Book Report Segment #1

I am reading the book Global Women: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy. The first section of my book talks about nannies and about love being a resource, to be more accurate, an unfairly distributed resource. Love has become something that is extracted from one place in order to be enjoyed somewhere else. Women from all over the globe leave their families in order to be a care taker in another part of the world. These women do this in order to better provide for their families at home. However when they leave their families to attend to other families they are often times leaving their own children who consequently end up being raised by family members or neighbors. This book outlines the harsh cycle that occurs in the United States due to this import of care. Nannies come from various other countries to care for American children while the American parents go to work full time. These women from other countries leave their own families in order to provide for them, in turn they take care of the families we leave in order to care for. It is a never ending cycle and is rapidly increasing as time continues.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child states that all children have the right to an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding. The book makes the claim that the more we love and are loved, the more deeply we can love. For this reason love is not a fixed resource, but rather a renewable resource. However these foreign nannies cannot return to their own families at the end of a long day so they are forced to love from a distance and in different ways. Consequently these nannies love the children they care for so much because they are tunneling the love for their own children towards them. The more they love and attach themselves to these new children, the less they can love their own children at home; in this sense love seems fixed. The book decides love is instead a “distributable resource”.  You cannot withdraw or invest feeling, so therefore it is instead redirected. These nannies redirect their love to the children they care for because they cannot love their own children the way they want to. The book recounts stories from nannies that are in this situation and have traveled to America in order to work in order to provide for a family back home.

The book also outlines stories from children of these migrant workers. Some children feel that what their mothers are doing is a great sacrifice, and this in turn drives them to do better in school and attend universities in order to in a way repay their mothers sacrifices. Many children admitted that the monetary support their mothers provided have made their lives easier. These children still admitted the sadness of not having their mothers present in their daily life. Other children interviewed held resentment towards their mother’s after they leave. These children tend to fall behind in school, and almost none attended universities. These children admitted feelings of abandonment and neglect, even when left in others capable care.

The book summarizes this thought pretty accurately by saying “one cannot simply assume that the care leaving disadvantaged nations is surplus care. What is a solution for rich nations creates a problem in poor nations.”

I have seen the transfer of care in the form of a resource in my own life. I have visited Guatemala twice on a mission’s trip with my church. We stay and work at a children’s home. On this property there are four separate houses that house the children who can best be thought of orphans who live at the home. These houses are split up by gender and age; a young boys house, an older boys house, a young girls house, and an older girls house. Some of these children are not actually orphans, meaning they have live parents, but in every other sense of the word they are, either their parents couldn’t take care of them, or they were in danger. The difference between the children’s home and an orphanage is that these children cannot be adopted; they live in this place until they are old enough to support themselves. Many of the children come to this home young and therefore spend their entire childhoods here. At this home there are four house moms, who each live in one of the four perspective houses with the kids. Some of these moms live there full time, while others leave at night. The two that stay with the younger children live there fulltime. The two moms that live in the older children’s house leave at night to go back to their own families. One of the houses moms that lives there full time has grown children. In her case she needed a place to redirect her love, she loves these children like her own because her real children do not need this kind of love anymore. The house moms who work at the home during the day are leaving their children at home in order to go to work to provide a better life for them. They distribute their love and care to these children and spend all day long with them, making all their meals, and handling all their activities, leaving only while they are sleeping; instead of spending this time with their own children. This is all due to the vicious cycle of having to be away from your child in order to provide a better life for them. 

The Columbia Disaster

"Instead of making people wiser, being in a group can actually make them dumber"

I found this exert from the reading especially interesting. This is of course referring to small groups. The article goes on to state that much of our lives are spent in small groups and consequently many important decisions made. Afterall, as the article reminds us, Juries are small groups of people who decide if people will go to prison. When a group is small, like the MMT group was, the influence of one member on the entire group is inevitable. This can be seen in any situation where a small group has formed. This is due mostly to the size of the group. When a group is small each member has a ability to have a distinct voice and there is not enough diversity for any voices to be quieted. We can see from the example of the Columbia's fate and how the small group at MMT was influenced that when one member of a small group makes a claim the rest of the group often readily takes this claim as fact. When McCormack decided to act as if the problem with the piece of foam was inconsequential, it became inconsequential for the entire group. The group took her claims to be fact.

I think that the idea that a group may make you "dumber" may actually be bad word choice. A group doesn't make someone dumber but it does make them behave dumbly. By this I mean often times, especially with small groups, people are persuaded to do things they would normally stand opposed to, or accept something they would normally question. When someone is a part of a large group they feel more comfortable speaking out because they think there has to be at least one other person who thinks that way too, where as in a small group that kind of diversity often times does not exist.

Experts Cause Failure?

The Carter Racing statistics were something that we were all asked to analyze. Some of our classmates said that the company should indeed not race. While others of us thought they should. Thinking that these statistics were for a racing team the resounding point behind our race decisions was coming from, "we're racers, that's what we do!". However when told that these statistics were actually from the space rocket launch I think many of our minds changed. The idea that a rocket could have almost a 30% chance of engine failure seems to change the book.Experts had all the data that we were provided with and they choose to launch the rocket. What were they thinking? They put lives in danger on only a 70% rate of success, this does not seem large enough for them to make a yes decision. While I realize the experts had more information than we did, they were still presented with the same realities that the space ship did not have all the kinks worked out. The Challenger launch caused 7 people to lose their lives while the entire country watched. I cannot understand what these experts were thinking.

Managing Multicultural Teams

The reading, Managing Multicultural Teams names one of the main challenges on a multicultural team as the form of communication, either direct or indirect. The article states that Western communication is direct and explicit where as in other cultures meanings may be embedded. The article goes on to talk about a Japanese-American multicultural team that had communication issues. 

I can understand this problem fully because I have experienced it. I have gone along on two missions trips to Guatemala. Once there we stay and work at a children's home. At the home we work along side American missionaries who run the home. Sometimes we work outside of the home, or take the children on trips into Guatemala City or Antigua. There is a distinct communication difference not only when we travel outside the home but also inside the home. The children are split into houses on the property by gender and also by age. Each house (there are 4) has what is called a home mom. These are Guatemalan women who live in the houses with the children. We eat dinner inside their homes while we are there. I have communicated with the home moms who speak some English. I experienced the same kind of situation the article describes; when they nod along with what you're saying it is their way of telling you they understand you, not that they are agreeing with you. Similarly when they furrow their brows at me they are saying that they don't understand my English not that they are confused by what I am saying like it would mean in America. 

In working with the house moms to prepare dinner I also experienced the trouble with the trouble with accents and fluency , I can understand some broken Spanish, however I need someone to speak it to me  slowly and break up their phrases, however the house moms will tell you to do something just speaking regularly, they think I don't know how to do what they're asking but really I can't understand them. 

Team structures.. a product of personality?

In reading the assigned document, "The Wisdom of Teams", it occurred to me that the make ups of the team performance curve may very well be a product of personality. The reading discusses the five different frameworks that make up different teams. The way this article describes the different structures made me draw the assumption that the make up of each group relies heavily on the personalities present. The Myers-Briggs personality test that we were all supposed to take for our papers placed us into categories based off of our preferences. The test put me into the category of Protector:
"Protectors make up as much as ten percent the population, because their primary interest is in the safety and security of those they care about - their family, their circle of friends, their students, their patients, their boss, their fellow-workers, or their employees. Protectors have an extraordinary sense of loyalty and responsibility in their makeup, and seem fulfilled in the degree they can shield others from the dirt and dangers of the world"


This led me to believe that protectors are most likely to follow a real team or even high-performance team make-up. The real team framework says it contains people who "are equally committed to a common purpose, goals, and working approach for which they hold themselves mutually accountable". The protector looks out for his co-workers security and safety, meaning they are likely to fall into this category. 


Likewise other personalities are more likely to be self-serving.  An example may come from the personality of an inventor:
"Inventors are keenly pragmatic, and often become expert at devising the most effective means to accomplish their ends. They are the most reluctant of all the types to do things in a particular manner just because that's the way they have been done."


Inventors like to figure things out for themselves and do not like to follow exact procedure, but rather try new things, meaning they may be more likely to fall into a work group category, where "members interact primarily to share information, best practices, or perspectives and to make decisions to help each individual perform within his area of responsibility".


I also found this particularly interesting from the reading "Political concerns almost always overshadow performance considerations". This too I think falls into personality types, some personalities are more self-serving than others, but there are certain personalities that are actually more group oriented and focused that this would not be true for.

Judgers vs Perceivers

From the reading, Personality Plus I found parts of the MyersBriggs Type Indicator, or M.B.T.I. test, to be interesting; especially the part about Judgers/Perceivers. The test operates on the belief ...

" Judgers 'like to live in a planned, orderly way, seeking to regulate and manage their lives,' according to an M.B.T.I, guide, whereas Perceivers 'like to live in a flexible, spontaneous way, seeking to experience and understand life, rather than control it.' "


I found this part particularly interesting because my boyfriend and I often have this conversation, however neither one of us i'm sure, realized the categories we very closely resemble. I often get upset when plans change because it throws off the schedule I hold in my head for each day. He on the other hand is terrible at making plans and likes to fly by the seat of his pants. I realize now that I am a judger, I like order, and regulation in my life. I set a plan in my head every morning, complete with time slots and transportation time pockets, about what will need to be done that day and in what order it needs completed. When these plans are disrupted or thrown off I often become upset, not because things aren't happening like I want them to, but rather because my brain has a hard time adjusting my schedule to the change and my thoughts become flustered. Often times my plans are disrupted though, dating someone who I now see is a perceiver causes my daily schedules to be thrown off quite often. He lives by the idea that things will happen when they do, and if somethings meant to happen it will happen eventually. He is always flexible and does things in his own time and when he feels the need to. I always thought I just had control issues but I know realize that I am a "judger" while he is a "perceiver" and this is where the difference lies. However I am getting better and becoming more flexible from spending time with him, holding true to the thought I've always held that other people's personalities can and do rub off on you, both good and bad traits. 

Those Low Grades in College...

I completely agree with Mr.Taylor's conclusion that a high G.P.A "demonstrates a strong work ethic and smarts"; in order to get good grades I believe you must either be an intelligent person or a hard worker, and most times a little bit of both. I'm sure we have all heard the phrase that someone is "book smart" usually this refers to someone who puts a lot of time and effort into getting good grades, studies a lot, and reads their textbooks. On the other hand are people who are just naturally highly intelligent, if you will, who can sit in class and listen, and do well on tests just from the information they have absorbed. The later are students most of us despise because it comes so easily to them. Most of us however will fall in the medium of having a relatively stable level of intelligence but must also put in a sufficient amount of time in order to succeed. I'm happy to hear that businesses are looking closely at G.P.A because personally I work very hard in order to achieve the grades that I do, and appreciate that it will not go unnoticed. Also it makes sense that G.P.A is now regarded more highly because if two people take all the same type classes but one has a higher grade point average that person obviously retained more information for examinations and assessments, and hopefully also carried more information out of school with them.

I can also see where Ms. Steinfield is coming from with the need for an emphasis on social skills, I also agree these things cannot be measured the way G.P.A can and they are also important; but that's what interviews will solve. If you find applicants with higher G.P.A's and interview them you will be able to see communicative and social skills, and be able to have the best of both worlds. However if you interview applicants based solely on communicative skills you will miss out on the good work ethic that a high G.P.A usually entails, the exception being those with naturally high intelligence stated before however high levels of intelligence will not go unnoticed in a company either.

No more problem

"One day, someone showed me a glass of water that was half full.  And he said, "Is it half full or half empty?"  So I drank the water.  No more problem." 

~Alexander Jodorowsky