QUESTION 1 RESPONSE
Although I do not agree with all of Fried’s beliefs with regard to workplace productivity, I was able to clearly follow his argument throughout his presentation. I find the rhetoric that Jason Fried used in hisTed-talk very interesting. The way he maps out his argument in order to keep the audience engaged plays an important role on the impact of the statements he makes. Fried also engages directly with the audience by asking them questions regarding their personal experiences with productivity in different environments. Based on the response that Fried received from the audience, it seemed as if he knew that most of the people were employees rather than manager’s and would relate with the examples he gave. By using stories and vivid language, Fried seems to make use of Pathos in his presentation. Tactics like these work well with both public speaking and writing. Although breaking the 4th wall might not be appropriate in all forms of writing, including relevant anecdotes can engage not only the reader but also strengthen your argument.
QUESTION 3 RESPONSE
I do agree with Margaret Heffernan’s perspective regarding robustness over efficiency but I believe it holds more value with respect to diversity in the work place. Current Organizational leadership skills are rooted in efficiency in an attempt to reach the goals an organization has set. However, by switching focus to preparing for the future through the cultivation of a uniquely diverse staff, any circumstance that may arise can be quickly assessed and have the best course of action taken against it. This Ted talk relates closely with the “Neurodiversity as a Competitive Advantage” text due to its comparison of efficiency and robustness. In the Austin and Pisano text, the authors strike a contrast between the actual value that members of the neurodiverse community can add to a workplace and the perception of their abilities by employers and colleges alike. This same comparison takes a different form in Margaret Heffernan’s argument regarding the supermarket task allocator. The commonality between these arguments seems to be that while placing value in the things that are viewed as “normal” and efficient can be advantageous in certain circumstances, utilizing a wide variety of skills through a diverse group of people can help prepare for the future in ways unthought of.
Right–engaging directly with the audience (asking rhetorical questions of the “what would you do?” sort) both gives him a way to get instant audience-feedback (body language, facial expressions, applause) AND gives the audience opportunity to connect thoughtfully to what he is saying. That’s valuable, and while it’s perhaps easier to see at work in an in-person presentation, it can also be pretty effective in asynchronous kinds of communication (i.e. in writing, through video, etc.). Even if a writer isn’t *seeing* their audience react, they can try to anticipate their audience’s reactions and incorporate those perspectives or answers into their text.