Nice Work

Reading this novel caused me pain, not in a physical sense but rather psychological. You want to know why? The answer is easier than you think… the language was way too advanced for me. Just about every time I thought I caught the idea of a certain paragraph or even a page it came to my disappointment that it is not true and that I had to reread that certain part… now that I call torture ;-)


Well, what can you actually say about such a story/novel? It is for sure different from what I have read before…

Robyn Penrose, my favourite character, is the one who kept me moving until I reached the end of the book… I felt that we had so much in common. Her self-confidence, ambition, academic background et cetera et cetera.

The obstacles women have to face in order to "shine" in man’s world is always going to be an attractive debate issue, even though we are in the 21st century. I am not willing to make any comment on that for now!

What I found really interesting is the meeting between a woman like Robyn born and bred in academia and a man, Vic, an industrial manger who has time for almost everything except for reading books. How two completely different characters with different views and values came together to some kind of understanding! Amazing, isn’t?

Hurra hurra!! This is the final blog assignment for this semester :-)

The Story of Stuff!

My comments on the "Story of Stuff" clip.

I would like to begin with giving Annie Leonard a hand for the very interesting and moving lecture. I was almost carried away!

Watching the video clip for the first time will doubtlessly affect you, but unfortunately I just couldn’t relate to it. It is obviously addressed to the citizens of the United States and not to those of the European countries and especially not to Swedes.

The reason behind why I couldn't relate to this issue is simply because I feel that we as Swedes are very aware of our environment and needless to say our consumption habits. There might be some exceptions to this rule, there are, in fact, exceptions to almost every rule, but I believe that the overwhelming majority do take this issue seriously.

Here are the statements that captured my attention:
"We are running out of resources!"
Aren’t we anyway sooner or later? I feel that all the efforts are concerned with postponing "the end" of the world, not preventing it, which is an impossible thing to do as much as we would like to think the opposite.

"What is the point with an ad except to make us unhappy with what we already have?!"
Well, I am afraid I don’t agree. Ads are not that evil and they do have other purposes than the one mentioned above, surprisingly many of them are in fact good, e.g. introducing us to new products that might satisfy our needs in different/better way.

Besides, ads are not the only thing that stimulates shopping. The main reason behind our extreme shopping habits today is the fact that we have reached higher standards of living compared to those that existed back in the days. So, having more naturally leads to spending more.

"Who is actually paying for the stuff?!"
Mass production is the creation of goods in large quantities at low cost per unit and that is the main reason behind the accessible prices we find in the shelves of the stores.

The fact that some children are sacrificing their future is a horrible and a very sad thing but it is not making the prices any cheaper.

"Externalized costs" is indeed a nice and a well coined phrase but I would like to use "ethical dilemma" instead to describe the future loss of those children and the health issues of the workers.

There is NO price tag in the world that can capture the loss of someone's future or health!

My biggest criticism is that she spent about 20 minutes lecturing about how badly we are treating the environment but less than a minute for discussing possible solutions, not that she provided any!
Overall impression is good, though!

Privacy: to what extent?

My comments on the article 'Snooping Bosses'

It is one of many famous topics for debate today and the scope of it is very wide; privacy.

So, what is privacy? Is it acceptable to violate someone’s privacy? And if so the case when would that be?

Dealing with these interrelated issues from a right-or-wrong perspective is a narrow approach. Taking it further by discussing the necessity of such violation versus when the exact same act should be considered immoral, is a more adequate way of tackling this problem, I think.

Dropdowns in efficiency and productivity will certainly raise some suspicion among management, and a natural way of responding to that decrease will probably be to open an investigation. The key goal is, of course, to figure out whether the decrease was caused by external reasons or internal neglect.
Since, internal reasons are easier to keep track on and thus control completely.

In this respect, many will argue that common sense is enough to curb people from acting inappropriately, but we all are different which only provide different definitions of that phrase and as a result of our many definitions we will end up in confusion, and only confusion. Others might say that trying to reason with the employees not to use the workplace for anything but work, is another possible approach.

Well, there is a slight chance that these methods will serve its purpose, but unfortunately only with people with moderately high work ethics.

On the other hand, does the threat “you’re being watched!” make us behave better or does only trigger the “creative” part of our brains in order to figure out even more efficient methods to get away with things?

As a matter of fact, it is very hard to say. It all depends on our personal nature and experiences.

Up to this point, I have ignored that most companies/corporations that exist today apply the classical model in corporate governance, i.e. the hierarchical model. Thus, the “first level” of employees has to report to their direct boss, who is, as well, obligated to report to another further up in the pyramid.
The message I want to convey here is that the duties of one employee might be the responsibilities of another. As a result, we all are parts of a big system and with that it is almost impossible to point out only one sinner - snooper.

Keeping track on what the employees are doing during work hours appears necessary to a certain point. In particular, on those who have access to secrets that might cost the company a fortune both in tangible and intangible assets in case of loosing them.

Last but not least, as long as the corporate spying with the expensive soft wares’ help, is contributing with an added value to the company and with that to the whole society it is necessary, I believe.
So, snooping versus risking confidential information and consequently public safety? Clearly, snooping is the lesser of two evils.