Mediaboss Marketing

As the nations oldest business school, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania has had an outsize influence on shaping the culture of corporate America. For more than a century, Wharton has taught aspiring capitalists how to break into new markets, trounce the competition and mint profits.

Today, while the foundational skills needed to run a business are still important, companies are also grappling with concerns that go well beyond the balance sheet. Diversity and inclusion, inequality, climate change, immigration and, more broadly, the role of business in society are all part of the conversation, in the boardroom and the classroom. And earlier this year, to take the school in a new direction, Wharton hired Erika James as its new dean.

Ms. James, who studied at Pomona College before receiving her Ph.D in organizational psychology at the University of Michigan, is uniquely suited for the role. Her research included work on diversity in the workplace, as well as managing through a crisis, which led her to do consulting work with large companies confronting major challenges.

Before joining Wharton, she was dean at Emory Universitys Goizueta Business School, and a professor at the Darden School of Business at the University of Virginia.

This interview was condensed and edited for clarity.

Who were your professional role models when you were growing up?

I knew the life I wanted to have, but I didnt know the career that I would foster in order to create that life. Ive always been very attracted to being comfortable, if you will, even though we were really salt of the earth, middle-class people. My mother was a teacher. So my first role model was really the fact that I had a working mother, and most of the friends that I had did not. I just assumed I would work as well, though I never wanted to be a teacher. My stepfather had his own practice as a clinical psychologist, but he never really cared about money. He was just really interested in the work that he did. I was really intrigued by the work that he did, and I doubt I would have learned about psychology had it not been for my stepfather. So I think that I was most influenced by his career.

How did you wind up getting involved in business education?

When I was at Michigan, I realized I really enjoyed research, and I really had interesting questions that I wanted to answer, and those questions were largely around what happens in organizations. What happens in businesses? Why do companies operate and behave the way that they do?

I graduated quickly because I was ready to start working. I was eager to move out into the world and have a paycheck. I was looking more at sort of traditional corporate roles. My dissertation adviser said: Youll always be able to do that, but at this moment, Im asking you to take one year and pursue something in a university setting. If you dont like it, you can easily jump to McKinsey or American Express or Pfizer. I really respected her opinion. And so I went and applied for one academic job. I expected to leave after one year, and 20 years later, Im still in academia.

Its a surer path to a comfortable life working at Pfizer or American Express than it is entering academia. What made you comfortable with that decision?

There was a lot of heartache in thinking about that decision. I had an offer from Pfizer, and this was when Viagra had just come out, and I was looking at the stock option package that they were offering. In hindsight, silly me for not for not taking that opportunity. But what I realized is I felt so much better about the work I was doing in higher education. I felt that the impact that I could have with my research and with the students was a deeper calling than whatever work I would be doing in human resources for Pfizer.

With your consulting work you were clearly looking at business, warts and all. How has that impacted your work today?

Ive spent the past 20 years looking at the dark side of the business. There is never a shortage of case studies to study or to write about. What I realized once I started to have an opportunity to engage in leadership roles in business education was that I now have a platform to change the narrative around business. Business for many years had such a bad, negative reputation that I think it was inhibiting people who were quite talented from wanting to pursue business as a career possibility.

How is the Wharton curriculum being reshaped to address the increased focus on environmental, social and governance concerns, and diversity and inclusion?

Its a twofold process. The conversations in the classrooms are changing because the students are asking for it. Their expectation is that thats in our syllabus. Were going to have coursework and reading material and discussions on corporate social responsibility. We have to. If we want to continue to be an attractive choice for business school students, then our curriculum has to reflect what theyre asking for as a part of their business school experience. So that is starting to happen.

I would also say theres a generation of faculty thats now coming into significant leadership roles as department chairs, for example, who have much more influence in preparing the curriculum and setting the agenda, and those faculty are increasingly aligned with where the students are coming from.

How is politics finding its way into the classroom?

Its no secret that academic institutions in general are typically perceived to be more liberal or progressive brands, rather than conservative. But a business school is potentially a bit more balanced. We are a microcosm of whats happening in the world. And for a period of time now it has become out of favor to not be consistently aligned with the progressive movement. So I think that some of our students, and some of our faculty, have felt that theyve been pushed underground because their views and ideologies are different from the perceived ideologies of a more progressive movement. And thats a difficult place. We dont all necessarily need to agree on everything, but we do need to understand how to engage with and respect the views and opinions and beliefs of all of our community members. I think business schools are struggling with that, as are companies.

Does the M.B.A. still matter?

Im the dean of the business school, so yes, the M.B.A. still matters.

Do you believe there has been progress when it comes to real meaningful diversity and inclusion and opportunities for Black men and women over the last many years at corporate America?

The data speaks for themselves. There hasnt been a lot of progress if you look at the sheer number of Black C.E.O.s or Blacks within one or two reporting relationships of the C.E.O. Why is that the case? I think its the case that we havent fully prioritized it as much as we have talked about it. And the two are very, very different.

In 2020 following the killing of George Floyd, the galvanizing efforts of C.E.O.s and executives is unlike anything that I had ever seen before. The question is how much of what we saw this summer was a reaction to his killing, versus how much of that will be a sustained effort to really think about the ways in which organizations recruit and attract and develop and promote and compensate Black professionals. Time will tell.

Do you ever feel like youve had to work twice as hard, or that there have been obstacles as a result of your gender or race?

Of course. But one of the interesting things that Ive been grappling with is how much of that is pressure that I put on myself, versus how much of that is pressure that I actually have felt from other people. I dont have the answers, but I certainly put a lot of pressure on myself with the belief that I had to be that much better, that there was no room for error or mistake. It sort of drives me in ways that has obviously led to opportunities that are quite extraordinary.

How do you expect Wharton will change during your tenure?

I dont think we can just assume that because were Wharton we can just rest on our laurels and say, well always be safe. We have to be mindful that our competition is not just other business schools. Our competition is complacency, and when youre the best, it is very easy to become complacent. So one of the things that I hope that my tenure as dean will do is to motivate us to think about how do we want to define business education in the future, and not only rely on what weve done in the past.

I think the fact that Im Whartons first female dean means there are likely going to be differences in how I engage with our alumni and with our students and with our faculty that are reflective of who I am as a woman at this level in business education. There just arent a lot of us.

See the original post:
At Wharton, a New Leader Confronts the Culture Wars - The New York Times

The defeat of Donald Trump will not help

by Jon Fasman: Washington correspondent, The Economist

WASHINGTON, DC

BERNIE SANDERS and Elizabeth Warren had more passionate fans. Kamala Harris and Pete Buttigieg were more poised speakers. But Joe Biden had something other Democratic candidates lacked: faith that he could bring Democrats and Republicans together. Many considered this naive and unrealistic. But it appealed to enough voters to propel him past his more strident challengers in the primary, and then to defeat the most divisive president in modern history.

It is not hard to see why. The past four yearsand to a lesser extent, the eight before that, under Barack Obamahave been a period of intense cultural and political polarisation in America. Increasingly, Democrats and Republicans do not just hold different views on, say, gay marriage and tax rates. They inhabit different universes and increasingly distrust each other.

Two months before the 2020 election, a poll showed that over 40% of Americans of both parties believed violence would be justified if the other sides candidate won the election. Most presidents, including Mr Obama, saw such deep antipathy as damaging, both to national unity and to their political prospects. At least rhetorically, virtually all presidents have tried to broaden their appeal once in office.

Mr Trump never did. He exploited and inflamed division, like the reality-television star he was before entering office, rather than trying to heal it. Small wonder that over 75m Americans rallied to Mr Bidens plea for unity. Ordinarily such appeals would be routine for an American politician. But these were not ordinary times. With Mr Trump appealing to his base, and the woke left appealing to theirs, the vast American middle found its tribune in Mr Biden, an ageing career politician who ably met his moment.

Even so, he will be unable to deliver the unity he promised. That is not his fault: nobody could. Partisanship and division sell. Rush Limbaugh and The Daily Show are not going away just because Mr Trump lost and Mr Biden prefers unity. Social media lets Americans have their political views constantly confirmed rather than challenged.

Gone are the days of conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans regularly crossing the aisle. Today political parties are almost wholly aligned along cultural and ideological fault-lines. Most senators and representatives hold safe seats where they have more to fear from a more radical primary challenger within their own party than an opposition candidate.

Even if Mr Biden had won the landslide that the left hoped for, America would have remained deeply divided; he might just have had an easier time getting legislation through Congress. Soon after taking office on January 20th, he will urge all Americans to wear masks; adherence to that suggestion will almost certainly be greater in Democratic- than Republican-leaning areas. Several cases in the Supreme Courts pipeline may severely restrict abortion rights without directly outlawing it. The battles over those cases will be no less intense just because Mr Biden sits in the White House. No politician can force Americans to end their countrys culture wars. They must decide to do that themselves.

Jon Fasman: Washington correspondent, The Economist

This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition of The World in 2021 under the headline Long division

More here:
Americas culture wars will intensify - The Economist

Candace Owens, boldly breaking gender norms by wearing a suit. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

In 2020, is cross-dressing still considered to be provocative?

Rock stars were challenging gender norms back in the seventies - youd think wed have moved on to more interesting conversations by now. But for attention-starved conservative commentators, the sight of a man wearing a dress is still, apparently, worth making a fuss over.

Conservative commentator Candace Owens, infamous for her bizarre, completely unprompted defense of Adolf Hitler, sparked a tiresome Twitter debate after criticizing Harry Styles, who dared to don a dress in his cover for Vogue.(The first man ever to appear alone on its cover in 128 years.)

On Twitter, Owens wrote: There is no society that can survive without strong men. The East knows this. In the west, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence. It is an outright attack. Bring back manly men.

It didnt take long for Ben Shapiro, the embodiment of raw masculinity, the modern-day Marlboro Man, to chime in:

Im not sure what Vogue marketing their big-name photoshoot through an outdated subversion of gender norms has to do with the Left, but needless to say, Im pretty sure Harry Styles is extremely comfortable with his sexuality, and doesnt stay up at night worrying about being perceived as effeminate.

But Twitter users rarely give up the opportunity to poke fun at these two towering intellectuals, so Owens and Shaprio spent the rest of the day being mercilessly mocked, the price of being a controversial internet commentator (although, I suspect the pay is pretty good).

It is genuinely interesting (or maybe depressing?), to look back at the culture wars of the seventies and see how little has changed. Its quite remarkable, really. The very notion of breaking gender norms seems to strike intense fear into the heart of certain people; a line that, once crossed, marks the end of Western civilization, an imagined descent into barbarism and hedonism.

It sounds like a great deal of fun, but perhaps it's time to move on - nostalgia culture might be trendy right now, but that doesnt mean we have to argue over men wearing dresses for the next century.

Candace, seemingly satisfied with her attention-grabbing Tweet, ended her commentary on the subject with a mind-melting, incendiary take, writing:

Wait until they find out that I also think women should be feminineand I enjoy cooking for and taking care of my husband.

The Tweet was accompanied by a GIF of Elmo, writhing in flames ... because its fiery.

I cant wait to hear what Owens and Shapiro are offended by nextlong hair and tattoos?

View original post here:
Candace Owens Criticizes Harry Styles, Sparks An Embarrassingly Outdated Culture War - Forbes

Weeks after the historic presidential election, America seems as polarized as ever. The red and blue political sects looking at each other as enemies, morally suspect and indeed almost incomprehensible to one another. But even as polarization has spiked, as Northwestern University psychology professor Eli J. Finkel points out, The debate going on is increasingly divorced from ideas.

The two sides are interested in conquest, not in political ideology, social science, or philosophical questions about the appropriate government role. So while polarization may seem to be about politics, its really about increasingly cordoned social, cultural, and demographic groupings. Within this context, with a better understanding of whats actually dividing the country, culture war histrionics are revealed as a mere distraction, the thin veneer that covers a public policy reality too terrible for most Americans to confront honestly.

For example, Americans have never seriously reckoned with our governments foreign policy of endless war, or its lawless, unaccountable intelligence and national security officialdom, or its collusive monopoly capitalism. And in a year when there really did seem to be a historic moment of reckoning on issues of systemic racism, particularly as associated with policing and the criminal justice system, Americans elected a pair who built their political careers on pushing exactly the kinds of policies that led to the current crisis of injustice on the war on drugs, general overcriminalization, mandatory minimums and mass incarceration, the militarization of the police, stop-and-frisk, and no-knock warrants (and this is, of course, a non-exhaustive list). Americans seem to like authoritarianism, which is not unique to either party, embarrassing celebrations of the Democratic victory notwithstanding.

The two culture wars sides are much, much more alike than they are different. And while Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpBen Carson says he's 'out of the woods' after being 'extremely sick' with COVID-19 Biden will receive @POTUS Twitter account on Jan. 20 even if Trump doesn't concede, company says Trump to participate in virtual G-20 summit amid coronavirus surge MORE did his best to damn Biden and the Democrats as socialists, socialism and the monopoly capitalism Trump represents are also more alike than different; they only seem to be opposites, a fact that more insightful thinkers have long appreciated.

Having such an openly dishonest and odious character in the White House has forced people to evaluate political power as principled libertarians always do. At least the cultural and media elite see Trump for what he is. One of the only things a peace-loving anti-authoritarian can say for the Trump years is that the newsmedia actually scrutinized presidential power, treating the president as an evil authoritarian. In contrast, they fawn incessantly over Biden and Harris, who represent the very worst and most demonstrably racist public policy decisions of the past several decades. Journalists have been either pretending not to know this, or else they actually dont know.

Trump is an inarticulate, unscripted speaker lacking charisma and moral character. But it is too little acknowledged that such traits frequently made Trump less dangerous as a politician rather than more, for the media and political establishments arrayed themselves against his administration before it even began, and for a good reason. How are the same people handling Biden and Harris? How are the journalism profession and the pundit class likely to treat the Biden administration's abuses and excesses? Which candidate do you think warmongers and Wall Street wanted to win the 2020 election?

On the political philosophers' pages, the state is an abstraction; it can be a perfect justice-producing machine, untethered to the human imperfections and evils to which it ostensibly addresses itself. That it has been, from its earliest appearances in history, an expression of those imperfections and evils, is everywhere ignored by those who ask for an even stronger state.

The modern state is best understood both historically and conceptually not as some kind of neutral scorekeeper sit[ting] outside the game, but as a corporation made up of and operated by actual flesh-and-blood human beings with their own interests, incentives, blind spots, and shortcomings. Unless we believe that the state is possessed of some supernatural essence that makes it different from other human-operated organizations (and indeed many seem to believe just this), then it is not at all clear why we should consider the state a scorekeeper, unbound by the rules and assumptions in place for all other mere mortals.

The state represents human beings at their worst: force instead of persuasion, impunity instead of accountability, censorship instead of free inquiry. Instead of polarizing and treating each other as enemies, we must come to understand that political power itself is the enemy.

David S. D'Amato is an attorney, a columnist at the Cato Institute's Libertarianism.org, and a policy advisor at both the Future of Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute.

The rest is here:
The culture war is a distraction | TheHill - The Hill

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va., Nov. 16, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --The Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia today released its 2020 IASC Survey of American Political Culture, Democracy in Dark Times, fielded by Gallup Inc. The report, coauthored by James Davison Hunter and Carl Desportes Bowman, finds troubling evidence that nearly 30 years after Hunter's 1991 book, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, introduced America to the concept of a "culture war," the country is even more deeply fractured by ideology, religion, race, and income. According to Hunter and Bowman,

What divides Americans at this moment strikes at the heart of what each side perceived to be at stake in this election. One side believed that Trump and his supporters were gradually transforming the country into a dictatorship that leaned toward fascism; the other side believed that the Democrats under Biden would gradually transform America into a socialist country. Each side...viewed the other as enemies of our modern liberal democratic order. Fear was driving the passions of this election.

Highlights from the survey, which interviewed a representative sample of 2,205 American adults, include the following:

What do these deep-seated divisions mean for America's politics and culture wars? The authors observe, "It is well established that White Evangelicals are President Trump's main political base, a fact clearly confirmed by the evidence in this survey." They continue:

Yet it is significant that the majority of non-Evangelical Americans, and the majority of social elites in particular (the gatekeepers of our late-modern society), are so negatively disposed toward religious Evangelicals, directly or indirectly. These are the cultural conditions for the ultimate decline not only of Evangelical political influence, but because of its close association with Evangelicalism, of the Republican Party itself.

This does not guarantee an easy road for the Democratic Party either, however:

At the same time, because the vote for Biden as president was overwhelmingly about defeating Trump rather than electing Biden, the conditions are present for the fragmentation of the Democratic Party, perhaps especially now that Biden has won.

The authors conclude that Americans' increasing pessimism, distrust, and cynicism

will not fix themselves. Without strong and creative institutional leadership, these problems will continue to undermine the substance and process of democratic life, irrespective of who is elected. Winning certainly matters in a competitive political environment where important policies affecting millions of people are concerned, but winning is neither everything nor the only thing when it comes to sustaining a vital liberal democracy.

The 2020 IASC Survey of American Political CultureTM sampled 2,205 adults ages 18 and over. The sample includes completed responses from 320 Hispanics and 336 African Americans, as well as an oversample of 504 adults with at least some postgraduate education. Gallup fielded the survey from July 28 through August 27, 2020.

The survey is available online. The Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture is an interdisciplinary research center and intellectual community at the University of Virginia that seeks to understand contemporary cultural change and its individual and social consequences.

SOURCE Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

https://iasculture.org

Read the original post:
The Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture Releases "Democracy in Dark Times," a Landmark National Survey and Analysis of American...