A 1 credit first-year seminar at Washington University in St. Louis taught by Dr. Jill Stratton designed to teach students what constitutes bad leadership and how we can work towards creating positive, effective leadership.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Bad Leadership 2012
Welcome to the Bad Leadership 2012 Blog! This week's postings will focus on bad leadership in politics. Fortunately (or unfortunately), there are many examples to draw from.
Western and Arab leaders pushed the U.N. Security Council to a vote on a general condemnation of the Syria crackdown, claiming that they had compromised enough with Russia and China. In effect, they were daring the two nationalities to veto the resolution, which they did, and risk “international condemnation for failing to stop the killings in Syria.” Russia and China claim to have vetoed the bill because it put little to no blame on opposition groups for the bloodshed and for its unrealistic call for the general return of army units to their barracks. Ultimately, these reasons seem rather threadbare for vetoing the resolution, especially when they have already gained much ground in concessions. Thus, I think it is likely that the opposition to the bill comes from unstated reasons. Both China and Russia are historically against a large, international body that interferes in national affairs. This likely comes from their political structures being of a (essentially) un-democratic variety, thus, they find that by protecting authoritarian governments such as President Bashar Al-Assads gives them something of a buffer. This is of a particularly bad form of leadership because, from the outside, it would appear that China and Russia are leveraging their own influence to, instead of helping the general populace of Syria, propagate their pain to further their own agenda. Of course, the opposite could be true. The western media could potentially be being duped in a large way, or the situation could be more complex than it is portrayed and China and Russia are trading in short term death and devastation for a more stable, long-term solution. However, I think that such a conspiracy like theory is unlikely.
I read a Korean editorial that criticized Chung-Hee Park, who was the president of South Korea from 1961 to 1979. He was in fact a dictator, who used “development of the Korean economy” as an excuse to execute students, companies, and organizations that did not seem “fit” for his goals. However, it is interesting that the editorial reflects some of his followers, mostly aged 50 or more now. According to the editorial, these people claim that despite the fact that ChungHee Park hindered the democratic development in South Korea, he saved the Korean economy with his bulldozer-like ruling style. The supporters claim that during 1960s and 1970s, when the country was still resurrecting from the ruins of the Korean War, there was a need for such strong drive forward. Because different forces were trying to influence the government and claim power during the chaos, ChungHee Park’s absolute power prevented such power war. However, the author of the editorial points out that it was not his drive that saved the Korean economy, but that it was the people in the working field who were able to save the economy. The author also claims that if the Korean government was able to develop a democratic government right after the war, there would have been less polarization in the society, as the long term planned economic policies would have supported the small/middle sized companies. As of now, it is true that a few large companies dominated the Korean economy, and the falls of such companies will greatly hinder the Korea economy. I believe that ChungHee Park’s cruelty against the demonstrators, unfair treatment of the people and organizations were wrong, but I do attribute some of the the Korean “economic miracle” to him. He had that willingness and ability to achieve his goals. His method of making others work for his goal was wrong and inhumane, but he was a leader in a sense that he was able to achieve the goals. Whether he was a bad leader or a good leader will depend on from what aspect we are judging him, but I do admire him for the drive he had.
Website: http://www.ddanzi.com/blog/archives/60790 Translation (from google translate, so it's not good...): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DlIgIfWfqpz7FBEgUtK0XwIl9SOOOsQrJgYEnXc-f68/edit
After reading this article, I would like to say that from what I have read, I agree with what you wrote about ChungHee's contributions to the "economic miracle." Although his method was unethical it was effective. However, I wonder, did the people turn a blind eye to ChungHee's atrocities with the hope that he would fulfill his promise and improve their economy? And now that his daughter is running for president I am curious to see how the people will react. Will they support her with the hope that she will be as effective as her father in implementing changes, or will they remember the tactics that her father used in achieving his goals?
Planned Parenthood, the foremost leader in healthcare delivery and education of women, teens and families, this week lost an enormous donation of nearly $700,000 from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation. Komen is a leader in the protection of women’s rights and has a history of donating to Planned Parenthood for their cancer screening and prevention programs which make up 14.5% Parenthood’s medical services according to the 2009-2010 annual report. In 2011, Planned Parenthood performed 750,000 breast cancer screenings, many of which were funded with Komen foundation money. The Susan G. Komen foundation’s notorious pink ribbon was once a statement of respect for basic women’s health rights. But the decision that the largest breast cancer organization made to forgo donating to Planned Parenthood for what one can only assume are politically driven motives, limits the respect any women can give the organization and can only allow the organization to be viewed as tainted by the current political battles. An organization of such reputation, size, and most importantly, funding, should be careful not to tarnish its image with this unfortunately destructive political battle and should be focusing on its aim as an organization, to end breast cancer. Although the decision was reversed just a few minutes ago according to news sources, the reversal of the decision does not make it any less detrimental to the Komen’s image and therefore its standing as the leader in breast cancer research, prevention, and cessation. The decision will harm the image of the pink ribbon as it has politically charged an issue that had little controversy before, making acts that were common place and beneficial towards women, now questionable and uncertain. What was once just cancer screening is now a question of the morality of abortion. It is no longer about serving the underserved and marginalized as Planned Parenthood’s breast cancer screenings used to be about.
A response to: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/opinion/a-painful-betrayal.html?ref=editorials Information from the Annual Report from: http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_financials_2010_122711_web_vf?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage Information about reversal: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46243184/?ocid=ansmsnbc11
Notes: The decision was reversed on Friday, which was a few minutes prior to when this entry was written, not prior to when it was uploaded. This entry treats the organization of Susan G. Komen as a leader, as opposed to referring to an individual as a leader. Komen is a leader in the field of breast cancer research and in the field of women’s health rights. This entry is not about a historically political leader, but rather how a leader in a certain field made a grievous mistake by becoming political.
Questions: 1) Is it reasonable to treat an organization, rather than an individual, as a leader in an area and subject the organization to higher standards than other organizations? Can I call Komen a leader as an organization without just referring to the CEO? 2) Is it wrong for a health care organization to get involved in politics that are not directly related to delivery of the services that the organization is interested?
The Komen Foundation was in a difficult position. The foundation should fund cancer screenings, nevertheless it also has a responsibility to uphold its morals as an organization (especially since it is involved in philanthropy). With Planned Parenthood's association with abortion this can be complex since there are various legitimate pros and cons of both sides of the abortion topic. Personally I don't approve of abortion, but that shouldn't bias me, or the Komen Foundation, towards the work Planned Parenthood does in the prevention of breast cancer. While it might be better for the foundation's reputation to divert funding to a less controversial organization, Planned Parenthood is able to reach a demographic that otherwise may not have access to these services. For this reason it is not appropriate for an official of the company to divert funds from Planned Parenthood on the behalf of the organization because of their personal beliefs. In answer to question one, the organization should be treated as a leader since the population looks up to the efforts of the entire organization not just the CEO.
Response to: On campaign trail, Romney skips questions in taking up mantle of likely GOP nominee by The Washington Post
During the past few days, news media has been inundated with articles about Mitt Romney’s latest feat: winning the Nevada caucus. Even for those who do not pay attention to the media it is hard to remain oblivious to Romney’s marked successes during the past few months. Clearly, Romney is a charismatic Republican candidate with the magnetic personality and leadership that draws crowds of support. However, there is a discrepancy that exists in his campaigning approach. Despite the superficial connection that he has with his millions of voters, Romney has failed to engage with them on a more personal and interactive level. It has been over three weeks since Romney answered a voter-posed question yet they still support him wholeheartedly. Instead of getting personal, Romney is attracting voters through promising and rousing speeches, all the while keeping his followers at a distance. Perhaps this strategy is to prevent him from an inarticulate response while thinking on his feet, ruining the pretense of the perfect candidate, as suggested by The Washington Post. However, this puts the ball in his court. Without answering any questions, Romney can tell his crowds exactly what they want to hear with an eloquence that makes him appear the better-suited candidate. With Romney’s facade, his followers can project their hopes on him making him appear to be the leader that he is not, as described in Kets de Vries’ article. What appears to be “good” leadership to the masses, is simply leadership that is effective in rallying supporters, but which is self-motivated as shown by Romney’s reluctance to answer questions from his voters. Solely to avoid being quoted in the state newspaper for a trivial mishap the next day, Romney has intentionally withdrawn himself from personal interaction with his audience. This proves that his “flawless leader” act is what is most important, not openly and freely communicating with his supporters. In my eyes, this fundamentally reveals Romney’s egoistic and elitist personality, which has perpetuated his success.
This reminds me of the article we read that talked about how leaders reflect what the followers envision. And how the followers even think of the leaders as "heroic". In this case, it seems that the voters are satisfied because of the fact that their ideal image of a leader is successfully reflected in the way Romney acts. However, this does make us question what will happen when the voters really find out the "real Romney".
I agree with you that his reluctance to answer voter's questions could be seen as his narcissistic way of leading. Keeping the illusion of "flawless leader" is good not only for his campaign, but also to gather up trust to better lead people in the future should he win the presidency. As we know, how followers perceive their leader is important to the leader's overall success. That being said, yoI think you're right in your assertion that this 'facade' is a big part of Romney's success.
One of the most prominent subjects of speculation in the House of Representatives is the idea of our “entitlement” culture. The United States has always been a leader in the protection of their citizens through acts such as Medicare, welfare programs, and food stamps. However, many politicians believe we’ve gone too far, and that most people are taking advantage of these programs. This may be an issue, but what about the taxpayer money the politicians claim? House Majority Floor Leader Tim Jones claims he’s saving taxpayer money by holding technical sessions on Thursdays. These sessions are where the House remains open, but fewer representatives are needed; important, as it keeps movement of legislation in the government, and it costs more money to reopen the House. The reps signing in for these meetings receive “per diems” of about $104 to cover the cost of eating and lodging (never mind they usually receive free meals anyway). However, most reps who sign in and claim their money simply head home. Last week, 117 signed in – sure, there was a savings of almost $4800 from the 46 who didn’t claim their “entitlement,” but only about 49 stayed for the meeting.
Many bills requesting a cut in the number of reps have been proposed in the past few years – even small reductions. But they’ve all been shut down. Missouri is already leading in the most representatives per capita – California, the largest-populated state, for example, claims 53 seats. Missouri claims 9. This isn’t a large number, but states who have half a million people more than us –such as Arizona and Washington - only claim 7 or 8. And while reps are needing to work less, their per diems and overall salaries have been increasing. This action – or lack thereof - is a clear example of multiple unfavorable leadership traits we’ve discussed in class, including belief that one is above the regular rules, focus on one’s own wants and needs, and even narcissism. So my questions to the class are 1) What are your views on the usage of entitlements by American citizens? And 2) What would be an appropriate number of House Representatives for the United States? (We currently have 435)
*A response to: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-if-house-really-wanted-to-save-some-money-they/article_0dc0f5c2-b73e-5f48-af6a-ece037da72cf.html *Population and House Seat statistics found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
Q1. I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing for American citizens to take advantage of what they have been given, but I would suggest that putting more regulations on what they call 'entitlements' so that people wouldn't abuse them. 'Freedom' and 'no rules' are totally different things.
Q2. I am unfamiliar with the US government system so I have no idea as to just how effective the House of Representatives is for the United States. I would suggest something like one representative per half million people. While having something like one or two representatives for each state would probably save a lot of taxpayer money, I think that it would be risky to have the whole population of a state represented by such a small number, especially considering the likely possibility that the representative may be corrupt.
It was interesting, because I knew virtually nothing about domestic politics, especially locally. Thank you for teaching me about it!
Response to: Obama/US politicians rely too much on how they want the world to be, not how the world will be in reality
On Saturday, February 4th, Russia and China vetoed a US-supported resolution to back the Arab League in attempts to strip power from Bashar Assad of Syria. This resulted in a shocked outcry of anger from various US government officials, namely President Barack Obama, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. The editorial criticizes how these leading political failures failed to see the world in a realistic lens, instead choosing to “see the world as [they] would like it to be”. The main aspects of ‘bad’ leadership that are featured here is the failure to see things how they really are, and relying too much on idealistic ways of thinking. After reading so much about how many CEOs fail because they lack the thoughtfulness and practicality to accept problems as they really are, it felt funny to read about actual powerful politicians, who have so much effect on the whole world, being criticized for the exact same reason. As one of the most powerful economies in the world, the leadership of the United States should be fully aware that they can’t afford to be idealistic, especially in delicate issues such as that of President Assad. From what little I know of history, idealistic thinking has never been a predominant trade in those leaders who are considered ‘good’. It always is better to be realistic and practical – I feel that more rational decisions can be made if the problems in a situation are properly analyzed and thought out. This naivety of the US leadership, one of the most powerful of the world, was a bit disappointing.
The Wall Street Journal, Monday 2/6/12 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577205190290287880.html?KEYWORDS=obama+falls+into+a+un+trap
I was unable to read this entire article, as I would have to subscribe to it. But from what I saw, it was written with a very harsh, biased tone. That aside, I enjoyed Seira's voice in her response to it, and agreed with her view that our leaders were acting naively. Examining the reasons behind the Arab League wanting to upset Assad sets this article in a different light, though. He is a horrible dictator, and the death toll has risen in his reign. If someone had chosen to strip Hitler's power, I'm sure it would be rational thinking that everyone would support that action. Seira agreed with me on this aspect, but also pointed out that China's and Russia's opposition should have been clear to the U.S. It all goes back to the United States' belief that is has to be a global facilitator.
The New York Times Article- “Congress Appears to Be Trying to Get Around Earmark Ban” describes how members of Congress are still attempting to fund individual projects, despite the ban on earmarks, by using several political and legislative techniques to get around the ban. Members of Congress are using special funds in bills that allow them to fund particular state projects-essentially earmarks by a different name. Funds are now being distributed via reports instead of directly attached to bills, a backdoor method of legislation. Ironically, some of these earmarks have increased government spending on particular projects, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, compared to what was allotted in the budget. A House Committee even created a $1 billion fund in the defense authorization bill that allowed members to add amendments to direct funding to specific projects. Technically these are not earmarks because members have to compete for the money, but most of the projects that got funded were previously earmarks. My question is: Is this just an adjustment to a new reality or is it cheating the system? Despite the elimination of earmarks by legislation they themselves passed, members of Congress still want to have more control over budgeting specific projects than is allotted to them by law. Some members of Congress say the elimination of earmarks hurt specific districts economically, which makes sense. I understand that numerous former-earmarks go towards very respectable legislation that few would argue against funding, but technically it is not Congress’ place to fund these via earmarks anymore. Is it bad leadership when something good comes of a leader’s actions in the end if they are technically “breaking the rules”? If I had to choose yes or no, I’d say yes.
Questions: 1. Is it always “bad leadership” to “break the rules”-such as trying to achieve funding via earmarks-or is it simply politics? 2. Is accomplishing your goal or how you accomplished the true sign of a good or bad leader? Why?
New York Times, 2/5/2012 “Congress Appears to Be Trying to Get Around Earmark Ban” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/us/politics/congress-appears-to-be-trying-to-get-around-earmark-ban.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all
I'd say a probable cause for the return to the ear-mark system (all be it in a new guise) is symptomatic of the incentive structure our government is under. Unfortunately, short of a major restructuring of the entire system, we are probably struck with a special interest kind of problem. I suppose my question is this: If it were possible to affect the necessary changes to entire change the incentive structure to do away with special interest ear-marking, would we be better off with a new and untested structure that would cause massive ripple affects through all aspects of the government, society and economy? Are we not better off with the evil that we thoroughly understand than a new one we do not know at all? It would be pure hubris to assume we could get everything right in one go.
Two teachers from a Los Angeles elementary school were recently charged with committing inappropriate acts with children. The more disturbing of the cases was that of 61 year old Mark Berndt, who committed lewd acts on 23 children. While he was removed from his teaching position in January 2011, Berndt had been accused before of trying to fondle a girl in his class back in 1993, but was not charged. Before his firing in 2011, Berndt took nearly four hundred photographs of his students. In some of these pictures students were blindfolded, others had clear tape over their mouths, and most disturbingly, some were eating a spoonful of milky liquid. Our society entrusts teachers with one of the most important jobs in our nation, educating and molding our nation’s youth. While many teachers show traits of good leadership, others, like Berndt, are clearly bad leaders. Berndt was entrusted with shaping the minds of his elementary students, and instead abused his power over the innocent children for his own twisted satisfaction. He most certainly did not have his students best interest in mind, but rather was thinking of himself when committing actions so detrimental to the community. Many of his fellow employees lost their jobs so that the school could have a fresh start. Berndt, and the other accused teacher, jeopardized the livelihood of innocent people and the community as a whole. While Berndt is ultimately responsible for his own actions, the report seems to allude that some school officials were aware of Berndt’s lewd behavior but did not act on this information. School officials have responsibility as leaders to report any inappropriate behavior committed by teachers. This article interviewed a student who raised the issue to a school counselor. The counselor essentially ignored her despite the gravity of the issue and potential danger to the students. Members of a community, especially a school community, have responsibility to ensure the other members are behaving correctly. To ignore this responsibility is essentially bad leadership and a danger to the community as a whole.
Question 1: How grave would an accusation raised by a child about one of your peers have to be in order for you to report your peer?
Question 2: What are the possible long-term effects on both the children and the community from Berndt’s actions?
USA Today 2/7/2012 "Complaint about L.A. teacher made years ago" http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-02/los-angeles-teacher-bondage-photos/52933424/1
First I'd say that this is such an upsetting situation. In response to your first question, I think that if someone if approached by a student, or any child (or adult for that matter) with stories of this gravity, the stories should always be taken seriously, unless there is strong evidence to believe it is fictitious or the child is being manipulated. It is the job of the authorities, not the person who is told the story, to determine whether or not the accusation is reasonable. It is also true that in situations like this, doctor-patient confidentiality does not hold, so the school counselor is very much responsible for not going to the proper authorities with the information. It is also especially important that in cases that involve minors, such as this one, every measure be taken to protect their rights. In response to the second question posted above, there will certainly be long standing psychological effects on the students who were abused. Perhaps the school and the community will also be changed by the situation, and maybe even become more sensitized to these sorts of evens in the future and thus become better at preventing them. But the most lasting effect will be to the children whose trust was betrayed.
A Wall Street Journal editorial recently criticized President Obama for his comments during an interview with 60 minutes in December. The interview’s outtakes revealed the President’s response to a question about his legislative and foreign policy regarding his economic stimulus plan. The President said in the interview that he “would put his legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any other president—with the possible exception of Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln…”. He also said that “he deserves a second term”. While the editorial was definitely written with a conservative slant, its point is still noteworthy. Obama’s words reveal his narcissism, which as we know can be a positive trait in a leader, but the fact that he is comparing himself to other presidents during his time on the job is a bit disturbing. Though it is debatable as to whether Obama’s policies are better than those other presidents and good for our present situation, most people probably do not feel like it should be a competition or comparison between his work and others. Liberal or conservative, narcissism to the point of putting yourself at a higher level than such beloved presidents as George Washington, John Adams, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan is likely counterproductive, especially at a rather precarious position in his presidency in an election year. Instead of worrying about comparing himself to his predecessors he should be purely focusing on his own job and particularly his ineffective stimulus package that has caused much unrest in the minds of American citizens.
Q1. Is Obama the 4th most effective president in terms of accomplishment in foreign policy, or was that a bit of an overstatement?
Q2. Should Obama be comparing himself to his predecessors?
Again the debated concept of narcissism and leadership surfaces and difficult judgements must be made. As a word with a strong hint of negative connotation, “narcissism” is not something a leader wants to be associated with. It is ignorant of reality, of one’s own short comings and this ignorance can be lethal for someone in a high position who yields a lot of power. However, according to Harvard Positive Psychology professor Tal, beliefs become self fullfiling prophecies, and so in this sense, if a leader thinks of him or herself as flawless they are more likely to succeed and get the job done in the most flawless way possible. So presented with this dilemma, what is the balance? To what extent should a leader like Barack Obama, or any leader exhibit narcissism? The question for me is a difficult one and a survey of current leaders and their level of narcissism may be helpful. However, the scaling system required to judge a leader’s extent of narcissism is itself highly subjective, and so it may be unlikely that every person could come up with one unanimous answer. In the case of Barack Obama, he demonstrates a desire for another period of presidency, which I think can be natural for any president. The leader’s level of success is reflected in the willingness of his followers to continue following his lead, and I think it is only natural that people all desire success.
Western and Arab leaders pushed the U.N. Security Council to a vote on a general condemnation of the Syria crackdown, claiming that they had compromised enough with Russia and China. In effect, they were daring the two nationalities to veto the resolution, which they did, and risk “international condemnation for failing to stop the killings in Syria.” Russia and China claim to have vetoed the bill because it put little to no blame on opposition groups for the bloodshed and for its unrealistic call for the general return of army units to their barracks. Ultimately, these reasons seem rather threadbare for vetoing the resolution, especially when they have already gained much ground in concessions. Thus, I think it is likely that the opposition to the bill comes from unstated reasons. Both China and Russia are historically against a large, international body that interferes in national affairs. This likely comes from their political structures being of a (essentially) un-democratic variety, thus, they find that by protecting authoritarian governments such as President Bashar Al-Assads gives them something of a buffer. This is of a particularly bad form of leadership because, from the outside, it would appear that China and Russia are leveraging their own influence to, instead of helping the general populace of Syria, propagate their pain to further their own agenda. Of course, the opposite could be true. The western media could potentially be being duped in a large way, or the situation could be more complex than it is portrayed and China and Russia are trading in short term death and devastation for a more stable, long-term solution. However, I think that such a conspiracy like theory is unlikely.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/world/middleeast/syria-homs-death-toll-said-to-rise.html
- George Boyar
I read a Korean editorial that criticized Chung-Hee Park, who was the president of South Korea from 1961 to 1979. He was in fact a dictator, who used “development of the Korean economy” as an excuse to execute students, companies, and organizations that did not seem “fit” for his goals. However, it is interesting that the editorial reflects some of his followers, mostly aged 50 or more now. According to the editorial, these people claim that despite the fact that ChungHee Park hindered the democratic development in South Korea, he saved the Korean economy with his bulldozer-like ruling style. The supporters claim that during 1960s and 1970s, when the country was still resurrecting from the ruins of the Korean War, there was a need for such strong drive forward. Because different forces were trying to influence the government and claim power during the chaos, ChungHee Park’s absolute power prevented such power war. However, the author of the editorial points out that it was not his drive that saved the Korean economy, but that it was the people in the working field who were able to save the economy. The author also claims that if the Korean government was able to develop a democratic government right after the war, there would have been less polarization in the society, as the long term planned economic policies would have supported the small/middle sized companies. As of now, it is true that a few large companies dominated the Korean economy, and the falls of such companies will greatly hinder the Korea economy. I believe that ChungHee Park’s cruelty against the demonstrators, unfair treatment of the people and organizations were wrong, but I do attribute some of the the Korean “economic miracle” to him. He had that willingness and ability to achieve his goals. His method of making others work for his goal was wrong and inhumane, but he was a leader in a sense that he was able to achieve the goals. Whether he was a bad leader or a good leader will depend on from what aspect we are judging him, but I do admire him for the drive he had.
ReplyDeleteWebsite: http://www.ddanzi.com/blog/archives/60790
Translation (from google translate, so it's not good...):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DlIgIfWfqpz7FBEgUtK0XwIl9SOOOsQrJgYEnXc-f68/edit
Alysa Kim
After reading this article, I would like to say that from what I have read, I agree with what you wrote about ChungHee's contributions to the "economic miracle." Although his method was unethical it was effective. However, I wonder, did the people turn a blind eye to ChungHee's atrocities with the hope that he would fulfill his promise and improve their economy? And now that his daughter is running for president I am curious to see how the people will react. Will they support her with the hope that she will be as effective as her father in implementing changes, or will they remember the tactics that her father used in achieving his goals?
DeletePlanned Parenthood, the foremost leader in healthcare delivery and education of women, teens and families, this week lost an enormous donation of nearly $700,000 from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation. Komen is a leader in the protection of women’s rights and has a history of donating to Planned Parenthood for their cancer screening and prevention programs which make up 14.5% Parenthood’s medical services according to the 2009-2010 annual report. In 2011, Planned Parenthood performed 750,000 breast cancer screenings, many of which were funded with Komen foundation money.
ReplyDeleteThe Susan G. Komen foundation’s notorious pink ribbon was once a statement of respect for basic women’s health rights. But the decision that the largest breast cancer organization made to forgo donating to Planned Parenthood for what one can only assume are politically driven motives, limits the respect any women can give the organization and can only allow the organization to be viewed as tainted by the current political battles. An organization of such reputation, size, and most importantly, funding, should be careful not to tarnish its image with this unfortunately destructive political battle and should be focusing on its aim as an organization, to end breast cancer.
Although the decision was reversed just a few minutes ago according to news sources, the reversal of the decision does not make it any less detrimental to the Komen’s image and therefore its standing as the leader in breast cancer research, prevention, and cessation. The decision will harm the image of the pink ribbon as it has politically charged an issue that had little controversy before, making acts that were common place and beneficial towards women, now questionable and uncertain. What was once just cancer screening is now a question of the morality of abortion. It is no longer about serving the underserved and marginalized as Planned Parenthood’s breast cancer screenings used to be about.
A response to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/opinion/a-painful-betrayal.html?ref=editorials
Information from the Annual Report from:
http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppfa_financials_2010_122711_web_vf?mode=window&viewMode=doublePage
Information about reversal:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46243184/?ocid=ansmsnbc11
Notes:
The decision was reversed on Friday, which was a few minutes prior to when this entry was written, not prior to when it was uploaded.
This entry treats the organization of Susan G. Komen as a leader, as opposed to referring to an individual as a leader. Komen is a leader in the field of breast cancer research and in the field of women’s health rights. This entry is not about a historically political leader, but rather how a leader in a certain field made a grievous mistake by becoming political.
Questions:
1) Is it reasonable to treat an organization, rather than an individual, as a leader in an area and subject the organization to higher standards than other organizations? Can I call Komen a leader as an organization without just referring to the CEO?
2) Is it wrong for a health care organization to get involved in politics that are not directly related to delivery of the services that the organization is interested?
-Molly
The Komen Foundation was in a difficult position. The foundation should fund cancer screenings, nevertheless it also has a responsibility to uphold its morals as an organization (especially since it is involved in philanthropy). With Planned Parenthood's association with abortion this can be complex since there are various legitimate pros and cons of both sides of the abortion topic. Personally I don't approve of abortion, but that shouldn't bias me, or the Komen Foundation, towards the work Planned Parenthood does in the prevention of breast cancer. While it might be better for the foundation's reputation to divert funding to a less controversial organization, Planned Parenthood is able to reach a demographic that otherwise may not have access to these services. For this reason it is not appropriate for an official of the company to divert funds from Planned Parenthood on the behalf of the organization because of their personal beliefs. In answer to question one, the organization should be treated as a leader since the population looks up to the efforts of the entire organization not just the CEO.
DeleteResponse to: On campaign trail, Romney skips questions in taking up mantle of likely GOP nominee by The Washington Post
ReplyDeleteDuring the past few days, news media has been inundated with articles about Mitt Romney’s latest feat: winning the Nevada caucus. Even for those who do not pay attention to the media it is hard to remain oblivious to Romney’s marked successes during the past few months. Clearly, Romney is a charismatic Republican candidate with the magnetic personality and leadership that draws crowds of support. However, there is a discrepancy that exists in his campaigning approach.
Despite the superficial connection that he has with his millions of voters, Romney has failed to engage with them on a more personal and interactive level. It has been over three weeks since Romney answered a voter-posed question yet they still support him wholeheartedly. Instead of getting personal, Romney is attracting voters through promising and rousing speeches, all the while keeping his followers at a distance. Perhaps this strategy is to prevent him from an inarticulate response while thinking on his feet, ruining the pretense of the perfect candidate, as suggested by The Washington Post. However, this puts the ball in his court. Without answering any questions, Romney can tell his crowds exactly what they want to hear with an eloquence that makes him appear the better-suited candidate. With Romney’s facade, his followers can project their hopes on him making him appear to be the leader that he is not, as described in Kets de Vries’ article.
What appears to be “good” leadership to the masses, is simply leadership that is effective in rallying supporters, but which is self-motivated as shown by Romney’s reluctance to answer questions from his voters. Solely to avoid being quoted in the state newspaper for a trivial mishap the next day, Romney has intentionally withdrawn himself from personal interaction with his audience. This proves that his “flawless leader” act is what is most important, not openly and freely communicating with his supporters. In my eyes, this fundamentally reveals Romney’s egoistic and elitist personality, which has perpetuated his success.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-campaign-trail-romney-skips-questions-in-taking-up-mantle-of-likely-gop-nominee/2012/02/05/gIQAAPqYsQ_story.html
—Tess
This reminds me of the article we read that talked about how leaders reflect what the followers envision. And how the followers even think of the leaders as "heroic". In this case, it seems that the voters are satisfied because of the fact that their ideal image of a leader is successfully reflected in the way Romney acts. However, this does make us question what will happen when the voters really find out the "real Romney".
DeleteI agree with you that his reluctance to answer voter's questions could be seen as his narcissistic way of leading. Keeping the illusion of "flawless leader" is good not only for his campaign, but also to gather up trust to better lead people in the future should he win the presidency. As we know, how followers perceive their leader is important to the leader's overall success. That being said, yoI think you're right in your assertion that this 'facade' is a big part of Romney's success.
DeleteOne of the most prominent subjects of speculation in the House of Representatives is the idea of our “entitlement” culture. The United States has always been a leader in the protection of their citizens through acts such as Medicare, welfare programs, and food stamps. However, many politicians believe we’ve gone too far, and that most people are taking advantage of these programs. This may be an issue, but what about the taxpayer money the politicians claim? House Majority Floor Leader Tim Jones claims he’s saving taxpayer money by holding technical sessions on Thursdays. These sessions are where the House remains open, but fewer representatives are needed; important, as it keeps movement of legislation in the government, and it costs more money to reopen the House. The reps signing in for these meetings receive “per diems” of about $104 to cover the cost of eating and lodging (never mind they usually receive free meals anyway). However, most reps who sign in and claim their money simply head home. Last week, 117 signed in – sure, there was a savings of almost $4800 from the 46 who didn’t claim their “entitlement,” but only about 49 stayed for the meeting.
ReplyDeleteMany bills requesting a cut in the number of reps have been proposed in the past few years – even small reductions. But they’ve all been shut down. Missouri is already leading in the most representatives per capita – California, the largest-populated state, for example, claims 53 seats. Missouri claims 9. This isn’t a large number, but states who have half a million people more than us –such as Arizona and Washington - only claim 7 or 8. And while reps are needing to work less, their per diems and overall salaries have been increasing. This action – or lack thereof - is a clear example of multiple unfavorable leadership traits we’ve discussed in class, including belief that one is above the regular rules, focus on one’s own wants and needs, and even narcissism. So my questions to the class are 1) What are your views on the usage of entitlements by American citizens? And 2) What would be an appropriate number of House Representatives for the United States? (We currently have 435)
*A response to: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-if-house-really-wanted-to-save-some-money-they/article_0dc0f5c2-b73e-5f48-af6a-ece037da72cf.html
*Population and House Seat statistics found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
Q1. I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing for American citizens to take advantage of what they have been given, but I would suggest that putting more regulations on what they call 'entitlements' so that people wouldn't abuse them. 'Freedom' and 'no rules' are totally different things.
DeleteQ2. I am unfamiliar with the US government system so I have no idea as to just how effective the House of Representatives is for the United States. I would suggest something like one representative per half million people. While having something like one or two representatives for each state would probably save a lot of taxpayer money, I think that it would be risky to have the whole population of a state represented by such a small number, especially considering the likely possibility that the representative may be corrupt.
It was interesting, because I knew virtually nothing about domestic politics, especially locally. Thank you for teaching me about it!
Response to: Obama/US politicians rely too much on how they want the world to be, not how the world will be in reality
ReplyDeleteOn Saturday, February 4th, Russia and China vetoed a US-supported resolution to back the Arab League in attempts to strip power from Bashar Assad of Syria. This resulted in a shocked outcry of anger from various US government officials, namely President Barack Obama, US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. The editorial criticizes how these leading political failures failed to see the world in a realistic lens, instead choosing to “see the world as [they] would like it to be”.
The main aspects of ‘bad’ leadership that are featured here is the failure to see things how they really are, and relying too much on idealistic ways of thinking. After reading so much about how many CEOs fail because they lack the thoughtfulness and practicality to accept problems as they really are, it felt funny to read about actual powerful politicians, who have so much effect on the whole world, being criticized for the exact same reason. As one of the most powerful economies in the world, the leadership of the United States should be fully aware that they can’t afford to be idealistic, especially in delicate issues such as that of President Assad.
From what little I know of history, idealistic thinking has never been a predominant trade in those leaders who are considered ‘good’. It always is better to be realistic and practical – I feel that more rational decisions can be made if the problems in a situation are properly analyzed and thought out. This naivety of the US leadership, one of the most powerful of the world, was a bit disappointing.
The Wall Street Journal, Monday 2/6/12
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577205190290287880.html?KEYWORDS=obama+falls+into+a+un+trap
-Seira
I was unable to read this entire article, as I would have to subscribe to it. But from what I saw, it was written with a very harsh, biased tone. That aside, I enjoyed Seira's voice in her response to it, and agreed with her view that our leaders were acting naively. Examining the reasons behind the Arab League wanting to upset Assad sets this article in a different light, though. He is a horrible dictator, and the death toll has risen in his reign. If someone had chosen to strip Hitler's power, I'm sure it would be rational thinking that everyone would support that action. Seira agreed with me on this aspect, but also pointed out that China's and Russia's opposition should have been clear to the U.S. It all goes back to the United States' belief that is has to be a global facilitator.
DeleteThe New York Times Article- “Congress Appears to Be Trying to Get Around Earmark Ban” describes how members of Congress are still attempting to fund individual projects, despite the ban on earmarks, by using several political and legislative techniques to get around the ban. Members of Congress are using special funds in bills that allow them to fund particular state projects-essentially earmarks by a different name. Funds are now being distributed via reports instead of directly attached to bills, a backdoor method of legislation. Ironically, some of these earmarks have increased government spending on particular projects, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, compared to what was allotted in the budget. A House Committee even created a $1 billion fund in the defense authorization bill that allowed members to add amendments to direct funding to specific projects. Technically these are not earmarks because members have to compete for the money, but most of the projects that got funded were previously earmarks. My question is: Is this just an adjustment to a new reality or is it cheating the system? Despite the elimination of earmarks by legislation they themselves passed, members of Congress still want to have more control over budgeting specific projects than is allotted to them by law. Some members of Congress say the elimination of earmarks hurt specific districts economically, which makes sense. I understand that numerous former-earmarks go towards very respectable legislation that few would argue against funding, but technically it is not Congress’ place to fund these via earmarks anymore. Is it bad leadership when something good comes of a leader’s actions in the end if they are technically “breaking the rules”? If I had to choose yes or no, I’d say yes.
ReplyDeleteQuestions:
1. Is it always “bad leadership” to “break the rules”-such as trying to achieve funding via earmarks-or is it simply politics?
2. Is accomplishing your goal or how you accomplished the true sign of a good or bad leader? Why?
New York Times, 2/5/2012
“Congress Appears to Be Trying to Get Around Earmark Ban”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/us/politics/congress-appears-to-be-trying-to-get-around-earmark-ban.html?ref=politics&pagewanted=all
-Emma Tyler
I'd say a probable cause for the return to the ear-mark system (all be it in a new guise) is symptomatic of the incentive structure our government is under. Unfortunately, short of a major restructuring of the entire system, we are probably struck with a special interest kind of problem. I suppose my question is this: If it were possible to affect the necessary changes to entire change the incentive structure to do away with special interest ear-marking, would we be better off with a new and untested structure that would cause massive ripple affects through all aspects of the government, society and economy? Are we not better off with the evil that we thoroughly understand than a new one we do not know at all? It would be pure hubris to assume we could get everything right in one go.
DeleteTwo teachers from a Los Angeles elementary school were recently charged with committing inappropriate acts with children. The more disturbing of the cases was that of 61 year old Mark Berndt, who committed lewd acts on 23 children. While he was removed from his teaching position in January 2011, Berndt had been accused before of trying to fondle a girl in his class back in 1993, but was not charged. Before his firing in 2011, Berndt took nearly four hundred photographs of his students. In some of these pictures students were blindfolded, others had clear tape over their mouths, and most disturbingly, some were eating a spoonful of milky liquid.
ReplyDeleteOur society entrusts teachers with one of the most important jobs in our nation, educating and molding our nation’s youth. While many teachers show traits of good leadership, others, like Berndt, are clearly bad leaders. Berndt was entrusted with shaping the minds of his elementary students, and instead abused his power over the innocent children for his own twisted satisfaction. He most certainly did not have his students best interest in mind, but rather was thinking of himself when committing actions so detrimental to the community. Many of his fellow employees lost their jobs so that the school could have a fresh start. Berndt, and the other accused teacher, jeopardized the livelihood of innocent people and the community as a whole.
While Berndt is ultimately responsible for his own actions, the report seems to allude that some school officials were aware of Berndt’s lewd behavior but did not act on this information. School officials have responsibility as leaders to report any inappropriate behavior committed by teachers. This article interviewed a student who raised the issue to a school counselor. The counselor essentially ignored her despite the gravity of the issue and potential danger to the students. Members of a community, especially a school community, have responsibility to ensure the other members are behaving correctly. To ignore this responsibility is essentially bad leadership and a danger to the community as a whole.
Question 1: How grave would an accusation raised by a child about one of your peers have to be in order for you to report your peer?
Question 2: What are the possible long-term effects on both the children and the community from Berndt’s actions?
USA Today 2/7/2012
"Complaint about L.A. teacher made years ago"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-02/los-angeles-teacher-bondage-photos/52933424/1
First I'd say that this is such an upsetting situation. In response to your first question, I think that if someone if approached by a student, or any child (or adult for that matter) with stories of this gravity, the stories should always be taken seriously, unless there is strong evidence to believe it is fictitious or the child is being manipulated. It is the job of the authorities, not the person who is told the story, to determine whether or not the accusation is reasonable. It is also true that in situations like this, doctor-patient confidentiality does not hold, so the school counselor is very much responsible for not going to the proper authorities with the information. It is also especially important that in cases that involve minors, such as this one, every measure be taken to protect their rights. In response to the second question posted above, there will certainly be long standing psychological effects on the students who were abused. Perhaps the school and the community will also be changed by the situation, and maybe even become more sensitized to these sorts of evens in the future and thus become better at preventing them. But the most lasting effect will be to the children whose trust was betrayed.
DeleteA Wall Street Journal editorial recently criticized President Obama for his comments during an interview with 60 minutes in December. The interview’s outtakes revealed the President’s response to a question about his legislative and foreign policy regarding his economic stimulus plan. The President said in the interview that he “would put his legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any other president—with the possible exception of Johnson, FDR, and Lincoln…”. He also said that “he deserves a second term”.
ReplyDeleteWhile the editorial was definitely written with a conservative slant, its point is still noteworthy. Obama’s words reveal his narcissism, which as we know can be a positive trait in a leader, but the fact that he is comparing himself to other presidents during his time on the job is a bit disturbing. Though it is debatable as to whether Obama’s policies are better than those other presidents and good for our present situation, most people probably do not feel like it should be a competition or comparison between his work and others. Liberal or conservative, narcissism to the point of putting yourself at a higher level than such beloved presidents as George Washington, John Adams, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan is likely counterproductive, especially at a rather precarious position in his presidency in an election year. Instead of worrying about comparing himself to his predecessors he should be purely focusing on his own job and particularly his ineffective stimulus package that has caused much unrest in the minds of American citizens.
Q1. Is Obama the 4th most effective president in terms of accomplishment in foreign policy, or was that a bit of an overstatement?
Q2. Should Obama be comparing himself to his predecessors?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204369404577207371703997802.html?KEYWORDS=political+editorial+4th+best+president
Again the debated concept of narcissism and leadership surfaces and difficult judgements must be made. As a word with a strong hint of negative connotation, “narcissism” is not something a leader wants to be associated with. It is ignorant of reality, of one’s own short comings and this ignorance can be lethal for someone in a high position who yields a lot of power. However, according to Harvard Positive Psychology professor Tal, beliefs become self fullfiling prophecies, and so in this sense, if a leader thinks of him or herself as flawless they are more likely to succeed and get the job done in the most flawless way possible. So presented with this dilemma, what is the balance? To what extent should a leader like Barack Obama, or any leader exhibit narcissism? The question for me is a difficult one and a survey of current leaders and their level of narcissism may be helpful. However, the scaling system required to judge a leader’s extent of narcissism is itself highly subjective, and so it may be unlikely that every person could come up with one unanimous answer. In the case of Barack Obama, he demonstrates a desire for another period of presidency, which I think can be natural for any president. The leader’s level of success is reflected in the willingness of his followers to continue following his lead, and I think it is only natural that people all desire success.
Delete