In it to win it

Candidates in the presidential election definitely have there own sets of objectives when it comes to winning the election. In the article Mitt Romney talks about how he does not want everyone to go to college as a response to Obama's opinion that everyone should have some sort of post high school learning. Romney is a republican and he wants to win republican votes, so why would he not want everyone to go to college. The answer to this question is made up of many parts. First if not everyone goes to college, that means that only the selected few who can afford college will go. If this is true and the selected few can find resources to go to school, then there will not be as much taxes allocated to post highschool education. The amount of state schools will drop severely and taxes that were previously spent toward state colleges will be spent on other things that benefit the big business outlook. Another motive to say that not everyone needs to go to school is to collect the votes of the citizens who decided against going to college. By saying that everyone should go, you would be putting down the decisions made by many working class Americans. These voters also do not want to pay taxes toward sending other people to school when they decided to or even were not able to attend college. Many republican business owners also rely on unskilled laborers to run their business (Mcdonald's for example) and if the entire work force was educated and skilled, these business would have no workers. In our type of government there is only room for two major political parties and by having only two, each candidate is forced to choose one side or another to every issues that differs from their opponent. The fact that this happens just shows that each politician is just trying to absorb the votes that their competitor missed. This style of getting elected proves that people are only in it to win it and are willing to say and do anything that gets them elected.

My chart shown above shows the outcomes of invading Afghanistan and if each path is followed it would have made more sense not to invade than to invade. We already suffered a loss and then we suffered more. The only reason that we did invade was strictly and emotional aspect.

College or no college?

The decision that I was faced with four years ago was to choose whether I wanted to go to college or not. Looking back I can remember my parents saying that college was the only thing that would get me ahead in life and that if I went directly into the workforce that I would be limiting my potential. The ultimate outcome would be that I would get a great paying job where I am happy to work and that would be rated at 100. The next outcome would be that I would get a bad paying job where I was not happy and I would rate that as a 0. Going to college and not going to college would lead to the same possibilities, but going to college should have strengthened my odds in getting a good job. If I went to college the odds of me getting a good job would be 50% and getting a bad job 50%. Now if I didnt go to college, my odds would be 20% and 80% respectively. That means that going to college would give me a path score of 50 and not going a score of 20. It seems that going to college would be the better choice path. After starting the job search though... I find that my probabilities may have been slightly off considering I am yet to find a job thus far.

Motivation

Motivation is what drives people to create and produce. People typically do not do things for the sake of doing them. There is always motive for getting something done or accomplishing a task but what motivates people to be productive? Being a college student, I would argue that my number one motivation is monetary. At this point I have grown accustomed to being poor about 90 percent of the time and I have stretched my money as far as it would possibly get me but I work had to make money and the more money I am offered the harder I work. This is true of me now because I do no have much money but in the future I am sure it will be other things that motivate. In my experiences I have found that another create motivator is the feeling of accomplishing a task that at first might have seem impossible. The harder my classes are in school, the more effort that I put into being successful in that class. The joy of getting an A in my entrepreneurship classes as compared to getting an A in introduction to literature are a lot different. Being able to do something that other people failed at is a motivation. Everyone gets an A in introduction to literature but not everyone gets an A in entrepreneurship so there is more motivation to get the A in entrepreneurship and set my self apart from the crowd. Motivation is tricky when you are a leader and the only way to motivate people is to ask them what they want and when you find out what the bigger picture is, you can use their responses to figure out the best way to get people to accomplish the most possible.

Followers

The best leaders have the best followers. Every good leader surrounds themselves with people that help balance out their weaknesses. If you start a company you are most likely to be successful if you can properly analyze your strengths and weaknesses. Once you know what you are good at, it necessary to align yourself with people who have other strengths. Group think is a big problem in corporations. This occurs when there are either too many similar personality types or when employees are to afraid to astray from the consensus of the group. By aligning yourself with a diverse group of people, a company will be able to better review all the alternatives. Keeping the status quo is what causes many companies like general motors to go under due to the unwillingness to change with the times. The problem that non of the lower level employees would voice their opinions and drive the company forward was detrimental for GM. Followers in the article are told to be self motivated individuals that move toward a common goal . This in no way makes the employees brainless slaves. The less the lower level employees contribute their ideas, the less likely the leader will know how to change for the better. Some people are more comfortable being followers but in no way does this mean that they are not an essential part of the company.

Reciprocity

Reciprocity can be manipulated in the modern business market. The idea of kickback money and gifts without strings attached is used to pressure people into making purchases that they do not necessarily want to make. When a sales person takes you out to dinner and pays, there is pretty much the expectation that the costumer will there by purchase a product or service from the sales person. Although it is not a direct trade of services or goods, the typical American was raised with the idea that noting comes free and sales people often exploit this concept.
In my line of work, my boss purchases from many sales people and these sales people often bring in doughnuts and pretzels before they come in to pitch a sale. After consuming their "free" gift, my boss will then feel more pressured to buy from the sales person even if their product or service is not as superior as another. Around the holidays there is also a lot of card receiving in our company from all the sales people. The vending machine guy in particular bought my boss a forty dollar gift card to the Texas Road House just as a friendly gesture, but was that all the gift card really meant. Although this is a common practice among smaller corporations, some larger corporations like P&G have taken any of these practices away in order to be as professional as possible.

Women Leaders

Sandberg talks about women in the workplace in the video and the issue of equality in the workplace. The strangest thing that Sandberg says in her speech is that it was the women's fault more than the man's fault that women are not equally represented in the corporation. Women are always underestimating themselves and cutting themselves short and this type of behavior is what leads to a lack of self esteem. This lack of self confidence makes it so woman are not pursuing raises and promotions as much as men are. The issue of why woman are not equally represented in the upper management levels of the workforce in my opinion is not a current prejudice, but rather because we are recovering from a former prejudice. Back in the 60's and 70's, it was unheard of for a woman to be a CEO of any firm and today it really is not a big deal. I would say that the average man or woman would not care what sex there boss is and currently the only reason there is an inequality is because woman are still comfortable with the power yet and the people electing individuals to run many companies are the same people they were around in the 60's and 70's and might be stuck in there old ways. The biggest thing that will push women to that next step will be an increase in confidence and just basically the passing of time. In time things will balance a little better when it comes to equal representation of men and women in the higher levels of the workforce.

Management vrs. Leadership

There is a big difference between an leader and a manager. You can teach someone to be a manager but a leader is made through experience and must have a certain set of personality traits. The problem with many companies is the lack of leaders and innovators. Too many companies are run by managers that have a short term mind set when it comes to running an organization. Managers are trained to run things efficiently, which is not always in the best interest of the company. Efficiency always looks the best on paper because it minimizes costs and increases profit in the short term but in the long term it causes companies to lose innovation and miss out on future sales. General Motors creates a good case to look at when companies get rid of leaders and innovators. 50 years ago if you told someone that general motors would go bankrupt they would look at you like you were on crack. The problem with general motors was that they kept trying to cut costs and by doing this they fired people that were considered overpaid but many of these employees were leaders and had a lot knowledge through experience that could have helped the company make not make as many stupid mistakes. Once General motors turned to efficiency over innovation, that was the beginning of the end. This decision gave opportunities other companies, like Japanese companies, the opportunity to come into the U.S. market with new cars that made GM's cars look dated and crappy. This lead to a market share war and eventually caused GM to go bankrupt. Nothing against managers but leaders and innovators are more important in long term orientation.

Leadership Traits and Personality

The initial argument put forth is that whether or not there are traits and/or a personality that a leader must have in order to be affective. Taking one issue at a time I would argue that there are definitely traits that a leader must contain in order to be successful. Leaders must have the ability to be empowering of others. A leader cannot complete all tasks at hand alone but by empowering others they can achieve goals faster and more effectively. A leader must also have experience, be compassionate, humble, honest, and a visionary. Leaders must see things unfold before they do in order to drive people in the right direction. The most important character trait about a leader is that an effective leader has to be confident. A leader that is not confident in their decisions is not a leader at all. People do not follow people that they lack faith in.
Does personality matter when it comes to leadership? I would argue that personality matters to a point. When looking at the five variables of personality, a leader should rank high on conscientiousness because a leader needs to be well organized, reliable, and careful. They would also need to rank high in extraversion because leaders need to be well spoken and liked in order to get things accomplished. The leader would also need to achieve a high score on agreeableness and a low score on neuroticism. The last factor that is important in the personality model would be whether or not the leader would be open to experiences or intellect. An effective leader would score high in this category. Although a leaders personality would be expected to meet all these variables that does not mean that someone who does not meet these standards, cannot be a leader. Everyone can be a leader if they try but the best leaders show a certain set of traits important to leader a large majority of people.

The Great Leaders: Barrack and Warren

Leadership is not a quality that can be taught. People are born leaders and two important leaders in history and in present day are President Barrack Obama and the savvy investor Warren Buffet. These two leaders, although classified under the same category, were very different indeed. The one trait that they had in common is the fact that they inspired people in a way that could not be easily duplicated and this is one important necessity of a leader. President Obama was a symbol of change and a brighter future. His young age and achievements as well as his ability to communicate gave him a special spot in many American hearts. Obama inspired people to regain faith in politics because to be perfectly honest it had been lost. He became a modern icon and made a good deal of head way by being the tech savvy President that could reach a younger generation of individuals. His words have inspired many and in the position that he currently holds, it is very important to inspire because the reality of the modern day presidency is that "the most powerful man in the world" does not seem to have as much power as portrayed. Warren Buffet on the other hand is also a great leader that symbolizing capitalism at its finest. Buffet was known to be calm and collected in the most serious of circumstances and people idolized his power and wealth. His way of live inspired people to live the American dream to live a prosperous life. Warren Buffet is an icon for any modern day entrepreneur and although these young entrepreneurs have not met him personally, that does not mean that they are not scalping their decision making in site of what he has shown them in example. The important thing about both of these leaders is that they can make people react without telling them to react. This is a skill that no person can buy or teach. Leaders are born not created and without leaders we lose our sense of direction.