Recent media coverage paints a grim picture for the future of Venezuela; despite being the only South American member of OPEC, with the kind of earning potential that other small countries can only dream of, and having some of the best tourist beaches on earth, la gente Criolla appear to be en route to (and experiencing first hand) a nightmarish total collapse scenario whose story cannot be adequately told through economic forecasts or five minute news reels.

Let me elaborate briefly; Venezuela is my second home. I came into my understanding of politics during the height of the Chavista era, the time when former President Hugo Chavez was having murals of his own face painted on every other barrio wall, and trying so hard to please Fidel Castro that the infamous communist leader himself had to distance himself from the relationship. In a time when the people’s voting options were Vota No (don’t leave us, Hugo!) or Vota Si (yes, it might be time for a change), it was hard to imagine a worse situation for a nation with so much squandered potential. But as the old adage goes- just when you think it can’t get any worse-‘ we were horribly wrong.

Perhaps the toughest part to swallow is that even a basic understanding of leadership in a globalized world could have helped to avert the breakneck trajectory of the country; after all, when you’re sitting on 298.4 billion barrels of proven oil reserves (World Atlas, n.d.), you have options. Alas, like drunks, Venezuelan leaders have established a track record of taking the least favorable path so many times, it leads one to wonder about the average intoxication level of cabinet members by nine in the morning.

The first major issue comes from allowing corruption to affect the national state of readiness. According to Time Magazine, “Venezuela has budgeted for oil at $40 per barrel for years now, but instead of saving the surplus when prices were higher, much of this emergency oil fund was either spent or stolen. Venezuela would now need oil prices to reach $121 per barrel to balance its budget” (Bremmer, 2016). This rather shocking statistic is old hat to most Venezolanos, who live in “the most corrupt country in the Americas, and 9th most corrupt in the world, according to Transparency International. Its murder rate of 90 per 100,000 residents is the second-highest in the world” (Bremmer, 2016).  Add to that the fact that former President Hugo Chavez’s daughter, Maria Gabriela, is worth nearly $4.2 billion dollars (Puglie, 2015). The daughter of a military officer-cum-social justice warrior, the disappearing money from state coffers… you do the math. When leaders are taking care of themselves, rather than their charge as leaders, failure is expected. For common reference, consider the fates of corporations like Enron; the similarities are stark.

The fall from grace itself is telling; Penn State lists Venezuela as an emerging market, having an economy among the top 50 in the world (Penn State University, 2016). The irony of the last couple of years’ damage done by the failing leadership of Venezuela in reference to that citation is painful. Compound that with the fact that today, “Venezuela is the world’s worst economy, according to the IMF… expected to shrink 10% this year and inflation is projected to rise over 700%” (Gillespie, Romo, Hernandez, 2016), and the mind simply boggles at the leadership catastrophe that Venezuela has become.

Simple tools for leadership like diversity, whether of opinion, cultural influence, education, or experience, could have been used to make sure that the country was on the right track. Instead, Chavez (and now Maduro) surrounded himself with yes men, people who would not dare to oppose his ideas or offer up advice not in confluence with his vision. As Americans saw during the 2012 election, even though Mitt Romney was never likely to win the Presidency, regular viewers of Fox News were largely shocked that Obama won, and won handily. Similarly, as a leader, working with a lack of diversity of opinion and experience is tantamount to an echo chamber of ideas; essentially, if you tell yourself something long enough, you’ll believe it. Add to that the academic level of a man who accidentally said that “Christ multiplied the penises” (Huffington Post, 2013) during a public speech, and the impression of disaster becomes impending, rather than simply possible.

Organizational Change methods are unlikely to be useful in this scenario, for the sole reason that those who hold all the cards don’t actually want things to change. It is terribly difficult to instigate organizational adjustments when none of the influential members of the organization are willing to buy-in to the new strategy; hence, unfreezing never occurs (Moran, Abramson, Moran, 2014). Even as Venezolanos are being subjected to industrial nationalization, shortages, and work camps by the government on a massive scale (Gillespie, Romo, Hernandez, 2016), people like Maria Gabriela Chavez and other members or family members of government are lining their pockets. Maduro’s state of “economic emergency” is little more than an excuse to continue the same behaviors of the ‘haves’ in La Republica Bolivariana at the expense of the ‘have-nots.’

Poor decisions from the leadership of the country, fueled by the desire to skim off the top and by the advice of yes men and sychophants hoping to be included in the short-run windfall, have led to the most egregious catastrophe not being talked about on the news in 2016. Oh it makes the news; there are articles galore. But in the land of ClinTrump for President, stories of improper resource allocation leading to starvation and work camps in a formerly growing national economy aren’t as good for ratings. The entire paradigm is more than a bit sad; I myself haven’t returned to the country for several years now, and I have no desire to be beaten and robbed for my skin color in a country whose crime rate is fueled by hateful government rhetoric, disparate propaganda/returns, and just plain old hunger. Close friends of mine are barely getting by. Families that I know and love have little to eat, little to do (at least for a paycheck), and little to hope for in the immediate future.

The only way the situation will change is if the corruption is rooted out from the bottom all the way to the top, so that organizational buy-in to a new plan can take place. So far, the attempts of opposition leaders like Henrique Capriles and Leopoldo Lopez have either gotten struck down by corrupt election-runners in the former’s case, or directly blocked through political imprisonment, in the case of the latter.

Perhaps someday, I’ll be able to walk on the white sands of the island off the coast of La Playa Colorada outside of Cumana again; but until the leadership paradigm is shifted drastically, it’s a pipe dream.

 

Gillespie, P., Romo, R., Hernandez, O. (2016). Venezuela’s New Decree: Forced Farm Work for Citizens. CNN. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/29/news/economy/venezuela-decree-farm-labor/

Huffington Post. (2013). Nicolas Maduro says’Christ Multiplied The Penises’ In Major Screw Up. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/nicolas-maduro-penises_n_3831686.html

Moran, R. Abramson, N. Moran, S. (2014). Managing Cultural Differences. 9th Ed. New York, Routledge.

Penn State University. (2016). OLEAD 410, Lesson 8: South America: Focus On Brazil. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1802572/modules/items/21179105

Puglie, A.F. (2015). Maria Gabriela Chávez Net Worth: Hugo Chávez’s Daughter Richest Woman in Venezuela, Worth $4.2 Billion. Latin Post. Retrieved from http://www.latinpost.com/articles/71424/20150812/maria-gabriela-ch%C3%A1vez-net-worth-hugo-ch%C3%A1vezs-daughter-richest-woman-in-venezuela-worth-4-2-billion.htm

World Atlas. (n.d.). The World’s Largest Oil Reserves By Country. worldatlas.com. Retrieved from http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-world-s-largest-oil-reserves-by-country.html

These days, I’ve been feeling in need of a support group. I’ve been dealing with my current condition for about 18 months, but it stretches back well over two years. Public awareness is coalescing around this condition poorly, and it’s driving me crazy. Writing this is one part academic, one part therapeutic. I need to do this. So without further ado (and at risk of being doxxed),

Hi. I’m Joey, and I work for Wells Fargo.

Nearly everyone has seen the proverbial mud that the name of the well-known consumer lending bank has been dragged through in recent weeks. The allegations of widespread fraud, intermingled with a toxic environment of high-pressure sales and cheating (to the detriment of the clients who put their trust in the bank officers who subsequently took advantage of them) has been front page news for weeks. Many depositors have withdrawn their accounts, Congress is on a mission to lop the heads off of careers (rightly so), and my stock options have devalued to the point where I don’t want to even look at the login screen to my 401(k).

And it all could have been avoided. It very nearly was, and if senior leaders within the company had been more effective at communicating within the ranks of management, they likely would have achieved significant organizational change.

The current controversy, while just now becoming publicly known, has been old news for years in Wells Fargo circles. The main story ties back to a lawsuit filed by the city of Los Angeles in May of 2015, alleging “‘unfair, unlawful and fraudulent conduct” through a pervasive culture of high-pressure sales” (Reckard, 2015). Comparatively, media outlets have used each of those terms like confetti since the scandal broke in September.

Even before that, the company was trying to change.

Leading up to the end of 2014, it began to become apparent that there was a cultural problem at Wells. Even as early as 2011, there were allegations of “employees [opening] duplicate accounts, sometimes without customers’ knowledge” (Reckard, 2016). At the time, I was a newly minted employee, still a rookie banker, when it was announced that there would be ‘major changes’ to the way we did business. At the time, everything that could be measured was measured daily. If possible, hourly ad hoc reports were requested. Daily reports were comprehensive, and the principal tool used by managers to gauge effectiveness of personnel. Everything was in a stack-ranking format; the highest performers were always on the top of the list, fostering competition between retail bankers to ‘out-sell’ each other. When the ‘major changes’ came down at the start of 2015, the first thing to go was the stack-ranking, followed shortly thereafter by some of the more insidious reporting like the hourly ad hoc reports. Language was changed in the sales incentive programs to promote a less cutthroat, “sell sell sell” mentality.

Nothing really changed. In fact, change was rather heavily resisted in my area. When reports were disabled and removed from the system, lower-level executives and area managers simply began demanding that their direct reports create and send them the reports manually, via email, much to the chagrin of branch managers and senior executives alike. When minimum goals were redacted, those same lower-level executives and area managers simply implemented their own minimum goals. When manual reporting was banned by senior leadership (yes, it actually got that bad), emails were replaced by thrice-a-day phone calls. Finally, in what felt internally like desperation, the company did the unthinkable: all daily reporting was blocked, and the model shifted to a weekly basis instead, with managers limited to no more than two conference calls with subordinates per week.

It’s necessary to explain the progression in order to demonstrate one very important fact: change was being attempted by senior executives; whether out of fear or altruism, the intent was very much there. According to Schein’s planned change theory, top executives were trying (and failing) to kick off the process of unfreezing, “creating the motivation to change” (Penn State University, 2016). This failed for a myriad of reasons, from the level of entrenchment in the culture to the lack of transparent communication regarding the need to modify behaviors. Following the Schein model, unfreezing was a failure because the three mechanisms it is comprised of never fully came together, and portions were omitted. Disconfirmation, “the process of showing organizational members that their current behaviors or attitudes are incorrect” (Penn State University, 2016), was half-heartedly approached with programs like the seminal “Ethically Speaking” newsletter that was sent out on Mondays, outlining examples of unfair, abusive, or deceptive sales practices. The second mechanism of unfreezing, “creating anxiety or guilt in organizational members” (Penn State University, 2016), never materialized at all, with a few outlier exceptions. The third mechanism, creating psychological safety, or “showing organizational members that there is an alternative to their current behaviors that will reduce the guilt and anxiety they are experiencing” (Penn State University, 2016) was undercut by the fact that the second mechanism was never triggered, and by the fact that while one thing was being said by high-level executives, the awards, bonuses, recognition, promotions, and accolades employees sought after were bestowed upon one demographic: the highest sellers.

That being the case, with the first step of the 3-step model to organizational change dead on arrival, the second step of actually implementing changes could never be effective; naturally, this makes refreezing, the third and final step, a moot point, trapped in a proverbial purgatory of non-existence without the effective use of the first two. The fact that daily reporting was replaced by managers demanding manual daily reporting is a testament to the ineffectual nature of change without unfreezing. It also speaks to another issue and the one that, in my own opinion, is the lynchpin of the unfreezing’s failure; a lack of buy-in. The half-heartedness with which the company approached their attempt at organizational change was underscored by the fact that no one bought in to the change. With rewards still limited to high sellers, what motivation did the (relatively) few employees cheating in the trenches have to change? What motivation did managers, whose upward mobility pivoted on the sales figures of their subordinate managers and producing staff, have to try and change?

Instead of addressing the problem directly, a soft approach of weekly memos, quarterly conference calls, and slow removal of incentive reporting was taken. No one wanted to address the elephant in the room; that certain area managers and presidents in certain locations were being unethical was widely known. Many of our leaders disregarded talk of it, not because they were guilty of taking part in the abusive practices, but because they themselves weren’t supporting such behaviors, and didn’t think it was their concern. In more rural states like Wyoming, we had it relatively easy; our own district’s internal culture was very sales-cheating averse. The districts and areas that were doing such things were scoffed at. They were an abstract concept; a bunch of idiots that were going to be standing in the unemployment line, barred from working in the financial sector ever again if they got caught.  The fact that Wells Fargo has fired over 5,300 employees over ethical concerns in the last five years (Egan, 2016) suggests that the scoffing wasn’t that far off the mark in many cases. But still, the problem wasn’t really addressed, because the three mechanisms of unfreezing were never fully deployed.

Since the nationwide version of the story that company employees have been dealing with for years broke, I’ve been on no less than six conference calls with different business lines, discussing how to increase sales volume. It’s as if the leadership between my level and the top of the crop simply cannot comprehend the paradigm shift that must happen, despite the fact that Wells Fargo announced publicly that all of its sales incentive bonus goals will be discontinued. Many area managers and lower-level executives still haven’t changed their tune, and it is beginning to look like they will either be forced to change, or will be removed. Already, I’ve had two superiors unceremoniously fired in the last three months (to the point of the company trying to instill change, these firings happened well before news broke on the topic of sales practices). I fear that many more will follow if the message of change that has been trying to get through doesn’t come.

The good news is that, in the wake of the media blitz, change finally appears to be coming. There is nothing quite like being asked fifteen times a day by clients if they have any accounts in their name that they are unaware of to help along the process of disconfirmation of the behavior. For bankers who have cheated and not been caught, anxiety is now very likely a constant companion; the removal of sales goals, with a different incentive plan focused more thoroughly on customer satisfaction surveys, is generating psychological safety. Sales accolades are gone, with new, “client-centric” accolades being levied in their place. The unfreezing step is now happening, and is visible. As for change, and refreezing… well, we’ll have to wait and see what that looks like.

NOTE: This is not a confessional; I can honestly say that not I, my team, nor any of my colleagues currently employed by the company have ever engaged in the kind of behavior displayed in the news. The truth is that we didn’t need to cheat to meet our goals. A blind eye was turned to it in some cases, and the results have been rough. The people who did it received a couple hundred bucks’ short term benefit, usually followed by a spate of unemployment as the long term consequence. I have high hopes for the company’s future.

**Image of WFC stock prices last 12 months. Note in particular the sharp drop in September (SlideShare.com, n.d.).

**An example of Wells Fargo’s ratings from a high-level overview investment meeting just months earlier (SlideShare.com, n.d.).

 

Egan, M. (2016). 5,300 Wells Fargo employees fired over 2 million phony accounts. CNN. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/investing/wells-fargo-created-phony-accounts-bank-fees/

Penn State University. (2016). OLEAD 410, Lesson 5: Learning and Change In A Global Setting. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1802572/modules/items/21179082

Reckard, E. (2015). LA Sues Wells Fargo, Alleging ‘Unlawful and Fraudulent Conduct.’ The Los Angeles Times, May 4, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wells-fargo-suit-20150505-story.html

Reckard, E. (2013). Wells Fargo’s Pressure-Cooker Sales Culture Comes At A Cost. The Los Angeles Times, December 21, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-wells-fargo-sale-pressure-20131222-story.html

I’m about to do something dangerous.

I want to address something that, while unable to do so in another class, has been bothering me since I read about it, and that deserves more attention than it likely gets. I doubt most students are pleased to approach this subject, but  approached it shall be, nonetheless. I want to discuss the disparate scores that follow racial lines in tests of intelligence, and how communication, not intelligence, is a potential explanation for the issue.

Communication is defined as “the exchange of information between individuals” (Penn State University, 2016, 1) in very basic terms. Communication, however, takes many forms. One form of communication that is often discounted is the administration and subsequent scoring of written tests. Consider that for a moment; the test writer has devised a series of questions whereby they attempt to glean understanding of the test-taker’s knowledge of a subject. By contrast, the test taker is attempting to communicate their proficiency by means of answering the questions as accurately as possible. It falls into the category of an exchange of information between individuals, and has a defined purpose, which most communication of a serious nature will.

So here’s the thing: decades of research has gone into the application of tests that people take for a variety of reasons; everything from the teller survey at the bank to the GMAT exam has been thoroughly researched and studied for effectiveness, creating a linkage of communication whereby answers might be gleaned about a particular paradigm. Intelligence tests are one such item; a carefully designed examination asking questions to which the answers can show a particular amount of cognitive ability; perhaps the most well known is the Wonderlic Personnel Test, a 50 question exam administered over the course of 12 minutes, made famous for its use as an intelligence measurement tool by the National Football League. There are probably as many intelligence tests out there as there are blades of grass, but the Wonderlic, like other accepted tests, is able to boast high quality results thanks to construct validity; most intelligence tests in common use agree with one another to a high statistical level.

So why is it that there are clearly delineated scores along racial boundary lines?

The question is posed in part by a study from the mid ’90’s that was published as a book called “The Bell Curve.” In it, authors Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein  discuss, among other things, what we refer to today as “adverse impact” as it relates to the ratio of scores between two particular races (Penn State University, 2016, 2). This concept, like many others in posts I tend to write, was difficult to research, as no one seemed willing to approach the subject directly. When one simply types, “the bell curve book” into Google’s search bar, the results of the entire first several pages are all refutations and arguments against the research and the positions taken by Herrnstein and Murray, a snap-to-attention cattle call of the anger that is so near the surface of anything related to the racial relations in America today. Actual research is harder to find.

But finding research, when there is research to be found, is never impossible, and what I found sobered me. A study carried out in 2005 found that the two races in question had a consistent disparity of 1.o-1.1 standard deviations of difference in terms of IQ test results (Ruston & Jensen, 2005).  In a personnel selection class taught at Penn State, the class text discussed the concept of “adverse impact” subsequently needed to be controlled for, as disparate scores due to racial precedent could cause an Equal Opportunity issue (Gatewood, Field, Barrick, 2016). It would seem that the research is out there, but is difficult to find, much of it having been explicitly to refute “The Bell Curve” and the various studies that have found similar results. I find that troublesome, as the scientific method requires objectivity; if you set out to refute something in an experiment, you will. Unfortunately, that invalidates much of the research on the issue. As the Penn State lesson states, “In response to The Bell Curve, many of the highest profile psychologists studying intelligence endorsed the previously mentioned one-page summary of scientific findings on intelligence testing, titled “Mainstream Science on Intelligence”, in The Wall Street Journal” ( Penn State University, 2016, 2). Anytime one sees someone endorsing something (or someone) because ‘the alternative can’t be correct/right/good,’ you have a serious problem.

I’m going to be as clear as possible; I do not believe the issue to be one of racial superiority/inferiority. Rather, I’m looking at this from the vantage point of communication: if the results are skewed to one side, rather than run around in the testing room like a chicken with its head cut off, crying out “diversity, diversity!” we need to look at the problem objectively, as there is a miscommunication of some sort happening between certain test takers and the test, which is driving the results difference. If we can find where the communication goes wrong, we can probably find a way to close the gap between the races and improve everyone’s scores, imbuing confidence and pride in intelligence into an entire generation of Americans, race immaterial. Yes, the research may first yield values that people could lose their careers over; right now does not feel like a good time in America to start running experiments on racial differences on intelligence tests. But being willing to address the problem is the only way to fix it; endorsing previously unendorsed articles because they don’t agree with a controversial study isn’t going to get us anywhere.

 

Gatewood, R., Feild, H., Barrick., M. (2016). Human Resource Selection. 8th Ed. Boston, Cengage.

Penn State University. (2016). OLEAD 410, Lesson 4: Global Communication. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1802572/modules/items/21179072

Penn State University. (2016). PSYCH 490, Lesson 4: Intelligence. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1803843/modules/items/21158266

Rushton, J. Philippe; Jensen, Arthur R (2005). “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability” (PDF). Psychology, Public Policy and Law.

 

As the old adage goes, you can’t block the punch you don’t see coming.

Diversity is one of those topics that, once brought up, doesn’t ever seem to go away over the course of a conversation. Rather, much like an awkward  gift, it takes over the dialogue, draws more attention, and usually, someone leaves mad. And yet, for all the time and attention we as humans spend on the topic, the challenges and issues that come with what’s become tantamount to a political buzzword can never quite seem to be solved.

Part of the reason for that? We aren’t looking at the issue objectively enough. Oh, we’re looking at it, long and hard, but we’re looking in the way a tween-age boy looks at the girl next door; innocently, with butterflies in our stomachs and the best of intentions. People tend to care too much about issues that they’re close to, and diversity is a concept and a reality that affects all of us. The trouble with that is that we cannot take a solid scientific approach to solving the problem, because the scientific method cannot be properly conducted when the experimenters are too emotionally involved. That being said, if we can manage to think clearly for a long enough stretch of time, the following is an excerpt of what we will encounter, what steps we’ll need to take, and why to take them.

Defining diversity is the first challenge, as there are many different definitions, and anything not clearly defined is difficult to do anything with. Human Resources departments tend to define it as a list of traits like race, gender, religion, and other one off items. Penn State University says that “Diversity generally refers to the ways that people in organizations differ” (Penn State University, n.d.). There are many interpretations of it, but generally, diversity is best represented by its within-groups statistical measurement definition, as variance between individuals or items measured in a particular sample (Stangor, 2015).  Simply put, without grouping, there’s no need for diversity, if there’s no reason to tell one thing from another.

So now defined,  why bother? According to Harvard Business Review, “Multicultural teams offer a number of advantages to international firms” (Brett et al, 2006). But a businessman (or woman) might ask, “how does it do that? And what is so special about it? There are many priorities that offer advantages; what’s so special about diversity? It doesn’t seem like a particularly efficient advantage to pursue, given the many potential challenges involved.” Looking further into the same article “Managing Multicultural Teams,” the authors claim that there can be “problems stemming from cultural differences, which can seriously impair the effectiveness of a team or even bring it to a stalemate” (Brett et al,, 2006).

Let’s look at one specific manifestation of those problems a bit more; this one in particular is worth noting, and is more often whispered about than discussed.  Self-segregation, though an unpopular topic, has in my own experience been one of the most divisive paradigms an office can endure. Rather than working together, team members work with their own group, with the dichotomy often having gone so far as for differing groups in the same office speaking different languages for the entirety of the day. In that type of environment, the Brett (et al) claims of potential team impairment become a sudden and staggering reality. The scary part is that it doesn’t start in adulthood. According to Newsweek, along with only an 8% chance of a white school student having a minority for a best friend, “for black kids, 85 percent of their best friends [at school] are black, too” (Bronson, 2009).

So the challenges are when it comes to improving diversity in 2016. Not easier with time; simply more complicated. On the bright side, there is a level of possibility that comes with the challenges presented. The payoff? As the HBR writers continue, they point out that the value of having diversity exceeds the risks and/or challenges that are posed by such a team makeup. “…deep knowledge of different product markets, culturally sensitive customer service, and 24-hour work rotations” (Brett et al, 2006), “greater relevant problem-solving and decision-making differentiation” (Moran et al, 2014), and a whole lot less bad press calling your company racially unfriendly. With even the most negative of sources pitching the merits of diversity, and based on my own previously catalogued workplace experiences, that sounds pretty good.

 

Brett, J., Behfar, K., Kern, M. (2006). Managing Multicultural Teams. Harvard Business Review, Nov. 2016. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2006/11/managing-multicultural-teams

Bronson, P. (2009). By Third Grade, Black Students Who Self-Segregate Are More Popular. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/third-grade-black-students-who-self-segregate-are-more-popular-223438

Moran, R.T., Abramson, N.R., Moran, S.V. (2014). Managing Cultural Differences. 9th Ed. New York Routledge.

Pennsylvania State University. (n.d.) OLEAD 410, Lesson 3: Diversity. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1802572/modules/items/21179061

Stangor, C. (2015). Research Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. 5th Ed. Stamford, Cengage.

Consider culture from the viewpoint of an American icon, the great Martin Luther King, Jr., who said that “cowardice asks the question- is it safe? Expediency asks the question- is it politic? Vanity asks the question- is it popular?” (thekingcenter.org, 2013). While the remainder of the quote is tangibly missing here, it will be addressed in due course. In today’s world, people of many cultures find themselves asking these same questions, and all too often avoiding the question Dr. King followed the former queries with. In a world where culture is more visible than ever before, the first questions asked by the masses have nothing to do with what’s right, but with what’s politic.

It is necessary, before discussing culture as a modern force that shapes the world, to define it. According to Penn State, “Culture consists in patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups, including their embodiments of artifacts; the essential core of culture consists of traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values” (PSU, n.d.). Some good examples of culture that are easily recognized, to name a few, are the individualism found in many western countries (work hard, and you’ll go far), pride of lineage in the indigenous peoples of latin America, the swastika, the hammer and sickle, the stars and bars. Culture can take as many forms as there are groups to shape it. In the early years of human population of the North American Continent, archaeologists have found numerous distinctions between groups less than 500 strong, located within 35 miles of one another (Snow, 2010). There is essentially no limit to the cultural divergence that can be seen, if enough time and the right shaping elements are present.

That being the case, it becomes necessary to consider why, in such a diverse climate of cultural differences, do members of one culture often appropriate that of another group, or at least a part of another group, in order to get along. The best example, and one that will be only briefly discussed, is politics. In modern America, our political culture is broken down, essentially, into two parties, who espouse the values held by different groups. It is nearly ubiquitous that, when someone subscribes to a particular party between the two, they will espouse the same values held by that party to the letter, essentially taking numerous cultures, and dividing them down into two simple blocks. For the voter who identifies with many but not all of the party values, such as an individual who supports gay marriage and abortion, but also believes in strong gun rights, this becomes a question of some difficulty. That person might ask themselves if they can actually identify with that party at all; they may go and consider the other subscription to which they have access. People who they know might try to persuade them to abandon certain beliefs in favor of what might be called the party “super culture.” Anyone who has spent time around gun enthusiasts knows that there are cultural quirks that other groups do not have. So, if a member of the gun culture decides to change their views in order to better suit the party metric, what has become of that person’s connection to their culture. Most likely, they have made a question of expediency; “is it politic?” The answer is no, and therefore their culture becomes appropriated. Consider on the other hand, an candidate for office who may believe strongly in smaller government and religious principles playing a hand in governance, but doesn’t believe that large corporations should benefit from certain tax breaks. The same principle applies. If that person were pressured to make a choice regarding the matter, likely in a public setting, and chose to side with the party (which seems to happen more often than not these days), would it not seem that they had asked the question of vanity, choosing to go with the popular route, rather than what they actually believed?

It seems that culture, for all of its diverse expanse and permeability, is also a very malleable subject, capable of taking on whatever shape is truly expedient to the person experiencing the cultural dilemma or difficulty. While I was a soldier, deployed to Afghanistan, I had the opportunity to work with an interpreter who was born and raised in the mountains surrounding the province of Gardez. He was, by all counts, a devout Muslim. he  worked hard to provide for his family, but at some point, his cultural path diverged from that of the typical young Pashtun man of the era. Years before I met him, he had been a stereotype in motion; years later, as we walked the rocky slopes of the mountains of Paktika province together, he had become a different person entirely. He would regularly use his left hand to eat, eliciting from himself a slight boyish chuckle every time he did so. He was well known for being a covert purveyor of liquor on the American base where we were stationed, and he was a particularly big fan of the TV series, “The Big Bang Theory.” Despite that, we would regularly stop our convoys and missions for him to say his daily prayers. In fact, several of us joined him, when it was safe to do so, at his invitation, an act that would be grounds for execution among the culture from whence he came. The divergence of this man’s cultural choices was astounding; he openly defied many aspects of it, while diligently subscribing to others. It wasn’t until near the end of our work together, shortly before I was shipped home, that he explained to me why. He quoted the missing sentence of the passage quoted above by Dr. Martin Luther King: “But, conscience asks the question, is it right? And there comes a time when we must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right” (thekingcenter.org, 2013). I believe he understood his own culture more deeply than any Ph.D candidate could.

In the mix of things, culture is both a defining and malleable feature of the peoples of the world. It is regimented in some cases, loosely enforced in others. It comes back to the quote by Dr. King, who, now a half century gone, still speaks wisdom to the world. Culture, in most cases, defines for the people who subscribe to it what is right. It is an indicator of the consumer culture in America that culture can be so easily shifted in order to support a political cause for which one party or another has declared allegiance. It is equally an indicator of the burgeoning enlightenment taking place in a backwater corner of Afghanistan that a man can choose to keep the parts of his heritage he deems valid, and excise the others from his life if they are decided to be without value. As humanity continues to march forward into its own future, the role that cultures past, present, and future will yet play, will be pivotal in how the world looks in the decades to come.

King, Jr, M.L. (n.d.). Conscience asks the Question. The King Center. Retrieved from http://www.thekingcenter.org/blog/mlk-quote-week-conscience-asks-question

Penn State University. (n.d.). Leadership in a Global Context, Lesson 2: Defining Culture. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1802572/modules/items/21179051

Snow, D. (2010). Archaeology of Native North America. Prentice Hall, New York.

Hello, everybody!

*I can’t figure out how to make my image smaller*

My name is Joey Redzich (pr. ‘red-zick’). I hail from scenic, tourist-packed Jackson, Wyoming (that’s Jackson Hole to all you non-local types), and I’m currently a senior, hoping to graduate this semester with a B.S. in Psychology (business option). I am currently a branch manager for a large national bank, and a Non-Commissioned Officer in the U.S. Army National Guard (relax, all you active duty types, I was active for my first enlistment).

My long term goals revolve (loosely) around my degree. My company has a large strategic planning & development line of business that is about 80% Organizational Psychology and leadership studies, as applied to marketing and employee behaviors/expectations. My goal is to work my way up in management (I’m doing okay so far) until I can secure a position within that department, and generally make a lot of money and wear a fancier name badge.

My current leadership experience revolves around managing a large team of tellers, bankers, service reps, and market specialists. While it sounds a lot cooler than it is, it is a position that requires knowledge of Organizational Leadership, hence why I’m very excited to be taking yet another class from Dr. Redmond. On the other side of my professional fence, I’m in the process of helping to stand up a brand new light infantry  company (‘tip of the spear’ for those who don’t know what infantry means), comprised mostly of former mechanics, engineers, and fuelers, with a few salty old combat guys like myself to show them the ropes. The leadership demand there is not insignificant; I’ve taught more classes on basic battle drills in the last 8 months than in the rest of my military career combined.

My favorite leadership quote is from W. Edwards Deming: “If you can’t describe what you’re doing as a process, you don’t know what you’re doing.” While not the most inspiring quote, when it comes to leadership, it hits the nail on the head. A large part of leadership for me is working my way out of a job; finding someone to fill my role, so I can then fill the next one up. Servant Leadership is a big deal to me. If I can’t reproduce my success in a quantifiable way, then there is no way to train someone else to do the same. How then can I teach others to lead, if I don’t know how I’m doing it myself?

Something interesting about myself? Unusual hobbies are, well, kind of my thing. I am a fairly accomplished alpine climber, mountain biker, and snowboarder, but lately I’ve been getting into road cycling; I’m training to take part in next year’s LOTOJA bike race, which spans over 200 miles, 3 mountain passes, and 3 states, starting in Logan, Utah, and ending in Teton Village, Wyoming.

Also, my wife and I are expecting our first child to be born in about two weeks. I have absolutely no idea what I’m doing.

Here’s looking forward to a great semester! And Dr. Redmond… I told you I’d be back for more!