Interesting quote on power and behavior (1 Viewer)

[ksu_aviator]

From the book "The Leadership Challenge"

When constituents have very little power, those in positions of authority can easily get people to follow orders. Under such circumstances, authority figures often attribute other people's behavior, no matter how good it is, to their own orders rather than to constituents' abilities and motivations. Stanford University researcher Jeffrey Pfeffer has found that 'if behavior occurs in the presence of a great deal of external pressure - either positive in the form of monetary inducements or negative in the form of threats and sanctions - people are likely to conclude that the external forces both caused the behavior and were, in fact, necessary to produce it'.

The most insidious thing about external control is that it actually erodes the intrinsic motivation that a person might have for a task. In other words, even the constituents begin to assume that only outside forces will compel them to do anything.

Sound familiar? This is a perfect summary of what conservatives claim the government is doing to America. It comes in the form of a study regarding leadership as it pertains to business. But clearly there's a cross-over application.

 

[Fisher]

From the book "The Leadership Challenge"



Sound familiar? This is a perfect summary of what conservatives claim the government is doing to America. It comes in the form of a study regarding leadership as it pertains to business. But clearly there's a cross-over application.

I disagree with the cross-over applying. In business, they do it so they don't get fired. In politics, I expect you would have the exact opposite---powerless people would resist you passionately because that is the only power they have and there isn't much you can do to cause a negative consequence like you can in employment settings--i,e, be spiteful.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

From the book "The Leadership Challenge"



Sound familiar? This is a perfect summary of what conservatives claim the government is doing to America. It comes in the form of a study regarding leadership as it pertains to business. But clearly there's a cross-over application.

The whole quote from the book looks like a wonderful justification for unions - because in "right to work" states where workers have few actual rights, it's "do what I say or get fired", whereas it's not so easy in states where unions are stronger.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

The whole quote from the book looks like a wonderful justification for unions - because in "right to work" states where workers have few actual rights, it's "do what I say or get fired", whereas it's not so easy in states where unions are stronger.

Why are you so afraid of "right to work?" Sure, it's easier to be a lazy simpleton with a union to hide behind, but why block the people who strive to be better from becoming what they want? What's so wrong about being paid your market value? What's so blissful about working as slow as union contracts allow? The way I see it, union membership exploits the lazy and the stupid. Give them a sense of entitlement, and they'll be virtual slaves to their union boss massas. Why do you want to be a slave? What happened to being the best you can be, instead of "good enough?"

 

[Velvet Elvis]

To the OP:

Throughout centuries the world has been full of the "haves" and the "have nots." The commonality has been that the "haves" keep the "have nots" stupid. The more complacent and ignorant the "have nots" are, the easier they are to be controlled by the "haves." The less ignorant the "have nots" becomes, the harder the "haves" try to keep them ignorant.

So...by all means...continue watching "Honey Boo Boo" and "American Idol" to your heart's content.

 

[Thrilla]

The whole quote from the book looks like a wonderful justification for unions - because in "right to work" states where workers have few actual rights, it's "do what I say or get fired", whereas it's not so easy in states where unions are stronger.

a union is just another external control source....to which people will attribute their behavior to and believe caused that behavior..

 

[captainawesome]

Why are you so afraid of "right to work?" Sure, it's easier to be a lazy simpleton with a union to hide behind, but why block the people who strive to be better from becoming what they want? What's so wrong about being paid your market value? What's so blissful about working as slow as union contracts allow? The way I see it, union membership exploits the lazy and the stupid. Give them a sense of entitlement, and they'll be virtual slaves to their union boss massas. Why do you want to be a slave? What happened to being the best you can be, instead of "good enough?"

what's so wrong with people negotiating an employment contract together? That is liberty and the free market working. The company doesn't have to give them anything they don't want to.

 

[Thrilla]

what's so wrong with people negotiating an employment contract together? That is liberty and the free market working. The company doesn't have to give them anything they don't want to.

nothing wrong with collective bargaining... it's an extension of the freedom to associate.

something defiantly wrong with being forced to join a union as a condition of employment

unions have nothing to do with free markets.. they don't want free markets and don't like them.... they are in the control business, not the freedom business.
manipulated markets are their forte.

 

[captainawesome]

nothing wrong with collective bargaining... it's an extension of the freedom to associate.

something defiantly wrong with being forced to join a union as a condition of employment

unions have nothing to do with free markets.. they don't want free markets and don't like them.... they are in the control business, not the freedom business.
manipulated markets are their forte.

if the company agrees to a closed shop there is nothing wrong with that.

Unions represent their members and are democratic institutions. They desire only the company live up to the terms of the contract.

 

[ksu_aviator]

To the OP:

Throughout centuries the world has been full of the "haves" and the "have nots." The commonality has been that the "haves" keep the "have nots" stupid. The more complacent and ignorant the "have nots" are, the easier they are to be controlled by the "haves." The less ignorant the "have nots" becomes, the harder the "haves" try to keep them ignorant.

So...by all means...continue watching "Honey Boo Boo" and "American Idol" to your heart's content.

What is a honey boo boo? Is that a cartoon?

 

[Thrilla]

if the company agrees to a closed shop there is nothing wrong with that.

Unions represent their members and are democratic institutions. They desire only the company live up to the terms of the contract.

the company benefits from the unions market manipulations regarding open/closed shops... the union promised to keep positions filled... the company doesn't care where the labor comes from, they just want it there and working.
I didn't figure you would find anything wrong with manipulating the labor market... it's a given for a union supporter to be opposed to free markets.

yeah, i've heard the myth of unions being democratic institutions all my life....union supports always try to sell it is some institutional of awesome equality in democracy... they never looking to see that every union member marches to the beat of union bosses who get rich off the backs of labor.


I'd like to thank the union workers for being blind though... without their blindness, Las Vegas would have never been build ( Vegas was built by union handing out pension funds as to organized crime)

 

[ksu_aviator]

Wow guys. This had nothing to do with unions and everything to do with welfare.

 

[captainawesome]

the company benefits from the unions market manipulations regarding open/closed shops... the union promised to keep positions filled... the company doesn't care where the labor comes from, they just want it there and working.
I didn't figure you would find anything wrong with manipulating the labor market... it's a given for a union supporter to be opposed to free markets.

yeah, i've heard the myth of unions being democratic institutions all my life....union supports always try to sell it is some institutional of awesome equality in democracy... they never looking to see that every union member marches to the beat of union bosses who get rich off the backs of labor.


I'd like to thank the union workers for being blind though... without their blindness, Las Vegas would have never been build ( Vegas was built by union handing out pension funds as to organized crime)

Unions created the middle class.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

what's so wrong with people negotiating an employment contract together? That is liberty and the free market working. The company doesn't have to give them anything they don't want to.

Nothing....of itself.

The problem is that union demands have become detrimental. The crappiest workers are paid the same as the most productive. Businesses are forced to tolerate lax work from that crappy worker, instead of send him out on his butt and replace him with another productive worker.

Then there's that "hive mentality" thing working. I know a lot of ex-union workers who jumped ship because their interests were being ignored. I know some who were totally content in their jobs, but were forced to adhere to a strike because the "hive" told them to.

You speak of union membership as "liberty" when the reality is the furthest thing from it. Sure you're "free" from what you call "evil corporations," but you don't mind being a slave to the "evil union boss." It's hypocritical.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

What is a honey boo boo? Is that a cartoon?

Good boy.

 

[captainawesome]

Nothing....of itself.

The problem is that union demands have become detrimental. The crappiest workers are paid the same as the most productive. Businesses are forced to tolerate lax work from that crappy worker, instead of send him out on his butt and replace him with another productive worker.

Then there's that "hive mentality" thing working. I know a lot of ex-union workers who jumped ship because their interests were being ignored. I know some who were totally content in their jobs, but were forced to adhere to a strike because the "hive" told them to.

You speak of union membership as "liberty" when the reality is the furthest thing from it. Sure you're "free" from what you call "evil corporations," but you don't mind being a slave to the "evil union boss." It's hypocritical.

As a union member one can run for union office to change things. The desire to work is all that is required.

No company has to just say yes to the union. It is a negotiation. Also, if your friend didn't like the union he knew how to handle it. That is go somewhere else. As an employee he has to follow the contract just like everyone else. That's what employment contracts are for. Are you saying we should ban employment contracts?

 

[Thrilla]

Unions created the middle class.

no , they didn't.

 

[Thrilla]

Wow guys. This had nothing to do with unions and everything to do with welfare.

true... but you're an old hat, you know how these tangents go.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

As a union member one can run for union office to change things.

I believe that, like I believe our current government officials ran to "change things." Unions are just as corrupt.

No company has to just say yes to the union. It is a negotiation.

Bullchips. What if Ford Motor Company couldn't afford those ridiculously bloated wages? Do you really think the UAW would give one milliliter of a rat's behind about the financial woes of the manufacturer? Unions are interested in one thing and one thing only....to extort as much possible out of the employers.

Also, if your friend didn't like the union he knew how to handle it. That is go somewhere else.

Luckily he did. What about the poor ignorant rube construction worker? His are a skill set that only applies one place...construction. Can he just quit? Not unless he has other skills that make him more marketable. But see....personal marketability is the antonym of union labor.

Are you saying we should ban employment contracts?

Not at all. I'm saying that "group" contracts are unnecessary. Let the individuals market themselves for the best wage they can. Let the more talented people make more money than the dullards. That's how it should be. Companies shouldn't have to pay someone based on tenure.

 

[captainawesome]

no , they didn't.

Oh yes they did. With out unions wages and benefits would never have raised at the pace they did.

work places would be no where near as safe.

 

[sangha]

From the book "The Leadership Challenge"



Sound familiar? This is a perfect summary of what conservatives claim the government is doing to America. It comes in the form of a study regarding leadership as it pertains to business. But clearly there's a cross-over application.

If a motivational speaker says it on the internet, it must be true! :roll:

 

[ksu_aviator]

If a motivational speaker says it on the internet, it must be true! :roll:

Ya...because this is in print and is endorsed by numerous universities and business organizations. Also, one of the authors is published in Harvard Business Review and the techniques and principles from this book are used by companies like Southwest Airlines and Levi Straus. But you go ahead think that it is just a quote from a motivational speaker.

 

[Thrilla]

Oh yes they did. With out unions wages and benefits would never have raised at the pace they did.

work places would be no where near as safe.

they did , did they?

explain the existence of the middle class in 1745 across the western world.....explain the middle class role in the french revolution.

explain the existence of the middle class in the US from our inception until unions came into being.
how could the middle class exist before unions if unions created it?


what you mean ot say , if you are shooting for accuracy, is that unions played a role in elevated the working conditions and lifestyles of the middle class and working class.

they did not create the middle class, nor did they elevate these middle class conditions on their own.


reread the quote in the OP, and look at your argument.... in the context of unions, you are proving the quote correct.
not only have you attributed the existence of the middle class to unions, you attribute their improved condition to the unions... and only the unions.

 

[sangha]

Ya...because this is in print and is endorsed by numerous universities and business organizations. Also, one of the authors is published in Harvard Business Review and the techniques and principles from this book are used by companies like Southwest Airlines and Levi Straus. But you go ahead think that it is just a quote from a motivational speaker.

I don't care if the Queen of England listened to him

It's still just some guys opinion

 

[captainawesome]

they did , did they?

explain the existence of the middle class in 1745 across the western world.....explain the middle class role in the french revolution.

explain the existence of the middle class in the US from our inception until unions came into being.
how could the middle class exist before unions if unions created it?


what you mean ot say , if you are shooting for accuracy, is that unions played a role in elevated the working conditions and lifestyles of the middle class and working class.

they did not create the middle class, nor did they elevate these middle class conditions on their own.


reread the quote in the OP, and look at your argument.... in the context of unions, you are proving the quote correct.
not only have you attributed the existence of the middle class to unions, you attribute their improved condition to the unions... and only the unions.

Working conditions in the U.S. before unions was much harsher and for less pay than after unions.

Hard to run a sweatshop with a union.