What is the stupidest book you have ever read?

[Gustaf]

Organizational Leadership by Bratton, Grint and Nelson.

Sample quotes: " If there was no discrimination, leadership positions would be split 50-50 between women and men, reflecting population statistics"

"While many explanations for this effect have been proposed, two in particular seem most plausible. One is discrimination[...]. Much of this discrimination is based on sex sterotypes. Related to the glass ceiling is the idea of glass walls, which are barriers that constrain women in staff/support positions[...]"

"The connection between charismatic leadership and rethorical skill is illustrated in the movie Pearl Harbor [...half a page of this example...]. At the opposite end of the spectrum from the use of scenes from fictional movies as research data is the use of scientific experiments"

[Gustaf]

Oh, and the best one is the one about the brick. It is a metaphor about changing organizations. It goes like this:

there is a brick with two holes and two different pieces of string are tied through the holes tying the brick to the ceiling. If you take the bottom piece of string (preferably wearing a glove, don't ask me why) and pull fast the bottom string will break but if you do it slowly the top string will and the brick will fall.

"This simple experimient demonstrates the significance of inertia and tension (power)"

Never mind that they did not actually perform an experiment, they merely assumed everything and furthermoer did not prove any connection between this little fantasy and the real world. But moving on.

"The brick represents the present: the organization, the followers, etc. as they currently exist.  The hand is that of the leader as she or he tries to move the organization from the present into the future, and the bottom string represents the connection between the leader and the organization, the followers, and so on. The top string connected to the ceiling, which represents the past - the connection of the organization and the followers to their collective history."

Their example of inertia is then the downfall of Ceasescu. He apparently died because people would not move (literally, not move).

Conclusion? "To successfully detach the brick from the top string, the leader must persuade the brick to move"

If you want to make the point of persuasion why the hell choose a ing brick a your example??!

The fact that I had to read that book still haunts me at nights.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ummm... This is wrong?

Yes. A much higher proportion of women than men chose to stay at home and a much higher proportion of women than men chose to work in part-time jobs; you could argue that the cultural factors responsible for this are examples of discrimination, but only with great difficulty and certain unfortunate implications.

Yeah of course. It is just that that statement is one of those statements which may be true but would be impossible to find out by any sort of realistic method. I would not rule it out though and I would not consider it a sign of "stupidity".

I threw that one in there because I knew someone would bite.

What makes it stupid is mostly the second part which is a really, really stupid blanket statement. The implication is that if there was no discrimination then every profession  would have the exact same division of all groups. Which is completely ridiculous. Now, given the right sort of qualifications (along the lines Al suggest, for instance) it isn't necessarily stupid. But the analysis pretty much begins and ends with that quote. And that is breathtakingly shallow.

I mean, for starters there are many groups and many professions where this is obviously untrue (such as physically very demanding jobs, for instance). So, in order to make this claim one must first explain why leadership positions and gender stand out in this respect.

[Gustaf]

I should also add that the main reason why I think the other quote on gender equality to be stupid is the simple facts that it promises to give me two plausible explanations and then only comes up with one.