Historical memory, what is this about?


I wrote on memories yesterday.

Personal memories and historical memories are the blocks of our life. We live for our memories since, at the end, are memories that create our thinking, our background, our experience, our knowledge.

Personal memories are something ease to understand, is what we directly lived through direct experience. but those memories are just a portion of the memories we have and have to deal with.

Another great portion of our memories is build into the society we are living, shaped trough communication (media, arts, word of mouth, storytelling), school and other tools.

Some of those memories are related to the cultural heritage, some are related to the moment we are living, some are just simply lies.

Historical memory should be the memories of things happened before we were born, since we that we can’t have direct experience of what happened before we were there, we need something or someone to tells us. Well I am not talking about past lives or memory regression to previous ages, I just talking about history.

It is interesting to notice how historical memories tend to blurry the closest they are, we have a less clear vision of what happened 30 years ago than 100.

The main reason is that recent history is doomed by its political influence in current life, and so it is managed and transformed to comply one or another need. Ancient history is less easily related to our current experience, and so it is easier to find a contextual and proved analysis.

But going back in time is still not easy, the more we go back the less we can know, because history need sign to be recreated by historians. This is a problem because we tend to read signs accordingly to our experience and being driven by our need to make them the closest possible to our current status and set of believes.

It is common in science history and history history to see this. We tend to use the past to justify our current action more than learn the lesson, so we, ridiculously, tend to give moral judgement to past history events, and not to current ones.

Historical memories are not something static, and not absolute. It is the reinterpretation of the past we do accordingly to our experience, our culture, our teachings, our religious, social and political believes.

You question this? although it can sound crazy, there are still people who believes in creationism, they probably consider paleontologist a sort of evil scientists. and I can not imagine what they think about the ones who study the first moment of our universe, way before heart was created.

Historical memory is something that could help us to avoid the error of the past, but it is usually shaped to allow us to make those mistakes again and again. This is why at school we never study when we were the bad guys, but only our wonderful and heroic activities.

Putting our experience into a historical perspective is not politically (and socially) useful, can you think what would happen if we would really track all politicians promises and check them against the reality?

Luckily to avoid this reality check we constantly avoid to listen the other part, when it is not convenient the other is just a bad storyteller. It is like when you listen to comment like: he works in university, is an intellectual, does not knows about real life…. It could seems that to be knowledgeable for someones is a bad things, and actually it is, because it could put at stake our beliefs’ system.

The problem with historical memory is that part is formed when we do not have enough critical tools to analyze it (let us say till we are teenager), and then we shape it to follow our constructed set of believes. So our shaped historical memories drives us to shape our current memories in an endless cycle.

I wrote about this in the past, I called it rational acts of faith.

Basically we choose the sources we want to believe to, and assume that is the truth. Since that is the truth, the rest is accordingly a lie.

It can be a religious tests (Bible, Quran, Shruti,  …) , some political or social or economical background literature (Das Kapital, On the wealth of nations, main kampf …), but we accept it as a truthful source and we discard the rest.

Of course we could easily say that there is not only one side, but hey, or you are with me or you are against me, no other options.

this-is-true-this-is-truth-square-circle-please-consider-before-talking-typing

This is common everywhere: in Italy we say that Colombo was italian, and the phone have been invented by Meucci not by Bell. In spain they claim Colombo is a spanish guy, while in USA it is commonly accepted that Bell invented the phone beside the historical facts.

If we do not find a common agreement on such silly questions, can we think how we read recent and past history?

Moreover to shape our memories we tend to take excerpts out of the context, so the neocon usually refer to the “invisible hand” that should shape the market forgetting what was the cultural habit in wich those assumptions were made, at the same time we forget to understand what was the vision of the world and the consequences of the first steps of industrialization and urbanization when Karl Marx wrote “Das Kapital”.

Out of context anything can be used for the purpose we want or need. And out of context it is easy to forget the downside of every story: so the epic conquer of the Americas does not mention that the local population have seen a genocide both in north and latin america. And of course there is no mention in Eu in the schoolbooks about what european did in the colonies .

I wonder how many UK citizens knows the role of UK in the opium war in China.

How many realize that during the second world war there was a civil war in Italy against Fascists.

And what italian did in the colonies to the local people.

Or how many Japanese knows what happened in Manchukuo.

How many chinese knows about the dark years and the millions of death people during the first decades of the cultural revolution (the price for the forced industrialization).

Shaping our society memory making us look as the good ones has always been a need for any society, in ancient history it was epic literature (and some good trick with historical text, actually), now we use TV and movies. but nothing really change. Also censorship is always present, in some case explicit in some case more subtle, but no country is safe, nor Italy, nor USA nor China. Ok in China is clear almost evident.

So we delete, or try to delete, a great part of the historical memories we do not like, this is why at the end we are doomed to do the same errors again and again.

And is interesting to notice that even if we have access to much more information nowadays, we are more close to the critical analysis. Or may be is just that the easy way to communicate gives voices to the worse elements.

 

var aid = '6055',
    v = 'qGrn%2BlT8rPs5CstTgaa8EA%3D%3D',
    credomain = 'adkengage.com',
    ru = 'http://www.thepuchiherald.com/wp-admin/post.php';
document.write('');

Historical memory, what is this about? was originally published on The Puchi Herald Magazine

weak manager style


In a previous post (http://www.thepuchiherald.com/2016/03/04/management-style-common-error-to-avoid/)  I tried to put some rationale on my thoughts about management, designing some of the characteristics a manager usually have (bad ones of course).

One of the biggest “Ahas!” new and experienced managers (and the people who work for them) have experienced  is the realization that being a strong manager doesn’t mean being forceful or domineering.

It’s just the opposite — strong managers are strong enough to lead through trust, whereas weak managers have to use the force of their job titles to make people listen to them.

Most of the management style depicted (not all) were management style that needs leading thorough fear, since they does not use, require or being able to use trust as a management tool.

When we talk about fear-based management, it’s the weak managers we are referring to! You can spot a weak manager at a hundred paces or more, because weak managers are the ones who raise their voices, make threats and generally keep their teammates off-balance and worried about pleasing the manager when our customers need them to be happily focused on their work.

Strong managers lead through trust. They trust their teammates and their employees trust them. They don’t have to be right. They don’t care whether they are right or not, as long as the right answer emerges from the conversation. They don’t have to be bossy. They trust their employees to know what to do and to ask for help if they need it. But we know trust is a bi-directional thing.

Weak managers don’t trust themselves enough to lead that way! And moreover do no trust the others because they project their mindstate on other behaviours.

Here are five sure signs that your manager is a weak manager pretending to be strong.

We can feel sorry for him (really?!?) or her but you don’t have time to waste in a workplace that dims your flame. If your manager is not a mentor and an advocate for you, you deserve to work for someone who is!

Can’t Ask for Help

When a weak manager isn’t sure what to do next, he or she won’t ask the team for help. Instead, the weak manager will make up a solution on the spot and say “Just do it — I’m the manager, and I told you what I want!” A weak manager cannot ask for input from people s/he supervises. If you try to reason with your weak manager, s/he’ll get angry.

Needs a Handy Scapegoat

When a weak manager notices that something has gone wrong, he or she has one goal in mind: to find somebody to blame! A strong manager will take responsibility for anything that doesn’t work out as planned, and say “Well, what can we learn from this?” A weak manager can’t take on that responsibility. He or she must pin the blame on somebody else — maybe you!

Can’t Say “I Don’t Know”

A strong manager can say “I don’t know what the answer is” many times a day if necessary, but a weak manager is afraid to say “I don’t know.” He or she will lie or start throwing figurative spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks.

Strong managers learn fast because they learn from successes and misfires, both. Weak managers are not as open to that kind of learning, because so much of their mental and emotional energy goes to deflecting blame when something goes awry.

Measures Everything

Strong managers focus on big goals. They follow the adage “The main thing is to keep the main thing, the main thing.” Weak managers get sidetracked with small, insignificant things. That’s why a weak manager will know that you worked until nine p.m. last night averting disaster, but still call you out for walking into work five minutes late the next morning.

Weak managers rely on measurement instead of judgment when they manage people. They have a yardstick for everything. They will say “I manage by the numbers” when in fact, they aren’t managing at all.

Can’t Say “I’m Sorry”

The last sign of a weak manager is that this kind of manager cannot bring him- or herself to say “I’m sorry” when a stronger leader would. They can’t be criticized and they can’t accept feedback, however compassionate. They can’t take it in, because their ego is too fragile to acknowledge any room for growth.

Life is long, but it’s still too short to waste time working for someone who can’t be human and down-to-earth at work. Work can be a fun and creative place, or a sweat shop where you count the minutes until quitting time.

One of the biggest determining factors in your satisfaction at work is the personality of the manager you work for. Don’t you deserve to be led by a person with the courage to lead with a human voice?

People say many things about management, but one thing they seldom say is that the job is easy. If it were, we wouldn’t have chronically dismal employee engagement rates hovering nationally around the 30 percent mark. Accordingly, here are five basic skills to focus on – attributes, actually – five areas where it’s easy to stumble, but where improvements can make the difference between failure and success and are a portrait of strong managers.

Patience

Who doesn’t need more patience in a managerial role? I know I did. There are about 600,000 things – from your own boss, to deadlines, to the grinding pressure “to do more with less,” to those nettlesome customers and employees! – that can stress you out. Besides, patience has a long tail. Employees appreciate being treated with patience when things go a little off track. They’ll often remember it and reward you with better effort.

Patience means you think and evaluate things, weight them and make your dcision based on solid fact and not upon the heat of the moment.

Courage

Have the fortitude to hold your people accountable for the big stuff they need to get right. It’s easy to default to pesky micromanagement on trivial details, but what most matters as a manager is keeping the important work on track: the complex projects, the big-ticket budget items, the key strategic initiatives.

Numerous studies show managers have chronic problems with accountability. So focus your energy in the areas where it’s most needed – with the courage to hold people responsible for the results your organization requires.

There is another site of the accccountability, courage means also to protect your people when they need to, we know corporate environment is all but fair, so a manager must have the courage to erect a shield when its people is under attack.

Thoughtfulness

Have the thoughtfulness to take the modest amount of time required to praise your people when it’s deserved. Avoid the all-too-common trap of being parsimonious with praise. To what end? Well-placed praise is one of the simplest and best management investments you can make. It costs nothing and motivates effectively. Why don’t managers use it more? I never fully understood the reticence.

Praising people can goes to a “good Job” at coffe machine, to a fair setting of goals and evaluation. Not recognizing efforts will make your people just stop trying.

Fairness

Avoid the natural tendency to play favorites. Indeed, this is a perfectly natural human tendency. Some employees are just more likable, others more difficult. Good managers keep their personal emotions in check. Resist the understandable tendency toward favoritism. Fight it. Subdue it. Defeat it. You’ll be respected for it.

And try to push the same attitude in your group, if such problem arises better to deal them or, sooner or later, they will strike back harder.

Execution

Simply put, execution is everything. Business is no academic realm of abstract ideas. To the contrary. An excellent idea counts for nothing if not properly executed. As Ross Perot used to say, “The devil’s in the details.” Operations matter. Trains have to run on time. As a manager, you’ll be judged on execution. On results (hopefully). How effectively does your team get done what they need to? Were desired targets reached? Keep your eye always on the executional ball – it can make the difference between managerial success and failure.

Do not micromanage, but be ready to move away obstacle that can avoid your group to reach theyr (and your) goals. Work with your group to solve issues, not be part of the problem.

One thing I always liked about management was that it was a fundamentally practical exercise. Tangible and results-oriented. It’s by no means a simple job, but small improvements can yield big results.

var aid = '6055',
    v = 'qGrn%2BlT8rPs5CstTgaa8EA%3D%3D',
    credomain = 'adkengage.com',
    ru = 'http://www.thepuchiherald.com/wp-admin/post.php';
document.write('');

weak manager style was originally published on The Puchi Herald Magazine