I have had many conversations with a close friend about whether greed ruins things for everyone. He always has asserted that it has. I have stated that it does not. We argued a few times before I noticed that we weren't talking about the same thing.
I contended that greed was what made me not live in a tent. Greed is why I accumulated wealth. (well, try to, anyway) Greed is, simply put, the desire for more than the basic necessities. Greed is wanting more than you have. Wanting more is what drives humanity to ever-greater endeavors, and therefore cannot, inherently, be bad. This definition is acceptable to most.
He stated, that the greed he was talking about, is the drive to have more, at the expense of another. It is what drives a business to lay people off when they have a 10 figure reserve fund. It is what makes millionaires cheat, lie and steal to become billionaires. It is what is behind the statement: "to build shareholder value". This is also an acceptable definition, to most.
Dictionary.com says that greed is "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions". While this seems to agree more with my friend's definition, much depends on how one defines excessive. What amount of wealth is enough; that wanting more means you are greedy. I imagine you all have a dollar amount in your head. Know that, for someone, somewhere, that number makes you terribly greedy.
The problem is that the two equally valid definitions, mean almost the opposite of each other. The desire for more than you have is certainly a good thing. The desire for more than you have, at the expense of another is something else entirely. The first is what illustrates that Libertarians are right. The second shows that socialists are. (The two major parties being so thoroughly corrupt as to not even serve as examples; since they both only represent consummate greed.)
Now, taken at face value, the two types of greed are really just the desire for more. One side is tempered by morality, and the other by selfishness. The selfish person will be driven to acquire more, even at someone else's expense. The moral person will work harder to improve their lot.but not by cheating others. How people define cheating others is subject to debate as well. If you fast-talk someone into a bad deal; have they been cheated?
I'm not, as anyone who is currently having conniptions from my colloquial writing style will attest, any kind of authority on language. So I will not be so forward as to suggest a new word, phrase, or acronym, for our language. But the definition of greed is too broad to use in discussion, without modifiers. Otherwise, you can't be sure what sense of the word is actually meant.
Showing posts with label business. Show all posts
Showing posts with label business. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
MR Goals vs. SMART goals.
There exists in the business world the idea of SMART goals. (accepted definition) Basically this breaks down as: any goal needs to be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, (sometimes this is replaced with "Relevant", which is better), and Timely, or more accurately, Time-Bound. You have likely been on one, or maybe both sides of setting such a goal.
Such a great, simple, little tool to remember the proper way to create a goal, isn't it? Nice little acronym, powerful direction, good methodology. But really it is a bit verbose isn't it? Let's take this little helper apart and distill it to the aqua vitae, shall we.
Specific, and Time-Bound are covered under Measurable, if you think about it. If a goal is not specific it cannot be measured. Simply defining the measurements to be used creates it own specificity. By that same token, is not Time simply a measurement? Therefore by defining the measurements, we have a goal that is, be default, specific and time-bound.
The other letters of this acronym are even more vexing to me. Any realistic goal is, by definition, attainable. Any goal which can be attained, recursively, has to be realistic. So we can eliminate one of those. In the case of "Relevant" as the fourth element, this will be instead covered as part of defining the measurements.
This leaves us with either MA goals, which is easily remembered, but sounds like "My goals"; or MR goals. MR. Goals is your new friend in the fight against vague, unattainable performance standards. MR. Goals is also as easy to remember as SMART.
So let's then cover all of our bases with our new partner MR goals. First, define the measurements. In doing so, you must know what you are attempting to measure (against benchmarks, if possible), who you are measuring, when the measurement (or measurements) will be taken, how they will be taken, (data-analysis, raw numbers, customer satisfaction reports etc.), and why you are taking them.
The why is simultaneously obvious and obscure. Obviously, you want a way to gauge performance against a goal, set of goals, or benchmark. Less obviously, you need to know your motivation in selecting these particular goals, for this particular person. Essentially, ask yourself: "Are these goals the right ones, for this person?"
Next is the acid test of comparing what we want, with what can be done. No one will give you any form of good performance, if they don't feel the standards they will be held to are unrealistic. Why would they? This is really just ensuring you are not de-motivating with what is supposed to be a motivational tool.
Such a great, simple, little tool to remember the proper way to create a goal, isn't it? Nice little acronym, powerful direction, good methodology. But really it is a bit verbose isn't it? Let's take this little helper apart and distill it to the aqua vitae, shall we.
Specific, and Time-Bound are covered under Measurable, if you think about it. If a goal is not specific it cannot be measured. Simply defining the measurements to be used creates it own specificity. By that same token, is not Time simply a measurement? Therefore by defining the measurements, we have a goal that is, be default, specific and time-bound.
The other letters of this acronym are even more vexing to me. Any realistic goal is, by definition, attainable. Any goal which can be attained, recursively, has to be realistic. So we can eliminate one of those. In the case of "Relevant" as the fourth element, this will be instead covered as part of defining the measurements.
This leaves us with either MA goals, which is easily remembered, but sounds like "My goals"; or MR goals. MR. Goals is your new friend in the fight against vague, unattainable performance standards. MR. Goals is also as easy to remember as SMART.
So let's then cover all of our bases with our new partner MR goals. First, define the measurements. In doing so, you must know what you are attempting to measure (against benchmarks, if possible), who you are measuring, when the measurement (or measurements) will be taken, how they will be taken, (data-analysis, raw numbers, customer satisfaction reports etc.), and why you are taking them.
The why is simultaneously obvious and obscure. Obviously, you want a way to gauge performance against a goal, set of goals, or benchmark. Less obviously, you need to know your motivation in selecting these particular goals, for this particular person. Essentially, ask yourself: "Are these goals the right ones, for this person?"
Next is the acid test of comparing what we want, with what can be done. No one will give you any form of good performance, if they don't feel the standards they will be held to are unrealistic. Why would they? This is really just ensuring you are not de-motivating with what is supposed to be a motivational tool.
Monday, October 21, 2013
6 types of people to ban from your meetings.
I once swore I would never do this. Blog about another blog. But this is sort-of a request.
First, read this from LinkedIn. (http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20131020181102-6200057-6-types-of-thinkers-to-seek-for-your-team?fb_action_ids=10152188806967345&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210152188806967345%22%3A485331731564335%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210152188806967345%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D)
Then ask yourself if the first example of each type you could think of, is worth having at a meeting. While the article referenced above places a positive spin on these personality types, for each one there is a negative counterpart. Let's disassemble this, shall we?
1. The Dreamer. This person cannot bring their lofty ideas back down into the real world, and will derail any attempt to do what is feasible, because it is not what they envision. They will not listen to reason, even when it comes from every other team member. Often they are mired in the overly fond, and usually incorrect, memories of how good things used to be. They can drag down the team by stopping realistic goals from being met.
2. The Debater. This is the person who will contradict everything anyone else says, simply because they didn't say it. Often they will argue against a point they have already made, if someone else restates it. Many of them are convinced they are contributing by "keeping you down-to-earth", or "keeping it real." They can sap energy from the team by wasting time (the single most precious resource you have) with needless debate of trivial, or misguided, points.
3. The Disruptor. The diverse, worldly, divergent viewpoint is not always helpful. No one cares what the current fashions are in Zimbabwe, when you are selling in Tallahassee. This person can destroy productivity with the constant derailing of the right ideas. Sometimes an idea out of left-field is just that, and nothing more. This is the most insidious of the negatives, as the difference between this being helpful, or time-wasting, is completely dependent on circumstance.
4. The (backseat) Driver. This is the person in the room who feels they should be in charge, and will take action against the actual leader. Whether they are right, or not, is completely academic, of course; because they are not in charge. Sometimes confrontive, sometimes back-stabbing, they will always work to undermine the authority of the actual leader.
5. The Detailer. This is the person who will ask for every single minute detail of any plan, example, story, anecdote, etc. Their constant request for needless, unhelpful, and monotonous detail will keep everyone else in the room from contributing; just because they don't want to answer foolish questions.
6. The Doer. Who could speak ill of the person who get things done? Someone who has worked with someone who does things before they are ready. (Several firearms related idioms ahead) The ones who "go off half-cocked", jump the gun, or shoot first and ask questions later. These are the people who can ruin the timing of a project, or worse, telegraph it to the competition.
The way to address all of these are the same. Ask them to leave and not come back. When that doesn't work, tell them. Usually the group will follow your lead, and tell them they are wrong, even when you aren't there to hear it. Most importantly, learn to recognize when you are flipping from the positive side of one of these, to the negative. No one is wholly the negative aspect, or the positive. They oscillate. Make yourself valuable by learning how to be quiet when you drift into this territory. And above all, listen when someone tell you you've gone off track.
First, read this from LinkedIn. (http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20131020181102-6200057-6-types-of-thinkers-to-seek-for-your-team?fb_action_ids=10152188806967345&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210152188806967345%22%3A485331731564335%7D&action_type_map=%7B%2210152188806967345%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D)
Then ask yourself if the first example of each type you could think of, is worth having at a meeting. While the article referenced above places a positive spin on these personality types, for each one there is a negative counterpart. Let's disassemble this, shall we?
1. The Dreamer. This person cannot bring their lofty ideas back down into the real world, and will derail any attempt to do what is feasible, because it is not what they envision. They will not listen to reason, even when it comes from every other team member. Often they are mired in the overly fond, and usually incorrect, memories of how good things used to be. They can drag down the team by stopping realistic goals from being met.
2. The Debater. This is the person who will contradict everything anyone else says, simply because they didn't say it. Often they will argue against a point they have already made, if someone else restates it. Many of them are convinced they are contributing by "keeping you down-to-earth", or "keeping it real." They can sap energy from the team by wasting time (the single most precious resource you have) with needless debate of trivial, or misguided, points.
3. The Disruptor. The diverse, worldly, divergent viewpoint is not always helpful. No one cares what the current fashions are in Zimbabwe, when you are selling in Tallahassee. This person can destroy productivity with the constant derailing of the right ideas. Sometimes an idea out of left-field is just that, and nothing more. This is the most insidious of the negatives, as the difference between this being helpful, or time-wasting, is completely dependent on circumstance.
4. The (backseat) Driver. This is the person in the room who feels they should be in charge, and will take action against the actual leader. Whether they are right, or not, is completely academic, of course; because they are not in charge. Sometimes confrontive, sometimes back-stabbing, they will always work to undermine the authority of the actual leader.
5. The Detailer. This is the person who will ask for every single minute detail of any plan, example, story, anecdote, etc. Their constant request for needless, unhelpful, and monotonous detail will keep everyone else in the room from contributing; just because they don't want to answer foolish questions.
6. The Doer. Who could speak ill of the person who get things done? Someone who has worked with someone who does things before they are ready. (Several firearms related idioms ahead) The ones who "go off half-cocked", jump the gun, or shoot first and ask questions later. These are the people who can ruin the timing of a project, or worse, telegraph it to the competition.
The way to address all of these are the same. Ask them to leave and not come back. When that doesn't work, tell them. Usually the group will follow your lead, and tell them they are wrong, even when you aren't there to hear it. Most importantly, learn to recognize when you are flipping from the positive side of one of these, to the negative. No one is wholly the negative aspect, or the positive. They oscillate. Make yourself valuable by learning how to be quiet when you drift into this territory. And above all, listen when someone tell you you've gone off track.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The agenda of the useless.
“The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than the past, the education, the money, than circumstances, than failure, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness or skill. It will make or break a company... a church... a home. The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the one string we have, and that is our attitude. I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% of how I react to it. And so it is with you... we are in charge of our Attitudes.”
Charles R. Swindoll
Charles R. Swindoll
We have all seen this quote, and I have always disagreed. Partly because it is my nature to be disagreeable, partly because nothing so sunny could possibly be true. Mostly it is because it is the biggest, fluffiest ball of crap ever committed to paper.
I say this because having an optimistic outlook doesn't actually change a damned thing. It may help you feel better, assuming you have a high degree of cognitive dissonance, but it changes nothing. Someone born to poor parents will not become rich by having a sunny disposition. Someone who's car was stolen does not recover it by optimism.
All that is accomplished by spreading this manure is empowering useless people to feel vital. We all work, or attend school, with someone who is completely worthless, but feel like they contribute simply by having a positive attitude. My attitude is awful. But if someone wants a something done, done right, and done fast, they come to me.
In fact my attitude is best when those with a positive attitude are nowhere in sight. When I'm surrounded by other grumpy people, all of us see an increase in productivity. I am not talking only about my current position, but every job, and every school I've ever attended.
That is not to say everyone with a positive attitude is worthless. I know quite a few people who are tops in their field, and unabashedly positive. But even if they were the rule rather than the exception, to say that attitude matters more than fact is asinine.
I am also not saying that negative people are all productive. Many are quite the opposite. And a negative unproductive person is worse for morale than a positive unproductive person. In theory anyway. The negative unproductive person will never get an undeserved promotion because of their sunny disposition.
Positive people get promoted more often, but look around your company, do they do a better job? The people who take an honest look at the situation, and make the best of it, are a different class of people than those who only see the good. It's well past time we acknowledge the difference.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
More Illinois math
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/corp_inc.pdf
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=244
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/23034.html
Please reference the sites listed above before reading the following, which was excerpted from a press release.
Illinois House Republicans introduced a major policy initiative last week to accelerate the repeal of the corporate income tax increase approved last January. According to the Illinois Policy Institute, since the $7 billion tax hike in January, 70,000 more Illinoisans have found themselves on the unemployment rolls. The proposed legislation takes a two-pronged approach to reducing Illinois’ business taxes:
1. Accelerates the expiration of the temporary corporate income tax increase. For income earned during calendar 2013, the rate declines from 7% to 6%, and for income earned during calendar 2014, the rate would further decline to 4.8%.
2. Effective immediately, the corporate income tax would be reduced by 0.25% anytime the Illinois unemployment rate increases by .3% in a four month span. For example, if the unemployment rate in January was 10% and in April it was 10.3% then this provision would take effect. At no point would the corporate income tax be less than 4.8% (the tax before Public Act 96-1496)
Did you catch that? The tax rate in Illinois, for businesses is a flat 9.5%. Somehow the Illinois House believes it to be 7%. More Illinois math. maybe that is the rate over and above the base rate we all pay? Let's check.
http://tax.illinois.gov/Businesses/TaxInformation/Income/individual.htm
Nope, that looks like 5% to me. So Where they get their information from is a mystery. So how do we compare? Well Iowa, is higher for some businesses. They increase the tax rate for higher income brackets. "Tax Rate: 6% on first $25,000; 8% on next $75,000; 10% on next $150,000; 12% on all over $250,000" (http://www.iowa.gov/tax/taxlaw/taxtypes.html#corp) So If your business is earning $150,000 or more you are paying more than Illinois. Pennsylvania and Minnesota are higher, but have much lower costs of doing business, and lower state taxes overall, as does Iowa. That makes Illinois the highest overall tax rate by any count. Even if we are 4th in simple income tax. California and New York are both lower. Why is it we can only lead when it comes to corruption, overtaxing, and unconstitutional gun laws?
Even the 1% reduction that is proposed would still place us in the top ten for income tax alone. Couple that with an oppressively union run business climate and the state tax rate in general and you still would list Illinois as the least favorable business climate in the country. And that is before factoring in the corruption. (How could you quantify that anyway?)
So how do the states around us compare, besides Iowa? Indiana is 8.5%. Wisconsin is 7.9%. Missouri is 6.25%, Michigan (only water separates, count it) is 4.95%, and rounding out the states we border, Kentucky is a floating 4-6%. Notice any trend there? All lower than Illinois. Very good. So business would not even have to move far to remove a substantial tax burden.
The second phase of the plan suggested is to adjust the tax rate down 0.25%, approximately 1/8 pittance, if the unemployment rate is .3 higher in any four month period. So we will attempt to fix our tax burden AFTER businesses have either laid people off, fired them, or fled for greener pastures. So we will fix unemployment retroactively?
How do retail giants sell product so cheap, but still make more money than small business. They leverage their size to buy lower and sell lower, but at a much greater volume. In short, Illinois could lower the tax rate, thus ATTRACTING business, then collect more in taxes, at a lower rate, from MANY MORE COMPANIES. More companies mean employing more people by the way, so that would fix statewide unemployment numbers.
Let's not forget that earlier this year the Governors of New Jersey and Indiana were running commercials on WGN to advertise the lower tax rates that their states presented. Yes it has gotten that bad here that the other states are circling our, soon to be corpse, like vultures. Let's get out and vote some of these fools out this time huh?
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=244
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/23034.html
Please reference the sites listed above before reading the following, which was excerpted from a press release.
Illinois House Republicans introduced a major policy initiative last week to accelerate the repeal of the corporate income tax increase approved last January. According to the Illinois Policy Institute, since the $7 billion tax hike in January, 70,000 more Illinoisans have found themselves on the unemployment rolls. The proposed legislation takes a two-pronged approach to reducing Illinois’ business taxes:
1. Accelerates the expiration of the temporary corporate income tax increase. For income earned during calendar 2013, the rate declines from 7% to 6%, and for income earned during calendar 2014, the rate would further decline to 4.8%.
2. Effective immediately, the corporate income tax would be reduced by 0.25% anytime the Illinois unemployment rate increases by .3% in a four month span. For example, if the unemployment rate in January was 10% and in April it was 10.3% then this provision would take effect. At no point would the corporate income tax be less than 4.8% (the tax before Public Act 96-1496)
Did you catch that? The tax rate in Illinois, for businesses is a flat 9.5%. Somehow the Illinois House believes it to be 7%. More Illinois math. maybe that is the rate over and above the base rate we all pay? Let's check.
http://tax.illinois.gov/Businesses/TaxInformation/Income/individual.htm
Nope, that looks like 5% to me. So Where they get their information from is a mystery. So how do we compare? Well Iowa, is higher for some businesses. They increase the tax rate for higher income brackets. "Tax Rate: 6% on first $25,000; 8% on next $75,000; 10% on next $150,000; 12% on all over $250,000" (http://www.iowa.gov/tax/taxlaw/taxtypes.html#corp) So If your business is earning $150,000 or more you are paying more than Illinois. Pennsylvania and Minnesota are higher, but have much lower costs of doing business, and lower state taxes overall, as does Iowa. That makes Illinois the highest overall tax rate by any count. Even if we are 4th in simple income tax. California and New York are both lower. Why is it we can only lead when it comes to corruption, overtaxing, and unconstitutional gun laws?
Even the 1% reduction that is proposed would still place us in the top ten for income tax alone. Couple that with an oppressively union run business climate and the state tax rate in general and you still would list Illinois as the least favorable business climate in the country. And that is before factoring in the corruption. (How could you quantify that anyway?)
So how do the states around us compare, besides Iowa? Indiana is 8.5%. Wisconsin is 7.9%. Missouri is 6.25%, Michigan (only water separates, count it) is 4.95%, and rounding out the states we border, Kentucky is a floating 4-6%. Notice any trend there? All lower than Illinois. Very good. So business would not even have to move far to remove a substantial tax burden.
The second phase of the plan suggested is to adjust the tax rate down 0.25%, approximately 1/8 pittance, if the unemployment rate is .3 higher in any four month period. So we will attempt to fix our tax burden AFTER businesses have either laid people off, fired them, or fled for greener pastures. So we will fix unemployment retroactively?
How do retail giants sell product so cheap, but still make more money than small business. They leverage their size to buy lower and sell lower, but at a much greater volume. In short, Illinois could lower the tax rate, thus ATTRACTING business, then collect more in taxes, at a lower rate, from MANY MORE COMPANIES. More companies mean employing more people by the way, so that would fix statewide unemployment numbers.
Let's not forget that earlier this year the Governors of New Jersey and Indiana were running commercials on WGN to advertise the lower tax rates that their states presented. Yes it has gotten that bad here that the other states are circling our, soon to be corpse, like vultures. Let's get out and vote some of these fools out this time huh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)