What do you think?
Rate this book
Hammer-Proof
"A Positive Guide to Values-Based Leaderhip." A witty, down-to-earth approach to business and organizational ethics, "Hammer-Proof" offers easy-to-understand, stories and practical advice for leaders at all levels of every organization. Dr. Zink motivates his readers to make a positive impact on people's lives in small ways every day. Beyond showing you how to avoid ethical disasters, Dr. Zink's positive approach will teach you how to make any organization a better place to live and work.
110 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1998
10 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
March 15, 2018
Dr. Zink has written a book that tries to guide everyone through ethical dilemmas that they may be facing in corporations, organizations, and, in most particular, the Air Force. Overall, the book was...baffling. As philosopher who recieved is doctorate in Oxford, Dr. Zink discredits his field several times through the book, assumes individuals don't understand ethics and cannot make their own decisions, and often makes contradictory statements in his tangential explorations of the certain topics he decides to explore: relativism, egoism, and character development.
The book begins with a story aimed to shock the reader into interest. Let's be honest, as readers, we've seen it pretty frequently and it's not an attractive quality in many novels. To clarify, hooks are fine, but they should be made to prove a point, not shock a reader into a certain avenue. We begin with Karen, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force,who commits suicide once she is found out to have an enlisted lover. Attempting to prove the importance of value-based leadership, he uses graphic and "obviously depressing stories" to illustrate his points (12). In this decision, there is a value lost to the points that Zink tries to make. The reader is sent reeling into a stupor before being hammered by extremely simplistic moral lessons that could possibly(?) be learned out of these situations. As humans, our brains are engineered to seek out patterns and to assign meaning to them. However, the connections made between graphic examples and lessons to be learned don't have enough substance to connect the two.
Another example is his focus on ethical cultural relativism (also known as Peer Pressure). In this chapter, he elaborates the importance of resisting peer pressure for the choice of doing what is right. He uses a survey about high school education in the mail that he recieved that asks, "School systems which use weighted grades experience more success in admissions to highly successful colleges. Truth or False" (37). At this point, Zink concludes that, "The point is that some things are simply right or wrong, regardless of what the majority of people in Gallup survey believe. Either weighted GPAs help with admissions and scholarships or they don't. No survey or focus group result can possibly affect the facts. To think otherwise is absurd" (38). Reading this portion made me physically upset. As an educator, I believe that our students deserve more thought than a simplistic conclusion. It's also contradictory because multiple points of view must be considered to make an unbiased overall assessment. You cannot simply conclude that an answer is merely right and wrong. The nuances and fine points are the research that helps us conclude a problem with several well thought out and supported solutions, all which are important in their own right. This similar issue seems to perpetrate the entire book: Zink simplifies lessons and examples to make connections without, what seems, the proper research. I'm sure with his background, he has done his research but the book does not convey this.
I finally want to address the amount of times he discredits philsophy throughout his book. Although he received his masters from USC and his phD from Oxford in philosophy, he starts his book stating that, "I found the works of philosophers--classical to modern--to be generally tedious and very difficult to understand" (4). What? There is an extent to poke fun at yourself. That is appreciated, but what seen here is a degrading of a study as useless from an individual who's background is philosophy. Trying to relate to your audience is one thing, putting yourself and the works of your peers down is another. THIS RHETORIC CONTINUES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BOOK. At one point, I just started counting and found more than 20 instances.
Dr. Zink created this book to influence individuals in leadership roles. However, it is an oversimplified approach. He attempts to relate to his audience, but, because of the oversimplification, it comes off as incomplete, aloof, and at some points, even degrading to the reader. This book is one that I would not recommend.
The book begins with a story aimed to shock the reader into interest. Let's be honest, as readers, we've seen it pretty frequently and it's not an attractive quality in many novels. To clarify, hooks are fine, but they should be made to prove a point, not shock a reader into a certain avenue. We begin with Karen, a Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force,who commits suicide once she is found out to have an enlisted lover. Attempting to prove the importance of value-based leadership, he uses graphic and "obviously depressing stories" to illustrate his points (12). In this decision, there is a value lost to the points that Zink tries to make. The reader is sent reeling into a stupor before being hammered by extremely simplistic moral lessons that could possibly(?) be learned out of these situations. As humans, our brains are engineered to seek out patterns and to assign meaning to them. However, the connections made between graphic examples and lessons to be learned don't have enough substance to connect the two.
Another example is his focus on ethical cultural relativism (also known as Peer Pressure). In this chapter, he elaborates the importance of resisting peer pressure for the choice of doing what is right. He uses a survey about high school education in the mail that he recieved that asks, "School systems which use weighted grades experience more success in admissions to highly successful colleges. Truth or False" (37). At this point, Zink concludes that, "The point is that some things are simply right or wrong, regardless of what the majority of people in Gallup survey believe. Either weighted GPAs help with admissions and scholarships or they don't. No survey or focus group result can possibly affect the facts. To think otherwise is absurd" (38). Reading this portion made me physically upset. As an educator, I believe that our students deserve more thought than a simplistic conclusion. It's also contradictory because multiple points of view must be considered to make an unbiased overall assessment. You cannot simply conclude that an answer is merely right and wrong. The nuances and fine points are the research that helps us conclude a problem with several well thought out and supported solutions, all which are important in their own right. This similar issue seems to perpetrate the entire book: Zink simplifies lessons and examples to make connections without, what seems, the proper research. I'm sure with his background, he has done his research but the book does not convey this.
I finally want to address the amount of times he discredits philsophy throughout his book. Although he received his masters from USC and his phD from Oxford in philosophy, he starts his book stating that, "I found the works of philosophers--classical to modern--to be generally tedious and very difficult to understand" (4). What? There is an extent to poke fun at yourself. That is appreciated, but what seen here is a degrading of a study as useless from an individual who's background is philosophy. Trying to relate to your audience is one thing, putting yourself and the works of your peers down is another. THIS RHETORIC CONTINUES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BOOK. At one point, I just started counting and found more than 20 instances.
Dr. Zink created this book to influence individuals in leadership roles. However, it is an oversimplified approach. He attempts to relate to his audience, but, because of the oversimplification, it comes off as incomplete, aloof, and at some points, even degrading to the reader. This book is one that I would not recommend.
October 7, 2018
This is a very quick read that gives the reader a nice jolt of “do the right thing even when no one is looking” ethics.
It’s not a masterpiece nor is it anything groundbreaking, but it serves the purpose it sets out to serve, and for anyone looking for a dose of integrity-promoting motivation, this short book is for you.
The review by Jenny, so critical of the book, is more of an academic assessment. This is not an academic book. It’s written for the average joe, and so it’s simplification of ethics is just fine and more than appropriate in my opinion. As long it encourages the right thinking and doing the right thing, I’d much rather a book be over simplified and read by many than perfectly nuanced and only read by a few academics.
It’s not a masterpiece nor is it anything groundbreaking, but it serves the purpose it sets out to serve, and for anyone looking for a dose of integrity-promoting motivation, this short book is for you.
The review by Jenny, so critical of the book, is more of an academic assessment. This is not an academic book. It’s written for the average joe, and so it’s simplification of ethics is just fine and more than appropriate in my opinion. As long it encourages the right thinking and doing the right thing, I’d much rather a book be over simplified and read by many than perfectly nuanced and only read by a few academics.
February 13, 2021
A very easy read that speaks to the importance of values and integrity in leadership; both at work and otherwise. A one-day read that inspires the (sometimes buried) good nature inside us all.
August 14, 2013
This book contradicts itself on numerous points. I also expected to see a book on ethics have less of a humanistic view point.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews