Wanna know why things don’t seem to be recovering?
“…all the king’s horses and all the king’s men cannot put Humpty-Dumpty back together again.”
Let’s characterize Humpty as the entire US economy. Right know we have anyone and everyone who want their money back trying to put things back the way they were. And it ain’t gonna happen. We need to find other ways to make a buck than the ways we’ve become used to.
Looking back at how we all made our livings, over say the last 20 years, may make us pine. But if we pick up a rock or two we find that the source of our good times should never have existed.
But wait…all the money that was loaned to borderline borrowers, all the money that was loaned to developers because there were so many borrowers demanding houses, all the money that developers reinvested in more ground to build more homes, all went somewhere. Money doesn’t just disappear.
And where did it go? It went into your pocket and mine. Sure, there are anecdotal stories about obscene accumulations by some individuals, but the trillions of dollars that were lost on unpaid mortgages, went into the pockets of every carpenter who built a house that would never have been built were it not for a subprime mortgage. And not just the carpenter, everyone of us who prospered during those good years. That’s where all the money went.
And, unless someone can figure out how to re-create that revenue engine HONESTLY, things will never go back to that “normal”. Which means things will never go back. Period.
From a micro-business perspective this presents an ironic opportunity. While those big companies are drowning in the inability to shed overhead quick enough to survive, we, who have always had to survive, are in better shape than the big guys. Psychologically, anyway.
Let’s characterize Humpty as our bigger competition. It’s almost like he made his bed and now he has to sleep in it. He plundered the same communities that are now a drag on down-sizing, National chains are in swift retreat.
Micro-businesses and communities need to mobilize. Re-building communities is the name of the game. Unfortunately, part of the reason we can do such a thing is that the big guys don’t see much profit in small communities anymore. You know, with the recession and all.
So let me throw out a challenge to local communities:
1) Through Rotary or Kiwanis or Lion’s or whatever you’ve got, get aggressive with convening all of your local businesses and real estate interests. Take inventory of who and what you are. Decide how you can rebuild your community. If YOU don’t do it it will never be done.
2) Find out how many people are unemployed/underemployed in your area. You need to get these people back to work buying in your community. There are always some who prefer to remain idle, but you may be surprised at the human resources available in your neighborhoods. Oh and by the way, if your community isn’t big enough join with another community and create a joint shopping plan.
3) Urge your economic developers at the county level to pay some attention to what you’re trying to do and give you a hand in making it a success, The entire economic strength of your region will have to come from the sum of the strength of the local communities.
Humpty the employer/competitor is gone. Humpty the American economy is in a million pieces. At some point all the kings horses and all the kings men will realize that their effort is futile.
Micro-business has always been admired for its flexibility and its ability to turn on a dime. Let’s start turning.
BTW: If you’d like some assistance with re-structuring your community, contact The Sacks Group. Our programs may be of some interest to you.
rjs
Monday, September 13, 2010
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Plan
It seems everyone is getting “stimulated” but the little guy. The old “80/20” rule is at work again. Except this time it’s more like “100/20”…100% of the stimulus money went to 20% of the people. So, what else is new?
And, now that the train has left the station without us, the 20% are complaining about deficits and over-spending. After all, now that a trillion bucks has disappeared into the ether we better hunker down and begin to deal with reality. No more federal deficits to help the rest of us work through this mess.
I’ve got an idea. It’s simple and so easy you’ll wonder why no one ever thought of it before. Let me explain:
Imagine the Grand Canyon. Imagine that the 20% are on one side and the rest of us are on the other side. It is an apparently uncrossable chasm. On the 20% side are all the tools of capitalism: access to credit, access to capital, access to government programs, access to the banking system, the ability to create jobs.
On our side we have no access. It’s always been that way. But don’t understand it in terms of “haves and have-nots” because that’s not really the case. Part of the fallout from the financial debacle is that a measurable percentage of “haves” have been “transported” to our side of the canyon, finding themselves on the “wrong” side of the abyss for the first time in their lives. And they don’t like it one little bit.
They are coming up with all kinds of contraptions to try to get back across. All to no avail. Where are the Wright Brothers when we need them? And it’s not only the new little guys that would like to get across. The rest of us could use a crack at the credit and capital markets necessary to build businesses and create jobs. After all, according to the Kauffman Foundation, most permanent jobs are created by start-up and early stage businesses.
Since the beginning of capitalism there has been one insurmountable stumbling block that prevented ordinary people from joining the fraternity of successful business owners: the unavailability of investment and working capital. Or, so they say.
But, no small business ever failed because it ran out of money…small businesses fail because they run out of time. Capital in a start-up business is more like tuition than an investment. Money merely buys the time to go through the grinding learning curve until the money runs out. And it runs out 75% of the time.
Because of the odds against success, the folks on the other side of the canyon are happy to leave us be on our side. We’re far enough away so they can’t hear our petition. They’ve tried to listen in the past and lost money every time. Remember the “.com” era? They coined the phrase “burn rate” to describe how their investments were being consumed to produce nothing (except some very beautiful now empty buildings).
So, undaunted, the folks on our side persevere and scrape together businesses using whatever is available to them. With little capital, no small business experience and no leg up from the guys on the other side these “entrepreneurs” continue to fail year after year. And what do we hear from our friends across the way? “I told you so”!
THE PROPOSAL
I propose a radical new program to change the world we live in, through education.
I propose that the Small Business Administration create a new branch that deals only with “microbusiness” i.e. employers with fewer that 10 employees.
I propose that this branch use the state economic development departments and they, in turn, use local economic development programs and/or local Workforce Investment Boards to execute the programs developed.
I propose that a “licensing” or “certification” examination be developed that is linked to a pool of small business loans (either publicly or privately funded) the sole criteria for which is the achievement of a satisfactory grade on the exam.
I propose that an entirely new way of teaching potential small business owners be adopted to replace the ineffective methods we currently use.
I propose that the loans would be forgiven after the business owner achieves a targeted level of performance measured either by the number of jobs created or longevity of the business.
That’s it.
This program can be a temporary stimulus program for 24 months, with a review after that period of time to see if renewal makes sense.
Here’s what the program accomplishes:
· For the first time in history, people on our side of the canyon have a way to earn capital/credit by improving themselves through education. We do this with every other profession now. Doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, teachers even plumbers and contractors are all subject to licensing exams that certify them as acceptable to do business with the public. Why not certify small businesses?
· Little attention is paid to the damage small business failure does to local economies. Communities allow anyone to start a business, lease space, hire people, run up liabilities to local vendors and fail 75% of the time. Look around at the collateral damage in the form of empty strip centers, dog-eared signs, lost services and trashed expectations. Why not certify small businesses?
· Real estate developers (many of whom find themselves on our side of the canyon) and financial institutions (many of whom are well represented on our side) can require potential tenants to be certified before they can sign a lease for a proposed strip center or commercial development. Why not certify small businesses?
· There are roughly 500,000 small business failures each year wasting around $25 billion in lost equity…every year. Imagine if that lost money (derived primarily from home equity loans and deferred compensation plans) were used for a productive rather than a futile purpose? Why not certify small businesses?
· One of the problems of society (worldwide) is the distribution of wealth. Rightfully so, the folks on the other side of the canyon do not see an obligation to toss some our way. The Right says “no way” the Left says “open the treasury”. I say “create a qualifying exam”. If you pass it you earn certain privileges if you don’t pass it I say “sorry about your bad luck”. But, most importantly, if you pass it you get enough capital to start-up and create jobs and complement local economies and form a firm foundation for local business. Why not certify small businesses?
The Sacks Group, Inc. has already developed this program. We have designed the entire curriculum, timeline and exam. Our program has required courses, like any course of study that leads to certification. Our program puts participants through an array of different forms of education (from classroom to individual to on the job training). My book “The Twelve Commandments for Small Business”™ is the unique foundation for our course of study. My philosophies have helped businesses to be successful for 25 years. But we teach differently than any existing institution and our results prove the efficacy of our program.
Maybe if we all scream loud enough the 20% will begin to realize that we have their best interests at heart. Many of them started out on our side and got over there through education. But, they only accept education that fills a pre-existing space on their side. Why not create a program that would allow entrée to the world of business to the 80%…but only if they qualify.
rjs
And, now that the train has left the station without us, the 20% are complaining about deficits and over-spending. After all, now that a trillion bucks has disappeared into the ether we better hunker down and begin to deal with reality. No more federal deficits to help the rest of us work through this mess.
I’ve got an idea. It’s simple and so easy you’ll wonder why no one ever thought of it before. Let me explain:
Imagine the Grand Canyon. Imagine that the 20% are on one side and the rest of us are on the other side. It is an apparently uncrossable chasm. On the 20% side are all the tools of capitalism: access to credit, access to capital, access to government programs, access to the banking system, the ability to create jobs.
On our side we have no access. It’s always been that way. But don’t understand it in terms of “haves and have-nots” because that’s not really the case. Part of the fallout from the financial debacle is that a measurable percentage of “haves” have been “transported” to our side of the canyon, finding themselves on the “wrong” side of the abyss for the first time in their lives. And they don’t like it one little bit.
They are coming up with all kinds of contraptions to try to get back across. All to no avail. Where are the Wright Brothers when we need them? And it’s not only the new little guys that would like to get across. The rest of us could use a crack at the credit and capital markets necessary to build businesses and create jobs. After all, according to the Kauffman Foundation, most permanent jobs are created by start-up and early stage businesses.
Since the beginning of capitalism there has been one insurmountable stumbling block that prevented ordinary people from joining the fraternity of successful business owners: the unavailability of investment and working capital. Or, so they say.
But, no small business ever failed because it ran out of money…small businesses fail because they run out of time. Capital in a start-up business is more like tuition than an investment. Money merely buys the time to go through the grinding learning curve until the money runs out. And it runs out 75% of the time.
Because of the odds against success, the folks on the other side of the canyon are happy to leave us be on our side. We’re far enough away so they can’t hear our petition. They’ve tried to listen in the past and lost money every time. Remember the “.com” era? They coined the phrase “burn rate” to describe how their investments were being consumed to produce nothing (except some very beautiful now empty buildings).
So, undaunted, the folks on our side persevere and scrape together businesses using whatever is available to them. With little capital, no small business experience and no leg up from the guys on the other side these “entrepreneurs” continue to fail year after year. And what do we hear from our friends across the way? “I told you so”!
THE PROPOSAL
I propose a radical new program to change the world we live in, through education.
I propose that the Small Business Administration create a new branch that deals only with “microbusiness” i.e. employers with fewer that 10 employees.
I propose that this branch use the state economic development departments and they, in turn, use local economic development programs and/or local Workforce Investment Boards to execute the programs developed.
I propose that a “licensing” or “certification” examination be developed that is linked to a pool of small business loans (either publicly or privately funded) the sole criteria for which is the achievement of a satisfactory grade on the exam.
I propose that an entirely new way of teaching potential small business owners be adopted to replace the ineffective methods we currently use.
I propose that the loans would be forgiven after the business owner achieves a targeted level of performance measured either by the number of jobs created or longevity of the business.
That’s it.
This program can be a temporary stimulus program for 24 months, with a review after that period of time to see if renewal makes sense.
Here’s what the program accomplishes:
· For the first time in history, people on our side of the canyon have a way to earn capital/credit by improving themselves through education. We do this with every other profession now. Doctors, lawyers, nurses, accountants, teachers even plumbers and contractors are all subject to licensing exams that certify them as acceptable to do business with the public. Why not certify small businesses?
· Little attention is paid to the damage small business failure does to local economies. Communities allow anyone to start a business, lease space, hire people, run up liabilities to local vendors and fail 75% of the time. Look around at the collateral damage in the form of empty strip centers, dog-eared signs, lost services and trashed expectations. Why not certify small businesses?
· Real estate developers (many of whom find themselves on our side of the canyon) and financial institutions (many of whom are well represented on our side) can require potential tenants to be certified before they can sign a lease for a proposed strip center or commercial development. Why not certify small businesses?
· There are roughly 500,000 small business failures each year wasting around $25 billion in lost equity…every year. Imagine if that lost money (derived primarily from home equity loans and deferred compensation plans) were used for a productive rather than a futile purpose? Why not certify small businesses?
· One of the problems of society (worldwide) is the distribution of wealth. Rightfully so, the folks on the other side of the canyon do not see an obligation to toss some our way. The Right says “no way” the Left says “open the treasury”. I say “create a qualifying exam”. If you pass it you earn certain privileges if you don’t pass it I say “sorry about your bad luck”. But, most importantly, if you pass it you get enough capital to start-up and create jobs and complement local economies and form a firm foundation for local business. Why not certify small businesses?
The Sacks Group, Inc. has already developed this program. We have designed the entire curriculum, timeline and exam. Our program has required courses, like any course of study that leads to certification. Our program puts participants through an array of different forms of education (from classroom to individual to on the job training). My book “The Twelve Commandments for Small Business”™ is the unique foundation for our course of study. My philosophies have helped businesses to be successful for 25 years. But we teach differently than any existing institution and our results prove the efficacy of our program.
Maybe if we all scream loud enough the 20% will begin to realize that we have their best interests at heart. Many of them started out on our side and got over there through education. But, they only accept education that fills a pre-existing space on their side. Why not create a program that would allow entrée to the world of business to the 80%…but only if they qualify.
rjs
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
A Storehouse of Tools
Archeologists discovered what they believe to be an old civilization that apparently disappeared from the face of the earth. They found evidence of burning on most of the buildings, leading them to the conclusion that there was some sort of violent upheaval that spelled the doom of the society.
As they dug deeper they found some interesting anomalies. There appeared to be an absence of any kind of tools throughout the area. The more they explored the stranger it became. There were no cutting or hammering or digging tools. No farming or building tools. What they did find were crude tools of conflict…clubs and knives and axes.
Most interesting was that there was no apparent way for the people to make a living. What, they wondered, did these people live on? Apparently they had some way of getting food because there were plenty of household relics. The dishes and cups must have been filled with something.
But they were unable to uncover anything obvious that would describe the mundane activities of a people. For all intents and purposes they appeared to be ill-equipped to survive on a day-to-day basis.
Over time the puzzle gained followers in the anthropological community. Together, the field workers and the social scientists continued to work on the dilemma. And then, an even more challenging discovery was made.
High on a hill, in the center of the main town, was a huge storehouse containing tools. Thousands of implements that would normally be found dispersed among the ruins but, in this case, were all in one place. All the things the people needed to live a life were there. And the place was surrounded by battlements and barracks. Obviously well-guarded.
The anthropologists concluded that the tools of trade were considered valuable. A currency of sorts. If one had access to the tools of survival one must have been wealthy. He who had tools had an advantage over he who had none.
The fact that there were no tools in the hands of the general population indicated that they must have been dependent on whomever controlled the tools. Or maybe the general population was cared for by the people with the tools.
It all began to become clear. Here was a civilization that was so well taken care of by those who had tools that the people had no need for tools. As a result, over generations, the people lost their ability to use tools themselves. And they were probably quite happy and even prosperous.
But in their prosperity they failed to realize that they could no longer survive on their own. If their benefactor ever stopped providing tools and laborers they were helpless. And it was too late to do anything about it.
And, then it must have happened. For some reason, yet to be determined, the time of benevolence ended. And the people had no tools of their own. And people had no way to provide for themselves. And they must have become desperate to feed their families.
The battle lines must have been drawn. With no tools and no skills and the benefactor telling them they were on their own the people began to fight for survival. And what was left was what the archeologists discovered in the year 2110.
rjs
As they dug deeper they found some interesting anomalies. There appeared to be an absence of any kind of tools throughout the area. The more they explored the stranger it became. There were no cutting or hammering or digging tools. No farming or building tools. What they did find were crude tools of conflict…clubs and knives and axes.
Most interesting was that there was no apparent way for the people to make a living. What, they wondered, did these people live on? Apparently they had some way of getting food because there were plenty of household relics. The dishes and cups must have been filled with something.
But they were unable to uncover anything obvious that would describe the mundane activities of a people. For all intents and purposes they appeared to be ill-equipped to survive on a day-to-day basis.
Over time the puzzle gained followers in the anthropological community. Together, the field workers and the social scientists continued to work on the dilemma. And then, an even more challenging discovery was made.
High on a hill, in the center of the main town, was a huge storehouse containing tools. Thousands of implements that would normally be found dispersed among the ruins but, in this case, were all in one place. All the things the people needed to live a life were there. And the place was surrounded by battlements and barracks. Obviously well-guarded.
The anthropologists concluded that the tools of trade were considered valuable. A currency of sorts. If one had access to the tools of survival one must have been wealthy. He who had tools had an advantage over he who had none.
The fact that there were no tools in the hands of the general population indicated that they must have been dependent on whomever controlled the tools. Or maybe the general population was cared for by the people with the tools.
It all began to become clear. Here was a civilization that was so well taken care of by those who had tools that the people had no need for tools. As a result, over generations, the people lost their ability to use tools themselves. And they were probably quite happy and even prosperous.
But in their prosperity they failed to realize that they could no longer survive on their own. If their benefactor ever stopped providing tools and laborers they were helpless. And it was too late to do anything about it.
And, then it must have happened. For some reason, yet to be determined, the time of benevolence ended. And the people had no tools of their own. And people had no way to provide for themselves. And they must have become desperate to feed their families.
The battle lines must have been drawn. With no tools and no skills and the benefactor telling them they were on their own the people began to fight for survival. And what was left was what the archeologists discovered in the year 2110.
rjs
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Not If it Eats or Moves...
A banker friend of mine has always told me he has a strict policy when it comes to accepting collateral for a loan: if it moves or eats, he’s not interested. He’s rarely been wrong.
They had a feature on NPR the other day that made me think of him. They were talking about the fact that the summer concert business has changed over the years and is now consolidated in the hands of two or three very large companies who control every aspect of the industry. They were making the point that there are so many ways to charge people for things (from beer to souvenirs to lawn chairs to the tickets themselves) that there is an absolute fortune flowing through the treasuries of these major players.
If you’ve ever paid $9.50 for a beer or $7.00 for a bottle of water you understand what they mean. At these outrageous prices these concerts must make an absolute fortune.
Then I thought of my friend, which made me think of all the people in this world who look at gross revenue without thinking of the real cost and complexity of actually earning it. That’s why my banking buddy is so astute: if it moves he’s not sure where it is all the time and if it eats he’s not sure how big an appetite it has.
The banker’s saying that it’s too risky to loan to a business that is constantly moving around and if it eats he wants to make sure it only eats its own lunch and not his too. In other words, the more complicated a business concept is the more likely it will be difficult to keep tabs on (and, therefore, to eke out a profit).
For example, a company that buys a product from one guy, never takes physical possession of the product and then sells that same product to another guy is the simplest of businesses. You can make it even simpler if you can take an order from a buyer and only then go looking for the product to fulfill the order. It’s kind of like specialized shopping.
Now, compare the simplest of businesses to the summer concert business. While the former makes me feel warm and fuzzy, the latter makes the hair on the back of my neck stand at attention.
Imagine the chances of failure when the easiest part of the business is hiring an over-priced prima donna to entertain a group of 40,000 semi-sober overage teenagers in a confined space on a 90 degree day. That’s just the beginning.
Imagine the lighting and the sets and the instruments. It all has to be set up and broken down in 40 different cities with varying licensing ordinances, power supplies and highway access. You need two dozen 18 wheelers and a half dozen busses and they all have to arrive within a 2 hour window so rush hour traffic isn’t snarled.
But, if NPR featured the guys who had to dig fence post holes and set up 10,000 folding chairs people would think they were whining. Especially since the guy who started the company in the first place gets to touch the massive amount of money that comes in…at least until he has to spend it making things work.
rjs
They had a feature on NPR the other day that made me think of him. They were talking about the fact that the summer concert business has changed over the years and is now consolidated in the hands of two or three very large companies who control every aspect of the industry. They were making the point that there are so many ways to charge people for things (from beer to souvenirs to lawn chairs to the tickets themselves) that there is an absolute fortune flowing through the treasuries of these major players.
If you’ve ever paid $9.50 for a beer or $7.00 for a bottle of water you understand what they mean. At these outrageous prices these concerts must make an absolute fortune.
Then I thought of my friend, which made me think of all the people in this world who look at gross revenue without thinking of the real cost and complexity of actually earning it. That’s why my banking buddy is so astute: if it moves he’s not sure where it is all the time and if it eats he’s not sure how big an appetite it has.
The banker’s saying that it’s too risky to loan to a business that is constantly moving around and if it eats he wants to make sure it only eats its own lunch and not his too. In other words, the more complicated a business concept is the more likely it will be difficult to keep tabs on (and, therefore, to eke out a profit).
For example, a company that buys a product from one guy, never takes physical possession of the product and then sells that same product to another guy is the simplest of businesses. You can make it even simpler if you can take an order from a buyer and only then go looking for the product to fulfill the order. It’s kind of like specialized shopping.
Now, compare the simplest of businesses to the summer concert business. While the former makes me feel warm and fuzzy, the latter makes the hair on the back of my neck stand at attention.
Imagine the chances of failure when the easiest part of the business is hiring an over-priced prima donna to entertain a group of 40,000 semi-sober overage teenagers in a confined space on a 90 degree day. That’s just the beginning.
Imagine the lighting and the sets and the instruments. It all has to be set up and broken down in 40 different cities with varying licensing ordinances, power supplies and highway access. You need two dozen 18 wheelers and a half dozen busses and they all have to arrive within a 2 hour window so rush hour traffic isn’t snarled.
But, if NPR featured the guys who had to dig fence post holes and set up 10,000 folding chairs people would think they were whining. Especially since the guy who started the company in the first place gets to touch the massive amount of money that comes in…at least until he has to spend it making things work.
rjs
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
My Vision or Yours?
A friend of mine, who was CEO of a complex hospital operation (I guess that’s why they call them “hospital complexes”), had recently hired a bright, young graduate of a local university. He was planning to groom this young lady and to eventually move her into a middle management position. He arranged for her to be his direct report for her first six months on the job.
He gave her an assignment to write up a proposal for a new emergency room procedure that he was thinking of implementing. He gave her a very specific outline of what he envisioned and sent her on her way.
A day or so later she came back with several pages and sat down to discuss it with him. She told him she made a couple of changes in his outline because, frankly, what he was proposing did not sync with her vision of what an ER operation should look like.
He was slightly taken aback, caught between being both amused and annoyed by her audacity. After regaining his composure he said:
“I guess I didn’t make it clear when I hired you, your are here to implement my vision not yours!”
Needless to say, my friend’s comment knocked his new employee down a couple of rungs on her ladder. It was pretty obvious that the way for her to please her new boss was not going to be through her own ingenuity and creativity but, instead, by helping him to achieve his.
It’s ironic. When you are looking for a job, exactly the traits that make you attractive to a prospective employer can be the same traits, if you’re not careful, that can cause your demise.
An intelligent, resourceful, can do, will do employee is an asset we all seek…with one major proviso: we want that employee to use her skill sets to accomplish our goals not hers. Too often employees forget that they were not really hired to do “their thing”, they were hired to do “my thing”.
The higher you get on the organization chart, the more you get to do things your way. That’s what responsibility and authority are all about. If you want to climb concentrate on making your boss successful and, eventually, you will be able to hire people who will make you successful.
The CEO of any organization writes the agenda, employees do not. The best way to get a raise or a bonus is to let your boss know how dedicated you are making him or her look good, + and then doing it. Talk (especially behind his/her back) is cheap. You’re either on board or you’re not. And, by the way, you will often relinquish credit in public for your own work because it’s not about you; it’s about him/her. A good superior will share credit with you when it’s appropriate. Don’t forget, the outside world is well aware that you are a key staff member, so you always get tacit credit for making a contribution even if you’re name is not on it.
Attempting to be in the limelight too soon in your career is a great way to wreck your career. The limelight is earned as a result of a continual track record of supporting the organization (i.e. your boss), not for standing out in the crowd.
I’d like to make an important clarification. No one expects you to be a hypocrite or to sponsor behavior that is, in your opinion, contrary to the best interests of your boss. If you think something you’ve been told to do is morally or legally wrong or ill advised you have the responsibility to make your case to the boss. But, and this is a huge but, I am not talking about preferences. Your case must consist of demonstrable right or wrong not your opinion about right or wrong. The right to your own opinion is available way up on the ladder.
So, if you want your pay grade to ultimately give you the right to impose your preferences on others, work your way up by helping your bosses to get what they want. In the end, you’ll get what you want!
He gave her an assignment to write up a proposal for a new emergency room procedure that he was thinking of implementing. He gave her a very specific outline of what he envisioned and sent her on her way.
A day or so later she came back with several pages and sat down to discuss it with him. She told him she made a couple of changes in his outline because, frankly, what he was proposing did not sync with her vision of what an ER operation should look like.
He was slightly taken aback, caught between being both amused and annoyed by her audacity. After regaining his composure he said:
“I guess I didn’t make it clear when I hired you, your are here to implement my vision not yours!”
Needless to say, my friend’s comment knocked his new employee down a couple of rungs on her ladder. It was pretty obvious that the way for her to please her new boss was not going to be through her own ingenuity and creativity but, instead, by helping him to achieve his.
It’s ironic. When you are looking for a job, exactly the traits that make you attractive to a prospective employer can be the same traits, if you’re not careful, that can cause your demise.
An intelligent, resourceful, can do, will do employee is an asset we all seek…with one major proviso: we want that employee to use her skill sets to accomplish our goals not hers. Too often employees forget that they were not really hired to do “their thing”, they were hired to do “my thing”.
The higher you get on the organization chart, the more you get to do things your way. That’s what responsibility and authority are all about. If you want to climb concentrate on making your boss successful and, eventually, you will be able to hire people who will make you successful.
The CEO of any organization writes the agenda, employees do not. The best way to get a raise or a bonus is to let your boss know how dedicated you are making him or her look good, + and then doing it. Talk (especially behind his/her back) is cheap. You’re either on board or you’re not. And, by the way, you will often relinquish credit in public for your own work because it’s not about you; it’s about him/her. A good superior will share credit with you when it’s appropriate. Don’t forget, the outside world is well aware that you are a key staff member, so you always get tacit credit for making a contribution even if you’re name is not on it.
Attempting to be in the limelight too soon in your career is a great way to wreck your career. The limelight is earned as a result of a continual track record of supporting the organization (i.e. your boss), not for standing out in the crowd.
I’d like to make an important clarification. No one expects you to be a hypocrite or to sponsor behavior that is, in your opinion, contrary to the best interests of your boss. If you think something you’ve been told to do is morally or legally wrong or ill advised you have the responsibility to make your case to the boss. But, and this is a huge but, I am not talking about preferences. Your case must consist of demonstrable right or wrong not your opinion about right or wrong. The right to your own opinion is available way up on the ladder.
So, if you want your pay grade to ultimately give you the right to impose your preferences on others, work your way up by helping your bosses to get what they want. In the end, you’ll get what you want!
Friday, May 21, 2010
Occasionally the World Suddenly Makes Sense
Occasionally the world suddenly makes sense. I guess those times are what they call “ah ha” moments.
You know all the oversight committees in Congress? It’s always bugged me that every time some major catastrophe occurs, the committees and departments and task forces seem to be looking the other way. And then it dawned on me: These groups are not in charge of oversight, they’re in charge of oversights. And, in fact, they’re doing a terrific job. Going back to 9/11, there have been a litany of oversights.
My curiosity got the best of me, and I did some research. I found someone inside the Washington beltway who would tell me the truth (a task in itself), and here’s what I found out:
The oversight committee is actually part of a whole system. It handles the generally mundane task of dealing with day-to-day events. It traces its origin back to the Nixon administration and the concept of “plausible deniability.” In order for the president to be able to distance himself from an event, Congress is charged with creating a plausible oversight, as in “Oops, it was just an oversight.”
In Nixon’s case, a simple oversight wasn’t adequate so the “overlook committee” was created. This is a “select” committee, meaning that only special people serve on it, and its existence is not very well-publicized. When an oversight isn’t adequate this committee makes a conscious decision to overlook something. Whereas an “oversight” is seemingly an accident, deciding to “overlook” is on purpose.
As you might expect, from time to time, intentionally overlooking something is not enough. When this happens, the issue escalates to the “cover-up committee.” Things don’t get to the cover-up committee without presidential involvement. However, in order to preserve plausible deniability, the president only communicates with the committee in code. It’s something like the nuclear codes and changes with each administration.
I don’t know what the code phrase is in the Obama Administration, but under George W. it was “Heckuva job, Brownie.”
You know all the oversight committees in Congress? It’s always bugged me that every time some major catastrophe occurs, the committees and departments and task forces seem to be looking the other way. And then it dawned on me: These groups are not in charge of oversight, they’re in charge of oversights. And, in fact, they’re doing a terrific job. Going back to 9/11, there have been a litany of oversights.
My curiosity got the best of me, and I did some research. I found someone inside the Washington beltway who would tell me the truth (a task in itself), and here’s what I found out:
The oversight committee is actually part of a whole system. It handles the generally mundane task of dealing with day-to-day events. It traces its origin back to the Nixon administration and the concept of “plausible deniability.” In order for the president to be able to distance himself from an event, Congress is charged with creating a plausible oversight, as in “Oops, it was just an oversight.”
In Nixon’s case, a simple oversight wasn’t adequate so the “overlook committee” was created. This is a “select” committee, meaning that only special people serve on it, and its existence is not very well-publicized. When an oversight isn’t adequate this committee makes a conscious decision to overlook something. Whereas an “oversight” is seemingly an accident, deciding to “overlook” is on purpose.
As you might expect, from time to time, intentionally overlooking something is not enough. When this happens, the issue escalates to the “cover-up committee.” Things don’t get to the cover-up committee without presidential involvement. However, in order to preserve plausible deniability, the president only communicates with the committee in code. It’s something like the nuclear codes and changes with each administration.
I don’t know what the code phrase is in the Obama Administration, but under George W. it was “Heckuva job, Brownie.”
Monday, May 10, 2010
Man, Have We Ever Lost Our Way...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly 40 million Americans received food stamps -- the latest in an ever-higher string of record enrollment that dates from December 2008 and the U.S. recession, according to a government update.
U.S. Food stamps are the primary federal anti-hunger program, helping poor people buy food. Enrollment is highest during times of economic distress. The jobless rate was 9.9 percent, the government said on Friday.
The Agriculture Department said 39.68 million people, or 1 in 8 Americans, were enrolled for food stamps during February, an increase of 260,000 from January. USDA updated its figures on Wednesday.
"This is the highest share of the U.S. population on SNAP/food stamps," said the anti-hunger group Food Research and Action Center, using the new name for food stamps, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). "Research suggests that one in three eligible people are not receiving ... benefits."
Enrollment has set a record each month since reaching 31.78 million in December 2008. USDA estimates enrollment will average 40.5 million people this fiscal year, which ends Sept 30, at a cost of up to $59 billion. For fiscal 2011, average enrollment is forecast for 43.3 million people.
Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton/Files
What is wrong with this country? We have Democrats and Republicans fighting with each other over power and politics and miscellany that improves nothing while 12.5% of our population needs food assistance. I find that totally unacceptable.
We have this Tea Party aberration raising rabble about government interference, and any other thing that can raise a crowd, while that same government is feeding 12.5% of our population.
We have wealthy people criticizing the fact that other wealthy people were bailed out by the government while other people, some of whom used to be wealthy, are using food stamps.
Man, have we ever lost our way.
rjs
U.S. Food stamps are the primary federal anti-hunger program, helping poor people buy food. Enrollment is highest during times of economic distress. The jobless rate was 9.9 percent, the government said on Friday.
The Agriculture Department said 39.68 million people, or 1 in 8 Americans, were enrolled for food stamps during February, an increase of 260,000 from January. USDA updated its figures on Wednesday.
"This is the highest share of the U.S. population on SNAP/food stamps," said the anti-hunger group Food Research and Action Center, using the new name for food stamps, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). "Research suggests that one in three eligible people are not receiving ... benefits."
Enrollment has set a record each month since reaching 31.78 million in December 2008. USDA estimates enrollment will average 40.5 million people this fiscal year, which ends Sept 30, at a cost of up to $59 billion. For fiscal 2011, average enrollment is forecast for 43.3 million people.
Credit: Reuters/Shannon Stapleton/Files
What is wrong with this country? We have Democrats and Republicans fighting with each other over power and politics and miscellany that improves nothing while 12.5% of our population needs food assistance. I find that totally unacceptable.
We have this Tea Party aberration raising rabble about government interference, and any other thing that can raise a crowd, while that same government is feeding 12.5% of our population.
We have wealthy people criticizing the fact that other wealthy people were bailed out by the government while other people, some of whom used to be wealthy, are using food stamps.
Man, have we ever lost our way.
rjs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
