How about a two joke day?
Eager To Impress The Boss
A young executive was leaving the office late one evening when he found the CEO standing in front of a shredder with a piece of paper in his hand.
"Listen," said the CEO, "this is a very sensitive and important document here, and my secretary has gone for the night. Can you make this thing work?"
"Certainly," said the young executive. He turned the machine on, inserted the paper, and pressed the start button.
"Excellent, excellent!" said the CEO as his paper disappeared inside the machine.
"I just need one copy."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1998 a business magazine ran a contest asking for Dilbert-like quotes from people who had real-life Dilbert-like managers. Here are some of the winners.
1. As of tomorrow, employees will only be able to access the building using individual security cards. Pictures will be taken next Wednesday and employees will receive their cards in two weeks.
(Microsoft Corporation - this one took first place)
2. What I need is a list of specific unknown problems we will encounter.
(Lykes Lines Shipping)
3. How long is this Beta guy going to keep testing our stuff?
(Programming intern, Microsoft Development Team)
4. E-mail is not to be used to pass on information or data. It should be used only for company business.
(Accounting Mgr., Electric Boat Company)
5. This project is so important that we can't let things that are more important interfere with it.
(Advertising /Mktg. Mgr., UPS)
6. Doing it right is no excuse for not meeting the schedule. No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been working on it for months. Now, go act busy for a few weeks, and I'll let you know when it's time to tell them.
(R&D Supervisor, Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing/3M Corp.)
7. My boss spent the entire weekend retyping a 25-page proposal that only needed corrections. She claims the disk I gave her was damaged and she couldn't edit it. The disk I gave her was write-protected.
(CIO of Dell Computers)
8. Quote from the boss: "Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say."
(Marketing Executive, Citrix Corporation)
9. My sister passed away and her funeral was scheduled for Monday. When I told my boss, he said she died so that I would have to miss work on the busiest day of the year. He then asked if we could change her burial to Friday. He said, "That would be better for me."
(Shipping Executive, FTD Florists)
10. We know that communication is a problem, but the company is not going to discuss it with the employees.
(AT&T Long Lines Division)
11. We recently received a memo from senior management saying, "This is to inform you that a memo will be issued today regarding the subject mentioned above."
(Microsoft Legal Affairs Division)
12. As director of communications, I was asked to prepare a memo reviewing our company's training programs and materials. In the body of the memo one of the sentences mentioned the "pedagogical approach" used by one of the training manuals. The day after I routed the memo to the executive committee, I was called into the HR director's office and was told that the executive VP wanted me out of the building by lunch. When I asked why, I was told that she wouldn't stand for "perverts" (pedophiles?) working in her company. He showed me her copy of the memo, with her demand that I be fired, with the word "pedagogical" circled in red. The HR Manager was fairly reasonable, and once he looked the word up in his dictionary and made a copy of the definition to send to my boss, he told me not to worry. He would take care of it. Two days later a memo to the entire staff came out, directing us that no words which could not be found in the local Sunday newspaper could be used in company memos. A month later I resigned. In accordance with company policy, I created my resignation letter by pasting words together from the Sunday paper.
(Taco Bell Corporation)
13. This gem is the closing paragraph of a nationally circulated memo: "Lucent Technologies is endeavorily determined to promote constant attention on current procedures of transacting business focusing emphasis on innovative ways to better, if not supercede, the expectations of quality!"
(Lucent Technologies - formerly a division of AT&T)
Hope you enjoy these business jokes!
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Why your Boss is Overpaid?
The following is a recent article by Tim Harford on Forbes.com. I thought it was an interesting perspective. In usual corporate life, it seems when you get "promoted" to a new role, the pay increase is minimal because there is a "promise" of future pay and benefits (and you sure feel awesome that you are in this new role, doing new things). You might have heard it, "well, you are new in the role and so the pay increase will be minimal until you prove that you can do a good job". In several of my corporate jobs, I had this happen and never really ended up seeing the future benefits, although I thought I was performing well and continued getting "promoted". It is one of the reasons that I want to be entrepreneur, my rewards will be based upon what I (and my entrepreneurial colleagues) achieve/perform and not based upon a decision by someone in a corporate structure. It is higher risk, but definitely higher reward (and lots more fun than being in a corporate environment)! I started my career as an entrepreneur, as part owner of an HR software firm, so I am going back to my roots.
In my enterpreneurial role, I feel that I am not competing against my colleagues but we all have a stake in the success of the endeavor, being an integral member of a team is a fun and great experience. Now, go have your overpaid boss buy you lunch, LOL.
It is a typical "Dilbert" strip. The boss announces, "Our CEO has voluntarily slashed his pay from $6 million per year to $4 million. In a written statement, he said he wants to 'share the pain.' Do you feel better now?" A downtrodden intern replies, "I make my underpants from sandwich bags."
But that's office life, is it not? Bosses make obscene sums of money, while downtrodden cubicle slaves toil almost without reward. It might seem insane, but economists have a surprise for us: The insanity reflects nothing more than cool economic logic. There is method in the madness.
The ugly truth is that your boss is probably overpaid--and it's for your benefit, not his. Why? It might be because he isn't being paid for the work he does but, rather, to inspire you. In other words, we work our socks off in underpaying jobs in the hope that one day we'll win the rat race and become overpaid fat cats ourselves. Economists call this "tournament theory."
After all, managers find it hard to spot an excellent performance. It is a rare job where workers can be fairly paid according to some objective criteria.
There are some exceptions, of course. Critics and audiences may disagree about the literary merits of Dan Brown's bestseller, The Da Vinci Code. Yet from a business point of view, the success is easy to measure. He has sold about 40 million books and is rewarded with a payment for each one.
Another superstar, tennis champion Roger Federer, has qualities that cannot be so easily calibrated. So instead of trying to measure his performance in objective terms, as Dan Brown's is measured, we measure it in relative terms. If Federer beats Andy Roddick in the final of the U.S. Open, he has succeeded.
Federer is not paid to try hard, nor to produce objectively brilliant tennis. He is paid for beating other players. Yet that is enough to get the best out of him. It is likely that employers have long since noticed that paying for relative performance can be just as good as trying to pay for absolute performance.
The economists Edward Lazear (recently appointed to chair the Council of Economic Advisors) and the late Sherwin Rosen argued, in a hugely influential paper published 25 years ago, that tournaments are an integral and often invisible part of the workplace. Workers are frequently ranked relative to each other and promoted not for being good at their jobs but for being better than their rivals. It is a natural response to the difficulty of true performance pay.
Tournaments also help protect workers against risks they cannot control. Companies can be affected by recessions, unexpected competition and hurricanes. As long as every worker is equally affected, the incentives to try hard remain the same. Trying to encourage performance through, say, stock options would unnecessarily expose workers to risks without really encouraging them to work harder.
Promotion tournaments sound sensible: Good workers are promoted, less capable workers are not. Yet the widespread use of tournaments also goes a long way toward explaining the frustrations of office life.
First, one way for you to win is for your colleagues to lose. Companies that rely too heavily on competition to determine promotions may find that their employees discover that the most efficient way of winning a promotion is by sabotaging the efforts of their rivals. You don't need economic theory to spot that risk.
The second, and more counterintuitive, prediction of tournament theory is that the more luck is involved in work, the larger the pay gaps should be between the winners and the losers. If Jack's promotion is 90% luck and 10% effort, Jack may be inclined to goof off--unless, of course, the rewards for promotion are absolutely astronomical. And they sometimes are.
Tournaments also demand increasingly absurd pay packages as workers get higher up the hierarchy. At the lowest level, a promotion may not need to carry much of a pay increase, because it opens up the possibility of future, lucrative promotions. Nearer the end of your career, only a fat check is likely to spur you on.
Finally, tournament theory also helps to explain why insiders, not outsiders, get cushy jobs. You thought it was all about the old-boy network, but in fact, the logical reason for promoting insiders is clear: These jobs are designed to keep your workforce motivated.
Lazear and Rozen's tournament theory has stood the test of time and been supported by many subsequent pieces of empirical research. It also passes the smell test: The more grotesque your boss's pay and the less he has to do to earn it, the bigger the motivation for you to work for a promotion. As Lazear wrote in his book, Personnel Economics for Managers, "The salary of the vice president acts not so much as motivation for the vice president as it does as motivation for the assistant vice presidents."
Economists don't even pretend that your boss deserves his salary. Suddenly, everything is clear.
In my enterpreneurial role, I feel that I am not competing against my colleagues but we all have a stake in the success of the endeavor, being an integral member of a team is a fun and great experience. Now, go have your overpaid boss buy you lunch, LOL.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Are Leadership and Management the Same?
Answer: NO. There is a big difference.
One the best explanation that I have read or heard is from Stephen Covey in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.
You need both to be successful, however, if a group does not have strong leadership, it will keep doing things the way they have been doing without new innovation and thereby susceptible to disruptive technologies and rivalrous competition. Be careful as a leader to not just manage!
One the best explanation that I have read or heard is from Stephen Covey in The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People.
Management is a bottom line focus: How can I best accomplish certain things? Leadership deals with the top line: What are the things I want to accomplish? In the words of both Peter Drucker and Warren Bennis, "Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things." Management is efficiency in climbing the ladder of success; leadership determines whether the ladder is leaning against the right wall.
You can quickly grasp the important difference between the two if you envision a group of producers cutting their way through the jungle with machetes. They're the producers, the problem solvers. They're cutting through the undergrowth, clearing it out.
The managers are behind them, sharpening their machetes, writing policy and procedure manuals, holding muscle development programs, bringing in improved technologies and setting up working schedules and compensation programs for matchete wielders.
The leader is the one who climbs the tallest tree, suveys the entire situation, and yells, "wrong jungle!"
But how do the busy, efficient producers and managers often respond? "Shut up!" We're making progress."
As individuals, groups and businesses, we're often so busy cutting through the undergrowth we don't even realize we're in the wrong jungle. And the rapidly changing environment in which we live makes effective leadership more critical than it has ever been -- in every aspect of independent and interdependent life.
We are more in need of a vision or destination and a compass (a set of principles or directions) and less in need of a road map.
You need both to be successful, however, if a group does not have strong leadership, it will keep doing things the way they have been doing without new innovation and thereby susceptible to disruptive technologies and rivalrous competition. Be careful as a leader to not just manage!
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Business versus Personal
Business is Business. We all need to remember that . . . there are times as leaders that business gets personal, especially as our personal lives become more intertwined with business. However, you must separate emotional personal feelings from business decision. If you dont, you will end up making a possible irrational decision.
Situation might be something like, you are a personal friend of one of your colleagues but they are not performing well. After giving them several chances, at some point in time, you need to address it in a formal business way. In the past, I have had to address this situation, and found that the person was struggling themselves (because they knew they were not performing up to expectations) but they kept trying (versus quiting) out of loyalty to the personal friend. When I fired the person, it was a look of relief on that person's face (after I spent several nights dreading the moment). It was a learning for me . . . business is business, and must keep personal emotions out of the process.
The opposite is true as well, you might despise someone personally, but you cannot let this bias your business decision.
There are other times, where you might become so emotional that you fail to make a rational decision. Try your best to remove emotions from the business decision making process. I am not saying . . . dont be emotional or passionate about decisions but from inserting your personal emotions (both good and bad) into a business decision that need a consistent and rational decision!
All leaders have been in this situation, it's not easy, but just remember business is business.
Situation might be something like, you are a personal friend of one of your colleagues but they are not performing well. After giving them several chances, at some point in time, you need to address it in a formal business way. In the past, I have had to address this situation, and found that the person was struggling themselves (because they knew they were not performing up to expectations) but they kept trying (versus quiting) out of loyalty to the personal friend. When I fired the person, it was a look of relief on that person's face (after I spent several nights dreading the moment). It was a learning for me . . . business is business, and must keep personal emotions out of the process.
The opposite is true as well, you might despise someone personally, but you cannot let this bias your business decision.
There are other times, where you might become so emotional that you fail to make a rational decision. Try your best to remove emotions from the business decision making process. I am not saying . . . dont be emotional or passionate about decisions but from inserting your personal emotions (both good and bad) into a business decision that need a consistent and rational decision!
All leaders have been in this situation, it's not easy, but just remember business is business.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The Innovator's Dilemma
Clayton Christensen wrote a book with the same name . . . and it is another interesting read, especially when you may be leading a business that has had leader position in your respective industry. The basic premise is that there is a reluctance for a business to reinvent itself as it would be a risk to its leadership position.
The book provides example after example of companies who once had a leadership position but rested on their laurels and ended up as as nonexistent or a minor competitor.
It is fairly easy to see how this happens. The business is successful with wonderful growth and leadership position, why change? If we keep on doing the same thing, we will continue to have growth and maintain leadership 4EVER, right? WRONG! There are new entrants (i.e., competitors) who will have a different model that could disrupt the business. I have always said, if we don't canabalize ourselves, someone else will . . . You must continue to ask the question, where is our weak spot, how could someone destroy our business? It is an interesting question to ask. Within a corporate environment, it is even harder as there is constant pressure to perform at the highest level for financial success. However, in any business which has huge success, others will see this and invest in ways to "get a piece of the action".
Here are some interesting summaries from the book:
1. Still many new innovations are for future needs not present needs, you cannot depend upon customers to lead us toward innovations they do not now need.
2. Until alternatives that appear to be financially more attractive have disappeared or been eliminated, leaders will find it extraordinarily difficult to keep resources focused on the pursuit of a disruptive technology, i.e., current products that are money makers will continue to get the resources and not the new innovations.
3. Finding a new market will be easier for disruptive technology than an existing one whereby, incremental improvements are easier to make
4. Very often, the new markets enabled by disruptive technologies require very different capabilities (organizationally and individually)
5. The information required to make large and decisive investments in the face of disruptive technology simply does not exist. It needs to be created through fast, inexpensive, and flexible forays into the market and the product.
6. The most powerful protection a small firm has is they they are doing something that it simply does not make sense for the established leaders to do.
Leaders need to make bold decisions sometimes and there are critical moments to do so, otherwise, an incremental improvement will ultimately allow for others to entry with disruptive technology (they you might not even considered that "small firm" to be a competitor, when actually they are . . . )
The book provides example after example of companies who once had a leadership position but rested on their laurels and ended up as as nonexistent or a minor competitor.
It is fairly easy to see how this happens. The business is successful with wonderful growth and leadership position, why change? If we keep on doing the same thing, we will continue to have growth and maintain leadership 4EVER, right? WRONG! There are new entrants (i.e., competitors) who will have a different model that could disrupt the business. I have always said, if we don't canabalize ourselves, someone else will . . . You must continue to ask the question, where is our weak spot, how could someone destroy our business? It is an interesting question to ask. Within a corporate environment, it is even harder as there is constant pressure to perform at the highest level for financial success. However, in any business which has huge success, others will see this and invest in ways to "get a piece of the action".
Here are some interesting summaries from the book:
1. Still many new innovations are for future needs not present needs, you cannot depend upon customers to lead us toward innovations they do not now need.
2. Until alternatives that appear to be financially more attractive have disappeared or been eliminated, leaders will find it extraordinarily difficult to keep resources focused on the pursuit of a disruptive technology, i.e., current products that are money makers will continue to get the resources and not the new innovations.
3. Finding a new market will be easier for disruptive technology than an existing one whereby, incremental improvements are easier to make
4. Very often, the new markets enabled by disruptive technologies require very different capabilities (organizationally and individually)
5. The information required to make large and decisive investments in the face of disruptive technology simply does not exist. It needs to be created through fast, inexpensive, and flexible forays into the market and the product.
6. The most powerful protection a small firm has is they they are doing something that it simply does not make sense for the established leaders to do.
Leaders need to make bold decisions sometimes and there are critical moments to do so, otherwise, an incremental improvement will ultimately allow for others to entry with disruptive technology (they you might not even considered that "small firm" to be a competitor, when actually they are . . . )
Monday, May 26, 2008
When everything goes wrong
There is a "law" called Murphy's Law, "whatever can go wrong will go wrong".
Origin:
I was playing a video game (sports) with my son yesterday and I had an attack of Murphy's Law. Whatever I did or tried, the worst possible outcome was achieved. I got beat 5,000,000 to zero. As I reflected on this, it seems there are times whether work, personal or fun that Murphy's Law does attack and there is nothing that you can do to change it. I have had these experiences at work as well . . . no matter what you try, and how ever hard to try, the outcome goes negative . . . this is true with peridodic runs I have . . . just not a good run and feel yucky and can wait to get back home . . . but don't ever just give up!
So, we will always have a Murphy's Law experience, recognize it. However, we need to realize that the next day (or hour) will be better, shake it off and tried again later. Oh, and plan on playing my son again to for revenge!!!!!!!!!!!!
Origin:
Murphy's Law ("If anything can go wrong, it will") was born at Edwards Air Force Base in 1949 at North Base.
It was named after Capt. Edward A. Murphy, an engineer working on Air Force Project MX981, (a project) designed to see how much sudden deceleration a person can stand in a crash.
One day, after finding that a transducer was wired wrong, he cursed the technician responsible and said, "If there is any way to do it wrong, he'll find it."
The contractor's project manager kept a list of "laws" and added this one, which he called Murphy's Law.
I was playing a video game (sports) with my son yesterday and I had an attack of Murphy's Law. Whatever I did or tried, the worst possible outcome was achieved. I got beat 5,000,000 to zero. As I reflected on this, it seems there are times whether work, personal or fun that Murphy's Law does attack and there is nothing that you can do to change it. I have had these experiences at work as well . . . no matter what you try, and how ever hard to try, the outcome goes negative . . . this is true with peridodic runs I have . . . just not a good run and feel yucky and can wait to get back home . . . but don't ever just give up!
So, we will always have a Murphy's Law experience, recognize it. However, we need to realize that the next day (or hour) will be better, shake it off and tried again later. Oh, and plan on playing my son again to for revenge!!!!!!!!!!!!
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Joke of the Weekend V
I was having trouble with my computer. So I called Eric, the 11 year old
next door, whose bedroom looks like Mission Control and asked him to come
over.
Eric clicked a couple of buttons and solved the problem.
As he was walking away, I called after him, 'So, what was wrong? He
replied, 'It was an ID ten T error.'
I didn't want to appear stupid, but nonetheless inquired, 'An, ID ten T
error? What's that? In case I need to fix it again.'
Eric grinned..... 'Haven't you ever heard of an ID ten T error before?'
'No,' I replied. 'Write it down,' he said, 'and I think you'll figure it
out.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
So I wrote down: I D 1 0 T
I used to like Eric.............
This is from the Hugh Bucknall archives of Fun.
next door, whose bedroom looks like Mission Control and asked him to come
over.
Eric clicked a couple of buttons and solved the problem.
As he was walking away, I called after him, 'So, what was wrong? He
replied, 'It was an ID ten T error.'
I didn't want to appear stupid, but nonetheless inquired, 'An, ID ten T
error? What's that? In case I need to fix it again.'
Eric grinned..... 'Haven't you ever heard of an ID ten T error before?'
'No,' I replied. 'Write it down,' he said, 'and I think you'll figure it
out.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V
So I wrote down: I D 1 0 T
I used to like Eric.............
This is from the Hugh Bucknall archives of Fun.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Managing Change
There is a new global study by IBM on managing change . . . here is a summary I thought was interesting from Forbes.com. As usual, talent is key!
Managing change is an inevitable task for the modern chief executive, yet almost one in five feel a lack of control over the process, a new study from IBM suggests.
According to The Enterprise of the Future, a biennial global study conducted by IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ), the number of CEOs successfully managing change increased to 61%, from 57% in 2006. At the other end of the spectrum, those corporate leaders reporting "limited or no success" in managing change increased to 19%, from 12%.
Today's CEOs are running their companies in a dynamic business environment, with industry-wide or global events not always within their control.
Overall, CEOs rate their ability to manage change 22% lower than their expected need for it, a "change gap" that has tripled since 2006. In other words, eight in 10 CEOs are expecting "change," but only six in 10 say they have been able to adapt successfully.
The idea of change is very broadly defined in this, the third edition of IBM's study, conducted in conjunction with the Economist Intelligence Unit. The first was published in 2004. This is the largest CEO sample size to date. Change is really defined by the 1,130 CEOs in this focus group, rather than by IBM.
The report includes business and public sector leaders from 40 countries across a variety of industries and geographic locations. Of the companies included, 19% employ more than 50,000 people, while 22% have less than 1,000 employees.
IBM asked these CEOs, in person, what they think has driven this change by listing nine external forces affecting every industry--market, socioeconomic, macroeconomic and technological factors, people skills, globalization, regulatory concerns as well as environmental and geopolitical issues. Based on CEO responses, the top three were market factors, people skills and technological factors.
More specifically, CEOs said that if they are to successfully manage change, they must focus on their customer base.
How do they intend to do this? CEOs said they will invest company resources into global integration, partner collaboration and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Woven into that trio is the hunt for talent, which is scarce these days.
Jim Guyette, president and CEO of Rolls-Royce North America (other-otc: RYCEY.PK - news - people ), had comments published in the study.
"A few years ago, we were a national company," Guyette said. "Now we're a global company. Our integrated supply chain must adapt to meet demand in 50 countries. We're going to have to bring people in from the outside."
In IBM's research, Nintendo (other-otc: NTDOY.PK - news - people ) is described as an exemplary organization since it partnered or collaborated successfully by directly connecting with customers to meet the demands of the changing marketplace. The Japanese videogame company's wildly popular home gaming console, the Wii, is a product of that.
On the CSR front, IBM features Marks & Spencer (other-otc: MASPY.PK - news - people ), a British retailer that has dedicated approximately $390 million over five years to becoming a more socially responsive operation.
A vast majority of companies worldwide are acting as M&S has, but some CEOs are struggling to put CSR into practice, according to the research. The concern about environment issues varies by continent.
In the study, IBM learned that CEOs said they intended to invest 25% more of their company's resources in specifically CSR-related activities over the next three years.
"Our company is investing extensively in corporate social responsibility," said Yves Carcelle, chairman and CEO of Louis Vuitton. "We need to be a reference in this domain. As the leader in the luxury industry, we have to stay ahead."
Managing change is an inevitable task for the modern chief executive, yet almost one in five feel a lack of control over the process, a new study from IBM suggests.
According to The Enterprise of the Future, a biennial global study conducted by IBM (nyse: IBM - news - people ), the number of CEOs successfully managing change increased to 61%, from 57% in 2006. At the other end of the spectrum, those corporate leaders reporting "limited or no success" in managing change increased to 19%, from 12%.
Today's CEOs are running their companies in a dynamic business environment, with industry-wide or global events not always within their control.
Overall, CEOs rate their ability to manage change 22% lower than their expected need for it, a "change gap" that has tripled since 2006. In other words, eight in 10 CEOs are expecting "change," but only six in 10 say they have been able to adapt successfully.
The idea of change is very broadly defined in this, the third edition of IBM's study, conducted in conjunction with the Economist Intelligence Unit. The first was published in 2004. This is the largest CEO sample size to date. Change is really defined by the 1,130 CEOs in this focus group, rather than by IBM.
The report includes business and public sector leaders from 40 countries across a variety of industries and geographic locations. Of the companies included, 19% employ more than 50,000 people, while 22% have less than 1,000 employees.
IBM asked these CEOs, in person, what they think has driven this change by listing nine external forces affecting every industry--market, socioeconomic, macroeconomic and technological factors, people skills, globalization, regulatory concerns as well as environmental and geopolitical issues. Based on CEO responses, the top three were market factors, people skills and technological factors.
More specifically, CEOs said that if they are to successfully manage change, they must focus on their customer base.
How do they intend to do this? CEOs said they will invest company resources into global integration, partner collaboration and corporate social responsibility (CSR). Woven into that trio is the hunt for talent, which is scarce these days.
Jim Guyette, president and CEO of Rolls-Royce North America (other-otc: RYCEY.PK - news - people ), had comments published in the study.
"A few years ago, we were a national company," Guyette said. "Now we're a global company. Our integrated supply chain must adapt to meet demand in 50 countries. We're going to have to bring people in from the outside."
In IBM's research, Nintendo (other-otc: NTDOY.PK - news - people ) is described as an exemplary organization since it partnered or collaborated successfully by directly connecting with customers to meet the demands of the changing marketplace. The Japanese videogame company's wildly popular home gaming console, the Wii, is a product of that.
On the CSR front, IBM features Marks & Spencer (other-otc: MASPY.PK - news - people ), a British retailer that has dedicated approximately $390 million over five years to becoming a more socially responsive operation.
A vast majority of companies worldwide are acting as M&S has, but some CEOs are struggling to put CSR into practice, according to the research. The concern about environment issues varies by continent.
In the study, IBM learned that CEOs said they intended to invest 25% more of their company's resources in specifically CSR-related activities over the next three years.
"Our company is investing extensively in corporate social responsibility," said Yves Carcelle, chairman and CEO of Louis Vuitton. "We need to be a reference in this domain. As the leader in the luxury industry, we have to stay ahead."
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Are You a Leader -- Or Just a Cheerleader?
I was reading another blog (on Inc.com) and found this interesting post and since I like to share other ideas, thought I would post for you. I think this post is right on, each of us has seen an "empty" leader, or a cheerleading type, which is not what leadership is about . . . if you find one, put them on the sideline but not in a leadership position.
Leadership isn't the same thing as management. Leadership is about providing vision as to where the company is going. It's about inspiring and motivating. It's about instilling a certain amount of comfort that someone wiser than you is going to figure a way out of a mess.
Of course, everyone knows there is such a thing as a bad leader. These leaders tend to do the opposite of everything I just mentioned. There are also leaders who may not be bad but who don't really provide much leadership. And then there's one more category I've spotted -- leaders who don't know the difference between leading and cheerleading. That's when the "leader" is always positive. Always motivating. Always bouncing around. Always telling people how great things are even when they are not.
Don't get me wrong. I think everyone wants a fearless leader. But I also think there's a fine line between sounding positive and sounding delusional. You lose credibility. Done in the proper manner, an honest "negative" appraisal of a difficult situation can be positive if it leads to a good plan of action. It is an opportunity to show the staff that you are critical of yourself and take responsibility.
I've had some difficult years where "mistakes were made" or business just took a dive. I was able to explain the situation and present a plan of action. I believe I calmed any anxieties (except for mine, of course) and have been successful in getting everybody to pull in the same direction. Here's the ultimate difference: Cheerleaders just yell the cheer and do their thing to rile up the crowd. It's all outgoing. Good leaders keep their eyes and ears on the crowd, being sensitive to their needs, to their moods, and to particular situations. Actually, it's not such a fine line.
Leadership isn't the same thing as management. Leadership is about providing vision as to where the company is going. It's about inspiring and motivating. It's about instilling a certain amount of comfort that someone wiser than you is going to figure a way out of a mess.
Of course, everyone knows there is such a thing as a bad leader. These leaders tend to do the opposite of everything I just mentioned. There are also leaders who may not be bad but who don't really provide much leadership. And then there's one more category I've spotted -- leaders who don't know the difference between leading and cheerleading. That's when the "leader" is always positive. Always motivating. Always bouncing around. Always telling people how great things are even when they are not.
Don't get me wrong. I think everyone wants a fearless leader. But I also think there's a fine line between sounding positive and sounding delusional. You lose credibility. Done in the proper manner, an honest "negative" appraisal of a difficult situation can be positive if it leads to a good plan of action. It is an opportunity to show the staff that you are critical of yourself and take responsibility.
I've had some difficult years where "mistakes were made" or business just took a dive. I was able to explain the situation and present a plan of action. I believe I calmed any anxieties (except for mine, of course) and have been successful in getting everybody to pull in the same direction. Here's the ultimate difference: Cheerleaders just yell the cheer and do their thing to rile up the crowd. It's all outgoing. Good leaders keep their eyes and ears on the crowd, being sensitive to their needs, to their moods, and to particular situations. Actually, it's not such a fine line.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Working Across Generations
When The Old And Young Collide At Work
One of the common themes in issues of working in teams is the different values that the generations have (whether baby boomers, gen x, gen y, etc.). As a leader, you must understand those differences to ensure success. Here is an article and an interview with a leading expert from Forbes.com that addressing this interesting topic. I think you will find this helpful.
If it is hard to get people from various generations to reach any agreement, it is even harder to do so within a corporation. Cristina Simón, professor at the Instituto de Empresa in Madrid, Spain, has identified and analyzed the four generations that currently make up the corporate workforce.
Her study is called "Generation Y and the Labor Market: Models for HR Management." Gayle Allard, another member of the Instituto de Empresa staff, collaborated on the project along with Adecco, a company that supplies temporary workforce services.
In an interview with Universia-Knowledge@Wharton, Simón explains the differences between groups of workers, which she identifies as "traditional workers," "baby boomers," "Generation X" and "Generation Y." She also suggests key steps for enabling a 21st-century corporation to successfully overcome the generational duel that takes place between traditional workers and more recent arrivals.
Universia-Knowledge@Wharton: How many generations are currently employed by corporations, and what are their special characteristics?
Simón: Although there are differences from country to country, we can generally identify four generational groups that are currently active professionally:
--Traditional workers (born before 1946): They value loyalty and discipline, and they respect authority and hierarchy. These workers played the key role in their companies when economic development was strong.
--Baby boomers (1946-1960): Their critical years for joining the workforce--between the mid-1960s and the end of the 1970s--were a period when most European countries enjoyed significant progress. This led to great expectations of success. Currently, this group occupies positions of higher corporate responsibility and has the largest proportion of workaholics in history. This is also the generation that gave birth to the yuppie phenomenon.
--Generation X (1961-1979): This generation has the best academic training and international experience in history. They have begun to make a break with traditional patterns of behavior, demanding a more informal environment and abandoning hierarchical authority in favor of a more horizontal and flexible structure. They have pioneered policies that involve flexibility and conciliation. This generation is rich in entrepreneurs because personal initiative predominates within a context of skepticism toward large enterprises.
--Generation Y (starting from 1980): Generation Y is the first in history to have lived their entire lives with information technology. It is not easy for them to understand the world without it. Like members of Generation X, their childhood was comfortable and prosperous. They are more individualistic than earlier generations and demand autonomy in their opinions and behavior. They emphasize personal activities above social and labor considerations.
What social factors define the character of each of these groups?
Common life experiences more clearly define each generational group. For example, traditional workers were born during the war [World War II] and the postwar period. As a result, they were raised in an environment of scarcity, which led to the fact that they value austerity. They defend such social goals as peace and national prosperity.
Baby boomers, on the other hand, spawned a series of social phenomena based on their strong reaction to their parents, such as the hippie movement, feminism and [freedom to] divorce. Both X and Y groups have had less social impact, I believe, because they emerged more recently and have not been analyzed sufficiently.
What are their main differences when it comes to focusing on work in the corporation? What is each generation trying to find in the company?
To put it as simply as possible, we can say that traditional workers are pragmatic and disciplined, and are motivated by loyalty. In contrast, baby boomers are more optimistic and more self-motivated. Generation X is the most skeptical when it comes to organizations, and it is trying to find balance and flexibility, above all. Finally, in Generation Y there is a shortage of loyalty to the generation. Nevertheless, Generation Y puts a great deal of importance on intense relationships with co-workers and supervisors.
How does each generation understand the concept of "corporate loyalty?"
With the arrival of each new generation, the concept of loyalty has been steadily losing ground. Beyond change in the hierarchy of values, this steady decline in loyalty is due to the fact that it is impossible for companies to continue to offer job security. The corporation then replaces stability with "employability." That changes the motivational focus of professionals away from the corporation and toward themselves. All these changes mean that the appeal of loyalty has continued to weaken, although inertia is still strong among traditional workers and baby boomers.
In which generation are the differences between men and women greatest?
When it comes to social values, women in every generation are more oriented toward other people, and they have a greater sense of dedication and service. Men are generally more individualistic. When it comes to professional preferences, although women put more emphasis on flexibility, the newest generations, especially Y, care more about traditionally "masculine" work values, such as income levels and opportunities for promotion.
What are the main values that characterize Generations X and Y?
As I noted earlier, both X and Y grew up in a comfortable environment in their years of childhood and adolescence. When these people enter the labor market, they have a harder time than their predecessors did. It was much easier for earlier generations to find work, become independent from their families and so forth.
As a result, there is a sense of frustration and skepticism that logically extends to the way they view the working environment. Don't forget that the working environment in our society has a lot of impact on social activity, starting with the period when marital couples and families are formed [and] on to the growth of social networks.
Is there a conflict between the working environments of the four generations?
Often when these topics are discussed with HR managers and other professionals, people make comments that reflect those differences. I don't know if they can be characterized as "conflicts," but they have an impact on the dynamics of working relationships. Organizations also have these sorts of experiences.
The current generation of managers is dominated by baby boomers and the older members of Generation X. Those are the levels at which corporate cultures are defined, along with corporate modes of behavior. From this perspective, we could say that some of the failures of young people in their working environment stem from the fact that they sometimes have very different hierarchies of value.
Are HR departments prepared for understanding the generational differences? And do they know how to deal with them?
Given the nature of change in the labor market, HR departments are concerned about everything that can affect their retention of employees. As a result, they are looking into whether these differences are a possible cause [for their failure to retain workers]. In any case, where this analysis makes the most sense is in those companies that demand younger workers, whether or not those employees are sufficiently qualified.
In those kinds of cases, the function of HR must be to study basic processes in order to make them more attractive to workers from Generation Y. Above all, they must draw up a psychological contract with their employees and with those candidates who have the kinds of background they are looking for.
What strategies and policies do you recommend that companies apply?
Those companies that consider it critical to adapt to new generations [of workers] must take another look at their HR practices so they can refine their supply [of jobs], as I said earlier. It is important to understand the relationships that exist between young people and technology, which often have an impact on social standards and dynamics. For example, best recruitment practices should include having a Web site that is attractive and easy to use, and which makes it easier and faster for long-term job candidates to interact with the company.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the natural tendency of young people is not to focus on commitment or loyalty to a [corporate] brand but to a combination of factors that make them feel good, on the one hand, and have personal value, on the other hand. From the viewpoint of selection, there is a double advantage to an approach that involves realistic interviews and tests.
This approach can diagnose the competencies [of job candidates] and let candidates know that the corporation is both creative and dynamic. These can be some of the keys to strengthening the selection process and minimizing the turnover of new employees who leave within months. That [kind of turnover] is both undesirable and costly.
Some studies show that young people prefer strong performance-based cultures where results count more than job seniority or personal appearance. This means that a company needs to create systems for performance-based compensation in which short-term variables count more than long-term results.
Especially in Spain, the concept of job turnover must be overhauled. Traditionally, when professionals leave a company, it has been very traumatic both for the company and the employee. There is a sense of betrayal because of the high value placed on loyalty, but that is currently on the decline.
Young people, on the other hand, leave a company because they find another opportunity elsewhere. They understand that these are the rules of the game, and they don't discount the possibility of returning [to the same company] in the future if conditions are favorable. An intelligent strategy for leveraging young talent should rethink the issue of job turnover and consider maintaining this relationship [with workers who depart], as a result.
What are the main challenges facing Generations X and Y? Are conditions easier for them than they were for their predecessors, or are things more difficult?
Each generation has had to confront its own challenges through the course of various changes they have undergone. Undoubtedly, the world of today's young people is much more complex than that of their elders. But it is also clear that they are much better prepared and they have better tools for dealing with these challenges. Certainly, the supply of jobs is much more precarious in today's labor market.
On the other hand, declining birth rates in recent years mean that fewer people will be applying for jobs compared with what happened during the baby boom. Many young people say that their elders have made it harder for them by providing them with a comfortable childhood. At the same time, social systems do not make it easier to become economically independent and achieve the same standards. This difficult transition will leave a sense of frustration that will certainly be hard [for young workers] to deal with in coming years.
One of the common themes in issues of working in teams is the different values that the generations have (whether baby boomers, gen x, gen y, etc.). As a leader, you must understand those differences to ensure success. Here is an article and an interview with a leading expert from Forbes.com that addressing this interesting topic. I think you will find this helpful.
If it is hard to get people from various generations to reach any agreement, it is even harder to do so within a corporation. Cristina Simón, professor at the Instituto de Empresa in Madrid, Spain, has identified and analyzed the four generations that currently make up the corporate workforce.
Her study is called "Generation Y and the Labor Market: Models for HR Management." Gayle Allard, another member of the Instituto de Empresa staff, collaborated on the project along with Adecco, a company that supplies temporary workforce services.
In an interview with Universia-Knowledge@Wharton, Simón explains the differences between groups of workers, which she identifies as "traditional workers," "baby boomers," "Generation X" and "Generation Y." She also suggests key steps for enabling a 21st-century corporation to successfully overcome the generational duel that takes place between traditional workers and more recent arrivals.
Universia-Knowledge@Wharton: How many generations are currently employed by corporations, and what are their special characteristics?
Simón: Although there are differences from country to country, we can generally identify four generational groups that are currently active professionally:
--Traditional workers (born before 1946): They value loyalty and discipline, and they respect authority and hierarchy. These workers played the key role in their companies when economic development was strong.
--Baby boomers (1946-1960): Their critical years for joining the workforce--between the mid-1960s and the end of the 1970s--were a period when most European countries enjoyed significant progress. This led to great expectations of success. Currently, this group occupies positions of higher corporate responsibility and has the largest proportion of workaholics in history. This is also the generation that gave birth to the yuppie phenomenon.
--Generation X (1961-1979): This generation has the best academic training and international experience in history. They have begun to make a break with traditional patterns of behavior, demanding a more informal environment and abandoning hierarchical authority in favor of a more horizontal and flexible structure. They have pioneered policies that involve flexibility and conciliation. This generation is rich in entrepreneurs because personal initiative predominates within a context of skepticism toward large enterprises.
--Generation Y (starting from 1980): Generation Y is the first in history to have lived their entire lives with information technology. It is not easy for them to understand the world without it. Like members of Generation X, their childhood was comfortable and prosperous. They are more individualistic than earlier generations and demand autonomy in their opinions and behavior. They emphasize personal activities above social and labor considerations.
What social factors define the character of each of these groups?
Common life experiences more clearly define each generational group. For example, traditional workers were born during the war [World War II] and the postwar period. As a result, they were raised in an environment of scarcity, which led to the fact that they value austerity. They defend such social goals as peace and national prosperity.
Baby boomers, on the other hand, spawned a series of social phenomena based on their strong reaction to their parents, such as the hippie movement, feminism and [freedom to] divorce. Both X and Y groups have had less social impact, I believe, because they emerged more recently and have not been analyzed sufficiently.
What are their main differences when it comes to focusing on work in the corporation? What is each generation trying to find in the company?
To put it as simply as possible, we can say that traditional workers are pragmatic and disciplined, and are motivated by loyalty. In contrast, baby boomers are more optimistic and more self-motivated. Generation X is the most skeptical when it comes to organizations, and it is trying to find balance and flexibility, above all. Finally, in Generation Y there is a shortage of loyalty to the generation. Nevertheless, Generation Y puts a great deal of importance on intense relationships with co-workers and supervisors.
How does each generation understand the concept of "corporate loyalty?"
With the arrival of each new generation, the concept of loyalty has been steadily losing ground. Beyond change in the hierarchy of values, this steady decline in loyalty is due to the fact that it is impossible for companies to continue to offer job security. The corporation then replaces stability with "employability." That changes the motivational focus of professionals away from the corporation and toward themselves. All these changes mean that the appeal of loyalty has continued to weaken, although inertia is still strong among traditional workers and baby boomers.
In which generation are the differences between men and women greatest?
When it comes to social values, women in every generation are more oriented toward other people, and they have a greater sense of dedication and service. Men are generally more individualistic. When it comes to professional preferences, although women put more emphasis on flexibility, the newest generations, especially Y, care more about traditionally "masculine" work values, such as income levels and opportunities for promotion.
What are the main values that characterize Generations X and Y?
As I noted earlier, both X and Y grew up in a comfortable environment in their years of childhood and adolescence. When these people enter the labor market, they have a harder time than their predecessors did. It was much easier for earlier generations to find work, become independent from their families and so forth.
As a result, there is a sense of frustration and skepticism that logically extends to the way they view the working environment. Don't forget that the working environment in our society has a lot of impact on social activity, starting with the period when marital couples and families are formed [and] on to the growth of social networks.
Is there a conflict between the working environments of the four generations?
Often when these topics are discussed with HR managers and other professionals, people make comments that reflect those differences. I don't know if they can be characterized as "conflicts," but they have an impact on the dynamics of working relationships. Organizations also have these sorts of experiences.
The current generation of managers is dominated by baby boomers and the older members of Generation X. Those are the levels at which corporate cultures are defined, along with corporate modes of behavior. From this perspective, we could say that some of the failures of young people in their working environment stem from the fact that they sometimes have very different hierarchies of value.
Are HR departments prepared for understanding the generational differences? And do they know how to deal with them?
Given the nature of change in the labor market, HR departments are concerned about everything that can affect their retention of employees. As a result, they are looking into whether these differences are a possible cause [for their failure to retain workers]. In any case, where this analysis makes the most sense is in those companies that demand younger workers, whether or not those employees are sufficiently qualified.
In those kinds of cases, the function of HR must be to study basic processes in order to make them more attractive to workers from Generation Y. Above all, they must draw up a psychological contract with their employees and with those candidates who have the kinds of background they are looking for.
What strategies and policies do you recommend that companies apply?
Those companies that consider it critical to adapt to new generations [of workers] must take another look at their HR practices so they can refine their supply [of jobs], as I said earlier. It is important to understand the relationships that exist between young people and technology, which often have an impact on social standards and dynamics. For example, best recruitment practices should include having a Web site that is attractive and easy to use, and which makes it easier and faster for long-term job candidates to interact with the company.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the natural tendency of young people is not to focus on commitment or loyalty to a [corporate] brand but to a combination of factors that make them feel good, on the one hand, and have personal value, on the other hand. From the viewpoint of selection, there is a double advantage to an approach that involves realistic interviews and tests.
This approach can diagnose the competencies [of job candidates] and let candidates know that the corporation is both creative and dynamic. These can be some of the keys to strengthening the selection process and minimizing the turnover of new employees who leave within months. That [kind of turnover] is both undesirable and costly.
Some studies show that young people prefer strong performance-based cultures where results count more than job seniority or personal appearance. This means that a company needs to create systems for performance-based compensation in which short-term variables count more than long-term results.
Especially in Spain, the concept of job turnover must be overhauled. Traditionally, when professionals leave a company, it has been very traumatic both for the company and the employee. There is a sense of betrayal because of the high value placed on loyalty, but that is currently on the decline.
Young people, on the other hand, leave a company because they find another opportunity elsewhere. They understand that these are the rules of the game, and they don't discount the possibility of returning [to the same company] in the future if conditions are favorable. An intelligent strategy for leveraging young talent should rethink the issue of job turnover and consider maintaining this relationship [with workers who depart], as a result.
What are the main challenges facing Generations X and Y? Are conditions easier for them than they were for their predecessors, or are things more difficult?
Each generation has had to confront its own challenges through the course of various changes they have undergone. Undoubtedly, the world of today's young people is much more complex than that of their elders. But it is also clear that they are much better prepared and they have better tools for dealing with these challenges. Certainly, the supply of jobs is much more precarious in today's labor market.
On the other hand, declining birth rates in recent years mean that fewer people will be applying for jobs compared with what happened during the baby boom. Many young people say that their elders have made it harder for them by providing them with a comfortable childhood. At the same time, social systems do not make it easier to become economically independent and achieve the same standards. This difficult transition will leave a sense of frustration that will certainly be hard [for young workers] to deal with in coming years.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Innovative Solutions
At 6am every morning, we wake up to a pounding at one of our windows. A cardinal (you know those red birds) sees itself in the reflection of the window and since they are territorial, "attacks" his/her (I think the redder ones are actually males, but maybe someone else knows) likeness in the window, and for the next 15 minutes, pounds against the window. It lasts until he/she knocks itself out . . . what a great wakeup call . . . this has been going on for over a year, yes, that's right, over a year . . . we have tried different things, we have put up cardboard to block the window, but it moves to window next to the other one . . . and putting up cardboard is probably not a good long term solution. I have stood outside at 6am, to serve as a scarecrow (one of my better jobs let me tell you), and it works!!! well, until the first day I dont stand at the window.
This reminds of a neighbor from many years ago. My neighbor had a problem with his pool. You see, a flock of ducks (is it a flock of ducks, oh well, you get the point) decided to make their home pond as his pool. He tried everything and to no avail, when finally, another neighbor suggested putting up an inflatable alligator in the pool. And guess what? It Worked! The ducks never returned.
Now, there are a few takeaways . . .
1) Sometimes what you think is an enemy is not . . . you might be your worst enemy
2) look for long term solutions, not just for a short term fix
3) Simple solutions are usually the most innovative
see you next time!
This reminds of a neighbor from many years ago. My neighbor had a problem with his pool. You see, a flock of ducks (is it a flock of ducks, oh well, you get the point) decided to make their home pond as his pool. He tried everything and to no avail, when finally, another neighbor suggested putting up an inflatable alligator in the pool. And guess what? It Worked! The ducks never returned.
Now, there are a few takeaways . . .
1) Sometimes what you think is an enemy is not . . . you might be your worst enemy
2) look for long term solutions, not just for a short term fix
3) Simple solutions are usually the most innovative
see you next time!
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Joke of the Weekend IV
Three engineers and three accountants were traveling by train to a conference. At the station, the three accountants each bought tickets and watched as the three engineers bought only one ticket.
"How are three people going to travel on only one ticket?" asked an accountant.
"Watch and you'll see", answered an engineer.
They all boarded the train. The accountants took their respective seats, but the three engineers all crammed into a rest room and closed the door behind them.
Shortly after the train departed, the conductor came around collecting tickets. He knocked on the restroom door and said, "Ticket, please".
The door opened just a crack and a single arm emerged with a ticket in hand.
The conductor took it and moved on.
The accountants saw this and agreed it was a quite clever idea. So, after the conference, the accountants decide to copy the engineers on the return trip and save some money (being clever with money, and all that). When they got to the station, they bought a single ticket for the return trip. To their astonishment, the engineers didn't buy a ticket at all.
"How are you going to ride without a ticket"? said one perplexed accountant.
"Watch and you'll see", answered an engineer.
When they boarded the train, the three accountants crammed into a restroom and the three engineers crammed into another one nearby. The train departed. Shortly afterward, one of the engineers left his restroom and walked over to the restroom where the accountants were hiding. He knocked on the door and said, "Ticket, please."
"How are three people going to travel on only one ticket?" asked an accountant.
"Watch and you'll see", answered an engineer.
They all boarded the train. The accountants took their respective seats, but the three engineers all crammed into a rest room and closed the door behind them.
Shortly after the train departed, the conductor came around collecting tickets. He knocked on the restroom door and said, "Ticket, please".
The door opened just a crack and a single arm emerged with a ticket in hand.
The conductor took it and moved on.
The accountants saw this and agreed it was a quite clever idea. So, after the conference, the accountants decide to copy the engineers on the return trip and save some money (being clever with money, and all that). When they got to the station, they bought a single ticket for the return trip. To their astonishment, the engineers didn't buy a ticket at all.
"How are you going to ride without a ticket"? said one perplexed accountant.
"Watch and you'll see", answered an engineer.
When they boarded the train, the three accountants crammed into a restroom and the three engineers crammed into another one nearby. The train departed. Shortly afterward, one of the engineers left his restroom and walked over to the restroom where the accountants were hiding. He knocked on the door and said, "Ticket, please."
Friday, May 16, 2008
Secrets of Creative Collaboration
I found this nice read on great groups on Inc.com. It is from the book, Organizing Genius: The secrets of Creative Collaboration, 1997 by Warren Bennis and Patricia Ward Biederman.
As you know I am a big believer of a highly collaborative working group which takes a special leader to achieve . . . let me know if you know of a great group, current or past!
Great groups have shaped our world, from the gathering of young geniuses at Los Alamos who unleashed the atom, to the youthful scientists and hackers who invented a computer that was personal as well as powerful. That should hardly surprise us. In a society as complex and technologically sophisticated as ours, the most urgent projects require the coordinated contributions of many talented people. Whether the task is building a global business or discovering the mysteries of the human brain, one person can't hope to accomplish it, however gifted or energetic he or she may be. And yet, even as we make the case for collaboration, we resist the idea of collective creativity. Our mythology refuses to catch up with our reality. And so we cling to the myth of the Lone Ranger, the romantic idea that great things are usually accomplished by a larger-than-life individual working alone.
Given our continuing obsession with solitary genius, reflected in everything from the worship of film directors to our fascination with Bill Gates and other high-profile entrepreneurs, it is no surprise that we tend to underestimate just how much creative work is accomplished by groups. Today an important scientific paper may represent the best thinking and patient lab work of hundreds of people. Collaboration constantly takes place in the arts as well. A classic example is the Michelangelo masterpiece, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. In our mind's eye, we see Michelangelo, looking remarkably like Charlton Heston, laboring alone on the scaffolding high above the chapel floor. In fact, 13 people helped paint the work. Michelangelo was not only an artist; he was, as biographer William E. Wallace points out, the head of a good-sized entrepreneurial enterprise.
We must turn to great groups if we hope to begin to understand how that rarest of precious resources--genius--can be successfully combined with great effort to achieve results that enhance all our lives. It is in such groups that we may also discover why some organizations seem to breed greatness, freeing members to be better than anyone imagined they could be.
All great groups have extraordinary leaders. It's a paradox, really, because great groups tend to be collegial and nonhierarchical, peopled by singularly competent individuals who often have an anti-authoritarian streak. Nonetheless, virtually every great group has a strong and visionary head. First off, each leader has a keen eye for talent. Recruiting the right genius for the job is the first step in building many great collaborations. The groups' leaders are almost always pragmatic dreamers. The dream is always one of greatness, not simply an ambition to succeed. The dream is the engine that drives the group, the vision that inspires the team to work as if the fate of civilization rested on their completing their project.
Many great groups have a dual administration. They have a visionary leader, and they have someone who protects them from the outside world. Great groups tend to be nonconformist. People in them are always rule busters, never insiders or corporate types on the fast track. People in great groups are always on their own track. As a result, they often need someone to deflect not just the criticism but even the attention of the bureaucrats and conventional thinkers elsewhere in the organization. The protectors typically lack the glamour of the visionary leaders, but they are no less essential, particularly in enterprises that require official sanction or that cannot realize their dream without institutional consent.
Who becomes part of a great group? If not out-and-out rebels, participants may lack traditional credentials or exist on the margins of their professions. They are almost always young. Probably the most important thing that young members bring is their often delusional confidence. Thus, many great groups are fueled by an invigorating, completely unrealistic view of what they can accomplish. Not knowing what they can't do puts everything in the realm of the possible. Great groups often show evidence of collective denial. And "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt," as 12-steppers like to say. Denial can obscure obstacles and stiffen resolve. It can liberate. Great groups are not realistic. They are exuberant and irrationally optimistic.
Many of the people in great groups are tinkerers. There's a joke about engineers that captures the spirit of many participants in creative collaborations: An engineer meets a frog, who offers the engineer anything he wants if he will kiss the frog. "No," says the engineer. "Come on," says the frog. "Kiss me, and I'll turn into a beautiful woman." "Nah," says the engineer. "I don't have time for a girlfriend...but a talking frog, that's really neat."
Curiosity fuels every great group. The members don't simply solve problems. They are engaged in a process of discovery that is its own reward. Many of the people in these groups have dazzling individual skills. But they also have another quality that allows them both to identify significant problems and to find creative, boundary-busting solutions rather than simplistic ones: they have hungry, urgent minds.
Virtually every great group defines itself in terms of an enemy. Sometimes the enemy is real, as the Axis powers were for the Manhattan Project. But more often, the chief function of the enemy is to solidify and define the group itself. In great groups the engagement of the enemy is both dead serious and a lark. Great groups always see themselves as winning underdogs, wily Davids toppling the bloated Goliaths of tradition and convention.
People in great groups often seem to have struck a Faustian bargain, giving up their normal lives, if not their souls, in exchange for greatness. Because they are mission maniacs, obsessed with the project at hand, relationships outside the group routinely suffer.
Although great groups experience their moments of near despair, they are more often raucous with laughter. Creative collaborators become members of their own tribe, with their own language, in-jokes, dress, and traditions.
Great groups often fall apart when the project is finished. Why do these often short-lived associations burn so bright in the memories of former members? There are a host of reasons. Life in the group is often the most fun members ever have. They revel in the pleasure that comes from exercising all their wits in the company of people "used to dealing lightning with both hands," as one great-group member put it. Communities based on merit and passion are rare, and people who have been in them never forget them. And then there is the sheer exhilaration of performing greatly. Talent wants--and needs--to exercise itself.
People pay a price for their membership in great groups. Postpartum depression is often fierce, and the intensity of collaboration is a potent drug that may make everything else, including everything after, seem drab and ordinary.
But no one who has participated in one of these adventures in creativity and community seems to have any real regrets. How much better to be with other worthy people, doing worthy things, than to labor alone. In a great group you are liberated for a time from the prison of self. As part of the team, you are on leave from the mundane--no questions asked--with its meager rewards and sometimes onerous obligations. Genius is rare, and the chance to exercise it in a dance with others is rarer still. Karl Wallenda, the legendary tightrope walker, once said, "Being on the tightrope is living; everything else is waiting." Most of us wait. In great groups talent comes alive.
As you know I am a big believer of a highly collaborative working group which takes a special leader to achieve . . . let me know if you know of a great group, current or past!
Great groups have shaped our world, from the gathering of young geniuses at Los Alamos who unleashed the atom, to the youthful scientists and hackers who invented a computer that was personal as well as powerful. That should hardly surprise us. In a society as complex and technologically sophisticated as ours, the most urgent projects require the coordinated contributions of many talented people. Whether the task is building a global business or discovering the mysteries of the human brain, one person can't hope to accomplish it, however gifted or energetic he or she may be. And yet, even as we make the case for collaboration, we resist the idea of collective creativity. Our mythology refuses to catch up with our reality. And so we cling to the myth of the Lone Ranger, the romantic idea that great things are usually accomplished by a larger-than-life individual working alone.
Given our continuing obsession with solitary genius, reflected in everything from the worship of film directors to our fascination with Bill Gates and other high-profile entrepreneurs, it is no surprise that we tend to underestimate just how much creative work is accomplished by groups. Today an important scientific paper may represent the best thinking and patient lab work of hundreds of people. Collaboration constantly takes place in the arts as well. A classic example is the Michelangelo masterpiece, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. In our mind's eye, we see Michelangelo, looking remarkably like Charlton Heston, laboring alone on the scaffolding high above the chapel floor. In fact, 13 people helped paint the work. Michelangelo was not only an artist; he was, as biographer William E. Wallace points out, the head of a good-sized entrepreneurial enterprise.
We must turn to great groups if we hope to begin to understand how that rarest of precious resources--genius--can be successfully combined with great effort to achieve results that enhance all our lives. It is in such groups that we may also discover why some organizations seem to breed greatness, freeing members to be better than anyone imagined they could be.
All great groups have extraordinary leaders. It's a paradox, really, because great groups tend to be collegial and nonhierarchical, peopled by singularly competent individuals who often have an anti-authoritarian streak. Nonetheless, virtually every great group has a strong and visionary head. First off, each leader has a keen eye for talent. Recruiting the right genius for the job is the first step in building many great collaborations. The groups' leaders are almost always pragmatic dreamers. The dream is always one of greatness, not simply an ambition to succeed. The dream is the engine that drives the group, the vision that inspires the team to work as if the fate of civilization rested on their completing their project.
Many great groups have a dual administration. They have a visionary leader, and they have someone who protects them from the outside world. Great groups tend to be nonconformist. People in them are always rule busters, never insiders or corporate types on the fast track. People in great groups are always on their own track. As a result, they often need someone to deflect not just the criticism but even the attention of the bureaucrats and conventional thinkers elsewhere in the organization. The protectors typically lack the glamour of the visionary leaders, but they are no less essential, particularly in enterprises that require official sanction or that cannot realize their dream without institutional consent.
Who becomes part of a great group? If not out-and-out rebels, participants may lack traditional credentials or exist on the margins of their professions. They are almost always young. Probably the most important thing that young members bring is their often delusional confidence. Thus, many great groups are fueled by an invigorating, completely unrealistic view of what they can accomplish. Not knowing what they can't do puts everything in the realm of the possible. Great groups often show evidence of collective denial. And "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt," as 12-steppers like to say. Denial can obscure obstacles and stiffen resolve. It can liberate. Great groups are not realistic. They are exuberant and irrationally optimistic.
Many of the people in great groups are tinkerers. There's a joke about engineers that captures the spirit of many participants in creative collaborations: An engineer meets a frog, who offers the engineer anything he wants if he will kiss the frog. "No," says the engineer. "Come on," says the frog. "Kiss me, and I'll turn into a beautiful woman." "Nah," says the engineer. "I don't have time for a girlfriend...but a talking frog, that's really neat."
Curiosity fuels every great group. The members don't simply solve problems. They are engaged in a process of discovery that is its own reward. Many of the people in these groups have dazzling individual skills. But they also have another quality that allows them both to identify significant problems and to find creative, boundary-busting solutions rather than simplistic ones: they have hungry, urgent minds.
Virtually every great group defines itself in terms of an enemy. Sometimes the enemy is real, as the Axis powers were for the Manhattan Project. But more often, the chief function of the enemy is to solidify and define the group itself. In great groups the engagement of the enemy is both dead serious and a lark. Great groups always see themselves as winning underdogs, wily Davids toppling the bloated Goliaths of tradition and convention.
People in great groups often seem to have struck a Faustian bargain, giving up their normal lives, if not their souls, in exchange for greatness. Because they are mission maniacs, obsessed with the project at hand, relationships outside the group routinely suffer.
Although great groups experience their moments of near despair, they are more often raucous with laughter. Creative collaborators become members of their own tribe, with their own language, in-jokes, dress, and traditions.
Great groups often fall apart when the project is finished. Why do these often short-lived associations burn so bright in the memories of former members? There are a host of reasons. Life in the group is often the most fun members ever have. They revel in the pleasure that comes from exercising all their wits in the company of people "used to dealing lightning with both hands," as one great-group member put it. Communities based on merit and passion are rare, and people who have been in them never forget them. And then there is the sheer exhilaration of performing greatly. Talent wants--and needs--to exercise itself.
People pay a price for their membership in great groups. Postpartum depression is often fierce, and the intensity of collaboration is a potent drug that may make everything else, including everything after, seem drab and ordinary.
But no one who has participated in one of these adventures in creativity and community seems to have any real regrets. How much better to be with other worthy people, doing worthy things, than to labor alone. In a great group you are liberated for a time from the prison of self. As part of the team, you are on leave from the mundane--no questions asked--with its meager rewards and sometimes onerous obligations. Genius is rare, and the chance to exercise it in a dance with others is rarer still. Karl Wallenda, the legendary tightrope walker, once said, "Being on the tightrope is living; everything else is waiting." Most of us wait. In great groups talent comes alive.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Chaos at the Bus Stop
So, I was taking the boys to the bus stop (our dog usually goes with us on a leash, he gets to see his neighbor dog friends and get sniffs in), when my oldest son does not realize our dog, Dash, is not on the leash and opens the door and of course the dog bolts out the door. Now, our dog is very well behaved . . . but his favourite time of day is the walk to the bus stop to see his friends and obviously knows the way, so we are running after him (actually, this might be a good ploy when the boys are being late, because they usually take their time to get to the bus stop, hoping they will miss it). Well, the dog makes it to the bus stop and causing all the other dogs to want to be off their leash, barking, pulling at their owners, some kids scared of dogs are screaming, mothers are in a range of attire from work clothes to workout clothes to pajamas (dont ask), they are spilling their coffee on themselves . . . oh my . . . guess I am the newbie on the block for taking kids to the bus stop . . . anyway, my sons are chasing the Dash around, and Dash continues to run away . . . finally, I tell them to stop chasing him and I call for Dash, he comes, I pretend I have a bone in my hand and say "sit" (he is a good sitter), and then I am able to grab him and stop the chaos, but the looks dont stop . . .
This story reminds me of an Aesop Fable . . .
The North Wind and the Sun disputed as to which was the most powerful, and agreed that he should be declared the victor who could first strip a wayfaring man of his clothes.
The North Wind first tried his power and blew with all his might, but the keener his blasts, the closer the Traveler wrapped his cloak around him, until at last, resigning all hope of victory, the Wind called upon the Sun to see what he could do.
The Sun suddenly shone out with all his warmth. The Traveler no sooner felt his genial rays than he took off one garment after another, and at last, fairly overcome with heat, undressed and bathed in a stream that lay in his path
Moral: Persuasion is better than Force
Which brings me to the point of the post, as a leader you have people reporting to you by definition, and they will do what you tell them to do . . but you will get much better results if you get their buy-in to the action that is needed, i.e., demonstrate why this is a good thing, versus just being told to do something . . . all will be better and will have less resistance. Now, there is probably someone trying to relate the fake bone in my hand to teasing rewards to accomplish something . . . do the job, and then end up with nothing in the end . . . . well, I did not mean that . . . oh, by the way, as soon as I got home, I gave Dash a bone!
This story reminds me of an Aesop Fable . . .
The North Wind and the Sun disputed as to which was the most powerful, and agreed that he should be declared the victor who could first strip a wayfaring man of his clothes.
The North Wind first tried his power and blew with all his might, but the keener his blasts, the closer the Traveler wrapped his cloak around him, until at last, resigning all hope of victory, the Wind called upon the Sun to see what he could do.
The Sun suddenly shone out with all his warmth. The Traveler no sooner felt his genial rays than he took off one garment after another, and at last, fairly overcome with heat, undressed and bathed in a stream that lay in his path
Moral: Persuasion is better than Force
Which brings me to the point of the post, as a leader you have people reporting to you by definition, and they will do what you tell them to do . . but you will get much better results if you get their buy-in to the action that is needed, i.e., demonstrate why this is a good thing, versus just being told to do something . . . all will be better and will have less resistance. Now, there is probably someone trying to relate the fake bone in my hand to teasing rewards to accomplish something . . . do the job, and then end up with nothing in the end . . . . well, I did not mean that . . . oh, by the way, as soon as I got home, I gave Dash a bone!
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Sometimes being let go is a Good Thing!
Harry Potter creator J.K. Rowling and other entrepreneurs launched successful ventures only after losing their day jobs. Who knew getting fired could be a great career move?
By: Angus Loten
Published July 10, 2007
When Charlotte Dulaney was five months pregnant with her third child, the furthest thing on her mind was launching a business. It was the late 1980s, and Dulaney, a 31-year-old IT manager for an electric subcontractor in Arvada, Colo., was busy enough juggling work and a growing family. To make matters worse, her daughter had recently suffered a burst appendix, forcing Dulaney to take a month off. Then, weeks before her maternity leave started, she was called into the boss's office -- and was fired for missing too much work.
"I honestly didn't know what I was going to do," Dulaney says. Too pregnant to start looking for a new job, she decided instead to try launching a business at home -- something to do with computers, she figured. "Computers were what I knew, so I thought I'd look into that."
The result was Baby-Cakes.com, an early online retailer specializing in gifts for baby showers. The business has since expanding into a 4,000-square-foot warehouse with four full-time employees and was once featured on HBO's Sex in the City.
"It never even dawned on me to run my own business," Dulaney says. "I was out of a job and knew I needed money coming in."
Dulaney's path to success puts her in good company. From Home Depot's Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank, to media mogul-turned-New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, some of today's most successful entrepreneurs launched their breakthrough businesses only after finding themselves out of work. And whether it's that extra nudge needed to pursue a long-formulating business idea, or simply the trigger of some latent survival mechanism, pink slips appear to be jump-starting the careers of more and more reluctant entrepreneurs in recent years.
This year alone, the number of job seekers turning to self-employment has climbed by 10.6 percent -- a 29 percent jump from a year ago, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a Chicago-based outplacement firm.
At least part of this sudden increase is the result of a wave of early corporate buyouts, mergers, and acquisitions by private-equity firms, says John Challenger, the firm's CEO. According to the Labor Department, 965 businesses reported layoffs resulting in 139,269 displaced workers during the first quarter of the year. At the same time, 24,865 workers lost their jobs completely to permanent business closures.
The inevitable job shuffling that follows buyouts, mergers, and acquisitions is leaving a high number of skilled employees by the wayside and increasingly wary of corporate job security. Consider that more than 80 percent of first-quarter start-ups this year were led by experienced workers in their 40s, according to Challenger.
"It makes sense that these seasoned veterans might be more jaded about the corporate employment experience and are therefore more likely to turn to self-employment," Challenger says.
Another big driver of self-employment is the underlying strength of the economy.
"The economy, while showing some chinks in its armor, has not slowed to the point of discouraging start-up activity," Challenger says, pointing to weaknesses in the housing market and the automotive sector. "Other areas of the economy appear to be relatively healthy, a fact which has boosted the confidence of would-be entrepreneurs."
For Sastry Rachakonda, the director of Discover's business-card division, these entrepreneurs fall into two camps. The first is made up of highly skilled employees in a particular field -- usually technology -- who want to keep doing what they do best after getting fired or laid off from an employer. Many of today's successful Web 2.0 firms were started by creative young employees who lost their jobs in the late 1990s tech meltdown.
Yet, for all their technical knowledge, many new entrepreneurs in this group don't have the slightest clue about the nuts and bolts of running a business. "The biggest pitfall I've seen with this group is a lack of business skills," Rachakonda says. "They think that because they're great designers, or engineers, or developers, the business will run itself." Usually, these entrepreneurs end up hiring a business manager or going out of business, he adds.
The second group Rachakonda refers to as the dreamers. These are less-skilled employees who either want to pursue a bold business idea or simply want to be their own boss. "People in this group often suffer from a lack of appreciation for the amount of work involved in the day-to-day operations of running a business," he says.
Surprisingly, the failure rates among the first group -- those that have marketable skills -- tend to be higher, he says. "In the end, it comes down to a combination of experience, education, and hard work," Rachakonda says.
Two years ago, Tonya Thomas was an administrative assistant at a bank in Jefferson, Ala., when a merger collectively forced up to 4,000 employees out of work, including herself.
For years, Thomas had long considered the idea of launching an online service that helped smaller businesses with everything from planning special events to creating newsletters and calendars. Using the six months notice given to her and her co-workers by their new corporate bosses, she started putting her plan into action -- from securing a Web domain name to printing business cards.
Today, she runs her site, The Small Office Assistant, from her home, while taking care of her two young children. Despite the extra work involved in being her own boss, she says, it's also allowed her to be more flexible with her time.
"That layoff was a blessing in disguise," Thomas says. "If that had not happened, I would still be working in that bank today. It turned out to be a great opportunity."
Sometimes being forced out is a good thing, you can actually try what you want to do . . . otherwise, all of can get comfortable in way we do on a daily basis and never "reach for the stars". Life is too short to not try something you really want to experience!
This article is reproduced from Inc.comBy: Angus Loten
Published July 10, 2007
When Charlotte Dulaney was five months pregnant with her third child, the furthest thing on her mind was launching a business. It was the late 1980s, and Dulaney, a 31-year-old IT manager for an electric subcontractor in Arvada, Colo., was busy enough juggling work and a growing family. To make matters worse, her daughter had recently suffered a burst appendix, forcing Dulaney to take a month off. Then, weeks before her maternity leave started, she was called into the boss's office -- and was fired for missing too much work.
"I honestly didn't know what I was going to do," Dulaney says. Too pregnant to start looking for a new job, she decided instead to try launching a business at home -- something to do with computers, she figured. "Computers were what I knew, so I thought I'd look into that."
The result was Baby-Cakes.com, an early online retailer specializing in gifts for baby showers. The business has since expanding into a 4,000-square-foot warehouse with four full-time employees and was once featured on HBO's Sex in the City.
"It never even dawned on me to run my own business," Dulaney says. "I was out of a job and knew I needed money coming in."
Dulaney's path to success puts her in good company. From Home Depot's Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank, to media mogul-turned-New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, some of today's most successful entrepreneurs launched their breakthrough businesses only after finding themselves out of work. And whether it's that extra nudge needed to pursue a long-formulating business idea, or simply the trigger of some latent survival mechanism, pink slips appear to be jump-starting the careers of more and more reluctant entrepreneurs in recent years.
This year alone, the number of job seekers turning to self-employment has climbed by 10.6 percent -- a 29 percent jump from a year ago, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a Chicago-based outplacement firm.
At least part of this sudden increase is the result of a wave of early corporate buyouts, mergers, and acquisitions by private-equity firms, says John Challenger, the firm's CEO. According to the Labor Department, 965 businesses reported layoffs resulting in 139,269 displaced workers during the first quarter of the year. At the same time, 24,865 workers lost their jobs completely to permanent business closures.
The inevitable job shuffling that follows buyouts, mergers, and acquisitions is leaving a high number of skilled employees by the wayside and increasingly wary of corporate job security. Consider that more than 80 percent of first-quarter start-ups this year were led by experienced workers in their 40s, according to Challenger.
"It makes sense that these seasoned veterans might be more jaded about the corporate employment experience and are therefore more likely to turn to self-employment," Challenger says.
Another big driver of self-employment is the underlying strength of the economy.
"The economy, while showing some chinks in its armor, has not slowed to the point of discouraging start-up activity," Challenger says, pointing to weaknesses in the housing market and the automotive sector. "Other areas of the economy appear to be relatively healthy, a fact which has boosted the confidence of would-be entrepreneurs."
For Sastry Rachakonda, the director of Discover's business-card division, these entrepreneurs fall into two camps. The first is made up of highly skilled employees in a particular field -- usually technology -- who want to keep doing what they do best after getting fired or laid off from an employer. Many of today's successful Web 2.0 firms were started by creative young employees who lost their jobs in the late 1990s tech meltdown.
Yet, for all their technical knowledge, many new entrepreneurs in this group don't have the slightest clue about the nuts and bolts of running a business. "The biggest pitfall I've seen with this group is a lack of business skills," Rachakonda says. "They think that because they're great designers, or engineers, or developers, the business will run itself." Usually, these entrepreneurs end up hiring a business manager or going out of business, he adds.
The second group Rachakonda refers to as the dreamers. These are less-skilled employees who either want to pursue a bold business idea or simply want to be their own boss. "People in this group often suffer from a lack of appreciation for the amount of work involved in the day-to-day operations of running a business," he says.
Surprisingly, the failure rates among the first group -- those that have marketable skills -- tend to be higher, he says. "In the end, it comes down to a combination of experience, education, and hard work," Rachakonda says.
Two years ago, Tonya Thomas was an administrative assistant at a bank in Jefferson, Ala., when a merger collectively forced up to 4,000 employees out of work, including herself.
For years, Thomas had long considered the idea of launching an online service that helped smaller businesses with everything from planning special events to creating newsletters and calendars. Using the six months notice given to her and her co-workers by their new corporate bosses, she started putting her plan into action -- from securing a Web domain name to printing business cards.
Today, she runs her site, The Small Office Assistant, from her home, while taking care of her two young children. Despite the extra work involved in being her own boss, she says, it's also allowed her to be more flexible with her time.
"That layoff was a blessing in disguise," Thomas says. "If that had not happened, I would still be working in that bank today. It turned out to be a great opportunity."
Random Thoughts
Just thought I would provide some random thoughts, anyone is welcome to post any they have:
- Why do they call when two airplanes almost collide, a "near miss" . . . shouldn't it be a "near hit"?
- The movie, "Being There" starring Peter Sellers, is a classic and should be viewed by all
- The person with the most information is the most successful person
- "everyday is a gift...thats why they call it the present"
- I am happy at this moment in time and need to smell the roses
- It is so great when your child has a smile bigger than you have ever seen . . . My oldest son finished in 2nd place in a Cub Scouts Boat race (and received a trophy), big deal at the Brink household
- I forgive you because you did not know what you did
- I am teaching WorldatWork's T3 course in Austin and Boston this summer
- It is great to be a part of a network of people who you worked with in the past
- Not of us is as smart as all of us
- There is no "i" in Team
- Dr. Jac Fitz-Enz is the Founder of HR Metrics (and a good guy)
- Most companies take People Management skills for granted
- "Train in Vain" by Clash is one of my favourite songs
- "London Calling" by Clash is my cell phone ring tone
- Keep Austin Weird
- Be Young, Have Fun
- What I know now, back then, I would have stayed an entrepreneur (working for someone else might be fun but not rewarding)
- If you are working so hard, why not work that hard for yourself
- I miss Geneva, Switzerland ... particularly the mountains
Monday, May 12, 2008
Leadership: It's Not Just about You
I would like to share a part of a chapter on leadership from Jack Welch's book "Winning", it's another excellent pick up and read book from one of the most famous CEOs of our time (some say of all time). I had the pleasure of personally meeting him last summer. He is more impressive in person.
"One day, you become a leader.
On Monday, you're doing what comes naturally, enjoying your job, running a project, talking and laughing with colleagues about life and work, and gossiping about how stupid management can be. Then on Tuesday, you ARE management. You're a boss.
Suddenly, everything feels different -- because it is different. Leadership requires distinct behaviors and attitudes, and for many people, they debut with the job.
Before you are a leader, success is all about growing yourself.
When you become a leader, success is all about growing others."
Here are the 8 "rules" that Jack proposes for leaders:
1. Leaders relentlessly upgrade their team, using every encounter as an opportunity to evaluate, coach, and build self-confidence.
2. Leaders make sure people not only see the vision, they live and breathe it. Some would say head, hearts and guts!
3. Leaders get into everyone's skin, exuding positive energy and optimism.
4. Leaders establish trust with candor, transparency, and credit.
5. Leaders have the courage to make unpopular decisions and gut calls.
6. Leaders probe and push with a curiosity that borders on skepticism, making sure their questions are answered with action.
7. Leaders inspire risk taking and learning by setting the example.
8. Leaders celebrate.
Do these familiar? As you begin to research successful leaders, there are trends that begin to appear, have you found them yet . . .
Now, you need to ask yourself, how do you as a leader rate? or how does your leader rate?
"One day, you become a leader.
On Monday, you're doing what comes naturally, enjoying your job, running a project, talking and laughing with colleagues about life and work, and gossiping about how stupid management can be. Then on Tuesday, you ARE management. You're a boss.
Suddenly, everything feels different -- because it is different. Leadership requires distinct behaviors and attitudes, and for many people, they debut with the job.
Before you are a leader, success is all about growing yourself.
When you become a leader, success is all about growing others."
Here are the 8 "rules" that Jack proposes for leaders:
1. Leaders relentlessly upgrade their team, using every encounter as an opportunity to evaluate, coach, and build self-confidence.
2. Leaders make sure people not only see the vision, they live and breathe it. Some would say head, hearts and guts!
3. Leaders get into everyone's skin, exuding positive energy and optimism.
4. Leaders establish trust with candor, transparency, and credit.
5. Leaders have the courage to make unpopular decisions and gut calls.
6. Leaders probe and push with a curiosity that borders on skepticism, making sure their questions are answered with action.
7. Leaders inspire risk taking and learning by setting the example.
8. Leaders celebrate.
Do these familiar? As you begin to research successful leaders, there are trends that begin to appear, have you found them yet . . .
Now, you need to ask yourself, how do you as a leader rate? or how does your leader rate?
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Joke of the Weekend III
A new teacher was trying to make use of her psychology courses. She started her class by saying, "Everyone who thinks you're stupid, stand up!"
After a few seconds, Little Johnny stood up. The teacher said, "Do you think you're stupid, Little Johnny?"
"No, ma'am, but I hate to see you standing there all by yourself!"
After a few seconds, Little Johnny stood up. The teacher said, "Do you think you're stupid, Little Johnny?"
"No, ma'am, but I hate to see you standing there all by yourself!"
Friday, May 9, 2008
Business Partners - what makes them successful
A recent article in Forbes discussed the five things to look for in a business partner.
1. Complementary Skills
Having a lot in common with your business partner may feel right, but you don't want a clone of yourself. Partners with the same backgrounds and expertise may not bring anything new to the equation. Instead, look to fill gaps. If you're a nits-and-grits operations type, find someone who can sell ice to an Eskimo. Sound familiar?
2. Ability To Listen, Strength To Disagree
A good business partner understands the importance of compromise--without being too compromising. Walking that fine line begins with developing mutual respect. The best partners also have the courage to address tough financial issues. Try to establish that rapport up front. Sometimes, partners don't want to hear disagreement, I have always encouraged it because in the end a better results is accomplished!
3. Clean Track Record
The last thing you want is a deadbeat for a business partner. Banks and other lending institutions will balk at funding your venture if one or both partners are in hock with creditors, so make sure you look under your partner's hood. Think of it this way: You wouldn't invest in a company without perusing its financial statements, right? So, make sure you do a background check!
4. Solid Contacts "People buy from who they know and trust," says Robert Moment, a small-business consultant in Arlington, Va. With that in mind, beef up your marketing muscle by snagging a partner who has solid contacts in your field.
5. Common Goals
Partners should be on the same page about where they see the company going. One side can't be girding for the long haul while the other courts strategic buyers in search of quick riches. Likewise, make sure your partner has a similar work ethic: If you're a believer in 16-hour work days but your partner expects to be home for dinner promptly at 6 p.m., prepare for some friction.
Who would you make a good business partner with?
1. Complementary Skills
Having a lot in common with your business partner may feel right, but you don't want a clone of yourself. Partners with the same backgrounds and expertise may not bring anything new to the equation. Instead, look to fill gaps. If you're a nits-and-grits operations type, find someone who can sell ice to an Eskimo. Sound familiar?
2. Ability To Listen, Strength To Disagree
A good business partner understands the importance of compromise--without being too compromising. Walking that fine line begins with developing mutual respect. The best partners also have the courage to address tough financial issues. Try to establish that rapport up front. Sometimes, partners don't want to hear disagreement, I have always encouraged it because in the end a better results is accomplished!
3. Clean Track Record
The last thing you want is a deadbeat for a business partner. Banks and other lending institutions will balk at funding your venture if one or both partners are in hock with creditors, so make sure you look under your partner's hood. Think of it this way: You wouldn't invest in a company without perusing its financial statements, right? So, make sure you do a background check!
4. Solid Contacts "People buy from who they know and trust," says Robert Moment, a small-business consultant in Arlington, Va. With that in mind, beef up your marketing muscle by snagging a partner who has solid contacts in your field.
5. Common Goals
Partners should be on the same page about where they see the company going. One side can't be girding for the long haul while the other courts strategic buyers in search of quick riches. Likewise, make sure your partner has a similar work ethic: If you're a believer in 16-hour work days but your partner expects to be home for dinner promptly at 6 p.m., prepare for some friction.
Who would you make a good business partner with?
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Coaching and Leadership
When you are a parent, you spend so much time coaching . . . coaching the right way to eat with utensils, coaching how to play a particular game, coaching on how to improve playing a particular sport, coaching how to read, coaching on math problems . . . You are a coach, whether you realize it or not.
I was coaching my youngest son who is playing flag football (American style), it is a great feeling to see someone following your direction (i.e., coaching) and being successful, and seeing the wonderful sense of accomplish that was on his face . . . priceless moment. Coaches get more satisfaction in realizing they had an impact in growing someone; leadership is the same. The best leaders receive more satisfaction from the team and seeing improvement in team members from their involvement.
One of the important duties of a leader is coaching. Someone once said “Coaching isn’t an addition to a leader’s job, it’s an integral part of it”. However, I bet you leaders don’t necessarily think you are coaching, but you are . . . and sometimes in ways you might not know, how you act in meetings, how you organize yourself, whether you show up to meetings on time, players look up to coaches (leaders) for guidance, so realize that you are a Coach, so for now on . . . my title is Coach and yours should be as well.
Here are some suggestion to Coach others:
1. Conduct regular one-on-one meetings
2. Offer feedback and ask how you can contribute to their success
3. Avoid overlooking the “middle stars” as there is much upside to coaching these up and comers (we sometimes focus too much on the “super stars” and the “fallen stars”
4. Research Coaching techniques, there is lots of information out there and apply what you feel is your style of coaching (if you look at various coaches, they all have different styles, what is your coaching style? Is it the same for everyone? What is the best style for your group?)
Have you known and seen Bad Coaches . . . I have and they don't end up on a winning team! So, take coaching seriously and begin to improve all and the overall team!
Best of luck and may you Coach a successful winning team!
I was coaching my youngest son who is playing flag football (American style), it is a great feeling to see someone following your direction (i.e., coaching) and being successful, and seeing the wonderful sense of accomplish that was on his face . . . priceless moment. Coaches get more satisfaction in realizing they had an impact in growing someone; leadership is the same. The best leaders receive more satisfaction from the team and seeing improvement in team members from their involvement.
One of the important duties of a leader is coaching. Someone once said “Coaching isn’t an addition to a leader’s job, it’s an integral part of it”. However, I bet you leaders don’t necessarily think you are coaching, but you are . . . and sometimes in ways you might not know, how you act in meetings, how you organize yourself, whether you show up to meetings on time, players look up to coaches (leaders) for guidance, so realize that you are a Coach, so for now on . . . my title is Coach and yours should be as well.
Here are some suggestion to Coach others:
1. Conduct regular one-on-one meetings
2. Offer feedback and ask how you can contribute to their success
3. Avoid overlooking the “middle stars” as there is much upside to coaching these up and comers (we sometimes focus too much on the “super stars” and the “fallen stars”
4. Research Coaching techniques, there is lots of information out there and apply what you feel is your style of coaching (if you look at various coaches, they all have different styles, what is your coaching style? Is it the same for everyone? What is the best style for your group?)
Have you known and seen Bad Coaches . . . I have and they don't end up on a winning team! So, take coaching seriously and begin to improve all and the overall team!
Best of luck and may you Coach a successful winning team!
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Personal Announcement
Many of my readers have asked what I am doing . . . so I thought I would let you (my readers) be the first to know (but dont tell anyone, if anyone asks you, please tell them to read the blog).
As of May 1, I have joined RAF Capital LLC as Executive Vice President. Robin Ferracone set up RAF Capital as a portfolio management company focused on owning, developing and leading a collection of HR companies in the areas of HR software, information and consulting. We already have two companies in the portfolio and I have been spending time in transforming and supporting these companies for fast growth in their respective sectors. We are looking to expand this portfolio of firms to help clients drive financial results through their greatest competitive asset, their people. My roles in these portfolio companies will vary from leadership to product strategist to platform strategist.
In addition, to this role, I have also been asked to serve on a Board of Directors for a major database company, this has not been finalized. I am pleased and honored for the opportunity to potentially serve in this capacity for such a distinguished organization with great products, great people, and great shareholders.
I am extremely excited about my new role and feel that I am working with leadership, investors and staff who understand the greatest asset of an organization is their people and if you focus on the people within the organization, clients will be satisfied, and excellent results are achieved. Therefore, I am able to serve in an organization where all people are rewarded based upon the success of the organization and the individual performance.
My leadership and product innovation skills that I have developed over 25 years in HR software, information and consulting are very much aligned with these new roles.
Thanks for being a reader of the Spirit of Brinkmanship Blog!
As of May 1, I have joined RAF Capital LLC as Executive Vice President. Robin Ferracone set up RAF Capital as a portfolio management company focused on owning, developing and leading a collection of HR companies in the areas of HR software, information and consulting. We already have two companies in the portfolio and I have been spending time in transforming and supporting these companies for fast growth in their respective sectors. We are looking to expand this portfolio of firms to help clients drive financial results through their greatest competitive asset, their people. My roles in these portfolio companies will vary from leadership to product strategist to platform strategist.
In addition, to this role, I have also been asked to serve on a Board of Directors for a major database company, this has not been finalized. I am pleased and honored for the opportunity to potentially serve in this capacity for such a distinguished organization with great products, great people, and great shareholders.
I am extremely excited about my new role and feel that I am working with leadership, investors and staff who understand the greatest asset of an organization is their people and if you focus on the people within the organization, clients will be satisfied, and excellent results are achieved. Therefore, I am able to serve in an organization where all people are rewarded based upon the success of the organization and the individual performance.
My leadership and product innovation skills that I have developed over 25 years in HR software, information and consulting are very much aligned with these new roles.
Thanks for being a reader of the Spirit of Brinkmanship Blog!
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Crisis Leadership
Most people who drive a car have probably at one time or another starting skidding whether due to rain, snow, ice, etc. Our initial reaction is to turn the wheel in the direction that you want to go . . . when in fact the opposite is true, you want to steer into the skid because you will regain control faster of the car. Well, I had this happen about 15 years ago to me, and I "managed the crisis" in the wrong way, by immediately reacting by turning the steering wheel to where I was going . . . oops, because I made the skid worse and ended up hitting a snow bank and crashing my BMW 325 Sports Coupe (gosh that was a nice car, black exterior, grey interior, six speed, there is nothing like the sound of a BMW engine, okay, ferrari probably is better, but like I will ever have one of those).
Crisis leadership is similar. Remember "A diamond is a chunk of coal that is made good under pressure" "Under Pressure" . . . my goodness another Queen song . . .
Here are some thoughts on crisis leadership.
1. Even though you are in a crisis, assess the situation as fast and best you can but dont just jump into a crisis thinking you know all, information makes for better decision making!
2. Approach crises as a team. Allow everyone to "own a piece" of the problem. Capitalize on individual strengths and give everyone the opportunity to contribute to the solution.
3. Critically assess your behavior and request feedback from others on how you handle crisis situations. Realize that others will assume it's okay to respond to a crisis the same way you do.
4. Overcommunicate to keep others informed and grind down the rumor mill.
5. Finally, conclude each crisis with a debriefing and a celebration. Understand the reasons for what happened, identify learnings that can be applied to the future . . . and make sure you also reward you and your team for a job well done!
One of the hardest things to do as a leader is to come in to a crisis after it has started and turn something "not so good" into something "good', however, if you do achieve this, it is a sign of an excellent leader. Some might say, it is the easiest because expectations are low for a positive outcome, but after you take the lead within a short amount of time, you become the owner of crisis! And remember, real leaders lead from the front!
Crisis leadership is similar. Remember "A diamond is a chunk of coal that is made good under pressure" "Under Pressure" . . . my goodness another Queen song . . .
Here are some thoughts on crisis leadership.
1. Even though you are in a crisis, assess the situation as fast and best you can but dont just jump into a crisis thinking you know all, information makes for better decision making!
2. Approach crises as a team. Allow everyone to "own a piece" of the problem. Capitalize on individual strengths and give everyone the opportunity to contribute to the solution.
3. Critically assess your behavior and request feedback from others on how you handle crisis situations. Realize that others will assume it's okay to respond to a crisis the same way you do.
4. Overcommunicate to keep others informed and grind down the rumor mill.
5. Finally, conclude each crisis with a debriefing and a celebration. Understand the reasons for what happened, identify learnings that can be applied to the future . . . and make sure you also reward you and your team for a job well done!
One of the hardest things to do as a leader is to come in to a crisis after it has started and turn something "not so good" into something "good', however, if you do achieve this, it is a sign of an excellent leader. Some might say, it is the easiest because expectations are low for a positive outcome, but after you take the lead within a short amount of time, you become the owner of crisis! And remember, real leaders lead from the front!
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Making Great from just Good
Someone mentioned to me that one area of this blog that they like was the summary and recommendations for business books, namely leadership ones, so I thought I would post another one (again, any suggestions on what to post about is welcome).
Another excellent reading is "Good to Great" by Jim Collins. Required reading for anyone who is or plans to be a leader.
I would like to summary one of the books' comments on leadership.
1. First Who . . . Then What?
His and his team's research shows that those companies who went from good to great, focused on getting the "right people on the bus" and then figured out where to drive it. If found that People are not your most important asset BUT the RIGHT PEOPLE are!!!! oh, and make sure they get in the right seats as well.
2. Confront the Brutal Facts
"You muyst maintain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, ANd at the same time have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current realit, whatever they might be." Remember, I have spoken about "the Will to Win Cannot be Beat!" here you go.
3. A Culture of Discipline
"All Companies have a culture, some companies have discipline, but few companies have culture of discipline. When you have disciplined people, you don't need hierarchy. When you have disciplined thought, you don't need bureaucracy. When you have disciplined action, you don't need excessive controls. When you combine a culture of discipline with an ethic of enterpreneurship, you get the mgical alchemy of great performance." if you are in a hierarchal environment or one that has bureaucracy, or ones that pose abusive controls, the company could be good but will NEVER be GREAT! Because it does not have trust the staff to do the right thing and therefore clients ultimately get burned because of slow service, no innovation, and a substantial turnover from the people are are top performers (why would they want to be in that environment).
Harry S Truman once said "You can accomplish anything in life, provided that you do not mind who get the credt." Have you been in a situation, where someone else takes credit? I am sure you have . . . think about. . . where is that person now . . . probably not very different from where they were . . . because ultimately people find out who should get credit . . .
In "Good to Great", there are five levels of leadership, with the top level for driving a good to great organization as being called Level 5 Executive, who builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend o fpersonal humility and professional will. These leaders channel their ego needs away from themelves and into the larger goal of building a great company (bottom line: it's NOT about them, but the Company). It's not that Level 5 leaders have no ego or self-interest. Indeed, they are incredibly ambitious -- but their ambition is FIRST and FOREMOST for the INSTITUTION not THEMSELVES. Think about that now . . . how do your most senior leaders feel? It is about them or the company? Are they making decisions or doing things to better themselves or the organization. People have and will leave over this . . . why would anyone want to work in an organization where the most senior staff are "in it for themselves" because this is not a long term solution and ultimately they are discovered and removed.
"good to great" is a excellent book, easy reading, you can pick it up and read a chapter here and there and still be able to take something away.
Another excellent reading is "Good to Great" by Jim Collins. Required reading for anyone who is or plans to be a leader.
I would like to summary one of the books' comments on leadership.
1. First Who . . . Then What?
His and his team's research shows that those companies who went from good to great, focused on getting the "right people on the bus" and then figured out where to drive it. If found that People are not your most important asset BUT the RIGHT PEOPLE are!!!! oh, and make sure they get in the right seats as well.
2. Confront the Brutal Facts
"You muyst maintain unwavering faith that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, ANd at the same time have the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current realit, whatever they might be." Remember, I have spoken about "the Will to Win Cannot be Beat!" here you go.
3. A Culture of Discipline
"All Companies have a culture, some companies have discipline, but few companies have culture of discipline. When you have disciplined people, you don't need hierarchy. When you have disciplined thought, you don't need bureaucracy. When you have disciplined action, you don't need excessive controls. When you combine a culture of discipline with an ethic of enterpreneurship, you get the mgical alchemy of great performance." if you are in a hierarchal environment or one that has bureaucracy, or ones that pose abusive controls, the company could be good but will NEVER be GREAT! Because it does not have trust the staff to do the right thing and therefore clients ultimately get burned because of slow service, no innovation, and a substantial turnover from the people are are top performers (why would they want to be in that environment).
Harry S Truman once said "You can accomplish anything in life, provided that you do not mind who get the credt." Have you been in a situation, where someone else takes credit? I am sure you have . . . think about. . . where is that person now . . . probably not very different from where they were . . . because ultimately people find out who should get credit . . .
In "Good to Great", there are five levels of leadership, with the top level for driving a good to great organization as being called Level 5 Executive, who builds enduring greatness through a paradoxical blend o fpersonal humility and professional will. These leaders channel their ego needs away from themelves and into the larger goal of building a great company (bottom line: it's NOT about them, but the Company). It's not that Level 5 leaders have no ego or self-interest. Indeed, they are incredibly ambitious -- but their ambition is FIRST and FOREMOST for the INSTITUTION not THEMSELVES. Think about that now . . . how do your most senior leaders feel? It is about them or the company? Are they making decisions or doing things to better themselves or the organization. People have and will leave over this . . . why would anyone want to work in an organization where the most senior staff are "in it for themselves" because this is not a long term solution and ultimately they are discovered and removed.
"good to great" is a excellent book, easy reading, you can pick it up and read a chapter here and there and still be able to take something away.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Joke of the Weekend II
I thought you all would get a kick out of this one . . .
Just in case you think you are TC (technologically challenged). The following is an excerpt taken from a Wall Street Journal article (from awhile back):
1.Compaq is considering changing the command "Press Any Key" to "Press Return Key" because of the flood of calls asking where the "Any" key is.
2.AST technical support had a caller complaining that her mouse was hard to control with the dust cover on. The cover turned out to be the plastic bag the mouse was packaged in.
3.Another Compaq technician received a call from a man complaining that the system wouldn't read word processing files from his old diskettes. After trouble-shooting for magnets and heat failed to diagnose the problem, it was found that the customer had labeled the diskettes, then rolled them into the typewriter to type the labels.
4.Another AST customer was asked to send a copy of her defective diskettes. A few days later a letter arrived from the customer along with photocopies of the floppies.
5.A Dell technician advised his customer to put his troubled floppy back in the drive and close the door. The customer asked the tech to hold on, and was heard putting the phone down, getting up and crossing the room to close the door to his room.
6.Another Dell customer called to say he couldn't get his computer to fax anything. After 40 minutes of trouble-shooting, the technician discovered the man was trying to fax a piece of paper by holding it in front of the monitor screen and hitting the "send" key.
7.Yet another Dell customer called to complain that his keyboard no longer worked. He had cleaned it by filling up his tub with soap and water and soaking the keyboard for a day, then removing all the keys and washing them individually.
8.A Dell technician received a call from a customer who was enraged because his computer had told him he was "bad and an invalid". The tech explained that the computer's "bad command" and "invalid" responses shouldn't be taken personally.
9.A confused caller to IBM was having troubles printing documents. He told the technician that the computer had said it "couldn't find printer". The user had also tried turning the computer screen to face the printer - but that his computer still couldn't "see" the printer.
10.An exasperated caller to Dell Computer Tech Support couldn't get her new Dell Computer to turn on. After ensuring the computer was plugged in, the technician asked her what happened when she pushed the power button. Her response, "I pushed and pushed on this foot pedal and nothing happens." The "foot pedal" turned out to be the computer's mouse.
11.Another customer called Compaq tech support to say her brand-new computer wouldn't work. She said she unpacked the unit, plugged it in and sat there for 20 minutes waiting for something to happen. When asked what happened when she pressed the power switch, she asked "What power switch?"
12.True story from a Novell NetWire SysOp:
Caller: "Hello, is this Tech Support?"
Tech: "Yes, it is. How may I help you?"
Caller: "The cup holder on my PC is broken and I am within my warranty period. How do I go about getting that fixed?"
Tech: "I'm sorry, but did you say a cup holder?"
Caller: "Yes, it's attached to the front of my computer."
Tech: "Please excuse me if I seem a bit stumped, It's because I am. Did you receive this as part of a promotional, at a trade show? How did you get this cup holder? Does it have any trademark on it?"
Caller: "It came with my computer, I don't know anything about a promotional. It just has '4X' on it."
At this point the Tech Rep had to mute the caller, because he couldn't stand it. He was laughing too hard. The caller had been using the load drawer of the CD-ROM drive as a cup holder, and snapped it off the drive!
13.Another IBM customer had troubles installing software and rang for support. "I put in the first disk, and that was OK. It said to put in the second disk, and had some problems with the disk. When it said to put in the third disk - I couldn't even fit it in..." The user hadn't realized that "Insert Disk 2" meant to remove Disk 1 first.
14.In a similar incident, a customer had followed the instructions for installing software. The instructions said to remove the disk from it's cover and insert into the drive. The user had physically removed the casing of the disk and wondered why there were problems.
As Ripley would say, believe it or not!
Just in case you think you are TC (technologically challenged). The following is an excerpt taken from a Wall Street Journal article (from awhile back):
1.Compaq is considering changing the command "Press Any Key" to "Press Return Key" because of the flood of calls asking where the "Any" key is.
2.AST technical support had a caller complaining that her mouse was hard to control with the dust cover on. The cover turned out to be the plastic bag the mouse was packaged in.
3.Another Compaq technician received a call from a man complaining that the system wouldn't read word processing files from his old diskettes. After trouble-shooting for magnets and heat failed to diagnose the problem, it was found that the customer had labeled the diskettes, then rolled them into the typewriter to type the labels.
4.Another AST customer was asked to send a copy of her defective diskettes. A few days later a letter arrived from the customer along with photocopies of the floppies.
5.A Dell technician advised his customer to put his troubled floppy back in the drive and close the door. The customer asked the tech to hold on, and was heard putting the phone down, getting up and crossing the room to close the door to his room.
6.Another Dell customer called to say he couldn't get his computer to fax anything. After 40 minutes of trouble-shooting, the technician discovered the man was trying to fax a piece of paper by holding it in front of the monitor screen and hitting the "send" key.
7.Yet another Dell customer called to complain that his keyboard no longer worked. He had cleaned it by filling up his tub with soap and water and soaking the keyboard for a day, then removing all the keys and washing them individually.
8.A Dell technician received a call from a customer who was enraged because his computer had told him he was "bad and an invalid". The tech explained that the computer's "bad command" and "invalid" responses shouldn't be taken personally.
9.A confused caller to IBM was having troubles printing documents. He told the technician that the computer had said it "couldn't find printer". The user had also tried turning the computer screen to face the printer - but that his computer still couldn't "see" the printer.
10.An exasperated caller to Dell Computer Tech Support couldn't get her new Dell Computer to turn on. After ensuring the computer was plugged in, the technician asked her what happened when she pushed the power button. Her response, "I pushed and pushed on this foot pedal and nothing happens." The "foot pedal" turned out to be the computer's mouse.
11.Another customer called Compaq tech support to say her brand-new computer wouldn't work. She said she unpacked the unit, plugged it in and sat there for 20 minutes waiting for something to happen. When asked what happened when she pressed the power switch, she asked "What power switch?"
12.True story from a Novell NetWire SysOp:
Caller: "Hello, is this Tech Support?"
Tech: "Yes, it is. How may I help you?"
Caller: "The cup holder on my PC is broken and I am within my warranty period. How do I go about getting that fixed?"
Tech: "I'm sorry, but did you say a cup holder?"
Caller: "Yes, it's attached to the front of my computer."
Tech: "Please excuse me if I seem a bit stumped, It's because I am. Did you receive this as part of a promotional, at a trade show? How did you get this cup holder? Does it have any trademark on it?"
Caller: "It came with my computer, I don't know anything about a promotional. It just has '4X' on it."
At this point the Tech Rep had to mute the caller, because he couldn't stand it. He was laughing too hard. The caller had been using the load drawer of the CD-ROM drive as a cup holder, and snapped it off the drive!
13.Another IBM customer had troubles installing software and rang for support. "I put in the first disk, and that was OK. It said to put in the second disk, and had some problems with the disk. When it said to put in the third disk - I couldn't even fit it in..." The user hadn't realized that "Insert Disk 2" meant to remove Disk 1 first.
14.In a similar incident, a customer had followed the instructions for installing software. The instructions said to remove the disk from it's cover and insert into the drive. The user had physically removed the casing of the disk and wondered why there were problems.
As Ripley would say, believe it or not!
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Run for the Roses
The Kentucky Derby happens this Saturday. One of the nicknames for the race is the Run for the Roses since the winner is drapped with a blanket of red roses. For the past few weeks, Louisville Kentucky has held many festivals and events (including the largest fireworks show in the USA) to celebrate the most important two minutes in the world of sports (yes, only two minutes, but it is an intense two minutes). Almost 200,000 people attend this live event with millions others watching on TV for a two minute race. Amazing! Why is this important? Well, I have many friends in Louisville and this week they are all having fun and few are working (or even reading my blog, shame on them).
For the Kentucky Derby, you can’t understand it, unless you have attended, which I have been able to attend three times (and loved it each time).
-Drinking a Mint Julep (try it some time at your local bar or pub and you will understand better)
-Wearing a Funny hat
- Getting dressed up for a sports event that last only two minutes
- Seeing lots of famous people
- Betting (legally) on who will win the race
If you get a chance, you must attend at least once (this is a paid announcement from the Louisville Tourist Bureau). Every community, city or country has a special event that is similar so just thought I would share this one with you all (well, those outside of Kentucky).
So, what event (does not have to be a sports event) in the world would you want to attend in person? My answer is the Mens’ Tennis Championship at Wimbledon (lots of action, close surroundings, and I love strawberries). Please comment (oh, changed the commenting now so you don’t have to register).
For the Kentucky Derby, you can’t understand it, unless you have attended, which I have been able to attend three times (and loved it each time).
-Drinking a Mint Julep (try it some time at your local bar or pub and you will understand better)
-Wearing a Funny hat
- Getting dressed up for a sports event that last only two minutes
- Seeing lots of famous people
- Betting (legally) on who will win the race
If you get a chance, you must attend at least once (this is a paid announcement from the Louisville Tourist Bureau). Every community, city or country has a special event that is similar so just thought I would share this one with you all (well, those outside of Kentucky).
So, what event (does not have to be a sports event) in the world would you want to attend in person? My answer is the Mens’ Tennis Championship at Wimbledon (lots of action, close surroundings, and I love strawberries). Please comment (oh, changed the commenting now so you don’t have to register).
May 1st is Here! Happy May Day!
Many celebrate May Day, so Happy May Day to you!
Short posting today, got in really late . . . and had a 5:30am flight (which meant had to get up at 3:45am), so was not able to do my full posting . . .
It’s May 1st. And today is my first day in my new role (I am excited and nervous, who wouldn't be, I am getting a paycheck again, WOOOHOOO!). There have been many rumors on what I am going to be doing (one was particularly funny). So thought I would allow some guesses first via comments before I post on the blog what I will be doing? That is if anyone cares? Oh, to provide a comment you do not have to register any more!
Stay tuned to this station for the official announcement!
Short posting today, got in really late . . . and had a 5:30am flight (which meant had to get up at 3:45am), so was not able to do my full posting . . .
It’s May 1st. And today is my first day in my new role (I am excited and nervous, who wouldn't be, I am getting a paycheck again, WOOOHOOO!). There have been many rumors on what I am going to be doing (one was particularly funny). So thought I would allow some guesses first via comments before I post on the blog what I will be doing? That is if anyone cares? Oh, to provide a comment you do not have to register any more!
Stay tuned to this station for the official announcement!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)