"Sofia sees a puppy in the middle of the street, scared and not moving.
Will Sofia save the puppy or keep her promise? Children under the age of
six typically go with saving the puppy; when asked how the father will
feel, they say “happy,” justifying their response by stating that fathers
like puppies, too. If these children learn that Sofia’s father will punish
her for running out into the street—breaking a promise—they explain
that saving the puppy isn’t an option. When asked how Sofia will feel
about leaving the puppy, they answer “happy”; they think that because
adherence to authority is good, that they, too, will feel good having listened
to their father."
For me this really strikes a parallel to a whole lot of politics that exist within the art of leadership in corporate America.
Don't get me wrong — I've been EXTREMELY fortunate and have had absolutely amazing experiences with my career and took with me so much valuable information from people I consider mentors at each stop along the way, but as a designer I can't count the number of times when I saw the helpless puppy, knew a good safe way to get him off the busy street that would make everyone happy, but instead had to leave the puppy where it is. And then only one person maybe got to be happy, instead of several, including the people actually buying our products or services.
I studied Leadership and People Management for Young Managers as a fellow at the American Press Institute in 2004, and what I learned in training I think is just absolutely crucial information about the art of dealing with human beings as a leader, and I really wish that every manager in America had access to that information. It dispelled so many things that I think people find "true" about managing people.
While say, in this example, the father's intentions were good and he simply wanted his daughter to be safe, it could also be argued that maybe a different father simply wanted his instructions to be followed, thus proving that he was the parent, the leader, that he doesn't NEED reasoning — his daughter should simply not do it because he's her father, and he "said so."
The concept of "because I said so" I think might be the cause of the biggest vat of resources and talent that the US at large loses annually.
It puts employees at times in positions where they know the "right" thing to do — which really in most cases is to make the person paying for goods or services "happy" — but they choose not to because they fear then angering the powerful father that also needs to be "happy."
There's an instance I can recall in my history where someone described a well-liked leader as "everyone's favorite dad" amongst employees. She went on to explain though, that the problem with "fun dad" is that you have still have to please him when he's "angry dad."
And it's amazing what makes some leaders angry. An oppositional thought, no matter how tactfully phrased, could be a solution that saves the puppy, but in the end, some leaders will only hear an oppositional thought.
I've struggled with this on a moral level that I think ALL designers have at some point or other. A different solution might be more cost effective, a different solution might solve a client's problem more effectively while still bringing in the same or more profit, or a different solution could prevent a larger problem in the future, etc.
But, there's times we don't offer that solution simply because it's 11am, and we don't want to deal with everyone upset before it's even lunchtime. Or, it's 4:30, and we don't want to leave everyone upset and take the upset home with us. We know it isn't "right," but, well, "you said so." So at least someone's happy and we can move on to the next disaster. lol.
For me this really strikes a parallel to a whole lot of politics that exist within the art of leadership in corporate America.
Don't get me wrong — I've been EXTREMELY fortunate and have had absolutely amazing experiences with my career and took with me so much valuable information from people I consider mentors at each stop along the way, but as a designer I can't count the number of times when I saw the helpless puppy, knew a good safe way to get him off the busy street that would make everyone happy, but instead had to leave the puppy where it is. And then only one person maybe got to be happy, instead of several, including the people actually buying our products or services.
I studied Leadership and People Management for Young Managers as a fellow at the American Press Institute in 2004, and what I learned in training I think is just absolutely crucial information about the art of dealing with human beings as a leader, and I really wish that every manager in America had access to that information. It dispelled so many things that I think people find "true" about managing people.
While say, in this example, the father's intentions were good and he simply wanted his daughter to be safe, it could also be argued that maybe a different father simply wanted his instructions to be followed, thus proving that he was the parent, the leader, that he doesn't NEED reasoning — his daughter should simply not do it because he's her father, and he "said so."
The concept of "because I said so" I think might be the cause of the biggest vat of resources and talent that the US at large loses annually.
It puts employees at times in positions where they know the "right" thing to do — which really in most cases is to make the person paying for goods or services "happy" — but they choose not to because they fear then angering the powerful father that also needs to be "happy."
There's an instance I can recall in my history where someone described a well-liked leader as "everyone's favorite dad" amongst employees. She went on to explain though, that the problem with "fun dad" is that you have still have to please him when he's "angry dad."
And it's amazing what makes some leaders angry. An oppositional thought, no matter how tactfully phrased, could be a solution that saves the puppy, but in the end, some leaders will only hear an oppositional thought.
I've struggled with this on a moral level that I think ALL designers have at some point or other. A different solution might be more cost effective, a different solution might solve a client's problem more effectively while still bringing in the same or more profit, or a different solution could prevent a larger problem in the future, etc.
But, there's times we don't offer that solution simply because it's 11am, and we don't want to deal with everyone upset before it's even lunchtime. Or, it's 4:30, and we don't want to leave everyone upset and take the upset home with us. We know it isn't "right," but, well, "you said so." So at least someone's happy and we can move on to the next disaster. lol.
No comments:
Post a Comment