Category Archives: February 18: An Entrepreneurial Agenda

CEO Mayor

Leave a reply

In Chapters 2 and 3, Brash mentions the charismatic CEO, which is made to be the “human face of capital” (58). This new type of CEO shows the ordinary civilian that big businesses are “rejecting hierarchy and traditionalism” and instead are more relatable to the members of the working class (57). While I understood the idea, I found myself wondering how legitimate this position was. Many of the described traits of a charismatic CEO seemed to be taught rather than innate, which made it seem very unnatural. It is very rare to find big businesses which specifically cater to the individual rather than working with a majority so while the face of the company might be relatable, there is a clear limit.

When elections were being held for mayor, the city was looking for change. Residents were interested in someone who made good on their promises and who was able to help the city from the inside out. Michael Bloomberg’s “private- sector management experience” as well as his “strategies of leadership, staffing and bureaucratic organization” made him the perfect candidate for New York City’s new mayor (76). He was a leader and knew what it would take to take a company to success. Bloomberg was seen as “unattached and unencumbered by” his own personal interests which would help the “interests of New York City as a whole” (69). But was Bloomberg’s business background enough to make a good mayor of the economic center that is New York City?

As I mentioned before in one of my comments, the idea of running a government like a business makes me very uncomfortable. The objective of a business is to bring in as much revenue through all means necessary. At the end of the day, it is a business transaction to see if the money put into selling a product was worth it, based on its sales. A government on the other hand, is created to lead and assist its citizens. Therefore revenue cannot be the only factor considered when there are people with individual needs who depend on the government for assistance. Running government like a business means that even the “city itself [would be] conceived of as a product to be branded and marketed” (75). If the mayor’s only priority was to make the city into an attraction in which money could be spent, the majority of struggling residents would be neglected.

Bloomberg – Both CEO Mayor and Ordinary New Yorker?

Leave a reply

Throughout Chapters 2 and 3 of Bloomberg’s New York, Brash discusses the convergence of socio-economic and political circumstances that led to the desire for and subsequent election of a CEO mayor. Post the fiscal crisis of 1975, government officials scrambled to rehabilitate both the perception of the city and the reality of its economic state. Thus, an “innovative form of neoliberal urban government” began to appear attractive to many New Yorkers (55). In addition, public discourse on free-market capitalism had grown more positive. A cultural image of American business as characterized by “nonconformity, constant innovation and change, and a rejection of hierarchy and traditionalism” had emerged, correlating capitalism directly to freedom and democracy (57).

It therefore seemed only logical that an individual like Bloomberg – with his entrepreneurial and managerial experience – would serve best at guiding the city through such an unstable time period. Perceived as a ‘charismatic CEO,’ as Brash asserts, Bloomberg’s capabilities were inextricably tied to the successes of his eponymous company. With his very public focus on economic development, it was believed by the elite that Bloomberg’s assumed leadership, vision, and management skills would finally restore New York City to its prime. Furthermore, by highlighting his independence from political parties and his commitment to philanthropy, Bloomberg succeeded in encouraging ordinary New Yorkers to identify with him. Thus, it was through this image and platform that Bloomberg won the election, convincing constituents that he would “work in the interests of New York City as a whole” (69).

What I found most intriguing after following Bloomberg’s path to his election was the paradoxical need to market politicians as both all-powerful and ordinary. As Brash states, charismatic CEOs are commonly seen as “the human face of capital” (58). Yet while they maintain this ability to effect change in social, economic, and political relations through their capital, they must also assure the public of their familiarity, their similarity to everyday people. The fact of the matter is, however, most politicians often lead lives quite different from the average New Yorker. Throughout Bloomberg’s tenure, for example, I remember reading a few articles detailing his regular rides on the subway. While these stories and images cultivated a positive public perception of Bloomberg, soon after, reporters revealed they had sighted the former mayor being driven from his townhouse to the train station for his supposedly “ordinary” daily commute.

While I wouldn’t necessarily criticize Bloomberg for utilizing the resources he had been given and – to an extent – had earned, I do find such false imagery problematic. In truth, the mayor and others holding government positions will never concurrently share the exact experiences of everyday New Yorkers. A mayor may not understand the long-term effects of a subway fare raise on a common individual, for instance, if he/she does not commute twice daily. Additionally, he/she would hold the luxury of choice – the ability to choose between the subway, a cab, a private car etc… – with the latter options being ones ordinary New Yorkers lack. Although I do understand the need for a leader to connect to the people, I wonder, at what point are the attempts to make politicians more relatable detrimental to the public understanding of what is exaggerated and what is real within politics?

The Charismatic CEO

Leave a reply

In Chapter 2, Brash explains the paradox that exists in the qualities that are present in the charismatic CEO. This individual has unique leadership qualities that allow him to serve as a “natural catalyst”: a man whose very presence incites change. However, in order to win over the public, this CEO also presents himself as an average, everyday person. By portraying themselves as similar to the public, this leader is able to win over the hearts and trust of Americans.

While reading this chapter, I was shocked at how much influence such a person can wield. I was surprised to see that when it came to holding a top position; an individual who was ambitious or energetic was valued over an individual with a high degree of experience. I have always thought that when it came to such positions, concrete evidence that the person had the skills for the job was warranted. It was also interesting to see how much importance was placed on how the public perceived such an individual. With their philanthropic “giving back” tendencies, charismatic CEOs are able to paint themselves as caring individuals who value equality despite contradictory empirical evidence that points to the opposite. Additionally, they are able to portray themselves as ordinary people who obtained their success through hard work and the issue of inequality thus becomes “an issue of self improvement achieved or not achieved”. In my opinion such a concept gives false hope to Americans and completely covers up the various “notions of class interest, inequality or conflict” that can prevent an average person from achieving such success. Furthermore it angers me that the very people that allow such charismatic CEOs to have such power is us, the public itself. We are the ones who judge the performance of such individuals, especially the ones involved in the government.

In chapter 3, Brash highlights Bloomberg and his adminstration’s efforts to prove the legitimacy of their power and wealth. Another point that stood out to me was Bloomberg’s dedication to running the government like a business. Again, the idea of charisma and appealing qualities, including holding various academic and professional positions, was valued over actual experience working in the goverment. On page 75, Brash writes that democracy would be the first casualty if one were to run the government like a business. However, I question exactly how this could be since these two chapters did not focus on the errors of governing the city in such a way.

“At Bloomberg, Modest Strategy to Rule the World” Seminar 02/18/14

Leave a reply

Out of this weeks’ readings, Clifford and Creswell’s article. “At Bloomberg, Modest Strategy to Rule the World”, intrigued me and confused me the most. At first I didn’t see immediately see the connection to our class (after all, our class talks about New York City, and this article talks about the future of Bloomberg L.P.) but as I got about halfway through the article, the following sentence,  “Mr. Bloomberg, who owns 85 percent of the company, was consulted on and approved the Merrill Lynch and BusinessWeek deals, Mr. Grauer says, as is allowed under the city’s conflict-of-interest guidelines”, brought to mind a number of questions relevant to our class.

One is, objectively speaking, why wouldn’t Bloomberg’s consultation on the Merrill Lynch and Business Week deals not comply with conflict-of-interest guidelines? From a cursory point of view it looks as if nothing would be wrong with it unless either of the companies were partly held by New York City or State authorities. For me, however, this raised a hypothetical question: what if  a consequence of the Bloomberg-Merrill Lynch-Business Week deals was that a substantial number of jobs were lost (as is quite often the case with mergers and partnerships)? Would this put Mayor Bloomberg in an ethically questionable position? On the one hand, this deal has no direct connection to New York City, but on the other hand, these companies employ many New Yorkers and any jobs lost would have an effect on regular New Yorkers and businesses. As Mayor of New York City, one of Bloomberg’s many responsibilities is to  create jobs for New Yorkers. So, if theoretically speaking Bloomberg made a business deal that was good for his company but bad for New York City jobs, would this be considered unethical?

This brought to mind an even broader question, what is the effect of having a “billionaire mayor” (a phrase commonly used in the press to refer to Bloomberg) on New York City? Obviously every political leader’s life experience, including past and current socio-economic status has an effect on their way of thinking and thus on the manner in which they execute their political responsibilities.  In fact, for the most part, American’s politicians at the federal, state, and municipal levels belong to the upper class. It’s expensive to both run for and hold elected positions and thus its usually those who can partially fund themselves that end up getting elected. So, in other words, it’s old news that America, to some extent is influenced by individuals who are in turn influenced by their wealth. There is, however, a difference between the wealthy and the extremely wealthy. A billionaire is certain to have a different perspective on things than even the average millionaire, and he will definitely have a different perspective than the average middle and working classes. What I’m wondering is what exactly is the effect of the socio-economic gap between Bloomberg and the large part of New Yorkers? Is he unable to truly act in their best benefit, and now, in hindsight, does it appear that his leadership has had a positive or negative effect on New York City’s middle and working classes?

 

The Government Being A Business

Leave a reply

The phrase “running the government like a business” bothers me. I see a business as some entity whose ultimate goal is to create a profit.  For example, according to the article “At Bloomberg, Modest Strategy to Rule the World”, when LP Bloomberg started printing Bloomberg Newsweek magazines Daniel Doctoroff, the president of Bloomberg, said that although the magazines might not be profitable then, they would be in 1 or 2 years. Why else would such an addition be made to a company? Making a profit is achieved through serving the needs of the consumers and continuing to find new consumers. The city government’s goal is to serve the needs of its consumers, the public, but it does not do this to create a profit.

For a few seconds, I had a different belief about the city being there to make a profit. This came about from reading Alper’s description of how he thinks of the government being the business and the city being the product that the government must sell. He talked about the city being in a competitive market, as a lot of other cities are out there and the city needs to be chosen by clients (85). This made me think back to the one of the first articles we read by Bruce Berg, in which increasing fiscal revenue through increasing tax base, which occurs when clients choose the city, was discussed. Therefore, I thought that maybe making a profit was having a positive fiscal flow. This, however, is not the case because the reason a government would want a positive fiscal flow is to use that money for bettering the city. Therefore, not all actions that the city government takes should be for the purpose of collecting more money for the government but rather should be done for what is really needed to better the service.

Another aspect of running the government like a business that is bothersome is the idea of having a CEO as a leader. Although the charismatic CEO does inspire change, I don’t like that Bloomberg felt he should have “unconstrained freedom to make decisions (78)”, as was stated in Brash’s book. That is a dangerous way of thinking. I saw this philosophy installed throughout his government. For example, several different economic agencies had to report to one person, Deputy Mayor Doctoroff, while before, they had to report to many different people. This seems like a little too much power for one leader. Where is the line between a leader having too much power and a leader having the ability to get things done, as a CEO is able to do?

 

[The Right] Numbers Don’t Lie

Leave a reply

Of the many factors that Julian Brash cites in his chronicling of “the rise of the CEO” – and consequently, the viability of Michael Bloomberg’s candidacy – the one that intrigued me the most was the increasing desire for shareholders to quantify the nature of business successes and failures.  Brash writes, “the rise of the charismatic CEO and the practice of benchmarking were linked from the beginning” (61).  In order for CEOs to justify their outrageous pay grade and power allotment, these purportedly extraordinary individuals had to “prove himself or herself” (61).  Accordingly, statistics off all shapes and sizes became commonplace in the business world as a way to validate their status as “the human face of capital” (Brash 58).

With Bloomberg’s candidacy under way, his vision of becoming the “CEO Mayor” would inherently dictate the translation of business performance metrics to gauge government efficiency.  As Bloomberg’s tenure as mayor evolved, the application of this ideology to the education system became particularly poignant, especially as it relates to the projects of two groups in our class.  The issue of high-stakes testing has been a hotly debating topic for quite some time, with many critics claiming that these tests do not accurately assess the students, nor do they help them learn the necessary material.

While I do agree with Brash’s assertion that an enhanced proclivity for business techniques effectively prepped the electorate for the arrival of a CEO mayor, I do not think that this is a phenomenon unique to New York City, or cities in general.  In Charles Seife’s book “Proofiness,” he emphasizes that “numbers empress us…they carry authority” (NYT Book Review).  Just as Joe McCarthy was able to claim that there were exactly 205 communists in the State Department without being able to identify even one name, people trying to prove a point or persuade others will use numbers to bolster their claims.  Writing for The Independent, Rupert Cornwell posits, “The US obsession with numbers is a symptom of the nation’s desire to predict and control everything – from baseball to hurricanes.”  As a society, we don’t just love statistics; we crave them.  But what happens when those numbers don’t tell the whole story – or even the right one?

In his book, “Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking,” William Bruce Cameron wrote “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted” (no, Einstein did not say this).  My discussion question thus is posed: To what extent is this true?  Is there a limit on the value of quantifiable and tangible results?  As a math major I am inclined to say that there is not, but what happens when you are dealing with people instead of numbers?  If Bloomberg was the CEO mayor who treated residents as “cells on a spreadsheet” (Cheyn Shah – week 1), does de Blasio represent a shift in the other direction, a more holistic and personal approach to a city that has been corporatized and branded and marketed for almost a decade?  To the tune of one of our class’s projects – what alternatives might exist for an education system that is not as concerned with metrics such as test scores?  Or a city that is not as worried about “running government like a business”?

Implications of Technology and Giving Back

1 Reply

I was surprised to find, in a reading about business that initially wouldn’t seem to relate to my research topic of education, a parallel in terms of technology and getting results. The article by Stephanie Clifford and Julie Creswell describes the Bloomberg company’s emphasis on modern technology and the idea that the company is “built on speed, efficiency and digital technology” (2). The Bloomberg company seems to emphasize technology use at the expense of other areas, such as creativity. For example, the employees of Bloomberg are given strict guidelines for the writing of articles, down to rigid instructions to “avoid adverbs and adjectives” for clarity’s sake, stifling worker creativity (3). I couldn’t help comparing Bloomberg’s overuse of technology and underuse of creativity with education. Our project plans to focus on alternative and unconventional methods of teaching and learning, many of which include the use of the latest technology like smartboards. Technology in schools is usually seen as having a positive impact on student learning, but I have always questioned schools that spend their limited budgets on cutting edge technology and have no money left for textbooks, art and music classes, etc. Technology may be getting better test results but if children do not have outlets for creative expression (art and music classes, for example), they are not getting the chance to be children. For the project, I am hoping to research not only the alternative teaching methods that use technology, but also the implications of technology use on other educational areas.

Regarding the Brash chapters, I was particularly interested in the idea of “giving back.” When I was younger, I often thought: why don’t the very wealthy people just give some money, assistance, and charity to the poor to give them a footing in the world? I now realize, especially after this reading, that it’s not quite so simple. One point of view about CEO philanthropists giving to charity argues that “giving” really benefits the philanthropists themselves by allowing them to connect with other elites, thereby increasing elite influence in general. Brash reminds us that while this may be partly true, CEO charity does humanize the elites and make them seem like “everyday people” who care about the lower classes (64). If the former view has more credibility, it would appear that even the actions of the elite (CEO mayor included) that seem to be in the interests of the working classes are actually meant to primarily benefit the elite. This is a very concerning thought. We have discussed the ideas of scale in class and in our previous reading responses, and the idea that the elites may put on a false act of giving to maintain their status would only serve to increase the distance between scales, preventing cooperation.  A discussion question I thought of that could be a topic of debate in class is this: To what extent is the act of “giving back” by elites motivated by the elites’ desire to remain on top and recycle their power? Or does giving back reflect an attempt by the elites to truly help the lower classes have a better life?