Commentary on popular culture and society, from a (mostly) psychological perspective
FerFAL, the author of The Modern Survival Manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse
is very pleased that his self-published book is up to #2 in Survival Skills and Disaster Relief on Amazon. Many of you bought a copy last week when I did this post on the topic. Thanks very much for supporting this author. It's nice to know that authors who are not "mainstream" can now bypass the gatekeepers and do well anyway.
Most People Don't Know Their Business (so asking them is useless)
I�ll admit it; I am rapidly becoming a skeptic when it comes to interview-based data. And the reason is that people (interviewees) just don�t know their business � although, of course, they think they do.
For example, in an intriguing research project with my (rather exceptional) PhD student Amandine Ody, we asked lots of people in the Champagne industry whether different Champagne houses paid different prices for a kilogram of their raw material: grapes. The answer was unanimously and unambiguously �no�; everybody pays more or less the same price. But when we looked at the actual data (which are opaque at first sight and pretty hard to get), the price differences appeared huge: some paid 6 euros for a kilogram, others 8, and yet other 10 or even 12. Thinking it might be the (poor) quality of the data, we obtained a large sample of similar data from a different source: supplier contracts. Which showed exactly the same thing. But the people within the business really did not know; they thought everybody was paying about the same price. They were wrong.
Then Amandine asked them which houses supplied Champagne for supermarket brands (a practice many in the industry thoroughly detest, but it is very difficult to observe who is hiding behind those supermarket labels). They mentioned a bunch of houses, both in terms of the type of houses and specific named ones, who they �were sure were behind it�. And they quite invariably were completely wrong. Using a clever but painstaking method, Amandine deduced who was really supplying the Champagne to the supermarkets, and she found out it was not the usual suspects. In fact, the houses that did it were exactly the ones no-one suspected, and the houses everyone thought were doing it were as innocent as a newborn baby. They were � again � dead wrong.
And this is not the only context and project where I have had such experiences, i.e. it is not just a French thing. With a colleague at University College London � Mihaela Stan � we analyzed the British IVF industry. One prominent practice in this industry is the role of a so-called integrator; one medical professional who is always �the face� towards the patient, i.e. a patient is always dealing with one and the same doctor or nurse, and not a different one very time the treatment is in a different stage. All interviewees told us that this really had no substance; it was just a way of comforting the patient. However, when we analyzed the practice�s actual influence � together with my good friend and colleague Phanish Puranam � we quickly discovered that the use of such an integrator had a very real impact on the efficacy of the IVF process; women simply had a substantially higher probability of getting pregnant when such an integrator, who coordinates across the various stages of the IVF cycle, was used. But the interviewees had no clue about the actual effects of the practice.*
My examples are just conjectures, but there is also some serious research on the topic. Olav Sorenson and David Waguespack published a study on film distributors in which they showed that these distributors� beliefs about what would make a film a success were plain wrong (they just made them come true by assigning them more resources based on this belief). John Mezias and Bill Starbuck published several articles in which they showed how people do not even know basic facts about their own companies, such as the sales of their own business unit, error rates, or quality indicators. People more often than not were several hundreds of percentages of the mark, when asked to report a number.
Of course interviews can sometimes be interesting; you can ask people about their perceptions, why they think they are doing something, and how they think things work. Just don�t make the mistake of believing them.
Much the same is true for the use of questionnaires. They are often used to ask for basic facts and assessments: e.g. �how big is your company�, �how good are you at practice X�, and so on. Sheer nonsense is the most likely result. People do not know their business, both in terms of the simple facts and in terms of the complex processes that lead to success or failure. Therefore, do yourself (and us) a favor: don�t ask; get the facts.
* Although this was not necessarily a �direct effect�; the impact of the practice is more subtle than that.
For example, in an intriguing research project with my (rather exceptional) PhD student Amandine Ody, we asked lots of people in the Champagne industry whether different Champagne houses paid different prices for a kilogram of their raw material: grapes. The answer was unanimously and unambiguously �no�; everybody pays more or less the same price. But when we looked at the actual data (which are opaque at first sight and pretty hard to get), the price differences appeared huge: some paid 6 euros for a kilogram, others 8, and yet other 10 or even 12. Thinking it might be the (poor) quality of the data, we obtained a large sample of similar data from a different source: supplier contracts. Which showed exactly the same thing. But the people within the business really did not know; they thought everybody was paying about the same price. They were wrong.
Then Amandine asked them which houses supplied Champagne for supermarket brands (a practice many in the industry thoroughly detest, but it is very difficult to observe who is hiding behind those supermarket labels). They mentioned a bunch of houses, both in terms of the type of houses and specific named ones, who they �were sure were behind it�. And they quite invariably were completely wrong. Using a clever but painstaking method, Amandine deduced who was really supplying the Champagne to the supermarkets, and she found out it was not the usual suspects. In fact, the houses that did it were exactly the ones no-one suspected, and the houses everyone thought were doing it were as innocent as a newborn baby. They were � again � dead wrong.
And this is not the only context and project where I have had such experiences, i.e. it is not just a French thing. With a colleague at University College London � Mihaela Stan � we analyzed the British IVF industry. One prominent practice in this industry is the role of a so-called integrator; one medical professional who is always �the face� towards the patient, i.e. a patient is always dealing with one and the same doctor or nurse, and not a different one very time the treatment is in a different stage. All interviewees told us that this really had no substance; it was just a way of comforting the patient. However, when we analyzed the practice�s actual influence � together with my good friend and colleague Phanish Puranam � we quickly discovered that the use of such an integrator had a very real impact on the efficacy of the IVF process; women simply had a substantially higher probability of getting pregnant when such an integrator, who coordinates across the various stages of the IVF cycle, was used. But the interviewees had no clue about the actual effects of the practice.*
My examples are just conjectures, but there is also some serious research on the topic. Olav Sorenson and David Waguespack published a study on film distributors in which they showed that these distributors� beliefs about what would make a film a success were plain wrong (they just made them come true by assigning them more resources based on this belief). John Mezias and Bill Starbuck published several articles in which they showed how people do not even know basic facts about their own companies, such as the sales of their own business unit, error rates, or quality indicators. People more often than not were several hundreds of percentages of the mark, when asked to report a number.
Of course interviews can sometimes be interesting; you can ask people about their perceptions, why they think they are doing something, and how they think things work. Just don�t make the mistake of believing them.
Much the same is true for the use of questionnaires. They are often used to ask for basic facts and assessments: e.g. �how big is your company�, �how good are you at practice X�, and so on. Sheer nonsense is the most likely result. People do not know their business, both in terms of the simple facts and in terms of the complex processes that lead to success or failure. Therefore, do yourself (and us) a favor: don�t ask; get the facts.
* Although this was not necessarily a �direct effect�; the impact of the practice is more subtle than that.
The Lying Dutchman: Fraud in the Ivory Tower
The fraud of Diederik Stapel � professor of social psychology at Tilburg University in the Netherlands � was enormous. His list of publications was truly impressive, both in terms of the content of the articles as well as its sheer number and the prestige of the journals in which it was published: dozens of articles in all the top psychology journals in academia with a number of them in famous general science outlets such as Science. His seemingly careful research was very thorough in terms of its research design, and was thought to reveal many intriguing insights about fundamental human nature. The problem was, he had made it all up�
For years � so we know now � Diederik Stapel made up all his data. He would carefully review the literature, design all the studies (with his various co-authors), set up the experiments, print out all the questionnaires, and then, instead of actually doing the experiments and distributing the questionnaires, made it all up. Just like that.
He finally got caught because, eventually, he did not even bother anymore to really make up newly faked data. He used the same (fake) numbers for different experiments, gave those to his various PhD students to analyze, who then in disbelief slaving away in their adjacent cubicles discovered that their very different experiments led to exactly the same statistical values (a near impossibility). When they compared their databases, there was substantial overlap. There was no denying it any longer; Diederik Stapel, was making it up; he was immediately fired by the university, admitted to his lengthy fraud, and handed back his PhD degree.
In an open letter, sent to Dutch newspapers to try to explain his actions, he cited the huge pressures to come up with interesting findings that he had been under, in the publish or perish culture that exist in the academic world, which he had been unable to resist, and which led him to his extreme actions.
There are various things I find truly remarkable and puzzling about the case of Diederik Stapel.
� The first one is the sheer scale and (eventually) outright clumsiness of his fraud. It also makes me realize that there must be dozens, maybe hundreds of others just like him. They just do it a little bit less, less extreme, and are probably a bit more sophisticated about it, but they�re subject to the exact same pressures and temptations as Diederik Stapel. Surely others give in to them as well. He got caught because he was flying so high, he did it so much, and so clumsily. But I am guessing that for every fraud that gets caught, due to hubris, there are at least ten other ones that don�t.
� The second one is that he did it at all. Of course because it is fraud, unethical, and unacceptable, but also because it sort of seems he did not really need it. You have to realize that �getting the data� is just a very small proportion of all the skills and capabilities one needs to get published. You have to really know and understand the literature; you have to be able to carefully design an experiment, ruling out any potential statistical biases, alternative explanations, and other pitfalls; you have to be able to write it up so that it catches people�s interest and imagination; and you have to be able to see the article through the various reviewers and steps in the publication process that every prestigious academic journal operates. Those are substantial and difficult skills; all of which Diederik Stapel possessed. All he did is make up the data; something which is just a small proportion of the total set of skills required, and something that he could have easily outsourced to one of his many PhD students. Sure, you then would not have had the guarantee that the experiment would come out the way you wanted them, but who knows, they could.
� That�s what I find puzzling as well; that at no point he seems to have become curious whether his experiments might actually work without him making it all up. They were interesting experiments; wouldn�t you at some point be tempted to see whether they might work�?
� Truly amazing I also find the fact that he never stopped. It seems he has much in common with Bernard Madoff and his Ponzi Scheme, or the notorious traders in investments banks such as 827 million Nick Leeson, who brought down Barings Bank with his massive fraudulent trades, Societe Generale�s 4.9 billion Jerome Kerviel, and UBS�s 2.3 billion Kweku Adoboli. The difference: Stapel could have stopped. For people like Madoff or the rogue traders, there was no way back; once they had started the fraud there was no stopping it. But Stapel could have stopped at any point. Surely at some point he must have at least considered this? I guess he was addicted; addicted to the status and aura of continued success.
� Finally, what I find truly amazing is that he was teaching the Ethics course at Tilburg University. You just don�t make that one up; that�s Dutch irony at its best.
For years � so we know now � Diederik Stapel made up all his data. He would carefully review the literature, design all the studies (with his various co-authors), set up the experiments, print out all the questionnaires, and then, instead of actually doing the experiments and distributing the questionnaires, made it all up. Just like that.
He finally got caught because, eventually, he did not even bother anymore to really make up newly faked data. He used the same (fake) numbers for different experiments, gave those to his various PhD students to analyze, who then in disbelief slaving away in their adjacent cubicles discovered that their very different experiments led to exactly the same statistical values (a near impossibility). When they compared their databases, there was substantial overlap. There was no denying it any longer; Diederik Stapel, was making it up; he was immediately fired by the university, admitted to his lengthy fraud, and handed back his PhD degree.
In an open letter, sent to Dutch newspapers to try to explain his actions, he cited the huge pressures to come up with interesting findings that he had been under, in the publish or perish culture that exist in the academic world, which he had been unable to resist, and which led him to his extreme actions.
There are various things I find truly remarkable and puzzling about the case of Diederik Stapel.
� The first one is the sheer scale and (eventually) outright clumsiness of his fraud. It also makes me realize that there must be dozens, maybe hundreds of others just like him. They just do it a little bit less, less extreme, and are probably a bit more sophisticated about it, but they�re subject to the exact same pressures and temptations as Diederik Stapel. Surely others give in to them as well. He got caught because he was flying so high, he did it so much, and so clumsily. But I am guessing that for every fraud that gets caught, due to hubris, there are at least ten other ones that don�t.
� The second one is that he did it at all. Of course because it is fraud, unethical, and unacceptable, but also because it sort of seems he did not really need it. You have to realize that �getting the data� is just a very small proportion of all the skills and capabilities one needs to get published. You have to really know and understand the literature; you have to be able to carefully design an experiment, ruling out any potential statistical biases, alternative explanations, and other pitfalls; you have to be able to write it up so that it catches people�s interest and imagination; and you have to be able to see the article through the various reviewers and steps in the publication process that every prestigious academic journal operates. Those are substantial and difficult skills; all of which Diederik Stapel possessed. All he did is make up the data; something which is just a small proportion of the total set of skills required, and something that he could have easily outsourced to one of his many PhD students. Sure, you then would not have had the guarantee that the experiment would come out the way you wanted them, but who knows, they could.
� That�s what I find puzzling as well; that at no point he seems to have become curious whether his experiments might actually work without him making it all up. They were interesting experiments; wouldn�t you at some point be tempted to see whether they might work�?
� Truly amazing I also find the fact that he never stopped. It seems he has much in common with Bernard Madoff and his Ponzi Scheme, or the notorious traders in investments banks such as 827 million Nick Leeson, who brought down Barings Bank with his massive fraudulent trades, Societe Generale�s 4.9 billion Jerome Kerviel, and UBS�s 2.3 billion Kweku Adoboli. The difference: Stapel could have stopped. For people like Madoff or the rogue traders, there was no way back; once they had started the fraud there was no stopping it. But Stapel could have stopped at any point. Surely at some point he must have at least considered this? I guess he was addicted; addicted to the status and aura of continued success.
� Finally, what I find truly amazing is that he was teaching the Ethics course at Tilburg University. You just don�t make that one up; that�s Dutch irony at its best.
What's wrong with senior executive pay � lots in my view
There are three things I do not like about top management pay: 1) they usually get paid too much, 2) way too large a part is flexible, performance-related pay, 3) often, a very sizeable chunk of it is paid through stock options.
I used to think - naively - that high top management pay was high simply due to supply and demand: these smart people with lots of business acumen and experience are hard to come by; therefore you have to pay them lots. These grumpy anti-corporates claiming their pay is too high are just envious and naive. Turns out I was (maybe not envious, but certainly naive).
Pay level
Because digging into the rigorous research on the topic - and there is quite a bit of it - I learned that there is really not much of a relationship between firm performance and top management pay. These guys (mostly guys) get paid a lot whether or not their company's performance is any good. Moreover, I learned what sort of factors push up top managers' remuneration - and it ain't supply and demand. It has much more to do with selecting the right company directors (to serve on your remumeration committee) and making sure you are well networked and socialized into the business elite.* Now I have to conclude: top management pay is generally too high, and quite a bit too high.
Flexible pay
Secondly: where does this absurd idea come from that 80+ percent of these guys' remuneration has to be performance related?! "To reward them for good performance and stimulate them to act in the best interest of the company and its shareholders" you might say? To which I would reply "oh, come on!?" If your CEO is the type of guy who needs 90 percent performance-related pay or otherwise he won't act in the best interest of the company, I would say the perfect time to get rid of him is yesterday. You and I do not need 90 percent performance related pay to do our best, do we? So why would it be allowed to hold for top managers? As Henry Mintzberg put it: "Real leaders don't take bonuses".
Moreover, one should only pay performance-related remuneration if you can actually measure the person's performance. And that is - especially for top managers - actually pretty darn hard to do. The strategic decisions one takes this year will often only be felt 5 or 10 years from now, if not longer. Moreover, the performance of the company - which we always take to proxy the CEO's performance - is influenced by a whole bunch of other things; many not under a CEO's control. Hence, short term financial performance figures are a terrible indicator of a top manager's performance in the job and long-term performance contracts all but impossible to specify. If you can't reliably measure performance, don't have performance-related pay, and certainly not 80+ percent of it. We know from ample research that humans start manipulating their performance when you tie their remuneration to some strange metric and, guess what, CEOs are pretty human (at least in that respect); they do too.
Options
Finally: stock options... Once again, I have to say "oh, come on...". We pretty much take for granted that we pay top managers by awarding them options, but don't quite realize any more why. When I ask this question to my students or the executives in my lecture room ("why do we actually pay them in options...?") usually a stunned silence follows after which someone mumbles "because they are cheap to hand out...?". I usually try to remain polite after such an answer but why would they be cheap; cheaper than cash, or shares for that matter? True, it does not cost you anything out of pocket if you give them an option to buy shares for say 100 one year from now, while your present share price is 90, but if the share price by that time is 150 it does cost you 50. Moreover, you could have sold that stock option to someone who would have happily paid you good money for it, so in terms of opportunity costs it is realy money too. No, stock options are not cheaper than cash, shares, or whatever.
We give them options to stimulate them to take more risk. "Risk?! We want them to take more risk?!" thou might think. Yes, that's what you are doing if you give them options. If the share price is 150 at the time the option expires, the CEO can buy the shares at 100 and thus make 50. However, if the share price is 90 the option is worthless, and the CEO does not make anything. However, the trick is that the CEO then does not care whether the share price is 90 or, say, 50 - in either case he does not make any money; worthless is worthless. As a consequence, when his options (i.e. the right to buy shares at 100) are about to expire and the company's share price is still 90, he has a great incentive to quickly take a massive amount of risk. Going to a roulette table would already be a rational to do.
Because if you placed the company's capital on red, and the ball hits red, share price may jump from 90 to 130, and suddenly your options are worth a lot of money (130-100 to be precise). However, if your bet fails, the ball hits black and you lose a ton of money, who cares; the share price may fall from 90 to 50, but your options were worthless anyway. Hence, options give a top manager the upside risk, as we say, but do not give them the downside risk. Therefore, we incentivize them to take risk. You might think "I seldom see herds of CEOs in a casino by the time options expire, so this grumpy Vermeulen guy must be exaggerating" but I'd reply we have seen quite a lot of casino-type strategy in various businesses lately (e.g. banks). More importantly, we know from research that CEOs do take excessive risk due to stock options (see for instance Sanders and Hambrick, 2007; Zhang e.a. 2008). I think it would be naive to think that we give CEOs 90 percent performance related pay and most of it in stock options, and then think that they will not start acting in the way the remuneration system stimulates them to do. Of course it influences their decisions, and if it didn't, there would be no reason left to make their pay flexible and based on options, now would there?
Therefore, I would say, out with the performance-related pay for top managers (a good bottle of wine at Christmas and, if you insist, a small cheque like the rest of us would do). And while we're at it, let's try to reduce the level as well.
* e.g. O�Reilly, Main, and Crystal, 1988; Porac, Wade, and Pollock, 1999; Westphal and Zajac, 1995.
I used to think - naively - that high top management pay was high simply due to supply and demand: these smart people with lots of business acumen and experience are hard to come by; therefore you have to pay them lots. These grumpy anti-corporates claiming their pay is too high are just envious and naive. Turns out I was (maybe not envious, but certainly naive).
Pay level
Because digging into the rigorous research on the topic - and there is quite a bit of it - I learned that there is really not much of a relationship between firm performance and top management pay. These guys (mostly guys) get paid a lot whether or not their company's performance is any good. Moreover, I learned what sort of factors push up top managers' remuneration - and it ain't supply and demand. It has much more to do with selecting the right company directors (to serve on your remumeration committee) and making sure you are well networked and socialized into the business elite.* Now I have to conclude: top management pay is generally too high, and quite a bit too high.
Flexible pay
Secondly: where does this absurd idea come from that 80+ percent of these guys' remuneration has to be performance related?! "To reward them for good performance and stimulate them to act in the best interest of the company and its shareholders" you might say? To which I would reply "oh, come on!?" If your CEO is the type of guy who needs 90 percent performance-related pay or otherwise he won't act in the best interest of the company, I would say the perfect time to get rid of him is yesterday. You and I do not need 90 percent performance related pay to do our best, do we? So why would it be allowed to hold for top managers? As Henry Mintzberg put it: "Real leaders don't take bonuses".
Moreover, one should only pay performance-related remuneration if you can actually measure the person's performance. And that is - especially for top managers - actually pretty darn hard to do. The strategic decisions one takes this year will often only be felt 5 or 10 years from now, if not longer. Moreover, the performance of the company - which we always take to proxy the CEO's performance - is influenced by a whole bunch of other things; many not under a CEO's control. Hence, short term financial performance figures are a terrible indicator of a top manager's performance in the job and long-term performance contracts all but impossible to specify. If you can't reliably measure performance, don't have performance-related pay, and certainly not 80+ percent of it. We know from ample research that humans start manipulating their performance when you tie their remuneration to some strange metric and, guess what, CEOs are pretty human (at least in that respect); they do too.
Options
Finally: stock options... Once again, I have to say "oh, come on...". We pretty much take for granted that we pay top managers by awarding them options, but don't quite realize any more why. When I ask this question to my students or the executives in my lecture room ("why do we actually pay them in options...?") usually a stunned silence follows after which someone mumbles "because they are cheap to hand out...?". I usually try to remain polite after such an answer but why would they be cheap; cheaper than cash, or shares for that matter? True, it does not cost you anything out of pocket if you give them an option to buy shares for say 100 one year from now, while your present share price is 90, but if the share price by that time is 150 it does cost you 50. Moreover, you could have sold that stock option to someone who would have happily paid you good money for it, so in terms of opportunity costs it is realy money too. No, stock options are not cheaper than cash, shares, or whatever.
We give them options to stimulate them to take more risk. "Risk?! We want them to take more risk?!" thou might think. Yes, that's what you are doing if you give them options. If the share price is 150 at the time the option expires, the CEO can buy the shares at 100 and thus make 50. However, if the share price is 90 the option is worthless, and the CEO does not make anything. However, the trick is that the CEO then does not care whether the share price is 90 or, say, 50 - in either case he does not make any money; worthless is worthless. As a consequence, when his options (i.e. the right to buy shares at 100) are about to expire and the company's share price is still 90, he has a great incentive to quickly take a massive amount of risk. Going to a roulette table would already be a rational to do.
Because if you placed the company's capital on red, and the ball hits red, share price may jump from 90 to 130, and suddenly your options are worth a lot of money (130-100 to be precise). However, if your bet fails, the ball hits black and you lose a ton of money, who cares; the share price may fall from 90 to 50, but your options were worthless anyway. Hence, options give a top manager the upside risk, as we say, but do not give them the downside risk. Therefore, we incentivize them to take risk. You might think "I seldom see herds of CEOs in a casino by the time options expire, so this grumpy Vermeulen guy must be exaggerating" but I'd reply we have seen quite a lot of casino-type strategy in various businesses lately (e.g. banks). More importantly, we know from research that CEOs do take excessive risk due to stock options (see for instance Sanders and Hambrick, 2007; Zhang e.a. 2008). I think it would be naive to think that we give CEOs 90 percent performance related pay and most of it in stock options, and then think that they will not start acting in the way the remuneration system stimulates them to do. Of course it influences their decisions, and if it didn't, there would be no reason left to make their pay flexible and based on options, now would there?
Therefore, I would say, out with the performance-related pay for top managers (a good bottle of wine at Christmas and, if you insist, a small cheque like the rest of us would do). And while we're at it, let's try to reduce the level as well.
* e.g. O�Reilly, Main, and Crystal, 1988; Porac, Wade, and Pollock, 1999; Westphal and Zajac, 1995.
Conservatives: Don't Play into Alinsky's Hands
Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this...
Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
I read with disappointment Andrew Klavan's post over at PJ Media entitled "Why We Should Be Unfair to Herman Cain" in which he explains that it is the right, not the left who must be fair:
And yes, it’s unfair. But there’s a reason it’s unfair—a reason it should be unfair. There’s a reason we right wingers vet our candidates while the left adulates theirs, a reason we condemn our miscreants while the left elevates theirs, a reason our news outlets cover stories that the left covers up.
The reason is: we’re the good guys. We have to do what’s right. The left doesn’t. Sorry, but that’s the way it works. It’s the price you pay for defending what’s true and good, the price of holding yourself to a high moral standard. Our politicians have to be better than their politicians. Our journalists have to be more honest. Even our protesters have to behave with decorum and decency—and still suffer being slandered—while theirs can act like animals and commit acts of violence and lawlessness and spew anti-semitic filth and still find themselves excused and glorified...
Herman Cain is going to have to run the gauntlet, not just of a racist and dishonest left that wants to destroy him but of a fair-minded and decency-loving right that wants him to come fully clean and let the voters decide how we should proceed. The fight for truth, liberty and morality requires sacrifice and self-examination. The self-righteous quest for power over others does not.
The world is just as unfair as you think it is. You’ll never catch the devil hanging on a cross.
Bullshit. What Klavan is advocating is political suicide. He might as well have taken his playbook from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals where Alinsky's fourth rule is "Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this..."
Mr. Klavan, telling the right that they have to live up to some impossible standard while excusing the left is laughable. All it will get you is defeated. Do you remember the Fresh Prince of Bel Air episode where Will Smith's Uncle Phil was running for political office? His opponent, the guy who played George Jefferson in The Jeffersons bad-mouthed Uncle Phil all over the media. The family told Uncle Phil that he needed to fight back but Uncle Phil stated that he was "not going to sink to that level." He lost the election by a landslide. He did eventually get appointed to the office when his opponent died by the governor but that's not the point.
The point is, we must not let the left use our morality to hold us hostage. You may never catch the devil hanging on the cross, but your double standard will leave the right hanging in defeat, just like Uncle Phil, but without the safety net of his opponent dying. Life isn't a nostalgic TV show or fiction book. The good guy doesn't always win just because you want him to. And though you can feel noble about being the honorable one, honor is no substitute for the loss of freedom, increased government regulation, and economic woes that our country will suffer if the left wins on election day.
Can entrepreneurship be taught?
�Entrepreneurship can only be self-taught. There are many ways to do it right and even more wrong, but it cannot be processed, bottled, packaged, and delivered from a lectern�, one of my readers � Michael Marotta � commented on an earlier post.
I am not sure I agree with the suggestion of that statement, namely that "entrepreneurship can only be self-taught". Of course we hear it more often - "you cannot teach entrepreneurship" - but I have yet to see any evidence of it. Granted, this is a weak statement, since the evidence that business education helps with anything is rather scarce (although there is some)!
However, the fact that the majority of entrepreneurs did not have formal business education does not tell me anything. Suppose out of 1000 attempted entrepreneurs indeed only 100 had formal business education. It might still be very possible that out of the 100, 50 of them became successful, where out of the 900 others only 300 became successful. This means that out of the 350 successful entrepreneurs, a mere 50 had formal business education. However, 50% of business educated entrepreneurs became successful, while only 1/3 of entrepreneurs without business education did.
My feeling about the potentially influence of business education on the odds of becoming a successful entrepreneur are quite the opposite of Marotta�s. I see quite a few attempted entrepreneurs with good business ideas and energy, however, they make some basic mistakes when attempting to build it into a business. The sheer logic of how to set up a viable business - once you have had a good idea - is something that is open to being "processed, bottled, packaged, and delivered from a lectern" (although that is hardly what we do in B-school).
Having a great idea and ample vision and energy perhaps is a necessary condition for becoming a successful entrepreneur, but it is not sufficient; this requires many other skills, and for some of them, education helps. Out of the 10 different skills needed to become a successful entrepreneur, perhaps only 5 can be taught or enhanced through business education, but those 5 will clearly improve your odds of making it.
Perhaps the majority of successful entrepreneurs do not have formal business education, but I have yet to meet a successful enterpreneur who did go to business school who proclaims his/her education was not a great help in becoming a success. Invariably, those people claim their education helped them a lot. In fact, many of such business school alumni donate generously to their alma mater. For example, one of London Business School's successful alumni entrepreneurs, Tony Wheeler (founder of Lonely Planet travel guides) regularly donates very substantial amounts of money to the School, because he believes his education there helped him greatly in making his business a success, and he wants others to have the same experience and opportunity.
In the absence of any formal evidence on whether business school education helps or hinders becoming a successful entrepreneur, I am inclined to rely on their judgement: business school education helps, if you want to become a successful entrepreneur.
I am not sure I agree with the suggestion of that statement, namely that "entrepreneurship can only be self-taught". Of course we hear it more often - "you cannot teach entrepreneurship" - but I have yet to see any evidence of it. Granted, this is a weak statement, since the evidence that business education helps with anything is rather scarce (although there is some)!
However, the fact that the majority of entrepreneurs did not have formal business education does not tell me anything. Suppose out of 1000 attempted entrepreneurs indeed only 100 had formal business education. It might still be very possible that out of the 100, 50 of them became successful, where out of the 900 others only 300 became successful. This means that out of the 350 successful entrepreneurs, a mere 50 had formal business education. However, 50% of business educated entrepreneurs became successful, while only 1/3 of entrepreneurs without business education did.
My feeling about the potentially influence of business education on the odds of becoming a successful entrepreneur are quite the opposite of Marotta�s. I see quite a few attempted entrepreneurs with good business ideas and energy, however, they make some basic mistakes when attempting to build it into a business. The sheer logic of how to set up a viable business - once you have had a good idea - is something that is open to being "processed, bottled, packaged, and delivered from a lectern" (although that is hardly what we do in B-school).
Having a great idea and ample vision and energy perhaps is a necessary condition for becoming a successful entrepreneur, but it is not sufficient; this requires many other skills, and for some of them, education helps. Out of the 10 different skills needed to become a successful entrepreneur, perhaps only 5 can be taught or enhanced through business education, but those 5 will clearly improve your odds of making it.
Perhaps the majority of successful entrepreneurs do not have formal business education, but I have yet to meet a successful enterpreneur who did go to business school who proclaims his/her education was not a great help in becoming a success. Invariably, those people claim their education helped them a lot. In fact, many of such business school alumni donate generously to their alma mater. For example, one of London Business School's successful alumni entrepreneurs, Tony Wheeler (founder of Lonely Planet travel guides) regularly donates very substantial amounts of money to the School, because he believes his education there helped him greatly in making his business a success, and he wants others to have the same experience and opportunity.
In the absence of any formal evidence on whether business school education helps or hinders becoming a successful entrepreneur, I am inclined to rely on their judgement: business school education helps, if you want to become a successful entrepreneur.
Most people have about 2 people they consider friends.
A new study shows that most people have only two good friends:
The study asked what the friends did for people such as provide companionship, loan money, give you a place to crash etc. and those with one friend said that their friend would not provide such things. I wonder if people just say that they have friends when what they really have are acquaintances? And what if your spouse is your friend? Does that not count?
Maybe more of us need to read books like How To Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie if we want friends or Living Alone and Loving It: A Guide to Relishing the Solo Life if we don't.
Do you think it's important to have friends?
About 48 percent of participants listed one name, 18 percent listed two, and roughly 29 percent listed more than two names for these close friends. On average, participants had 2.03 confidantes. And just over 4 percent of participants didn't list any names.
The study asked what the friends did for people such as provide companionship, loan money, give you a place to crash etc. and those with one friend said that their friend would not provide such things. I wonder if people just say that they have friends when what they really have are acquaintances? And what if your spouse is your friend? Does that not count?
Maybe more of us need to read books like How To Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie if we want friends or Living Alone and Loving It: A Guide to Relishing the Solo Life if we don't.
Do you think it's important to have friends?
Hottest Holiday Toys for 2011
Now that Halloween is past, there is more talk of Christmas and holiday gifts as retailers, I am sure, are desperate this year to increase their profits.
I am already looking for holiday gifts and took at look at CNBC's list of "Hot Holiday toys" to get some ideas. The list looked pretty much like updated versions of old toys such as the Sesame Street Let's Rock Elmo that interacts with kids 18 months to 3 years old and recognizes which instrument they give him. Nerf is putting out a new line of four guns that shoot greater distances for kids 8-10 or so. The Nerf Vortex Praxis is said to be the least expensive of the bunch and seems kind of fun. Finally, there is the top toy of the CNBC list called My Keepon - Interactive Robot that is supposed to be exclusive to Toys ‘R Us but it seems to be on Amazon, at least when I looked and there were a few left. A couple of the comments at Amazon did not make this toy sound too good, however.
Anyway, the holiday season is always fun for kids and for adults who like toys. What were your favorites as a kid or now?
I am already looking for holiday gifts and took at look at CNBC's list of "Hot Holiday toys" to get some ideas. The list looked pretty much like updated versions of old toys such as the Sesame Street Let's Rock Elmo that interacts with kids 18 months to 3 years old and recognizes which instrument they give him. Nerf is putting out a new line of four guns that shoot greater distances for kids 8-10 or so. The Nerf Vortex Praxis is said to be the least expensive of the bunch and seems kind of fun. Finally, there is the top toy of the CNBC list called My Keepon - Interactive Robot that is supposed to be exclusive to Toys ‘R Us but it seems to be on Amazon, at least when I looked and there were a few left. A couple of the comments at Amazon did not make this toy sound too good, however.
Anyway, the holiday season is always fun for kids and for adults who like toys. What were your favorites as a kid or now?
Steve Jobs� deification serves a very basic and fundamental human need
�I am not that surprised that an academic of entrepreneurship (are you kidding me?) would lead a story about one of the world's best innovators and CEO's about that he actually and in fact ! OMG had body odour as a teenager because of his diet, not to mention the rest of your embarrassing piece. Forbes would be best sticking with writers that are inspired by such great entrepreneurs as Steve Jobs, and not with writers such as this, who are unhappy they have not had the courage to 'live the life they love and not settle' and so sit in front of their computer with not much else to do but trying to bring others down. Shame on you Mr Vermeulen�.
This is just one of the comments I received on my earlier piece �Steve Jobs � the man was fallible� (also published on my Forbes blog). Of course, this was not unanticipated; having the audacity to suggest that, in fact, the great man did not possess the ability to walk on water was the closest thing to business blasphemy. And indeed a written stoning duly followed.
But why is suggesting that a human being like Steve Jobs was in fact fallible � who, in the same piece, I also called �a management phenomenon�, �fantastically able�, �a legend�, and �a great leader� � by some considered to be such an act of blasphemy? All I did was claim that he was �fallible�, �not omnipotent�, and �not always right�, which as far as I can see comes with the definition of being human?
And I guess that�s exactly it; in life and certainly in death Steve Jobs transcended the status of being human and reached the status of deity. A journalist of the Guardian compared the reaction (especially in the US) to the death of Steve Jobs with the reaction in England to the death of Princess Diana; a collective outpour of almost aggressive emotion by people who only ever saw the person they are grieving about briefly on television or at best in a distance. Suggesting Princess Diana was fallible was not a healthy idea immediately following her death (and still isn�t); nor was suggesting Steve Jobs was human.
We are inclined to deify successful people in the public eye, and in our time that certainly includes CEOs. In the past, in various cultures, it may have been ancient warriors, Olympians, or saints. They became mythical and transcended humanity, quite literally reaching God-like status.
Historians and geneticists argue that this inclination for deification is actually deeply embedded in the human psyche, and we have evolved to be prone to worship. There is increasing consensus that man came to dominate the earth � and for instance drive out Neanderthalers, who were in fact stronger, likely more intelligent, and had more sophisticated tools � because of our superior ability to organize into larger social systems. And a crucial role in this, fostering social cohesion, was religion, which centers on myths and deities. This inclination for worship very likely became embedded into our genetic system, and it is yearning to come out and be satisfied, and great people such as Jack Welch, Steve Jobs, and Lady Di serve to fulfill this need.
But that of course does not mean that they were infallible and could in fact walk on water. We just don�t want to hear it. Great CEOs realize that their near deification is a gross exaggeration, and sometimes even get annoyed by its suggestion � Amex�s Ken Chenault told me that he did not like it at all, and I have seen that same reaction in Southwest�s Herb Kelleher. Slightly less-great CEOs do start to believe their own status, and people like Enron�s Jeff Skilling or Ahold�s Cees van der Hoeven come to mind; not coincidentally they are often associated with spectacular business downfalls. I have never spoken to Steve Jobs, but I am guessing he might not have disagreed with the qualifications �not omnipotent�, �not always right� and, most of all, �human�.
This is just one of the comments I received on my earlier piece �Steve Jobs � the man was fallible� (also published on my Forbes blog). Of course, this was not unanticipated; having the audacity to suggest that, in fact, the great man did not possess the ability to walk on water was the closest thing to business blasphemy. And indeed a written stoning duly followed.
But why is suggesting that a human being like Steve Jobs was in fact fallible � who, in the same piece, I also called �a management phenomenon�, �fantastically able�, �a legend�, and �a great leader� � by some considered to be such an act of blasphemy? All I did was claim that he was �fallible�, �not omnipotent�, and �not always right�, which as far as I can see comes with the definition of being human?
And I guess that�s exactly it; in life and certainly in death Steve Jobs transcended the status of being human and reached the status of deity. A journalist of the Guardian compared the reaction (especially in the US) to the death of Steve Jobs with the reaction in England to the death of Princess Diana; a collective outpour of almost aggressive emotion by people who only ever saw the person they are grieving about briefly on television or at best in a distance. Suggesting Princess Diana was fallible was not a healthy idea immediately following her death (and still isn�t); nor was suggesting Steve Jobs was human.
We are inclined to deify successful people in the public eye, and in our time that certainly includes CEOs. In the past, in various cultures, it may have been ancient warriors, Olympians, or saints. They became mythical and transcended humanity, quite literally reaching God-like status.
Historians and geneticists argue that this inclination for deification is actually deeply embedded in the human psyche, and we have evolved to be prone to worship. There is increasing consensus that man came to dominate the earth � and for instance drive out Neanderthalers, who were in fact stronger, likely more intelligent, and had more sophisticated tools � because of our superior ability to organize into larger social systems. And a crucial role in this, fostering social cohesion, was religion, which centers on myths and deities. This inclination for worship very likely became embedded into our genetic system, and it is yearning to come out and be satisfied, and great people such as Jack Welch, Steve Jobs, and Lady Di serve to fulfill this need.
But that of course does not mean that they were infallible and could in fact walk on water. We just don�t want to hear it. Great CEOs realize that their near deification is a gross exaggeration, and sometimes even get annoyed by its suggestion � Amex�s Ken Chenault told me that he did not like it at all, and I have seen that same reaction in Southwest�s Herb Kelleher. Slightly less-great CEOs do start to believe their own status, and people like Enron�s Jeff Skilling or Ahold�s Cees van der Hoeven come to mind; not coincidentally they are often associated with spectacular business downfalls. I have never spoken to Steve Jobs, but I am guessing he might not have disagreed with the qualifications �not omnipotent�, �not always right� and, most of all, �human�.
Frank J, author of the upcoming e-book, Obama: The Greatest President in the History of Everything, has an amusing piece in the NY Post entitled "Why we must lose the darn 1 percent." Many readers here will know Frank J and realize it (unlike the first NY Post commenter) but yes, the piece is satire.
Steve Jobs � the man was fallible
As a student, at Reed College, Steve Jobs came to believe that if he ate only fruits he would eliminate all mucus and not need to shower anymore. It didn�t work. He didn�t smell good. When he got a job at Atari, given his odor, he was swiftly moved into the night shift, where he would be less disruptive to the nostrils of his fellow colleagues.
The job at Atari exposed him to the earliest generation of video games. It also exposed him to the world business and what it meant build up and run a company. Some years later, with Steve Wozniak, he founded Apple in Silicon Valley (of course in a garage) and quite quickly, although just in his late twenties, grew to be a management phenomenon, featuring in the legendary business book by Tom Peters and Bob Waterman �In Search of Excellence�.
But, in fact, shortly after the book became a bestseller, by the mid 1980s, Apple was in trouble. Although their computers were far ahead of their time in terms of usability � mostly thanks to the Graphical User Interface (based on an idea he had cunningly copied from Xerox) � they were just bloody expensive. Too expensive for most people. For example, the so-called Lisa retailed for no less than $10,000 (and that is 1982 dollars!). John Sculley � CEO � recalled �We were so insular, that we could not manufacture a product to sell for under $3,000.� Steve Jobs was fantastically able to assemble and motivate a team op people that managed to invent a truly revolutionary product, but he also was unable to turn it into profit.
When Jobs was fired from Apple � in 1985 � CEO John Sculley took control. Sculley is often described as a bit of a failure, because �nothing revolutionary came out of Apple under his watch�, �he could have done so much more with the company� and especially for �being stupid enough to boot out a genius like Steve Jobs�. However, the years after Sculley took over were some of Apple�s most profitable. The man did something right, and that was focus on exploiting the competitive advantage that Apple had built up.
In management research, following terminology cornered by the legendary Stanford professor Jim March, we often say that firms have to balance exploration with exploitation. Exploration refers to developing new sources of competitive advantage and growth. Exploitation refers to making money out of them. Steve Jobs was �insanely great� at exploration, but not � at the time � at exploitation. Sculley was.
Now Steve Jobs is a legend. And rightly so; our world literally would have looked different without him. However, what Steve Jobs� legendary status also tells me is that we � mere mortals � are inclined to overestimate the omnipotence of CEOs. We overdo it when we ascribe the failure of an entire company to just one man or woman (e.g. Enron�s Jeff Skilling) but also when we ascribe the entire success of a company to one individual.
Steve Jobs wasn�t omnipotent (John Sculley had qualities Jobs didn�t) and he wasn�t always right (eating only fruits does not eliminate the need for an occasional shower). His day-to-day influence on Apple over the last years must have been limited, given his rapidly and severely deteriorating health. If anything, he simply would not have been able to be around enough to control and take care of everything. Nevertheless, the company did well in spite of his absence. And of course that is his laudable achievement too; he managed to build a company that could do well without him. And perhaps that may prove to be his best business lesson after all: how a great leader eventually makes himself superfluous.
The job at Atari exposed him to the earliest generation of video games. It also exposed him to the world business and what it meant build up and run a company. Some years later, with Steve Wozniak, he founded Apple in Silicon Valley (of course in a garage) and quite quickly, although just in his late twenties, grew to be a management phenomenon, featuring in the legendary business book by Tom Peters and Bob Waterman �In Search of Excellence�.
But, in fact, shortly after the book became a bestseller, by the mid 1980s, Apple was in trouble. Although their computers were far ahead of their time in terms of usability � mostly thanks to the Graphical User Interface (based on an idea he had cunningly copied from Xerox) � they were just bloody expensive. Too expensive for most people. For example, the so-called Lisa retailed for no less than $10,000 (and that is 1982 dollars!). John Sculley � CEO � recalled �We were so insular, that we could not manufacture a product to sell for under $3,000.� Steve Jobs was fantastically able to assemble and motivate a team op people that managed to invent a truly revolutionary product, but he also was unable to turn it into profit.
When Jobs was fired from Apple � in 1985 � CEO John Sculley took control. Sculley is often described as a bit of a failure, because �nothing revolutionary came out of Apple under his watch�, �he could have done so much more with the company� and especially for �being stupid enough to boot out a genius like Steve Jobs�. However, the years after Sculley took over were some of Apple�s most profitable. The man did something right, and that was focus on exploiting the competitive advantage that Apple had built up.
In management research, following terminology cornered by the legendary Stanford professor Jim March, we often say that firms have to balance exploration with exploitation. Exploration refers to developing new sources of competitive advantage and growth. Exploitation refers to making money out of them. Steve Jobs was �insanely great� at exploration, but not � at the time � at exploitation. Sculley was.
Now Steve Jobs is a legend. And rightly so; our world literally would have looked different without him. However, what Steve Jobs� legendary status also tells me is that we � mere mortals � are inclined to overestimate the omnipotence of CEOs. We overdo it when we ascribe the failure of an entire company to just one man or woman (e.g. Enron�s Jeff Skilling) but also when we ascribe the entire success of a company to one individual.
Steve Jobs wasn�t omnipotent (John Sculley had qualities Jobs didn�t) and he wasn�t always right (eating only fruits does not eliminate the need for an occasional shower). His day-to-day influence on Apple over the last years must have been limited, given his rapidly and severely deteriorating health. If anything, he simply would not have been able to be around enough to control and take care of everything. Nevertheless, the company did well in spite of his absence. And of course that is his laudable achievement too; he managed to build a company that could do well without him. And perhaps that may prove to be his best business lesson after all: how a great leader eventually makes himself superfluous.

Are Men Lonely at the Top?
I am reading a new book called Lonely at the Top: The High Cost of Men's Success written by psychologist Thomas Joiner. Initially I thought that this was just another book undermining men's success by proclaiming that if men are successful at work, they can be setting themselves up for loneliness and suicide by middle-age or beyond. This negative interpretation of men's success seems to pop up in the media and culture from time to time to punish men for not being "more like women."
That said, while I felt that Joiner's book subtlety promoted the message that if you are male and "on top," you would suffer for it, he also had some good ideas about how men could improve their mental health and did seem to have some empathy for his fellow man. He gives an example of his clinical treatment with a man who was depressed every November and couldn't figure out why. It turns out that 14 years ago, in November, his wife had left him after giving birth to their son. The man had been confused, never grieved her loss and instead, sunk into a depression. Once he understood what had happened and worked through the loss, the depression lifted.
Joiner makes a good point about men not seeking treatment often enough, though given the anti-male climate of the mental health crowd, who can blame them? However, instead of saying "get to a therapist if male and depressed," he gives simple and effective solutions that can lessen depression in men. These include phoning someone everyday or having even a short polite conversation, getting back to nature and getting good quality sleep which he says, is often difficult for men.
The book has some decent advice for men or their loved ones who want to decrease the depression in their lives. Just watch out for the PC chapters by the author such as the one entitled, "Causes, Don't Tread on Me--the Perils of Independence."
Good grief, without this independence, nothing would get done. The author does acknowledge that independence is important, along with connection, but sometimes connection is another word for submission. I get the feeling that this author is not keen on political autonomy if the reader is male and right-leaning.
Anyway, any thoughts from readers out there on loneliness and success for men? Do you think it is lonely at the top or is it just a buzzword for men acting more like women in our society?
That said, while I felt that Joiner's book subtlety promoted the message that if you are male and "on top," you would suffer for it, he also had some good ideas about how men could improve their mental health and did seem to have some empathy for his fellow man. He gives an example of his clinical treatment with a man who was depressed every November and couldn't figure out why. It turns out that 14 years ago, in November, his wife had left him after giving birth to their son. The man had been confused, never grieved her loss and instead, sunk into a depression. Once he understood what had happened and worked through the loss, the depression lifted.
Joiner makes a good point about men not seeking treatment often enough, though given the anti-male climate of the mental health crowd, who can blame them? However, instead of saying "get to a therapist if male and depressed," he gives simple and effective solutions that can lessen depression in men. These include phoning someone everyday or having even a short polite conversation, getting back to nature and getting good quality sleep which he says, is often difficult for men.
The book has some decent advice for men or their loved ones who want to decrease the depression in their lives. Just watch out for the PC chapters by the author such as the one entitled, "Causes, Don't Tread on Me--the Perils of Independence."
Good grief, without this independence, nothing would get done. The author does acknowledge that independence is important, along with connection, but sometimes connection is another word for submission. I get the feeling that this author is not keen on political autonomy if the reader is male and right-leaning.
Anyway, any thoughts from readers out there on loneliness and success for men? Do you think it is lonely at the top or is it just a buzzword for men acting more like women in our society?
Michelle Tillis Lederman, author of The 11 Laws of Likability: Relationship Networking . . . Because People Do Business with People They Like,
discusses why it's important to expand your network outside your group at CNBC.com.
How to Break Bad Habits
I'm reading a helpful little book by Darren Hardy called The Compound Effect
with the subtitle: "Jumpstart your income, your life, your success." What I like most about this book is that it addresses bad habits and how to overcome them using a variety of methods that seem to make sense.
I have a couple of bad habits at the moment: too much caffeine and too much time on devices that are giving me text neck. The Compound Effect, according to the book, is the principle of reaping huge rewards from a series of small, smart choices. The author has you write down every time you engage in one of your bad habits and very slowly, work towards changing them.
For example, today, I stayed off my electronic devices for most of the morning but obviously not all morning as here I am blogging about my bad habit of using the computer etc. Anyway, I am also going to try substituting my afternoon caffeine fix (which sadly, is very little, but I am supposed to have none as I have heart problems) with some de-caf green tea. Yuck. Anyway, I'll see how this works out. The book does seem to be a good one, and if nothing else, is so cheerful and positive that it is worth the price for that alone.
Do you have any bad habits that you have been able to break through small, smart choices?
I have a couple of bad habits at the moment: too much caffeine and too much time on devices that are giving me text neck. The Compound Effect, according to the book, is the principle of reaping huge rewards from a series of small, smart choices. The author has you write down every time you engage in one of your bad habits and very slowly, work towards changing them.
For example, today, I stayed off my electronic devices for most of the morning but obviously not all morning as here I am blogging about my bad habit of using the computer etc. Anyway, I am also going to try substituting my afternoon caffeine fix (which sadly, is very little, but I am supposed to have none as I have heart problems) with some de-caf green tea. Yuck. Anyway, I'll see how this works out. The book does seem to be a good one, and if nothing else, is so cheerful and positive that it is worth the price for that alone.
Do you have any bad habits that you have been able to break through small, smart choices?
Amazon cutting out publishers
I saw this New York Times article over at CNBC about Amazon publishing books directly with top authors:
I love that guys like Tim Ferris, author of some pretty entertaining books like The 4-Hour Workweek and The 4-Hour Body: An Uncommon Guide to Rapid Fat-Loss, Incredible Sex, and Becoming Superhuman can now bypass mainstream publishers altogether. Soon other lesser known writers will join him, without the need for a publisher. It's about time.
Amazon.com has taught readers that they do not need bookstores. Now it is encouraging writers to cast aside their publishers.....
It has set up a flagship line run by a publishing veteran, Laurence Kirshbaum, to bring out brand-name fiction and nonfiction. It signed its first deal with the self-help author Tim Ferriss. Last week it announced a memoir by the actress and director Penny Marshall, for which it paid $800,000, a person with direct knowledge of the deal said.
Publishers say Amazon is aggressively wooing some of their top authors. And the company is gnawing away at the services that publishers, critics and agents used to provide.
I love that guys like Tim Ferris, author of some pretty entertaining books like The 4-Hour Workweek and The 4-Hour Body: An Uncommon Guide to Rapid Fat-Loss, Incredible Sex, and Becoming Superhuman can now bypass mainstream publishers altogether. Soon other lesser known writers will join him, without the need for a publisher. It's about time.
"If I'd been kept in the dark by a federal task force, I might not have been here to write this."
A reader sent me an article from the Mercury News entitled "Milken: Why block a cancer test that saves lives?"
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), a panel supported by a congressional mandate, now recommends that healthy men not receive prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests, which measure a protein in the blood produced by prostate tissue. I agree that the current PSA test is inexact and, in many cases, leads to overtreatment that can have terrible side effects such as incontinence and impotence. However, research supported by the Prostate Cancer Foundation has led to the development of several new molecular markers that could soon complement or even replace the PSA test. These new tests, now in clinical trials pending approval from the Food and Drug Administration, should greatly improve diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer. In the meantime, the USPSTF recommendation is a disservice to the majority of men. While it would eliminate some short-term health care costs, long-term costs of treating metastatic disease would be higher. And some men will die. A recent European study showed that testing reduced deaths significantly among men ages 55 to 69....
The Prostate Cancer Foundation agrees with the American Urological Association that PSA screening provides important information for men and their doctors. In 1993, I was one of those "healthy" men the task force says should not be tested. I asked for the test. The result was a reading six times the upper limit of normal. If I'd been kept in the dark by a federal task force, I might not have been here to write this.
The Secret of Selling Anything
I am reading Harry Browne's book The Secret of Selling Anything. Actually, it's an old book that he wrote years ago and after his death in 2006, his widow Pamela Wolfe Browne, found two manuscripts and made them available at the Harry Browne website. Harry Browne, if you remember, was the libertarian presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000. I was always a big fan of his, voted for him and read several of his books, including my favorites How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World and Why Government Doesn't Work.
The book on selling is described as "A road map to success for the salesman...who is not aggressive, who is not a smooth 'talker' and who is not an extrovert." Browne uses his libertarian principles in the first chapters of the book to help the reader understand his own nature and that of others. His first law of human nature is "all individuals seek happiness." Browne says that the second law is that happiness is relative, each individual will look for happiness in different ways. Throughout the book, Browne teaches that succeeding at selling means finding out what people want and helping them to get it. A good salesman finds out what will make a person happy enough to part with his or her money. Browne's discussion of libertarian principles and how it applies to selling is worth the read.
The book on selling is described as "A road map to success for the salesman...who is not aggressive, who is not a smooth 'talker' and who is not an extrovert." Browne uses his libertarian principles in the first chapters of the book to help the reader understand his own nature and that of others. His first law of human nature is "all individuals seek happiness." Browne says that the second law is that happiness is relative, each individual will look for happiness in different ways. Throughout the book, Browne teaches that succeeding at selling means finding out what people want and helping them to get it. A good salesman finds out what will make a person happy enough to part with his or her money. Browne's discussion of libertarian principles and how it applies to selling is worth the read.
New Back-Up Blog
Hi all,
I am having trouble yet again with Blogger locking me out of my account due to my password being changed. I have a back-up blog now at drhelenblog.com. I have also put a link to the back-up blog in the sidebar.
I am having trouble yet again with Blogger locking me out of my account due to my password being changed. I have a back-up blog now at drhelenblog.com. I have also put a link to the back-up blog in the sidebar.
"How to Win a Fight" is out today
I wanted to let readers know that Larwence Kane and Kris Wilder’s new book How to Win a Fight: A Guide to Avoiding and Surviving Violence is out today.
"Like reverse sexism, this belittling of men seems to be 100 percent acceptable."
The Anchoress pointed out an interesting article called "Shrews" by Katrina Fernandez:
Without getting into a lengthy dissertation on the Feminist Movement and Women's Liberation, I will jump straight to what we've reaped as a result. In our zeal to be declared equal we've surrendered much that distinctly marks us as feminine. Worse, we continue to perpetuate the most awful of stereotypes—only magnified by 100. The most damning of these is The Shrew.....
Like reverse sexism, this belittling of men seems to be 100 percent acceptable. It's even used as the tie that binds in building female relationships—commiserating over the "miserableness" of the male species. I understand it can be hard to make friends when meeting people for the first time, but making your husband the butt of jokes is not the way to endear yourself to me. It's not just insulting to your husband but to me as well, a single woman who would love to have a spouse to promise to honor and respect. It's like waving a steak in front of a starving person and proclaiming it tastes like garbage and tossing it to the floor.
Can countries benefit from having their domestic firms acquired by foreign companies?
When a foreign company acquires a domestic firm, it often leads to outcries of indignation, nostalgia (�another of our once great companies in foreign hands�), and calls for legislation to prevent any more foreign poaching. Politicians and union leaders proclaim that the foreign owners may not be dedicated to keep up investment in the subsidiary, and that the take-over threatens national jobs and other economic interests. �Most governments are reluctant to see their corporate treasures fall into foreign hands�, the BBC wrote in an article devoted to the topic.
But is all this (slightly xenophobic) fear justified? Well, maybe not; at least not on all dimensions. Because we have increasing evidence that foreign ownership of a firm may actually also benefit firms, specifically in terms of their innovativeness. And this increased innovativeness may clearly benefit the host country.
Professor Annique Un, from Northeastern University in Boston, for example, did a pointy study. She collected data on 761 manufacturing firms operating in Spain, examined which ones were foreign hands and what their innovation output was in terms of new products introduced in the market. And the answer was pretty clear: foreign owned firms were more innovative than purely domestic firms.
Interestingly, Annique also corrected her models for the amount of R&D investments spent in the companies, and it turned out that this was not what was driving it; foreign owned companies were not just more innovative because they were investing more. Instead, they were more innovative irrespective of R&D. As a matter of fact, they were able to generate more product innovations for the same level of investment; meaning that they were simply better at it.
The study�s results suggested that they were better at it for two reasons. First, foreign parents seemed to use their domestic subsidiary to channel innovation into the country. Put differently, it seemed a foreign-owned company could tap into its parent�s superior repository of innovative stuff, and most of them gratefully made ample use of that option. Secondly, the foreign-owned companies were simply also better at coming up with new stuff on their own, in comparison to their domestic counterparts. Apparently, something about them being foreign-owned stimulated them to be more agile and creative, which resulted in more product introductions.
Whatever the reason behind this foreign-driven surge in innovation, the host country was better off for it; the evidence clearly showed that the foreign mercenaries stimulated diversity in the markets, giving customers more choice, while raising the bar for everyone. And this is not a benefit we hear many politicians, newspapers, and union leaders proclaim and acknowledge, when yet another foreign corporation is eyeing up their country�s corporate treasures.
But is all this (slightly xenophobic) fear justified? Well, maybe not; at least not on all dimensions. Because we have increasing evidence that foreign ownership of a firm may actually also benefit firms, specifically in terms of their innovativeness. And this increased innovativeness may clearly benefit the host country.
Professor Annique Un, from Northeastern University in Boston, for example, did a pointy study. She collected data on 761 manufacturing firms operating in Spain, examined which ones were foreign hands and what their innovation output was in terms of new products introduced in the market. And the answer was pretty clear: foreign owned firms were more innovative than purely domestic firms.
Interestingly, Annique also corrected her models for the amount of R&D investments spent in the companies, and it turned out that this was not what was driving it; foreign owned companies were not just more innovative because they were investing more. Instead, they were more innovative irrespective of R&D. As a matter of fact, they were able to generate more product innovations for the same level of investment; meaning that they were simply better at it.
The study�s results suggested that they were better at it for two reasons. First, foreign parents seemed to use their domestic subsidiary to channel innovation into the country. Put differently, it seemed a foreign-owned company could tap into its parent�s superior repository of innovative stuff, and most of them gratefully made ample use of that option. Secondly, the foreign-owned companies were simply also better at coming up with new stuff on their own, in comparison to their domestic counterparts. Apparently, something about them being foreign-owned stimulated them to be more agile and creative, which resulted in more product introductions.
Whatever the reason behind this foreign-driven surge in innovation, the host country was better off for it; the evidence clearly showed that the foreign mercenaries stimulated diversity in the markets, giving customers more choice, while raising the bar for everyone. And this is not a benefit we hear many politicians, newspapers, and union leaders proclaim and acknowledge, when yet another foreign corporation is eyeing up their country�s corporate treasures.
Andrew Klavan has an interesting post up on the book Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength.
Is Television Portraying Men in a Better Light?
I wondered about this as I watched the new show last night "Person of Interest." The show is about a different person each week who is either the victim or perpetrator of a violent crime and of course, the "good guys" who put a stop to it before it happens.
In the season premiere, the "person of interest" is a woman, Diane Hanson, an assistant DA for the city. Naturally, it is thought that she is going to be the victim of the crime, perhaps targeted by a gang she is prosecuting or her ex-boyfriend who works in the same office. It turns out, Hanson, the pretty DA, is actually the ring leader of a group of bad cops who she tells to kill her ex who seems to be on to them. So score one for the ex who is actually the good guy here.
I have also noticed in a few commercials lately that it is the wives, not the husbands who are put in a worse light. In one phone commercial, a man tells his wife that he got a contract for a cell phone and she mutters about how wasteful he is with money and how he doesn't consult her when spending money. It turns out, he got the phone for free and and she looks shocked and shuts up.
In another State Farm commercial, a guy is talking to his agent in the middle of the night innocently while his wife comes downstairs, yelling at him for talking to what she thinks is a woman he is involved with. The male agent is shown at the end of the commercial in his cubicle while the husband just looks slightly exasperated with his jealous wife. These commercials aren't the best but I wonder if it shows that the tide is turning with the "men are idiots and cheaters" theme.
What do you think? Do you see examples where men are portrayed on television in a more positive light or have I just cherry-picked a few examples that are not part of a trend?
In the season premiere, the "person of interest" is a woman, Diane Hanson, an assistant DA for the city. Naturally, it is thought that she is going to be the victim of the crime, perhaps targeted by a gang she is prosecuting or her ex-boyfriend who works in the same office. It turns out, Hanson, the pretty DA, is actually the ring leader of a group of bad cops who she tells to kill her ex who seems to be on to them. So score one for the ex who is actually the good guy here.
I have also noticed in a few commercials lately that it is the wives, not the husbands who are put in a worse light. In one phone commercial, a man tells his wife that he got a contract for a cell phone and she mutters about how wasteful he is with money and how he doesn't consult her when spending money. It turns out, he got the phone for free and and she looks shocked and shuts up.
In another State Farm commercial, a guy is talking to his agent in the middle of the night innocently while his wife comes downstairs, yelling at him for talking to what she thinks is a woman he is involved with. The male agent is shown at the end of the commercial in his cubicle while the husband just looks slightly exasperated with his jealous wife. These commercials aren't the best but I wonder if it shows that the tide is turning with the "men are idiots and cheaters" theme.
What do you think? Do you see examples where men are portrayed on television in a more positive light or have I just cherry-picked a few examples that are not part of a trend?
How to Win a Fight or Dodge a Lawsuit?
Which is more important? I thought about this question as I read through a new book on fighting called How to Win a Fight: A Guide to Avoiding and Surviving Violence written by Lawrence Kane and Kris Wilder. I was excited to see my copy show up in the mail and I started reading to see if I could gain some insight into how to increase one's self-defense moves.
I had previously interviewed Lawrence Kane, the author of The Little Black Book of Violence: What Every Young Man Needs to Know About Fighting for a PJTV show and one of the things that struck me about Kane and the other authors in this self-defense genre is how much focus is placed on avoiding a lawsuit or jail. Yes, those are good goals to have, but better ones are avoiding losing your life or your limbs.
The book starts out with a warning that self-defense is legal but fighting is illegal. "Readers are encouraged to be aware of all appropriate local and national laws relating to self-defense, reasonable force, and the use of weaponry, and act in accordance with all applicable laws at all times." Next, a foreword by Sergent Rory Miller emphasizes how bad you will feel if you killed someone in self-defense. He goes on to let you know that "Maybe the relatives of the guy who attacked you, though they have been afraid of him for years, come out of the woodwork and get a small army of attorneys and start remembering how he was 'a good boy, very caring'...." These family members and their attorneys will be looking to take your money from you. Or, you could end up in jail for defending yourself.
Then, in a chapter called "Use Only as Much Force as the Situation Warrants", Kane and Wilder ask the question, "Is it really better to be judged by twelve than carried by six?" Their response? "We do not advocate that sentiment because we feel that it trivializes the seriousness of violent confrontations. Never forget that if you are found guilty in a jury trial, you will be spending a whole lot of time in a confined environment... Even if you don't go to prison, you could lose your job, suffer the consequences in you family and community, etc." To the authors' credit, they do point out that "under no circumstances should you let your fear of legal consequences keep you from living through a violent encounter... If you don't survive, everything else is meaningless." Good advice.
As far as the rest of the book goes, absolutely read it if you are interested in learning the tactics of self-defense. It is terrific in that area. The chapters on awareness, the seven mistakes to avoid in a fight and how to use your words as a weapon are invaluable.
My problem is that the real readers of this book are likely to be highly civilized middle-class people who are likely to hesitate too long to defend themselves, not too quick to throw a punch. Yes, I wish the criminals who need this book would read it but they won't. If they thought that far ahead, they wouldn't be criminals. The average American is probably not aggressive enough in self-defense, rather than too aggressive. If you don't believe me, remember that most people passively hide under a desk during mass school shootings which often leads to the person being shot or killed. J.Reid Meloy, author of Violence Risk and Threat Assessment, points out that those who are aggressive or who have the opportunity to run away are more likely to live through an attack like this.
Having a flexible strategy that will help you survive when approached with violence is imperative, this book will help you be prepared to find one that just might work.
I had previously interviewed Lawrence Kane, the author of The Little Black Book of Violence: What Every Young Man Needs to Know About Fighting for a PJTV show and one of the things that struck me about Kane and the other authors in this self-defense genre is how much focus is placed on avoiding a lawsuit or jail. Yes, those are good goals to have, but better ones are avoiding losing your life or your limbs.
The book starts out with a warning that self-defense is legal but fighting is illegal. "Readers are encouraged to be aware of all appropriate local and national laws relating to self-defense, reasonable force, and the use of weaponry, and act in accordance with all applicable laws at all times." Next, a foreword by Sergent Rory Miller emphasizes how bad you will feel if you killed someone in self-defense. He goes on to let you know that "Maybe the relatives of the guy who attacked you, though they have been afraid of him for years, come out of the woodwork and get a small army of attorneys and start remembering how he was 'a good boy, very caring'...." These family members and their attorneys will be looking to take your money from you. Or, you could end up in jail for defending yourself.
Then, in a chapter called "Use Only as Much Force as the Situation Warrants", Kane and Wilder ask the question, "Is it really better to be judged by twelve than carried by six?" Their response? "We do not advocate that sentiment because we feel that it trivializes the seriousness of violent confrontations. Never forget that if you are found guilty in a jury trial, you will be spending a whole lot of time in a confined environment... Even if you don't go to prison, you could lose your job, suffer the consequences in you family and community, etc." To the authors' credit, they do point out that "under no circumstances should you let your fear of legal consequences keep you from living through a violent encounter... If you don't survive, everything else is meaningless." Good advice.
As far as the rest of the book goes, absolutely read it if you are interested in learning the tactics of self-defense. It is terrific in that area. The chapters on awareness, the seven mistakes to avoid in a fight and how to use your words as a weapon are invaluable.
My problem is that the real readers of this book are likely to be highly civilized middle-class people who are likely to hesitate too long to defend themselves, not too quick to throw a punch. Yes, I wish the criminals who need this book would read it but they won't. If they thought that far ahead, they wouldn't be criminals. The average American is probably not aggressive enough in self-defense, rather than too aggressive. If you don't believe me, remember that most people passively hide under a desk during mass school shootings which often leads to the person being shot or killed. J.Reid Meloy, author of Violence Risk and Threat Assessment, points out that those who are aggressive or who have the opportunity to run away are more likely to live through an attack like this.
Having a flexible strategy that will help you survive when approached with violence is imperative, this book will help you be prepared to find one that just might work.
Don�t be mistaken, bankers kill (but they give life too)
"In terms of power and influence, you can forget the church, forget politics. There is no more powerful institution in society than business� the equally famous as illustrious CEO and founder of the BodyShop � the late Dame Anita Roddick � said. And of course she was right. The most comprehensive and dominant institution in today�s society is business.
Business is more influential than people often realize, simply because it creates � or destroys � wealth. And wealth impacts pretty much anything we care about. Whether you analyze crime rates in a particular country, malnutrition, happiness, or infant mortality; a huge influence is how wealthy the particular society is. And wealth is created by business.
As a consequence, for example, the 2008 banking crisis undoubtedly killed people. Infant mortality is closely related to wealth and consequently an economic crisis will among others lead to a surge in infant mortality, somewhere, in some country down the road. It also means that the strategic business choices made by CEOs such as Lehman�s Richard Fuld or RBS�s Fred Goodwin indirectly but significantly influence the survival chances of some baby boy or girl born on the outskirts of London, Cairo, or Detroit. And therefore, whether you like it or not, bankers kill.
But let�s not forget that they give life too. The inverse of �bankers kill� is true too. If banks make wise choices, given their pivotal role in our economies, they can trigger a huge boost to the prosperity of many industries. And the profits, employment, and general wealth created through this boost will really improve the health and survival chances of the baby cradled by her mother somewhere on the outskirts of London, Cairo, or Detroit.
Given the research we have on the link between economic prosperity and infant mortality it would not even be too onerous to come up with some estimate of the direct relationship between Royal Bank of Scotland�s balance sheet and the probability of a baby surviving. We could relatively easily calculate the link between profit and the number of lives saved. I could even imagine that the computer terminals that give live updates of a company�s fluctuating share price � which many corporations have dotted across their entrance halls and offices for everyone to see � would be reprogrammed to display the number of children�s lives saved. Traders walking over to their lunch break could have an immediate update of how many baby lives the deal they just closed saved � or destroyed.
A ridiculous thought? Why? Don�t you care (even) more about the life or death of a baby than your company�s fluctuating share price? I am guessing you do. And you know these bankers aren�t so different from (other) human beings. Your company�s performance also creates wealth, and wealth saves lives. Why then only monitor its financial performance? I tell you, the sandwich you�re having for lunch will taste a whole lot better, knowing that this morning you just saved some unknown baby�s life, somewhere on the outskirts of London, Cairo, or Detroit.
Business is more influential than people often realize, simply because it creates � or destroys � wealth. And wealth impacts pretty much anything we care about. Whether you analyze crime rates in a particular country, malnutrition, happiness, or infant mortality; a huge influence is how wealthy the particular society is. And wealth is created by business.
As a consequence, for example, the 2008 banking crisis undoubtedly killed people. Infant mortality is closely related to wealth and consequently an economic crisis will among others lead to a surge in infant mortality, somewhere, in some country down the road. It also means that the strategic business choices made by CEOs such as Lehman�s Richard Fuld or RBS�s Fred Goodwin indirectly but significantly influence the survival chances of some baby boy or girl born on the outskirts of London, Cairo, or Detroit. And therefore, whether you like it or not, bankers kill.
But let�s not forget that they give life too. The inverse of �bankers kill� is true too. If banks make wise choices, given their pivotal role in our economies, they can trigger a huge boost to the prosperity of many industries. And the profits, employment, and general wealth created through this boost will really improve the health and survival chances of the baby cradled by her mother somewhere on the outskirts of London, Cairo, or Detroit.
Given the research we have on the link between economic prosperity and infant mortality it would not even be too onerous to come up with some estimate of the direct relationship between Royal Bank of Scotland�s balance sheet and the probability of a baby surviving. We could relatively easily calculate the link between profit and the number of lives saved. I could even imagine that the computer terminals that give live updates of a company�s fluctuating share price � which many corporations have dotted across their entrance halls and offices for everyone to see � would be reprogrammed to display the number of children�s lives saved. Traders walking over to their lunch break could have an immediate update of how many baby lives the deal they just closed saved � or destroyed.
A ridiculous thought? Why? Don�t you care (even) more about the life or death of a baby than your company�s fluctuating share price? I am guessing you do. And you know these bankers aren�t so different from (other) human beings. Your company�s performance also creates wealth, and wealth saves lives. Why then only monitor its financial performance? I tell you, the sandwich you�re having for lunch will taste a whole lot better, knowing that this morning you just saved some unknown baby�s life, somewhere on the outskirts of London, Cairo, or Detroit.
Is Modern-Day Wheat Dangerous?
I am in the middle of a book called Wheat Belly: Lose the Wheat, Lose the Weight, and Find Your Path Back to Health. I have always wondered if I had celiac disease but never been tested so figured it couldn't hurt to give this book a try.
The book is written by cardiologist William Davis who says that thanks to the actions of Big Food and government agencies such as the USDA and places like the American Heart Association that are always pushing "whole grains," we are sicker and fatter than ever.
Davis discusses how modern-day wheat can be dangerous and can lead to weight gain, diabetes, heart disease and neurological disorders. "Wheat," the book says, "has changed dramatically in the past 50 years under the influence of agricultural scientists who have genetically altered it beyond recognition with little or no questioning of whether these agricultural "evolutions" are compatible with human health."
Have you tried getting off wheat? If so, did it help?
The book is written by cardiologist William Davis who says that thanks to the actions of Big Food and government agencies such as the USDA and places like the American Heart Association that are always pushing "whole grains," we are sicker and fatter than ever.
Davis discusses how modern-day wheat can be dangerous and can lead to weight gain, diabetes, heart disease and neurological disorders. "Wheat," the book says, "has changed dramatically in the past 50 years under the influence of agricultural scientists who have genetically altered it beyond recognition with little or no questioning of whether these agricultural "evolutions" are compatible with human health."
Have you tried getting off wheat? If so, did it help?
What's Wrong with being an Alpha Male?
Apparently, a lot according to this Wall Street Journal article entitled "Are Alpha Males Healthy?":
The article mentions a book called Alpha Male Syndrome.
I took a look at it on Amazon
and found that is written by a psychologist and her husband who "steer Alphas and those who work with them away from dysfunction and towards productivity in this action-oriented book that may miss its overconfident primary target." So being an alpha male is "dysfunctional?"
While it is possible that alphas are more stressed and that betas have a more relaxing life, I'm not so sure. Betas have their own problems, we may just not have enough research and understanding of beta men to see the impact on their psychological life and on society. It seems to me that this article and book is more of an exercise in steering masculine men towards acting more like women, though in a subtle way by saying "being an alpha is bad for your health, it could kill you."
Do you think being an Alpha male is unhealthy? If so, is being a Beta better?
It isn't easy being an alpha male. Getting to the top and staying there takes a physical toll.
The latest evidence comes from wild baboons in Kenya's Amboseli basin. Researchers from Princeton and Duke universities studied 125 males in five groups over nine years and found that while the alpha males got the best food and the most mates, they experienced far more stress than the beta males just beneath them in the hierarchy, based on the levels of cortisol, a stress hormone, in fecal samples.
The beta males had almost as many mates and got just as much grooming from others, but they didn't have to spend as much time fighting or following females around to keep other males away.
The article mentions a book called Alpha Male Syndrome.
While it is possible that alphas are more stressed and that betas have a more relaxing life, I'm not so sure. Betas have their own problems, we may just not have enough research and understanding of beta men to see the impact on their psychological life and on society. It seems to me that this article and book is more of an exercise in steering masculine men towards acting more like women, though in a subtle way by saying "being an alpha is bad for your health, it could kill you."
Do you think being an Alpha male is unhealthy? If so, is being a Beta better?
The new Almanac of American Politics
Today, I flipped through a new copy of Michael Barone's The Almanac of American Politics 2012. The Almanac is amazing as it profiles every member of Congress and every governor as well as census data and "information on topics ranging from campaign expenditures to voting records to interest group ratings."
George Will calls it the "Bible of American Politics" and I can understand why. Barone's updated book is amazingly detailed and gives the reader political information about every region in the US. It's a great reference if you're a political junkie or would just enjoy the challenge of reading 1838 pages.
George Will calls it the "Bible of American Politics" and I can understand why. Barone's updated book is amazingly detailed and gives the reader political information about every region in the US. It's a great reference if you're a political junkie or would just enjoy the challenge of reading 1838 pages.
John Hawkins interviews Lee Doren about his new ebook Please Enroll Responsibly: Avoiding Indoctrination at College.
"Feminism can be thought of as like a corporation."
Barbara Oakley, author of Cold-Blooded Kindness, is interviewed at Times Higher Education:
"Feminism can be thought of as like a corporation. It's interested in its constituents. Well-meaning feminists are often trained only to see a certain way, only to support their constituents. That is partly what underlies the spurious research on battered-woman syndrome. Anyone who questions whether battered women are only simple victims is put in the pillory and crucified."
Read the rest here.
"Feminism can be thought of as like a corporation. It's interested in its constituents. Well-meaning feminists are often trained only to see a certain way, only to support their constituents. That is partly what underlies the spurious research on battered-woman syndrome. Anyone who questions whether battered women are only simple victims is put in the pillory and crucified."
Read the rest here.
Does the College Essay Suck the Life Out of Boys?
So it's pouring rain here in Knoxville and I spent the afternoon reading a terrific book called Crazy U: One Dad's Crash Course in Getting His Kid Into College.
If you have a teen getting ready to apply to college, this is a great read and it's hilarious to boot.
The author, Andrew Ferguson, goes through the process of trying to help his son get into college and starts by discussing the lengths parents are going to to try and get their kids into a selective school. Some are even hiring $40,000 college counselors years before their kid applies to college to guide them through the process. Wouldn't it be easier just to give the kid forty grand and tell them to start their own business? But perhaps that is too simplistic.
One thing that caught my eye was how hard and depressing it was for the son to try and write the college essay. Many of the colleges ask for an essay about the student's "inner life"--usually a buzz word for some kind of sappy self-absorbed nonsense where the student "took a risk" of some kind and went on to become a better person or some variation of that theme.
In the book, Ferguson's son finally spits out a couple of paragraphs about his experience at a camp where there was a swimming test and he managed to swim the required distance while the rest were defeated. In the essay, the son wrote that he was "tired but proud; he sympathized with his classmates who hadn't finished and in his victory, accepted modestly, he learned the timeless value of persistence and determination, expressed with grim earnestness..."
But his father knew the truth: "which was the masculine truth. He didn't remember the race because it proved the timeless value of persistence. He remembered the victory because it was a victory: he had competed against this classmates, friends and rivals alike, and beaten them soundly and undeniably, and earned the right to a sack dance in the end zone. He knew he couldn't say this, though, and I knew he was right."
And that pretty much sums it up for the rest of college. Trying to please a bunch of people who care more about a PC stance than critically thinking with passion. It's no wonder that boys and men are bypassing college.
The author, Andrew Ferguson, goes through the process of trying to help his son get into college and starts by discussing the lengths parents are going to to try and get their kids into a selective school. Some are even hiring $40,000 college counselors years before their kid applies to college to guide them through the process. Wouldn't it be easier just to give the kid forty grand and tell them to start their own business? But perhaps that is too simplistic.
One thing that caught my eye was how hard and depressing it was for the son to try and write the college essay. Many of the colleges ask for an essay about the student's "inner life"--usually a buzz word for some kind of sappy self-absorbed nonsense where the student "took a risk" of some kind and went on to become a better person or some variation of that theme.
In the book, Ferguson's son finally spits out a couple of paragraphs about his experience at a camp where there was a swimming test and he managed to swim the required distance while the rest were defeated. In the essay, the son wrote that he was "tired but proud; he sympathized with his classmates who hadn't finished and in his victory, accepted modestly, he learned the timeless value of persistence and determination, expressed with grim earnestness..."
But his father knew the truth: "which was the masculine truth. He didn't remember the race because it proved the timeless value of persistence. He remembered the victory because it was a victory: he had competed against this classmates, friends and rivals alike, and beaten them soundly and undeniably, and earned the right to a sack dance in the end zone. He knew he couldn't say this, though, and I knew he was right."
And that pretty much sums it up for the rest of college. Trying to please a bunch of people who care more about a PC stance than critically thinking with passion. It's no wonder that boys and men are bypassing college.
John Hawkins at PJM Lifestyle: "Quit Your Terrible Job Now! 7 Tips for Tomorrow’s Entrepreneurs." A commenter to this post by the name of Yooper makes a good point:
Another commenter by the name of Capn Rusty states:
Good advice.
Here’s Tip #10 – Be aware that the political environment has a direct impact upon your business, virtually any business. Don’t be one of those who says that you have no interest in politics. I didn’t have much interest in politics until I realized that what occurs in Washington can make or break my business in short order.
Another commenter by the name of Capn Rusty states:
Tip 8: Pick an industry or market segment that is totally unregulated, like software development in the early 90′s, or . . . blogging in the early 00′s.
Good advice.
Why so Quick to Call Business Leaders Psychopaths?
I was reading an article over at CNBC entitled "Think Your Boss Is a Psychopath? That May Be True."
I have to wonder about this study and the way that CNBC presented this article. It makes it sound like business leaders who are psychopaths are a dime a dozen. Why are they picking on business leaders and the corporate world? Is it because the study authors or CNBC have it in their own minds that corporate bosses are corrupt, kind of like the author of this kooky article entitled "Capitalism: A System Run By and For Psychopaths"?
I have taken a continuing education course from Robert Hare, the co-author of the book mentioned above and in the course, he told us that it is a very dangerous thing to diagnose someone with psychopathy. We dealt in the course with adults and juveniles who were jailed for violent and other crimes. Often times, Hare and his colleagues would warn us to be very careful in our diagnosis, lest someone who was charged with a crime end up being discriminated against because of the psychopathy label if untrue. Shouldn't his co-author, Paul Babiak, use the same good advice? Should he use a study of only 200 people to make such a generalization?
Why business leaders? Why not study SEIU members or liberal politicians? Where is that study?
In a recent study of more than 200 executives, nearly 4 percent scored at or above the traditional cutoff for psychopathy using the Psychopathy Checklist, which researchers regard as the "gold standard" for assessing this personality disorder, said Paul Babiak, one of the researchers who conducted the study and co-author of the book, "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work."
By contrast, just 1 percent of the general population is categorized as having psychopathic tendencies. Admittedly, it’s just one study, but it suggests that business leaders could be four times as likely to be psychopathic than the average person....
In fact, he often uses the phrase "parasitic predator" to describe corporate psychopaths. "They are parasitic in that they are looking for a host to support them," he said. "A big company is an easy place in which to hide."
I have to wonder about this study and the way that CNBC presented this article. It makes it sound like business leaders who are psychopaths are a dime a dozen. Why are they picking on business leaders and the corporate world? Is it because the study authors or CNBC have it in their own minds that corporate bosses are corrupt, kind of like the author of this kooky article entitled "Capitalism: A System Run By and For Psychopaths"?
I have taken a continuing education course from Robert Hare, the co-author of the book mentioned above and in the course, he told us that it is a very dangerous thing to diagnose someone with psychopathy. We dealt in the course with adults and juveniles who were jailed for violent and other crimes. Often times, Hare and his colleagues would warn us to be very careful in our diagnosis, lest someone who was charged with a crime end up being discriminated against because of the psychopathy label if untrue. Shouldn't his co-author, Paul Babiak, use the same good advice? Should he use a study of only 200 people to make such a generalization?
Why business leaders? Why not study SEIU members or liberal politicians? Where is that study?
How Bad will the Job Picture Get?
I just read that the job growth in August was zero. I believe it after my experience a couple of weeks ago in Atlanta. I was there on business and went over to Lenox Square Mall. On the way, I ran into a beautiful woman who said she was heading over to a job interview. I figured she was going for a job as a model or high level manager of a hotel or organization--given the way she was dressed. "Wish me luck!" she exclaimed as she headed off the elevator we were on. As I headed into the mall later, she was in a long line of women, all gorgeous and all meticulously turned out. The line was long and went around the store. What jobs were these women applying for? A co-manager or clerk at the Forever 21 store opening up at the mall. All of them looked eager and frankly, a bit desperate for a job. But in Atlanta, where the unemployment is high, people seemed happy just to be working when I talked to them in cabs or in restaurants. How much worse will it get? I don't know, but I think as more businesses "go John Galt" in the Obama economy, much worse.
The Average Person Spends Four hours of their Day Battling Temptation
I am reading a new book by social psychologist Roy F. Baumeister & journalist John Tierney entitled Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength. According to the authors, the average person spends four hours or more each day resisting temptation: Temptation to slack off at work and check facebook, to eat unhealthy foods, or even to engage in sex or other activities.
Does surfing the web to look for blog-fodder count as temptation? What if blogging is your job? Does it count as willpower then?
What temptations have you resisted lately, and which ones have you given in to?
Does surfing the web to look for blog-fodder count as temptation? What if blogging is your job? Does it count as willpower then?
What temptations have you resisted lately, and which ones have you given in to?
Ronnie Schreiber at PJM Lifestyle: "Charles Kettering Liberated Women More Than Betty Friedan & Gloria Steinem.
Should Ugly People get Affirmative Action?
"Hell,no!" I thought, as I read a post on this topic at Amy Alkon's blog but unfortunately, economist Daniel Hamermesh, author of a new book, Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful thinks otherwise. In an article in the New York Times, he states:
I noticed that some bloggers were arguing about whether or not ugly people have it so bad, but that's not really the point. The more important point here is that every time some overly-dramatic academic comes up with a "theory," they run to get the government involved as a "solution" --almost always making the problem worse. It's no wonder we are in such financial and moral trouble these days.
Beauty is as much an issue for men as for women. While extensive research shows that women’s looks have bigger impacts in the market for mates, another large group of studies demonstrates that men’s looks have bigger impacts on the job.
Why this disparate treatment of looks in so many areas of life? It’s a matter of simple prejudice....
A more radical solution may be needed: why not offer legal protections to the ugly, as we do with racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women and handicapped individuals?
We actually already do offer such protections in a few places, including in some jurisdictions in California, and in the District of Columbia, where discriminatory treatment based on looks in hiring, promotions, housing and other areas is prohibited. Ugliness could be protected generally in the United States by small extensions of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Ugly people could be allowed to seek help from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other agencies in overcoming the effects of discrimination. We could even have affirmative-action programs for the ugly.
I noticed that some bloggers were arguing about whether or not ugly people have it so bad, but that's not really the point. The more important point here is that every time some overly-dramatic academic comes up with a "theory," they run to get the government involved as a "solution" --almost always making the problem worse. It's no wonder we are in such financial and moral trouble these days.
Boards and fraud � who gets the sack and who gets to stay?
We have seen lots of corporate scandals over the past decade, and in many of these cases the boards of directors were up for some heavy criticism. Whether it was Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, or one of the toppled investment banks, their boards took some flack, since of course they are ultimately responsible for the corporation�s actions.
But what happens to such directors? What happens to these people in the business elite when their company, for example, is caught being involved in financial fraud? Well, perhaps not surprisingly � and this may come as a relief � they often get the sack (as research by Professor Arthaud-Day from from Kansas State University and colleagues convincingly showed). Directors associated with financial misrepresentations are often dismissed from the board of their fraudulent company but, interestingly, subsequently they also regularly get the boot at another board. As you may know, outside directors often serve on the boards of multiple companies and a study by Professor Srinivasan from the Harvard Business School showed that they lose about 25 percent of these (rather lucrative) jobs if one of the companies in their portfolio is caught up in fraud.
Yet, this also implies that 75 percent of companies retain a particular board member, even though he or she is compromised having served on the board of another company while it was committing fraud. And that begs the question, what firms decide to retain such a tainted board member, and which ones decide give them the sack?
Professors Amanda Cowen and Jeremy Marcel from the University of Virginia decided to examine this. They managed to collect data on 277 directors who served on multiple boards concurrently, one of which was associated with financial fraud. Their statistical analysis showed that companies that were covered by more equity analysts and governance-rating agencies were more likely to dismiss compromised board members; up to twice as likely. These external observers apparently serve as a bit of watchdog. However, surprisingly, when a company had a relatively large number of public pension fund investors amongst its shareholders, they were less likely to dismiss a compromised board member. Cowen and Marcel speculated that this was because these pension fund shareholders do the monitoring themselves, so that they don�t care much about the company�s directors; tainted or not.
You also have to realize who does the firing; and that is the rest of the board. Cowen and Marcel�s research also showed that very prestigious, well-networked boards were less likely to fire their tainted fellow director. It is well known that boards of directors form a rather cliquish corporate elite. It is not easy to find your way into this world, but once your solidly in, not even a little financial fraud is going to convince your corporate buddies to throw you out.
But what happens to such directors? What happens to these people in the business elite when their company, for example, is caught being involved in financial fraud? Well, perhaps not surprisingly � and this may come as a relief � they often get the sack (as research by Professor Arthaud-Day from from Kansas State University and colleagues convincingly showed). Directors associated with financial misrepresentations are often dismissed from the board of their fraudulent company but, interestingly, subsequently they also regularly get the boot at another board. As you may know, outside directors often serve on the boards of multiple companies and a study by Professor Srinivasan from the Harvard Business School showed that they lose about 25 percent of these (rather lucrative) jobs if one of the companies in their portfolio is caught up in fraud.
Yet, this also implies that 75 percent of companies retain a particular board member, even though he or she is compromised having served on the board of another company while it was committing fraud. And that begs the question, what firms decide to retain such a tainted board member, and which ones decide give them the sack?
Professors Amanda Cowen and Jeremy Marcel from the University of Virginia decided to examine this. They managed to collect data on 277 directors who served on multiple boards concurrently, one of which was associated with financial fraud. Their statistical analysis showed that companies that were covered by more equity analysts and governance-rating agencies were more likely to dismiss compromised board members; up to twice as likely. These external observers apparently serve as a bit of watchdog. However, surprisingly, when a company had a relatively large number of public pension fund investors amongst its shareholders, they were less likely to dismiss a compromised board member. Cowen and Marcel speculated that this was because these pension fund shareholders do the monitoring themselves, so that they don�t care much about the company�s directors; tainted or not.
You also have to realize who does the firing; and that is the rest of the board. Cowen and Marcel�s research also showed that very prestigious, well-networked boards were less likely to fire their tainted fellow director. It is well known that boards of directors form a rather cliquish corporate elite. It is not easy to find your way into this world, but once your solidly in, not even a little financial fraud is going to convince your corporate buddies to throw you out.
"Sixty to 90 percent of jobs are found informally - mainly through friends, relatives, and direct contacts."
I thought about the above statistic as I read a new book called The 11 Laws of Likability: Relationship Networking . . . Because People Do Business with People They Like.
The author, Michelle Lederman, gives good advice on how to network in a more relaxed and authentic way. If you are looking for a job (or trying to build your business), her advice can be invaluable.
My favorite chapter was one on "The Law of Perception" that discussed nonverbal body language and how important it is in a job interview or in business dealings. Making eye contact, standing tall, and pausing at the right time can all lead to positive perceptions whereas lack of eye contact or staring, slouching and coming off as insincere and fake can give a negative impression that loses you a job interview or potential client.
I used to think it was unfair that people had to get others to like them or had to know someone to get a job but I realize that this analysis was unfair itself. Why would someone want to hire someone or do business with someone who is not recommended by a person that you think highly of? Is a complete stranger with no known background a better bet? I doubt it.
My favorite chapter was one on "The Law of Perception" that discussed nonverbal body language and how important it is in a job interview or in business dealings. Making eye contact, standing tall, and pausing at the right time can all lead to positive perceptions whereas lack of eye contact or staring, slouching and coming off as insincere and fake can give a negative impression that loses you a job interview or potential client.
I used to think it was unfair that people had to get others to like them or had to know someone to get a job but I realize that this analysis was unfair itself. Why would someone want to hire someone or do business with someone who is not recommended by a person that you think highly of? Is a complete stranger with no known background a better bet? I doubt it.
Fixing your Aching Back, Neck and Shoulders
I am blogging while sitting on my new gadget--the Gaiam Balance Ball Chair. I am pretty much willing to try anything at this point to fix my aching back, neck and shoulders, even sitting on a ball. So far, so good. The box came yesterday from Amazon and is easy to assemble. It has a base and and one of those exercise balls that you sit on that is supposed to keep your posture upright and in the correct position for using a computer. My main complaint with it at this early date is that the ball is kind of small. However, the instructions say this is normal and that after 24-48 hours, you can use the air pump that comes with it to make it bigger. I did that this morning and it seems to be better. If you are over six feet, the small size of the ball might not make the height high enough for you.
The ball chair also came with an exercise book that showed how to use the chair for exercise when you want to take a break. The seated twists they show do seem to help in-between typing if you have a tight neck and shoulders. As for the spine streches that have you lying across the ball in various positions, I am really not so sure I wouldn't fall off. The base of the chair is in the way for me but if you take the ball out, it is easier. There are also pictures of a model doing push-ups and donkey kicks that look more like a gym work-out but I am not up to trying those out at the moment. Overall, I'm pretty satisfied with the chair and hope that as time goes on, it keeps my posture in check.
I have blogged about pain issues before that are caused by the computer and found that there are a number of good books out there that have helped. These include Stretching Anatomy, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Back Pain, and 8 Steps to a Pain-Free Back: Natural Posture Solutions for Pain in the Back, Neck, Shoulder, Hip, Knee, and Foot.
If you have better or different suggestions, drop them in the comments.
The ball chair also came with an exercise book that showed how to use the chair for exercise when you want to take a break. The seated twists they show do seem to help in-between typing if you have a tight neck and shoulders. As for the spine streches that have you lying across the ball in various positions, I am really not so sure I wouldn't fall off. The base of the chair is in the way for me but if you take the ball out, it is easier. There are also pictures of a model doing push-ups and donkey kicks that look more like a gym work-out but I am not up to trying those out at the moment. Overall, I'm pretty satisfied with the chair and hope that as time goes on, it keeps my posture in check.
I have blogged about pain issues before that are caused by the computer and found that there are a number of good books out there that have helped. These include Stretching Anatomy, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Back Pain, and 8 Steps to a Pain-Free Back: Natural Posture Solutions for Pain in the Back, Neck, Shoulder, Hip, Knee, and Foot.
If you have better or different suggestions, drop them in the comments.
Protecting Yourself While Divorcing Someone With Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder
I just got a press release about a new book co-authored by Randi Kreger, the author of Stop Walking on Eggshells: Taking Your Life Back When Someone You Care About Has Borderline Personality Disorder. Her new book is called Splitting: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing Someone With Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The book is described as follows:
If you or someone you know is thinking of divorce from a wife or husband who has either or both of these disorders, this book could potentially be a huge help with the emotional and legal fall-out.
SPLITTING is a legal and psychological guidebook that everyone seeking a divorce from a persuasive blamer should own. Written by Bill Eddy, a family lawyer, divorce mediator, and experienced social worker, and Randi Kreger, BPD expert and author of the bestselling Stop Walking on Eggshells, it offers readers help for navigating the entire process of divorce: hiring and managing a divorce lawyer, reaching a reasonable settlement, protecting oneself and one's children from emotional and/or physical abuse from the former spouse, resisting false accusations, and getting enforceable court orders. The book also delves into the difficult-to-understand, aggressive behavior of persuasive blamers, offering readers psychological explanations for their former spouse's actions and help for coping emotionally with the spouse's extreme mood swings and impulsivity.
If you or someone you know is thinking of divorce from a wife or husband who has either or both of these disorders, this book could potentially be a huge help with the emotional and legal fall-out.
MSNBC: "After uproar, man with breast cancer OK’d for coverage":
Although he was not eligible for traditional Medicaid coverage, Johnson was told to apply for coverage under Medicaid’s Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act, an 11-year-old federal mandate designed to help people who may not fit into traditional Medicaid eligibility requirements. But the program only provides care for women....I love one of the comments on the article stating: "Haha... I'd like to see a private insurance company make this decision. Fat chance! They would have let him die."Umm, doesn't this fool realize that the Medicaid program is a government-run program that left to its own devices would have let this man or any other die of breast cancer? They normally don't allow access to the cancer program for men, it is a women-only program. Only because of an "uproar" did this guy luckily get coverage. The next guy many not be so lucky. Just wait until we get universal care.
There is a misperception that Medicaid is for all poor people, when you actually have to fit into a very specific category, much of which is determined at the state level,” explained Jeff Stensland, a health department spokesperson. For example, if Johnson was diagnosed with, say, colorectal cancer or a brain tumor, he still wouldn’t get coverage under Medicaid. South Carolina, like most states, does not provide Medicaid to single, childless adults.
Gun Owners: Are You Compensating for Something?
We've all heard it before, guys who carry guns have small penises or some variation of that. I have always laughed at that notion--usually said by people who have no clue. I am reading a book called The Cornered Cat: A Woman's Guide to Concealed Carry which is, as the name indicates a book for women who want to carry guns for self-defense. The author, Kathy Jackson, is rather humorous and discusses the common accusation that "Gun owners are compensating for something. Usually said with an evil grin and a you-know-what-I mean kind of chuckle."
Jackson admits that it is absolutely true; she is compensating for something. In fact, she is compensating for a number of things: For her kids who are too small to defend themselves, for being a sedentary middle-aged woman, for wanting a decent back-up plan if luck doesn't work, and for not "wanting to be the dead victim of the next murder the local police will be investigating after it happens."
If you believe in gun rights, what are you compensating for?
Update: Cross-posted at the PJ Tatler.
Jackson admits that it is absolutely true; she is compensating for something. In fact, she is compensating for a number of things: For her kids who are too small to defend themselves, for being a sedentary middle-aged woman, for wanting a decent back-up plan if luck doesn't work, and for not "wanting to be the dead victim of the next murder the local police will be investigating after it happens."
If you believe in gun rights, what are you compensating for?
Update: Cross-posted at the PJ Tatler.
"More than 30 percent of the cases investigated by detectives each year are deemed unfounded, five times the national average."
In response to my previous post, Dave from the BaltoNorth blog sends in this article from the Baltimore Sun on false rape allegations:
Many people mistakenly think that women never falsely report rape. You would think that after all the mess with the Duke Lacrosse team and the resulting books such as Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, that academics and others would realize the error of their ways but ideology often wins out against the truth.
The Baltimore Police Department has for the past four years recorded the highest percentage of rape cases that officers conclude are false or baseless of any city in the country, according to The Baltimore Sun's review of FBI data. More than 30 percent of the cases investigated by detectives each year are deemed unfounded, five times the national average. Only Louisville and Pittsburgh have reported similar numbers in the recent past, and the number of unfounded rape cases in those cities dropped after police implemented new classification procedures. The increase in unfounded cases comes as the number of rapes reported by Baltimore police has plunged — from 684 in 1995 to 158 in 2009, a decline of nearly 80 percent. Nationally, FBI reports indicate that rapes have fallen 8 percent over the same period.
Many people mistakenly think that women never falsely report rape. You would think that after all the mess with the Duke Lacrosse team and the resulting books such as Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, that academics and others would realize the error of their ways but ideology often wins out against the truth.
WSJ: "College Rape Accusations and the Presumption of Male Guilt:
Pressured by the Obama administration, universities abandon any pretense of due process in sexual assault cases."
Pressured by the Obama administration, universities abandon any pretense of due process in sexual assault cases."
Groceries too Expensive? Grow your Own.
Glenn ordered a book called Edible Landscaping that proclaimed "Now You Can Have Your Gorgeous Garden and Eat It Too!" Since I am in the process of growing tomatoes again in my Earthbox, I thought it couldn't hurt to see what else I might be able to grow in the yard that might be edible. The book shows a number of fruits, vegetables and herbs that can be mixed into your landscaping that provide not only pleasing aesthetics but function as they can be used for food. Given the price of groceries lately, this is a real plus.
The book shows you how to design with herbs, vegetables, fruits, berries, and nuts. One section (page 142) even shows what foods are best for every zone. "Consider your climate before you choose your fruits, berries and nuts." Favorites according to some experts (consulted by the author Rosalind Creasy) included Alpine strawberries, Blueberries, and Chestnuts in the North and Midwest and Asian persimmons, Avocados, Figs and Citrus in the south. For the West, she mentions the site of Dave Wilson who runs a nursery.
Overall, Edible Landscaping is a great book with huge, pretty illustrations and details about how to grow your own edible garden.
If you are growing your own food, what do you find grows best in your area?
The book shows you how to design with herbs, vegetables, fruits, berries, and nuts. One section (page 142) even shows what foods are best for every zone. "Consider your climate before you choose your fruits, berries and nuts." Favorites according to some experts (consulted by the author Rosalind Creasy) included Alpine strawberries, Blueberries, and Chestnuts in the North and Midwest and Asian persimmons, Avocados, Figs and Citrus in the south. For the West, she mentions the site of Dave Wilson who runs a nursery.
Overall, Edible Landscaping is a great book with huge, pretty illustrations and details about how to grow your own edible garden.
If you are growing your own food, what do you find grows best in your area?
So, you think you have a strategy? Five poor excuses for a strategy
Most companies do not have a strategy. Ok, I admit it, I do not have any solid statistics (if such a thing were possible) as evidence to back up this statement, but I do see a heck of a lot of companies, strategy directors, and CEOs present their �strategies� and I tell you, I think 9 out of 10 (at least) don�t actually have one.
Sure, it depends on the all-evasive question �what is strategy?� but even if you would take the most lenient of definitions, few companies actually have one. Let me not tire you with some real strategy textbook definitions but if I would just put it as �you know what you are doing, and why�, most firms would already fall short on this one.
Most companies and CEOs do not have a good rationale of why they are doing the things they are doing, and how this should lead to superior performance.
I�d say there are 3 types of CEOs here: 1) CEOs who think they have a strategy; they are the most abundant; 2) CEOs who pretend to think that they have a strategy, but deep down they are really very hesitant because they fear they don�t actually have one (and they�re probably right); these are generally quite a bit more clever than the first category, but alas fewer in numbers; 3) CEOs who do have a strategy; there are preciously few of them, but invariably they head very successful companies.
So what do all these CEOs do, when confronted with the question �what is your strategy?� Well, of course they will retaliate with a powerpoint presentation, headed by the title �our strategy�, and there is stuff on it. It just ain�t strategy.
Let me present you with five such common excuses for a strategy or, put differently, five examples of why the things on the powerpoint are not strategy:
Are you really making choices?
Strategy, above all, is about making choices; choices in terms of what you do and what you do not do. Future Plc for example has chosen to focus on specialty magazines for young males (decent magazines, by the way�) in English. This contains some very clear choices. The point is that what they are throwing away, i.e. choosing not to focus on is meaningful. They concerns things that could have made them money as well. For example, magazines for middle aged women might potentially be very profitable, but that is just not what they want to do, because they think concentrating on a clear set of consumers and products will help them do better. Most companies don�t do this; they cannot resist the temptation of also doing other things which, on an individual basis, look attractive. As a consequence, they end up with a bunch of stuff that appears attractive, but strangely enough they don�t manage to turn them into a profitable proposition.
Or do you just stick to what you were doing anyway�?
Another variant of this is the straightjacket of path dependency, meaning that companies write up their strategy in such a way that everything fits into it that they were doing anyway. And there might be nothing wrong with that, if it so happens that what you were doing anyway represents a nice coherent set of activities. Yet, more often than not, strategies adapted to what you were doing anyway results in some vague, amorphous statement that would have been better off in a beginners� class on esoteric poetry, because it is meaningless and does not imply any real choice. The worst of the lot I have seen (although low on poetic value) was Ahold�s poor excuse for a strategy, which ended up doing so many different things in so many different corners of the world that they resided to calling their strategy �multi-format, multi-local, multi-channel�. This � not coincidentally � was shortly before the company collapsed.
Your choices have no relationship with value creation (you�re in �The Matrix�)
Sometimes companies make some choices, but it is wholly unclear why these choices would do you any good? It is not just about making choices, you need a good explanation why these choices are going to create you a heck of a lot of value. Without such logic, I cannot call it a strategy. Let me give you an example, which happens to be the most common strategy I have seen among multinational corporations: The Matrix. On the horizontal axis, one puts countries; on the vertical axis, one puts business lines. And the strategy is to tick boxes, as many as possible, as quickly as possible (preferably through acquisitions). But why would performing all your activities in all your countries be a good strategy? If you can give me an explanation of why this would lead to superior value creation, I might label it a strategy, but such an explanation is usually conspicuously absent. Without a proper rationalisation of why your choices are going to help you create value, I cannot call it a strategy.
You�re mistaking objectives for strategy
�We want to be number 1 or 2 in all the markets we operate in�. Ever heard that one? I think it is bollocks. A CEO who wrote to me the other day, after having read my book (�Business Exposed�), said of most of these things proclaimed to be strategies that they were like saying �I am going to win the 400 meters during the 2012 Olympics by running faster than anyone else�. Yes, that is very nice, but the real question is �how?� We want to be number 1 or 2 in the market; we want to grow 50 percent next year; we want to be the world�s pre-eminent business school, and so on. These are goals; these are objectives, and possibly very good and lofty ones, but strategy they are not. You need an idea and a rationale � a strategy � of how you are going to achieve all this. Without it, they are an aspiration, but certainly not a strategy.
Nobody knows about it
The final mistake I have seen, but scarily common, of why CEOs who think they have a strategy don�t actually have one (despite circumventing all of the above pitfalls), is because none of their lower ranked employees actually knows about it. A strategy is only really a strategy if people in the organisation alter their behaviour as a result of it. And in order to achieve that, they should know about it� Strategy by itself does nothing; the powerpoint presentation � regardless of how colourful and fine-tuned � is not going to resort to improved performance unless the choices and priorities it contains result into actions by middle managers and people on the work floor. A good litmus test is to simply ask around; if people within the organisation do not give you the same coherent story, chances are you do not have a strategy, no matter how colourful your powerpoints.
Sure, it depends on the all-evasive question �what is strategy?� but even if you would take the most lenient of definitions, few companies actually have one. Let me not tire you with some real strategy textbook definitions but if I would just put it as �you know what you are doing, and why�, most firms would already fall short on this one.
Most companies and CEOs do not have a good rationale of why they are doing the things they are doing, and how this should lead to superior performance.
I�d say there are 3 types of CEOs here: 1) CEOs who think they have a strategy; they are the most abundant; 2) CEOs who pretend to think that they have a strategy, but deep down they are really very hesitant because they fear they don�t actually have one (and they�re probably right); these are generally quite a bit more clever than the first category, but alas fewer in numbers; 3) CEOs who do have a strategy; there are preciously few of them, but invariably they head very successful companies.
So what do all these CEOs do, when confronted with the question �what is your strategy?� Well, of course they will retaliate with a powerpoint presentation, headed by the title �our strategy�, and there is stuff on it. It just ain�t strategy.
Let me present you with five such common excuses for a strategy or, put differently, five examples of why the things on the powerpoint are not strategy:
Are you really making choices?
Strategy, above all, is about making choices; choices in terms of what you do and what you do not do. Future Plc for example has chosen to focus on specialty magazines for young males (decent magazines, by the way�) in English. This contains some very clear choices. The point is that what they are throwing away, i.e. choosing not to focus on is meaningful. They concerns things that could have made them money as well. For example, magazines for middle aged women might potentially be very profitable, but that is just not what they want to do, because they think concentrating on a clear set of consumers and products will help them do better. Most companies don�t do this; they cannot resist the temptation of also doing other things which, on an individual basis, look attractive. As a consequence, they end up with a bunch of stuff that appears attractive, but strangely enough they don�t manage to turn them into a profitable proposition.
Or do you just stick to what you were doing anyway�?
Another variant of this is the straightjacket of path dependency, meaning that companies write up their strategy in such a way that everything fits into it that they were doing anyway. And there might be nothing wrong with that, if it so happens that what you were doing anyway represents a nice coherent set of activities. Yet, more often than not, strategies adapted to what you were doing anyway results in some vague, amorphous statement that would have been better off in a beginners� class on esoteric poetry, because it is meaningless and does not imply any real choice. The worst of the lot I have seen (although low on poetic value) was Ahold�s poor excuse for a strategy, which ended up doing so many different things in so many different corners of the world that they resided to calling their strategy �multi-format, multi-local, multi-channel�. This � not coincidentally � was shortly before the company collapsed.
Your choices have no relationship with value creation (you�re in �The Matrix�)
Sometimes companies make some choices, but it is wholly unclear why these choices would do you any good? It is not just about making choices, you need a good explanation why these choices are going to create you a heck of a lot of value. Without such logic, I cannot call it a strategy. Let me give you an example, which happens to be the most common strategy I have seen among multinational corporations: The Matrix. On the horizontal axis, one puts countries; on the vertical axis, one puts business lines. And the strategy is to tick boxes, as many as possible, as quickly as possible (preferably through acquisitions). But why would performing all your activities in all your countries be a good strategy? If you can give me an explanation of why this would lead to superior value creation, I might label it a strategy, but such an explanation is usually conspicuously absent. Without a proper rationalisation of why your choices are going to help you create value, I cannot call it a strategy.
You�re mistaking objectives for strategy
�We want to be number 1 or 2 in all the markets we operate in�. Ever heard that one? I think it is bollocks. A CEO who wrote to me the other day, after having read my book (�Business Exposed�), said of most of these things proclaimed to be strategies that they were like saying �I am going to win the 400 meters during the 2012 Olympics by running faster than anyone else�. Yes, that is very nice, but the real question is �how?� We want to be number 1 or 2 in the market; we want to grow 50 percent next year; we want to be the world�s pre-eminent business school, and so on. These are goals; these are objectives, and possibly very good and lofty ones, but strategy they are not. You need an idea and a rationale � a strategy � of how you are going to achieve all this. Without it, they are an aspiration, but certainly not a strategy.
Nobody knows about it
The final mistake I have seen, but scarily common, of why CEOs who think they have a strategy don�t actually have one (despite circumventing all of the above pitfalls), is because none of their lower ranked employees actually knows about it. A strategy is only really a strategy if people in the organisation alter their behaviour as a result of it. And in order to achieve that, they should know about it� Strategy by itself does nothing; the powerpoint presentation � regardless of how colourful and fine-tuned � is not going to resort to improved performance unless the choices and priorities it contains result into actions by middle managers and people on the work floor. A good litmus test is to simply ask around; if people within the organisation do not give you the same coherent story, chances are you do not have a strategy, no matter how colourful your powerpoints.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)