“But that wouldn’t really happen in real life,” said one of the students in my economics class as our professor was reviewing game theory and the economics of auctions. “People wouldn’t act in that way, and it wouldn’t work like that.”

Our professor turned around and smiled and looked at us all like he’d just realized that we had come to the theatre to see Jaws and brought our bathing suits thinking we’d get to swim. “Don’t try this at home, people,” he said. “This is E-CON-OMICS. It’s not real life! Did you think I was going to tell you how to make day-to-day business decisions? You do have strategy class, right?” and he went back to eagerly scribbling away his mathematical proof about what might happen if there was perfect information, if all people were rational, and if we were interested in the average collective behavior of a bunch of unaverage people.*

That night, after memorizing a bit more about Nash equilibrium theories, I decided to try to go see Jeffrey Sachs speak as he was giving a “sold out” lecture at Oxford. I figured it would give me fuel for my economics fire and give me a further look into an economic perspective I have been turning over for the last few years.

It would be the third time I had seen him speak. The first was at Notre Dame a few years ago, just after I had started PEPY. I was on campus as part of a guest session on “alternative careers” and Sachs was speaking at the university’s biggest annual lecture series. I rushed out of my little workshop to see Sachs’ presentation and I didn’t understand the professor’s confusion about my excitement to see “the rockstar economist” speak.  “I’m not sure you agree with him,” the professor said, looking at me with that same confused expression.  “What, was this guy mad? Of course I agreed with him!” I thought.  “Sachs was calling for more people to work towards livelihood improvements in ‘developing’ countries. How could I not agree with him?”

It wasn’t until the second time I saw Sachs speak, at Conde Nast’s “World Saver Awards” ceremony in NYC, that I realized that the ND professor’s look was likely due to my level of ignorance about development economics. By that time, I had fortunately spent a little more time to educate myself and had read more of Sach’s work and those of “competing” economic thinkers. I had also come to some of my own conclusions about what might “work”, or not, in the development sector based on my own failures and experiences. That time, (along with being a bit shocked that Disney Cruise Lines was up for a “World Saver” award for having painted their cruise ships with a more environmentally friendly sealant?!), I noticed that his prescription for how we should move forward didn’t fully jive with my own.

So I went to the lecture at Oxford reminding myself on the whole bike ride there to be open to listening to his perspective and to seek to understand where he was coming from. I was so conscious of WHO was speaking that I hadn’t bothered to read WHAT it was he was speaking about. I arrived expecting a millennium development goals debate and was presented with a diagnosis of the American political and economic decline that I couldn’t help but agree with. Sachs’ talk focused on his new book, The Price of Civilization: Reawakening American Virtue and Prosperity with nearly the entirety of the talk, and the larger part of the book, focusing on defining the problem and its causes. To my surprise, here I was listening to Jeffrey Sachs and I was agreeing with so much of what he was saying. But then, at the very end, he touched on the “How to fix it” ideas which the second par of his book focuses on.

And then I heard it in my head: Sachs, this is E-CON-OMICS. Don’t try this at home!

I recognize that people would be very upset if they were presented with a book that analyzed the problems of the economy or the development sector and were not then presented with solutions for how to go about talking these problems, but my economics professor was right. This is economics, not strategy!

We can learn a lot from economic theory and, when looking at averages and analyzing trends, it is an essential tool. But when looking at exactly what to then do in a certain instance, especially instances that involve real human beings who are not all rational, who certainly don’t all have perfect information, and who don’t always act in alignment with their own best interests, simply applying economic theories of averages of what is supposed to happen when A and B meet can be more like hiring a professional conductor to generate beautiful music out of singing seals. It’s gonna take a lot more work than just giving them sheet music.

From this point in the lecture, my typical Sach-ian reactions kicked in. I didn’t agree with the global solution theories he touched on and see problems with taking any “proven” solution here and plopping it down there and there and there and scaling it as if one could mass produce solutions as easily as Band-aids. Sach’s model examples of economic role models were the northern European countries (notably, some of them oil-rich, like Norway), and when a few audience members from or referring to those countries noted that they too were having economic problems, Sachs practically put his fingers in his ears.

It was the most disappointing part of a very interesting discussion when Sachs responded to a student who was questioning why we should model an economic improvement plan on situation’s like Iceland’s with a response that started with “Don’t tell me bad things about the economies of Northern Europe. I don’t want to hear that.” He might have been joking a little bit, but he didn’t really respond to the question nor did he seem interested in discussing an issue that might challenge some of his assumptions. Kenyan economist Bernadette Wanjala recently published what was deemed the first independent audit of the Millennium Villages Project, a project trying out Sach’s theories in African communities as a partnership between Columbia University and the UN. If Sachs and all those of us who have “theories” about how to improve the world aren’t seeking out and harnessing contradictions to these ideas, we’re not going to find viable remedies to the problems we continue to face. Instead, we’ll counter our cognitive dissonance by seeking out “proof” to fuel our egos rather than our world. I believe that we need to be asking people TO tell us where we are wrong and then seeking out ways to work with them to find solutions which are more viable through constantly iterating our ideas based on new information.

Sachs’ speech was followed by a panel of Oxonians who had been asked to provide comments and critiques of Sach’s talk and his book. Side note: I love panels like this one, which unfortunately are very rare, as they each dug right in and were not afraid to speak their minds about where they disagreed or had more questions. There was none of the usual chest puffing that comes with panelists each trying to put their business resume on the table by spending the majority of their allotted time talking themselves up – they got straight to the debate and academic questioning– gotta love the Brits! The American on the panel, Peter Turfano, Dean of Oxford’s Said Business School, also highlighted the areas he had questioned about the book touching on a need for more strategic thought in the “what” to do after the thorough economic analysis of the “why”. His comments made me realize that we should leave the economics to the economists and then use their findings to fuel strategy designed by those who are experts in implementing projects involving real human beings.

Another question worth noting was from an audience member who asked if Sachs had shared these ideas with the US government. “They wouldn’t take my calls,” jokes Sachs on two occasions. Funny, the US government doesn’t let Sachs or any one of with a good idea us experiment with the US economy and people’s lives. (Well, to fit in with what Sachs and I both think is wrong with the US, they MIGHT have let him try out his theories, if he had enough money to make it worth their time to listen to him.) Yet, when it comes to international development, the barriers to entry are much lower. Sachs, and many of us (myself included), are guilty of thinking it’s ok to experiment by taking the lives and economies of others in our own hands. We think we can all play strategist, politician, and hero. The US government wouldn’t take his calls, yet communities in Africa are living out his theories. Unfortunately for the world, there is no checks and balances systems set up in global development, no bi-partisan senate debates forcing Sachs to stop, change, or improve. It seems the system is so lacking that even when others take time to do monitoring and evaluation of our projects for us, we can write it off and ignore it. Hmm…. maybe it’s not so different than the current US government after all… but back to the lecture.

I got to meet Sachs afterwards and asked him a few questions related to how his books are written and with regards to the split between economic analysis and improvement strategies. He noted that the majority of his time and expertise is spent in the problem analysis and that I’d see when I read his new book that the “solutions” parts were incomplete and intended more as suggestions/shoves in the right direction. I forgot to ask if he felt the same way about his solution suggestions from the “End of Poverty”, but when standing in front of rockstars or rockstar economists, the right questions sometimes fail to formulate. (Sachs? You reading? Want to share some insights?)

I walked out of the lecture realizing that I had thought I didn’t agree with Sachs, but it turns out I do. I agree that there are big problems in how development work is being administered and how the impacts are not what they could/should be. I also agree that the political, economic, and corporate sector of the US is out of balance and that we are on a high-speed downward path. I just don’t want Sachs or any economist conducting our choir of seals.

The value I see is that Sachs has spent time detailing the WHAT, but we need to do a better job of figuring out the HOW. Sachs, and all those with theories of HOW should hopeful marry themselves to the goals rather than the solutions so that we can all freely debate and improve these imperfect solutions. Because they are ALL imperfect. That was my biking mantra on my way home to my economics studies where I had to go back to channeling the mind of an economist, pretending the world was full of rational ego-less creatures who care more about improving their lives and the world than their reputation. And now, economics makes a little more sense. Just don’ try it at home (or in Africa for that matter).

* Note: Those are not direct quotes, but my general summary. Also note that I LOVE our economics professor and his love for all things econ. It’s fabulous to be around people who are passionate about their subject and he often jumped with excitement when talking about economic theories he thought we should know, even if they were outside the scope of the course, which was either the most interesting part of the lecture, of the part where he totally lost me! I also loved that he was honest with us that this was NOT a representation of how things “would” work, but measures of averages and possibilities based within constraints. That recognition, that theory and reality are not directly interchangeable and require reworking of ideas to fit into the specifics of each new scenario should be a hallmark of formal education – from international development frameworks to MBA business planning. If it’s not, we’ll head out into the world and think we can apply these cookie cutter ideas to real human beings. And that would be just as silly as wearing a snorkel to Jaws.

I was just reminded about a friend, with whom I used to work, who wakes up every morning* and turns to whomever first crosses his path and says:

“Good morning! It’s a great day to be alive!”

And, if you wake up near him at a campsite for a few days in a row you soon realize that, indeed, it always is.

When people ask me why I chose to work in Cambodia, I almost always say “Why not?”  And when they give me a look that implies that they really do want to hear a longer reason, I usually ramble on a bit about change, and how it is palpable in Cambodia: forward, backward, and side-ward, but always some-ward. For a stagnant-a-phobe, Cambodia is a great place to be. It’s in motion and being in a place in motion means you can feed off of and into the momentum around you. I imagine working on the Thai/Burma border, with adults who have spent their ENTIRE lives in refugee camps, or in the consistent undulation of the Gaza disputes could be harder. In Cambodia, progress might sometimes seem slow or misdirected, but at least it does always feel like it is moving.

If you ask me on a verbose day (which is probably about a good 360 of the year), I might also tell you about a quote someone said to me on my first visit to Cambodia in 2002. “It’s a great time to be alive in Cambodia,” was part of her answer about why she loved her job. Alive… and time. Post 1979, after the Khmer Rouge had attempted to turn back time and when nearly a quarter of the population had died or were about to from starvation or ongoing fighting, Cambodia today seems like heaven. How does corruption effect you? “Well, it’s better than before,” she says. So indeed, it IS a great time to be alive in Cambodia, and it shows.

So perhaps that is part of why I chose to stay in Cambodia. And perhaps that is something I got out of living there, and out of Tim’s daily mantra. Today IS a great day to be alive. Now let’s go prove it

Both “participatory development” and “design thinking” theories advocate for project planning to start with the needs of the end-user. It’s interesting to me that both concepts illustrate pretty much the same intuitive process, yet the naming of both makes them seem less broadly applicable. I guess maybe that’s because “Successful impact-for-the-end-user-focused-planning” is a much less sexy name!

I had dinner last night with a fabulous crew of Rhodes Scholars who are studying everything from love to girls education in Pakistan. In addition to learning about Heidegger, I learned more about the work some of them do with an Oxford based NGO which supports programs in southern Africa. Part of their role is helping to vet project proposals.

They mentioned that when a project was proposed to them they weren’t able to tell if the proposer had considered other alternatives as the only material available to them was their current hypothesis for success. Here is a little brainstormed list of some questions that they could put on their application form to both check for and encourage “design thinking/participatory” planning.  I’d love YOUR thoughts on what questions they could add or what things you would change!

Potential questions to ask in a project proposal application form to check for an end-user impact focus:

a)    What is the goal you are working towards?

b)   What alternative actions/plans have you tried or considered outside of the proposed project which you have rejected and why?

c)    Who are the stakeholders in your proposed project, how do you know/relate to them, and how have their needs/opinions shaped your project proposal?

d)   What is your proposed project?

e)    How can you measure success towards your goal through this project?

f)     What are some potential barriers to success for this project?

g)    Can you already anticipate some ways you might need to alter your given plan if your hypothesis is unsuccessful? What might some of those ways be?

We had previously been discussing the importance of NGOs marrying themselves to an impact goal rather than the hypothesis for success which is their “plan”. This is probably the same for a novelist, an entrepreneur, a parent….. all of us. We sometimes “think” we know how to reach a goal, and we continue down the path of trying to prove that plan correct until sometimes we reach the point of failure. We were discussing how it is important to flush out many possible paths to a goal before deciding which hypothesis to consider and then how important it is to be able to notice the signs of failure fast so that you can iterate and adjust quickly towards reaching a goal. If impact “success” is the goal, it might be achieved in this manor though the executed plan will likely look very different than the original proposal.

First off, do you believe that this type of thinking is important or not, and if so why?

And second, what questions would you add/change/remove from the list above to encourage and understand this thinking?

Hope to hear your thoughts!

This is a guest post by Allie Hoffman of The Pari Project. She asked to share a reflection she had written about one of Pari’s clients, Epic Arts.

—-

I’m lucky that one of my favorite clients also happens to be one of my favorite people. Our friend Hannah started volunteering at a small disability arts organization called Epic Arts six years ago. Today, she’s the managing director and has been running the show for a few years.

In Cambodia, having a disability carries a double stigma; it is thought to be a result of your karma. Families often shut their children away. If those children are hearing impaired or blind, they are rarely given a medium for communication unlike Chicago, where I grew up, where we have hearing aids, braille and sign language. Many times parents give up early on their children ever being ‘normal’.

Epic Arts uses the arts as a way to connect to the students. But it’s not your average finger painting/pipe cleaner curriculum. Last year, they hosted a highly acclaimed modern dance choreographer from Japan, who worked with the dance students on a contemporary dance piece called ‘4D’; the deaf dancers couldn’t hear the notes, but they knew the music. And they performed it beautifully in Trafalgar Square.

The grounds in Kampot have been custom designed by a British architect; the floors are ‘sprung’ so that students can safely learn circus, break dancing, aerobatics, and yoga. The arts room hosts puppet making on a grand scale; life-sized cars, houses, and paper mache people line the walls.

All this is very expensive compared to more basic arts programs. You could never argue the work is ‘sustainable’. The staff to student ratio is extraordinarily high. They invest a lot of money in capacity building for their staff, many of whom have disabilities themselves. Per student spending is in the thousands of dollars per year – in Cambodia, where the average person makes approximately $500/year. If you ask Charity Navigator, they’d be a ‘one star’ charity cause they spend a lot on admin and overhead salaries. The total cost to build the Arts Center could have provided homes to 100 families.

But Epic Arts always a special magic – everyone who visits there says its so – and I’ve always wondered where it came from.

Han was in the office today, and I asked her what ‘believing in better’ meant to her. She spoke repeatedly about wanting to achieve the ‘best’ for her students. It doesn’t matter that we’re in Cambodia. It doesn’t matter that the ‘beneficiaries’ are disabled. It doesn’t matter that many of their parents don’t think it’s worth the time investment. It doesn’t matter that donors don’t GET why the number served looks low.

Han doesn’t have any false notions of saving these students, or curing them or healing them. She just wants to provide them the same opportunities a student in London, Hong Kong or New York would have. It’s not just that she invests time in the students; it’s that they are on a relentless quest to create a new future for them. They’re pushing themselves constantly – the next performance, the next exhibition, the next global tour – cause in doing so, they’re showing the staff & students what it means to push yourself into greatness.

Epic Arts isn’t easy to fundraise for; I should know, because we’ve been doing it for nearly 2 years now. It breaks with traditional measurements for effectiveness and impact, and challenges us to reconfigure. Epic Arts highlights the importance of flexibility, figuring it out as you go, and making a deep commitment to those you ‘serve’. Though Hannah would never say she serves. She’d say she just delivers the best.

———–

This is a guest post by Allie Hoffman of The Parivartan Project. Pari is a social enterprise that provides fundraising, marketing and organizational development services to grassroots development organizations that ‘believe in better’. To learn more: www.thepariproject.com

I (Daniela) have served on an informal advisory board for Epic Arts for the past year, and I too have been witness to the impact Epic Arts has had on the lives of both their staff as well as the students who are able to go through their programs. In reading through Allie’s reflection above, I pictured a class I had been able to sit in on recently at Epic where young teenage deaf students had been invited to a workshop series using movement and dance to teach sign language. It was beautiful to see students communicating with each other using sign language for the first time when most of them had gone through more than 10 years of their lives with no formal language. Allie’s piece brings to light the disconnect in how we often value NGOs. Is it the overhead to program ratio that matters more, or the impact the group is having? And how do you value that impact vs. the alternatives? Feel free to share your thoughts below.

A friend just sent me this photo…

Like with hero-worshiping in the social sector, when the media and then general public praises and supports a model which sounds like a quick fix to big problems, we get copy cats. Now we’re not only “giving things away” once, we’re giving DOUBLE things….. oh goodness.

It will be great if we can harness these great intentions all of the purchasers have and use these popular brands to steer us towards support which is about BUILDING markets and skills rather than increasing dependencies on aid. I recently wrote a piece about how we might be able to use the popularity of a brand like TOMS (the company BOBS above is copying) to help steer people away from giving things and towards investing time in people.

Did anyone see that TOMS recently launched an eyewear line where each pair “helps give sight to a person in need”? What do you think about this new eyewear line which is partnering with an NGO rather than giving shoes away? Share your thoughts!

Everyone wants to “support girls”. Being a girl myself, I think that is great and all…. but let’s not forget the boys! In Cambodia, there are many sectors which only provide jobs to women: many garment factories only employ women for their line jobs, there are many silk weaving programs and NGO interventions targeting women’s skills training, and a few years ago I visited a crab canning factory in Kep which only employed women as well. Come to think of it, a lot of time the people who are employed to flatten the salt flats in Kep are also all women (with male supervisors pushing them on, but that’s another post…).

Yet there are very few employment options for young men. This leads to a culture in the cities where men sit on street corners (if I want to further a stereotype, or perhaps a generalization, I would add “playing cards”), waiting for someone to come by who wants to hire them for a motorbike ride. Many of these young men would like to find employment, but with such a young population and high unemployment rates, sitting on a ‘moto’ waiting all day for a customer is the best option they have found.

The Iron Workshop/The Craft House in Siem Reap is now doing men-only skills training in jobs like iron work, brick laying, plumbing, air-conditioning repair, etc. We partnered with them at PEPY to support their expansion and we’re hoping this organization focused on investing time in people will help more young men in Cambodia find gainful employment and empower them to continue to share their new skills with others.

So, next time I get an email saying “and we’d like to support education for girls”, I’ll remind them that boys need education to connect them to the skills they need to reach their goals too!

When I first read Greg Mortenson’s book, Three Cups of Tea, I loved it. It was 2007 or 2008, I had just spent a few years beginning our work at PEPY, an organization which had started with our own school construction story in 2005. The story resonated with me. I loved that he was talking about building schools in a place where we had recently only heard about building wars. I was onboard.

Over the past few years though, I have looked back on my own actions when starting PEPY, and realized that we made a big assumption in our work: that school buildings equated to improving education. You’ve heard us say this before at PEPY, but here it is again: We learned that schools don’t teach kids. People do. (And from this recent Mortenson fallout, I’m glad to read that other people feel this way too! “Why Three Cups of Tea Are Not Enough” – TIME Magazine)

We began shifting our focus away from building structures and towards building human capacity. We realized that we’d rather see kids studying under a tree with a great teacher than sitting in a beautiful empty building. Now, if we could have BOTH, that would be fabulous, but focusing on the human aspect of education was where we realized the dearth of effort lay.

As we began to focus on people, I became more judgmental of organizations selling “things” as the educational solutions to donors. Donors, who had grown accustomed to being able to donate a set of books, a uniform, a bike, or a school with their name on it were asking us how they could do the same with PEPY, and I realized that our first few years of selling donors the perceived ability to make changes in human’s attitudes and actions through giving them things was flawed. We were fighting a losing battle by focusing on the wrong investments.

This realization made me question Greg Mortenson’s school building work: although schools were definitely better than guns, weren’t teachers better than schools? In other words, I realized that I admired many things about Greg Mortenson’s work with the organization he co-founded, Central Asia Institute (CAI), but that revering him as infallible hero would not leave room for a view that his work, like all work, could always be improved. I began to realize that some criticism, both from ourselves and from the outside, is always needed to continue to strive towards higher goals.

I was just as shocked as anyone to hear the news of the 60 Minutes report this week about unethical behavior from Greg Mortenson and the CAI team. I had a lot of reactions: I was sad that so many people’s hearts were broken, glad that I had never donated to CAI when I had considered it in the past, angry that so much money has perhaps slipped through the cracks when it too could have been used to further education, and worried about what the impact of this news might mean.

My first reaction though, like so many others, was “If you can’t trust him, who CAN you trust?” And this is when I realized I too had bought too much into the hero worshiping of an NGO rockstar. I had only read the book that he himself had written about his work, yet I somehow believed I had received the full picture of his story. If Pol Pot had written an auto-biography after the Khmer Rouge, I wouldn’t read it and assume it was the only side of the story I should read, but when a person is doing “good” work, or “aid” work, they somehow become beyond question in our mind.

Because someone is “doing good” we assume everything about them is good, and visa versa. I have met a few people over the years who said they liked Pol Pot. One woman told me stories of having lived in the area where he was from and how he was good to them, how he took care of people, and how she had respect for him. When I hear these things my mind immediately refutes them as exaggerations or untruths. How could someone I have categorized in my mind as so “evil” do anything good? “And who cares if he did do some good things, he is still EVIL,” I would think to myself.

Once we have decided if someone is “good” or “bad”, rather than just “medium” and therefore capable of both extremes, it is hard for us to change our opinions.  I have heard many people react to the news about Greg Mortenson with opinions like “but all of the good he is doing still outweighs the bad” and “it must be an exaggeration as there is no way these allegations are all true.” These defensive views were my natural instincts too. Why? Because so many of us had put him in our “hero” category. Because we had mentally stood beside him and checked his name on our ballot for the “good person” poll. And because if we find out that WE were wrong, that he is not 100% good, that he is capable of anything bad and therefore no longer infallible, we don’t want to believe we have made a wrong vote. I believe that part of this reaction is in our own self interest – not wanting to be wrong and not wanting to use the effort it takes to make a mental shift of our own perceived realities. If we had miscategorized one person…. what about the rest? “If we can’t trust him, who CAN we trust?”

The effect of a large collection of people having to make this mental shift can have some far-reaching results. Being disappointed by someone makes it harder to feel as confident in our hero worshiping of others we might have viewed as thoroughly altruistic. I am of two minds about this news: The majority of my initial reaction is worry about the fallout the news about Greg’s fallibility will have on the NGO sector as a whole. Another part of me is glad that we are having to receive this type of news about an NGO “hero” and that we are all forced to go through the arduous task of mental resifting which inevitably leaves us feeling more vulnerable in the future. My fear is that the majority of that vulnerability will translate into inaction: people wanting to “help” when they come across an injustice they see, a goal they have for our world, or a problem they want to see fixed but feeling stuck and unable to take action for fear of being “tricked” again by someone selling a solution they might later find out is flawed. My hope though is that some of this vulnerability will translate into action for self-improvement on the part of donors.

Some people get mugged and then go out into the world with more fear. Others sign up for a self-defense class and perhaps emerge more confident than before. Let’s hope there’s more of the later.

By donor action, my hopes are that this news will result in:

• people taking the time to educate themselves more about the issues they are looking to effect change in and the best practices in those areas
• people becoming less likely to donate simply based on the hero story with less money going into projects whose impacts were overlooked due to more focus on the novel than on the reality of the NGO work
• donors asking more of the NGOs they support, not in terms of more heartbreaking books or more GPS coordinates of the things they give away, but rather more transparency and follow up on the impact of their donations
• board members asking more questions, pushing for audits, and requiring financial transparency from their teams
• and most importantly, more people realizing that NO ONE is a hero all the time (except maybe Mother Theresa…. Oh wait! Woops, hero-worshipping again – she is human!)  and therefore, that each of us are also capable of creating (perhaps obliged to create?) extreme good.

Perhaps it is good to continually remind ourselves that we are all human. By remembering that even Pol Pot was capable of good acts and that a man who helped build schools was capable of using donated funds for chartered flights to book signings for personal gain reminds us that we too are capable of both extremes. Perhaps this is the most difficult part of swallowing this reality. If Greg Mortenson isn’t some kind of “natural born altruist”, if he isn’t innately “good” at his core, if he is flawed like the rest of us and just as capable of self-interested pursuits, then it means he is human, just like us. And it therefore means that he was capable of that selfishness the whole time, yet he choose good very often (and it seems he choose poorly often as well). And if he is capable of that and not a “hero”, therefore, so are we.

He’s just a guy – and he could, and SHOULD, strive to be better. We too should strive to be better. We should strive to ask better questions and not hero worship someone so much that we allow them to go 14 years with only 1 audit. We should give our money to places we research and then follow up on our impact. We should strive to close the feedback loop and know where our money goes. And most of all, most shocking, and most hard to imagine: we should realize that there aren’t “good” and “bad” people. We are ALL capable of choosing heroic, challenging, phenomenal, life-affirming acts EVERY day. Those who choose to act heroically, those who were in our hero vault, were not wired differently than us after all – they are human too. So, you too can be, and are, a Greg Mortenson – capable of all aspects of the work he has done, both the good and the bad.

Choose to do with that what you like. I hope we all choose to dig deeper, aim higher, and strive for our most altruistic self from this news. I hope that each of us, including Greg, continues to strive daily for self-improvement to create our own TRUE hero story and then live out the results with integrity, transparency, and the constant quest for the good we are capable of ourselves.