#it also fosters more gratitude to the State for providing safety against needing so many children n discourages defection | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

republicstandard · 7 years ago

Text

Fight For The Future: Nationalism, White Identity, and the Genocidal Left

Ever since Donald J. Trump won the election, the Left has been trying to come to grips with it all. Why did so many people reject the One True Narrative? Why is America so full of evil racist meanies?

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Beyond the standard leftist bogey of racism, they seem to be genuinely concerned with the rise of nationalism in the United States, and to some degree more broadly in the Western world.

I’m fond of joking that to the Left, anyone to the right of Elizabeth Warren is a racist, even a neo-Nazi. And to be sure, whenever the Left try to brand anyone or anything as racist, they’re using a Kafka-trap: branding someone racist generally has the effect of putting that person and their defenders on the defensive.

We should not lose sight of how very sinister this can be. If you doubt this, consider what happened to James Watson, co-discoverer of the molecular structure of DNA with Francis Crick.

Nationalism, for the Left, is integrally related to the bogey of racism—at least when practiced by Western Whites. Both constitute in-group preferences on the part of White people.

And now we come to the double standard. As I recently pointed out, black nationalism merges rather handily with far-left entitlement and theft.

On that note, I somehow managed to stumble across this fawning review of Black Panther by racial grievance-huckster Shaun King. Here, have a few paragraphs—consider it your daily dose of cancer:

“But let me close by talking about the movie. Nothing like it has ever been done before. Not just with a Black superhero, but with several Black superheroes. Black Panther had a whole cast of beautiful Black brilliance. Black scientists. Black Presidents. The style. The technology. The color.”

I enjoy a good fantasy as much as the next person (and probably more, since I actually write high fantasy), but you have to take a moment to appreciate the sheer hypocrisy of the left. Black expression of identity and in-group pride=Good. White expression of identity and in-group pride=Bad.

“But it’s even deeper than that. There is a movement we call Afro-Futurism, where we imagine a Black way of life free of White supremacy and bigotry. Black Panther, I think, is the first blockbuster film centered in the ethos of Afro-Futurism, where the writers, and directors, and makeup and wardrobe team all imagined a beautiful, thriving Black Africa without colonialism.”

And if it was historical reality instead of childish racial wish-fulfillment and piss-poor fantasy worldbuilding, a movie about Black Africa without colonialism would feature mud huts, iron-tipped spears, and malaria.

“Wakanda showed us our families in one piece. No war on drugs. No mass incarceration. No KKK. No lynching. No racial profiling. No police brutality.”

And all of those things are 110% equivocal, with no differences between them at all. War on drugs? KKK! And the modern social ills are all the fault of Whites, and in no way reflect disparities in the rates of crime, police encounters, or welfare dependence.

But if we’re being honest, the Left is not simply the side of black identitarianism and nationalism: they’re happy to shill for globalism when it’s convenient to do so, i.e. whenever it can undermine group identity and cohesion for Whites.

An example of this very phenomenon recently presented itself on my Audible:

Let’s break some of this down a bit:

“A lot of us don’t see ourselves in our bookshelves, our libraries, or our bookstores.”

It’s almost as if identity matters or something.

“Our bookshelves tend to be disproportionately White and disproportionately male and do not represent who we are in this country or who we are becoming.”

There’s so much to unpack here. Could it be that a bookshelf that is disproportionately White reflects a civilization that has also been White? And I say “has also been White,” because as he points out, “we” are becoming something else.

Disproportionately male? What is the right proportion of male authors? Should we expect a 50-50 breakdown between men and women? (Should we expect men and women to have the same priorities, statistically speaking?).

He complains about history, and then goes on to make a very interesting demand:

“Our bookshelves need to look like the future and not the past; they should be brimming with writers of color, women of color writers, indigenous writers, immigrant writers, women writers, LGBTQIA writers.”

Don’t you love the idea that Whites, and especially White men, are the past? This is nothing more than a demand for the diminution, demonization, and erasure of White racial identity, and especially of White males.

This is, again, the central leftist hypocrisy on nationalism, and the identity politics that provide the basis for nationalism: it’s perfectly okay for _everyone except for Whites, particularly White males. _

Now, if you’ve been following my work since the beginning, you’ll recognize this as our old friend, the Great War of Coalitions. More specifically, it’s the Left’s central coalition strategy: demonizing Whites, and especially White men, is how they recruit coalition partners (the Rainbow Nation brigade referenced by Junot Díaz above) and reward them through the welfare state, which actually works out pretty well for White leftists.

Of course, for this strategy to really work as intended, the target needs to not be able to fight back. And this is why leftists have to deny Whites any legitimate identitarian interests, particularly if they are to continue the globalist project of flooding Europe with migrants and fake refugees.

Now that we’ve identified the problem, what’s the solution? We have a leftist anti-White coalition that is designed to appeal to non-Whites, immigrants, women, and sexual minorities. If you are in any one of those groups, do you have to join the coalition?

On the other hand, we have everyone from moderate leftists and classical liberals to right-wingers such as yours truly who reject said coalition. If you are White, and particularly if you are White and male, is it necessary to go full Richard Spencer?

I submit that the answer to each of the above questions is a resounding No.

The way out of this coalitional struggle that the Left have foisted on us will not be easy, but a good start would be to offer a better-quality and more honest dialog on racial identity race relations. I see plenty of encouraging signs of this already.

A few principles for a more honest dialog might include the following:

1). Admit that many people have racial and other in-group preferences—and that’s okay.

People should not be demonized for expressing a preference to live in neighborhoods with people whom they perceive to be like them. Nor should they be demonized for expressing concern for persecuted national minorities in other countries, groups they again perceive to be like themselves, and trying to fast-track them to safety.

2). Recognize and reject racial grievance hucksterism.

The Left gets a lot of mileage out of grievances against Whites. We have to recognize this for the poisonous, contemptible strategy that it is, a tactic which in turn fosters resentment among Whites.

I’m hardly original here for pointing out that leftist anti-White rhetoric has done a fantastic job of creating the very bogey they now despise – the alt-right.

3). Be honest about real racial issues – and try to find common ground.

A significant part of my red-pilling experience on racial issues was the recognition that the left consistently fails to confront the truth about race and crime, race and welfare use, and the pernicious effects of leftist policies – usually chalked up to a supposed ‘legacy of slavery.’

We need to be honest about these and many other issues because they dynamite the entire narrative of “White privilege,” an intellectually malformed and morally perverse narrative which functions to demonize and delegitimize Whites.

4). Commit to Western and national identity.

We should unequivocally assert the validity of Western civilization, of national identity, and of nationalism over globalism.

Whatever else may be said about White, Western civilization, it has uplifted the entire world. As I recently pointed out with regard to the ongoing and accelerating White displacement and White genocide in South Africa, Whites elevated that country from mud huts and iron-tipped spears to automobiles, the internet, and pizza. Would a bit more gratitude, and a bit less resentment, really be too much to ask?

It is true that the West is the historical civilization of Whites. This in no way means it cannot include others now. What it does mean is that we need a better foundation for race relations, one which is not based on an intellectually and morally bankrupt, perverse doctrine which delegitimizes Whites.

We also need immigration control. It should not be controversial to suggest an end to the massive importation of the Third World into historically White, Western lands.

On the plus side, my own sense of this is that the backlash to the left’s crazy anti-White narratives seems to be growing. I suspect this is a good foundation for finding common ground and advancing the dialog in a more productive direction.

Other principles can and should be added as needed, along with refinements of the four principles suggested above.

It will not be easy to reform race relations and shift the conversation about identity in a manner that discredits leftist propaganda and hypocrisy. Still, it is worth doing, and my own sense of this is that the pushback against the Left seems to be growing (the Trump election being a notable example).

In this struggle, the hypocrisy, hysteria, and entitlement of the Left are working against them. They have become the embodiment of petty tyrants and bullies, hiding behind the comfort of institutions and the longstanding hegemony of their Narrative, all too often afraid to confront opposing ideas.

The only vision of race relations on offer from the Professional Left is the one promoted by the peddlers of grievances, half-truths, and the toxic racial blood libel of “White privilege.” It is a vision for hysterical, entitled children who need to lay their own grievances, inadequacies, and insecurities at the feet of the ever-present, ever-evil and oppressive forces of society.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Isn’t it time for the adults to take back the conversation?

Thank you for reading Republic Standard. We publish this magazine and the Freebird Forum because we believe in free speech- but it doesn't come cheap! Will you make a small donation towards our running costs? You can make a difference by clicking here.

The Republic Standard Web Shop is now open! Every piece of merchandise you buy is a victory against the nerds.

from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2I2F4CV via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine

0 notes

oldguardaudio · 7 years ago

Text

Google fires Whistleblower, Women gathering to file class action lawsuit

Google fires Whistleblower, Women gathering to file class action lawsuit Google to employees, keep your mouths shut!

Why Did Google Freak Out and Fire an Employee for Spurring ‘Honest Discussion’?

Genevieve Wood

The tolerance police at Google just struck another blow against increasing diversity in Silicon Valley by firing an employee who wrote a memo critiquing the company’s politically correct culture.

Now, let’s be clear - While the Google software engineer who authored the memo had the right to say and write what he did—it’s called free speech—Google is a private company and has every right to fire an employee it deems not in line with its mission or culture.

But it’s fair to ask why Google reacted so negatively to an employee who, in a 10-page memo, laid out a case for why Google’s diversity programs weren’t working and how it might rethink its attempt to reduce the gender gap.

Could it be that Google is feeling just a little bit paranoid?

For all the talk about inclusiveness and diversity, here’s the reality -

If you’re not white or Asian, that means there is only a 5 percent chance you’re part of Google’s leadership team.

And while 31 percent of Google’s employees are women, only 20 percent of its technical employees are—and it was primarily the memo’s focus on this gender gap that seems to have caused the recent unpleasantness in Silicon Valley.

In addition to bad PR, perhaps what the larger left-leaning community there doesn’t want to admit is that for all its diversity programs and safe spaces, and who knows how many millions of dollars spent promoting them, they have done very little to change the outcomes.

When it comes to computer and mathematical occupations, the numbers clearly show that women and men are not equally represented.

Women held 27 percent of such jobs in 1960. Thirty years later, they held 35 percent. But fast forward to 2013, and the number of women in computing and mathematical occupations had fallen back to 26 percent.

And it’s not because fewer women are going to college.

In fact, a Department of Education study from 2014 shows more women than men are attending and graduating from college, and they are receiving the majority of bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate degrees.

But when it comes to college majors, women and men choose differently. A recent Georgetown University study showed over 80 percent of petroleum engineering majors are male. So are almost 70 percent of those majoring in mathematics and computer science.

Women, on the other hand, tend to major in what might be called more people-oriented professions, such as counseling, education, and social work.

Why men and women make such different choices is not 100 percent clear cut, but the idea that biology plays no role and it’s all because America is a sexist culture seems like an outdated and disproven theory.

And it was hiring and personnel practices based on that politically correct theory that the now-former Google employee was criticizing.

As he stated in the memo that got him fired - “If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem.”

Apparently at Google, and much of Silicon Valley, the discussion is over.

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion go/pc-considered-harmful James Damore - damore@ July 2017 Feel free to comment (they aren’t disabled, the doc may just be overloaded). For longer form discussions see g/pc-harmful-discuss Reply to public response and misrepresentation TL;DR Background Google’s biases Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech Personality differences Men’s higher drive for status Non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap The harm of Google’s biases Why we’re blind Suggestions Reply to public response and misrepresentation I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many†personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety . This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology. ○ Extreme - all disparities in representation are due to oppression ○ Authoritarian - we should discriminate to correct for this oppression Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business. Background 1 People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document 2 . Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google. Google’s biases At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media , and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices - ___________________________________________________________________________ This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries. 2 Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason . I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations. 1 Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors. Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation. Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech 3 At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story. On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because - ● They’re universal across human cultures ● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone ● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males ● The underlying traits are highly heritable ● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. ____________________________________________________________________________ 3 Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering. Personality differences Women, on average, have more - ● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things , relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing ). ○ These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics. ● ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. ○ This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support. Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). ○ This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs. Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that "greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits." Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality traits becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism . Men’s higher drive for status We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life. Status is the primary metric that men are judged on 4 , pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths. Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women's representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it's still instructive to list them - ● Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things ○ We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this). ● Women on average are more cooperative ○ Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do. ○ This doesn't mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self-reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn't necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what's been done in education. ● Women on average are more prone to anxiety ____________________________________________________________________________ For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty . Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal. 4 Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits. Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average ○ Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech. The male gender role is currently inflexible ○ Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more "feminine," then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally "feminine" roles. Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principled reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google's diversity being a component of that. For example, currently those willing to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google's funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged. The harm of Google’s biases I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices - ● Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race 5 ● ● ● A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias) ● Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination 6 ____________________________________________________________________________ 5 Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race. 6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs. These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions . We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology 7 that can irreparably harm Google. Why we’re blind We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ 8 and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left ( about 95% ), which creates enormous confirmation bias , changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap 9 . Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs. In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and agreeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner 10 . Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn. ____________________________________________________________________________ 7 Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.” 8 Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of aristocracy. 9 Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons . For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employee sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power. 10 “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.” This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness 11 , which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silent, psychologically unsafe environment. Suggestions I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite - treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism). My concrete suggestions are to - ● De-moralize diversity. ○ As soon as we start to moralize an issue , we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.” ● Stop alienating conservatives . ○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. ○ In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility . We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves. ○ Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness , which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. ● Confront Google’s biases. ○ I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that. ○ I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture. ● Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races. ○ These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined. ____________________________________________________________________________ 11 Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians. Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs. ○ Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts. ○ There’s currently very little transparency into the extent of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber. ○ These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives. ○ I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination. Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity. ○ We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination. ○ We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity. ○ Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX. De-emphasize empathy. ○ I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases . Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts. Prioritize intention. ○ Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive - sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions. ○ Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence . Be open about the science of human nature. ○ Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems. Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees. We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory. Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown. Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

Rush Limbaugh on the firing of the Google Guy.

Google Manifesto Author Canned

Aug 8, 2017

RUSH: The Google guy got canned. I told everybody it was gonna happen. No mystery there. The fascinating thing about the Google guy getting canned is everybody in Silicon Valley is all for it. The land of free speech, the land of equality and no discrimination, they’re all excited, ’cause this guy broke Google’s rules. You may not like ’em, but Google has rules, and if you break ’em, you’re out, which there is some logic to that.

Anyway, they’re happy to get rid of the guy because they just can’t handle anything other than their preordained cocoon-generated truth, which, of course, isn’t truth. That’s the whole point. They can’t allow anything to challenge what they have convinced themselves is true because that shakes and rattles and rolls their existence.

Google Manifesto Rips Political Correctness

Aug 7, 2017

RUSH: Also big news over the weekend. I was kind of fascinated by this. Have you heard about the secret memo that went around Google? (interruption) You’re frowning. You hadn’t heard about this? (interruption) Some Google employee sent around an anonymous — posted an anonymous note — manifesto, on the inherent bigotry and political correctness at Google. It suggested that their pitch, their effort on diversity was misguided, that they need ideological diversity at Google, that all the conservative employees are scared to death to speak up and say anything. And then the guy — or girl. We don’t know who it is yet.

All we know is, it’s gonna get fired when they’re discovered. The guy said — and he was I think ripping off Larry Summers when he was the president of Harvard. He said (summarized), “Look, the reason why,” and this was on his diversity kick. “The reason why there aren’t more women in tech positions is they’re not good at it. They’re not as interested in it as men are. So this effort to be diverse and have equal number of men and women in the tech workforce is silly ’cause it’s never gonna happen. Women are just not that inclined.”

Larry Summers said the same thing at Harvard. The reason why there aren’t more female math teachers is women don’t do as well in it, and they ran him out of the place. So this guy’s gonna get fired as soon as they find out who he is. But this story has captivated countless people over the weekend, and it is not over yet, and there’s much more straight ahead.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: You lady engineers at Google? I want to say something to you. Google is playing defense right now on the issue of diversity. This memo by a Google employee… I mean, this guy has just thrown a political correctness bomb right into the executive suite, ’cause this memo asserts that Google… When you strip it all away, the memo is an allegation that Google has fewer female engineers because men are better suited for the job, that essentially natural selection has taken over, and men are just more oriented toward math and science and engineering in those fields.

Now, what generally happens in a situation like this is that the feminists and leaders women’s groups that get all hot and bothered and run around start making noise about discrimination and unfairness. Ladies, forget that. There’s a much better path that you should take here. Don’t get lost in the diversity argument. Don’t get caught up in it. That’s what Google expects you to do. Don’t go acting offended, and don’t get on some soapbox claiming that whoever wrote that is a bigot.

Google is reeling right now. This is the kind of thing, this is the kind of charge that just sends leftists up the tree, that they’re unfair, that they’re discriminating on the basis of gender. Ladies, tell Google to prove it to you that the guy who wrote the memo is wrong. What you say to Google is, “Show me the money.” Go to the money. Tell ’em you want money. Tell ’em you want raises. Tell Google to prove it. Don’t join the protest march and start throwing underwear and bras. Just demand the money. They’re reeling right now. Hit ’em!

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Bill in Ridgefield, Connecticut. I’m glad you called, sir. You’re up first. How are you?

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I was just talking to Snerdley. Let me get to the point. I’m rich. I’m a big chess player and a damn good one. In fact, the New York AC I was the (call drops out) of the chess club. But backing up a second, of the top —

RUSH: Wait. Wait a minute. Your call — hey, hang on, hang on. Your call is bucking up. Did you say the New York Athletic Club? Is that what you said?

CALLER: Yes.

RUSH: New York AC. Okay. And you said you’re a rich guy in New York.

CALLER: That’s right.

RUSH: The New York Athletic Club would say that. So you’re a great chess player. Okay. Got that. Go.

CALLER: Okay. Of the top hundred chess players in the world —

RUSH: Yeah.

CALLER: — you know how many are women? Zero.

RUSH: What does that mean?

CALLER: I think they gravitate. I’m not saying women aren’t smarter. I have a daughter that went to Smith. I have a daughter that’s a doctor. I’m not saying women aren’t smarter. But they gravitate to the nurturing areas of society, as maybe they should. But they are not competitive with the mechanical and sciences. There may be a great scientist, but that would be an anomaly. But women, that can’t God for them, do a great job raising kids, God forbid, the feminazis, you know, one daughter that went to Smith, loaded with feminazis, she has our values. You know, common sense, down to earth, she got four kids, whatever.

RUSH: Let me get back to your chess question.

CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: ‘Cause you’re probably right. You’re not saying women aren’t capable of learning it and excelling at it, you’re just saying they’re not interested in it, right?

CALLER: For the most part. But there are grandmaster female players. They’re just not in that top tier. The Polgar sisters, they’re from I believe Poland. Both of them are grandmasters.

RUSH: Well, how much of it is that they don’t want to do what it takes to get there because they have other —

CALLER: That’s right. You know, you take, you know, whether it was Bobby Fischer, God rest his soul. You take Kasparov who is going back, apparently, into the competition area. I read it in I think yesterday’s Journal —

RUSH: He wants to beat the computers, yeah.

CALLER: Well, the computer is a different ball game.

RUSH: I don’t know. Elon Musk says they’re gonna take us over and Bill Gates and Hawking say if we don’t get to Mars, the machines are gonna eat us. What do we do?

0-00

the tolerance police at Google just

0-02

struck another blow against increasing

0-04

diversity in Silicon Valley by firing an

0-07

employee who wrote a memo critiquing the

0-09

company's politically correct culture

0-16

now let's be clear while the Google

0-19

software engineer who authored the memo

0-22

had the right to say and write what he

0-23

did it's called free speech Google's a

0-26

private company and has every right to

0-28

fire an employee it deems not in line

0-31

with this position or its culture but

0-33

it's fair to ask why Google reacted so

0-35

negatively to an employee to in a 10

0-38

page memo laid out a case for why Google

0-41

diversity programs weren't working and

0-44

how it might rethink its attempt to

0-46

reduce the gender gap could it be that

0-48

Google is feeling just a little bit

0-50

paranoid for all the talk about

0-52

inclusiveness and diversity here's the

0-55

reality if you're not white or Asian

0-57

that means there is only a 5% chance

1-00

you're part of Google's leadership piece

1-02

and while 31% of Google's employees are

1-05

women only 20% of its technical

1-08

employees are and it was primarily the

1-10

memos focus on this gender gap it seems

1-13

to have caused the recent unpleasantness

1-14

in Silicon Valley in addition to bad PR

1-18

perhaps what the larger left-leaning

1-20

community there doesn't want to admit is

1-22

that for all its diversity programs and

1-24

safe spaces and who knows how many

1-27

millions of dollars spent promoting them

1-29

they have done very little to change the

1-31

outcome when it comes to computer and

1-34

mathematical occupations the numbers

1-36

clearly show that women and men are not

1-38

equally represented women held 27% of

1-42

such jobs in 1960 30 years later they

1-45

held 35% but bath towards 2013 and the

1-50

number of women in computing and

1-51

mathematical occupations had fallen back

1-54

to 26% and it's not because fewer women

1-57

are going to college in fact a US

2-00

Department of Education study from 2014

2-03

shows more women the men are attending

2-05

and graduating from college and they are

2-07

receiving the majority of bachelor's

2-09

master's and doctorate degree

2-12

but when it comes to college majors

2-14

women and men choose differently

2-16

a recent Georgetown University study

2-19

showed over 80% of petroleum engineer

2-21

majors are male

2-23

so we're almost 70% of those majoring in

2-25

mathematics and computer science women

2-28

on the other hand in the major what

2-30

might be called more people oriented

2-32

professions such as counseling education

2-35

and Social Work why men and women make

2-38

such different choices is not 100% clear

2-41

cut but the idea that biology plays no

2-44

role and it's all because America is a

2-46

sexist culture seems like an outdated

2-48

and disproven theory and it was hiring

2-51

and personnel practices based on that

2-54

politically correct theory that the

2-56

now-former Google employee was

2-58

criticizing as he stated in the memo

3-00

that got him fired quote if we can't

3-03

have an honest discussion about this

3-04

then we can never truly solve the

3-07

problem apparently at Google and much of

3-09

Silicon Valley the discussion is over

Check out my new Podcast | Audio episode!

#Podcast #politics #news

0 notes

attendantdesign-blog · 7 years ago

Text

New Post has been published on Attendantdesign

New Post has been published on https://attendantdesign.com/siemens-to-update-medical-scanner/

Siemens to update medical scanner

FRANKFURT (Reuters) – German industrial organization Siemens (SIEGn.DE) expects to replace software program in a number of its scientific scanners by using the end of the month to cope with vulnerabilities that would, in principle, allow a number of this system to be hacked, an organization spokesman stated on Monday.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a security note caution that “an attacker with a low talent could be capable of making the most those vulnerabilities” the use of known weaknesses that exist in older Windows software. (good.Gl/9NG1ya)

The Siemens spokesman stated no proof of any attack had been located.

Siemens’ movement affords extra evidence of a developing recognition on stopping cyber assaults on the clinical system, which for years ranked low on the listing of capability hacking objectives.

The vulnerabilities identified via Siemens had been in its PET (positron emission tomography) scanners that run on Microsoft Windows 7 (MSFT.O), which can be exploited remotely.

PET scanners assist to show how tissues and organs are functioning by means of the usage of a radioactive drug to trace pastime. They can reveal or investigate most cancers, coronary heart ailment, and mental disorders.

Initially, the Munich-based totally enterprise cautioned sanatorium and other clinical clients to disconnect the scanners until an update changed into launch.

But the organization spokesman said on Monday that when further assessment, it now not believed disconnecting the scanners become essential.

Siemens has assigned a security severity score of nine.8 out of 10, the usage of the open enterprise trendy CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) chance assessment gadget, according to the U.S. Security notice.

“Based on the prevailing controls of the gadgets and use situations, we trust the vulnerabilities do not result in any accelerated patient chance,” Siemens stated. “To date, there have been no reviews of exploitation of the diagnosed vulnerabilities on any machine set up worldwide.”

Large imaging machines consisting of PET scanners are commonly no longer immediately linked to the Internet but are linked to scientific IT structures, which may be inflamed, as an instance, by means of an e mail attachment sent to a different part of the system.

“It’s quite extreme,” UK-primarily scanner based independent Siemens laptop security analyst Graham medical

Cluley stated. “It does seem that these vulnerabilities may be exploited remotely and instead trivially.”

He said hospitals in standard had been badly covered towards hacking, partially because of underfunding and partly because some older medical machines aren’t like minded with the latest versions of software program working structures.

The worldwide WannaCry cyber attack in May highlighted the vulnerability of medical structures whilst it brought about most important disruption to X-ray machines and another pc gadget in Britain’s National Health Service, forcing hospitals to pull away sufferers.

Earlier this 12 months, Abbott Laboratories (ABT.N) moved to protect patients with its St. Jude heart implants against viable cyber attacks, liberating a software program patch that the company said might lessen the “extremely low” hazard of them being hacked.

Siemens plans a public listing for its healthcare unit, Healthineers, subsequent 12 months. The IPO is expected to feed the business at as much as forty billion euros ($forty-seven billion).

($1 = 0.8482 euros)

Additional reporting through Eric Auchard. Editing through Jane Merriman

capable of make social media structures like Facebook (FB.O) delete records, together with content material posted of their youth, underneath government proposals so as to carry statistics legal guidelines into line with new European policies.

Individuals will have greater manipulate t

heir data by means of having “the proper to be forgotten” and ask for his or her non-public information to be erased within the measures introduced with the aid of Digital Minister Matt Hancock on Monday.

Companies may even need to ask humans for permission to collect personal records instead of relying upon pre-selected tick containers, that are largely disregarded, he said.

The new rules will deliver British regulation into line with the European Union’s general facts protection regulation (GDPR), which tightens and extends the scope of data protection law.

The GDPR turns into enforceable from May 2018.

Lawyers and tech enterprise experts have said Britain will preserve complying with GDPR after Britain leaves the European Union in 2019 to avoid disruption to the data traffic this is critical to the global enterprise.

Hancock said the policies might deliver Britain one of the most robust, but dynamic, set of data laws within the global.

“It will deliver people more control over their facts, require more consent for its use and prepare Britain for Brexit,” he said.

The information safety regulator, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), will be given the strength to issue higher fines, of as much as 17 million kilos ($22.2 million) or 4 per cent of worldwide turnover, in instances of very severe statistics breaches, he stated.

Reporting by means of Paul Sandle; Editing by way of Richard Balmforth

Google worker’s anti-variety memo activates employer rebuke Sam Forgione 4 MIN READ The Google emblem embellishes the doorway of Google Germany headquarters in Hamburg, Germany July 11, 2016. The picture was taken July eleven, 2016. Morris Mac Matzen (Reuters) – Google executives over the weekend rushed to denounce an engineer’s memo that ascribed gender inequality inside the technology industry to organic differences, a view that sparked outrage at the internet massive and inflamed tensions over sexual harassment and discrimination in Silicon Valley.

The unnamed engineer asserted within the three,000-word document that circulated in the organization remaining week that “Google’s left bias has created a politically accurate monoculture” which avoided sincere dialogue of the issue.

“Distribution of alternatives and abilities of ladies and men vary in the element due to organic reasons and that those differences may also provide an explanation for why we don’t see an identical representation of women in tech and management,” he wrote.

The memo stoked the heated debate over the treatment of girls in the male-dominated Silicon Valley that has boiled for months following sexual harassment scandals at Uber Technologies Inc and several challenge capital companies.

Google’s currently employed VP of diversity, integrity, and governance, Danielle Brown, dispatched a memo in response to the furor, pronouncing the engineer’s essay “superior wrong assumptions approximately gender.”

“Part of constructing an open, inclusive surroundings manner fostering a lifestyle wherein people with alternative views, such as one of a kind political affairs, since safe sharing their reviews,” Brown wrote.

“But that discourse desires to paintings along the standards of equal employment located in our Code of Conduct, policies, and anti-discrimination legal guidelines,” she introduced.

Google engineering VP Aristotle Balogh also wrote an internal publish criticizing the worker’s memo, announcing “stereotyping and harmful assumptions” could not be allowed to play any element in the employer’s culture.

A Google spokesperson advised Reuters that the statements from Brown and Balogh had been professional responses from Google.

The controversy erupted as the Department of Justice continues to press an research of alleged gender-based totally pay discrimination at Google, a unit of Alphabet Inc. The enterprise has denied the charges.

The episode additionally sparked debate on the right limits of loose speech in company environments.

Entrepreneur Elissa Shevinsky wrote on running a blog internet site Medium that speech “thinking the technical qualifications of human beings primarily based on race or gender” ought to fall underneath Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination primarily based on race, coloration, faith, intercourse, and country wide origin.

“Google isn’t always space where employees must be able to explicit and percentage whatever feelings they will have, no matter how it influences others,” Shevinsky wrote.

Former Google privateness engineer Yonatan Zunger wrote on Medium that the unnamed engineer “does not appear to recognize the outcomes of what he wrote, both for others or himself,” and said if the engineer suggested to him he’d be fired.

There had been also expressions of support for the anonymous engineer. He said in a touch upon his unique posting that he had obtained “many private messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for citing these very critical problems,” consistent with a duplicate of the memo published by era information website Gizmodo.

Motherboard, the web news outlet that first stated the worker’s memo, pronounced Sunday that many messages at the anonymous company messaging app Blind confirmed backing for the view that Google’s subculture changed into too politically correct.

0 notes

edintheclouds · 8 years ago

Text

Reflections from Professional Learning Retreat

Article by Sunnie Giles in Harvard Business Review - March 15 2016

DAVE WHEELER FOR HBR What makes an effective leader? This question is a focus of my research as an organizational scientist, executive coach, and leadership development consultant. Looking for answers, I recently completed the first round of a study of 195 leaders in 15 countries over 30 global organizations. Participants were asked to choose the 15 most important leadership competencies from a list of 74. I’ve grouped the top ones into five major themes that suggest a set of priorities for leaders and leadership development programs. While some may not surprise you, they’re all difficult to master, in part because improving them requires acting against our nature. Demonstrates strong ethics and provides a sense of safety. This theme combines two of the three most highly rated attributes: “high ethical and moral standards” (67% selected it as one of the most important) and “communicating clear expectations” (56%). Taken together, these attributes are all about creating a safe and trusting environment. A leader with high ethical standards conveys a commitment to fairness, instilling confidence that both they and their employees will honor the rules of the game. Similarly, when leaders clearly communicate their expectations, they avoid blindsiding people and ensure that everyone is on the same page. In a safe environment employees can relax, invoking the brain’s higher capacity for social engagement, innovation, creativity, and ambition. Neuroscience corroborates this point. When the amygdala registers a threat to our safety, arteries harden and thicken to handle an increased blood flow to our limbs in preparation for a fight-or-flight response. In this state, we lose access to the social engagement system of the limbic brain and the executive function of the prefrontal cortex, inhibiting creativity and the drive for excellence. From a neuroscience perspective, making sure that people feel safe on a deep level should be job #1 for leaders. But how? This competency is all about behaving in a way that is consistent with your values. If you find yourself making decisions that feel at odds with your principles or justifying actions in spite of a nagging sense of discomfort, you probably need to reconnect with your core values. I facilitate a simple exercise with my clients called “Deep Fast Forwarding” to help with this. Envision your funeral and what people say about you in a eulogy. Is it what you want to hear? This exercise will give you a clearer sense of what’s important to you, which will then help guide daily decision making. To increase feelings of safety, work on communicating with the specific intent of making people feel safe. One way to accomplish this is to acknowledge and neutralize feared results or consequences from the outset. I call this “clearing the air.” For example, you might approach a conversation about a project gone wrong by saying, “I’m not trying to blame you. I just want to understand what happened.”

Empowers others to self-organize. Providing clear direction while allowing employees to organize their own time and work was identified as the next most important leadership competency. No leader can do everything themselves. Therefore, it’s critical to distribute power throughout the organization and to rely on decision making from those who are closest to the action. Research has repeatedly shown that empowered teams are more productive and proactive, provide better customer service, and show higher levels of job satisfaction and commitment to their team and organization. And yet many leaders struggle to let people self-organize. They resist because they believe that power is a zero-sum game, they are reluctant to allow others to make mistakes, and they fear facing negative consequences from subordinates’ decisions. To overcome the fear of relinquishing power, start by increasing awareness of physical tension that arises when you feel your position is being challenged. As discussed above, perceived threats activate a fight, flight, or freeze response in the amygdala. The good news is that we can train our bodies to experience relaxation instead of defensiveness when stress runs high. Try to separate the current situation from the past, share the outcome you fear most with others instead of trying to hold on to control, and remember that giving power up is a great way to increase influence — which builds power over time. Fosters a sense of connection and belonging. Leaders who “communicate often and openly” (competency #6) and “create a feeling of succeeding and failing together as a pack” (#8) build a strong foundation for connection. We are a social species — we want to connect and feel a sense of belonging. From an evolutionary perspective, attachment is important because it improves our chances of survival in a world full of predators. Research suggests that a sense of connection could also impact productivity and emotional well-being. For example, scientists have found that emotions are contagious in the workplace: Employees feel emotionally depleted just by watching unpleasant interactions between coworkers. From a neuroscience perspective, creating connection is a leader’s second most important job. Once we feel safe (a sensation that is registered in the reptilian brain), we also have to feel cared for (which activates the limbic brain) in order to unleash the full potential of our higher functioning prefrontal cortex. There are some simple ways to promote belonging among employees: Smile at people, call them by name, and remember their interests and family members’ names. Pay focused attention when speaking to them, and clearly set the tone of the members of your team having each other’s backs. Using a song, motto, symbol, chant, or ritual that uniquely identifies your team can also strengthen this sense of connection.

Shows openness to new ideas and fosters organizational learning. What do “flexibility to change opinions” (competency #4), “being open to new ideas and approaches” (#7), and “provides safety for trial and error” (#10) have in common? If a leader has these strengths, they encourage learning; if they don’t, they risk stifling it. Admitting we’re wrong isn’t easy. Once again, the negative effects of stress on brain function are partly to blame — in this case they impede learning. Researchers have found that reduced blood flow to our brains under threat reduces peripheral vision, ostensibly so we can deal with the immediate danger. For instance, they have observed a significant reduction in athletes’ peripheral vision before competition. While tunnel vision helps athletes focus, it closes the rest of us off to new ideas and approaches. Our opinions are more inflexible even when we’re presented with contradicting evidence, which makes learning almost impossible. To encourage learning among employees, leaders must first ensure that they are open to learning (and changing course) themselves. Try to approach problem-solving discussions without a specific agenda or outcome. Withhold judgment until everyone has spoken, and let people know that all ideas will be considered. A greater diversity of ideas will emerge. Failure is required for learning, but our relentless pursuit of results can also discourage employees from taking chances. To resolve this conflict, leaders must create a culture that supports risk-taking. One way of doing this is to use controlled experiments — think A/B testing — that allow for small failures and require rapid feedback and correction. This provides a platform for building collective intelligence so that employees learn from each other’s mistakes, too. Nurtures growth. “Being committed to my ongoing training” (competency #5) and “helping me grow into a next-generation leader” (#9) make up the final category. All living organisms have an innate need to leave copies of their genes. They maximize their offspring’s chances of success by nurturing and teaching them. In turn, those on the receiving end feel a sense of gratitude and loyalty. Think of the people to whom you’re most grateful — parents, teachers, friends, mentors. Chances are, they’ve cared for you or taught you something important. When leaders show a commitment to our growth, the same primal emotions are tapped. Employees are motivated to reciprocate, expressing their gratitude or loyalty by going the extra mile. While managing through fear generates stress, which impairs higher brain function, the quality of work is vastly different when we are compelled by appreciation. If you want to inspire the best from your team, advocate for them, support their training and promotion, and go to bat to sponsor their important projects. These five areas present significant challenges to leaders due to the natural responses that are hardwired into us. But with deep self-reflection and a shift in perspective (perhaps aided by a coach), there are also enormous opportunities for improving everyone’s performance by focusing on our own. Dr. Sunnie Giles is a professionally certified executive coach, leadership development consultant and organizational scientist. She is President of Quantum Leadership Group. She has an MBA from the University of Chicago and PhD from Brigham Young University.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2n1cSKM via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes

edintheclouds · 8 years ago

Text

The Most Important Leadership Competencies, According to Leaders Around the World

Article by Sunnie Giles in Harvard Business Review - March 15 2016

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2n0VKVf via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes