Recorded live on November 19, 2011 1:50 AM ET - *Autorecord* Occupy SanFrancisco with KattOccupySF- Live November ustream.tv/recorded/18611…
*****************************************************************************
Central to idea of authentic leadership is the idea that individuals should tap into feelings, intuitions and values and that’s where my research comes in. After interviewing 38 CEOs directors and chairs of significant Australian organisations, I noticed that the women in the sample were both more in touch with their feelings and intuitions, and more able to express them. Then said they used intuition, but they weren’t so aware of it, and didn’t go into it as much. The men in the sample had a feeling of knowing and either used it or didn’t, whereas the women said they set time aside to contemplate, and allow their intuition to come forward. Intuition, including that sense of right and wrong, comes to you.
Intuition, of course, means a lot of things to different people. The kind of intuition participants talked about was a sense of knowing based on their experience. This is something that we all have and can all utilise if we learn to listen to it, and trust it. I also found that intuition was generally not considered trustworthy in organisations – especially in those led or dominated by men. Paying attention to feelings, intuitions and values is something that must be restricted to private and family lives. What counted was rational analysis based on evidence. What you felt about something didn’t count. Therefore intuitions were often silenced or dressed up in ‘analytical clothes’ or suppressed. Only 2% of Australian organisations are run by women. This means there is a dominance of a ‘masculine’ way of being. I’m not saying that all men are not in touch with their feelings and that women are – I think we are all, at the same time, individuals. However, it is also true that in general, men tend to look to the outside (to things rather than feelings) and is confirmed in other research. What I’m saying is that because of the dominance of men running our organisations, and a long history of men running our societies, there is a dominance of assertive, materialistic and so called ‘rational’ thinking (where the only important criterion for rationality is to acquire more money and stuff).
In general, the way decisions are made in organisations is to look to the outside, to the external, and not look to inside, to the internal, to feelings, values and intuitions. As a result, many people are not even aware of the values and feelings that they hold when they are operating on greed, desire and lust for power. I argue what is needed is a more balanced approach to decision-making and leadership – one that considers feelings, intuitions and values in respect to goals, as well as analytical and rational thinking about how to achieve those goals. What I like about Occupy is each individual has the opportunity to draw not only on their analytical intelligence, but on their feelings and intuitions. In this way Occupy promotes real authentic leadership – it encourages each to be a leader. The problem with the status quo is that it encourages or even creates strong leader/follower dynamic that almost inevitably results in the 1% gaining everything and 99% losing everything. This is a pattern that can be seen over and over throughout history.
Most importantly, Occupy does not provide answers, it asks questions, and in doing so, engages and encourages leadership from the 100%. This is something that many in the mainstream do not get. They don’t understand why Occupy does not have demands, what Occupy stands for, and why there are no leaders. As Albert Einstein said – “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them”. People have been trying to solve problems of inequality, poverty and environmental degradation for a long time now. The problem is that these solutions are always rational strategies that do not consider the ‘cause’, which is of course, the way we feel – our individual and collective desire for food, things, power and of course, money. We all need to be asking questions about why we feel this way – why we feel so inadequate without these things. From this inquiry might come leadership, from each, from within. Each person, in this new millennium, needs to look to themselves for leadership and contribute this to the collective. This is what Occupy appears to be promoting, and that’s what makes me so hopeful, and so excited.
At this stage in history, I think we need to take a long, good look at ourselves and what we have done, and are doing to each other and the planet – the focus should be on questions and not answers. We don’t need more rational strategies to ‘combat’ our problems. Out of a clear and serious contemplation of our own behaviour, a new way of dealing with ourselves and those around us might emerge. From this deep understanding of our own feelings, and how they shape our behaviour, and our relationships with others, a different way of being, that translates to how we do things may arise. I think this could represent the new level of ‘thinking’ that Einstein alluded to. Never before in the history of mankind have we had the both the resources and the need for this. I don’t know what this new way of being will look like. I’m sure it will be chaotic at first, confusing, difficult, and confronting for many – I just know that we need it, and we need it now.
******************************************************************************
My life - my entire life. Every happy moment is all because of @YouTube - they have made my life & so many people's possible! #Gratitude
*****************************************************************************
Dr Martin Robson: The Occupy Phenomenon and Connections to Authentic Leadership
I have been watching protest movements across the globe for months now; first becoming aware of ‘Los Indignados’ in Spain, the Arab spring and now the global Occupy movement which I was first made aware of, in July or August, by Michael Moore. I was surprised by how the essence of these movements connected to my own research, as well as a new vision for leadership, often called Authentic Leadership. Authentic Leadership is a visionary paradigm of leadership that emphasises feelings, values, spirituality, personal integrity and service to others. Moreover, rather than a leader/follower relationship that automatically creates asymmetric power relations (masters and servants), authentic leadership promotes a vision of each of us as a leader, serving ourselves through serving the collective.Central to idea of authentic leadership is the idea that individuals should tap into feelings, intuitions and values and that’s where my research comes in. After interviewing 38 CEOs directors and chairs of significant Australian organisations, I noticed that the women in the sample were both more in touch with their feelings and intuitions, and more able to express them. Then said they used intuition, but they weren’t so aware of it, and didn’t go into it as much. The men in the sample had a feeling of knowing and either used it or didn’t, whereas the women said they set time aside to contemplate, and allow their intuition to come forward. Intuition, including that sense of right and wrong, comes to you.
Intuition, of course, means a lot of things to different people. The kind of intuition participants talked about was a sense of knowing based on their experience. This is something that we all have and can all utilise if we learn to listen to it, and trust it. I also found that intuition was generally not considered trustworthy in organisations – especially in those led or dominated by men. Paying attention to feelings, intuitions and values is something that must be restricted to private and family lives. What counted was rational analysis based on evidence. What you felt about something didn’t count. Therefore intuitions were often silenced or dressed up in ‘analytical clothes’ or suppressed. Only 2% of Australian organisations are run by women. This means there is a dominance of a ‘masculine’ way of being. I’m not saying that all men are not in touch with their feelings and that women are – I think we are all, at the same time, individuals. However, it is also true that in general, men tend to look to the outside (to things rather than feelings) and is confirmed in other research. What I’m saying is that because of the dominance of men running our organisations, and a long history of men running our societies, there is a dominance of assertive, materialistic and so called ‘rational’ thinking (where the only important criterion for rationality is to acquire more money and stuff).
In general, the way decisions are made in organisations is to look to the outside, to the external, and not look to inside, to the internal, to feelings, values and intuitions. As a result, many people are not even aware of the values and feelings that they hold when they are operating on greed, desire and lust for power. I argue what is needed is a more balanced approach to decision-making and leadership – one that considers feelings, intuitions and values in respect to goals, as well as analytical and rational thinking about how to achieve those goals. What I like about Occupy is each individual has the opportunity to draw not only on their analytical intelligence, but on their feelings and intuitions. In this way Occupy promotes real authentic leadership – it encourages each to be a leader. The problem with the status quo is that it encourages or even creates strong leader/follower dynamic that almost inevitably results in the 1% gaining everything and 99% losing everything. This is a pattern that can be seen over and over throughout history.
Most importantly, Occupy does not provide answers, it asks questions, and in doing so, engages and encourages leadership from the 100%. This is something that many in the mainstream do not get. They don’t understand why Occupy does not have demands, what Occupy stands for, and why there are no leaders. As Albert Einstein said – “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them”. People have been trying to solve problems of inequality, poverty and environmental degradation for a long time now. The problem is that these solutions are always rational strategies that do not consider the ‘cause’, which is of course, the way we feel – our individual and collective desire for food, things, power and of course, money. We all need to be asking questions about why we feel this way – why we feel so inadequate without these things. From this inquiry might come leadership, from each, from within. Each person, in this new millennium, needs to look to themselves for leadership and contribute this to the collective. This is what Occupy appears to be promoting, and that’s what makes me so hopeful, and so excited.
At this stage in history, I think we need to take a long, good look at ourselves and what we have done, and are doing to each other and the planet – the focus should be on questions and not answers. We don’t need more rational strategies to ‘combat’ our problems. Out of a clear and serious contemplation of our own behaviour, a new way of dealing with ourselves and those around us might emerge. From this deep understanding of our own feelings, and how they shape our behaviour, and our relationships with others, a different way of being, that translates to how we do things may arise. I think this could represent the new level of ‘thinking’ that Einstein alluded to. Never before in the history of mankind have we had the both the resources and the need for this. I don’t know what this new way of being will look like. I’m sure it will be chaotic at first, confusing, difficult, and confronting for many – I just know that we need it, and we need it now.
******************************************************************************
CelluloidBlonde max adams
RT @catawu: Open letter to Chancellor Linda P Katehi bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/ope… excellent ! #ows
Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi
18 November 2011Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi
Linda P.B. Katehi,
I am a junior faculty member at UC Davis. I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of English, and I teach in the Program in Critical Theory and in Science & Technology Studies. I have a strong record of research, teaching, and service. I am currently a Board Member of the Davis Faculty Association. I have also taken an active role in supporting the student movement to defend public education on our campus and throughout the UC system. In a word: I am the sort of young faculty member, like many of my colleagues, this campus needs. I am an asset to the University of California at Davis.
You are not.
I write to you and to my colleagues for three reasons:
1) to express my outrage at the police brutality which occurred against students engaged in peaceful protest on the UC Davis campus today
2) to hold you accountable for this police brutality
3) to demand your immediate resignation
Today you ordered police onto our campus to clear student protesters from the quad. These were protesters who participated in a rally speaking out against tuition increases and police brutality on UC campuses on Tuesday—a rally that I organized, and which was endorsed by the Davis Faculty Association. These students attended that rally in response to a call for solidarity from students and faculty who were bludgeoned with batons, hospitalized, and arrested at UC Berkeley last week. In the highest tradition of non-violent civil disobedience, those protesters had linked arms and held their ground in defense of tents they set up beside Sproul Hall. In a gesture of solidarity with those students and faculty, and in solidarity with the national Occupy movement, students at UC Davis set up tents on the main quad. When you ordered police outfitted with riot helmets, brandishing batons and teargas guns to remove their tents today, those students sat down on the ground in a circle and linked arms to protect them.
What happened next?
Without any provocation whatsoever, other than the bodies of these students sitting where they were on the ground, with their arms linked, police pepper-sprayed students. Students remained on the ground, now writhing in pain, with their arms linked.
What happened next?
Police used batons to try to push the students apart. Those they could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate, they pepper-sprayed directly in the face, holding these students as they did so. When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood.
This is what happened. You are responsible for it.
You are responsible for it because this is what happens when UC Chancellors order police onto our campuses to disperse peaceful protesters through the use of force: students get hurt. Faculty get hurt. One of the most inspiring things (inspiring for those of us who care about students who assert their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly) about the demonstration in Berkeley on November 9 is that UC Berkeley faculty stood together with students, their arms linked together. Associate Professor of English Celeste Langan was grabbed by her hair, thrown on the ground, and arrested. Associate Professor Geoffrey O’Brien was injured by baton blows. Professor Robert Hass, former Poet Laureate of the United States, National Book Award and Pulitzer Prize winner, was also struck with a baton. These faculty stood together with students in solidarity, and they too were beaten and arrested by the police. In writing this letter, I stand together with those faculty and with the students they supported.
One week after this happened at UC Berkeley, you ordered police to clear tents from the quad at UC Davis. When students responded in the same way—linking arms and holding their ground—police also responded in the same way: with violent force. The fact is: the administration of UC campuses systematically uses police brutality to terrorize students and faculty, to crush political dissent on our campuses, and to suppress free speech and peaceful assembly. Many people know this. Many more people are learning it very quickly.
You are responsible for the police violence directed against students on the UC Davis quad on November 18, 2011. As I said, I am writing to hold you responsible and to demand your immediate resignation on these grounds.
On Wednesday November 16, you issued a letter by email to the campus community. In this letter, you discussed a hate crime which occurred at UC Davis on Sunday November 13. In this letter, you express concern about the safety of our students. You write, “it is particularly disturbing that such an act of intolerance should occur at a time when the campus community is working to create a safe and inviting space for all our students.” You write, “while these are turbulent economic times, as a campus community, we must all be committed to a safe, welcoming environment that advances our efforts to diversity and excellence at UC Davis.”
I will leave it to my colleagues and every reader of this letter to decide what poses a greater threat to “a safe and inviting space for all our students” or “a safe, welcoming environment” at UC Davis: 1) Setting up tents on the quad in solidarity with faculty and students brutalized by police at UC Berkeley? or 2) Sending in riot police to disperse students with batons, pepper-spray, and tear-gas guns, while those students sit peacefully on the ground with their arms linked? Is this what you have in mind when you refer to creating “a safe and inviting space?” Is this what you have in mind when you express commitment to “a safe, welcoming environment?”
I am writing to tell you in no uncertain terms that there must be space for protest on our campus. There must be space for political dissent on our campus. There must be space for civil disobedience on our campus. There must be space for students to assert their right to decide on the form of their protest, their dissent, and their civil disobedience—including the simple act of setting up tents in solidarity with other students who have done so. There must be space for protest and dissent, especially, when the object of protest and dissent is police brutality itself. You may not order police to forcefully disperse student protesters peacefully protesting police brutality. You may not do so. It is not an option available to you as the Chancellor of a UC campus. That is why I am calling for your immediate resignation.
Your words express concern for the safety of our students. Your actions express no concern whatsoever for the safety of our students. I deduce from this discrepancy that you are not, in fact, concerned about the safety of our students. Your actions directly threaten the safety of our students. And I want you to know that this is clear. It is clear to anyone who reads your campus emails concerning our “Principles of Community” and who also takes the time to inform themselves about your actions. You should bear in mind that when you send emails to the UC Davis community, you address a body of faculty and students who are well trained to see through rhetoric that evinces care for students while implicitly threatening them. I see through your rhetoric very clearly. You also write to a campus community that knows how to speak truth to power. That is what I am doing.
I call for your resignation because you are unfit to do your job. You are unfit to ensure the safety of students at UC Davis. In fact: you are the primary threat to the safety of students at UC Davis. As such, I call upon you to resign immediately.
Sincerely,
Nathan Brown
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Program in Critical Theory
University of California at Davis
No comments:
Post a Comment