So my room mate and me talked for a few hours about Org Comm and it sparked but another question. Do you think that leaders should, or have to hold themselves to a higher standard, and if so when they are done leading can they be more relaxed?
I think for a large part that perhaps they do. Often times followers don't go above and beyond a good leader; that would mean that the leaders top is the groups top. I am not sure though. What do ya'llt hink?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Blind Justice?
So this ain't for Org Comm but it was an interesting thing to consider for me so I thought I would post it on my blog and, ya know, be cool like that.
In my Juvenile Delinquency class we read an essay called "Roughnecks and the Saints" by Chambliss. We were then asked to write a paper about blind justice-being exactly fair in all our dealings even if it seems like doing something else will be okay or even better. This is what fell out of meh brain.
Blind Justice
Chambliss' article on the saints and the roughnecks questions how one should balance between mercy and justice, a problem as old as the dust of the earth and only solved by deity. At what point do we cut off the mercy given to those who make a minor mistake? At what point do we extend mercy to those who exhibit ceaseless disregard? At what point can mercy make or brake the placebo affect of young people? Is clear cut fairness the path to equality or does subjective judgment derive appropriate actions? Is equality fair? Is equality the best path? Should justice be blind?
Before I can decide how to be blindly just I wonder if I should be more exacting in my judgments then is my natural inclination, to keep me blind and fair, or if I should be exceedingly liberal in my decisions to account for the unbalanced justice forced on individuals. To clarify; Should I bear harder judgments on not only the roughnecks but the saints as well to insure that my doings are equally harsh? Or do I perhaps extend more understanding to the roughnecks, and extra austerity to the saints so as to make up the difference between what the rest of society deals them? I naturally think to keep judgments respective but is that what is fair? Is fair best?
I submit that what mankind can create as fair is anything but such. God created each individual diversely, and placed them on earth with differences. But decisions made by any person creates consequences, this being the definition of justice; every choice has a repercussion. I am led to follow the chronological order to make my choice then; each individual has great worth in Gods eyes, demanding mercy, but each person must meet the aftermath of their functioning. I believe it is morally upright then to extend a surplus of mercy to the seemingly 'roughneck' type, and exact firm, rigid, and stern assessment with those of the “saints.”
In my Juvenile Delinquency class we read an essay called "Roughnecks and the Saints" by Chambliss. We were then asked to write a paper about blind justice-being exactly fair in all our dealings even if it seems like doing something else will be okay or even better. This is what fell out of meh brain.
Blind Justice
Chambliss' article on the saints and the roughnecks questions how one should balance between mercy and justice, a problem as old as the dust of the earth and only solved by deity. At what point do we cut off the mercy given to those who make a minor mistake? At what point do we extend mercy to those who exhibit ceaseless disregard? At what point can mercy make or brake the placebo affect of young people? Is clear cut fairness the path to equality or does subjective judgment derive appropriate actions? Is equality fair? Is equality the best path? Should justice be blind?
Before I can decide how to be blindly just I wonder if I should be more exacting in my judgments then is my natural inclination, to keep me blind and fair, or if I should be exceedingly liberal in my decisions to account for the unbalanced justice forced on individuals. To clarify; Should I bear harder judgments on not only the roughnecks but the saints as well to insure that my doings are equally harsh? Or do I perhaps extend more understanding to the roughnecks, and extra austerity to the saints so as to make up the difference between what the rest of society deals them? I naturally think to keep judgments respective but is that what is fair? Is fair best?
I submit that what mankind can create as fair is anything but such. God created each individual diversely, and placed them on earth with differences. But decisions made by any person creates consequences, this being the definition of justice; every choice has a repercussion. I am led to follow the chronological order to make my choice then; each individual has great worth in Gods eyes, demanding mercy, but each person must meet the aftermath of their functioning. I believe it is morally upright then to extend a surplus of mercy to the seemingly 'roughneck' type, and exact firm, rigid, and stern assessment with those of the “saints.”
Saturday, October 10, 2009
In class on Thursday we talked about communication barriers. I especially liked talking about the psychiatry of leaders-I am a recreational leadership major you see, and I have make leadership my forte. Last semester I took an outdoor leadership class in which we talked about the loneliness of leadership. Basically the leader bears all the burden, and no matter how much others try that can't really help that. It reminds me of Lord Of The Ring when Sam wants to help Frodo take the ring. Sam goes to Mordor with Frodo, but the rings toll is still all on Frodo's shoulder. I think this defiantly affects the psychic of the leader. Responsiblility has the potential to crush-think of what would happen of Atlas shrugged the world off just once. I know that the times I have been a leader I have to seperate myself from everyone else to a minimal degree atleast.
just meh thunks.
just meh thunks.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Thinking back on class the past week end I am not sure if Culture theory is so much of a theory or an approach because you can use it fully in any of the theories-so far as I understand. You can have a classical theory with a good, building atmosphere or a bad, demeaning atmosphere. You can use Humanistic Theory that seems to require a great atmosphere. Or you can use Systems theory with great or poor atmosphere.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Today in class we talked a lot about 'the lens.' I have thought about perspective a fair amount and I have decided the experience is perspective, and perspective is reality. It is just like what was said in class-we don't see the world as the world is, rather we see the world as we are. One example of this might be that most people thing that Disney is awesome and that Disney World is the most magical place on earth. They went for vacation there and had a blast so that is their reality. I disagree. I worked at Disney World last winter and saw what Disney is from the inside. I think Disney has all sorts of great benefits and what not, but I hate Disney too. Mickey Mouse is almost like a curse word! Okay, I am not that bad, but the point it my perspective is different then most people because my experience is different.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Comm 250
I am in Bro. Embree's Organizational Communication class. He asked us to continue our learning outside of the class, and gave us some examples of what we could try. I have never had a blog before so I figured I would give it a shot, so here I am.
In class we talked a bunch about learning with the Spirit. I was reminded about a class I took where I learned that the Spirit wont teach us unless we ask him too. I have to choose to let him help me. One way of doing that is to 'continue the conversation' outside of class. Doing this shows the Spirit that we really are trying to learn, and that we are willing to work for our education. I also think being willing to offer our insights in class ( by raising our hands and all that) is a great way to show the Spirit we are sincere in our desire to learn, and share our knowledge.
All of this reminded me of a jazz music class I had my first semester. I learned so much in that class, not about music (though I learned lots about that too) but mostly about life and ethical questions. Our class did this first of all by learning everyone's names. If you aren't willing to learn someones name, or at least try to, then you are wiling to learn from them. Our class also kept a intense discussion board on I-learn were we could discuss our opinions. It was great! I hope this class will be something similar to that class-lots of learning and lots of sharing.
In class we talked a bunch about learning with the Spirit. I was reminded about a class I took where I learned that the Spirit wont teach us unless we ask him too. I have to choose to let him help me. One way of doing that is to 'continue the conversation' outside of class. Doing this shows the Spirit that we really are trying to learn, and that we are willing to work for our education. I also think being willing to offer our insights in class ( by raising our hands and all that) is a great way to show the Spirit we are sincere in our desire to learn, and share our knowledge.
All of this reminded me of a jazz music class I had my first semester. I learned so much in that class, not about music (though I learned lots about that too) but mostly about life and ethical questions. Our class did this first of all by learning everyone's names. If you aren't willing to learn someones name, or at least try to, then you are wiling to learn from them. Our class also kept a intense discussion board on I-learn were we could discuss our opinions. It was great! I hope this class will be something similar to that class-lots of learning and lots of sharing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)