Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Meet the change leaders: Rich Harwood

Rich Harwood
Harwood Institute

Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

After working on more than 20 political campaigns and two highly respected nonprofits, Rich Harwood set out to create something entirely different. He founded what is now known as The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation in 1988, when he was just 27 years old (and is now its president). Soon after, he wrote the ground-breaking report “Citizen and Politics: A View from Main Street,” the first national study to uncover that Americans did not feel apathetic about politics, but instead held a deep sense of anger and disconnection.

Over the past 30 years, Rich has innovated and developed a new philosophy and practice for how communities can solve shared problems, create a culture of shared responsibility and deepen people’s civic faith. The Harwood practice of Turning Outward has spread to all 50 states and is being used in 40 countries.


Amid the division that often overshadows dialogue and the discord that drowns out understanding, a beacon of hope shines through Harwood’s current "Enough. Time to Build" campaign, a rallying cry for change and a blueprint for building the beloved community we aspire to be. It is a testament to the power of collaboratively turning outward towards each other, creating spaces where every voice is listened to and valued.

This campaign is a response to the many challenges that disturb the soul of our society. It is an acknowledgment that we have had enough of the status quo, enough of the division and enough of inaction.

Harwood's approach to community engagement is a breath of fresh air in the stifling atmosphere of apathy that can sometimes prevail. The Harwood Institute champions the idea that communities are people, not problems to be solved. The "Enough. Time to Build" campaign is a clarion call to reimagine how we come together to create change. It is not merely about community engagement as an end but about re-engaging with our humanity. It is a commitment to the idea that change does not happen in silos or echo chambers but in the fertile ground of shared experiences and collective aspirations.

Harwood's strategy is rooted in what he terms "turning outward" – looking beyond the walls of our institutions and the boundaries of our comfort zones to see and engage with our neighbors truly. It is about listening deeply, not responding or fixing, but understanding and being present with one another. In turning outward, we acknowledge the interconnectedness of our lives and the strength that lies in our diversity.

The campaign urges participants to consider the public narrative we want to create. It pushes citizens to ask, "What are the shared aspirations of our community?" rather than "What is wrong here?" This shift in perspective is powerful. It moves us from a deficit mindset, which focuses on weaknesses and gaps, to an asset-based approach, which builds on the strengths and resources present within our communities.

The "Enough. Time to Build" campaign embodies this by fostering inclusive spaces where individuals from all walks of life can contribute to shaping their community's future. It recognizes that the wisdom to address our most pressing challenges does not lie in the hands of a few experts but the many who live and work within the community.

Harwood emphasizes that as we progress with this initiative, we must remember that building a community is not a project with a start and end date. It is a process, a journey that requires patience, persistence and a willingness to be transformed by the experience. The Harwood Institute's approach is not about quick fixes but about cultivating the conditions for sustainable change.

The "Enough. Time to Build" campaign is an invitation to act with intentionality and purpose. It is a commitment to build trust, bridge divides, and create a shared story of hope and possibility. It is a recognition that the time to build is now and that we are the architects of the future we wish to see.

I had the wonderful opportunity to interview Harwood for the CityBiz “Meet the Change Leaders” series. Watch to learn the full extent of his remarkable work and perhaps you’ll become more civically engaged as well.

The Fulcrum interviews Rich Harwood, President of The Harwood Institutewww.youtube.com

Read More

Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping.

Recent data shows that Americans view members of the opposing political party overly negatively, leading people to avoid political discourse with those who hold different views.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

How To Motivate Americans’ Conversations Across Politics

Introduction

A large body of research shows that Americans hold overly negative distortions of those across the political spectrum. These misperceptions—often referred to as "Perception Gaps"—make civil discourse harder, since few Americans are eager to engage with people they believe are ideologically extreme, interpersonally hostile, or even threatening or inferior. When potential disagreement feels deeply uncomfortable or dangerous, conversations are unlikely to begin.

Correcting these distortions can help reduce barriers to productive dialogue, making Americans more open to political conversations.

Keep ReadingShow less
Divided American flag

Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson writes on the serious impacts of "othering" marginalized populations and how, together, we must push back to create a more inclusive and humane society.

Jorge Villalba/Getty Images

New Rules of the Game: Weaponization of Othering

By now, you have probably seen the viral video. Taylor Townsend—Black, bold, unbothered—walks off the court after a bruising match against her white European opponent, Jelena Ostapenko. The post-match glances were sharper than a backhand slice. Next came the unsportsmanlike commentary—about her body, her "attitude," and a not-so-veiled speculation about whether she belonged at this level. To understand America in the Trump Redux era, one only needs to study this exchange.

Ostapenko vs. Townsend is a microcosm of something much bigger: the way anti-democratic, vengeful politics—modeled from the White House on down—have bled into every corner of public life, including sports. Turning “othering” into the new national pastime. Divisive politics has a profound impact on marginalized groups. Neither Ostapenko nor Donald Trump invented this playbook, yet Trump and his sycophants are working to master it. Fueled by a sense of grievance, revenge, and an insatiable appetite for division, he—like Ostapenko—has normalized once somewhat closeted attitudes.

Keep ReadingShow less