New Leadership - History

New Leadership - History


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

July 1964

New Leadership

General Maxwell Talyor

In June of 1964 Henry Cabot Lodge resigned as Ambassador to South Vietnam- to try to run for the Republican nomination for the presidency. Many people volunteered for the job including Robert Kennedy, but Johnson preferred someone who please the hawks so he turned to a military man and appointed General Maxwell Taylor the chairman of the joint chief of staffs to the position. Johnson’s also appointed General William Westmoreland to become the head of the US advisory mission to Vietnam. The hope was that with new leaders a new approach would bring better results..



Today’s rapidly changing and digitalized work environment requires more than ever before leaders who know who they are, what they stand for, can lead with purpose and impact, and are resilient. In a world which is highly dynamic and uncertain, leadership helps followers stay focused, work toward a common goal, provide a sense of belonging and security, and achieve high-performance.

With so much change and disruption, how can the function of leadership remain relevant?

As a leader, aligning yourself with the environment you’re working in has been seen as a key pillar of leadership effectiveness. However, with so much change and disruption currently taking place, how can alignment still be achieved and how can the function of leadership remain relevant?

This article will discuss a new perspective to leadership development which is more relevant to today’s changing nature of work and provide a framework for effective leadership development in 21st-century business.


The odd couple: Vietnam, Laos get new leaders

The ruling communist parties of Vietnam and Laos have formally named their new leadership teams after five-year reshuffles, and the new lineups appear very peculiar.

Politicians whose experience should have made them ideal candidates for certain roles were installed in positions ill-suited to their skills. Round pegs have been placed in square holes.

On Monday, Vietnam’s National Assembly formally voted in Pham Minh Chinh, a former state security leader, as the country’s new prime minister, despite him having almost no experience of economic policy or government administration.

Vuong Dinh Hue, an experienced technocrat, a leading economic planner and a politician who many analysts predicted would become prime minister, was instead named the new chair of the National Assembly, a role without any great influence over government policy.

Chinh has spent most of his career in the Ministry of Public Security, rising to deputy minister. He was then moved into the Communist Party apparatus, becoming head of its Central Organization Commission, a powerful role in charge of personnel decisions over party officials.

While Chinh’s years spent in the Ministry of Public Security technically meant he was a member of the government bureaucracy, more than other ministries it closely follows instructions from the party apparatus.

Chinh is also one of the only Vietnamese prime ministers in recent times not to have previously served as a deputy prime minister, usually a prerequisite for the role.

Throughout much of 2020, most analysts predicted that the then-prime minister, Nguyen Xuan Phuc, a leading technocrat and arguably one of Vietnam’s most popular politicians for his handling of the Covid-19 pandemic, was almost certain to be promoted to head the Vietnamese Communist Party (VCP).

Instead, Phuc was on Monday named the new state president, a largely ceremonial role in domestic politics. And the incumbent party chief, Nguyen Phu Trong, won a nearly unprecedented third term in office in January, a decision that went against the VCP’s own informal limit on two terms in office. Aged 76, he also had to receive a waiver since senior leaders are expected to retire after 65.

With one minor expectation, no party chief has served more than a decade in office since Le Duan, the wartime leader, and informal rules introduced in the 1990s were aimed at preventing a dictatorial accumulation of power by one politician.

Something counter-intuitive also took place in Laos as its communist party, the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party (LPRP), also recently engaged in a leadership reshuffle that takes place every five years.

The incumbent prime minister, Thongloun Sisoulith, arguably the most respected technocrat in recent history, was named the new party chief at its congress in January. But he has spent his entire career in the government apparatus, having previously held no senior role in the party bureaucracy.

Laos makes a similar move

Laos’ new prime minister, Phankham Viphavanh, much like Chinh, has very little experience in the government apparatus. He previously only served as Minister of Education and Sports, a relatively minor role in the cabinet.

He was then moved into the party apparatus to become a standing secretariat member, a role also involved with personnel management.

Phankham also only served briefly as a deputy prime minister between 2014 and 2016, compared with the decade Thongloun spent in this role before he became prime minister in 2016.

On the surface, it appears particularly odd that both communist parties chose not to match personnel to political offices that suit their experience, as they have typically done at previous reshuffles.

In Laos’ case, the explanation is a little more straightforward. Almost never do Lao prime ministers serve more than one term in office, so moving Thongloun to party chief meant it kept its most able and popular politician. And although Phankham has considerably less experience than Thongloun had when he became prime minister in 2016, Thongloun is arguably an exceptional case, groomed for decades for the role.

For Vietnam, however, the possible explanation is more opaque. Given that the VCP decided to rip up much of its rulebook by allowing Trong a third term as Party chief and giving him an age waiver, it could have easily stuck to the status quo and given Phuc a second term as prime minister.

That scenario would have ensured the party apparatus remained in the hands of Trong, an arch traditionalist who for years has fought to restore ideology and “socialist morality” to the fore, and the government apparatus remained in the trusted hands of Phuc, arguably the most able bureaucrat.

The will of the Party

It is well-known that Trong’s preferred successor, his right-hand man Tran Quoc Vuong, was vetoed by the rest of the Party ahead of January’s Congress – and Vuong wasn’t even re-elected onto the Politburo at the event. That meant Trong needed to claim a third term in order to maintain the power of his factional base.

But by handing the government apparatus over to Chinh, the communist grandees clearly decided to impose the will of the Party over the government bureaucracy.

Analyst Carl Thayer, emeritus professor at the University of New South Wales in Australia, has popularized the idea of the VCP being split between its “Party Wing” and its “Government Wing.”

Describing the intense debates within the Communist Party last year over the leadership reshuffle, Thayer wrote in February: “The Party wing stressed the importance of ideology in legitimizing one-party rule and constantly warned of the plot of peaceful evolution by opposition and foreign forces that sought to change Vietnam’s socialist regime.”

By comparison, “the government wing favored integrating Vietnam with the global economy as a means of legitimizing Vietnam’s one-party state,” he added.

Both Vietnam and Laos are one-party states, where all politicians have to belong to the respective communist parties and almost every senior official has to show fealty to the parties’ socialist credentials. However, major differences of opinion arise over the VCP’s role in decision-making, which is partly reflected by the background of the politician.

Up until the 2000s, at least, it was relatively easy for the Communist Party to determine the policies that the government apparatus was expected to enact. As Hanoi’s old slogan states: “The Party leads, the state implements, and the people inspect.”

A division of opinion

However, as Vietnam’s economy and society became increasingly complex, thanks in large part to major economic progress in the early 2010s, the VCP had to turn over greater autonomy to the government apparatus, meaning ministers often took decisions without instruction from the Communist Party.

This, naturally, created a division of opinion, which wasn’t helped by the overlapping agencies of the party and government bureaucracies. Both have their own committees that debate all manner of policy, and do not always come to the same conclusions.

It also meant that the government had to start filling its bureaucracy with experts and technocrats who could manage an increasingly complex system, but who did not necessarily have any real affinity to the Communist Party and its one-party, authoritarian rule.

For traditionalists like Trong, whose primary concern is the continued political domination of the VCP, the rise of technocrats poses a major problem policies that may be necessary for economic or social progress aren’t necessarily in the Party’s interest.

For instance, a number of analysts argue that in order to maintain high economic growth rates, Hanoi must now accept genuine rule of law and private property rights. However, such reforms would mean the VCP must give up its domination of the courts and the legal process, greatly weakening its control over society.

The central political schism now in Vietnam and, to a lesser extent, in Laos, is between how certain policies affect the state and how they affect the communist parties’ political monopoly.

The inherent contradiction in all of this, however, is that both communist parties know that their legitimacy depends on maintaining high economic growth rates, which allows ordinary people to grow a little richer each year. Yet, in order to maintain high growth, their communist parties have to provide greater autonomy to the private sector and the state apparatus, thereby weakening their own positions.

Wings and factions

It would appear, at least in Vietnam’s case, that the party wing of the VCP has decided that this process would be safer if overseen by personnel from the party wing itself. If left in the hands of the government wing, these transitions may be carried out too quickly or too forcefully.

That may explain why Phuc, the obvious leader of the government wing, was dispatched to the ceremonial post of state president. And his protegee, Hue, one of the architects of Vietnam’s recent economic policy, was named chair of the National Assembly, the weakest of the four top political offices.

Chinh, who has his foot more in the party wing than the government wing, was the only prime ministerial candidate put forward by the VCP, naturally winning the National Assembly’s rubber-stamp vote on Monday.

It may explain why the government wing also saw its representation on the VCP’s Politburo, its elite decision-making body, limited at January’s National Congress.

Zachary Abuza, an expert on Vietnamese politics, has noted that 13 of the 18 Politburo members elected in January represent distinctly Party interests, whereas it was only eight of the 19 in the last Politburo, elected in early 2016.

In Vientiane, the distinctions between the party wing and government wing aren’t so obvious or fractious. Laos doesn’t have to worry about how it is seen by the democratic West, as its foreign relations barely extend beyond China, Vietnam and Thailand.

Hanoi, however, which is increasingly moving closer to the West, especially in regards to its disputes with Beijing over territory in the South China Sea, is now under pressure to modify its domestic politics to appease its new allies.

Moreover, the Vietnamese economy is far more advanced and complex than Laos’, meaning Vientiane is not yet gripped by the question of how much autonomy it needs to provide to the private sector and international investors.

That said, the leadership reshuffle in Laos points towards the ascendancy of the government wing of the LPRP. Thongloun, the arch technocrat, was not only appointed party chief but also state president, an expected move since these posts are usually merged, dissimilar to Vietnam’s separation of powers.

Phankham, the prime minister, has feet in both camps but is thought to have been a compromise candidate – and it is widely expected that Thongloun will still dictate government policy from his new post as party chief.

In that regard, it appears that the government wing of Laos’ communist party gained ascendancy this year, whereas the party wing of the Vietnamese Communist Party is now dominant.


Thinking Like a Historian

The reality is that we are all historians when it comes to making decisions. The ability to identify opportunities or problems in the present (and to frame aspirations for the future) inevitably grows out of personal experience augmented by our broader societal knowledge of what has come before. As the great historian of business strategy and organization Alfred D. Chandler Jr. never tired of asking his Harvard Business School classes and colleagues, “How can you know where you’re going if you don’t know where you’ve been?”

So it doesn’t surprise us when we meet business leaders who have undergraduate degrees in history or whose leisure reading is dominated by history and biography. In many ways business leaders, regardless of their educational background, must think like historians. Start with their insistence on basing any serious decision on facts. To be a good historian demands treating facts with intellectual integrity—viewing them with an open mind and a willingness to be surprised. As the study of change over time, history also impels us to think about the long term—another strength of the best leaders, whose well-developed, long-range perspective on the companies they manage may be the only antidote to the pressures of quarterly earnings reporting and the need to react to one crisis (real or perceived) after another.

Thinking historically, of course, is not easy. It requires an appreciation of the dynamic nature of change in a complex human system. It demands an understanding of the particularity of problems and the often unintended consequences of their solutions. Emphasizing the contingency of cause and effect, it rejects formulaic approaches, because no two situations are ever identical in detail or in context. An old saying, frequently attributed to Mark Twain, is “History does not repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” That is why we also search for useful analogues in history. For it is in the rhyming, the patterns, that we can find perspective on the dimensions of our challenges and on the questions we must pose in order to progress.


Dr. Kizzmekia S. Corbett, 35, lead scientist on the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine team

At a December event hosted by the National Urban League, Dr. Anthony Fauci had one very important thing to say about the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine, aka "mRNA-1273," approved by the FDA for emergency use on Dec. 18.

"The first thing you might want to say to my African-American brothers and sisters is that the vaccine that you're going to be taking was developed by an African-American woman," Fauci said. "And that is just a fact."

Indeed, Dr. Kizzmekia Corbett, a 35-year-old viral immunologist and research fellow in the Vaccine Research Center of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is the lead scientist on the team that developed the Moderna Covid-19 vaccine. She built on her six years of experience studying the spike proteins of other coronaviruses like SARS and MERS in order to design the vaccine within two days of the novel coronavirus being discovered. (Spike proteins sit on the surface of coronaviruses and penetrate human cells, causing infection.)

"I like to call it the plug-and-play approach," Corbett, who has a PhD in microbiology and immunology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in a virtual NIH lecture on Oct. 15.

"Basically the idea [is] that we had so much knowledge based on work from us and from other labs previously that we were able to pull the trigger on vaccine development and start the ball rolling toward a phase 1 clinical trial." —Cory Stieg


Profit and Self-Interest vs. Purpose and Service

In traditional models, leaders are driven by self-interest in order to maximize their own power, make money, generate profit, and achieve a prominent status. And, as Block argues, many organizations’ current attitudes toward money are “healthy remnants” of direct command-and-control systems.

In the new leadership paradigm, leaders are motivated by improving the well-being of people and communities in ways that have lasting, intrinsic value. In short, they put service to the organization or community ahead of self-interest. This means that profit becomes a secondary motivation to meaning or purpose. This isn’t just a value held highly by millennial workers, either. As studies have shown, baby boomers and Gen Xers are not exempt from being purpose-driven. In fact, the drive for purpose actually increases as we age and gain more experience.

Ultimately, the new leadership paradigm is driven by concepts such as service, kindness, and transparency. Although these concepts may be deemed “soft approaches,” there is evidence that progressive leadership philosophies drive results. In fact, according to one employee engagement survey, management transparency is the No. 1 factor contributing to employee happiness. In that same survey, team play and collaboration—concepts that are rooted in purpose-driven leadership—ranked as the top traits that employees love about their peers. Another survey found that employee trust greatly impacts engagement, workplace happiness, work quality, and employee retention.

With the rise of consumers interested in the public good, we need to examine our long-held beliefs as to why a company exists. “You want a story that inspires employees, excites partners, attracts customers, and engages influencers,” the Harvard Business Review writes. What companies need is a compelling narrative. A narrative that fleshes out the world that we want to create together.

Progressive leadership starts this conversation. And it offers a clear alternative to traditional, command-and-control models that have dominated the conversation for so long.


The Army Has Introduced a New Leadership Value. Here's Why It Matters

Corie Weathers is a clinical consultant and subject matter expert on leadership and culture for service organizations and academic institutions. Her family is stationed at Fort Leavenworth, where her spouse, an Army chaplain, is a student.

Straight out of the classrooms and lecture halls of the Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC) and School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, comes a word that is meant to inspire a new kind of leadership. Jim Collins, author of "From Good to Great," spoke to 1,200 future military leaders about his decades of research on what influences the most successful companies and institutions.

The distinguishing factor of the most successful organizations and those just below them, he shared, comes down to having what he calls a "Level 5 Leader." While "Level 4 leaders" have effective leadership skills but are more focused on their own egos, Collins describes Level 5 leaders as those who take responsibility when the institution suffers. He pointed to those who sustain the institution when it succeeds. In other words, it all comes down to a leader's ego.

"Humility" has since become a point of conversation within the school and among families in the community. Recent changes to Army doctrine on leadership development sparked dialogue, as humility was introduced alongside empathy as necessary leadership attributes. And it's in the service's doctrine. "A leader with the right level of humility is a willing learner, maintains accurate self-awareness, and seeks out others' input and feedback," according to Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-22.

What, then, does it mean to lead America's military and care for its families with humility?

At the 2019 Association of the United States Army conference, then-acting Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Army Chief of Staff Gen. James C. McConville announced that people would be their number one priority as the service's top leaders. How do they aim to do that? Empower the force by providing members with more autonomy, and model humility by promoting the overall health of the people as the strength of the organization. Rather than dismissing families by putting "the needs of the Army first," McCarthy and McConville modeled the power of conversation at the conference. In essence, one could see this as an attempt at Level 5 Leadership.

McCarthy and McConville are publicly addressing topics such as how people are managed, seeing value in talent as well as issues that affect the family like housing, permanent change-of-station moves, spouse employment, child care and more.

The Army's new talent management system is an excellent example of how one change can impact almost every goal on the service's list at once. The Assignment Interactive Module version 2, or AIM 2.0, rolled out this year as an online portal for service members to advertise their knowledge and skills by uploading a resume and rank preferences for their next assignment. Meanwhile, units across the globe assessed their needs and searched the portal for individuals who met them. Affectionately referred to as "The Marketplace," the portal acts as a sort of Match.com for the military. In other words, military families were given more control over their future than ever before.

Fort Leavenworth families are experiencing this new marketplace first-hand as its more than 1,200 families await new assignments, as happens every December. In the months leading up to assignment distribution, soldiers were encouraged to sit down with their spouses and complete their profile in the marketplace. In case anyone questioned the new idea or the ability of leaders to follow through, McCarthy issued a directive that everyone, every branch, was expected to utilize AIM 2.0 in their assignments process -- no exceptions in order to test the first phase of the launch.

Access to child care medical needs the spouse's future career opportunities and more could finally be considered as soldiers accessed the portal for open assignments and ranked opportunities that would best serve career and family. Transparency was introduced in a once-bureaucratic system, where families previously could only submit three top location preferences and wait for someone they didn't know behind a desk to determine their future.

While AIM 2.0 does not guarantee that a family will get their preference, it did create more conversation than ever before between the soldier and the units they desire to work with. At Fort Leavenworth, students and their spouses attended parties and networking events, and unit commanders looking for talent openly interviewed candidates. Conversations turned into handshakes. Handshakes often turned into orders.

So what was the response from spouses on this new approach to the assignments process? After all, McConville and McCarthy are publicly acknowledging the stress of PCS moves on families and marriages.

While much of Fort Leavenworth still awaits actual orders, leaders are strongly encouraging spouses to participate in the process. Being one step removed from their family's destiny is perhaps a spouse's most stressful experience, especially when the possibility of secondary income, support, school options for children and more are dependent on where the next assignment is.

"Whether we get our first pick or not, participating in the decision process as a couple, the ability to network with assignments that actually want us there and having a say in whether it is a place that is good for our family, improves morale and faith in the institution as a whole once again," one spouse said.

The new AIM system may not give the family their first choice, but it does offer a strong possibility of getting one of their picks.

Non-military experts are also highlighting the importance of humility in leadership.

Stephen M.R. Covey, son of leadership expert Stephen R. Covey, introduced "Speed of Trust" as a way for organizations to develop high-trust leaders. The curriculum is used by the Army's chaplain Corps at marriage retreats. Respect is one of the 13 traits that describes those leaders.

Researcher Paul Zak then examined the neuroscience of trust by studying the levels of oxytocin (or "trust hormone") and following up with a behavioral study of more than 2,000 employees across different companies. Some of his findings? That individuals would rather trade a 20% pay raise for more autonomy over their work and the ability to choose where they use their talents and apply their energy. That's something research company Gallup has also long investigated and proven as a way to increase productivity while also raising morale.

This recent pilot launch in the Army system can restore faith in the service's leaders, but only if leaders authentically share in McConville's intent. Every military family has experienced the tyranny of serving under a Level 4 leader, but the new message coming from the top builds hope and encourages loyalty in younger generations who rightfully question blind loyalty. After all, we are learning as a society that the very best leaders are those who can trust those they have worked hard to raise up.

In the words of Star Wars' Master Yoda, "We are who they grow beyond, that is the burden of the Master."

Humility, as it turns out, is not a vulnerability. It is a necessity in warfare. To raise up the very best on the battlefield, you must know what drives them beyond love of country. It is to value their love of the family for whom they fight. To settle for anything less is to hit a personal ceiling as a Level 4 leader and risk the entire organization.


New Leadership for the New Year

As we welcome the new year, I would like to share recent leadership changes on the Maryland Historical Trust Board of Trustees that will guide our organization into 2019. MHT’s 15-member Board includes the Governor, the Senate President, and the House Speaker (or their designees), and 12 members appointed by the Governor.

Chairman Brien Poffenberger

In 2018, Charles Edson completed a distinguished six-year term as Chairman of the Board, turning the gavel over to Brien J. Poffenberger, elected as Chairman in July. Brien has held leadership positions in the public and private sectors and has worked for a range of businesses, both large and small. Previously he served as President/CEO of the Maryland State Chamber of Commerce, as Executive Director of the National Association for Olmsted Parks, and in various positions at General Electric and on Capitol Hill. Brien also has experience teaching, acting as an adjunct professor at Northern Virginia Community College and Shepherd College in West Virginia, where he taught American Architectural History. Brien has an MBA from Georgetown University, an MA in Architectural History from the University of Virginia, and a BA in Government from the College of William & Mary. His family is originally from Sharpsburg (Washington County) and he now lives in Annapolis with his family.

Vice Chairman Laura Mears

Elected as Vice-Chairman of the Board is Laura Davis Mears, an Eastern Shore native with a passion for history and historic preservation. A graduate of Salisbury University, Laura subsequently studied and trained in various aspects of fundraising and nonprofit management, working in the nonprofit arena for 18 years. Laura has served on the Boards of several entities related to history and preservation, including the Somerset County Historical Society, Preservation Trust of Wicomico, and the Maryland Heritage Alliance. She is currently on the boards of Historic St. Martin’s Church Foundation and Rackliffe Plantation House Trust. Laura resides in Berlin (Worcester County) with her husband Tom, two sons Davis and Will, and their Golden Retriever, Captain.

Continuing his position as Treasurer of the Board is Samuel J. Parker, currently a partner with the consulting firm Parker Associates Global, which promotes economic and sustainable development in Africa. Mr. Parker is Chairman of the Board of Trustees for Prince George’s Community College in Maryland, a board member of the Aman Memorial Trust, and a board member of the Housing Initiative Partnership. From 2006 to 2011, Mr. Parker served as Chairman of the Prince George’s County Planning Board and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission. He is a graduate of Catholic University of America and has a Masters of Regional Planning from Cornell University. Sam lives in Riverdale (Prince George’s County) with his wife Patricia.

Congratulations to Brien, Laura, and Sam on their election and thank you to all of the MHT Board members who generously volunteer their time to support our preservation mission throughout the year.


Past leaders

2016 to 2021

Alexandre de Juniac was IATA's seventh Director General & CEO, joining the association with a long background in aviation. Under the rallying motif of "aviation is the business of freedom&rdquo, his tenure at IATA focused on sustainability, digital transformation, and building strong partnerships with governments.

He led significant advances in digital processes throughout the passenger journey to bring a seamless experience closer to reality and expanded the modernization of airline retailing with the adoption of the New Distribution Capability by major airlines around the world. De Juniac also oversaw the launch of the 25by2025 campaign to address gender imbalance in civil aviation.

De Juniac&rsquos first years in office were marked by improvements in industry financial performance to historic levels. The industry was well-placed to continue to grow sustainably when the Coronavirus pandemic dealt a devastating blow in 2020.

In response, de Juniac ran IATA in crisis mode for his last year as Director General&mdashattempting to steer the industry through a catastrophic fall in traffic as governments closed borders and imposed severe travel restrictions.

2011 to 2016

Tony Tyler was the sixth person to lead the IATA. With over three decades of airline industry experience, Tyler was a strong advocate for a safe, secure, efficient and sustainable global air transport industry.

Tyler was keen to engage all aviation stakeholders to achieve common goals. This was evident in two projects which IATA was undertaking with his leadership - New Distribution Capability and Smart Security.

Tyler also championed IATA&rsquos commitment to addressing aviation&rsquos impact on the environment. This effort led to passage of a milestone Resolution at IATA&rsquos 69th Annual General Meeting in 2013, calling upon governments to reach a global agreement on a market-based measure (MBM) as a key tool to manage aviation&rsquos carbon footprint and achieve the industry&rsquos carbon-neutral growth target.

A passionate believer that aviation is a force for good in the world, Tyler was a tireless global campaigner on behalf of the industry. He carried with him a message that aviation delivers extensive social and economic benefits&mdashsupporting some 57 million jobs and enabling over $2.2 trillion of business annually.

Finally, he also oversaw a major internal restructuring of IATA to improve the association&rsquos organizational effectiveness in delivering greater value to its members.

2002 to 2011

Giovanni Bisignani, Italian, joined IATA as Director General & CEO after a long career in various transport related businesses including Opodo, SM Logistics, Tirrenia di Navigazione and Alitalia.

During his nearly 10 years with IATA, Mr. Bisignani drove major industry changes. The most important was making the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) a condition of IATA membership. This contributed to a 42% improvement in safety over the period 2000-2010.

Mr. Bisignani also started the Simplifying the Business (StB) initiative in 2004. During his tenure, this program converted the industry to e-ticketing and bar-coded boarding passes, made common-use self-service kiosks as an integral part of the travel experience and established the framework for 100% e-freight by 2015.
Giovanni Bisignani also mobilized the industry behind an ambitious strategy to deal with the impact of the industry&rsquos carbon emissions on climate change. Airlines, airports, air navigation service providers and manufacturers committed to achieve carbon neutral growth by 2020 and cut emissions in half by 2050.

Finally, Mr. Bisignani strengthened IATA&rsquos position as the voice of the industry, with firm advocacy and lobbying to focus government on long term issues for the viability of aviation. He was particularly outspoken on liberalization, taxation and environment.

1993 to 2002

Pierre Jean Jeanniot, Canadian, was President and CEO of Air Canada prior to joining IATA Director General & CEO.

Mr. Jeanniot reformed IATA&rsquos bureaucratic governance and organizational structure. This helped define IATA as aviation&rsquos leading voice and the driver of a new strategic plan for the global industry.

Under his leadership, the industry agreed and achieved a target to cut the accident rate in half over 10 years. The roots of the IATA Operational Safety Audit (IOSA) were established with airline agreement to undertake periodic reviews of each airline&rsquos safety and operating processes.

He brought the main airlines of the People&rsquos Republic of China into IATA&rsquos membership and established a strong IATA presence in Beijing.

Under his direction, IATA became a major supplier of products and services, primarily in the fields of technical, operations, financial services, training, and publications such as the Dangerous Goods Manual. IATA&rsquos revenues increased ten-fold to USD300 million between 1992 and 2002. Membership dues were cut in half and the surplus was invested membership services.

Mr. Jeanniot was directly involved in managing the 9/11 crisis, coordinating on behalf of the industry with authorities in the U.S., Europe and ICAO.

1985 to 1992

Günter Eser, from Germany had a 30 year career at Lufthansa, ending with a post on its governing board before taking up the position of IATA&rsquos Director General.

The first in a series of airline executives to run the organization, Mr. Eser transformed IATA into a truly global association, expanding membership in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and the former Soviet Union. IATA membership doubled to reach over 200 airlines.

Under his leadership, IATA launched its first commercial services, such as consulting services, marketing research, currency conversion, which allowed to reduce membership dues and invest in industry projects.
Mr. Eser notably led the first industry campaign tackling the growing issue of taxation.

1966 to 1984

Knut Hammarskjöld, a Swedish diplomat, joined IATA from the European Free Trade Association where he held the position of Deputy Secretary General.

As IATA's Director General, Knut Hammarskjöld restructured key parts of the organization's activities, including those concerned with tariff coordination and compliance, to align with the emerging trends of market liberalization in the late seventies.

He launched the first billing and settlement system in Tokyo in 1972, which has evolved into today's successful BSP and CASS, facilitating financial transactions between passenger as well as cargo agents and the airlines.

Mr. Hammarskjöld also initiated the Program for Developing Nations that has evolved into IATA's training activity.

1946 to 1966

Sir William Hildred, a British national, came to IATA from the Civil Aviation Office of Great Britain, where he held the position of Director General.

The first IATA&rsquos Director General, Sir William Hildred was instrumental in the establishment of commercial standards to support post-World War Two aviation.

The creation of the Multilateral Interline Traffic Agreement and the IATA Clearing House supported collaboration among airlines to facilitate global mobility. The introduction of different classes of fares and cheaper tickets, with tourist, economy and even excursion class also led to the greater accessibility of air transport.

Sir William also established the Traffic Conferences to align aviation's commercial activities with the international government framework that emerged from the Chicago Convention and the Bermuda Air Services Agreement.

Under Sir William's leadership, IATA worked closely with ICAO to develop the first Annexes to the Chicago Convention, which laid out the technical and safety standards for the industry.


History of Mental Health Specialty Courts

Over the past few decades, specialty courts — including mental health courts, drug courts, community courts, and others — have proliferated across the United States, and for good reason. With deinstitutionalization movements beginning in the 1960s, there emerged a massive need for community support services and outpatient programs for the mentally ill.[1] Unfortunately, because there were not enough resources to keep up with the growing demand, many individuals ended up merely being involuntarily held in another way — through incarceration in our jail and prison systems. The statistics are grim. In fact, some recent reports estimate that “64 percent of jail inmates, 54 percent of state prisoners, and 45 percent of federal prisoners”[2] have reported mental health concerns.

The good news is that many jurisdictions across the country refused to accept the status quo and decided to take a chance on the idea of specialty courts, and in 1997, the first four mental health courts were formed in the United States.[3] 21 years later, that number has grown to more than 300, and mental health courts can be found in almost every state.[4] But how effective have these specialty courts been in reducing recidivism and helping individuals access the care that they need? Researchers from North Carolina State University compared the outcomes of certain defendants who had mental health problems and went through mental health courts compared with defendants who went through the traditional courts. The researchers found mental health courts “effective at reducing repeat offending, and limiting related jail time for people with mental health problems — especially those who also have substance use problems.”[5]

Other data analyzed by the Council of State Governments Justice Center shows the following:

• comparatively fewer new bookings into jail and greater numbers of treatment episodes compared with the period prior to program participation

• less likelihood of incurring new charges or being arrested than a comparison group of individuals with mental illness who did not enter the MHC program

• an increase in frequency of treatment services, compared with involvement in traditional criminal court

• improvements in independent functioning and decrease in substance use compared with individuals who received treatment through traditional court process

• fewer days spent in jail than counterparts in traditional court system and

• more favorable interactions with judge and perception of being treated with greater fairness and respect than in traditional court.[6]

However, a 2015 report by the Urban Institute concluded that mental health courts “seemed to be modestly effective at reducing recidivism, but it was unclear whether they had a positive effect on participants’ mental health.”[7]

As we examine this growing trend toward these types of specialized courts, it is worth going back to the longest running sample: the initial courts established in 1997 in Broward County, Florida. This example provides us the longest data set and the best source of information about impact.

On June 6, 1997, Chief Judge Dale Ross (now retired) established the first mental health court in the United States in Broward County, Florida.[8]The purpose of the new court was to allow individuals with mental illness who were charged with ​misdemeanor offenses​a chance to be diverted from the criminal justice system and into programs designed to be restorative and therapeutic. ​Its creation stemmed from disturbing grand jury findings on jail overcrowding, jail suicides, and community mental health shortfalls in Broward County. Judge Ginger Lerner-Wren was appointed to oversee the Court, and she still runs it today.[9]

In fact, Broward County was the model for the American Law Enforcement and Mental Health Project, which was passed and signed into law in 2000 to fund 100 mental health courts across the country. Further, the Court is one of the models the U.S. Department of Justice looked at in its 2000 report on “Emerging Judicial Strategies for the Mentally Ill in Criminal Caseloads.” The report is available at https://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/bja/182504.pdf.

Misdemeanor Mental Health Court

Broward’s Misdemeanor Mental Health Court accepts individuals with a range of mental disabilities, including mental illness[10], intellectual disabilities, and neurological disorders, including Alzheimer’s Disease, Dementia, and Traumatic Brain Injury. The Mental Health Court hears all adult misdemeanor offenses and violation of probation matters, with the exception of DUI’s and domestic violence cases. Battery charges are also accepted, provided that the victim of the alleged offense gives consent (subject to court approval).

Most individuals who are eligible for the program are screened at the earliest time possible, such as while in jail post-arrest or at a hearing within 24 hours after the arrest. However, family members, attorneys, law enforcement, and community case managers may also refer people directly. Once an individual is enrolled, he or she may discontinue participation at any time however, this is usually not the preferred outcome, as the case would simply be transferred back to the traditional criminal division. To ascertain the extent of ones’ illness (or lack thereof), anyone who displays mental health symptoms during the booking process or who discloses a history of mental illness is evaluated by a psychiatrist who provides healthcare in the jail.

When a psychiatrist determines that a defendant is not just mentally ill, but also “poses a danger to himself or others,”[11] the psychiatrist seeks an order to send the defendant to a crisis center for treatment or evaluation for involuntary commitment. By law, the psychiatric evaluation must occur within 72 hours of an arrest. Defendants who are sent to treatment facilities under the Baker Act may return to the mental health court when they are stabilized, at which point the court would review the defendant’s treatment plan and schedule another court hearing to check up on the individual’s progress.

Felony Mental Health Court Similar to Broward’s Misdemeanor Mental Health Court, the 17th Judicial Circuit’s Felony Mental Health Courtwas the first of its kind in the United States, created by administrative order in 2003. This program is designed “for those persons charged with felony offenses who have been deemed incompetent to proceed. Court services include competency restoration, case management, linkage to mental health out- patient and residential treatment, assistance with housing, therapy and medication management. When requested, the court also commits defendants, where appropriate, to forensic hospital care.”[12] As with misdemeanor charges, the Felony Mental Health Court works with defendants, family members, the victim, and community providers to create a treatment plan for an individual suffering from mental illness. As an individual and his or her case develops in the mental health court, regular psychological evaluations are mandated and hearings before the Judges are held to determine if the person charged has become competent to proceed. Once an individual is deemed competent, certain cases may remain in felony mental health court.

Proposed 17th Judicial Circuit Community Court

In addition to the Mental Health Court overseen by Judge Ginger Lerner-Wren, Broward’s Chief Administrative Judge, Jack Tuter, is in the process of organizing an official Community Court for low-level offenders. This special court would be available for those charged with petty offenses, such as loitering, panhandling, and relieving oneself in public, which are largely associated with an individual experiencing homelessness. Community courts currently exist in 77 cities, with the first operating in Manhattan in the 1990s. As of May 2018, Judge Tuter was specifically looking at the community court in Eugene, Oregon as a model.

Similar to those offered in Broward’s Mental Health Courts, the Community Court would connect individuals with necessary support services, such as behavioral health, affordable housing, and more. While much of the details are still in formation, Judge Tuter anticipates holding court at Fort Lauderdale City Hall for a two-year pilot program, after which he hopes to expand the program to other parts of Broward County. A judge will take cases one day a week, then assign offenders to a service provider. About 15 offenders a week are expected.”[13]

Broward County residents are fortunate to have access to specialty courts, but Floridians elsewhere are not necessarily given these opportunities. Overall, Florida ranks 44th in access to mental health professionals and services.[14] Far too often, individuals still fall through the cracks, whether in Broward County or otherwise. We must continue to advocate for the rights of those suffering from mental illness through systemic change that allows for everybody to access the necessary treatment and services for success.

Stephanie Rosendorf, Esq. currently works as a Commission Aide to Broward County Commissioner Nan Rich, a role that she has held since graduating from the University of Miami School of Law in 2016. She is also the Vice President of Broward Young Democrats, a volunteer Guardian Ad Litem for Florida’s 17th Judicial Circuit, NLC Broward Class of 2018 Fellow, and resident of Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

[1]“Community Mental Health Act,” National Council for Behavioral Health, 2018,

[2]“Incarceration Nation,” American Psychological Ass’n., Oct. 2014,

[3]“Mental Health Courts: A Primer for Policymakers and Practitioners,”

[4]Matt Shipman,“Study concludes that mental health courts significantly reduce repeat offenses, jail time,”

[5]Evan M. Lowder et al., Recidivism Following Mental Health Court Exit: Between and Within-Group Comparisons., Law and Human Behavior (2015).

[8]A Court of Refuge: Stories from the Bench of America’s First Mental Health Court,Lerner-Wren & Eckland, Beacon Press, 2018.


Watch the video: Canada election 2021: English-language federal leaders debate. FULL


Comments:

  1. Kaleb

    it doesn't have the analogs?

  2. Polak

    You have visited a great idea

  3. Starbuck

    You are wrong. Write to me in PM, it talks to you.

  4. Karlyn

    You have hit the mark. In it something is and it is good idea. It is ready to support you.

  5. Salih

    In my opinion, mistakes are made. We need to discuss. Write to me in PM, speak.



Write a message