I'm Ugly, You're Ugly, We're all Ugly!

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.

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

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.

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

Commercial Break

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

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

Classical Management versus Human Relations

In terms of workplace cultures, I've had the opportunity to experience both a bureaucracy and the human relations model. Several years ago, I worked for our government, in what our textbook and prevailing notion would surely describe as a modern day bureaucracy. We had a fixed division of labor, leaders who ruled from the top down and a clear set of rules that were outlined in quite possibly the thickest binder known to mankind. Furthermore, once I identified a way to improve the organization's position, my ideas were discarded because it did not follow procedure. I could go on and on, however, the point is that if it were possible for bureaucracies to exist today, then I uncovered the holy grail.

Within the past several years, opportunity has brought me to a medical device company in the private sector. Throughout my time, I have noticed that our human resources department attempts to play a role in defining the companies culture; 360 degree feedback, employees evaluating their managers and health and wellness programs are just a few of the mechanisms that are used to align the organization within the human relations approach.

I respect the notion of "romanticism" and "cow sociology" that is depicted in our textbook, after all, many of us are able to intuitively dissect the true intentions of the human relations approach. However, as society's attitude towards work changed, business was required to change on equal footing or deal with the consequences of low employee morale. The textbook takes us from empire societies and slavery which was basically authoritarian control to the industrial revolution, which led to the creation of formalized bureaucracies. Now the human relations model is the prevailing norm, yet another benefit of modern society.

Worst case scenario is the human relations model has the potential to patronize the cynics among us. We must consider whether the company really values employee feedback in the all encompassing sense, or does it merely serve as a sounding board for the malcontents to express themselves under the illusion of management's concern.

Personally, I value the human relations management style because it provides an avenue to make my job more efficient. The logic is that if I can identify a way to make our business model more competitive, then the modern day management style provides me with an outlet to do so. I simply have to "sell" my idea up the chain of command. However, I do not confuse human relations with human emotions, as this is not the intended purpose of the structure. I still receive orders on a daily basis, have multiple deadlines and have sacrificed "my time" on behalf of the business. What has not changed since the eighteenth century is that modern day companies simply do not care how I feel, rather how much I produce.

-Squid

Cult Leaders and Presidential Candidates Utilize the Same Means of Communication!

Throughout our waking hours we are bombarded with the particular communication that our textbook defines as “communication as strategic control” What makes this communication style so effective is that the individuals who receive the message are left to twist and elaborate on the context as they see fit.

Exhibit A:
Political figures are a great example of those that utilize this communicative tool. Our president elect recently conveyed a simple, yet ambiguous message that played wonderfully into the hearts and minds of the majority. Moreover, we heard tear-jerking stories of people who were suffering physically, emotionally and spiritually and yet, his profound words led us to believe that if we merely checked a box next to his name, then peace and tranquility would ensue. Sure, he wasn’t the first person to stand in front of the discontented and parlay his good willed intentions. For as long as I can remember, every politician endears himself to the masses by promising the galaxy, yet when a mere ray of sunshine would suffice, they rarely come through with a speck of dirt. Healthcare for all? Consider it done. No child left behind? Certainly not! Raising Taxes? Not under this regime. Expanding the role of the United States within the global economy? You get the idea. Their message is vague, contrived and artificially encompassing; however, they become elected on the ability to convey the contrary.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Barack Obama; at least I like him more than the other candidates. However, isn’t earning our endearment not the sole intended purpose of a politician? They simply say bits and pieces of what we want to hear and let us convolute the words, on our own accord nonetheless, into something more grandiose.

Frankly, I hope for the best, but my prediction is the giddiness and hype that perpetuated the rise of this great presidential, “savior of mankind”, will no doubt feature the pseudo effort and lackluster results of his predecessors. All of the grand plans, schemes and dreams will alas, be forgotten. After all, during every presidential election, I’m taken back to the 6th grade when the student body president was elected by extending the promise of having “ better food at school”

Obama’s message to the masses: hope and change.