Tag Archives: leaders eat last

Abstraction Kills

What can lead one person to kill someone they have never met?

I suspect you saw the news. On December 4, a gunman in a hooded jacket shot and killed Brian Thompson, the 50-year-old CEO of UnitedHealthcare, as he left his hotel in New York City. The killer fled the scene, triggering a nationwide manhunt, and given the victim’s job, reports that the words deny, defend, and depose were on the shell casings furthered the suspicion that this was a targeted attack. And I suspect you saw the quick, troubling reactions to the murder afterward, like t-shirts for sale with the words deny, defend, and depose on them, and references to the shooter as a hero for murdering a health insurance company CEO. And you probably saw the subsequent arrest at a Pennsylvania McDonalds of 26-year-old Luigi Mangione, a prep school valedictorian and Ivy League grad from a prominent Baltimore family.

The entire story sounds more like a Grisham novel than real life, so the media attention is unsurprising.  

Murder is reprehensible. You might think that goes without saying, but it doesn’t; go without saying, that is. I strongly oppose all acts of violence and for both strategic and theological reasons promote creative nonviolent resistance as an alternative. I remain convinced that what theologian Walter Wink termed the “myth of redemptive violence” is descriptive not just of American history but all of human history, and I defy the claim that violence can be a source of good. So, I unequivocally condemn the murder of Brian Thompson.

As expected, the victim left behind heartbroken family and friends. I read the reactions of those who knew Brian Thompson the best and understand their bewilderment at the widespread popularity of the alleged killer. They described the victim as a small-town, blue-collar kid from Iowa who was a good student and then worked hard as he rose through the ranks to become the CEO of a major corporation. Thompson earned ten million dollars in salary and benefits last year and was in many ways the popularly-understood American success story. Rags to riches. How could anyone celebrate the cold-blooded murder of a Horatio Alger hero story?

If you find yourself so bewildered, there is another perspective that is helpful to understand. Consider, if you will, the perspective of countless human beings who have watched their loved ones suffer and die due to the cold denial of insurance coverage by a fabulously wealthy company whose chief executive was paid over ten million dollars last year. (To do the math, that’s well over $1,000/hour for every single hour of the year.) Some of you might not have to try very hard to imagine this alternative perspective, and to be honest, I didn’t have to try very hard either. To understand the anger and bitterness, that is.

When I consider the murder of an American rags-to-riches success story by someone who is representative of millions of wronged Americans using violent tactics characteristic of American history and popular culture, I ask myself how to make sense of it all, and it turns out that I do have a particular thought to share.

Ten years ago, Simon Sinek published a wonderful leadership book titled, Leaders Eat Last, and I was especially impressed by his chapter, The Abstract Challenge. [Note: I mentioned this book and chapter specifically in a recent and relevant post, Small but Mighty.] Sinek pictures the initial attempts of humans to live in groups and imagines a village deciding on a leader and granting the leader certain privileges but with an important understanding: When our village gets attacked by a lion or tiger, it’s your job to fight it for us! However, Sinek argues, as human civilization evolved over subsequent thousands of years, the leaders still received lots of privileges, but they also became further and further removed from the people they are there to protect. So, to the modern leader, those they are to protect often become more and more “abstract.” To illustrate, the CEO of a major corporation leads massive numbers of people whose names they will simply never know. And given this state of affairs, as Sinek concludes, in organizations—and he actually uses the following phrase as a chapter title—abstraction kills.

I was struck by how literal that may have become in this particular case.

What can lead a prep school valedictorian and Ivy League grad from a prominent Baltimore family to kill a hard-working rags-to-riches story from a blue-collar Iowa family when the two have never met?

Possibly, because abstraction kills.

There are many conversation topics that emerge from this popular true crime story, and I hope that on one hand we will remember to reaffirm the rule of law and condemn murder, and I hope that on the other hand we will at some point truly consider universal health care. But it seems to me that neither conversation will make a dent in The Abstract Challenge. We can hardly reverse millennia of sociological developments overnight to address such a fundamental reality.

But as I have argued before, I do think we can begin a grassroots effort toward that end and adopt a posture that consistently resists the powerful sociological inertia that constantly reduces actual human beings into invisible abstractions. To be candid, that is why I like living in a small town. And why I like working at a small college. And why I like being a part of a small church. In small towns, and small organizations, and small churches, it is exponentially more difficult for people—and their joys and their pains—to be invisible.

In a phrase, it is vital that we learn to truly see people.[1] All people. It’s a nearly impossible task in a modern world, but don’t let that stop us from trying. We are facing powerful forces that lead to violence and death, but I am convinced that life and love are worth the (creative, nonviolent) resistance.


[1] And I’ve also said this before, but I encourage you to read the latest book from David Brooks, How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply, and Being Deeply Seen (2023).

Small, but Mighty

Life in these United States involves immersion in a culture where bigger is typically considered better. That’s undeniable, I think. We naturally count likes and followers, poll numbers and votes, items sold and bottom lines, box office receipts and numbers of thumbs up, runs/goals/points leading to wins and losses—and judge what is “successful” accordingly. The more, the merrier, so they say. I have yet to see someone enter the Shark Tank and say: My dream is a nice, small business. Hell, no one gets to be a “shark” on Shark Tank for having a small business. Like I said, everywhere we turn: bigger = better.

Not surprising. Our foundational institutions are based on competition: a capitalistic economic system; an adversarial justice system; a democratic political system: in a competitive world, bigger numbers are how we establish the winners and the losers. That is just what we do.

I opened my laptop last Friday to the New York Times article, “Trump Claims Harris’s Rallies are Smaller. We Counted.” Of course, you did. That’s what we do: count sizes of things. It is like we all wear glasses with special lenses so that every person and everything that we see is on one side or the other of a greater-than or less-than sign. Those familiar mathematical signs sit above the commas and periods on our keyboard, and even the words themselves imply value. Greater than. Less than.

This is all well and good (I guess), unless you are on the less-than side. Unless you are (brace yourself)—small. In a competition-based society, the underlying idea is that being small and coming up short is unfortunate and that such misfortune provides the motivation to do more, to grow bigger, based on the assumption, of course, that bigger is better. I mean, one of the very definitions of “small” is “insignificant and unimportant.”

I’m not sure that I buy the entire premise.

__________________________________________

Ten years ago, during the college search journey with our youngest daughter, we learned about small, liberal arts colleges. I confess: as a first-generation, Pell-eligible student myself, I knew very little about an awful lot, and these small colleges were a revelation. My primary experience had been with large, public universities, community/junior colleges, or generally mid-sized, private, faith-based universities. But as we searched, we found these cool, tiny places fascinating.

We learned of the work of Loren Pope, an independent college counselor who said, “The smaller the school, the more impact it can have on a kid. My mission in life is to change the way people think about colleges.” Pope wrote a book titled, Colleges that Change Lives, and we visited several on his list, including a tiny place in rural Wisconsin. We loved our visit to Wisconsin, but our daughter ultimately decided that that particular college was not the place for her college education. But she said to my wife and I: “You two should work there someday.”

Well, life is funny. Several years later, my wife and I did find ourselves working at a small, liberal arts college in rural Illinois that we loved very much. And now, hot off the presses, we are working at a small, liberal arts college in rural Wisconsin — not the same one we visited a decade ago, but nearby, and for us, even better.

I can say from personal experience that, despite today’s disturbing rhetoric, colleges of all shapes and sizes can change lives for the better, but I must also say that I find myself enthusiastically agreeing with Loren Pope that these small colleges can have an extra special sort of impact. In my short time at Ripon College, I have watched the presidential debate and considered the future of our nation with an intimate group of students; watched a football game on a lovely Saturday afternoon where none of the players involved had an athletic scholarship; attended an activities fair and visited with students promoting interests ranging from paranormal activity to equestrian sports, from Greek Life to service organizations, from physics to art, from College Democrats to College Republicans, and affinity groups representing Black students, LatinX students, Asian students, LGBTQIA+ students, and more. All on a campus with less than a thousand students, and all on a campus where these students with diverse backgrounds and diverse interests know one another and the professional educators that love what they get to do here.

There is a particular beauty in something small, but to be small is to be at risk in this world. Small businesses, small farms, small towns, and small colleges are all at constant risk of extinction. But I think there is a corresponding and greater risk on the other side of the equation. In my early days of full-time ministry, I stumbled on some writings of a youth pastor/theologian named Mike Yaconelli, who was considered sort of edgy in a way that I found interesting. It was the heyday of “church growth” strategies, and I remember that he wrote something like, “The only thing you need to worry about with church growth is not to grow too big.”

I liked that then, and I like it now, more than ever.

Aristotle had a similar idea, from what I understand, and wrote extensively on his belief that a city-state should be big enough, but not too big, and that maybe 500-1,000 people was, to quote the philosopher Goldilocks, just right. To present day, Simon Sinek makes a similar argument. In his wonderful book, Leaders Eat Last, in Part 5 he outlines “the abstract challenge,” i.e., as civilizations and organizations grow large, the people the leaders purportedly protect tend to become abstract, invisible to the leaders. Sinek doesn’t hold back on the ramifications and titles chapter thirteen: Abstraction Kills.

All I hear is Yaconelli saying to literally take care not to get “too” big, i.e., so big that you cannot know one another. Don’t grow so big that people become just a number.

What is it that I find so special in the small college setting, the thing about small anything that transcends the typical experience in our particular “advanced” culture? It reminds us to truly see each other.

I often wonder if the world is losing its marbles, and although questioning institutions is one of my favorite things to do, the warlike drumbeat questioning the age-old assumption that a college education is a good thing sort of blows my mind. Is college for everyone? No. Is college too expensive for many? Yes. Should we work to improve things? Sure. But my goodness, I could write forever about the impact of college on the world as well as individual lives and families, including mine.

Instead of feeding our tendency to ask poorly-framed questions (which, ironically, college can help address), maybe the overly broad “Is college worth it?” should be reframed as “Which colleges are worth it?” And if so, I humbly suggest that we check our culturally-influenced tendency to evaluate an answer thinking that bigger is better and be willing to look to the small places. You just might discover a gem.

“Here it is again, the Great Reversal: many of the first ending up last, and the last first.” – Jesus (Matthew 20:16, MSG)