Social science and democracy

Posted on August 6, 2026 by crosbyod

The following is the introduction from my upcoming book, Democracy versus autocracy in the USA: How to resist the autocratic playbook and be a more effective citizen of any democracy

I was born in the United States in 1959 and grew up on a story in which we were the heroes[1]. The story wasn’t completely false, but it was badly incomplete. It omitted much, including one of the most important things a citizen of a democracy needs to know: democracy isn’t guaranteed. It’s not even preferred by some, and it’s taken for granted by many. Participating in democracy is harder than it seems. It takes awareness and commitment, and it has to be learned.

Autocracy and how to participate in it, on the other hand, is clear — comply or rebel. It may arrive fast or slow, stealthily and/or wrapped in the language of freedom, nationalism, truth, and promises to right what is said to be wrong. It will thrive where citizens lack a shared account of what democracy is and what it requires of them. It will thrive where and when people are vulnerable to being turned against each other by fear, resentment, and the search for someone to blame.

Democracy is harder. It asks for education, restraint, the willingness to be wrong, and the discipline of treating opponents as fellow citizens rather than enemies. It has to be relearned in every generation, and we currently have no effective and agreed-upon approach for doing that work.

This book makes three claims.

The first is descriptive: democratic and autocratic tendencies have coexisted in the United States from the colonial period to the present. Neither is foreign to us. Both are continuously available. Which one prevails depends partly on institutional design—elections, courts, the press—but mostly on what citizens understand and how they conduct themselves. Institutions can be captured. Norms can be discarded. What holds democracy together, when it holds, is a critical mass of people who know what they are defending and how to defend it.

The second claim is analytical, and it is where this book adds something to a crowded conversation. The clearest account I know of how democratic culture is built and how it fails comes from social psychologist Kurt Lewin. Lewin grew up Jewish in Germany, watched the most constitutionally elaborate democracy in Europe collapse into Nazism, escaped to the United States in 1933, and devoted the rest of his life to a single question: what makes democratic culture resilient and what makes it fragile? His central finding is deceptively simple. Autocracy can be imposed on people. Democracy cannot. It has to be learned, voluntarily and responsibly, through the practice of participation. People raised in authoritarian families, schooled in compliance, and led by leaders who decide for them never develop the habits democratic life requires. When the test comes, they are prone to reach for the leader who promises certainty. Lewin spent the 1930s and 1940s producing experimental evidence for this claim and watching it confirmed at scale by events. We have spent the eighty years since largely ignoring him.

The third claim is normative: democracy is worth the work. Not because the United States has lived up to it—the record is at best mixed—and not because any existing democracy is the final word on self-government, but because the alternative is morally and practically worse. As we will see in Chapter Three, autocracies fail their citizens in predictable ways: they are over-dependent on the leader, which produces a system that is brittle, demoralized, and vulnerable to chaos or collapse when the leader is gone. Democracies fail too, but they retain the capacity to repair themselves. That capacity is what this book is about.

I want to be clear about what this book is not.

It is not neutral. I have a view: the United States should uphold the democratic principles laid out here in Chapter One. We are dangerously adrift from those standards.

It is also not an argument that the founders were saints, that the American story is only a story of progress, or that democracy means whatever a current majority wants it to mean. The founders built a system that protected slavery for nearly a century after they wrote that all men are equal. The American story is a record of democratic expansion and of organized resistance to that expansion, and the resistance has too often won. Democracy is not simply the will of the majority. It is a particular kind of self-government, with commitments to reason, equal citizenship, the rule of law, and limits on power—including the power of majorities. Those commitments have been imperfectly honored from the beginning. That is a reason to apply them more fully, not to abandon them.

The founders themselves understood democracy as an ongoing experiment rather than a finished product. The Declaration of Independence affirms the right and the duty of the people to alter or abolish a government that becomes destructive of its purposes. The founders did not expect us to preserve the system unchanged. They expected progress. This book honors that expectation and asks what change is needed now.

And it invites the reader to participate—voluntarily and responsibly—in the ongoing work of democratic renewal.

A note on method. I have tried to stay close to documented sources and to mark my interpretations as interpretations. Where the historical evidence is in dispute, I have tried to say so. Where I am making claims that outrun the evidence, I have tried to flag them as my own views rather than as established fact. Readers will disagree with some of what follows. That is appropriate. Disagreement, conducted by reason, is what democracy looks like.

The chapters that follow develop the argument in three sections. The first introduces Lewin and the social science of democratic and autocratic group life. The second traces the American historical pattern—particularly the management of class conflict through the exploitation of racial and ethnic divisions. The third turns to what democratic citizens actually need to know and to do: how to think, how to differ, how to listen, how to recognize the autocratic playbook when it is being used on them, and how not to use it on each other.

The autocratic playbook is well documented. We need a democratic playbook that is just as clear, and enough citizens who know it that it can hold.

[1] A story, like Santa Claus, that I believed into grade school. By then my father, and my experiences with segregation in Nashville, helped me begin to awaken to a more realistic view.

Posted in Citizen Involvement, Democracy, Organization Development | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leadership and the Front Line Workforce: Lessons from the Targets of Change podcast by John Bates with guest Gilmore Crosby

Posted on May 8, 2026 by crosbyod

From Live Like a Leader podcaster John Bates

Listen here! https://livelikealeader.show/episodes/episode-142-gilmore-crosby

Episode Summary

Today I have a fun conversation with Gil Crosby, an organizational development pro who’s been in the field since 1984, a professor at the Leadership Institute of Seattle, and the author of multiple books, including his newest: Leadership and the Front Line Workforce: Lessons from the Targets of Change.

Gil and I go deep on a deceptively simple idea: the basic dynamics of how humans work together haven’t changed nearly as much as people claim. Tools change. Technology changes. But the fundamentals of motivation, ownership, trust, and authority? Still the same. And if you lead people like they’re machines—don’t be surprised when performance stalls.

Episode Notes

In this episode of Live Like a Leader, I sit down with organizational development expert Gil Crosby (https://www.crosbyod.com/) to explore timeless principles for change, leadership, and frontline empowerment. Learn why most “programs” fail, how to balance authority with freedom, and how leaders can unlock performance by listening to the people closest to the work.

Gil Crosby has been an Organization Development Professional since 1984. He applies the Social Science of Kurt Lewin to help organizations navigate change and improve performance, as the same principles apply in both business and society. He is also a Professor at the Leadership Institute of Seattle, and he has just published his 7th book, Leadership and the Front-Line Workforce, for anyone in an organization.

Here’s what we get into:

Kurt Lewin’s social science—and why it still works

Gil explains Lewin’s core insight: when people who live with the problem talk it through together, design solutions that make sense to them, and test them, change actually sticks. Whether it’s improving productivity in a plant or reducing violence in a community, people implement what they help shape.

Why “forcing best practices” often fails

We talk about how organizations take something like Lean or the Toyota Production System and try to copy-paste it—usually by forcing compliance. Gil highlights what gets left out: at Toyota, when a worker stops the line, the supervisor’s first response is “Thank you.” That level of respect and engagement is the point—and when it’s missing, the system becomes just another top-down “program of the month.”

A perfect frontline story: the Channel Locks lesson

Gil tells an incredible example from a manufacturing plant: management tried to reduce theft by making workers check out channel locks (basic tools used constantly), which slowed production every time someone needed one. When we asked the obvious question—what does downtime cost compared to a $15 tool?—The plant manager immediately changed course: “Tomorrow, we’re putting channel locks everywhere.”

And the best part? Once workers saw leadership was actually listening, they didn’t steal them. Trust went up, friction went down, and productivity improved.

Empowerment isn’t “nice”—it’s operational

I share why bad customer service drives me crazy (including what I’ve seen in Slovakia), and the pattern underneath it: people on the front line aren’t empowered to make decisions. If the people closest to the work can’t act, everything bottlenecks—and leadership often doesn’t even know what’s broken.

Battlefield leadership and “commander’s intent.”

We connect this to military lessons: when leaders hoard information and control, people suffer. When teams understand the goal and the intent, they can make smarter decisions in real time. That’s true in combat, and it’s true in business.

Democracy vs. autocracy—at work and in society

Gil shares Lewin’s conclusion that hit me hard: every generation has to learn how to be effective democratic citizens, because democracy isn’t self-sustaining. The same is true inside organizations: if people aren’t taught how to think, participate, and take ownership, you’ll get passivity… or rebellion.

The leadership sweet spot: structure + freedom

One of my favorite parts: Gil breaks leadership down as a balance of structure and freedom.

  • People need clarity, information, accountability, and guidance.
  • They also need autonomy and space to think.

Too much control creates compliance-without-commitment. Too little structure turns into leaderless chaos.

Meetings, fear, and why delegation is so hard

We talk about why leaders struggle to delegate well: endless meetings, unclear authority structures, and fear—fear of upsetting someone, fear of saying no, fear of authority (often rooted way earlier than work). I share a line I coach leaders to use when they’re overloaded: “I’d be happy to do that. I’m maxed out—what would you like me to deprioritize so I can take this on?”

Gil’s low moment, and a leadership lesson

Gil opens up about the Great Recession: no safety net, consulting work dried up, and he drove a taxi to survive. His takeaway is powerful: do your best, no matter the role. And don’t get cocky when money is flowing, because it can stop.


MY BIGGEST TAKEAWAY

If you want performance, stop trying to “roll out” solutions to people. Build solutions with them. The front line sees what leadership can’t—and when you treat them like owners instead of obstacles, everything improves: morale, execution, and results.

Posted in Change, Leadership, Lewin, Organization Development | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Ego and Essence – A love story

Posted on January 2, 2026 by crosbyod

In the beginning there was Essence. Essence floated in warmth and protection, her needs being met immediately and without effort. Essence was one with all that she knew. 

Then something happened. Essence was separated. There were delays between wanting and getting. The delays were upsetting, and Essence expressed herself. Her expressions led to gratification of her needs! She was blissfully undifferentiated.

Slowly she noticed that she was separate. There were others like her, some very large, who would respond when she expressed herself. Sometimes fast, sometimes slow. Sometimes exactly as she hoped, other times in ways that didn’t match her needs! 

As Essence differentiated between herself and others, something new came into being. Ego was born.

The years went by, and Ego and Essence had been together as long as either could recall. It seemed like forever! Essence, living in the here and now, learned skills. Essence learned to walk and talk! She learned to use words, and to think in words. Ego loved the words, and applied them to self and others. I am me, you are _____ (mommy, daddy, grandpa, grandma, sister, brother, policemen, teacher, stranger, etc.). 

Ego began to believe the words! I am shy, I am social; I am smart, I am stupid; I am pretty, I am ugly; I am good at this, I am bad at that. He also began to believe his pretend emotions. “I am a happy person” he would say, even when he felt otherwise.

Ego began to protect Essence. Ego learned that expressing some thoughts and emotions upset the others! Ego began pretending not to feel or think those thoughts and emotions, and Ego was rewarded by the others! 

“Shields! Shields!” Like Captain Sulu in Star Trek VI, when Ego sensed danger, he became quick to raise the shields. So quick that it became a habit.

Years kept going by, and Ego started to forget about Essence! Ego got so good at protecting Essence, that Ego forgot that Essence was there! But Essence lived on inside Ego, and no matter how hard Ego pretended to be all that there was, in certain moments Essence would shine through. And that was nice! Ego and others liked it when Essence shown through. There was love flowing from Essence, or there was strength when Essence was angry. 

Ego began to have a harder time learning. When Essence was strong, and Ego was small, he had learned language and motor skills in a snap! Now he had doubts. “Math is too hard,” he would think. “When I make mistakes, people think I’m stupid.” Ego began to narrow his choices. 

He also began to be separated from some, while overly identifying with others. “We are alike,” he would think, usually so fast that he didn’t even notice he was thinking it. Or, with some fear, “we are different.” Again, this consciousness was as fast as the speed of laying eyes on the people. Ego was usually unware of making these distinctions, and equally unware of how his beliefs affected his emotions and behavior. The shields were up all the time! He needed Essence’s help!

As an adult, Ego noticed more and more when he was pretending. He would act happy even when he was troubled for example, both at home and at work. He got more and more tired playing such games! They were draining his energy supplies! And he could feel Essence inside him, tapping on the windowpanes of consciousness. He sensed that Essence was somehow important…more important than the façade he had painstakingly built over the years. He began to search for her.

The more he found her, the more he was her. The more he was her, the more content he became.

End of the story, beginning of a brief lesson[1]:

We all start like Essence.

Ego in this way of thinking is the outer protective layer of habits and beliefs, and in that sense always gets activated by authority (the parental figures in our lives), even appreciated authority. Ego wants to be appreciated by authority, and when there is doubt, raises the shields. 

Essence…pure here and now consciousness…can be in authority roles or be with authority figures without being altered in reaction to…because essence connects to essence. Tat tvam asi, Thou art that (Campbell, 1991, p7).

The “I’m this; I’m that” and “you’re this; you’re that” statements are ego’s need to define self. “I’m successful,” I’m unsuccessful,” “I’m extroverted,” “I’m introverted,” “You’re a good boss,’ “You’re a bad boss,” etc. Ego, comfortably in bed with the lizard brain (see the next chapter!), wants a predictable world, so it is easier to be safe. Like Laurel and Hardy painting a room, that quest for defining self and others in a fixed way, of imposing predictability on reality, paints the essence into an ever-shrinking corner of one’s consciousness. 

When present in the here and now such definitions become meaningless and outdated. 

How do we form the outer layer of habits? An example comes from a branch of psychology called “object relations,” which addresses the infant’s development of patterns of trust (high trust – self and other, high trust – other & low trust – self, high trust – self & low trust – other, and low trust- self and other). In this way of thinking, first borns tend towards a habit of high trust – self, low trust – others. Last borns tend towards high trust – others, low trust – self. Middle kids and only children are most likely to have high trust of self and other. Any child born into highly chaotic and emotionally intense circumstances may have low trust of self and of others. Important habits with life-long implications and all from the randomness of family size. Predictable, yet every journey is unique and highly variable. You are the best person equipped to know yourself, and the only one who can regain your essence.  

Much of who we are comes from the early family systems dance of separateness and togetherness. Did we get the “right” balance of separateness and togetherness? Did we get too much of one and too little of the other? We carry whatever we got into our relationships the remainder of our lives. 

Awareness and acceptance lead to increased freedom and choice. Awareness comes from a healthy ego, an ego that loves, nurtures, and accepts one’s essence. The moral of the story: Reclaim your essence.

[1] Adapted from Crosby, G. (2021). Spirituality and emotional intelligence: Wisdom from the world’s spiritual sources applied to EQ for leadership and professional development. Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group. Pages 61-72.

Excerpted from my upcoming book, “We all have issues.”

Posted in #self development, Emotional Intelligence | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Time to Re-brand DEI?

Posted on October 26, 2025 by crosbyod

A colleague asked that question. Here is my response:

The problem imho is not the brand. The problem is, there is and always has been a very real battle in the US between those who want a more equal society, and those who buy in to divide and conquer class warfare (whether they are trying to hold onto power, or whether, like the vast majority who think in terms of race as a competition, they are just stooges for those who have wealth/power & autocratic tendencies). Adding bigly to the problem are the DEI advocates who undermine their own belief that race is a social construct by dividing the population by the thing they say scientifically doesn’t exist…race… and then berating people based on race and gender. In the words of Robin DiAngelo, “all whites are racist” and “white women’s tears” are just a trick and as such illegitimate. Such dogma sells books and workshops (or at least did), but amounts to nothing more than moralistic bullying similar to the tactics of the autocratic forces being resisted, and directly inflaming the backlash.

The problem is not valuing the democratic principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The problem is pursuing them the wrong way. 

Kurt Lewin pursued the same by inviting people in, a strategy consistent with the ultimate goal of building a truly inclusive and equitable democracy. Our actions must consistently match our values. Adapting autocratic tactics undermines our actions. Democratic principles must guide the way for those of us who value them. 

Posted in Democracy, Diversity, Lewin, Racism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Generation BS*

Posted on September 17, 2025 by crosbyod

*Any generation that complains about young people

First there were the boomers, then generation X and the millennials. then Z, Alpha and Beta. And so was born an army of “experts” on how to relate to each of these generational alphabet soups. Since time immemorial, the older one gets the easier it is to see young people as problematic. “Kids these days. They don’t have the same values, the same work ethic my generation had.” I remember my elders whining the same thing when I was a lad in the 60s and 70s. Lately there is no shortage of voices explaining what to do about it, and trying to sound scientific.

I’ve done my own action-research on the challenge of integrating young people into the workforce. Sure, each generation grows up on new technologies, and new social, political, and economic situations. But the fundamentals of being human remain the same. “Kids these days” respond to the same dynamics we all do. Treat them with respect, allow them to influence their work, give them the structure that any employee needs (role clarity, goal clarity, enough guidance and interaction with whomever they are reporting to), and people of all ages respond to that. Too much chaos, unresponsive and/or overly bossy leadership, and people of all ages are demoralized.

I work with lots of young people who are excited when they are able to influence what they can, and yearn for clear, effective, and compassionate leaders. I also see lot’s of young people bewildered by poorly run organizations, and quickly influenced by older demoralized peers.

Kurt Lewin’s leadership model got it right. Create the right mix of freedom and effective leadership/structure, and you will go far with any generation. Stop lamenting the new generations…that just comes between you and them. Figure out how to more effectively lead. Start with yourself. Develop yourself. Get help as needed (hint: if you are prone to blaming others, you need help). As the great philosopher Pogo once said, “We have met the enemy, and they is us.”

Posted in Aging Workforce, Leadership | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Leadership and the Frontline Workforce: Lessons from the Targets of Change

Posted on August 4, 2025 by crosbyod

My latest and greatest book is out, in which frontline workers tell true stories of Lewinian change from “us versus them” to high performance and morale! Listen in here as AI team pf podcasters briefly review it: https://traffic.libsyn.com/59ce511e-0f15-4965-ae74-09993330565a/LFW_AI_Podcast.mp3

This book is yet another labor of love, bringing to life the vision of my dearly departed friend and colleague Cotton Mears, as well as the stories of workers and bosses who were there before, during, and after OD interventions. In the spirit of Studs Terkel, the book is built on interviews…the methods are taught while the stories are told! Order it here: https://www.amazon.com/Leadership-Frontline-Workforce-Gilmore-Crosby/dp/1041027958/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&dib_tag=se&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ICXVNv_y814KdofvckxaTUe2Ox4e1sRVIYTsQ5UCqR80tapnmkS_O4Sl2P7fribHKOxRpAjI78m4GddAP1cgzLMoHZHQ-6gsTOUSdXWr9mskuqi-s4-eV50SDCdWe5NGv352IEt5n51dFOIGuqbROznP7ZYjo3bPsx75elxgdNs._dr-uTL_DNxCS-ZPf2HE_O0EzJQseLiOz5BSmod_aEw&qid=1754318104&sr=8-1

Posted in Change, Culture Change, Gilmore Crosby, Leadership, Lewin, Organization Development | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Dialogue versus debate

Posted on June 5, 2025 by crosbyod

A colleague of mine posted the following after listening to my most recent podcast:

While there is a difference between debate and dialogue in many cultures, in other cultures it is more blurred.

Three examples will suffice.

The Dutch are extremely confrontive in discussions and wait for once to counter what you are saying. This is the way they communicate. 

When i worked for a huge very well known Dutch company, i dealt with this for years. 

The French also argue endlessly when discussing an issue, often digressing into theoretical discussions about which they get very heated.

Jewish tradition places a very high value on dialogue via debate.. The best example being complementing the person you are discussing something with as a ” bar plugta raoi”, or a formidable worthy disagreer.

I find the purist definition between debate and discussion too sterile and overly patrician.

My response:

How do you define it then? I think of dialogue as exploration of what the other means, which is mist robust when it is mutual, but needn’t be mutual depending on the situation. I think of debate as oppositional thinking (I am countering the other), which can also be useful and can also lead to moments of dialogue (as I have defined it). 

Debate in this model is more of a competition and dialogue more orientated towards learning from the other, and possibly from each other. 

Most people confuse the two and think that if they have a heated debate, they have had dialogue…and most people know how to debate, but dialogue requires a different set of behaviors. 

In a debate one is most likely to leave the conversation dug in to what they already thought, and less likely to learn from the other. If both parties spend their energy sharpening their opinions and trying to convince the other, instead of listening to explore, they will probably part ways with perhaps a winner and loser, and often a stalemate. If all you know is what you already knew, then it is an energetic waste of time, at best leading to a decision based on partial information. Who is the best debater, or holds the most power in the relationship, may be more important than the content. 

A culture of debate then, which is common in the US as well, is a limit on learning, more than an asset. 

All three of your examples sound like debate to me.

Perhaps you mean something else by these terms?

Posted in Emotional Intelligence, Groupdynamics, Organization Development | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Anti-DEI versus Pro-DEI: Divide and conquer strikes again

Posted on April 3, 2025 by crosbyod

In 1625 Sir Francis Bacon successfully convinced the British ruling class that their best strategy to quell widespread and frequent rebellions by an ever growing number of poor throughout England was “…dividing and breaking of all factions and combinations that are adverse to the state, and setting them at a distance, or at least distrust amongst themselves (Allen, 2012, p326).” The subsequent construction of a buffer class of magistrates, police, administrators, orphanages, etc., is well known through classics such as Scrooge and Oliver Twist. A broad swath of the poor were elevated into overseers of their fellow lower class citizens and the middle class came into being. Gender was part of the strategy, as women were stripped of virtually all rights, making every man a lord in his own home, no matter how ill behaved he might be.

In 1691 the Virginia Colony, having just barely survived Bacon’s Rebellion (no relation), enacted the same strategy to divide and conquer the poor. The word “white” was written into law for the first time, and the pale skinned members of the mostly Irish indentured servant class were given a significant social upgrade from having no rights and being whipped, raped, and pilloried, to being a buffer class of police and overseers of the freshly arriving African slaves. The demand for first tobacco and then cotton assured there was plenty of wealth to back the new system. The legislation (below), entitled “The act for suppressing outlying slaves,” was nailed to all government buildings and churches:

WHEREAS many times negroes, mulattoes, and other slaves unlawfully absent themselves from their masters and mistresses service, and lie hid and lurk in obscure places killing hoggs and committing other injuries to the inhabitants of this dominion, for remedy whereof for the future, Be it enacted by their majesties lieutenant governour, councell and burgesses of this present general assembly, and the authoritie thereof, and it is hereby enacted, that in all such cases upon intelligence of any such negroes, mulattoes, or other slaves lying out, two of their majesties justices of the peace of that county, whereof one to be of the quorum, where such negroes, mulattoes or other slave shall be, shall be impowered and commanded, and are hereby impowered and commanded to issue out their warrants directed to the sherriffe of the same county to apprehend such negroes, mulattoes, and other slaves, which said sherriffe is hereby likewise required upon all such occasions to raise such and soe many forces from time to time as he shall think convenient and necessary for the effectual apprehending such negroes, mulattoes and other slaves, and in case any negroes, mulattoes or other slaves or slaves lying out as aforesaid shall resist, runaway, or refuse to deliver and surrender him or themselves to any person or persons that shall be by lawfull authority employed to apprehend and take such negroes, mulattoes or other slaves that in such cases it shall and may be lawfull for such person and persons to kill and distroy such negroes, mulattoes, and other slave or slaves by gunn or any otherwaise whatsoever.

Provided that where any negroe or mulattoe slave or slaves shall be killed in pursuance of this act, the owner or owners of such negro or mulatto slave shall be paid for such negro or mulatto slave four thousand pounds of tobacco by the publique. And for prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may encrease in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawfull accompanying with one another, Be it enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, that for the time to come, whatsoever English or other white man or woman being free shall intermarry with a negroe, mulatto, or Indian man or woman bond or free shall within three months after such marriage be banished and removed from this dominion forever, and that the justices of each respective countie within this dominion make it their perticular care, that this act be put in effectuall execution. And be it further enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That if any English woman being free shall have a bastard child by any negro or mulatto, she pay the sume of fifteen pounds sterling, within one moneth after such bastard child be born, to the Church wardens of the parish where she shall be delivered of such child, and in default of such payment she shall be taken into the possession of the said Church wardens and disposed of for five yeares, and the said fine of fifteen pounds, or whatever the woman shall be disposed of for, shall be paid, one third part to their majesties for and towards the support of the government and the contingent charges thereof, and one other third part to the use of the parish where the offence is committed, and the other third part to the informer, and that such bastard child be bound out as a servant by the said Church wardens untill he or she shall attaine the age of thirty yeares, and in case such English woman that shall have such bastard child be a servant, she shall be sold by the said church wardens, (after her time is expired that she ought by law to serve her master) for five yeares, and the money she shall be sold for divided as is before appointed, and the child to serve as aforesaid.

And forasmuch as great inconveniences may happen to this country by the setting of negroes and mulattoes free, by their either entertaining negro slaves from their masters service, or receiveing stolen goods, or being grown old bringing a charge upon the country; for prevention thereof, Be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, and it is hereby enacted, That no negro or mulatto be after the end of this present session of assembly set free by any person or persons whatsoever, unless such person or persons, their heires, executors or administrators pay for the transportation of such negro or negroes out of the countrey within six moneths after such setting them free, upon penalty of paying of tenn pounds sterling to the Church wardens of the parish where such person shall dwell with, which money, or so much thereof as shall be necessary, the said Church wardens are to cause the said negro or mulatto to be transported out of the countrey, and the remainder of the said money to imploy to the use of the poor of the parish (General Assembly, 1691).

As it had in England, from the point of view of the upper class, the strategy worked. It worked so well that it became a staple of United States politics, and indeed autocratic politics throughout the world. If you can scapegoat groups with less power, if you can prey on the fears of the buffer classes, you can keep the middle and lower classes from realizing that they really have more in common than they do with the wealthiest members of society. Hitler scapegoated the communists, the jews, the LGBTQ community, and eventually every type of minority. The US has a unique history of dividing and conquering by racism, often mixed with fear of immigrants (with different targets over time, such as eastern Europeans, Chinese, and more recently, Hispanics).

The current president preyed on that fear during the election, and is using culture wars to continue the divide and conquer strategy.

The issue, then, is not anti-DEI versus pro-DEI. Fighting that fight falls into the trap of us and them that has been set.

To create a better future, the cause needs to unite the majority. Our common interest is to aspire towards the best possible democracy, with a commitment to equality and to decreasing prejudice to the extent possible. It does not have to be another class war (us against the wealthy). it should be inclusive of the wealthy who support such a vision. It is long past time for a new commitment to creating a better world.

Allen, T. (2012). The invention of the white race: the origin of racial oppression in Anglo-America. Volume Two. Verso.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Diversity…a better way. A brief video addressing the recent pushback on DEI.

Posted on February 1, 2025 by crosbyod
Posted in Diversity, Gilmore Crosby, Lewin | Leave a comment

Lewinian OD is simple, and is what the world needs now

Posted on December 30, 2024 by crosbyod

I wrote this in response to a colleague.

Something close to Lewin’s original change work inside and outside of organizations definitely still exists. We operate with small groups of consultants, if that is what your question meant, sometimes alone, sometimes as a team usually consisting of my brother Chris and myself. We often have people from the organization learning to facilitate the process we use. We work with the existing groups throughout an organization…in our most recent intervention, that includes every group based on the literal reporting relationships, all the way to the frontline workforce. We make small adjustments and improvements but we do not need “new models and tools,” nor do we need a diagnostic period beyond our initial conversation with the top leader. Each group, starting with the lead team, does their own analysis of what is in the way of getting the work done and each group comes up with their own solutions. Hourly workers lead many of the actions. We help the organization organize and sustain the effort until the majority of actions are implemented and can be evaluated by the people who came up with them. The process, because it works, becomes informal, continuous, and for the most part independent of the need for further consultation, although we do strengthen the culture with our T-group methods. Throughout my 40 year history any place that does this type of work has quick results in terms of their own performance metrics and in terms of morale (discretionary effort, etc.).

The unfreezing of over-reliance of management and consultants to do all the thinking instantly elevates the system to a new level of performance which is easily frozen into place because the results are fast and undeniable and the actions make sense to the people in the system (for example, the current plant is discontinuing the use of new gloves which were inferior in preventing finger injuries…their main safety issue…and going back to better gloves which were already on site collecting dust in storage…the type of practical action that hourly workers want to see, and that managers are often too overwhelmed to listen to). Actions like that weren’t force fed from above or outside the system. Indeed, nobody about or outside would have any clue as to that possibility.

The current location had a significant bump in their metrics within a week or two of our initial work, which was a T-group based workshop with their leadership team. Those results were enough to make the plant manager, who was new to us and thus making a leap of faith based on what he had heard from a respected peer (whose plant was consistently getting the best performance in their system after years of using us) enough of a believer to commit to deep work with the entire location.

I’ve written plenty about this, including my upcoming book, “Leadership and the frontline workforce,” which includes before and after interviews with hourly workers who have been there during our interventions in their system. It also is a “how to” book. Let me know if you want more information, such as my recent OD Review article, “A scientific method of change,” or listen to my podcasts at https://ascienceofchange.libsyn.com/.

Happy New Year 2025!

Gil

Posted in Change Management, Culture Change, Leadership, Lewin, Organization Development, T-Groups | Tagged , , | Leave a comment