In Paul Kramer’s TED talk, he explains the dangers of how the “insider vs. outsider” mindset we have adopted about immigrants influences our discussions of immigration. He starts by talking about handing out flyers as a graduate student protesting legislation that would threaten the rights of immigrants. While their flyers had good intentions behind it, Kramer explains that they were a problem. He goes on to explain that the arguments that they were using, such as, “they work hard, they pay taxes, they’re law abiding” are arguments that we hear every day, and it makes sense that these would be the kinds of claims that defenders of immigration would use. However, he claims that in the long-term, these arguments can be counterproductive, as it is “always an uphill battle to defend yourself on your opponent’s terrain”. By playing into the narrative that immigrants are “outsiders”, Kramer claims that they are playing into the anti-immigrant game.

He explains first the historical contexts that have led up to this moment, and how these ideas have become so divisive. He explains that throughout history, the three harmful questions that have been the focus of immigration debates are whether immigrants are “useful tools”, whether or not immigrants are “others”, and whether or not they are “parasites”. The phrasing and ideas behind these questions spark debate that is harmful in the end and does not serve to achieve anything productive. However, at the end, he proposes three questions we need to start asking instead. If we focus on workers’ rights, responsibility and equality, we can look at society as a whole, and not create an in-group/out-group bias that exist in the earlier questions.

I thought this talk was very important and prevalent today, and explains how we can change the conversation surrounding immigration into something that is more productive on both sides of the spectrum.

Here is the link to anyone who’s interested: https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_a_kramer_our_immigration_conversation_is_broken_here_s_how_to_have_a_better_one/details

I watched a TED talk by Drew Dudley called “How to be a Great Leader”, and I thought it was so powerful. At first, I assumed it would be another talk on influence and followership and how to create that persona of a leader. However, he opens by talking about his “lollipop moment”. He told the story of a moment when a girl came up to him before he left college and told him that he said something that completely changed her perspective, and she wanted to thank him for being an incredibly important person in his life. However, he doesn’t remember that moment at all. It’s crazy to me that we can have that kind of an impact on someone’s life, and you may not even remember it. In a world where what we say matters so much, I think that’s important to keep in mind.

He goes on to say that all of us probably have that “Lollipop moment”, and that moment where someone said or did something that you believe fundamentally changed you or made your life better. But we rarely tell the person that impacted us so greatly. It goes to show just how powerful words and actions can be, no matter how small. I talked about this in another blog post, but it reminds me of Jepson and how we strive to show that leadership can manifest itself in so many different ways.

Dudley concludes his talk by asking the audience to start to value the profound impact we can have on each other, and to redefine leadership into these “lollipop moments” because, “we’ve made leadership about changing the world, and there is no world. There’s only six billion understandings of it. And if you change one person’s understanding of it… you’ve changed the whole thing”. I think that especially during these stressful times, it’s important to remember that we are not alone, and even the smallest act of kindness can greatly impact someone.

Here’s the link to the video! https://www.ted.com/talks/drew_dudley_everyday_leadership/transcript?referrer=playlist-how_leaders_inspire

I watched a TED talk called “Why Good Leaders Make You Feel Safe”. Simon Sinek, a management theorist, talked about how throughout time, humans have relied on creating trust and safety with those around us. It is in those circumstances where leaders emerge and we choose to trust them. He opened his talk with an example about Captain William Swenson, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor in 2009 for his heroic actions in the military. Sinek wondered where these kinds of people come from, and initially thought that these “better people” are attracted to the military and the idea of helping others. However, Sinek concluded that, “if you get the environment right, every single one of us has the capacity to do these remarkable things, and more importantly, others have that capacity too”. I thought the idea of the environment being right was really interesting. I think that when people think about leadership in the general sense, they immediately think of presidents or CEOs – people in power and who have authority. However, it is important to note the difference between authorities and leaders, and understand that even the smallest gestures are examples of good leadership.

Sinek also uses an example of a company that was hit extremely hard by the 2008 recession, and they lost about 30 percent of their sales overnight. When the board was pushing layoffs, the CEO refused to do that to people. Instead, they worked to create a furlough program where every employee was required to take a four-week unpaid vacation whenever they wanted. By implementing this program, they saved 20 million dollars, but they also solidified the trust between employees and employers. One thing I thought was really interesting was how the CEO chose to announce this plan. He said that it was better that we all should suffer a little than anyone should have to suffer a lot.

One of the most interesting things that came out of that furlough program was that morale was boosted, and people began helping each other. Those who could afford an unpaid vacation, for example, would take a five-week vacation so someone who was struggling more only had to take three weeks off. At the end of the day, position does not matter in a leader, but your actions can really affect others. At the end of his talk, Sinek said that when he asked people “why would you do that?” everyone said the same thing, “because they would have done it for me”. This sense of trust and camaraderie runs so much deeper than we may notice, and has a lot of power.

Here’s the link for anyone who’s interested! https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_why_good_leaders_make_you_feel_safe/details?language=en

COVID-19 Warning:

What stood out to me most in this reading was a quote in the first section, “the problem is not that we have so little power. The problem is that we don’t use the power that we have” (49). I think that especially today, when it feels like we aren’t in control of what’s happening around us, it is important to remember the power that we have.

This also reminded me of Jepson, and what the school is trying to accomplish. I think one of the biggest things I’ve taken away from my time in Jepson so far is that it doesn’t matter how big or small you think your impact is – at the end of the day you whatever you can do to make meaningful change is important. Especially in the current COVID-19 pandemic, this is even more important to keep in mind. We may feel powerless while in quarantine, and don’t think that our individual actions matter as much in the grand scheme of things. But ultimately, the smallest things we are actively doing (staying home, social distancing, etc.) is saving lives. I also think that there are even smaller things we could do that can take back our power. Reaching out to friends and family members, going to the grocery store at less popular hours to avoid crowds, or even going for a walk (6 feet apart) with a friend can make us feel more human in a time where we’ve lost almost all of our outside physical connections to the outside world.

Out of the ads I watched, I thought that the “Gray Dot” ad from the Bush campaign was the most powerful. The ad showed a split screen with two people. However, a gray dot covered both people’s faces so you could not identify them. The narrator goes on to talk about each candidate’s views, and they are completely opposites (for example, the narrator claimed that one candidate had never been called to serve in the army, and the other one had). At the end of the ad, the gray dot was removed and it turns out that both candidates were actually the same person (Bill Clinton).

I specifically liked this ad because it focused on leadership capabilities in general, rather than just attacking the opponent. In a lot of the other ads, the two candidates attacked specific flaws in the opponent’s policy. However, one of Bush’s main arguments was that we can’t have a leader who is on both sides of every argument, and in the White House, you have to make the tough calls and stick to it. I think that showcasing Bill Clinton’s apparent inability to stick with one side of the argument was used to demonstrate his potential flaws as president, especially during tough times.

When I thought about an ad that stood out to me, I immediately thought of the “Like a Girl” campaign by Always that was released in 2014. In the commercial, they start by asking teenagers what it means to “run like a girl”. All of them responded by running in the stereotypical way girls are perceived to run (flailing, not trying, worrying about their hair). They also ask how to throw like a girl, and fight like a girl – all of which elicited the same responses. However, when they asked younger girls (about age 10) the same questions, they had a very different reaction. One girl said that running like a girl meant running “as fast as you can”. The ad finishes with the statement that a girl’s confidence drops significantly during puberty, and that we should make “like a girl” mean better things.

I think this ad sticks out because it challenges a preconceived notion that we may not always notice, but that dramatically affects the way that women perceive themselves and perform on a day-to-day basis. It brings up something in our society that has become ingrained in our communities and should be changed. Especially after doing the readings for this week, the campaign definitely runs off of optimism, and pushes the idea that this problem can be solved if we change our mindset. It also tells a story to the audience, and shows us first-hand the devastating consequences that these stereotypes can have on young girls’ confidence levels. I also think that this ad is unique and stands out because of the visual aspects. The participants are asked on the spot to do these things, so it feels authentic and not planned out beforehand. I think that genuine feel to the ad gives it more power as well – if people think it’s just acting, they may be less inclined to listen to the message.

In Harvey’s article, I liked how he said, “it is not enough for a leader to do or be one thing: honest, or charismatic, or “genuine”… Leadership is the executive function of the group, and as such it is comprised of distinct tasks”. Going off of our previous discussions, it is important to remember that leadership is not charisma. Rather, it is a collection of individuals working towards a common goal. One thing we talked about in my 102 class last semester is how leadership is the ever-changing relationship between leaders and followers.

I also think that Harvey’s reading brought up an interesting point about the Leadership Cycle. He comments that, “the work of leadership is never done”. He presented the seven questions, but then emphasizes that there is no definitive end to these questions, but it evolves over time and is shaped based on the members of the group and their needs. There is no one concrete answer for these types of things, especially when we live in such a fast paced environment where issues and discussions are constantly shifting and changing. Being able to adapt to different environments and communicate to achieve a common goal is so important in the study and execution of effective leadership. It emphasizes that, in such a rapidly changing world, we can’t have effective leadership without communication between all the different groups that make it work cohesively.

I think that these readings truly show us the dangers of whitewashing history. I know that for me personally, the Zimm reading was especially difficult to get through. When I first learned about Christopher Columbus in elementary school, we learned about how he was a hero. He discovered new uncharted territory, and in our minds became one of the greatest explorers of all time. However, as time went on, more and more pieces are added onto our original story until that narrative from elementary school is almost completely gone. As reality sets in and our preconceived notions are challenged, we no longer have the same mindset as we did originally. Christopher Columbus is not the hero we were told he was, and there shouldn’t be a day celebrating him after all the atrocities that happened under his leadership. But why were we told he was a hero in the first place?

The example of Christopher Columbus is not the only story that gets treated this way. It makes me wonder why we whitewash events for kids so much that we tell them something that is (largely) factually incorrect? I understand that some kids are too young for some of the more traumatic events in history, and I agree that some topics should be introduced more gradually as time goes on and people get more mature. However, I strongly disagree with the idea that at such a young age, we should be told versions of the story that are not even close to the reality of it. Words impact us so much more than we realize, and especially at such young and impressionable ages, I don’t think we should be given false information, especially for stories of that magnitude and beyond.

I first learned about the Stanford Prison Experiment in a criminal justice class during my senior year of high school. One of the main things I took away from that experiment is the idea of groupthink, and how we prefer to stick to the perceived status quo. In addition, the process of human conditioning is something I find very interesting, and this experiment is a prime example of that. Through the multiple examples of degradation and humiliation, the participants who were assigned the role of prisoners were reduced to their prison number. The most interesting part was that their number became not only their identity to the guards and researchers, but also to themselves. Their identity had been stripped in the experiment, but that degradation had bled into their internal identities. One of the participants said, “I began to feel that that identity, the person that I was that had decided to go to prison was distant from me – was remote until finally I wasn’t that, I was 416. I was really my number”. Despite knowing that this was just an experiment, the prisoners were pushed to a level of psychological distress that they assumed their role of prisoner and guard. They felt powerless to stand up to the guards, and some of the “nicer” guards felt powerless to stand up to other abusive guards or the researchers in general. This experiment of human condition showed us just how quickly we are able to assume roles of powerful/powerless when assigned by an outside influence. I think it’s scary to see concrete evidence of how susceptible we are able to conform to these types of power roles, and genuinely believe that we don’t have the power to stand up to authority.

In the Goethals and Allison reading, one sentence that stood out to me was, “Resolving mystery through meaning making is, of course, one facet of the more general human tendency to take small bits of information and engage in some kind of cognitive construction that feels as if it makes sense or meaning out of what is known or perceived” (4). This idea of using current information to try and piece together the larger meaning reminded me of our discussion in class yesterday. This may not be the best comparison, but I think it related to ad hoc responsiveness, and how we want “quick fixes” to larger problems. By using what is in front of us and making a larger conclusion from it, we may be missing larger crucial elements to that problem. I think it also relates to charisma, and how we have shifted to an individualistic society that values charisma in a leader. If we take that limited information and make a decision based on only that, we could be missing a lot of important information that makes that leader who they are, if that makes sense…

One thing that stuck out to me in these readings was a point made in the Von Reuden and Van Vugt article. In my 102 class, we talked a lot about over-confidence, and how people with narcissistic traits are more likely to assume leadership roles. Furthermore, we talked about the numerous issues of charisma within both leaders and followers.

I think that this article highlights an important issue in our society that we may not notice. In SSSs, the authors write that community members were easily able to distinguish competent leaders from those who were merely over-confident and narcissistic because they were able to interact with them on a day-to-day basis. This personal relationship between others allows them to better see how that leader would benefit them in the long run. However, we have evolved into a world where charisma is everything, and we are willing and able to overlook substance behind a potential leader in order to focus on their charm or ability to socialize. This ability we have leads to unrealistic expectations and frustrated followers if the leader cannot live up to their expectations and, as we described in our 102 class, fulfill the followers’ need for “continuing magic”. I believe that this idea is detrimental to our society, especially as we are in a world of social media where people can make themselves a brand that appeal to large groups. I think that this reading is very important to keep in mind when evaluating our society and the people who want to lead it.