Change and Progress

My inspiration of late, thinking about change and progress. Learn from where you've been, what you've done. Take this knowledge, gained from both successes and failures, and continue to climb. 

"The rung of a ladder was never meant to rest upon, but only to hold a man's foot long enough to enable him to put the other one somewhat higher." 

-Thomas Huxley

The following is a video about Honda's "Kick Out the Ladder" mentality. Set the goal. Pose the challenge. And start climbing.

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. 

Fixed Mindset vs. Growth Mindset

"The moment we believe that success is determined by an ingrained level of ability as opposed to resilience and hard work, we will be brittle in the face of adversity."
-Josh Waitzkin

This video (from TEDx Manhattan Beach) offers a great paradigm of learning and success.  Enjoy!

Just Build a Fence

A current topic creating unrest in and between parties (aside from educations, firearms, religion, women's rights, civil rights, voter ID, foreign affairs, and almost every other topic that could possibly incite an argument, seemingly just for the sake of arguing these days) is immigration policy.

Now, amid the debate is amnesty and probationary citizenship for the 11 some-odd million less-than-legal residents of the good ol' U.S. of A, but that's not my focus here right now.  Of course, it could be, looking at the minimal wages and "cost effective" workforce illegal aliens allow business owners, or the sudden, enormous, influx of income tax dollars should these people magically appear on the books, or, heck, even bring up Lady Liberty, welcoming in any and all in search of a better life.

But no.  Let's talk instead about a fence.  Many voices out there are calling for a fence to go up along our southern border; low-tech, a simple "good fences make good neighbors" situation.  Preceding this call for a Berl- excuse me, "American" Wall, are assertions that some of us belong here, and others, who've emerged victorious though weathered, beleaguered, and tired through legal venue, who deserve to be here.  All well and good I suppose, but my question is, just because some of us were born here means we deserve the freedoms and opportunities heralded across the land?

I mean, off the top of my head, birthright has been a fact of life for thousands of years.  Kings and nobles had a birthright.  Origins of birth brought about the slave trade, civil inequality on both ethnicity and gender, and Paris Hilton's 15 seconds of fame.  If America is the "Land of Opportunity", a place where if you work hard and play your hand right, life turns out well for you.  Personal responsibility and accountability are #1, right?  Well millions of people work hard every day, but find the inability to break free from the bonds of systemic poverty.  Why?  Because they weren't born to the right parents?  Some people will always be fighting for the same rights and privileges as their neighbors because they happened to have been born a woman (the average pay disparity is still about 77 cents to a dollar last I read)?  Doesn't sound fair, does it?

And now there's an argument that says, "we deserve this because we just happen to have been born to American citizens".  From my experience, once people begin feeling they "deserve" something, especially something they never had to personally work for, they begin declaring who else "deserves" it.

In a Stanford study, groups of three students were asked to discuss a list of contentious social issues.  One member was randomly assigned to a position of higher power and asked to evaluate the other students' input.  After thirty minutes, the experimenter came in with a plate of five cookies - the more "powerful" students were more likely to take a second cookie, chew with their mouths open, and get crumbs of their faces and the table (Sutton; The No Asshole Rule, 2007).  The "powerful" student wasn't placed in a higher position for any particular reason, there was no merit system, no avenue by which the students were assigned, yet even over thirty minutes evaluating other students the student in the higher position actually began to see him/herself over the others.

 So if some of us "deserve" to live here, just because we happen to have been born here (again, through no actual effort of our own), where could the potential slippery slope end?  I sometimes wonder if our rights and privileges had to be earned by each and every person from New York to LA.  What if, when we turn 18, everyone had top take the citizenship test?  What if , on the provision we pass, we would be afforded the ability to vote, receive benefits, run for office, etc.?

Perhaps that may also help turn the focus on our destitute school systems...

Radical notion?  Undoubtedly.  But why would such a provision be voted down almost unanimously?  Because there's people out there who've "earned" these privileges...?

Another thought on Real-World Preparation

As a companion to my Real World Preparation post:

The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.

                                                           -Herbert Spencer

Struggling to Get By

"I have guys who qualify for food stamps now," he said. "I have guys who don't know how they are going to pay their mortgage. There are kids working at ice cream stands earning more than their fathers, which is ridiculous."

This is pulled from an article in the Bradenton Herald regarding the latest government action to scrimp and save.  The story goes something like this: with no money in the bank, the mayor of Scranton, PA, cut public employee wages to minimum wage for the foreseeable future.  Politics aside (although the article, which can be found at the bottom of this post, makes a great point of the necessity for bipartisan cooperation), I think this issue brings to light an extreme issue plaguing millions of people: minimum wage is not enough to live on.  In the wealthiest nation in the world, a topic brought up in every election is what to do with welfare and social programs - do we fund them or cut them?  Well, long story short, as long as minimum wage is not enough to stay off of welfare programs.  At $7.25 an hour (as it is in PA and WI, at least), one can expect to make only $13,000 a year, which comes about $100 under the maximum monthly income to qualify someone for food stamps (http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm).

Now, if we were to look as this systemically, one may agrue that welfare and social services will always be an issue as long as people aren't making enough to stay off of them.  Seems pretty straightforward, right?  Apparently not.  All we talk about is the Band-Aid we put on the issue - welfare, food stamps, reduced-price lunch - without delving into the actual issue: people don't make enough NOT to use them.  I should think that this situation in Scranton, PA may be a wakeup call to policy makers.  But, alas, I won't get my hopes up.

Find the entire article here: http://www.bradenton.com/2012/07/10/4109205/pa-mayor-cuts-city-workers-pay.html

Quote of the Week: #2

"If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."
-Isaac Newton

Quote of the Week #1

"I am not what has happened to me.  I am what I choose to become."
-Carl Jung

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?

A Self-Made Man

Is there such a thing?  One the one hand, we've the idea that through enough hard work, dedication, and perseverance, we can achieve anything.  That through our own ambition, we are responsible for finding success. Or failure.  On the other hand, the argument can be made that there is no such thing as a "self-made man".  That everyone needs someone to help them out on their way up.  Businesses need someone to buy their services.  Companies need roads to transport their goods.  Even Wall Street needs someone to invest in.  Teachers, associates, the coworker who wrote the letter of recommendation...

I am of the latter persuasion.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating blaming shortcomings or missteps on others, nor for people to sit back and wait for their "white knight".  I'm saying that people need to take responsibility for their lives.  Be it through education, networking, or just taking a wild chance, a shot in the dark - there IS something you can do.  Even given the raw deal or hit with a blow that brought you to your knees, you are still accountable.  How will you react?  Roll over and give up, or fall down seven times, get up eight?  I argue the latter.  So take responsibility for where you end up.  Invest more of yourself.  Take an honest look at your weaknesses and exercise your strengths.  Build your own ladder.  But don't forget all those who enabled you to do so.

Changing Your Fate

I just saw a movie preview with the tagline "Would you change your fate?"  Now that doesn't really make sense to me: how could we know our fate in order to change it?  And once we live out our fate, wouldn't it be too late by then?  And isn't the very point of "fate" that things are the way they are and there's no changing them?  By changing them, wouldn't that effectively nullify the very concept of "fate"?  And again, if we don't know our fate, how could we be sure we're changing it?  What if the change itself was "fated" to happen?

Vicious circle?

See, I'm of the belief that fate is an excuse; used as a scapegoat, a handy way out of taking responsibility for things not working out your way.  I'm sure we've all heard the line, "It wasn't meant to be", or any variation thereof.  As I'm sure you could ascertain from many of my previous posts, I'm not big on the idea that defining your success by everything you've done or everything you have (too many variables.  There is no such thing as the "self-made man"), I do and will continue to maintain that you still get a say in how things turn out.  A cartoon I happened across in the funnies section was a one-panel shot of the protagonist amid a pile of lumber, looking at the empty box titled "Ladder of Success. Some Assembly Required".  What role does fate play there?  We can each decide to build the ladder or sit by and complain that our ladder wouldn't be tall enough anyway.  May we need some help along the way?  Of course.  Can we add to our lumber?  Of course.  So are you going to stand by, wishing to change your fate?  Or will you start building?

I, for one, will build.  But I know I'll need a hand along the way.

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.