Does Poverty Breed Negotiators?

It is not uncommon to hear stories about the poor and powerless effectively persuading others to perform daring acts.

In the city of Los Angeles, three deputies working County Jail were caught sneaking drugs, cell phones and/or other contraband to prisoners inside of the jail.  In a similar and more recent case, Maryland prison guards were found to be closely aiding prisoners by providing them with prescription pills, cell phones, and even going so far as to father their children. 

These persuasion strategies used by poor and powerless also extend far beyond prison walls, and can be seen in much of everyday life. For example, one man planted himself in a grocery store parking lot and propped the hood of his car open, effectively staging a broken down car. His performance was so convincing he was able to persuade one young lady to give him $20 to help pay for a new car part. This young lady may or may not be the author of this blog post. 

Certainly, the claim can be made that human need is a convincing and moving cause. Additionally, one could argue the 'haves' are happy to ameliorate the substandard conditions of those less fortunate. However, perhaps there is something else aiding the poor and powerless in effective negotiations. 

Does poverty breed better negotiators? 

Perhaps, a life of turmoil and instability foster social skills and negotiation skills that surpass those of the well-to-do. Is it possible that superhero negotiation strategies are quickly developed when ones' very survival depends on skills in persuasion and bargaining. 

Best case scenario is that the poor and hungry are better negotiators for two important reasons. First, the poor and hungry might be better able to attain the material things they need for survival. Second, the superhero bargaining skills of the poor might be invaluable to negotiation scholars. For years, academics have been outlining best practices of negotiation by closely analyzing business deals and courtroom negotiations. Now, there may be much to gain by examining negotiation approaches used in the bleakest moments of those who are truly in need. 

Boring Group Discussions

Ever notice how group conversations are banal and empty social exchanges?

It seems as though there is a negative correlation between the number of people in a group and the quality of conversation. That is, the more people in a group the poorer quality of conversation.

In a large group, the intellectual capacity of a discussion needs to be diminished to a level that all understand the topics being discussed.

This may not be true of the workplace, a context in which an individual's success often thrives on their capacity to outshine colleagues.

Perhaps this exception to boring group conversations provides an exemplar for crafting impressive group discussions which are greater than the sum of its members. 

The Value of a Calling

Today I am happy.

Actually, I'm so happy that I feel like something wants to burst out of my body.

I just finished writing a 3-page paper on a fourth sector organization. It's about a Bakery that provides jobs for homeless people, seeking to get them on the path to self-sufficiency. I love the idea of an organization that helps the community, while at the same time achieves business success.

More than that,  I love that my job today was to write this paper.

I've just finished writing this paper at Starbucks, which is filled with high school who have trickled here from next door.

I can't help but remember what it was like to have no sense of purpose. Not to say it's bad. Just that I have this mission in life, and in high school... the only mission was to "appear cool".

I have completely lost any gauge of "coolness". It's Friday today, and I'll go to Zumba, then retreat to my cute apartment and try to finish another paper.

Today I'm grateful for my sense of purpose. If others are seeking a purpose, I hope they find it too.

The Chief Diplomat: Obama or Romney?

The Chief Diplomat: Obama or Romney?

An Analysis of the use of Collaborative Language by the Presidential Hopefuls

C. R. Leier

In an increasingly globalized and interconnected world, maintaining and strengthening international relationships is critical to the future of America. The tragedy of the global financial crisis and countless international conflict sharply remind us that a nation’s economic success and homeland security is dependent upon fostering collaborative relationships with other countries.

The President of the United States serves an important role as the leader of the country’s public diplomacy mission. Public diplomacy is the nation’s effort to promote interests by maintaining and strengthening relationships between the United States and citizens of the rest of the world (McHale, 2010). The State Department describes the ongoing process of promoting national interests is accomplished “through understanding, informing, and influencing foreign audiences of US values beliefs, and policies (Hughes, 2007).”

The 3^rd and final Presidential debate on foreign policy provided an ideal platform with which to compare the two presidential hopefuls on their ability to represent America as our Chief public diplomat. Given the International media coverage of US politics, it is important to consider the way in which each of the two candidates is perceived. Further, is important to evaluate the way in which each candidate communicated ideals of collaboration with foreign governments. 

The Obama and Romney Face-Off

Libya. Obama started by ensuring that those guilty of killing Americans would be brought to justice. Further, we stand with the “tens of thousands of Libyans” who were marching in support of American, declaring friendship. 

Romney declares his strategy for the Middle East is declaredly to “go after the bad guys…interrupt them, to- to kill them, to take them out of the picture”. His strategy is also to get the Muslim world to “be able to reject extremism on its own.” Our aim is to go after the Jihadists, and “help the Muslim world”.

Both candidates expressed disproval of extremism, although Romney’s “bad guy” is vague and Obama’s depiction of our Libyan allies is rather positive.

The Middle East. Generally, Romney’s notes that “Iran is the greatest national security threat we face”. In addition, he does not plan to give Putin additional flexibility because expectedly, Putin will get more of a “backbone” after the election. 

Obama positions that strong leadership is important in the Middle East in gaining allies for “supporting our counterterrorism efforts”. We need to “make sure that they are standing by our interests in Israel’s security, because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region”.

Romney’s Middle East discussion may have burned a few of his bridges; Obama seemed to have strengthened a few of his. 

Syria. Obama echoed “Syrians are going to have to determine their own future.” In describing our strategy in Syria, Obama describes that the US is in consultation with our partners in the region, and we are “coordinating with Turkey and other countries in the region that have a great interest in this.” Romney declared “Assad must go” and the “we want to make sure that we have the relationships of friendship with the people that take his place… They need a government that is “friendly to us”.

A collaborative relationship is clearly articulated by the president. Conversely, Romney more vividly envisions the kind of Syria he hopes to see.

Israel. Both candidates expressed a deep affinity with Israel. Obama describes that “Israel is a true friend”, Romney adds “We will stand with Israel… we have their back”. Obama goes on to express discordance with Iran, and that we have crippled Iran’s economy, a country that is a sponsor of Terrorism. Obama is not happy with Iran.

Pakistan. Romney details that aid to Pakistan is conditional, upon them “meeting certain benchmarks” and “becoming a civil society”. Further, “Pakistan is — is technically an ally, and they’re not acting very much like an ally right now”. Obama justifies the exit of Afghanistan by describing that “Afghans are perfectly capable of defending their own country”.

China. Both candidates envision a trade relationship with China that “works for us”. Obama envisions that “China can be a partner, but we’re also sending a very clear signal that America is a Pacific power…China is both an adversary, but also a potential partner in the international community if it’s following the rules.” 

Romney vision of a Chinese relationship describes that “We can work with them, we can collaborate with them, if they’re willing to be responsible.” Romney continues, and labels China as a “currency manipulator, which allows us to apply tariffs where they’re taking jobs. They’re stealing our intellectual property, our patents, our designs, our technology, hacking into our computers, counterfeiting our goods…I want a great relationship with China. China can be our partner, but — but that doesn’t mean they can just roll all over us and steal our jobs.”

Both candidates use very clear and powerful language to convey that our relationship with China is a tenuous one. For better or worse, Romney’s language was slightly more combative than President Obama’s.

Honorable Mention. Two topics were weakly discussed in the presidential debate. First, the environment was absent from the 90-minute discussion of our world politics. Discussion of the environment would have been a useful discussion given the nature of public diplomacy, the world has a common interest is protecting the environment. Second, Latin America was only briefly addressed with Governor Romney’s observation that “The opportunities for us in Latin America we have just not taken advantage of fully”. Our engagement with the world should include a plan of how we hope to collaborate with our neighbors to the south.

Choosing our Diplomat

Public diplomacy is certainly not the President’s job alone, nor is it restricted to a 90-minute time block. In fact, public diplomacy should be continuously enacted by a variety all government leaders and citizens of the United States. However the President and his voice serve as the voice of America, and echoes to far reaching corners of the world.

The person we elect to be chief diplomat should communicate a narrative that reflects the voices of all Americans. While the 3^rd presidential debate afforded the candidates to voice their foreign policy views and objectives, there is certainly no guarantee on the delivery of such promises. One guarantee is that Presidential rhetoric is heard loudly by foreign nations.  On November 6^th, we should all consider which presidential candidate to nominate as the American voice.

Work Hard or Work Out? The Irony in Work-Life Wellness Programs

Increasingly, companies are implementing work-life wellness programs to encourage employees to improve their health with healthy eating and habitual exercise.

Few employees question that their employers condemn them to piles of sedentary, often menial tasks. Hundreds of useless e-mails, endless unimportant forms, and boring meetings that do little other than assign more trivial work.

We are banished to stressful jobs, with endless work, and now we have another task: to improve our health.

The only remedy to the stress of accomplishing our endless to-do list, is to gobble a bag of Peanut M&M's  and hope that chocolate actually is good for your health.

Cheers.

The Life Crisis

The life crisis. 

What is the life crisis? The quarter-life crisis, the midlife crisis, among others. 

When does this crisis occur? 

Who does it happen to? Why do some people not have one, while others have them multiple times a day? 

What spurs this crisis? The accomplishments of others? Our own recognizition or our unsatisfactory progress in life? 

Might these crises be constructive in our personal development? 

Perhaps I have more questions than answers here, but all questions deserving of attention. 

Work and Terror Management

Terror Management Theory. One of my very favorites.

To put it simply, this theory argues that much of human behavior is motivated to buffer us from thoughts about our own death. We attempt to find meaning in life, and create something bigger than us to provide us with a feeling that we will go on.  Even relationships, love, and sex have been credited for guarding us from thoughts of our inevitable demise. 

Surprisingly, researchers have yet to describe work as a buffer to thoughts about death. 

However I contend, that work is one the greatest suppressant of thoughts about death...

Endless e-mails, piles of work, coworkers always relying on you... there are always things to do. More than that, our work is something greater than ourselves. The author's published book, the artist's paintings, and the songwriter's lyrics... all things that will go on and exist long after they are gone. All this to say...

...make your work count.

Sistine Chapel