Women in Leadership Roles

I thought this article was interesting because it talks about a list of women in leadership roles. These women are some of the world's famous women leaders that I have personally admired; they have advanced into positions of influence and leadership—especially in industries long considered “a man's world.

Maria Falvey

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/women-in-leadership-roles.html

Women as Leaders: The Paradox of Success - Insights 7 - Styles

Women as Leaders: The Paradox of Succes, it talks about seven strategies that have been used effectively by other women and it is written for women who want to succeed in leaderships positions. It explains why the specific skills and competencies identified as important for effective leadership in performance evaluations and leadership training often do not mirror the assumptions and images people hold of effective leaders.

Maria Falvey

http://www.simmons.edu/som/docs/Insights_9_DNC.pdf

Bed Bugs on Strike!

I heard recently that unions were now using a giant inflatable bed bug instead of the inflatable rat for their picket lines.  Just yesterday as I was walking to work I came across this giant bed bug in front of the Affinia Manhattan Hotel.  I stared in awe a this ugly thing, and I thought...what could possibly be the point....and then it occured to me just how effective it was in front of a hotel!!  As we will be discussing the Symbolic Frame today I think it is worth thinking about the effects of protests.  What kinds of pressure does the symbolism of a protest put onto an organization?  Add to that a rat, and given the current problem of bedbugs in the city - how geniously effective on the part of labor unions to use a giant bed bug.  However, had I not heard previouslty about the switch from the giant rat to the giant bed bug I would have looked at the giant inflatable monstronsity yesterday and thought "what the heck is that" and moved on...I kind of wonder, does the message get lost if people don't know what the symbolism means?
view an image in this article here: http://gothamist.com/2010/11/10/inflatable_union_rat_fired_inflatab.php
-Ken

Pay freeze for federal workers

This news alert NY times article on Obama’s plan for a pay freeze for civilian federal works made its way into my inbox this morning.  It talks about the President’s plan to wipe out a 1.4% across-the-board raise in 2011 for 2.1 million federal government employees, which include those at the Department of Defense.  The article further claims that this pay freeze will save “$2 billion in the current fiscal year that ends in September 2011, $28 billion over five years and more than $60 billion over 10 years…”

Does this suggest that this pay freeze will be going on for 10 years?!?  Does anyone else think that sounds a bit unrealistic?  

I acknowledge Obama’s gesture to keep that “we are all in this together” spirit in an effort to tackle the nation’s deficit.   However, while this public acclaim seems great, I personally feel that this proposal will likely not stick.  I also feel like we will never really hear the full story of how these things actually go down – will there be a future article or acknowledgement of how much money was saved?  When and how does this plan to be addressed?   

Anybody else have any other thoughts on the subject? 

Shikha Dalal 

In Transition For Cuomo, A Profusion Of Insiders

Recently in class we have discussed the leadership style of Andrew Cuomo. In an article in the NY times from Saturday his choices for his transition team are discussed and evaluated.  We would hope that someone who will be a good leader will choose the proper appointees to help him create the best team that he could. “He described them as experienced leaders with broad experience in the public and private sectors, selected to help him recruit the best and brightest New Yorkers to his new administration.” The problem is that almost half of these people are lobbyists or part of groups that lobbied the state government in the last year. Many of these people have contributed money to Cuomo’s campaign. However, there is no rule or law against doing this. It is also said, “Mr. Cuomo had relied relatively little on academic experts from outside New York who might have fewer ties to organizations with business before the state.”

These individuals will be responsible for appointing the new administration. Is it possible that they will separate their own interests from those of the residents of New York? That will not be determined for some time. I think this shows a flaw in the leadership of Cuomo, especially as a leader in the public sector. The public sector has a responsibility towards those that it is supposed to serve. Are Cuomos’ appointments for his transition committee in opposition to serving the people of New York to the best of his ability? 

Farah 

Can Cathie Black transfer her management skills to the Dept of Ed?

We spoke recently about the choice of Cathie Black to be the Chancellor of  NYC schools (interesting compromise announced, but wouldn't a good leader have hired an expert anyway?).  We have also spoken about leadership gurus and experts.  So, from today's NYTImes, is a quick examination of the former topic by subjects of the latter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/25/nyregion/25manage.html

cheers, russell west

How Bad Apples Infect the Tree

I found this article, “How Bad Apples Infect the Tree”, on the www.nytimes.com that is very interested and I want to share it. The author, Professor Robert I. Sutton also is the author of the book “Good Boss, Bad Boss.”

In the article, the author describes his friend-Ruth’s experience of working in a hostile working environment and points out the unpleasant working environment destroies the effective working performance. Ruth was an executive in Silicon Valley, but constantly treated disrespectfully by her colleagues. However, the nastiness was not only aimed at Ruth. Group members treat each other disrespectfully too. They insult, back-stabbing and teas each other. It affects the whole group performance. According to the many studies, “people respond to demeaning and disrespectful bosses and co-workers by calling in sick more often, making fewer suggestions, working less hard and doing lower-quality work.” It reminds me of what we have learned from the class, Argyris says that workers adapts to frustration in withdraw, become passive, apathetic, resist top-down control through deception or sabotage. Obviously, Ruth quitted her job a year later. In the article, Ruth also shares her strategic of dealing the meanness of the company with the same theory of being out in the water in the river rafting, don’t fight with the rapid, but depends on life vest and float with feet out to protect from knocking into the rock . So “When the personal attacks, dirty looks and finger-pointing commenced, she stretched out her feet in front of her under the table, and told herself, ‘I just got thrown out of the boat by these jerks, but I know how to survive’.” It is a very interested emotion control technique by separated her from being “prevent the poison from touching my soul” as she says.  In conclusion, the author suggests the bosses and their organization should “find that it’s more important to eliminate the negative than to accentuate the positive.”

Since it is a very interested article and the writing style of the author, I think I have found my next book to read, “Good Boss, Bad Boss.”

You can view this article at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/jobs/28pre.html?_r=1&ref=business

Yu Mei Wu

"female leaders are still stereotyped"

November 27, 2010

"Female Leaders Are Still Stereotyped" 

"Two opposing ideals hinder leadership development programs for women, according to researchers Athena Vongalis-Macrow and Andrea Gallant"

By Athena Vongalis-Macrow and Andrea Gallant

 I really like this article, maybe because I came upon the ideas it discusses so many times.  The two authors of this study and article review why leadership programs for women are often flawed, but why there is, nonetheless, a continuing need for them in today's world. 

Most of us are familiar with the "glass ceiling", a term which refers to the barriers preventing women from climbing to the top management and executive levels of their companies and organizations.  Many researchers and academics have different speculations as to what contributes to that "glass ceiling", ranging from cultural, political and social inequalities with legal basis, all the way to physical differences between men and woman; some going so far as to argue differences in the brain size and intelligence.  

Programs have been created to help women achieve their highest leadership and management potential  and therefore minimize the gap that exists between top men and women leaders and executives.  According to Macrow and Gallant, many of those programs unfortunately work to the disadvantage of women, because they set unrealistic and excessive goals.  The example mentions a dean of business school, woman in her mid-forties who just had twins, looked incredibly put together, walking in high stilettos while giving an inspirational presentation to aspiring women-leaders. The authors of this study, as well as myself, find that this representation might strike most women as unachievable. In addition, it begs the question of whether so much more is expected of women than men.  Not only are they scrutinized to perform equally, or perhaps even at a higher level than a man would be, but they are expected to have a great family life and impeccable looks while maintaining it all.  If that is in fact what it takes to be a good leader or achieve a top position, many women would not even try to take the leap. 

A second problem the authors of this study discovered is that often these programs focus on women's problems and weaknesses at their workplace, which further reinforces a stigma of women being incapable of handling the tasks and pressures of a job, which men easily can.  Leadership programs for women should focus on inspiring and giving examples of how to perform better, so instead of pinpointing and exaggerating each individual’s flaws, it encourages women to accentuate their best qualities and strengthen their verbal, communication and interpersonal skills. I concur; a part of me would also not mind going to one of the mentioned programs myself and learning what it has to offer.

(http://www.businessweek.com/managing/content/oct2010/ca20101012_599532.htm)

Gabriela J.

Thanksgiving Leadership

 I know I'm a bit late in posting this, but due to the weekend festivities of eating leftovers, I decided to continue on and comment on this interesting blog article posted by Marci Segal on Wordpress.

In her blog, Segal asks the reader to compare their leadership skills with a Thanksgiving dinner table setting. Her main question was: "Do you focus more on the turkey or the table on which it is served?" In her assessment of comparing a Thanksgiving dinner table with a person's leadership skills, she asks the reader whether they tend to focus more on the overall outcome or the community involved in developing the final product? The turkey would represent the final product, while the overall dinner table presentation would represent the community of people that worked together to make the dinner table as delectable as possible.

I think this is an interesting way in which to compare one's leadership skills, because in reality, a Thanksgiving dinner requires more than one person to assemble. The family CEO (usually the maternal head of the household) overheads the entire planning process with the rest of the family who are given certain duties to accomplish. Some of the delegated duties assigned to the family members include: setting the table with utensils, napkins, and nice chinaware; purchasing groceries; cooking the turkey, as well as the other accompanying dishes; purchasing and serving the drinks; etc.

With those individuals focused on the "turkey" in an organizational setting, I believe they tend to be the type of people who take on the responsibility of organizing the entire Thanksgiving dinner without delegating tasks to others. Either because they get satisfaction knowing they accomplished the entire dinner on their own or because they dislike assigning tasks they feel they could accomplish at a quicker rate or at a better quality. Those leaders stress throughout the process of organizing the dinner, they do not get to relax and enjoy the final dinner. Their desire is to get the compliments of others knowing they did the dinner on their own.

Regardless, I feel its a greater accomplishment to have the setting up of the Thanksgiving dinner table be a family affair. You build a stronger family bond, while arguing and fighting over where the mashed potatoes will be placed on the table. Setting up the dinner table, as well as depending on a community to develop the final product, allows people to build networking/socializing skills. It creates a communal bond through the process of working together despite the arguments and disagreements. At the end of the day, everyone is working together toward a common goal. 


Janet Echeverry



http://marcisegal.wordpress.com/2010/11/24/thanksgiving-leadership-turkey-or-table/

learning to be a leader with a hand-held device

Its no secret that I’m addicted to my blackberry; well maybe to some of you but for those people who know me well know that my blackberry is attached to my hand. Which is why I’m not surprised that I found a Blackberry Application that relates to my studies in this class. The application is the Deloitte Leadership Academy. It’s a free application on blackberries that act as a tutorial to teach people how to be leaders. Its an interactive tool that test your leadership skills. Some of the different courses are managing risk , turning around a business unit, take time to think strategy, finding the potential in people, promote from within, the power of story telling, Manage your time properly, Developing through application and study, Defining your culture, Building teams with common good, and the list goes on. The content in each of these tutorials is stored in your blackberry and your always allowed to go back and reference them. At first I was a bit hesitant about a blackberry application that taught me how to be an effective leader but I begin to see it as an innovated way to hone in on some of the skills you want to brush up on as a leader. This tool may even be a good presentation idea. Not only did this application solidify my love for my blackberry it also allowed me to continue to learn more about leadership in a different yet cool medium. Do you think a blackberry application can be an effective teacher?

Shawnta Washington

Posted 11/22/10             

Partners, anyone?

So, we are thinking about leadership and management.  Most often, our examples come from bureaucratic structures--business and organizations that have well-defined relationships between the structures that carry on the work at hand.

Few of us work with partners.  As argued in a recent column in the Economist, although many start-ups are successful partnerships, few organizations endure as partnerships.  After all, once Hewlett-Packard became more than Hewlett and Packard...

Nonetheless, the ideas that underlie those partnerships that endure and succeed seem ideas worth exploring for other working relationships.  In a recent book discussed in the column, Michael Eisner notes that successful partnerships require two things:  (1) trust, and (2) a balanced set of similarities and differences.

Sounds like marriage.

Best of all, however, the model partnership discussed in the article is the Rolling Stones--as noted, "for all their ups and downs, Keith Richards and Mick Jagger have been in business together for half a century."

Sex, drugs, rock and roll--and business advice.  Maybe I should read Richard's book, Life, after all!

Russell West Jr.

http://www.economist.com/research/articlesBySubject/displaystory.cfm?subjectid=14391731&story_id=17461585

The Book Fair

I really enjoyed the book fair that we had at our last class. There are a few books that I’m interested in reading. I didn’t get a chance to talk about the book that I reviewed, “What They Don’t Teach You at Harvard Business School”. Professor Casey asked me if I felt the title was accurate, but since we are not at Harvard would I say that they are not teaching what the book advocates at Baruch. Of course some of what the author advises is in our textbooks or other readings but I think that the majority of his advice is not taught in school. That is not to say that it can’t be, just that it is not.  I think our school curriculum is focused on teaching us theory and although the professors try to relate that to the practical side the emphasis is on theory. There is such a big difference between an academic’s perception of things and how business leaders see matters. Academics put an emphasis on theory and business leaders have a more practical viewpoint, and they can teach us from their personal experience.  I’m in my first term of grad school so I may feel differently by the time I graduate.    

The author, the late Mark McCormack, was the founder and CEO of International Management Group (now IMG). He gave birth to the sports marketing and management industry in the 1960’s.  He started his company with less than $500.  McCormack was a street-smart leader and manager. As a leader he was the visionary for the company and as the CEO he was a hands on manager. I originally read this book and the one that preceded it “What They Don’t Teach You at Harvard Business School” several years ago when I was in investment banking and I was so impressed with McCormack. The original book focused more on personal management, such as time management and overcoming fear of failure, as well as managing and negotiating. I think it is more relevant for people starting out in their careers than the second book.  

The book is filled with believable anecdotes that make the advice easy to understand and relate to. We learned about the Peter Principle in class but McCormack makes it relevant. He advises us not to ‘peter principle’ ourselves out of our area of expertise in order to take on more of a managerial role.        

McCormack writes about communicating more effectively by “listening aggressively”.  Most people are either talking or thinking about what they are going to say, and thus they are missing out on what is actually transpiring. “Pay attention to the adjectives and adverbs people choose, their intonation in responding to certain topics. If you listen to how people are saying something, you’ll understand why they’re saying it.”

He spent a lot of time negotiating throughout his career. He advises his reader to prioritize what is important to battle over and don’t get hung up on the small things.  Don’t lose a deal because the two parties couldn’t agree on something insignificant.  A lot of his advice can be transferred into all areas of our lives.        

Catherine Crawford       

The Rise of the Sheconomy

Last night in class we were discussing the role of women in the workplace. We talked about how many women are highly educated but still don’t retain equal positions of that of men. There was an article in the November 22^nd issue of Time magazine that discussed women’s current position in the workplace. It says, “In October 2009, the U.S. workforce became nearly half female: women held 49.9% of all nonfarm labor jobs and 51.5% of high-paying management and professional positions, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics…For every two guys that get a higher degree, three women do. This is almost the exact opposite of the graduation ratio that existed when the baby boomers entered college. And as the U.S. continues its migration from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge-based one, women are posed to snag more jobs… While it’s true that most women still earn less than men, are far less likely to be in the highest-salaried executive positions and suffer a prohibitive motherhood penalty, about a third of women outearn their husbands. Women are at 117% of men’s pay in New York City”

Bolman and Deal discuss some of the reasons why it has been harder for women to gain higher-level positions. However they state, “Attitudes are changing, support mechanisms have increased, and cultural views have shifted.” As we can see from these statistics women holding higher positions and earning larger salaries are on the rise, and New York City seems to be very open to this.  

Farah 

Something a little different...

So, as we think of politics, let's look back at human resources and think a bit of what makes people happy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/science/16tier.html

In today's Times, John Tierney reviews research that says focused attention increases happiness.  Researcher's particularly note that sex makes people most happy (does this mean sex requires attention?), but that at other times, continued focus on the task at hand increases happiness while distraction and inattention decrease happiness.  Further, the relation appears to be causal--that is, evidence shows that attention increases happiness and not that unhappiness leads to inattention.

From a human resources perspective, does this research indicate that one task of leaders/managers is to design work environments that support increased attention to task as a means to improve employee happiness?  If "beatings will continue until morale improves," then if those beatings make us pay attention, perhaps such methods actually offer some work--although I might suggest other means, such as well-designed tasks, increased engagement and ownership, and blantant  appropriate directions to focus on the work.

One other thought, do we in the public service ignore the need to design good work because we feel our colleagues (and us) get enough out of the "goodness" of working for the public?

Russell West Jr.

Petty Tyrant

There was a great This American Life Sunday about an over-the-top example of a petty tyrant, Steve Raucci.  He was in charge of the school maintenance department in Schenectady, NY.  


Raucci used all the worst elements of the political frame to keep his job in the face of some horribly abusive behavior: he fired enemies, sexually harassed male and female employees, threatened violence, and even slashed tires.  At around 18:43 you'll hear some of the strategies Raucci used to gain and maintain power--they are very similar to what we discussed in class.  He made the right school district contacts, gained expertise that made him indispensable, and kept his employees in line... for better or worse.


Fascinating stuff... here. 


Sean

Zero Sum Games and Management

Last night I mentioned "zero sum games" (if I win 1, you lose 1, so +1 + -1 = 0).  A basic tenet of negotiation theory is to get away from zero sum situations and try to build win-win situations (one of you mentioned those last night), even though that is not alway possible.  Here is one discussion of  zero sum / win-win in terms of empowerment:

Empowerment is not a Zero Sum Game
The opening paragraph says:

 

Empowerment is not a zero sum game where management or employees, win or lose. When implemented correctly employee empowerment is a collaboration

, where both parties benefit. This is something the most efficient and effective organizations understand. This is something perennially rated ‘best companies' understand.

See the rest of the article at:

http://www.articlesbase.com/human-resources-articles/empowerment-is-not-a-zero-sum-game-3297626.html

We will continue the discussion of negotiation etc. in two week's time.

John

Mag Exec to Replace Joel Klein as DOE Chancellor

Joel Klein, Chancellor of the NYC Dept. of Education recently announced that he will be stepping down and Mayor Bloomberg has selected Cathie Black, a magazine executive as his replacement.

Cathie Black is the Chairwoman of Hearst Magazine and has zero experience working in the public sector or on issues of education. Yet, Bloomberg thought she was a good choice, stating:

"Cathie Black is a superstar manager who has succeeded in spectacular in the private sector," Bloomberg said. "She is brilliant, she is innovative, she is driven -- and there is virtually nobody who knows more about the needs of the 21st century workforce for which we need to prepare our kids."

It seems to make sense Bloomberg would make such a move and give a statement like this given his history. As a businessman, he entered the world of politics as Mayor of New York City, and seems to be doing a relatively good job of managing this City. Often you hear that non-profits should have business plans, and why shouldn't a city or school? As a woman who has an idea of what it takes to succeed, maybe she can infiltrate this into the NYC public school system.

Personally, I think its good to by a dynamic leader surrounded by a diverse support system. It seems like the public sector can get dry and bogged down with bureaucracy. In the business sector, you must constantly be adapting and innovative to stay ahead of the curve. Maybe she can bring these ideas and use the support of her staff to fill her in on what she may be lacking in experience from the public education sector to bring some positive change to the system.

A couple of articles I read about her, seemed to mock her by commenting on how she changed her name from "Cathy" to "Cathie" to be different. Ehh, I think she deserves a chance. She did write a book on how to succeed at work and life... maybe one of us is reading it now for next week's assignment! For those of you who read her book, how do you think she would do in this position?

(Her book: "Basic Black: The Essential Guide for Getting Ahead at Work (and in Life)")

--Monica

News Organizations and their Politics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/keith-olbermann-suspended_n_779586.html

This article came out last Friday and the issue has since been resolved but I think it's a good read for our foray into the political framework. There are several issues surrounding the suspension of Keith Olbermann from MSNBC but I thought it would be interesting to look at the underlying power conflict between the anchor and his boss, Phil Griffin. Griffin has actually made this known. According to the article, Griffin said, "Keith doesn't run the show." The article doesn't really provide a background story to the conflict but it does imply a broader power struggle between the MSNBC anchors and Mr. Griffin.

The article states that, "In recent months, Griffin has taken several bold steps to declare his authority over the network and its sometimes unruly talent: he sent a stern memo warning hosts to not publicly fight with each other, he suspended David Shuster indefinitely for filming a CNN pilot, suspended Donny Deutsch, banned Markos Moulitsas from the network, and reprimanded Ed Schultz for threatening to "torch" the network." According to Bolman and Deal, "Authority is essential to anyone in a formal position because social control depends on it. Officeholders can exert control only so long as partisans respect or fear them enough that their authority remains intact." (p.202) There is clearly an effort on Griffin's part to exert his authority (coercive power) through various forms of punishment, though the article doesn't really explain how and why this is the case. We could make various assumptions based on what we've learned so far but I think the political framework is most relevant in this particular situation, where you have a divide between the person on the top who is trying to exert authority and the people below who are trying to assert their own influence within the organization.

It also brings up another point. Bolman and Deal write that "effective leaders/managers must create an agenda for change" that can balance "the long-term interests of key parties, and the strategy for achieving the vision while recognizing competing internal and external forces." (p. 214)  Fellow MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow stated on her program that the difference between MSNBC and other news organizations is their strict adherence to journalistic standards and she used Olbermann's suspension as an example of that. Griffin's adherence to these standards conflicts with the interests of his subordinates, the anchors who essentially make the programming at MSNBC possible and profitable. One could also argue that MSNBC's suspension of Olbermann impinged on his freedom of speech, creating a divide between his duty as a journalist and as a citizen. It's noteworthy then to point out the difficulty Griffin must have in trying to achieve the goal of being an objective news organization while allowing the anchors to be exactly who they were hired to be because in all honesty, if you've watched Countdown with Keith Olbermann, it isn't too hard to figure out where he stands on the issues.


Conchita Campos

To Be or Not To Be Undercover?

In today's society, the thought of having a Fortune 500 CEO go undercover to obtain a deeper understanding of what it is like to work as a lower-level employee seems like a modern-day fairytale . Whether it be due to pride, arrogance, or ignorance; most CEOs would not even consider the idea to dress in their company's uniform to perform manual labor and provide services that the majority of their employees do on a daily basis. That is what they pay lower-level supervisory staff to do; monitor and direct the rest of the employees to follow company procedures and employment duties.

At the beginning of the year, CBS aired a new type of reality show which asked top-executives of Fortune 500 companies to step out of their pin-strip suits and get down-and-dirty with their employees in the field. The video clip I posted below shows Joe DePinto, 7-Eleven President and CEO, working the night-shift at one of his chain stores. (Mr. DePinto is in charge of 36,000 stores worldwide and handles a $17 Billion dollar company.) While in the process of learning the routine of the night-shift, he learns the extent to which his management skills affect each individual employee of his company. While working in the 7-Eleven chain store, he discovers first-hand, the lack of morale existing in his employees due to the lack of opportunities to move-up within the company. But while learning the corporation's structural malfunctions, he also realizes his employees' good-natured disposition to work hard for the company. 

The local store clerk, Waqas, is a college student from Pakistan who sees no future by working at 7-Eleven. While having a conversation with him, he bluntly told DePinto he wouldn't recommend any other person to work at 7-Eleven due to the lack of employment growth opportunities. This is an honest opinion that DePinto would have never learned from any statistical human relations chart. I believe that in order for a company to succeed in all aspects of development, it must obtain a high level of communication within all levels of the structural corporate ladder. In other words, the lower-leveled staff must have the ability to express their concerns, complaints, and desires to the higher-leveled staff without the fear of retaliation and guarantee that their voices are being heard. A collaborative effort must be placed throughout all levels of the company to allow the developmental success to grow, both for the company as well as for its employees. The lesson DePinto learned from his experience by working undercover within his stores allowed him to gain the insight needed for him to know the issues facing his company and its stores, so he could personally have them addressed. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mv0RVFY-Ms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjxFo9BRrT0

Janet Echeverry

Antipathy for Public Employees

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/17/AR2010101703866.html

Here is a survey that should be very disconcerting for many of us in the MPA program. The basic idea of public organizations is that they exist to serve the public needs.  In my rather idealistic point on view, I view governmental organizations are serving a “public good.”  The role of many government organizations is to protect the overall “good” from being destroyed by a narrowly focused interest.  I’m thinking specifically of government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency.  Protecting the environment benefits a far larger number of people than allowing it’s destruction for business short-lived business interests.

Frequently, these agencies come under attack from people and organizations for good reasons, but more frequently get attacked by well funded corporations with narrow interests or the public just does not understand the long term implications of the short term thinking.  I’m thinking specifically the EPA’s ability to regulate carbon emissions. The long term effects of global warming should far outweigh the short-term desire to make a profit through destroying the environment, but this is not always the case.  Going back to my previous post, how does a government organization work with an ill-informed public?  Does the public ignorance feed the negative feelings towards government workers, is it poor communication from the agencies, or is merely a manifestation of the anger percolating among Americans due to a stagnant economy?  

The survey in the article finds that “half [of respondents] say the men and women who keep the government running do not work as hard as employees at private companies.” To make such a bold claim to me is absurd.  I would venture it is safe to say very few of those respondents have actually worked for the government or know anybody who does.  To make such a bold claim without knowing the facts is beyond ridiculous to me.  People who are working on a master’s degree in public administration need to understand why people could believe this and work to end this type of thinking.

 

-Brandon Smith

How does political campaigning raise so much money?

It hardly comes as a surprise to me that the last few years have been less than strong for fundraising. In fact, the recession brought about the first decrease in total giving in over 20 years. This is hardly news to anyone who works in healthcare, education, or social services, so I was surprised to learn that political campaigning actually earns far more than actual pre-recession philanthropy numbers.. Despite the huge fundraising challenges of this current economic climate, candidates for Congress and state houses have somehow topped past fundraising, and the numbers dwarf those of previous midterm election cycles.

As we discussed in class, election years without a president on the ballot suffer from lower voter turnout and general disinterest from much of the population. So why, then, has 2010 been such a banner year for campaign fundraising?  

There are many factors that determine the effectiveness of every fundraising effort. It is my understanding that political fundraising has a unique responsibility to its beneficiaries since its returns have such long-term implications. This past election has been the most expensive midterm in history with fundraising efforts already beginning for the 2012 campaign, and it seems that this growth trend will only continue.  Also, as an employee in the philanthropy industry, I also cannot help but wonder if these contributions will actually benefit the long-term growth of our country through the support of the very same health care, education, and social services that need successful fundraising far more than politicians do. 

Shikha Dalal

Voting systems. Theory X/Y, Maine results

After class yesterday, I realized that of course my rave about voting systems did have direct relevance to our course.

If you think about compulsory voting as being a Theory X approach, you then sweeten that with the more "Theory Y" approach of user-friendly elections and preferential votes that count, then people willingly support the imposed rule.

This is not unlike Russell's presentation on the rules at his school. He didn't say get rid of the rules; he said just present them to staff in way that is more respectful of their needs and emphasizes support functions instead of control.

And speaking of outcomes of first-past-the-post v preferential systems. In Maine a Tea Party Republican won the governor’s race with 38.3% of the vote, because a Independent with 36.5% and the Democrat with 19.1% split the progressive vote. In Australia's preferential voting system, which would immediately re-distribute the Democrat vote, the progressive Independent would win by a 15-20 point margin; in Maine it means the Republican will be governor. Which system better reflects "the will of the people"?

John

The two guys to follow

As I haven't posted the PowerPoint from the last two weeks, here are the links to information about the two leaders who are worth following.

Julian Assange
WikiLeaks Founder on the Run, Trailed by Notoriety
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24assange.html

RAJIV SHAH
Curing the Ills of America’s Top Foreign Aid Agency
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/23shah.html

John

Zizek's thoughts about ethical implications of charitable giving

http://www.youtube.com/video_response_view_all?v=hpAMbpQ8J7g

I saw this interesting video that animates Slavoj Zizek's ideas on charitable giving. This is what he says on this topic:

Today’s capitalism is a cultural one. Enterprises like Starbucks and Toms Shoes promote ethical buying. We consume but our consumption is not only the purchase of an item, but also an ethical feeling such as contribution into fair trade, providing supplies for children in poverty, or environmental protection. But this price includes the price of its opposite:

Citing from Oscar Wilde, Zizek says it’s easier to have sympathy with the suffering than it is with thought. People find themselves surrounded by poverty, ugliness and starvation, and it is impossible to move without these feelings. They think they need to bring remedies for these. But remedy is not the cure; it is a part of the disease because in order to help the poor, we try to keep them alive, but this just prolongs the disease.

Thus he points that the real aim is to reconstruct the society without poverty. Altruistic values are considered to play an important role here. He says, “Worst slave owners are those who treat their slaves well”. That is why charity degrades and demoralizes. It is immoral to use the private property to alleviate the evils that result from it. So this is a different form of capitalism: not discarding the evil, but making it work for the good. It is a human and tolerant capitalism that brings welfare.

Zizek admits that this kind of thinking is misanthropic but he thinks it is much better than a “cheap, charitable optimism”. He remarks that charity is not bad, but we should also be aware that there is an element of hypocrisy there. It is good to help poor children, but acts which bring short-term solutions to their poverty also put them back into the situation which produced them.


I think it is true that charitable giving does not end a problem that affects people, or animals, or environment. But what can be a "complete" solution? Not doing anything does not sound like an answer. I am curious what you think about his ideas.

Isil

Organizational preferences: large or small, public or non-profit?

In our class on October 16th, we briefly touched on the tendency of individuals disillusioned with large organizations to break out and start their own NGO. Professor Casey questioned the relative merit of working in a large organization versus joining the ranks of non-profit entrepreneurs. As a young person working in a large organization, the sheer immensity of which can obscure even a dedicated civil servant's sense of purpose and impact, this is a question I frequently wrestle with. How can I maximize the impact of my work? Is the advantage that large organizations gain through political and financial power lost through the unwieldy nature of bureaucracy? Or does association with a known organization confer legitimacy that is unavailable to small-scale, grassroots enterprises?

A provocative and inspiring article by Nicholas Kristof published in the NYT on he "do-it-yourself foreign aid revolution" examines the trials and tribulations of young, enthusiastic but often naive non-profit founders:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/magazine/24volunteerism-t.html?ref=magazine

In the article, Kristof features successes and failed enterprises, all initiated and operated by young women. Some started with passion and learned the skills along the way; others were highly educated seeking to apply their skills. For me this article reinforced the view that large and small organizations each have something to contribute to the public good - although their capacities and tactics may differ significantly. However, the Kristof article also demonstrates the importance of adaptability and political saavy for anyone interested in providing public services, within or outside government. Framing, it seems, is relevant to organizations big and small.

The 34th Miner

The 34th Miner

On October 13th, 33 miners were rescued from a mine in Northern Chile after this collapsed trapping them for 69 days underground. The massive rescue operation was broadcasted live all over the world. For 24 hours, millions of people witnessed how one by one of the miners made it to the surface. The endeavor, considered a miracle, impressed people around the world; never before had miners survived that deep underground for that long, state-of-the-art technology was employed, there was massive media coverage, and to the surprise of many, the Chilean President, Mr. Sebastian Piñera, welcomed each miner, all 33, as they emerged to the surface. This type of commitment by an elected official is hard to come across.

As the Time Magazine article narrates, Mr. Piñera is an example of leadership. He took to office with the support of the business owners and conservative politicians early this year. Translating it to United States political terms, here he would be the equivalent of a Republican. He is the first right-wing President to be elected after the dark Dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, which ended in 1989. Lacking the support from large segments of the country, Mr. Piñera was considered to be cold-hearted conservative and exposed to the scrutiny and criticism of the public. When the devastating earthquake stroke Chile in late February of this year, the Chilean President was taken by surprise. Yet he took action to mobilize the country towards the assistance of the affected Southern area, but his leadership was not so well demonstrated until the accident in the mine took place. In this instance, the President acted quickly. He organized the rescue team and even convinced UPS to ship equipment from the United States for free.

Mr. Piñera, with entrepreneurial mindset some may argue, took this opportunity to portrait Chile as a developed nation able to operate a rescue mission that required expertise and dedication with patriotism. His actions preparing the rescue reflect good managing and good leadership; however, it was his presence during the 24 hours of the rescue mission that really proved his commitment to the country. One may never really know the intentions of Mr. Piñera, he could very well have used this opportunity as a political tactic to gain supporters, or he may have done it as a sincere gesture of solidarity and dedication to his nation. Regardless of the motive, one may conclude that he demonstrated his situational leadership to the full extent of the word.