Peace Corps Week 2026

Peace Corps Week always brings me back to where so much of this journey began.

In 1997, I arrived in Paraguay as a beekeeping volunteer. I thought I was going to teach a skill. Instead, I learned how little I understood about place, community, and what it means to belong somewhere not my own.

Beekeeping taught me patience. It taught me to pay attention to systems I couldn’t control. It taught me that every hive is a community—fragile, interdependent, and shaped by forces far beyond what we can see.

But the deeper lesson wasn’t about bees.  It was about listening.

It was about sitting with people, sharing tereré, and realizing that knowledge doesn’t arrive from the outside—it grows from within relationships. It was about understanding that development, like ecology, is not something you impose. It’s something you participate in.

Looking back, I can see how much of my work today traces back to that experience.

The Geographical Imaginations Expedition & Institute.  The World as a Village of 100 PeopleGlobal citizenship, human geography, civic imagination.  And a love for daily walking!

All of it, in some way, began there—in a place where I first learned to see the world not as a map to understand, but as a community to be in relationship with.

Peace Corps didn’t just shape what I do. It shaped how I see.  And maybe that’s the real work:  Not to “help” the world.  But to learn how to belong to it more responsibly.

To all those serving, those who have served, and to those who support(ed) us—thank you for being part of that ongoing lesson.

#PeaceCorpsWeek #GlobalCitizenship #Beekeeping #Interdependence #Service #GeographicalImagination

Global Cohorts, Deep Listening, and Regenerative Imagination

As a lifelong learner, I’ve come to see leadership development less as the acquisition of tools and more as the ongoing refinement of how we orient ourselves to the world. This perspective was sharpened through completing the Global Leadership Diploma at the University for Peace (UPEACE), a United Nations–mandated institution that brings together learners and practitioners from across the globe.

What made the diploma distinctive was not simply the curriculum, but the way learning unfolded: in sustained collaboration with a globally diverse cohort. Participants came from different regions, sectors, and lived realities, and that diversity was not incidental. It was the medium of learning itself.

Working in a global cohort changes how knowledge is formed. Ideas are no longer universal by default; they are contextual, contested, and enriched through dialogue. This requires a different posture—one grounded in listening. In many professional cultures, leadership is associated with speaking early and often. In global spaces, those habits can reinforce existing power dynamics. The diploma consistently asked me to slow down, listen more carefully, and attend to whose voices enter the conversation easily and whose require more space.

Listening, here, is not a soft skill. It is a leadership discipline.

Another core dimension of the program was lexicon building. Across the five courses, we were introduced to—and asked to interrogate—shared language around global citizenship, regeneration, positive leadership, systems change, and social sector finance. This was not about adopting jargon. It was about sharpening meaning. Words like empathy, power, regeneration, impact, and sustainability took on greater precision as they were tested against diverse contexts and experiences.

Language matters because it shapes what we can imagine and what we can act upon.

This emphasis on imagination was paired with a strong focus on regeneration. Rather than framing leadership around sustaining existing systems, the diploma emphasized restoring capacity—within people, communities, and institutions. Regenerative thinking asks different questions: How do systems replenish rather than deplete? How do organizations align economic realities with human and ecological well-being? How do we design work so people can remain in it long enough for transformation to occur?

The final course, focused on finance in the social sector, brought these questions into sharp relief. Fundraising and budgeting were treated not as persuasion exercises, but as acts of clarity and integrity—grounded in honest storytelling about what the work requires and why. This reinforced a central insight: storytelling is not an add-on to leadership; it is how meaning travels across difference.

Across the diploma, three capacities emerged as essential for global leadership today:

  • Orientation: the ability to situate one’s work within interconnected global, social, and ecological systems.
  • Imagination: the capacity to envision alternatives beyond existing models and metrics.
  • Transformation: the willingness to change underlying assumptions, not just surface strategies.

Global cohorts provide a necessary space where these capacities can be practiced together. They allow lifelong learners to continue building their lexicon, refining their stories, and deepening their listening in community.

As our understanding of global challenges grows more complex, leadership development must move beyond isolated expertise toward collective learning across borders. Experiences like the UPEACE Global Leadership Diploma demonstrate that when diverse cohorts are given time, structure, and trust, they can cultivate the orientation, imagination, and regenerative thinking our shared future demands.

To read my course by course reflections, click below.

Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and Social Change

Global Citizenship Education

Regenerative Leadership

Positive Leadership

Tackling Finance in the Social Sector

 

CAMINANTE, No Hay Camino

 

Caminante, no hay camino — se hace camino al andar.
Traveler, there is no road. The road is made by walking.

As I complete Tackling Finance in the Social Impact Sector, the fifth and final course in the UPEACE Global Leadership Diploma, I find myself returning again and again to this line from Antonio Machado. Not because the course was poetic in tone, but because its methodology revealed something deeply human about funding and social change: there is no universal map of philanthropy—only practice, clarity, relationship, and motion. The road is made by walking.

This course did something quietly radical. It took a process that often feels intimidating, opaque, or performative and made it simple—almost elegant. Fundraising was stripped of mystique. Instead of jargon or heroics, we were invited to do something far more grounded: tell the truth about our work. Name the problem clearly. Articulate the gap honestly. Build a budget rooted in reality rather than aspiration. Ask for what the work actually requires.

It felt like getting back to basics.

And yet, as I worked through the steps, a deeper discomfort surfaced—one I would be dishonest to ignore.

In the social sector, we often rely on a familiar vocabulary: innovation, scalability, impact metrics, sustainability. These words circulate endlessly, as if saying them enough times might produce a more just world. But beneath that language lies a quieter truth—one most practitioners know intimately and rarely say aloud:

If I had a living wage, I could do this work sustainably.

This is not a complaint. It is a structural observation. It is the foundation upon which all “impact” rests. It was the truth that shaped The CAMINANTE Project years ago, and it remains the truth shaping my work today with The Geographical Imaginations Expedition & Institute (The GIEI). Transformation requires practitioners who can remain in the work long enough for transformation to unfold.

The course clarified the how of fundraising. But it also sharpened my critique of the systems we are asked to fundraise within. Three tensions stand out.

First, scarcity is often treated as a measure of worth. In much of philanthropy, low overhead and minimal compensation are framed as moral discipline. But chronic under-resourcing does not build resilience—it erodes it. Austerity produces burnout, turnover, and fragility. Initiatives struggle to adapt, retain people, or weather complexity. Supporting the human capacity behind the work is not excess; it is foundational infrastructure.

Second, certainty is demanded in an uncertain world. Funding structures frequently ask practitioners to predict outcomes that cannot honestly be known in advance. Yet the most meaningful social change is emergent, relational, and iterative. Understanding develops through practice, not prediction. As Machado reminds us, al andar se hace camino—the path becomes visible only by walking it. When certainty is demanded too early, imagination narrows and learning is constrained.

Third, funding decisions are often distant from the lived realities of practice. Many are made far from classrooms, communities, and the daily tensions practitioners navigate. This distance tends to produce compliance rather than collaboration, reports instead of relationships, metrics instead of meaning. And yet, when funders engage with proximity, humility, and curiosity, something shifts. A shared language emerges. Trust deepens. The work becomes more honest—and more viable.

Actually, there is also a fourth tension I feel compelled to name.

There must exist hundreds—likely thousands—of thoughtful, rigorous, deeply ethical proposals that never receive real consideration, not because they lack merit, but because they seek to accomplish something that cannot yet be fully measured by our current metrics. Work that aims at shifts in mindset, meaning, belonging, imagination, or culture often fails to survive first-round filters. These proposals disappear quietly, not because they are weak, but because our tools for recognizing value remain incomplete.

This is not necessarily a failure of individual funders. It is a systemic limitation.

This reflection is my way of holding these tensions honestly. To do so even more, I chose a familiar form: a proposal. A one-page funding document. A hermit crab essay—a reflection written inside the very genre we are trained to master.

Sometimes the clearest way to reveal a system’s limits is to write from within its structure.

The hermit crab proposal linked here—What Does It Take to Fund Imagination?—is not a rejection of fundraising. It is an invitation to think more carefully about what we ask for, what we reward, and what we risk losing when we prioritize speed, certainty, and visibility over patience, trust, and the long play.

Because the road is made by walking.

With clarity and gratitude,
Kevin

What Does It Take to Fund Imagination?

Proposal: What Does It Take to Fund Imagination?

Applicant: A practitioner walking an unfinished road

Caminante, no hay camino — se hace camino al andar.
Traveler, there is no road. The road is made by walking.

1. Problem Statement 

Across the social impact landscape, there exist hundreds—likely thousands—of thoughtful, careful, deeply committed proposals that never receive serious consideration. Not because they lack merit, but because they aim to do work that is difficult to quantify with our current tools. They seek to shift mindsets, relationships, narratives, and cultures—the very conditions from which lasting transformation arises.

We operate within a funding ecosystem designed for projects rather than people, for predictable outputs rather than emergent learning, and for short-term proof rather than long-term transformation. In this ecosystem, imagination is praised rhetorically but rarely resourced materially.

We fund activities, but not the inner work that makes them meaningful.
We fund outputs, but not the worldview shifts that sustain change.
We fund what is visible, but overlook what is necessary.

As a result, practitioners are often asked to compress complex, relational, imaginative work into forms that favor certainty over curiosity and speed over depth. The work is reshaped to fit the metrics, rather than the metrics evolving to meet the work. Much is lost in this translation—especially proposals that seek to cultivate possibility rather than guarantee outcomes.

At the center of this problem lies a quiet truth that is widely shared but rarely spoken:

If practitioners had a living wage and long-term stability, much of this work could actually unfold.

2. Proposed Solution

This proposal is not for a single program or initiative. It is an invitation to rethink what we fund—and how.

If imagination is essential for navigating social, ecological, and cultural complexity, then imagination itself must be resourced. This requires funding approaches that behave less like transactions and more like companionship.

What this means in practice is support that offers:

  • Multi-year commitments that provide stability rather than perpetual precarity
  • Trust-based relationships grounded in shared learning
  • Space for emergence instead of predetermined certainty
  • Funding for practitioners, not only for deliverables
  • Accountability rooted in reflection and adaptation rather than prediction

When funding honors the slow, relational, meaning-making dimensions of change, practitioners are able to remain in the work long enough for transformation to take root. The result is not less rigor, but deeper integrity.

3. Project Activities

If imagination were taken seriously as a driver of transformation, the core “activities” might look different from what most proposals describe.

They might include time to think—still a radical act in a culture of constant productivity. Time to develop shared language for work that does not yet have a common vocabulary and/or lexicon. Slow cultivation of relationships with communities, not as pipelines or beneficiaries, but as collaborators in meaning-making.

They would include iterative prototyping that is allowed to be nonlinear and unfinished, sensemaking with peers navigating similar uncertainty, and reflection and storytelling treated as central practices rather than optional add-ons.

This is the work behind the work. It is often invisible, rarely funded, and yet indispensable for any change that hopes to last.

4. Budget Overview

A humane budget for imagination-centered practice acknowledges that imagination is labor.

Such a budget includes a living wage that allows a practitioner to remain in the work without chronic financial anxiety. It includes healthcare, stability, and protected time. It recognizes the contributions of collaborators and community partners through stipends rather than extraction.

It supports travel to the places where learning actually happens—not only to where the work is presented. It allocates resources for reflection, design iteration, and documentation. It protects time for reading, wandering, listening, and synthesis—the incubation periods from which insight emerges.

This logic has guided my work for years, including the development of The CAMINANTE Project: the recognition that sustainability for the practitioner is not indulgence. It is infrastructure.

5. Monitoring and Evaluation

Traditional monitoring and evaluation frameworks struggle to capture emergent, relational work. Yet imagination leaves traces, even if it cannot be reduced to a single metric.

Meaningful indicators include the quality and durability of relationships formed, shifts in language or framing within a community, changes in how people understand their agency, and early signs of cultural momentum. Practitioner sustainability—financial, emotional, relational—is itself a critical indicator.

Other signals may appear indirectly: unexpected invitations, new collaborations, stories that begin to circulate, experiments that open doors even when they “fail.”

Imagination cannot be neatly quantified, but it can be followed—like footprints across soft ground.

6. Expected Outcomes

If imagination were resourced with patience and trust, we would expect to see work with deeper ethical roots and longer lifespans. Practitioners would no longer need to contort their vision to fit short funding cycles. Funding ecosystems would begin to align more closely with human and ecological rhythms.

We would see cultural narratives shift slowly but perceptibly. We would see more proposals that do not promise certainty, but offer honesty. And we would see a growing number of CAMINANTES—walkers, seekers, wayfinders—creating paths that do not yet exist.

This is not idealism. It is simply what becomes possible when funding aligns with how transformation actually unfolds.

7. Vision Statement

A future in which those doing slow, relational, imaginative work are not surviving on the margins, but are supported with the time, trust, and stability their contributions require. A future in which imagination is recognized as essential civic infrastructure. A future built not through speed or spectacle, but through steadiness—through roads made by walking.

Leading by Listening: Rhythm, Energy, and Positive Leadership

There are days when leadership feels like a rush of motion — emails, calendars, demands, decisions. The pace accelerates, and we move with it. But beneath the surface of all this activity, there is always a quieter layer: a rhythm.

My recent Positive Leadership course at the University for Peace (UPEACE) helped me remember how to recognize it.

Leadership begins not with a plan, or a metric, or even a vision — but with presence.

The course invited me to listen again underneath the noise of tasks and timelines — to notice the rhythms that shape how we lead and live. We often imagine leadership as direction: setting goals, driving momentum, managing outcomes. But positive leadership asks a subtler question:

What energy do we bring into the systems we inhabit?

That shift — from managing performance to managing presence — reframed leadership for me. It is less about control than about rhythm:  the ebb and flow of awareness, connection, and meaning through time.

Listening for Rhythm

Henri Lefebvre, in his Rhythmanalysis, wrote that every space carries its own pulse — its repetitions and variations, its silences and surges. The city breathes through its traffic and stillness; the body through its circadian tides.

Positive leadership, seen through this lens, becomes a kind of rhythmanalysis — a discipline of attention. It calls us to attune to the living tempos of our work and relationships, to sense when we are in harmony and when we have fallen out of tune.

The course began with this act of listening. We mapped our values, charted our daily energy, and reflected on what gives us vitality and what drains it. Through Simon Sinek’s Start with Why, we traced the pulse of purpose within our professional lives.

Meaning is not an abstraction — it is what sustains motion over time.

When I began mapping my own day, I saw patterns I had ignored: the quiet hours when creativity peaks, the lulls that invite rest, the shifts between solitude and connection.

As one fellow student put it:

“Positive leaders look for lasting impact from sustainable energy, not constant effort.”

Leadership, then, is not about enforcing a steady tempo; it is about composing harmony among these rhythms — the personal and the collective, the urgent and the reflective, the doing and the being.

Leadership as Energy Ecology

Much of what we call leadership is really about studying energy distribution — how attention, trust, and motivation circulate through a system.

Psychological safety, for instance, is not only an emotional condition; it is an energetic one. When people feel safe, energy expands — ideas flow, collaboration deepens, risk-taking becomes generative. When fear or cynicism take hold, energy constricts.

This is where positive leadership differs from the merely productive. It is not about maximizing output but optimizing flow — creating the conditions in which energy replenishes rather than depletes.

The course grounded this in Martin Seligman’s PERMA model of well-being:

  • Positive emotion sustains hope.
  • Engagement anchors us in flow.
  • Relationships generate resonance.
  • Meaning aligns us with purpose.
  • Accomplishment gives cadence and closure.

Together, they form the architecture of flourishing — a living, breathing rhythm that holds both effort and renewal.

To lead positively is to become a rhythmanalyst of well-being: sensing where energy moves freely, where it stagnates, and how small, intentional shifts — a pause, a genuine question, a gesture of care — can restore equilibrium.

When Rhythm Is Broken

Of course, most of us do not work in environments where this rhythm comes easily.  Many of us have known workplaces where urgency overrides reflection, where performance outweighs presence, where people speak carefully rather than honestly.

This is not a failure of individuals — it is a failure of culture.

Psychological safety, we learned, is not simply “nice to have.” It is the precondition for creativity, collaboration, and adaptability. Yet it might be rare. To question, to dissent, to ask for alignment — these acts often feel risky.

Most of us have been in rooms where silence seems safer than contribution.  Where we sense a misalignment between the stated mission and the lived reality — and do not feel permitted to name it.

This course did not pretend otherwise.  It acknowledged that positive leadership often begins in tension — between how things are and how they could be.

To lead positively is not to ignore these fractures; it is to notice them — and then act in ways that widen the space for honesty, curiosity, and care.

Sometimes that means asking a different question.
Sometimes it means slowing the tempo when everyone else is speeding up.
Sometimes it means being the first person in the room willing to say, “We’re out of rhythm. Can we listen again?”

Positive leadership does not assume the rhythm is already healthy.
It creates the possibility for harmony to emerge.

The Sound of Integrity

One question echoed throughout the course:

Why should anyone be led by you?

It’s deceptively simple — and profoundly clarifying.  My own answer emerged through five values: communication, equity, service, kindness, and growth.  They form the chord through which I live and lead.

Leadership, I came to see, is not about volume but tone — not how loudly one speaks, but how well one listens.  Integrity, in this sense, is resonance: the alignment between belief, action, and presence.

When tone matches intention, people feel it.  The room steadies.  Energy gathers.  Positive rhythm returns.

Rhythm as Reflection

In Lefebvre’s terms, the rhythmanalyst is both participant and observer — immersed in the pulse of life yet aware of its pattern. The same is true of leadership.

The leader listens: to the tempo of meetings, to the pauses between ideas, to the subtle signals of fatigue or enthusiasm.

They adjust — slowing down where reflection is needed, accelerating when momentum builds, recognizing that renewal often begins in rest, not speed.

Leadership, reframed this way, is not control but choreography.

Toward a Rhythmic Practice

The course concluded with a Personal Leadership Plan — a living score for the symphony of one’s work.

For me, that plan centers on advancing The Geographical Imaginations Expedition & Institute toward nonprofit status — a project that, like a rhythm, has unfolded over time, layering inquiry, storytelling, and community engagement.

Yet beyond that plan, what remains is a practice:
to manage energy, not time;
to listen before leading;
to treat each day as both composition and improvisation.

Leadership, I’ve come to believe, is less a position than a rhythm — one that must be tuned and re-tuned, like an instrument in ongoing rehearsal.

Coda: Leadership as Listening

Lefebvre urged rhythmanalysts to “listen — listen to your body, to the city, to the world.”

Positive Leadership is that same act of listening applied to human systems.

It is rhythmanalysis in motion: sensing where harmony falters, where renewal is needed, where silence itself becomes a form of care.

If Regenerative Leadership taught me to see systems as living ecologies, Positive Leadership taught me to feel their pulse.

To lead, then, is not to command, but to listen into coherence — to transform effort into ease, intention into flow, and attention into presence.

Leadership, at its best, is rhythm made visible: a steady hand, a compassionate ear, and the courage to pause.  The work is not easy — but it is necessary. Because every culture we inherit was once constructed, and every rhythm can be rewritten.

The Work Between Elections

In 1949, my grandfather, J. Lawrence O’Toole, ran for mayor of Bridgeport, Connecticut. He was a bricklayer from Black Rock and a labor organizer who came into politics the slow way: through union meetings, community debates, and the kind of civic life that doesn’t announce itself as such. He challenged Jasper McLevy, the socialist who had governed the city for years and built a reputation for frugality and municipal steadiness.

My grandfather lost that election. For a long time, that loss was something my family referred to now and then, as if its meaning were already fixed. Yet as I watched Zohran Mamdani win the New York City mayoral race this week, that story opened back up. Mamdani, a democratic socialist shaped by tenant organizing and neighborhood mutual aid networks, did not win because of a sudden surge of ideology. He won because civic participation had already been happening — patiently, consistently, out of public view — long before Election Day.

This is the part of politics we rarely describe honestly. Campaigns are not really about speeches, slogans, or personality. They are about whether neighbors talk to one another; whether communities build institutions that last; whether people believe that participating in public life is worth their time. Elections are not causes. They are outcomes of civic work already done.

My grandfather belonged to a version of civic participation grounded in labor. Workplaces were where political life began. The union hall was a form of local government long before City Hall entered the conversation. Bargaining was not abstract; it was a daily negotiation over safety, wages, and dignity. To run for office as a labor leader was simply to extend the logic: if working people live with the consequences of municipal decisions, they should help make them.

McLevy’s supporters saw civic responsibility differently. Their version of public life emphasized stewardship — careful budgets, transparent management, and insulation from corruption. They believed that participation meant oversight and accountability. These were not opposing social classes. They were two different theories of how people should work together to govern themselves.

What connects 1949 Bridgeport to 2025 New York City is not the ideology of socialism. It is the recognition that civic participation is a process, not a performance. Mamdani’s win was not spontaneous. It was the product of tenant organizers knocking on doors year after year, of neighborhood groups coordinating across blocks, of residents building trust in one another long before they were asked to build trust in a candidate. The election did not create that civic infrastructure. It revealed it.

And this matters because of what comes next. Winning elections has a way of disguising how fragile civic participation can be. When a movement gains power, the work changes. Governing requires translation, compromise, patience, and the willingness to hold together coalitions that are not as unified as they once appeared. The meetings get longer. The disagreements get sharper. The stakes get more real. The romance fades and the work begins again.

This is where my grandfather’s story remains useful. His loss did not erase the civic networks he helped build. The labor movement in Bridgeport did not end with that election. It shifted, reconfigured, and continued to shape how working people engaged in public life. Losing did not mean disappearing. Losing meant the work moved into another form.

And winning will require the same perseverance. The civic networks that carried Mamdani to office will need to stay intact, not for celebration but for governance. If they become symbolic instead of practical, the victory will be temporary. If they remain functional — if participation continues when the cameras are gone — then something more durable will have been achieved.

The easy story would be to say that democracy spoke clearly last night. But democracy does not speak clearly. It speaks in fragments, in efforts, in partial agreements, in structures people build piece by piece. It speaks through the slow work of organizing, showing up, listening, arguing, and returning to the same room the next week.

If there is a lesson that connects my grandfather’s loss to Mamdani’s win, it is this: Democracy is not what happens on Election Day. Democracy is the work that makes Election Day matter.

The vote is not the end of participation. It is the evidence that participation happened.

And it has to keep happening.

The work is not the victory. The work is the participation.  And the work continues.