China's new-found arrogance

Mourad Anouar

Sunday February 19, 2012

Bill Weir should be proud of being the first journalist that was given an exclusive access to go inside apple’s factories in shanghai china to see how these company workers make one of the world’s favorite gadgets.

Weir’s “investigative-like trip” to China-based Apple would not have happened without a lawsuit from a local firm against the giant electronic company over safety problems, hazardous conditions and underage workers all happened be within in the confines of the giant gadget manufacturer. 

To this point, it seems nothing is wrong with the fact that china is worried about its citizens working for Apple’s and the conditions in which they carry out their jobs. But, one should ask the legitimate question: why is china concerned about its citizens more now than ever before? 

No doubt these work malpractices have been around in china for years. But what was absent is a louder and confident voice to decry them. Now, the growing and tangible power exercised by China is undeniable. Beijing is intent on stretching out its muscles to all directions in attempt to vaunt and show the world that it is as strong as any other super-power, or possibly stronger. 

The title of this article is a quote from one of Fareed Zakaria’s articles in Newsweek magazine entitled” growing pains” published in Feb 5, 2010. The article addressed the crisis between China and the United States and focused more on three salient points: 

1-The China’s furious reactions to Obama administrations’ decision to sell arms to Taiwan, 
2-China’s threat to "retaliate" against U.S. companies involved in arms sales, 
3-And Beijing’s indignant reaction to President Obama's decision to meet with the Dalai Lama 

The unprecedented overreaction from China was seen by the writer as symbolic gestures which indeed spelled, as he concluded, the growing perception and arrogance in China that is no longer reliant on the West, in particular on America. 
  
I would not argue if Zakaria’s “witty conclusion” has some validity or not, but nobody would overlook the Chinese presence on the international level. To label that as “a newfound arrogance” surely requires the writer to back up his assumption with some sort of a “psychological diagnosis” 
  
Obviously, Beijing has been lately concerned about being accepted into the world community as a superpower, though not much as the only superpower on the scene, but one within the whole. One of the manifestations of China’s muscle is its growing interest in investing in Africa and Middle East. Evident enough, on the other hand, is that the United States’ golden era along with its global dominance that it has enjoyed over the last thirty years seems to be fading away as some scholars observed. The world with one Super Power tends to be bygone days. It is time, many think, to embrace more new players to take part in reshaping the world political system in a way completely different from how it used to be. 

There are certainly new emerging powers that are hardly unnoticeable. China, India and Brazil to mention few, are by many accounts regarded to be vying with the United States for a new definition and dimensions of the world system. They might be political and leadership-wise naïve, but I don’t reckon they would not give it a try. It is worth pointing out also that an undemocratic regime, like China’s, where many despotic practices are part of the current government does not have credibility and goodwill, as perceived internationally, to lead the world 
  
Where is the United States after all this? It is there, I believe. And because the United States undoubtedly represents a myriad of assets, values, and principles, it is unlikely to cede the world political battlefield in any foreseeable future. 
  
Still America’s treasured and meritorious commodity is its unsurpassed concept and application of democracy and freedom. This cherished blessing is enjoyed just home though while many countries around the world are still struggling toward this dream. Overseas America’s image is bad enough, even worse than you may think. The only way, I believe, America can mend its battered image is by promoting democracy worldwide and helping the people striving to it” to touch it, not just hear it.” 

One sapient reasoning to what might be perceived by Zakaria as arrogance on the part of China is what was tersely put in an article published by the China Post in which writer William Choong said” Strong arrogance is not necessarily bad; but weak arrogance is not necessarily good” 



References 

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/home/Articles/Entries/2010/2/15_Growing_Pains.html 

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/special-to-the-china-post/2010/03/17/248646/p2/Is-China.htm 

The Power of Forgiveness

Mourad Anouar

Saturday February 11, 2012

It takes nowadays a click on the net to find one targeted by bastions of hate and justifiable violence. Today, I opened my yahoo message box to a long bloody message from an unknown source enticing me; I’m the supposedly overzealous Muslim, to continue the holy war against the so-called infidels. After I was done with reading the message, I asked myself this question: Why do we have all this hate inside us? 

And if you are computer illiterate, don't worry, hate speech will find a way to you via multiple ways ranging from TV, books, or even mosques. The sad part is that over time we, the silent majority, start to condone acts of violence and hate speech by simply not condemning them. We share some responsibility by standing unresponsive to heinous acts carried out under the name of a religion we all assume to adhere to.

This unfortunate position of being hateful and passive is powerfully expressed in the lines of a story entitled City of Wrong by Egyptian writer Mohammad Kamel Hussein when the latter commented on the last moment of Christianity’s Jesus as he was demandingly dragged to the Cross in front of onlookers who showed no sympathy nor condemnation of what he endured. Known in Egypt as Father of Orthopedics, Dr. Hussein described this moment of hate and passiveness as” the individual’s conscience does not prevent the group from committing the greatest sin as long as it is committed on behalf of the group. And conscience alone is the one that distract people from evil, and since the groups do not have a conscience, it does not bother any individual of the group to what the group might commit no matter how serious is the sin”.

My article here, as we witness tragic consequences of hate, is meant to provide my own understanding of the problem in question-hate and passiveness- with a realistic alternative to those who emptied their hearts of love and filled it with hatred instead.

About three years ago, I took an International Law class with a gentleman named Luis Furmanski whose lectures were interesting and insightful, but one lecture that I will never forget was in fact a case study about Apartheid trials in South Africa. That day when we, students, were all engaged in showing the professor how we digested the class materials by putting into practice our understanding of the International Law articles, some of us even competed to come up with the harshest punishments for those white folks who were accused of crimes against humanity. After listening to all our interpretations of the law,  the professor, standing behind the podium, said: All what you concluded is true as far as applying International Law, but listen to what Desmond Tutu had to say to those aggressors ” Our Lord would say that in the end the positive thing that can come is the spirit of forgiving. Not forgetting, but the spirit of saying, “God, this happened to us. We pray for those who made it happen, help us to forgive them and help us so that we in our turn will not make others suffer”

Tutu’s inspiring and powerful words still resonate within my heart and soul since then. His   words should get us to realize the importance of forgiveness in our society. We, sadly, were brought up in an atmosphere where vengeance and hate are recommended weapons to deal with our daily challenges. We, parents, never cease to indoctrinate our little ones with the- eye- for-an-eye principle. Forgiveness in this hostile society has been synonymous with defeatism. But the fact is that having a heart eaten up by a raging hatred is another form of defeatism, for you let your heart be conquered by a foreign and destructive vice called hate.

The bottom line is the outcome of the two options: Forgiveness brings about a peaceful state of mind, emotional healing and a sensation of superiority to the inner state of conflict between good and evil. Hatred, on the other hand, breeds only more hate and violence. It not only impairs our vision to see the good things in life, but it places us no further from being beasts.


The pervasiveness of turmoil is so overwhelming that you cannot even comprehend or keep up with. Historically speaking, the moments of peace are longer than those of drums of war. Each time through our collectively human experience, moments of peace are seeds of a message based on love, tolerance and forgiveness delivered by exceptional people. One name that stands out among many was the prophet Muhammad who was committed to bringing peace and forgiveness to a then warring region. His message of forgiveness was manifested in his famous statement as he returned to his beloved city Mecca after years of exile in the neighboring city of Medina. Entering Mecca victorious, he told his enemies” Go, for you are free” after they had cast him out. 

In search of common grounds with the “new chauvinistic Amazighs”

Mourad Anouar

Wednesday February 15, 2012

Writing about the Moroccan Amazigh issues is similar in magnitude and severity to writing about religion in Middle East where any attempt of critical thinking is faced with the same common weapons of blasphemy, ignorance, treason and sometimes even assassination. 

o avoid these ready-made accusations, I searched the topic in question in an attempt not to clash with anybody. As you the reader notice, I used the word Amazigh, not Berber, whenever I talk about the indigenous people of Morocco so nobody would feel disparaged nor offended, for I found out that the word “Berber’ is derogatory to some. And in doing so, I was to prove to the reader, especially the Amazigh one, that there was no ill intention behind me tackling this issue.

As I embark on this unpredictable venture, I hope to find a common ground with the Amazigh people, especially the chauvinistic ones. Yes the chauvinistic ones, not Moha, Hma’d neither Hammou, nor Tamo and the list goes on endlessly, for the latter sat next and behind me in classrooms with no hidden agenda. They never tried to stab me. Nor did I. We played soccer in the same field with the same soccer balls. More than once all of us chipped in some money to buy a soccer ball from our neighborhood’s grocery store vendor Si’Omar. We loved and respected each other as we were taught to do so. Stories of a long-lasting co-existence of Arabs and Amazighs in Morocco that started centuries ago are too long to be condensed into an article like this.

But why do they” stab” us now? Do we ever try to steal their dreams for a better life? Did any of us, we the Arabs, manage to boycott An Amazigh? Or did we, we the Arab invaders as some call us, imagine Morocco without Amazighs?

As I tried to dig deep into the possible motives that might drive this minority, I hope so, to embrace such separationist views in a country that has always been welcoming and warm to all people regardless of their ethnic backgrounds, I was unable to come up with a legitimate motive.
I asked these questions above because I have recently noticed a dangerous trend followed by “some Amazighs” who even dare to talk about a state for them only, without Arabs. The bellicose mood that started years ago has radically changed into a separationist one, of which no single Moroccan has ever thought. 

Personally speaking, I was offended by many things chauvinist Amazighs have said since their issue came to prominence, but for the sake of our valued unity, I ignored the vitriolic rhetoric spewed out by some of them through different types of media that they have access to. On the net where people can enjoy the experience  of hit- and run, I always come across very hateful comments where some of them even called on rounding up all Arabs in Morocco and sending them back to where they came from(Saudi Arabia obviously). To this point, I considered all that as premature and an online sparring from virtual people.

But the most offensive thing I experienced was the Amazigh flag that supposed to be representing the” Amasigh nation”.  According to Wikipedia,” The Berber flag is a flag that has been proposed for the Berber people”. You may wonder as you condemn this ill-advised move, but the reality is that this flag is to symbolize the Amazigh land. Or, “Tamazgha” as it stated in Wikipedia. To whoever wrote that on Wikipedia, here is a question: Is it a proposed substitute flag for the current Moroccan one? Or, is it for a land that is unheard of?

The first thing I encountered as I searched into this thorny topic is that chauvinistic Amazighs tend to think discussing “the Amazigh issue” is” a restricted turf” for  Amazighs only, which struck me as odd and somewhat quixotic. I think that because I am Moroccan in the first place, I am more than entitled to discuss it as it concerns me as much as it does concern anybody else.

Throwing all these shocking information into the reader’s face, especially the one who has never imagined a split Morocco, is to raise awareness around an issue that we seem to ignore. Now, as you may be offended, or possibly bothered, by all these, I want you to think about the following as you might have experienced the same thing as I did: I was born and raised in Doukkala, where, as most parts of Morocco, Arabs and Amazigh live side by side peacefully. I admit there have been stereotypes exchanged by the two ethnic groups of society, but, thank God, it never amounts to the point where we call it a racial problem in Morocco. We Moroccans like to joke and poke fun at everybody, even ourselves. No hard feelings. I admit I still have this distorted image of the ordinary Amazigh man who spends most of his life toiling in order to save a fortune. The stereotype even goes on to describe him as stingy, modesty-dressed with a European-like skin. Amazighs too, on the other hand, have their stereotyped image of Arabs as being extravagant brown-skinned folks, showy and lust-driven.

The good thing though about all our racial and ethnic differences in Morocco, to my knowledge, is that it has never been used to systematically discriminate against Amazighs, or any other ethnic groups. Even when Pan-Arabism with its many flaws was at its peak, it was never intent on espousing any ideas of relegating Amazighs from their native land. The reason I spoke about the bon temps lived by two of us, Arabs and Morocco, is to ask the chauvinistic Amazighs the following: Why all this now?

As Amazigh separationists seem to be partly influenced by some neighboring ones, such as Copts in Egypt, one wonder if the contagion of separation is an inevitable plague for Middle East countries. History, though, tells us that such movements not only could build no civilization, but it tells also that any entity that aims to be established on chauvinistic grounds is doomed as the case of the Nazi Germany. On the other hand, diversity in races and cultures has always been a valuable asset for prosperity and success. The great civilization built by the Abbasid dynasty owes much of its prosperity to the concept of melting pot where Persians, Turks, Arabs, and Copts and more were able to excel in many literary and scientific fields with no significance given to anybody’s ethnic background.
 
I always maintain that Morocco’s hidden strengths are not its mines of phosphate, or its boundless shorelines, but rather its ethnically rich culture.  We Moroccans should pride on this cherished experience that is a harvest of mutual respect and love dated back centuries.

In this piece I don’t seek to impersonate American politician Joseph McCarthy in his overreacted and unwarranted measures in weeding out all whom he, or I, suspect having ties or sympathy with either then Communism or now new Amazigh chauvinism, nor ask I for putting the chauvinistic Amazighs  in concentration camps. But the increasingly heated tone of them is something worth dealing with seriously on the part of the Moroccan government. More seriously is an urgency of emerging rational and wise Amazighs, my childhood friends Mouha, Hammou, Hma’d and Tamo, who are willing seek to find common grounds with Arabs and cope with the differences. One can’t help but to see and hear our long-awaited Amazigh savior, somebody as charismatic and outspoken as the famed Coptic Makram Ebeid Pasha who said in a time Egypt was on the brink of a sectarian war as it is now: “I am a Christian of religion and a Muslim of identity”

Certainly, I don’t want an Amazigh who is ready to lay off his commitment to his its ancestral roots. Instead, we are in need of somebody who is blessed with the spirit of willing to bring us together. Somebody who is ready to stand up for his fellow Arabs and tell his chauvinistic fellows: We are all Moroccans before being Arabs or Amazighs.

As we are waiting, I insist on the necessity for an open dialogue between all Moroccans, Amazighs and Arabs, a dialogue aimed at exploring more into our common heritage without a shred of doubt that our glorious past of co-existence is the underpinning for a brighter future together. When we reach that, we will lounge on our sofas and enjoy our music icon Omar Sayed singing without any of us caring if he is Amazigh or an Arab, but rather Moroccan. 

Is it an Egyptian hooliganism or a sensationalist media by-product?

It seems that the purpose of soccer in Egypt is about shedding as much blood as it could be. The horrific scenes of irate fans of Port Said soccer club assaulting their fellow ones from al-Ahly and resulting in the killing of At least 74 people indicate that there is something definitely wrong. 

Port Said tragedy

As some in Egypt, particularly The Muslim Brotherhood, accused remnants of the Mubarak regime of provoking the riot in an attempt to destabilise the country, many of Egypt's liberal youth activists, believing in conspiracy, quickly pinned the blame on the military council. Astonishingly, no evidence has been provided so far to back up any of the two allegations. 
The root causes, I think, of this phenomenon are more than the work of some Mubarak’s loyalists, or the covert actions by the military council. As for Mubarak being involved somehow in this tragedy, I think history of soccer as bloody and violent as it has been confirms that hooliganism in Egypt is not a sudden occurrence. The Egyptian military council too has no benefit in exacerbating the security situation in Egypt. A disestablished Egypt, on the contrary, would intensify the popular dissent against the council.

The history of soccer violence in Egypt does not start in Port Said. We all remember what happened in Sudan in November 14, 2009 when dozens of Algerian and Egyptian fans were injured in assaults and clashes between the two sides as a result of Egypt’s soccer national team loss against Algerian one. Four days before that, on the night of the first game, which Egypt won, thousands of Egyptians flooded into the streets of Cairo screaming, dancing and wreaking havoc. Last year on Apr 3, 2011 hundred of Egpyt's Zamalek fans decided to storm the pitch, in stoppage time, and forced the referee to leave blaming the match’s Algerian referee for disallowing Egyptian side's third goal in a game between Zamalek and Tunisia's Club Africain. As the officials fled the scene after the game was abandoned, the crazies on the pitch threw stones, lit flares and attacked both the players and even each other.

In the aftermath of the game between Egypt and Algeria in Sudan, Egyptian and foreign observers alike marveled at the extent of nationalist fervor and mass mobilization done by the mass media in particular.

In this piece I argue, too, that the Egyptian media is to blame for all what tragically happened. Here is a one fact: Most of sport talk shows in Egypt, especially soccer ones, are run by inexperienced anchors that have no background in the field of mass communication. In fact, most of them were former players who think they can do better both on the field and in front of cameras. The incident of one famous talk show host, former player also, where he bastardized the whole people of Algeria is still fresh in memories. Another talk show watched by millions of Egyptians the host incited viewers to go out and kill any Algerian living in Egypt after a rumor spread in the net claiming that Egyptian fans were killed by Algerian counterparts in the Sudan game. By the way, this two frightening and despicable scenes happened on live shows where Egyptian flags were waved and national hymns were sung in a scene similar to a war mobilization.

The instigator host who openly urged his viewers to go out and kill Algerians who lived in Egypt had to be happy after he knew that some of his show fans responded to his call. It was not that long when his call for violence was answered and some hundreds of revengeful fans gathered in front of the Algerian embassy in Cairo, burning Algerian flags, and eventually clashing with of riot police.

The role of the media in this example was hijacked by fanatic and rookie media people who think their national pride was on the line and that there is no way but to take revenge from those who dare to deconsecrate it. Yeah, it is true that to those nationalism is sacred. For this reason, their sense of judgment is clouded by their allegiances to their nationalism rather than to their reasons.

Another extreme and strange response from the public to the sensationalist media following also the infamous Egypt vs. Algeria game was what was reported by al-Ahram newspaper when they ran a story about a village willing to change its name from al-Jaza'ir ("Algeria") to Mubarak al-misriyin.

Those are just few of a long list of examples of mishandling and unprofessionalism by the irresponsible Egyptian media which deviated from its proper course in educating people and helping in rationalizing their behaviors. Egypt is compelled to redefine the role of the media, in particular sport media and why not follow the steps of the European Committee on Civil liberties and Internal Affairs in its 1996 report which recommended that the media should "participate in the promotion of respect for fair pay in sport, to help promote positive sporting value, to combat aggressive and chauvinist behavior and to avoid any sensationalism in treating information on violence at sporting events”
As bereft Egypt is surely in our thoughts, one of the inexplicable remarks, yet saddening, is that as many as 73 people were allegedly killed by the winning team fans, which makes you wonder what would be the death toll if Port Said team lost. 

Amine El Khalifi, the black sheep

By Mourad Anouar

Thank God and Federal security for nabbing Mr. Amine El Khalifi before he was able to carry out his monstrous plan. If the latter happened to succeed, the damage would be irreparable. But along with such alleged terrorist plans that target innocent people comes a price that others have to pay.

It is a high price by the way. And in this case, we, the Moroccan community, are in no better position as we have to defend ourselves against something one black sheep has done. People like El Khalifi don’t know that their cowardly acts bring about not only material damage, but they play a major role in demonizing a large community that chose to make America their second home.

Unlike many other Moroccans who came to the states to have a better life, El Khalifi had different plans. He could have seized the opportunity and picked out a good career for him. He, instead, chose to be a murderer. Surely, he did not believe in an orderly and peaceful society where people can still live together even if they have different ideologies. He should have learned through his nine years as an illegal immigrant that in a civilized society people settle their differences, no matter how serious they are, by debating, not throwing grenades. Al Khalifi was able to overstay his visa without being apprehended by the Immigration authorities. Instead of being thankful for that, he returned their favor by trying to bomb the U.S capitol and other governmental buildings.

Unfortunately, Mr. Al Khalifi not only chose to pursue a bloody path, but he, knowingly or unknowingly, was behind tarnishing the image of his native country and his fellow Moroccans who  live in America. Living away from one’s native country usually requires one to be a goodwill ambassador for it. However, for people like Al Khalifi, there is no affiliation or allegiance, or even some sense of patriotism. Loyalty to their extremist convictions transcends all bonds to either their host country or their native one.  Orchestrating their evil plans comes before any considerations including the jeopardizing of the lives of many Moroccans living here in the US.

No doubt the war on terror is not America’s only. Countries around the world have suffered from this global phenomenon. In Morocco as in the United States, Moroccans need to come forward to denounce such heinous acts. It is time to do more than just send out statements of condemnation to news agencies and officials. We should use all our means to campaign against this lethal ideology that is twisted out of any semblance to reality. The battle against terror is not limited to just rounding up a bunch of crazies and putting them behind bars. It is in fact a battle of ideas where taking people’s lives can be justified by twisting the meanings of divine scriptures.

Mr. Khalifi is not the only or the last one with extremist ideas. His arrest should indicate that terrorists are determined to fight until the last drop of blood.

One thing I am sure of is that El Khalifi does not represent Morocco or Moroccans. No matter what his motives for his cowardly plot were, no justification can be made when innocent lives are targeted.

What should we do after all this?

That would be left to the readers to come up with the possible solutions and strategies in an attempt t

Media effects on society: Uses for Gratifications’ theory

By Mourad Anouar,

Lucian Parfeni, Web News Editor at www.news.softpedia.com, wrote an article about why teens don’t tweet. To get an answer for that, he asked Geoff Cook, co-founder and CEO of social networking site my Yearbook, about the reluctance to use twitter among teens. Surveying more than 10,000 teens between 13 and 17 years old, the answer by Geoff Cook was not totally unexpected, as it turns out that teens tweet or don’t tweet just as much as the rest of us. For the most part, Facebook is just a better alternative.

To back up this finding, the writer referred to Nielsen report from a 15-year-old intern at the research firm which, even if it was hardly scientific, it found that teenagers just don’t use Twitter because they have much better alternatives for their needs like Facebook.  Along with these findings, the major one was that most teenagers don’t use twitter, because their needs are better served by other services and that the micro blogging service really does not bring anything new for them.

It seems that this article goes in parallel with what Blumler and Katz found in their uses for gratification theory. Beginning in the 1940s, researchers began seeing patterns under the perspective of the uses and gratifications theory in radio listeners. Early research was concerned with topics, such as children’s use of comics and the absence of newspapers during a newspaper strike.

In 1974, Katz and Bulmer (1974) saw the mass media as a means by which individuals connect or disconnect themselves with. Before that time, most communication research was questioning, “What do media do to people?” However, Katz suggested asking the question, “What do people do with media?

The uses for gratification approach, within the Functionalist theory, shifted the focus from the purposes of the communication to the purpose of the reader and opened a door to a modern understanding of mass communication. This popular approach to understanding mass communication suggests that media users play an active role in choosing and using the media. Uses for gratifications theory takes a more humanistic approach to looking at media use.

Bulmer and Katz believe that there is not merely one way that the populace uses media. Instead, they believe there are as many reasons for using the media, as there are media users. Users take an active part in the communication process and are goal-oriented in their media use.  The two theorists say that a media user seeks out a media source that best fulfills the needs of the user. John Fiske (1990) notes that “this approach takes as its basis the belief that the audience has a complex set of needs which it seeks to satisfy in the mass media”

 Uses for gratification theory can be seen in this case in the article we have in the fact that the teens prefer Facebook not only to fit a particular mood, but also in attempts to show empowerment or other socially conscience motives, even if there are many different types of social network sites that we choose from them to fulfill a particular need. Dominic A. Infante, Andrew S. Rancer and Deanna F. Womack (2003) concluded that “Another assumption of uses and gratification theory is that audiences use the media to fulfill expectations. For example, you may watch a science fiction program such as Star Trek to fantasize about the future”

As other mass media theories, Uses for Gratifications’ theory has been criticized for the fact that the public has no control over the media and what it produces. It can also be said to be too kind to the media, as they are being ‘let off the hook’ and do not need to take responsibility for what they produce.

Additionally, it receives critique due to the individualistic nature of Uses and Gratification theory; it is difficult to take the information that is collected in studies. Most research relies on pure recollection of memory rather than data. This makes self-reports complicated and immeasurable. Others even believe that this theory in hand has survived because only for want of an alternative.

Karsten Renckstorf (2004) said that “It cannot be said to have flourished, and its success are patchy and uneven”. In general, although the media industry is based on the strategy that audiences are at least somewhat active, two dichotomies concerning media have long prevailed. In the first group are those scholars who view the mass audience as predominantly passive and those who hold that audience members are active and discriminating.

However, the basic questions remain the same. Why do people become involved in one particular type of mediated communication or another, and what gratifications do they receive from it? Judith Page Van Evra (2004) thinks that “contemporary studies answer the criticism and show systematic progression and further conceptual development, including attention to theoretical links among uses of media and effects and more knowledge about audience members as variably active communicators.”

References: 

Dominic A. Infante, Andrew S. Rancer and Deanna F. Womack. (2003) Building communication theory. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press.

John Fiske. (1990) Introduction to Communication Studies.  Florence, KY: Routledge.

Judith Page Van Evra. (2004) Television and child development. Florence, KY: Routledge.

Karsten Renckstorf. (2004) Action theory and communication research: recent developments in Europe. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter

By Mourad Anouar

Please select one of the following: My boss is….

A) – Monster

B) – grizzly

C) – terrible

D) – All of the above

My friend’s wife thinks her boss can be all of the above. “No day would come by without her coming back home from work with the worst and most painful experience she has ever had with her boss”, my friend Adam told me. I would not be surprised if she has indeed thought of the perfect set up to get rid of her boss. She might have thought of a bunch of mischievous scenarios with no incriminating evidence. But I am certain she thought of quitting her current job several times. If you really hate your boss, does what I mentioned above sound familiar? Is this what you face every day? Have you also thought of the perfect mischievous scenarios? Do you keep thinking that there must be a way around, up or out of this awful situation, if you could only figure out what is it?

My newly-hired friend Chris who works for a food processing company has the same “I hate my boss syndrome”. He baselessly claims his boss hates him “just because he is white”. His boss is African American by the way, but I don’t think she is racist. Through my own experience with her, I noticed her positive attitude and open mindedness, which proves his claims unfounded. To be honest, my friend Chris is lazy, really lazy. And because I have known him for years, I know that his main problem with his boss is his lack of loyalty towards his job in addition to laziness.

Yeah, sorry Chris, I have to be honest about it. And don’t tell me now you have tried it. No, you have not because you don’t have it. I am talking about loyalty in case you are clueless. And if you don’t know what is it? You still can learn it. It is never too late.

As most people, Chris, I don’t think you signed up for this job to work for a difficult boss. Probably when you accepted your new job, your boss seemed really nice, so nice that you thought you were the luckiest one on earth. And probably your bon temps at work was short-lived as your boss turned out to be a poltergeist.

Like my Friend’s wife, Chris thought of quitting his job probably more than the possibility of finding a solution. Honestly, quitting a job for feeling not up to the challenge seems to me an unjustifiable surrender. May be you cannot change your boss’s hot temper, for example, but you can alleviate its intensity to a lesser degree.

Chris, how many times did you tell me you lied to your boss? How many times did you fail to report your work malpractices to your boss? Do you remember that day when you told me you had been doing this job just for money, not because you love the job you do? Well, Chris, all of these are signs of a lack of loyalty. In other words and blatantly, you are disloyal to your boss.

As a matter of fact, being loyal to your boss is part of your job and a key indicator of your success. Which loyalty? Not the one you are thinking about now. Loren B. Belke, the author of “The First-Time Manager,” comments on this unsuitable loyalty. He notes “Loyalty has fallen into widespread disrepute. Blind loyalty has never had much to recommend it, but being loyal does not mean selling your soul. Your company and your boss are not out to rip the world. If they are, they are not worth your loyalty”

If you can be loyal to your boss without selling your soul, then you are on the right track. Loyalty simply means to be punctual for your job. To love your work and enjoy doing it. to Embrace your obstacles with a strong will and to manage your duties with integrity.

In learning how to do this you will master a valuable lesson about management, human behavior, work quality and how not to belittle your job. These skills can be turned around into survival, and even success, strategies.

Still, all what you need to do, Chris, is to summon that intrepid soul dwelling in you and join the opposite side, the loyal side.