Tuesday, June 7, 2011



On a blog I follow called Running Chicken, blog-meister Ari Kohen (2011) implied that he could defend the core libertarian concept of economic liberty. However, he also noted the conceptual difficulties associated with defending requirements for members of society to care for the poor, in light of the stated constraints surrounding economic liberty. Of course, economic liberty, in its truest form, requires that society only care for the poor insofar as individuals might freely choose to charitably give. Conversely, in his seminal work, Capitalism and Freedom, free market theorist and champion of liberty, Milton Friedman (1962/1982) expressed his belief in the existence of a need for government intervention to alleviate poverty by supporting the poor. Furthermore, he specifically stated that cash, rather than any forms of subsidy, represents the form of assistance most useful to the individual (pp. 178-188, 192). Additionally, in his dissertation work, Bob Namvar (1995) found that any solution designed to expand the economy must include shifting money from capitalists to workers, which he said, then results in an overall increased marginal propensity to consume.

Over the past few years, the US Government has (in deficit) spent hundreds of billions of dollars in transfer to capitalists. They did this, ostensibly, to reconcile high unemployment, to stimulate a stagnant economy, and to address resulting poverty. Some money arguably arrived to those who needed it most, but how much now resides in multi-millionaires’ off-shore accounts? Regardless of their motives in answering needs that even the staunchest of libertarians might find necessary, re: the “neighborhood effect” (Friedman, 1962/1982, p. 191); the US Government most surely targeted the wrong recipients for bailout monies. If economic stimulus serves as the desired outcome, then redistributing wealth from the top economic rung to the bottom, in the form of cash, arguably seems the better, a priori answer.

Friedman, M. (1982). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Kohen, A. (2011, May 27). A research agenda for bleeding heart Libertarians [Web log post]. Retrieved from: http://kohenari.net/post/5897394064

Namvar, M. H. S. (1995). The consumption function and the distribution of income. Dissertations Abstract International: Section A. Humanities and Social Sciences, 56(10), 4060.

Friday, June 3, 2011



I just shared this in a private group on LinkedIn:

From where do the ideas stem that leaders and leadership, by definition, are great and that managers and management, by definition, suck? Or that some few, blessed people somehow receive the "gift" of leadership? I agree with the stated notion [sic someone stated it in the LinkedIn group] that leaders think outside the box and innovate with new ideas. Those seem to present as a couple of skills required for the leadership toolbox/skill set. Ostensibly, leaders demonstrate their appropriate use of leadership when they employ those skills to answer situations that call for them. However, I can easily remember hearing a tremendous number of complaints, through the years, in both the military and civilian sectors, regarding people who thought outside the box and provided steps to innovation. Many of these leaders did this with the stated motivation: "developing those around them to build a better organization and create new ways of doing business." The problems, however, arose because: (a) the people on the receiving end neither required or desired "development;" (b) the organizations they served didn't need the level of full-scale "fixing" they tried to accomplish; or (c) the new ways of doing business they proposed proved more costly than their worth. Although these leaders employed the very skills that we agreed define or at least contribute to leadership (innovation and thinking outside the box), they did so inappropriately. They led, but in their leading, some of them tried to "reinvent the wheel."

I would also argue that the "lack of leadership" in this context, refers rather to an inappropriate lack concern for other people. This concept has appeared to manifest itself through egoism, self-aggrandizement, selfishness, us-them, etc. In this regard, throughout the management literature since the 1930s and 1940s, researchers and other authors have continuously presented information regarding the importance of behaving toward people by employing what McGregor coined "Theory Y." Yes, Theory Y originally related to management, not leadership. Therefore, I posit that this destructive focus on self could affect all people in their efforts to lead OR manage. Moreover, this also suggests that people don't understand "good" management, as it relates to human relations, any better than they understand how to employ good leadership.

    Contact Form

    Name

    Email *

    Message *

    Total Pageviews

    Translate

    Followers

    Follow by Email