My initial objection is more about the lack of execution and/or sacrifice in the name of peace. It seems like most previous laureates have done one of those two things. Young people can do great things and get recognized for it just fine but I wouldn't hook our wagon to Obama on this particular award. Plenty of other reasons why there were other's more deserving.
In the end though, it really doesn't matter one way or the other. When trophies and awards execute change this country actually needs, I'll get excited about it. This doesn't change anything going forward.
I see what your saying, but I guess that's part of my point – just because others have taken a certain path to win an award doesn't mean it should be the only path. To me, we shouldn't compare Obama to previous laureates – just to the criteria set forth for winning.
Quoted from Wikipedia: “the Peace Prize should be awarded 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.'”
Because of the nature of the criteria, I think it's so strange that everyone compares Obama to past laureates. Organizations can't move forward by looking to the past for approval.
I do agree that the prize doesn't change much going forward – but it does represent the US in a positive light. Overall it's a reflection of our country's leadership, and I'm proud of the accomplishment, even though I had nothing to do with it.
The Nobel foundation isn't a typical organization. I think we can all agree on that. I have to argue that past criteria and laureates are a fantastic benchmark for future award winners (when you're talking about any major award, that's always the case). So the same lessons and assumptions that may apply to a business organization don't necessarily apply here.
Hard criteria and past expectations are good. It is why the Nobel Peace Prize has legitimacy today. I can't stand people that want to characterize our generation as people that want a trophy before they've really had the opportunity to execute and see success. Why would I want to attach myself to someone that I feel did exactly that?
One thing that's interesting about the vote is that supposedly it was unanimous, and an easy decision for the committee to make.
The other thing is that Obama was pretty shocked himself, and did not feel deserving of the award. He also said the award stood for American leadership, not for himself.
I don't see shame in attaching myself or my Generation to Obama's win – I think the win is proof that age and experience don't always trump ideas and charismatic leadership. I do agree that people characterize our generation poorly, but I also see most of the same arguments for both why young people have to “pay their dues” and why Obama shouldn't have won.
I'm leaning towards Launce's point, here. When I first saw the headline, the first thing that came to my mind was “Well, what exactly did he do to get it?” and his age didn't concern me at all. I believe the last nominations had to be submitted about two weeks or so after his inauguration (correct me if I'm wrong, though).
Obama does have a lot of potential, whether you like him or not, voted for him or not … there's no argument there.The problem is it's just potential at this point. He's inspired a lot of people but he needs a chance to prove something tangible as a result of all that inspiration.
That said, I see what you're saying: action needs inspiration and the tank is near empty in the inspiration department. So it's nice to see a fresh change from the same old demoralizing political and economic environment we're in now.
That is true, that the nominations were submitted right after his inauguration. I don't see his career as starting when he became President though. He campaigned for Presidency for 2 years prior, and held a senate seat.
I'm not sure Obama just has potential; I think he has made a real difference in bringing peace to the world when there was previously no hope of peace.
Just some thoughts; I'm still not completely sure what I think. Both you and Lance have given me stuff to think about, but I still believe Obama deserves the award so far.
Great points on why the win is deserved, Monica! I especially agree with your point about when someone is already performing the job duties, they obviously deserve the job, irrespective of seniority and all the other silly rules of the corporate world.
Obama may not have achieved a lot of his goals yet, but I suppose he certainly has made a drastic change in the political landscape, how people look at the US, how governments are cooperating, and the HUGE fact that he is pushing for nuclear disarmament.
Sorry I've been a lurker lately (like you said in your recent post about highlighting other Gen-Y bloggers), but also thanks for bringing Valerie to my attention!
Cool, first person to agree with me. Even my parents vocalized their opinion that I was wrong .
I also think Obama has made a significant change, whether we are seeing the fruits of his labor yet or not. It’s really difficult (almost impossible) to change brand image, yet Obama has taken some really positive steps towards change by assuming leadership of the US.
I have worked for several companies where the CEO or other execs tell stories of how they went from the mail room to VP in 5 years… but they turn around and implement rules requiring employees to remain in their position for 1-2 years before getting a promotion or applying for new positions… Now I know the rule, “if there were no exceptions there would be no need for the rule” But these practices create an environment of extreme favoritism when the higher ups hand pick a person to break the rules for. These practices are why companies lose top tier talent to other companies that are willing to give younger people an opportunity to shine (to a point… and then you have to leave for another company to go to the next level).
I have worked for several companies where the CEO or other execs tell stories of how they went from the mail room to VP in 5 years… but they turn around and implement rules requiring employees to remain in their position for 1-2 years before getting a promotion or applying for new positions… Now I know the rule, “if there were no exceptions there would be no need for the rule” But these practices create an environment of extreme favoritism when the higher ups hand pick a person to break the rules for. These practices are why companies lose top tier talent to other companies that are willing to give younger people an opportunity to shine (to a point… and then you have to leave for another company to go to the next level).
Monica O'Brien is the Director of Digital at Fizz and author of the book Social Pollination, which helps businesses leverage social media for crazy growth!
"There's no sugar coating in Monica's advice. She understands and outlines what works and doesn't, while she also leaves room to discuss the transient nature of social media."
Grace Boyle, Publisher Services Manager at Lijit
Monica O'Brien is the Director of Digital at Fizz and author of the book Social Pollination, which helps businesses leverage social media for crazy growth!
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
My initial objection is more about the lack of execution and/or sacrifice in the name of peace. It seems like most previous laureates have done one of those two things. Young people can do great things and get recognized for it just fine but I wouldn't hook our wagon to Obama on this particular award. Plenty of other reasons why there were other's more deserving.
In the end though, it really doesn't matter one way or the other. When trophies and awards execute change this country actually needs, I'll get excited about it. This doesn't change anything going forward.
I see what your saying, but I guess that's part of my point – just because others have taken a certain path to win an award doesn't mean it should be the only path. To me, we shouldn't compare Obama to previous laureates – just to the criteria set forth for winning.
Quoted from Wikipedia: “the Peace Prize should be awarded 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.'”
Because of the nature of the criteria, I think it's so strange that everyone compares Obama to past laureates. Organizations can't move forward by looking to the past for approval.
I do agree that the prize doesn't change much going forward – but it does represent the US in a positive light. Overall it's a reflection of our country's leadership, and I'm proud of the accomplishment, even though I had nothing to do with it.
The Nobel foundation isn't a typical organization. I think we can all agree on that. I have to argue that past criteria and laureates are a fantastic benchmark for future award winners (when you're talking about any major award, that's always the case). So the same lessons and assumptions that may apply to a business organization don't necessarily apply here.
Hard criteria and past expectations are good. It is why the Nobel Peace Prize has legitimacy today. I can't stand people that want to characterize our generation as people that want a trophy before they've really had the opportunity to execute and see success. Why would I want to attach myself to someone that I feel did exactly that?
One thing that's interesting about the vote is that supposedly it was unanimous, and an easy decision for the committee to make.
The other thing is that Obama was pretty shocked himself, and did not feel deserving of the award. He also said the award stood for American leadership, not for himself.
I don't see shame in attaching myself or my Generation to Obama's win – I think the win is proof that age and experience don't always trump ideas and charismatic leadership. I do agree that people characterize our generation poorly, but I also see most of the same arguments for both why young people have to “pay their dues” and why Obama shouldn't have won.
I'm leaning towards Launce's point, here. When I first saw the headline, the first thing that came to my mind was “Well, what exactly did he do to get it?” and his age didn't concern me at all. I believe the last nominations had to be submitted about two weeks or so after his inauguration (correct me if I'm wrong, though).
Obama does have a lot of potential, whether you like him or not, voted for him or not … there's no argument there.The problem is it's just potential at this point. He's inspired a lot of people but he needs a chance to prove something tangible as a result of all that inspiration.
That said, I see what you're saying: action needs inspiration and the tank is near empty in the inspiration department. So it's nice to see a fresh change from the same old demoralizing political and economic environment we're in now.
Thanks for the comment Valerie!
That is true, that the nominations were submitted right after his inauguration. I don't see his career as starting when he became President though. He campaigned for Presidency for 2 years prior, and held a senate seat.
I'm not sure Obama just has potential; I think he has made a real difference in bringing peace to the world when there was previously no hope of peace.
Just some thoughts; I'm still not completely sure what I think. Both you and Lance have given me stuff to think about, but I still believe Obama deserves the award so far.
Great points on why the win is deserved, Monica! I especially agree with your point about when someone is already performing the job duties, they obviously deserve the job, irrespective of seniority and all the other silly rules of the corporate world.
Obama may not have achieved a lot of his goals yet, but I suppose he certainly has made a drastic change in the political landscape, how people look at the US, how governments are cooperating, and the HUGE fact that he is pushing for nuclear disarmament.
Sorry I've been a lurker lately (like you said in your recent post about highlighting other Gen-Y bloggers), but also thanks for bringing Valerie to my attention!
Cool, first person to agree with me. Even my parents vocalized their opinion that I was wrong
.
I also think Obama has made a significant change, whether we are seeing the fruits of his labor yet or not. It’s really difficult (almost impossible) to change brand image, yet Obama has taken some really positive steps towards change by assuming leadership of the US.
I have worked for several companies where the CEO or other execs tell stories of how they went from the mail room to VP in 5 years… but they turn around and implement rules requiring employees to remain in their position for 1-2 years before getting a promotion or applying for new positions… Now I know the rule, “if there were no exceptions there would be no need for the rule” But these practices create an environment of extreme favoritism when the higher ups hand pick a person to break the rules for. These practices are why companies lose top tier talent to other companies that are willing to give younger people an opportunity to shine (to a point… and then you have to leave for another company to go to the next level).
I have worked for several companies where the CEO or other execs tell stories of how they went from the mail room to VP in 5 years… but they turn around and implement rules requiring employees to remain in their position for 1-2 years before getting a promotion or applying for new positions… Now I know the rule, “if there were no exceptions there would be no need for the rule” But these practices create an environment of extreme favoritism when the higher ups hand pick a person to break the rules for. These practices are why companies lose top tier talent to other companies that are willing to give younger people an opportunity to shine (to a point… and then you have to leave for another company to go to the next level).