I didn't want to end my blog postings in a ranting, cynical fashion; however, one thing that college taught me was that challenging pervasive thought was part of the intellectual experience that college stands for. Take things further. Expand your horizons. With that being said...
I take exception to the textbook perpetuating the "physical attractiveness" component of becoming a leader. I understand that human beings are visual creatures. We spend a lot of time adhering to and pursuing what society and particularly, pop culture dictates as to what constitutes attractiveness. That said, I have a problem with the physical attractiveness theory that our book proposes because it perpetuates a shallow way of thinking and could potentially lower the self esteem of it's readers. People in college should be fostering big dreams and studying hard to achieve those dreams. Frankly there are so many bad leaders around that most rational working adults could care less how their leader looks. I cannot stress that enough. My boss is ugly, so is my CEO; however because we are emotionally secure and professional adults, we value them for their overall intelligence more than their attractiveness.
If this theory is true, then how do the authors explain the role sexuality plays in our views of leaders? Take the most attractive male leader than you can imagine. Would the fact that I'm heterosexual change my views of that leader? What about Ghandi? That dude is ugly and arguably one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known. How about Chairman Mao? Did people fall in line behind him because of his good looks?
I understand where the authors are going with this attractiveness mumbo jumbo. They want to point out, much like other college material, the perpetual dominance of the white male. Now that we have elected our first African Amercian President, I am relived that we can finally stop beating the "dead horse". Enough already. Find a new blanket intellectual theory.
Frankly we're all ugly. Let's focus our energies towards improving our emotional intelligence and our interpersonal skills.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Follow the Leader
I agree with Robert E Quinn's, "Habits of Mind" theory. Quinn proposes that the most effective leadership style is one that is derived from within the leader themselves and opposes the notion of imitating the traits of others.
The en Vogue corporate management trend is to have it's personnel partake in case studies. Corporations claim that they are utilized for understanding the particular strategies and issues encountered by other business'. However, the parameters surrounding Southwest Airlines, Toyota and Citibank (eek) are invariably different than the business that is studying them. Why don't corporations study themselves? I could care less about Southwest's "peanut policy"; dammit, I'm busy.
"It's Your Ship" by Capt. D. Michael Abrashoff is another example. The intellectual depth of the entire book barely surpasses the notion: "everyone in the organization is accountable for the success of the organization, et all". Fodder such as Abrashoff's tells a story, but other than my synopsis above, it does not provide one with the means necessary to become a good leader. It simply cannot accomplish it's stated purpose. Why? Simply because we are not in Abrashoff's shoes at the exact same time that he gathered the experiences to write the book.
It's discouraging that American society thinks that they can buy their way to becoming a great leader.
You know what makes a great leader? A person who is motivated, emotionally secure, rational, caring for others and introspective.
-Squid
The en Vogue corporate management trend is to have it's personnel partake in case studies. Corporations claim that they are utilized for understanding the particular strategies and issues encountered by other business'. However, the parameters surrounding Southwest Airlines, Toyota and Citibank (eek) are invariably different than the business that is studying them. Why don't corporations study themselves? I could care less about Southwest's "peanut policy"; dammit, I'm busy.
"It's Your Ship" by Capt. D. Michael Abrashoff is another example. The intellectual depth of the entire book barely surpasses the notion: "everyone in the organization is accountable for the success of the organization, et all". Fodder such as Abrashoff's tells a story, but other than my synopsis above, it does not provide one with the means necessary to become a good leader. It simply cannot accomplish it's stated purpose. Why? Simply because we are not in Abrashoff's shoes at the exact same time that he gathered the experiences to write the book.
It's discouraging that American society thinks that they can buy their way to becoming a great leader.
You know what makes a great leader? A person who is motivated, emotionally secure, rational, caring for others and introspective.
-Squid
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Breaker, Breaker, Any Takers?
I would like to share my thoughts on the debate regarding virtual versus real communication.
My position is as long as the message is sent from one party and it is received by another party, then the communication should be considered "real".
Virtual communication has a connotation that insinuates "substandard" or "alternative". As in, we can't meet face to face, so we will utilize the modern, alternative means of having a discussion; coupled with: my co-worker is a "virtual" dumbass.
Our police, fire, and military have been sending messages via two way radio for years. I don't feel that their communication is any less "real" and often their communication bridges the gap between life and death.
One could argue that today's form of communication mediums (pda's, computers, cell phones, etc) could be considered less personable and thereby leading less meaningful forms of communicaton. However, I must point out the personable and meaningful would have to be used in the same sentence in order for this point to carry validity. Like "real", what is considered "personable" and "meaningful" could vary amongst generations.
Let's consider the sincerity behind communication via modern day technology. My mother-in-law and I had a friendly debate one night because she feels that although my wife and I manage to call her, we often do so using a cell phone while driving in the car. She feels that it is rude, insincere and leads to less meaningful conversations. My rebuttle was that our lives are so busy that we often need to optimize what little free time we are alloted.
Therein lies my point: Our world has become so busy, that modern day communication tools have become nothing less than a necessity.
Why has our world become so busy? Look no further than the technology itself. While at home, we are bouncing between cell phone conversations, the internet, two pda's for work, hundreds of cable tv channels; not to mention "archaic" mediums, such as the daily print newspaper, books, cd's and magazines. This is at home, work is even more hectic.
My position is as long as the message is sent from one party and it is received by another party, then the communication should be considered "real".
Virtual communication has a connotation that insinuates "substandard" or "alternative". As in, we can't meet face to face, so we will utilize the modern, alternative means of having a discussion; coupled with: my co-worker is a "virtual" dumbass.
Our police, fire, and military have been sending messages via two way radio for years. I don't feel that their communication is any less "real" and often their communication bridges the gap between life and death.
One could argue that today's form of communication mediums (pda's, computers, cell phones, etc) could be considered less personable and thereby leading less meaningful forms of communicaton. However, I must point out the personable and meaningful would have to be used in the same sentence in order for this point to carry validity. Like "real", what is considered "personable" and "meaningful" could vary amongst generations.
Let's consider the sincerity behind communication via modern day technology. My mother-in-law and I had a friendly debate one night because she feels that although my wife and I manage to call her, we often do so using a cell phone while driving in the car. She feels that it is rude, insincere and leads to less meaningful conversations. My rebuttle was that our lives are so busy that we often need to optimize what little free time we are alloted.
Therein lies my point: Our world has become so busy, that modern day communication tools have become nothing less than a necessity.
Why has our world become so busy? Look no further than the technology itself. While at home, we are bouncing between cell phone conversations, the internet, two pda's for work, hundreds of cable tv channels; not to mention "archaic" mediums, such as the daily print newspaper, books, cd's and magazines. This is at home, work is even more hectic.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Los Padres
In regards to the gender differences in and at work, I am proud to say that the Bay Area has established itself as a front runner in the concerted effort to neutralize these differences.
Two assumptions that I need to clarify are that a)I am a male, however I am married to a woman who continues to achieve success in business and b) These are merely my interpretations and observations. I acknowledge that others mileage can, and will vary.
While working amongst and living with women, I do see that the rapport talk communication style is more effective for callaborating and navigating through corporate politics. This communication style alone almost makes women stronger canidates for managing today's globalized work place. Furthermore, after conferring with male co-workers who remember the time when women "stayed at home", the amount of women achieving success in the Bay Area is growing by leaps and bounds. Also, I can't tell you how many times I've reached an impasse during a meeting, when a female co-worker will overcome my report talk style and achieve progress. It's almost as if men want themselves to win, while women wish for both parties to win; which essentially is the point of a successful negotiation. It's simply amazing!
This is why I believe that we are moving towards a new paradigm. One that will eventually render these "identity differences" as historical context. Consider the notion of "gender differences in work and life". The text cites examples of women staying at home to nurture and care for children and having been relegated to domestic duties. Folks, if the Bay Area is the cultural litmus paper that it is known for, then times they are a changing. I personally know several stay at home dads and frankly, I may one day consider that role myself. Why? Simple economic terms. As women achieve greater success in the workplace, the amount of high paying jobs are decreasing as greater amounts of individuals are coveting for them. So it comes down to this: women and men have almost reached an equilibrium in our regional workforce; therefore if a couple wishes to have one party stay home with the kids, the partner with the highest paying job will continue to work.
Personally, like many stay at home dads, I'm all good with cooking, cleaning the house, running errands, driving carpools and participating in the PTA. After all, if women really want the corporate life, they can have it. I love my job and all, but please; I would rather raise the kids and create art to sell for a pittance any day.
Los Padres!
-Squid
Two assumptions that I need to clarify are that a)I am a male, however I am married to a woman who continues to achieve success in business and b) These are merely my interpretations and observations. I acknowledge that others mileage can, and will vary.
While working amongst and living with women, I do see that the rapport talk communication style is more effective for callaborating and navigating through corporate politics. This communication style alone almost makes women stronger canidates for managing today's globalized work place. Furthermore, after conferring with male co-workers who remember the time when women "stayed at home", the amount of women achieving success in the Bay Area is growing by leaps and bounds. Also, I can't tell you how many times I've reached an impasse during a meeting, when a female co-worker will overcome my report talk style and achieve progress. It's almost as if men want themselves to win, while women wish for both parties to win; which essentially is the point of a successful negotiation. It's simply amazing!
This is why I believe that we are moving towards a new paradigm. One that will eventually render these "identity differences" as historical context. Consider the notion of "gender differences in work and life". The text cites examples of women staying at home to nurture and care for children and having been relegated to domestic duties. Folks, if the Bay Area is the cultural litmus paper that it is known for, then times they are a changing. I personally know several stay at home dads and frankly, I may one day consider that role myself. Why? Simple economic terms. As women achieve greater success in the workplace, the amount of high paying jobs are decreasing as greater amounts of individuals are coveting for them. So it comes down to this: women and men have almost reached an equilibrium in our regional workforce; therefore if a couple wishes to have one party stay home with the kids, the partner with the highest paying job will continue to work.
Personally, like many stay at home dads, I'm all good with cooking, cleaning the house, running errands, driving carpools and participating in the PTA. After all, if women really want the corporate life, they can have it. I love my job and all, but please; I would rather raise the kids and create art to sell for a pittance any day.
Los Padres!
-Squid
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Saturday, January 10, 2009
There Is No "I" In Team
The term, interdependence is relative to my current work environment. I did take me a while to realize that my actions can adversely effect another interdependent group within the organization, regardless of if I was correct in taking such action. As part of a proper communication strategy, I have since learned that if I don't completely understand a particular facet of the business, then I must communicate effectively with others and include them in my pending action. Moreover, I wish all of my co-workers had taken a class such as this, as I cannot tell you how many times I been victimized in my own version by the tragedy of the commons.
Moral of the story: if you don't know, ask. If you think you know, remember that assumptions make an "ass" out of you and me.
Peace,
-Squid
Moral of the story: if you don't know, ask. If you think you know, remember that assumptions make an "ass" out of you and me.
Peace,
-Squid
Working for "Stuff"
I believe that the term workaholic could be used to categorize many within our immediate region. I too am addicted to work. However, I wish to claim that as a society, we have brought this disease upon ourselves. This contrasts with the point made by Stan Deetz, who believes that the employment centers are responsible for holding the power and influence of self definition over it's employees. In simplistic terms, Deetz does have a valid claim, essentially saying that we are beholden to our employers, as they essentially serve as our source of self-worth. However, we all know that our basic needs extend well beyond happiness. Furthermore, I could argue that our needs extend well beyond food and shelter as well: Cell phones, cable television, high definition television, computers; cars, etc, etc. Our desire to consume have continued to enhance the power that our places of employment enjoy (i.e. further, consumer spendings direct effect on current economic affairs)
-Squid
-Squid
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)