Comments

Oh my goodness, Tom, I'll say it was a gray day. Just looking at the photos makes me chilled.

Posted by Cathy Mosca at December 10, 2009 8:38 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/science/24angier.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=biology%20good&st=cse

Its fun to be nice to people. That is a simple (and non-self agrandizing) as it can get. Being kind is a form of hedonism. If it wasn't, there would be no such thing as kindness.

Posted by zorro at December 10, 2009 9:36 AM

"Its fun to be nice to people. That is a simple (and non-self agrandizing) as it can get. Being kind is a form of hedonism."

Nice!
That one's going on a slide, with,of course, attribution!

"Being kind is a form of hedonism."
F*&^ing brilliant! (Shit, too bad my book ms. just went to the publisher.)

Posted by tom peters at December 10, 2009 10:33 AM

Tom and Zorro - I could not DISAGEE with you more. Being kind is a form of love. The problem here as I see it is the lack of love. Love is kind. Love is patient. Love does not think of itself.Love is humble. Love is truth displayed in various ways. We have to be perfected in love. But to say that any of our imperfections is kindness is to GROSSLY miss the mark.

Posted by Judith 2llis at December 10, 2009 10:52 AM

Zorro and Tom - I could not DISAGREE with you more. Love is a kind of kindness. In fact, love is kind. Love is patient. Love does not think of itself. Love is truth displayed in various ways. Love isn't easily angered. Love is just. Because we are imperfect in love does not change the essence of it. Love is kind. You both have GROSSLY missed the mark here.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 10, 2009 11:04 AM

Sorry for the duplicate. I'm at the gym with my heart rate pumping like crazy. I guess I lacked patience. When the first comment didn't post fast enough I immediately posted another. Oh, how imperfect I am. :-) I gotta put this thing down. I'm dying over here.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 10, 2009 11:16 AM

I think the point is that being kind can be pleasurable, hence hedonistic.

I love to watch front-line employees lighten up when they’re acknowledged for their work—especially when secret skills are revealed. I recently discovered that a seafood department worker at my local Whole Foods can tell me the weight of a piece of fish to the decimal point, before he puts it on the scale. So if I ask for 1.2 lb of cod, he’ll nail it, before he even weighs it. When I loudly and publicly acknowledge his kinesthetic gift (even drawing other customers’ attention to it) he comes to life - as do i.

Posted by John O'Leary at December 10, 2009 11:38 AM

Sorry Zorro and Tom, Judith is right on this one! "Its fun to be nice to people". Yes, it is!

"That is a simple (and non-self agrandizing) as it can get. Being kind is a form of hedonism." Looks like a non sequiter, since hedonism by definition is self-aggrandizing, the pursuit of personal pleasure as the only intrinsic good and motivator of behavior.

"If it wasn't, there would be no such thing as kindness." So, mothers and fathers show kindness to their children only because it makes mothers and fathers feel good? People are kind to the elderly, poor, disadvantaged only becausee it makes them feel good themselves? Too many people are like that, and are really missing the concept of "kindness".

Is it a nature or nurture problem? Even Biblical text tells us that the evil man can be kind to his children - pure hedonism.

So, I guess you guys are working off the other definition of hedonism, "behavior motivated by the desire for the avoidance of pain"?
Hmmm - no slide for me!!

Posted by Randy Bosch at December 10, 2009 12:00 PM

"I think the point is that being kind can be pleasurable, hence hedonistic."
John - Okay. I can see that. But the point is still way overblown. The Epicureans delighted in hedonism. It seems that many aspects of what is present on Wall Street and in Dubai is hedonism and extreme excess. The focus is personal pleasure and profitability often to the displeasure of others. I think we have to be careful with our language. The Stoics needlessly tortured themselves which was the opposite extreme of hedonism. Both lacked balance. But we should always be striving towards our better higher selves whether individual or corporation.
By the way, I do not think Tom is an extremist in either regard from what I have read here or in the many books that I have read that he has written. He can be provocative, but I have never gotten the sense that there was anything sinister about his words or actions. In fact, he appears to basically good. I appreciate this immensely. Generally speaking, I am most concerned about language and how it affects culture or corporate environments. I am most concerned about how language affects our actions presently and over time, not to mention that I am always thinking of those who will come after us. What will be our legacy, our example?

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 10, 2009 12:08 PM

Tom - Your closing paragraphs are simply beautiful. They are thoughtful (Tough times, which are still the context for many of us, provide the greatest tests of character. Tough times are the period when basic human decency matters most. From a commercial standpoint, tough times are the best of times to deepen relationships with employees, customers, suppliers, and the communities in which we work and live.) and applicable (But the way in which these decisions are approached and executed is the bedrock for the relationships that will re-ignite first and most fiercely and move us forward with alacrity when the worm does turn.) I so appreciate them. Thank you. I also love how the post ends. Often times it only takes belief to get us through tough times. I have been there more than once. Oh, and I LOVE the Wadsworth quote. I had not read that one before. It's immensely powerful.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 10, 2009 12:29 PM

Far too much philosophical clap trap here for me I'm afraid - its simple. As Tom wrote in Liberation Management "Keep your hand written thank you notes."

As managers we just need to thank the folks who do the work .... and mean it ... because, as Gary Hamel says with all the heavyweight and articulate academic power he possesses "People can smell bullshit a mile away."

Sincere appreciation is spoken with the eyes.

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 10, 2009 7:54 PM

Trevor,
".... and mean it ... " is an absolute necessity, and not just because people notice the AGW gas you expel if you don't mean it.
You're there - Integrity in all things!

Posted by Randy Bosch at December 10, 2009 8:48 PM

In wanting to inject some levity into a thread that's moved far from the point which O'leary nailed so well with 'being kind can be pleasurable', I'm considering Trevor's remark of 'sincere appreciation is spoken with the eyes', and thinking 'Ah yes - but sometimes you can't beat a good cuddle'.

Posted by g at December 11, 2009 2:02 AM

Great post - it set me thinking - if giving appreciation is pleasurable why do we do it so infrequently? What stops more of it?

One of the things I see in the office is a kind of "if we show too much appreciation then we are going soft on them"

Or are we so insecure that giving appreciation feels like we are helping someone else at the expense of ourselves?

Does politics get in the way?

Posted by PaulH at December 11, 2009 3:54 AM

Great comment Paul. The best bosses I've had never found it difficult to show appreciation and say thank you - it comes easily and naturally - they don't have to work at it - it is sincere and genuine.

The worst bosses I've had believe words like appreciation, thank-you and caring are 'soft' - they are in denial. These people know absolutely nothing about leadership or motivation.

g - of course I agree with you as always my friend - cuddling and eye contact together - now there is a magical recipe! :-)

Randy - you sum it up perfectly.

Posted by Trevor Gay at December 11, 2009 5:47 AM

The post is indeed great. The comment about hedonism is not great. It is this kind of language and subsequent actions that stripped Wall Street of its ethics, spreading a hedonistic culture worldwide which concentrated on mostly self-aggrandizing pleasure and obscene profits by near hook or crook, causing the displeasure of others. We have to be careful with our language. Period. Words matter, especially in such an environment that nearly brought the global economy down. How soon do we forget indeed. Are we back to such talk of obscene profit which in many cases, as we have seen, is simply a mirage or Ponzi scheme? There is no levity in what we have witnessed and I think that we should be very careful with our language. The assumed wisdom here is wanton. The core of kindness is love. Why strip this beautiful word of its true essence and great value and couple it with obscenity?

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 11, 2009 8:49 AM

Paul, I think one reason people are frugal with their acknowledgments is because they have an aversion (understandably) to flattery, and its manipulative uses. For years I acted this way without thinking about it. I considered anything even remotely associated with flattery to be unseemly and inauthentic. But once I made a distinction between flattery (insincere) and acknowledgment (genuine) it freed me up. One could argue it's inauthentic to NOT speak up and express appreciation when the opportunity presents itself.

Posted by John O'Leary at December 11, 2009 11:00 AM

John - The whole of your comment is beautiful.Thank you. I especially appreciate the closing statement. It reminded me of a conversation I had yesterday with one of my brothers. It was on the distinction between shyness, and negative pride. Sometimes shyness is seen as humility when in essence it's negative energy or the lack of effort. There is no harm in failure if you go at it again and learn lessons for the next task. Your example is akin to not acknowledging what is indeed good perhaps for the realization that we will also have to acknowledge when we have missed it. Often giving appreciation is deeply rooted in how we feel about ourselves. People who are honest and aware of their own shortcomings and are striving similarily to be better have no problem with appreciating others. Fundamental here is also a sincere desire to see others soar and not as a threat to us.

On a deep note of appreciation, my brother Rob just texted me to say that he was heading out to stand in front of Krogers supermarket to ring the bell for the Salvation Army on this fridget below zero wind factor day here in Michigan. He said, "Judith, I am so grateful for those brown boxes each of us received at Christmas from the Salvation Army." Instead of an abundant of toys Mom got us mostly books and a few toys. The boxes included socks, long johns, Christmas hard candies, and mittens. A few toys were included too. Rob had no problem accepting my joyous response to his act of kindness. Is his action of standing outside in this weather ringing that beautiful bell a form of hedonism? Could he not do it for the sake of the kids? Remember the quote was without self-aggrandizement there would be no such thing as kindness. I'm sorry but this is just WRONG plain and simple.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 11, 2009 12:00 PM

Judith, I'm not as plugged into the discussion as I'd like to be, but you can't excise hedonism. It comes in the gene package.

I think O'leary nailed it: "I think the point is that being kind can be pleasurable, hence hedonistic."

Posted by tom peters at December 11, 2009 12:38 PM

"But once I made a distinction between flattery (insincere) and acknowledgment (genuine) it freed me up. One could argue it's inauthentic to NOT speak up and express appreciation when the opportunity presents itself."

Two points re Mr O'leary's point above:

(1) I'm not so sure all flattery is bad. The kind that I'd call "suckup-ism" is silly, and degrades the speaker. (Even though we fall for it regularly.) But somebody who says, "You've lost a few pounds since I last saw you"--and you know and you know they know that's a crock, well I'll take it every time as opposed to "straight talk."

(2) There's a lot worth appreciating!!!!!! So many say, "Well that what She/he gets paid to do, why should I say 'thank you'?" Why? Because getting through any damn day in any damn job is a tightwire act, with unexpected twists and turns and mini-traumas. So "getting through the day" with a smile still on your face as opposed to radiating crankinsss is a big deal--and well worth acknowledgement.

Posted by tom peters at December 11, 2009 12:48 PM

Tom, You're absolutely correct, you cannot excise hedonism, it is a human condition. The fact that being kind can be pleasurable means it can be hedonistic. It is the "hence hedonistic" that is the problem - the wording implies that being kind = hedonistic. Not to beat the horse to death (neither pleasurable nor hedonistic, and definitely not kind!), but Judith is correct - words have meaning, and clearly many take the "being kind can be pleasurable, hence hedonistic" as positing a redefinition of basic human kindness.

There is a great difference between that (partial) redefinition and the concepts of grace and mercy, as well.
Are grace and mercy (both kindness) hedonistic as well? Let's pardon Madoff, then?

But, the actual thread is "Appreciation", not hedonism or even kindness. And true appreciation is neither at its true core merely hedonism or kindness!

I sincerely appreciate your post, Tom!

Posted by Randy Bosch at December 11, 2009 12:54 PM

Couple of thoughts...

1. Randy: I said "being kind CAN be...hedonistic." Zorro said it more directly, "Being kind is a form of hedonism." I suspect he chose his words carefully to make a point: that there are undeniable benefits for the person dispensing the appreciation. By stating it that bluntly (and cleverly) he drove this entire thread.

2. Yes, words have meaning - and, as we are seeing, multiple meanings. Some here are taking a more expansive reading of "hedonistic" than others. (Most arguments I witness in everyday life are based on semantic differences. That doesn't mean they're trivial differences, however.)

3. "Motivational hedonism" says that everything we do is in our self interest. (In other words we feel good about helping others so that pleasurable feeling is the ultimate driver.) That may sound cold, but try to disprove it! This has been debated for at least three millennia and will likely continue until the rising tides swamp us all (tho this thread may outlast even that).

4. Tom: the "flattery" you mention I've always had trouble with, but I admit on occasion I've indulged in it. I've often co-delivered training sessions with consultants who ask me just before we start if their wardrobe - hair, dress - looks ok. There's really only one answer I give (a quick "You look fine") - but I think there's implicit permission in that case for me to be less than forthright!

Thanks for the post, Tom, and to everyone else for your comments. (I had to say that to get my hedonistic hit for the day.) :-)

Posted by John O'Leary at December 11, 2009 2:20 PM

"Being" kind is indeed pleasurable. Breaking ones routine and sacrificing oneself (status, time, attention, assets, etc.) in order to "be" kind is not. Hence, the clear and obvious lack of kindness and love in our world.

P.S. TP, did you ever receive that hand-written letter I mailed to you?

Posted by Tom Asacker at December 11, 2009 3:32 PM

Tom - I appreciate you. I wholeheartedly agree that hedonism can't be excised from this standpoint: "In this flesh dwells no good thing" as "the heart is desperately wicked, who can know it?" I think it takes a conscious effort to do what is good and honorable. Paul of Tarsus understood this well. He said, "When I would do good evil is always present." It takes a conscious effort for us to what is good for the whole as opposed to what is good for us. Personally, I believe that I can do no good thing without a firm belief in the basic tenets of my faith. Your post is beautiful.

Just because we are imperfect in love does not justify the transference of it in any negative form. Hedonism is a negative force and no amount of rehabilitation or qualification of the word will change that. Kindness is love. When we act hedonistically, it is simply that we are imperfect in love and need to be perfected, which is a never-ending ongoing process. Love is not hedonism. Kindness is not hedonism. No qualifiers needed.

Haven't we had enough of hedonism in this culture? Why qualify or praise it? To align it with goodness is to elevate it. Kindess and hedonism are two distinct forces. While we can't excise hedonism, we better be sure that it is not our raison d'etre. We better be sure that it is not the guiding force of our actions. We have seen how ugly this is. We all miss it, but to praise or qualify hedonism in any form is unacceptable, as the consciousness of others is diminished. There are many ripple affects of our words and actions, even if they are not immediately seen or felt.

With regards to words and meaning, it is very rare, if ever, that the root of a word changes its essence. Just like the N-word. Young people have tried to excise the sting of it by adapting it to mean something else, but the core of its historical context and construct remains. Hedonism will retain its negative essence and when we elevate it in any form, it will decrease us. But for me there is a decreasing that is valuable. Paul said, "I must decrease so He will increase." This is the beauty of love, faith, deference and humility that's needed in our daily relations. Hedonism in any form lacks these powerful forces.

By the way, Tom, the basis of your post is rooted in love.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 11, 2009 4:09 PM

One other thing, the "undeniable benefits" of service is not hedonism. Hedonism means no boundaries of selfish pleasure. Period.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 11, 2009 4:39 PM

I am left without further comment by Judith's awesome (and kind, while un-hedonistic) explanation.
Judith Rocks!!

Posted by Randy Bosch at December 11, 2009 4:47 PM

Randy - Your encouragement is appreciated. Know this. You words in this thread are thougthful indeed. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 12, 2009 1:50 PM

How to avoid the Peter Principle
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/magazine/ideas/2009/#business-2

Posted by zorro at December 13, 2009 8:32 PM

"Zorro and Tom - I could not DISAGREE with you more. Love is a kind of kindness"

I know its a form of Hedonism.
I'm a grad student and thereform I am a TA - I teach college students statistics.
When I get a student through a problem - help them - I feel great.
Its as good as it gets.
When they shake my hand because they finally get it, its even better.

Posted by zorro at December 13, 2009 8:43 PM

Good on you, Zorro! Does their appreciation of your work make you want to be an even better TA?

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 13, 2009 8:55 PM

Being hedonistic, I want more of that feeling, so of course it makes me want to be a better TA.

Posted by zorro at December 13, 2009 9:05 PM

All the best, Zorro!

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 13, 2009 9:12 PM

prescription free viagra By the way, a heroin addict wants more of that feeling too until, of course, there is no feeling.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 13, 2009 9:15 PM

"So, mothers and fathers show kindness to their children only because it makes mothers and fathers feel good? People are kind to the elderly, poor, disadvantaged only becausee it makes them feel good themselves? "
Absolutely.
And its not just my idea. Its science. Read the article I linked to in my original comment.
(so humans are built to find pleasure in being nice? how is that a bad thing? I can't thing of a more optomistic point of view)

Posted by zorro at December 13, 2009 9:27 PM

"By the way, a heroin addict wants more of that feeling too until, of course, there is no feeling."

Heroin addicts gain pleasure from chemicals that don't belong to them. The pleasure I'm talking about comes from the chemicals my own body makes.

Posted by zorro at December 13, 2009 9:31 PM

"The pleasure I'm talking about comes from the chemicals my own body makes."

I'm supposing that Tiger wished that the feeling that came from his own body was better in check. While I personally do no stand in judgement of Tiger, it appears that hedonism got that best of him. Just because something feels good does not mean that it is always good even if our body produces it. Just because a grown man gets a woody looking at an under age girl does that mean he should follow that impulse? Being hedonistic means pleasing self at any cost. The girl would just be a consequence of his desire. This happened often in the Greek and Roman courts where young boys were often abused and it was considered acceptable. The word is vile. Your redefinition of it does not change this.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 13, 2009 9:48 PM

Read the article. It discuses the complexities of pleasure.
I've never said that people who
do bad things dont experience pleasure.
I know for sure when I do good things, I feel pleasure. Why fight it? If it feels good (and is good) do it. Its a no brainer.
Here is a defintion of hedonism I found on the net.
"Pursuit of or devotion to pleasure, especially to the pleasures of the senses."
That covers what I feel when I do something nice. My whole body feels good (but I don't get a woody)
If Freud was alive today, he would not be worried about the guilt people have over the pleasure of sex.
He'd be talking about the guilt people have when they feel good for doing something nice. Am I supposed to feel lousy when I do something nice?

Posted by zorro at December 13, 2009 10:17 PM

All the best, Zorro. I would encourage you not to confuse correlation with causality - ever, however, particularly since you are apparantly involved in the field of statistics (non-parametric?). I trust that the professors overseeing your teaching assistant work on their behalf are pleased with your mentoring of other, less advanced students.

Posted by Randy Bosch at December 13, 2009 10:23 PM

"I trust that the professors overseeing your teaching assistant work on their behalf are pleased with your mentoring of other, less advanced students. "
The professors think I'm terrible, but I'm not worried, see I've taken your advice confuse correlation with causality. ;-)

Posted by zorro at December 13, 2009 10:31 PM

Zorro - I think that what you are doing as a TA is great and if it produces such wonderful feelings for you, this is also great. By the way, Freud, by many accounts, was sick.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 13, 2009 10:50 PM

"Being kind is a form of hedonism."

When I look at this again, its not wrong. Its not redefining hedonism.
A form of hedonism is about seeking out things that are pleasurable.
What is the big deal here?
Why so seroius? :-).
(I realize that is a reference to the Joker from the Dark Knight)

Posted by zorro at December 13, 2009 10:59 PM

LOL, TrueLove! Where's Zorr? :-) Actually, that first statement about hedonism didn't read like Zorro at all. The syntax and tone are vastly different. But, as you know, I really don't care who speaks. What is more important is what is spoken. Just go through and read the many words above. I shall not rehash wholly.

Speaking of the Dark Night. I LOVED it! Great script and Ledger was brilliant!!! But it was a movie. What happened on Wall Street where greed reigned was real and in its wake lives were devastated. What saved people from jumping out of windows was the bailout. If AIG had not been bailed out, cities that entrusted Goldman Sachs would have been bankrupted instantly. This is indeed quite serious to me.

Everything begins with a word. Why not choose the best word?

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 13, 2009 11:15 PM

Judith, Tom, Zorro,

Expressing appreciation ... you have to mean it, however it is expressed. The best expression is in action - "showing" appreciation, acting on what people provide.

Trust is a very important commodity - even well intentioned appreciation can be turned to bullshit by any whiff of mistrust of sincerity. (The eyes are a good test ... but not always available in every transaction ... trust need to be maintained between such transactions).

Appreciation IS important. Wm James is correct. But it is worthless without trust / sincerity.

Posted by Ian Glendinning at December 14, 2009 6:50 AM

Ian - Great coupling of appreciation with trust. Sometimes we have only seconds to build trust whether on the phone, online, or in person. What can make being online so treacherous is that the five senses are expelled, even though we often reveal who we are through our written words. Of course, when online this can be greatly masked. Considering that "well-intentioned appreciation can be turned to bullshit by any whiff of mistrust" the onus of trust seems to rest on both people. I like your opening a lot. Thanks for that.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 14, 2009 7:33 AM

"Three things in life are important: The first is to be kind. The second is to be kind. The third is to be kind."

viagra in australia online William James' quote actually breaks it down rather succinctly. Kindness is love and there is nothing greater than love. Love guides how we do what we do with excellence whether at home or work.

Tom - All of the quotes in this post are beautiful and applicable. They require action. The Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley quote penned for Frankenstein is particularly powerful because it shows how kindness can affect even a jaded malicious heart. Instead of psychoanalyzing others, show kindness, towards a difficult people, even monsters? :-)

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 14, 2009 8:17 AM

All I'm saying is that being kind is pleasurable and I seek out this kind of pleasure and seeking out pleasure for the sake of pleasure is a form of hedonism (look it up if you don't believe me). Love is not the right word -
not for me. I'm not even saying I'm good for doing good - in this case, I'm doing what my body tells me to do (athough this does say something very positive about human nature). I'm just saying its fun - and in this case, its fine to go along with the saying from the 1960's - if it feels good, do it.
My point about Freud was missed - what I see here is guilt being associated with doing something kind because it feels good, because its fun.

Posted by zorro at December 14, 2009 9:31 AM

No guilt associated with your good deeds whatsoever, Zorro. Sorry if this wasn't clear. I also know from your words here and elsewhere that "you" are not dense or naive.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 14, 2009 9:43 AM

Also, Zorro, while I appreciate you, your particular feelings or the reasons you do this or that, the outlook is by far larger than any one individual or even one nation. For me, it's all about setting the best example now and for those who will come after us, perhaps me before you. By the way, I can see you performing random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty. You are also thoughtful indeed and I have appreciated your voice here and elsewhere. Thank you.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 14, 2009 9:51 AM

viagra without prescription Someone please check out the link I posted above referring to the Peter Principle. It's not about Tom - its about something called the Peter Principle first written about in the 1970's.
Its about a study that shows (using computer simulations) that adding some randomness into the promotion process could lead to better results.
Don't forget, if you believe in evolution, this randomness in 'promotion' is what separates us from the chimpanzees (and amebas).

Posted by zorro at December 14, 2009 12:26 PM

Zorro - Very interesting article, not on randomness but on oxytocin. (I guess you posted two links?) I found the comments below particularly thought-provoking and pretty funny too. Gender is also always interesting to consider with regards to biology and emotional behaviors.

1. "If this chemical, oxytocin, is so great, why isn't it sold in stores? Is there any way to obtain these nasal sprays discussed in the article? It seems like it would be a great supplement to have in your pocket/medicine cabinet/glove compartment/etc."

2. "Too many of these comments already assume more oxytocin is better than less oxytocin, and that we need ways to increase it in people. No. Why don't we just leave people alone (unless maybe they're sociopaths), and increase our respect and understanding for these natural variations. Very interesting article."

3. Maybe we should have a new industry centered on oxytocin, featuring things
like:

A. Oxytocin after shave and perfume to facilitate personal relationships. They might also make divorce and custody hearings more agreeable.

B. Oxytocin sprays and oxytocin emitting bombs to precede military attacks on terrorists. Smaller sprays might be used by police to make suspects more amenable to arrest.

4. "I have always argued that economics is based in biology and is directly linked to female labor- i.e., reproduction and the control over that labor...any system that excludes the female embodied experience, such as patriarchy does, and fails to include empathy and compassion as foundational has deprived humanity of its humanity or as this article calls 'kindness." This article is more evidence that we need to take the emotion of empathy and its civilizing effect into consideration when we appoint supreme court justices or pass health care bills. We need less all male run institutions, like the Catholic Church, Wall Street or the military dictating policies based on a un-ethical system founded in mythology, greed or violence."

The article speaks of personality types. I am a Type AB, a mixed profile. I wonder how this measures in term of oxytocin. While there is most certainly a biological component, there must also be a cultural one as it relates to environments and gender behaviors. This is not really dealt with in the article.

Maybe I'll get around to reading the article about the Peter Principle too.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 14, 2009 4:14 PM

60 minutes had an interesting piece about a year ago. According to a survey that has been given for several years, the people who live in the Neatherlands are the happiest of all industialized nations. They also have one of the highest tax rates. 60 minutes went to the Neatherlnds and interviewed several of its citezins and asked them about the tax rates. Most people felt the taxes were worth it because they knew the taxes helped people who needed help. They didn't want to live in a country where people were homeless or couldn't afford health care or college. In a word, they cared about each other. Caring about each other seemed to be important to thier happiness.
For some reason, our culture does not encourage this pleasure or even achknowlege it - just look to the health care debate for an example.
In my opinion, both sides are selfish in thier own way. Both sides just want to win an argument - its all about ego or appealing to an audience in an attempt to get ratings etc. We are selfish, but in a self defeating way.

Posted by zorro at December 14, 2009 5:28 PM

Zorro - There is no doubt that that there is pleasure felt from helping others. Pleasure itself is not a negative. I agree with you largely about both sides and the self-centered behaviors of both. We see this repeatedly. I rarely watch network news these days because of this.

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 14, 2009 6:07 PM

Hi Judith,

I do agree with that additional point ... in these ever more freely unmediated exchanges with "social network" technologies the onus is on BOTH parties to maintain trust.

And Zorro ... "winning arguments" ... now there's a topic. Does Mary Parker-Follett get a look in these days ?

Ian viagra express delivery in sydney

Posted by Ian Glendinning at December 15, 2009 2:32 AM

Hi Ian - Thank you so much for that mention. From the Theodore Roosevelt administration Mary Parker-Follett is rarely mentioned as Frances Perkins is from the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration today. Both were powerful women.

Tom - I don't think I ever remember reading of Mary Parker-Follett in your work or on this blog. Did I simply miss the mention? What do you think of her work?

Parker-Follett seems like the mother of all such management development.

With regards to Follett’s "reciprocal relationships" this is profound stuff. Mirror imaging is significant here and on a deeper level is the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." How much reciprocal can that be?

What is incredibly powerful, perhaps even more profound than "reciprocal relationships" is to respond positively even when faced with negativity. This is the power of the Henry Wadsworth Longfellow quote Tom used in the post:

"If we could read the secret histories of our enemies, we would find in each man's life a sorrow and a suffering enough to disarm all hostility."

Posted by Judith Ellis at December 15, 2009 3:31 AM