SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the promote-them-to-where-they-can-do-the-least-damage dept.
Geert Hofstede's "Culture's Consequences" is one of the most influential management books of the 20th century. With well over 80,000 citations, Hofstede argues that 50 percent of managers' differences in their reactions to various situations are explained by cultural differences. Now, a researcher at the University of Missouri has determined that culture plays little or no part in leaders' management of their employees; this finding could impact how managers are trained and evaluated globally.
"We all want a higher quality of life, a desirable workplace environment and meaningful work -- no matter our home country," said Arthur Jago, professor of management in the Robert J. Trulaske College of Business at MU. "In management theory, we focus more on leaders' differences rather than their similarities. By analyzing the data in a new way, I found that managers across country borders and across cultures are more alike than different."
Crud. Does this mean you can't get away from PHB's no matter where you go?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tathra on Thursday December 22 2016, @03:56PM
you agree to exchange the output of your labor as a requirement of employment. you dont own it, anything you produce is automatically your employers. i'm not sure how you're confused on this.
i dont actually know anything about Marxism, but i do know that most examples of "communism" aren't communism, just extremely authoritarian state capitalism (that is, the state owns the corporations, not the people; i believe its better known as "nationalization"). i'm not sure communism is even actually possible, but libertarian socialism certainly is - there are many examples of it in the US, they're typically called "co-ops". the issue with capitalism though is that its only a useful economic method so long as there are markets to expand into and there is still room for growth and expansion. in today's world, both of those are no longer possible or extremely limited. now, personally i think libertarian socialism is the way to go (that is, voluntary collectivism, encouraged by regulations via tax breaks to co-ops or something like that, maybe there's an even better way to go about it that i dont know yet), but even more important than my personal views is the idea that we should use methods that work. there is no one-size fits all solution, and focusing on only a single concept or method, and pushing harder and harder when it starts failing, and then even harder and harder when pushing it harder makes it fail more - is recipe for disaster. we must absolutely be open to trying new methods and going with whichever ones work best for a given situation. sometimes that would mean capitalism is the best solution, and sometimes that would mean socialism (imo authoritarianism should never be used, which shouldnt be relevant here but it always gets confused and seen as a requirement of non-capitalistic economic systems and thats just not the case), but above all people must be open to new ideas instead of being mindless ideologues stuck on a single, failing concept.