The End of the Beginning

My preferred leadership style is selling: using a more directive, leader oriented style while still explaining the reasoning behind tasks in hope to make them more appealing. The implication in using this style is simply that I will find it natural do deal with beginners or situations where the leader (myself) needs to hold a greater degree of control: namely, high risk, low experience and ability. While this, of course, doesn't limit me in the way that I lead other situations, my preference will force me to consciously reconsider new situations where participating and delegating may be more appropriate.

Three strengths I've noticed throughout the course:

1. Useful way of thinking as listed off by Dale Carnegie
2. I am not any of the dramatized versions of office politicians
3. I found the organization / SMART goals section of the course easy 

Three areas to work on:

1. I do not always use effective politics. I need to consider my actions more in terms of their consequence as opposed to their content and actual meaning.
2. Even thought I found SMART goals and organization easy, I need to regiment these principles into my daily life. I find this makes everything easier, but you just need to do it.
3. Somewhat referenced in number one. I need to find a way to better package my ideas. I might be telling nothing but the truth, but it's hard to eat ice cream without a cone or bowl. (cheesy I know, but hey, it works)

As for career choice, I can't say that there's any specific thing that I'm planning on doing. Really, I've chosen my career and it's working in the world of outdoor adventure. To me, this will mean continual training and looking for new things that I want to explore and work with. In the near future, I hope to teach whitewater kayak schools . In the longer term, I would love to build my forearms and intellectual muscles and lead groups in both vertical rock climbing as well as alpine mountaineering. How far there is between the two, only time can tell.

I can hardly think of an industry that doesn't benefit from welcoming the concept of lifelong learning. We live in the age of information. Not only is there a plethora of resources available to us now covering most all elements that may spark our curiosity, but new information is continually coming to our attention.  In the world of outdoor adventure, we deal with, sometimes, high-consequence situations and any new information that can help us mitigate such dangers is incredibly valuable: namely, new knots, rescue techniques, practices, general principles, etc. In reading my "career choice" you can see even more clearly how important it is to be constantly learning. It's very unlikely, unless of course you find your one true love of the outdoors, that you're going to be working the same job the entirety of your career. In all likelihood, you're going to be moving. You're going to be shifting from one position to another, maybe into another sport, or maybe into a managerial type role; and with each shift, there'll be a book or two equivalent of new information you'll need to master. I think this is one reason why I find the industry appealing. While many join purely out of some rigid distaste for academia and the "9-5 walking death", the dynamic nature of adventure always gives us the opportunity for something new.


“A good traveler has no fixed plans and is not intent on arriving.”  - Lao Tzu

Clip from Steve Fisher's "Black Book"

Keeping the E(thics) in Extreme Sports

The ethical issue I chose to explore was brought up by an author published by American Whitewater about log removal in rivers.  Log removal is a common practice in whitewater rivers and the logs often create life-threatening hazards to boaters. The author poses the question: "[How should we balance the need for safety and the preservation of the river eco-systems]". He makes the case that while large rivers are exposed to a great deal of organic matter to fuel the system, smaller creeks could be impacted by the removal of a single log as they are exposed to less organic matter.

Viewed from the _____ perspective:

Deontological:

According to the deontological perspective, any logs in rivers which do not have strong government protection are fair game. To remove these logs breaks no rules and is therefore ethically justified.

 Egoist:

The egoist point of view would claim that we should absolutely remove all of the logs from whitewater rivers. Paddling the brown without getting caught in a strainer is more important than the lives of some small fish and invertebrates.
Utilitarian:

The utilitarian view of this problem is complex and obscure. Who benefits from which solution and to what extent, how? Given the thorough complexity of ecological systems and how they relate to recreation communities and the overall economy, there are undoubtedly more than one utilitarian perspectives that would be difficult to prove. On one hand, it could be said that by removing the logs we maximize the good as boater lives are saved which could help protect whitewater in the public image and allow boaters to further work to protect rivers from damming efforts without distraction.  On the other hand, we could say that a key part of the whitewater experience is in exploring the wilderness; by damaging delicate ecosystems we're limiting our access to untouched wilderness and causing magnified damage through the ecosystem that is difficult to predict even for the doctors of such sciences. I personally agree with the utilitarian point of view brought up by the author, that we should consider the context of each log that we remove and remove as few as possible. He posted this table which shows how we could prioritize boater safety while still avoiding damage:


Do Not Remove Log

	↔	More OK to Remove Log
Ecological Considerations
Sand, Gravel, Cobble Banks	↔	Bedrock Banks
Floodplain Adjacent to Channel	↔	Cliffs Adjacent to Channel
Log Trapping Sediment	↔	Log Above Water Level
Log is Large and Long	↔	Log is Small and Short
Stream has Endangered Species	↔	No Endangered Species
No Riparian Vegetation	↔	Dense Riparian Vegetation
Heavily Impacted Watershed	↔	Intact Forested Watershed
Paddling Considerations
Log is Obvious	↔	Log is Hidden
Log is Avoidable While Paddling	↔	Log is Unavoidable
Log is Easily Portaged	↔	Log is Impossible to Portage
Log Unlikely to Entrap Paddler	↔	Log Likely to Entrap Paddler
Log in Seldom Paddled Reach	↔	Log in Popular Reach
Class V	↔	Class II/III
Wilderness	↔	Urban

Colburn, K. (2001). Large Woody Debris Removal Ecology and Ethics. Retrieved from American Whitewater: https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/stewardship:woody_debris

Conflict Resolution

In order to better understand conflict resolution, I took a personal conflict resolution style quiz. The quiz placed you into one of five categories (competing, avoiding, compromising, collaborating, accommodating) on an x,y plot between the traits of assertiveness and cooperativeness. My personal style was identified as collaborating. I see this as accurate, I always look to find the best option and try to use the ideas and perspectives of others to help. One instance where I used this style of conflict resolution was in negotiating with my local ski hill back home. There had been a long running trend of freestyle skiers and snowboarders feeling neglected by the resort, and the resort seeing these riders as unreasonable. As a way to point myself in the direction of solving the problem, I attended some of the board meetings and tried to find what they thought was reasonable and how we could best solve the issue. The resort was quite open to this approach and unfortunately, the only thing limiting a solution was the lack of volunteers to help build freestyle terrain features.

If I had one superpower that would help me solve a conflict it would be telepathic forced understanding from the other person's point of view. With a flick of the wrist, each person in an argument would understand the feelings, reasoning, and viewpoints of each other. With this power, I would bring world peace. I chose this idea as I believe that understanding is the most effective way to solve conflict, while also being one of the most difficult things to attain.

Video clip from Forum's "That" (2006)

Everyday Influence and Dale Carnegie

 This week we looked over some of the tips listed from Dale Carnegie's book "How to Win Friends and Influence People"

One tip out of the list that I've seen others use on me is #18 "Be sympathetic with other people's ideas and desires". Often times when people do this, they tend to be painting a picture of agreement in hopes of persuading me. I find this tactic incredibly irritating because unless the person is honestly in agreement with the ideas and desires in question the behavior comes off and transparent and manipulative. My experience may not be as the "rule" was intended, but that seems to be the only way I've seen it used: a proverbial "wool over my eyes".

A tip that I find myself using often is #17 "Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view". I think that this tip is effective and necessary. It's impossible to intelligently navigate through an issue from one perspective; by trying to see things from the perspective of others, you can catch things or important points you would have otherwise missed. Part of the reason this is so useful is because it lends to effective communication and can show the other party that you are paying attention to them and open to a two-way dialogue. Essentially, it can prevent a communication breakdown.

A tip that I could start to use is #23 "Call attention to people's mistakes indirectly". I find it difficult to avoid the blunt approach and in truth, it likely does me little justice. Part of this trouble is a product of my own personal philosophy of always accepting the potential to improve; I forget that people often take things personally and aren't pleased to hear about the negatives. It's happened in times past where people would interpret my bluntness as a statement of my superiority to them which has almost never been the case. I think implementing number 23 into my life will take a lot of patience and self-control; to be continued.

Office Politics and Strange Advice

In light of our not so recent class talking about politics in the workplace, I went searching for articles to elaborate on the topic. Unsurprisingly, I came across a vast array of click-bait articles, cheesy YouTube videos, and lengthy self-help articles; politics doesn't exactly live above its reputation outside of its' sciences. I digress.

The article I committed myself to reading was from The Huffington Post "The Matador Effect:How to Defeat Three Types of Bullies". The article presented itself almost as a sort of strategy guide for dealing with narcissistic and negative people in the office. While the article did suggest the useful tactic of being cool and collected in potentially heated conversations, I found most of the article to give strange, poor, advice.

As the alliterating author lamely lists off each of these "bullies" such as "Boss Betty", "Gloating Gary", and "Sycophantic* Suzy", he tells of how to "subtlety" fire back at these people. What I found most interesting was how blunt these retaliations are. Against Boss Betty, he suggests a passive aggressive apology and redirecting responsibility, so as to say "I'm sorry I thought you wanted the best, do it your way, you'll be the only one to blame." For Gloating Gary I find his strategy more likeable but no less blunt: he suggested prying for details in Gary's gloating in hopes of stopping that behavior. Although that expose might work, it also carries the risk of making enemies.  As for _____phantic Suzy, he suggests a Jedi mind trick: convince her that your idea was her idea and that it will make her look better. This is probably the most realistic solution to any of these problems.

Although I don't feel as if I've learned much by reading this article, it did wonders for illustrating how varied our views can be in office politics. From my point of view, having scored a 10 on the office politics quiz, these tactics seem obvious and clumsy; but to others, the ideas might seem useful and equalizing.

*What the heck is sycophantic and why is it in a Huffington post article? Definition from Merriam Webster:

1. :  of, relating to, or characteristic of a sycophant :  fawning, obsequious <sycophantic compliments   - sychophant - a servile self-seeking flatterer
   
   

   Definition of verbose

   1. 1 :  containing more words than necessary :  wordy <a verbose reply>; also :  impaired by wordiness <a verbose style>
   2. 2 :  given to wordiness <a verbose orator>
   
   

 References

 

Dave, C. (2016). The Matador Effect: How To Defeat Three Types Of Workplace Bullies. Retrieved from Hufffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/craig-dave/the-matador-effect-how-to_b_7616088.html

www.merriam-webster.com

Facebook and the Ethics of Research

In class we've begun exploring the world of ethics and its relation to the world of professional occupations. In light of the topic, we read the New York Times article describing a psychological experiment conducted by Facebook. In this study, Facebook manipulated the visible content of hundreds of thousands of users, changing their news feed to reflect more positive or negative content. The goal of this study was apparently to see how emotions can spread through social media and how this affects social media usage. The controversy over the study was that Facebook did not request any addition consent, using their far-reaching user agreement as a legal blanket to justify their actions.

I believe that the actions of Facebook were ethically questionable, siding on the wrong side of the sliding scale. While Facebook does make it fairly clear that you've given away most if not all of your rights when agreeing to the user agreement, I think that conducting manipulative experiments on people without their knowledge and explicit consent is wrong. I base this view off of the school of thought which justifies actions by their virtue. In our society, honesty is regarded as virtuous and honest, transparent, reviewed research procedures are the ethical norm. If such a study was done in a university in the same manner, it would be thrown out the window along with a few key staff members. What Facebook did was, by societies standard of virtue, dishonest and against virtue. If Facebook ever hopes to command respect with their research, they ought to follow the guidelines set out by whichever research body lies in the country of study: The American Psychological Association in this instance. While I may imply that Facebook should be "following the rules" as per the deontologicalists, I in fact only mean to say they should be following these rules due to their basis in virtue and ethical norms.

Fun fact, data collection is the most efficient it's ever been. Here's an article on how Target's marketing research actually tipped a family off on a pregnancy. Time to whip out that "real" paper journal: Big Brother is watching.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/#432e6d834c62


Goel, V. (2014, June 29).  Facebook Tinkers with Users' Emotions in News Feed Experiment Stirring Outcry. New York Times. Retrieved from  http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/technology/facebook-tinkers-with-users-emotions-in-news-feed-experiment-stirring-outcry.html?_r=0 

You don't understand! - I do! I do!

The the video "I Know Nothing!-Faulty Towers-BBC", there is an obvious failure in communication between two people. The man on the left wishes for the man who is presumably his butler to act as though he knows nothing about a certain horse. The butler, however, believes the man is talking down to him; saying he "knows nothing"; and strings the conversation along under that pretext.

In this scenario there are many barriers to communication. The first is a semantic, connotative barrier where the man selects words that could be understood differently in a different context: "You know nothing". This could also categorize as a cultural barrier to communication as, in our culture, that phrase implies something in the way of: "Please act like you know nothing about whatever is about to be spoken of, I need to keep a secret"; whereas, the butler's understanding of this from his linguistic ability and culture, the phrase means "You are ignorant". This understanding leads into the next barrier which is psychological in nature; the butler becomes defensive and less responsive to the man. Further on in the video, there is another barrier erected as the man uses ambiguous word choice which is not understood by the butler: "The horse", "Which horse?". Also, the English colloquial term "nit wit" is understood by the butler to be the name of the horse, while, in fact, he is the one being referenced as a nit wit. Lastly, the butler continues to misunderstand the mans desire to command as various statements of fact when the man says "forget about the horse". Overall, we can see in a rather dramatic fashion that there are certain patterns of speech which aid or completely halt the process of communication.

References

Mishra, Sneha. (2016). Models of communication. Retrieved from:
                        https://www.businesstopia.net/communication on Oct. 26 2016