Afghan War: Stay or Leave?

Grad School???

Decision Making: To go to grad school or not to go to grad school?
Option 1:  Go to Grad School

          Outcome 1:  Get into Top Grad School
Value:  10
Prob: .2
Sum:  2
          Outcome 2:  Get into middle level Grad School
Value: 70
Prob: .5
Sum: 35
Outcome 3: Get into a lower level Grad School
Value: 40
Prob: .3
Sum: 12
          Expected Value of Option 1:  49
Option 2:  Don't Go to Grad School
           Outcome 1: Save lots of money in loans, Make money
Value: 50
Prob: .4
Sum:  20
           Outcome 2:  Don't get a Higher Level Position, Make less money
Value:  15
Prob: .6
Sum:  9

          Expected Value of Option 2: 29
I will most likely attend grad school in the fall and be going to a middle level Grad school.  The benefits outweigh the costs in the long run for me. The expected value is higher for attending grad school.

The Politics of Going to College

This unexpected issue of whether or not Americans should aspire to obtain a college degree has arisen in the 2012 election. The more unexpected thing is Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum's view on this subject. They both have made comments about the government not being responsible for paying for higher education, and the Obama just wants Americans to be a clone of himself could come back to bite them in the butt hard. Romney is very blunt in what he is saying and it has gained a lot of attention in the past month from student, parents, and concerned Americans. I found it very interesting that the people without higher educations have a tendency to vote republican, and the people with a higher education of some sorts vote Democrat. I would have never thought the democrats would support the more educated because of their growing pull at the polls. In the past the less educated was higher in population and thus lead to an advantage in the polls. This is where the republican views come in. As they are saying they don't support the Pell Grants and the federal scholarship money being given out by he government for higher education, they have to take into account the white American working-class whose kids depend on that money. This fact alone could spell disaster for the republican party. The cost of living has also increased in America along with the gap between gross income without any higher education compared to gross income with a higher education. So where does that leave the issue of importance of higher education?

Obama vs. Buffet

These two articles had very different leaders displayed in them. First was Obama who seemed to me as more of a 'brand" due to the people who created it, rather then by his own making or skill. Next, was Warren Buffet who through trusting his instincts, acting rationally, being relatable, and being patient has successfully created a great leader. He is one of those people who lead by example.

But first the Obama article. I think this article did Obama a injustice, it did not do a good job displaying his leadership "brand" well. It brought up the fact the he did have a great marketing team and that helped him tremendously, but he himself lacked a little whoa factor other then campaigning to be the first black president. He was also able to do something that not alot of other candidates was, he reached an age group that used to be unreachable. He portrayed himself in a way through marketing that allowed youngsters to get engaged. He used his breaking racial boundaries to portray himself as this big powerful leader. His over image of leadership was hands down his biggest strength. Without his image I don't know if he would have been voted president and been as successful as he is. He seemed to be current with technology and social media, he attracted the younger population, and he seemed to stand for change. At where the country is we believed in change because it is what we needed to believe.

Warren Buffer on the other hand portrays a leadership style that is patient and well-maintained. Through trusting his instincts and not giving into the general population he has been able to maintain his reign of power. I believe his hard working persona is more ideal for leading the masses, because he can relate and tries to. His calm demeanor allows him to really hear what people are saying and what they need. Many would call him very relatable just for simple facts that he doesn't buy the huge house or send a prewritten letter to stockholders. His personal touch has allowed him to be accessible to many and therefore respected more. I feel that Buffet is on of those people who does not start from their opinions or views. This was a much more enjoyable article for me to read.

Overall, I would say someones image is everything and that alone can sway millions of people or just the few that matter.

Management vs. Leadership- what are the differences?

I thoroughly enjoyed this topic because I feel there are a lot of differences and similarities between Managers and Leaders. I agree with a earlier blog I read about how we as students are taught to be better managers, but only told to be good leaders. How can it be so important to be a great leader but not explain to us better on how to achieve this? In a competitive business school it’s said that we should strive to be leaders, when in reality that is not the best fit for many students. I like sports examples and this is where one fits perfectly. Some people don't like being in charge and get nervous or panic if they are shoved in a leadership role, where others relish in the thought of leading others. I would not want a captain who never spoke, or didn't cheer me on, and didn't try to help me. People should not be put into situations where they don’t belong just because it’s believed to be where they should be. I truly do believe leaders are naturally born in most cases and are products of their environment. People shouldn't count out managers and followers because they are what keep a company moving. Overall Leaders to me are captains to a team, and a manager is a coach.

Does Personality matter in Leadership??

I believe that a leader’s personality plays a huge role in the success of their leadership. On the other hand I don’t think that there are specific personality traits that can be said to guarantee to result in effective leadership. I believe that the success of the leader is a product of their environment and the culture of the company.  Interpersonal relationships also play a huge role in the effectiveness of a leader. If your employees don't respect you or understand you, you will achieve nothing. There are important characteristics that are imperative in all situations. Someones internal locus of control and being able to get along with many different kinds of people are key factors as well. I think leaders that are well organized, self-motivated, and reliable prosper. When a leader exudes these traits it fosters a healthy work environment as well as a sense of trust. A self-motivated leader is one that leads by example. Take me for instance, I have a personality where I won't ask or expect something from someone unless I can do it myself. I played numerous sports in high school but excelled in Ice Hockey and Softball.  When I was named captain of both of my teams I choose the path of being a leader by example. I embodied what I wanted of other and expected, this lead to expectations being understood and achieved. I felt like I had the respect of my teammates and we had a common goal in winning. This trait in me is an example of having an internal locus of control. A internal locus of controls means a person thinks that their success is due to their own efforts and merit rather then by luck. I also am a firm believer in fostering relationships with either employees or teammates. Getting along with different personalities is very important in achieving satisfaction and in the long run productivity.

When it comes to the personality tests we were asked to take I feel like we can learn a lot about ourselves, it might bring something to light that you would have never thought. As far as whether the results dictate a effective leader, I would say no. There are always exceptions to things, and many people can surprise you. For example mine said I was introverted, this I feel is off because I am a social butterfly and love being in a group or team.  I am not someone who can sit in my room and do work alone, I'd much rather go to the library and work at a table with my roommates.

Overall, I think personality plays a vital role in the effectiveness of a leader, but its not the only role. There are many kinds of leaders that come form many different environments and situations that all call for a kind of different leader. This being said there is no set mold for what personality traits dictate a successful leader.

What motivates us?

What motivates us? Well there are countless answers to that question, but the three main ones we are focusing on are: Automany, Mastery, and Purpose. Most people think of motivation as external rewards like money, but now we are learning that is not always the best method of true motivation. Many people are challenging that traditional notion of "if you want someone to do something for you, give them money/a reward", with saying high performance and satisfaction at work is the basic human need to direct our own lives, to learn and create new things, and to do things better by ourselves. Like the youtube clip stated, "The reward-based incentive actually creates poorer performance in any group of workers for cognitive tasks, regardless of economic background or complexity of the task involved." This notion has now been proven over and over again. I loved the example of a software company giving their employees one day off to work on whatever they would like and at the end of the day would have a party and share what they had worked on. Having such an open forum to create things fosters innovation and creativeness so well, and as I'm learning has led to the companies success.  I am someone who loves sports and has always had them come very easy to me, so when I joined Ship women's rugby it was a shock to be to not master it right away.  I was driven and motivated to work even harder in a sport I barley understood because I wanted to master it.  Going to practices and extra practice sessions gave me purpose to continue on with rugby and expand my knowledge of the game. Every week we have runs, gym hours, and library hours and it makes us embrace the idea of automany. If we attend all these things will will reap the benefits on Saturday in a game when we are in better shape and can play longer and harder than the other team.  So if I were to ask myself what motives me, I would say to become the best I can be at something. What would you say motivates you?

The Organizational Kid

I believe these Princeton University students have the lifestyles they do because of their upbringing, and their successful/wealthy parents. The families know exactly what it takes to reach the level of success they did so they instill it in their children from an early age.  These students are so goal-oriented they tend to lose sight of the little things: friends, family, dating, just basically a social life. Opportunities draw these students in and keep them hungry.  The sense of an opportunity to further themselves makes these students stay in line, do what is asked of them, and not question authority.  This mindset is what causes these same students to become workaholics later in life the kind that sleep at their desks, don't see their families, and forget important events outside of work. Living out this crazy nonstop lifestyle has come second nature to most of these student due to the fact that most of these kids have been living a schedule since they could walk.  Parents plan things out to the very last second of everyday when these students were younger, with the thought of how it would look on a college application and to the community. Expectations were made for these kids very early and will continue on through their lives with no letting back. When Brooks visited the campus he witnessed students that didn't question how things were and had never thought to. these students were drones going about their day. An example of being drones and doing what is told and expected of you is the movie Mona Lisa Smile. Its a movie about a teacher Katherine Watson( Julia Roberts) who is hired to teach Art History to the young ladies of Wellesley College. She is not to go off topic and only teach the curriculum that the school provides. Watson is a very modern woman, especially for the 1950s and has a passion for her students to further themselves. For the most part, the students all seem to be biding their time, waiting to find the right man to marry. The students are all very bright and Watson feels they are not reaching their potential. The movie ends with Watson being asked to leave Wellesley because of their dominant culture not agreeing with her viewpoints. Back in the 50's is was expected to go to school and learn how to be a proper wife, where now a days it is expected we go to college and learn how to be a perfect employee. Overall in the end of the article the Princeton kids efforts paid off  they become successful for the most part, make tons of money, and live up to their parents expectations. As for the girls of Mona Lisa Smile the same happened for them, most married and become the perfect wife/mother. doing what is always expected of us has its pros and cons you just have to weigh which fits you better. The Organizational Kid has lost the sense of values, religion, and self-appreciation.

Grasso: Money-hungry?

This article provides a interesting insight at the rise and fall of Dick Grasso, who was the CEO of the New York Stock Exchange from 1995-2003. As I read the article, I thought about  the five sources of power: referent, expert, coercive, reward, and legitimate.  Grasso's is a leader who derives power from five sources, some more than other but still all five. This is a story of what it takes to achieve power.  Grasso in his later days was more money hungry than anything, but the fact of his leadership was unchanged. The first thing you have to take a deeper look at is where Grasso derived his power and influence from. One person used the term Grasso has a low substitutability and as we read there was no one like him.  He knew the ins and outs of the NYSE unlike anyone else allowing him to be an asset. There's always a possibility that their is someone who could be better, but that's a very small chance because Grasso is unique and experience will always play a key role in this. The people at NYSE know he is a piece of the puzzle that they couldn't lose and Grasso understood how much he was needed and that only built on his power. When it comes to being a leader and the CEO Grasso made every decision, he wanted all the responsibilities and control at all times. Someone who can shoulder the weight of what that really means in a leader in my opinion. Influence was his biggest strong suit I feel, and he can flourish at any of the 10 categories of Influence. He was very good at making people aware of him, he was visible to all, and threw his weight around the NYSE to prove it. If you thought of power/influence/and leadership as a recipe you would need to throw in a little of everything to be successful but Grasso seemed to take his humble upbringings and hard-working demeanor and accomplished all three while at the same time making a ton of money.

Social Networking and Influence

Social networking is nothing new to our generation, but the possibilities that continue to grow are endless and ever-changing.  These social networks seem to be everywhere we look.  From Facebook and twitter to Linked In or Second Life the change is rapid. There are so many connections between so many different groups of people its crazy.  You can add one word on your Facebook profile or declare a graduation year and be connected to hundreds of thousand other people.
These Social Networks also carry a lot of influence. Whether its influence on people's lives or to who we befriend, the possibilities never stop.  We are now in the 21st century not only influenced by the people that we are surrounded by, but by our social networks. All of these things have come to have a  large impact on our personalities and habits.  We talked about in class about how "liking" is one of the main influences that a person can have on another person.  I believe the main thing that impacts us is physical attractiveness.  This is the deciding factor in whether or not to approach someone or to message them online.  For example, if you were to create a online dating profile you are required to upload a picture.  This requirement is because studies have shown and its been proven the how attractive someone is does matter. The next step in the process is to find out if there are similarities in that person.  These similarities allow us to further the relationship and to feel "comfortable." Overall whether or not you think social media has a effect on your life, it ultimately does.  These days all people have to do is google your name and hits come up.

Women in the Workplace

I agree with Sandberg, women do put a lot of the problem on themselves. Women today are just not making to the tops of many professions. Women are making too many excuses rather than just jumping into the game and furthering their career or position in firms.

I googled the numbers and found out in political ranks women are only 10% of the workforce, in Corporate its about 16%, and in non-profit is about 22%.  In my mind I always thought more non-profits were run by women so that number surprised me the most.

There are many causes of the inequality today. One that jumps out at me is more women choosing to stay at home and leaving the workforce for good or a longer period of time. Being a woman myself I can understand the desire to stay home and be a housewife and mother, but its desire that is causing a downturn in women in higher ranks. Seniority matters in corporate America in many firms so periods of not being in the office can sustainably hurt a woman. Another reason in my opinion is the intimation factor. Women have always fallen back on the fact they its more acceptable for them to ask for help rather than a man. That notion falls back on gender roles.  Men are supposed to be the bread winners, the do-it and get it done type and women are supposed to take care of the kids, home, and day to day activities.  Corporate America is described as a battlefield and from a very early age war isn't something women are described in and thought to belong to.

As for what can be done....Women can remind themselves they are smart enough, driven enough, and confident enough to do the job at hand.  That sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves and get down to work.  Women need to become of a doer rather than a spectator. They need to voice a voice in the workplace and make their presence known. Those gender roles we have all become a custom to need to be put aside and the "50/50" rule should be adopted by a husband and a wife.  Finally they need to realize their only job doesn't have to be to stay home with the kids. You can have the best of both worlds with hard work and dedication, be a career-woman, as well as a great mother. The inequality in the workplace needs to be a higher priority, it is the 21st century!!!!!!!