Comment The Five Minds of a Manager Essay Example for Free

Comment The Five Minds of a Manager Essay The Five Minds of a Manager the five aspects of the managerial mind—has proved not only powerful in the classroom but insightful in practice, as we hope to demonstrate in this article. We’ll first explain how we came up with the five managerial mind-sets, then we’ll discuss each in some depth before concluding with the case for interweaving the five. The Five Managerial Mind-Sets Jonathan Gosling is the director of the Centre for Leadership Studies at the University of Exeter in Exeter, England. Henry Mintzberg is the Cleghorn Professor of Management Studies at McGill University in Montreal and the author of the forthcoming book Managers Not MBAs from Berrett-Koehler. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, headquartered in Geneva, has a management development concern. It worries that it may be drifting too far toward a fast-action culture. It knows that it must act quickly in responding to disasters everywhere—earthquakes and wars, floods and famines—but it also sees the need to engage in the slower, more delicate task of building a capacity for action that is careful, thoughtful, and tailored to local conditions and needs. Many business organizations face a similar problem—they know how to execute, but they are not so adept at stepping back to reflect on their situations. Others face the opposite predicament: They get so mired in thinking about their problems that they can’t get things done fast enough. We all know bureaucracies that are great at planning and organizing but slow to respond to market forces, just as we’re all acquainted with the nimble companies that react to every stimulus, but sloppily, and have to be constantly fixing things. And then, of course, there are those that suffer from both afflictions—for example, firms whose marketing departments are absorbed with grand positioning statements while their sales forces chase every possible deal. Those two aspects establish the bounds of management: Everything that every effective manager does is sandwiched between action on the ground and reflection in the abstract. Action without reflection is thoughtless; reflection without action is passive. Every manager has to find a way to combine these two mindsets—to function at the point where reflective thinking meets practical doing. But action and reflection about what? One obvious answer is: about collaboration, about getting things done cooperatively with other people—in negotiations, for example, where a manager cannot act alone. Another answer is that action, reflection, and collaboration have to be rooted in a deep appreciation of reality harvard business review †¢ november 2003 in all its facets. We call this mind-set worldly, which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as â€Å"experienced in life, sophisticated, practical. † Finally, action, reflection, and collaboration, as well as worldliness, must subscribe to a certain rationality or logic; they rely on an analytic mind-set, too. So we have five sets of the managerial mind, five ways in which managers interpret and deal with the world around them. Each has a dominant subject, or target, of its own. For reflection, the subject is the self; there can be no insight without self-knowledge. Collaboration takes the subject beyond the self, into the manager’s network of relationships. Analysis goes a step beyond that, to the organization; organizations depend on the systematic decomposition of activities, and that’s what analysis is all about. Beyond the organization lies what we consider the subject of the worldly mind-set, namely context—the worlds around the organization. Finally, the action mind-set pulls everything together through the process of change—in self, relationships, organization, and context. The practice of managing, then, involves five perspectives, which correspond to the five modules of our program: †¢ Managing self: the reflective mind-set †¢ Managing organizations: the analytic mind-set †¢ Managing context: the worldly mind-set †¢ Managing relationships: the collaborative mind-set †¢ Managing change: the action mind-set If you are a manager, this is your world! Let us make clear several characteristics of this set of sets. First, we make no claim that our framework is either scientific or comprehensive. It simply has proved useful in our work with managers, including in our master’s program. (For more on the program, see the sidebar â€Å"Mind-Sets for Management Development. †) Second, we ask you to consider each of these managerial mind-sets as an attitude, a frame of mind that opens new vistas. Unless you get into a reflective frame of mind, for example, you cannot open yourself to new ideas. You might not even notice such ideas in the first place without a worldly frame of mind. And, of course, you cannot appreciate the buzz, the vistas, and the opportunities of actions unless you engage in them. Third, a word on our word â€Å"mind-sets. † We page 2 The Five Minds of a Manager do not use it to set any manager’s mind. All of us have had more than enough of that. Rather, we use the word in the spirit of a fortune one of us happened to pull out of a Chinese cookie recently: â€Å"Get your mind set. Confidence will lead you on. † We ask you to get your mind set around five key ideas. Then, not just confidence but coherence can lead you on. Think, too, of these mind-sets as mind-sights—perspectives. But be aware that, improperly used, they can also be mine sites. Too much of any of them—obsessive analyzing or compulsive collaborating, for instance—and the mind-set can blow up in your face. Managing Self: The Reflective Mind-Set Managers who are sent off to development courses these days often find themselves being welcomed to â€Å"boot camp. † This is no country club, they are warned; you’ll have to work hard. But this is wrongheaded. While managers certainly don’t need a country club atmosphere for development, neither do they need boot camp. Most managers we know already live boot camp every day. Besides, in real boot camps, soldiers learn to march and obey, not to stop and think. These days, what managers desperately need is to stop and think, to step back and reflect thoughtfully on their experiences. Indeed, in his book Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky makes the interesting point that events, or â€Å"happenings,† become experience only after they have been reflected upon thoughtfully: â€Å"Most people do not accumulate a body of experience. Most people go through life undergoing a series of happenings, which pass through their systems undigested. Happenings become experiences when they are digested, when they are reflected on, related to general patterns, and synthesized. † Unless the meaning is understood, managing is mindless. Hence we take reflection to be that space suspended between experience and explanation, where the mind makes the connections. Imagine yourself in a meeting when someone suddenly erupts with a personal rant. You’re tempted to ignore or dismiss the outburst—you’ve heard, after all, that the person is having problems at home. But why not use it to reflect on your own reaction—whether em- Mind-Sets for Management Development In 1996, when we founded the International Masters Program in Practicing Management with colleagues from around the world, we developed the managerial mind-sets as a new way to structure management education and development. Managers are sent to the IMPM by their companies, preferably in groups of four or five. They stay on the job, coming into our classrooms for five modules of two weeks each, one for each of the mindsets, over a period of 16 months. We open with a module on the reflective mind-set. The module is located at Lancaster University in the reflective atmosphere of northern England—the nearby hills and lakes inspire reflection on the purpose of life and work. Then it is on to McGill University in Montreal, where the grid-like regularity of the city reflects the energy and order of the analytic mind-set. The worldly mind-set on context comes alive at the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore, where new technologies jostle ancient traditions on the crowded streets. Then comes the collabora- harvard business review †¢ november 2003 tive mind-set, hosted by faculty in Japan, where collaboration has been the key to managerial innovations, and Korea, where alliances and partnerships have become the basis for business growth. Last is the action mind-set module, located at Insead in France, where emerging trends from around the world convert into lessons for managerial action. So our locations not only teach the mindsets but also encourage the participating managers to live them. And so have we, in the very conception of the program. Our approach to management development is fundamentally reflective. We believe managers need to step back from the pressures of their jobs and reflect thoughtfully on their experiences. We as faculty members bring concepts; the participants bring experience. Learning occurs where these meet—in individual heads, small groups, and all together. Our 50-50 rule says that half the classroom time should be turned over to the participants, on their agendas. The program is fully collaborative all around. There is no lead school; much of the organizational responsibility is distributed. Likewise, the faculty’s relationship with the participants is collaborative. And faculty members work closely with the participating companies, which over the past eight years have included Alcan, BT, EDF Group and Gaz de France, Fujitsu, the International Red Cross Federation, LG, Lufthansa, Matsushita, Motorola, Royal Bank of Canada, and Zeneca. We think of our setting as being especially worldly, because the participating managers and faculty host their colleagues at home, in their own cultures, and are guests abroad. We also believe that the program’s reflective orientation allows us to probe into analysis more deeply than in regular education and work. Finally, our own purpose is action: We seek fundamental change in management education worldwide—to help change business schools into true schools of management. page 3 The Five Minds of a Manager These days, what managers desperately need is to stop and think—to step back and reflect thoughtfully on their experiences. barrassment, anger, or frustration—and so recognize some comparable feelings in yourself? Your own reaction now becomes a learning experience for you: You have opened a space for imagination, between your experience and your explanation. It can make all the difference. Organizations may not need â€Å"mirror people,† who see in everything only reflections of their own behavior. But neither do they need â€Å"window people,† who cannot see beyond the images in front of them. They need managers who see both ways—in a sense, ones who look out the window at dawn, to see through their own reflections to the awakening world outside. â€Å"Reflect† in Latin means to refold, which suggests that attention turns inward so that it can be turned outward. This means going beyond introspection. It means looking in so that you can better see out in order to perceive a familiar thing in a different way—a product as a service, maybe, or a customer as a partner. Does that not describe the thinking of the really successful managers, the Andy Groves of the world? Compare such people with the Messiers and Lays, who dazzle with great mergers and grand strategies before burning out their companies. Likewise, reflective managers are able to see behind in order to look ahead. Successful â€Å"visions† are not immaculately conceived; they are painted, stroke by stroke, out of the experiences of the past. Reflective managers, in other words, have a healthy respect for history—not just the grand history of deals and disasters but also the everyday history of all the little actions that make organizations work. Consider in this regard Kofi Annan’s deep personal understanding of the United Nations, a comprehension that has been the source of his ability to help move that complex body to a different and better place. You must appreciate the past if you wish to use the present to get to a better future.

Free Essays - A Psychological Analysis of Hawthornes Young Goodman Brown :: Young Goodman Brown YGB

My first thought when I read the story is that there's a psychological aspect to this. This aspect comes to life when Brown begins to accept the reality that he seems to repress. Which reality is this? As imperfect humans, we've occasionally used poor judgment on issues in our everyday lives, but what is most important is how we deal with these experiences that will become forever frozen in our minds. I feel that this is the major cause of anguish for Brown. When you look at his society and the beliefs of the townspeople, one can understand how Brown's conscience can be very overbearing. So overbearing that it causes him to have delusions concerning the welfare of his soul. I believe it is a dream or nightmare for Brown, one that he will never be able to deal with. One wonders how Brown's townsfolk deal with their sins. Do they repress them or just keep them hid from others? Through time, Brown learns he is not alone when it comes to dealing with good and evil. Isn't he just dealing with good? Or is it the connection between good and evil that bugs him? His own wife, Faith, is bothered with symptoms: "a lone woman is troubled with such dreams." Brown mentions, "She talks of dreams, too," which is a somewhat reassuring statement for him. This seems to confirm the notion that his "journey" is a fabrication of his unconscious (a dream) and that his wife has similar problems. It's quite ironic that her name is Faith, which seems to be the very thing that she is lacking. Also, Brown is caught offguard when he sees the "journeyman" mingle with Goody Cloyse. He comments: "that old woman taught me my catechism"; such a respectable woman is talking to evil. We are also told of how Brown's family wasn't as wholesome as he believed. His grandfather lashed a Quaker woman while his father set fire to an Indian village. How did these men deal with their actions? I can remember reading about Puritans who used to whip themselves for their sins. This torment can exhaust you to a physical numbness but the sin is still in your mind. Through it all, I wonder about all the hell people were put through, during this time period, for acts that were deemed unacceptable I really like the symbolism in this story.

How Does Mary Shelley Explore Suffering in Frankenstein

How does Shelley portray suffering in â€Å"Frakenstein†? Throughout the novel, suffering of not only an individual but also humanity, remains at the heart of the plot. Many critics today believe that this suffering comes from the troubled and tormented life Shelley had. For example from 1815 to mid 1819, Shelley was to lose the first three of her four children, for which she held herself responsible. Therefore, it could be argued that the monster is the embodiment of Shelley’s suffering and guilt. Suffering in the novel becomes apparent through the narrator, Frankenstein. For example, from a psychoanalyst’s perception ofVictor, his suffering comes from his character. Victor is the very incarnation of the Byronic Hero. He represents a lonely, isolated and self- ­? destructive force vulnerable to his own over- ­? powering emotions of greed and fervid curiosity. This is perfectly depicted in Caspar David Friedrich’s painting (commonly associated with the image of the Byronic hero) â€Å"Wanderer above the sea of fog† whereby a man overlooks an untouched landscape (Byron’s poem The Corsair; â€Å"lone, wild and strange, he stood alike exempt from all affection and all contempt†) with the sole desire to explore and gain victory. This passionately intense nd over- ­? powering desire of knowledge is perfectly depicted in Book IV of Milton’s Paradise Lost ‘Satan’s address to the sun’ (An epic poem heavily influencing Shelley) whereby Satan must suffer for his â€Å"Pride and worse ambition†. It is therefore blatant that Frankenstein’s immense feelings of isolation (Byron; â€Å"That man of loneliness and mystery†) and fervid desire become the sole cause of Frankenstein’s loss of humanity and mental self- ­? destruction (the use of the phrase â€Å"infernal machinations† implying a man so susceptible to his own greed, curiosity and isolation that his o wn mental torment becomes almost an quivalent to Dante’s ‘Inferno’). Therefore, Victor becomes the â€Å"Satan† of this novel. Having had an intense yearning for victory (as his name suggests), he has attempted to assume the position of God, which has only caused mental decline and suffering. Aside from his mental torment, Victor’s physical deterioration mirrors his guilt. Frankenstein has held himself responsible for the deaths of his closest friends and family. For example, in Chapter IV- ­? â€Å"I felt the fiend’s grasp in my neck† a direct link is made to Coleridge’s (a close friend of William Godwin- ­? Shelley’s Father) ‘Rime of the Ancient Mariner’ whereby, fter having shot the albatross (once a symbol of good luck), the course of time has been altered forever; â€Å"With my crossbow I shot the Albatross†. Consequently, the â€Å"[shooting] of the albatross† in this novel comes not f rom Victor’s creation of the monster but infact his crime of denying the monster of love. For example, Rousseau (a philosopher that inspired Shelley) suggested that a child deprived of a loving family becomes a monster. This act of depriving the monster of maternal love (thus, showing men’s incapability of love) caused the monster to kill those closest to Victor. This sparked immense feelings of guilt n Victor â€Å"I was overcome by gloom and misery† linking to Coleridge’s poem (â€Å"And I had done a hellish thing†), which inevitably becomes the cause of his physical decline â€Å"The human frame could not longer support the agonizing suffering that I endured†. It is therefore, through the â€Å"hellish† act of denying the monster of love, that â€Å"The Albatross about [Victor’s] neck was hung† and his supreme guilt lead to his suffering. Victor’s physical deterioration in this novel also confirms the idea of à ¢â‚¬Å"The Double†. As many critics have suggested, the monster is merely a projection of Frankenstein’s innate corruption. It is hence ossible to assume that Frankenstein’s physical suffering and loss of humanity comes from the monster’s increased power thus showing how these two individuals are linked. The idea of such a double is backed up by the fact that the monster kills at moonlight and thus, the moon acts as an illuminating object shining into the heart of Victor only to reveal the monster. Such a theme is present in Stevenson’s â€Å"Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde† whereby; the suppressed emotions of Dr, Jekyll are projected at night in the ultra- ­? ego of Mr. Hyde. However, a far greater suffering is observed within the monster. The suffering comes withinThe Daemon’s rejection from his creator Frankenstein. The Daemon has lost any parental influence or more importantly, he has failed to achieve his â€Å"father figure†. Con stant desire to be appreciated by a father is a theme in this novel. For example, Frankenstein felt safe and secure in the presence of his father (â€Å"Nothing, at this moment, could have given me greater pleasure than the arrival of my father†) and Shelley herself longed for the appreciation and love from her father (especially after, William Godwin cut off relations to Shelley after her marriage to Percy). However, the monster, much like Adam from ParadiseLost, has failed to be appreciated by Victor (who he views as his father). In Paradise Lost, Adam had a constant desire to please God, but due to the temptation of Eve, he was outcast and rejected. This is similar to the monster, as purely to his appearance, the monster has been denied love from his father thus giving rise to an Oedipus complex. This Oedipus complex (also present in Shakespeare’s Macbeth) is shown through the monster as, when Frankenstein rejects the monster, the monster seemingly denounces him as a father and instead views his mother (possibly, nature) as the only love he will ever receive (â€Å"He was soon orne away by the waves†- ­? last sentence, Page 191). Therefore, this rejection of love from a paternal influence based on the monster’s appearance of â€Å"horror and disgust† (page 39) has lead to a loss of identity within the monster, and thus a mental anguish and suffering (â€Å"who am miserable beyond all living things- ­? page 77). This suffering the monster feels is extended by society’s further rejection of him based on his appearance. The fact that he is even rejected by the DeLaceys is Shelley’s view that everyone, however seemingly perfect, has an innate ability to judge based on appearance. This is why the monster s, at first, welcomed into the house of DeLacey. He is blind and therefore does not possess humanity’s evil ability to judge based on appearance- ­? he therefore is the very quintessence of purity an d kindness at the heart of a judgmental society as he does not possess sight. Shelley therefore attempts to suggest that humanity’s most dangerous quality is sight. This allows The Monster to believe he really is â€Å"a daemon†/ â€Å"wretch†/ â€Å"foul being† and suffers due to it. However, despite the suffering of the individual, this novel seems to address a far greater suffering; the suffering of humanity. Linking once again toMilton’s Paradise Lost, the ‘ultimate sin’ of Eve stealing the forbidden fruit leads to Adam and Eve (the first humans and thus, our ancestors) to be outcast to the wilderness. The suffering of humanity therefore comes from the fact that we, as descendants of Adam and Eve must be held responsible for Adam and Eve’s actions and temptation. Therefore, the human existence is based on the belief that we must continually repent for our ancestor’s sins and leads to the theory that the monster is mer ely the embodiment of God’s vengeance, warning the most corrupt humans who attempt to overcome nature (which is sublime and God- ­? ontrolled) that, God will prevail. This is however a use of irony. Mary Shelley married Percy Shelley 3 years after he was expelled from Oxford for his pamphlet â€Å"The necessity of atheism†. This therefore exposes Shelley’s cynicism of religion, whereas it should be based on glorifying existence, it is in fact, based on the suffering of humanity. Further suffering of humanity is observed through the treatment of sexuality in the novel. When Adam and Eve were cast out into the wilderness in Paradise Lost, they had to commit the ‘original sin’ of sexual reproduction as a means to produce offspring and ensure the survival f humanity. This act therefore undermines God’s power as it shows nature and science cannot be controlled by God (who is allegedly ‘the creator of all’). Therefore, within Victori an society a religiously backed suppression of sexuality meant men could not show any signs of sexual desire and that instead they must be kept secret. This leads to the idea that the monster is infact the depiction of Frankenstein’s sexual desire and that, much like the monster, it is locked away in the human body and allowed to ‘fester’ it will only be more ugly and violent (as shown in Elizabeth’s death and Frankenstein’s destruction of he female monster which seem to almost mirror an aggressive rape). Moreover, this leads to the development of what is more commonly known as â€Å"The Queer Theory†. This entails the idea that Frankenstein has a secretly oppressed homosexual desire which was shunned upon by Victorian society and that the only way to reveal this homo- ­? erotic desire was to create the â€Å"daemon† as a male Adonis â€Å"I selected his features a beautiful† in order to fulfil his suppressed sexuality. Theref ore, humanity suffers as their sexuality is oppressed by society and religion meaning that when it is revealed only more suffering is unleashed.Shelley in this novel also speaks from a seemingly feminist perspective. This may have been inspired by her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft’s book â€Å"A Vindication of the rights of woman† which placed stress on female independence and the importance of female education (women who succumb to sensuality will be â€Å"blown about by every momentary gust of feeling†); which links to the passive and generally ‘pathetic’ description of women in this novel. They’re suffering comes from the fact that Eve, the first woman committed the original sin thus damning society into a world far less sublime than the Garden of Eden. Therefore, Shelley esires show how women are forced into submission and general passiveness as a result of being the gender that committed the original sin. Their passiveness, perfectly depic ted in Elizabeth and Justine, links well to Coventry Patmore’s poem, The Angel in the house. This poem states the power men possess over women and that, to remain included in society, women must remain tacit and pretty so to fulfil the expectations of society. This links to the monster; the monster fails to fulfil society’s expectations of appearance and therefore is outcast. However, this juxtaposes with women as they fulfil society’s expectations and

Racial Disparities Of The United States Justice System

Persistent racial disparities are a defining characteristic of the United States justice system. Racial disparities in the justice system are characterized by differences in the proportions of a racial group in the system and in the general population. There is extensive literature detailing the higher likelihood of minorities, specifically African Americans, being arrested, receiving harsher sentences, and being incarcerated more frequently than Whites. As of 2008, African Americans comprised 13% of the general population, yet made up 38% of prison and jail inmates. Latinos comprised 15% of the general population, and 19% of the prison and jail population. An African American male born in 2001 has a 32% chance of spending time in†¦show more content†¦This paper will explore the causes and consequences of this racial disparity and political institutions that perpetuate the racial injustice. Analyses of this kind are significantly important considering the implications in the modern day society, where issues of race and justice are becoming more pervasive and exigent. The United States has a longstanding history of racism and discriminatory policy, stemming from the colonial era. Generally, those who weren’t considered true White Americans faced blatant ethnicity-based discrimination and adversity in matters of education, human rights, immigration, land ownership, and politics. Specific racial institutions, characteristic of the 17th to 20th centuries, included slavery, wars against the Native Americans, exclusion from civil life, and segregation. It wasn’t until the mid-20th century that formal racial discrimination was banned, and majority attitudes began to see racism as socially unacceptable. However, our relatively recent racialized history has left an unfortunate impact on present society. The legacy of historical racism still continues to be echoed through socioeconomic inequality, and racial politics still remain a major phenomenon. Many argue that our government systems have shifted from means of overt racism to more symbolic, covert racism, and that this is reflected in our societal institutions, such as employment, housing, education, economics, and government. The House