The Ted talked titled “Leading with Laughter: The Power of Humor in Leadership” focuses on the direct relationship between leadership success and the ability to not take oneself too seriously. His talk begins with a story of how he believes he was able to keep a very fluid job position, and eventually get promoted in his industry. Working in a University administration, he knew that it would be necessary for him to go beyond just doing his job right, as any mistake could result in losing his position. Success at his job would require building connections in order to create benefits to himself beyond production. This simply makes coworkers more willing to accept mistakes and general humanness. To achieve this, the speaker went to a mall with many of his coworkers to spend the day. When at the mall, he claims to have accidentally used a womens bathroom before meeting back up with his coworkers. Rather than hiding what had happened, he chose to share the mistake with his coworkers, ready for them to laugh at him the remainder of the day. By building this connection with his coworkers, and simply making then laugh, he became seen as an asset simply for being well-liked.

The speaker continues to explain how  he observes an inverse relationship between how seriously leaders take themselves, and how seriously those they lead perceive them to be. Leaders often develop egos alongside certain positions, and fail to realize that feeling more important will not result in others seeing them as important. The opposite effect truly occurs, as it makes followers far more interested in criticizing even the slightest mistakes. Humor is an incredible tool for countering these effects. By making one’s followers laugh, one signals that they understand life just the same way as those they lead. Leaders don’t realize that those they lead often implicitly assume that leaders only care about the goals they set out to achieve, and don’t have an understanding of, or care for, their followers emotions. By making those one leads laugh, one also makes their followers less afraid of error, making them more creative, and generally more productive. Laughing puts everyone on the same page, and is an extremely useful tool for leaders.

Thinking of this concept, I cannot help but judge many of the political leaders of the current era, as well as many of the contradictory traits people seek out in leaders. Americans commonly like when their leaders “project strength”, yet strength often comes with the horrible side effect of an indestructible ego. Leaders often take themselves more seriously than necessary, and do not admit their true faults. If presidents were to explain their ideas through cost/benefit analysis, analyzing the pros and cons of their plans, and recognizing their human limitations, they’d receive far better responses to their messages. The ability to make the people laugh can also go an extremely long way for citizen outreach, yet many leaders criticize jokes made by politicians as a lack of seriousness. The speaker in this Ted talk suggests that this often criticized lack of seriousness could benefit the people. Leaders ought to try and make those they lead laugh more, as it seems as though it would only yield positive responses.

https://youtu.be/sW_PN3BDa0A 

The Surprising Truth in How to Be a Great Leader

In this Ted Talk, the speaker focuses on numerous leadership attributes that individuals should practice in order to be influential, and successful. She also focuses on numerous traits that leaders ought to try to suppress as to improve the opinions of their followers on their leadership. The main characteristic this speaker recommends for successful leadership is the ability to coach those one leads to achieve their goals. This is very different from what one’s perception of leading usually is.

The tactic of coaching-focused leadership works in contrast to the act of giving advice, or instructing in any way. When individuals offer advice when anyone comes to them explaining a problem, they are likely to deter the effective production of those they lead. The speaker explains the psychology behind the “yeah, but…” response that we are all too familiar with. Though it seems obvious that when people have problems, we can help them but offering what we think is the best solution to their problem, yet problem solving is more complicated than this. People are not great at getting across their true concerns when they attempt to express them. Individuals are often well aware of the solutions others offer them, and simply do not pursue them due to other emotional responses to them. Another common tactic that is far less useful than people think is “motivational micromanagement.” This is the art of making suggestions or asking questions that have a clear goal in mind of guiding individuals towards the questioners desired act. This generally does the opposite of its perceived goal. The key to successful leadership is truly leading individuals to their own success. Providing them with useful resources, telling them of examples of how others dealt with similar issues, and generally allowing people to fight their own battles will always lead to maximize production

In the context of my own leadership experiences, and just in daily life, this made a lot of sense to me. For starters, I certainly have negative responses to motivational micromanagement, as it generally leads me to even work against my own interests sometimes. It is incredibly useful for leaders to make an effort towards making those they lead feel like they are on the same theoretical team. Offering advice can provide a connotation that individuals are ignorant if they don’t follow the instructions you provide. By understanding the emotions, as well as the reasons causing people’s problems, and providing tools for them to deal with their problems themselves, leaders can be effective.

https://youtu.be/UUnRKf2CemA 

Great Leaders Do What Drug Addicts Do

For my first event post, I watched a Ted Talk titled “Great Leaders Do What Drug Addicts Do.” In this talk, the speaker explains how his past of battling addiction equipped him with special leadership attributes that directly led to his success. He explains how his story is not one of stopping addiction, and then becoming successful, but is instead one of how he became successful because he was an addict. Within a week, this speaker went from fearing not reaching the age of thirty, to deciding to go entirely clean, and pursue change. His first step in doing so was seeking help, and eventually being assigned a sponsor. The speaker explains how it is precisely what his sponsor told him to do to get over his addictions that he claims he did to become successful.

His sponsors’ instructions were simple; to be authentic, commit to your goals, and do uncomfortable work. To heal through addiction, the speaker had to be honest with himself and others about how things were, never lose sight of the task at hand, and be prepared to go through difficulties. As he was successful, the speaker kept these three principles with him when going into the business world, where he started one of the first online programs for connecting with doctors. By never lying about his true strengths and weaknesses, doing uncomfortable work such as telling clients of his mistakes, and keeping sight of his goals, this man was able to become a millionaire. 

This ted talk was truly interesting, and when listening I tried to think of other examples of where this method has been successful. Authenticity is certainly viewed as an asset, yet it is a shame it is not seen as more of a necessity. We associate politicians with being liars, and see this as negative, yet we do not seek out change. If more leaders were authentic, the world would benefit, but I am not certain authenticity always springs individuals into success. Either way, I hope to adopt many of these principles going forward, and found this Ted talk to be interesting and compelling.

This piece is hyper-relative to the times that we live in, though I have mixed feelings towards the suggestions it makes. It seems somewhat undeniable that the United States currently exists in a state of political paralysis. This piece largely talks about how leaders have worked to somewhat perpetuate this paralysis, but I think they have largely piggybacked off of our own human imperfections. It is impossible to think about political paralysis without thinking about he literal gridlock that often takes place within congress. This simply occurs because representatives self-interest in their own ideas has grown larger than their desire to create any policy whatsoever. This can largely be attributed to increased polarization, as well as our faulty democratic system, yet the effects have been widespread nonetheless. It will be extremely difficult for average citizens to realize their power if political parties cannot do so themselves. Throughout the last forty years, as opposing parties have been voted into office, they spend a great deal of time undoing the actions of their previous leaders, before ever contributing to progress. Without progress coming from leaders, people will have a tough time contributing themselves.

When it comes to what citizens are capable of, I do not know if I truly believe in the power of the people. Surely their are examples of single individuals sparking widespread change, though nothing seems more integral to this progression process than effective organization, something average citizens are not so great at. Average people looking to become leaders must present causes in such a way that people will think that it has an effect on them for them to truly care. Along with this, they must effectively target those who will truly contribute to any kind of movement. Given organizational difficulties, it seems pessimistically difficult for the powerless to become powerful. The institutionalization of the internet will hopefully begin to reverse this pattern, as it clearly already has, but until this happens more, I am not convinced in the ability for average citizens to create change. Our leaders and institutions are responsible for making this more possible in the future.

One of my favorite political advertisements is one from recent memory that truly struck me, an Obama ad from 2012 titled “read my plan.” I’m a big fan of this advertisement because it succeeds at doing what most political advertisements truly try to avoid doing. In the advertisement, it is Obama who is speaking the entire time, and specifically about his plans for the future. He does not offer blank promises or poetic words of hope, as he is more known for. Instead he truly focuses on the politics of the time in a way all Americans could grasp. He begins by stating that if he could sit down in American family’s living rooms and go through his plans with each one of them, he would. He then proceeds to succinctly explain his largest economic initiatives, all within about a minute. It is emphasized in this advertisement that Obama does not work towards partisanship, but instead works toward goals everyone could get behind.

Rather than attacking Romney, as he does in other ads, Obama focuses entirely on policy. He references how his policies pulled the country out of crisis, and that Romney’s propositions resemble those of the past that were problematic. He does not attack Romneys character at all whatsoever. This altogether makes him seem extremely competent, cool-headed, and politically aware. At the time, I am certain it is advertisements like these that largely contributed to Obama’s eventual second victory.

My favorite ad, or rather series of ads, would have to be those that have come over the years from Old Spice. Their ads do an excellent job of garnering the viewers attention, and convincing them to purchase their product. Old Spice’s most successful advertisement is one they title “The man your man could smell like”, and it displays a character viewers are likely to try to model themselves after. In a humorous way, the main character increases his level of affluency and ability over the span of thirty seconds, switching from being in the shower, to riding a white horse along a beach with a handful of diamonds. This commercial takes a satirical approach to the usual attempt to make viewers feel a sense of a need to improve themselves, yet it is still seemingly succesful.

Old Spice also centered many of their advertisements for years on Terry Crews, who is known for being loud, enthusiastic, and very strong. The advertisements mainly compose of him screaming, playing instruments, and doing other ridiculous acts to capture viewers attention. This pairs nicely with the already present celebrity appeal. By having Terry Crews seem somewhat absurd, the ads almost make viewers feel that they are similar to the celebrity, as they share the same sense of what is funny. These ads have certainly led me to buy Old Spice soap more than I otherwise would have, as when my usual favorite brands are not available, I recognize their products as well accepted, and mainstream. This shows the power of implicit messaging in advertising, even when ads seem to have a main goal of appearing somewhat irregular.

I found Harvey’s piece to be incredibly interesting, and important in a modern context. Questions such as “who are we” do not receive much direct attention from leaders, yet implicitly, it is one of the most pressing issues of our time. My immediate thought when considering this question is how much it impacts American’s thinking on immigration. Those who oppose free movement often refer to some national identity that must be preserved, yet if they truly considered who we are as a country, such as the fact that Latino’s make up 1/3rd of the American population, their opinions may change. The need for reflection is also incredibly relevant in modern contexts. It is incfedibly necessary to review our past and make sure that we have genuinely improved as a society. If issues of the past are not fixed, history is bound to repeat itself. This instills a bit of fear within me as we begin the ’20s with a pandemic, high levels of global nationalism, and economic downturn. yikes.

Reading Bezio’s piece next, it is clear that we can teach of our mistakes and where society needs improvement through stories. When discussing this piece on slack, I was blown away by the notion that all literature has a meaning to be derived. Bezio focuses much on fiction as well, which is especially intriguing. When looking at children’s stories, this shows how powerful storytelling really can be. We ought to make an effort towards exposing young children to implicitly powerful lessons. This may better prevent the continuation of implicit biases, and the denial of our true history.

This weekend’s set of readings emphasized to me how unaware I was of the world around me at a young age. Reading Zinn’s description of the history of the America’s has an incredibly different feel to than school textbooks. More so than anything else, he highlights that the America’s were not filled with barren forests when the Santa Maria arrived, but instead quite the opposite. He states that Native American populations were as large and densely populated as Europe itself, and that a significant culture had developed. They had laws, established communities, and peace throughout the land. It is an absolute shame that the Arawak tribes greatest weakness was their desire for peace. They were easily overtaken because rather than defending themselves upon Columbus’s arrival, they swam out to the ships to greet the explorers. They offered food and other goods, emphasizing their welcoming culture. They had not yet discovered Iron, likely because they had need for such strong metals within their communal culture. These were not the ‘savages’ that textbooks often make Native Americans out to be, they were an advanced tribe with stronger egalitarian principles and environmental consciousness than anywhere else in the world.

Growing up, I was unaware of all of this information. Reading this article sparked a conversation with my sister about our assumptions about Christopher Columbus. We were always told that Columbus was an absolute hero, who discovered empty lands that had not existed before. The most shocking realization within this is that we were well aware of the Native Americans at this age, yet we still withheld the assumption that the lands were up for grabs. Our elementary school teachers, without knowing it, convinced their classes that Native Americans had no right to land. There was no mentioning of the fact that Columbus deceived and enslaved these people. He was not a hero in any sense. Columbus did not even achieve his goal of reaching Asia, making him far less than a great explorer. It is time for schools to teach the truth about the colonization of the America’s

Hayder’s piece on voting rights acts as an interesting foil to the Zinn piece. It also uproots classic assumptions about the “greatness” of the United States. In this case, the civil rights movement is often thought of as the start of African American equality within the US, yet this could not be further from the truth. Children learn that in the 1950’s, the U.S. government gloriously granted African Americans voting rights in an effort to achieve equality. In reality, nobody’s lives are improved in America unless they fight for it. African Americans, in this case, went through absurd hardship to gain the ballot. This ought to be recognized at a young age as to prevent kids from devaluing injustice.

The assigned readings for tomorrow’s class truly led me to question the degree of my own free will and free thinking. Goethals and Allison did this by explaining how our internal associations can often dominate our perceptions of others. This often causes us to have certain opinions/views on others mainly because of the position they hold, or group they belong to. One example that they briefly mention that I remember discussing in other classes is that of the election of Warren G. Harding, who embodies stereotypical leadership qualities. His election is believed to have been guaranteed by his physical features, in a time when safe and sane policy could not be undervalued. His victory was, very much so, not what was best for the country, yet his assuming of office strangely made people comfortable. This exemplifies why we need to be better at identifying and studying more typical biases that humans have. If we can see where the human mind fails to be rational, we can supplement our decisions with a dose of reason.

The Stanford prison experiment further illustrates the idea of Goethals and Allison. This famous study assigned people to be either prisoners or guards, and recorded the degree to which people played their roles. The extreme nature of this experiments results reveals a great deal about how our associations affect our behavior. This has major implications for how we should treat people. If all it takes for one to believe they are authoritative is to grant authority, and all it takes to be powerless is to be assigned to such a role, then we ought to be more careful with how we classify people. Based on this study, there is good reason to believe that individuals will be more successful and less apathetic in life if they are simple, somehow, led to believe that they are capable of such agency. Our human psyche deserves a great deal of attention when studying leadership, as it is clear that perception is not just the product of reasoned viewing. With greater attention to this, maybe some day we will size up to the elephants we all ride.

This reading serves as an extremely interesting overview of the six main variations of the prisoner’s dilemma and Game Theory. Currently, I am taking Rational Choice and Political Theory for PPEL, where we reviewed several of the topics discussed in this chapter literally today in class, when we were introduced to theories of decisions in which the decisions of others impact the choice options. In this reading, one of the forms of dilemmas that particularly interested me was the Battle of the Sexes dilemma. This is the situation that I related to the most, as there are often times that I collaborate with others seemingly against my own preferences due to the worse alternative of doing things alone. The best example of this I can think of is eating meals with friends, to which case I often eat at inconvenient times or unnecessarily spend money food because doing so with friends is better than eating when and what I prefer by myself. I am certain my fellow students can relate to this scenario.

I was also particularly interested in this reading’s discussion of how to break many of the discussed dilemmas, by adding a third option that falls outside of the cheat-cooperate matrix. The author here gives the example of a kindergarten teacher offering ice cream to students who help clean up toys contrary to their defecting fellow students. This idea may have profound implications for issues of international affairs, specifically when it comes to the tragedy of the commons. If international organizations can create incentives of the type discussed, resource depletion could be slowed. For example, if the UN somehow rewarded countries that do not overuse fisheries in international waters, there would be less of an incentive to overfish out of fears of all countries doing the same. By making all dilemmas more like the game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, in which there is no dominant strategy, many problems could be solved.