout is transactional, meaning that both parties play significant roles in its emergence, and they can also collaborate to see its demise. 

It is in employers’ interest to not contribute to the burnout of their talent. Employees cost money to recruit, onboard, and train and they provide the productivity skills needed to keep an enterprise profitable. What employees are not is a consumable resource. Yet, this is how they are often treated. Too many workers toil for longer hours with no appreciable boost in compensation. This includes receiving after-hours emails from management. 

A downside for technology is the way it allows for the workday to be extended and therefore the workload to grow. Reasonable limits on work-creep need to be instituted or employers will see their workforce turnover rate increase. 

In addition to management exhausting their labor pool there is the issue of too many employers not showing adequate understanding of what motivates and energizes employees. High compensation and judicious work hours certainly help, but also to be considered are the conditions that feed the career aspirations of workers, and by extension the profits of companies. When management recognizes the synergy between employee career development wishes and how those can best align with company productivity or organizational mission, we create a win/win situation. Such a happy union is not fertile ground for burnout. 

It is easy to pin all the blame on employers for employee burnout. But that is not entirely fair. When a worker goes into a job with their eyes wide open, knows clearly what is required to succeed, and intentionally tries to find the alignment between their own career development needs and employer enrichment they take ownership and responsibility for avoiding their own burnout. 

I recommend that an employee be guided by some fundamental principles when deciding to select and sustain a particular job. One is to always try to put yourself in a context where you are capitalizing on your strengths and managing your weaknesses. Do well what you are best at doing and allocate as little time as possible to handling those aspects of the job you just are not that good at performing. If these priorities are out of balance in your job, burnout is sure to follow. 

Also important is to make sure your job allows for and hopefully encourages you to continually develop your professional skillset; to interact and collaborate with colleagues and partners such that you are contributing optimally given your talent level; and that you leave each work shift feeling as if you are making a significant difference for yourself, your employer, and the world. With these arrangements in place, you are unlikely to feel the drain leading to burnout. 

Jobs, markets, competition, business success, and profitability are all tough to get just right. It can often seem things are beyond our control. But reducing and eradicating employee burnout is a goal employers and employees can achieve together and prosper from mutually. 

During the Great Recession and ever since we have heard about a skills gap in America. This is in part responsible for slow productivity, and by extension, slow economic growth. There does seem to be evidence of an employment gap. There are currently 6.2 million jobs unfilled, up from 5.6 in 2016 (Forbes); 45% of small businesses cannot find work-ready candidates (National Federation of Independent Business); and the results of a January 2018 survey of 500 senior executives found that 92% think the candidate pool is not as skilled as it needs to be (Adecco). 

There is plenty of finger pointing going on. Some of the principal criticisms include: 

The education system is outdated and is poorly adapted to preparing students for a fluid economy — one that is heavy on technical and math-based skills. 

Employers at both the corporate and small business levels are not allocating adequate resources to training and apprenticeship programs, leaving workforces skill deficient. 

There is a growing cultural bias against the machine and tool-oriented skills useful in construction, manufacturing, and the trades, discouraging younger workers from selecting those careers. 

Increased automation is creating demand for a more technically proficient job candidate than the current labor market can supply. 

Old jobs are becoming obsolete while newly created ones are being generated at a brisk pace which the economy struggles to keep up with. 

Soft skills, such as those which emphasize collaboration, communication, and teamwork are not being acquired sufficiently at home, school, and in the community. 

Job creation is so fast and unemployment so low given the robust economy that labor does not have the time or means to adjust. 

The problem is unmotivated workers who do not want to take menial jobs or work the night shift, or who like their drugs more than work, or who are spoiled youngsters used to having everything handed to them. 

It is likely that all these factors play some role in why there are so many unfilled jobs. One would think this is a simple supply and demand problem to remedy. Identify the specific skills needed by most employers and then have the education and training providers upskill students and workers to learn and master the required competencies. But apparently doing so is not so simple. 

What strikes me in the research on this topic is that there are practically no lists of specific skills that are in short supply. We can find the career areas where there are shortages, for example in nursing, industrial technicians, computer network specialists, and so on, but exactly what the elusive skills are appears to be largely a mystery.  

This suggests to me that there may not be a skills gap at all, but rather a failing in the way individuals are aligned with work for which they are best suited. In other words, there may be a lack of fit between too many workers and employment opportunities. 

This lack of fit problem is not new. Over the past century or so it has been a challenge to match increased numbers of workers with burgeoning career options. Indeed, the career development field arose out of a need to address this issue.  

What is new, perhaps, is the escalating scale and scope of unprecedented numbers of prospective workers and career opportunities. The degree of guidance, counseling, and training by schools, businesses, professional associations, and other stakeholders to better improve aligning available labor with employment demand may need greater attention than has been accessible to date. 

If true full employment is to be achieved, and with it the benefits of economic growth and widely spread prosperity, then it seems it is in everyone’s interest to insist on refining the processes whereby workers can access high quality counseling and training to best meet employment scarcity. Government, education, and business could partner more effectively to forge solutions. 

The gap we are now facing may be more of shared commitment and engagement rather than of skills. 

As I pen this piece, during one of the final days of 2017, my mind reflects over the tumultuous year just passed. In my judgment, it has not been a good one. A dominant reason for my opinion has to do with what I see as stark evidence of the deterioration of civil behavior. 

This year exhibited degradation of civility on two fronts. One is the startling revelations in recent months of sexual impropriety in the workplace and beyond that are historic and pervasive. The second, which is relatively new to the scene, is the detestable leadership style being practiced and modeled by the President of the United States. 

The civility downturn issue I raise here elevates to a cultural level, but in keeping with the career and employment theme of these pieces, I’ll confine my thoughts to the effect declining civil discourse and offensive interactions are having and could continue to have in the places where we work. 

To begin, let us contemplate the monumental disclosures and resulting tolerance shift commonly known as the #MeToo movement. Since women increased the pace of sharing professional employment roles in far greater numbers than ever approximately fifty years ago, true workforce equity has been elusive. The combination of rigid gender stereotypes, the inherent inequality of hierarchical structures, and the sexual tension palpable among some co-workers establishes an environment in which predatory behavior occurs. Women who forcefully reject such treatment and men who understand its fundamental unfairness are now letting those in power know enough is enough. 

This social shift is long overdue and compels management across all industries, still mostly occupied by men, to participate and collaborate with female colleagues on equal footing and to dissolve outdated norms. It is hard to imagine that the clock will ever turn back. Managers and co-workers alike are on notice that behavior which violates basic decency against others in a sexual manner could well result in career ending consequences. 

The other and more recent challenge to our declining pattern of civil engagement with potential impact to the workplace is embodied by President Trump. To be clear, I am not interested in scoring political points and my claim here is not intended to be partisan, but Donald Trump’s model for success and leadership is debased, contrary to decency, and a disgraceful example of how those in powerful positions should act. 

The serial lying, bullying provocations, juvenile name calling, lack of intellectual engrossment, and pathetic narcissism represent leadership at its worst. Is there really a political ideology or set of guiding principles so valuable that it justifies these leadership behaviors? Having such a role model speaking on behalf of our nation, occupying a position that influences our youth, and demonstrating that this is what American success now looks like is an embarrassment and affront to our values as a country. 

It is imperative that Americans of moral character and basic virtue rise above the example set by our president and to show the true spirit of civility in the workplace and elsewhere. It can reasonably be argued that as a people over time we have abandoned shared responsibility in a move toward a selfish and a self-centered style of economic individualism. Perhaps President Trump’s mannerisms reflect how far this has gone. 

The year 2017 has given us a wake-up call. We can rally and repair by first admitting some deep-seated flaws exist in the way we interact in the areas of mutual respect and collective caring. The forces against us are formidable. Our positive tendencies are for the time sidelined. Let us not just hope for a better and more civil 2018 but let us actively work toward making it happen. We are better than this. 

Mobility has become something of a buzz word these days, particularly in the context of one’s economic and employment condition. Increasingly we see movement among people, whether in terms of place, jobs, education, or social groups as more common, at least among a growing segment of the population. 

There has always been the phenomenon of socioeconomic mobility, the upward or downward movement of economic status with its resulting standard of living levels. As Americans, we pride ourselves on having created a meritocratic system, in which ability and talent rather than simply inherited wealth and privilege, can lead to upward mobility. And ingrained in that potential is of course the risk of failure and descent. 

The mobility I am emphasizing, however, goes beyond this more historic form. It is a mobility that in part defines the changing nature of career and economic success in an evolving economy. It is mobility that is encouraged and motivated by discovering and acquiring that increasingly elusive premium known as opportunity. 

If the work you want to do is more likely to be found in Los Angeles, then you leave your home in New Hampshire. If hiring is more robust in accounting, then you do not follow your parents’ careers as teachers. If the variety of diverse lifestyle and work choices within a multicultural neighborhood is more appealing, then you leave your mostly white and Protestant hometown. If your impetus is to develop truly innovative and groundbreaking services, then you don’t follow the path of anyone else. 

As one prepares for adulthood and career there appears to be a fundamental choice to be made — opt for a career characterized more by features of mobility or more by tradition. Throughout much of our history we were content to stay close to where we were born and to do work, whether in or out of the home, that was done by our parents. We continued family farming, worked in the same paper mill as our father and grandfather, raised children full time at home, and provided goods and services for families much like ours in the area. There were social and economic benefits, in short the opportunity, to carry on these traditions. That continuity still has appeal for many, but perhaps for a decreasing number of people. 

Economic opportunity now is seen by an expanding number of people as requiring mobility. For home grown and newly arrived Americans the ticket to a broader range of career options is education. It may be difficult to know exactly what the right thing is to study at first, but a belief is widely accepted that continuing education beyond high school and indeed throughout one’s working years is necessary to keep one economically viable and marketable. Similarly, is the understanding that one’s career now has an inherent mobility with many twists, turns, and iterations. (For example, most CEOs did not major in business administration, but rather in subjects like history, political science, and communications, according to Investopedia). 

Immigrants continue to serve as examples of assertive mobility. Sure, the attraction of the US has long been there for those from abroad who have wanted to put America’s socioeconomic upward mobility reputation and principles to the test. Indeed, that continues to happen. But many of today’s immigrants to America also know that to achieve a decent or higher standard of living they need to more intelligently hunt for and snag opportunity. The word is that opportunity will not be handed to them. Immigrants disrupted their lives intentionally, leaving much of their past and what is familiar behind. Their energy, enthusiasm, and drive are worth paying attention to and perhaps emulating as much now as ever. 

Hopefully, we can make our world friendly and prosperous for those with inclinations toward both mobility and tradition. Collectively, we should not have to conclude one way of life survives and the other does not. Yet, the trend toward mobility is mobilized and gathering steam. No matter how you choose to engage your career and livelihood your relationship with mobility must be considered.