17.4% --WTF?
Okay, I am tired of serious material for the moment and scoured the internet looking for something fun or at least, kind of dumb. I ran across a quiz called the Blog Cuss-Oh-Meter on Rachel Lucas's blog (via Army of Dog) and decided to give it a try. Surely, I thought, this blog has less cursing than many I have seen out there. But, apparently, I was wrong:
Created by OnePlusYou - Free Online Dating
Is your blog or website as tacky as mine?
Created by OnePlusYou - Free Online Dating
Is your blog or website as tacky as mine?
Remember this one: �Total Quality Management�?
As I have said before, firms often imitate each other, and that includes imitating silly things.
Speaking of silly things; Mark Zbaracki, a professor at Wharton, found himself examining Total Quality Management (TQM) techniques in the early 1990s, when the thing was at its heyday. He made extensive visits to five organisations � a defence contractor, a hotel, a hospital, a manufacturing firm and a government agency � to figure out how they came about adopting TQM.
A very consistent pattern emerged. Invariably, when management started to hear about this �new thing� called Total Quality Management, they signed up for seminars and conferences in which representatives from other firms spoke about their experiences with the implementation of TQM. There they would hear about the substantial improvements TQM had brought them, often larded with impressive statistics and commanding jargon. It didn�t take long and the managers became convinced that they too had to make work of adopting this new technique, or risk falling behind forever.
So they started sending their people to TQM training courses and hired consultants that specialised in the new techniques, through which they learned more stories about the power of TQM and its remarkable results. Soon, they put their considerable weight behind a pilot: one department would experiment with the new techniques, so that others could learn from them.
This was often followed by the introduction of a series of internal seminars, a quarterly TQM newsletter sent to all departments within the organisation, and the appointment of dedicated internal TQM experts. Subsequently, all these parties were told to publicise the firm�s early �success stories� to enthral others and raise their enthusiasm to embrace the new technique with equal vigour.
Soon, the newsletters found their way to people at other companies, and the organisation�s managers started to receive invites to come and share their success stories at TQM conferences and seminars. Yet, in reality, every success story also had its problems, and for every �success story� there were always a handful of failures. Yet, those stories did not find their way into the newsletters, the company�s external communications, or the manager�s seminar slide pack.
And in the conference room, the attending managers, who had heard about this new technique called �Total Quality Management�, were in awe of the substantial improvements that TQM had brought the speaker�s firm, and they were impressed with the gleeful statistics and commanding jargon. And they too went back to their firms, and pro-claimed that they really had to make work of adopting this new technique, or risk falling behind forever.
Speaking of silly things; Mark Zbaracki, a professor at Wharton, found himself examining Total Quality Management (TQM) techniques in the early 1990s, when the thing was at its heyday. He made extensive visits to five organisations � a defence contractor, a hotel, a hospital, a manufacturing firm and a government agency � to figure out how they came about adopting TQM.
A very consistent pattern emerged. Invariably, when management started to hear about this �new thing� called Total Quality Management, they signed up for seminars and conferences in which representatives from other firms spoke about their experiences with the implementation of TQM. There they would hear about the substantial improvements TQM had brought them, often larded with impressive statistics and commanding jargon. It didn�t take long and the managers became convinced that they too had to make work of adopting this new technique, or risk falling behind forever.
So they started sending their people to TQM training courses and hired consultants that specialised in the new techniques, through which they learned more stories about the power of TQM and its remarkable results. Soon, they put their considerable weight behind a pilot: one department would experiment with the new techniques, so that others could learn from them.
This was often followed by the introduction of a series of internal seminars, a quarterly TQM newsletter sent to all departments within the organisation, and the appointment of dedicated internal TQM experts. Subsequently, all these parties were told to publicise the firm�s early �success stories� to enthral others and raise their enthusiasm to embrace the new technique with equal vigour.
Soon, the newsletters found their way to people at other companies, and the organisation�s managers started to receive invites to come and share their success stories at TQM conferences and seminars. Yet, in reality, every success story also had its problems, and for every �success story� there were always a handful of failures. Yet, those stories did not find their way into the newsletters, the company�s external communications, or the manager�s seminar slide pack.
And in the conference room, the attending managers, who had heard about this new technique called �Total Quality Management�, were in awe of the substantial improvements that TQM had brought the speaker�s firm, and they were impressed with the gleeful statistics and commanding jargon. And they too went back to their firms, and pro-claimed that they really had to make work of adopting this new technique, or risk falling behind forever.
Monitoring Political Correctness
I was at my local Books-A-Million and noticed that right on the front stacks sat Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism.
"Great," I thought, but I have often seen Books-A-Million put out a variety of books that are not as politically correct as some displayed prominently at other bookstores such as Borders or Barnes & Noble. So today, when I was at my local Barnes & Noble, I decided to see if they also gave prominent placement to Goldberg's book. I was pleasantly surprised to see that they did. It was right up front as you can see from the pictures, both under "Current & World Affairs" and "Best-selling Non-fiction." As you can see from the picture below, there are other right-leaning or libertarian books displayed, for example, FairTax
by Neal Boortz and John McCain: An American Odyssey
by Robert Timberg. It's nice to see that (at least at this local Barnes & Nobles), books that are left, right and in-between get displayed. So, glad to see that my political correctness monitoring was unnecessary, I grabbed (and paid for, of course) a book by Bill Cosby, Come On People: On the Path from Victims to Victors
that I have been meaning to read, and left. 
"A Dad is More than a Paycheck"
Protein Wisdom is promoting what looks like a very good cause--an Equal Parenting Bike Trek:
There is a news video about one of the fathers, Robert Pedersen, who is riding in the bike trek. Pedersen states in the video, "A dad is more than a paycheck." This is why he is riding to raise awareness of the importance of fathers and the need to change child custody laws--particularly in Michigan. How wonderful. I just sent a small donation to help out with this worthy cause. I hope this is just the beginning of men fighting to change laws that are unjust, unfair, and that harm many children who desperately need dads.
A grueling 758 mile cycling trek to raise awareness of a child's fundamental right to be loved, guided, educated and nurtured equally by both fit and willing parents.
There is a news video about one of the fathers, Robert Pedersen, who is riding in the bike trek. Pedersen states in the video, "A dad is more than a paycheck." This is why he is riding to raise awareness of the importance of fathers and the need to change child custody laws--particularly in Michigan. How wonderful. I just sent a small donation to help out with this worthy cause. I hope this is just the beginning of men fighting to change laws that are unjust, unfair, and that harm many children who desperately need dads.
Are Guys Really "Clueless" when it Comes to Reading Sexual Cues?
"Yes," says an article in LiveScience (thanks to the reader who emailed the link):
So men are a bunch of oblivious clowns--it's obvious this is what the staff writer, Jeanna Bryner (or her editor) thinks of men. Take a look at the title: "Clueless guys can't read women." But the editors don't have the last word: A number of the commenters disagree with the tone of the article (as do I). One disgusted guy writes in:
Another equally dismayed commenter states:
If you want to get a handle on where this particular writer, Ms. Bryner, is coming from, take a look at a couple other of her articles in LiveScience. Here's one entitled, Study Debunks Myth that Women Want Sex Less--note the positive title. If a study finds that men want sex, they are called clueless. Another article is entitled, Why Men Dominate Math and Science Fields where " a climate that is less than fully friendly to women remains, and its texture is often still so taken for granted that it tends to be invisible."
Of course, maybe it's not Ms. Bryner. Maybe it's the headline writers who think that every development has to be given an anti-male spin. Why would that be?
More often than not, guys interpret even friendly cues, such as a subtle smile from a gal, as a sexual come-on, and a new study discovers why: Guys are clueless.
More precisely, they are somewhat oblivious to the emotional subtleties of non-verbal cues, according to a new study of college students.
"Young men just find it difficult to tell the difference between women who are being friendly and women who are interested in something more," said lead researcher Coreen Farris of Indiana University's Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences.
So men are a bunch of oblivious clowns--it's obvious this is what the staff writer, Jeanna Bryner (or her editor) thinks of men. Take a look at the title: "Clueless guys can't read women." But the editors don't have the last word: A number of the commenters disagree with the tone of the article (as do I). One disgusted guy writes in:
Nice anti-male gender stereotyping. "Men are clueless." That's the sort of thing we'd expect in a radical feminist blog. The suggestion is, men are flawed for their "insensitivity to women's subtle non-verbal cues."
Um, could it be that women pick up on details better than men? Women have more developed skills in social communication (while men have more developed skills in other important areas)?
The TONE of your article is nothing short of male bashing -- you obviously would not agree or you wouldn't have written it that. "Men are clueless."
Ugh!
Another equally dismayed commenter states:
Oh wow, yet another denegrating article/study about men (guised as science) written by a woman, gee what a surprise. Let me make sure I have this right, it's men fault for not reading subtle non-verbal clues by women who REFUSE TO BE CLEAR WITH VERBAL COMMUNICATION and it's somehow a man's fault? anyone follow this logic? if you do, you're a woman.
If you want to get a handle on where this particular writer, Ms. Bryner, is coming from, take a look at a couple other of her articles in LiveScience. Here's one entitled, Study Debunks Myth that Women Want Sex Less--note the positive title. If a study finds that men want sex, they are called clueless. Another article is entitled, Why Men Dominate Math and Science Fields where " a climate that is less than fully friendly to women remains, and its texture is often still so taken for granted that it tends to be invisible."
Of course, maybe it's not Ms. Bryner. Maybe it's the headline writers who think that every development has to be given an anti-male spin. Why would that be?
Teen Suspects in Interstate Shootings in Custody
I just saw that they have two teen suspects in custody after two people were shot on Interstate 64 in Virginia:
Woodson, the nineteen year old suspect sounds like a real prize:
If I am reading this article correctly, stealing pick-up trucks and setting them on fire is just a misdemeanor worthy only of a suspended sentence. What's up with that? I don't know the details of this situation, but I have seen enough to know that even when teens and adults commit some pretty serious crimes, they often get a slap on the wrist. It's no wonder someone with a reputation as a troublemaker feels that he can get away with anything. Suddenly, shooting at random people on an interstate seems like a fun way to spend an evening, especially when one has rarely encountered any serious consequences for their past behavior.
Investigators said they now believe the shootings that slightly injured two drivers were part of a long night of random gunfire in which the 19-year-old, a former high school athlete with a record of making trouble, and a 16-year-old also shot at a credit union and a residence.
"Everyone can, I think, rest compared to the state that we were in overnight," State Police Superintendent Steven Flaherty said at a news conference in Charlottesville.....
On a MySpace page attributed to Woodson, he described his occupation as "mechanic, sorta" and wrote, "Im just a country boy who keeps gettin his heart broken!!! Ive got my heart broken twice in less then a year... i dunno wat to do.... keep gettin my heart broke or stop caring!!! and i dont wanna stop caring."
Police declined to offer a possible motive in the highway shootings, which began early Thursday in central Virginia.
Woodson, the nineteen year old suspect sounds like a real prize:
According to news reports and court records, Woodson was arrested January 18, 2007, on allegations he stole two pickup trucks and set them on fire. Woodson, a former high school pole vaulter, was convicted of two misdemeanor counts of petit larceny and given a suspended sentence.
If I am reading this article correctly, stealing pick-up trucks and setting them on fire is just a misdemeanor worthy only of a suspended sentence. What's up with that? I don't know the details of this situation, but I have seen enough to know that even when teens and adults commit some pretty serious crimes, they often get a slap on the wrist. It's no wonder someone with a reputation as a troublemaker feels that he can get away with anything. Suddenly, shooting at random people on an interstate seems like a fun way to spend an evening, especially when one has rarely encountered any serious consequences for their past behavior.
Blogger Identification
I just noticed that John Hawkins at Right Wing News has posted his favorite blogs and mine is on the list. How nice! I often wonder what motivates people to read certain blogs. I think I read recently that many blog readers identify with the blogger and therefore, enjoy reading someone who views the world in a similar way. I think this is true to some degree. But sometimes I think people read blogs because the blogger has a personality or has traits the reader aspires to have but does not, or has in a very small degree but the blogger has it in spades.
Let me give you an example. I recently started reading Rachel Lucas's blog. She blogged a while ago, I think, and quit and then recently came back. My husband was the one who started telling me to read her blog, and I would, occassionally, look at something she posted and then I realized one day that I was...hooked. Lucas writes rants, about everything from her dogs humping to why people don't treat their parents better and she does it with such flare that her subjects might be better off if she actually used a sword against them, rather than her pen--or in this case, her keyboard.
Do I admire that? You better believe I do. Could I do it or would I do it? Doubtful--it's not my style but it is a style that I admire. There is another side of myself that I wish I had fine-tuned more but didn't. When you spend years in a PHD program and in my profession, you learn to restrain yourself from ranting at people, and instead, try to be objective without letting others know too much about how you actually feel. Lucas does just the opposite; there is no mystery about how she feels, it's obvious.
Do you have a favorite blogger who serves as your alter ego, with the traits you wish you had, but don't for whatever reason--such as your profession, family, not your style, but wish it was? etc. Which blogger is it and why do you admire or want to be like him or her?
Update: Rachel responds: Most people have to pay a psychologist for this kind of mental help.
Let me give you an example. I recently started reading Rachel Lucas's blog. She blogged a while ago, I think, and quit and then recently came back. My husband was the one who started telling me to read her blog, and I would, occassionally, look at something she posted and then I realized one day that I was...hooked. Lucas writes rants, about everything from her dogs humping to why people don't treat their parents better and she does it with such flare that her subjects might be better off if she actually used a sword against them, rather than her pen--or in this case, her keyboard.
Do I admire that? You better believe I do. Could I do it or would I do it? Doubtful--it's not my style but it is a style that I admire. There is another side of myself that I wish I had fine-tuned more but didn't. When you spend years in a PHD program and in my profession, you learn to restrain yourself from ranting at people, and instead, try to be objective without letting others know too much about how you actually feel. Lucas does just the opposite; there is no mystery about how she feels, it's obvious.
Do you have a favorite blogger who serves as your alter ego, with the traits you wish you had, but don't for whatever reason--such as your profession, family, not your style, but wish it was? etc. Which blogger is it and why do you admire or want to be like him or her?
Update: Rachel responds: Most people have to pay a psychologist for this kind of mental help.
A bitter pill
It was always hard to think of a nicer business to be in than pharmaceuticals. Think about it, how much more price insensitive can customers be? In many countries, due to medical insurance, the people deciding on what product to purchase (i.e. doctors) are not the ones paying for it, nor are the people who are actually swallowing the pill! And what if these consumers were responsible for payment, what are they going to say �are you kidding, 30 pounds for that pill is really overpriced; I�d rather die!� Well, that�s the problem, you just might�
Moreover, it�s not that there are many substitutes available for chemical drugs; acupuncture and an occasional mud-bath and that�s about it. Furthermore, the suppliers of the pharma companies are hardly able to squeeze the profit out of them, as the raw materials are usually bulk commodities. On top of that, the entry barriers into the industry are huge, among others due to lengthy product development times and enormous upfront financial investments required (about half a billion for an average new drug).
Best of all though, is that demand is virtually unlimited! It�s not that we�ve already ran out of diseases to cure. And, if so, many drugs have such severe side-effects that we need other drugs to suppress them! A cycle as virtuous as I have ever seen one. Yep, pharmaceuticals was a nice place to be in.
But lately, pharmaceutical companies have been showing signs of distress. This distress is merely relative � because they�re still making money by the bucket � but once you�re used to a Gucci life it is not easy to downgrade to the Gap. One reason for the damsels� distress is the fact that for many companies, product pipelines have all but dried up; R&D departments are just not coming up with the goodies.
There may be various reasons for this problem, but it is quite clear from academic research that innovation becomes more difficult when you�re old and rich. For example, Professor Henrich Greve, currently at INSEAD business school, examining Japanese shipbuilders over a period of several decades, found that firms with deep pockets invested quite a bit more in R&D but, concurrently, also launched fewer new products. Professors Jesper Sorensen and Toby Stuart, at the time both at the University of Chicago, examining firms in biotech and in semiconductors, found that older firms came up with more innovations but that these were usually less influential and concerned mere variations on already well-known themes.
The problem for top managers is that a lack of innovation is not solved by money alone. Top managers can decide many things; the can decide to acquire company X, throw in money and a team of bankers and see it done. They can decide to enter country Y, tell business development to make it so, and it will happen. They can choose to change an incentive system from individual to group rewards, and HR will do it. However, you can�t just decide to have more innovation. You can say it, order it, shout it really loudly but that doesn�t mean products will magically materialise. Innovation is a subtle process that involves many aspects of the organisation, some of them tangible but many of them much more tacit and informal. And once those start to ossify, there�s no pill that will cure that.
Moreover, it�s not that there are many substitutes available for chemical drugs; acupuncture and an occasional mud-bath and that�s about it. Furthermore, the suppliers of the pharma companies are hardly able to squeeze the profit out of them, as the raw materials are usually bulk commodities. On top of that, the entry barriers into the industry are huge, among others due to lengthy product development times and enormous upfront financial investments required (about half a billion for an average new drug).
Best of all though, is that demand is virtually unlimited! It�s not that we�ve already ran out of diseases to cure. And, if so, many drugs have such severe side-effects that we need other drugs to suppress them! A cycle as virtuous as I have ever seen one. Yep, pharmaceuticals was a nice place to be in.
But lately, pharmaceutical companies have been showing signs of distress. This distress is merely relative � because they�re still making money by the bucket � but once you�re used to a Gucci life it is not easy to downgrade to the Gap. One reason for the damsels� distress is the fact that for many companies, product pipelines have all but dried up; R&D departments are just not coming up with the goodies.
There may be various reasons for this problem, but it is quite clear from academic research that innovation becomes more difficult when you�re old and rich. For example, Professor Henrich Greve, currently at INSEAD business school, examining Japanese shipbuilders over a period of several decades, found that firms with deep pockets invested quite a bit more in R&D but, concurrently, also launched fewer new products. Professors Jesper Sorensen and Toby Stuart, at the time both at the University of Chicago, examining firms in biotech and in semiconductors, found that older firms came up with more innovations but that these were usually less influential and concerned mere variations on already well-known themes.
The problem for top managers is that a lack of innovation is not solved by money alone. Top managers can decide many things; the can decide to acquire company X, throw in money and a team of bankers and see it done. They can decide to enter country Y, tell business development to make it so, and it will happen. They can choose to change an incentive system from individual to group rewards, and HR will do it. However, you can�t just decide to have more innovation. You can say it, order it, shout it really loudly but that doesn�t mean products will magically materialise. Innovation is a subtle process that involves many aspects of the organisation, some of them tangible but many of them much more tacit and informal. And once those start to ossify, there�s no pill that will cure that.
Men Feel "Handcuffed by Political Correctness"
According to this article in the Telegraph, modern men feel emasculated:
Surely the men in the survey did not state they were "afraid" of bossy women--for if the resulting emotion men have to being silenced and oppressed by women is fear, we are lost.
Many men believe the world is now dominated by women and that they have lost their role in society, fuelling feelings of depression and being undervalued....
Men said they "felt handcuffed" by political correctness - only 33 per cent felt they could speak freely and say what they thought, whereas two thirds found it safer and to conceal their opinions.
Harvey Mansfield, a Harvard professor and America's best known political philosopher, who tackles the topic in his book Manliness,says the issue is ignored.
...According to the survey, men hold other men who speak their mind in high regard - the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, Jeremy Paxman, Bob Geldof and Gordon Ramsay. Their biggest hero is Churchill.
But four out of 10 are frightened of heights and spiders while a third are frightened of bossy women.
Surely the men in the survey did not state they were "afraid" of bossy women--for if the resulting emotion men have to being silenced and oppressed by women is fear, we are lost.
Boards of directors: cliques and elites
In the US, in the 1980s, shareholders (especially institutional investors) began to advocate that company directors should take certain measures that restrict top managers from having a ball at shareholders� expense; that is, undertake strategic actions that are in their own interest but not in those of the company�s shareholders. Yet, after making some initial in-roads, two decades later, this reform process has stagnated. For example, the portion of large US companies with an independent board chair or an independent nominating committee for new board members (two of the things advocated by the investors) was only slightly higher in 1999 than in 1989.
How come? Why has this governance reform stagnated? To answer this question, Professor James Westphal � currently at the University of Michigan � conducted an elaborate study. He collected data on 417 firms, interviewed scores of top managers and directors, obtained surveys from no less than 1098 directors and 197 CEOs at multiple points in time, and came up with an intriguing answer.
He found that the top managers and board members of the US�s biggest companies together form an �elite�, which act very much like �the clique of popular kids in high-school�. Let me explain.
Specifically, Jim tracked directors� voting behaviour when any of the following four measures were being proposed in the company (which each limit top managers� power):
- CEOs can not concurrently also hold the seat of chairman of the board (so that the board can operate independently)
- The company should have a nominating committee to appoint new board members, rather than that the company�s CEO controls this process
- The director at some point had voted to dismiss the (underperforming) company�s CEO (a measure clearly not in the interest of the CEO!)
- The company should revoke a so-called poison pill construction � a mechanism that makes it difficult for a firm to be acquired against top management�s will (so that even when top management is doing a poor job, and the company is underperforming, they still can�t be ousted by new owners)
Then, Jim examined what had happened to the directors that had voted in favour of adopting one or more of these ("controversial") measures�
First, what you have to realise, is that people who hold board memberships more often than not also are members of the boards of other companies. If a particular board member, at some point in time, had voted for one of the above measures, which remove privileges away from top managers (i.e. members of the elite) and give it to investors (who are not considered part of the elite), their fellow directors at other boards would subsequently start to give them the cold shoulder. The board member would become unpopular with the rest of the in-crowd, and get treated as �a traitor�.
The questionnaires and interviews (conducted with both the "unpopular board members" themselves as well as with their "friends") clearly indicated that the other boards� members would start to engage in subtle behaviour intended to punish the deviant person, such as neglecting to invite him to informal meetings, not asking his opinion or advice in formal meetings, not acknowledging or building on his comments in discussion, engaging in exclusionary gossip whereby they would talk about other people and events with which the director was not familiar, etc.
For example, interviewed board members said that the deviant persons �can expect to be ostracized�, �people are less interested in working with them�. One director said, �The directors [who had voted for one of the four changes] get treated differently � I think they get put on notice a bit�, while another commented, �it will hurt you. You won�t get thrown off the board, but you definitely won�t get treated the same. In a way you get treated like the enemy � or at least as suspect�. One director, who had once voted in favour of one of the measures, related his own experience: �after we fired the CEO I got the cold shoulder from colleagues at another board� I didn�t get invited to an important meeting�.
Does this perhaps remind you of your high school days...?
And, guess what, it worked. Jim, in his statistical analysis, also examined what the subsequent voting behaviour was of the directors who had been subject to such treatment. Whenever, in the ensuing years, there would be another vote about one of the four aforementioned measures, the directors would cave in, and vote against it. They didn�t dare do it again.
Do Facts Matter to Liberals?
If you are not familiar with the organization FIRE, you should be, for they are very much champions of free speech on college campuses, something that is sorely lacking these days. It seems that a biased Wikipedia editor has stated that they are a right-wing front group (if they were a left-wing front group like so much of the MSM, George Soros, etc. etc., I would assume this would be satisfactory). FIRE president Greg Lukianoff has a few choice words for Wikipedia editor Simon DeDeo (via Instapundit):
Good advice, but since when do those liberals blinded by ideology listen to facts? DeDeo is just taking a page straight out of the work of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
--rather than look at facts, try to marginalize your opponent by calling names. It's time we quit falling for such psychologically manipulative tactics and started rewarding critical thinking skills. Educational institutions used to teach these skills, now they teach that posturing the correct political stance is more important than the truth. How tolerant is that?
FIRE's experience has been that you are more likely to get in trouble on campus if you are socially conservative, make un-PC jokes, or do or say something deemed "insensitive." Liberals also run afoul of campus bureaucrats, and when they do, they too are punished utilizing the language of "tolerance" and "diversity." You can disagree with this assessment, you can do your best to disprove it, but if after reviewing case after case every year, you aren't convinced that there is a problem on campus, you should ask yourself if you are honestly looking at the facts, or if you are blinded by your own ideology.
Good advice, but since when do those liberals blinded by ideology listen to facts? DeDeo is just taking a page straight out of the work of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals
--rather than look at facts, try to marginalize your opponent by calling names. It's time we quit falling for such psychologically manipulative tactics and started rewarding critical thinking skills. Educational institutions used to teach these skills, now they teach that posturing the correct political stance is more important than the truth. How tolerant is that?
Podcast: How to Retire Cash-Rich
Do you wonder if you're doing enough for retirement at this point in your life? I often do as I figure that Social Security will be history or getting to be history by the time I retire (not that one could really live fully on Social Security anyway). Jim Schlagheck, author of Cash-Rich Retirement: Use the Investing Techniques of the Mega-Wealthy to Secure Your Retirement Future
talks with us today about retirement, where to put your money, how to save, whether real estate is a good investment and finally, about the upcoming election and how it might affect the economy.You can listen directly -- no downloads needed -- by going here and clicking on the gray Flash player. You can download the file and listen at your leisure by clicking right here. And you can get a lo-fi version suitable for dialup, cellphones, etc. by going here and selecting the lo-fi option. And of course, you can get a free subscription via iTunes -- and it's free.
Music is by Mobius Dick. Show archives are at GlennandHelenShow.com.
Should Mom or Dad Really be "Last Hope" in Middle-Age?
I read with curiosity this article on middle-aged "kids" coming home to live with mom and dad:
Should older parents really be digging into their savings and retirement to help their middle-aged children? One financial planner in the article says to be careful:
What is going to happen to these parents who use their savings to help kids when they need it for their own retirement? If their kids are self-centered enough to take their parent's retirement from them, will they really help the parent later on down the road or will they be more like this woman, who wrote to the Huffington Post complaining that her mom was a pain in the ass?
If the latter, what are the chances that the middle-aged kids will go on to return the favor and support mom and dad if and when their money runs out? Probably pretty unlikely. Perhaps a better investment for parents of middle-aged kids without jobs, income etc. would be to present them with the book, Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream.
A young man goes out in the world with 25 bucks to see if he can build a life:
Perhaps there is a lesson here for older adults asking for hand-outs from mom and dad.
Update: Neo-neocon has more thoughts on baby-boomers moving home.
After being laid off from her job as an events planner at an upscale resort, Jo Ann Bauer struggled financially. She worked at several lower-paying jobs, relocated to a new city and even declared bankruptcy.
Then in December, she finally accepted her parents' invitation to move into their home � at age 52. "I'm back living in the bedroom that I grew up in," she said.
Taking shelter with parents isn't uncommon for young people in their 20s, especially when the job market is poor. But now the slumping economy and the credit crunch are forcing some children to do so later in life � even in middle age.
Financial planners report receiving many calls from parents seeking advice about taking in their grown children following divorces and layoffs.
Should older parents really be digging into their savings and retirement to help their middle-aged children? One financial planner in the article says to be careful:
"I almost have to act like a financial therapist if you will," she said. "'Here is the line I'm drawing for you. That's fine. You can do up to this point, but at this point, now you're starting to erode your own wealth.'"
What is going to happen to these parents who use their savings to help kids when they need it for their own retirement? If their kids are self-centered enough to take their parent's retirement from them, will they really help the parent later on down the road or will they be more like this woman, who wrote to the Huffington Post complaining that her mom was a pain in the ass?
If the latter, what are the chances that the middle-aged kids will go on to return the favor and support mom and dad if and when their money runs out? Probably pretty unlikely. Perhaps a better investment for parents of middle-aged kids without jobs, income etc. would be to present them with the book, Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream.
A young man goes out in the world with 25 bucks to see if he can build a life:Ten months into the experiment, he decided to quit after learning of an illness in his family. But by then he had moved into an apartment, bought a pickup truck, and had saved close to $5,000.
The effort, he says, was inspired after reading "Nickel and Dimed," in which author Barbara Ehrenreich takes on a series of low-paying jobs. Unlike Ms. Ehrenreich, who chronicled the difficulty of advancing beyond the ranks of the working poor, Shepard found he was able to successfully climb out of his self-imposed poverty.
Perhaps there is a lesson here for older adults asking for hand-outs from mom and dad.
Update: Neo-neocon has more thoughts on baby-boomers moving home.
Is Therapy the New 21st Century "Punishment?"
Years ago, people were subjected to public whippings, put in stocks, or stamped with a Scarlet A if they broke the law. Maybe this was extreme but is going to the other extreme of sending people to "counseling" in order to duck responsibility really the answer? The answer seems to be "yes." If you are disgraced and play your cards right, you may be sent to therapy rather than held fully responsible for your actions (via Classical Values):
Don't you just love how therapy is now being used as the new 21st century "punishment" for those who have broken the law? FWIW, I am for legalizing prostitution, but it was against the law at the time Spitzer decided to partake in it--and given how he has ruined others in a similar vein, I can't get too high on my libertarian bandwagon for him here. Anyway, it seems to me that therapy is the new punishment that people the authorities do not really want to hold totally responsible for their actions fall back on to make it look like "something" is being done.
Have you taken note of the trend? If you are a politician or celebrity who has broken the law, you are subjected to--horrors!--addiction counseling. If you are a woman who commits a heinous crime such as murder, you may be able to spend part of your 7-month sentence in something as atrocious as....mental health counseling! I have even worked cases where juveniles have committed severe crimes such as carjacking and had attorneys want to send a social worker to the teen's house for counseling rather than send them to a correctional facility. As John Stossel says, "Give me a break!"
Therapy should not be used as a punishment for those who commit crimes. It should certainly be used to assist people in getting better and turning their behavior around while paying for their crimes, but it is not a substitute for being held responsible for one's actions.
Former Gov. Eliot Spitzer has gone into therapy in the wake of the hooker scandal that swept him out of office, a Spitzer insider told The Post yesterday.
As part of the therapy, Spitzer will explore whether he has an addiction to sex, the source said.
Don't you just love how therapy is now being used as the new 21st century "punishment" for those who have broken the law? FWIW, I am for legalizing prostitution, but it was against the law at the time Spitzer decided to partake in it--and given how he has ruined others in a similar vein, I can't get too high on my libertarian bandwagon for him here. Anyway, it seems to me that therapy is the new punishment that people the authorities do not really want to hold totally responsible for their actions fall back on to make it look like "something" is being done.
Have you taken note of the trend? If you are a politician or celebrity who has broken the law, you are subjected to--horrors!--addiction counseling. If you are a woman who commits a heinous crime such as murder, you may be able to spend part of your 7-month sentence in something as atrocious as....mental health counseling! I have even worked cases where juveniles have committed severe crimes such as carjacking and had attorneys want to send a social worker to the teen's house for counseling rather than send them to a correctional facility. As John Stossel says, "Give me a break!"
Therapy should not be used as a punishment for those who commit crimes. It should certainly be used to assist people in getting better and turning their behavior around while paying for their crimes, but it is not a substitute for being held responsible for one's actions.
Is Beachfront Property Really Worth Having?
Well, we came back from Hilton Head, South Carolina the other day where we spent some time looking at how the real estate market was doing there with the housing slump fully underway. I must say that I have always wondered why people buy oceanfront property or even off-beach housing as an investment as it seems so risky and expensive.
What we saw were a lot of rental signs with price tags that still seemed too high (to me anyway). For example, the condo we stayed in at the beach would sell for around 1.65 million -- even though the rent on it was pretty low, nowhere near enough to cover the mortgage even if it rented steadily. Apparently, some investors don't think that prices are too high. According to one real estate paper, Palmetto Previews, baby boomers are looking to buy second homes, vacation properties and retirement venues in the "red-hot South."
In addition to the boomers, big corporations, the paper says, are starting to buy properties in bulk and these corporations include a recent influx of buyers from Canada and Europe, including Eastern Europe. A real estate veteran in Hilton Head, Billy Baldwin, attributes the trend in foreign sales to greater buying power. "The softening US prices combined with favorable exchange rates makes homes here big bargains for many Canadian and European buyers."
But are these properties really going to stay good investments? Potentially not, according to the book Cash-Rich Retirement, that I am reading for an upcoming podcast.
The author, Jim Schlagheck, says that the recent boom in real estate prices are not "business as usual:"
I sure don't know the answer to that question. But regardless of what happens, I think I'll just stick with renting a beachhouse--it seems cheaper and safer than investing in this market.
What we saw were a lot of rental signs with price tags that still seemed too high (to me anyway). For example, the condo we stayed in at the beach would sell for around 1.65 million -- even though the rent on it was pretty low, nowhere near enough to cover the mortgage even if it rented steadily. Apparently, some investors don't think that prices are too high. According to one real estate paper, Palmetto Previews, baby boomers are looking to buy second homes, vacation properties and retirement venues in the "red-hot South."
In addition to the boomers, big corporations, the paper says, are starting to buy properties in bulk and these corporations include a recent influx of buyers from Canada and Europe, including Eastern Europe. A real estate veteran in Hilton Head, Billy Baldwin, attributes the trend in foreign sales to greater buying power. "The softening US prices combined with favorable exchange rates makes homes here big bargains for many Canadian and European buyers."
But are these properties really going to stay good investments? Potentially not, according to the book Cash-Rich Retirement,
that I am reading for an upcoming podcast.The author, Jim Schlagheck, says that the recent boom in real estate prices are not "business as usual:"
It is the result of an unprecedented surge of people looking for homes and "quick flip" investment opportunities as never before.... Boomers have so far had a resounding impact on consumer spending, investing, and asset prices. They have been a powerful locomotive, contributing to strong economic growth and substantially higher investment valuations.
That, of course, brings us to the million-dollar question: What is going to happen when this same mass of people enters retirement and begins selling off assets to raise cash? How will mass boomer retirements impact asset values?
I sure don't know the answer to that question. But regardless of what happens, I think I'll just stick with renting a beachhouse--it seems cheaper and safer than investing in this market.
Bloggers on the Road
It's amazing how many bloggers come through Knoxville--today it was Dr. Wes, the blogging electrophysiologist and his wife, Diane, a clinical psychologist who both run MedTees.com
We met up for appetizers and talked about blogging, commenters and whether someone could hack an ICD. The answer was "yes" but it would be hard. Anyway, it was terrific meeting another blogger, especially a fellow health service provider who loves writing and posting. By the time it's all said and done, maybe I'll meet almost all of them at some point. I sure hope so.
We met up for appetizers and talked about blogging, commenters and whether someone could hack an ICD. The answer was "yes" but it would be hard. Anyway, it was terrific meeting another blogger, especially a fellow health service provider who loves writing and posting. By the time it's all said and done, maybe I'll meet almost all of them at some point. I sure hope so.
The Lone Libertarian
I read with interest a short question and answer session with John Stossel in TownHall magazine on how he became the lone libertarian in broadcast news. One question posed by Mary Katharine Ham asked "Is the media as hostile to conservative ideas as a lot of conservatives seem to think, or does your success belie that idea?"
Stossel replies, "I would say it's as hostile as most believe it is. Remember, I came in as a liberal, and I was trying to be what I thought was objective. I certainly did not do the point-of-view reporting as I do now. I'm the, to my knowledge, lone libertarian in the mainstream media, and I take some heat for that. To my knowledge there are zero conservatives...on the networks."
Wow, zero, that's unbelievable. Imagine what would happen if there were zero women or minorities in broadcast news, what a ruckus that would be. There is already an uproar that there are so few but what if there were....zero. There is no excuse for zero conservatives except censorship and discrimination. There is no other explanation. If you are conservative or libertarian and want to go into broadcast news-- what are your chances? Zero or possibly a tiny percentage being that there is one libertarian. So why bother--but then, isn't that the idea?
Stossel replies, "I would say it's as hostile as most believe it is. Remember, I came in as a liberal, and I was trying to be what I thought was objective. I certainly did not do the point-of-view reporting as I do now. I'm the, to my knowledge, lone libertarian in the mainstream media, and I take some heat for that. To my knowledge there are zero conservatives...on the networks."
Wow, zero, that's unbelievable. Imagine what would happen if there were zero women or minorities in broadcast news, what a ruckus that would be. There is already an uproar that there are so few but what if there were....zero. There is no excuse for zero conservatives except censorship and discrimination. There is no other explanation. If you are conservative or libertarian and want to go into broadcast news-- what are your chances? Zero or possibly a tiny percentage being that there is one libertarian. So why bother--but then, isn't that the idea?
The success trap
Did you know that when you take the list of Fortune 100 companies in 1966 (America�s largest companies) and compare it with the Fortune 100 in 2006, 66 of those companies don�t even exist anymore? Another 15 still exist but don�t feature on the list any longer, while a mere 19 of them are still there.
It relates to a phenomenon we call �the success trap�; ample research and statistics show, for a variety of industries, that especially very successful firms have trouble staying successful, and adapt to fundamental changes in their business environments (such as new competitors, different customer demand, radical new technologies or business models, etc.). Over the years, they focused on the thing that made them successful (a particular product, service, production method, etc.) and as a result became even better at it.
Yet, this came at the expense of other products, processes and viewpoints, which were considered much less important, and were often discarded. Hence, the company had become very good at one thing, but one thing only� This is not a problem unless, of course, your environment changes. It�s just that most of these darn environments have the nasty habit of doing exactly that...
Then, the company is caught off-guard, and has trouble adapting to the altered circumstances. It is partly a cognitive thing. For example, how come that, in the early 1980s, IBM so dramatically misunderstood the emergence of personal computers? How come Harley Davidson had itself all but wiped out of the market by tiny Japanese entrants like Honda, who made very different motorcycles? How come the once dominant Firestone completely misread the emergence of radial tyres and went down the drains? Laura Ashley, Atari, Digital Equipment, Tupperware, Revlon; the list goes on and on of once dominant companies that at some point seem to lose the plot and get into severe trouble. Some of them recovered, some of them went under, arrogantly assuming that what they always had been doing � and what had brought them so much success � would always work just fine. Only to find out - the hard way, and often too late - that they were wrong, and the world did not need them any longer.
It relates to a phenomenon we call �the success trap�; ample research and statistics show, for a variety of industries, that especially very successful firms have trouble staying successful, and adapt to fundamental changes in their business environments (such as new competitors, different customer demand, radical new technologies or business models, etc.). Over the years, they focused on the thing that made them successful (a particular product, service, production method, etc.) and as a result became even better at it.
Yet, this came at the expense of other products, processes and viewpoints, which were considered much less important, and were often discarded. Hence, the company had become very good at one thing, but one thing only� This is not a problem unless, of course, your environment changes. It�s just that most of these darn environments have the nasty habit of doing exactly that...
Then, the company is caught off-guard, and has trouble adapting to the altered circumstances. It is partly a cognitive thing. For example, how come that, in the early 1980s, IBM so dramatically misunderstood the emergence of personal computers? How come Harley Davidson had itself all but wiped out of the market by tiny Japanese entrants like Honda, who made very different motorcycles? How come the once dominant Firestone completely misread the emergence of radial tyres and went down the drains? Laura Ashley, Atari, Digital Equipment, Tupperware, Revlon; the list goes on and on of once dominant companies that at some point seem to lose the plot and get into severe trouble. Some of them recovered, some of them went under, arrogantly assuming that what they always had been doing � and what had brought them so much success � would always work just fine. Only to find out - the hard way, and often too late - that they were wrong, and the world did not need them any longer.
I can Quit Anytime I Want....
Do you have Internet Addiction Disorder (IAD) (Hat tip: Mecurior)?:
Shouldn't The New York Times be notified that rather than successes, these bloggers are sick addicts?
If you�re a blogger, you could soon find yourself labeled with the newest mental disorder: Internet Addiction Disorder.
IAD has actually been proposed for inclusion as a psychiatric diagnosis in the next issue of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V).
Shouldn't The New York Times be notified that rather than successes, these bloggers are sick addicts?
Do Bloggers Ever Take a Break?
Well, sometimes they do. Glenn and I are on a working "vacation" in Hilton Head, South Carolina and when I get a break, I go fly a kite on the beach:
Glenn on the other hand, doesn't take much of a break, here he is being photographed for an upcoming story by a New York Times freelance photographer on the beach--about blogging of course. Well, I did work as the grip for this shoot but didn't get paid, does that count as work or stupidity?
Glenn on the other hand, doesn't take much of a break, here he is being photographed for an upcoming story by a New York Times freelance photographer on the beach--about blogging of course. Well, I did work as the grip for this shoot but didn't get paid, does that count as work or stupidity?
Does downsizing work, ever?
No it doesn�t.
Workforce downsizing has been a popular pass-time lately (i.e. over the past decade or two); more and more companies announcing mass lay-offs programmes, even if they�re not in financial trouble. The practice started in the early 1980s, when economic slowdown more or less forced firms into it, but proved to not be a passing trend when in the ensuing decades many firms continued to engage in systematic workforce reductions.
Of course firms engage in downsizing hoping to boost their profitability. But does it work? It has obvious advantages � waving the hatchet tends to lower headcount quite effectively, which obviously leaves you with lower labour expenses � but also some potential disadvantages � such as lower commitment and loyalty among the survivors. It is not immediately clear whether the positives will outweigh the negatives, or vice versa.
Therefore, Professors James Guthrie, from the University of Kansas, and Deepak Datta, from the University of Texas at Arlington, decided to research the issue in a systematic way. They managed to obtain in-depth data on 122 firms that had engaged in downsizing and performed various statistical techniques to examine whether the programme had improved their profitability. The answer was a plain �no�.
Beforehand, James and Deepak had thought that downsizing would likely be harmful for firms that rely heavily on people (such as firms in industries in which R&D is very important; firms with low capital intensity) and firms that are in growth industries (since it would be more difficult to justify mass lay-offs there). And they were right; in those type of businesses, downsizing programmes significantly reduced firms� subsequent profitability.
However, they had also expected the reverse to be true; that firms in industries in which people were less central to companies� competitive advantage (firms in industries with low R&D; firms with high capital intensity) and firms in low-growth industries would be able to get away with downsizing programmes, and increase their profitability as a result. Yet, there they proved to be wrong. Even in such businesses, downsizing didn�t help a single bit, and usually lowered performance. In fact, they couldn�t find a single business in which downsizing proved beneficial for firms.
Of course, firms in trouble need to do something. However, simply reducing your head-count won�t do the trick. As Fortune Magazine observed, most firms that downsize, �rather than becoming lean and mean, often end up lean and lame�.
Workforce downsizing has been a popular pass-time lately (i.e. over the past decade or two); more and more companies announcing mass lay-offs programmes, even if they�re not in financial trouble. The practice started in the early 1980s, when economic slowdown more or less forced firms into it, but proved to not be a passing trend when in the ensuing decades many firms continued to engage in systematic workforce reductions.
Of course firms engage in downsizing hoping to boost their profitability. But does it work? It has obvious advantages � waving the hatchet tends to lower headcount quite effectively, which obviously leaves you with lower labour expenses � but also some potential disadvantages � such as lower commitment and loyalty among the survivors. It is not immediately clear whether the positives will outweigh the negatives, or vice versa.
Therefore, Professors James Guthrie, from the University of Kansas, and Deepak Datta, from the University of Texas at Arlington, decided to research the issue in a systematic way. They managed to obtain in-depth data on 122 firms that had engaged in downsizing and performed various statistical techniques to examine whether the programme had improved their profitability. The answer was a plain �no�.
Beforehand, James and Deepak had thought that downsizing would likely be harmful for firms that rely heavily on people (such as firms in industries in which R&D is very important; firms with low capital intensity) and firms that are in growth industries (since it would be more difficult to justify mass lay-offs there). And they were right; in those type of businesses, downsizing programmes significantly reduced firms� subsequent profitability.However, they had also expected the reverse to be true; that firms in industries in which people were less central to companies� competitive advantage (firms in industries with low R&D; firms with high capital intensity) and firms in low-growth industries would be able to get away with downsizing programmes, and increase their profitability as a result. Yet, there they proved to be wrong. Even in such businesses, downsizing didn�t help a single bit, and usually lowered performance. In fact, they couldn�t find a single business in which downsizing proved beneficial for firms.
Of course, firms in trouble need to do something. However, simply reducing your head-count won�t do the trick. As Fortune Magazine observed, most firms that downsize, �rather than becoming lean and mean, often end up lean and lame�.
Ask Dr. Helen: Are Hybrid Owners All That?
My PJM column is up:
Does your car reflect your personality? Do you drive a hybrid and have a mindset like this?
You can read the column and respond there or here.
Do our choices in cars really reflect our true personality traits? That�s what they say, but Dr. Helen Smith isn�t sure.
Does your car reflect your personality? Do you drive a hybrid and have a mindset like this?
You can read the column and respond there or here.
Is There Really Such a Thing As "Positive Discrimination?"
Apparently, the Equalities Minister, Harriet Harman in the UK thinks so (Hat tip: Mecurior):
And I love this:
White applicants were barred? Is there really such a thing as "positive discrimination?" I say absolutely not. What goes around comes around. When I get thoroughly disgusted and think there is no justice in the world, I try to remember what Thomas Jefferson (or someone since Wikipedia says this quote was misattributed to Jefferson) said many years ago that still rings true:
At some point, the very laws that are supposed to promote "equality" by discriminating against certain people are usually the very ones that end up harming those they intended to help in the end--it's just a matter of time. I will not be so eloquent here as the above quote is regarding government "intervention," but I hope that laws like the above will come back to bite the very people who make them in the ass.
White men could be legally blocked from jobs or promotions under controversial government plans to help women and black employees achieve equality.
Employers would be allowed to give jobs to qualified minority candidates in preference to other candidates under a change in discrimination law being drawn up by the Equalities Minister, Harriet Harman. The 'positive action' tactic, already used in the United States, has been a legal minefield in the UK and Harman's plans are likely to upset MPs who believe that merit alone should determine who is hired.
However, she believes radical changes are needed to help talented black and female candidates break through barriers in business and public life. The positive discrimination plan [my emphasis] would apply only in cases where two equally qualified candidates were after the same post, allowing the employer to tip the balance in favour of the minority candidate on grounds of race or gender.
And I love this:
Employers can currently specify that they welcome applications from minority candidates, and promote themselves to specific groups. However, Avon Fire Service, whose firefighters are 97 per cent white and male, triggered a storm of protest this year when it barred white applicants from an open day.
White applicants were barred? Is there really such a thing as "positive discrimination?" I say absolutely not. What goes around comes around. When I get thoroughly disgusted and think there is no justice in the world, I try to remember what Thomas Jefferson (or someone since Wikipedia says this quote was misattributed to Jefferson) said many years ago that still rings true:
Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.
At some point, the very laws that are supposed to promote "equality" by discriminating against certain people are usually the very ones that end up harming those they intended to help in the end--it's just a matter of time. I will not be so eloquent here as the above quote is regarding government "intervention," but I hope that laws like the above will come back to bite the very people who make them in the ass.
Picking Locks and Minds
I spent this morning reading over a book Glenn ordered called, How To Open Locks With Improvised Tools: Practical, Non-Destructive Ways Of Getting Back Into Just About Everything When You Lose Your Keys.
I remember as a kid that lock picking was almost a necessity when dealing with four other siblings. I learned how to pick locks early (very simple ones) but never went beyond the basics of using a hanger or paperclip to pry open a lock. However, as one who tends to be absent-minded and has locked her keys in the car on more than one occasion, I decided to read over and keep this book as a future reference for more advanced lock-picking.
I never knew opening things was so complicated. I have always had a respect for lock-smiths, especially since getting some good advice from one-six-and a half foot giant who installed locks at my old office. He told me that no lock was impenetrable, but he never really cared --"if someone is dumb enough to break into my home," he stated, "then they're all mine." Not a bad mind-set to have and it certainly worked for him. "Who would break into his place?" I thought. Anyway back to the book and the mechanics of lock picking.
The book empasizes the mental aspects of successful lock bypass (sounds like some type of surgery). First, the author says, try not to need it. "Make a habit of physically checking to see if you have your keys before going through a door or leaving your car. If you think you are holding them, look down and visually confirm it." You should also try to find a spare key, roommate or some other way of getting into your car, home etc. before attempting to pick a lock.
If one does have to open a lock, they are advised "never to force a mechanical part to move." The most force that should be used "is the same amount it would take to use the key or inside handle." The greatest cause of failure to open a lock is using the wrong method of entry. "You might have half a dozen bypass ideas in mind, but you have to choose the right one to get the job done....Having the wisdom to determine how much of what you know is specific to the lock in front of you and having the ability to apply that knowledge is at least as important as the knowledge itself." Finally, the author advises, take your time. "If you give up too easily or lose patience, you aren't allowing yourself a fair shot at it. Do not be sloppy in the way that you use your tools. A professional differs from the incompetent mostly in attidue, in the willingness to proceed carefully and with full attention."
The rest of the book focused on how to do a successful lock bypass on various locks ranging from doors, to handcuffs(!), and cars. There are also sections on how to make tools, use them and how to beef up security around your own house using what you have learned about locks. The book is really helpful.
Okay, so picking locks is not much different than picking minds, that is, you have to be patient, never force change if not necessary, don't use the wrong method of entry and do not give up too easily. Okay, you may think I am being really dumb here,comparing locks to minds, but look, I am not very mechanically inclined, so I guess I have to put everything into a framework that I can understand--it makes it more fun and more of a challenge. Wish me luck the next time I lock my keys in the car.
I remember as a kid that lock picking was almost a necessity when dealing with four other siblings. I learned how to pick locks early (very simple ones) but never went beyond the basics of using a hanger or paperclip to pry open a lock. However, as one who tends to be absent-minded and has locked her keys in the car on more than one occasion, I decided to read over and keep this book as a future reference for more advanced lock-picking.I never knew opening things was so complicated. I have always had a respect for lock-smiths, especially since getting some good advice from one-six-and a half foot giant who installed locks at my old office. He told me that no lock was impenetrable, but he never really cared --"if someone is dumb enough to break into my home," he stated, "then they're all mine." Not a bad mind-set to have and it certainly worked for him. "Who would break into his place?" I thought. Anyway back to the book and the mechanics of lock picking.
The book empasizes the mental aspects of successful lock bypass (sounds like some type of surgery). First, the author says, try not to need it. "Make a habit of physically checking to see if you have your keys before going through a door or leaving your car. If you think you are holding them, look down and visually confirm it." You should also try to find a spare key, roommate or some other way of getting into your car, home etc. before attempting to pick a lock.
If one does have to open a lock, they are advised "never to force a mechanical part to move." The most force that should be used "is the same amount it would take to use the key or inside handle." The greatest cause of failure to open a lock is using the wrong method of entry. "You might have half a dozen bypass ideas in mind, but you have to choose the right one to get the job done....Having the wisdom to determine how much of what you know is specific to the lock in front of you and having the ability to apply that knowledge is at least as important as the knowledge itself." Finally, the author advises, take your time. "If you give up too easily or lose patience, you aren't allowing yourself a fair shot at it. Do not be sloppy in the way that you use your tools. A professional differs from the incompetent mostly in attidue, in the willingness to proceed carefully and with full attention."
The rest of the book focused on how to do a successful lock bypass on various locks ranging from doors, to handcuffs(!), and cars. There are also sections on how to make tools, use them and how to beef up security around your own house using what you have learned about locks. The book is really helpful.
Okay, so picking locks is not much different than picking minds, that is, you have to be patient, never force change if not necessary, don't use the wrong method of entry and do not give up too easily. Okay, you may think I am being really dumb here,comparing locks to minds, but look, I am not very mechanically inclined, so I guess I have to put everything into a framework that I can understand--it makes it more fun and more of a challenge. Wish me luck the next time I lock my keys in the car.
Are Women Always More Empathetic?
It doesn't appear so--at least when it comes to putting their husbands down when yucking it up with their girlfriends. Cassy Fiano at Wizbang has some advice for wives who male bash:
Good advice, especially for women who think they are the ones who are so "empathetic" and caring in their relationships.
Women, say it with me: MEN. ARE. NOT. THE. ENEMY.
And this "harmless" disparagement of husbands among wives is not harmless either, ladies. It may seem like it's just fun and games to put down your husband when you're gossiping with your girlfriends, but it isn't. Would you say that kind of stuff to his face? Would you tell your husband that he can't take care of himself if his life depended on it, that he's selfish and doesn't pay enough attention to his family? If you wouldn't, then don't go around laughing about it with your girlfriends without a second thought. Men seem stoic and unbreakable, but they aren't. If your husband heard you telling your girlfriends how selfish he is, how he never helps out around the house, how he's such a mess, how he can't take care of himself... even if you meant it in jest, I can guarantee you that it would kill him inside. And you, loving wife, would probably never even know it.
Good advice, especially for women who think they are the ones who are so "empathetic" and caring in their relationships.
Wanna play Strategy? Get a board game
I agree strategy is simple, but not that simple!
It continues to surprise me what people sometimes pro-claim is their business strategy. Take for instance the principles I often hear people suggest form the basis of their acquisition strategy.
When a particular transaction is being considered, executives have to go out and explain the logic for the deal to directors, investors, and analysts. Regularly, however, a strategic rationale is only being drawn up after it has been decided by management that the deal is �desirable�. Quite often, this logic will appear contrived, overly complex or simply made to fit the acquisition rather than that the deal results from a well thought through strategy in the first place.
For example, I�ve often heard the logic behind a transaction being explained in terms of complementarities; �it is a perfect match because their geographic spread perfectly matches ours� or �their product portfolio complements ours�, and so forth. Yet, just as often I would hear the logic being explained exactly the other way around; in terms of perfect overlap, for instance �it is a perfect match because they are active in the exact same markets as we are�.
Just the fact that you �complement� each other does not constitute a strategy. It might be worthwhile to combine forces, but first you�d need an argument to explain why this would enable you to create extra value. Without such logic, it�s hollow and meaningless. Similarly, just because you have perfect overlap doesn�t automatically imply it�s a good strategy. Why does adding it up enable you to do something you could not do before?
Yet, the one that always gets me is �the matrix�. Yep, really a matrix. On the horizontal axis, one places countries (in which the company is active). On the vertical axis, one places business lines (in which the company is active). Then, on the intersections, one ticks boxes (with a decisive �X�) indicating in which countries we have which line of business. And our strategy is: We fill the boxes. As many as possible.
�This acquisition is expensive, but it enables us to immediately tick six boxes!� Wow, yes, surely this warrants an 80% take-over premium � well done indeed; six boxes! We�re doing well, aren�t we?�
But strategy is really not the same as a game of Risk, placing pawns on a map of the world. Sure, perhaps it can be advantageous to own multiple business lines in that particular set of countries, but without a thorough explanation about why it�s these countries (and not some others), and these lines of business (and not some others), and why it is beneficial to have them all, that�s what it is; an oversized game of Risk. But with real money, and real people.
It continues to surprise me what people sometimes pro-claim is their business strategy. Take for instance the principles I often hear people suggest form the basis of their acquisition strategy.
When a particular transaction is being considered, executives have to go out and explain the logic for the deal to directors, investors, and analysts. Regularly, however, a strategic rationale is only being drawn up after it has been decided by management that the deal is �desirable�. Quite often, this logic will appear contrived, overly complex or simply made to fit the acquisition rather than that the deal results from a well thought through strategy in the first place.
For example, I�ve often heard the logic behind a transaction being explained in terms of complementarities; �it is a perfect match because their geographic spread perfectly matches ours� or �their product portfolio complements ours�, and so forth. Yet, just as often I would hear the logic being explained exactly the other way around; in terms of perfect overlap, for instance �it is a perfect match because they are active in the exact same markets as we are�.
Just the fact that you �complement� each other does not constitute a strategy. It might be worthwhile to combine forces, but first you�d need an argument to explain why this would enable you to create extra value. Without such logic, it�s hollow and meaningless. Similarly, just because you have perfect overlap doesn�t automatically imply it�s a good strategy. Why does adding it up enable you to do something you could not do before?
Yet, the one that always gets me is �the matrix�. Yep, really a matrix. On the horizontal axis, one places countries (in which the company is active). On the vertical axis, one places business lines (in which the company is active). Then, on the intersections, one ticks boxes (with a decisive �X�) indicating in which countries we have which line of business. And our strategy is: We fill the boxes. As many as possible.
�This acquisition is expensive, but it enables us to immediately tick six boxes!� Wow, yes, surely this warrants an 80% take-over premium � well done indeed; six boxes! We�re doing well, aren�t we?�
But strategy is really not the same as a game of Risk, placing pawns on a map of the world. Sure, perhaps it can be advantageous to own multiple business lines in that particular set of countries, but without a thorough explanation about why it�s these countries (and not some others), and these lines of business (and not some others), and why it is beneficial to have them all, that�s what it is; an oversized game of Risk. But with real money, and real people.
Are You a Generation Xer?
I am often confused as to which generation I belong to (not that I care that much) but one constantly hears different dates for the Baby Boomers vs. Generation X. I was born in the early 60's which could put me in either camp but depending on what dumb (or smart) thing each group is doing at the moment, I align myself with whoever seems the least ridiculous. But most of the time, I feel like I fell through the cracks and belong to neither group (I guess this makes me a "tweener"). I got to thinking about all this after skimming over a new book, X Saves the World: How Generation X Got the Shaft but Can Still Keep Everything from Sucking.
The premise of the book is as follows:
Uh, okay. That sounds good, being part of some generation that is the backbone of America (don't they all feel that way?) But anyway, the purpose of this post is to find out if you, dear reader, are a part of Generation X. Apparently, there is much disagreement on where the Baby Boom ends and Generation X begins. Some dates given for Generation X are 1965-78 or 1960-80 or 1961-81 or 1963-81 or 1960-1977. The author of the book, Jeff Gordinier, says that 1960-1977 makes the most sense to him because this group scores highest on the all-important Generation X Aptitude Test (GXAT). Are you a Generation Xer? Take this in-depth test--I set it up as a poll--and see:
Let me know which answer you think makes you part of Generation X (it's pretty obvious).
Update: So, according to the poll (92% last I looked) the majority of us on the Dr. Helen blog are either Generation Xers, contrarians, or both. I am betting on the contrarian theory.
The premise of the book is as follows:
While the pathologically nostalgic baby boomers are busy popping Viagra and clinging to their endless squat in the spotlight, and while their self-obsessed, lip-synching progeny, the millennials, are caught up in a perpetual hustle to take that spotlight away, the generation that is doing the hard, quiet work of keeping America from sucking is the one that still gets pegged as a bunch of slackers: Generation X.
Uh, okay. That sounds good, being part of some generation that is the backbone of America (don't they all feel that way?) But anyway, the purpose of this post is to find out if you, dear reader, are a part of Generation X. Apparently, there is much disagreement on where the Baby Boom ends and Generation X begins. Some dates given for Generation X are 1965-78 or 1960-80 or 1961-81 or 1963-81 or 1960-1977. The author of the book, Jeff Gordinier, says that 1960-1977 makes the most sense to him because this group scores highest on the all-important Generation X Aptitude Test (GXAT). Are you a Generation Xer? Take this in-depth test--I set it up as a poll--and see:
Let me know which answer you think makes you part of Generation X (it's pretty obvious).
Update: So, according to the poll (92% last I looked) the majority of us on the Dr. Helen blog are either Generation Xers, contrarians, or both. I am betting on the contrarian theory.
Michelle Obama: Men are Selfish and a Mess
Jim Geraghty at National Review points out an article at The New Republic on Michelle Obama that indicates how she feels about men--they're selfish and a mess:
If male politicians spoke this way about women--"they're all selfish and a mess!"-- heads would roll, but Michelle Obama is seen as "outspoken" and independent. You go girl! But just remember that your husband needs votes from the very block of people you are dissing. In fact, some speculate that men might just be the deciding voting block in this election. You might want to choose your words more carefully.
In a 2004 interview with the Chicago Tribune, Michelle observed: "What I notice about men, all men, is that their order is me, my family, God is in there somewhere, but me is first. ... And, for women, me is fourth, and that's not healthy." This is not a radical observation: Get a half-dozen gals together with a few bottles of Beaujolais, and a similar theme will eventually emerge. (Trust me on this.).....
But, when she talks smack about her husband's hygiene, she sounds like any old housewife gabbing to her girlfriends about what a hopeless mess her man is. It's a clever approach, winning Michelle props for being outspoken and un-Stepford, even as she avoids alienating more traditional voters by keeping her focus on the family.
If male politicians spoke this way about women--"they're all selfish and a mess!"-- heads would roll, but Michelle Obama is seen as "outspoken" and independent. You go girl! But just remember that your husband needs votes from the very block of people you are dissing. In fact, some speculate that men might just be the deciding voting block in this election. You might want to choose your words more carefully.
Ask Dr. Helen: When Wife Out-Earns Hubby
My PJM column is up. In this column, a wife out-earns her husband and asks for advice on how to help him cope with her extra income. Do you have experience with this situation? If so, go drop a line in the comments there or here if you like.
Your expectations manage you
I�ve ranted about self-fulfilling prophecies in management before. Another study along these lines was conducted in the 1970s by Albert King � at the time a professor of management and industrial relations Kansas State University.
Albert conducted an experiment in four different plants owned by one and the same company. The managers of plants 1 and 2 were told, by the company�s director of manufacturing, to experiment with �job enlargement� practices, in which machine crews had to both set up their machines and inspect their own finished work. The other two plants, 3 and 4, were asked to implement �job rotation� practices, in which workers switched tasks at scheduled intervals. Thus, Albert�s experiment appeared to be comparing the results of job enlargement with those of job rotation.*
Then Albert did a cunning thing: he lied. Because he introduced one other crucial difference between the plants. The managers of plants 1 and 3 were told that past research implied that the job changes would raise productivity, while the managers of plants 2 and 4 were led to believe that past research implied that the job changes would improve �industrial relations� (which should result in lower absenteeism).
Subsequently, for a period of 12 months, Albert measured both productivity and absenteeism levels at the four plants. Analysing the data, it turned out that where the plant managers had been told to expect higher productivity, productivity became 6 percent higher; where the plant managers had been told to expect better industrial relations, absenteeism was 12 percent lower, regardless of whether they implemented job-enlargement or job-rotation practices!
The changes in workers� actual activities really had no influence; productivity at the two job-enlargement plants hardly differed at all, nor did absenteeism at the two job-rotation plants. It were the plant managers� expectations that caused all the effects.
Albert stopped short of telling the people at the plants that the job changes would enable them to sing like Pavarotti because you�re starting to believe they would have brought the house down. People somehow achieve what they (are led to) believe will happen, regardless of the actual changes to the organisation. As Albert wrote �the results provide evidence that managerial expectations concerning performance may serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy�.
* this paragraph has been adapted from a chapter in a book by Bill Starbuck (2006)
Albert conducted an experiment in four different plants owned by one and the same company. The managers of plants 1 and 2 were told, by the company�s director of manufacturing, to experiment with �job enlargement� practices, in which machine crews had to both set up their machines and inspect their own finished work. The other two plants, 3 and 4, were asked to implement �job rotation� practices, in which workers switched tasks at scheduled intervals. Thus, Albert�s experiment appeared to be comparing the results of job enlargement with those of job rotation.*
Then Albert did a cunning thing: he lied. Because he introduced one other crucial difference between the plants. The managers of plants 1 and 3 were told that past research implied that the job changes would raise productivity, while the managers of plants 2 and 4 were led to believe that past research implied that the job changes would improve �industrial relations� (which should result in lower absenteeism).
Subsequently, for a period of 12 months, Albert measured both productivity and absenteeism levels at the four plants. Analysing the data, it turned out that where the plant managers had been told to expect higher productivity, productivity became 6 percent higher; where the plant managers had been told to expect better industrial relations, absenteeism was 12 percent lower, regardless of whether they implemented job-enlargement or job-rotation practices!
The changes in workers� actual activities really had no influence; productivity at the two job-enlargement plants hardly differed at all, nor did absenteeism at the two job-rotation plants. It were the plant managers� expectations that caused all the effects.
Albert stopped short of telling the people at the plants that the job changes would enable them to sing like Pavarotti because you�re starting to believe they would have brought the house down. People somehow achieve what they (are led to) believe will happen, regardless of the actual changes to the organisation. As Albert wrote �the results provide evidence that managerial expectations concerning performance may serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy�.
* this paragraph has been adapted from a chapter in a book by Bill Starbuck (2006)
Podcast with Jim Dunnigan and Austin Bay
We have military experts Austin Bay and Jim Dunnigan back to discuss how the upcoming Presidential election affects the Middle East and vice-versa. They also talk about Venezuela and how Hugo Chavez is the Al Sharpton of South America. Their coauthored book A Quick and Dirty Guide to War
is coming out in a new edition this year with many new additions. You can listen directly -- no downloading needed -- by going here and clicking on the gray Flash player. You can download the file and listen at your leisure by clicking right here. And you can get a lo-fi version suitable for cellphones, dialup, etc. by going here and selecting lo-fi. And you can always get a free subscription via iTunes absolutely free. Never miss another episode!
Music is by Mobius Dick. Show archives are at GlennandHelenShow.com.
"This is a quiet revolution"
So says Christina Hoff Summers about the push for gender equity in the hard sciences (thanks to the several readers who emailed the article):
Read the article, for although long, it is very relevant to understanding the dynamics of how gender feminists use the system to give preferences and goodies to women with little regard to whether they are interested in the physical sciences or not.
Few academic scientists know anything about the equity crusade. Most have no idea of its power, its scope, and the threats that they may soon be facing. The business commu�nity and citizens at large are completely in the dark. This is a quiet revolution. Its weapons are government reports that are rarely seen; amendments to federal bills that almost no one reads; small, unnoticed, but dramatically con�sequential changes in the regulations regarding government grants; and congressional hearings attended mostly by true believers.
American scientific excellence is a precious national resource. It is the foundation of our economy and of the nation�s health and safety. Norman Augustine, retired CEO of Lockheed Martin, and Burton Richter, Nobel laureate in physics, once pointed out that MIT alone�its faculty, alumni, and staff�started more than 5,000 companies in the past 50 years. Will an academic science that is quota-driven, gender-balanced, cooperative rather than competitive, and less time-consuming produce anything like these results? So far, no one in Congress has even thought to ask.
Read the article, for although long, it is very relevant to understanding the dynamics of how gender feminists use the system to give preferences and goodies to women with little regard to whether they are interested in the physical sciences or not.
When acquisitions take over
Firms are expected to base the price and hence the premium they are willing to pay for a transaction on their calculations of how much synergy the deal would be able to generate. Although long-term value creation is always difficult to quantify with any certainty, firms usually do the best they can and then determine the target�s maximum price.
However, once executives have their mind firmly set on acquiring a particular target but are outbid by a rival, this may be difficult to swallow. Often, it seems to awaken the warrior in them; they go back to their people and instruct them to �find me another 100 million or so in synergies� in the target�s books, which enables them to up the bid. For instance, we saw indications of this when Mittal was bidding for Arcelor, and it is hardly a sporadic event.
Clearly, this is a dangerous phase in a bidding process. Copious research, for instance on �escalation of commitment� in M&A deals, has indicated that overexcited executives have a tendency to not walk away from a deal when they should, mysteriously uncovering extra value in a transaction when a firm�s rivals are starting to outbid.
But I guess this bit is only human. It is the part that comes after that which always gets me. The company that ultimately �wins� the bidding war is declared the winner � in newspapers, business magazines, etc. They pop the champagne and celebrate, while the loser pouts and has a crisis meeting.
But are we sure that you are the �winner� when you just paid 300 million for a company you originally calculated was worth half of that�? And are you sure you really are the loser when you just made your competitor pay 150 million more than the darn thing is worth�? Somehow, I am not so sure, no matter what the newspapers say.
However, once executives have their mind firmly set on acquiring a particular target but are outbid by a rival, this may be difficult to swallow. Often, it seems to awaken the warrior in them; they go back to their people and instruct them to �find me another 100 million or so in synergies� in the target�s books, which enables them to up the bid. For instance, we saw indications of this when Mittal was bidding for Arcelor, and it is hardly a sporadic event.
Clearly, this is a dangerous phase in a bidding process. Copious research, for instance on �escalation of commitment� in M&A deals, has indicated that overexcited executives have a tendency to not walk away from a deal when they should, mysteriously uncovering extra value in a transaction when a firm�s rivals are starting to outbid.
But I guess this bit is only human. It is the part that comes after that which always gets me. The company that ultimately �wins� the bidding war is declared the winner � in newspapers, business magazines, etc. They pop the champagne and celebrate, while the loser pouts and has a crisis meeting.
But are we sure that you are the �winner� when you just paid 300 million for a company you originally calculated was worth half of that�? And are you sure you really are the loser when you just made your competitor pay 150 million more than the darn thing is worth�? Somehow, I am not so sure, no matter what the newspapers say.
The Combat Mind-set vs. the Mind-Set of the New "Feminized Majority"
Every once in a while I go down to my basement library and re-read a book by gun expert Jeff Cooper (now deceased) just to keep myself in a self-defense mindset. This week I pulled from the shelf one of Cooper's best works, To Ride, Shoot Straight, And Speak The Truth.
My favorite chapter in the book is one entitled, "The Combat Mind-Set" in which Cooper discusses a person's mental reaction to aggression.
Cooper starts out the chapter stating:
Cooper notes that of all of the graduates of his training program who have found themselves in mortal confrontations, "not one has said that his life was saved by his dexterity nor by his marksmanship, but rather by his 'mind-set.'"
Some useful bits of information that Cooper provides is that one must train himself into a state of mind in which the sudden awareness of peril does not surprise him. "His response should be not "Oh my God, I'm in a fight!" but rather, "I thought this might happen and I know what to do about it."
I often think how few people in our society would really know what to do if they were confronted with a mortal confrontation. Sadly, our mindset is now more like The New Feminized Majority
in which soft power and discussions are slowly taking the place of the Combat Mind-set. Is this a good thing?
I don't know, maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the circumstances. I can't help but feel that both are important; yet each year, it seems that the values that Jeff Cooper talked about in his work are less and less relevant in our culture--those values of honor, duty and bravery. Those traits, I hope, will never go out of style--for our very freedom and life may depend on them.
Update: Grim has more thoughts on the combat mind-set.
My favorite chapter in the book is one entitled, "The Combat Mind-Set" in which Cooper discusses a person's mental reaction to aggression. Cooper starts out the chapter stating:
Man fights with his mind. His hands and his weapons are simply extensions of his will, and one of the fallacies of our era is the notion that equipment is the equivalent of force.
Cooper notes that of all of the graduates of his training program who have found themselves in mortal confrontations, "not one has said that his life was saved by his dexterity nor by his marksmanship, but rather by his 'mind-set.'"
Some useful bits of information that Cooper provides is that one must train himself into a state of mind in which the sudden awareness of peril does not surprise him. "His response should be not "Oh my God, I'm in a fight!" but rather, "I thought this might happen and I know what to do about it."
I often think how few people in our society would really know what to do if they were confronted with a mortal confrontation. Sadly, our mindset is now more like The New Feminized Majority
in which soft power and discussions are slowly taking the place of the Combat Mind-set. Is this a good thing?I don't know, maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the circumstances. I can't help but feel that both are important; yet each year, it seems that the values that Jeff Cooper talked about in his work are less and less relevant in our culture--those values of honor, duty and bravery. Those traits, I hope, will never go out of style--for our very freedom and life may depend on them.
Update: Grim has more thoughts on the combat mind-set.
Homeschooling: A Boy's Path to Learning English?
The Napa Valley Register has an interesting piece entitled, "What's to blame for differing test scores between the sexes?" Some experts blame low English scores on the brain development of boys (funny, when they blame brain development for the lack of girls in science, women faint and men get fired but I digress) but other experts such as educational consultant Joe Manthey say that schools are responsible:
Makes sense to me.
In an era of high stakes accountability for schools, educators are placing an ever-greater emphasis on raising test scores in English....
For school districts in Napa County, where Hispanic populations are large, this has meant a heightened focus on the needs of English learners, who typically bring down averages on standardized tests.
But while the ethnic gap dominates most discussions of Napa�s state and federal rankings, there is another set of contrasting scores that crosses all ethnic lines.
It�s the gender gap, and at a time when the state and federal government are pushing for improvement in English scores, boys are falling behind.
Educational consultant Joe Manthey, who led a workshop through the Napa County Office of Education about educating male students, cites the almost nonexistent gender gap for home-schooled students in English as proof that schools are part of the problem.
The reason that home-schooled boys score as well as their female counterparts in English is twofold, said Manthey. First, they are more likely to be given a choice in their reading material. Second, �they�re less likely to fall through the cracks,� he said.
Manthey�s research shows that boys are more inclined to read nonfiction than fiction, and are more likely to relate to subjects related to science, sports and stories that revolve around male characters.
�Then you see boys required to read books like �The Joy Luck Club,�� he said, referring to the book by Amy Tan about immigrant mothers and daughters.
It�s no wonder, said Manthey, that boys tune out in English class.
Makes sense to me.
Do Women Lie More?
The New York Post had an article in yesterday's paper entitled, "Miss-Leading, the Truth about Gals' Serial Fibbing" (Hat tip: Fred Ray):
My sense is, this study is a bit biased to start with--come on, Craigslist? Could it be that the women answering an ad asking for lying women are a bit shady to begin with? I think a random sample of women out in the world might have been a better way of conducting the research. And the lies the author mentions such as cheating are certainly more than white lies, but mixed feelings about mothering or other conflicting feelings do not seem like lies, but rather, like,well...mixed feelings that people often have about their life's decisions. If that's "lying" I imagine we are all guilty.
Deceit, thy name is woman.
Most females lie "more cleverly and successfully than men" about everything from infidelity and facelifts to barhopping and shopping binges, according to a new book.
"Women lie as a survival technique, but also to get what they want," said Susan Shapiro Barash, author of "Little White Lies, Deep Dark Secrets: The Truth About Why Women Lie"published by St. Martin's Press this week.....
Barash interviewed 500 women nationwide who answered her Craigslist ads seeking females to confide what they fib about. Among her findings:
* 75 percent lie about how much money they spend. For instance, they sneak purchases inside their homes after shopping or hide the price tags.
* 50 percent harbor "mixed feelings about mothering." One told Barash, "I look at these children and I crave sleep and free time. They wear me out and make me jealous of working women who have no children, no husbands."
* More than 60 percent cheated on their husbands. A 32-year-old mother conducted her trysts while telling her trusting husband she was working late. Even in asking for a divorce, she withheld the truth: "I didn't say I had fallen for another man. He was better off with my lies."
My sense is, this study is a bit biased to start with--come on, Craigslist? Could it be that the women answering an ad asking for lying women are a bit shady to begin with? I think a random sample of women out in the world might have been a better way of conducting the research. And the lies the author mentions such as cheating are certainly more than white lies, but mixed feelings about mothering or other conflicting feelings do not seem like lies, but rather, like,well...mixed feelings that people often have about their life's decisions. If that's "lying" I imagine we are all guilty.
Seeds and fertiliser � how to build a firm
American visitor: �How come you got such a gorgeous lawn?�
Lord: �Well, the quality of the soil is, I dare say, of the utmost importance�.
American visitor: �No problem�.
Lord: �Furthermore, one does need the finest quality seed and fertilisers�.
American visitor: �Big deal�.
Lord: �Of course, daily watering and weekly mowing are jolly important�.
American visitor: �No sweat, just leave it to me!�
Lord: �That�s it�.
American visitor: �No kidding?! That�s it?!�
Lord: �Oh, absolutely. There is nothing to it, old boy, just keep it up for five centuries�.
What many firms, trying to grow fast or add scores of acquisitions, often fail to realise: Organisations work much the same way as a lawn. You can buy the machinery, lease the building, hire the people, acquire the assets pretty quickly and relatively easily, and put them together. But this does not mean that you will have a working organisation.
An effective firm requires that the various elements of its organisation - both the "hard" factors (such as its structure, incentive system, etc.) and the "soft" elements (such as the culture of the place, informal communication patterns, etc.) - are fine-tuned, interact and reinforce one another. Building such an organisation implies more than just "owning the parts"; it takes continued dedication, hard work and, most of all, it simply takes time.
Lord: �Well, the quality of the soil is, I dare say, of the utmost importance�.
American visitor: �No problem�.
Lord: �Furthermore, one does need the finest quality seed and fertilisers�.
American visitor: �Big deal�.
Lord: �Of course, daily watering and weekly mowing are jolly important�.
American visitor: �No sweat, just leave it to me!�
Lord: �That�s it�.
American visitor: �No kidding?! That�s it?!�
Lord: �Oh, absolutely. There is nothing to it, old boy, just keep it up for five centuries�.
What many firms, trying to grow fast or add scores of acquisitions, often fail to realise: Organisations work much the same way as a lawn. You can buy the machinery, lease the building, hire the people, acquire the assets pretty quickly and relatively easily, and put them together. But this does not mean that you will have a working organisation.
An effective firm requires that the various elements of its organisation - both the "hard" factors (such as its structure, incentive system, etc.) and the "soft" elements (such as the culture of the place, informal communication patterns, etc.) - are fine-tuned, interact and reinforce one another. Building such an organisation implies more than just "owning the parts"; it takes continued dedication, hard work and, most of all, it simply takes time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)