You know I see things and I always seem to attribute what I saw to something that has occurred or something that's occurring or will occur. If you've ever watched the movie "Hart's War", a 2002 film about WWII prisoners of war, where thousands of American GI troops were housed in this particular Sta-lick barracks. It starred Bruce Willis as a captured Colonial and Collin Farrell as a Lieutenant who was also captured and Terrence Howard played a framed Lincoln A. Scott to take the fall of one of the men for selling out to the Germans and killed by the Colonial(Bruce Willis). It was a depiction to show that Scott (Howard) was the ruthless murderer because the men of his barracks were raciest.
During the movie the Lieutenant found out what was going on and an escape was being planned and this is why Scott was being frame. As the Colonial indicated if one man has to be sacrificed to save 35, it's worth the sacrifice. The Lieutenant couldn't agree with him more but inserted as a Colonial it was much more that just a sacrifice of any man. If there were going to be a sacrifice then it should be him the Colonial who would sacrifice himself to save his men. It was about Honor, Respect, Character, Integrity and Dignity.
During the climax Scott was told by the Lieutenant what was fixing to go down and as much as it upset Scott,the Lieutenant wanted Scott to escape with the 35 men during the deliberation but Scott chose not to, even knowing he would be executed for a false crime. He felt that if this is what it took to save 35 of his solider friends then he'll accept the consequences. All that he asked the Lieutenant was that he take a photograph he had of his family and when he got back home to explain to his son just what Honor, Respect, Character, Integrity and Dignity was all about just as his father had explained it to him.
My whole point to this post is what our country has seem to have forgotten all about what's important. Yes we are a capitalistic society. Capitalism to the fullest extent where each of us has the ability to succeed and make something of ourselves. But as the soldiers code "we never leave a brother behind" is the empathy of every decent American; what has our society chose to do with the American unemployed workers, workers of age, youth that has no experience and can't get hired on without experience? Have we not turned our backs and walked away leaving our brothers to starve, die, and to allow their families and children to falter at our lack of honor, respect, and character?
Has capitalism become so important toward success we will walk over our very own just for us to prosper and flaunt it to everyone who cannot have what some have? Is it our government and politicians wish to leave fallen brothers and sisters behind so they might benefit because they choose not to pay their debts, they choose to vote in every aspect of wealth that will benefit them allowing the millions of Americans to struggle with no means of pulling themselves out of the mud?
This show made me do a lot of thinking regarding Honor, Respect, Character, Integrity and Dignity. I feel we all need to go back to our roots and stop and think about not just from a point of view that we have sons and daughters fighting and dieing to give many this allowance but just what America stands for. Opportunity and giving honor to all those deserving. Not handouts, but the belief that tomorrow will be a better tomorrow and we can all prosper simply by helping our fellow man and not leaving anyone behind.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Reaching the Big 50 Part 2
Yep, I continue to observe and everything around me seems to be notoriety pointing to "oh you must be over 50".
I went on an interview recently and speaking with the interviewee whom I knew, he started discussing how it appears the way corporate sees things that they're trying to push out people of age only to bring in the youth. Which I understood his point, but that's not what this post is about. Although his thinking is what this is about. See everyone is under this conception that 50 marks the end of an era for life and you need to be somewhat put out to pasture to graze until you merely ready to keel over and you slip into the next world.
It was interesting to hear him talk. Yea this wasn't the traditional interview, like I said I knew the person I was interviewing with. He explains how he has to work at least another 15 years, how so and so has 30 years here how and how he suspects that person will go another 5 years and be gone. Same thing for Bubba and John. Everyone is just getting old. OK what is the definition of old I ask you?
Dictionary.com defines old as 1. far advanced in the years of one's or its life. Merriam-Webster defines old as a : advanced in years or age b : showing the characteristics of age . So does this definition type cast all people once they reach 50 as being old? To old for a healthy lifestyle?
I never gave it a second thought in my forties of what old meant or that things would slow down in that era. Not until I reached 50 did I start hearing so much rhetoric about being old. Commercials, shows, the media, insurance ads, etc. Today being at my age, I still feel no different than I did when I was 30 and in some cases probably younger.
Ever notice how sensitive women get when they are reaching the Big 50? It's like shoot me please. We have become a society of putting labels on everything. Ads trying to draw the younger crowd to buy certain things. Media as stating things like the consumer buying power is within the younger generation between this age and that age. Is it because people of that age era spend more freely so they captivate the audience by saying a certain age range?
In the case of 50 and older being old in the work force. Why is it people don't see it as and aging workforce but government does? But in the same breath they say social benefits won't be paid until 62 1/2 and continually speaking about raising it to 70 whereas people are expected to work and be vibrant through their golden years?
I never considered my parents as old when they hit 50. I just thought they were more experience at giving advice that I could utilize. From a standpoint of ladies hitting the Big 50, I see many ladies that look better now than they did in their 50's and many are healthier today. Heck back in my 20's and 30's some women looked way worse than women of the age of 50 and above. So why do we have to continually stigmatize people with a label?
Is statistics so clear that they have narrowed it down to the point where they absolutely know that you're going to start dieing when you hit the 50 number? Believe it or not, from the time we get out of our mother's womb we begin dieing. If the government was totally sold on these statistics wouldn't it make more sense to say let's give social benefits to people when they hit 50? Why prolong it if you know I'm doomed to die within that era? I know lots has to do politically by trying to make one believe they're dieing but you must work until what we feel is a good age to call it quits if you want to be eligible to collect your benefits. There's a separation in what people believe and the way statistics portray the individual growing older.
Are we living in a New World where we will create social economic issues that will push people to die by the time they reach 50? Are we so concerned that anything younger is what the world is all about?
It's just in my opinion that I think we're missing something here. That there is no balance between social economical times of being 50 and being anything else younger. What would truly happen if we quit focusing so much on certain age groups and focus more on life itself? What would happen if we balanced out the age groups and not cater to one more than the other one? Could it be if we really quit type casting and setting particular ages as being the ultimate time to deteriorate that people would do more, be more and live a much healthier lifestyle with no worries about when is it actually time to be considered a senior citizen? It just doesn't make much sense to stigmatize a group that has so much to offer who's continually learning and contributing to a betterment of life.
It's something that haunts me the way society sees things and really it all stems not from the youth, but from advertisements, government depictions, and what a select group is made as the deciding factor. Grow old with dignity not dis-spare and let's quit worrying about type casting the cast that doesn't really care what you think of them as long as they have bounce, let them continue to bounce!
I went on an interview recently and speaking with the interviewee whom I knew, he started discussing how it appears the way corporate sees things that they're trying to push out people of age only to bring in the youth. Which I understood his point, but that's not what this post is about. Although his thinking is what this is about. See everyone is under this conception that 50 marks the end of an era for life and you need to be somewhat put out to pasture to graze until you merely ready to keel over and you slip into the next world.
It was interesting to hear him talk. Yea this wasn't the traditional interview, like I said I knew the person I was interviewing with. He explains how he has to work at least another 15 years, how so and so has 30 years here how and how he suspects that person will go another 5 years and be gone. Same thing for Bubba and John. Everyone is just getting old. OK what is the definition of old I ask you?
Dictionary.com defines old as 1. far advanced in the years of one's or its life. Merriam-Webster defines old as a : advanced in years or age
I never gave it a second thought in my forties of what old meant or that things would slow down in that era. Not until I reached 50 did I start hearing so much rhetoric about being old. Commercials, shows, the media, insurance ads, etc. Today being at my age, I still feel no different than I did when I was 30 and in some cases probably younger.
Ever notice how sensitive women get when they are reaching the Big 50? It's like shoot me please. We have become a society of putting labels on everything. Ads trying to draw the younger crowd to buy certain things. Media as stating things like the consumer buying power is within the younger generation between this age and that age. Is it because people of that age era spend more freely so they captivate the audience by saying a certain age range?
In the case of 50 and older being old in the work force. Why is it people don't see it as and aging workforce but government does? But in the same breath they say social benefits won't be paid until 62 1/2 and continually speaking about raising it to 70 whereas people are expected to work and be vibrant through their golden years?
I never considered my parents as old when they hit 50. I just thought they were more experience at giving advice that I could utilize. From a standpoint of ladies hitting the Big 50, I see many ladies that look better now than they did in their 50's and many are healthier today. Heck back in my 20's and 30's some women looked way worse than women of the age of 50 and above. So why do we have to continually stigmatize people with a label?
Is statistics so clear that they have narrowed it down to the point where they absolutely know that you're going to start dieing when you hit the 50 number? Believe it or not, from the time we get out of our mother's womb we begin dieing. If the government was totally sold on these statistics wouldn't it make more sense to say let's give social benefits to people when they hit 50? Why prolong it if you know I'm doomed to die within that era? I know lots has to do politically by trying to make one believe they're dieing but you must work until what we feel is a good age to call it quits if you want to be eligible to collect your benefits. There's a separation in what people believe and the way statistics portray the individual growing older.
Are we living in a New World where we will create social economic issues that will push people to die by the time they reach 50? Are we so concerned that anything younger is what the world is all about?
It's just in my opinion that I think we're missing something here. That there is no balance between social economical times of being 50 and being anything else younger. What would truly happen if we quit focusing so much on certain age groups and focus more on life itself? What would happen if we balanced out the age groups and not cater to one more than the other one? Could it be if we really quit type casting and setting particular ages as being the ultimate time to deteriorate that people would do more, be more and live a much healthier lifestyle with no worries about when is it actually time to be considered a senior citizen? It just doesn't make much sense to stigmatize a group that has so much to offer who's continually learning and contributing to a betterment of life.
It's something that haunts me the way society sees things and really it all stems not from the youth, but from advertisements, government depictions, and what a select group is made as the deciding factor. Grow old with dignity not dis-spare and let's quit worrying about type casting the cast that doesn't really care what you think of them as long as they have bounce, let them continue to bounce!
Reaching the Big 50
Just a personal observation. I listened, conversed, and watched all around me. My sign states I'm a great observer, and I think I am. To get to my point one thing I do think plagues society as a whole is the labels we put on things/typecasting. I know we always are talking about the age crisis. But why has society become so obsessed with age. Everywhere you turn you see 50+ eligible for AARP, If you're 50 or over, 50+ senior citizen discount. Really? Although it's nice to obtain such discounts and eligibility, why do we as a society press so much on this? Why has this become such a factor in order to live a decent life and why is it so darn important to always be pointing it out?
No where do you see if you're 20+ you could do this, or have you considered this now that you're 20, so on and so on. The only other factor where a stringent age notability takes place is 18 and below. Checking ID's. But then that doesn't stop you from achieving things. Don't get me wrong being 50 shouldn't stop you either, but it's just the attitude people have and envision that if you're 50 or over life is down hill.
You know it's clearly proven in Psychology circles that if you constantly dwell on things and always referring to things eventually you'll start reacting to those kind of things. Look for years and even into days social economical circles you're told "be around positive influence because negativity will keep you down". Has Physiologists determined our make-up as human life changes when we reach 50? Do we stand out as a population for being different than anyone under 50? Have we grown tails that's become so noticeable we need to be caged only to be looked at and laughed at?
So why do we put so much emphasis on hitting the big 50? Shouldn't we be inspiring without using the age category in advertisements, things we do, things we don't do as just a regular day in life with out being stigmatized with the "ut oh.. you've reached the point in life where you being thought of as less human". It's kinda like watching a sitcom like "the Office" where as Steve Carell is this dumb person, counter intuitive boss who can't run a business to save his life. Every time you see him in another movie he just doesn't seem right because he's been typecast-ed as being a stupid person.
Sorry off on a tangent, but it really fits the role of discrimination. Why is it so important that you be within a certain age group to be considered still worthy of (shhhsss I don't want to say it to loud).... a productive life style?
No where do you see if you're 20+ you could do this, or have you considered this now that you're 20, so on and so on. The only other factor where a stringent age notability takes place is 18 and below. Checking ID's. But then that doesn't stop you from achieving things. Don't get me wrong being 50 shouldn't stop you either, but it's just the attitude people have and envision that if you're 50 or over life is down hill.
You know it's clearly proven in Psychology circles that if you constantly dwell on things and always referring to things eventually you'll start reacting to those kind of things. Look for years and even into days social economical circles you're told "be around positive influence because negativity will keep you down". Has Physiologists determined our make-up as human life changes when we reach 50? Do we stand out as a population for being different than anyone under 50? Have we grown tails that's become so noticeable we need to be caged only to be looked at and laughed at?
So why do we put so much emphasis on hitting the big 50? Shouldn't we be inspiring without using the age category in advertisements, things we do, things we don't do as just a regular day in life with out being stigmatized with the "ut oh.. you've reached the point in life where you being thought of as less human". It's kinda like watching a sitcom like "the Office" where as Steve Carell is this dumb person, counter intuitive boss who can't run a business to save his life. Every time you see him in another movie he just doesn't seem right because he's been typecast-ed as being a stupid person.
Sorry off on a tangent, but it really fits the role of discrimination. Why is it so important that you be within a certain age group to be considered still worthy of (shhhsss I don't want to say it to loud).... a productive life style?
Monday, July 25, 2011
Putting the Bull Out to Pasture Before It's Time
I was watching an old Bonanza show today and what I watched seemed to be exactly what is happening in the world around us with people of age. It's amazing that even the show of back in those days depicted the thoughts we're all under today. And yes even back in the 60's when Bonanza was being filmed it was the same ordeal.
What this story was about was an aging Sheriff in Virgina City, Roy Coffee. The title was "No Less Than A Man". He was up in age, carried no gun and believed you didn't need a fast gun to keep order. The town differed in opinion. They felt he was to old to do the job of maintaining proper order and wanted him gone. But the only way to get rid of him was the town had to vote Adam and Ben Cartwright from the city counsel since they were backing ole Roy. Once they got Adam and Ben out then they could fire Roy.
As the story goes they had a gang coming to town. The Wagner gang who was notorious about robbing the banks in the territory, molesting women and anything they felt like doing. Anyway throughout the show you saw Adam and Roy installing bars over a building's windows and nobody understood what was going on and thought Roy and Adam was crazy as in "what the hell are you doing"? The town people were worried and dazzled about "what will we do when this gang comes to town"? Roy had no worries and suggested the towns people let him do his job. But with no support they rallied against him and put together a somewhat mob to protect the inner city.
To cut to the chase, Roy had no support other than the Cartwrights. When the gang got to town they saw no one was on the streets and thought maybe it was a trap and then noticed the Sheriff (Roy) standing outside the bank. They road up to him, stepped off their horses and asked, "hey ole man you don't carry a gun anymore", and "where's all the people". Roy stated he ordered everyone off the street because he didn't want anyone getting hurt, and no as he exclaimed, "I do not carry a gun, because we don't want anyone getting hurt, so go on,get what you came after and be on your way". The gang thought that was pretty smart coming from and ole coot. So they preceded into the bank and started the search for the money.
No money could be found and started questioning the banker and forced him to open the vault. Still no money as the leader walked out and figured we'll go and kick that Sheriff's butt and he'll tell us where the money is. The banker grabbed the vault door and pulled it closed and locked himself in. Well the gang couldn't get to him, he was locked inside this steel box and no one knew the combination. As they approached the door to the outside, Sheriff Roy ran to the door, closed it and barricaded it with a bar that was installed outside locking them inside. They tried the windows only to find out the reason Adam and Roy was putting up bars were because they were putting them up on the bank. The gang couldn't get out. No door, no windows so lets just start shooting at the Sheriff who was hiding behind a wagon. Then last but not least they realized we're wasting ammunition. At that point good ole Old Roy hollered to them "you can't go nowhere, you can keep shooting until you run out, you can stay in the bank for a week, a month, but you're not going anywhere. Now throw out your guns, it's over". Yep it was over and the ole gezzard Sheriff Roy Coffee caught the entire gang without force, no guns and by himself.
Now the moral behind this show and what my comparison is, is simple. The town was Upper Management/Corporate, they wanted the underlings (the Sheriff) fired (fired/laid off)and replaced with a quicker gun(Youth) because youth was quicker on the draw. However the Cartwrights knew better about Roy. He had what most older workers have today that most youth haven't had yet; and that management and the corporate world is overlooking; experience.
In the end the town (Management/Corporate) admitted they made a mistake and didn't realize that sometimes experience speaks louder than someone with a sharp wit or in this case a quick gun.Sometimes that experience if given a chance can prove to steer a company right toward the direction they've been wanting to go. Sometimes you really have to quit thinking the worst about people growing older. Wisdom, knowledge, experience and believing in what could be may be exactly what you need. It's not always the appearance of youth that brings fresh ideas, but knowing that you have; someone dependable that cares about the job in Roy's case the town, the employees and company, as Roy stated (the family)and is willing to use that wisdom and knowledge to benefit not themselves but to continue the path of the company's (the family's)success.
What this story was about was an aging Sheriff in Virgina City, Roy Coffee. The title was "No Less Than A Man". He was up in age, carried no gun and believed you didn't need a fast gun to keep order. The town differed in opinion. They felt he was to old to do the job of maintaining proper order and wanted him gone. But the only way to get rid of him was the town had to vote Adam and Ben Cartwright from the city counsel since they were backing ole Roy. Once they got Adam and Ben out then they could fire Roy.
As the story goes they had a gang coming to town. The Wagner gang who was notorious about robbing the banks in the territory, molesting women and anything they felt like doing. Anyway throughout the show you saw Adam and Roy installing bars over a building's windows and nobody understood what was going on and thought Roy and Adam was crazy as in "what the hell are you doing"? The town people were worried and dazzled about "what will we do when this gang comes to town"? Roy had no worries and suggested the towns people let him do his job. But with no support they rallied against him and put together a somewhat mob to protect the inner city.
To cut to the chase, Roy had no support other than the Cartwrights. When the gang got to town they saw no one was on the streets and thought maybe it was a trap and then noticed the Sheriff (Roy) standing outside the bank. They road up to him, stepped off their horses and asked, "hey ole man you don't carry a gun anymore", and "where's all the people". Roy stated he ordered everyone off the street because he didn't want anyone getting hurt, and no as he exclaimed, "I do not carry a gun, because we don't want anyone getting hurt, so go on,get what you came after and be on your way". The gang thought that was pretty smart coming from and ole coot. So they preceded into the bank and started the search for the money.
No money could be found and started questioning the banker and forced him to open the vault. Still no money as the leader walked out and figured we'll go and kick that Sheriff's butt and he'll tell us where the money is. The banker grabbed the vault door and pulled it closed and locked himself in. Well the gang couldn't get to him, he was locked inside this steel box and no one knew the combination. As they approached the door to the outside, Sheriff Roy ran to the door, closed it and barricaded it with a bar that was installed outside locking them inside. They tried the windows only to find out the reason Adam and Roy was putting up bars were because they were putting them up on the bank. The gang couldn't get out. No door, no windows so lets just start shooting at the Sheriff who was hiding behind a wagon. Then last but not least they realized we're wasting ammunition. At that point good ole Old Roy hollered to them "you can't go nowhere, you can keep shooting until you run out, you can stay in the bank for a week, a month, but you're not going anywhere. Now throw out your guns, it's over". Yep it was over and the ole gezzard Sheriff Roy Coffee caught the entire gang without force, no guns and by himself.
Now the moral behind this show and what my comparison is, is simple. The town was Upper Management/Corporate, they wanted the underlings (the Sheriff) fired (fired/laid off)and replaced with a quicker gun(Youth) because youth was quicker on the draw. However the Cartwrights knew better about Roy. He had what most older workers have today that most youth haven't had yet; and that management and the corporate world is overlooking; experience.
In the end the town (Management/Corporate) admitted they made a mistake and didn't realize that sometimes experience speaks louder than someone with a sharp wit or in this case a quick gun.Sometimes that experience if given a chance can prove to steer a company right toward the direction they've been wanting to go. Sometimes you really have to quit thinking the worst about people growing older. Wisdom, knowledge, experience and believing in what could be may be exactly what you need. It's not always the appearance of youth that brings fresh ideas, but knowing that you have; someone dependable that cares about the job in Roy's case the town, the employees and company, as Roy stated (the family)and is willing to use that wisdom and knowledge to benefit not themselves but to continue the path of the company's (the family's)success.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Working for a Company with a bad reputation-part five
Finally, in my last part of “Working for a Company with a bad reputation”, one thing most people don't think about when accepting such a position; you can be given all the authority needed to make change, with expectations you will, but you have to have buy-in, from corporate figures as well as bottom feeders and subordinates. Without buy-in, your chances are futile as you can come in with the best intentions, and you can't fire everyone that won't buy-in, so you'll need to plan, present, implement and it won't happen overnight. I learned this and it doesn't matter, anyone can say they can and will make change; people that don't buy-in although can seem to be on board, but can derail the best system approach and simply make you believe they are on board. It's not to say it cannot be accomplished but your adversities will be challenging, because one thing you have to remember, whether you're the authority figure or not, you are still the new person on the block and those difficult adversities will become a struggle especially each time you run up against an obstacle and/or a brick wall.
Working for a Company with a bad reputation-part four
I believe this question although created a lot of discussion and brings fresh ideas and thoughts is really a vague synopsis of jumping in with no added features. Simply put if you're walking in blindfolded, it would be a death trap for anyone. If this question could expound on why is the company's customer service the worst, why is it the worst company to work for?
There's not really enough meat in this question to warrant a successful answer. If customer service is bad is it the management team; is it the employee’s attitudes, is it lack of training or skill sets? Is it in- appropriate tools given to the employees to be successful; is it long hours being worked so it's beating people down? Why is the company one of the worst to work for, is it because they can't get their sales up, in that case is it the management sales team, is it the acct reps, is it training, is it laziness, is it a bad product? Is the atmosphere what causes the company to be the worst to work for, the culture as everyone seems to put so much into? Is it the type of people being hired in, or is it again operations with no steering, no direction where they are going? Is it the main CEO, CFO, COO that is standing in the way? Is it finances that they are more concerned with than the people?
There is too many variables to just say yes I can and would do work for a bad reputable company or no I can't and I won't do it. With more narratives to come to a conclusion to ensure you have the skill sets, the culture, the background, just going in blind folded would be nothing short than starting your own business as an entrepreneur and with a hope and a prayer and many hours of hard work then one could review and see from information and matrix where they can go, keep growing or shut it down. There's just not enough information really to say yes or no!
A very simply standpoint would be like someone inviting you to go hunting but that's all they tell you. And you say, sure I can hunt, I'll do it. Then without variables such as Hunting for what, what do I need to bring, have I ever been hunting for whatever we're going hunting for, will I need to wear some camouflage, or an orange vest, wait have I ever really been hunting, only to find out when you get where you're going they were just asking you if you wanted to go hunting with them for a new car!
There's not really enough meat in this question to warrant a successful answer. If customer service is bad is it the management team; is it the employee’s attitudes, is it lack of training or skill sets? Is it in- appropriate tools given to the employees to be successful; is it long hours being worked so it's beating people down? Why is the company one of the worst to work for, is it because they can't get their sales up, in that case is it the management sales team, is it the acct reps, is it training, is it laziness, is it a bad product? Is the atmosphere what causes the company to be the worst to work for, the culture as everyone seems to put so much into? Is it the type of people being hired in, or is it again operations with no steering, no direction where they are going? Is it the main CEO, CFO, COO that is standing in the way? Is it finances that they are more concerned with than the people?
There is too many variables to just say yes I can and would do work for a bad reputable company or no I can't and I won't do it. With more narratives to come to a conclusion to ensure you have the skill sets, the culture, the background, just going in blind folded would be nothing short than starting your own business as an entrepreneur and with a hope and a prayer and many hours of hard work then one could review and see from information and matrix where they can go, keep growing or shut it down. There's just not enough information really to say yes or no!
A very simply standpoint would be like someone inviting you to go hunting but that's all they tell you. And you say, sure I can hunt, I'll do it. Then without variables such as Hunting for what, what do I need to bring, have I ever been hunting for whatever we're going hunting for, will I need to wear some camouflage, or an orange vest, wait have I ever really been hunting, only to find out when you get where you're going they were just asking you if you wanted to go hunting with them for a new car!
Working for a Company with a bad reputation-Part three
You know, I worked for a company with similar experience somewhat. When I accepted the transfer it was another division that was in the red. I didn't know this. I was I guess one could say lied to. I thought it was up and up. Come to find out it was in the red, and numerous times reading reports or watching the map matrix the division was not even on the map. I became upset wondering what is the deal. I asked and was told oh it was a computer generated error. Nothing to worry about, it's just a mess up. I spoke to other counterparts in other divisions that was there long before I got there and was told, "didn't you get told, that division was being looked at as being shut down twice, and when you got there, they figured they would give it one more try". How heart wrenching to know your job is now riding on "can you fix it, if not, you're gone". But I did fix it. From negative $'s to over 5 million in less than 2 years. It does take work, and many times I got called on the carpet "what are you doing down there", because some things in corporates eyes didn't seem logical. But I stood my ground and told them point blank, get off your ass and come down here if you think you can do better, this is not a dog and pony show, you needed change, you needed someone who is willing and wanting to make change, and someone who won't just sit here collecting a paycheck. I got it fixed to the point where we were a benchmark for other divisions to be judged against, with the thought of if my division can do it, so can everyone else, so it became an expectation on other divisions.
In this instance it is somewhat different; I didn't realize what I was walking into. The information like P&L I requested didn't reflect problems. I was given either an old P&L or one from another division that indicated it was successful. But needless to say, it worked out despite the untruths and I was successful and over a decade they made plenty of money with me. After I resigned apparently whoever took over couldn't make it work and a year later the division was shut down. I was even offered to take over another division where there was trouble, but chose not to because I was tired of being asked to go to an undeveloped division. I wanted something I didn't have to clean up.
It is challenging and rewarding to succeed, but if it would have failed, I’ve been told that it could have been a mark against me. How do you write that on your resume after 10 years that it just wasn't a successful division without it being looked at as well you're not very good at handling things!
All options have to be weighed out. And you have to also figure out; is it not the company that really wants things to fail or is it really just troubled.
In this instance it is somewhat different; I didn't realize what I was walking into. The information like P&L I requested didn't reflect problems. I was given either an old P&L or one from another division that indicated it was successful. But needless to say, it worked out despite the untruths and I was successful and over a decade they made plenty of money with me. After I resigned apparently whoever took over couldn't make it work and a year later the division was shut down. I was even offered to take over another division where there was trouble, but chose not to because I was tired of being asked to go to an undeveloped division. I wanted something I didn't have to clean up.
It is challenging and rewarding to succeed, but if it would have failed, I’ve been told that it could have been a mark against me. How do you write that on your resume after 10 years that it just wasn't a successful division without it being looked at as well you're not very good at handling things!
All options have to be weighed out. And you have to also figure out; is it not the company that really wants things to fail or is it really just troubled.
Working for a Company with a bad reputation-Part two
I was approached in a conversation with this analogy. I can’t take a position with someone who has a bad reputation because the belief was "Being a good father means more than eating better at the kitchen table". In other words, why take something I can’t control when I might be able to find something I like because I have higher values”. With that analogy, wouldn't eating better be part of being a good father? Meaning, sometimes we all have to step down from the higher ladder rail we're on, expecting to find that perfect position and settle for something in the interim until that something better comes along. So if your only opportunity unless you one that doesn't need money to survive, I have to believe that in the example given, to be a better father and to instill proper values, accepting something that's not so great might instill better values in the long run.
My example using this analogy is, I can look in the mirror at myself and know I am doing everything possible to be a great father by accepting something that's a little more demeaning, not as important, and that it's not beneath me to pick up a broom and sweep the floor even though I was a VP of a good organization at one time.
However if it's from a view of "all things are equal and assuming you do have a choice", I would totally agree, make a better choice and not put yourself in that sort of position by accepting something whereas you'll get nothing out of it in the long haul.
I'm not trying to surmise that what is being said say is not 100% true by any means, I couldn't agree more. But for me, I am at a point after 15 months with a record of employment that has written proof of recommendations from every facet of my career that indicates I'm a good worker, whomever hires me is obtaining a gem, but even looking at myself and not wanting to take that risk of working for someone who's reputation is somewhat tarnished, if I can obtain employment, I'm looking at it as I have to put my pride aside and say I need to do what I need to do, and this will make me a better father, citizen, family man, employee (down the road), decision maker, volunteer, husband, etc.
My example using this analogy is, I can look in the mirror at myself and know I am doing everything possible to be a great father by accepting something that's a little more demeaning, not as important, and that it's not beneath me to pick up a broom and sweep the floor even though I was a VP of a good organization at one time.
However if it's from a view of "all things are equal and assuming you do have a choice", I would totally agree, make a better choice and not put yourself in that sort of position by accepting something whereas you'll get nothing out of it in the long haul.
I'm not trying to surmise that what is being said say is not 100% true by any means, I couldn't agree more. But for me, I am at a point after 15 months with a record of employment that has written proof of recommendations from every facet of my career that indicates I'm a good worker, whomever hires me is obtaining a gem, but even looking at myself and not wanting to take that risk of working for someone who's reputation is somewhat tarnished, if I can obtain employment, I'm looking at it as I have to put my pride aside and say I need to do what I need to do, and this will make me a better father, citizen, family man, employee (down the road), decision maker, volunteer, husband, etc.
Working for a Company with a bad reputation
Working for a company with a bad reputation? I can honestly say, I worked for a company who had a great reputation, but within the area I took over not so much. The company was looking at actually closing it down in 2 instances, but decided to give the area one more shot and it was offered to me.
But, I had only been with the company a year when they offered it. Not knowing even when I asked for a current P&L to review how that center was thriving, I sort of wasn't given the true facts. When I found out how they were going to shut the place down, I was their last shot, I came unglued and expressed my discontent to the uppers.
However as it turned out, having the right person on the right bus in the right seat pays off. I was able to turn the reputation of that center around from a negative red into over $5MM in 2 years and over my tenure bring in around 100 clients with an average of 100/200K monthly. I was then beginning to be offered positions in other troubled centers, which again it wasn't actually told to me in that fashion, so I just assumed what is it I'm doing wrong that I kept getting me offers to handle these places. I had a counterpart tell me after I actually turned the last one down because it was really a trouble spot; I was looking at it in the wrong light. Apparently they liked what I had done at the one I was at so they figured let’s see if he would clean up others. I shot myself in the foot on that last turn down. I was clearly asked by regional, "there is no amount we can offer you to take this position".
So you never know what the outcome is for accepting a position with a company with a bad reputation. I wish my counterpart would have explained that to me prior to me turning it down. That might have been my ticket to fame and fortune! I think you have to stop and view everything from outside the box and not immediately take everything from a negative aspect. Ask questions if you are going to be a decision maker, how much responsibility will I have in making decisions, judging the outcome of things, how much of my contributions will be allowed, or is everything strictly take this and follow what we tell you what to do, then you're really not helping nor is the company open to change. Weigh it all out before accepting anything you think could be harmful or beneficial to the outcome of the company as well as for yourself
But, I had only been with the company a year when they offered it. Not knowing even when I asked for a current P&L to review how that center was thriving, I sort of wasn't given the true facts. When I found out how they were going to shut the place down, I was their last shot, I came unglued and expressed my discontent to the uppers.
However as it turned out, having the right person on the right bus in the right seat pays off. I was able to turn the reputation of that center around from a negative red into over $5MM in 2 years and over my tenure bring in around 100 clients with an average of 100/200K monthly. I was then beginning to be offered positions in other troubled centers, which again it wasn't actually told to me in that fashion, so I just assumed what is it I'm doing wrong that I kept getting me offers to handle these places. I had a counterpart tell me after I actually turned the last one down because it was really a trouble spot; I was looking at it in the wrong light. Apparently they liked what I had done at the one I was at so they figured let’s see if he would clean up others. I shot myself in the foot on that last turn down. I was clearly asked by regional, "there is no amount we can offer you to take this position".
So you never know what the outcome is for accepting a position with a company with a bad reputation. I wish my counterpart would have explained that to me prior to me turning it down. That might have been my ticket to fame and fortune! I think you have to stop and view everything from outside the box and not immediately take everything from a negative aspect. Ask questions if you are going to be a decision maker, how much responsibility will I have in making decisions, judging the outcome of things, how much of my contributions will be allowed, or is everything strictly take this and follow what we tell you what to do, then you're really not helping nor is the company open to change. Weigh it all out before accepting anything you think could be harmful or beneficial to the outcome of the company as well as for yourself
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Quantum Physics-Past Present Future
I watched a television show last evening and maybe you've seen it. Called "Through the Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman as the Narrator. I love this show. Do you get what they're talking about most of the time? Typically it is physicist trying to conclude when the universe was started and where does it go and how does that help our existence.
On this particular program they were talking about Quantum Physics and time. Time as in does time really exist or is it something that is just built into each of our minds. Was time there before the universe was created or did it come about after the universe was created.
I know most people think people like this are probably loony tunes. But they really aren't They're just thinkers who go beyond the normal day thoughts. They live in a world of "what ifs". If you put down all your bias and really listen there's so much to be learned out there and this blogger enjoys listening to theory and would be, or could it have been.
The program spoke about time but in the advent of what is time? Is there really such thing as our past, the present and the future or could it be all three actually take place at the same time. They gave examples such as using a digital camera and how fast it will rack up 30 frames a second. Did you see what I just said, 30 frames a second. Now we would all think starting with the first frame is present as we move to the second one, #1 is now the past and #2 is now the present and everything ahead of it is the future, right? I had to put some thought into this to really makes some sort of sense.
Actually 30 frames a second is pretty fast. It all takes place in nanoseconds to achieve those 30 frames. Now lay them out side by side. Look at frame number one and then look at frame number 30. One would think from past to present to future. But in reality they all happened within the same time frame 1 second!
I thought about it more. Remember as a kid how you would take a tablet and draw on the bottoms of the tablet a picture the next page a picture in just a slight different movement and the third page something a bit different until you used up the entire tablet with a picture on it. Now you were ready to flip through the ends to make your own show. As a comparison to the photos shot within 1 second. Look as you are flipping through the tablet the action taking place. The past the present and the future is between your fingers as you cause the tablet to flip. Take that same tablet and make it go backwards now you're going from the future back to the past. All within a second right. But if you lay them out frame by frame they are typically in the now. No past and no future, simply the now.
The whole point to this exercise was to determine or theorize is there really a past, present or future or does all three actually happen simultaneously and we know it as the three parts of time because that's what we have been taught and that is how our brains rationalizes time. But you have to step away from what we are taught and what our brains sees as rationalization and think bigger than that. Think of your life as already been planned out and it's all taking place right in front of you just on a slower scale. It's really quite fascinating in my eyes. Is time of essence or is it simply something we have grown accustomed to in order to rationalize what we do each step of the way, something we use that we have created to justify our being. All pondering thoughts!
On this particular program they were talking about Quantum Physics and time. Time as in does time really exist or is it something that is just built into each of our minds. Was time there before the universe was created or did it come about after the universe was created.
I know most people think people like this are probably loony tunes. But they really aren't They're just thinkers who go beyond the normal day thoughts. They live in a world of "what ifs". If you put down all your bias and really listen there's so much to be learned out there and this blogger enjoys listening to theory and would be, or could it have been.
The program spoke about time but in the advent of what is time? Is there really such thing as our past, the present and the future or could it be all three actually take place at the same time. They gave examples such as using a digital camera and how fast it will rack up 30 frames a second. Did you see what I just said, 30 frames a second. Now we would all think starting with the first frame is present as we move to the second one, #1 is now the past and #2 is now the present and everything ahead of it is the future, right? I had to put some thought into this to really makes some sort of sense.
Actually 30 frames a second is pretty fast. It all takes place in nanoseconds to achieve those 30 frames. Now lay them out side by side. Look at frame number one and then look at frame number 30. One would think from past to present to future. But in reality they all happened within the same time frame 1 second!
I thought about it more. Remember as a kid how you would take a tablet and draw on the bottoms of the tablet a picture the next page a picture in just a slight different movement and the third page something a bit different until you used up the entire tablet with a picture on it. Now you were ready to flip through the ends to make your own show. As a comparison to the photos shot within 1 second. Look as you are flipping through the tablet the action taking place. The past the present and the future is between your fingers as you cause the tablet to flip. Take that same tablet and make it go backwards now you're going from the future back to the past. All within a second right. But if you lay them out frame by frame they are typically in the now. No past and no future, simply the now.
The whole point to this exercise was to determine or theorize is there really a past, present or future or does all three actually happen simultaneously and we know it as the three parts of time because that's what we have been taught and that is how our brains rationalizes time. But you have to step away from what we are taught and what our brains sees as rationalization and think bigger than that. Think of your life as already been planned out and it's all taking place right in front of you just on a slower scale. It's really quite fascinating in my eyes. Is time of essence or is it simply something we have grown accustomed to in order to rationalize what we do each step of the way, something we use that we have created to justify our being. All pondering thoughts!
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Can Quality Be Designed.
In a question that was recently asked Can Quality be Designed; I replied with the following information.
Personally I realize there is quality product and quality service. But to me in a generalized sense of the word, it is a perception. It is not a tangible product that can be moved from A to B.
It is service that was brought about back around 1924 whereas industry professionals gained statistical data based on uniform manufacturing of mass production of the same item(s) and/or assembly of a repetitive product. If all fell in to a manufactured tangible piece of material that matches with other parts and assembled after manufacturing within a given degree of does it go together utilizing a good, average or poor methodology at which point statistical data was created. If it didn't conform statistically data was classified as NCR non-conformance as we know it today.
*Quality management adopts a number of management principles[3] that can be used by top management to guide their organizations towards improved performance. ( *Cited- Wikipedia)
Quality is a process no different than getting advice from an attorney if you do it this way you will achieve this. It's advice. It's words that steer you to correctness toward building a winning product as well as service.
Areas of Quality focus are: Customer Focus, Leadership, People Involvement, Processes(directions),Managing, Continuous Improvement,
Factual decisions based on statistical analysis, and requirements based on supplier relations.
ISO derives quality as performance improvements
* ISO 9004:2008 — guidelines for performance improvement.
* ISO 15504-4: 2005 — information technology — process assessment - Part 4: Guidance on use for process improvement and process capability determination.
* QFD — quality function deployment, also known as the house of quality approach.
* Kaizen —Japanese for change for the better; the common English term is continuous improvement.
* Zero Defect Program — created by NEC Corporation of Japan, based upon statistical process control and one of the inputs for the inventors of Six Sigma.
* Six Sigma — 6 Six Sigma combines established methods such as statistical process control, design of experiments and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) in an overall framework.
* PDCA — plan, do, check, act cycle for quality control purposes. (Six Sigma's DMAIC method (define, measure, analyze, improve, control) may be viewed as a particular implementation of this.)
* Quality circle — a group (people oriented) approach to improvement.
* Taguchi methods — statistical oriented methods including quality robustness, quality loss function, and target specifications.
* The Toyota Production System — reworked in the west into lean manufacturing.
* Kansei Engineering — an approach that focuses on capturing customer emotional feedback about products to drive improvement.
* TQM — total quality management is a management strategy aimed at embedding awareness of quality in all organizational processes. First promoted in Japan with the Deming prize which was adopted and adapted in USA as the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and in Europe as the European Foundation for Quality Management award (each with their own variations).
* TRIZ — meaning "theory of inventive problem solving"
* BPR — business process re-engineering, a management approach aiming at 'clean slate' improvements (That is, ignoring existing practices).
* OQM — Object-oriented Quality Management, a model for quality management.
* (Citing from Wiki)
Quality is not something you can touch. It is a mind-set of ensuring metrics are met by pursuing a given set of instructions or goal or set of statistics.
On 7/10/11 5:20 PM, Dennis J Morgan added the following clarification:
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) created the Quality Management System (QMS) standards in 1987. They were the ISO 9000:1987 series of standards comprising ISO 9001:1987, ISO 9002:1987 and ISO 9003:1987; which were applicable in different types of industries, based on the type of activity or process: designing, production or service delivery.
To further prove my thoughts, if you opened a business and you were required to pay taxes what would you pay them against? You only pay State and Federal Sales Tax on a tangible personal product that exchanges hands. You do not pay taxes on your labor. You may report your earnings but no tax is charged of consulting or labor. Quality is just that a suggestion, a mind-set, nothing is physically changing hands. The only thing changing is how one performs and conforms to the statistical data they are trying to improve on.
So, the bottom-line is "Yes" the concept and the perception of Quality can be designed. It can not be designed as a product because the product is an aftermath of the quality system you choose to follow based on demands and information!
Personally I realize there is quality product and quality service. But to me in a generalized sense of the word, it is a perception. It is not a tangible product that can be moved from A to B.
It is service that was brought about back around 1924 whereas industry professionals gained statistical data based on uniform manufacturing of mass production of the same item(s) and/or assembly of a repetitive product. If all fell in to a manufactured tangible piece of material that matches with other parts and assembled after manufacturing within a given degree of does it go together utilizing a good, average or poor methodology at which point statistical data was created. If it didn't conform statistically data was classified as NCR non-conformance as we know it today.
*Quality management adopts a number of management principles[3] that can be used by top management to guide their organizations towards improved performance. ( *Cited- Wikipedia)
Quality is a process no different than getting advice from an attorney if you do it this way you will achieve this. It's advice. It's words that steer you to correctness toward building a winning product as well as service.
Areas of Quality focus are: Customer Focus, Leadership, People Involvement, Processes(directions),Managing, Continuous Improvement,
Factual decisions based on statistical analysis, and requirements based on supplier relations.
ISO derives quality as performance improvements
* ISO 9004:2008 — guidelines for performance improvement.
* ISO 15504-4: 2005 — information technology — process assessment - Part 4: Guidance on use for process improvement and process capability determination.
* QFD — quality function deployment, also known as the house of quality approach.
* Kaizen —Japanese for change for the better; the common English term is continuous improvement.
* Zero Defect Program — created by NEC Corporation of Japan, based upon statistical process control and one of the inputs for the inventors of Six Sigma.
* Six Sigma — 6 Six Sigma combines established methods such as statistical process control, design of experiments and failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) in an overall framework.
* PDCA — plan, do, check, act cycle for quality control purposes. (Six Sigma's DMAIC method (define, measure, analyze, improve, control) may be viewed as a particular implementation of this.)
* Quality circle — a group (people oriented) approach to improvement.
* Taguchi methods — statistical oriented methods including quality robustness, quality loss function, and target specifications.
* The Toyota Production System — reworked in the west into lean manufacturing.
* Kansei Engineering — an approach that focuses on capturing customer emotional feedback about products to drive improvement.
* TQM — total quality management is a management strategy aimed at embedding awareness of quality in all organizational processes. First promoted in Japan with the Deming prize which was adopted and adapted in USA as the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and in Europe as the European Foundation for Quality Management award (each with their own variations).
* TRIZ — meaning "theory of inventive problem solving"
* BPR — business process re-engineering, a management approach aiming at 'clean slate' improvements (That is, ignoring existing practices).
* OQM — Object-oriented Quality Management, a model for quality management.
* (Citing from Wiki)
Quality is not something you can touch. It is a mind-set of ensuring metrics are met by pursuing a given set of instructions or goal or set of statistics.
On 7/10/11 5:20 PM, Dennis J Morgan added the following clarification:
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) created the Quality Management System (QMS) standards in 1987. They were the ISO 9000:1987 series of standards comprising ISO 9001:1987, ISO 9002:1987 and ISO 9003:1987; which were applicable in different types of industries, based on the type of activity or process: designing, production or service delivery.
To further prove my thoughts, if you opened a business and you were required to pay taxes what would you pay them against? You only pay State and Federal Sales Tax on a tangible personal product that exchanges hands. You do not pay taxes on your labor. You may report your earnings but no tax is charged of consulting or labor. Quality is just that a suggestion, a mind-set, nothing is physically changing hands. The only thing changing is how one performs and conforms to the statistical data they are trying to improve on.
So, the bottom-line is "Yes" the concept and the perception of Quality can be designed. It can not be designed as a product because the product is an aftermath of the quality system you choose to follow based on demands and information!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)