Media, Technology and Society

Henry Mintzberg: Managers, not MBA's

One of Business professor Henry Mintzberg's major arguments is that MBA's have cultivated the next generation of business leaders into thinking that they are the indispensible ingredient in business success. In combination with the business press, which breathlessly (well, maybe a little less breathlessly, after Enron and Worldcom) waits for business leaders to work magical turnarounds, and single-handedly create profits out of thin air.

It is ludicrous when you think about it. Many headlines of business turnarounds, or good results in general attribute the success entirely to the CEO, the leader, or the management group - ignoring the complex interrelated efforts of the company's diverse and numerous employees, not to mention prevailing economic conditions, and, Mintzberg adds...luck. Mintzberg is a bit unfair, since, just as the praise is unfair for results executives aren't entirely responsible so too are corporate disasters often not directly attributable to management failure of some kind. Economic conditions, consumer confidence declines, strikes, or unforeseen fiscal problems can wreck a company's prospects as surely as management incompetence.

Mintzberg is undoubtedly drawing from, and perhaps part of, the anti-leadership school of management thinking - the notion that leadership isn't all that its cracked up to be. In actual fact, I think Mintzberg is a proponent of leadership, just not the glamorized, artificial kind that makes the front covers of the business press (not that all business media are at fault...just any article that begins with...when x took over from y at company c, it was on the verge of chapter 11, and then in 60 days, miraculous results....)

So yes, Quiet Leadership is what Mintzberg proposes as a replacement for Ken Lay style corporate white-knight-ism. Leadership which creates lasting enduring change and real results lasting far beyond a leader's tenure. As Mintzberg notes, the best measure of a leader's stewardship is to look at how a company is doing a decade after they left the helm. Its an interesting point. It isn't likely to mesh particularly well with an equity sector that places such tremendous pressure on short-term earnings targets, but it's a much-needed recommendation.

To go back to my own management education so far, I think it has in fact changed since Mintzberg's crusade against glamorized celebrity leaders. Many courses emphasize the ability to make decisions based on as much practical evidence as possible, analyzing a wide variety of factors in making decisions and broadening knowledge of the different kinds of operating environments, goals and strategy needed to at different times and by different businesses. However, the courses on managing people - human resources - have emphasized that creating an artificial and self-serving leadership cult is unlikely to motivate people, create job satisfaction or boost productivity. It helps to have visionary leadership, and having identified organizational goals is crucial, but people need recognition and inclusion in the organizational direction. They shouldn't perceive themselves as extraneous to the CEO's personal quest to deliver results. Ultimately, whether a person attempts to create lasting change, or practice quiet leadership depends on the latitude they have in their managerial role, and on the goals of the organization itself.

Some organizations prosper because of glamorized, celebrity leadership. Richard Branson, where would Virgin be without you? Of course, Branson's celebrity coincides with an industry-leading faith in the people he appoints to manage his divisions. It may not be quiet leadership, but it works.

Washington State Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban, Citing Need for "Procreation"

The decision was 5-4, illustrating how being close to balanced, just doesn't cut it. As the NYT reports:

“Limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples,” Judge Barbara A. Madsen wrote in [the] opinion, “furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents.”

Now, there are many things that can be argued about the gay, or same-sex marriage issue, but...furthering procreation? Aside from the ludicrous proposition that we need more people in the United States, people who consume more of the planets limited resources in absolute terms than any other nation, what does gay-marriage have to do with procreation? Are gay people going to suddenly decide to have kids because they can't be married legally? Thank you Ms. Madsen and to the circular and completely unsubstantiated ramblings of the 5 other justices. I'm sure this will go a long way to paving the path for a mass exodus from gaydom into the land of....ex-gaydom, where children will spring forth and the human race will be assured survival from the predations of....gay adopters!! Aaaahh!

Imagine Peacekeeping in Afghanistan without Timbits?

Whether you call it Timho's, Horties, Timmies...my favourite is Horties! It just sounds so much like a venereal disease I love it! Either way, a shortage of Tim Horton's doughnuts is currently depriving our Kandahar, Afghanistan-based troops of their rightly deserved opportunity to dunk said ridiculously unhealthy pastries in their morning coffees....for shame! See more on this crisis here....

The Teenage Male: The Apex of Human Stupidity

It is no secret that a human being will never be more unintelligent than if that person is male, and between the ages of 15-19 years of age (some would extend the age range higher and lower!). During this time, the thought of throwing a rock of an overpass into oncoming traffic, doing ridiculously dangerous drugs, driving while intoxicated - all seem like good ideas.

During this time, brain function, self-monitoring ability, critical thinking skills and many other key components of sentient activity, are more or less nonexistent. That's more my assessment actually. In truth, men are more associated with risk-taking behaviours, teenagers are associated with a feeling of invincibility...combine those two and presto!

It is also true that there is an inverse relationship between individual intelligence and the number of teenage males together in a close proximity. This relationship is borne out in the latest statistics on teen crash rates and the graduated licensing program which has swept North America since the mid 1990s:

"graduated licensing has taken hold in at least 40 U.S. states and every Canadian province, at least to some degree. But it's not the full story. Teen drivers, especially boys, continue to crash at substantially higher rates than adults, a fact that shows up in insurance rates.

What's more, July and August are the two worst months for cars and teen fatalities...According to the National Highway study, a teen driver's risk of dying more than doubles with two or more male passengers in the car."

Obviously there are some young men that are the exception rather than the rule...but the rule...oh my. Just think of that statistic! Why are young men so dumb and dangerous in groups? Would any social scientist care to comment?

Pope Affirms Traditional Marriage in Spain

The Pope visited Spain yesterday to bolster support for traditional marriage and to voice his political opposition to Zapatero's socialist government and its legalization of gay marriage in 2005. The Pope had this to say:

"Certainly, we come from our parents and we are their children," he said. "But we also come from God who has created us in his image and called us to be his children.

"Consequently, at the origin of every human being there is not something haphazard or chance, but a loving plan of God."

I love my parents, I really do, but the heterosexual union that gives rise to children has less to do with "loving plans" than with...that's right, avoiding disease and increasing the incidence of genetic mutation.

Why is genetic mutation so desirable? Well, sexual reproduction is a characteristic of more advanced species. You see, because there are different sexes, males and females can travel in different geographic areas, you know and do their thing. The fact that they move around, and associate with (hopefully) different pools of genetic material, reduces the chance that segregated groups of people will continually select traits from the same (possibly vulernable) pool of genes.

Asexual reproduction has the disadvantage of reducing the ease with which genetic mutations can be produced, and increasing the vulnerability of that species to disease and parasites (which also evolve...!). 

By having sexes, our species increases its odds that adventurous men and women will wander far and wide, mate and reproduce, and create especially disease resistant offspring. Thinking back to the time when size, intelligence, and other factors perhaps had more of a role in determining who lived and died before the age of reproduction, genetic diversity was absolutely essential to species survival. It is unclear to what extent extra-genetic factors like modern medicine are affecting what genetic traits are being favoured at this point, but it is undeniable that this process is still occuring.

If the pope could just work a little more genetic mutation and disease resistance talk into his delightfully enchanting discussion of God's "loving plan" and other assorted discussions of marriage, and heterosexuality, that would be great.

A Soldier's response to Canada's War Memorial Desecration

Of all the things not to urinate on during Canada Day, the nations war memorial would probably be it. The incendiary photographs of idiots desecrating the national war memorial has drawn condemnation from veterans and this insightful column from a soldier with an admirable record of service in our nations armed forces. If this were to happen in Arlington, Virginia, or for that matter, in Holland, I think the offending urinator would probably end up either member-less or dead...

In the Age of the Borg

"Technology that enables artificial limbs to be directly attached to a human skeleton has been developed by British scientists." (BBC news) Apparently, prosthetic technology has been in consistent development since WWII, and we have moved very far indeed from the era of a strap-on plastic "dummy" limb. But this is just stunning?!

"The breakthrough, developed by researchers at University College London, allows the prosthesis to breach the skin without risk of infection."

The team looked at deer antlers in order to understand how a rigid object could protrude from skin tissue without exposing the skin to outside infection and bacteria.

"The technique developed by the scientists, "Intraosseus Transcutaneous Amputation Prosthesis" (ITAP) involves securing a titanium rod directly into the bone. The metal implant passes through the skin and the artificial limb can be directly attached to it.

Currently, artificial limbs are fixed or strapped to an amputees stump, as in the case of Jesse Sullivan, an electrical worker who lost both arms to an electric shock. Even in the case of Sullivan, advances in technology which allow his existing nervous system to control the actual movement of his prosthesis, have enabled him to recover much of the functionality of his destroyed natural arms.

Here is Jesse Sullivan pictured with his prosthetic arms. See more info...

The development of prosthetic technologies is trully stunning, and it really adds credibility to the notion that science fiction "anticipates" technological advances, and articulates phobias about which direction it may take.

Considering advances in nanotechnology, the ability to condense computing power into infinitesimal scales, and prosthetic technologies - the ability to augment and restore lost physiological functionality through technological implanets - has enormous implications for the future.

Obviously, the promise is enormous. The scientists goal of creating prostheses which could restore limbs to the British victims of the July 7th, 1995 terrorist attacks in London is inspiring and promising.

That said, the applications of this technology are very open to possibility. Ever want to have three arms? Well maybe, now, for a price, you can! Just replicate a few nerves here, add a few synapses here...Want additional brain function to compensate for alzheimers? We'll just add a few memory chips with residual phase dispersion timings here...want a bionic eye to replace your nearsighted natural one? A team of US and German scientists has developed a prototype which can replace, and perhaps improve on, natural eyes: see the article.

All of this brings to mind the argument of the so-called "transhuman" movement, a group of people seeking to evolve the human race through technological augmentation and 'improvement'.

It is a truism that our technological advances occur at a rate far greater than the sophistication of the public dialogue and introspection that accompanies these advances. As one of my professors argued, our technological capability is at an all-time high, while our propensity towards reason and rationality is at an all-time low. It is both folly to assume that new technologies are inherently positive (will only and ever improve the lives of bomb victims) and that they are inherently negative.

A Bionic Eye Prototype

The case for the development of bionic eyes, brain implants and limb prostheses is clear and convincing, but we need more oversight to ensure that the technology is constrained towards these positive potentialities. Once a technology is developed, it cannot be "un-developed".

Once Einstein developed the theory of relativity in 1905, how could he know that his work would lay the foundation for a doomsday weapon which still holds the potential to render the human race extinct?

Once we've created the conditions under which people can augment themselves in ways they shouldn't (transhumans), we can't go back.

Think of the capacity for brain implants that improve the speed with which arithmetic functions can occur in the human brain (at present, it is an incredibly inefficient process by which the brain performs arithmetic)? Should that be pursued? Who should decide?

Happy Canada Day!

Canada celebrates its 139th birthday, and all us Canucks are proud to celebrate this country and its accomplishments. Did you know that:

- Canada's Constitution includes the "Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms"? This document enshrines individual rights and freedoms and protects individuals from prejudice and unfair discrimination.

-Canada has a very "European" looking currency, with lots of colours and interesting anti-counterfeiting devices.

-Canada is a democratic constitutional monarchy? Canada has a parliament developed according to the British "westminster model of government." Although Canada has removed the last of its official governmental ties to the British government, it retains the same formal head of state - the Queen of England - as does Britain. The queen is very fond of Canada and she has many monarchal supporters here, including myself! The Queen's "royal city" in Canda, is the city of Regina, in the provice of Saskatchewan.

-The national name, "Canada" originates from the Huron-Iriquois term "Kanata" referring to a village or settlement. The name was picked up by a French explorer, Jacques Cartier, who used the term to refer to the "Chemin de Canada" (route to Canada). The name later appeared in 16th century maps labelling ever larger parts of what is now referred to as Canada.

-Canada is historically a resource and agriculturally based nation. Although it now has a highly advanced industrial and technological economic base, it still derives much of its economic product from resource-connected industries.

-Canada has a long and complicated relationship with its largest trading partner, the United States. Initially, this relationship became complicated because the US pre-dates what is now Canada by approximately a century. Canada came into being in 1868, while the US declared its independence in 1776.

More history...

After the American declaration of independence, the notion of US "manifest destiny" - a destiny to be nation encompassing all of North America - there were several American invasions into present-day Canada, which was primarily a land of independent first-nations peoples, and a large British and French colony. Over time, the invasions were repelled and in the late 19th century, John A. Macdonald, Canada's first prime minister, articulated an extraordinarily ambitious vision - uniting a series of fractured provincial settlements with conflicting First Nations, British, French and sometimes American allegiances, into a single nation....Canada.

In a town close to where I live now, New Westminster, British Columbia, there are cannons located at key points along the river...to defend against a possible American invasion. So, you see, Canada has a complicated relationship with its neighbour. A sense of being vulnerable to the impulses of a much larger, and more powerful nation is a key part of the Canadian conciousness, although in its modern sense, it doesn't so much involve fear of invasion (although apparently there are pentagon plans to this effect, even today!), but rather fears over fair trade practices, diplomatic treatment, and so on.

-Canada has legalized same-sex marriage, joining nations such as the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, and the US state of Massachussetts in this recognition of legal equality. If you look at this map of "world homosexuality laws," Canada is an enormous blip on the radar, balancing out "red" countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. 

- In closing, Canada may be a country to celebrate but it does have its flaws. For example, its immigration process often deports people who, as positive, contributing potential citizens, should not be deported. For example, the much publicized case of the Lizano-Sossa family, who are being deported back to Costa Rica after being in a legal limbo for five years - during which time they put down roots and established a prosperous life in this country. The jublilant celebrations will sound very hollow to this family as they leave the country on the nations birthday.

-Canada has a national public broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which some people love and some people loathe. Its often referred to endearingly as "Canada's vegetable". Its good for you, but sometimes you just want to watch the television equivalent of processed food: US shows and content via Canada's private broadcasters.

-In terms of "culture," Canada's citizens are a mosaic of peoples, and its difficult to make any accurate generalizations about everyone. That said, anglophone Canadians tend to consume pop culture originating from the US, while francophone populations tend to have a stronger local cultural identity based on Quebecois film, music, art, and tv personalities. Much of this more vibrant local identity can be traced to the insulation the french language provides against the influence of a larger, external cultural mainstream.