Wait, I think that's the 'Lord of the Flies' plot...

It would be very easy to sit here and rant about bad leaders whom I’ve served under so far in my life. Who doesn’t love to complain? I’ll bet there is a decent chunk of bloggers who use the faceless persona of the internet as a punching bag when they want to bitch about whatever is bugging them. I digress, however.

So far most of my leaders have been bad. How do I know they were bad leaders?  Some have been selfish individuals who have used their leadership position as a way to advance themselves and only themselves. Some leaders have been completely detached from the group and simply enjoy the title of ‘leader.’ I have had leaders who micro manage, leaders who knew nothing about the task at hand, and leaders who couldn’t take the stress of responsibility and cracked.

Why are they bad leaders? My first answer is that most of them lacked experience. When we are younger, you have instructors: parents, teachers, coaches. Their instructions are to be followed only because they have to be. They are not your leaders. There is no group goal to be achieved, just a risk of detached personal loss. Quite simply, you do what you or told or it is game over. If you don’t follow what they say you are punished, failed and booted, respectively.

Leaders are your peers, and when younger they are your team captains, your assignment group mates, and your friends. You follow them because you put them in charge. But when you are young you have no experience, so oftentimes your peers don’t either. As you age, your leaders (bosses, elected leaders, etc.) are still your peers, but they have been around the block once or twice and have gained experience with both leading and following, which makes them a better leader.

The next big issue is simply a lack of maturity. I have often seen leaders who jumped to the top of a hierarchy because they thought it was going to be fun without considering the consequences. When their responsibilities caught up with them they were blindsided and rendered useless. They didn’t take the time to appreciate what leadership meant, which also happened to allow them to (for lack of a better term) embezzle from the group whatever resources were available.

I know that as you move up in age brackets the quantity of bad leaders doesn’t asymptote to zero, but the reasons won’t be related to lack of experience, perhaps it will be the overabundance thereof. Perhaps that by learning exactly what leadership is we also learn how to use it selfishly, but that is an argument for another day.

I will say that the quality of leadership has been increasing as I have gotten older, which leads me to believe my reasons for poor leadership among youth are valid.  It is, in my eyes, clear evidence that leaders are made, not born. 

More Chefs, Better Soup

I’m amused by the timing of my professor’s lecture on group leadership, as it coincided perfectly with my realization That I don’t have a “boss” at work. Sure, Rich signs my paycheck, Lou has his name stamped across the project and Jack owns the company. There is no chain of command, however. Vaughn (the other engineer),  Lou and I all know what needs to happen and it we just get it done.

It’s odd to think that I give instructions to my boss as often as I do, but when I need him to do something, the company needs him to do it, so he does it without question. It works that way with all of us, really. We only give orders for the good of the company and so far it has worked quite well.

Our situation is unique. The three of us have very specialized knowledge of the various facets of the units we produce, and we trust one another to know what they are doing. These skills and our small numbers make us both the floor grunt worker and the higher-up systems head, so everyone simultaneously needs to be in charge and an underling.

We conflict sometimes about direction and prioritization, but when a task gets prioritized behind another it’s not personal,  it means something more important is going to get done. The surprises go further in fact, as (in my mind) our largest problem has arisen because Lou has staked his claim as the final word in one aspect of our program.

We work with partners over seas who have this peculiar habit of selective email reception. They only seem to respond to communiques that they want to see. It is therefore no shock when I tell you that progress on our end has been slow due to the one-way flow of information.

The problem really arises when Lou fights the idea of playing hardball about communicating with our partners. While Vaughn and I believe that our time is being wasted (as it is the information he and I need to proceed with our tasks) and we should jump on them so that we can get things done, Lou doesn't want to pressure them too much, for fear that we will spook them.

I am firmly of the belief that squeezing our partners for info we need is the smart way to go. After all, you would talk differently with your brother than your priest. Our partner is analogous to our brother, right? The way to make that decision is to have Lou come down to our level and really talk it out with Vaughn and I. Lately he has been increasingly blunt with our partners, and has been great for helping us find proper direction with the whole program, but the time has come to deal in a definitive hand-me-the-damn-screwdriver kind of way.

In this particular instance, the soup needs more cooks.

Kill the Messenger, Perhaps?

The facechat twittergram is alight with images of cheesy sayings slapped over stock photos loosely related to the content thereof. Every cubicle farm and company hallway I’ve been in is lined with motivational posters so below witty and entertaining that it almost hurts to read them.  The great comments of leaders past and present have been reduced to media marketing fodder.

It is for these reasons that I believe that these saying hold some serious weight. Everything original nowadays has been warped, distilled and screen printed onto something that people are meant to buy. Skateboarding, off-roading and parkour are now so mainstreamed it’s almost as unique to forego them as activities. Most of what you see started out as pure, original ideas that some marketing group recognized the appeal of and decided to make money with it.

So why do we want to be surrounded by the thoughts of great leaders?

In a nutshell, we want to learn. While everyone might not want to be a leader, everyone wants to know how to lead well. By analyzing the famous thoughts of great leaders we can get a glimpse into what they were thinking, especially when they are talking about leadership itself.

What was the style of the leader who was in charge last time this happened? Were they nurturing? Powerful? Did they believe in shut-up-and-do-it? Did they mince words? Did they juice every sentence for content? Did they share only small thoughts at a time, or did they give their audience a lot to think about? Were they humorous? Serious? Confident?  

I tend to follow a two-step attitude when it comes to accomplishing goals: Step 1- Achieve goal, Step 2- Repeat Process. This is why General Patton’s thoughts on leadership hold very strongly with me- “Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.” Because I identify with him his leadership tools may be something I too can employ effectively.

I fear, however, that these great ideas are being diluted as we become accustomed to reading them constantly. What was once wisdom is now cliché. How many times have you rolled your eyes when instructed to ‘lead by example?’ How many poster boards with a big “ATTITUDE” slogan have you coldly walked past lately? Both of these concepts are neigh invaluable to leading others, but we are so sick of hearing them in a bubblegum media kind of way.  I almost want to take another less effective route just for the sake of breathing room.

I guess all I’m saying is hate the messenger all you want, but appreciate the message.

Informal Orgs: Formally Fantastic

Informal organizations within a hierarchy are as important as the formal organization where the hierarchy exists; it’s as simple as that.

First, let’s discuss the difference between the two.  A formal organization is the job you work and the classes you take. Someone is in charge because they have to be. They tell you what to do because that’s how things get done. You have tasks at work, you have tasks in class.  There may be several levels of people being in charge of other people, but it all breaks down into you do what your boss says because you have to.

The informal organization is your group of friends you study with. It’s the coworkers you go to lunch with. It’s who you ask when you have a problem; it’s who comes to you when they are stuck. They are the phone numbers you have not because you have to, but because you want to.

Often the informal organization is the reason why you tolerate the formal organization as long as you do. Imagine if you went to work and had no friends to talk to, it was just work-related banter with your superiors, colleagues and charges. Or if you went to school and had no friends, how long do you think you could last? We as humans need a sense of belonging, which is why informal organizations exist. But beyond that, you have a sense of empathy and attachment to those in your informal group, which is why you help them with more verve than someone you work with because “that’s the way it has to be.”

Informal organizations are also not bound by section like formal organizations, so by interacting with a group of individuals that may not be in the same area of work as you, additional perspectives can be gained. Well-rounded individuals are usually more desirable for many reasons (think back to extra-curriculars on your college application), and this rounding comes primarily from informal organizations.

T-T-T-Teach Me How to Struggle

As usual, my opinion on the topic of discussion is a hybrid of the two popular opinions. Today, we discuss the effects of media; does what we see in the media (aside from making decisions based on facts) affect what we do?

This is classic question: do first-person shooter games breed psychopathic mass murdering children? My response: kind of, sort of, maybe.

I believe that the emotions that drive the actions we are discussing- shootings, violence, etc. - are naturally built into those who commit these actions. I don’t think playing a first person shooter makes you want to kill people. That being said, you usually go the familiar route with getting things done, so if you are going to go postal and you are a gamer the closer to a videogame the better.

School shootings aren't the only big issue with life imitating art. Self-destruction among youth is something I see quite often. Us "youngins" are confused, anxiety ridden, angry and hyped up like never before. We are looking for ways to beat on ourselves (it’s the familiarity thing again, society beats on us, so that’s what we are used to and are comfortable with), and what we see in movies, TV and videogames is what we go for.

You see it all the time in college- kids partying out, rampant drug use, caffeine addiction, destructive relationships, and perpetual existential crisis. It’s not all simply to ruin our lives. Most forego sleep for caffeine and use drugs to increase productivity; they party to cope with the stress. How many movies to come out lately have crazy party scenes? How many movies have youth suffering through crazy hardships to be successful in the end? How many movies show a youth lost, trying to get their shit straight?

The media shows us a popular way to channel emotions we naturally have. As far as I can tell, the challenge of being young is a race against the insanity of youth catching up with us. Does the media speed up or slow down the clock? That remains to be seen.

Make It, Don't Fake It

To me, the only thing more taxing than working with others while in a bad mood is pretending that you are actually in a good mood. You can understand my surprise when my professor mentioned that a viable option for leading people while in a bad mood is to fake being happy.

I can certainly understand that the mood of a leader affects the mood of his or her group. That being said, aside from being in a perpetually bad mood (crushing depression or severe anger issues, for example), does it matter to the group what the mood of the leader is? Does the mood of the group as a whole matter?

I’ll believe you if you told me that I’m envisioning this scenario in ideal circumstances. I have the advantage in my life that I am surrounded by people who care as much as I do about getting done what needs to get done. This drive supersedes our moods or our relationships with each other; in the end the only thing that matters is that we get our tasks done and get them done to the best of our ability.

I therefore see no merit in my life to deny if I’m in a bad mood. I would rather pour that energy into every other aspect of leadership- communication, guidance and efficiency to name a few.

This may even be more effective in the long run than pretending to be happy. If someone who I am leading always sees me in a good mood, he or she might be confused and frustrated because I appear “superhuman,” always being able to maintain a good mood. Or he or she might think that I simply do not communicate with people when I am not in a good mood (because I am never seen angry) and therefore avoiding people when in a bad mood is acceptable. What might happen instead is my example will show them that they can contain their emotions and keep working through, which is ultimately what needs to happen to succeed.

It is entirely plausible that interactions between leadership and followers may transition from transformational to transactional while a leader is in a bad mood, but I assert that less- effective leadership (transactional is widely considered less effective than transformational) is a fair price to pay for energy that would be wasted faking a good mood.

Ignorance is Complicated

The term “ignorance is bliss” has always held an interesting line of thought in my mind, because few statements have so many powerful arguments both for and against their merit as truths. Recently my debate with myself over my ‘ignorance is bliss’ beliefs was renewed when I read an interesting passage in Campbell, Martin and Fabos’ Media and Culture that discussed the media’s responsibility to cover news related to war.

It’s no secret Americans do not like hearing about war. The loss of American public support for the Vietnam War is historically credited to the media’s coverage of the horrors therein. Rather than risk the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq falling prey to poor public attitude, the most grotesque images from the warfront have been made illegal to publish (i.e. American caskets under G.W. Bush, detainee abuse under Obama).

Some would argue that war is a necessary evil and that by leaving those who cannot stomach the horror in the dark, what needs to be done can get done. Others will argue that because it is the public’s choice (beyond executive order and other short-term sources of power) to be at war, the public should be presented with every ounce of available information to be empowered to make an informed decision.

I think us as the public should be presented with all available information, but good news doesn't sell, so to level the playing field legislation is usually required.

I propose a solution that I believe will be highly effective, albeit highly unorthodox: Perfectly opinion-segregated media. Currently, media sources are always walking the line between growing their audience by covering events that will attract attention, and covering all news impartially without concern for ratings. If we can de-couple money and news (I will leave it to you to decide how this should be done) near perfect news coverage can be achieved by having one media entity assigned to each of the major opinions of current topics.

In the example of war, one media source will be entirely devoted to the downfalls of war- economic hardships, the horror for the local population and those fighting the war, corruption and lies. Another media source will be entirely devoted to the pros of the current conflict- the importance of what is being sought after by way of the conflict, what improvements have come from the fighting (stability, safety, and resources), etc.

The size of the media source (and more specifically the rate of volume of news) will naturally closely relate to the frequency with which positive events or negative events occur, and the content of the news will easily represent the significance of the reported events. This pool of information will partially reduce a very complicated decision to a simple mental calculation- comparing volume & density of one side to the other to make a personal decision.