A Conversation with Dr. Robert Franklin

Brian Green: I am honored today to be joined by Dr. Robert Franklin, Laney Professor in Moral Leadership at Candler School of Theology and Senior Advisor to the President of Emory University. Dr. Franklin’s long and exceptional career includes tenure as the 10^th President of Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA, as well as being Director of the Religion Department at the storied Chautauqua Institution. A member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Franklin also serves on the boards of several organizations including Demos, a think tank dedicated to powering the movement for a “just, inclusive, multiracial democracy.” He provides regular commentary on CNN and NPR and is the author of several books, including the one we are talking about today: “Moral Leadership: Integrity, Courage, and Imagination,” published in 2020. Dr. Franklin, thank you for joining me today!

Dr. Robert Franklin: Great to be with you, Brian Thank you very much.

Brian: What prompted you to write a book on moral leadership?

Dr. Franklin: My concern about the state of our democracy drove me to put thoughts in order and words to paper. I was really concerned about what I perceived to be a kind of lowering of standards and expectations of public leadership in government, in the corporate private sector, even the nonprofit and faith-based sectors, that we have leaders who are really not aspiring high enough. I define moral leaders as women and men of integrity, courage, and imagination, who serve the common good and also invite others to join them.  My idea was to try to offer a small book—as Mark Twain would say, a “slender volume”—that people might actually read, and to try to initiate a conversation about the quality of leadership and what we should expect from all leaders.  Moral leadership was the frame I settled upon.

Brian Green: You define “Moral Leadership” is having really three key elements: integrity, courage, and imagination. In one of my favorite passages from the book, you write that moral agency and leadership “is a form of love that draws another person in. It does not love, at first sight, but love through repeated site observation and study. Integrity, courage, and imagination develop through knowledge, desire, and practice. Habits form and the wet cement of character is poured into that form and mold. Character develops and hardens.” In the office of the Ombuds, we're focused on helping individuals navigate interpersonal and institutional conflict and then helping the university learn from that. It really seems like what you're saying is that those leadership virtues develop through challenge, struggle, and conflict.

Dr. Franklin: Absolutely. One of the things we learned from some of the extraordinary exemplars of moral leadership, people like Martin Luther King, Dolores Huerta (the Chicano American leader in California organizing Farmworkers), and Ella Baker (a foundational organizer of Students for Nonviolent Action during the Civil Rights Movement) is they expect conflict. Moral Leaders must always expect and anticipate resistance. The interesting thing about moral leaders, however, is they never dehumanize their opponents. Instead, they enter the zone of conflict with an eye for potential positive transformation.

I think that's part of what good ombuds do is to be open to new possibilities--that's where imagination comes in, looking for resolutions that satisfy everyone's needs, but also elevate us all so that we think about and respect one another more profoundly. Conflict can be a zone of creative possibility, but it does require respect for the other and a willingness to listen, to learn, and to enter into their experience.

Brian Green: You talk about several Civil Rights leaders in your book, including Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. You really write at length about his internal existential struggles and you observe that it was in part because of those struggles and how he reconciled them that he was able to become the great moral leader that he was. Can you can you speak a little bit about the role of personal struggle and conflict in forming moral leaders?

Dr. Franklin: In the book, I utilize some of the important theoretical work from developmental psychology especially Eric Erikson's work, to organize a view of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as he developed from childhood through adolescence his time at Morehouse College on from graduate school and then out into the world of work and starting a family. One of the brilliant things about Erikson’s theory (although it has its own limitations) is that at each stage of our development and growth, there is a conflict--what he calls a “nuclear crisis”—that is both psychological and social in nature. As we work through our own personal issues we're also having to negotiate interpersonal and larger societal realities.

I thought it was very important to try to understand Dr king's commitment to nonviolence, even in the face of people who wanted to kill him. One of the most memorable passages is where he says “We will meet your physical force with soul force. We will not hate you, but we will not obey your evil laws. We will soon wear you down by our capacity to suffer. So in winning the victory we will not only win freedom for ourselves, but we will so appeal to your heart and conscience that you will be changed also.” It was powerful and clearly reached a lot of people, and helped his own followers realize we're engaged in something more than simply problem solving to desegregate buses in Montgomery Alabama or desegregate lunch counters in Nashville. We're engaged in repairing America, repairing our democracy, in partnership with those who initially do not respect us or see us clearly.  It was the view that we are committed to the ideals of America, such that we're going to bring our friends along and we're going to invite our opponents to join us in this project of creating a multiracial democracy.

Brian: You write that moral leaders “move from thought to action,” and frame issues as moral issues that invite people and compel moral action. Leaders of all kinds, as you mentioned, face challenges and oftentimes those challenges are between competing goods. How, in practice, can leaders frame issues as moral issues while still inviting those who have different views to engage with one another?

Dr. Franklin: I think part of it arises out of a vision of human fulfillment and human flourishing that possesses enough drive and commitment to move one forward, to become an advocate, to try to make the case to offer (as Jurgen Habermas says) “the force of a better argument” amidst a variety of options. One needs to bring that kind of drive and open commitment, but also one needs enormous humility to accompany that project. That’s where the invitation comes in. Once we invite others, it means we've got to be willing to de-center our original passions and commitments and to negotiate and to allow others in. We have to ask how this impacts other communities and ways we hadn't anticipated.

As the Civil Rights Movement evolved, Dr. King—who was a Christian—learned from a Hindu, Gandhi, the strategy for mass social civil disobedience and non-violent social change. Three years after Dr King received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, he nominated a Buddhist monk from Vietnam for that honor. We were at war with Vietnam, but he nominated Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh for the Nobel Prize. King was constantly reaching out expanding his friendships with diverse communities across the religious spectrum, but also those were not religious—those were agnostic and atheist. I think that shows the kind of intellectual confidence and open mindedness that we need in leaders today. For instance, Bayard Rustin, who was agnostic and perhaps atheist, was right there advising King. I think it is important for Moral Leaders to examine their circle of conversations partners to ensure that they’re getting maximum diversity of perspectives as they formulate visions for going forward. Humility has to be a part of moral leadership, even as we seek to strongly advocate for a vision of a better community, a better organization, a better Emory University.

Brian: So it’s really a balancing of that that moral conviction with that deep humility and openness and willingness to hear. I love that.

It may be true that, for a variety of reasons, it may not be possible for everyone to hold positions of authority, or at least prestige, but it may be possible for everyone to be a “moral leader” in some respect. I wonder if you can give us some lessons from moral leaders to apply in our in our own lives.

Dr. Franklin: You know I actually make a distinction in the book between moral agency and moral leadership. Moral agents are women and men who live according to their most deeply held values. They go about doing good just because it's part of their character, part of the habits of their hearts. They are good people, but they don't think of themselves necessarily as leading anyone anywhere.

For me, the one critical move in leadership—and I know that at our great University we pay a lot of attention to leadership formation and leadership development—is that the Moral Leader for me is a “moral agent”—a person lives in accordance with deeply held values and has a moral compass—who also risks inviting others to join.

That's the leadership move—when you invite, when you engage, when you seek to expand the Community to be more inclusive. I think that you're engaged in a different kind of project when you do that. In our daily lives, no matter whether you have a position with a title and authority or whether you’re simply moving about as a moral agent doing the right thing as an employee or staff member, there are moments in our lives when we are called upon to take a stand. To say yes or no, to delineate what’s right and wrong, what's good and bad, what's praiseworthy and blameworthy. As I say in the book, the image of exercising courage is stepping forward, even if everyone else becomes a bystander. Moral leadership means to do that again and again, with empathy and the humility and wisdom, but also with a commitment to trying to make our organization better by abiding by our highest standards. All of us can do that—you don't have to be a leader with a title, you can do that as an ordinary person who exhibits extraordinary courage in those moments of testing.

Brian: It seems like a great definition of servant leadership—leading through the acceptance of vulnerability and risk.

Dr. Franklin: That’s right.

Brian: Well, Dr Franklin it's a fantastic book with We greatly enjoyed reading it we're going to be doing a book club on it later this semester, and it has been an absolute pleasure speaking with you here today Thank you so much for talking with me.

Dr. Franklin: Thank you, Brian it was a real pleasure and look forward to future conversations.

Brian Green: I am honored today to be joined by Dr. Robert Franklin, Laney Professor in Moral Leadership at Candler School of Theology and Senior Advisor to the President of Emory University. Dr. Franklin’s long and exceptional career includes tenure as the 10^th President of Morehouse College in Atlanta, GA, as well as being Director of the Religion Department at the storied Chautauqua Institution. A member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Dr. Franklin also serves on the boards of several organizations including Demos, a think tank dedicated to powering the movement for a “just, inclusive, multiracial democracy.” He provides regular commentary on CNN and NPR and is the author of several books, including the one we are talking about today: “Moral Leadership: Integrity, Courage, and Imagination,” published in 2020. Dr. Franklin, thank you for joining me today!

Dr. Robert Franklin: Great to be with you, Brian Thank you very much.

Brian: What prompted you to write a book on moral leadership?

Dr. Franklin: My concern about the state of our democracy drove me to put thoughts in order and words to paper. I was really concerned about what I perceived to be a kind of lowering of standards and expectations of public leadership in government, in the corporate private sector, even the nonprofit and faith-based sectors, that we have leaders who are really not aspiring high enough. I define moral leaders as women and men of integrity, courage, and imagination, who serve the common good and also invite others to join them.  My idea was to try to offer a small book—as Mark Twain would say, a “slender volume”—that people might actually read, and to try to initiate a conversation about the quality of leadership and what we should expect from all leaders.  Moral leadership was the frame I settled upon.

Brian Green: You define “Moral Leadership” is having really three key elements: integrity, courage, and imagination. In one of my favorite passages from the book, you write that moral agency and leadership “is a form of love that draws another person in. It does not love, at first sight, but love through repeated site observation and study. Integrity, courage, and imagination develop through knowledge, desire, and practice. Habits form and the wet cement of character is poured into that form and mold. Character develops and hardens.” In the office of the Ombuds, we're focused on helping individuals navigate interpersonal and institutional conflict and then helping the university learn from that. It really seems like what you're saying is that those leadership virtues develop through challenge, struggle, and conflict.

Dr. Franklin: Absolutely. One of the things we learned from some of the extraordinary exemplars of moral leadership, people like Martin Luther King, Dolores Huerta (the Chicano American leader in California organizing Farmworkers), and Ella Baker (a foundational organizer of Students for Nonviolent Action during the Civil Rights Movement) is they expect conflict. Moral Leaders must always expect and anticipate resistance. The interesting thing about moral leaders, however, is they never dehumanize their opponents. Instead, they enter the zone of conflict with an eye for potential positive transformation.

I think that's part of what good ombuds do is to be open to new possibilities--that's where imagination comes in, looking for resolutions that satisfy everyone's needs, but also elevate us all so that we think about and respect one another more profoundly. Conflict can be a zone of creative possibility, but it does require respect for the other and a willingness to listen, to learn, and to enter into their experience.

Brian Green: You talk about several Civil Rights leaders in your book, including Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr. You really write at length about his internal existential struggles and you observe that it was in part because of those struggles and how he reconciled them that he was able to become the great moral leader that he was. Can you can you speak a little bit about the role of personal struggle and conflict in forming moral leaders?

Dr. Franklin: In the book, I utilize some of the important theoretical work from developmental psychology especially Eric Erikson's work, to organize a view of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as he developed from childhood through adolescence his time at Morehouse College on from graduate school and then out into the world of work and starting a family. One of the brilliant things about Erikson’s theory (although it has its own limitations) is that at each stage of our development and growth, there is a conflict--what he calls a “nuclear crisis”—that is both psychological and social in nature. As we work through our own personal issues we're also having to negotiate interpersonal and larger societal realities.

I thought it was very important to try to understand Dr king's commitment to nonviolence, even in the face of people who wanted to kill him. One of the most memorable passages is where he says “We will meet your physical force with soul force. We will not hate you, but we will not obey your evil laws. We will soon wear you down by our capacity to suffer. So in winning the victory we will not only win freedom for ourselves, but we will so appeal to your heart and conscience that you will be changed also.” It was powerful and clearly reached a lot of people, and helped his own followers realize we're engaged in something more than simply problem solving to desegregate buses in Montgomery Alabama or desegregate lunch counters in Nashville. We're engaged in repairing America, repairing our democracy, in partnership with those who initially do not respect us or see us clearly.  It was the view that we are committed to the ideals of America, such that we're going to bring our friends along and we're going to invite our opponents to join us in this project of creating a multiracial democracy.

Brian: You write that moral leaders “move from thought to action,” and frame issues as moral issues that invite people and compel moral action. Leaders of all kinds, as you mentioned, face challenges and oftentimes those challenges are between competing goods. How, in practice, can leaders frame issues as moral issues while still inviting those who have different views to engage with one another?

Dr. Franklin: I think part of it arises out of a vision of human fulfillment and human flourishing that possesses enough drive and commitment to move one forward, to become an advocate, to try to make the case to offer (as Jurgen Habermas says) “the force of a better argument” amidst a variety of options. One needs to bring that kind of drive and open commitment, but also one needs enormous humility to accompany that project. That’s where the invitation comes in. Once we invite others, it means we've got to be willing to de-center our original passions and commitments and to negotiate and to allow others in. We have to ask how this impacts other communities and ways we hadn't anticipated.

As the Civil Rights Movement evolved, Dr. King—who was a Christian—learned from a Hindu, Gandhi, the strategy for mass social civil disobedience and non-violent social change. The year after Dr King received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964, he nominated a Buddhist monk from Vietnam for that honor. We were at war with Vietnam, but he nominated Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh for the Nobel Prize. King was constantly reaching out expanding his friendships with diverse communities across the religious spectrum, but also those were not religious—those were agnostic and atheist. I think that shows the kind of intellectual confidence and open mindedness that we need in leaders today. For instance, Bayard Rustin, who was agnostic and perhaps atheist, was right there advising King. I think it is important for Moral Leaders to examine their circle of conversations partners to ensure that they’re getting maximum diversity of perspectives as they formulate visions for going forward. Humility has to be a part of moral leadership, even as we seek to strongly advocate for a vision of a better community, a better organization, a better Emory University.

Brian: So it’s really a balancing of that that moral conviction with that deep humility and openness and willingness to hear. I love that.

It may be true that, for a variety of reasons, it may not be possible for everyone to hold positions of authority, or at least prestige, but it may be possible for everyone to be a “moral leader” in some respect. I wonder if you can give us some lessons from moral leaders to apply in our in our own lives.

Dr. Franklin: You know I actually make a distinction in the book between moral agency and moral leadership. Moral agents are women and men who live according to their most deeply held values. They go about doing good just because it's part of their character, part of the habits of their hearts. They are good people, but they don't think of themselves necessarily as leading anyone anywhere.

For me, the one critical move in leadership—and I know that at our great University we pay a lot of attention to leadership formation and leadership development—is that the Moral Leader for me is a “moral agent”—a person lives in accordance with deeply held values and has a moral compass—who also risks inviting others to join.

That's the leadership move—when you invite, when you engage, when you seek to expand the Community to be more inclusive. I think that you're engaged in a different kind of project when you do that. In our daily lives, no matter whether you have a position with a title and authority or whether you’re simply moving about as a moral agent doing the right thing as an employee or staff member, there are moments in our lives when we are called upon to take a stand. To say yes or no, to delineate what’s right and wrong, what's good and bad, what's praiseworthy and blameworthy. As I say in the book, the image of exercising courage is stepping forward, even if everyone else becomes a bystander. Moral leadership means to do that again and again, with empathy and the humility and wisdom, but also with a commitment to trying to make our organization better by abiding by our highest standards. All of us can do that—you don't have to be a leader with a title, you can do that as an ordinary person who exhibits extraordinary courage in those moments of testing.

Brian: It seems like a great definition of servant leadership—leading through the acceptance of vulnerability and risk.

Dr. Franklin: That’s right.

Brian: Well, Dr Franklin it's a fantastic book with We greatly enjoyed reading it we're going to be doing a book club on it later this semester, and it has been an absolute pleasure speaking with you here today Thank you so much for talking with me.

Dr. Franklin: Thank you, Brian it was a real pleasure and look forward to future conversations.

Brian Green: Take care.