WOSU 3/2/2011

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/news.newsmain/article/4/0/1770135/Opinion/Parenting.-.Balance.is.the.Key

Last weekend I cleaned out my storage area, and in the process I found the collection of journals, photographs and ephemera that serve as documentation of my life.

As I browsed through the various accolades I received I juxtaposed those with my journal entries, with the emotions I felt as I earned awards and participated in countless activities. Even though I am proud of my accomplishments, my successes came at an emotional cost; much of which I documented in my journals late at night, after grueling days trying to fit all of my work in.

Like my parents, I grew up Midwestern, and with it came the storied, home-grown work ethic that is engrained when you come up farming and fearing the fire and brimstone. Lately though, Midwesterners, like the rest of my fellow Americans, have gone from a stereotype of hard working and inventive to one that suggests we’re lazy and complacent.

In response to this stereotype, author Amy Chua wrote the current New York Times bestseller “Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother”. The book is Chua’s story of how she was raised by her demanding, success oriented immigrant Chinese parents – and how she then chose to raise her children in the same strict way.

To support her arguments she refers to the fact that now China, more than the US, receives recognition for its educated and hard working citizens. Chua feels vindicated that the Chinese have thus created a cultural powerhouse, rivaling the US’s financial, industrial and academic dominance because they are raised in a demanding and strict environment.

Chua suggests that if the US is to stop falling behind other countries we should embrace the intolerance for failure that she experienced as a child. That intolerance is what will lead future generations of Americans to achieve ever greater standards.

But will parenting with an iron fist really return our country to academic and innovative greatness?

Like many controversial ideas this one is about extremes. The Tiger Parent ignores the balance of healthy relationships for one of dominance. They believe we are not meant to be people working together. Instead, the Tiger Parent teaches us that we are in constant competition with each other.

For those of us who have been raised this way, the result is an out-of-whack understanding of how relationships work, and a constant feeling of inadequacy that can only be satiated through ever greater accomplishments.

Now, as a parent, I look at my daughter and try to find a balance between success and self acceptance. I want her to understand success is only worthwhile when you can share in it with others.

Maybe that sort of middle-of-the-road parenting won’t become a New York Times bestseller – or land me on Oprah; but I believe it will succeed in developing a happy, strong and confident young woman.

For me, that would be the greatest success of all.

WOSU 1/10/2011

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1747286/news/’Throwing.the.Bums.Out’.Not.Always.Welcome

Every four years the promise that electing the new guys, who will run our State government more like a business, means we have the chance to “throw the bums out!” This year it has happened again.

Voting in a new governor often does include a near wholesale turnover of management.

But when we throw the bums out are we aware of how un-business-like our actions are?

As voters, we step into the poll with the option of choosing between just a few candidates. However, once elected, the new administration begins appointing hundreds of people we didn’t vote for. Of course, there are the biggest appointments that we all pay close attention to, like the directors of the Office of Jobs and Family Services, Public Safety and the so on. But many voters don’t realize just how far down the management structure these appointments can go.

Not knowing is OK, right? Surely it is a good thing to throw ALL of the bums out, isn’t it? While that’s up for debate what isn’t up for debate is whether or not this makes our government run better.

A new governor can throw away four to eight years of direct experience. Hundreds of managers can be replaced by a new appointee. That’s what you get with the current system. And both parties use it.

Oddly, the current appointment system is actually functional, in its very dysfunctional way, because many of the appointees manage with a finger on the pulse of their party’s politics. Instead of making decisions that are best for the state of Ohio they favor decisions made in the best interest of their political party. If they don’t then they may no longer find themselves serving, “at the pleasure of the governor.”

In the business world this idea is turned on its head. If a corporate executive makes decisions based on anything other than what is best for the organization’s bottom line, they are at great risk of being replaced. State executives should make decisions based on what is best for Ohio, and when they do they should be rewarded with a long government career.

State employees who aren’t political appointees watch these administration transitions carefully. Sometimes the employees are thankful for the departure of particularly political managers. But most often state workers just wait to be shuffled endlessly, reorganizing again and again to fit the new political agenda – all the while becoming less and less productive.

Maybe before the next election cycle the people of Ohio will demand a different system, one that favors skill and experience over party loyalty and donations. Instead of serving, “at the pleasure of the governor”, or, more directly, at the pleasure of their political party – shouldn’t State of Ohio executives serve “at the pleasure of the citizens?”

WOSU 11/30/2010

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1731630/news/Post.Racial.Society..Not.Quite.

Recently, at the popular Onyx Nightclub in Upper Arlington there was a shooting. The Onyx was famous for bringing in national level hip-hop acts. None of the police reports include a racial profile of the suspects. However, the Columbus Dispatch and This Week News Upper Arlington have both had to pull down comments sections on their web stories about the shooting because of the hateful, racist postings that were made based on the assumption that the criminals involved had to be African Americans.

Shortly after the election of President Obama there was a sentiment that we had, as a nation, made strides toward bridging the racial divide. During his first trip to Turkey he answered a question about the post-election bubble of pride American’s were displaying for their first minority President. President Obama responded, “…I think people saw my election as proof, as testimony, that although we are imperfect, our society has continued to improve; that racial discrimination has been reduced…”

I thought about this and about how just two years ago there were attempts at serious conversations about living in a “post-racial” America. Since that time it has been made clear that we are still testing our imperfections and living in anything but a “post-racial” society.

In fact, I fear that the election of President Obama emboldened some in our society to feel they are free to be even less inhibited about their racial ignorance.

While there are many examples of racism in our country – from the immigration debate to the profiling of possible terrorists – in the day-to-day trials of American society many people still seem to see “Blacks” as a sub-genus to the white majority – beyond even how Hispanics or Middle Easterners are reviled.

At first I wanted to believe that the racist comments about the Onyx shooting were only being made because of the relative anonymity of the internet. Sadly, attending some of the community meetings about the incident reveled that many people don’t care to hide their racism behind a keyboard. One woman angrily recounted how the club owner refused her request to stop letting “blacks” in; another referred to the trouble makers as “tribesmen”.

The nightclub shooting, thankfully, did not end in tragedy. A few months ago though Upper Arlington did suffer a tragic shooting that claimed the life of two young boys and their father. It was a murder suicide, carried out by a middle class white man at home. That incident prompted outrage over the individual committing such a heinous crime – but not over the danger of associating with white males.

Naturally the matter of any shooting, tragic or not, is serious and raises our collective fears to the surface. But shouldn’t our fear be directed at violent people who carry guns with the intention of using them; not at the color of their skin?

WOSU 11/9/2010

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1723456/news/Work.365.Days.a.Year..Microsoft..Really

Microsoft recently announced that its newest version of its productivity software, the Microsoft Office Suite, will be named Microsoft Office 365. I’m going to venture a guess that the 365 doesn’t refer to the price of the software but instead to this idea that it will be there, working alongside you – no, working for you – every day of the year. Microsoft’s crack marketing team has finally just come out and said what many companies seem to expect of their employees already these days. Forget about your family, your hobbies or your interests, forget about it all and get back to work already – 365 days a year!

I can imagine the Microsoft Office 365 spreadsheet software will replace the template for 9 to 5 work schedules with one from 5 to 9. Before I dig into this new 365 day work schedule I want to take a moment to say thank you to Microsoft for their honesty about how they think we should all be spending our time.

While I admit that it’s absurd to think that our employers are going to expect us to work every day of the year I also don’t think it’s out of the question. The fact that a major corporation like Microsoft green-lighted a marketing campaign for a product that’s very name implies we should be working every day suggests to me that our culture is, for some crazy reason, accepting of the notion that working 365 days a year is a positive vision of the future. Really?!

Just consider some facts. According to international statistics the United States is near the top of industrialized countries whose workers don’t use the vacation time given to them. Similarly, our average number of hours worked daily is increasing. Smart phones and internet access mean you can only hide from that client or your boss so long – the whole time your thinking, “What’s going to happen if I don’t respond?”

But is it really a problem? Some politicians certainly don’t think so. They advocate that we crush what remains of the labor union movement in the US, and a lot of workers support that idea. They believe we’d be better off if we get rid of the organization whose motto’s are, “We made the middle class” and “The people who brought you the weekend”.

While many people and politicians deride unions as being past their useful life I argue that now, more than ever, we need workers to unite to restore that delicate life balance. The cost of doing business shouldn’t be the living of one’s life.

The Declaration of Independence famously proclaims the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and that’s what will be on my mind when I vote. Today I declare my independence from Office 365 so that I might exercise my liberty to live life in the pursuit of my, and my family’s, happiness.

WOSU 9/28/2010

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wosu/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1706225/news/What.is.a.Leader.

Heads of state and captains of industry, office managers and small business owners – these are roles that traditionally get labeled as leaders. During this election cycle we are once again being asked to consider who we want to lead us. But does the title of leader itself make you a leader?

While there is clearly a struggle for who wants to call themselves our leader, I’m not convinced that this struggle will ever lead to any real positive change. I think the real struggle is over what type of leadership we need.

Traditional leadership rewards positions and titles – this is the type of leadership that comes out of an election. This form believes that people are leaders because of their experience, skill and education.

However, today’s populist movement in our nation suggests that there is a distrust of anyone filling this role of traditional leadership. This distrust is a perception that the actual route to leadership is through being part of the old boys network and financially well off. No matter the reality, once you are in a traditional leadership role you become an “elite” because you are explicitly given power to command and control others.

I believe a failure of this current populist movement (like many in the past) is that it isn’t looking to put a new, sustainable model in place. Instead it just hopes to fill the same traditional leadership structure with a different set of elites.

In opposition to traditional leadership we see mostly younger, internet savvy workers trying to bypass traditional leaders all-together. They have adapted to life online, using the social power of this expansive connectivity to develop new ideas about working collaboratively. Without any formal title these connectivity based leaders use their passion about a subject, issue or cause and connect with peers who share that passion. Then together they try to solve problems, attack issues and achieve their goals. The only way this works is if they are able to define a vision that creates by-in from others; thus empowering the group to co-create the solution.

On their own these workers are doing amazing things. However the traditional command and control structure still in place in most organizations brings this connectivity based leadership to a grinding halt.

There is a quote from the ancient Taoist text, the Tao Te Ching, about leadership that I reflect on quite frequently. “If you want to be a leader stop trying to control.”

Leaders today can’t solve our complex problems alone. That is why today’s leaders should embrace this connectivity based leadership. They must understand how to draw together the vision of a better tomorrow from the common experience of individuals; and then, instead of controlling actions, they should allow the natural power of passionate people working together to accomplish those shared goals.