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?
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.
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.
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.
The Raw Food Diet: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?
This morning, I am reading through a book called The Complete Idiot's Guide to Raw Food Detox. I know, I know, why am I torturing myself with such stuff? I don't know. I find nutrition and the way people think about it interesting.
It does make me wonder what the point of a raw food diet is, however, when I read the section on the "Symptoms of Healing" that are a "cleansing reaction" to a diet of nutrient-dense raw foods. Common cleansing reactions include:
The author describes his reactions to a cleansing spa in Thailand where he was fatigued and ended up with the "shakes." He went to bed early with "a mild fever and chill" that kept him wrapped up in a blanket. He did say that he woke up feeling symptom-free but I am left wondering why substituting these symptoms for the symptoms of a non raw-food diet are any improvement.
It's not a ringing endorsement of the raw-food diet. I have enough trouble without going through all this to "feel better." Anyway, didn't they just find out a lot of this stuff is bunk--kind of like colon cleansing?
It does make me wonder what the point of a raw food diet is, however, when I read the section on the "Symptoms of Healing" that are a "cleansing reaction" to a diet of nutrient-dense raw foods. Common cleansing reactions include:
Headaches
Body aches
Fatigue
A coated tongue
Itching or rashes
Slight fever
The author describes his reactions to a cleansing spa in Thailand where he was fatigued and ended up with the "shakes." He went to bed early with "a mild fever and chill" that kept him wrapped up in a blanket. He did say that he woke up feeling symptom-free but I am left wondering why substituting these symptoms for the symptoms of a non raw-food diet are any improvement.
It's not a ringing endorsement of the raw-food diet. I have enough trouble without going through all this to "feel better." Anyway, didn't they just find out a lot of this stuff is bunk--kind of like colon cleansing?
Amy Alkon has an interesting post on whether or not short men should wear lifts:
I never had a height preference when it came to men, but many women do. Would you wear lifts? It seems kind of absurd to me but then, I don't have to deal with the problem.
Women, across cultures, are typically attracted to men who are taller than they are. Some women will date and marry shorter men, although it seems to help greatly if a man makes up for what he lacks in height by having piles of money and a private jet.
My question: What if a guy's the perfect man -- minus three four inches (in height, ya gutterbrains)?
What if he makes up for some of that with lifts in his shoes?
And let's say he would always wear those lifts, except at the beach and in bed.
Would you be able to overlook the actual height difference if he made himself taller in that way? Would it be a turnoff?
I never had a height preference when it came to men, but many women do. Would you wear lifts? It seems kind of absurd to me but then, I don't have to deal with the problem.
Question of the Day
I read that French President Nicolas Sarkozy disrupted his vacation to fly back to Paris for an emergency meeting to review "the economic and financial situation." Remember the French heat wave of 2003 when thousands of elderly people died in their homes while the administration and families stayed on vacation in August? I thought that "socialists" were supposed to care more about people than money. Or is this just a lie?
Men Living Longer: Women and minorities hardest hit?
The New York Time's opinion page has one of those Onion-like titles that really makes you shake your head just hoping it's a parody: "Is America Ready for More Old Men?" (via Instapundit):
But it's not a parody, it's dead serious and a bunch of "experts" pose a debate about how men dying as quickly and efficiently without bothering women is the best outcome--oops, I mean the debate asks, "How might this narrowing gap change society and male-female relationships?"
Opinions seemed to focus much on the negative aspects of men's longer life on women. For example Stephanie Coontz, author of A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s says " .... a woman trapped in an unhappy marriage might not find her husband’s extended lifespan very beneficial. Among unhappy couples, even a few extra minutes a day with one’s spouse raises blood pressure and lowers immune functioning. So imagine the toll that extra years can take."
Another paragon of compassion, Susan Jacoby, author of Never Say Die: The Myth and Marketing of the New Old Age seems to think men's sole purpose in life is to care for women. The man's death is a "price to be be paid by a woman." His life is not important in and of itself. Only women seem to have that autonomy. She says, "When a husband dies, the price for women -- and society -- is both economic and emotional. Women will likely face their closing, sickest years without a partner to help care for them. That’s one reason nursing home residents are overwhelmingly female." Note no mention of the huge cost to keep women in nursing homes. Most older men are dead. I guess this is better in her mind.
As they say, living well is the best revenge. If I were male, I would strive to live as long as I could and collect as much of the Social Security benefits and other entitlements as possible. After all, men in the past have been putting into the system for years only to die and give their benefits up--usually to older women. Now perhaps the tables are turning and more men will be collecting. It's only fair.
A recent Times article noted that the number of men age 65 and older increased by 21 percent from 2000 to 2010, nearly double the 11.2 percent growth rate for women in that age group.
What are the implications -- the benefits and the costs -- of having more men around longer? While most experts say it may be only a blip, some demographers say that a surprisingly rapid rise in the number of men could cost society even more in retirement costs, since they earned more than women and would collect more, and they would add to the long-term care problem.
But it's not a parody, it's dead serious and a bunch of "experts" pose a debate about how men dying as quickly and efficiently without bothering women is the best outcome--oops, I mean the debate asks, "How might this narrowing gap change society and male-female relationships?"
Opinions seemed to focus much on the negative aspects of men's longer life on women. For example Stephanie Coontz, author of A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and American Women at the Dawn of the 1960s says " .... a woman trapped in an unhappy marriage might not find her husband’s extended lifespan very beneficial. Among unhappy couples, even a few extra minutes a day with one’s spouse raises blood pressure and lowers immune functioning. So imagine the toll that extra years can take."
Another paragon of compassion, Susan Jacoby, author of Never Say Die: The Myth and Marketing of the New Old Age seems to think men's sole purpose in life is to care for women. The man's death is a "price to be be paid by a woman." His life is not important in and of itself. Only women seem to have that autonomy. She says, "When a husband dies, the price for women -- and society -- is both economic and emotional. Women will likely face their closing, sickest years without a partner to help care for them. That’s one reason nursing home residents are overwhelmingly female." Note no mention of the huge cost to keep women in nursing homes. Most older men are dead. I guess this is better in her mind.
As they say, living well is the best revenge. If I were male, I would strive to live as long as I could and collect as much of the Social Security benefits and other entitlements as possible. After all, men in the past have been putting into the system for years only to die and give their benefits up--usually to older women. Now perhaps the tables are turning and more men will be collecting. It's only fair.
Does Meredith Whitney Read?
I was surprised to see a story at CNBC with the title: "Tea Party Made Up of 'Freaked Out White Men': Whitney:"
If Whitney read at all, she would know that not only was the Tea Party started with the help of female bloggers and activists but the face of the Tea Party is female:
I wonder what Whitney's agenda is for calling the Tea Party a bunch of "freaked out white men?" Even if men are involved, why the hate?
Is she just trying to show what a “trooper” she is because she is tired of being attacked by Democrats and this is her way of sucking up? If so, what a coward.
Cross-posted at the PJ Tatler.
“Call it Tea Party, whatever you will, the fringe element is I characterize (as) freaked-out white men who are unemployed and have been unemployed for three years and they’re scared to death,” she said. “Three to four million of them are about to roll off unemployment benefits in the next three to four months. This is only going to get worse.”
Democrats looking to hold the White House and regain full control of Congress will need to take note.
“For this reason you have to deal with the structural issues,” Whitney said. “If you are a Machiavellian Democrat you want do deal with this issue and defuse the Tea Party as fast as you possibly can because this poses the biggest threat to their re-election in 2012.”
If Whitney read at all, she would know that not only was the Tea Party started with the help of female bloggers and activists but the face of the Tea Party is female:
Many of the tea party’s most influential grass-roots and national leaders are women, and a new poll released this week by Quinnipiac University suggests that women might make up a majority of the movement as well.
I wonder what Whitney's agenda is for calling the Tea Party a bunch of "freaked out white men?" Even if men are involved, why the hate?
Is she just trying to show what a “trooper” she is because she is tired of being attacked by Democrats and this is her way of sucking up? If so, what a coward.
Cross-posted at the PJ Tatler.
Making College Pay
I am reading a very helpful book about choosing colleges entitled Making College Pay: Strategies for Choosing Wisely, Doing Well & Maximizing Your Return. The great thing about this book is that it looks at college in a rational business manner and tries to help the reader take the emotion out of choosing a college. Most colleges, the authors (two savvy sisters involved in business and academia) say send the brightest students and others glossy brochures making it look like college is one big party. Maybe it is but it's an expensive one that might leave you with a hangover.
The book focuses on the real cost to families, rather than just the student and how a family may not get a good return (or any at all) on their investment. "Separating Fact from Fiction" is a good chapter warning the reader about the real facts of attending college such as:
The book shows with side by side comparisons how many of the classes at the "elite schools" are not much different than those at the university no one has ever heard of. There is a chapter on "comparison shopping" that helps a student narrow down his or her choices and focus on three basic goals:
Overall, this is a great book for parents and students looking to get through college without going broke.
Cross-posted at the PJ Lifestyle blog.
The book focuses on the real cost to families, rather than just the student and how a family may not get a good return (or any at all) on their investment. "Separating Fact from Fiction" is a good chapter warning the reader about the real facts of attending college such as:
Only 57 percent of students who enroll full time at a four-year college actually graduate within six years.
More than one-quarter of students who start college drop out before the second year.
The book shows with side by side comparisons how many of the classes at the "elite schools" are not much different than those at the university no one has ever heard of. There is a chapter on "comparison shopping" that helps a student narrow down his or her choices and focus on three basic goals:
1 )Finding a college that appeals to your interests, fits your aptitude and improves your marketability; 2) Choosing a school that fits your family's financial resources and minimizes cost, and 3) making sure that you increase the odds that you finish and get the degree.
Overall, this is a great book for parents and students looking to get through college without going broke.
Cross-posted at the PJ Lifestyle blog.
Is the Economy Stressing Your Family Out?
I saw over at Rasmussen Reports (via Instapundit) that 67% of respondents felt that their family was being stressed by the economy:
The survey also indicated more arguments with friends and family members:
Senator Marco Rubio recently discussed the split in this country "between those who believe the government's job is to promote 'economic justice,'" i.e., the redistribution of wealth, that the government's job is to determine the equality of outcomes in people's lives, "and those who believe the government's job is to promote 'economic opportunity.'" Rush Limbaugh points out correctly that "economic justice" is not moral--it is socialism or Marxism and I agree with his point. But that is a separate issue.
As for family arguments about the economy, my guess is that family members are most likely to argue along these lines. Those who believe in "social justice" are arguing with those who believe in economic opportunity. It is sort of like the fight between Ayn Rand's characters in Atlas Shrugged. There are those who believe in taking from others and those who believe in the right to their own production. This isn't a fight that will be resolved easily and the bad economy is emphasizing the differences between how family members feel about these issues.
Is the economy stressing out your family members? Do you argue with them about the economy or just try to keep the peace?
Cross-posted at PJ Lifestyle.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 67% of American Adults say the state of the economy is causing more stress on their family. That finding is up 10 points from this time last year . Twenty-seven percent (27%) say the economy isn’t causing their family more stress.
The survey also indicated more arguments with friends and family members:
Still, 43% of adults say they have gotten into an intense argument with a friend or family member about economic conditions in the country. That's up six points from 37% last year. Fifty-five percent (55%) say they have not gotten into a heated argument with a friend or family member about who is to blame for the state of the economy and how it should be fixed.
Senator Marco Rubio recently discussed the split in this country "between those who believe the government's job is to promote 'economic justice,'" i.e., the redistribution of wealth, that the government's job is to determine the equality of outcomes in people's lives, "and those who believe the government's job is to promote 'economic opportunity.'" Rush Limbaugh points out correctly that "economic justice" is not moral--it is socialism or Marxism and I agree with his point. But that is a separate issue.
As for family arguments about the economy, my guess is that family members are most likely to argue along these lines. Those who believe in "social justice" are arguing with those who believe in economic opportunity. It is sort of like the fight between Ayn Rand's characters in Atlas Shrugged. There are those who believe in taking from others and those who believe in the right to their own production. This isn't a fight that will be resolved easily and the bad economy is emphasizing the differences between how family members feel about these issues.
Is the economy stressing out your family members? Do you argue with them about the economy or just try to keep the peace?
Cross-posted at PJ Lifestyle.
Are People Becoming Ruder in the Obama Economy?
I saw over at Rasmussen Reports that 76% of Americans feel that people are becoming ruder:
Well, Amy Alkon has been writing about rudeness for years but it does strike me that people are getting a bit nastier even lately. Mainly (and this is completely anecdotal), I have noticed drivers honking and acting out more.
Case in point. I saw a driver yesterday honking angrily at a truck for going what he thought was too slow. The other driver, angry that he was honked at, slowed down to a crawl for a mile or so, trapping the car behind him and letting him know what he thought of the angry behavior. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I have seen drivers lately acting even worse.
Although the Rasmussen post suggested that it might be technology and cell phones etc. that is causing increased rudeness, I wonder how much of the free-floating hostility is a reaction to the horrific economy, even for those who voted for the current administration. Maybe, the policies that are driving this country into the ground are also causing bad and hostile driving. Or maybe it's something else.
Anyone else notice an increase in hostile driving or other hostility in the air recently? What do you attribute the anger to?
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 76% of Adults say Americans are becoming more rude and less civilized. Just 12% say they’re becoming kinder and gentler, while just as many (12%) are not sure.
Well, Amy Alkon has been writing about rudeness for years but it does strike me that people are getting a bit nastier even lately. Mainly (and this is completely anecdotal), I have noticed drivers honking and acting out more.
Case in point. I saw a driver yesterday honking angrily at a truck for going what he thought was too slow. The other driver, angry that he was honked at, slowed down to a crawl for a mile or so, trapping the car behind him and letting him know what he thought of the angry behavior. This is just the tip of the iceberg. I have seen drivers lately acting even worse.
Although the Rasmussen post suggested that it might be technology and cell phones etc. that is causing increased rudeness, I wonder how much of the free-floating hostility is a reaction to the horrific economy, even for those who voted for the current administration. Maybe, the policies that are driving this country into the ground are also causing bad and hostile driving. Or maybe it's something else.
Anyone else notice an increase in hostile driving or other hostility in the air recently? What do you attribute the anger to?
When Vegetables Attack
I recently went to my gastroenterologist who seemed appalled when I told him I was eating bacon everyday. "You need some fruits and vegetables," he stated. I assured him that I had tried that diet. It didn't work for me. I ended up with a heart attack while I was a vegetarian and later found out I was allergic to a number of fruits and vegetables. Yes, I realize that fruits and vegetables do not cause heart attacks, but frankly, I sometimes wonder if they prevent them. They also make me sick and kill my stomach so forgive me if I can't see the benefit of large amounts of them in my diet.
However, masochist that I am, I decided to read up on some healthier alternatives to bacon (are there any?). So I picked up the new book The Complete Idiot's Guide to Plant-Based Nutrition off my shelf that a publicist had sent me and decided to see if I could find some compromise between no plant foods and a few. I'm glad I did.
The book is written by dietician Julieanna Hever who seems up-to date on most of her research about food. For example, there is a lot of controversy surrounding tofu and soy products and its link to cancer or possible interference with thyroid function. In a section called, "Is Soy Safe?" the author makes a case for how soy can be part of one's diet. Eating it in moderation, avoiding processed soy products, and using only organic soy products are suggestions. Okay, at least she addresses it.
After reading about the joys of a plant-based diet from the book, I am re-thinking my boycott of almost all fruits and veggies and might give a few a try. But there is no way I am giving up my bacon.
However, masochist that I am, I decided to read up on some healthier alternatives to bacon (are there any?). So I picked up the new book The Complete Idiot's Guide to Plant-Based Nutrition off my shelf that a publicist had sent me and decided to see if I could find some compromise between no plant foods and a few. I'm glad I did.
The book is written by dietician Julieanna Hever who seems up-to date on most of her research about food. For example, there is a lot of controversy surrounding tofu and soy products and its link to cancer or possible interference with thyroid function. In a section called, "Is Soy Safe?" the author makes a case for how soy can be part of one's diet. Eating it in moderation, avoiding processed soy products, and using only organic soy products are suggestions. Okay, at least she addresses it.
After reading about the joys of a plant-based diet from the book, I am re-thinking my boycott of almost all fruits and veggies and might give a few a try. But there is no way I am giving up my bacon.
Do you ever wonder what your dreams mean?
Many times as a psychologist people ask me what their dreams mean. It's sort of hard to come up with an answer if you don't know much about the person's life. And the last dream books I read were mostly old ones like those of Carl Jung such as Man and His Symbols. So,I was grateful when a publicist from Adams Media asked if I wanted a review copy of a new book Into Your Dreams: Decipher your unique dream symbology to transform your waking life. The book is a fun way to learn more about yourself during your sleeping hours.
Unlike many dream books, this one goes beyond the "one size fits all" interpretation to give the reader ideas about what his or her particular dream means. Basically, the reader learns how to decipher their unique dream symbology and apply it to their waking life. The first part of the book gives a brief summary of the history and nature of dreams. The second part gives a listing of various symbols and some guidelines for possible meanings. The book is supposed to be more of a guide than a "dream dictionary."
Overall, it looks like a good book if you find your dreams interesting, troubling or recurrant and want to understand them.
What dreams have readers had that you find the most interesting or puzzling?
Unlike many dream books, this one goes beyond the "one size fits all" interpretation to give the reader ideas about what his or her particular dream means. Basically, the reader learns how to decipher their unique dream symbology and apply it to their waking life. The first part of the book gives a brief summary of the history and nature of dreams. The second part gives a listing of various symbols and some guidelines for possible meanings. The book is supposed to be more of a guide than a "dream dictionary."
Overall, it looks like a good book if you find your dreams interesting, troubling or recurrant and want to understand them.
What dreams have readers had that you find the most interesting or puzzling?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)