Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    We used it in the DECwomen facilitator training in early 1990.  It's by
    Jinx Melia and Pauline Little.  This book, along with "Women's Reality"
    by Anne Wilson Schaef, made me do some SERIOUS thinking....
    
    -Jody
    

    Perhaps that's why there are so few women in Congress!
    
    The alliances need to keep changing?

    Really, Jody, Jinx Melia was sort of a mentor for me, although my
    contact with her was short she had a great influence on my life.
    I lost touch with her about 10 years ago.  Anyone know her whereabouts?
    
    Mary

    Along a similar thought-path, see if you can find "Games Mother Never
    Taught You" (appropriately subtitled Corporate Gamesmanship for Women)
    by Betty Harrigan (she wrote a terrific advice series - sort of "Dear
    Abby" for "Working Woman" magazine beginning about 1985  (funny, since
    last year, they have a man writing the advice series - don't know why).
    
    We as women really don't "play" the same game that men play.  Different
    rules, different expectations.  It's no wonder we're often confused in
    business dealings.
    
    Miriam

> Along a similar thought-path, see if you can find "Games Mother Never Taught
> You" 

Good book! Janice has been reading me things out of it, and my responses have
been on the lines of "of course! doesn't everyone know that?" from the look
on her face it's clear that not everyone knows that. One of my favorite examples
was the woman who had a close professional relationship with a corporate VP, who
told her that if there was ever a problem to come and it'd get taken care of.
She was having problems with her boss - the question was whether she should go
to the VP or not.

The answer was obvious to me...

	-- Charles

I can agree only up to a point....

The point is whether or not we will ever have the energy/power/willingness to
"change the game."  To me, that is the vision....

If that makes me unrealistic or naive or whatever, then, by all means and IMO,
if you're going to play the game, "play it right."

Yuck...I can't help but feel that's throwing in the towel...

Barb

    
    
    re -1...  I was very uncomfortable with _Why_Jenny_Can't_Lead for just 
    that reason -- I'm not convinced that the only way to "succeed" is to
    learn to "play the game" the way the men do.  That may feel right to
    some, but it doesn't feel right to me.  I thought the authors of
    _Why_Jenny_Can't_Lead_ were blaming women for most (all) of their own
    victimization, and that didn't sit well with me.  I'll pull out my
    copy, so I can quote some actual passages and try to explain what
    bothered me.  
    
    Justine
    
    ps I read this book for the DECwomen facilitator's course, too, and some 
    women seemed to love it, and some of us seemed to hate it.  
    

    re .6, .7, I haven't read this book but I've heard about it before and
    my reaction was similar.
    
    Lorna
    

>One of my favorite examples
>was the woman who had a close professional relationship with a corporate VP, who
>told her that if there was ever a problem to come and it'd get taken care of.
>She was having problems with her boss - the question was whether she should go
>to the VP or not.

>The answer was obvious to me...

Yes, well, are you going to enlighten us or what?

D!

    RE: .9
    
    I suspect that the feminine answer would be, "Yes, of course she
    should bring it to the VP.  VP offered to help."
    
    The real answer is, "No, absolutely not. Save the favor/help for
    a real issue, i.e., getting buy in on a project."  Because
    interpersonal problems are not sufficient reason to waste a favor
    (which is what assistance is in this context).  Also, because by
    admitting the desire/nned for help on this sort of problem one
    indentifies oneself as a loser in the corporate game.
    
      Margaret

>>The answer was obvious to me...

>Yes, well, are you going to enlighten us or what?

Who me? You've *got* to be kidding. Enlightenment? "If you see the Buddha on
the road - kill him." Go read the book. Besides D!, you're a good enough test
taker to work out what I must think the answer is from the fact that I said it
was obvious.

	-- Charles

P.S. Never go over your boss's head. When you do anyway, do it very carefully.
Your boss affects your life daily. Your VP friend has better things to do than
babysit you - and when they're gone, the boss - now pissed at you - will still
be there; and YOU will have a rep as a troublemaker all over the organization.
It's not fair, it's not right, and it's the way the game is played. If you're
going to break the rules, at least do it with your eyes open, and understand
the consequences.

This is not to say that you should never deal with problems you have with your
boss - but work them out WITH your boss, not against your boss. If you ever go
to your VP friend, either do it in confidence, or do it to get your boss FIRED.

    Back a few or more...
    
    Jinx is living in Fort Collins, Colorado.  She is in partnership with
    Billie Lee who lives here in Colorado Springs in a company called
    Operational Politics.  Billie has a contract with DEC to teach courses
    based on Jinx' book "Breaking Into the Boardroom".
    
    Nanci

This is starting to sound like one of those ads for the Time-Life books on 
Psychic Phenomena For The Gullible - "What *happened* when the ancient 
astronauts stole Elvis?" ... "Read the book!"

    re .11,
    
    I agree.  Suppose a VP owes you a favor.  When you actually ask for a
    favor in return, make sure it is something concrete.  If the said
    person has problem with the boss, there are only one reason for the
    person to go to the VP: Ask for another job.
    
    Eugene

    This is my first input since I introduced myself approx a month ago.
    I pointed out then that I probably would be a "read only", but then
    again... I can't help myself..., the thought have strucked me several
    times when reading the =wn=, and it popped up again now.
    We're talking about gays, lesbian, hetros, women, men, divorced,
    married as if the were almost homogenous groups. It's so easy to
    generalize, we're all doing it from time to time, although we're all
    trying not to.
    *mens game*...is there somthing called that? something that could be
    defined? Applies to all men? I'm not sure. (..well, I think I am :-)).
    I've been with DEC for 16 years now. Having had mngment positions for
    the last 10. now beeing a sales manager i Norway. Obviously, I've been
    working with a lot of different peer managers, and had several
    different bosses. My experinece is that it is no such thing as "one
    right way". If there is a game (and I think it is), it is the game of
    changing, the game of adapting, the game of defining personal styles of
    the people surrounding you. This is a game certainly not exclusive to
    men. Pesonally I've met a lot of women mastering this type of game(:-)).
    	The point I'll try to get across is: Don't try to adapt something
    that probably doesn't excist. Don't generalize. The successful (in
    business) women I've met, has been so (my opinion) due to the power of 
    knowledge, not to the power of sex.
    I know, I know.... this doesn't always apply to men. It's easier for
    us. It's due to history. It's going to change! Your'e changing it! 
    It's going to take some time, but your'e gonna make it, step by step.
    Don't forget, it's a lot of us (men) out there supporting you.
    
    PerS,
    

    
    I think we discussed "Games Mother Never Taught You" in the book
    string a while ago....it certainly had a big impact on me.
    
    Re -1
    PerS....I don't think that there are "men's games" and "women's games"
    as such.
    I interpreted the point as being that there is a "business game" which
    covers, amongst other things, the rules you need to play by to "get on"
    in a company/business environment.
    Men are taught the rules of this game *far more often* than women.
    Hence it might look like a man's game.
    
    In fact, there are some men who have never learned it, and some women
    who have. But by and large the conscious players are male.
    
    "GMNTY" suggests that little boys start adsorbing the rules right
    from childhood games, and go on developing those rules through team
    sports. From childhood little girl's games are different, and these
    do not teach any groundrules that are relevant to the business game.
    Hence, when little boys become men and enter the business world it's
    just a bigger version of the same game that they are comfortable with
    and skilled at.
    When women enter the business world they don't even know that there's
    a game going on - we wander aimlessly around the playingfield, and
    the more experienced players think that we're dumb/a little
    unhinged and make comments such as "women shouldn't be in business
    anyway"......
    
    "GMNTY" opened my eyes to a lot of stuff, and I have to confess that
    I started playing by "the rules", and it's ironed out a lot of stuff
    for me....
    
    'gail
    

    I've never read any of these books being mentioned, but I think that if
    the goal is to obtain power for the oppressed, you have to play their
    game.   If women have no power, then how can it be obtained?  You can
    either take it by force or get them to give it to you.  It's tough to
    take anything by force if you don't already have power. If women want
    to get men to give them power, women have to play the power game the
    way men play it.  They may not like playing and they may think its the
    wrong way to do things, but you have to obtain power first, before you
    can use it to influence a change in the rules.  It may not seem fair,
    but life seldom is.
    
    Mary

    Hi,
    
    Mind if I join you in this one, as another male in this discussion? <8-)
    
    There is, no doubt, a game in business and recognition of that is step
    1 to winning but like Justine, I am not convinced that "..the only way 
    to "succeed" is to learn to "play the game" the way the men do".
    
    Play it within broadly accepted standards, sure, but after that, play it to
    win.
    
    Anybody who advocates that you play it 'my way' is overtly inviting you
    to be less dynamic or effective in your approach, possibly reacting to
    a threat factor?
    
    Which leads on to 'whose way is it, anyway' and the certain answer is
    that no person is able to define how to 'play it right'. 
    
    To play it effectively (why should you abrogate your ideals just for 
    'doing it right') why not align your ideals to the 'team goals' at least in
    others' minds, thereby influencing them to move in your direction also?
    
    If there are 22 players out there, study them, use that insight and add
    your own views. Another game may be different.
    
    Ju-Jitsu, not confrontation!
    
    A woman player has, in my book, an advantage from thereon and to labour
    the analogy of the game a little further, will manage tactics,
    skirmishes and end game extremely effectively!
    
    Above all, Barb, don't throw in the towel... it was just starting to
    get interesting.
    
    regards,
    
    Dave

I will not play the game.

I'd rather find a way *around* the game than modify my behavior to do something
I don't like.

D!

    I did not like the book at all. I felt I did not want to play that
    game. I also felt like the authors were constantly talking down to me.
    The tone was very condescending.
    
    manisha
    
    ps. Oh and they misspelt "Gandhi". I know, I know that has nothing to
    do with the topic. But the book was already making me mad and this made
    madder.

    I found that book on a friend's bookshelf and read a few chapters of
    it.  I think what the authors are trying to say is that this is what
    it is.  They are neither endorsing it nor condemning it.  They are just
    offering their observations and insights and tell us that if we want to
    play the game, these are the rules and here are some helpful tips. 
    This kind of thing can get people mad sometime, and they would rather
    shoot the messager.  I was trying tell what I see in the bluffing note. 
    I was just writing about my observation, and at least one person didn't
    like that.
    
    I will borrow their football analogy here.  I am sure that there are at
    least a few football fans among us.  When you go an watch a football
    game, you think you know all the strategies involved and you say, I can
    do that and you try to join the team.  When you are actually in the
    team, you will discover that what is actually going on there is very
    different from when you are on the sideline watching the game.  Many
    will get upset about some of the things going on in the game.  Many
    will say: "It shouldn't have been this way.  Surely, it can be done
    in a better way."  To them, I would only ask them to look deeper.  Many
    of these rules and strategies only appear to be flawed.  Just remember
    that these things are the results of thousands of years of refinement and
    optimization in dealing with the problems and obstacles that are
    challenging us.  If one chooses to join the team to play the game, it is
    very very important that one learns those rules and try it out first,
    and learn the deeply embedded reason as to why those seemingly bad
    rules are there.  Only then, and if one is a super genius of Einstein's
    caliber, one may be able to refine or even change those rules to their
    advantage.  Then one will really make it big in the business world.
    
    Most of the "there must be a better way" (as the authers of the book
    describe them) people remind me of some pseudo-scientist trying to
    prove to me his perpetual machine really works.  He keeps saying, it
    must work, it must work.  The fact is it doesn't, and the perpetual
    machine inventors will get mad at me, but I didn't invent the law of
    physics.  I am only the messager.
    
    I learned those things a long time ago, and I made a concious decision
    not to join the game.  Fortunately, one can still make a decent living
    without being a football star.  This is not to say I dislike football
    players because of what they are doing.  As a matter of fact, I have
    deep respect for them.  They give up and compromise a lot to get where
    they are, and they are doing a vital service to the society.   
    
    Eugene

    Whenever I bring up something like this with Neil, he says, "That
    doesn't mean that you have to sink as low as the men they're
    talking about.  Not all men play by those rules, either.  If we
    all buy into their rules, we'll never get a fair playing field."
    
    You need to understand the rules that other people are playing by. 
    But you also need to decide for yourself how you want to deal with
    them.  Slavishly adhering to what you think your boss wants isn't
    the best way to show your creative thinking and ability to decide
    for yourself within the framework of corporate expectations.
    
    It's not like a game with referees, where you get sent back five
    yards for running an illegal play.  You make tradeoffs, and in
    general, if it works and makes you happy, it's okay.
    
    --bonnie

re:  Why_Jenny_Can't_Lead

My first thought:
     How ironic that a book that purports to help women learn
     to lead [I haven't read the book, but assume that's one
     of the book's purposes from previous comments] proposes
     a solution that requires them to follow (i.e., do what
     men do)!

I imagine (hope) what the book really does is explain what
today's preferred management styles are so that its readers
can better form their own management style.

And whatever style a person decides on, it sure doesn't hurt
to know as much as possible what everyone else is doing!

nla

    >You make tradeoffs, and in general, if it works and makes you happy,
    >it's okay.
    
    Exactly, bonnie.  But isn't it amazing how many people insist on trying
    strategies that *don't* work over and over again, get very unhappy/angry
    and then claim that the reason for their unhappiness/lack of success is
    the other person's strategy is wrong.
    
    Eugene, messenger is a *very* hazardous occupation.  Always wear a
    bullet proof vest :-)
    
    Mary

    RE: no gender-specific games
    
    Well, we don't *know* that. Women have never (in recent history) had
    the chance to make the rules, so we don't know what a "Women's game"
    would be like. What we have now, in any field of endeavor that pays
    real money, is, indeed, a "Man's Game".
    
    I, too, would prefer that women succeed by "playing" it *our* way, not
    by having to accomodate to the rules the men created. I have, quite
    frankly, had sports analogies Up To Here (for example). And I used to
    teach phys. ed. and coach. But really. Not everything is a sporting
    event. Honest.
    
    --DE
    

    .24 >But isn't it amazing how many people insist on trying strategies
    .24 >that *don't* work over and over again, get very unhappy/angry and
    .24 >then claim that the reason for their unhappiness/lack of success
    .24 >is the other person's strategy is wrong.
    
    Or who try to insist that the only strategy that's valid is their
    own strategy.  
    
    Or who claim that if you got somewhere by using a different
    strategy, you must have "cheated" somehow.  Sometimes this seems
    to be the belief underlying accusations that a successful woman
    must have slept with someone more powerful than herself. 
    
    After all, women couldn't possibly know something about working
    together and accomplishing goals that those football-playing
    team-oriented men don't know.
    
    --bonnie

    
    I agree that it can be valuable to know what the rules are (even if you
    decide not to follow them), but I found the tone of
    _Why_Jenny_Can't_Lead_ condescending, and as negative as the title
    suggests.
    
    I have a copy of the book in my office, and I opened it up and found
    this on the page where it fell open:
    
    	Mike Royko of the _Chicago_Tribune_ writes of a woman playing on a
        coed baseball team who sued the coach and a center fielder she
        collided with while chasing a hit ball.  Her arm was broken from
        negligence, she charged, because the other player had not yelled,
        "I've got it," and had not been instructed to do so by the coach.
        As ridiculous as this may seem, it is no different from the female
        engineer who insists upon being put into a wholly male environment
        and then sues her boss because the male engineers whistle at her.  
        Nevertheless, the game is open to anyone with the desire to play.
        The lessons are available to all with ability to learn.  (p. 52)
    
    That passage pisses me off!  Then I remembered another story the
    authors told, and I went looking for this one:
    
        Jinx's sone, Chris, at the age of eight, played in a championship
        soccer game as as fullback.  The goalie was momentarily out of
        action.  An opponeent, fullbent upon scoring a goal, furiously
        dribbled the ball down the field.  Chris was the only available
        defender.  He did what he was supposed to do: he tried to kick the
        ball out of the way.  He missed.  Then his eight-year old mind
        provided an alternative -- he tripped the opposing player.
    
        Chris' team was penalized for his outrageous foul, but it also
        won the game.  he now has a trophy on his desk that says to him,
        "They don't keep track of how many players you trip, only how many
        games you win."  If, Jinx, his mother, insists it is not who wins
        or loses, but how you play the game that counts, Chris would have
        quite rightly concluded she doesn't understand his world.  (p.47)
    
    I'm not comfortable with the "moral" in that story.
    
    Justine 

>learn the deeply embedded reason as to why those seemingly bad
>    rules are there.  Only then, and if one is a super genius of Einstein's
>    caliber, one may be able to refine or even change those rules to their
>    advantage. 

I disagree that one must be a "super genius" to change the rules.  One
must be dedicated and strong...but being a super anything is not necessary.

D! who has changed the rules

    hmmmm.........
    
    I don't feel that they're saying you HAVE TO do it one way or another.
    What I found was, "this is what is happening", "these are the clue's
    you're missing because you don't realize that they ARE clue's".  I'm
    left to decide what to do with the information.
    
    I do think there is more than one strategy for dealing with just about
    everything/everyone.  But I also feel that the better informed I am
    about what is happening and why it's happening and why I didn't notice
    it before, or why it seems so strange/funny/stupid to me, the better
    equiped I am to make a choice/choose a strategy/act.
    
    The companies which are NOT patriarchal & male oriented and are
    actually "people" oriented are few and far between.  Count the number of 
    upper level management which is minority & female (biological numbers 
    women are the majority), and then figure the percentages.  Check
    to see if there is on-site daycare/eldercare, maternity/paternity
    leave, job-sharing, staggered shifts/hours, corporate recognition of
    long term S.O.'s (regardless of gender) as part of the family unit for
    purposes of medical insurance.  So, until I can start my own corporation 
    (making and embroidering herbal sleep/stress reduction/healing pillows)
    and can put into effect all the neat things I think are wonderful and 
    needed (all of the above + things like corporate holistic food co-op or 
    veggie garden and henhouse), I'd better have as much information as 
    possible.
    
    Miriam
    
    p.s.  Am I the only one who gets annoyed at the number of "sports" 
    	  analogies & metaphors that get spouted during corporate functions?

    re .27 One possible 'moral' - sometimes the penalty for cheating 
    isn't adequate to deter cheating. 
    
    When the penalty for using a 'winning' but 'dirty' stratagem is
    less than the reward of 'winning', that stratagem will be used.
    Any truly just system must impose sufficient penalty to fully
    offset 'ill-gotten gains.'						      	

    Displaying my ignorance here, but why do people get annoyed at sports
    analogies?
    
    Mary

RE:         <<< Note 725.21 by HPSTEK::XIA "In my beginning is my end." >>>

>    I found that book on a friend's bookshelf and read a few chapters of
>    it.  I think what the authors are trying to say is that this is what
>    it is.  They are neither endorsing it nor condemning it.  They are just
>    offering their observations and insights and tell us that if we want to
>    play the game, these are the rules and here are some helpful tips. 
>    This kind of thing can get people mad sometime, and they would rather
>    shoot the messager.  I was trying tell what I see in the bluffing note. 
>    I was just writing about my observation, and at least one person didn't
>    like that.

I think we have different perceptions of what you said.  Here's your
original posting.

>    well even if they are WASP Episcopalians.  That is why there are
>    professional negotiators for Leverage Buy Outs or any form of business deals
>    even though almost all the people in charge are white male.  It is a
>    jungle out there as they say it, and wolfs eat every sheep they can
>    find regardless of the color of their wool, white or black.  Is it
>    ethical?  Sure, this is called business ethics taught in Ivy business
>    school.
    
I don't see this as an observation of the way things are but see it as
a acceptance and condoning unethical business practices.  You
specifically stated that getting someone for everything you can is
ethical.  Saying something is ethical is not saying what it is; it is
saying what is right.  Is it not?

john

    re .32,
    
    I was only saying that it is ethical as defined by "business ethics"
    taught to potential MBA's and if you can't hear the ironic tone of the 
    phrase "business ethics" (as in "military intelligence") in that 
    sentence, I give up.
    
    Often in business, one is only a representative of his client.  As
    such it is unethical (whatever ethics that is) to not serve one's
    client to the best of his ability.  
    
    Eugene                        

>    Often in business, one is only a representative of his client.  As
>    such it is unethical (whatever ethics that is) to not serve one's
>    client to the best of his ability. 

So you say.  My ethics differ.

If I were a lawyer, I would not defend a client I felt had done something
immoral.  If I were a bookkeeper, I would not fudge books so that my client
could cheat on hir taxes (unless I felt such cheating were ethically
justifiable.)   

>Ken Olsen has to
>    look after Digital's interest to the fullest of his ability, and I am
>    sure he would agree.  To put it simply, business is business.

Taken to the extreme, what you are saying is that it would be ethical
for Ken Olsen to kill the president of IBM if he thought it would help DEC's
sales. I can't abide by that.  Business is not just business.

I am confused and dismayed by people who can seperate their work lives from
their spiritual/ethical selves.

D!

    re .34 Your lawyer example - as a lawyer, though you might consider
    your client guilty, you are still bound (by the _ethics_ of your
    profession) to ensure that he gets a fair trial, that any extenuating
    circumstances are weighed, that punishment is not excessive.
    

RE:         <<< Note 725.33 by HPSTEK::XIA "In my beginning is my end." >>>

>    I was only saying that it is ethical as defined by "business ethics"
>    taught to potential MBA's and if you can't hear the ironic tone of the 
>    phrase "business ethics" (as in "military intelligence") in that 
>    sentence, I give up.

Sorry, my ESP has been a little flakey lately.  ;-)

   
>    Often in business, one is only a representative of his client.  As
>    such it is unethical (whatever ethics that is) to not serve one's
>    client to the best of his ability.  

There you go being sarcastic again!  Right!?!  ;-)

john
   

    Mary, you are right, messenger is a very hazadous occupation.  Let's
    hope that my vest is thick enough...
    
    Diana, we don't take things to extremes.  Extreme is for those who
    argue for arguement's sake.  Even footballs have rules.  The rules may
    sound strange and flawed to the people who don't play, but there are
    rules.  As to your "pushing things to the extreme", "neutralizing"
    (military euphamism, I hope people get the ironic tone this time) John
    Aker does nothing to help DEC.  IBM will get another guy to run the
    company the next day, and DEC will get a reputation equivalent to that
    of the mafia mob.
    
    In general, this isn't a men's or women's game.  As the book described,
    historically, men and women evolved to take different responsibility. 
    The "men's way" are optimized to deal with the traditionally men's
    problems.  I have never had any experience rearing kids and am a bad
    cook, but I sure don't like the way many kids are brought up and French
    food.  However, I would acknowledge my ignorance and admit that my
    opinion isn't really valid until I do it myself, and if I indeed decide
    to do it, I will learn all the rules and regulations in those fields
    first and understand the reasons behind them before I begin to criticise
    them.  Creation and innovation come after one becomes an expert in the
    field not before.   
    
    An eight year old has the luxuray of the choice to "trip" or not to
    "trip", when one is a corporate VP or a leader of a nation, when the 
    stakes are billion dollar accounts (with thousands of jobs at stake) 
    or war and peace, one no longer has the luxuary.  It becomes a necessity.  
    This is what he meant when some English gentleman said "Power corrupts 
    and absolute power corrupts absolutely".  For most of us, we choose not 
    to bear the burden and be content with a decent life working as
    "grunts".
    
    I realize that I said a lot of things people here don't want to hear. 
    I might as well go all the way.  I doubt any of us who participate here
    will ever make it big at DEC or anywhere.  I don't care since I have no
    aspiration to high management although I would like to flatter myself
    that I do have the ability to do that.  The price is simply too high
    for me.  But I would like to have everyone here know that I am just
    trying to help.
    
    Eugene

    re: separating work lives from spiritual/ethical selves
    
    Business is not generally known for it's spiritual/ethical connections.
    It's more usually related to things like "sharks" "predators" & "making
    a killing".  It's only recently (specifically after the whole insider
    trading debacle) that "doing the right thing" is getting any attention.
    I personally feel it's a movement in the right direction, and also that
    it's one of the reasons why women have had (and still have) such a
    difficult time with business/working/advancement.
    
    re: my personal annoyance at sports metaphors/analogies
    
    They always seem to be about baseball/football and I neither follow nor
    give a fig about either.  The speakers assumption that members of the
    audience will inherently understand these phrases automatically leaves
    me out.  Why don't they use food metaphors, everyone I'm acquainted
    with eats food.
    
    Miriam

    re: .37
    
>    An eight year old has the luxuray of the choice to "trip" or not to
>    "trip", 
    
    The soccer player who chooses not to trip the opponent and allows
    the other team to score, trusting that his/her own team can
    overcome the disadvantage, has learned a far different lesson than
    the one who trips and wins.  If the person in question had tripped
    and lost anyway, it would have been a still different lesson. 
    
    We all have this kind of choice daily -- little choices about what
    kind of person we want to be and how we want to play.  Do we sneak
    in a foul when we know we won't be caught?  Do we play with
    absolute integrity even when we know it might cost us the game? 
    Do we count on our ability to carry us through, to bring us back,
    to help us win the next time?  Is there room for both of us to
    win?  That's something you can't usually do on the playing field,
    but in real life it often happens that way.
    
    The game in question wasn't decided on that one play, unless it
    came at the end of the game.  In life, you almost always have
    other chances to come back, to play fair, and even if you gain a
    temporary advantage over "the other team," whoever they might be,
    they still have their turn and their chance to win.  
    
    The choice isn't a luxury.  It's a reality of living day to day. 
    Even when you're dealing with multimillion-dollar deals, you can
    stick by your honesty and your integrity.  You don't have to cheat
    to win.  You don't even have to play fast and loose with the
    rules.
    
    --bonnie

    
    re. the aversion to 'the way the game is played' some feel. 
    Most people, male and female alike, will never succeed in the 
    game of big business/high finance. It is a ruthless game. Most 
    people don't like, or aren't capable of, that degree of ruthlessness. 
    This 'lack' may stem from emotional, philosophical, intellectual, or 
    other grounds.
    
    The game is, in this imperfect world, the highest standard of
    'success'. This is unfortunate, because the measure is purely
    material, and not in terms of personal happiness or accomplishment.
    If you don't make Chairman, or at least VP, and loads of money,
    you're not a 'winner'. Never mind that you got a good education,
    reached many milestones, raised a family, read lots of good books,
    cooked some great meals, made a few people smile, wrote a poem.
     
    Men are, in most cultures, more likely to be raised so as to be 
    able to play this game. Play it well, play to win at all costs.
    The world of competitive sports is a training ground. Ditto the
    battlefield. Those who attend this 'school' will learn to measure 
    themselves by that narrow definition of success. (This does not, 
    IMO, make it a _male_ game. It does show our deep belief that
    males are more likely to 'succeed' in this game. So, we are more 
    likely to raise males to play this game, thereby perpetuating 
    male domination of the game.)
    
    Maybe, for more women to 'succeed' in this game, we need a sport
    where pure ruthlessness is more a factor than physical skill.
    But is it worth it?

    re .39,
    
    I agree to a large extend especially to those of us "grunts".  That is
    why I choose to be a grunt.  But for the people in power, when
    the survival of a compay (or at a much larger scale the survival of a
    nation) is at the stake, when there won't be a next time if you lose
    this round, when losing the game means the dismantling of the football
    team, the "luxuary" of choice is gone.
    
    There was a debate on TV about whether medicine should be used to treat
    severly depressed people, and someone stood up saying that those drugs
    are bad for you ultimately, and one shouldn't use that.  The doctor
    said yes, there are serious problems with all those drugs, but you also
    have to remember that 15% of the seriously depressed people kill
    themselves, and side effects are none issue to dead people.
    
    Eugene
                  

> If I were a lawyer, I would not defend a client I felt had done something
> immoral.

Oh oh. This is one I feel strongly about. If I am accused of a crime, I deserve
the best representation I can get. I'm already going to have to convince a
jury - I shouldn't have to convince a lawyer first. Some people are accused
falsly, it is CRUCIAL that they have top notch defense. That means that lawyers
as professionals must always defend every client to the best of their ability.

I believe in free speech - that means I support the ACLU fighting for the
Skokie Nazis to get a parade permit. I may immediately go to Skokie to
demonstrate against them, but it is PRECISELY the unpopular minorities that
need protection the most. Likewise it is the accused criminals that need good
legal defense the most.

Lawyers are not judges or juries.

As for the tripping example. Let's put it in another light. Let's all agree
that tripping is wrong, it's cheating, and no one should do it. Now if you're
playing and someone trips you on purpose - you're outraged, hurt, and
disillusioned. Instead if I tell you that tripping is wrong, it's cheating, and
no one should do it, BUT that some people do and you should watch out for it - 
the situation is different. You very possibly could notice and avoid the
tripper and score anyway.

The situation is the same in the business world. You don't have to like what
people do, you don't have to do the same things, but you have to know the rules
THEY are using if you want to compete. Otherwise they'll trip you every time.

	-- Charles

>As to your "pushing things to the extreme", "neutralizing"
>    (military euphamism, I hope people get the ironic tone this time) John
>    Aker does nothing to help DEC.  IBM will get another guy to run the
>    company the next day, and DEC will get a reputation equivalent to that
>    of the mafia mob.

You missed my point and you didn't read what I said.

I said what *if* DEC would be helped by the death of the president of IBM.  *IF*
Or the president of Sun Micro. Or Joe Schmoe on the street. Or you.  Or me. It
doesn't matter who it is. You didn't answer my question - if I am morally
required to protect the interests of my client over everything else, then
all sorts of things that *I* consider morally unjustifiable are by your
standards morally required. While it might be true that you consider a
"client" loosing some money more morally reprehensible than someone being
killed, I doubt that you do; and if you don't, then why do you continue to
defend and ethical system that dictates that?

>    Diana, we don't take things to extremes.  Extreme is for those who
>    argue for arguement's sake.  

"We"?   Who, pray tell is "we"?  A rule must work in all cases, extreme and
otherwise, to be correct.   I am presenting an extreme situation to demonstrate
that your rule fails - if it fails there, it might fail in a situation where
the "right" answer isn't so obvious.

D!

    re .43,
    
Diana, the answer to your question is simple.  I don't preach absolute
rules, but in general, I think most people would agree that it would 
be unethical for an atterny not to represent his clients to the best of 
his ability just as it would be unethical to sell shoddy merchinedize.  

All I am doing is describing my observations, and I would like to think 
these are quite accurate observations, as to why things are the way they are. 
I KNOW what is right and what is wrong (well, at least I would like to
believe that I do), but I am not talking about right or wrong here.  I
am observing the society with the cold and rational eyes of a
scientist.  This is not to say there is no poetry in life.  On the
contrary, I live on music and poetry that is where I forget the harsh
and impersonal reality, but when one wakes in the morning and ready
himself to go to work, one must never forget that most great poets and 
muicians lived poor and desparate lives. 
    
Eugene

Eugene,

>All I am doing is describing my observations, and I would like to think 
>these are quite accurate observations, as to why things are the way they are.

No you aren't.  You have stated explicitly that you believe some things are
ethical and others aren't. That is more that observations.
---

Charles, 

>Oh oh. This is one I feel strongly about. If I am accused of a crime, I deserve
>the best representation I can get. I'm already going to have to convince a
>jury - I shouldn't have to convince a lawyer first.

You have the right to representation and I have the right not to represent
you.  If you tell me "I murdered someone, get me off the hook" I'll tell you
to find another lawyer.  If you tell me "I murdered someone, here are
my extenuating circumstances" I would advise you to plead guilty and plea
bargin for some charge/sentancing that I think morally correct. If you want
less, you would have to find some other lawyer.

(Mind you, I am not discussing the situation where I am a court-appointed
lawyer and you have no choice about who represents you.)

I will not work to help someone *I* feel has done something immoral to
get less than what *I* feel is than just punishment.  It has nothing to
do with "convincing" me of anything.

What Eugene has said - that a lawyer must always work to defend the 
interests of hir client, and nothing else - means that if, for instance, 
you were charged with serial murder, butyou weren't read your rights when
arrested, that I should use that technicality to get the charges dropped.
I won't do that, because I think it is immoral.  I may not know whether
you killed those people or not; that is for the jury to decide.  But while it
may be in *your* best interests not to even get to the position where the
jury even hears the story, it *isn't* in the best interests of society, and
it isn't in my best interest ethically, and therefore I won't do it.

You'll notice, of course, that I am not of lawyer. There's a reason for
that, and it *isn't* because I don't like to argue.  :-)

D!

>I believe in free speech - that means I support the ACLU fighting for the
>Skokie Nazis to get a parade permit.

Inapplicable analogy.

I support the Nazi's right to assemble.   Asking me (as a *private* lawyer)
to defend someone I feel has done something unethical is akin to asking me
as a private contractor to set up facilities for a Nazi assembly. The
government, as a public body, has no right to deny the Nazi's a permit; I,
as a private citizen, have every right not to *help* them with a cause I 
consider morally incorrect.

D! 

< I will not work to help someone *I* feel has done something immoral to
> get less than what *I* feel is than just punishment.  It has nothing to
< do with "convincing" me of anything.

But D! don't you see the contradiction? To get you to work to help me I must
first convince *you* of the rightness of my cause. If everyone feels the way
you do - then defendents in general will have less competent counsel than
plaintiffs.

That, I claim, is unjust. It is equivalent to Ed Meese saying "most people who
are arrested are guilty" and that they don't deserve protection.

A lawyer's job is NOT to judge or prescribe justice - that is the job of the
jury and judge. The lawyer's job is to make sure that their client gets the
best possible representation. As a lawyer you are an agent for your client.
Yes, you are free to choose who you represent, but I claim that is part of the
problem with our legal system. Lawyers being, in general, human, have a human
tendency to choose those clients they like, because they're rich, because
they're attractive, because they're convincing. This hurts those clients who
are merely innocent.

It is better that 9 guilty people go free than one innocent one be jailed. It
is much better that 9 thousand guily people remain alive than one innocent one
is killed. When you are defending the scumbag to the best of your ability, using
the prosecutions mistakes to get them off on a technicality you are guaranteeing
that the innocent person they arrest next will get every benefit of the doubt,
that the prosecution will be scrupulous in following those rules designed to
protect the innocent.

>>I believe in free speech - that means I support the ACLU fighting for the
>>Skokie Nazis to get a parade permit.

>Inapplicable analogy.

>I support the Nazi's right to assemble.   Asking me (as a *private* lawyer)
>to defend someone I feel has done something unethical is akin to asking me
>as a private contractor to set up facilities for a Nazi assembly. The
>government, as a public body, has no right to deny the Nazi's a permit; I,
>as a private citizen, have every right not to *help* them with a cause I 
>consider morally incorrect.

It is applicable. When the government denies the Nazi's the right to assemble,
and they ask you to defend them - what will you say? "No thanks, I think you
are pond scum, go find some other sucker?" If the right to free speech and
to peacably assemble is of value we must defend it for everyone. If the right
to a speedy trial and competent counsel is of value we must defend it for
everyone. The analogy is exact.

	-- Charles

    re .45,
    
    Diana, the only judgement I made in this note string is that made in
    .43 and I think most people would agree with me (without pushing it to
    the extreme that is).  As to your atterny example, you can choose only
    if it is your choice.  If you work for some DA as a public defender,
    you are very likely to be assigned some cases where you know your
    client is guilty.  If everyone is taking the "moral high ground", there
    won't be anyone left to represent the client.  The result will be the
    client gets no representation and that certainly ain't justice in my
    book.  In the real world, people have to deal with recalcitrant
    circumstances, and there are time when there does not exist a solution
    without wrong.  That is why I like the quote by Martha Nussbaum about
    the story of Agamemnon (see .92 of the quotable woman note).  It says
    so much about the moral dilemma of just being human.
    
    Eugene                                                 

    > But D! don't you see the contradiction? To get you to work to help me 
    > I must first convince *you* of the rightness of my cause. If everyone 
    > feels the way you do - then defendents in general will have less 
    > competent counsel than plaintiffs.
    >
    > That, I claim, is unjust. It is equivalent to Ed Meese saying "most 
    > people who are arrested are guilty" and that they don't deserve 
    > protection.
    
    Interesting, Charles.  I do see the contradiction, but that
    contradiction is inherent in our societal judicial system that insists
    counsel must represent clients at the cost of their own ethical beliefs.
    I can't believe I'm hearing you defend the system over the individual's
    sense of right or wrong.
      
    DougO

Here's another quote from the book that seems pertinant to this file.

"Negotiating tenacity is highly valued in corporate salespeople who understand
today's "no" actually means "maybe", and could be tomorrow's "yes". Never say
never to the skilled - and hungry - bear fighter. It's not surprizing so many
men believe a female "no" to be like any other. Our insistance that our every
"no" - sexual or otherwise - always means "no", may result in our being
disqualified by men from negotiating anything on their terms. If they come to
see us as rigid in every instance,a new double standard may ensue. We'll be
using two different currencies: rules for us and negotiations for them. In some
places, this is already happening."

I first read this 4 days ago and am still trying to work out how I feel about
it. liesl

    Wow..there's a distinct disadvantage being on this side of 'the pond'..
    when you arrive in, in the morning, you find the lid has been well and
    truly lifted off with a centre-court action that wouldn't disgrace 
    Wimbledon.
    
    I guess the advantage is that you see the whole thing and not just the
    instalments.
    
    Re .38.
    
    On a light hearted note, why not back Miriam's vote of say_it_with_pizza?
    
    The rest of the world is even *more* confused when key players, sorry,
    I meant politicians, give news conferences for world wide consumption,
    especially of late, riddled with a plethora of ball-game terms.
    
    Its not big and its not clever.
    
    Unfortunately, it is finding its way into our language... a London
    based co. of stock brokers sent a  message round to its staff saying that
     '...will traders please note that this is not a game, that customers 
    are *not* punters or key players, and that *all* money is serious...'. 
    It does explain what happened to my Powergen shares, I guess.
    
    Dave
                                 

    
    Re sports metaphors
    
    Yes - I hate them too. And I hate war metaphors even more.
    I work in sales, and when the "morale raising" speeches are made to
    us by major company figures they often use one of these two schools
    of analogy.
    
    This infuriates me because a) it does nothing to raise my morale as
    I don't understand what they're talking about on sport and I am
    morally opposed to war and b) I don't get motivated 
    
    This makes me feel that the speeches are only intended to gee up
    the male portion of the salesforce - which, let's face it, is the
    majority - and I then feel that the women's contribution is
    unnoticed. We may be bringing in the money, but they don't direct
    their speeches at us....
    
    RE the business game
    From "GMNTY"...
    
    If you're working at all, at any job, then you're on the playing field.
    It's up to you to decide what you want out of your working life.
    If you want to be "successful", and take the material rewards that
    come with that, then you need to learn the rules of the game *IF ONLY*
    because you need to know how others are playing, even if you decide
    to try and get round the "rules" yourself.
    
    You have the right to choose not to play to win.
    You have the right to choose not to play at all.
    
    Frankly, I don't believe that there is a way around the rules. At
    the moment, I believe that you need to play by them until you get
    to a powerful enough position to change them. The pace and ferocity
    of "play" is more obvious in some areas of the company than others -
    you need to see it to believe how incredibly intense it can get....
    
    'gail 

    I hate sports metaphors because the assumptions behind them (that there
    are two teams in any conflict, that a team is united against a common
    foe, that there will be a clear winner and a clear loser, that there is
    a clear end to the conflict, and that people's lives aren't at stake)
    are dangerously simplistic applied to most real-life scenarios.  
    
    Games concretize and set rules around certain real-life abstractions
    and needs, so that they can be more-or-less safely played with.  For
    that reason, it's enticingly simple to reverse the process and use them
    as metaphors for real life, but for the same reason, you don't really
    end up with new information from the metaphor.  Instead, you have a
    trivialization which doesn't even include the boring and grungy parts
    of real games, much less of real life.
    
    Ray

    
    Re .52. Right on 'gail...
    
    but, "... I believe that you need to play by them until you get
        to a powerful enough position to change them..", yes, but can you not
    exert influence within your sphere of operations / power today, increasing
    with the successive positions to exercise it?
    
    Dave

    re .52,
    
    Here is another catch.  Many people who actually get to the position of
    power are usually the ones who really enjoy the game.  Even if we
    suppose that he or she is not one of them.  After playing the game for
    so long, it is very likely that person will end up internalize those
    values that person set out to change.  When a person plays the same
    game (plays so superbly) for year after year, it hard to maintain the
    same set of idealism one once had. 
    
    Eugene

    
    re .55,
    
    Thats no catch, its maturity. Realization that it was just a game, that
    you took that which pleased you from it... and are still able to
    recognize there's more to offer outside.
    
    If the games claims all.. well, its your choice. Maybe for some there
    is only the game. Personally I'm out of here way before then.
    
    Dave

    re .56,
    
    I am not so optimistic.  I won't repeat the "Power corrupts..." phrase,
    but power does have a way to do things to people.  I used to think that
    if I have POWER, I could sure make a world a better place.  Well, most 
    people do want to make the world a better place.  When I was a teenager, 
    I read a lot of heavy duty books (Greek dramas and Shakespearean 
    tragedies).  At that time, I was jumping up and down swearing that if 
    I were in those positions, I sure won't become corrupt.  Years later, 
    I read them again, and realized how naive I was (what can you expect 
    from a teenager anyway).  It is very easy to say "I won't" when one 
    has not been through it all.  I certainly don't want to be tempted.
    
    It is a tribute to the founding fathers' wisdom that U.S. has a system
    that checks and balances the major power figures that move and shape
    the nation's policy.
    
    To a person with real power, he must, on daily basis, make 
    decisions similar to the one Agamemnon had to make (see note .92 in 
    the quotable women note).  At the first, the person in power will go
    through the agony Agamemnon went through.  After a while, that person
    will gradually lose sensitivity to the implications of the decisions he
    makes.  The question of "Is there an option where there would be no
    wrong doing?" will no longer have the poignancy it used to have.  When
    finally after years of being in power, he no longer asks this question,
    he becomes corrupt.
    
    Eugene
                                                                       

    for more on the cost to women of "playing by the men's rules and rising
    to the top in spite of them", read "Unnecessary Choices: the hidden
    life of the executive woman" by Edith Gilson and Susan Kane.
    
    -Jody
    

...who Donna Luppianno is?

Seriously, I have found that the main reason folks use sports analogies - and
to put this straight, it's team sports analogies which happen to disenfranchise
most women - goes strangely unspoken.  *I* believe that the popularity stems
from the "giving up of oneself for the good of the team."  That is a way that
some business folks know about each other.

As well, when one really gets into the game, a set of "ethical standards" or
ethics become "an ethic."  I cannot tell how powerful a change that is.  For the
player, if "the ethic" is to win, how can that player do anything unethical in
the pursuit of winning?  For the Lawyer (there are Attorneys out there!), if
"the ethic" is to defend the client, how can anything be done unethically in
pursuit of the defense?

The "ethic" overtaking the ethical structure is many degrees deeper than simple
comparmentalization.  It is extremely dangerous in that it becomes internalized.
Again, *to me*, that is an overwhelmingly powerful change.

In reality, D!, I agree with you.  IMO, ethical structures do not change because
one changes the playing field - something is either right or wrong.  IMO, the
door is either open or it is closed.

Barb

p.s. Dave, I haven't really given it up yet.

    re: "giving up of oneself for the good of the team"
    
    One of these days.....
    
    	I'm going to sit in a ballroom with 400 other employee's and hear
    someone at the stage talk about how ......
    	
    "We all need to work together.  A salad with nothing but lettuce
    in it won't make it in today's market.  We NEED the tomatoe & the
    pepper & the chives & the grated hard boiled egg & the carrot all
    working together to succeed!" 
    
    On a side-note,
    Isn't that some of what marriage/motherhood/fatherhood is about? 
    "giving up of oneself for the good of the family/child/husband/wife/aging 
    parents/pta"?
    
    Miriam
    
    p.s.  who IS Donna Luppianno?  
    

    
    re .54
    Dave - I agree with you. I try every day to use the little power
    that I have to change things for those that come after me on 
    my path.....hopefully if enough women do this eventually all paths
    will be covered...
    
    re .55
    
    Eugene - yes, power is a corrosive force, I believe. This is why, if
    you choose to play the game, you need to have a very, very clear idea
    of what you personally want out of it, a clear idea of your own
    value hierarchy for work, and a good dose of self-knowledge/maturity....
    
    I suspect that very few of us ever really sit down and think about
    these things, let alone live by what we discover....which could be
    why so many get sucked painfully into the power vortex.
    It starts as a game...
    
    'gail

    Powerlessness is also a corrosive force.
    
    --bonnie

    
    re.31
    
    Speaking only for myself....
    
    I get annoyed when sports analogies are used in speaking of the Gulf
    conflict (or *ANY* other military activity) since it trivializes the real
    events - people *losing* lives, countries being levelled, human
    *torture*...
    
    In the corporate sense, I have had the experience of being annoyed
    because the analogies most used are from sports that have been
    *effectively* barred to me  (giving away my age, there were no girl's
    football or baseball teams available to me... and when I *did* join the
    brand new track team, my Mother almost wouldn't *LET* me, because it
    wsa unladylike... but that's another story...)
    
    In a corporate sense, I have often felt the implicit messgae that I may
    mouth the words, but I can't understand the dynamics.
    
    
    At least, that's how I see it.
    =jamd

    
    RE .63
    
    Absolutely Bonnie. I wouldn't like to say which type of corrosion
    is the greater evil....
    
    RE .64
    
    Y'know, your last comment reminded me of a feeling that I had for
    years. I fought to get my job, and I had to compete for it -
    but once I got it, and even when I'd been doing it successfully
    for several years, I *still* felt like I didn't quite fit somehow.
    Like I was always a little out of step, a little out of line....
    "mouthing the words" is a good analogy.
    
    It was such a wretched feeling that for a while I wished that I
    hadn't "aspired" to doing what I was doing.
    Which I guess was the intention....
    
    'gail
    

    re: .65
    
    I don't think it's intentional.  It's just a mismatch of the
    metaphors we use for looking at the world.  (I know -- "just"
    translates into years of discomfort and thousands of dollars in
    the average career. . . )  
    
    That's the problem the books under discussion are trying to
    address -- the fact that except for an awareness that they hate
    sports metaphors, most women don't even realize the subtle points
    they're missing simply from not understanding what the metaphor
    is.  
    
    I liked _Games Mother Never Taught You_ because it had a lot more
    the attitude of "This is what's going on; do with it what you
    will" and a lot less of the "you have to play like a man in order
    to succeed."  
    
    But really, you always do have a choice.  Even in the situation
    Eugene mentioned a while back, of doing something really
    distasteful or losing the company, you do have the choice of
    disbanding the company. I'm not saying either choice is more or
    less ethical, but it is a choice.
    
    --bonnie

    re .66,
    
    Bonnie, again I agree to a large extend.  We do have choices, but to
    the people in power often it is a choice between two or many evils.
    If one chooses to disband his company because he never "trips" the
    other team (when the other team is tripping every other second of
    the game), he will never rise to that position to make such decision
    in the first place.  There are a lot of wolves out there, and one rises 
    to the position of power by being able to adapt to the wolves and beat
    them at their own game.  In short, one obtains one's power because one
    is a lion.
    
    Power comes with great benefit, but it also comes at a high price.
    I agree with 'gail that one must be very clear about what one sets out
    to do at the beginning and never abandand the idealism.  However, age
    and environment and especially power have a way to do things to people.  
    How many of us can think back to our early years and not say we were 
    naive?  After years of beating the wolves at their own games, how many 
    of the lions will be able to look back and think the idealism of their 
    youth is not just another one of those "naive thing"?
          
    I would say that most people here are without much power compared to
    the few who move and shape this nation.  By and large, we are good and
    decent people living good and decent lives.  We don't have to face the
    agony of playing as tenacious as the wolves, and most of all we don't
    have to face the danger that some day, we no longer think it is a
    heavy decision between two evils but rather between right and wrong.
    In short, we don't have to face the danger of becoming wolves
    ourselves.
    
    Eugene

    
    re .65
    
    >>> ...and I had to compete for it -
        but once I got it, and even when I'd been doing it successfully
        for several years, I *still* felt like I didn't quite fit somehow.
    
    There is a school of thought that some management techniques ascribe
    to, whereby you infer slight inadequacy in a person on the basis that it 
    keeps a person hungry (sometimes used when the rewards on offer are not
    as prolific as at other times).
    
    I hate it.
    
    Hang on to your self-esteem because if what has been written in this
    notes conference is representative, you have your head screwed on right
    and the company (any company) is very lucky. 
    
    Same goes for making those choices.
    
    Dave

    
    .67
    
    Is that idealism, on behalf of those still young, a bad thing? Or will
    it temper and remind those that become embittered of some better goals.
    It is nice, it makes you smile.... and cringe sometimes, thinking how
    others might have looked on you... but never bad.
    
    We may never really become wolves but are responsible in all issues of
    life.... something I may need to remind myself on the motorway in a few
    minutes!
    
    Dave

Hi Miriam,

I really liked your salad analogy - and yes, I do think sports analogies 
are getting very tiresome.
    
<    On a side-note,
<    Isn't that some of what marriage/motherhood/fatherhood is about? 
<    "giving up of oneself for the good of the family/child/husband/wife/aging 
<    parents/pta"?
 
Yes, exactly.  Analogies built around the family would probably mean more 
to many more folks.   
    
<    p.s.  who IS Donna Luppianno?  
 
In what used to be the only women "semi-pro" softball league - before they 
tried a pro league - the top team was the Rabestos Brakettes.  It was 
called semi-pro unoffically, but all of the women who played for Rabestos 
worked at the Rabestos Brake Company, punched in at work and headed for 
softball practice - hence the "semi-pro."  The two main pitchers on the 
team were Joannie Joyce - a slingshot pitcher - and Donna Luppianno - a 
windmill pitcher.  I had the pleasure of seeing both Joanne and Donna pitch 
at a regional tournament once at Ma Manning's in Chicopee, MA.  Joannie 
was, of course, awesome.  BUT HEY!!!!!!!!!  Donna was awesome too!!!  She 
was tiny in stature, and probably only pitched a couple of miles/hour 
slower than Joannie - anyway, the only connects against her in the game 
were two foul balls.  She played for years in Joannie's shawdow...    

    re .69,
    
    Dave, you are missing the point.  Of course, those youthful idealisms
    are good.  The point is people no longer believe in them in their
    latter years espcially when they have been fighting wolves for the last
    thirty or forty years.  That is what naive means.

    Most powerful people start out with original ideas to make the world
    a better place.  These are the guys who actually succeed (the wolves
    can also make it big but never as big as those idealists because true
    wolves are never original thinkers.  They follow the pack.) because they
    have both the talent and more importantly the missionary zeal for their
    visions.  But they still have to deal with the wolf pacts.  What happens 
    to those people after they achieve grand power?  A few actually 
    escape the wolf trap, but the vast majority becomes corrupt to various 
    degrees.  This is the ultimate tragedy, and history is full of them.
    
    Eugene

    To hearten the readers, I'd like to point out that Digital is known
    for being a `gentlemanly' (non-wolf-like) company.  Our first
    mini-computer competitor, Data General, was know for its, ah,
    rapacious qualities.
    
    						Ann B.

    
    >To hearten the readers, I'd like to point out that Digital is known
    >for being a `gentlemanly' (non-wolf-like) company.  Our first
    >mini-computer competitor, Data General, was know for its, ah,
    >rapacious qualities.
    
    Ah Ann - I agree, Digital has this reputation for being, to date,
    shall we say, a little more ethical than our competition.
    Analysts seem to ascribe this to the fact that sales don't get
    commission - we are the only major IT company to the best of
    my knowledge that don't pay it - and therefore the "sales wolves"
    are not as "hungry" as those of other companies.
    
    However, with the current state of the company, I can see behaviours
    being encouraged and attitudes being cultivated on the front line
    that threaten Digital's traditional "good manners" in our dealings
    with customers.
    We need to get the money in.
    We are being encouraged to take our gloves off....
    At least, that's how it feels to me.
    
    And the weird thing is, customers seem to *expect* to "fight" with 
    their salesperson. There is little point in them seeing their
    Digital rep as an awfully nice person but then placing their business
    elsewhere - this happens a LOT, IMO.
    
    'gail

    
    .71
    
    Don't worry Eugene, I do see your point, and concur. looking for the
    other side of the coin comes with the patch.
    
    What we have identified are the dangers of absolutes (both power and as
    Bonnie noted, powerlessness). These are extremes and affect in reality,
    few people. Few enough maybe.
     
    For the most part, insider trading and other new areas excepted, there
    is a general framework of checks and balances that prevents the rest of
    us from exercising undue care... even the chief exec in the earlier
    scenario is answerable to the shareholders.
    
    So what does that leave... basically that the author of the book should
    be more sensitive having lost part of the audience with the use of poor
    terminology and that in reality;
    
           ... Jenny CAN Lead
           ... Jenny IS Leading and doing quite nicely thankyou (perhaps not 
                as much as some would like)
           ... Jenny doesn't always want to Lead
        
    None of the replies to the .0 note substantiated why, or if, "bear
    fighting ?!?" which I assume to mean a serious corporate life or death
    fight (?) as opposed to day-to-day management, is not the prerogative of
    all.
    
    An unsupported claim that ..'oh, they will not work together because of
    disagreements on 'x' issue'.... is easy to make but improbable. If the
    business situation was THAT serious, you would throw everything in.
    
    Read any good books lately? 8->
    
    Dave

    re: .66, .71, and .74
    
    I don't think you have to be a wolf in order to succeed.
    
    I don't think you have to be ruthless, amoral, and vicious in
    order to succeed.  I don't think you have to violate your
    principles in order to obtain and exercise power, and while
    exerising power is certainly entails the risk of corruption, I
    don't think corruption is a necessary condition of exercising
    power. 
    
    I think the wolves presently in power want us all to BELIEVE that
    you have to be like them in order to succeed.  For one thing, if
    they gave up their ideals, sold out, in order to be powerful, and
    others succeed without selling out, the success of the others
    makes the ones who sold out look and feel real bad.  For another,
    if they're better at the game of ruthlessness, they've got a
    better chance of retaining their own power against less
    experienced competition.
    
    Mainly the wolves in power want us to believe that we don't have
    choices.  They want us to believe that it is a choice between
    evils, that losing an account or a contract is a life and death
    matter, that we have to cling to the company in order to keep our
    jobs because if we lose our jobs (whether we're peons or vice
    presidents) we'll never survive.  It's how they keep us under
    control.
    
    Because if you understand you have a choice, you can say, "I'm not
    going to do that, I'm not going to stand for that," and if the
    company responds, "Then you're out of here," you can say, "Fine,
    I'll find something else to do.  I'm a strong competent person,
    I'll do better in the long run without you." 
    
    I think too many of the people who are exercising organizational
    power in a ruthless manner are in fact covering up for their own
    feelings of personal inadequacy and powerlessness. 
    
    A person who is really empowered doesn't need to get boxed into
    the kinds of corners that seem to allow a choice only of evils.
    True, the issues of morality and ethics become very complicated,
    and a choice made by the president of a major company spreads its
    effects far more widely than a choice made by me in my personal
    life.  But there are still choices.
    
    --bonnie
    
    p.s.  Ben and Jerry seem to be doing quite well operating a
    company entirely according to their beliefs and principles.  
    
    

RE:  .-1  Bonnie Randall

Here, here. Well said.

john

    I hate to say this, but my reaction to this topic is a big yawn.
    
    In another topic, I said that I define success for myself.  I meant it. 
    So my personal reaction to all the multiscreen replies here is:
    
    I'm not playing!  So take your ball and go home!
    
    I've made certain choices.  Those choices have had effects on my
    career, effects largely having to do with the game, its rules, and how
    it's played by both men AND WOMEN.  Let me repeat that, no only has my
    career been affected by my own choices but also by the reactions of
    other women to those choices.
    
    So be it.
    
    Sara

    
    >I don't think you have to be ruthless, amoral, and vicious in
    >order to succeed. 
    
    No - but you do need to play the game.
    You do not have to be ruthless, amoral and vicious to play the game.
    
    > I don't think you have to violate your principles in order to obtain 
     >and exercise power, 
    
    You don't have to violate your priniciples to play the game either.
    Game playing is an intellectual exercise that's to do with
    appearances and tactics....you do not have to sell your soul to
    play it UNLESS YOU WANT TO.
                                .
    >Mainly the wolves in power want us to believe that we don't have
    >choices.  They want us to believe that it is a choice between
    >evils, that losing an account or a contract is a life and death
    >matter, that we have to cling to the company in order to keep our
    >jobs because if we lose our jobs (whether we're peons or vice
    >presidents) we'll never survive.  It's how they keep us under
    >control.
    
    That's a good point and I agree.
    In order to keep one's sanity whilst game playing you do need to
    remember that it is a GAME. There are other gaming boards and
    other games available to you if you choose to kick out of
    the one you're playing. But, if you're in employment, you're in
    a game and you're either playing consciously or you're unconsciously
    losing.
    
    >Because if you understand you have a choice, you can say, "I'm not
    >going to do that, I'm not going to stand for that," and if the
    >company responds, "Then you're out of here," you can say, "Fine,
    >I'll find something else to do.  I'm a strong competent person,
    >I'll do better in the long run without you." 
    
    I think that's why you have to know precisely what *you* want out
    of your game playing. If walking out of a company doesn't impact
    your goals, then fine. If your goal is to feel comfortable with
    what you're doing in all aspects of your work then that is
    clearly the right thing to do.
                                  
    >  But there are still choices.
    
    Yes. Always. And one of the choices that you can take which may
    empower you is choosing to learn the game rules so that you
    can then decide whether or not you wish to play.
    
    'gail
    

    re: .75
    Bonnie, I like the way you think!
    
    nla
    
    p.s.  Another example is the woman [can't remember her name]
          who owns The Body Shop.

    
    
    Perhaps this belongs in the "Quotable's" topics, but it also seems
    appropriate to the more recent notes around where the responsibility
    for change lies..... 
    
    		All it takes for evil to triumph
    			is for good men (sic) to do nothing...
    
    				Bernard Shaw
    
    If Ben & Jerry can do, others can!
    
    

    re: .78
    
    That's my real quarrel with the game metaphor -- people begin to
    take it literally.  I don't agree that it's a game.
    
    A game is something that you can pack up and take home.  
    
    One's job, one's career, one's life, and one's moral choices are
    real.  They're not just playing around.  
    
    The choices a manager makes, the choices a politician makes, the
    choices a banker makes, have real consequences in the real world.
    Real people get laid off, get killed even.  
    
    --bonnie

This week's commentary in Newsweek.  Reprint without permission.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
		Let's Start an IRS Lottery

		   By Ash Sharman

My Virginia income-tax return permits me to donate up to $2 of my state-tax
refund to either the Democratic or Republican party, a privilege I politely
decline each year.  By April, my spirit of giving is too sorely taxed
by the memory of having given (and given) to give even $2 more.  But these two
dollars that I never donate have started me thinking.  What if we could 
decrease the federal deficit, improve the Internal Revenue Service's
tax-collection process and, maybe most important, add an element of 
excitement to tax time for the millions of us required to file before
midnight April 15?  What if the IRS instituted a lottery on its federal-
income-tax returns?

Here is how I envision the IRS Lottery working: near the end of the tax
return, the IRS places a box that the taxpayer can mark if he wants to
contribute $2 to the IRS Lottery.  He or she either subtracts $2 from his 
expected refund or adds $2 to the amount he owes.  This idea is that by 
allowing those who owe taxes as well as those who will receive a refund to 
play, you provide incentive to both groups to get the paper work in on time.

That is because on April 22, one week after the filing deadline, the IRS 
selects one lucky taxpayer with whom it will split the lottery pot.  In 
other words, late filers won't qualify for the payoff.  The government puts
its one-half share of the jackpot toward offsetting the federal deficit,
and the winner gets his or her one-half share paid over the usual 20-year
lottery period.  This not only provides the winner with a hedge against 
blowing the fortune up front; it could also effectively reduce the government's
real outlay bay another 50 percent or more, the economist's rule being 
tomorrow's money is worth less than today's.  The winning taxpayer would be 
chosen by random computer selection.

What kind of fortune are we talking about here?  In 1989, according to
the IRS's Annual Report, more than 110 million individual tax returns were
filed. For this same year, the IRS issued more than 1.7 million civil 
penalties for delinquent filing.  So even if only 100 million returns were 
filed on time (a conservative estimate), and only 20 percent of those decided 
to play the IRS Lottery, that would make the winner's pot $20 million.  And each
person has as good a chance of winning as the next, provided he files on time.
Since we're talking here about individual returns (1040, 104A, 1040EZ)--
none of us files more than one individual tax return a year--no one has
a better than one chance among however many millions of winning.  Unlike
other lotteries, you can't buy more than one ticket.  Long odds, but about as 
democratic as it gets.

This could take some of the tedium out of filing.  It would be a way of 
injecting a small thrill, a soupcon of hope into what most of us would 
agree is one of the year's least welcome events.  Some filers might
even seal their envelopes with good-luck kisses or whisper a few encouraging
words before dropping them into the mail slots.  OK, that's going to far.  It
might prompt some tardy taxpayers to file their returns on time and taxpayers
in general to file earlier (just to be safe).  Although it isn't customary to 
worry about the workload of the IRS, this could improve the IRS's efficiency,
lower its costs a bit and perhaps sweeten its disposition.

Twenty-four-kara jackpot: It's not inconceivable that some of the chronic
income-tax no-shows might even rejoin the ranks of solid citizens.  To help 
bring them home, the IRS Lottery could be accompanied by a small window of
tax amnesty on a back-tax penalties.  Who knows how many no-shows might be 
driven out of the brush if the big, blunt Tax Stick were suddenly to have
dangling from its end a 24-karat jackpot?  For a shot at millions, some
certainly.  Americans are born gamblers.

Now, there is a touchy subject involved in this proposal.  sure the lottery
would be gambling, and that's going to bother some people.  But it's a legal,
widely accepted form of government-operated gambling already sanctioned by
many, many states and by the District of Columbia, home of the preside, the
Supreme court and the Congress.  And unlike most forms of gambling, this
lottery has the built-in safe guard against abuse.  Remember, no one can play
more than once a year.  No pawning the family dog to improve one's chances of 
winning.

Will the winnings be taxable?  Sure they will, like those of any lottery.  
The taxes on the winnings, in fact, further increase the government's revenue
from the game.  This extra tax revenue would provide an additional inducement
to the government to seriously consider the IRS Lottery.  It's just one
more way the Feds stand to win.  And at what cost?  The only real risks are 
borne by those who choose to stake $2 each year.  If I were the federal
government, I'd ask myself at this point, "Where do I sign?"  It's what the 
sports commentators refer to as a "win-win situation."  Nobody loses, because
nobody has to play the IRS Lottery.  Is it going to solve the problem of 
the federal deficit?  No, no one solution will.  And yeas, it's gambling, 
but so are church bingo, betting on the Kentucky Derby and all those games 
at the state fair.  And it Would be a money-maker.  It would make money for 
Uncle Sam, and it would make a whole lot of money for one conscientious 
taxpayer each year.  It's also game, and for those of us who choose to
play, it would provide a little mystery in an otherwise dreary task, cheap at $2.

But you gotta pay to win.

	Another Stupidity Tax. Lord save us...

				Tom_K

the IRS already has a lottery system. It is called: filing your taxes.

You pay some large portion of your income every year to the government; or
at least, you are supposed to.  You can choose *not* to pay the amount you
are supposed to (or ask for more back than you are entitled to.)  The
gamble?  If you are caught, you go to jail or get fined, or both. But if
you win, you get "free money".  Your chance of being audited depends on how
much you make, and how reasonable your taxes seem at first glance - so the
further you are from 'right' the more you chance to win, but the higher the
odds of losing.  But the government also selects people randomly to audit,
so no matter how small the amount you are gambling to win, there is still 
a chance that you will lose.

The odds of winning are pretty good, too!  However, the stake is very high
(jail and/or fine, plus the amount of money which you stand to win.)  

Our government has already generously provided us with a way to gamble -
what more can we ask?

D!

    This week's (March 18's issue) of Newsweek also contains a long
    article,  _The Secret History of the War_.  Anyone who is interested in
    what leadership is all about should read that article.  Yes, it is
    about the war, but it is also a case study of leadership.  And
    unfortunately, war is the ultimate test for leadership quality.  It is 
    not what happened or what decisions were made from day to day, but rather 
    how these decisions were made and what went on in these guys minds when 
    they made them that are of real interest.  If one reads carefully and go
    beyond the apparent, one will have a glimpse of the mentality of the
    people in the leadership positions, and why only these people have risen to
    the positions of power.
    
    Eugene  
                 

    This note probably belongs to the SPORT note, but I put it here just to
    be idosycratic.
    
    It is kinda long, but ya gotta read this...

	Macho potatoes on the couch

	From the 1/5/199 Economist 
	Copied without permission.

George Allen, a football coach who died on new year's eve deserves a
footnote in political history.  From 1971 to 1977 he was the head coach of the 
Washington Redskins professional football team, and turned what had
been a lacklustre bunch into a city's obsession.  (When two 
Washingtonians meet, anywhere in the world, one will quickly say: How
'bout them 'Skins?".  It is a bit like a Masonic handshake.)

Feisty, secretive, determined to win, it was not surprising that one
of Allen's fervent admirers was Richard Nixon, who, Washington legend
has it, would call the coach during the dark hours of Watergate to
discuss Redskin strategy and--who knows?--to get some tips on who
to handle his own presidency.  Mr. Nixon and his gang liked football
terminology--gameplans, moving the ball downfield, playing tough defiance
and the like.  Now every body talks like this: if you cannot understand
the language of sport, you probably cannot follow American politics.

America's passion for watching and talking about sport (and, those ubiquitous
joggers notwithstanding, the true passion is for watching not playing)
deserves attention.  there is, for a start, so much of it to watch and
talk about.  A determined armchair athlete on the east coast could have
spent 11 consecutive hours watching college football on new year's
day, and millions and doubt did.  The National Football League play-offs 
are about to begin, and the orgiastic blow-out of the Super Bowl comes
at the end of the month.

Few Americans are revered in quite the way that sports stars are.  After
Reading Sports Illustrated's latest paean to Joe Montana, the quarterback
of the San Francisco 49ers ("An 11-year old named Matthew Hart had 
a brain tumour... the meeting lasted 45 minutes...Joe left.  Matt's
crisis passed"), all that is left to hear about the great man are the 
details of his virgin birth.

But the real point, argued Thomas Boswell of the Washington Post in an
article last year, is that sport "has become central to what remains of our
American sense of identity".  A television (or two, or three) in every home, the
collapse of moral certitudes, the debasement of politics--all this, suggested
Mr. Boswell, means that sport has become "the meeting ground where we
discuss our values".  Mr. Boswell is not alone.  George Will, a political
commentator of rarefied taste, is another who things that sport should
be taken seriously.  He argues that if other Americans were as good at
their job as baseball players are at theirs, the country's trade difficulties
would be a thing of the past.

What should be made of all this?  Start with an obvious point, but one that
is often forgotten.  Saying that Americans are obsessed with spectator 
sport is a bit like saying that life in Japan is bliss: something that is more
true for men than for women.  A political life that is constantly framed in
sporting terms, and which celebrates successes with high-fives and 
backslapping, is unlikely to be one that many women find congenial.  Add the
fact that the dominating sport, American football, venerates the combination
of meticulous planning with the sudden application of brute force, and you may
have an explanation for the macho tone of much of American policy-making.  One
reason, perhaps, why so few women choose a life in politics?

Then there is the living lie of "college sports".  Thousands of black
students are exploited by being lured to college on the promise that their
sporting skills will lead to a professional career--and then left ill-
educated and forgotten (although the colleges are enriched by the television
networks) when the career does not materialise.  Cities spend an
enormous amount of money on building stadium and bidding competitively 
for sports franchises; they predicate their enthusiasm on the assumption (for
which there is no empirical basis) that a professional sports team enhances
a local economy.  When the various negatives are put together, a case
can begin to be made that sport is a destructive influence on 
American public life.

But not, at least in one way, an interfering influence.  For all the 
strength of its grip on American affections, the industry has not yet done
a Hollywood: sporting stars, unlike some film stars, do not pretend
that they know everything there is to know about matters from a nuclear
winter to farm policies and demand to be listened to on 
them all.

Guess What?

Many Americans regret the fact that they now discuss sport with the 
passion that 200 years ago they brought to every day debates on theories
of representative government (and, as historians of the revolution have made
plain, there really were such debates).  Perhaps the blame for this lies with
the politicians.

For the great joy of American sport is its unpredictability.  Who would
have thought, for example, that the University of Colorado, where the students
wear tie-dye and ask in hushed tones if you would like more salad, would
become the national college football champion?  Who would have thought that
the Oakland As, celebrated by Mr. Will and thought to be a collection of
giants, would have been blown away in the World Series by a bunch of 
journeymen from Cincinnati?  National politics, by contrast, has become all
too predictable: the Republicans win the White House; the Democrats hold
Congress.  So what Richard Nixon should really have discussed with George
Allen was how to set about reforming the wretched business of 
campaign finance.

    re.86>the orgiastic blowout...comes at the end of the month
    
    Who says sports ain't sexual? >;-)