Don't "leave it to the other guy"

Glenn Sacks emailed to let me know about a lawsuit being filed by Fathers and Families, to stop new Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines:

Fathers and Families has filed suit in Federal District Court in Boston to stop the scheduled January 1 implementation of new Child Support Guidelines. The suit seeks a temporary injunction halting the use of the new guidelines until a full hearing can be held. It will be heard before Judge D.P. Woodlock on Monday, January 5 at 10 AM in courtroom 1.....

The new guidelines will cause almost all child support orders to increase substantially � when all factors are considered, middle-class recipients will enjoy a standard of living almost double that of payers who earn about the same amount. In some cases, child support orders will triple, even in cases in which the payer is poor and the child is economically comfortable because the custodial parent earns over $100,000. And in high income cases, the child support order for one child could be nearly $50,000.

Massachusetts is already an expensive place to live; if these new guidelines are passed, it will be harder, mainly for the divorced men in that state. Go take a look here and see what you can do to help. As Dr. Ned Holstein, the executive director of Fathers and Families says, "If you 'leave it to the other guy,' it won�t happen."

New Year's resolutions made easy

Why try too hard on your New Year's resolutions when you can take the easy way out? David Harsanyi on his New Year's resolution:

Meanwhile, I'll be making only one, completely horrifying resolution this year. Not only do I plan to regularly eat cheap, salt-infested, cheese- drenched meat products, but I also plan on washing them down with various brands of needlessly sugary beverages.

That sounds good, and in my own contrarian way, I understand. However, I rarely do New Year's resolutions. If I have a goal, I break it down into small doable segments and work on one of them every once in a while until I finish what I want to accomplish. This year, I do think my resolution will be to do something about this damn Repetitive Strain Injury (RSI) that I got from computer overuse. Darn you people on the Internet, you are so interesting, I keep clicking on to see what you say. I need to stop but it has gotten to be a habit and I am paying for it with a left arm that I can barely lift over my head. So my goal? Physical therapy in 2009. Good times.

What about you, do you have a resolution? If so, what is it it and how will or won't you achieve it?

Too much of a good thing

We know companies can grow too fast; it gets out of hand, they lose control and, eventually, the whole thing comes tumbling down. My favourite examples are still the ancient case of People Express in the 1980s (one of the first, and initially most successful low-cost airlines ever) and, a few years ago, Dutch retailer Ahold.

However, companies can also try too hard to grow. Hence, it is not that there�s too much growth; there�s no growth at all and that�s precisely because they are trying to hard! Let me explain.

Pretty much everyone attempts to grow. And when we look at different �strategies for growth� � that is, where can growth come from � we usually get presented a list of options: You can diversify, innovate, add new products to your portfolio; partnerships can help you grow, etc. Do these well, and the resulting factor will be growth.

However, what we are often inclined to overlook is that growth in and of itself is simply a lot of work. That is, even when just doing more of the same thing � without adding company partnerships, innovations or diversifying into adjacent businesses � growth taxes a firm�s management capacity. For example, you have to find and manage new customer relationships, add distribution capacity, recruit and train new people and business leaders, develop management systems for a larger organisation and workforce, etc. Growing a firm is a heck of lot of work.

Yet, the options to bring about further growth (innovations, partnerships, etc.) tax your management capacity too. Finding and maintaining new collaborations is a lot of work and requires much attention. So does managing the process of innovation, and developing and commercialising its output. Diversification, internationalization and acquisitions equally are a lot of work; you have to get to know new markets, products and customers; you have to work on integration and a newly formed organisational structure, manage increasingly complex management processes, etc. Doing all of it might just be too much of a good thing.

In a recent research project I evaluated the growth rate of firms in the Chinese pharmaceutical industry. This industry is turbulent and fast-changing, with a lot of entry and exit into the market. There are large potential pay-offs, but the ongoing changes in the country�s economy, population and medical system also make it unpredictable. It�s a market with lots of opportunity for growth, but also quite a brutal one in terms of the uncertainty of how to do this.

I measured to what extent firms in this industry engaged in various strategic vehicles aimed at fostering growth: Diversification into adjacent markets, innovation, establishing partnerships and adding new product lines to one�s portfolio. The results showed that, in isolation, each of these initiatives indeed stimulated growth; yet when used excessively or in combination they actually had a negative impact and hampered a firm�s growth prospects.

Hence, stop trying so hard! You might do better...

Neo-Neocon: The Milgram experiments revisited.

Is the health care gravy train on the way?

I was reading a comment by Steve Forbes in Forbes magazine today about health care and just had a few thoughts. If you have read this blog regularly, you will know that I am typically against universal health care. As is to be expected, Forbes says in a comment entitled, Sickening, that the Obama administration will make a hard-left push in health care, probably by signing a series of bills rather than trying to nationalize all at once.

He states that the Democrats will push a big reform bill that ostensibly deals with the 47 million uninsured Americans and that contains the following features:

Everyone must have health insurance, in the same way that most states mandate that all drivers have car insurance.

Private companies can write policies for people in this government pool, but they will have to meet numerous government mandates on what their policies must provide, as well as restrictions on what they can charge for premiums. In fact, the Obama Administration may mandate so-called community rating, in which everyone, regardless of age or condition, pays the same price for insurance. To mollify private insurers the feds will offer reinsurance above certain levels of liability.

At first, I balked at this plan (and it is not certain, of course, that this is the direction the Obama administration will take), but then I thought about it. Guess who pays for this mandated health care? Younger and/or healthier people.

That ain't me. The plan won't work unless the young and healthy subsidize those of us who have health problems and are older. With a heart attack, an ICD and in my forties, I'm going to be sitting pretty. I am already in the system. And now the younger, healthier people will be forced to contribute to pay for my battery changes, heart check-ups and other medical problems. Sounds good to me.

And it's not like the young liberal types are opposed to the idea of expanded health care. After all, those who are young activists are on Facebook and other sites clamoring for forced government health care. In addition, 68% of 18-24 year-olds voted for Obama as did 69% of the 25-29 year-olds (sorry to the 31-32% who did not--I sure don't want you subsidizing me). What these liberals don't realize is, they will most likely be the ones paying my way--but oh, well. As the saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for, you may receive it."

Anti-Americanism is always the storyline in Hollywood

It seems that Hollywood has some new hot subject matter now with the current economic downturn:

Hollywood has found its new hot subject matter: the global economic meltdown.

Until recently, the slump had only been bad news for the movie industry as financial backers pulled out of what are often high-risk ventures. But the studios have now had time to develop proposals for pictures about the financial chaos, inspiring a clutch of big-budget films over the next year.

Naturally the films will be anti-American and how we got in this mess because of--you guessed it--the American corporate "empire" supported by the Republican government.

If we are still having economic bad times (which I doubt, because Obama will be in) next year with Obama as president, I wonder how Hollywood will explain that? I am just hoping that so many of the studios are out of business, we won't have to find out.

Should a bachelor's degree be a job qualification?

Charles Murray, author of Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America's Schools Back to Reality and The Bell Curve
wrote an op-ed in the New York Times today entitled, "Should the Obama Generation Drop Out?" (via Newsalert). Of college, that is:

BARACK OBAMA has two attractive ideas for improving post-secondary education � expanding the use of community colleges and tuition tax credits � but he needs to hitch them to a broader platform. As president, Mr. Obama should use his bully pulpit to undermine the bachelor�s degree as a job qualification. Here�s a suggested battle cry, to be repeated in every speech on the subject: �It�s what you can do that should count when you apply for a job, not where you learned to do it.�

Murray sees the college degree as out of reach or a waste of time for some:

For most of the nation�s youths, making the bachelor�s degree a job qualification means demanding a credential that is beyond their reach. It is a truth that politicians and educators cannot bring themselves to say out loud: A large majority of young people do not have the intellectual ability to do genuine college-level work.

What do you think, should college be a prerequisite for the job market? I don't think so, but many people do.

The Mediterranean Diet, heart health and tips

After eating three different Christmas dinners, I am now stuffed and am dedicating myself to reading a new book Glenn got in the mail entitled, The Great American Heart Hoax: Lifesaving Advice Your Doctor Should Tell You About Heart Disease Prevention (But Probably Never Will). Although the book is about how to avoid heart surgery such as angioplasties and coronary bypass, the writer, Dr. Michael Ozner, is a cardiologist who also wrote The Miami Mediterranean Diet, so I decided to fast forward to the chapter, "Follow a Mediterranean Diet" to see if I could learn anything. Frankly, I don't think heart surgeries are a hoax, one saved my life and I am forever grateful to my doctors. I do think the author may be correct that those who are stable may not benefit from some of the tests and procedures, however. But that aside, the chapter on diet starts out with the author stating, "What you eat is the single most important factor in your health."

I don't think I buy that, the single most important factor seems to be one's genes or other factors. However, I do agree with the author that eating is the one thing you can control and I think because of that, people tend to give it top billing to gain a sense of mastery over their fate. The advice given on the Mediterranean diet is nothing earth-shattering but there are good, straight forward tips on what to eat.

Dr. Ozner says to stay away from red meat, eating it at most weekly or monthly and lean cuts only. Avoid high fructose corn syrup as the average American consumes 73.5 pounds of this sweetener each year, a large increase since it was introduced in 1970. High fructose corn syrup increases triglyceride production which is a major risk for heart disease. He is not into milk and says if you must drink it, use fat-free or skim milk.

The main components of a Mediterranean diet are whole (non-refined) grains, fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts such as almonds and walnuts which have omega-3 fatty acids, olive oil, red wine, complex carbohydrates, omega-3 fatty acids, tea, fruit and vegetable juices, cinnamon (some research shows the smell improves brain activity), and finally, dark chocolate. Okay, nothing new here but it's good to hear again to refresh my memory.

The book seems good for those who wish to read up on how to prevent heart disease. Dr. Ozner has a ten-step program with information on how to take command of your blood pressure, reduce free radicals and oxidative stress, and how to avoid unnecessary diagnostic tests and procedures, among others. I will probably refer to it from time to time as I try to improve my overall health, especially now that the holiday eating frenzy is over and spring is around the corner (one can only hope).

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas to all my readers who celebrate, Happy Hanukkah to my readers who, like me, are Jewish, and Happy Holidays to the rest. Here is a picture of the White House that we took the other day on our tour. As you can see, they had some beautiful Christmas trees up--although it was so cold and dark that night, I could not really fully appreciate them. I do now though, looking at them from the warmth of my computer.

Do men have any reproductive rights?

I interviewed Tennessee State Representative Stacey Campfield on his "Baby Daddy Bill" at PJTV. This bill ?seeks to petition to the court to disestablish paternity after DNA evidence reveals a baby was not sired by the man on the birth certificate. Join us for a fascinating discussion.

CEOs and their stock options� (oh please�)

Do you know why we so often remunerate CEOs through stock options? Because we do; that 40-50 percent of a CEO�s pay consists of stock options is nothing unusual.

Of course it is to tie a CEO�s pay more closely to the performance of the firm s/he is heading. Inherent in the design of CEO pay packages is the assumption � driven by what is known as �agency theory� � that if you simply put them on a fixed salary, they will be lazy, won�t take any risks and certainly won�t do a thing that will only show up in the company�s results years from now (and hence only benefit their successor). No, these CEO types really need some pay incentives closely tied to the long-term performance of their firms.*

So, we use stock options to tie their rewards to the long-term performance of the firm. However, that could also be done through other means (e.g. shares), right? Correct; we specifically use options to also make these CEO buggers more risk-seeking.

Say what?! (you might think) More risk-seeking? Is that really what we need?! Yes, this agency theory stuff, which determines how we design CEO pay packages, assumes that CEOs are more risk averse than shareholders typically would want them to be. Therefore, in order to stimulate them to take more risks, we reward them through options.*

But what sort of risk-taking does this really lead to? Because what agency theory has not really acknowledged and explored is that there are various types of risk. Some risks may be good; some are not so good� Are we sure these stock options lead to sensible risk-taking?

No I am not so sure. Also because two strategy professors actually measured this stuff: Gerry Sanders from Rice University and Don Hambrick from the Penn State University. They examined 950 American CEOs, their stock options and their risk taking behavior. They found that CEOs with many stock options made much bigger bets; for instance, they would do more and larger acquisitions, bigger capital investments and higher R&D expenditures. That is, where CEOs with few stock options would prefer to invest $50m in a particular project, they would plunge in a $100m.

However, in addition, they would bet (that rather substantial amount of) money on things that had much higher variability. That is, if there was a project that could make them win or lose 20% of the sum invested and another project that could make them win or lose 50%, they would pick the latter; big bets with lots of variance.

Yet, I guess those could still be regarded �good risks�. Gerry and Don, however, also found something else: Option-loaded CEOs delivered significantly more big losses than big gains�! They would more often lose than win the big bets. Surely that is not something anyone would want.

And why is that? Well, through these stock options, you have created individuals at the helm of your firm who only care about upside, but can�t be bothered with the size of the downside; whether they lose 10 million or a 100 million, their stock options are worthless anyway.

And I guess that�s not something even the biggest risk-loving shareholder would applaud. Stock options lead to risk-seeking behaviour, but they�re not always the risks you�d like them to take.


* Although it always makes me wonder whether, even if these incentives would work fine, you would really want a person like that � someone who needs those type of incentives � to be heading up your firm, or whether you then shouldn�t look for someone who would also do the best they can if on a fixed salary...? But anyway; that�s besides my current point.

* Options � the right to buy the company�s shares at a pre-determined price � have large upside potential but very little downside risk; if by the time that the CEO can exercise the option the actual share price is �10 lower than what he can buy the share at, the option is worthless. Yet, it is equally worthless if the actual share price is �50 less. Worthless is worthless (no matter how far the share price has plummeted!). In contrast, if the actual share price is higher than the price at which he is allowed to buy, he makes money. If the share price is �10 higher, he makes 10; if the share price is �50 higher, he makes 50. Thus, stock options are thought to stimulate risk taking; the owner of the option has all the upside but very little downside.

Why no fluff pieces about Bush's dogs?

We just got back from D.C. and while there, took a tour of the White House.

Did you know that President Bush has two dogs? I didn't, until I saw some pictures up in the West Wing of him playing with them. What I find interesting is that we heard about the Clinton's cat, Socks, nonstop, and their dog, Buddy. Now, the Obamas are just thinking about getting a dog and the media just loves the story. The main time we heard much about the Bush's dogs was when one bit a Reuters reporter. Who can blame him? But it just goes to show, no ongoing fluff media pieces for Bush, it might make him too human.

Can anyone here tell me the breed of dogs Bush has without googling the information and tell me their names?

Sex in the stairwell at a school in Philly led to a boy being suspended and the girl? She's still there:

Veronica Goss is the first person to admit that her son, Walter Ransome, made a big mistake in the stairwell of Francis Pastorius Elementary School the week before Thanksgiving.

Walter, a tall, lean boy with a shelf full of trophies from a Christian Youth Basketball Association, agrees that he was foolish that afternoon.

Before going to the after-school program at his Germantown school, Walter, 13, and an eighth-grade female classmate stopped in the stairwell.

It was there that that they briefly had sexual intercourse. Walter got kicked out of school for the incident. The girl stayed in school. Now, Goss is demanding to know why.

The mother in the article says this has happened before and girls get off scott-free while boys are punished. If true, this unfairness will lead to some consequences at some point for the school, if not now, then in the future.

Is it time to refinance?

SayUncle mentioned that interest rates are so low, the money's almost free. I wouldn't go that far yet, but it does seem that now is the time to refinance your house if you need to do so. He has a poll up asking people if they are refinancing. I won't steal it but you can go over and take a look. So far, over a quarter of the voters say they are waiting. I think the time to refinance might be when it hits 4%. What do you think? Is it better to jump in now or wait and see if the rates drop?

Countertransference 101

Over at Maggie's Farm, Dr. Bliss feels badly for a Baylor psychiatric resident who has a dilemma; she is attracted to her patient. Oddly enough, she is told by her supervisor that she is the only resident the supervisor has seen with this problem:

�I think you need to take this one to Dr Gabbard. I have never seen a resident with this problem before.� �Never!?� I thought, �I�m the only one!?� I worried incessantly about what was wrong with me to feel so incapacitated, unable to feel in control of the therapy in this particular case. I kept thinking in circular fashion, �I should not have this problem. I must stop it. I can�t stop it. I should not have this problem��and on and on.

The therapist/patient attraction is psych 101. It's generally covered in supervision on counter-transference issues the first year of doing therapy, at least it was in my experience getting a PhD in psychology. Too bad this psychiatric resident wasn't prepared in advance--it would have helped her to deal with the situation without the guilt and anguish. Perhaps that is the difference between psychiatric training in preparing for the MD and psychological training for the PhD--the human component might be emphasized more for the PhD, both for the therapist and the patient.

John Hawkins at RWN has a round-up of reactions to Obama's pick of Rick Warren to do his Inaugural Invocation. My favorite? "Wanker of the Day: Barack Obama"--Atrios. Now that's some serious analysis.

Why so many uncleared homicides?

Bridget Johnson at PJM has an article looking at the Adam Walsh case and the number of uncleared homicides in the US:

Earlier this month, an Associated Press probe of FBI figures revealed that, despite technological advances in criminalistics, it�s just easier to get away with murder nowadays. The clearance rate of homicides, or cases solved in a year, stood at 61 percent nationwide in 2007, a steady slip over the decades from the first year of modern record-keeping, 1963, when the clearance rate was 91 percent.

In addition to DNA and other scientific advances that should be helping catch more criminals, not fewer, law enforcement also now has the benefit of reaping tips and captures with the help of modern media. America�s Most Wanted, the longest-running show on the Fox network, boasts 1,049 criminals caught with the program�s help as of this writing � yet for 27 years, host John Walsh has been at the center of one of America�s most infamous unsolved mysteries.

I remember when we talked with Bill Bass, forensic anthropologist and author of Death's Acre, he mentioned that due to all of the CSI type shows, people think that it is easier to catch criminals these days when indeed it is not. Part of the problem, he said (and I am recalling this from memory) is that since many of us are strangers and there is less community cohesiveness, no witnesses will come forward when there is a murder or they are reluctant to talk to the police.

In a downturn, manage your revenues, not your costs

Here's a hypothesis:

In prosperous times, companies often fall victim to not being able to resist the many opportunities for growth that present themselves to them. In isolation, many initiatives with respect to new products, new markets or new customers look good but when pursued in combination they have a negative effect and hamper growth. Yet, wealthy firms find all these options difficult to resist precisely because in isolation they look so good. They have the funds to spare and therefore they are inclined to do too much of a good thing.

Andrew Grove, former CEO of Intel, understood this well. Their best-selling product � microprocessors � had endowed them with much cash to spare. However, he resisted temptations to spend it on other initiatives and entering adjacent businesses, telling his people �this is all a distraction; focus on job 1 [microprocessors]�. It made them one of the most successful companies ever.

In a down-turn, companies should look different

However, companies in distress � such as in a downturn � often do the reverse. In academic research, we call this the �threat-rigidity� effect. They focus on their core business, shedding all other things, doing more of what they did before, and which they consider their strongest points, while trying to reduce their cost base to weather the storm, till it all blows over and they can come out of hibernation.

By itself, minimising one�s cost base is never a bad idea (also in prosperous times!) but these companies forget one thing: You have to not only manage your costs; you also need to manage your revenues. And, what�s more, the composition of a revenue base in lean times will have to look different from its composition when times are good. Where in happy times firms are often seduced to spread out too much, while they would be better off focusing on job 1, in meagre times firms are often inclined to focus too much, when diversifying one�s revenue base makes more sense.

Accessing different pockets of revenue

So why does spreading one�s revenue base in meagre times make more sense? It is, among others, because no job will be big enough to sustain the whole firm. What keeps firms afloat is accessing a variety of smaller pockets of revenues. Hence, rather than focus on job 1, hoping it will be enough to sustain the firm, the company�s effort should be aimed at identifying and creating additional sources of revenue. In the downturn, none of these additional sources will be big enough by itself. Moreover, many of these sources would not be attractive in prosperous times, because the firm would not be able to make them grow. However, this is not a time of growth, but of survival.

A diversified revenue base will also reduce dependency and with it risk. In a downturn, the probability of individual sources drying up is large, so a firm can�t afford to be focused on just one or a few of them.

But will searching for additional sources of revenue not be costly? If will not be costless but, by definition, it should not be expensive. Paradoxically, firms should not be focused on winning any big accounts, major new products or customers; they should aim for many smaller ones. They are relatively cheap to access and often the firm will already have knowledge about them; they shunned them in the past considering them too small to advance at the time.

Concurrently, this strategy of exploring multiple smaller pockets of revenue will equip firms well for the economic dawn, which will inevitably come. Their diverse revenue base has laid the foundation for new sources of growth. The firm will be able to quickly benefit from the upheaval in the economy. Many of the smaller pockets of revenue will stay small � and the firm would do well to shed quite a few of them � but the newly formed strategic landscape will be conducive to different sources of revenue than before. Although you can�t tell beforehand which ones it will be, some of the small pockets of revenue will be the new stars on the firm�s firmament.

Romantic comedies can spoil your love life (via Newsalert):

Watching romantic comedies can spoil your love life, a study by a university in Edinburgh has claimed.

Rom-coms have been blamed by relationship experts at Heriot Watt University for promoting unrealistic expectations when it comes to love.

They found fans of films such as Runaway Bride and Notting Hill often fail to communicate with their partner.....

The university's Dr Bjarne Holmes said: "Marriage counsellors often see couples who believe that sex should always be perfect, and if someone is meant to be with you then they will know what you want without you needing to communicate it.

"We now have some emerging evidence that suggests popular media play a role in perpetuating these ideas in people's minds.

I would assume that women watch these romantic comedies more often than men. If, as the research in the article shows, women then simultaneously communicate less with their partner and at the same time expect their partner to know what they need without communication, it is no wonder the women feel upset or betrayed in some way. Yet, at the same time, it is no wonder men are often baffled due to a lack of communication and high expectations that they meet some type of unrealistic need. Of course, this can also happen in reverse with men being the ones with the unrealistic fantasies--but I would say not as often. What do you think?

A New Blog on Happiness

I noticed a new blog ad up this morning advertising a site called happier.com. Martin Seligman, author of books such as Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment and Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life is an advisor to the site.

I went over to the blog to take a look and found a good post there on how to give holiday shopping stress the heave-ho. The post describes those who are satisficers --where one buys things that are "good enough" and maximizers--who are always looking for "the best." Guess which person is happier? The satisficers and maximizers are from the research of Barry Schwartz, author of The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Here is a quick video of Dr. Seligman explaining the problem of holiday gift giving:

Mental models � let's all think within the same box

The illustrious former chairman of IBM, Thomas Watson, once said �Whenever an individual or a business decides that success has been attained, progress stops�. What he was speaking about was that successful firms find it very hard to change, for instance in response to changes in their business environment. (Unfortunately he is also the person who allegedly said �I think there is a world market for maybe five computers� so I would say �physician heal thyself�� but I guess that doesn�t make him wrong about the first bit!)

This rigidity-due-to-success effect is partly a mental thing. Once something has brought us much success for a sustained period of time, we sort of forget that there are other ways of doing things. It may even be so bad that we don�t spot the changes in our business environment at all anymore. However, let�s not make the mistake to think that such strong mental models of how we go about doing our business are all bad. They also bring some pretty strong advantages. Consider the following:

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and the lsat ltteer are at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by itslef but the wrod as a wlohe.

All of the above is clearly nonsense; they�re not words at all, it is just gibberish. But something makes us able to read it without a problem; that�s because all the right pieces of information are there (all the letters) and roughly in the right shape. Plus, the context (the sentence) makes sense to us. Then, our brain does the rest. We can perfectly understand it precisely because we have seen the individual elements (the words) before and understand the context.

It is the same in business situations; we can quickly grasp and interpret a particular issue if we understand the context and have seen similar problems and situations before. We don�t have to reinvent the wheel every time we see a similar problem but can build on our experience.

Thus, forming mental models is how we learn; they enable us to make quick decisions without the need for complete information. This is a powerful thing to have for every organisation. You don�t want all people thinking out of the box all the time; a coherent group of like-minded people with lots of common experience can be a very useful asset indeed.

The negative effects of common mental models � blindness to changes and viewpoints that don�t fit the model; something known as �groupthink� � you can possibly overcome through smart organisational design. For example, I�ve seen large organisations that created multiple similar sub-units; each of them very coherent, but also very different from each other. They attempt to get the best of both worlds: coherence within units; diversity between them.

Hence, groupthink can be a good thing, as long as you make sure to have multiple groups�

Ask Dr. Helen: How can I keep my students from becoming little Marxists?

My PJM column is up:

It's not easy to keep young minds open to a variety of political views these days.

Take a look at the column and see if you have any advice for teacher Scott on how to help his students become more politically tolerant.

Is spraying fox pee really a violent act or a practical joke?

I was reading an article today about a fifty-year-old man who was fed up with teens toilet-papering his house, and decided to take matters into his own hands:

A 50-year-old man who told authorities he was fed up with teens toilet-papering his house decided to defend his property � with a squirt gun filled with fox urine.

Now, Scott Wagar is in trouble with the law....

According to police, Wagar was on his property Sept. 16 when he used night vision goggles to see 15-20 people running toward his place. He told police that he told them to leave, swore at them and sprayed them with the fox urine. He also allegedly struggled with one of the teens.

It seems to me someone really trying to defend their property would have more than fox urine. If he really struggled with one of the teens, perhaps this should be looked into. However, if this man is in trouble, shouldn't the teens who were trespassing and proceeding to cause problems to his property also be in trouble with the law?

Are parents responsible when kids are fat?

Katherine Berry at PJM has a column entitled, "Fat Kids Have Their Parents to Blame" with an accompanying caption, "Childhood obesity ultimately comes down to the choices mom and dad make." I am not sure I agree entirely with this.

Parents may be in part to blame for poor choices but I have to ask where these poor choices came from. In a society that makes a mockery of self-discipline (bailouts anyone?), tells us that it's always someone else's fault when something bad happens, tells us that everything is a "right," and we deserve everything we want, what the hell can we expect? Parents are just doing as they are taught by the nanny-staters in this country and passing these "pearls of wisdom" down to their kids. "Self-discipline is for suckers, you deserve the best, you can have it all just because you're you." Why shouldn't these messages translate over to eating? You can have it all, live life with gusto, no need to restrain yourself, discipline is for suckers and abusers etc. Kids get away with anything they want these days and frankly, I have seen parents, teachers and caregivers use food to reward kids because they are not allowed to use any other means of discipline. Just give Johnny a cupcake and maybe he'll behave. It's a vicious cycle. I am not saying that just because of lack of discipline, kids and parents are turning to eating, but I do think it plays a role, one that society contributes to, by not allowing parents to truly parent.

I am troubled by Berry's last 2 paragraphs in the article:

It�s a job that parents of overweight children better get serious about performing, too, or they may lose their kids entirely, and not necessarily due to the dire health consequences they�re allowing their children to suffer. In Britain last year, a child�s excess weight was a factor in over 20 child protection cases, and just this week a six-year-old boy was taken from his parents care solely due to his obesity.

Think it couldn't�t happen here? Then, next time you�re pulling into McDonald�s for dinner (again) or reaching for that microwaveable high-fat, high-calorie dinner-in-a-box, ask yourself which entity requires you to get your kids vaccinated and send them to school for their own good and what would happen to you if you blew off that responsibility because �it�s not convenient.�

So, rather than fight the state for it's draconian laws that take kids from their parents, Berry seems to suggest that parents appease the state by keeping the kids slim? Yes, I do think parents should look after the best interests of their kids by feeding them healthy food. I try to do that myself. However, I think that our society and other cultural issues play just as big a role in keeping our kids fat as parents do. It is much easier for some, I suppose, to point the finger at mom and dad as the main source of the problem, even to the point of taking their kids away. But that hardly seems a suitable solution.

The other Glenn and Helen Show

I interviewed men's rights activist Glenn Sacks on PJTV today on why blogging is so important in terms of activism for the men's movement. We talk about the biased ads from JC Pennys showing men put in the doghouse for giving the wrong gift, why men won't stick up for themselves, how to make it politically expensive to bash men in our society and more! You can watch the show here (currently free with no registration). Please support our endeavors at PJTV--for it is one of the few places that will give politically incorrect ideas like ours a place to be heard.

Watch the show here.

�Framing contests�: What really happens in strategy-making meetings

One of the first series of strategy-making meetings I ever attended was in a large newspaper company. I was basically a fly on the wall, watching the process unfold with the mixture of curiosity, puzzlement and amazement, like a Martian watching a cricket game (or so I imagine).

It quickly struck me that there seemed to be a number of pre-formed sub-groups, with their own opinion and agenda. You had the people who wanted to take the company public, those who thought they should diversify into other areas of business, those who thought they should become a �green company�, and so on, and those who thought they shouldn�t care out of a matter of principle.

Of course there were some political motives at play but mostly these people seemed genuinely convinced that their opinion was what was best for the future of the company. And, rather than coming up with new ideas, the strategy meetings seemed to consist of the various people trying to convince each other of their view of the company, its future and the changes required.

Many years later, I read the PhD dissertation work of Sarah Kaplan, a former McKinsey consultant turned Professor at the Wharton Business School. Sarah described such strategy-meetings as �framing contests�. Framing contests, she said, concern �the way actors attempt to transform their personal cognitive frames into predominant collective frames through a series of interactions in the organization�. And although I had to read that sentence a couple of times (before I endeavoured to even begin to believe that I had any clue what the heck she was talking about) it gradually struck me as quite accurate.

In strategy meetings, people try to convince each other by painting a mental image of the future; what would happen if they�d continue as is, and what could happen if they�d follow the course of action proposed by them. They might throw in some numbers based on �research� (put together long after they had made up their mind), and engage in spirited debate, complete with raised voices, rolling eyes and the occasional hand gesture.

And you would win the contest if, through a series of debates, you managed to convince others and get your view of the company and its future adopted as the dominant frame, defining how the organisation sees itself and what it is trying to achieve in the market.

And this may not be a bad way of doing things. I saw the same process unfold � quite successfully � in model train maker Hornby, where the debate centred on divesting, diversifying, investing more or outsourcing production to China (the latter faction won). Similarly, it famously led Intel, over the course of several years, to abandon its memory business in favour of microprocessors.

Former Intel chief executive Andy Grove said about this: �The faction representing the x86 microprocessor business won the debate even though the 386 had not yet become the big revenue generator that it eventually would become�.

Stanford professor Robert Burgelman (who spent a life-time studying Intel), wrote about this same episode: �Some managers sensed that the existing organizational strategy was no longer adequate and that there were competing views about what the new organizational strategy should be. Top management as a group, it seems, was watching how the organization sorted out the conflicting views.�

Later, Andy Grove concurred that that is what happened, and quite deliberately so: �You dance around it a bit, until a wider and wider group in the company becomes clear about it. That�s why continued argument is important. Intel is a very open system. No one is ever told to shut up, but you are asked to come up with better arguments�.

So next time you find yourself debating your company�s strategy and future, realise you�re in a framing contest. Your powers of persuasion will only be as good as your mental imagery.

Telegraph: Young women 'have more sexual partners' than men.

Why do intellectuals sympathize with criminals?

Bernard Chapin at PJM has a terrific interview up with psychiatrist Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, author of Not With a Bang But a Whimper: The Politics and Culture of Decline and In Praise of Prejudice: The Necessity of Preconceived Ideas. This part of the interview caught my eye:

BC: Why do we as a society automatically extend empathy and compassion to criminals rather than the victims of their crimes? There�s a phrase that you use in this context: �a preference for barbarism.� Why do our intellectuals rally to the cause of miscreants rather than that of good, honest citizens?

Dr. Dalrymple: Intellectuals need to say things that are not immediately obvious or do not occur to the man in the street. The man in the street instinctively sympathizes with the victim of crime; therefore, to distinguish himself from the man in the street, the intellectual has to sympathize with the criminal, by turning him into a victim of forces which only he, the intellectual, has sufficient sophistication to see.

I noticed this sympathy with miscreants in Malcolm Gladwell's book, Outliers: The Story of Success in which he describes a "genius" whom he uses as an example of success. It seems that this "success" tried at one point to poison and kill his tutor over some trivial matter. This genius got probation. Rather than condemn this act, Gladwell discusses how this genius could talk his way out of anything and went on to be a success whereas Gladwell's example of a "non-successful" genius was a guy who never committed such a heinous act, but lacked the fortitude to talk his way out of anything. Perhaps I am naive, but I think the latter guy who has a moral compass is more of a success.

Update: TigerHawk weighs in.

What is considered "rich"?

I read with interest an article at MSN entitled, "Are you rich? Here's how to tell." The so-called "rich" live mainly on the coasts:

By Obama's definition of rich, the top 20% of households in San Jose, Calif., San Francisco and Washington, D.C., would be targeted for higher taxes. But in 32 other cities with a lower cost of living, households in the same upper quintile would qualify for tax breaks, because they earn less than $200,000, Obama's cutoff point. In six remaining cities, average incomes for the top 20% are between $200,000 and $250,000; these households, Obama says, would see neither a tax cut nor a tax increase.

I don't think living in these places qualifies one as "rich" on $250,000. As the article points out, a family of four would need $718,989 to be classified as "rich" in NYC. I used to know lawyers and other professionals when I lived in Manhattan who made $100,000 or more in the 1980's. None of them was living all that well. They mainly had a one bedroom apartment with no doorman and could go buy beer as they pleased. Doesn't seem all that rich to me. You can do that in Knoxville on $30,000 a year easy. What do you think, is $250,000 rich?

Spinning clients � the McKinsey effect

Some time ago I was having lunch with three McKinsey consultants and they started talking about how different all the people in their organisation were. I was watching them during this conversation and couldn�t help but notice that they even looked alike... They spoke alike, dressed alike and, clearly, thought alike. What seem like huge differences within a group may be miniscule (or even non-existent) if you�re an outsider looking in.

It actually reminded me of a scene in Monty Python�s �Life of Brian�, in which Brian looks out of his window and sees this huge crowd gathered in front of his house waiting for him to speak. And he shouts �you are all different!� After which they dutifully reply in chorus �yes, we are all different�.

[Brian] �You are all individuals!� [Chorus] �Yes! We are all individuals!�
(I particularly like the guy who subsequently says �I�m not�...)

Anyway, McKinsey, like many highly successful individuals and organisations � my great colleague Professor Dominic Houlder tends to call them the most successful religious order since the Jesuits � attracts scorn and admiration in equal measure. And I too believe they do many things right. One of them is that although the average person only stays with McKinsey for barely three years, when you join, you pretty much become a McKinsey person for life. If you "leave", you become an alumnus.

And that is a great feeling to foster if you, as an organisation, lose most of your employees to your customers. Because those people become great advocates for The Firm. McKinsey, for instance, proudly showcases them as alumni (although they have been able to keep remarkably quiet the fact that Enron�s Jeff Skilling was among their most high-rising offspring�). Importantly, what do these alumni do, as soon as they start to work in the real world? Yep, they hire McKinsey consultants�

And these type of beneficial effects do not only accrue to McKinsey; mere mortal organisations can reap them too. Professors Deepak Somaya, Ian Williamson and Natalia Lorinkova, for example, examined the movement of patent attorneys between 123 US law firms and 109 Fortune 500 companies from a variety of industries. Indeed, they found that if one of those Fortune 500 firms recruited a patent attorney from a law firm, subsequently that law firm would start to get significantly more business from that company. And I am sure it works that way for many other types of companies too.

In addition, by the way, Deepak, Ian and Natalia also found the reverse: if the law firm would hire a person from one of the Fortune 500 firms, the business it received from that company tended to go up too! Moreover, if the law firm would poach an attorney from one of its competitors, it would see business go up from the companies that were on the books of that attorney�s previous employer. Apparently, customers often follow a job-hopping attorney to his new law firm.

Therefore, like McKinsey, perhaps you shouldn't be too frightened of people moving. You want to hire people from your competitors and your clients, but you may also want your clients to hire yours. Rather than vilify them for leaving and cut all strings, keep them on the books as alumni, and actively cultivate relationships with them, in the form of clubs, Christmas cards and summer-evening barbeques if necessary! The only thing you don�t want is for your people to move to your competitors� They too may take business with them.

Hence, people will move; if they do, just make sure it is to a (potential) client � that�s the McKinsey way. And, of course, make sure to keep it quiet if they mess it up over there (like alumnus Skilling did at Enron) � that�s also the McKinsey way.

Men are losing jobs at a higher rate than women

Job loss is affecting more men than women according to a recent Boston Globe article (via Newsalert).

Men are losing jobs at far greater rates than women as the industries they dominate, such as manufacturing, construction, and investment services, are hardest hit by the downturn. Some 1.1 million fewer men are working in the United States than there were a year ago, according to the Labor Department. By contrast, 12,000 more women are working.

This gender gap is the product of both the nature of the current recession and the long-term shift in the US economy from making goods, traditionally the province of men, to providing services, in which women play much larger roles, economists said. For example, men account for 70 percent of workers in manufacturing, which shed more than 500,000 jobs over the past year. Healthcare, in which nearly 80 percent of the workers are women, added more than 400,000 jobs.

The article states that 1,069,000 fewer men are working than a year ago. 12,000 more women are working. Yet, I am sure that all we will hear about in the MSM is how the recession is affecting women.

"It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born as girls instead in the US and Japan alone."

This is scary (via Instapundit):

The male gender is in danger, with incalculable consequences for both humans and wildlife, startling scientific research from around the world reveals. The research � to be detailed tomorrow in the most comprehensive report yet published � shows that a host of common chemicals is feminising males of every class of vertebrate animals, from fish to mammals, including people.

Backed by some of the world's leading scientists, who say that it "waves a red flag" for humanity and shows that evolution itself is being disrupted, the report comes out at a particularly sensitive time for ministers. On Wednesday, Britain will lead opposition to proposed new European controls on pesticides, many of which have been found to have "gender-bending" effects....

Communities heavily polluted with gender-benders in Canada, Russia and Italy have given birth to twice as many girls than boys, which may offer a clue to the reason for a mysterious shift in sex ratios worldwide. Normally 106 boys are born for every 100 girls, but the ratio is slipping. It is calculated that 250,000 babies who would have been boys have been born as girls instead in the US and Japan alone.

I have noticed for the past ten or fifteen years that it seems like there are more girl babies and just girls in general wherever I go and thought perhaps it was just a coincidence, but now I see it may not be. I hope that more research and attempts to address this problem are forthcoming, or could it be that if only males are affected, no one cares?

"...at least Sally and Johnny will be sitting in energy efficient schools as they learn how not to compete in the private sector."

Riehl World View blog highlights some of Obama's job creation programs in a post entitled, "How Many "Hopeful" Workers Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb?" I checked out Obama's goals for schools which is as follows:

�SCHOOLS: �[M]y economic recovery plan will launch the most sweeping effort to modernize and upgrade school buildings that this country has ever seen. We will repair broken schools, make them energy-efficient, and put new computers in our classrooms. Because to help our children compete in a 21st century economy, we need to send them to 21st century schools.�

Dan at Riehl World had this to say in response:

Ack!! Sorry, but when someone launches a job creation program and it's government-centric, I'm unimpressed. Seems we're going to find our way out of the economic darkness by changing lightbulbs. And at least Sally and Johnny will be sitting in energy efficient schools as they learn how not to compete in the private sector. No mention of Math and Science, but at least they'll be able to watch YouTube videos with High Speed access....

Yes, make the building pretty and suddenly it'll be wonderful schools for all. I'm starting to think this guy really is fixated on image, as opposed to substance. And, as usual, we'll get to pay for ten guys, eight of them standing around holding flags, while two eventually start to work fixing potholes. It isn't that we don't need to focus on infrastructure, but how about dealing with the inefficient way we approach it if you want to bring some change?

If Obama wants to really bring change to schools, how about bringing back critical thinking to the classroom? But image over substance is much more politically advantageous these days and seems to be what the public wants.

Is your blog written by a man or woman?

Apparently, there is a 75% chance that my blog was written by a man, according to the Gender Analyzer (Hat tip: TaxProf blog) which is a website where you put in your blog URL and it uses Artificial Intelligence to determine if a homepage is written by a man or woman. It doesn't seem too accurate as it asked if it guessed my sex correctly and when I clicked on "no," it showed stats indicating that 46% of the time, the Gender Analyzer was inaccurate. That's no better than chance.

I read on another blog by a tax blogger who was female that her sex was also guessed incorrectly. I wonder if the Gender Analyzer stereotypes about what the various sexes should write about and if you do not follow suit, it messes up. This particular blogger theorized that perhaps it gets confused by gender neutral names but what part of Dr. Helen sounds like a guy? I've never met a male Helen, have you?

Anyway, you can go here for fun and put in your URL to see if it guesses your sex correctly.

"The average person lies three times per ten minutes of conversation."

So says an expert on a new Fox TV show that I read about on Maggie's Farm called Lie to Me based on the work of psychologist Paul Ekman. For those of you who are not familiar with Ekman's work, he is the author of Telling Lies: Clues to Deceit in the Marketplace, Politics, and Marriage and is a renowned expert in emotions research and nonverbal communication. I have his book and have used it in my work often, it is terrific if you are a layperson or professional and want to learn more about the clues to deceit.

However, I have to ask: do people really lie three times per ten minute conversation? That really seems extreme. I suppose it depends if you call an exaggeration a lie. People probably exaggerate all the time but flat out lies this often? What do you think? Do you lie in almost every conversation that you have? I don't think I do but perhaps I am just naive about what constitutes a lie.

The Gift of Annoyance

I was scouting around on Amazon this morning looking for toys for holiday gifts and came across this gem--a $374.00 (originally $699) Kid Trax Red Fire Engine Electric Ride-On for two to five-year-year-olds that was described as follows:

Little ones can rush to the rescue on this electric ride-on fire truck by Kid Trax. Flashing emergency lights, a working fire hose, and lighted dashboard make each ride thrilling for youngsters ages three and up. The two-speed transmission has speeds at 2.5 mph and 5.0 mph, with reverse at 2.5 mph. Forward and reverse motion is controlled by a clutch located at the bottom of the seat. Parental control ensures safety as the child drives this ride-on.

A working megaphone allows the toddler to call out to victims and the little hero can then put out the blaze with the 1-liter capacity super-spray hose. Fire truck gauges, sturdy grab bars, and pre-applied graphics add to the fun.

How much must you hate the parents of the kid that you give this to? I can't imagine how annoying and loud this thing must be. Nothing like a loud megaphone, flashing lights and a working fire hose to bring tranquility to the house.

What is the most annoying gift you have ever received for yourself or your kids? What happened to it?

"If this is meant to scare young men like me out of ever getting married, it's working!"

A reader sent me a link to a video and site called bewarethedoghouse.com that is supposed to be a joke but seems anything but. The video and site are connected to the jewelry store inside JC Penny. I'm surprised that they didn't realize how ridiculous and sexist their little video was. If you want to skip it, it basically shows a man giving his wife a vacuum cleaner for Christmas and he is sucked into a doghouse where other men who have given "sexist" gifts are sent.

One man is sent before a tribunal of women to decide how to get out of this torture chamber and is given advice by the women on how to stay out of the doghouse. At the end of the video, there is a warning to men, "Stay out of the doghouse this holiday" with the implication that buying jewelry is the only way to do this. Is this funny? I don't think so. I agree with one of the Youtube commenters who states: "If this is meant to scare young men like me out of ever getting married, it's working!" Here is the video:




Update: Another reader sends the same link to the video and adds: "I'm thinking if the genders were reversed in this ad, they'd be burning J.C. Penney's to the ground in every mall in America." No, there never would have been an ad like this one up to begin with.

Dust off that old manuscript

This is kind of interesting--Amazon has announced the Amazon Breakthrough Novel Awards where you can send in your unpublished novel for consideration:

The Breakthrough Novel Award brings together talented writers, reviewers and publishing experts to find and develop new voices in fiction. If you're an author with an unpublished novel waiting to be discovered, visit CreateSpace to learn more about the next Breakthrough Novel Award and sign up for regular updates on the contest. Open submissions for manuscripts begin in February 2009.

So, if you have a finished novel you wrote 10 years ago up in the attic, dust it off and send it in. You never know--you might just get struck by dumb luck.

Success: luck, opportunity or something more?

I spent yesterday reading Malcolm Gladwell's new book, Outliers: The Story of Success. His basic premise is that we do not get to be a success alone--our culture, community, privilege and even dumb luck play a part in making a success. He gives examples such as the best hockey players in Canada were mainly born in January or early in the year. Why? Because the cut-off date is early January and the kids born then are bigger and more mature. They get into the better teams and then with more practice and opportunity, get to be the best. The rest are not as good because they are smaller, less mature, and don't get the practice and attention that the older kids get. They will always be behind--just like the kids who get sent to school early in kindergarten. The older kids always do better in the class, Gladwell claims, and they never catch up to their peers.

Gladwell discusses computer whizzes like Bill Gates and Bill Joy, commenting that rather than just sheer genius, these two made it because they were born at the right time, had opportunity and just sheer dumb luck. How? Well both were born in the mid 1950's, and were just at the right age when the personal computer came along. Their success was about opportunity, Gladwell surmises, not necessarily talent. If you read the book, you will see that Gladwell's theories are more complicated than what I am laying out here, but for bevity's sake, I will not go into detail. Read the book if you want to know more.

My problem with Gladwell's book is that he fails to do much critical thinking when he lays out his theories of success; he doesn't let the reader know about research that does not support his theories and makes blanket statements that sound good, but do not necessarily hold up to critique. For example, do younger kids who start kindergarten early always fall behind their older peers and never catch up? Not necessarily. For example, here is a study suggesting otherwise:

The new study is a challenge to decades of research linking age to academic achievement that has led states to push back kindergarten entrance age deadlines and convinced more parents to start children later than the once-traditional age of 5.

Though older students have an early edge based on an extra year of skill development, the study maintains that older and younger students learn at the same pace once they enter school, based on a review of federal education data.

And it seems to me that the genius of some people like Gates or Joy is that they see opportunity where others see none. I know people who had the same opportunities as these guys but they did not see the computer in the same way that these two did. As a psychologist, I think there is something inherent in some people's personalities and mindset that allows them to make opportunities for themselves when others see none. My guess is that if Gates did not have the computer as his opportunity, he would have found another one and done well anyway. Gladwell wants us to think that success is not self-made and is mainly the result of communtity, culture and luck. He says that success is "grounded in a web of advantages, and inheritances, some deserved, some not, some earned, some just plain lucky--but all critical to making them what they are. The outlier, in the end, is not an outlier at all."

Perhaps the outlier in all this is the ability to see opportunity where others see none. In my opinion, this makes someone an outlier, whether Gladwell wants to believe that or not. That said, the book is interesting and filled with some good information about what leads to success. It is worth a read.

Update: Soccer Dad points out in the comments a very good extract on the book in The Guardian.

Are teens more ethically-challenged now than in the past?

I have to wonder after reading two different articles sent in by readers (thanks!) about the types of ethics that teens are learning these days. The first link was to a study showing that teens are cheating and lying more than ever these days:

American teenagers lie, steal and cheat more at "alarming rates," a study of nearly 30,000 high school students concluded Monday. The attitudes and conduct of some 29,760 high school students across the United States "doesn't bode well for the future when these youngsters become the next generation's politicians and parents, cops and corporate executives, and journalists and generals," the non-profit Josephson Institute said.

As if the current crop isn't bad enough!

Blogger Cheryl, who sent me the study points out this troubling statistic from the study:

The end of the article tells the rest of the story: Some 93 percent of students indicated satisfaction with their own character and ethics, with 77 percent saying that "when it comes to doing what is right, I am better than most people I know."

Perhaps the kids are telling the truth. The other people they know may be even more sleazy than they are themselves. But is it okay just to be better than the other sleaze balls you're hanging around with?

The other article about teen depravity is from the Smoking Gun blog entitled, "Teens Charged In Nursing Home Abuse." It seems that a group of teen girls spat on, spanked and humiliated infirm elderly according to cops:

A group of teenagers working at a Minnesota nursing home abused and sexually humiliated elderly residents suffering from Alzheimer's disease and dementia, prosecutors allege. The six young female caregivers were named yesterday in criminal complaints charging them with a variety of cruel behavior at the Good Samaritan Society nursing home in Albert Lea, a city in southern Minnesota.

The first article stated that boys were more likely to steal or lie according to a survey but my guess is, they are more willing to admit antisocial behavior and girls are more likely to hide any type of antisocial behavior. Girls, like the ones mentioned above however, are turning to more unethical and troubling behaviors, just like the boys.

Here is my two cents. Unethical behavior is often overlooked in our society today--there are few consequences for acts of lying, cheating or even stealing. I have worked with teens who got away with all three until finally, they comitted some atrocious act that no one could overlook. And what should we expect when we do not hold certain people and groups accountable when they mess up? If one lies to the public, they can go on to earn six figure speaking gigs rather than suffer for it. If companies fail, they are bailed out by our government. The public is enthralled with aberrant behavior as evidenced by the fascination with shows that portray the bad guy as the hero and the good guy? He's now a chump. With ethics like these, what can we really expect from our kids?

Tunnel vision � �in the end, there is only flux�

�Tunnel vision is caused by an optic fungus that multiplies when the brain is less energetic than the ego. It is complicated by exposure to politics. When a good idea is run through the filters and compressors of ordinary tunnel vision, it not only comes out reduced in scale and value but in its new dogmatic configuration produces effects the opposite of those for which it originally was intended.� Tom Robbins, in �Still Life with Woodpecker�.

We know, from running statistics on the performance of companies over time, that especially very successful firms have trouble staying successful, and adapt to changing industry conditions. We call this the �success trap�, �competency traps� or the �Icarus paradox� in business.

But where does it come from? What is causing it? There are various parts to the explanation but one of them pertains to how the top managers of those very successful companies perceive the changes in their business environment.

Research by professors Allen Amason from the University of Georgia and Ann Mooney from the Stevens Institute of Technology, for example, showed that CEOs from firms with relatively high performance were significantly more likely to interpret changes in their business environment as a threat than the CEOs of poorly performing companies, who more often interpreted the changes as a positive thing.

And this is understandable. If you are the top performer in your industry, any change looks like a threat, because things can only get worse; you like things just the way they are, thank you very much! In contrast, if you currently look like a sucker because you're the CEO of a company that is not performing very well at all in comparison to your peers, any change is welcome. It represents an opportunity for things to be altered, and your only way is up.

Allan and Ann also showed that, as a consequence, the top managers of the high performing companies were much less comprehensive in formulating a response to the strategic change; they didn�t spend much time evaluating potential alternative courses of action, they didn�t do much research and analysis, and they sure as hell didn�t seek any outside help or opinion.

Most likely, executives in such a situation are going to try to continue as is, resist the change or minimise its impact. However, if the environmental change is profound, ignoring it is likely not going to work! And this is a problem of all times. In the 1970s, The Swiss watch industry, which was superb at making mechanical watches, invented the quartz watch but they didn�t do anything with it. And when companies from Hong Kong and Japan flooded the market with cheap quartz watches they denied the relevance of the change till they had a near-death experience. Around the same time, tyre maker Firestone responded to the introduction of radial technology by trying to beef up its production of bias tyres (they had a genuine death experience). More recently, traditional newspaper companies fought news-reporting on the internet by suing dot-coms and naively copying and pasting their own paper on a website, while Kodak for a long time tried to ignore digital photography mourning its spectacular margins on photo-film.

I guess you could call it old-fashioned tunnel vision. When your company is hugely successful, you don�t want to see that the world is changing. And if you then, eventually, are forced to incorporate the new technology (or whatever it is that is rocking your world), you try to squeeze it into your own version of reality, rather than accept that reality has changed. But reality is that one day the likes of industry dominants like Google, Intel, or Microsoft will go down. Because as Heraclitus already said some five centuries BC: �In the end, there is only flux, everything gives way�.

Give this, not that

I started to write a political post this morning but I decided to take a break and post about something more cheerful--holiday gifts. With Hanukkah and Christmas around the corner, many of us are trying to find uplifting books as gifts for those who are going through trying times. Here are my suggestions for a few of those types:

If you want something for a family member or friend who is expecting a child or has a young child, I recommend the book, The Optimistic Child by Martin Seligmen (my review is here). The book is upbeat and very helpful for new or parents of young children. I don't suggest books such as Setting Limits with Your Strong-Willed Child : Eliminating Conflict by Establishing Clear, Firm, and Respectful Boundaries for holiday gifts as this might send the message to the parent that they have a problem with the kids, which, of course, they might, but it is not the best idea to let them know this at Christmas. Suggest this excellent book, instead, if you are asked for advice at a later time. Sure, your family member's kids might be driving you bananas with their crummy behavior during the holidays, but it would be best not to rub it in the parent's faces at Christmas but wait until a more opportune moment.

Ditto giving a book such as Albert Ellis's How to Stubbornly Refuse to Make Yourself Miserable About Anything: Yes, Anything for a holiday gift to a depressed friend, it might send the signal that you think they are miserable, which, again, you might, but it would be better to give such a book if sought for advice, not as a gift. Perhaps a more appropriate title would be Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life. The title sounds more upbeat and does not include the word miserable in the title, suggesting that is what you think they are.

Finally, for a friend going through a divorce or break--up do not hand them a copy of He's Just Not That Into You: Your Daily Wake-Up Call but rather, give them a more suitable title such as Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realize Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment. It shows you believe they can be happy again.

Remember, titles mean a lot when giving a gift of a book. Make sure the gift comes across as an act of caring rather than one of criticism. If you have other suggestions for uplifting books that would be good gifts for those who are going through trying times at the holidays, share your selections in the comment section.

Is Googling good for the brain?

A new study thinks it may be (via Newsalert):

Can Googling delay the onset of dementia?

A new UCLA study, part of the growing research into the effects of technology on the brain, shows that searching the Internet may keep older brains agile - it's like taking your brain for a walk.

It's too early to conclude that technology will help vanquish Alzheimer's disease, but "our study shows that when your brain is on Google, your neural circuitry changes extensively," said psychiatrist Gary Small, director of UCLA's Memory & Aging Research Center....

The MRI results showed that both text reading and Internet searching stimulated the regions of the brain controlling language, reading, memory and vision. But the Internet search lit up more areas of the brain, additionally activating the regions controlling complex reasoning and decision making. The increased brain activity, which is probably due to the many rapid choices such searches involve, suggests that subjects had a richer sensory experience and heightened attention.

We hear so much bad press about the internet, it's nice to hear something positive. However, I must say, in my experience, the more time I spend on the internet, the more adept I get at it, but the less adept I get at other parts of my life. Mainly, because I am thinking about something I read or thinking about something I want to read or find and I don't focus on what I am doing in my non-virtual life. In other words, my memory seems fine on the internet but off of it, I notice I misplace things, can't remember what I was doing, or have a harder time focusing on non-computer-related tasks.

What do you think, does your internet time help or hurt your memory?