Wk 5

It seems the success of many leaders, despite the leadership style, is based on solely three qualities: self-awareness/humility, emotional intelligence, and the ability to sell a bold vision to those being lead.  There are somewhat contradictory methods of leadership within the readings, but these common themes emerge in more than one as being a definite characteristic of those leaders who have achieved greatness, earned respect, and maintained integrity all simultaneously.

 

Self-awareness and humility play a major role because they are positive constants throughout the ups and downs of company performance. Notably, a downside of many narcissistic leaders is their increasing narcissism and inability to yield to the advice of other after initial success has “proven their methodology right.”  Humility does not fade with increasing success.  The ability to be self-aware makes criticism easier to receive, which contributes to the overall goal and not just the ego-driven agenda of many leaders who lack the quality.  Humility is something I feel has always been in me, but the ability to be self-aware is more than simply that.  I find myself constantly measuring my actions, thoughts, and words against my target standards, and I hope one day this struggle will manifest itself in the form of being able to learn from my subordinates just as much as I dictate to them.

 

Emotional intelligence seemed like a nice author-fabricated qualitative description of the “stuff” of great leaders until this very phrase showed up in the other readings besides Goleman. It makes all the sense in the world that one’s personal success has little to do with their merit as opposed to the workings of their limbic system.  After all, the ones that give you a promotion or review your successes and failures are people, too. I have every intention of using this to my full advantage; not to say that I’m not smart but there are those who will most likely go long ways [before getting fired] based solely on their performance. I’m not one of those people.

 

Finally, there is the one characteristic of the narcissistic leader, the ability to sell a vision.  Narcissistic leaders are said to create the future and ask why not as opposed to predicting it and reacting to it.  This is important because the readings do point out how most great advances within a company or corporation was because of a bold vision taken by a narcissistic leader.  I don’t really like this term ‘narcissistic’ so I don’t really aspire to be like this. I do, however, aspire to be one willing to take reasonable risks to be on the vanguard of technology progression simply to garner the best possible opinion of those whom I serve or create a product. Yes, it is a bit erotic.

Despite the emphasis on the successes of the narcissistic leader it seemed that the class, in our discussion, chose some very non-narcissist like qualities in choosing which kind of leader we prefer to work for.  Humility (in combination with will/motivation), personal reflection, being quiet yet respected,  taking responsibility, giving credit, displaying good succession planning, and incorporating shared decision making were the main qualities we looked for in a leader.  A lot of these are direct qualities of a level 5 leader. This corresponds nicely with the LEAD survey in which most people were either majority sellers or majority participants.  Whereas there is an equally important time for each of the four quadrants, the participating and selling are most common because in usual business, the need for barking orders and the need for being idle (to quote the extremes) are few compared to the times of simple selling to induce change or simple participation to maintain change.   

 

The ability to exhibit the aforementioned personality traits are integral to the leadership style profile, else one would indeed be too bossy or lenient.  These qualities of the ideal leader resonate well with me because they are all qualities I hope to have to reach my desired levels of leadership.  I am narcissistic enough that I do want to lead mainly because of my ideas, but there’s a certain manner in which I aim to realize my goals; these qualities are the tools I’ll need.  Pointing out how the readings mentioned, qualities of the leader trickle down throughout the entire organization; nobody wants to be known as a hothead if the boss is a cool, fair leader.

 

In relation to the LEAD survey, these qualities make possible the leadership that will most likely be needed throughout the daily business of any company.  When one is selling and participating, as describes the lead categories of most of the class, there is a significant amount of these qualities necessary.  It is not possible to openly share and extract from others ideas if there is no humility, respect, and due credit from each participant.  Even in selling, the seller has to acknowledge the ability for others to make positive improvements to the original idea, so he or she has to be careful not to talk down to those others.  This is indicative of how I intend to run whatever operation I am put in charge of because I understand that nothing great has ever been accomplished without the enthusiastic help of others.  This brings to mind the Truman quote at the beginning of the Collins reading: “You can accomplish anything in life, provided you do not mind who gets the credit.” (which is ironic because his speechwriter was probably responsible for this quote)

 

 

 

HW for 2/25

One of the most prominent points from the readings was that of emotional intelligence and its contribution to leaders. Goleman lists several factors that make up this intelligence such as self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, motivation, social skills, etc. Leaders who possess such qualities are deemed to have emotional intelligence and this intelligence not only distinguishes outstanding leaders but can also be linked to strong company performance. Leaders of this type are not prisoners of their feelings; they are driven to achieve beyond expectations, and their friendliness and social skills always have a purpose. Going hand in hand with leaders who have emotional intelligence is that of the quiet leader discussed by Badaracco. He says that quiet leadership is the quickest way to make the world a better place as quiet leaders possess modesty and restraint along with being practical and effective leaders. Both types of leadership discount fiery temperaments and public displays of heroism. They should never use their power in a negative way, rather learn to be the bigger person and pick their battles. Both seem to argue that leadership has a very sound emotional and modest aspect as leaders are intrinsically motivated to help themselves and their organizations. In thinking about working for a company someday, would I want my boss to be understanding or a regimented tyrant? Almost everyone would argue that leaders who lead quietly, unobtrusively, and with their hearts are the leaders that really change our world. If we think back to a leader like MLK-he possessed almost every quality of Coleman's characteristics of emotional intelligence and although his voice was always heard, he lead modestly and effectively. In putting myself in a position of leadership, I would imagine it to be difficult to restrain myself from yelling at employees when I was frustrated, but in order for to really make a difference, I would have to master that urge as abusing my power would not make the company a better place.

A general, but rather undeniably important point penetrating throughout two of the readings was personality type and how it affects leaders. Maccoby teaches us that narcissists make for great leaders. They have compelling vision for companies and an overwhelming ability to attract followers-they are so obsessed with their own success that the company they are working for is guaranteed to succeed. These leaders do not see a future, rather they create their own future. They are incredibly charismatic and powerful speakers. However, obviously narcissistic leaders have their downfalls, chief among them they are ever so dependent on constant admiration from their followers. Upon getting this admiration, they feel less constraints, become more spontaneous, are bad at listening etc. Directly opposite to this type of personality leader would be Collins' description of a Level 5 leader- one that is anything but the 'hero' and 'larger than life'. Narcissists want to be and believe they are larger than life whereas Level 5 leaders possess humility and will- the key ingredients to their type of leadership. Like the quiet leader, a Level 5 leader is modest and shy but at the same time quite fearless. Which to choose? The reality is that both these types of personalities in leaders, in direct opposition to each other, do succeed. In applying this knowledge of the importance of personality types in leaders to my future plans, I would imagine it useful to understand the leadership strategies of companies I plan to work for. Many companies have their own leadership programs that they make you go through in order to train you for the specific type of leadership and companionship that they are looking for. Undoubtedly, there are several companies our there that have CEOs that are narcissistic and CEOs that are humble yet both are part of the Fortune 500 list. In knowing my personality, I think I would choose to work for a company that has a leader that is so intrinsically into their own success that the company's success will sore. For me, I know it would be encouraging to be around such strong charisma and motivation, yet as an underdog I probably would not be listened to at all. The emotional aspect or lack there of between my employer and I would be something I would have to be willing to sacrifice. In my opinion, as leadership styles seem to be a personal thing and a matter of personality type, so is who/where you choose to be a following of.

In the first class presentation, it was taught that it is overwhelmingly important to be a good listener. You should encourage others to talk about themselves to know you are listening, you should repeat back what they have told you and always make good eye contact. While being a good listener, it is important to show that you can relate to what they are saying and care to continue the conversation. When you do not exhibit good listening skills, it makes you appear to be more focused in what you have to say than the other person. Being a good listener is one of the most important qualities of being a good leader as well. However, it definitely is difficult to always be a good listener as it takes a high level engagement in all conversations. I feel as though I have always tried to be a good listener not only in academic environments, but in social ones as well. To me, being a good and helpful listener is one of the most important characteristics of being a good friend. I always try to genuinely be interested in what a friend is talking to me about so I can offer feedback and advice- especially when it pertains to an problem. It would be highly unappealing to me to be friends with someone who was not interested in what I had to say and did not exhibit qualities of a good listener as there is no point to interact with people who only 'hear themselves talk'. Also, when interviewing for jobs, I have learned that a potential employer always wants to hear and believe that you are a good listener.

In the second presentation, an important point was to make people feel important in a sincere way and that upon doing so, life is actually made easier. You should always 'do unto others as you want done to you' which is known as the Golden Rule. You should let people know you care about them in a way that does not represent falsity or flattery. It is completely obvious when you treat people in a fake way and it usually happens a lot today. There are obviously many situations that require people to be 'fake' such as being around someone you openly do not like but you would rather be cordial than be rude. Girls have the tendency and ability to be fake to people more so than guys do. If you cannot be genuinely nice to people, you should just not interact with them at all. I have grown up with my parents continually saying to treat people how you want to be treated- it is an obvious cliche but the importance it holds is invaluable. People do not realize that treating people right and making them feel important will ensure that they treat you back that way. I do not ever try to be fake to someone as it just seems like a waste of my time and if they did that back to me, it would not only be very clear, but it would really annoy me. I think most people would agree that it has always been ingrained in our heads that you should never treat or talk to someone in a way in which you, yourself would not like to be addressed. I feel like if I continually follow this and make sure I am sincere to others, I will not only feel better about myself, but I will make it so others do not feel a need to treat me in a 'fake' way.

Week 5: Maslow Reading & Class Discusion

This week’s reading (and subsequent class discussion) centered on Psychologist Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in conjunction with research pertaining to the responses by participants in the 2007 Place and Happiness Survey. In the survey, the top community attributes (which are outlined in the text) appear to be: physical and economic security, basic needs (school and healthcare), leadership, openness, and aesthetics –the top two being aesthetics and basic needs –which is somewhat contradictory to Maslow’s research. According to the author, Richard Florida, in our society there exists a “a beauty premium”, which says that people are more attracted and pay more attention to that which is more aesthetically pleasing. The author elaborates on this concept by saying that this “beauty premium” extends beyond objects, and can even extend to people’s general preference for attractive people over unattractive people. In fact, the article sites specific evidence in which people not only prefer the more attractive person, but that there is even a greater bias against unattractive people. I would have to agree to an extent that this hypothesis of the beauty premium is indeed evident in real-life situations, everyday. With regard to interviewing and hiring there is no doubt (at least for some people) a bias for the more attractive option, all things equal. In my own personal experiences I see the preference for the more beautiful and the more attractive often. For example just the other day I sat on an Honor Council trial for a very attractive girl and, although her defense was very weak in my opinion, she was deemed innocent. In this specific case although the adjudicated student’s attractiveness did not single-handedly deliver her innocence, it certainly didn’t hurt it. This point applies to my own life because in the future I will pay more attention to my subconscious preference for the more attractive, and I will work to not allow me to pick the more attractive option solely on looks alone –I will judge many other factors in addition to looks or aesthetics.

This weeks readings also touched on the idea and need for openness within a community. According to the reading openness, defined by a communal sense of tolerance and acceptance of diversity, is the third-ranked factor in the Place and Happiness Survey. The author stated that with every amount of tolerance extended to these groups, the overall happiness of a community increases. This is a very important point because, in my opinion, it is very important to be tolerant of those that are different or diverse from oneself. America and Americans pride themselves on diversity, and we often refer to America as “the melting pot”. As a college student I am exposed to a great deal of diversity, and I believe it enriches by education and maturation here at Vanderbilt University. I came from a very homogeneous community and background. The community (suburb) I grew up in outside of Chicago is predominantly white, Christian, educated, and middle to upper-middle class, or the knowledge worker class (a discussion from past weeks in this class). Furthermore, although I greatly enjoyed my childhood, I relish a much more diverse community such as that of large city. Lastly, I would have to agree with Florida’s comment that there is considerable room for growth within our communities for openness and diversity, but clearly American cities are so well populated because of this need or want for diverse communities.

This week our class had the pleasure of sitting in on Professor Jordan’s lecture. Professor Jordan brought up many important and reflective points pertaining to the readings, but he also sparked a great deal of insightful class discussion. Professor Jordan brought up the point that while we live in an increasingly globalized and technological word, we also live in an ever increasingly isolated world. Professor Jordan cited examples of people who spend a great deal of time on their computers or people who live alone. The class discussed this point for some time and came to the conclusion that this finding is somewhat inaccurate. In my opinion, and the majority of my classmates agree, technology links many of us together –it does not isolate us. While it is true that maybe it does not link us together in person (but in many cases it does, i.e. dating websites) it certainly is a medium for communication (for example email, blogs, facebook, linkden, etc). Sure many people, including myself, spend countless hours at home in front of their laptop, I would not say that the computer isolates me –that is to say that we would be using this time socializing if the technology were not available –I would disagree with that statement. Furthermore, I believe technology is not a catalyst of isolation but rather a catalyst of communication and collaboration.

Another topic deliberated heavily in class on Monday that was mentioned in the text is people’s basic needs within a community. It is not surprising that the higher people ranked a community’s basic needs, the higher their satisfaction is with that community. Obviously, one basic need for any community is access to public and secondary schools. Professor Jordan brought up that in the text the author mentions that the people who place the highest value on proximity to schools are, interestingly enough, those with less formal education. The class discussed why this might be, and many people believed it was because people of lesser education (and probably of lesser means as a result) do not have as much mobility as those who have attained a high degree in schooling. I would agree with this theory, and I would further stress that many people of greater needs are able to afford (or their parents are able to afford) private school or to travel further to a different (perhaps public, but not necessarily) school. For example, many wealthy people are able to send their children to schools in which it is necessary to fly or drive long distances to attend the institution. At Vanderbilt many students are from all over the country, and in some cases, the world. Lastly, the class also deliberated the idea that families of lesser means relish having schools in close proximity because of aspirations or dreams to one day enroll in that institution –sort of a physical representation of the American dream to finish high school and go on to college or some other secondary school. In conclusion, I found the class discussion on community needs to be very insightful, and I was able to relate many of the ideas to my own life and experiences.

HW for 2/11

One of the most important points from the reading, in my opinion, was that of the relevance of aesthetics in our lives. Humans do not merely require food, water and air anymore, but now there is this emphasis on the aesthetically pleasing. The higher people rate the beauty of their community means apparently the higher they will rate their overall level of community satisfaction. As we expect basic services to just be provided for us, we tend to place a higher value on the need for pretty parks, streets and community organizations. People are just naturally drawn to and will pay for things that are more pleasing to the eye--hence the 'beauty premium'. In relating this to my life, it seems completely applicable as I am constantly going from city to city and comparing them. When I am at school, I miss specific aesthetic aspects about home that Nashville could not even begin to compare to--such as country clubs and highschool campuses. Downtown Baltimore is huge with a gorgeous marina front and thousands of restaurants-something that is important to me and something that Nashville is unable to compare to. It only seems natural that when picking a place to live as we graduate, we want to be somewhere where our surroundings are not only beautiful and comfortable, but that that beauty makes us want to be there. Throughout the hustle and bustle of NYC, there lies the tranquility of Central Park- something extremely necessary and important to the residents of the upper west side. If that were not there, it would only be logical to assume that people would rate their happiness there very differently.

A second point was that of meeting people and the culture of an environment. A person's ability to make friends is one of the most important factors in determining how happy we are in our communities. Going hang in hand with the importance of human interaction is that of sociability and having a fun nightlife. People want to be able to have schedules that are flexible and allow themselves freedom to be able to do fun things and go out if they choose to. When people are confined to their workplace and are on restrictive schedules, overall happiness declines. Time is one of our scarcest resources, yet a resource that is so important to us for personal satisfaction. As I am a very social person, this point is particularly relevant to me and I intend on applying it in the future when I again, pick a place to live. It is obvious that not only me, but that most people would be unhappy in an environment if they had no friends to relate to there or they were stuck in a place where it was difficult to make friends. Happiness is always better when it is shared and the thought of being alone n a big city, even with beautiful surroundings, seems completely undesirable for me. Along with the need for friends, the need to go out and have a good time every once in a while is equally important. I would not pick a place to live where I knew the nightlife was mediocre at best, rather aspire to live somewhere that has a thriving nightlife with a wide array of opportunities- somewhere such as NYC where obviously nightlife is not limited solely to bars. In comparing both important points, I know I would rather live somewhere that would more greatly cater to my social needs rather than my aesthetic ones as social interactions are imperative to one's happiness.

One of the most important points in class this week was discussing what motivates people. It is important to know what motivates people as it allows you to better understand why they are where they are, what makes them happy, and what makes them upset. Knowing these things allows for a stronger partnership not only in the workforce, but in the personal realm as well. As you better understand why people work for you, for example, as an employer, you can work harder in making sure their needs are met. There are all different types of motivating factors such as money, self-interest, love, sexual desires etc. In relating this to myself, both in the workplace and within personal relationships, I have found it helpful in talking about what I hope to gain out of my endeavors. In starting my internship this summer, I sat down with my boss and told her why I was there and what I had hoped to gain out of that summer experience. That discussion better enabled her when it came down to whether or not she would assign me a certain task. In looking to personal relationships and evaluating friendships, it can be very helpful to think and decide whether you are in that relationship for the right reasons, what motivated you to begin with and if its worth it anymore. I have been friends with a few people over the years that I am not currently still friends with as I decided that what motivated me to originally be friends with them is not there anymore-whether it be because of social reasons, personality reasons, etc.

A second point that I thought was very relevant was the principle that negative attention is better than no attention at all. This means that our innate drive for attention is so large that we would rather have negative attention upon us instead of 'staying under the radar'. If people feel that they are being ignored or are not standing out in some way, they will attempt to stand out positively and what that fails, they ultimately crave this negative attention. It seems logical as people have this desire to be recognized-no one wants to go through life without people realizing that they are there, however it is strange that we resort to negative attention to get people to see us. I can't say that I have ever consciously tried to cast a negative light on myself to stand out, but I probably have been unconsciously guilty of doing so. As far as the Vanderbilt social scene goes, many girls come to my mind as attention cravers and when they do not get it, they undoubtedly resort to some drunken antic that will gain them recognition-for at least a week or so until the next person outdoes them. In thinking about any prominent social scene, it becomes clearer and clearer how deeply people want to be recognized and what lengths they will go to achieve that.

HW 3

The readings for this week primarily dealt with the topics of consumerism and competitive acquisition, mostly in regards to the middle class (i.e. the middle class “squeeze”). In the article titled The Overspent American Schor discusses Americans’ obsession with spending, or as he calls it upscale spending –the new consumerism. He outlines how advertising and the media have played a pivotal role in “stretching our reference groups vertically (3); the need to compare oneself with people of a higher social class –sometimes of 4 or 5 times greater wealth or income. The author discusses the pitfalls of having these sorts of reference points and the implications on Americans’ savings and standard of living. Aside from the role of the media, product innovation and its accelerating pace also adds to this “arms race” of American upscale spending. Schor also illustrates just how dissatisfied Americans are, and why so many middle-class Americans feel materially dissatisfied. I would have to agree with Schor in this regard, as I believe that everyone I know who is a professional (my father, mother, sister, Vandy alums, etc) aspire to attain more money and monetary reward for their efforts in the workplace. While I do agree with many of the author’s arguments in The Overspent America, I feel that Schor has oversimplified this obsession with consumerism to define the entire middle-class. In the Nation of Rebels, authors Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter offer a somewhat different perspective –that not all middle-class people are status-seekers and social climbers. These authors paint a picture that I believe is much more analogous to my life experience, that which the authors call “defensive consumption”. This idea paints a very different view, and is much more in line Heibroner –the idea that people may not be particularly interested in outdoing their neighbors, but who want to maintain a more “respectable” standard of living. The authors make the analogy of “keeping up with the Jones” –a concept I feel myself and my family can very much relate to. Finally, Nelson’s pages fron Love and Money: The Question of Individual Motivation, suggests that many middle-class Americans are motivated by basic greed. Although he later picks apart his argument by saying that people inevitably need money (and that’s not always selfish), I do not completely agree that most Americans are motivated by greed, but rather that many Americans see money and salary as a measure of their performance, and it always feels good to be successful in what one does.