The Masters and the Servants
Week Two Self Reflection
Lynda Corrado
Department of Psychology, Golden Gate University
Robert Gigliotti Ph.D.
May 25, 2024
The Pinch and the Crunch
Pinch is a simple but powerful model that describes the dynamic quality of psychological contracts and suggests ways of minimizing the potential dysfunctional consequences of shift expectation exhibit 1.1 [1]
When we enter into relationships with one another, we form a psychological contract. This relationship could take the form of a social partnership, where we work alongside someone (I prefer to say “with” because we should move away from the mindset of working for someone). We aim to create equal partnerships, where one person may have more responsibilities than another. It could also be a situation where we play on a team, with the common goal of excelling in a sport. Personally, in this piece of writing, I am referring to the act of electing someone to govern our nation.
Some individuals have a strong calling to participate in public service. Unfortunately, it has reached a point where the ability to campaign with more financial resources than their opponents has become the most crucial aspect of achieving their goal - that of seeking elected office. This motivation could arise from various reasons, such as power, control, or greed. However, ideally, it is because they genuinely believe they can make a difference in all our lives. This difference, they envision, is based on their belief that their message is valuable and will resonate with the masses. As a result, they make promises to us, entering into a psychological contract.
Accepting and understanding each other’s expectations is crucial for fostering a harmonious relationship. This causes open and frequent communication with constituents. However, when individuals do not fulfill these promises, it results in a breach of contract, with monumental consequences. As time passes, circumstances may change, and political factors may override promised legislation. As a result, it is imperative to be watchful and anticipate any possible issues. This is where the pinch arises. Elected officials are obligated to honor the commitments they have made, but if external influences prevent them from doing so, it becomes vital to communicate this to the public. Disregarding minor issues can lead to more significant problems, hence it is crucial to address them thoughtfully rather than impulsively reacting. And here we have the crunch.
Disrupted promises can create uncertainty, frustration, and anxiety, which only worsen the situation.[2] This is where the crunch comes in. When promises are disrupted, three tested options emerge: reverting back to previous practices, negotiating under pressure, or facing the consequences of lack of communication, (Osland) which may include getting voted out of office. In essence, it signifies a moral collapse in our system that needs repair.
The figure below, created by me, illustrates a potential solution depicting the option of reverting to previous practices.
Data Out is as Good as Data in
The relationship between public opinion polling and people’s trust in them is paradoxical.[3] Politicians should consider public opinions, despite distrust of polls. The voice of the people matters. However, since many often question the accuracy of polls due to inappropriate questions, manipulated responses, and participant demographics, it is imperative that the output quality equals input quality. It is susceptible to manipulation. I know, I have done it.
At AT&T, I analyzed real estate projects for economic viability. I could determine the success or failure of a project. It was a learning experience, though not ethically right.
As for polling, pollsters have a significant amount of flexibility, to shape public opinion.
However, seeking the opinions of the people is both beneficial and can serve as a means to hold those in authority accountable.
Undermining the integrity of polling with the intention to deceive the public, they hire pollsters to ask biased questions in order to obtain “scientific” evidence that supports their predisposed desired outcome. They disguise the questions with deceptive language. Surveys that ignore the fundamental aspects of a democratic process generate information that is not genuine.
Analysts often rely on poll numbers as a definitive indicator of public opinion, even on topics that the majority of people haven’t thoroughly considered, resulting in more fiction than fact in their writing.[4] The people rely on it as well. Misuse of data occurs when information gathering is used punitively.[5]
The use of polling should be seen as a means to an end, rather than a fundamental belief.[6] It is important for us to recognize the significance of this. A well-known concept of “trust but verify” is the key point. It is crucial that we become aware of the utilization of polls to sway public opinion. The prevailing opinion is that the majority of individuals concur with this. Misrepresentation occurs when an intervention produces results that are unreasonable for the situation.[7]
If you do not agree, why not do a poll to get more info?
I See Said the Spider to the Flea
The goal of Oversight Legislative Committee is to uncover misconduct and inefficiencies in the federal government like it used to. The Committee uses their authority to make sure the American people get the answers and transparency they deserve.
At a recent Committee hearing, The Oversight hearing descended into chaos when a Representative made an unrelated snide remark. Tensions escalated. I observed that nearly an hour of disorder unfolded during the investigations into The US Attorney when one party Representative and and another opposing party Representative clashed and significant name calling and body shaming occurred such as wearing “fake eyelashes.” and seemingly referring to other as “bleach blonde bad built butch body.”
“During a CNN appearance, the Chair emphasized the importance of avoiding personal attacks. And unfortunately, that’s what happened in the last committee hearing.” Words were removed from the official record. That is all. Why? I have noticed that instead of addressing outrageous remarks like this, people often praise them.
DECORUM AND DEBATE. Decorum. 1. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Com- missioner who desires to speak or deliver a matter to the House shall rise and respectfully address the Speaker and, on being recognized, may address the House from any place on the floor. Every member shall confine himself to decorous language in addressing the Senate and shall make no personal or derogatory remark to or about any member.[8]
Decorum violation: Removal of a participant for verbal or physical misconduct, or unsportsmanlike conduct.[9]
It seems to me that the contract that all members agreed to when they accepted their role on said Committee was broken. Yet, no accountably was applied to them when that is what they are charged to do!
Bibliography
Worley, C. a. Organizational Development and Change. pg 62, pg 63
Mann, d. a. Polling and Public Opeionion: The Good Bad and the Ugly. Brookings Review
Osland, K. R. Organizational Behavior: An Experimental Approach. Ch 1 pg 13 and pg 14
Wikipedia. Definition
Sherwood and Glidewell "Planned Renegotiation: a Norm Setting OD Intervention
Comments