Change for change�s sake
Have you ever worked for a company that changed its structure, and you couldn�t figure out why? Me too. Ages ago I was working for a consulting company which was organised by �function�: consultants were grouped into departments defined by �strategy�, �operations�, �HR�, etc. But then the company decided that they really should be organised by �industry�, that is, group its employees into a division for fast-moving consumer goods, a division for government, heavy industry, professional services, etc.
And when people would ask �why?�, the company�s management would come up with quite convincing answers why it was beneficial for consultants working on the same type of customer to be grouped together. And people shook their head in reluctant understanding and grudgingly eyed up their new colleagues.
But I couldn�t help but think �I could come up with equally convincing reasons for why this company should (still) be organised by function�. And that is usually the case for organisations. For example, you could easily come up with an explanation of why a bank should create divisions organised by geography; after all people located in the same country often need to coordinate and have a joint manager. Yet, you could also come up with an argument of why they should be organised by product type; after all, people working on the same product (wherever in the world) should coordinate and learn from each other. Similarly, you could come up with valid reasons why the bank should be organised by customer-type; after all, big customers often want one point of contact, regardless of the product they require, and where in the world.
And I used to think, unless you can come up with very convincing reasons why being organised by �industry� is now really more beneficial than being organised by �function�, there is no justification for dragging everyone through a hefty reorganisation.
But I�ve changed my mind. Dragging everyone through a hefty reorganisation is exactly what you should do (every now and then), even if it is unclear why.
Now that I have seen many more companies change their structures, I realise that, unless you can come up with very convincing reasons that being organised by function (your old structure) still is a heck of a lot more useful than becoming organised by industry (the proposed new structure), you should change the whole darn thing. Just swap the divisions around, reshuffle them and force your people to work with a new set of colleagues, under a new set of rules.
Let me explain. There is value in the process of re-organising. Usually people in an organisation should coordinate with other employees in their country, just like they should also cooperate with others working on the same product (wherever in the world), and others in the same function, etc. Yet, you�re going to have to make a choice what criterion you will use to organise your departments. Once you�ve for instance chosen to group people by function, inevitably, over the years, employees will start to identify with others in their function, their networks in the firm will be dominated by those people (because that is the people they interact with most), and gradually they may become a bit insular, and not have much understanding or appreciation of people in other functions and departments, even if they are working on the same product or serve the same geographical market.
The trick to resolve this � or even avoid it, if you manage to do it pro-actively � is to simply swap them around. Break up the old functional departments and, for instance, put them all together in departments defined by product (or whatever). The employees won�t like it, because they think these other folks are a bit weird (if not dumb and whining) and they will tell you they felt quite comfortable in their old functional departments � which is precisely the reason you should change them!
Once people become comfortable in their groups, stop communicating and coordinating with others outside their department, and fail to see others� perspectives, it is time to turn them around. And the good thing is, for the first few years after the reorganisation, they will still have their old social networks, perspectives and knowledge of their previous, functional departments, while already working with the new product structure. As a result, you can actually get a bit of the best of both worlds. And once they start to lose that; just change them again.
And when people would ask �why?�, the company�s management would come up with quite convincing answers why it was beneficial for consultants working on the same type of customer to be grouped together. And people shook their head in reluctant understanding and grudgingly eyed up their new colleagues.
But I couldn�t help but think �I could come up with equally convincing reasons for why this company should (still) be organised by function�. And that is usually the case for organisations. For example, you could easily come up with an explanation of why a bank should create divisions organised by geography; after all people located in the same country often need to coordinate and have a joint manager. Yet, you could also come up with an argument of why they should be organised by product type; after all, people working on the same product (wherever in the world) should coordinate and learn from each other. Similarly, you could come up with valid reasons why the bank should be organised by customer-type; after all, big customers often want one point of contact, regardless of the product they require, and where in the world.
And I used to think, unless you can come up with very convincing reasons why being organised by �industry� is now really more beneficial than being organised by �function�, there is no justification for dragging everyone through a hefty reorganisation.
But I�ve changed my mind. Dragging everyone through a hefty reorganisation is exactly what you should do (every now and then), even if it is unclear why.
Now that I have seen many more companies change their structures, I realise that, unless you can come up with very convincing reasons that being organised by function (your old structure) still is a heck of a lot more useful than becoming organised by industry (the proposed new structure), you should change the whole darn thing. Just swap the divisions around, reshuffle them and force your people to work with a new set of colleagues, under a new set of rules.
Let me explain. There is value in the process of re-organising. Usually people in an organisation should coordinate with other employees in their country, just like they should also cooperate with others working on the same product (wherever in the world), and others in the same function, etc. Yet, you�re going to have to make a choice what criterion you will use to organise your departments. Once you�ve for instance chosen to group people by function, inevitably, over the years, employees will start to identify with others in their function, their networks in the firm will be dominated by those people (because that is the people they interact with most), and gradually they may become a bit insular, and not have much understanding or appreciation of people in other functions and departments, even if they are working on the same product or serve the same geographical market.
The trick to resolve this � or even avoid it, if you manage to do it pro-actively � is to simply swap them around. Break up the old functional departments and, for instance, put them all together in departments defined by product (or whatever). The employees won�t like it, because they think these other folks are a bit weird (if not dumb and whining) and they will tell you they felt quite comfortable in their old functional departments � which is precisely the reason you should change them!
Once people become comfortable in their groups, stop communicating and coordinating with others outside their department, and fail to see others� perspectives, it is time to turn them around. And the good thing is, for the first few years after the reorganisation, they will still have their old social networks, perspectives and knowledge of their previous, functional departments, while already working with the new product structure. As a result, you can actually get a bit of the best of both worlds. And once they start to lose that; just change them again.
Tammy Bruce and Ed Morrissey discuss identity politics and Hillary's endgame rhetoric on Pajamas Media's PJM political show this week.
"Senator Biden Wants to Give Your Ex-Wife a Free Attorney..."
So says Glenn Sacks:
Why should only women get "free" attorneys basically provided by the government? What about low income men who cannot get custody of their children or men who are falsely accused of domestic violence--where is their free attorney? Isn't this unfair?
Biden�s latest domestic violence bill is the National Domestic Violence Volunteer Attorney Network Act, which amends Biden�s Violence Against Women Act to create an extensive network of volunteer attorneys to help abused women. The attorneys would provide free legal help in forging divorce or separation agreements and in winning child custody...
Why should only women get "free" attorneys basically provided by the government? What about low income men who cannot get custody of their children or men who are falsely accused of domestic violence--where is their free attorney? Isn't this unfair?
"That's a super-crappy plan"
Rachel Lucas: "I do not believe you�re going to teach anyone a �lesson� by sitting this one out or writing in Fred Thompson or Sunny Lucas. I believe that way too many people are ignoring the forest for the trees and that in doing so, they�re going to have a hand in electing Obama. Some say that�s fine because if the country�s going to be �ruined�, better that it�s ruined by a Democrat, and somehow magically we�ll come up with a fantastic, �real� conservative in 4 years even though there is no one like that on the horizon and everyone knows it. Like I said, I think that�s a super-crappy plan."
I agree.
I agree.
Laura McKenna at Pajamas Media: "Let�s Give the Mommybloggers Some Respect." I agree. When I hear about the paucity of women bloggers, I just laugh. For example, the article points out that Blogher lists 3,200 self-identified mommybloggers on its blogroll, but those numbers aren�t close to their overall numbers. Some women just like to blog about other things than technology and politics. What's wrong with that and why aren't they just as important?
Patent sharks
You never heard of patent sharks?! You�re kidding, right? Ok, I�ll admit it, I had never heard of them either. But they sound pretty scary, right? Well� ok, perhaps not; the word �patent� sort of seems to take the edge of the word �shark� a bit. Yet, now that I have learned more about them, I have to admit, I am starting to believe that they should send some shivers down your corporate spine; they really are quite creepy.
My colleague at the London Business School, Markus Reitzig, has been studying patent sharks at length. I always found IP (intellectual property) a bit of a bore when it comes to research topics but, admittedly, his research did remind me of Jaws III, but then with briefcase, pin-striped suit and, importantly, a mob of solicitors to accompany him. Let me explain.
As you may know, when it comes to the effectiveness of patents, pharmaceuticals are a bit of an exception. In most industries, patents provide only very limited protection against imitation by competitors. Usually, the part of the product that is patent-�protected� can be substituted or �invented around�. Therefore, what firms have started doing is protect their products with as many patents as possible. That is, it is not uncommon in some high-tech industries to have over a 1000 different patents protect many little components in a firm�s product. They figure, one of them may not do the trick but if you have such a bunch of them, collectively they should give some protection.
Yet, since competitors do the same, as a result, researchers have long noticed that patents have become sort of a corporate currency. How does this work? Well, whatever you want to do, in terms of developing a new product or technology, you�re bound to infringe on someone�s patent. Luckily, that someone is likely to need to infringe on some of your patents too. Rather than going to court, firms usually strike a deal: �I will forgive you for infringing on these 84 patents if you just absolve me from infringing on your 63 ones�. And this system generally works quite well.
However, given the plethora of patents in such industries, the difficulty is that you seldom know in advance exactly which patents you will be infringing on; there are just too many of them lying around. What has now happened is that some specialised firms � the infamous �patent sharks� � have started taking advantage of this. They acquire patents not with the intention of using them, but with the aim to extort money from the unknowing infringers.
When a patent shark finds out that a certain firm is using a technology which more or less falls under one of its patents, it waits patiently until that firm has fully committed itself to the technology (and has incorporated it in its products, marketed them, made additional investments, etc.). Then the shark surfaces�
It will demand large sums of money for the infringement. If the firm refuses, they will roar �court action!� and threaten to shut them down. And the nice thing � at least, for the shark � is that the patent doesn�t even have to be a real good one. Even if it is only a half decent patent, with little chance of holding up in court, often they can convince a judge to issue an injunction, forcing the firm to suspend business pending the court�s decision. And this can be so potentially disastrous for the firm that it quickly coughs up the dough to make the shark go away.
For example, NTP, a pure patent-holding company, filed a suit against RIM; the producer of the best-selling Blackberry. RIM was confident that the five patents NTP was throwing at them would not hold up in court � because all of them had already been preliminarily invalidated by the US Patent and Trademark Office while two of them had already received a final rejection! � but when it seemed that a particular US district court judge (�The Honorable Judge James Spencer�) was inclined to grant the injunction, which would have costed RIM billions in lost revenues and deteriorated competitive advantage, they promptly � but undoubtedly grudgingly � decided to hand over 612.5 million dollars to NTP.
Getting scared already? I guess you should. There just might be some shark circling underneath, in your blue ocean� holding some obscure patent which could cost you an arm and a leg, if not more.
My colleague at the London Business School, Markus Reitzig, has been studying patent sharks at length. I always found IP (intellectual property) a bit of a bore when it comes to research topics but, admittedly, his research did remind me of Jaws III, but then with briefcase, pin-striped suit and, importantly, a mob of solicitors to accompany him. Let me explain.
As you may know, when it comes to the effectiveness of patents, pharmaceuticals are a bit of an exception. In most industries, patents provide only very limited protection against imitation by competitors. Usually, the part of the product that is patent-�protected� can be substituted or �invented around�. Therefore, what firms have started doing is protect their products with as many patents as possible. That is, it is not uncommon in some high-tech industries to have over a 1000 different patents protect many little components in a firm�s product. They figure, one of them may not do the trick but if you have such a bunch of them, collectively they should give some protection.
Yet, since competitors do the same, as a result, researchers have long noticed that patents have become sort of a corporate currency. How does this work? Well, whatever you want to do, in terms of developing a new product or technology, you�re bound to infringe on someone�s patent. Luckily, that someone is likely to need to infringe on some of your patents too. Rather than going to court, firms usually strike a deal: �I will forgive you for infringing on these 84 patents if you just absolve me from infringing on your 63 ones�. And this system generally works quite well.
However, given the plethora of patents in such industries, the difficulty is that you seldom know in advance exactly which patents you will be infringing on; there are just too many of them lying around. What has now happened is that some specialised firms � the infamous �patent sharks� � have started taking advantage of this. They acquire patents not with the intention of using them, but with the aim to extort money from the unknowing infringers.
When a patent shark finds out that a certain firm is using a technology which more or less falls under one of its patents, it waits patiently until that firm has fully committed itself to the technology (and has incorporated it in its products, marketed them, made additional investments, etc.). Then the shark surfaces�
It will demand large sums of money for the infringement. If the firm refuses, they will roar �court action!� and threaten to shut them down. And the nice thing � at least, for the shark � is that the patent doesn�t even have to be a real good one. Even if it is only a half decent patent, with little chance of holding up in court, often they can convince a judge to issue an injunction, forcing the firm to suspend business pending the court�s decision. And this can be so potentially disastrous for the firm that it quickly coughs up the dough to make the shark go away.
For example, NTP, a pure patent-holding company, filed a suit against RIM; the producer of the best-selling Blackberry. RIM was confident that the five patents NTP was throwing at them would not hold up in court � because all of them had already been preliminarily invalidated by the US Patent and Trademark Office while two of them had already received a final rejection! � but when it seemed that a particular US district court judge (�The Honorable Judge James Spencer�) was inclined to grant the injunction, which would have costed RIM billions in lost revenues and deteriorated competitive advantage, they promptly � but undoubtedly grudgingly � decided to hand over 612.5 million dollars to NTP.
Getting scared already? I guess you should. There just might be some shark circling underneath, in your blue ocean� holding some obscure patent which could cost you an arm and a leg, if not more.
New Column on Bloggers
Michael Silence has a new column in the print version of the Knoxville News Sentinel about bloggers and blogging. I wonder if people want to read about bloggers? It will be interesting to find out--seems like the material would be endless--but would it be interesting? I am sure Michael will find a way to make it so.
"I believe feminism is an experiment...."
A number of readers have sent me this link to Mail Online where Rebecca Walker opens up about her mother, feminist Alice Walker, author of The Color Purple
and the problems of feminism:
Read the whole thing here.
and the problems of feminism:I know many women are shocked by my views. They expect the daughter of Alice Walker to deliver a very different message. Yes, feminism has undoubtedly given women opportunities. It's helped open the doors for us at schools, universities and in the workplace. But what about the problems it's caused for my contemporaries?...
But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women's movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them - as I have learned to my cost. I don't want to hurt my mother, but I cannot stay silent. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.
I hope that my mother and I will be reconciled one day. Tenzin deserves to have a grandmother. But I am just so relieved that my viewpoint is no longer so utterly coloured by my mother's.
I am my own woman and I have discovered what really matters - a happy family.
Read the whole thing here.
Should Government be Held to as High a Standard as it Holds its Citizens?
Do you ever cringe when you check the mail and see you got a letter from the IRS? I did yesterday when I got a notice in the mail that I owed the government another 1000 dollars for a small mistake made on my 2006 taxes. Why? A qualified dividend and ordinary income of around 430 bucks that did not get reported until later in the year and I was never sent a notice. For some reason, the IRS notice stated that I owed 984 dollars (717 in taxes) which included penalties on the money. "How in the world," I wondered, "could I owe more money on the income than I made?" So I called the IRS today to find out.
Naturally, it took me several tries and a lot of patience to get through but I finally did. A rather nice woman assisted me but seemed to have little compassion for my predicament initially. "Well, you get a penalty for not accurately reporting this money." "I didn't know about this money because my fund company did not issue me any information," I added. Then I heard a laugh. "Whoever issued this notice for your penalty and tax made a bunch of mistakes. This is embarrassing for the IRS. You actually owe nothing and should never have gotten a notice."
"So can I issue a penalty to the IRS for making a mistake?" I asked. No response, but I was so relieved that I did not owe any more money that I just wrote down her name and the information to file away and considered myself lucky. But in the back of my mind, I couldn't help but think, "Why is it that if a citizen makes a mistake, we are considered suspect and penalized but if the government does it, it's always okay? I will leave you to ponder that question.
Naturally, it took me several tries and a lot of patience to get through but I finally did. A rather nice woman assisted me but seemed to have little compassion for my predicament initially. "Well, you get a penalty for not accurately reporting this money." "I didn't know about this money because my fund company did not issue me any information," I added. Then I heard a laugh. "Whoever issued this notice for your penalty and tax made a bunch of mistakes. This is embarrassing for the IRS. You actually owe nothing and should never have gotten a notice."
"So can I issue a penalty to the IRS for making a mistake?" I asked. No response, but I was so relieved that I did not owe any more money that I just wrote down her name and the information to file away and considered myself lucky. But in the back of my mind, I couldn't help but think, "Why is it that if a citizen makes a mistake, we are considered suspect and penalized but if the government does it, it's always okay? I will leave you to ponder that question.
The Power of the Self-fulfilling Prophecy
If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.--W. I. Thomas
I am often discouraged when I read various right-leaning bloggers and pundits and see them mention over and over that the Republicans are doomed to lose this presidential election. If the Democrats want to feel this way and talk about what losers Republicans are, let them, but why add fuel to the fire? I understand that many Republicans are disgusted and angry with how the party has progressed over the years but joining in the despair will only lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy that will insure a loss come this November. And the media is picking up on this defeatist attitude and using it to make the Republicans look not only like losers, but self-sabotaging ones at that. For example, US News & World Report states:
Guess what? The Republican brand may be the losing one in 2008. Even some Republicans are openly talking about it in the face of significant losses in recent special elections....
Even a Republican veteran in Congress, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, said his party was in its worst condition since the Watergate scandal. The GOP lost 47 seats in the House in the first post-Watergate election.
Bloggers are also joining in the doom and gloom predictions. For example, Right Wing News has a bit of satire up by Frank J. (yes, I know it's satire, but the message is still a negative one):
It's pretty universally well known that the Republicans are in huge trouble as they've lost a number of special elections that I don't know much about but all the smart people say are very important. At least I know I don't care much more Republicans anymore; they lately just seem like a less mincing version of the Democrats. Frankly, things are so bad that for Republicans that if the Democrats don't get the White House and huge gains in the House and Senate, they should really all jump off a bridge for sucking that much. The new face of the Republican Party?
Believing that your party is a bunch of losers surely will not help it to improve it and may, in fact, hasten it's self-destruction--something some Democrats would be happy to see--but why play along while marching in step to the tune of Saul Alinsky? I was watching a show the other night on PBS's Frontline about a wonderful young boy who was being cyber-bullied by peers stating: "YOU ARE SUCH A LOSER." The boy believed it and went on to kill himself. He basically self-destructed by incorporating the negativity that others felt for him onto himself and felt that he was not worthy. Now, it seems that many right-leaning citizens feel the same. Instead of saying that there are still ideas and policies that the Republicans have that are worth saving-- (national security, low taxes, small government) they have deemed the whole party losers.
Perhaps some of the right-leaning bloggers and pundits who have such negative predictions for the future of the GOP should take a look at such books as The Power of Positive Thinking
or Be Your Own Best Friend. 
As of right now their negativity and predictions of a loss this November might just cause enough people to give up on the party and make their predictions come true. Constructive criticism is one thing, wishing for defeat is another--make sure you know the difference. The more we put toxic memes out there that the GOP sucks, the more likely people are to believe it and make it come true.
New Books on Men and Boys
A reader (thanks!) let me know about a new book by columnist Kathleen Parker that is coming out soon entitled Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care.
It is being published by Random House and here is the synopsis at Amazon:
Sounds interesting--but I must add that I find it somewhat disturbing that ultimately the premise of the book (I am inferring this from the title and the above summary) is about the effect of men's cultural demise on....women. Yes, I know that focusing on women is the only way to sell books but if I had my way (or I was not so darn lazy), I would write a book that focused on the effect of the male bashing culture on----surprise!....men. How do actual men feel about it, what do they think, how does it affect them personally and their sons?
Which brings me to a good book I am in the process of reading that came in the mail (for Glenn but I took it) entitled Boys Should Be Boys: 7 Secrets to Raising Healthy Sons.
Author Meg Meeker, a pediatrician, exposes a number of shocking statistics about the state of boyhood in America such as:
I had no idea these were shocking stats, I thought they were common knowledge. Anyway, this particular book looks informative; there is a chapter on "The Difference a Dad Makes" that talks about the importance a father plays in a boy's life. A section on "Self Control" makes an important point by forensic psychologist Shawn Johnston:
Dads definitely teach boys how to channel aggression and deal with emotions of anger and frustration. But more importantly, Dads teach boys that they matter, and that they can grow up to be successful men.
It is being published by Random House and here is the synopsis at Amazon:Tell a woman we need to save the males and she�ll give you the name of her shrink. But cultural provocateur Kathleen Parker, who was raised by her father and who mothered a pack of boys, makes a humorous case for rescuing the allegedly stronger sex from trends that portend man�s cultural demise.
Save the Males is a shrewd, amusing, and sure-to-be-controversial look at how men, maleness, and fatherhood have been under siege in American culture for decades. Kathleen Parker argues that the feminist movement veered off course from it�s original aim of helping women achieve equality and ended up making enemies of men. With piercing wit, this nationally syndicated columnist shows us how the pendulum has swung from the reasonable middle to a place where men have been ridiculed in the public square and the importance of fatherhood has been diminished�all to the detriment of women, who ultimately suffer most.
Sounds interesting--but I must add that I find it somewhat disturbing that ultimately the premise of the book (I am inferring this from the title and the above summary) is about the effect of men's cultural demise on....women. Yes, I know that focusing on women is the only way to sell books but if I had my way (or I was not so darn lazy), I would write a book that focused on the effect of the male bashing culture on----surprise!....men. How do actual men feel about it, what do they think, how does it affect them personally and their sons?
Which brings me to a good book I am in the process of reading that came in the mail (for Glenn but I took it) entitled Boys Should Be Boys: 7 Secrets to Raising Healthy Sons.
Author Meg Meeker, a pediatrician, exposes a number of shocking statistics about the state of boyhood in America such as:
ADHD is diagnosed seven times as often in boys as it is in girls:
Only 65 percent of boys graduate from high school, much lower than the graduation rate for girls;
29 percent of boys admit to drinking alcohol before the age of thirteen...
I had no idea these were shocking stats, I thought they were common knowledge. Anyway, this particular book looks informative; there is a chapter on "The Difference a Dad Makes" that talks about the importance a father plays in a boy's life. A section on "Self Control" makes an important point by forensic psychologist Shawn Johnston:
The research is absolutely clear...the one human being most capable of curbing the anti-social aggression of a boy is his biological father.
Dads definitely teach boys how to channel aggression and deal with emotions of anger and frustration. But more importantly, Dads teach boys that they matter, and that they can grow up to be successful men.
�Heerlijk, helder, Heineken�
The line above probably didn�t mean much to you, unless you�re Dutch.
No I am not getting a commission for rehashing their old marketing slogan (which it is; I guess you could translate it as �heavenly, clear, Heineken�), it just reminds me of the acquisition strategy they used under the reign of their illustruous former chairman Freddy Heineken (who unfortunately died a few years ago).
Since I have been known to sound slightly sceptical (yes, this is a good english eufemism) of the vehicle of corporate take-overs, people sometimes ask me which company�s acquisition strategy I actually like� A painful silence (to this fair question) used to ensue. But no longer! Since I didn�t want to create the erroneous impression that I think all acquisitions and acquirers are bad, I decided to look for one.
And I found Heineken. It happens to be a product that I studied extensively during my student days but some time ago I also really dug into their past acquisition strategy, and whether it made sense. And I have to say �heerlijk, helder, Heineken� or, in english, "yes".
This is what I like about it. Many managers see acquisitions as a relatively easy and quick way to increase the size of their company, in comparison to the painstaking process of organic growth. Yet, they forget that owning a bunch of companies doesn�t necessarily turn them into one organisation. Successful companies often have a high level of coordination between the various activities and parts of their organization. This involves technology and systems but also intangible characteristics such as a shared culture and informal networks. Research by Wenpin Tsai and Sumantra Ghoshal, published in the Academy of Management Journal, showed that these organizational abilities take ample time to grow and develop. Freddy Heineken realised this; he did quite a few acquisitions, but not too many, and carefully added and integrated them into his company.
Moreover, he did not see them as a substitute for organic growth but, instead, as an enabler of it. He used to undertake acquisitions with the explicit aim to create further opportunities for organic growth for both the acquired company (which benefited from Heineken�s knowledge, purchasing power, etc.) and for the Heineken brand (which benefited from added local distribution).
Heineken�s focus was always on profitability, rather than scale per se. This made him stubbornly resist loud calls (for instance by analysts and investors, and some business school professors�) to merge with a major rival. Freddy used to say, �I don�t want to be the biggest; I want to be the best�. And he was.
No I am not getting a commission for rehashing their old marketing slogan (which it is; I guess you could translate it as �heavenly, clear, Heineken�), it just reminds me of the acquisition strategy they used under the reign of their illustruous former chairman Freddy Heineken (who unfortunately died a few years ago).
Since I have been known to sound slightly sceptical (yes, this is a good english eufemism) of the vehicle of corporate take-overs, people sometimes ask me which company�s acquisition strategy I actually like� A painful silence (to this fair question) used to ensue. But no longer! Since I didn�t want to create the erroneous impression that I think all acquisitions and acquirers are bad, I decided to look for one.
And I found Heineken. It happens to be a product that I studied extensively during my student days but some time ago I also really dug into their past acquisition strategy, and whether it made sense. And I have to say �heerlijk, helder, Heineken� or, in english, "yes".
This is what I like about it. Many managers see acquisitions as a relatively easy and quick way to increase the size of their company, in comparison to the painstaking process of organic growth. Yet, they forget that owning a bunch of companies doesn�t necessarily turn them into one organisation. Successful companies often have a high level of coordination between the various activities and parts of their organization. This involves technology and systems but also intangible characteristics such as a shared culture and informal networks. Research by Wenpin Tsai and Sumantra Ghoshal, published in the Academy of Management Journal, showed that these organizational abilities take ample time to grow and develop. Freddy Heineken realised this; he did quite a few acquisitions, but not too many, and carefully added and integrated them into his company.
Moreover, he did not see them as a substitute for organic growth but, instead, as an enabler of it. He used to undertake acquisitions with the explicit aim to create further opportunities for organic growth for both the acquired company (which benefited from Heineken�s knowledge, purchasing power, etc.) and for the Heineken brand (which benefited from added local distribution).
Heineken�s focus was always on profitability, rather than scale per se. This made him stubbornly resist loud calls (for instance by analysts and investors, and some business school professors�) to merge with a major rival. Freddy used to say, �I don�t want to be the biggest; I want to be the best�. And he was.
Should teens who suffer school phobia be given thousands by taxpayers for expenses "related" to being homeschooled? Rachel Lucas doesn't seem convinced.
The Boston Globe: "Why aren't there more women in science and engineering? Controversial new research suggests: They just aren't interested" (Hat tip: Fred Ray).
I found this point interesting in the article:
So men who are skilled at math may have less flexibility to branch out and go into other areas that involve dealing with others. If women must be equal in terms of pursuing hard sciences, wouldn't it also be fair that men should have to be equal to women in terms of verbal skills so that they too, could have more job flexibility?
I found this point interesting in the article:
Benbow and Lubinski also found something else intriguing: Women who are mathematically gifted are more likely than men to have strong verbal abilities as well; men who excel in math, by contrast, don't do nearly as well in verbal skills. As a result, the career choices for math-precocious women are wider than for their male counterparts. They can become scientists, but can succeed just as well as lawyers or teachers. With this range of choice, their data show, highly qualified women may opt out of certain technical or scientific jobs simply because they can.
So men who are skilled at math may have less flexibility to branch out and go into other areas that involve dealing with others. If women must be equal in terms of pursuing hard sciences, wouldn't it also be fair that men should have to be equal to women in terms of verbal skills so that they too, could have more job flexibility?
Interview with Robert Kagan
Robert Kagan is a top adviser to John McCain and is author of The Return of History and the End of Dreams.
We talk with him today about his new book about diplomacy and power in the 21st century. He also discusses Russia, China, Japan, India, and Iran and how life is going to be more complicated than some people thought back in the 1990's. He gives his analysis of how the candidates are doing in terms of foreign policy and gives some useful advice on what they need to know right now. Kagan is a great interviewee and his book is terrific for those of us who are not experts in this area. It is clear, informative and really lays out some of the issues we will face in the coming years in terms of foreign policy.You can listen directly -- no downloads needed -- by going here and clicking on the gray Flash player. You can download a copy and listen at your leisure by clicking right here. And you can get a lo-fi version suitable for dialup, etc., by going here and selecting "lo fi." And you can always get a free subscription from iTunes. Free!
Music is by Mobius Dick. Show archives are at GlennandHelenShow.com.
Ilya Somin, makes a good point about my theory that "stupid nerds" might be more likely to act out violently than "intelligent nerds":
As Somin points out--school shooters are rare--most kids, nerds or not, never act out in this violent way. I was simply talking about out of the ones who do. Part of the problem with pinpointing the psychological traits of school shooters is that luckily, there are so very few.
I should emphasize that even if Smith's theory is correct, it in no way justifies the shooters' acts. Killing people is not a defensible response to social putdowns. Her theory also does not change the reality that the overwhelming majority of "stupid nerds" aren't dangerous [my emphasis]. Even if school shooters are more common in this subgroup than in others, they would still be only a miniscule fraction of the total "stupid nerd" population.
As Somin points out--school shooters are rare--most kids, nerds or not, never act out in this violent way. I was simply talking about out of the ones who do. Part of the problem with pinpointing the psychological traits of school shooters is that luckily, there are so very few.
Twinkie defense, Battered Woman's syndrome, and now a Benadryl defense? Is anyone responsible for their behavior anymore?
Are "Stupid Nerds" the Underclass?
Ilya Somin over at the Volokh Conspiracy has an interesting post on the tragedy of the stupid nerd:
I wonder if kids who shoot up schools tend to be "stupid nerds" as opposed to "intelligent nerds?" Does prestige for one's intelligence or "genius" protect one from acting out violently? Perhaps--certainly some school shooters felt that they were not living up to their potential--but maybe they knew deep down that they had little potential for doing great things and this pushed them over the edge when combined with bullying. The difference in the psychological state of "stupid nerds" vs. "intelligent nerds" would make for an interesting doctoral dissertation for some ambitious graduate student.
Back in high school, I developed the theory that the people at the very bottom of the school social hierarchy are those who act like nerds even though they don't have much academic or intellectual ability. They, not the intelligent nerds supposedly oppressed by jocks, are the true underclass of the high school world. Whereas smart nerds derive at least some prestige and acceptance from their intellectual achievements, the relatively dumb ones suffer all the costs of being perceived as nerds without any of the benefits. It's interesting that Amber has independently arrived at the same conclusion.
I wonder if kids who shoot up schools tend to be "stupid nerds" as opposed to "intelligent nerds?" Does prestige for one's intelligence or "genius" protect one from acting out violently? Perhaps--certainly some school shooters felt that they were not living up to their potential--but maybe they knew deep down that they had little potential for doing great things and this pushed them over the edge when combined with bullying. The difference in the psychological state of "stupid nerds" vs. "intelligent nerds" would make for an interesting doctoral dissertation for some ambitious graduate student.
"Initially, Ben was too embarrassed to go to the police. 'They were girls, after all,'..."
A boy is attacked and sexually assaulted by a group of girls in Woolwich, South-East London (Hat tip: Mecurior) and is afraid to come forward but does:
I wonder if they just took the boy's word for the assault or used the video from the mobile phone? If so, thank goodness for teenage exhibitionism--that seems to be the only way girls get caught in our society.
The group, aged 15 and 16, dragged him into a nearby flat where they stripped him, repeatedly beat him with a broken broom handle, and made him perform sex acts.
They filmed his three-and-a-half hour ordeal on a mobile phone...
Had his sister not eventually persuaded him to inform the authorities, his story would have been difficult to believe. He gave evidence against the gang via video link because he was too embarrassed to face them in court.
I wonder if they just took the boy's word for the assault or used the video from the mobile phone? If so, thank goodness for teenage exhibitionism--that seems to be the only way girls get caught in our society.
Ace of Spades: "Duke Rape Liar Crystal Mangum Gets Degree from Podunk College in Field of... Police Psychology."
Amazon Kindle
I am debating whether or not to buy an Amazon Kindle.
There is a thorough review over at Pajamas Media that may just sway me to purchase one. The price is a bit too high for my taste but my house is overflowing with books and the extra closets and bookshelves that I need to hold them all is much more costly than this device. If anyone has experience with the Kindle, let me know what you think and whether it is worth getting.
There is a thorough review over at Pajamas Media that may just sway me to purchase one. The price is a bit too high for my taste but my house is overflowing with books and the extra closets and bookshelves that I need to hold them all is much more costly than this device. If anyone has experience with the Kindle, let me know what you think and whether it is worth getting.
What management bandwagons bring
Management by Objectives, Zero-based Budgeting, T Groups, Theory Y, Theory Z, Diversification, Matrix Organisation, Participative Management, Management by Walking Around, Job Enlargement, Quality Circles, Downsizing, Re-engineering, Total Quality Management, Teams, Six-sigma, ISO9000 and Empowerment.
Surely you must have been subjected to some of those? Most of them have fallen out of favour again. We call them Management Fads. But do they do anything? Well� the answer is yes, but perhaps not what you�d expect them to do, or least what they are intended to do.
Professors Barry Staw and Lisa Epstein, both from University of California in Berkeley, through careful statistical analysis, examined some of the consequences of organizations� adopting such techniques on a variety of factors. They collected data on exactly 100 Fortune 500 companies, including their adoption of quality techniques (such as Total Quality Management), teams and empowerment, the company�s reputation (through Fortune�s �Most Admired Companies� survey), their financial performance and� of course� CEO�s compensation. This is what they found:
Firms adopting popular management techniques (such as TQM, etc.) did subsequently not perform any better than firms not adopting them. Actually, if Barry and Lisa did find an effect of any of the techniques, it was negative. Usually though the stuff didn�t do a thing at all.
Then they examined the effect of adopting such techniques on the companies� reputation, measured through their position and ascent on Fortune Magazine�s �Most Admired Companies� list. The analysis revealed clearly that adoption of the popular management techniques significantly increased firms� position on the �Most Admired Companies� list, irrespective of their performance� To be precise, those firms were rated as being more innovative and as having higher quality management. Apparently, the stuff doesn�t have to work, but it does enhance your reputation in the outside world.
Finally the piece-de-resistance: The influence of the adoption of popular management techniques on a CEO�s compensation package (salary and bonus).... Yep, you guessed it, and the effects were very strong: If a CEO�s firm adopted one of the popular management techniques, his compensation went up.
So what does this tell us? Well, first of all of course that many of these management fads simply don�t work. The organisation doesn�t perform better as a result of adopting any of them. Yet, apparently, it does make you look innovative and legitimate in the eyes of others. This includes fellow executives, who subsequently vote for you as being �much admired� but � hurrah! � also in the eyes of your Board; they enthusiastically pad you on the back for the great achievement and, with grace and thanks, increase the size of your compensation package.
Surely you must have been subjected to some of those? Most of them have fallen out of favour again. We call them Management Fads. But do they do anything? Well� the answer is yes, but perhaps not what you�d expect them to do, or least what they are intended to do.
Professors Barry Staw and Lisa Epstein, both from University of California in Berkeley, through careful statistical analysis, examined some of the consequences of organizations� adopting such techniques on a variety of factors. They collected data on exactly 100 Fortune 500 companies, including their adoption of quality techniques (such as Total Quality Management), teams and empowerment, the company�s reputation (through Fortune�s �Most Admired Companies� survey), their financial performance and� of course� CEO�s compensation. This is what they found:
Firms adopting popular management techniques (such as TQM, etc.) did subsequently not perform any better than firms not adopting them. Actually, if Barry and Lisa did find an effect of any of the techniques, it was negative. Usually though the stuff didn�t do a thing at all.
Then they examined the effect of adopting such techniques on the companies� reputation, measured through their position and ascent on Fortune Magazine�s �Most Admired Companies� list. The analysis revealed clearly that adoption of the popular management techniques significantly increased firms� position on the �Most Admired Companies� list, irrespective of their performance� To be precise, those firms were rated as being more innovative and as having higher quality management. Apparently, the stuff doesn�t have to work, but it does enhance your reputation in the outside world.
Finally the piece-de-resistance: The influence of the adoption of popular management techniques on a CEO�s compensation package (salary and bonus).... Yep, you guessed it, and the effects were very strong: If a CEO�s firm adopted one of the popular management techniques, his compensation went up.
So what does this tell us? Well, first of all of course that many of these management fads simply don�t work. The organisation doesn�t perform better as a result of adopting any of them. Yet, apparently, it does make you look innovative and legitimate in the eyes of others. This includes fellow executives, who subsequently vote for you as being �much admired� but � hurrah! � also in the eyes of your Board; they enthusiastically pad you on the back for the great achievement and, with grace and thanks, increase the size of your compensation package.
Ask Dr. Helen: Dating the Divorced
My PJM column is up:
Have you ever dated a divorced man or woman? If so, what were the issues? Did it work out or not? If you are a divorced man or woman, do you have any better, less sexist advice? Read the column and let me know.
Dating a divorced person can present many challenges, but do men and women have different needs in post-marriage relationships? Double standards abound.
Have you ever dated a divorced man or woman? If so, what were the issues? Did it work out or not? If you are a divorced man or woman, do you have any better, less sexist advice? Read the column and let me know.
Remember "Billy Don't Be A Hero?"
Do you have an embarrassing song from your youth that marks your passage into the teen years that you sort of remember with fondness from time to time? I was reminded of mine last night while talking to my daughter about her favorite songs. Friends and family have always made fun of my taste in pop music--and I don't blame them. My song from when I was around 12 was "Billy, Don't be a Hero" performed by Paper Lace
and later by Bo Donaldson and the Heywoods.
The song reminded me of all the brave soldiers who served in the war -- many of my classmates had older brothers who served in Vietnam. I used to have a record that I would play all day long for weeks, and then, one day, I lost interest. Today, I think of the song with fondness and from time to time, it goes through my head, despite my best efforts to get rid of it. If you are too young to remember the song or just too cultured to listen to such stuff, here is a clip of Paper Lace (from 1974) singing "Billy, Don't be a Hero." If you have one favorite song from your youth, what was it and why did you like it?
and later by Bo Donaldson and the Heywoods. The song reminded me of all the brave soldiers who served in the war -- many of my classmates had older brothers who served in Vietnam. I used to have a record that I would play all day long for weeks, and then, one day, I lost interest. Today, I think of the song with fondness and from time to time, it goes through my head, despite my best efforts to get rid of it. If you are too young to remember the song or just too cultured to listen to such stuff, here is a clip of Paper Lace (from 1974) singing "Billy, Don't be a Hero." If you have one favorite song from your youth, what was it and why did you like it? The Future of Man
Writer Roger Simon, author of The Big Fix, 
has a great idea for a sci fi plot:
Or maybe Roger and I should collaborate on such a book or film--but the question is, would you read it or watch it?
has a great idea for a sci fi plot: So I have an idea for sci fi writers. It's 2212 and for the first time in a hundred years a MAN is running for the White House, battling all those stereotypes about men (bellicosity, lack of education, etc.)."
Hey, maybe I should write it... or Dr. Helen!
Or maybe Roger and I should collaborate on such a book or film--but the question is, would you read it or watch it?
Is Racism really "more deadly" than Ageism in this Presidential Race?
An article in the New York Sun (Hat tip: Instapundit) states that the racism that Obama faces is a much bigger deal than the ageism that McCain faces:
Funny that the author points out all kinds of stats and percentages for those who say that racism is an issue, yet fails to provide the same information on those who say they will not vote for McCain because of his age. I'll help the author out here. Here is just one sample of how voters feel about McCain's age in an article entitled, "Is McCain too Old to be President?":
So, a full 20% in New Hampshire are unlikely to vote for McCain due to his age. That is comparable to the 19% who said they simply did not believe the US was ready for an African American president. And how many more outside of New Hampshire might be hiding how they feel about age? Who knows?
My point is that many people will not vote for various politicians based on a lot of factors, but when it comes to race, those factors get front and center stage while the others are pushed off to the side as unimportant when they may be as important or moreso.
But there is a double standard in operation. Of the two sins, racism is by far the more deadly. Color is strictly off limits while a person�s age, it seems, is fair game for humor. ..
A Newsweek poll taken between April 24 and April 25 asked voters whether America is ready for an African-American president, and 19% said no, with 7% saying they were unsure. That is more than a quarter of the electorate.
A subsidiary question was worded to test the true feelings of respondents. It asked whether those who said America was ready for an African-American president held views about voting for a black candidate they were not willing to express. More than half, 53%, said they believed that �most� (12%) or �some� (41%) of the 74% saying America was ready for a black president were disguising their real thoughts.....
Although Mr. McCain may appear to be at a disadvantage because his perceived weakness is regurgitated and reinforced nightly by entertainers who ridicule him because of his age, Mr. Obama ultimately may suffer the most because his disadvantage is not spoken about openly.
Mr. McCain can address the issue of age head on. He can point out that the very notion of age is fast changing. Sixty is the new 40 and 80 the new 60.
Mr. Obama, meanwhile, dare not raise the issue that, like an iceberg, threatens to sink his chances. Truly, it is no laughing matter.
Funny that the author points out all kinds of stats and percentages for those who say that racism is an issue, yet fails to provide the same information on those who say they will not vote for McCain because of his age. I'll help the author out here. Here is just one sample of how voters feel about McCain's age in an article entitled, "Is McCain too Old to be President?":
One-fifth of New Hampshire residents surveyed in a recent University of New Hampshire poll said McCain's age would make them less likely to vote for him.
So, a full 20% in New Hampshire are unlikely to vote for McCain due to his age. That is comparable to the 19% who said they simply did not believe the US was ready for an African American president. And how many more outside of New Hampshire might be hiding how they feel about age? Who knows?
My point is that many people will not vote for various politicians based on a lot of factors, but when it comes to race, those factors get front and center stage while the others are pushed off to the side as unimportant when they may be as important or moreso.
Glenn Sacks on the "Bad Dad" Campaign:
Fox has received over 5,000 calls, letters, and faxes from our supporters, and our protest garnered coverage in over 300 newspapers. Nearly a hundred educators, mental health experts, and family law professionals publicly condemned Fox's Bad Dads and endorsed our campaign. We also drew support from advocates for low income families.
As Kathleen Parker noted in her syndicated column, this campaign was an early, preemptive strike. The pilot has not been made yet, and all that has been contracted is a 10 minute promo for a pilot. We now have good reason to believe that we will never see Bad Dads aired.
Given the large response and media coverage, we have made our point to Fox, and have decided to suspend the campaign against Bad Dads. We will continue to monitor the situation, and if in the future we have good reason to believe that Fox will be going ahead with the show, we will renew our efforts. The campaign web page will remain up, as will all relevant information concerning the campaign.
Cookware
I have been shopping the 50% off cookware sale
at Amazon to look for good deals on pots, pans and possibly another slowcooker. I have this All-Clad one
that I got as a gift and it has been the best thing ever--especially for someone like me who doesn't cook much. Tonight we made an organic pot roast with potatoes and it was awesome. If you haven't checked out this sale, you might find it of interest.
at Amazon to look for good deals on pots, pans and possibly another slowcooker. I have this All-Clad one that I got as a gift and it has been the best thing ever--especially for someone like me who doesn't cook much. Tonight we made an organic pot roast with potatoes and it was awesome. If you haven't checked out this sale, you might find it of interest.
What if ...Schools Actually Taught?
Google has a contest called "Doodle 4 Google:"
Apparently, the kids can write up the answer to "What if" in any form they choose. Take a look at the answers of some of the finalists--most have to do with social justice, global warming and going green:
My answer to the "What if" question and the corresponding logo would be somewhat different. It would show Google with the PC police hanging off the logo yelling various slogans about going green and "social justice" that is rarely about justice and more about looking and feeling smug and self-justified.
"What if ...schools stopped brainwashing kids in PC rhetoric and actually taught them to read and write?" We might have fewer kids who ended up like the ones in Dallas--75 percent of the seniors headed to Dallas community colleges can�t read above an 8th grade level and others can't add or subtract-- and more who actually knew something.
Doodle 4 Google is a competition where we invite K-12 students to reinvent Google's homepage logo. This year we asked U.S. kids to doodle around the theme "What if...?"
Apparently, the kids can write up the answer to "What if" in any form they choose. Take a look at the answers of some of the finalists--most have to do with social justice, global warming and going green:
My doodle, "Up in the Clouds", expresses a world in the sky. This new world is clean and fresh, and people are social and enlightened. Every person here is treated as family no matter who they are. The bright sun heats this ideal place with warmth, love, and brightens everyone's day.
What if � the world stops racism, and all people , black and white, and all religions, can join together. Most people think racism has been over for a number of years, but everywhere in the world people are still battling because they are different.
What if the whole world lent a helping hand? There wouldn't be homeless people. Also, we'd all have equal rights. There would be angels, no devils, and only heroes. There would be peace on earth. That's what would happen if the whole world lent a helping hand.
What if we could save the rainforest? Rainforests combat global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide and they provide us with numerous resources such as food, pharmaceuticals, and industrial goods that we use in everyday life. It is essential that we save these wonderous forests for the good of the planet.
My answer to the "What if" question and the corresponding logo would be somewhat different. It would show Google with the PC police hanging off the logo yelling various slogans about going green and "social justice" that is rarely about justice and more about looking and feeling smug and self-justified.
"What if ...schools stopped brainwashing kids in PC rhetoric and actually taught them to read and write?" We might have fewer kids who ended up like the ones in Dallas--75 percent of the seniors headed to Dallas community colleges can�t read above an 8th grade level and others can't add or subtract-- and more who actually knew something.
Men Talking Back
These comments from the Men's Health article "8 Things She Hates About You" I mentioned in a previous post are spot on (thanks Jeff):
The more magazines like this that get blowback from male readers, the better. Better yet, drop your subscription if you have one and tell them why.
I hope the author's boyfriend reads this: LEAVE THIS WOMAN RIGHT NOW! If this is the kind of girl he's been dating, the boyfriend in the article needs to take a long, deep look in the mirror, and asks himself how to be not such a loser.....Gee, Men's Health as name of magazine is pure irony.
Shorter Lisa Jones: It *IS* all about me.
GEEZ! I cannot believe this is Men's Health! It actually reminds me of Cosmo Magazine. A TOTAL DISAPPOINTMENT. Strategy does not equal love, it is just not worthy. Why not learn how to avoid being an outdated pain in the nuts princess from high school and start contributing to have a good relationship. *HINT* Communication. If we need to get words out with a spoon for two hours, you are the one who is wrong.
#1: LeMystic hit the nail on the head: Men's Health IS Cosmo for men. (As is "Best Life" and others. Then, there's stuff like "GQ" for metrosexuals who want to be *even more* insecure.) That's why, when I need to feel insecure about my salary or hair or abs or resting heart rate, I read it. Oh, wait -I DON'T need that - So I rarely do.
Plus, if I wanted to be nagged, I'd just go home and misbehave.
#2: That's funny. I don't wait for the third or fourth hour of silent abuse. I leave the house, go somewhere else, after an hour or two. By the time I come back, she's had a chance to get over whatever irrational snit she's in and she's usually glad to see me. (At that point, if what was bothering her really matters, we discuss it like, you know, grownups.)
It is funny that all the articles in Mens Health always and yes I mean always point out the short comings of a male, ie "What you are doing wrong" not what the two of you could do to improve your relationship. I used to read Mens Health for the honest "helpfull" articles you had, now you are like Cosmo for men!!!! Guess that is why I started reading "STUFF magazine" at least they don't make you feel or believe that you are crap just because you don't do something to please a female. HMMMMMM could the editor of Men's Health be female?????
The more magazines like this that get blowback from male readers, the better. Better yet, drop your subscription if you have one and tell them why.
�Innovation networks� and the size of the pie
It�s becoming a bit of a corporate buzzword � �innovation networks� � but one that (to my slight disappointment) I actually quite believe in.
More and more companies I see and talk to seem to realise that it is quite difficult to be innovative on your own. For true innovation, almost by definition, you need a wide variety of capabilities, knowledge and insights. It is just difficult to find such diversity within one organisation. If you, as a firm, are trying to come up with fundamentally new things, you would likely do well to also look outside your own organisation�s boundaries, whether anyone knows anything that just might be useful and interesting for you.
This is what �innovation networks� are about; combining and tapping into other companies� knowledge resources to, collectively, come up with something that neither firm could have done by itself.
IBM, for example, does it consistently and in a highly structured way. They work with specific partners on specific projects. Some of these partners are from outside their industry but others could even concern straight competitors. For example, in their Cell Chip project, developing multi-media processors, they work with Sony, Toshiba and Albany Nanotech. In their Foundry R&D project, designing manufacturing processes for mobile phone chips, they work with Chartered, Infineon, Samsung, Freescale and STMicroelectronics. And they have several other similar projects, with yet different groups of partnerships.
However, the networks can also be of a more informal nature. For example, the successful Sadler�s Wells theatre in London, which focuses on the creation of ground-breaking modern dance, has no orchestra or ballet of its own. Instead, it tries to create innovative modern dance shows by putting artists in touch with each other who otherwise would not have worked together. They organise dinners during which those artists meet, they give them some studio time and budget to improvise and experiment, and assist them with advice and other facilities to get them to combine their skills and talents to create new forms of modern dance. What they ask in return is that the artists premiere their performance in Sadler�s Wells.
The most striking example of informal innovation networks I have seen, however, is that of Hornby; the iconic English producer of little model trains and Scalextric slot car racing tracks. They have some more or less formal alliances with software producers and digital electronics companies, which for instance led them to develop virtual reality train systems and digital slot car racing tracks (allowing multiple cars in lanes, which can overtake each other; clearly the most prevalent schoolboy dream since the emergence of Samantha Fox!). Yet, they also have some striking informal networks, which stimulated their innovativeness.
For example, one of their latest innovations is a real steam train (which retails at a whopping �350), and I mean real steam. The little whistler doesn�t run on electricity but on actual steam. The interesting thing is how they came up with it. Well, or actually, they didn�t� One of their customers did. They maintain close networks � on-line, by organising collector clubs, tournaments, etc. � with their collectors. Through these networks, they learned about a hobbyist who had invented a real model steam train. They went to visit him and adopted his rudimentary technology.
But the most striking example of their informal innovation networks I saw when I visited Frank Martin, Hornby�s CEO, at the company in Margate some time ago. In his office lay a piece of slot car racing track. �Look� he said �a very innovative and sophisticated new surface, which is not only much more realistic but also much less slippery for the toy cars. Our Spanish competitor sent it to us�. I said �what?! why would your competitor do that? are you sure it is not a fluke? are you paying them for it?� And he replied �no, whenever they invent something new, they send it to us. And we also send them stuff�.
They have no contracts or any other formal arrangements in place for these exchanges. They just figure, �we could shield our innovations from our competitors but we�re all much better off if we share them�. The size of the pie (the total size of the market) will increase as a result of it, and they all benefit; much more than when they would all keep their innovations to themselves.
It is a peculiar type of innovation network, if your customers and even competitors become part of it and share their innovations with you, purely on the basis of trust and reciprocity, but it is certainly a formula that works for Hornby. They managed to quintuple (I had to look up this word) their stock price over the past few years, partly as a result of such innovations. Innovation is important to many companies in many businesses; too important to (merely) leave to your own devices.
More and more companies I see and talk to seem to realise that it is quite difficult to be innovative on your own. For true innovation, almost by definition, you need a wide variety of capabilities, knowledge and insights. It is just difficult to find such diversity within one organisation. If you, as a firm, are trying to come up with fundamentally new things, you would likely do well to also look outside your own organisation�s boundaries, whether anyone knows anything that just might be useful and interesting for you.
This is what �innovation networks� are about; combining and tapping into other companies� knowledge resources to, collectively, come up with something that neither firm could have done by itself.
IBM, for example, does it consistently and in a highly structured way. They work with specific partners on specific projects. Some of these partners are from outside their industry but others could even concern straight competitors. For example, in their Cell Chip project, developing multi-media processors, they work with Sony, Toshiba and Albany Nanotech. In their Foundry R&D project, designing manufacturing processes for mobile phone chips, they work with Chartered, Infineon, Samsung, Freescale and STMicroelectronics. And they have several other similar projects, with yet different groups of partnerships.
However, the networks can also be of a more informal nature. For example, the successful Sadler�s Wells theatre in London, which focuses on the creation of ground-breaking modern dance, has no orchestra or ballet of its own. Instead, it tries to create innovative modern dance shows by putting artists in touch with each other who otherwise would not have worked together. They organise dinners during which those artists meet, they give them some studio time and budget to improvise and experiment, and assist them with advice and other facilities to get them to combine their skills and talents to create new forms of modern dance. What they ask in return is that the artists premiere their performance in Sadler�s Wells.
The most striking example of informal innovation networks I have seen, however, is that of Hornby; the iconic English producer of little model trains and Scalextric slot car racing tracks. They have some more or less formal alliances with software producers and digital electronics companies, which for instance led them to develop virtual reality train systems and digital slot car racing tracks (allowing multiple cars in lanes, which can overtake each other; clearly the most prevalent schoolboy dream since the emergence of Samantha Fox!). Yet, they also have some striking informal networks, which stimulated their innovativeness.
For example, one of their latest innovations is a real steam train (which retails at a whopping �350), and I mean real steam. The little whistler doesn�t run on electricity but on actual steam. The interesting thing is how they came up with it. Well, or actually, they didn�t� One of their customers did. They maintain close networks � on-line, by organising collector clubs, tournaments, etc. � with their collectors. Through these networks, they learned about a hobbyist who had invented a real model steam train. They went to visit him and adopted his rudimentary technology.
But the most striking example of their informal innovation networks I saw when I visited Frank Martin, Hornby�s CEO, at the company in Margate some time ago. In his office lay a piece of slot car racing track. �Look� he said �a very innovative and sophisticated new surface, which is not only much more realistic but also much less slippery for the toy cars. Our Spanish competitor sent it to us�. I said �what?! why would your competitor do that? are you sure it is not a fluke? are you paying them for it?� And he replied �no, whenever they invent something new, they send it to us. And we also send them stuff�.
They have no contracts or any other formal arrangements in place for these exchanges. They just figure, �we could shield our innovations from our competitors but we�re all much better off if we share them�. The size of the pie (the total size of the market) will increase as a result of it, and they all benefit; much more than when they would all keep their innovations to themselves.
It is a peculiar type of innovation network, if your customers and even competitors become part of it and share their innovations with you, purely on the basis of trust and reciprocity, but it is certainly a formula that works for Hornby. They managed to quintuple (I had to look up this word) their stock price over the past few years, partly as a result of such innovations. Innovation is important to many companies in many businesses; too important to (merely) leave to your own devices.
Empathy is not Justice
David Harsanyi notes Obama's take on how justices should be appointed:
Empathy is defined as "Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives." Empathy might be important when one is a therapist, but one is to be impartial when in the role of a forensic psychologist where the goal is to be objective and follow the rule of law. Shouldn't justices be held to an even higher standard, given the responsibility they have and the oath that they take?
Update: Protein Wisdom: But then, what�s the use of being a Messiah if you can�t rewrite the metaphysics of meaning, right?
After a recent Supreme Court death penalty case, Obama said he would nominate justices who shared "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."
Relying on such extraordinarily subjective views undercuts the idea of blind justice. It implies that justices should be free to follow their own broader perspectives rather than the law.
Empathy is defined as "Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives." Empathy might be important when one is a therapist, but one is to be impartial when in the role of a forensic psychologist where the goal is to be objective and follow the rule of law. Shouldn't justices be held to an even higher standard, given the responsibility they have and the oath that they take?
Update: Protein Wisdom: But then, what�s the use of being a Messiah if you can�t rewrite the metaphysics of meaning, right?
Eight reasons I no longer read Men's Health magazine.
Update: Rachel Lucas: How about eight things he hates about you?
Update: Rachel Lucas: How about eight things he hates about you?
Ask Dr. Helen: Do Husbands Owe Wives Post-Childbirth �Push Presents?�
My PJM column is up:
Go read the column and let me know your opinion.
A recent survey found 55% of pregnant mothers expected a 'push present' from their husband. Is it appropriate and what does it say about a woman who insists on getting such a gift?
Go read the column and let me know your opinion.
Boardroom friends
Boards of directors, in various countries and systems, lately have been subject to considerable frowning, loathing, smirking and indecent hand gestures. �They�re all part of the same elite�, �corporate amateurs�, �never really objective�, �not really independent�, �an old-boys-network�, etc. etc. Surely, it is said, those directors that are pretty much personal friends of the CEO will be quite useless; they will just protect him and never really be critical, asking the nasty and awkward questions they should be raising.
Yet, is this necessarily so? Are �friends� bad directors? Professor James Westphal, of the University of Michigan, became sceptical of the sceptics. He investigated whether social relations between board members and CEOs really are as harmful as assumed. He extensively surveyed 243 CEOs and 564 of their outside directors and examined whether personal friendships and acquaintances made for less effective board members.
First of all, he found that the boardroom friends hardly ever engaged in less �monitoring� of the CEO (that is, checking strategic decisions, formal performance evaluation, etc.) � the traditional stuff that directors are supposed to do. They were still quite active in that sense, despite being the CEOs personal friend.
In addition, Jim found that boardroom friends engaged a lot in another type of behaviour towards the CEO: ongoing advice and counselling. They gave their CEO informal feedback about the formulation of the firm�s strategy: they acted as a �sounding board�, continuously provided general feedback and suggestions, etc. All this happened outside the company�s formal board meetings. Directors who were not personal friends hardly engaged in this type of behaviour.
Usually CEOs don�t easily do this; accept or even ask for ongoing counselling and opinion. It is well-known from research that a primary inhibitor to seeking advice is the perceived effect it could have on the advice seeker�s status. People often believe that others will view their need for assistance as an admission of uncertainty or dependency and as an indication that they are less than fully competent or self-reliant.
Little doubt that CEOs � who are expected to be confident, proud and self-assured � have these tendencies too! Fierce, testosterone-driven CEOs may not take criticism or even advice easily, but if the director is a personal friend, it might just be a bit easier to swallow. Psychologically, it is just a bit more secure to listen to criticism from someone you know and trust than from a formal stranger. Hence, having your friends in the boardroom may not be such a bad thing after all.
Yet, is this necessarily so? Are �friends� bad directors? Professor James Westphal, of the University of Michigan, became sceptical of the sceptics. He investigated whether social relations between board members and CEOs really are as harmful as assumed. He extensively surveyed 243 CEOs and 564 of their outside directors and examined whether personal friendships and acquaintances made for less effective board members.
First of all, he found that the boardroom friends hardly ever engaged in less �monitoring� of the CEO (that is, checking strategic decisions, formal performance evaluation, etc.) � the traditional stuff that directors are supposed to do. They were still quite active in that sense, despite being the CEOs personal friend.
In addition, Jim found that boardroom friends engaged a lot in another type of behaviour towards the CEO: ongoing advice and counselling. They gave their CEO informal feedback about the formulation of the firm�s strategy: they acted as a �sounding board�, continuously provided general feedback and suggestions, etc. All this happened outside the company�s formal board meetings. Directors who were not personal friends hardly engaged in this type of behaviour.
Usually CEOs don�t easily do this; accept or even ask for ongoing counselling and opinion. It is well-known from research that a primary inhibitor to seeking advice is the perceived effect it could have on the advice seeker�s status. People often believe that others will view their need for assistance as an admission of uncertainty or dependency and as an indication that they are less than fully competent or self-reliant.
Little doubt that CEOs � who are expected to be confident, proud and self-assured � have these tendencies too! Fierce, testosterone-driven CEOs may not take criticism or even advice easily, but if the director is a personal friend, it might just be a bit easier to swallow. Psychologically, it is just a bit more secure to listen to criticism from someone you know and trust than from a formal stranger. Hence, having your friends in the boardroom may not be such a bad thing after all.
When Men are Stabbed, it's Apparently Funny
Glenn Sacks points out what happens when a man gets stabbed in a domestic dispute:
I know that people find men being stabbed or hurt funny from first-hand experience. I once told two female friends about the MIT student who was stabbed in a dorm room without mentioning gender. The two women were shocked and dismayed about the case--thinking the victim was female. However, when I told them the student was male, they burst out laughing. When I pointed out the hypocrisy, they argued and didn't even seem to understand what I was talking about. People are so indoctrinated to believe that violence against men is okay, especially if perpetrated by women, that they find the whole thing a joke. How empathetic.
Apparently the filming of the new James Bond movie Quantum of Solace is being plagued with problems. While listening to McIntyre In The Morning on KABC in Los Angeles this morning, I was dismayed when KABC entertainment reporter Debra Mark (pictured) lightly and semi-laughingly mentioned that one of the film crew had been "stabbed in a domestic dispute."
I know that people find men being stabbed or hurt funny from first-hand experience. I once told two female friends about the MIT student who was stabbed in a dorm room without mentioning gender. The two women were shocked and dismayed about the case--thinking the victim was female. However, when I told them the student was male, they burst out laughing. When I pointed out the hypocrisy, they argued and didn't even seem to understand what I was talking about. People are so indoctrinated to believe that violence against men is okay, especially if perpetrated by women, that they find the whole thing a joke. How empathetic.
Gardening for Dummies
Okay, this is just a post to brag about my gardening skills. I told readers about my Earthbox Garden in a post here where I said that I was going to try growing tomatoes and strawberries. I am proud to say that my black thumb curse may have lifted; the box has worked out great and my plants are growing like weeds. I decided to step my "gardening" up a notch and got this book, Gardening All-in-One for Dummies.
The book is quite helpful if you find yourself puzzled about how to take care of various plants, flowers and vegetables. We recently planted some flowers and in the past, I have generally killed them (or maybe they just died from neglect--don't tell the Swiss government on me.) However, with this book, I think I will be able to tackle any issues that come up.
The one volume contains seven books and includes information on Gardening Basics, Garden Design, Roses, Perennials, Annuals, Bulbs, Vegetables, and Herbs. My only disappointment was that it didn't include information on how to grow fruits since I am attempting to grow strawberries but they could only include so much in one book.
You can see in the picture below that my strawberries (on your left) and tomatoes (on your right) are really coming along and I hope very much to make a strawberry/tomato salad at some point. I may get the hang of this gardening thing yet.
The book is quite helpful if you find yourself puzzled about how to take care of various plants, flowers and vegetables. We recently planted some flowers and in the past, I have generally killed them (or maybe they just died from neglect--don't tell the Swiss government on me.) However, with this book, I think I will be able to tackle any issues that come up. The one volume contains seven books and includes information on Gardening Basics, Garden Design, Roses, Perennials, Annuals, Bulbs, Vegetables, and Herbs. My only disappointment was that it didn't include information on how to grow fruits since I am attempting to grow strawberries but they could only include so much in one book.
You can see in the picture below that my strawberries (on your left) and tomatoes (on your right) are really coming along and I hope very much to make a strawberry/tomato salad at some point. I may get the hang of this gardening thing yet.
Podcast: Fred Thompson on McCain and the Judiciary
We caught up with Fred Thompson for a quick podcast on his thoughts on McCain and his plans for the federal courts. Senator Thompson talks about issues, judicial philosophies, and why McCain's presidency will make a difference. I also ask him if we might be seeing an Attorney General Fred Thompson if there is a McCain administration. Tune in to find out.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. You can get a lo-fi version, suitable for dialup, Treos, etc., by going here and selecting "lo-fi." And you can get a free subscription via iTunes right here. Free!
Show archives are at GlennandHelenShow.com. Music is by Todd Steed and the Suns of Phere.
" The question is why we feel no such decency toward men and the children who love them"
Kathleen Parker at National Review (Hat tip: Cory) has a good piece on the "Bad Dad" reality show that Fox is considering:
Parker makes some good points about child support stats and points out the hypocrisy of a society that has no problem denigrating fathers:
Why, indeed?
Of those everyone loves to hate, few can compete with the deadbeat dad for longevity.
How much do we hate him? While we�re counting the ways, Fox TV may try to help America organize its contempt and put a face on this loathsome character.
Bad Dads, redundant in these male-bashing times, is the name of a new reality show Fox is considering. While the network reviews the pilot, outraged fathers� advocates are trying to nip this bad seed before it buds.
Parker makes some good points about child support stats and points out the hypocrisy of a society that has no problem denigrating fathers:
Clearly, some men are sinners and some women are saints. But sometimes the reverse is true. In fact, noncustodial mothers are 20 percent more likely to default on child support than noncustodial fathers, according to U.S. Census data. But we don�t see a reality show aimed at humiliating moms.
Is this because women, who have had fewer opportunities historically, are viewed as more deserving of the benefit of the doubt?
Or is it because civilized people would strenuously object to the public ridicule of moms whose children may be watching?
It�s preferable to imagine the latter. The question is why we feel no such decency toward men and the children who love them.
Why, indeed?
For Lock Lovers
I recently wrote a post about the book How To Open Locks With Improvised Tools: Practical, Non-Destructive Ways Of Getting Back Into Just About Everything When You Lose Your Keys. 
Several of you emailed to say the book was out of stock but it is now shipping again from Amazon for those who are interested in such a book.
Several of you emailed to say the book was out of stock but it is now shipping again from Amazon for those who are interested in such a book.
Eating uncle Ed � don�t worry, it�s called downsizing
About a century ago, the Fore people, who inhabited Papua New Guinea, had the habit of burying their deceased relatives, just like many other societies. Yet, on some sunny day, Uncle Ed died, and it was just around lunch time. Uncle Ed�s relatives were about to put him into the ground when one of his cousins (who looked particularly hungry) said �why bury all that good meat; it�s a waste; we might as well eat it�. And so they did.
When the following month another relative died, they did the same thing, and not for long, the whole village was eating their deceased relatives, rather than putting them into the ground. The advantages were obvious; there had actually been quite a bit of famine and malnutrition among the Fore people and this habit enabled them simply to not be so hungry.
Some time later, a visitor from a neighbouring village witnessed the practice. When he got home and his cousin died, he quickly convinced his relatives to rather than bury the good chap, consume him on the spot. Gradually the practice started spreading to all villages in the tribe, until the habit of eating deceased relatives had become the norm and the Fore�s proud tradition.
Yet, unfortunately, they ate everything, including their relatives� brains. As a consequence, they developed a horrible, lethal disease called Kuru (which is related to Creutzfeld-Jacob, aka mad cow disease). The disease has quite a long incubation time (i.e. it takes several years before it becomes apparent) but eventually the Fore people started getting sick and dying in masses. Of course, they noticed something was seriously wrong but, due to the disease�s long incubation time, had no idea that their misery was caused by the habit of eating their deceased. The practice continued until half of the Fore population had been wiped out and Australian invaders put an end to it (because they thought it was gross, not because they understood it caused the disease).
Why am I telling you this story � after all, you might be reading this just before lunch? The reason is as follows: Many managers and companies remind me of the Fore people.
Let me explain: The Fore�s practice clearly was detrimental; after all, it was killing them! Yet, the reason for them adopting it was clear too: the practice gave them an immediate advantage, namely less hunger and less starvation. In the long run, however, they were definitely worse off for doing it but the problem was that, due to the practice�s incubation time, they could not understand that it was this habit that they had picked up many years ago that was causing the problems.
Quite a few popular management practices have the same characteristics. The problems they cause only occur in the long run and are therefore underestimated or not understood at all. The benefits are immediate.
Take, for example, the practice of �downsizing� (or rationalizing, restructuring, reorganising, etc.: that is, making people redundant). It is a trend that has now been going on for at least a decade and a half; companies � even if they are not in financial difficulties � engage in systematic programmes to reduce the headcount in their organisations. The short-term benefits are clear: It leads to lower costs (sometimes accompanied by a positive response from the stock market to the announcement of the programme). Yet, there is also evidence of sizeable long-term detrimental influences, such as reduced innovation and lower employee commitment and loyalty. However, such consequences are only noticeable in the long run.
Usually, when a firm faces a serious problem, for example due to a lack of new products in the pipeline, top management does not realise that the lack of innovation is caused by the downsizing programme that they engaged in a near decade ago. Just as it did for the Fore people and their illness, the long lead time makes it all but impossible for managers to connect and understand cause and effect. Thus, not only will top management take inappropriate action to solve the problem (not seldom another cost-cutting programme�), it also remains unclear to other firms that downsizing is harmful, leading them to adopt and continue the practice too.
When the following month another relative died, they did the same thing, and not for long, the whole village was eating their deceased relatives, rather than putting them into the ground. The advantages were obvious; there had actually been quite a bit of famine and malnutrition among the Fore people and this habit enabled them simply to not be so hungry.
Some time later, a visitor from a neighbouring village witnessed the practice. When he got home and his cousin died, he quickly convinced his relatives to rather than bury the good chap, consume him on the spot. Gradually the practice started spreading to all villages in the tribe, until the habit of eating deceased relatives had become the norm and the Fore�s proud tradition.
Yet, unfortunately, they ate everything, including their relatives� brains. As a consequence, they developed a horrible, lethal disease called Kuru (which is related to Creutzfeld-Jacob, aka mad cow disease). The disease has quite a long incubation time (i.e. it takes several years before it becomes apparent) but eventually the Fore people started getting sick and dying in masses. Of course, they noticed something was seriously wrong but, due to the disease�s long incubation time, had no idea that their misery was caused by the habit of eating their deceased. The practice continued until half of the Fore population had been wiped out and Australian invaders put an end to it (because they thought it was gross, not because they understood it caused the disease).
Why am I telling you this story � after all, you might be reading this just before lunch? The reason is as follows: Many managers and companies remind me of the Fore people.
Let me explain: The Fore�s practice clearly was detrimental; after all, it was killing them! Yet, the reason for them adopting it was clear too: the practice gave them an immediate advantage, namely less hunger and less starvation. In the long run, however, they were definitely worse off for doing it but the problem was that, due to the practice�s incubation time, they could not understand that it was this habit that they had picked up many years ago that was causing the problems.
Quite a few popular management practices have the same characteristics. The problems they cause only occur in the long run and are therefore underestimated or not understood at all. The benefits are immediate.
Take, for example, the practice of �downsizing� (or rationalizing, restructuring, reorganising, etc.: that is, making people redundant). It is a trend that has now been going on for at least a decade and a half; companies � even if they are not in financial difficulties � engage in systematic programmes to reduce the headcount in their organisations. The short-term benefits are clear: It leads to lower costs (sometimes accompanied by a positive response from the stock market to the announcement of the programme). Yet, there is also evidence of sizeable long-term detrimental influences, such as reduced innovation and lower employee commitment and loyalty. However, such consequences are only noticeable in the long run.
Usually, when a firm faces a serious problem, for example due to a lack of new products in the pipeline, top management does not realise that the lack of innovation is caused by the downsizing programme that they engaged in a near decade ago. Just as it did for the Fore people and their illness, the long lead time makes it all but impossible for managers to connect and understand cause and effect. Thus, not only will top management take inappropriate action to solve the problem (not seldom another cost-cutting programme�), it also remains unclear to other firms that downsizing is harmful, leading them to adopt and continue the practice too.
Clintonisms
I spent the morning reading a new book by conservative comedian Julie Gorin called, Clintonisms: The Amusing, Confusing, and Even Suspect Musing, of Billary.
I generally don't go for these kinds of books that make fun of various presidents but this one was sort of catchy and funny--although if you like the Clintons, you may not see it that way.
In the introduction, Ms. Gorin states that we are faced with the real possibility of a second Clinton presidency and her book "attempts to preempt that reminder and at the same time examine the pressing issues and questions that may be revisited in the event of a second Clinton presidency..."
She notes that her book is not a scholarly work and is not meant to be fair or balanced. "It's a collection of anecdotes, reportage, jokes and first, second and third-party quotes from and about the Clintons." The anecdotes, jokes and quotes range from those "Defining the Clintons" to "With Peacekeepers like These..." which focuses on disturbing sayings from the Clinton's ideas of foreign policy. The hypocrisy of many of the musings is food for thought.
The jokes are also humorous but honestly, I would rather just avoid another Clinton presidency altogether and let Clintonisms recede into the annals of history. But if you know someone--or you yourself enjoy this type of humor--the book would make a good gift.
Update: Ed Driscoll interviews Ms. Gorin about her book for PJM Political here.
I generally don't go for these kinds of books that make fun of various presidents but this one was sort of catchy and funny--although if you like the Clintons, you may not see it that way. In the introduction, Ms. Gorin states that we are faced with the real possibility of a second Clinton presidency and her book "attempts to preempt that reminder and at the same time examine the pressing issues and questions that may be revisited in the event of a second Clinton presidency..."
She notes that her book is not a scholarly work and is not meant to be fair or balanced. "It's a collection of anecdotes, reportage, jokes and first, second and third-party quotes from and about the Clintons." The anecdotes, jokes and quotes range from those "Defining the Clintons" to "With Peacekeepers like These..." which focuses on disturbing sayings from the Clinton's ideas of foreign policy. The hypocrisy of many of the musings is food for thought.
The jokes are also humorous but honestly, I would rather just avoid another Clinton presidency altogether and let Clintonisms recede into the annals of history. But if you know someone--or you yourself enjoy this type of humor--the book would make a good gift.
Update: Ed Driscoll interviews Ms. Gorin about her book for PJM Political here.
Kim du Toit makes some good points about my previous post entitled, "Soft and Aimless or Strong and Calculating?":
I agree that men are opting out of the game but I think they are finding different ways then in the past to meet their goals. Men really are going their own way these days. I used to think that it was troubling that men were "opting out" of parts of society such as marriage, college etc. but I realized that my thoughts about them doing so were wrong. I thought that men would miss out by not having a family, or by not going to college but I found out through talking with men that they are just finding different ways to meet their goals on their terms and not society's.
For example, I recently talked with my accountant, a man who is getting an advanced degree online. He didn't want to go to a PC university and sit through a bunch of professors putting down his gender or having him do ridiculous amounts of tedious and inefficient paperwork that he found boring. Instead, he is taking classes that he enjoys on his schedule. The male nurse at my doctor's office is getting his degree online because he doesn't want to deal with the "crap" that a regular university expects students to listen to on an ongoing basis. He stated that he simply reads the material and takes the tests and doesn't have to deal with the PC milieu that would leave him annoyed and disgruntled. Both of these men have successful careers and while I don't know what they make, I bet it is plenty enough to pay for whatever lifestyle they want to enjoy.
It's no wonder universities are turning into pink collar ghettos. Men are finding other avenues that are fulfilling and fit in with their lifestyle. With the rise of technology and alternative ways to make a living and live one's lifestyle, I have no doubt that most men will find what works for them.
Myself, I think that men are neither aimless nor protecting themselves. I think they�ve just decided not to play the game.
In the meantime, they do stuff that�s pleasing to them�solitary or detached pursuits, from video games to hobbies like fishing or hunting�because those are not part of the game. So they go to work, put in the hours, and don�t care about their work, their careers or the job. They smile, go to endless meetings, work by �teaming� and in short, they do all the role-playing that they need to do in order to get by.
I agree that men are opting out of the game but I think they are finding different ways then in the past to meet their goals. Men really are going their own way these days. I used to think that it was troubling that men were "opting out" of parts of society such as marriage, college etc. but I realized that my thoughts about them doing so were wrong. I thought that men would miss out by not having a family, or by not going to college but I found out through talking with men that they are just finding different ways to meet their goals on their terms and not society's.
For example, I recently talked with my accountant, a man who is getting an advanced degree online. He didn't want to go to a PC university and sit through a bunch of professors putting down his gender or having him do ridiculous amounts of tedious and inefficient paperwork that he found boring. Instead, he is taking classes that he enjoys on his schedule. The male nurse at my doctor's office is getting his degree online because he doesn't want to deal with the "crap" that a regular university expects students to listen to on an ongoing basis. He stated that he simply reads the material and takes the tests and doesn't have to deal with the PC milieu that would leave him annoyed and disgruntled. Both of these men have successful careers and while I don't know what they make, I bet it is plenty enough to pay for whatever lifestyle they want to enjoy.
It's no wonder universities are turning into pink collar ghettos. Men are finding other avenues that are fulfilling and fit in with their lifestyle. With the rise of technology and alternative ways to make a living and live one's lifestyle, I have no doubt that most men will find what works for them.
Soft and Aimless or Strong and Calculating?
Dr. Melissa thinks "Men Need to Butch Up":
I have a question for you, Dr. Melissa. "Why should men--in your words--butch up?" Certainly women don't seem to value manliness as they once did.
I have a different take on things. Say that a man works hard, and "acts like a man," rarely complaining and doing "man things." What is his reward? In your mind, it is self-worth. This is nonsense. Self-worth comes from working hard and being rewarded. Today, that man is regarded as a "chump." If a man works hard to get ahead, he puts it all at risk by having a family, in a society that says that his working means that he is now responsible for everything in a way that a woman will never be--if that man gets divorced. If he has kids, he is now responsible for their standard of living no matter what. No matter if he gets sick, no matter if his ex-wife is a spendthrift, no matter if his pay goes down, no matter what. The state puts him into indentured servitude to a family that no longer wants him as a member or wants him for four weekends a month. His life is toast, unless...he never "butches up" as you suggest. Your strategy can end in early death and a lifetime of servitude. "Soft and aimless" often ends with freedom. Which would you choose?
Say, instead, a man sits around or get some half-assed job where he doesn't make much. His wife is working and supporting the family or at least pays for more than half. He no longer has to worry about working himself into an early grave, his wife can take that risk. He can spend more time with the kids and if the marriage goes bad, he has every right to claim he was around them more and had more hands on time with them--thus gaining him a greater chance at custody or at least more visitation time. If the marriage goes well, the man wins since he gets to spend more time with his kids and avoid an early heart attack. If he does head to divorce court, even a chivalrous judge will have to admit that the father is the primary caregiver. Thus, he has more rights and privileges than his wife at that point, or at least as many. I have seen this strategy work for men firsthand.
Have men become "pansies" (your words, not mine) using this strategy? I don't think so. They have become strategic. This is different than aimless. Aimless suggests no purpose. Men may look aimless but underneath it all they actually have a purpose--to protect themselves from a society that considers men responsible for the welfare of women and children but offers them little or nothing in return. Who can blame them?
Update: Vox Day has further thoughts on the topic.
Societally, it seems like men don't value or seem to be valued for manliness. A strong, hard-working, driven guy has been replaced with a soft, unmotivated, aimless man who can't make a declarative sentence or find the will to do what needs to be done. Basically, too many men have become pansies.
I have a question for you, Dr. Melissa. "Why should men--in your words--butch up?" Certainly women don't seem to value manliness as they once did.
I have a different take on things. Say that a man works hard, and "acts like a man," rarely complaining and doing "man things." What is his reward? In your mind, it is self-worth. This is nonsense. Self-worth comes from working hard and being rewarded. Today, that man is regarded as a "chump." If a man works hard to get ahead, he puts it all at risk by having a family, in a society that says that his working means that he is now responsible for everything in a way that a woman will never be--if that man gets divorced. If he has kids, he is now responsible for their standard of living no matter what. No matter if he gets sick, no matter if his ex-wife is a spendthrift, no matter if his pay goes down, no matter what. The state puts him into indentured servitude to a family that no longer wants him as a member or wants him for four weekends a month. His life is toast, unless...he never "butches up" as you suggest. Your strategy can end in early death and a lifetime of servitude. "Soft and aimless" often ends with freedom. Which would you choose?
Say, instead, a man sits around or get some half-assed job where he doesn't make much. His wife is working and supporting the family or at least pays for more than half. He no longer has to worry about working himself into an early grave, his wife can take that risk. He can spend more time with the kids and if the marriage goes bad, he has every right to claim he was around them more and had more hands on time with them--thus gaining him a greater chance at custody or at least more visitation time. If the marriage goes well, the man wins since he gets to spend more time with his kids and avoid an early heart attack. If he does head to divorce court, even a chivalrous judge will have to admit that the father is the primary caregiver. Thus, he has more rights and privileges than his wife at that point, or at least as many. I have seen this strategy work for men firsthand.
Have men become "pansies" (your words, not mine) using this strategy? I don't think so. They have become strategic. This is different than aimless. Aimless suggests no purpose. Men may look aimless but underneath it all they actually have a purpose--to protect themselves from a society that considers men responsible for the welfare of women and children but offers them little or nothing in return. Who can blame them?
Update: Vox Day has further thoughts on the topic.
�A serial changer��
Some time ago, I interviewed a guy called Al West. And Al is quite a guy. Not only because he is the founder and CEO of SEI, an investment services firm headquartered in Oaks, Pennsylvania, which is worth about 4 billion (of which he still owns about a quarter) but because of the way he runs his company.
For example, I asked for the contact details of his secretary to put an appointment in the diary. He doesn�t have a secretary. Actually, he doesn�t even have an office. And when I went to their London office to speak to him, reported at reception and asked for Al West, the lady behind the desk said �Who? Al West you say? Let me see if we have anyone in this company by that name�. Al doesn�t strike me as the stereotypical autocratic, macho CEO.
What Al does strike me as � and which is the reason why I wanted to talk to him � is a �serial changer�; or at least that is how one of his employees described him to me. He is altering his organisation � in terms of its structure, incentive systems, decision-making procedures, etc. � all the time, never quite satisfied and never quite done. And somehow, I suspect that is part of the key to his company�s success.
In 1990, Al broke his leg in a skiing accident. He lay in the hospital staring at the ceiling for about 3 months. When he came back to work, despite the company growing and performing well, the first thing he did was completely reorganise the entire firm. His employees thought, �why change a winning formula? he must have been quite bored and couldn�t think of anything better to do. I am sure it will pass�. But it didn�t pass. Ever since, Al has been reorganising his company regularly.
And he does it because he doesn�t want to allow his organisation to become settled and �comfortable�. SEI has been growing steadily for decades now, with an impressive � and impressively stable � 30% per year. Yet, Al never does any acquisitions (he feels they would disrupt the smoothly-running organisation). Yet, unlike many other successful companies, SEI doesn�t get trapped in its own success and gradually grow rigid and inert. SEI continues to innovate and grow.
The reason why many very successful companies find themselves in trouble in the long run, is that they become too insular, narrow and set in their ways. This leads to problems when their environment changes. Yet, Al�s regular changes to his organisation prevent it from becoming set in its ways. Moreover, powerful people and groups within an organisation usually, over time, become even more powerful (because they can get their hands on even more resources, budget and people); too powerful for the good of the firm. Yet, in SEI people don�t get a chance to create fiefdoms and accumulate influence beyond what�s good for the company. Al doesn�t give them the time to do it.
Along similar lines, my colleagues Phanish Puranam and Ranjay Gulati examined periodic structural changes within Cisco. And they found that Cisco�s many reorganisations helped to solve some tricky coordination problems within the firm. In many organisations, over time, employees become focused on their own unit, group or department. It�s their perspective that they view things from, that�s where there social networks lie and whose interests they pursue. By regularly reshuffling departments, however, Cisco's people not only are forced to develop new perspectives and cooperate with other people, the contacts and perspective of their old group (now dispersed across the firm) are still available too, so that the firm gets the best of both worlds. Professors Nickerson and Zenger found similar patterns examining Hewlett Packard�s regular switches between centralisation and decentralisation.
The regular changes to the organisation prevent it from becoming rigid and inert. They may be perceived by people working in the firm as a pain (in all sorts of body parts) if not completely unwarranted (�we�re performing well, aren�t we? why would we change anything?") but it helps avoid more serious trouble in the long run.
For example, I asked for the contact details of his secretary to put an appointment in the diary. He doesn�t have a secretary. Actually, he doesn�t even have an office. And when I went to their London office to speak to him, reported at reception and asked for Al West, the lady behind the desk said �Who? Al West you say? Let me see if we have anyone in this company by that name�. Al doesn�t strike me as the stereotypical autocratic, macho CEO.
What Al does strike me as � and which is the reason why I wanted to talk to him � is a �serial changer�; or at least that is how one of his employees described him to me. He is altering his organisation � in terms of its structure, incentive systems, decision-making procedures, etc. � all the time, never quite satisfied and never quite done. And somehow, I suspect that is part of the key to his company�s success.
In 1990, Al broke his leg in a skiing accident. He lay in the hospital staring at the ceiling for about 3 months. When he came back to work, despite the company growing and performing well, the first thing he did was completely reorganise the entire firm. His employees thought, �why change a winning formula? he must have been quite bored and couldn�t think of anything better to do. I am sure it will pass�. But it didn�t pass. Ever since, Al has been reorganising his company regularly.
And he does it because he doesn�t want to allow his organisation to become settled and �comfortable�. SEI has been growing steadily for decades now, with an impressive � and impressively stable � 30% per year. Yet, Al never does any acquisitions (he feels they would disrupt the smoothly-running organisation). Yet, unlike many other successful companies, SEI doesn�t get trapped in its own success and gradually grow rigid and inert. SEI continues to innovate and grow.
The reason why many very successful companies find themselves in trouble in the long run, is that they become too insular, narrow and set in their ways. This leads to problems when their environment changes. Yet, Al�s regular changes to his organisation prevent it from becoming set in its ways. Moreover, powerful people and groups within an organisation usually, over time, become even more powerful (because they can get their hands on even more resources, budget and people); too powerful for the good of the firm. Yet, in SEI people don�t get a chance to create fiefdoms and accumulate influence beyond what�s good for the company. Al doesn�t give them the time to do it.Along similar lines, my colleagues Phanish Puranam and Ranjay Gulati examined periodic structural changes within Cisco. And they found that Cisco�s many reorganisations helped to solve some tricky coordination problems within the firm. In many organisations, over time, employees become focused on their own unit, group or department. It�s their perspective that they view things from, that�s where there social networks lie and whose interests they pursue. By regularly reshuffling departments, however, Cisco's people not only are forced to develop new perspectives and cooperate with other people, the contacts and perspective of their old group (now dispersed across the firm) are still available too, so that the firm gets the best of both worlds. Professors Nickerson and Zenger found similar patterns examining Hewlett Packard�s regular switches between centralisation and decentralisation.
The regular changes to the organisation prevent it from becoming rigid and inert. They may be perceived by people working in the firm as a pain (in all sorts of body parts) if not completely unwarranted (�we�re performing well, aren�t we? why would we change anything?") but it helps avoid more serious trouble in the long run.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)