"This thing called [apathy] I just can't handle it / This thing called [apathy] I must get round to it / I ain't ready / Crazy little thing called [apathy]"
One of the most difficult things for me to overcome is apathy. Sometimes it's blatant, like when someone asks a question I just don't even want to get my brain going to think about. Other times, it's more passive, like when I just don't care enough to step out and say something. Therefore to me, apathy comes in two different flavors. Both of them come and go, and I think that there is one major thing that makes me let down my defenses enough for the apathy bug to bite.
Many thanks to Kim whose most recent post has proven something that everyone can work into their respective blogs. Though the two characters, Rebecca and Felicity, are extremes, I think we all feel that we lean more toward one than the other. Some of us feel more inclined to ready, aim, re-aim, examine our firearm, polish it, aim again, call our friends for advice, aim one last time, and then fire. Others are more likely to fire before before knowing exactly where the target is. But certainly there are other roles in group projects. What about the ones who didn't even bother to load their weapon or to even buy one? There are plenty of (I'll just name this character so that everyone has a name.) Andy's in classes. After all, the disengagement pact doesn't make sense if there are only Rebecca's and Felicity's. The Andy's of our lives just let the Rebecca's and Felicity's duke it out and then tag along with the victor. (Note: 'victor' is not another character.)
When trying to institute change, I think it's helpful in the long run to have a diverse cast of characters working together. If we manage to make a change with which nearly everyone agrees, then we have something that will withstand scrutiny. If I asked only people who liked vanilla for advice on establishing an ice cream store, I'd end up with something that served only a specific sector. Meanwhile, if someone else polls a variety of ice cream lovers, he or she will end up with a finished product that more people will like. David claims in his post, "Diversity," that "The more diverse the group, the more the total amount of different problems it can accomplish, and the happier it becomes." This goes along with my ice cream analogy to an extent: diversity of input makes for a better end result. BUT! This only happens when the diverse inputs can mesh.
I think that when there are more opinions within a group, there is a greater likelihood that nothing will get done. Some will want to do one thing while others will want to do another. In her post from earlier today, Alessandra talks about Felicity and Rebecca from her standpoint as a Felicity. She states that Rebecca "ends up coming off like she doesn’t really care about the project – whether she does or not it is hard to tell." Later on, she esteems Felicity by saying it is "more demanding and draining" to be her. I really think the two are misinterpreted. Rebecca isn't a slacker. Felicity isn't a hero. They're both just people who do things differently, and it's hard when they try to work together.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." When horses who want to push forward and think later and horses who want to do lots of thinking and then move get together, the cart stands still or gets torn apart. Sorry for all the doom and gloom, but at some point you need to make concessions. That's where apathy (and Andy) comes into play. I am most tempted to become an Andy (Sorry for continuing to use these names, but it's just so convenient.) when I look at the horses pulling the cart in different directions. That is when I'm tempted to look and say, "Well, that's going nowhere. Where's another cart?" The ANTH 143 project option seemed to me to be an abandoned cart waiting for someone to take a seat. It involves what we have been talking about for so long, was something that Prof. Arvan suggested could be a good option, and looked like something in which I could hop and go for a ride.
I don't know how our projects will end up looking. I hope that all three or four or them come out great with each group designing an effective change. I want the mentoring catalog to be a useful tool, the ANTH 143 proposal to be instituted, etc. Sometimes you can't unite everyone. Not every idea gets people "hot now," to reference a previous post. What we can do is find a topic in which we are interested and go for it. Whether that means we go for it now or think a bit and go for it later, that's fine. Just don't be apathetic.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
For A Moment, I'll Be Ebert Jr.
Declining by Degrees: thumbs up, as far as informing you how the post-secondary education system works; thumbs down as far as something to spend two hours watching over popcorn with friends.
Sure, it's not a fun movie. It doesn't leave you feeling happy or sad or angry. I don't really know what it left me feeling except more knowledgeable about what our higher education system has become. Higher education is more a business than I ever thought it was. What brings in the big bucks? High-achieving students, flashy buildings, and great sports teams. While state funding of post-secondary education continues to be cut, families find it harder to send their children to college. Nontraditional students have it harder, too, but that has to do with more than just money. Are we being challenged? Not really, if we don't want to be. I guess I've been living the good life here (no debt, honors courses, comfy job, challenging classes in the field I want) and never truly realized it.
Bottom line, I would definitely watch the movie at movie night if I had it to do over again. If you have the two hours it takes to watch it outside of class, go for it!
Sure, it's not a fun movie. It doesn't leave you feeling happy or sad or angry. I don't really know what it left me feeling except more knowledgeable about what our higher education system has become. Higher education is more a business than I ever thought it was. What brings in the big bucks? High-achieving students, flashy buildings, and great sports teams. While state funding of post-secondary education continues to be cut, families find it harder to send their children to college. Nontraditional students have it harder, too, but that has to do with more than just money. Are we being challenged? Not really, if we don't want to be. I guess I've been living the good life here (no debt, honors courses, comfy job, challenging classes in the field I want) and never truly realized it.
Bottom line, I would definitely watch the movie at movie night if I had it to do over again. If you have the two hours it takes to watch it outside of class, go for it!
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Anyone Can Read This
The most exciting thing about this blog is also the most terrifying: anyone can read this! (Hi Mom! Hi Dad! Thanks for sending me to college. I swear I do more than write blogs here.)
I would, for the most part, classify the results of openness as benefits rather than challenges*. Being open about our class and with my writing encourages me to take it more seriously. For example, let's say I'm making dinner. If I'm only feeding myself, 95% of the time I heat something up in the microwave. If I'm feeding the guys at my house, I choose a simple recipe and take an hour, maximum, to cook. Now if I'm suddenly trying to impress some large unknown audience with my cooking skills, I probably take the task a lot more seriously. What I mean is that I don't want someone to visit this site, start to read, stop mid-way through a post, and then cough it back up on his or her plate. Especially that last part. There's no way of my knowing if someone were to do this, but nevertheless it motivates me to try to be creative and mildly entertaining. But let's face it; if you're reading my blog for entertainment, you have larger issues to work out.
Putting this writing out in the open can also lead to a product larger than what I originally created. When you can read other people's work and comment on it, a multilogue can begin. I'm not even sure multilogue is a word. That might be a topic of debate you want to pursue through commenting on this post. This is another benefit of writing out in the open: maybe something I have to say will spark another person's thinking. Maybe we'll debate and come to a conclusion we hadn't expected. I was reading Greg's blog an hour ago, and I think he made some good points about how blogs allow people outside our class to get involved in our discourse. We could just as easily fulfill this class requirement by using the tools available to us through Compass, but that would eliminate the possibility of anyone besides the 18 of us from entering the discussion. Even though no one outside of our class has commented on any of our blogs yet, I know for a fact that at least a couple of people outside of our class read them.
Because people outside of our class can and do read our posts, we're getting the word out about what we're discussing. I have no idea if the discussion is going anywhere far beyond the 18 of us. I highly doubt it. But a benefit of openness is possibility. We are allowing others to challenge us.
Of course, it's not all peaches and cream with blogging. It's a rough world out there, and privacy is definitely an issue with this style of writing. I know one of the members of our class wants to take special care to protect his or her privacy online. That's why in my last post, I simply refer to him or her as "R—." One way to resolve this issue would be to have some sort of alias under which you write. I guess that would take care of it. Maybe privacy isn't such a major problem—I mean, challenge. A greater challenge of openness, I think, might be actually being open. I don't think we've had too much difficulty with this. The general class population seems to have no problem critiquing the course. I've also read many posts where people are willing to bring in examples from their lives.
The challenges of openness, we have dealt with nicely. The benefits of openness, we haven't fully realized. There are means by which we can make others aware of our writing and project. We can use public forums to link others to our blogs. Maybe they'll read them. I'm not sure how many people will want to contribute to our course goal, but you never know. Someone really important or influential might read what you have to write. Not that all of us aren't really important or influential!
Well, for now that's all folks.
*There are no problems; only challenges. Thank you, political correctness.**
** This used to say "politically correctness." I'm letting you know for honesty's sake, though it really wouldn't nag my conscience if I didn't add this note.
I would, for the most part, classify the results of openness as benefits rather than challenges*. Being open about our class and with my writing encourages me to take it more seriously. For example, let's say I'm making dinner. If I'm only feeding myself, 95% of the time I heat something up in the microwave. If I'm feeding the guys at my house, I choose a simple recipe and take an hour, maximum, to cook. Now if I'm suddenly trying to impress some large unknown audience with my cooking skills, I probably take the task a lot more seriously. What I mean is that I don't want someone to visit this site, start to read, stop mid-way through a post, and then cough it back up on his or her plate. Especially that last part. There's no way of my knowing if someone were to do this, but nevertheless it motivates me to try to be creative and mildly entertaining. But let's face it; if you're reading my blog for entertainment, you have larger issues to work out.
Putting this writing out in the open can also lead to a product larger than what I originally created. When you can read other people's work and comment on it, a multilogue can begin. I'm not even sure multilogue is a word. That might be a topic of debate you want to pursue through commenting on this post. This is another benefit of writing out in the open: maybe something I have to say will spark another person's thinking. Maybe we'll debate and come to a conclusion we hadn't expected. I was reading Greg's blog an hour ago, and I think he made some good points about how blogs allow people outside our class to get involved in our discourse. We could just as easily fulfill this class requirement by using the tools available to us through Compass, but that would eliminate the possibility of anyone besides the 18 of us from entering the discussion. Even though no one outside of our class has commented on any of our blogs yet, I know for a fact that at least a couple of people outside of our class read them.
Because people outside of our class can and do read our posts, we're getting the word out about what we're discussing. I have no idea if the discussion is going anywhere far beyond the 18 of us. I highly doubt it. But a benefit of openness is possibility. We are allowing others to challenge us.
Of course, it's not all peaches and cream with blogging. It's a rough world out there, and privacy is definitely an issue with this style of writing. I know one of the members of our class wants to take special care to protect his or her privacy online. That's why in my last post, I simply refer to him or her as "R—." One way to resolve this issue would be to have some sort of alias under which you write. I guess that would take care of it. Maybe privacy isn't such a major problem—I mean, challenge. A greater challenge of openness, I think, might be actually being open. I don't think we've had too much difficulty with this. The general class population seems to have no problem critiquing the course. I've also read many posts where people are willing to bring in examples from their lives.
The challenges of openness, we have dealt with nicely. The benefits of openness, we haven't fully realized. There are means by which we can make others aware of our writing and project. We can use public forums to link others to our blogs. Maybe they'll read them. I'm not sure how many people will want to contribute to our course goal, but you never know. Someone really important or influential might read what you have to write. Not that all of us aren't really important or influential!
Well, for now that's all folks.
*There are no problems; only challenges. Thank you, political correctness.**
** This used to say "politically correctness." I'm letting you know for honesty's sake, though it really wouldn't nag my conscience if I didn't add this note.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Your Blog Bites!
Yeah, you heard me! Your blog bites! It's really quite sad that you've even attempted to write one. I'm actually planning to read it within the next hour or so because I've been having trouble falling asleep lately. My plan to remedy my insomnia? Your blog! It's just really bad, and that's all I should have to say. So, there you have it.
Oh, and by the way: can you be better? I just think that someone who writes as poorly as you do has such great room for improvement. You've got all this potential that you're wasting because you're not trying. I can see it in your eyes. I can smell it coming from the page. What, you ask? The lack of awesomeness. It pains me to know that you're not reaching for the stars. You're content to wallow in the muck and mire of your attempts to write.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't worry, everyone! I wasn't talking to any of you, so you can move your cursor away from the "delete account" button. I'm sure my criticism had some of you on the verge of tears, and it's okay to cry sometimes, but—Okay, wow. Getting waaay off track. I promise to consider any criticism directed at my intro, sarcasm, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I actually did read a couple of blogs this week, and I think I see a little of my own experience and views on criticism coming through the writing of my classmates. In Jake's description of his two basketball coaches, I could see my own experiences with my high school baseball coaches, A— and L—. (Thanks, Mr. Poe, for giving us The Purloined Letter and your method of withholding names to make things seem more serious.) A—, much like Jake's Coach M, liked to get in your face and openly criticize you. He made cutting players a spectacle. I remember the team during my freshman year gradually being whittled down from an enthusiastic 19 to nervous 10. I was really hoping that A—'s plan wasn't to follow the example of Willie Wonka, cutting our numbers down further and further until he found his successor. *shiver!* His methods of criticism worked for a select few, for whom I think just about any form of criticism would have worked. His style was very much unlike L—'s method of criticism, which was much more constructive. L—, whom I mentioned in this previous post, was a really good coach for me, though not the best in terms of leading our team to success. His criticism didn't aim at embarrassing you into improvement but instead aimed at building you into a better person who would improve because he wanted to be the best he could be. Not to boast, but for the sake of showing how he in fact did this, L— once said that he wished he could have a team full of guys like me. Knowing he said that made every bit of criticism that came from his mouth more meaningful. This was someone trying to make me better, and I wanted to take his advice. I think most people have had an A— and L— in their life.
This connects to what I read in R—'s post, where she talks about three main points she considers before offering criticism: context, audience, and goal. I've never stopped to think about what I consider before criticizing, but those points really sum it up well! I feel like if I went into further detail, I'd just end up rehashing what R— has already described very well on her own blog, so I think it'd be best for you to read what she has to say. Thinking about whom you are giving criticism, in what situation, and for what purpose is a good practice to have because it makes you carefully chose your words so that they have the most positive impact. After considering these three points, you may even decide that your criticism isn't even necessary! I would add another perspective to this pre-criticism thinking, that of the one being criticized. Just as the one doling out criticism must consider context, audience, and goal, the one receiving criticism should consider the context, speaker, and his or her goal. I have to admit that I can be very defensive when being criticized. I need to resist the urge to release my ego's quills upon contact, and I think I've been better about that in recent years. (Feel free to let me know how I can improve. Yes, I just suggested you criticize how I take criticism.) When someone sits me down for "a talk," I need to think about why that is, who they are, and how I can be a good recipient. For instance, I knew this past Monday that Prof. Arvan was taking each of us aside to talk with us about our reflections. I wasn't in trouble. He wants me to improve my writing. He offered his criticism through conversation. Knowing all this, the meeting went well. If I had thought incorrectly about any of context, speaker, or goal, the meeting may have been less beneficial.
So I'm not the greatest (yet!) at receiving criticism, but am I any good at giving criticism? Maybe. I feel like it's not my place to gauge that. I never go in thinking, "Oh, boy! This is really going to be received totally differently from how I want it to be!" but sometimes that's what happens. I could afford to take the other person's perspective a bit more often. I mentioned last week how I'd really benefit from not assuming things so much. I think this feeds into my ineffective criticism. Sometimes, I consider motive, which I can't really do, and that gets me in trouble. Not to make myself sound like an awful critic, I think I can be very constructive when someone comes to me explicitly looking for something of theirs or about them to be critiqued. I occasionally read over skits and essays to offer improvement. Sometimes, I'm asked if I think such and such is a good idea. In those situations where I don't need to make the first move, I think I succeed. I certainly could improve how I initiate conversations where criticism is involved so that the results are better.
Good criticism can be difficult to recognize. In the end, the value of criticism is best measured retroactively. If the situation changes for the better, without anything changing for the worse, I think something must have gone well. At the time, it can be difficult to see if anything will really change as a result of criticism. We can recognize if a conversation is calm or if it's getting out of hand. We know how we feel immediately after having received or given criticism, but we don't know how or if another party or we will actually change. I'll have to sit Criticism down for a chat on how we can improve that.
Oh, and by the way: can you be better? I just think that someone who writes as poorly as you do has such great room for improvement. You've got all this potential that you're wasting because you're not trying. I can see it in your eyes. I can smell it coming from the page. What, you ask? The lack of awesomeness. It pains me to know that you're not reaching for the stars. You're content to wallow in the muck and mire of your attempts to write.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't worry, everyone! I wasn't talking to any of you, so you can move your cursor away from the "delete account" button. I'm sure my criticism had some of you on the verge of tears, and it's okay to cry sometimes, but—Okay, wow. Getting waaay off track. I promise to consider any criticism directed at my intro, sarcasm, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I actually did read a couple of blogs this week, and I think I see a little of my own experience and views on criticism coming through the writing of my classmates. In Jake's description of his two basketball coaches, I could see my own experiences with my high school baseball coaches, A— and L—. (Thanks, Mr. Poe, for giving us The Purloined Letter and your method of withholding names to make things seem more serious.) A—, much like Jake's Coach M, liked to get in your face and openly criticize you. He made cutting players a spectacle. I remember the team during my freshman year gradually being whittled down from an enthusiastic 19 to nervous 10. I was really hoping that A—'s plan wasn't to follow the example of Willie Wonka, cutting our numbers down further and further until he found his successor. *shiver!* His methods of criticism worked for a select few, for whom I think just about any form of criticism would have worked. His style was very much unlike L—'s method of criticism, which was much more constructive. L—, whom I mentioned in this previous post, was a really good coach for me, though not the best in terms of leading our team to success. His criticism didn't aim at embarrassing you into improvement but instead aimed at building you into a better person who would improve because he wanted to be the best he could be. Not to boast, but for the sake of showing how he in fact did this, L— once said that he wished he could have a team full of guys like me. Knowing he said that made every bit of criticism that came from his mouth more meaningful. This was someone trying to make me better, and I wanted to take his advice. I think most people have had an A— and L— in their life.
This connects to what I read in R—'s post, where she talks about three main points she considers before offering criticism: context, audience, and goal. I've never stopped to think about what I consider before criticizing, but those points really sum it up well! I feel like if I went into further detail, I'd just end up rehashing what R— has already described very well on her own blog, so I think it'd be best for you to read what she has to say. Thinking about whom you are giving criticism, in what situation, and for what purpose is a good practice to have because it makes you carefully chose your words so that they have the most positive impact. After considering these three points, you may even decide that your criticism isn't even necessary! I would add another perspective to this pre-criticism thinking, that of the one being criticized. Just as the one doling out criticism must consider context, audience, and goal, the one receiving criticism should consider the context, speaker, and his or her goal. I have to admit that I can be very defensive when being criticized. I need to resist the urge to release my ego's quills upon contact, and I think I've been better about that in recent years. (Feel free to let me know how I can improve. Yes, I just suggested you criticize how I take criticism.) When someone sits me down for "a talk," I need to think about why that is, who they are, and how I can be a good recipient. For instance, I knew this past Monday that Prof. Arvan was taking each of us aside to talk with us about our reflections. I wasn't in trouble. He wants me to improve my writing. He offered his criticism through conversation. Knowing all this, the meeting went well. If I had thought incorrectly about any of context, speaker, or goal, the meeting may have been less beneficial.
So I'm not the greatest (yet!) at receiving criticism, but am I any good at giving criticism? Maybe. I feel like it's not my place to gauge that. I never go in thinking, "Oh, boy! This is really going to be received totally differently from how I want it to be!" but sometimes that's what happens. I could afford to take the other person's perspective a bit more often. I mentioned last week how I'd really benefit from not assuming things so much. I think this feeds into my ineffective criticism. Sometimes, I consider motive, which I can't really do, and that gets me in trouble. Not to make myself sound like an awful critic, I think I can be very constructive when someone comes to me explicitly looking for something of theirs or about them to be critiqued. I occasionally read over skits and essays to offer improvement. Sometimes, I'm asked if I think such and such is a good idea. In those situations where I don't need to make the first move, I think I succeed. I certainly could improve how I initiate conversations where criticism is involved so that the results are better.
Good criticism can be difficult to recognize. In the end, the value of criticism is best measured retroactively. If the situation changes for the better, without anything changing for the worse, I think something must have gone well. At the time, it can be difficult to see if anything will really change as a result of criticism. We can recognize if a conversation is calm or if it's getting out of hand. We know how we feel immediately after having received or given criticism, but we don't know how or if another party or we will actually change. I'll have to sit Criticism down for a chat on how we can improve that.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
It's Better Not to Assume
This is one of those posts where you can read the title and pretty much know the bottom line. (In this case, the bottom line is the top line! Har har har...) Allow me to quote myself: "It's better not to assume." There you have it. I think that you end up looking like a fool less often when you don't assume things about other people, situations, or events.
Now, before you devil's advocates reading this come up with all sorts of examples to tell me that I'm wrong, allow me to clarify what I mean by 'assume'. Assume, to me and for this post, means making a judgment based upon minimal knowledge, often none. Assume does not refer to choices made on instinct. When a police officer sees suspicious behavior and acts based on it, I think of that more as an instinct move. Though police get in trouble if they profile people based on race or ethnicity, I would treat those cases separately from those where the are acting apart from any prejudice. Additionally, some of baseball is based on quick thinking, which one might mistake for assumption. A player gets to a point where he knows the game so well that he can make good decisions almost instantaneously, but this isn't quick thinking based on little information; it's actually based on quite a bit. Just to clarify, 'assume' to me means acting based upon little proof.
The reason this topic comes to me this week is because my group, Team Dew, interviewed the Deans yesterday. Deans Watkins (LAS) and DeBrock (Business) were very easy to interview. They spoke well and gave accessible explanations with their answers. Overall, I think our proposals for a student mentoring program will be better for having had them spend an hour with us.
As we interviewed the Deans, there were quite a few surprises to me, but most of them centered around their view of large classes. Going into the interview, I thought their general tone toward large classes would be negative. Looking at the script we wrote to guide our interview, you can see that we thought that when planning it. One of the main headings in it is "The Disengagement Pact and Large Classes." So you can imagine I was surprised when Dean DeBrock talked about his effectively teaching ECON 102: a class with 1685 students! The cap for classes has shrunk to 750 students since then, but I can't even imagine teaching a class that large. And to teach it well? It seems impossible, and yet he said that he managed it well. Dean Watkins went on to say that if it weren't for large classes, we couldn't have as many small, interactive classes as we do on campus. I don't know why I hadn't really thought of that. Suddenly, my view on large classes wasn't as negative as it had been minutes before, and our script was not as useful anymore. If I had not assumed the discussion would go a certain way, I think I would have been prepared with more questions along different lines. I still think that the interview went well, and I managed to ask a question off the top of my head, but that's in spite of preparing for a certain discussion that didn't really happen.
I've found myself in similar situations my entire life. One that immediately comes to mind is the time my parents wanted to take my brother and me to listen to chamber music at a local library. I whined about it. I just knew it would be boring. I didn't know why I had to be exposed to "culture." The whole time leading up to it, I complained. And then I ended up enjoying it. So what did my assumption do for me? It made me waste my time by being miserable, and it wasted my parents' time explaining how it would be fun. I'm sure it also got on their nerves to some extent.
There have been times recently when I've been prone to assume something negative, but thought back on all the times I've been wrong before. If I stop and think, I often find there are many other possible reasons or outcomes than the one that immediately comes to mind. This is something at which I want to get better, especially since teaching seldom goes as planned. I think I've gotten better about not assuming things, but I'm still a work in progress; I assume all of you are, too. (Just kidding.)
Now, before you devil's advocates reading this come up with all sorts of examples to tell me that I'm wrong, allow me to clarify what I mean by 'assume'. Assume, to me and for this post, means making a judgment based upon minimal knowledge, often none. Assume does not refer to choices made on instinct. When a police officer sees suspicious behavior and acts based on it, I think of that more as an instinct move. Though police get in trouble if they profile people based on race or ethnicity, I would treat those cases separately from those where the are acting apart from any prejudice. Additionally, some of baseball is based on quick thinking, which one might mistake for assumption. A player gets to a point where he knows the game so well that he can make good decisions almost instantaneously, but this isn't quick thinking based on little information; it's actually based on quite a bit. Just to clarify, 'assume' to me means acting based upon little proof.
The reason this topic comes to me this week is because my group, Team Dew, interviewed the Deans yesterday. Deans Watkins (LAS) and DeBrock (Business) were very easy to interview. They spoke well and gave accessible explanations with their answers. Overall, I think our proposals for a student mentoring program will be better for having had them spend an hour with us.
As we interviewed the Deans, there were quite a few surprises to me, but most of them centered around their view of large classes. Going into the interview, I thought their general tone toward large classes would be negative. Looking at the script we wrote to guide our interview, you can see that we thought that when planning it. One of the main headings in it is "The Disengagement Pact and Large Classes." So you can imagine I was surprised when Dean DeBrock talked about his effectively teaching ECON 102: a class with 1685 students! The cap for classes has shrunk to 750 students since then, but I can't even imagine teaching a class that large. And to teach it well? It seems impossible, and yet he said that he managed it well. Dean Watkins went on to say that if it weren't for large classes, we couldn't have as many small, interactive classes as we do on campus. I don't know why I hadn't really thought of that. Suddenly, my view on large classes wasn't as negative as it had been minutes before, and our script was not as useful anymore. If I had not assumed the discussion would go a certain way, I think I would have been prepared with more questions along different lines. I still think that the interview went well, and I managed to ask a question off the top of my head, but that's in spite of preparing for a certain discussion that didn't really happen.
I've found myself in similar situations my entire life. One that immediately comes to mind is the time my parents wanted to take my brother and me to listen to chamber music at a local library. I whined about it. I just knew it would be boring. I didn't know why I had to be exposed to "culture." The whole time leading up to it, I complained. And then I ended up enjoying it. So what did my assumption do for me? It made me waste my time by being miserable, and it wasted my parents' time explaining how it would be fun. I'm sure it also got on their nerves to some extent.
There have been times recently when I've been prone to assume something negative, but thought back on all the times I've been wrong before. If I stop and think, I often find there are many other possible reasons or outcomes than the one that immediately comes to mind. This is something at which I want to get better, especially since teaching seldom goes as planned. I think I've gotten better about not assuming things, but I'm still a work in progress; I assume all of you are, too. (Just kidding.)
Thursday, October 1, 2009
(A Lack Of?) Alignment
Of all my posts thus far, this one took me the longest to think of what to say. That's not saying much since the others, for the most part, have just come to me. It took me a while because I had a hard time thinking of a stellar example of a time when some unit of which I was a member lacked alignment so much so that it frustrated reaching our goals. I could have easily thought of times when being aligned helped us accomplish what we set out to do, but those aren't as interesting to write about. "We were all on the same page, and we did it. It was fun. Difficult, but fun." That's how I imagine that blog reading. No, I wanted to remember a time when everything came apart because the alignment was so poor. I have something close, but not perfectly disastrous.
In The Essential Drucker, Peter Drucker (who else would it be?) discusses the purpose and objectives of a business being essential to its success. He writes that "Objectives are the foundation for designing both the structure of the business and the work of individual units and individual managers." (p 30) He identifies eight key areas (marketing, innovation, and human resources, for example) in which objectives "are always needed." (p 30) Alignment among objectives is paramount to a successful business. If individuals have different objectives than that of the business, then progress is stalled or halted. Alignment is important because it is a necessary requirement for movement. Ultimately, the manager is in control of this. He or she needs to make sure that the work assigned to each individual is appropriate given his or her abilities and that each individual is doing his or her work.
On a high school baseball team, or any team for that matter, the coach acts as manager. In the major leagues, the coach even goes by the title "manager." In addition to the manager, there can be captains or other individuals who adopt formal managerial responsibilities. These assistant managers and captains are vital to the success of the team, but I'll say it again: ultimately, the manager is in control. The 2006 Lincoln Park Lions Varsity Baseball team really didn't have any assistant managers or captains in place to make the team more successful. We had a very likable coach; I can't imagine his being more understanding or kind, but we didn't win, and that's what a sports team is all about. There were some members of the team whose objective was to win. Some players dreamed of playing college or professional baseball, but others of us knew that this was the end of the road. High school baseball would be it for us. I fell into this latter group along with some of my friends.
We all wanted to win (Who doesn't like winning?), but we were not all aligned. Some of the team wanted to practice more often than three or four times a week. Others were content with that level of dedication. This was the source of some disagreement as the season drew near to its end. The playoffs were approaching, and it was time to "go big or go home" as I hear all the time. (Aside: I really don't like that phrase, but I'll use it anyway.) A couple teammates organized a meeting outside to talk about our needing to practice more. Some of us weren't willing to take that step. AP and IB exams were just around the corner, and preparing for those mattered more to us. Furthermore, we had a coach who completely supported our academic lives. School always came before baseball. That said, the meeting did not unite us toward a common goal. We dispersed in our respective directions, and our team lost in the second round of the playoffs.
Alignment isn't easy, especially when you consider motivation. I'm in charge of organizing prayer activities at Axiom, a ministry here on campus, and I have never had such a difficult assignment. I think part of the reason it's difficult getting people united in prayer is an alignment issue and part of it is a motivation issue. As far as alignment, people have many different ways of praying. Some prefer praying alone, others in groups. Some pray at specific times, others whenever it comes to mind, and some do both. All of these are perfectly acceptable methods of praying. I just find it hard to find common ground, some way to get everyone excited about prayer. That's the other part: motivating prayer. Something as cool as talking with God should provide its own motivation. About two and a half years ago, I went on a retreat where the speaker chose to preach about prayer. He used a corny but memorable connection between Krispy Kreme Donuts and prayer to motivate his point. "When I see the 'Hot Now!' sign lit up at Krispy Kreme, I get excited," he said. "We should feel the same way about prayer. Being able to approach God in prayer should make us say 'Hot Now!'" As I said, the analogy is super corny, but I think it makes some sense. Alignment and motivation are closely related. There needs to be some source of motivation to align. My team wasn't motivated to go far in the playoffs, so we had unaligned objectives, and we lost. Communal prayer at Axiom is difficult to coordinate, but I'll keep praying for it!
That reminds me of something! When I think about it, my life is a business, and God is the manager. When I let Him be in charge of my life and align my objectives with his, it's way better. Woot! That thought just made my day a lot better.
To sum it all up, alignment is one of the keys to the success of a business, which can be just about anything. The manager and all other individuals involved need to know the business' objectives and his or her role in fulfilling them. Drucker writes that "Defining the purpose and mission of the business…alone enables a business to set objectives, to develop strategies, to concentrate its resources, and to go to work." (p 28) Alignment is both difficult and necessary for success.
In The Essential Drucker, Peter Drucker (who else would it be?) discusses the purpose and objectives of a business being essential to its success. He writes that "Objectives are the foundation for designing both the structure of the business and the work of individual units and individual managers." (p 30) He identifies eight key areas (marketing, innovation, and human resources, for example) in which objectives "are always needed." (p 30) Alignment among objectives is paramount to a successful business. If individuals have different objectives than that of the business, then progress is stalled or halted. Alignment is important because it is a necessary requirement for movement. Ultimately, the manager is in control of this. He or she needs to make sure that the work assigned to each individual is appropriate given his or her abilities and that each individual is doing his or her work.
On a high school baseball team, or any team for that matter, the coach acts as manager. In the major leagues, the coach even goes by the title "manager." In addition to the manager, there can be captains or other individuals who adopt formal managerial responsibilities. These assistant managers and captains are vital to the success of the team, but I'll say it again: ultimately, the manager is in control. The 2006 Lincoln Park Lions Varsity Baseball team really didn't have any assistant managers or captains in place to make the team more successful. We had a very likable coach; I can't imagine his being more understanding or kind, but we didn't win, and that's what a sports team is all about. There were some members of the team whose objective was to win. Some players dreamed of playing college or professional baseball, but others of us knew that this was the end of the road. High school baseball would be it for us. I fell into this latter group along with some of my friends.
We all wanted to win (Who doesn't like winning?), but we were not all aligned. Some of the team wanted to practice more often than three or four times a week. Others were content with that level of dedication. This was the source of some disagreement as the season drew near to its end. The playoffs were approaching, and it was time to "go big or go home" as I hear all the time. (Aside: I really don't like that phrase, but I'll use it anyway.) A couple teammates organized a meeting outside to talk about our needing to practice more. Some of us weren't willing to take that step. AP and IB exams were just around the corner, and preparing for those mattered more to us. Furthermore, we had a coach who completely supported our academic lives. School always came before baseball. That said, the meeting did not unite us toward a common goal. We dispersed in our respective directions, and our team lost in the second round of the playoffs.
Alignment isn't easy, especially when you consider motivation. I'm in charge of organizing prayer activities at Axiom, a ministry here on campus, and I have never had such a difficult assignment. I think part of the reason it's difficult getting people united in prayer is an alignment issue and part of it is a motivation issue. As far as alignment, people have many different ways of praying. Some prefer praying alone, others in groups. Some pray at specific times, others whenever it comes to mind, and some do both. All of these are perfectly acceptable methods of praying. I just find it hard to find common ground, some way to get everyone excited about prayer. That's the other part: motivating prayer. Something as cool as talking with God should provide its own motivation. About two and a half years ago, I went on a retreat where the speaker chose to preach about prayer. He used a corny but memorable connection between Krispy Kreme Donuts and prayer to motivate his point. "When I see the 'Hot Now!' sign lit up at Krispy Kreme, I get excited," he said. "We should feel the same way about prayer. Being able to approach God in prayer should make us say 'Hot Now!'" As I said, the analogy is super corny, but I think it makes some sense. Alignment and motivation are closely related. There needs to be some source of motivation to align. My team wasn't motivated to go far in the playoffs, so we had unaligned objectives, and we lost. Communal prayer at Axiom is difficult to coordinate, but I'll keep praying for it!
That reminds me of something! When I think about it, my life is a business, and God is the manager. When I let Him be in charge of my life and align my objectives with his, it's way better. Woot! That thought just made my day a lot better.
To sum it all up, alignment is one of the keys to the success of a business, which can be just about anything. The manager and all other individuals involved need to know the business' objectives and his or her role in fulfilling them. Drucker writes that "Defining the purpose and mission of the business…alone enables a business to set objectives, to develop strategies, to concentrate its resources, and to go to work." (p 28) Alignment is both difficult and necessary for success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)