Learned Apathy

So I'm thinking that apathy is learned.

I think apathy becomes learned, bred, and eventually ingrained through any number (or combination) of unaddressed, unchanged circumstances. Through the continued, consistent factors that eventually wears us down to the point of checking out.  And I believe this extends across all walks of life and environments, from work to school to the home. While I'm sure there are vastly more factors, the biggest ones I've seen so far include

• Those around you - co-workers, peers - just don't care anymore. Apathy becomes contagious.  Consider any moment, in work, in school, in life, when someone else was checked out. (An aside here may be the levels of employee engagement, from engaged - those who invest themselves in their work, to disengaged - those who show up, punch the clock, and head out, to the actively disengaged - who actively work against the company). Imagine those in either of the latter two categories you consider co-workers: you're doing the same job, the same pay, day after day. And even though you're invested - personally, financially - in the job, nothing changes. Why keep trying when so-and-so isn't? Why should I keep showing up on time when this other guy is consistently late and no negative repercussions seem to happen? (Although, rereading this, arguably the root of the issue doesn't sound like it's on your co-worker...) 
• Those above you - parents, teachers, managers - don't care either. Now apathy isn't just learned, but almost taught. We model those we look up to. And it's the same as above. But let's look at schools now. For those of you unfamiliar with Calvin and Hobbes, Calvin's teacher is a perfect of example of someone who's checked out and just counting the days until retirement. And in schools we also have to think about the impact of parents. If parent's don't care about their child's performance or actions, why would the child?
• Changing/shifting guidelines and expectations - when what you're told or what's expected of you is changed more frequently than not. The same goes for which things are priority: if everything is the most important thing, nothing is (Monday it's this thing, tomorrow it's this, Wednesday a third thing "just has to get done!", Thursday jumps back to Monday's priority, and by Friday directions just sound like parents in a Charlie Brown cartoon). 
• Being treated as inferior or the expectation of poor performance - I feel this one is rather self-explanatory. I do believe we rise to the level expected of us, for better or worse. Of course, the caveat is that the person has the knowledge, tools, resources, and support to rise to the expectations set for them. So I suppose an addendum would be that the combination of high expectations and low support, ability, and authority to actually do anything is, in essence, setting someone up to fail. And what would be a logical conclusion from there...? For more information, check out the results of Robert Rosenthal's 1964 experiment, as well as the Pygmalion Effect.

I do believe that people want to do well and be proud of their work and the results they can affect. But somewhere, at some point in our lives, we learn to just phone it in. The question then becomes, how can we reverse the trend?

Back to Unionizing

FYI, this post is a follow-up to a post from quite some time ago.  If you haven't read it, or would like it fresh in your mind, here you go: Unionizing Student-Athletes

And back to it.

So was I in error?  Isn't this the epitome of unionizing?  To organize, unify, and fight for better conditions?  Of course, the contemporary college athletics politics, money, and so on aside, but if we were to boil it down, I suppose I could admit that these students are arguably doing the same as any labor movement.

Of course, let's also take a second to consider that comparison is indeed the thief of joy (Teddy Roosevelt), and what the public does know about the money the NCAA and each university makes from these athletes.  Needless to say, it's a lot.  Several decades ago, the business world attempted to curb the rising salaries of CEO's, thinking that making them public would induce a sort of shame that would drive down salaries and bring about more income equality.  What actually happened, of course, is that now that executives could see what everyone else made, it instead created a competition for a higher income, more perks, and greater benefits.

"Hey! Why is Joe So-And-So over at our competitor making $2 million and gets a jet while I only make $1.5 million?  It's not fair!" And so this guy gets a raise to exceed what the other guy makes, who then, in turn, sees it and demands more money himself.  And to date, the income inequality in the U.S. is greater (by several hundred percent) than it ever has been before, and the gap is growing.  Apparently we're okay with it though.

Anyway, the comparison here is that maybe, just maybe, because the NCAA, coaches, and so on are publicly paid insane amounts of money for the athletes effort, that it may be driving this movement to "get their fair share".  And that's just nature.  Even lab monkeys, when given a treat for pushing a button are excited.  But put two cages side by side (so they can see each other), and task them both to press a button but give them different treats (knowing that one treat is better than the other), the monkey receiving the "worse" treat will throw it away (from the work of Frans de Waal).  Because it's not fair - even though the monkey is getting a treat nonetheless, because the take-away for the same work isn't equal, the monkey refuses the reward.  

I feel it needs to be said that this obviously works both ways.  Executives keep getting more and more perks because they feel they're getting the raw end of the button-pushing deal, but since the rest of us lowly peons don't have the leverage, we unionize.  Hey, it's my job to give you the info.  What you do with it is up to you.

So perhaps if the NCAA wasn't getting the lion's share - if not more - or if they simply reduced the income for these people, this would be a non-issue.  So at the same time, I suppose I can empathize with the players.

And of course, don't bother making the argument because I'm already there - I am well aware that a significant chunk of money streaming into departments and programs at universities that funds education, research, scholarships, and many other things that make a university a university, come directly from athletic programs.  I understand.  So perhaps because players are bringing in money to the school they should be employees paid for their contributions who don't even need the pretense of class.

I mean, then we could give more scholarships to more "regular" students and then soon they can unionize too, after all, student research has been rumored to be plagiarized by faculty advisers and, really, all they want is compensation for their work and maybe a little recognition. 

Unionizing Athlete-Students

A topic in the news for a couple weeks is the ruling that athletes participating at Northwestern University have the legal right to unionize, and it's something I've been rolling around in my head for some time but haven't been able to form a coherent reaction just yet.  Almost as though I'm arguing with myself about how to feel... But I figure at the very least I could sit down and (figuratively) put pen to paper, so I apologize if this reads somewhat stream-of-consciousness-ly.

To begin, I can understand and empathize with where this athletes are coming from. It is true that the NCAA has made bank from their efforts - coaches and executives making millions atop millions season after season, often being paid more than any other person on campus, from professors to the president.  Only a few years ago, Barry Alvarez filled in for the recently-vacated head coaching position of the Wisconsin Badgers football program for the final game or two of the season, receiving a six figure bonus for coaching, and another five figures for going to the Rose Bowl, all on top of his seven figure salary as athletic director.  So I get it.  If I was working day in and day out, seeing none of the fruits of my labors, I would be frustrated as well.  Hell, I'd probably go work for Wall Street where the same thing happens but at least I'd get a paycheck.

That being said, I think this is a systemic issue within the NCAA that needs to be addressed, rather than continue to erode out higher education system.  The title of this post is no mistake. These people are more frequently referred to as "student-athletes", to stress that the "student" comes first, but that's not really the case, now is it?  One of the primary arguments for the team is that they spend upwards of 60 hours each week on football, therefore, it's a job.  But let's think for a second: if they're spending all this time at practice, when exactly are they going to class and/or doing homework/studying?  And going a step further, how, then, are they all pulling 4.0's?

I can't help but feel this movement undermines the entire history of unionizing.  We've all read Grapes of Wrath at some point (at least many of us, or at least know the premise), and I couldn't possibly imagine that this is the same thing.  Hell, even Boy Meets World tackled the issue when the 9th grade students "unionized" after reading the book in an attempt to protest their tests at the school.  Thank you 90's TV for portraying more than any show these days ever could hope to imagine.

But I digress.

The point is that I don't really think this is a positive portrayal of our current system - neither our educations system nor labor movements.  These people are brought to schools for one reason. And when they graduate, chances are they still read at a fifth grade level anyway (and to think that I'm worried about undermining our higher education).  If anyone needs more evidence, simply listen to any professional athlete be interviewed.

And chances are they majored in Communication.  Explain that one to me.

These athletes are receiving a free education, comped room and board, and an almost guaranteed graduation from any number of universities, while the rest of us flounder in student loans for the next two decades.  So could I make an argument that perhaps students themselves should organize?  The masses could fight for lower tuition or better dorms.  I mean, they spend more time at class, studying, and doing homework than many full time careers, so they really should be compensated for it, right?  Not to mention extra-curricular activities like student government, clubs, and the like.  Why are these different than athletics?  Because athletics brings in money?  So now we give more leeway and perks to athletic students while the smart ones drop out and start tech companies.  Go figure.

All in all, I think I would stick with the argument that the NCAA needs to heavily overhaul their entire system, and, at the same time, we need to remember that athletes should students FIRST.  Breakthroughs in human development - medicine, science, economics - rarely, if ever, come from the field or court.  They come from educated, progressive-thinking, insightful individuals.  Believe it or not, their is no Nobel prize for running the 40-yard dash (but those who can run it best call the prize money for winning the Nobel a slow night out.  So at least we have our priorities in the right place).

Perhaps this is yet another case of affluenza.  And the gap widens.  

Mo' Material Wealth, Mo' Problems

Winston Churchill is quoted with

"Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart.  Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."

Taking a stab at what he was talking about, I would argue that it's not so much about politics (especially contemporary parties!) or beliefs, but rather about preservation.  I believe he was referring to the basic human reaction to gain: preserve it as best you can, using the same tactics used to get it.  Liberalism - progressivism - is a tool to be used to break the status quo.  It can be, and is, used to disrupt the current state.  Out with the old, in the new.  Young people for generations have served as the foundation (read: not the whole thing.  Please don't argue history with me. Same goes for my use of "liberalism" in the previous sentence.  We'rte talking about the base ideology, not political affiliation.) for ideological change.  "Old" people have, for all intents and purposes, served as the primary pushers and movers of maintaining that very status quo, integration to rock'n'roll.

They say each subsequent generation suffers and solves the problems of the previous one. But it's that preceding generation who still clings on, desperately  to their beliefs they undoubtedly fought tirelessly to institute.

What does this have to do with anything, you ask.  Well, I respond, a trend I've been noticing as I get older is that those peers I grew up with, as we all go about our lives establishing careers, buying houses, starting families, the same people I once recognized as progressives, are now beginning their journey into conservativism.  From this, I've been beginning to think that the more one gains, the more one has, sways their ideological (and inevitably political) persuasion toward the right.  It seems to me that, simply, the more one has, the more one wishes to keep it that way, even at the expense of others getting their's as well.  In case you're new to my blog, please take a second and shuffle through old posts to figure out exactly how I feel about personal entitlement.  Go ahead.  I'll wait.

Back?  Good.  So I'm assuming you've learned that I tend to scoff when someone believes their "entitled" to something.  That I tend to smirk when someone tells me they "earned this! No one helped me!".  That I, frankly, find those things ludicrous.

Now, I haven't quite figured out what to make of my observations.  All I can say for certain is that, form what I've observed, the more people have, the more they tend to think they've earned it all by themselves.  And the more people think they've earned it on their own, the more they will begin to resist any and all change to the society that "allowed" them that profit.  It seems that while one can, on occasion, move from the lower to the middle class, they forget exactly what it's like to be that low on the totem pole.  And those born into wealth, they will never know.

The Corporate Structure

Scrolling through drafts in this here blog, I stumbled across this tale, obviously hastily written in an attempt to get it down while the frustration was still fresh.  So I reread it, polished it up, and figured I'd share it with all ya'll!

A few months ago, I was in the process of changing my phone provider but attempting to keep my same number.  I had frankly started to think that the snafus down the road due to a new number may, in fact, be less troublesome than undertaking this process.  Here's the bright-side though: it certainly gave me a hands-on, concrete experience regarding corporate structure, and, more importantly, the sometimes ridiculous setup some (sadly, probably many, if not most) have.

So here's how it went down: each time I called customer service of this new provider, I follow the voice commands to get to my answers, pressing one for English, pressing five for more options, so on and so on.  All in all, I ended up calling seven times. Count 'em, seven.  On that seventh attempt, I was informed that the person on the other end could not help, but would, in fact, transfer me to another department.

Fair enough, super duper.

Shortly thereafter, I received an email (from the transferred-to department) explaining that the zip code I had provided for my old billing address was incorrect, and was given a number to call as well as my case number for reference.  On to lucky call number eight.  Again, following the command prompts, I followed the breadcrumbs to the department where I was told the issue was something completely different.  I gently explained the email I received.

Aha, the email was correct and it was mistaken zip code.  The service rep misspoke.  

Okay, I can handle that.

So I asked what I needed to do to move this process forward.  At this point it's been well over fifteen minutes (I realize it doesn't sound like much, but that was fifteen minutes well-spent sitting and waiting while the rep on the other end struggled to believe the apparently far-fetched story I was selling).  I was told that I would need to provide the correct zip code.

Okay, and I gave my old zip code.

"No, no, no, I'm sorry sir, I can not change that information.  I will transfer you to the blah blah blah department."

After explaining to the rep my confusion (and hiding the frustration as best I could) that I received this email and followed it to a tee to solve the problem, so why I was being transferred to a different department?  Why I wasn't just sent to the problem-solving department right off the bat instead of the problem-reporting department?  There was no real answer to that.

By the end of the half hour call, I had been transferred one more time before the issue was solved.  Though I'm not entirely sure how.  I don't know what kind of computers they're using, but by the sound of it they had to type in each number and letter in binary code.

So here's the question: what exactly are the cost-saving measures of having multiple departments that can't really do anything to help?  How many of us have worked under layers of bureaucracy, stifling creativity, smothering productivity, and sending clients on a round-about chase?  Is that really a Lean organization?

I mean really. 

Imposed Regulations

It always seems strange to me how very contradictory our economic demands are compared to our public demands.  We in the U.S. hold on dearly to our capitalism, maintaining the “American Dream” – if you work hard enough, you’ll be successful.  If you’re not successful, well, that’s your fault.  Our tycoons and kings of the free markets built their empires through smart business moves and the sweat of their brows, fueling the fires of competition to bring the best and least expensive product to the masses.  Capitalism, after all, is spurred on by competition, hence the Mergers and Monopolies commission, which regulates markets to ensure fair competition.

But wait a minute?  How can we be both competitive and “fair” at the same time?  Isn't that the point of capitalism – “I built it, it’s mine, and the government needs to butt out!” – to build and maximize and adapt to survive?  Our economic system and deeply held cultural beliefs stem from Social Darwinism: only the strong survive.  However, we don’t live in a completely free market economy to allow private businesses the wiggle room to manage their own affairs.  We've added government regulations, taxes and tariffs, and publicly funded programs to the mix, hindering the private markets’ ability to self-regulate.

Damn right, some of you may say.  Let Big Brother get out of the picture and leave us in peace.  Let business take care of business and the government to take care of…something else.

Now, think, what would happen if the government truly played no role in public life, allowed for a fully capitalistic system to emerge, free from influence and free from any of those “social(ist)” programs interfering with the balance of power.  Programs such as welfare, roads, bridges, the correctional system, the military, police and fire protection, minimum wage, the 40-hour workweek, labor laws, public education (including the state university systems and tech schools), FEMA, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and tax breaks for businesses, dependents  home-owners, people in school, IRA contributions, work-travel, and charitable donations should all be out the window…

So what do we really want?

It's Still a Global Economy...

As part two of my last post regarding the interconnectedness of today's economy (found here), two big side issues come to mind: outsourcing and off-shoring.  It's important to recognize that these are two different strategies, sometimes overlapping, but not necessarily (imagine a Venn Diagram...I do so like those).

Outsourcing has to do with when one company hires another firm to handle some, part, or all of one of it's production facets.  For instance, many colleges outsource food service and housekeeping, hiring an outside entity to handle those operations.  Another company may outsource logistics and transportation.  Or packaging.  Or marketing.  Anything not done in house is, effectively, outsourced.  Often it's just more cost-effective to hire someone else to worry about those things.

Off-shoring is when a company decides it's more cost-effective to produce their products in a different country.  T-shirts might be distributed by an American company, but it's much cheaper to pay workers in Honduras (where the shirt I'm wearing right now was produced even though it's by Fruit of the Loom, an American company).

So which are we more concerned about?  I've heard it here and there that we should move toward a "buy American" market.  That is, we should buy materials made here in the good ol' U.S. of A.  But what about materials made by American companies?  I mean, eventually, doesn't most of that money stay here in the States?  The company's books are U.S. based, so their revenue counts when the IRS comes a'knocking.  But, and ready for a wrench in the works?  What about foreign companies off-shoring to the U.S.?  U.S. workers, saving and spending in the U.S. Isn't that what we're looking for?  But the argument about where the revenue stream heads we just used regarding U.S. products not made in the U.S. is now used against us.  I came across this article in Bloomberg Businessweek which got me thinking about it.  Unbeknownst to me, Anheuser-Busch has been bought out by InBev, a Brazilian/European company.  Since their takeover, they've laid off a couple thousand U.S. workers as the company grows evermore profitable.  Even still, they've taken other brands they own (notably Beck's, as pointed out in the article) and moved production from Germany to the U.S.  That's good, right?

Even now, I still haven't wrapped my head around the global implications of AB InBev or the dozens of other companies that do the same thing...

So what does it mean to "buy American"?

A Globalized Economy

Spoiler alert: it was my hope to write this as a non-partisan, neutral look at a contemporary hot-button issue.  My thoughts on the matter may not resonate with you personally, or even any reader happening across this page whilst enjoying their morning joe.  What follows is simply a hypothetical consideration; one of many sides to a significant and ever-growing issue.  Happy reading.

For the past several years, the U.S. has been spiraling through the “Great Recession”, and, as such, a central issue in both the public and private sectors has been putting American citizens to work.  But let’s consider for a moment just what exactly our economy allows for, specifically regarding off-shoring and outsourcing.

Here we are, 2012, a world that has become steadily interdependent and globalized economy.  We enjoy everyday luxuries impossible to consider a century ago.  Standardized clothing, mass manufactured and shipped from the Caribbean (Honduras, specifically, for my shirt right now) and produce, far out of season in the Midwest, fresh on the shelves from Jamaica and South America.  Toys made in China.  Steel, mined in Brazil, ships to the U.S., where it’s delivered to a tariff-free zone (an area not technically considered the U.S.) where it’s manufactured into usable materials import-free (meaning the good ol’ U.S. of A. makes zero public profit) and shipped to the Netherlands where components are put together into a product.  A U.S. company contracts an Asian company to create computer processors, which, in turn, contracts Chinese mining companies to provide raw materials and Indian firms to write and install software, and the whole shebang is then shipped to a separate company (probably a U.S. company taking advantage of less-expensive labor and more lax import/export laws as it sets up shop in a foreign nation) to put it all together, when other companies come in to market, pack, ship, stock, and sell the item.  Then, if something happens and you need tech support, the phone is answered by someone halfway around the world, working third shift to accommodate the time difference, whose paycheck is still signed by the American company.  Obviously, “bringing jobs back home” is a little simplistic.

Now let’s think what would happen if all this work arrived on our shores: The labor that we in America get all up in arms about when we hear numbers like “$3 a day”, decrying how terrible it is to be paying workers such a paltry sum, suddenly shoots up to American standards, somewhere in the minimum range of $7.50/hour.  (Side note: what we often fail to consider is the purchasing power parity, or PPP, which links changes in the exchange rate between two currencies to changes in the countries price levels.  This adjustment then allows for a more direct comparison of living standards…for instance, in 2007 the GNI per capita in China was $2,360, but the PPP per capita was $5,370, meaning the cost of living was less in China and that the GNI per capita could purchase as much as $5,370 in the U.S.  I’m not saying I’m for or against $3/day, but just that single number alone doesn’t paint an accurate picture).

Anyway, say we have 100 workers at $3 U.S./day, working for one day - $300 in labor.  100 workers at $7.50/hour, working an eight-hour day for one day = $6000.  Now think about that over the course of a year.  Now, if output remains the same, but cost of labor increases, what logically must happen to the cost of the product?  You guessed it.

I would say our next step is figure out what we can do, and what we can do better than anyone else. We can’t very well consider our economy in isolation from the rest of the world; jobs don’t just appear.  We can spout all we want about job creation, but until we find something people will pay for, we can’t very well work it.  We’re in the midst of a global system, what happens in one place inevitably affects what happens elsewhere.

So what’s the point?  We live in an ever-shrinking, ever-flattening world.  No longer is a single country autonomous and independent of the activities, the economies, the products of another nation.  Now, I’m not saying that I necessarily agree or disagree with the current level of out-sourcing and off-shoring, or even that there aren’t some gigs we could do here, simply that “bringing jobs back home” isn’t as easy as that.  

My Favorite Reality Show

It's that time again!  Every four years, my favorite reality show makes it's way around once again.  I'll admit, it is more of a guilty pleasure as there far-and-away characters, resembling in no way a normal life, argue and bicker back and forth.  I do believe that those are the best shows: those with "regular people"...just the best. I mean, you listen to the talk and just can't help but wonder who they think they're resonating with.  And isn't that perhaps one of the best things about reality TV?  We get to watch these people, these regular joes, televise their exploits, and the irony is that they somehow maintain the idea that they are just like everyone else, while those of us back here on earth watch and shake our heads.  With the exception of those that actually believe some of the things these characters are saying (there's always a few), the rest of us rush home from work, hastily drop our bags and coats, and hunker down in front of the TV to tune in, trying to not miss a single beat.

In the last episode, they characters traveled to Florida to hash out some differences, and what an episode that made for!  Such things as "facts" or "real numbers" somehow don't actually apply.  The back-and-forth "It's true" "No it's not" "It absolutely is", paired with subtle as well as not-so-tongue-in-cheek digs and insults hurled back and forth...  It's like children, going back and forth as the host of the show sits impotently by, like a downtrodden parent who's lost control of their kids.

I mean really.  Where do these people come from?  Where do they get their "facts"? With whom do they believe they're resonating?  And the best part is, I was watching reruns of episodes from 30 some-odd years ago, and their arguments were about the same things!  It's like 'Survivor': every week, every season, we tune in to see who's the backstabber, who's allying with whom, and who's getting voted off.  Every season is like a mild repeat of the very same issues that previously surfaced last season.  All that seems to change (and the same holds true for American Idol, Jersey Shore, and, admittedly, those are the only ones I can name...) is the faces of the competitors.  The only difference is that none of us can possibly imagine watching Jersey Shore intermittently for 30 years.  At some point, people should grow out of it.

One-time contestants, back in 1980, had a great episode wherein contestants went back and forth over jobs, unemployment, military spending, taxes...nice to see how far we've come, eh?  And in this day and age, the audience seems to be more polarized by the mantle their contestants has donned over what they're saying.  There is a "right" and a "wrong", a difference that appears to based more on truth than "fact". Alliances are a sure-fire way to lose ground.  "Compromise" is the latest four-letter word.  Everyone is against outsourcing and off-shoring, and no one (yet everyone) has contributed to both.  Both sides are cutting our access to healthcare, Medicaid, and Medicare, yet both sides are actively protecting them.  Neither side (yet both sides) are raising taxes.  Everyone is somehow both for and against women.  Everyone is both for and against job creation.  See where I'm going with this?

Welcome to the future.  Welcome to numbers and figures that only exist if we want them to.  Where data and facts are hotly debated and even open to interpretation.  There is no such thing as a number anymore.  Here's a list...choose your favorite and laud it as FACT.  Everyone else is WRONG.

Oh, and don't forget to vote today.  I hear it's the most important election of our lives.  But don't worry.  In four years, it will be the most important election once again.

Thoughts on Successful Organizations

A little while ago, I posted thoughts about what makes an organization successful.  My original post focused mostly on the idea that there is no set formula or recipe for creating and sustaining a successful organization, but I kept thinking about it and arrived at a second thought: perhaps there is a universal equation.  Perhaps if one takes the right people, attempting the right thing, at the right time in the right place, perhaps there's no reason to doubt it would be successful.  Of course, this formula is similar to dieting.  Everyone knows that a healthy diet consists of eating healthy portions of nutritious foods and additional physical activity and exercise.  Simple, right? I'm confident that the vast majority of people are well aware of this idea, but, as always, the devil's in the details. What works for one person will be unlikely to work for another.  The issue comes in the application.  In figuring out what works best for YOU and YOUR organization.

So perhaps there is a universal principle.  Of course, at least one factor is well beyond our control - the right time - and so we have to adapt to do the best we can in the here and now while planning for the future.  So, in continuing the question from the original thought, what works?  What doesn't?  How do you facilitate the variables under your control?  And how do you mitigate those that aren't?

Successful Organizations

What makes a successful organization?  Is there a specific formula to follow, or a special recipe where one can add A, B, and C and come out on top?  I'm thinking it's not that easy.  I realize we've been taught since day one that your success is determined by the sweat of your brow and the ache of your back.  That you are solely responsible to make or break your own accomplishments.  The so-called "American Dream", where if you work hard enough, put enough of yourself into it, you can live the dream, so to speak.  But is that really it?  Are there not circumstances outside of your control that can influence the same success or failure?  Regardless of how much we personally invest in something, doesn't it still need outside influence?  Doesn't a business still need people to buy their stuff?  Doesn't an organization still need funding that may or not be available?  Is it YOUR fault if others don't believe in something as much as you do?

Now, I'm sure there are some out there reading this who would pose the argument that YOU need to convince them, that it falls on YOU to change their minds.  And to an extent, I agree.  I would also agree that there are times when it's not so much about succeeding or failing, but what you do and how you react to trials and tribulations.  Do you give up if the first dozen attempts fall through?  Do you just quit, complaining that life's not fair if things don't work out in your favor?  Of course not.  In that aspect we are accountable.  We are the only ones who can fully control ourselves.  Each of us, individually, are the sole proprietors of the we act and react to any given situations.  But at the same time, I would say that's a post for a new day and a completely different train of thought.

What I'm talking about is the organization itself.  What does it take to get an organization, a company, a business off the ground and running?  And maintain sustainability?  I suppose the best place to begin is to look at your own organization.  What are your strengths?  Weaknesses?  What have you been doing well to capitalize on and what needs work?  What else can you take advantage of and what out there should you be wary of?  A quick SWOT analysis may be the first step, and I'd be curious to hear what some strengths are, and look for similar factors across industries.