Joan Blades is Co-Founder of LivingRoomConversations.org, MomsRising.org and MoveOn.org.
Covid upended workplace cultures around the world. For organizations that could allow employees to work remotely, work practice shifted with incredible speed. Now that social distancing is no longer required, many offices are returning to pre-pandemic in person expectations while some have decided to let go of their office space and yet other organizations have chosen a hybrid model that has employees in the office some of the time but also working remotely.
Work culture disruption has created valuable learnings and some new challenges that organizational leaders must navigate. For example:
·How does one develop a great remote or hybrid work culture?
·How does one even create a great traditional work culture when organizations are faced with ongoing adaptation due to shifts in the work environment and other societal factors such as divisiveness in our media and politics?
·How does one deal with the fact that the former social norm of avoiding certain subjects at work has become obsolete?
How employers answer these questions can mean either discovery or disaster for their organizations. Especially in work environments where people have less physical proximity, a sense of belonging has become harder to achieve without an intentional engagement plan. Political polarization, cultural, gender, age, class, and other differences have been amplified by the media and some leaders.
Fortunately, there are well researched practices to address these cultural shifts. And these practices are reasonably straightforward to implement. Conversation trainings and guides for structured conversations have been developed in the bridging movement to increase people’s listening skills, and to build understanding, connection, and appreciation for differences. Many of these practices have been tested and found to be beneficial. For example, Living Room Conversations’ six-person structured conversations were found to be effective both short term and longer term for improving participant’s mindsets, building listening skills, and applying what they learn to other parts of their lives. And this was true for both in person and video conversations. Much that has been developed for the bridging movement fits organizational needs.
Strengthening these skills in the workplace has benefits both within and beyond the workplace. First, building strong work cultures reduces turnover. People are more likely to stay in organizations where they feel they can do good work, be respected for their contributions, and experience community. Good connections between employees are key to doing this whether in person or at a distance. Shared vision, understanding of each other’s needs and concerns, mutual respect, these are markers of successful workplaces.
Second, respect built inside workplaces can have positive consequences for the wider society. Our society is inundated with highly visible failures to live up to an ideal of respect across differences. Because these frictions exist in the workplace and have to be addressed there to increase organizational effectiveness, workplaces can be a place where learning to value differences also extends to other parts of society. Many people spend half of their waking hours working. Workplaces that are intentional about promoting respect, curiosity, and good listening for the benefit of all can be leaders in restoring these qualities to our civil society as well.
This April 17th to 23rd is the National Week of Conversation. It is a collaborative event put on by the bridging community. This year’s event includes a host of workplace focused programs. Please join us to make a positive difference at work and a positive difference in society.
A golden tray sits on the Resolute Desk as President Donald Trump speaks during an announcement on American nuclear innovation in the Oval Office at the White House on July 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Trump is signing multiple executive orders targeting the nuclear energy sector and easing rules for new reactors and nuclear fuel supply chains.
Trump’s hubris rivals the fallen heroes of ancient Greek mythology
In January, the New York Times asked President Donald Trump if there were any limits on his global powers.
“Yeah,” the president responded, “there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
That was eight months ago, but fortunately Christopher Nolan’s blockbuster adaptation of “The Odyssey” has made ancient Greek literature newly relevant. Before that window closes, I’d like to talk about hubris.
Today, the term mostly means excessive pride or arrogance. That’s part of what the Greeks meant by it too, but the meaning was a bit richer and more specific. Hubris was an insolent or outrageous act that offended the gods, often because the transgressor was claiming abilities or authorities that solely belonged to supreme beings.
Nolan renamed and slightly modified the concept of xenia for the film, calling it “Zeus’ law.” In the director’s telling, mortals should follow the rules laid out by the gods, specifically the requirement to treat strangers with respect lest they be gods in disguise.
In a sense, hubris is the opposite, or at least the rejection, of xenia. The hubris of the suitors, and at times Odysseus himself, invites punishment by the gods and their mortal instruments.
Which brings me back to Donald Trump. His claim that there are no constraints on his personal power to dictate events on the global stage was one of the greatest expressions of hubris ever uttered by a political leader.
Trump’s claim was obviously false when he made it.
He vowed that he could end the Russia-Ukraine war in 24 hours. He’s proved powerless to make that happen. If he had divine powers to work his will, why would he have balked at implementing his tariffs so often that Wall Street adopted the “TACO trade” term for his deals? “TACO” stands for “Trump always chickens out.”
And why would Trump have made so many embarrassing concessions to China — from rescinding tariffs on Chinese goods to allowing them to buy crucial and incredibly valuable computer chips?
But Trump saw his success at capturing Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro as proof of his ability to launch missiles to the same effect as Zeus’ lightning bolts. Trump believed he was the most powerful man who ever lived.
This is no exaggeration. In March, when the Iran invasion seemed successful, Trump gave a document penned by“Presidential Historian David King” to New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan purporting to prove that Trump was “the most powerful person to have EVER walked this planet.” King was, in fact, a businessman and occasional caddy for legendary golfer Gary Player.
King compared Trump favorably to many of history’s most powerful, and often heinous, figures: Alexander the Great, Attila the Hun, William the Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte, Joseph Stalin, Genghis Khan, Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. Many of these men thought they were the most powerful person in the world, too. And many were defeated precisely because they believed it.
At least Napoleon and Hitler had a string of truly impressive victories before they learned the folly of hubris. The limits on Trump’s power have been exposed by far less august forces than the combined might of the allies in World War II or the fearsome Russian winter.
Iran is a comparatively middling power. But the regime’s ability to absorb punishment while imposing its will on the Strait of Hormuz has proved to be a greater constraint on Trump’s power than his morality or mind. We should note that, at least rhetorically, his morality has not proved much of a constraint. He has repeatedly promised to destroy Iranian “civilization” if the regime refuses to capitulate.
But they haven’t — and won’t anytime soon — because the regime’s tolerance for pain far outstrips Trump’s. The combined fear of skyrocketing oil prices, outrage of Gulf state potentates, diminishing weapon supplies and domestic unpopularity is doing the work that international law, congressional oversight and the collective opinion of foreign policy experts can’t or won’t do.
If I considered Trump more heroic than reason and facts could allow, I would say his Sisyphean predicament has the whiff of Greek tragedy to it. Trump is vexed by the fact that the Iranians won’t honor deals or ratify his countless premature claims of victory — giving new meaning to his vow that his presidency would make people tired of winning. It’s almost like they’re out-Trumping Trump.
Things might have gone better if he’d heeded that great Greek tragedian Sophocles: “For Zeus utterly abhors the boasts of a proud tongue.”
____
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.