The lottery of Stumbleupon may have delivered an article on “luckiness”. Today, my fingers typed zero zero instead of OO and Launchy retrieved something dubious from the depths of my computer – a post modernist view of management.
Rants that pretend to have substance
Yes, I read that sort of thing, so you don’t have to – and just in case the author knows something we don’t.
I read a little of the article as I tried to figure out what I was looking at and how it came to be on my screen. I found a rant.
In short, Nike pays Tiger Woods as much per day as you or I earn in a year. And more than one of their workers earns in a lifetime. The writer was disgusted. I am sure the writer is correct – factually and morally.
But, when I looked more closely, I thought the pot was calling the kettle black. First, there was the rant. Then, there was some obscure theorizing. The author plainly didn’t see the his argument could be applied to him. He lives in the West very well. How many people around the world support his lifestyle with their poverty?
So, I wondered, what is a morally acceptable position?
I think we have to put our money where our mouth is.
Shouldn’t we be honest about what we will fight for and what we are trying to win – at least to ourselves? Don’t we have to fight for the right we talk about? Don’t we have to get out there and fight shoulder-to-shoulder with the people we champion? Don’t we have to risk as much as they do?
Isn’t anything less hypocritical?
My 4 rules of a honest life
#1 It seems to me that as I cannot do everything with everyone, I should choose what I will do with whom, and join them, winning with them and losing with them.
#2 I think I have to tell the story from our own side. Who did this post-modernist represent as he stood in his Western classroom? I don’t know. But I’d better know whom I am representing when I stand there!
#3 I need a clear goal. And I prefer to be able to say it aloud in other people’s hearing. I like to think through what the people who pay for my goal will have to say about it. Not the people who pay me – the people who pay for my good fortune. Will I be fleeing with them at my heels? I don’t say this out of cowardice. I am happy to annoy people if I believe in what I am doing. But I am not going to pretend that my goals have no impact on other people. Let me be clear about the inconvenience and upset that I cause.
#4 And not least, I need to respect that other people will pursue their goals equally vigorously. To expect them to do anything less is crazy. I may need to defend my projects from theirs. If I find their projects totally unacceptable, I might feel compelled to stop them. And I might get hurt in my efforts. That’s why diplomacy is the preferred first strategy. Perverting Clausewitz- war is just diplomacy continued through other means.
Player or spectator?
But just to rant? Not for me. I talk and write to figure out what I think, so that I can act. I prefer to be a player. Always have.
I very consciously chose to teach in Universities and to do consultancy because in these roles I am a line manager. I know that neither look like action to you! But I am a psychologist, so it is in these roles that I run a business. I set the direction. I allocate resources. I solve problems. I am accountable for the outcomes. I couldn’t bear a role with no responsibility.
But that is my preference. What is yours? Are you a player?