Harvard And Jane Fonda Are Leading. Who’s Following?

“Would I have been brave enough to walk across the bridge?”

That question, posed by Jane Fonda in her 2025 SAG Awards speech, echoes louder now than ever. For leaders navigating today’s pressures—political, economic, cultural—it’s no longer a hypothetical. The bridge is here. And how we respond is the story being written.

In complex times, motion is often mistaken for leadership. But some of the most consequential choices stem not from bold actions, but from quiet inactions—from the steady pull of inertia. Especially when power is at stake, the impulse to maintain calm, avoid scrutiny, or “go along to get along” can lead even the most principled institutions to compromise.

But not all do.

On April 14, the U.S. Department of Education froze federal funds to Harvard University after its leadership refused to comply with demands from the Trump administration to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Rather than acquiesce—as Columbia University had weeks earlier—Harvard publicly upheld its commitments to inclusion, free inquiry, and academic autonomy. In President Alan Garber’s statement, the university doubled down on “the promise of American higher education,” signaling its refusal to be used as a political pawn.

This choice, however risky, offers a powerful model: a refusal to let inertia—especially in the form of political pressure—drive decision-making. It’s also a call to all leaders: Inertia may feel like neutrality. But in moments of ethical conflict, it becomes complicity.

“Going On Being” and the Myth of Neutrality

Psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott once described the state of “going on being”—a passive endurance that may preserve existence but often comes at the cost of vitality. Leadership coach Jerry Colonna recently invoked Winnicott in his reflections on redemptive leadership, writing:

“Redemptive leadership demands something more than what most of us are willing to give. It requires a willingness to confront the passive endurance that Winnicott describes and break through the inertia of just going on.”

Inertia can look deceptively responsible: It protects reputation, preserves relationships, keeps stakeholders calm. But when leaders remain still in the face of unethical authority—whether from shareholders, politicians, or public opinion—they risk losing what leadership actually requires: presence, purpose, and principled action.

The antidote to inertia isn’t always loud. But it is always conscious. This is where the Lead in 3D framework offers a roadmap: aligning our investments of time, energy, and attention across the Me (self), We (teams and organizations), and World (communities and systems) dimensions. Inertia shows up in each—and so does the opportunity to resist it.

ME: Leading from Inner Alignment

The “Me” dimension centers on the inner work of leadership. When pressure mounts, the first resistance must come from within—through values, clarity, and courage. The Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, Bishop of Washington, has modeled this form of redemptive presence more than once. In 2020, when then-President Trump staged a photo-op at St. John’s Church after peaceful protestors were forcibly cleared, she didn’t wait for denominational consensus. She named the act’s violence and misuse of sacred space with clear and immediate moral conviction.

And in 2025, speaking at the Inauguration Prayer Service, Budde again rejected the inertia of neutrality. Instead of soothing platitudes, she offered a prayer that acknowledged real fear and summoned courageous clarity: “I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now.” She closed with a challenge that belongs on every leader’s desk: “May God grant us the strength and courage to honor the dignity of every human being, to speak the truth to one another in love, and walk humbly with each other and our God for the good of all people.”

In both moments, Budde resisted the drift toward silence. She chose to speak—not with outrage, but with rooted moral clarity. That is the opposite of inertia. That is the inner alignment real leadership requires.

Reflection Questions – Me Dimension

• What values guide me when no one is watching?
• Where am I “going on being” rather than showing up fully?
• What inner voice have I been ignoring, and what might shift if I listened?

WE: Breaking Group Complacency

In the “We” dimension—teams, companies, schools, and institutions—inertia often hides behind processes, reputational risk, or calls for “nonpartisan” stability. But leadership in this arena isn’t about being politically neutral—it’s about being morally awake.

Harvard’s choice not to disband DEI programs, even in the face of funding threats, marks a refusal to let fear dictate values. It contrasts sharply with Columbia University’s earlier decision to comply with political demands, offering a sobering case study on the risks of institutional compliance under duress.

In many workplaces, inertia is dressed up as consensus or procedure. But every organization must ask: Are we aligned with our stated values—or simply avoiding conflict?

Reflection Questions – We Dimension

• What pressures are subtly shaping our policies or silence?
• Are we protecting our mission, or just our brand?
• How can we create space for dissent that deepens—not derails—our work?

WORLD: Resisting Systemic Drift

On the world stage, inertia is often called diplomacy, status quo, or economic realism. But when the stakes are systemic—climate, human rights, democracy—slow motion can be catastrophic.

And yet, some governments and companies are choosing action over appeasement. Spain has emerged as a model in Europe, enacting progressive reforms on climate, gender equity, and labor while holding fast against growing nationalist movements. Similarly, Patagonia’s decision to legally restructure the company to fund climate solutions through a trust exemplifies purpose-native leadership—designed to withstand short-term market or political shifts.

The World dimension of 3D leadership is about systems: supply chains, alliances, governance, and public policy. Here, inertia kills innovation—and values. Redemptive leadership at this level means designing for legacy, not expedience.

Reflection Questions – World Dimension

• What long-term impact are we choosing to ignore in the name of ease?
• Where could our silence be reinforcing unjust systems?
• Who are we aligning with—and who are we leaving behind?

From Resistance to Redemption

The leadership story of 2025 isn’t just about what’s said—it’s about what’s stood for. Harvard’s resistance to political overreach, Budde’s moral clarity, and Spain’s steady vision all illuminate the same truth: inertia is not neutral. In a values vacuum, it becomes an active force—one that props up the very authorities leaders are called to question.

Yet this is also a moment of great possibility. As Jane Fonda reminded the world:

“We don’t have to wonder any more because we are in our documentary moment. This is it! This is big-time serious, so let’s be brave … we must not isolate, we must stay in community, we must protect the vulnerable, we must find ways to project an inspiring vision of the future, one that is beckoning and welcoming … let’s make it so.”

That is the work of redemptive leadership—not just resisting what’s wrong, but imagining what’s possible. Not calling out harm to signal outrage, but calling ourselves and others into presence. Not taking on everything, but doing our part—with clarity, compassion, and courage.

Because in the end, leadership isn’t about grand gestures or saving the world. It’s about showing up for your one-eight-billionth – the fraction of healing the world that is uniquely yours to do.

It’s about crossing your bridge—whatever and wherever that is—with eyes open and values intact.

Not perfectly. But persistently. And on purpose.