Barbara Kellerman (2)

The Enablers from Barbara Kellerman is a fascinating look at both how things became so chaotic under Trump as well as a warning about the importance of good followership as well as good leadership. If you want a nice contextualized account of the first half of 2020, the year of the pandemic, this is an excellent choice.

While the emphasis is on the early part of the pandemic we also see how events before it helped to seal the fate of the country. Not simply the enablers during Trump's campaign and term but also the recent history of right wing politics and Republican interest in winning elections but not in governing. If all you want is a gossip filled book and "new names" then this book is likely not for you, it is arguing a point about bad followers who go so far as to enable things that they know to be either wrong or harmful, whether from fear of speaking out or because of personal gain from remaining complicit. Either way, they choose what they know to be wrong rather than to do what is right. In illustrating the extreme level of enabling behavior in the administration, the "gossipy" stories do get told, but not in a sensationalist manner. They are used to make points that desperately need to be made in the US right now.

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the cruel and unethical insanity that was the Trump administration (and still is the Republican party) as well as those interested in how power, especially the abuse of power by an unstable maniac, can make seemingly rational people desert their morals and ethics for personal gain.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.… (más)

The state of play is a reiteration of what we already know: women are still being passed over or withheld from leadership positions in business. This is for well-known and understood reasons. Reasons well known and understood by anyone of middle-income or below who are moderately educated (this leaves out the current Republican nominee for President, but more on that later). Women's professional careers suffer with marriage (men's do not) because women remain responsible for a majority of child care and domestic duties. Women also tend to take off time from their careers to have children (for various lengths of time) and find that their employer or profession is no longer interested in women's capabilities, only in their possibly divided attention from the job towards her family (an interest that men do not face) or their possible lack (atrophy) of qualifications. Furthermore, women are stereotyped as not being able to lead, or are considered more relationally motivated than decision motivated (and heaven help her if she is determined and motivated...she will be considered a bitch). There really is nothing new in this 2007 volume that isn't already known or stated by other researchers. Any stereotype, or any concerns about a woman's relationship/procreative status or leadership abilities, are simply bogus! Now, go tell that to the men occupying the corner office on Wall Street and see how fast you are met with laughter and escorted out the front doors. The practices are unfair and detrimental to women, and every effort should be taken to contradict and countermand these practices in order to create a level field of opportunity for everyone (did I mention those men in the corner offices are white?).

My concern is that all the women and leadership literature, all giving very valid points, continue to measure and define professional success in ideas established by the patriarchal business establishment long ago. Every researcher wants to know why there are not more women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Excuse me, but what if I do not want to be a CEO? I have every intention of being extremely successful in my career, but the opportunity to schmooze with Donald Trump is not my idea of success. My professional life has very little to do (directly) with Wall Street. By measuring women's success on terms established by men, advocating, dispelling, or flagrantly calling bullshit on gendered nonsense by the likes Romney & Co., Inc., renders the point moot. Get a different measurement, please. Time to take a poststructuralist feminist stand and trouble notions of gender and success, redefining them in a manner which have only a gentle nod toward the Wall Street corner office.

If you're wondering why I feel this reconceptualization of success is necessary, it's because I am tired of Wall Street cronies. They have bankrupted our economy twice (with numerous recessions in-between) through greedy practices, all the while holding a belief that they know what is best for everyone. And I am not talking just about best for everyone's retirement portfolio. I mean in all situations, all the time, for everyone. Why? Because Wall Street cronies are largely arrogant. With that, I now return to the subject of the Republican nominee for President of the United States, Mitt Romney.

I have listened to Mitt speak/debate throughout the party nomination process, and now must listen to him speak and debate against President Obama until November. (Oh, goodie!!! I hope I have enough wine to make it through the experience. When I awake post-election, I hope I will be able to chalk the feeling up to a hangover and not the realization that my country will be run by a bullying, bigoted frat boy.) My conclusion of Mr. Romney is that he just does not get it. And, what is worse, he will never get it. And the reason he will never get it is because Wall Street culture does not get it and has no desire to change the fact that it does not get it.

Let me see if I can be more clear....

Romney has no relation to reality by virtue of the Wall Street business culture upon which he boasts, and upon which he has built is economic campaign. Take a looksie at corporate culture:

- Lack of women in decision-making and leadership positions
- Lack of cultural, ethnic, gender, sexual diversity in the top offices giving corporate culture a distorted and discriminatory view of the structure of society as a whole
- Inflated CEO salaries compared to lower-level posts (lower-level posts most likely to be occupied by women and minorities)
- Corporate tendency to only concentrate on the bottom line meaning that they only want to know how women and minorities will be profitable to them...period
- Wall Street is an Old Boys Network that sees humor, camaraderie, and strength in a way perceived as crude, aggressive, competitive, and intimidating to women and minorities
- Corporate culture is likely to operate on stereotypes creating an "Us versus Them" dichotomy where the "other" is perceived as a distrusted outsider not worth their time, an operational attitude buoyed through flagrant displays of tokenism to convince onlookers, whistleblowers, judges, and legislatures how "fair" they are ("I have a good relationship with the blacks." - Donald Trump, 2011; "Our blacks are better than their blacks." - Ann Coulter, 2011)
- Corporate culture's ultimate aim is to squash the competition...bankrupt them, or buy and dispose of them while reaping the profits (only to be shared amongst their friends)

All of these points are Wall Street justifications for withholding opportunities for advancement. Needless to say, I am not impressed by Romney's record at Bain Capital. It gives me the creeps. Corporate culture is not a formula for leading my democratic republic which boasts a constitution that guarantees everyone the opportunity to pursue happiness.

Excuse me, I need a glass of wine.… (más)

To understand what is good leadership, we need to explore its "dark side", or bad leadership. Kellerman notes that bad leaders can be either ineffective, or unethical, or both. She identifies 7 types of bad leaders - the ineffective, the rigid, the intemperate, the callous, the corrupt, the insular and the evil leader. Presumably, then, a good leader is one who is effective, adaptable, self-controlled, empathetic, possesses integrity, able to act in the broader public interest beyond individual self-interest, and above all, pursues virtuous goals. She adds that leaders do not exist in isolation - "leaders and followers are interdependent". Without followers, bad leaders would not be able to act. She ends with some tips on how both leaders and followers should act to guard against bad leadership.

A quick and light read, the interest of this book lies in the case studies used to illustrate the types of bad leaders.… (más)