My question would be, “What’s with the ME syndrome”?
Someone has already asked about “The You Owe Me Syndrome,” which I guess can be a part of the ME syndrome.
My curiosity of why I ask this is…
Why do the Millennia feel that someone owes the “ME”? No one owes anyone anything. We are all responsible for our own destiny. The ole adage is work hard, succeed and build a life based on your choosing not based on what someone will give you. When I was growing up you could always count on people. Today’s society steered mainly by the ME attitude is that I cannot count on you unless you get something out of it. I say this with much experience. Having three children, 2 born in the mid, late 80’s, and 1 born at the beginning of the 90’s. The typical Gen Y. They were not brought up that way. They were always taught to respect everyone, lend a hand, and never put your self above the unfortunate. However, their mannerism and attitude has changed from watching their own friends take advantage of those around them. Their response is “Why shouldn’t it be about ME”? As an example, a friend who never sought pity or a handout became unemployed. As he stated, “where were my kids?” When my parents were in need, the children were there to count on so they did not lose everything they worked for all their life. At least the attempt was made to assist. Today’s ME attitude, is you are on your own. I am not saying that it is about the friend being of the ME mentality at all. He’s taken responsibility for his demise and probably would not let his kids help out because he knows they’re not in a position to help, however there is no attempt. None of them ever calls their dad and ask how are you, anything WE can do for you, do you have a place to sleep, and do you have a meal to eat. Nope, it is all about ME. ME has to go party on Friday and Saturday nights. However, ME has no problems when the father was working to come to him asking for a handout. When I got divorced and paying heavily in child support, what was the ME asking, “He doesn’t send ME any money”. They received what could be afforded. Why would you ask a ME question like that? Because they think, they’re owed something. (Note these are just examples, their own friends asked for the same handouts when their parents split up, so it is not stated for sympathy toward anyone, making one think your kids have bad values, it is all around us) Society has changed, and I realize change is good, but not at the detriment of losing value, compassion, and responsibility.
Our country was built on the complexity of WE not the simpleton of ME. It’s in the Declaration of Independence; “WE”hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. In the The Gettysburg Address; “WE" can not dedicate -- "We" can not consecrate -- "WE" can not hallow. The Constitution;"We" the people would write the law --. Do you actually think everyone will always bend to your every whim? You cannot succeed by yourself. As they say, it takes a village to raise a child.
Maybe the Millennia’s do not understand that statement. Are they thinking they were put here to operate by themselves? Can you imagine a global retreat toward only one and everyone being that one? Not everyone can be leaders. You do have to have followers and I’m not suggesting anyone stop striving for the best or stop wanting to become a leader, but what are you going to do when everyone you attempt to lead chooses not to follow because they think along the same lines as “You didn’t hear me say WE, I said ME”? What will you do? What will you do when things do not go your way? In the job force, when you clash or don’t like the job being given, are you merely going to say, “this is not a WE society, this is about the ME society”?
Team effort is about WE not about ME doing it your way. You won’t survive under that analogy. When the top boss says do it his way, it is his company and the team says, I don’t think so, this is not a WE group this about you, you know the one that stresses ME so much and now the team says WE are going home, now you’ll find out just what ME means, because there is a now a truth to the ME. ME has to get it done or ME won’t be around for long. See the same can be used about the friends. When it becomes a WE and they say na, it’s all about ME and leave you to bask in the agony of defeit you’ll find our just what ME is truly all about.
In the movie Wall Street where Michael Douglas playing the role as Gordon Gecko says, “Greed is good.” He may be correct, and honestly, I do not see anything wrong with greed if it is handled in the right light. However, to say greed for ME does not include WE? Imagine in a greed for ME world, every ME wants what you have because you owe them.
Give some thought about the ME syndrome, and remember if you’re thinking it’s all about ME, what are your friends thinking about, are they your friends or are they simply leading you to get what they want. When it comes to ME, there are no friends, there will be no one to count on, no one to turn to, and the world will turn away because all will have the same attitude, “The WE society is dead, and it’s all about ME!” Think about it!
Lastly, being part of the ME syndrome and not willing to start at the bottom, wanting to start at the top; you’ll never be able to run, if the ME’s do not know how to crawl or walk! Without paying your dues, you are definitely setting ME up for failure! Life goes on but will you?
Monday, September 20, 2010
So You Want to Manage/Supervise People? Is It Not Because of Getting More Money?
You're also asking what are the headaches of supervising People? What would you recomment to people before they take on a supervising position? What are the benefits of managing people compared to a position where you just manage yourself?
It's all in the following.... Read on!
Managing and supervising people is not always about the money. It is as if leading a squadron into battle, are you ready to take on more being a leader? Many decisions lie upon your lead, your direction. I enjoy being a manager/supervisor. Do not always care for the politics, but with every good, there does come evil. You have to accept and move on or retreat to a different position. The ultimate victory is to achieve a win/win scenario. Not always an easy task. You do have to combine your leadership tactics with a servant’s attitude. You have to be ready to please all sides, your upper leadership giving you expectations and their direction as well as your subordinates ensuring they understand your direction and expectations. Again not always an easy task.
I feel it is the ability of being a contributor, a decision maker. Being there to help make a difference and rise to the level beyond bureaucracy, possibly influencing the decision making process. Sure, you can always offer ideas in any position and many just want to be the follower. Getting people involved is like a village raising a child. Motivating, achieving the uncertain. You cannot be indecisive; you have to be a quick study, know what is being asked of you and know without a doubt that you are going to succeed. In most cases, you do not have a choice but to succeed. That is what makes it interesting and forthcoming. A challenge. We are challenged everyday we awake. However, more so working with people to push an idea through, get it noticed, complete a job, and bask in the unknown. Be the one who made it work. I am not talking about recognition. That is another story or question. It’s helping, it’s assisting, it’s building, it‘s teaching, it‘s succeeding. Like an engineer who creates something from the bottom up and gets the joys by seeing it function. Being a manager and/or supervisor is the same joy. Sure, you have bad apples, what baskets do not have one that spoils. What project in an engineer’s eye will not have a bad bolt or screw? Nevertheless, you get the opportunity to watch your department, your business, your district, your people grow and achieve and feel good about being part of that and steering it toward success.
What are the benefits of managing others compared to managing yourself?
It is different but not very different. As a team you work together, you have group input, you are the person who keeps things under control. You manage the time and the final decisions. Managing yourself, you have to have just as much initiative and ambition to complete the task on time successfully, on schedule within guidelines given. You have the reigns so to speak to motivate others who unlike you might see things differently. You can drive hard and the results achieved are slightly different. You choose to motivate yourself regarding time as long as it is completed within the expected time frame. Not so much leading a group. You have to prod some to stay on task, to meet target and you have to accept responsibility for others. For yourself you accept responsibility for yourself. With teams, you have to depend on others, their direction, their uncertainties and certainties. With steering yourself you are either confident in your own decisions or not. Like a battlefield, you make the call, and you hope it is the right call and your troops will follow you into battle. With yourself, you depend on yourself. At the end, it all depends upon your comfort zone. Are you willing to step out the box and be challenged with your team or would you rather relinquish success to just yourself. Everyone has their own reasoning’s for doing and choosing what they do.
What would you recommend to people before they take on a supervising position?
I do believe managing and supervising is not for everyone. I do think it takes a certain type of person that must want to do it; there must be an inert feeling that drives them toward such a success. Managing people comes in many different styles. No one style will work best for every situation. Know your strengths, weaknesses and limitations. Continually learn, read books, white papers, publications in management and utilize self help to personally grow yourself, take advantage of all learning tools, never stop learning and achieving the unexpected, but don’t stop there enable your people to grow too. Get them involved in learning to become better. The more they become better the better you will become. Learn to build trust. Trust is enabled by truth. Building trust can be as easy as delegating, which frees up your time for other opportunities that need attention. However, know the ones you delegate. Know that you can depend on them and let them know you have their back and they will have your back. Learn that there are different styles of management.
Expect challenges and disagreements. Learn how to handle and at times get around them. Learn to have thick skin. Not every personality will click with yours or yours with theirs. Do know that as a manager you are accepting a higher level of expectations, and responsibility. Learn to set yourself and your employees goals. This gives everyone an opportunity to strive. It puts people on a level playing field seeking to achieve what is expected of them.
Do know as a manager/supervisor you have to be a people person to the extent of Human Resource management. You will undoubtedly come against some of the best people in your field but you will also come against some of the most unruly people at times. You have to know what to do and how to handle situations without being judgmental and defensive. Oh it is so easy to become defensive when backed into a corner. Are you ready for this. You are not always going to be right.
In addition, you have to be a good and effective communicator. You have to provide a positive and safe work environment. It all lies on you. Are you ready to handle the stress?
In the end, it does not hurt to have a mentor, someone you can seek advice from and learn, but never be something you are not. Do not be a fake. Be upfront, truthful, and transparent. You will learn your own style of managing in time but do not be a copycat. Your employees need to know what expectations are required of them and how to achieve them.
Below is some great reads that if you want to be successful at managing/supervising I suggest you consider these.
1.The Leadership Secrets of Colin Powell
2.How to Manage People (Creating Success)
3.Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...
4.It's Your Ship
5.You Lead, They'll Follow: How to Inspire, Lead and Manage People.
I also recommend reads by Zig Ziglar and one person I recommend reading his techniques and is known as the granddaddy to leadership and management is Peter Drucker. There are many books written by him in his time. He had the foresight to see things as they changed.
It's all in the following.... Read on!
Managing and supervising people is not always about the money. It is as if leading a squadron into battle, are you ready to take on more being a leader? Many decisions lie upon your lead, your direction. I enjoy being a manager/supervisor. Do not always care for the politics, but with every good, there does come evil. You have to accept and move on or retreat to a different position. The ultimate victory is to achieve a win/win scenario. Not always an easy task. You do have to combine your leadership tactics with a servant’s attitude. You have to be ready to please all sides, your upper leadership giving you expectations and their direction as well as your subordinates ensuring they understand your direction and expectations. Again not always an easy task.
I feel it is the ability of being a contributor, a decision maker. Being there to help make a difference and rise to the level beyond bureaucracy, possibly influencing the decision making process. Sure, you can always offer ideas in any position and many just want to be the follower. Getting people involved is like a village raising a child. Motivating, achieving the uncertain. You cannot be indecisive; you have to be a quick study, know what is being asked of you and know without a doubt that you are going to succeed. In most cases, you do not have a choice but to succeed. That is what makes it interesting and forthcoming. A challenge. We are challenged everyday we awake. However, more so working with people to push an idea through, get it noticed, complete a job, and bask in the unknown. Be the one who made it work. I am not talking about recognition. That is another story or question. It’s helping, it’s assisting, it’s building, it‘s teaching, it‘s succeeding. Like an engineer who creates something from the bottom up and gets the joys by seeing it function. Being a manager and/or supervisor is the same joy. Sure, you have bad apples, what baskets do not have one that spoils. What project in an engineer’s eye will not have a bad bolt or screw? Nevertheless, you get the opportunity to watch your department, your business, your district, your people grow and achieve and feel good about being part of that and steering it toward success.
What are the benefits of managing others compared to managing yourself?
It is different but not very different. As a team you work together, you have group input, you are the person who keeps things under control. You manage the time and the final decisions. Managing yourself, you have to have just as much initiative and ambition to complete the task on time successfully, on schedule within guidelines given. You have the reigns so to speak to motivate others who unlike you might see things differently. You can drive hard and the results achieved are slightly different. You choose to motivate yourself regarding time as long as it is completed within the expected time frame. Not so much leading a group. You have to prod some to stay on task, to meet target and you have to accept responsibility for others. For yourself you accept responsibility for yourself. With teams, you have to depend on others, their direction, their uncertainties and certainties. With steering yourself you are either confident in your own decisions or not. Like a battlefield, you make the call, and you hope it is the right call and your troops will follow you into battle. With yourself, you depend on yourself. At the end, it all depends upon your comfort zone. Are you willing to step out the box and be challenged with your team or would you rather relinquish success to just yourself. Everyone has their own reasoning’s for doing and choosing what they do.
What would you recommend to people before they take on a supervising position?
I do believe managing and supervising is not for everyone. I do think it takes a certain type of person that must want to do it; there must be an inert feeling that drives them toward such a success. Managing people comes in many different styles. No one style will work best for every situation. Know your strengths, weaknesses and limitations. Continually learn, read books, white papers, publications in management and utilize self help to personally grow yourself, take advantage of all learning tools, never stop learning and achieving the unexpected, but don’t stop there enable your people to grow too. Get them involved in learning to become better. The more they become better the better you will become. Learn to build trust. Trust is enabled by truth. Building trust can be as easy as delegating, which frees up your time for other opportunities that need attention. However, know the ones you delegate. Know that you can depend on them and let them know you have their back and they will have your back. Learn that there are different styles of management.
Expect challenges and disagreements. Learn how to handle and at times get around them. Learn to have thick skin. Not every personality will click with yours or yours with theirs. Do know that as a manager you are accepting a higher level of expectations, and responsibility. Learn to set yourself and your employees goals. This gives everyone an opportunity to strive. It puts people on a level playing field seeking to achieve what is expected of them.
Do know as a manager/supervisor you have to be a people person to the extent of Human Resource management. You will undoubtedly come against some of the best people in your field but you will also come against some of the most unruly people at times. You have to know what to do and how to handle situations without being judgmental and defensive. Oh it is so easy to become defensive when backed into a corner. Are you ready for this. You are not always going to be right.
In addition, you have to be a good and effective communicator. You have to provide a positive and safe work environment. It all lies on you. Are you ready to handle the stress?
In the end, it does not hurt to have a mentor, someone you can seek advice from and learn, but never be something you are not. Do not be a fake. Be upfront, truthful, and transparent. You will learn your own style of managing in time but do not be a copycat. Your employees need to know what expectations are required of them and how to achieve them.
Below is some great reads that if you want to be successful at managing/supervising I suggest you consider these.
1.The Leadership Secrets of Colin Powell
2.How to Manage People (Creating Success)
3.Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap...
4.It's Your Ship
5.You Lead, They'll Follow: How to Inspire, Lead and Manage People.
I also recommend reads by Zig Ziglar and one person I recommend reading his techniques and is known as the granddaddy to leadership and management is Peter Drucker. There are many books written by him in his time. He had the foresight to see things as they changed.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
The Peter Principal
I have seen this throughout my career. As it has been stated, smaller companies tend to pursue this area of incompetence to keep the majority from an uprising so to speak, as when not bringing in someone of a higher skill level it can stifle the growth of any organization. However, it does not necessarily just happen in small companies. I've worked for larger organizations and simply because people are in the in crowd so to speak they simply move into positions where they might have been top notch in their current position but their skill sets changes and they assume they know what to do and because they don't and they've not been trained in that hierarchy position they create ambiguity, discontent, and uneasiness amongst team players and/or associates.
Clearly, we have all seen this happen where John/Jane Doe obtains their position not by what they know but whom they knew. Incapable of handling the position in areas of communication, direction, strategies, improvements, growth to name a few. You realize there is no way someone in the path that has been obtained can clearly work through that particular position.
I think it goes along with the adage of if you want to get rid of someone you either promote them or fire them.
This affects many areas of business. It creates dismay across the spectrum of people this person has power over. It is not fair to the people that strive to get to certain levels but never see it. This person has no outlook or foresight for what the position encompasses… They may be able to learn certain aspects, but they tend to have to lean on the person who got them to the point where they are. It is like carrying a broken ladder everywhere you go, hoping you can get to the top without anyone noticing you are climbing up a faulty tool to perform the job.
Incompetence in the workplace is what stifles growth, challenges, and creativity. If you do not understand what the skills sets are in the position you have been given how can you lead and expect any type of success. Eventually you lose as a whole. Your good people will leave or seek different avenues not to be judged or associated with the downfall of the incompetent. The only ones left to follow is those that won't create any ripple effect and those that are following along the same lines as the one put into the position that is incompetent. Eventually your whole hierarchy has become incompetent and yet management wonders why things are occurring the way they are and obtaining the results they did not want to obtain. Clearly, at some point, the incompetence comes to a head and the person them self has realized they have come to the end of the road and no further progress can occur.
One example I can remember is seeing a floor supervisor clearly express his views to his superior about a friend the superior had hired on and how the superior wanted to get the friend promoted. The supervisor stated his reasoning that there were others more qualified and deserving and who had been striving for such a position. The supervisor clearly refused to sign off on it and without his signature, it could not be done. The supervisor was eventually moved out of the department eventually laid off and the friend was put in place. Here is the clincher. The superior who got the friend promoted found out down the road that although the friend whom he promoted continuously played his cards up the ladder he eventually got the superior (his friend who got him the job) laid off and obtained the superiors job. In turn the friend started promoting his own friends and acquaintances to hierarchy positions where it was clearly noted even the most ignorant can obtain a position despite what they knew. Could they actually perform in the position, sure, as long as they had the friend to lean on. The Peter Principal works great within the buddy system.
If noted, you one can see that the Parkinson law will at times follow suit with the Peter Principal. You see some incompetent get into a position they cannot handle or perform so the easiest way to make the job tolerable is to add to the bureaucracy despite the amount of work that is to be done, there is always someone to shoulder the skill sets so the incompetent will not fall from power.
Our government clearly fits the Peter Principal and the Parkinson Law. You put people into positions they are unqualified for and they will A. Fill it with for example five people to do a one persons job. B. Fill your task with bogus issues that would typically be performed in 1 day, it now takes a week.
You have to fill all the people you hired to perform your job with idiotic task to justify their need for you to appear you are accomplishing the task that you are not qualified to do.
You may also want to read about the Dunning-Kruger effect whereas someone who is incompetent chooses to put other incompetence’s in place and may not know that they are doing it because of their own in competences. It also goes into talking about how incompetent people will unjustly rate themselves higher in all aspects of competence as compared to how their peers rate them.
Interesting topic- this is the kind of discussion I really appreciate. Thanks for asking.
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/parkinsl.html
http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-k
Clearly, we have all seen this happen where John/Jane Doe obtains their position not by what they know but whom they knew. Incapable of handling the position in areas of communication, direction, strategies, improvements, growth to name a few. You realize there is no way someone in the path that has been obtained can clearly work through that particular position.
I think it goes along with the adage of if you want to get rid of someone you either promote them or fire them.
This affects many areas of business. It creates dismay across the spectrum of people this person has power over. It is not fair to the people that strive to get to certain levels but never see it. This person has no outlook or foresight for what the position encompasses… They may be able to learn certain aspects, but they tend to have to lean on the person who got them to the point where they are. It is like carrying a broken ladder everywhere you go, hoping you can get to the top without anyone noticing you are climbing up a faulty tool to perform the job.
Incompetence in the workplace is what stifles growth, challenges, and creativity. If you do not understand what the skills sets are in the position you have been given how can you lead and expect any type of success. Eventually you lose as a whole. Your good people will leave or seek different avenues not to be judged or associated with the downfall of the incompetent. The only ones left to follow is those that won't create any ripple effect and those that are following along the same lines as the one put into the position that is incompetent. Eventually your whole hierarchy has become incompetent and yet management wonders why things are occurring the way they are and obtaining the results they did not want to obtain. Clearly, at some point, the incompetence comes to a head and the person them self has realized they have come to the end of the road and no further progress can occur.
One example I can remember is seeing a floor supervisor clearly express his views to his superior about a friend the superior had hired on and how the superior wanted to get the friend promoted. The supervisor stated his reasoning that there were others more qualified and deserving and who had been striving for such a position. The supervisor clearly refused to sign off on it and without his signature, it could not be done. The supervisor was eventually moved out of the department eventually laid off and the friend was put in place. Here is the clincher. The superior who got the friend promoted found out down the road that although the friend whom he promoted continuously played his cards up the ladder he eventually got the superior (his friend who got him the job) laid off and obtained the superiors job. In turn the friend started promoting his own friends and acquaintances to hierarchy positions where it was clearly noted even the most ignorant can obtain a position despite what they knew. Could they actually perform in the position, sure, as long as they had the friend to lean on. The Peter Principal works great within the buddy system.
If noted, you one can see that the Parkinson law will at times follow suit with the Peter Principal. You see some incompetent get into a position they cannot handle or perform so the easiest way to make the job tolerable is to add to the bureaucracy despite the amount of work that is to be done, there is always someone to shoulder the skill sets so the incompetent will not fall from power.
Our government clearly fits the Peter Principal and the Parkinson Law. You put people into positions they are unqualified for and they will A. Fill it with for example five people to do a one persons job. B. Fill your task with bogus issues that would typically be performed in 1 day, it now takes a week.
You have to fill all the people you hired to perform your job with idiotic task to justify their need for you to appear you are accomplishing the task that you are not qualified to do.
You may also want to read about the Dunning-Kruger effect whereas someone who is incompetent chooses to put other incompetence’s in place and may not know that they are doing it because of their own in competences. It also goes into talking about how incompetent people will unjustly rate themselves higher in all aspects of competence as compared to how their peers rate them.
Interesting topic- this is the kind of discussion I really appreciate. Thanks for asking.
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/parkinsl.html
http://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2010/07/07/what-the-dunning-k
Are Entrepreneurs Executives
Although a difference in definition between an entrepreneur and an executive both must be considered for the roles that they play and each must be familiar with these roles.
“The myth: entrepreneurs are great for getting a company started, but not so great when Wall Street is looking over their shoulder. Part of this thinking is that founders of companies are mavericks, passionate doers with a vision, nontraditional in their approach to management and outspoken - the kind of rabble rousing that makes investors uneasy.” (Brad Szollose) Source attached- and a very good read.
As Brad indicates, a true executive is one who has passion for their role. He gives many examples from Steve Jobs to Harley Davidson from their time based successes to the falling of the company to the success it took by bringing back the entrepreneur to reestablish the successes of these companies.
I agree that it my be a stereotype version of what an executive is or required to do, but with all entrepreneurs they have passion and to mix the two together as a relationship means you have an executive who has passion for what they do, and achieve. I do not particularly agree that you have to have all these special skills to be an executive. A good executive will have vision. An entrepreneur will have vision toward his success in achieving a small business. In time, yes, it grows with successes, but although it can fail, many large corporations fail with so-called stereotypical titles of an executive. Both have to have the inert recipe toward success and the will and knowledge to grow.
“Entrepreneurs must understand that their business(es) should run without them. Ray Kroc, founder of McDonalds. He created tight methods for creating every product on the menu. In a business where profit margins are very tight, Kroc showed investors that his structure assured profits, whether he was there or not. Look at Lee Iacocca, former President Bill Clinton, John Johnson, Mary Kay-Ash, Donald Trump, Malcolm Forbes, Warren Buffet, Tony Robbins, Hilary Clinton, HP's former CEO Carly Fiorina, etc. All are reflections of balance between an entrepreneur's spirit and a corporate executive's strategy. The balance between passion and discipline is what drives all of them.”
(Brad Szollose)
As Brad defines both, he clearly makes the paradigm that it is a matter of right brain thinking and left-brain thinking and learning to make both work together.
I think most small businesses are executive leaders although they might not view themselves as such since their main objective is to role up their sleeves, work hard, succeed and profit. Nevertheless, in reality, their status although that is really all it is, is a status quo, they do reflect on the executive analogy with the entrepreneur thinking.
The main difference as stated in the document provided is the entrepreneur works for himself, the executive works for others. One earns his way whereas the other is paid in salary, bonuses and perks. One might be rough around the edges, but they both have vision, they both have passion and they both aim to succeed!
“The myth: entrepreneurs are great for getting a company started, but not so great when Wall Street is looking over their shoulder. Part of this thinking is that founders of companies are mavericks, passionate doers with a vision, nontraditional in their approach to management and outspoken - the kind of rabble rousing that makes investors uneasy.” (Brad Szollose) Source attached- and a very good read.
As Brad indicates, a true executive is one who has passion for their role. He gives many examples from Steve Jobs to Harley Davidson from their time based successes to the falling of the company to the success it took by bringing back the entrepreneur to reestablish the successes of these companies.
I agree that it my be a stereotype version of what an executive is or required to do, but with all entrepreneurs they have passion and to mix the two together as a relationship means you have an executive who has passion for what they do, and achieve. I do not particularly agree that you have to have all these special skills to be an executive. A good executive will have vision. An entrepreneur will have vision toward his success in achieving a small business. In time, yes, it grows with successes, but although it can fail, many large corporations fail with so-called stereotypical titles of an executive. Both have to have the inert recipe toward success and the will and knowledge to grow.
“Entrepreneurs must understand that their business(es) should run without them. Ray Kroc, founder of McDonalds. He created tight methods for creating every product on the menu. In a business where profit margins are very tight, Kroc showed investors that his structure assured profits, whether he was there or not. Look at Lee Iacocca, former President Bill Clinton, John Johnson, Mary Kay-Ash, Donald Trump, Malcolm Forbes, Warren Buffet, Tony Robbins, Hilary Clinton, HP's former CEO Carly Fiorina, etc. All are reflections of balance between an entrepreneur's spirit and a corporate executive's strategy. The balance between passion and discipline is what drives all of them.”
(Brad Szollose)
As Brad defines both, he clearly makes the paradigm that it is a matter of right brain thinking and left-brain thinking and learning to make both work together.
I think most small businesses are executive leaders although they might not view themselves as such since their main objective is to role up their sleeves, work hard, succeed and profit. Nevertheless, in reality, their status although that is really all it is, is a status quo, they do reflect on the executive analogy with the entrepreneur thinking.
The main difference as stated in the document provided is the entrepreneur works for himself, the executive works for others. One earns his way whereas the other is paid in salary, bonuses and perks. One might be rough around the edges, but they both have vision, they both have passion and they both aim to succeed!
Selling Yourself
During a Discussion I was having the conversation tip toward interviewing, here's what I said.
A sharing moment- As George said we are all salesperson. Most people IMHO do not know how to sell anything let alone selling themselves. Why would they. If all you have ever done were work a lathe 20 years, how would you even begin to sell something you know nothing about? Ever looked at a site where they have a title called "About Me"? What I have seen in those sections is, "I have a hard time talking about myself so if you want to know something just ask". Clear indication they do not even know about their own product "themselves". In my opinion, you can have the best-looking resume, but if you cannot tell someone about you, yourself, your resume is a waste of time. It is just pretty words you cannot backup. All throughout my career, I have been told I need public speaking classes to help me relax when I speak. I have gotten a zillion times better over time because like anything else you have to practice and familiarize yourself with what you are speaking or selling. In my case, it helped me when I was tied to sales. Although my experience has always been in management, sales was a new area to tackle. However, once you are forced to talk to clients and you do not want to screw it up you learn real quick what you say can win the client or lose them. As someone told me not to long ago, think about your interview as a sales call and think of it as you have a resource you are selling to a client that has a need and you have the resolution to that need.
In Mark D's mantra response to himself, one thing I always think of is the little train that could. I think I can I think I can I think I can and eventually you'll say I know I can I know I can.
As in sales, I have made myself numerous study sheets for my product "ME". I have my elevator pitch that I study constantly so it does not come off as just something I memorized. I want it to be as natural as if I did it today, yesterday or tomorrow. I've reviewed my resume in and out and anything that sparks a potential tell me about a time... or tell me about.... I have a list of the words, I know what I did, but I also know the definition to those words so I know if I'm thrown a curve ball I am still able to reference my answers in my mind as to what is it they're really wanting to know. 2ndly, I also have a list of questions that I am familiar with that most of the time you are asked during an interview. I have studied these in and out with not just an answer but with live examples when things happen to me. I cannot tell you how many times I interviewed someone and when asking a question the response is, “um I can’t think of anything”. I have fallen short to that myself on occasions, which is why I came up with my own study guide. I carry it with me everywhere I go and when I have down time I study, study study.
Here are a couple of other things that might help someone. Others may say different or similar, but do you know a couple of things that will hamper an interview? The word "UM" or using the word "uh". Use it throughout your conversation as in every other word because yes they know you are nervous but it shows you are not sure of what you are saying. In addition, do you know why speakers will use the phrase "that's a very good question"? Typically because they don't have an answer to what is being asked so this gives the person just enough time so to speak for the mind to sort through all this information and come up with the answer to what is being asked.
Lastly, when your interviewer ask you tell me about yourself. In my experience and all the seminars and on behavioral interviewing I have always been taught do not tell them about your kids in little league, you wife how you love her apple pie, and how you just love sitting around watching football or NASCAR. This is not what they are asking. What they want to know is “tell me about you, professionally” not personally. These are tips I have learned over time that has worked for me. I am not a recruiter and play a terrible one online, but you would be surprised how simple little tips can make or break an interview. Although, I am clearly not a pro at this and I still stumble more so than most, I am still learning.
Bottom line is study, prepare, study, prepare.
A sharing moment- As George said we are all salesperson. Most people IMHO do not know how to sell anything let alone selling themselves. Why would they. If all you have ever done were work a lathe 20 years, how would you even begin to sell something you know nothing about? Ever looked at a site where they have a title called "About Me"? What I have seen in those sections is, "I have a hard time talking about myself so if you want to know something just ask". Clear indication they do not even know about their own product "themselves". In my opinion, you can have the best-looking resume, but if you cannot tell someone about you, yourself, your resume is a waste of time. It is just pretty words you cannot backup. All throughout my career, I have been told I need public speaking classes to help me relax when I speak. I have gotten a zillion times better over time because like anything else you have to practice and familiarize yourself with what you are speaking or selling. In my case, it helped me when I was tied to sales. Although my experience has always been in management, sales was a new area to tackle. However, once you are forced to talk to clients and you do not want to screw it up you learn real quick what you say can win the client or lose them. As someone told me not to long ago, think about your interview as a sales call and think of it as you have a resource you are selling to a client that has a need and you have the resolution to that need.
In Mark D's mantra response to himself, one thing I always think of is the little train that could. I think I can I think I can I think I can and eventually you'll say I know I can I know I can.
As in sales, I have made myself numerous study sheets for my product "ME". I have my elevator pitch that I study constantly so it does not come off as just something I memorized. I want it to be as natural as if I did it today, yesterday or tomorrow. I've reviewed my resume in and out and anything that sparks a potential tell me about a time... or tell me about.... I have a list of the words, I know what I did, but I also know the definition to those words so I know if I'm thrown a curve ball I am still able to reference my answers in my mind as to what is it they're really wanting to know. 2ndly, I also have a list of questions that I am familiar with that most of the time you are asked during an interview. I have studied these in and out with not just an answer but with live examples when things happen to me. I cannot tell you how many times I interviewed someone and when asking a question the response is, “um I can’t think of anything”. I have fallen short to that myself on occasions, which is why I came up with my own study guide. I carry it with me everywhere I go and when I have down time I study, study study.
Here are a couple of other things that might help someone. Others may say different or similar, but do you know a couple of things that will hamper an interview? The word "UM" or using the word "uh". Use it throughout your conversation as in every other word because yes they know you are nervous but it shows you are not sure of what you are saying. In addition, do you know why speakers will use the phrase "that's a very good question"? Typically because they don't have an answer to what is being asked so this gives the person just enough time so to speak for the mind to sort through all this information and come up with the answer to what is being asked.
Lastly, when your interviewer ask you tell me about yourself. In my experience and all the seminars and on behavioral interviewing I have always been taught do not tell them about your kids in little league, you wife how you love her apple pie, and how you just love sitting around watching football or NASCAR. This is not what they are asking. What they want to know is “tell me about you, professionally” not personally. These are tips I have learned over time that has worked for me. I am not a recruiter and play a terrible one online, but you would be surprised how simple little tips can make or break an interview. Although, I am clearly not a pro at this and I still stumble more so than most, I am still learning.
Bottom line is study, prepare, study, prepare.
What Actual Does Service Mean
Servant’s attitude. Doing something for the benefit of others. Not thinking of your bottom-line. Thinking of caring, understanding and meeting the dilemma of your client, internal and external. Knowing that with proper service engaged that your windfall would come back 10fold. Service is paying forward. Accepting and acknowledging being the best at what you offer, what you stand for and what you represent. Service is like faith or for some karma. Doing what is right without question, without expectations of receipt.
Supply Chain Management vs Logistics, Aren't They the Same
SCM is the management of material and information flow in a supply chain to provide the highest degree of customer satisfaction at the lowest possible cost. SCM requires commitment of supply chain partners to work closely to coordinate order generation, order taking, and order fulfillment thus, creating an 'extended enterprise' spreading far beyond the producer's location.
Logistics is the management of the flow of goods, information and other resources in a repair cycle between the point of origin and the point of consumption in order to meet the requirements of customers. Logistics involves the integration of information, transportation, inventory, warehousing, material handling, and packaging, and occasionally security. Logistics is a channel of the supply chain which adds the value of time and place utility. Today the complexity of production logistics can be modeled, analyzed, visualized and optimized by plant simulation software.
Logistics is an entity of the SCM system. Supply chain is anything from cradle to grave. Logistics is an interim factor within the chain. Your SCM can entail the beginning of actual purchases, vendors, material, manufacturing, waste, completion, inventory, storage, etc., whereas Logistics is just as Marissa indicated, the movement and tracking of the end product where it gets stored before it gets delivered and the shape it is received in.
Everything you can imagine has some sort of SCM working in place. Even such things as a blog have an SCM. But not everything has logistics. Although they sound familiar and seemingly paths may cross but there is a clear distinction.
Logistics is the management of the flow of goods, information and other resources in a repair cycle between the point of origin and the point of consumption in order to meet the requirements of customers. Logistics involves the integration of information, transportation, inventory, warehousing, material handling, and packaging, and occasionally security. Logistics is a channel of the supply chain which adds the value of time and place utility. Today the complexity of production logistics can be modeled, analyzed, visualized and optimized by plant simulation software.
Logistics is an entity of the SCM system. Supply chain is anything from cradle to grave. Logistics is an interim factor within the chain. Your SCM can entail the beginning of actual purchases, vendors, material, manufacturing, waste, completion, inventory, storage, etc., whereas Logistics is just as Marissa indicated, the movement and tracking of the end product where it gets stored before it gets delivered and the shape it is received in.
Everything you can imagine has some sort of SCM working in place. Even such things as a blog have an SCM. But not everything has logistics. Although they sound familiar and seemingly paths may cross but there is a clear distinction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)