Wisdom Wednesday – Dilbert As A Management Role Model? (With Bonus Donald Trump Reference in 2006?!?)

In “honour” of the death of Scott Adams, I present one of the papers I wrote in library school.

This was my Management class and, you won’t be shocked to hear that I had a lot of skepticism about what we were being taught (you’ll be more shocked to learn that management was my highest mark in library school!)

For this paper, I decided, almost as a dare after talking with some classmates, to cite a Dilbert cartoon instead of the usual peer-reviewed papers.  Still got a great mark!

And fuck you, Scott Adams – what a way to destroy your legacy.

By: Jason Hammond

UWO Student Number: 250352538

Mailbox Number: 140

For: Jonathan R. Slater, Ph.D

MLIS 506 – Management

Summary #3 – Chapter 2 (Decision Making & Motivation)

As the weeks go by, I find it harder and harder to respond to these chapters.  Once again, we have a chapter that is more of a historical overview of the development of management theory winnowing to a brief discussion of the development of library management theory than anything that might be called decisive, current or enlightening.

Although interesting as background information, it is hard to know where to go from here.  Do I pick a theory I favour and decide that this is the one for me in my future career?  Or do I contemplate a world where all of the best elements of these theories could be swirled together into a penultimate theory of management?  Perhaps that is where current management theory stands; after all, this is what the “General Systems Theory” movement sounds like.

All of the theories covered in this chapter obviously have value or they wouldn’t merit a mention in the textbook.  Do some employees work for monetary reward?  Yes.  Do some work for higher goals?  Yes.  Do some need lots of direction?  Yes.  Do some like to work independently?  Yes.  And so on.

So what do I say as a response?  Do I take issue with the author’s statement that “entrepreneurship and risk-taking have become a way of life in modern libraries and information centres”?  Yes, of course, I do. But how to argue with something that’s presented so matter-of-factly and without any exploration of an alternate view and that possibly entrepreneurship and risk-taking actually have no place in libraries?

[Edit: I lumped these two things together based on the quote in the chapter I was responding to. But if I was writing it now, I’d probably say libraries need to engage in *more* risk-taking.].

Perhaps it’s their statement that “the most efficient formal organization in the history of Western civilization has been the Catholic Church.”  From a purely managerial standpoint maybe this is true, but should any manager in today’s world take any lessons from an organization that has systemically held down women, covered up the widespread abuse of children, colonized foreign cultures, helped promote a pandemic in Africa and many more sins, all in the name of a Goal (capitalization intentional) that any rationale person would see as improbable at best.

Or perhaps the statement that leads the next paragraph is more relevant.  “Some of the most important principles and practices of modern business management can be traced to military organizations.”

I don’t know what to say to this.  Again, although true in a historical sense, what is the lesson for today’s manager?  Personally, I really don’t want to have any part of a world where library managers take their lessons from churches, the military or even corporate business management theory.  Is there another way?  Is there a modern management theory that treats people fairly, that sees relationships between organizations as cooperative rather than competitive, is there one that focuses on more than the bottom financial line?  If there is, I’d love to hear about it.   Maybe in the next chapter…

Questions For Consideration

  1. If you needed advice as a manager, should you consult The Bible, Machiavelli’s The Prince or Donald Trump’s The Art of the Deal
  2. Or should you take the best lessons from all three in combination?
  3. Who had better management strategy – Napoleon or Ghengis Khan? 1

1 United Features Syndicate.  “Dilbert” http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2006029312526.gif  (Permission pending)


 

One Month Away!!!

Music Monday – “I just wanna know how you feel/Want a love that’s so proud and real.”

Fuh You” – Paul McCartney

Secular Sunday – We Have 180 Catalogued Brain Biases That Are Not Compatible With The Modern World

Of particular relevance to the atheist typing right now is the idea that even if you lose religion, you will find some other tribe to give your life meaning – for me, that’s progressive politics and hockey fandom and other things that go beyond “I like this” to the secular equivalent of religious tenants such as faith, prayer and even stories about how the end of the world may come about.

@qdjo507

#matrix #nononsensespirituality #rabbithole #void #existentialcrisis

? original sound – qdjo507

Saturday Snap – One Way To Know Wrestling’s Fake?

One of their villain characters is called “The Educated” and brings a book to the ring as a weapon (which got used on Friday night to secure the victory!) but the owner of the company is a regular at the library I work at, always brings his kids, is a devoted dad who is clearly a fan of literacy!

Come to think of it, I’m a big fan of what he does and I guess he’s a big fan of what I do?

Friday Fun Link – Kids Intermission Game Hockey Fight at AHL Game

This is both horrifying and absolutely amazing!

Throwback Thursday – #tbt – Button Maker (November 2013)

Full-on riding the Riders bandwagon the last time they were in the Grey Cup Final!

Wisdom Wednesday – Rebuilding The Working Class


Saw the story I’ve copied below online and it made me think of the current Federal NDP Leadership Race where this is a major topic of conversation.

It was also in the first provincial NDP Leadership race I was involved in where I got introduced to the term “Granholier Than Thou” as someone who was *very* left wing  in their views (eg. crunchy granola), also acknowledged the propensity for left wing parties to do Purity Tests (that no one can pass as there’s always another level – you don’t think there’s should be unhoused people?  Well, I signed an online petition!  Well, I donated some old clothes to the homeless shelter!  I served food at a shelter!  Well, I go there and volunteer weekly!  Well, I sold my house and all my belongings to live on the streets as that’s the only authentic way to understand homelessness, man!”

I think one of the most perspective changing ideas I came across is to not think about politics as left vs. right but more bottom (99% of us) vs. top (the fabled 1%.). Part of the issue is making sure that the educated and the management class and the well-off through inheritance or privilege or whatever realise they’re still closer to the bus boy than the billionaire.

A while back, just after Corbyn became leader, I went along to my local Labour Party meeting. I’d never been before, but something had shifted, and I wanted to see what it felt like up close.

Normally, I was told, about six people turned up. That night, the room was packed with maybe forty or fifty people. A mix of ages, backgrounds, accents. People who looked hopeful, a bit nervous, a bit excited. People who felt invited.

And then something happened that’s never really left me.

One of the long-standing regulars stood up and absolutely raged. Not at the billionaires or the landlords. He raged at the room, at the “elites” who had dared to show their faces. He sneered at how people were dressed and how well spoken they were and at what he imagined they represented.

It was despicable, and I don’t use that word lightly. The woman sat next to me was literally shaking with fear. What I witnessed wasn’t class politics, it was gatekeeping. A man mistaking familiarity with a room for ownership of it, and mistaking resentment for solidarity.

I’ve thought about that moment a lot since, because it turns out it explains rather more than I realised at the time.

For most of the 20th century, class was lived collectively. If you worked in a factory, a mine, a dock, you shared conditions, risks, and power structures with the people around you. Unions made sense because work was shared and labour (and ‘Labour’) made sense because class was tangible. The vote followed the job because the job followed the structure of power.

Now the job has dissolved into fog and that world is gone. Today, class doesn’t organise people’s lives in the same way: precarious work, gig contracts, multiple jobs, benefits topping up wages that no longer work. No shared workplace, no shared leverage, no obvious “we”. It’s the quiet collapse of class as lived experience. You don’t join a union when you don’t even know who you’ll be working for next week and you don’t see yourself as a class when your life feels like a juggling act rather than a collective endeavour.

Precarity atomises people and exhaustion, isolation, and a constant low-level panic, replaces solidarity.

What’s filled the gap isn’t class, but culture. Education has become the proxy and “graduate” now stands in for “elite”, not because graduates own anything (except student debt and a bike helmet) but because they’ve been exposed to structural thinking and a language that can describe systems. University becomes less about elite status and more about acquiring a language for power. And that alone is now treated as a threat.

At the same time, a group routinely described as “working class” has come to dominate working-class culture without actually being working class at all. The self-employed small business owners, contractors, landlords with one or two properties.
Marx had a name for them: the petit bourgeois, and that’s the part polite liberals often tiptoe around.

They’re doing alright. The van-and-invoice guy that owns their own tools. Sometimes they own other people’s labour. He is materially incentivised to side with capital, even if culturally he shares a postcode and a pub with people who are being crushed by it. Their interests lean towards money and hierarchy, not solidarity. Historically, that group has always been the shock troops of reaction, not because they’re evil, but because they’re anxious about falling downwards and furious at being told they’re not on the way up.

Enter the grifting spiv, Farage, who sells them dignity by letting them punch sideways instead of looking up. Murdoch supplies the vocabulary… the pub supplies the reinforcement loop.

Meanwhile, the “educated working class” ends up in a weird half-space. Teachers, nurses, social workers, public sector staff. Still selling their labour and still dependent on wages but culturally separated from the people they supposedly share a class with.
Reform thrives in the cracks left behind by the collapse of the old labour movement. It doesn’t build solidarity, but instead redirects resentment sideways. “Elite” stops meaning people who own and control everything, and starts meaning the person next door who reads books, works in the public sector, or turned up to a meeting wearing the wrong clothes.

That night in the Labour meeting, I saw the fracture in miniature. A room full of people who might have become a “we”, and a voice that chose to draw a line instead.*
If we’re serious about rebuilding anything resembling a genuine working-class movement in the 21st century, we’re going to have to get much better at telling the difference between power and proximity, between ownership and education and between people who exploit the system and people who are simply trying to understand it.

We stopped using the word spiv, even though the behaviour it describes never stopped. A spiv is someone who profits from scarcity while pretending to speak for those harmed by it. I think it accurately describes Farage and his entourage. Perhaps this sturdy old word’s time has come around again?

Avengers: Doomsday (Teaser Trailer)

Music Monday – “And every, everybody dies/Fighting for their lives, just trying to survive Well now I know, I know why we say/That there’s a better place that waits beyond the grave, oh…”

Saw this on a Reddit thread about gut punch songs.  And if you have a pet, yep – this one will hurt.  It’s about putting a pet down but really, any pet you’ve had who’s died, at the end of their natural life or earlier due to accident or whatever, will hit similarly.

“Euthanasia” – Will Wood