Greater resilience required - Gen Z
Discussion
Obama making a good case.
Should this skill be taught in schools ?
'Young people must learn to endure bad bosses if they want to become leaders themselves, Michelle Obama has said. Speaking at a live podcast recording in east London, the former First Lady said the younger generation need to learn to be more resilient rather than expect instant career satisfaction.
She said: 'That's what I want young people to understand. That every experience, the bad boss, the boring assistant job, the job you thought that you weren't appreciated, the one that didn't give you the assignment you wanted when you wanted it - all of that is learning to be resilient.'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ge...
Should this skill be taught in schools ?
'Young people must learn to endure bad bosses if they want to become leaders themselves, Michelle Obama has said. Speaking at a live podcast recording in east London, the former First Lady said the younger generation need to learn to be more resilient rather than expect instant career satisfaction.
She said: 'That's what I want young people to understand. That every experience, the bad boss, the boring assistant job, the job you thought that you weren't appreciated, the one that didn't give you the assignment you wanted when you wanted it - all of that is learning to be resilient.'
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ge...
Isn't this just another way of saying 'we had it s
t, so should you'?
I'd argue that resilience can't be taught, rather it's a reaction to events around you that are often beyond control.
If society or a company requires employees to be resilient due to poor leadership, perhaps we should focus on the cause of that..
t, so should you'?I'd argue that resilience can't be taught, rather it's a reaction to events around you that are often beyond control.
If society or a company requires employees to be resilient due to poor leadership, perhaps we should focus on the cause of that..
TheFungle said:
Isn't this just another way of saying 'we had it st, so should you'?
I'd argue that resilience can't be taught, rather it's a reaction to events around you that are often beyond control.
If society or a company requires employees to be resilient due to poor leadership, perhaps we should focus on the cause of that..
t, so should you'?I'd argue that resilience can't be taught, rather it's a reaction to events around you that are often beyond control.
If society or a company requires employees to be resilient due to poor leadership, perhaps we should focus on the cause of that..
It's the most centrist-brained Third Way Democrat statement imaginable, really.
If you have a bad boss, a bad job or you 'thought' you weren't appreciated (never mind whether you actually were or not - the problem is apparently only in people's heads) then it's up to you to suck it up and be resilient. Don't try and change your situation and definitely don't think about trying to change the system so people don't have to deal with bad bosses and boring jobs and being unappreciated workers. Nope. Just knuckle down and build resilience.
And the Dems wonder why they're considered out of touch and unrepresentative of people in the modern world.
2xChevrons said:
It's the most centrist-brained Third Way Democrat statement imaginable, really.
If you have a bad boss, a bad job or you 'thought' you weren't appreciated (never mind whether you actually were or not - the problem is apparently only in people's heads) then it's up to you to suck it up and be resilient. Don't try and change your situation and definitely don't think about trying to change the system so people don't have to deal with bad bosses and boring jobs and being unappreciated workers. Nope. Just knuckle down and build resilience.
And the Dems wonder why they're considered out of touch and unrepresentative of people in the modern world.
t jobs for st bosses whilst you learn and progress your career - you don't just parachute into your perfect job, you have to work hard to achieve it.TheFungle said:
I'd argue that resilience can't be taught, rather it's a reaction to events around you that are often beyond control.
If society or a company requires employees to be resilient due to poor leadership, perhaps we should focus on the cause of that..
Personal resilience can be taught and should be by all parents. If it's not the person is going to have a very difficult (and unhappy) life.If society or a company requires employees to be resilient due to poor leadership, perhaps we should focus on the cause of that..
2xChevrons said:
TheFungle said:
Isn't this just another way of saying 'we had it st, so should you'?
I'd argue that resilience can't be taught, rather it's a reaction to events around you that are often beyond control.
If society or a company requires employees to be resilient due to poor leadership, perhaps we should focus on the cause of that..
t, so should you'?I'd argue that resilience can't be taught, rather it's a reaction to events around you that are often beyond control.
If society or a company requires employees to be resilient due to poor leadership, perhaps we should focus on the cause of that..
It's the most centrist-brained Third Way Democrat statement imaginable, really.
If you have a bad boss, a bad job or you 'thought' you weren't appreciated (never mind whether you actually were or not - the problem is apparently only in people's heads) then it's up to you to suck it up and be resilient. Don't try and change your situation and definitely don't think about trying to change the system so people don't have to deal with bad bosses and boring jobs and being unappreciated workers. Nope. Just knuckle down and build resilience.
And the Dems wonder why they're considered out of touch and unrepresentative of people in the modern world.
Many bosses have issues. Until you move on you make the best of things. Try and build a personal connection, learn their ways etc.
How is changing the system going to manifest itself?, professional confrontations that might lead to career suicide.
Sounds like it is Obama who has the better connection with the real world, particularly in the USA where they can and will instantly fire people. I am reminded of the recent story of the CEO who fired his entire HR team as they were "always making problems".
What we need to remember is that for Gen Z and the following generations, the social contract has broken down. They, in the UK and US, face a very unstable employment future and almost zero chance of home ownership and a very real chance of facing the consequences of global warming, if they are not fighting in wars of choice caused by the “World’s Great Men”. Against that why would you put up with a “bad boss” when doing so won’t get you a stable career or a mortgage. I like Obama a lot but he is almost as tone deaf as Blair on this.
WestyCarl said:
Personal resilience can be taught and should be by all parents. If it's not the person is going to have a very difficult (and unhappy) life.
Resilience can be 'taught' in two ways by parents.- Reinforcement through positive behaviour, exposure to activities that challenge and stimulate and supportive guidance where required.
- Resilience gained through a challenging upbringing against a backdrop of financial challenges, serious illness or poorly modelled behaviours such as alcoholism.
tangerine_sedge said:
I think you're totally missing the point being made by a country mile in an attempt to attack her. She's saying that success doesn't come easily, and sometimes you have to do st jobs for st bosses whilst you learn and progress your career - you don't just parachute into your perfect job, you have to work hard to achieve it.
Sounds like we both take exactly the same meaning away from the statement. t jobs for st bosses whilst you learn and progress your career - you don't just parachute into your perfect job, you have to work hard to achieve it.I just question the need to tell people to accept that "s
t jobs for st bosses" is part of life that they just have to accept, and something they have to adapt to as if they're just an unchangeable force of nature rather than a product of human constructs and systems. There's a big difference between "you don't just parachute into your perfect job" and "sometimes you have to do s
t jobs for st bosses whilst you learn and progress your career". The first is inevitable. The second doesn't have to be, and should not be excused by pushing the onus onto the workers to just be 'resilient'. Why not the pressure on employers to create situations that don't require 'resilience', or on bosses not to be st, or society to reduce the number of st jobs? Or creating systems to empower people so they don't have to put up with being treated like st in stty jobs by stty bosses just to make rent and put food on the table (vis: JCF's point about US employment laws). Democrats proport to be progressives. This is what progressivism is fundamentally about - not accepting the "it has always been s
t, we had it st, so it just has to be st forever" paradigm. Collectingbrass said:
What we need to remember is that for Gen Z and the following generations, the social contract has broken down. They, in the UK and US, face a very unstable employment future and almost zero chance of home ownership and a very real chance of facing the consequences of global warming, if they are not fighting in wars of choice caused by the World s Great Men . Against that why would you put up with a bad boss when doing so won t get you a stable career or a mortgage. I like Obama a lot but he is almost as tone deaf as Blair on this.
He? This is about Michelle Obama.2xChevrons said:
Sounds like we both take exactly the same meaning away from the statement.
I just question the need to tell people to accept that "st jobs for st bosses" is part of life that they just have to accept, and something they have to adapt to as if they're just an unchangeable force of nature rather than a product of human constructs and systems.
There's a big difference between "you don't just parachute into your perfect job" and "sometimes you have to do st jobs for st bosses whilst you learn and progress your career". The first is inevitable. The second doesn't have to be, and should not be excused by pushing the onus onto the workers to just be 'resilient'. Why not the pressure on employers to create situations that don't require 'residence', or on bosses not to be st, or society to reduce the number of st jobs? Or creating systems to empower people so they don't have to put up with being treated like st in stty jobs by stty bosses just to make rent and put food on the table (vis: JCF's point about US employment laws).
Democrats proport to be progressives. This is what progressivism is fundamentally about - not accepting the "it has always been st, we had it st, so it just has to be st forever" paradigm.
Communists still had poor bosses and the consequences of getting on the wrong side of them might be a forced labour camp or a bullet in the back of the head.I just question the need to tell people to accept that "s
t jobs for st bosses" is part of life that they just have to accept, and something they have to adapt to as if they're just an unchangeable force of nature rather than a product of human constructs and systems. There's a big difference between "you don't just parachute into your perfect job" and "sometimes you have to do s
t jobs for st bosses whilst you learn and progress your career". The first is inevitable. The second doesn't have to be, and should not be excused by pushing the onus onto the workers to just be 'resilient'. Why not the pressure on employers to create situations that don't require 'residence', or on bosses not to be st, or society to reduce the number of st jobs? Or creating systems to empower people so they don't have to put up with being treated like st in stty jobs by stty bosses just to make rent and put food on the table (vis: JCF's point about US employment laws). Democrats proport to be progressives. This is what progressivism is fundamentally about - not accepting the "it has always been s
t, we had it st, so it just has to be st forever" paradigm. In the main, in my experience, no boss is completely awful. There are usual two fundamental issues with ALL bosses. First that everyone is human and will have some human flaws. Secondly that technical competence and experience does not automatically translate into being an effective leader or man manager.
If you bear that in mind and recognise that both of you are just trying to get through the working day you will go far. So as I said learn their ways of working, try to get along on a personal level and, if it isn't working eventually you may have to move on.
This concept if you only fight back against the system enough you will end up with a perfect boss seems very naive. Also be wary of people who might seem nice but are in reality toxic.
JagLover said:
Communists still had poor bosses and the consequences of getting on the wrong side of them might be a forced labour camp or a bullet in the back of the head.
Good thing I'm not proposing or supporting communism then, isn't it? And that there's a huge, diverse and varied spectrum of political and socio-economic positions lying between "late-stage American capitalism" and "communism". Including ones that the US Dems keep giving lip-service to supporting.
E: In fact, just as there's a big spectrum between "s
t boss" and "perfect boss". This seems like classic deflection - "oh, you're criticising the current system? I suppose you want everything to be perfect. Well that's impossible!"Perfect jobs and perfect bosses don't exist. s
t jobs and st bosses shouldn't exist (or, realistically, should be minimised), and the solution that so-called progressives should be offering to workers who find themselves in st jobs and/or with st bosses shouldn't be "learn resilience" but ways to empower them (systemically and directly) to give them the heave-ho. Free markets and all that. If workers given a free and substantive choice won't work for you or do the job you've got for them, then that's just the invisible hand at work. But that requires labour and capital to be on (roughly) equal - certainly less unequal - footings. Which is also a basic progressive position.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Wednesday 3rd June 17:00
JagLover said:
In the main, in my experience, no boss is completely awful. There are usual two fundamental issues with ALL bosses. First that everyone is human and will have some human flaws. Secondly that technical competence and experience does not automatically translate into being an effective leader or man manager.
If you bear that in mind and recognise that both of you are just trying to get through the working day you will go far. So as I said learn their ways of working, try to get along on a personal level and, if it isn't working eventually you may have to move on.
This concept if you only fight back against the system enough you will end up with a perfect boss seems very naive. Also be wary of people who might seem nice but are in reality toxic.
Also, I think people often don't understand that as a/the boss, you have responsibility for almost everything, but can directly sort out very little, you are relying on the people and teams below you, and that can make for a lot of frustration if they aren't on top of their stuff.If you bear that in mind and recognise that both of you are just trying to get through the working day you will go far. So as I said learn their ways of working, try to get along on a personal level and, if it isn't working eventually you may have to move on.
This concept if you only fight back against the system enough you will end up with a perfect boss seems very naive. Also be wary of people who might seem nice but are in reality toxic.
Some may feel that being in that position carries the responsibility of choosing and training the right people to populate the tree below you, but it's not always that simple, and in particular, you may have been moved up or across into the role, and inherited the results of previous decisions on that front.
I can see it from both sides.
Should anyone have to put up with a stty boss/manager/CEO making their life a misery and making them feel crap? No, they absolutely shouldn’t. No one should have to put up with that.
stty bosses should be slung out of every organisation, or demoted until they aren’t managing anyone, but the reality is this will never ever happen. There will always be horrible and/or inept humans, and these people will continue to reach managerial positions.
It’s just a fact of life and it won’t change. Some people will use it as a learning experience, and some people will be harmed by it. That will never change either.
So basically what Michelle Obama said was pointless, but at the same time did make sense.
I’ve had 2 stty bosses in my career, and both of them had a positive effect.
First one, after he had a massive go at me, made me think “fk this, I’m out of here”. I found a new job within 4 weeks and switched to a different organisation, which turned out to to be a great move from a career progression point of view. If that hadn’t happened I suspect apathy would have set in and I would have worked there for years going nowhere.
The second tt of a boss, years further along the line, caused me quit my job as I hated him (and therefore the job) so much, and make the leap to self employed, and almost straight away I almost doubled my earnings into 6 figures.
If I was in a bar and either of these previous bosses walked in, I wouldn’t be sure if I should buy them a drink or smash the glass in their face
Should anyone have to put up with a s
tty boss/manager/CEO making their life a misery and making them feel crap? No, they absolutely shouldn’t. No one should have to put up with that.s
tty bosses should be slung out of every organisation, or demoted until they aren’t managing anyone, but the reality is this will never ever happen. There will always be horrible and/or inept humans, and these people will continue to reach managerial positions.It’s just a fact of life and it won’t change. Some people will use it as a learning experience, and some people will be harmed by it. That will never change either.
So basically what Michelle Obama said was pointless, but at the same time did make sense.
I’ve had 2 s
tty bosses in my career, and both of them had a positive effect.First one, after he had a massive go at me, made me think “f
k this, I’m out of here”. I found a new job within 4 weeks and switched to a different organisation, which turned out to to be a great move from a career progression point of view. If that hadn’t happened I suspect apathy would have set in and I would have worked there for years going nowhere.The second t
t of a boss, years further along the line, caused me quit my job as I hated him (and therefore the job) so much, and make the leap to self employed, and almost straight away I almost doubled my earnings into 6 figures.If I was in a bar and either of these previous bosses walked in, I wouldn’t be sure if I should buy them a drink or smash the glass in their face
2xChevrons said:
tangerine_sedge said:
I think you're totally missing the point being made by a country mile in an attempt to attack her. She's saying that success doesn't come easily, and sometimes you have to do st jobs for st bosses whilst you learn and progress your career - you don't just parachute into your perfect job, you have to work hard to achieve it.
Sounds like we both take exactly the same meaning away from the statement. t jobs for st bosses whilst you learn and progress your career - you don't just parachute into your perfect job, you have to work hard to achieve it.I just question the need to tell people to accept that "s
t jobs for st bosses" is part of life that they just have to accept, and something they have to adapt to as if they're just an unchangeable force of nature rather than a product of human constructs and systems. There's a big difference between "you don't just parachute into your perfect job" and "sometimes you have to do s
t jobs for st bosses whilst you learn and progress your career". The first is inevitable. The second doesn't have to be, and should not be excused by pushing the onus onto the workers to just be 'resilient'. Why not the pressure on employers to create situations that don't require 'resilience', or on bosses not to be st, or society to reduce the number of st jobs? Or creating systems to empower people so they don't have to put up with being treated like st in stty jobs by stty bosses just to make rent and put food on the table (vis: JCF's point about US employment laws). Democrats proport to be progressives. This is what progressivism is fundamentally about - not accepting the "it has always been s
t, we had it st, so it just has to be st forever" paradigm. tty jobs and stty bosses? A Sisyphean task. Better working conditions, rights and more powerful unions will help, but even in places with great workers rights there are still st bosses and jobs.butchstewie said:
Is this going to be one of those threads where a bunch of people who moan about anything and everything possible and constantly convince themselves they're the vicim of some plot or another are now moaning that "Gen Z" aren't resilient?
Dunno.But now that you have responded, this thread will appear in your "My Stuff" thing at the top of the page, so you can just click on it and find out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff