The Six Shooter.
September 27, 1953.
Program #2. NBC net.
“The Coward”.
Sponsored by: Coleman Home Heaters.
“Everyone knows that Will Fedder is a coward because he won’t wear a gun. However, a man can be pushed just so far! Jimmy Stewart, Howard McNear, Michael Ann Barrett, Will Wright, Frank Burt (creator, writer), Basil Adlam (music), Jack Johnstone (director), Hal Gibney (announcer), Herb Ellis.“
Originally broadcast September 20, 1953 – this recording is from the “Old Time Radio Researchers Group” – I “cleaned up” the audio a little
The Six Shooter. September 20, 1953.
Program #1. NBC net. “Jenny”.
Sponsored by: Coleman Home Heaters.
“Britt Ponset finds a wounded man in the desert and brings him to Jenny Garber to nurse him back to health. No man seems to think much of Jenny. A moving, well-written story. Jimmy Stewart, Frank Burt (creator, writer), D. J. Thompson, Harry Bartell, Jack Johnstone (director), Hal Gibney (announcer), Basil Adlam (music), Jess Kirkpatrick, George Neise.”
Starting with a definition: Communication is “a process by which information is exchanged between individuals through a common system of symbols, signs, or behavior” (thank you Merriam-Webster — emphasis mine)
Notice the emphasis on “information is exchanged.” If INFORMATION is NOT being EXCHANGED then you don’t have “communication.” Two people yelling at each other might be “fighting” and “sending messages” but calling a screamed insult “information” is true only at the lowest level.
Remember “communication” involves a “message” being “sent” AND “received” — e.g. if both sides are “sending” at the same time (e.g. two folks yelling at each other) then accurate reception of the “sent” message is unlikely.
My completely made up on the fly “communication rule #1” is to point out that “active listening” is part of “effective communication.”
Imagine a radio station BROADCASTING a signal. That “signal” has to be “received”/interpreted for “communication” to take place.
If a “sender” wants their message to be understood – then they need to tailor the “message” to the recipients. That radio station is sending out a signal on a specific frequency which recipients will need a “radio receiver” tuned to the correct frequency to receive.
BUT the “message” also need to be crafted with the recipients in mind.
e.g. someone is giving a speech to “college presidents” the form of the message will be much different than someone giving a speech to “elementary school students.”
The “message” will also need to be adjusted based on the “media” involved — e.g. a “published article” in a scholarly journal will be crafted differently than an op-ed for a local newspaper.
What should be “obvious” is that NOTHING should be assumed to be “obvious.” The more familiar a “speaker”/”writer” is with their audience the better they will be able to communicate a message.
e.g. Assuming that “EVERYONE knows” something can cause problems – “Well, everyone knew I was joking” becomes a recipe for misunderstanding (especially if you are in a leadership position)
btw: I’m NOT saying to avoid “humor” – I’m pointing out that attempts at “humor” can easily be misunderstood. “Joking around” with people you have known for years will (almost certainly) be taken differently than “joking around” with someone you just met …
Definition time: Feedback “the transmission of evaluative or corrective information about an action, event, or process to the original or controlling source”
“Feedback” covers a LOT of communication territory – it can be positive or negative – constructive or destructive – and will obviously vary in “usefulness” based on a combination of “sender” AND “receiver” characteristics.
Effective feedback takes effort and a willingness to listen. Honesty is essential – BUT “honesty” should not be an excuse to be mean/insulting.
“Honest” feedback is NOT just pointing out everything someone did WRONG. Honestly pointing out the positives is also not “flattery.”
Feedback is (drum roll) “communication” – and to be effective must be tailored to the individual/audience AND be “actionable.”
A “fan” telling their favorite artist how fantastic they (the artist) is might be “honest” and appreciated – but isn’t exactly “useful feedback” – e.g. Fan: “YOU are great I love your work” Artist: “Thank you”
Same is true of a “manager” heaping abuse on an “employee” during an “annual review” – e.g. manager: “I haven’t given you any feedback all year, but now I am going to tell you how terrible a job you have done so I can justify not giving you a raise!” Employee: “Thank you for the motivation to look for another job!”
The “actionable” part if important for something to be “feedback” – i.e. if I just say “I liked x and y” then I am giving my opinion – If I say “X and Y seemed to work well, Z could have been better – maybe try ABC next time” then THAT is “feedback”
A specific type of feedback gets called “praise.” By definition praise is favorable BUT it is not just giving compliments or saying “positive” things.
For “praise” to be effective it needs to be specific. e.g. “I watched your performance and I thought you did x, y, and z REALLY well” is better than “You looked good out there” (though both may be appropriate at certain times).
Compliments also work best when they are specific – with “honesty” being the difference between a “compliment” and “flattery.”
When “awards” show season rolls around I tend to point out that giving out awards for singing/acting/artistic impression is a little pointless from a “fan” point of view (i.e. I don’t need someone to tell me what I should like) BUT that doesn’t mean the awards are pointless.
Hey, fans “voted” on what they like by buying tickets – so a lot of awards become “recognition by peers.” e.g. If “people that do X” for a living all get together and vote on who did “X” best this year – and then give out an award – the award becomes a form of “peer praise”/recognition, which is always nice
The point being that “knowledgeable praise” – as in “praise from people that honestly understand the act being praised” – is much more valued than “random praise from non-experts”
Of course “perfect performances” tend to be rare – so pointing out “what didn’t go so well” is also important.
“Criticism” implies “unfavorable feedback” – which is why you often hear the term “constructive criticism” used for the process of “evaluating or analyzing” an event.
“Youth coaches” will talk about “praise sandwiches” as a model for constructive criticism – e.g. start the feedback with a “positive” (praise), mention a “corrective” (criticism), and then end with another “positive” (praise)
Once again, audience matters – if you are coaching a “Little League Baseball” team and are talking to the team after a game, then “praise sandwiches” all around. If you are doing film study with older athletes then “praise sandwiches” will probably come across as a little disingenuous.
Occasionally I see a “social media” post that goes something like “I don’t know who needs to hear this – but you are doing a great job!”
“You can do it!”
Townie (Rob Schneider) from “The Waterboy“
Now, I appreciate the sentiment – but generic affirmations from someone that has never met me are not particularly useful.
I’m not particularly offended by those type of posts – but I wouldn’t classify them as “feedback” in any form. Maybe call them a “positive thought broadcast” but not “praise.”
BUT I could always be wrong …
Originally broadcast July 15, 1953 – this recording is from the “Old Time Radio Researchers Group” – I “cleaned up” the audio a little
“The Six Shooter. July 15, 1953. An audition program. Britt forces the sheriff to go after a robber, even though the wounded crook may be the sheriff’s son. Jimmy Stewart, William Conrad, Parley Baer. 23:56.”
“The Six Shooter – Episode 0 (audition)”
FIRST I will say that I am a fan of William Shatner OC. The “OC” stands for “Order of Canada” – which is an honor of merit bestowed by the Canadian government.
The 2019 announcement specifically mentions Captain James T Kirk/Star Trek but these types of honors tend to be conferred because of a combination of “entertainment and philanthropy” e.g. The motto of the “Order of Canada” is “DESIDERANTES MELIOREM PATRIAM” (They desire a better country)
Not being a Canadian – I had to look up the “Order of Canada.” I was trying to figure out if there is a formal address for “Officers of the Order of Canada” (umm, no? I’m still not sure – apparently Canada uses “Honorable” and “Right Honorable” for certain positions/persons – but I don’t think “OC” comes along with an honorific, but again I’m not 100% on that one way or the other …)
fwiw: Mr Shatner pointed out that being “knighted” is mostly for citizens of Great Britain. SO Mr Shatner is not “Sir William” (and I’m told that Canadian citizens are not eligible for the top two levels of the “OBE”)
fwiw 2: Article 1 Section 9 Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the United States gov’ment from conferring “Titles of Nobility” – but several prominent Americans have been awarded “KBE” by the United Kingdom. The “KBE” usually gets described as an “honorary knighthood” – they get the award from the Crown and can put “KBE” after their name if they want, but don’t get the official honorific of “Sir/Dame.”
“Star Trek” TOS (the original series) ran for 3 seasons (79 official episodes) and then there was an “animated series” that ran for 22 episodes.
It is part of the legend of “Star Trek” that the show ran for 3 seasons and was CANCELLED each season — organized “fan letter” campaigns convinced network decision makers to bring the show back for another season after the season 1 and 2 cancellations.
BUT while the fan letter campaign might have convinced network executives to keep the show on the air, it couldn’t convince them to invest money in the show. e.g. if you watch the TOS episodes in order you will notice a drop in “production value” in many season 3 episodes.
The rumor was that Mr Shatner and Leonard Nimoy were the only actors “getting raises” – and most of season 3 is just not as good as seasons 1 and 2 for various reasons. Of course “not very good” Star Trek is still better than a lot of shows – I’m not being overly critical but two words “Spock’s Brain” (season 3 episode 1)
I have always had the impression that William Shatner has a passion for performing – which is why he has 250 credits to his name. Leonard Nimoy went from Star Trek to “Mission Impossible” and has 136 credits. DeForest Kelley was 10 years older than both Mr Shatner and Mr Nimoy – and was certainly the more “established” actor when Star Trek TOS started (not surprisingly considering the time and popular tastes – he was in a lot of westerns) – has 133 credits to his name.
ANYWAY – My very round about point is that while William Shatner OC will be remembered as “Captain Kirk.” Mr Shatner has had a long and distinguished career. – i.e. his career included a LOT more than JUST “Star Trek” – e.g. Mr Shatner’s portrayal of the very “not Captain Kirk” character “Denny Crane” won him a Primetime Emmy in 2004 AND 2005, and don’t forget the “exceptionally 80’s” TJ Hooker.
The motivation for the blog post was a meme with Mr Shatner asking “When did Star Trek become political?”
“When did Star Trek become political?”
William Shatner OC
There are a LOT of responses belittling Mr Shatner – with the general theme being something like “Star Trek is the most political show in the history of television!”
While I understand what folks “mean” when they say that Star Trek was/is “political” I have to disagree because, well, they are simply wrong.
We should probably define some terms:
Merriam-Webster tells us that Science Fiction = “fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component”
The important part of the “science fiction” definition is of course the “science” part — i.e. just because a story takes place in “outer space”, has “ray guns” and/or spaceships does NOT automatically mean it is “science fiction.”
e.g. A lot of those “serial” films like Flash Gordon or Buck Rodgers are more “space fantasy” than science fiction. “Star Wars” (the original trilogy) is very much “space fantasy” – and the broad thematic similarities between Flash Gordon and Star Wars should be obvious (heroes going off on a mission to save life as we know it).
To be clear I am not criticizing any of the above – they are entertaining and have had societal influence – but they could just as easily take place “once upon a time in a land far far away” (e.g. sounds a lot like “A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away”).
Going back to our definition – notice the “impact … on society or individuals” part. If someone is telling stories about the impact of “whatever” on “society and individuals” they are almost certainly engaging in “social commentary” —
e.g. H.G. Wells typically gets credit for “inventing” the genre with “The Time Machine” in 1895. — Mr Well’s time traveler (an inventor/scientist) went into a distant future where humanity had destroyed the societies of his time (war is bad) and there are two surviving “classes” of humans – one above ground and the other below … so “science” and “social commentary” has ALWAYS been a recipe for “science fiction”
There are multiple “sub genres” of “science fiction” that I will just wave at as we go by – i.e. a comprehensive discussion on all things “science fiction” is beyond the scope of this little blog …
BUT “social commentary” is NOT “politics” — e.g. if you want to say that “Star Trek” has always been a commentary on modern society – then I would tend to agree.
The movies with “the original cast” also fit into that model — i.e. they are broad “social commentary” about issues of the day but are NOT “political”
Obviously now we need to define politics – the first recorded use of the word in English goes back to 1529 – with an “art or science of government” meaning.
The roots of “politics” go back to the Ancient Greek “polis”/city state – so when Aristotle said that “Man is by nature a political animal” he was saying that men are capable of communication and moral reasoning — therefore they can create governments/societies based on that moral reasoning (i.e. “politics”)
fwiw: Aristotle wasn’t a fan of “democracies” because they tend to decay into chaos – so his use of the word “political” was descriptive in a general sense – neither positive or negative – he was obviously biased toward the Greek polis (constitutional republic) as an ideal.
The word “politics” gets thrown around a lot – as it is used in “modern times” it can be understood as the practical process of “who gets what, how much they get, and when do they get it” — i.e. if you have scarce resources there will ALWAYS be “politics” to deal with – whether you are talking about a small business or the Federal government EVERYBODY can’t get EVERYTHING they want NOW – so “politics” happen.
“Science fiction” might tell a story where the “social commentary theme” is “racism is bad” or “war is bad but sometimes necessary” – but would NOT advance a specific set of policy principles or advocate for (or against) a current political figure.
Sure someone COULD tell a thinly veiled story pushing a specific political agenda and pretend it is “science fiction” – but that is more accurately called “propaganda” not “fiction”
If we went through all of of TOS episodes we can PROBABLY find an underlying “social commentary” in each one – some are more overt than others – but it is there if you look for it (an exercise for a time when I have more time on my hands).
It can also be fun to point out the “science fiction fashion victims” – just like you can point out the “historical epic fashion victims” – i.e. any television show or movie tends to reflect the time it was made.
SO we get miniskirts and beehive hairdos in TOS and somehow all of the aliens look like humans from 1960s North America who all speak English on every “M” class planet they stumble upon after travelling multiples of the speed of light to get there. Oh, and all alien species are all able to interbreed (and fall in love with Captain Kirk) – and those sideburns …
BUT this is all part of the suspension of disbelief – we can also point at “Doctor Zhivago” (1965) as a great movie about the Russian revolution (1917-1923) with a cast full of actors with “1965” hairstyles – enjoy the movie, don’t worry about the hairstyles
It is also fun to compare the “tech” from TOS to the “tech” in TNG — One of my favorites is the concept of the “paperless society” – in all of TOS episodes and movies if you see a “dead tree” book on the Enterprise it is probably a “plot element” – they read off of screens a lot, and they use (what we would call) “tablets” a lot. BUT Captain Jean Luc Picard had his leather bound edition of the “Complete Works of Shakespeare”
in the “just for fun” category Pavel Chekov could illustrate the potential dangers of working in “political” jokes – e.g. the character was introduced in an attempt to appeal to younger viewers and also as a little “Cold War” reference.
According to Mr Chekov EVERYTHING was invented in Russia – which is still funny as a running gag, but during the Stalin era Russian history was periodically rewritten to conform to the current political environment …
“The Trouble With Tribbles” Season 2 Episode 15
Scott : [raising his glass] Now this is a drink for a man. Chekov : Scotch?
Scott : Aye.
Chekov : It was invented by a little old lady from Leningrad.
BUT yes, I am nitpicking — my original point was that Star Trek TOS is “social commentary” and it remains popular BECAUSE it was NOT “political” — which was probably what Mr Shatner was saying — if he actually said the “When did Star Trek become political?” line …
… kind of a random thought – but I think Apple has officially run out of ideas — e.g. I am seeing ads for a “Titanium” iPhone, which comes across (to me at least) as “how do we convince people to pay us $1,000 for a ‘new’ product that is functionally the same as what they already have”
from a “leadership” point of view – what made Steve Jobs “different” than other CEO’s was that he ran “Apple, Inc” for the benefit of “Apple, Inc” NOT for the shareholders of Apple, Inc stock. That might sound like a minor difference but trust me it is radically different than the “Wall Street norm” (where stock price is taken as a direct indicator of “corporate profitability”/health)
This isn’t criticism of (current Apple, Inc CEO) Tim Cook — just pointing out that Mr Cook has run Apple, Inc as “Wall Street” prefers – trying to maximize “shareholder” value which is NOT the same as doing what is best for “Apple, Inc.” Of course when CEO’s are compensated with “stock futures” it automatically makes them biased in favor of “doing what is best for the stock price” — but that becomes a lesson in unintended consequences not necessarily “corporate leadership”
Some self-serving politicians went after “excessive executive salary packages” years ago – I think at the time they created an artificial $1 million cap on executive salaries of publicly traded companies — which had the unintended consequence of corporations starting to offer more “stock options” as executive compensation- and REAL executive compensation skyrocketed —
e.g. when you see headlines about “such and such executive” making hundreds of millions of $ in a year – it is because the stock price of “such and such corporation” increased – in 2023 the Pinterest CEO received $123 million in compensation – $101 million of that was stock options
umm, I’m not criticizing what ANYONE is paid – my point is that doing what is “best” for the stock price is NOT always what is “best” for the company (e.g. “Hey, how about if we change the iPhone case rather then spend money on R&D trying to innovate! – the stock price will get a bump and our stock options will be worth more! Brilliant!” then I imagine the Apple board of directors throwing huge stacks of hundred dollar bills at each other while shouting “money fight!”)
I’m not worried about the huge difference in pay between “executives” and “normal” employees – remember there is no guarantee that the stock price will increase, so it is possible those stock options will expire and be worthless – if the “executives” are actually “leading” the company then it is probably hard to pay them TOO much – and if they are using the company as their personal piggy bank it is probably hard to FIRE them fast enough …
hey, if I ever had the “option” of getting “stock options” at a growing company I would take it … e.g. a lot of Walmart, Microsoft, Google, and AOL “normal employees” became multimillionaires because they were there at the right time and took the stock options — ’nuff said
This rant started because the Thursday night game isn’t particularly interesting (for me) – I was contemplating exactly what I expect from an “opportunity” – I’m ALWAYS looking to make a contribution, i.e. the company isn’t hiring me just because I “need” a job, they have work that needs doing for which they are looking to compensate someone for — the ideal “employer/employee” relationship is where the employee makes a positive contribution and EVERYONE benefits (company, employee, other stakeholders)
Again, I don’t really care what “ownership” is taking home – I simply want what have been promised – e.g. if I ain’t getting paid then I am either a slave or volunteer. If I believe on the mission MAYBE I’d consider being a volunteer but I won’t be particularly productive when I can’t buy gas for my car to get to work.
When I read Colin Powell’s book (“My American Journey” – 1995) he pointed out that his job as a brand new Second Lieutenant (the lowest officer rank in the U.S. Army) was making sure that the soldiers under his command got paid and fed — so that is probably good advice for ANY “manager” at ANY level (i.e. if you have “direct reports” make sure they are getting paid and aren’t starving – showing that you care is worth something, DOING something about it is what creates that “loyalty” thing) – that doesn’t mean employees are always getting paid “what they want” but certainly getting what the company has promised.
little things like free coffee and fruit/candy are nice – but nothing says “we value your contribution” like good ol’ cash. The opposite is also true – nothing says “run, the people in charge are incompetent!” more than payroll problems
I will point out that I am not “pro union” AND I am not “anti union.” Maybe I would describe myself as “pro productivity” and “pro cooperation.”
“Unions” are “good” when they are communicating with management and trying to help workers/members. “Unions” can be “bad” when they start to exist for the sake of the “UNION” and NOT as a way for workers and management to communicate. i.e. “Union leaders” can be just as “greedy” for status/power/money as “management.”
The automobile unions in the U.S. in the last half of the 20th century become a case study in “poor communication” AND greed. Yes, I am oversimplifying the issue – but when the company is paying people NOT to work then they have certainly lost sight of the path of “corporate wisdom” and are well down the path of “convenience, expedience, and non-competitiveness” (Google “UAW jobs bank” if interested).
Of course if the “work” that needs to be done is difficult, dangerous, and/or unpleasant it will be harder to find folks looking to do the difficult, dangerous, and/or unpleasant work.
This tends to mean that wages are higher for work that falls into the “difficult, dangerous, and/or unpleasant” category.
Then some jobs fall into the above category – but also have a traditional/intrinsic value that comes from the “purpose” found by folks in the profession.
To be clear I’m thinking of things like “law enforcement”, “fire and safety”, “health care”, and “education” – but any job that gives a person “purpose” fits this category.
In the United States “law enforcement” and “fire/emergency/rescue” services tend to be paid for by local taxes – so compensation for those positions tends to be “what the locality can afford.” Smaller municipalities may have to rely on volunteers for portions of their fire/emergency/rescue staffs — which again drives home the value/importance of “perceived purpose.”
The important thing to avoid is the concept of “pointless effort” — i.e. if the ONLY reason someone is doing a job is for a paycheck, then they will end up hating the job. If they have a “reason” and/or “purpose” then ANY work/job can fit this category.
The ancient Greeks had a myth about a man named Sisyphus who did SOMETHING bad (versions of the story vary). His punishment was to push a boulder up a hill for eternity. The “poetic” part of the punishment was that just before he would reach the top, the boulder would roll back down the hill and he would have to start again.
“Vision without action is a daydream. Action without vision is a nightmare”
Japanese Proverb
Yes, the myth says a LOT about ancient Greek concepts of labor and productivity, and also has a lesson for modern audiences.
The “management” lesson is simply that YOUR job as a manager (after you’ve made sure your direct reports are paid and fed) is communicating the PURPOSE of the work of the organization.
yeah, so this kind of escalated from a “short post” to “blog post” —
Worth noting is that “real life” had ALWAYS been “boring” to one degree or another. MOST of the time – being “boring” is good for a society.
“Unhappy is the land that breeds no hero!
Bertolt Brecht
No, Andrea….unhappy is the land that needs a hero.”
… but that is another story
True innovation is rare. Ecclesiastes 1:9 is several thousand years old and tells us that “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.”
Of course when we aren’t talking about “big picture life” – innovation on a smaller scale happens every once in a while. Historians can argue about the number of truly “world changing innovations” – things like development of agriculture, domestication of animals, improvements in building materials, etc but that isn’t what I’m concerned with today.
I enjoyed The Outfit (2022) – which is nominally about a master English tailor who has ended up in a small shop in mid-1950’s Chicago (Mark Rylance’s character describes himself as a “cutter” – it is one of those rare “character driven” gangster movies, the movie has a “tense” energy and we get some “action” – I liked it).
Near the end of the movie a character complains about how her “organization” had been ignored until they started making some “real” money. Which is plot driven exposition as much as anything.
THEN I saw a promo for a new “streaming series” – were the main character makes the same complaint – something like “no one paid attention till we started making money, now everyone wants to take over.”
Ok, both of those examples are “plot driven” but it is important to recognize that the complaint both (fictional characters) are making is that they “innovated”, created a “new” market segment, and then when that market segment became increasingly popular – competitors entered the marketplace.
“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness”
– Oscar Wilde
This is the same concept found in the “innovation acceptance curve.” The “innovation acceptance curve” looks like the classic “normal distribution” bell curve – with “innovators” and “early adopters” on one side and “laggards” on the other – and “early” and “late” majority in the middle.
My point is that there is probably a similar “number of competitors” curve that mirrors the “innovation acceptance curve.”
Think “cell phones” – the first “cell phone” was invented in 1973. In the 1980’s cell phones were extremely rare – and if someone had one it probably looked like a World War 2 “walkie talkie.” By the end of the 1990s cell phones were common. The first iPhone was released in 2007 – which sparked another “innovation acceptance curve” for “smart phones.”
Look at the “cell phone market” – Nokia dominated the early stages of the acceptance curve – but back in the 1990s the “cell phone service providers” tended to “give away” the phone in exchange for the monthly service fee.
I’m sure there were a LOT of other companies making “cell phones” in those “early adopter”/”early Majority” days – and there were obviously other innovators (BlackBerry comes to mind).
If we set the “way back machine” to 2005 (2 years before the iPhone) and asked a random sampling of cell phone users if they would ever think of paying $500 for a cell phone – the response would have been overwhelmingly low, simply because the average user only used their cell phone to take the occasional low resolution picture and make phone calls.
(fwiw: I used to leave my flip phone in the car 99% of the time – because that was where I would need it, and the battery retained a charge for weeks at a time)
Of course in 2005 folks might have also carried around a laptop, a “personal digital assistant”, and/or a dedicated MP3 player (the first Apple iPod released in 2001 – but “portable personal music players” had been around for years).
The point here is that “innovation” is NOT always “market driven.” Successful innovation that results in “market disruption” is about providing something the “masses” didn’t realize they needed.
“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
-Henry Ford
Legendary Apple founder Steve Jobs once said that he didn’t rely on “market research” when developing new products. I’m not questioning Mr. Jobs – but (my opinion) his “genius” was in seeing what people “needed” which was often different than what the “thought the wanted.”
Apple, Inc under Mr. Jobs was also known for making superior quality products that fell into the “elegant” category – i.e. achieving “product elegance” required a lot of “product testing” and development. SO Steve Jobs didn’t come back to Apple from the “wilderness” in 1997 and hand down from on high the “iMac”, and then the “iPod”, and finally the “iPod” – but he did create the innovation environment that made them possible.
After Apple disrupted the cell phone market by introducing the “iPhone” – Google, inc acquired the Android operating system and the HTC Dream was the first Android “smart phone” (September 2008)
In 2023 Android OS is the most popular operating system in the world with 70% of the market share. Apple iOS has 28% of the market.
From a “device” point of view – Samsung is the largest “Android” device manufacturer. Apple iOS is “closed source”/proprietary so obviously all “legal” iPhones are running iOS.
From a “profitability” point of view – Apple, Inc is making a good living off of the selling iPhones for $1,000 and the “App Store” brings in $billions a year. So at the moment they are happily perched atop the “market profitability leader” stack – i.e. they don’t have the largest number of “devices” but they dominate the “top end” of the market and are far and away the most profitable.
i.e. you can buy a $50 Android smartphone and you can probably find a $100 iPhone, but it will be several “generations” old …
If you are curious about that other 2% of the mobile market (Android 70%, Apple 28%, other 2%?) – well, in 2023 I’m not sure –
Microsoft tried to have a “mobile” version of Windows for a long time, Microsoft announced “end of life” for Windows Mobile back in 2017, which means 2022 was when Microsoft support ended.
BlackBerry is also still around – so that 2% is mostly old Microsoft Mobile and BlackBerry devices.
The “modern business” cliche is that companies must “innovate or die” – but any “market” will tend to be irrational/unpredictable at a basic level because, well, “people” are involved.
“Innovation” for the sake of “innovation” is a bad idea – hey, if it ain’t broke, don’t perform radical surgery trying to “fix” it. “Intelligent innovation” with an eye on shifting market demands is always a good “long term” plan.
ANYWAY – there is a very good documentary on the “Rise and Fall of Nokia Mobile” (2017)
Just like our fictional “market creators” at the start of this article – Nokia was an innovator and dominated the early mobile industry, then the market got big and profitable and then what happened …
Well, Nokia is a case study for why “market share dominance” does not always equal “profitability” – but the answer to what “happened” to Nokia is that Microsoft acquired them in 2013.
You can still buy a “Nokia” phone – they even have the classic “flip phone” – but the Finnish telecom company “Nokia” doesn’t make phones in 2023.
I’m not giving anything away by pointing out that the “old Nokia” employees blamed the “fall of Nokia” on the Microsoft acquisition – i.e. there is a LOT of “Microsoft as evil American corporation” bashing in the documentary – and for-what-it-is-worth they are probably right in their criticism of the contrasting corporate cultures.
BUT “Microsoft/Nokia” isn’t at the top of “worst mergers” of all time by any measure (hey, someone is gonna have to do something SPECTACULARLY stupid on a “Biblical” scale to be worse than AOL/Time Warner).
With 20/20 hindsight – “Nokia mobile” might be in exactly the same spot they are NOW if the Microsoft deal hadn’t happened – i.e. making mid-range Android phones. They certainly didn’t have the resources to compete with Apple and Google for users – so at some point they would (probably) have stopped trying to develop their own mobile OS and thrown in with Google/Android and be exactly where they are today.
Healthy competition drives intelligent innovation. At a “nation state” level this means that “protectionism” is usually a bad idea.
The “usually” qualifier sneaks in there because of “national security.” Outside of a “national security” concern the best thing for “politicians” to do in regards to “market competition” is “as close to nothing as possible.”
Yes, rules need to be enforced. Criminal activity should be dealt with as “criminal activity” NOT as an excuse for politicians to “wet their beak” meddling in market regulation. e.g. politicians are great at throwing money at bad ideas and extremely bad at encouraging actual “market innovation.”
(just in general the most cost effective thing the “gov’ment” can do is “have a contest” and then encourage the free market to solve the problem and win the contest)
Of course “cronyism” is ALWAYS bad at any level. The Venezuelan oil industry under Hugo Chavez becomes the cautionary tale of “cronyism” disguised as “nationalization.” e.g. no, a “centrally controlled economy” run by “human experts” won’t work on a national scale – and only the greedy and ignorant will try to tell the “masses” that you can get “something for nothing.”
Russell Conwell (February 15, 1843 – December 6, 1925) is remembered for giving a speech called “Acres of Diamonds” (feel free to read the lecture at your leisure)
One of the lessons that could be taken from Acres of Diamonds is that the best “market” for someone looking to “innovate” and “compete” is the market that they know best.
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.
– Henry David Thoreau
Just because someone else is doing something similar doesn’t mean that there isn’t room in the marketplace for your idea. e.g. Everyone told Dave Thomas that the United States didn’t need ANOTHER hamburger chain – but in 1969 he started “Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers” in Columbus, Ohio.
Mr Thomas had worked for the real Colonel Sanders and Kentucky Fried chicken before starting Wendy’s – so he didn’t need “new clothes”, he understood fast food franchising and customer service. btw – Dave Thomas at Wendy’s deserves credit for perfecting the “pick up window” and the
“salad bar” among other things.
When Jack Welch was running G.E. they encouraged suggestions/feedback from “ordinary” workers – the idea being that the person that knows how to do the job “better” is probably the person doing the job.
Yes, for every “introduced into production” G.E. probably had hundreds of “impractical” suggestions – but that is like saying that most rocks in the diamond mine are not diamonds, you don’t stop mining for diamonds because of the “not diamonds”
(any organization that encourages suggestions should also have a way of quickly evaluating those suggestions – I’d be happy to take a big consulting fee to figure out a way, but with modern I.T. there are a lot of easily implemented solutions).
Textbooks will through out terms like “unique selling proposition” (USP) – which boil down to “just because other folks are doing it doesn’t mean your slightly different idea won’t work.”
Ideally your idea will do “something” different/better/cheaper — but the fact that a LOT of other folks are doing “whatever” just means that there is a DEMAND for “whatever.” i.e. if you think that you have a truly unique/innovative idea that no one else has thought of – you might be wrong.
It is POSSIBLE that your idea has been tried (and failed) OR that there simply isn’t a profitable market for “whatever.” This is where doing a “competitor analysis” becomes informative – if you can’t find ANY competitors than I’d be worried …
e.g. not surprisingly McDonald’s sells the most hamburgers in the United States but there are 91,989 other “hamburger restaurant businesses” in the U.S. and the number continues to grow.
I don’t know if I would suggest starting a “hamburger restaurant” if you have 20 years of completely unrelated experience – but this is where “franchising” tries to fill in the knowledge/experience gaps for prospective entrepreneurs.
Probably having a good location is just as important as having a recognizable brand – e.g. if I have been driving for 8 hours and I’m hungry and have to use the restroom if “anonymous greasy spoon truck stop” is the only place in sight they would look REAL attractive …
Usually when doing a competition assessment you will factor in the impact that changes in price will have on “market demand” as well as the cost of “switching.”
Specifics aren’t important -this is where the textbooks will talk about “elasticity” – but the core idea is that changes in price can have a large impact on “demand.”
i.e. if you are selling “product x” for $1, something happens, and you need to start charging $2 to stay in business. There are 3 possibilities – you could lose customers, your retain the same number of customers, or you might gain customers (in rare situations).
Your customer reaction to the price change will probably revolve around the “cost” of switching. e.g. how much do competitors charge and how much trouble is it to switch to one of those competitors?
To make up a story – imagine “local gas station” increases their prices. Some folks won’t notice because it is inconvenient to go somewhere else, and some will rearrange their lives so that they never have to buy gas at that location again – and probably the only way a “local gas station” INCREASES customers is if traffic patterns change.
Of course if a competitor is charging 10¢ less and is just across the street – well, that competitor will have long lines and probably put the first station out of business. btw – the cost of gas at “big chain” stations tends to reflect local taxation just as much as the cost of the gasoline – but that is another subject.
BUT if the price of gas gets too high – folks will buy more gas efficient vehicles and cut down on their driving – so gasoline does not have UNLIMITED demand.
The number of items with “unlimited” demand are kind of small – “air” comes to mind, but even then “no longer breathing” is a drastic option, and when “basic necessities” become scarce the breakdown of civil society is gonna happen (riots/war/anarchy).
On a less apocalyptic level – “entertainment” tends to have unlimited demand and also zero switching costs. This is (probably) obvious – the challenge for “creators” becomes not just “making an entertaining video” but finding an audience.
A tiny audience could equal “profitability” – if production costs are controlled and enough “sponsors”/subscribers found. A large audience could equal “huge losses” – if production costs are high and “advertising”/subscribers are not “large enough.”
The same math applies to podcasts, broadcast/cable stations, and motion pictures. When “Superman Returns” was released in 2006 it had a $200 million budget. When it made almost $400 million worldwide it returned a profit, but not enough – e.g. a planned sequel was cancelled
At the same time “The Devil Wears Prada” was released with a $35 million budget. It would make $327 million in box office – AND be considered a huge success making back 8x its budget.
(umm, it isn’t important that I’ve seen one of those movies and it isn’t the one about the fashion industry – the point is one that Disney, Inc is relearning in 2023, i.e. heavily marketing a polished piece of tripe doesn’t make the tripe into a hamburger)
Back when the B1G was actually 10 teams – “two yards and a cloud of dust” was sometimes used to describe the offense philosophy of most coaches in the conference.
The forward pass might have been added in 1906, but to paraphrase a coach “three things can happen when you throw the ball, and two of them are bad” – and of course that same coach lived by the “off tackle” play (in his defense Woody Hayes believed that “off tackle” could be adjusted as needed – in the same way that Vince Lombardi described the “power sweep” as “running to daylight”)
I’d argue that “ball control and defense” is still a sound starting point for a coaching philosophy – but it obviously won’t win video games where running and defense are after thoughts.
Remember the point of a football game is NOT “score as many points as possible.” The goal in football is to score MORE points than the other team.
Example: quick which NFL team holds the record for “points scored per game?”
If you said that the 1950 L.A. Rams scored 38.8 points per game then you are truly a football historian.
Of course if you also knew that those 1950 Rams went 9-3 in the regular season and then lost the (pre Super Bowl era) NFL Championship to the Cleveland Browns (Rams 28 – Browns 30) then you are probably a Cleveland Browns fan …
The point is that football is a “team game” – i.e. offense isn’t more important than defense. This idea that “defense matters just as much as offense” applies to MOST team sports.
At various points in modern sports history “genius coaches” have come up with the idea to “emphasize” offense over defense – and they tend to score a lot of points, but give up more points than they score.
To be fair – coaching philosophies like “run and gun” (basketball) and “run and shoot” in football came about as creative ways to deal with a lack of “player size.”
If you put on your “defensive coordinator” hat and imagine the offense that is hardest to defend – and you will probably come up with some version of an “option” offense (i.e. an offense where the play can change in reaction to the defense). The classic “triple option”/wishbone offense comes to mind – which is still successfully used at various levels.
BUT all of the above goes out the window when you start talking about “professional sports” where “big and fast” players are the norm. Yes, there are still different coaching philosophies – but dealing with an organizational lack of “size and speed” goes away when you can just “draft”/hire big and fast players
(btw: Glenn Ellison – the football coach not the economist – earned “Ohio Coach of the year” in 1961 for developing the Run N’ Shoot offense at Middletown High School in Ohio – his book on the offense is available on Amazon.
As I remember the story he also advocated putting the “best 11” players on offense and trying to outscore the opponent. I don’t think he ever had an “undefeated season” but his “run n’ shoot” teams were always competitive.
Ohio high school football didn’t start having “playoffs” until the 1970s – BUT I will just point out that his offensive philosophy has won a lot of “State Championships” at the High School level. At the NFL level it was kind of a “fad offense” until defensive coordinators “figured it out”)
The “traditional Big 10” offense implies a field position philosophy. Part of that philosophy is a practical recognition of traditional Big 10 “winters” and general “not southern California” weather patterns which account for SOME of those “traditional” low scoring games.
Remember the point of football is to “score MORE points than the opponent” – we could express that as a Win (W) happens if Points Scored (PS) minus Points given up (PGU) is greater than 0
W = (PS – PGU) > 0
the “Win” equation
Simple enough – the nuance comes in when we recognize that EITHER team can score on any play. This is the dreaded “turnovers” statistic.
To expand the equation “Points Scored” can be broken down to “offensive points scored” and “defensive points scored” and “Points given up” broken down to “offensive” and “defensive” (and no I didn’t forget about “special teams” – feel free to add them as their own category or combine them either offense or defense)
Then a statistic like “net points off turnovers” could be positive (if the team minimizes turnovers and/or creates more net turnovers) or negative (the inverse)
Saying that “turnovers” can decide a game is obvious – but from a “team” point of view what matters is how they react to the turnover more than the turnover itself – which is another subject for another post.
It is a cliche to say that “every play matters” and then point out that most football games are “decide” by 5 plays.
TODAY I’m just pointing out that “field position football” revolves around the idea that the key to winning is not making “big mistakes” close to your end zone (and giving up points).
I suppose a true “field position” practitioner would try to “surprise punt” if they are inside their own 10 yard line and try to reverse the field position – but you will never see that in the NFL simply because the athletes involved all have “big play – 90 yard touchdown” potential.
ANYWAY that “elongated sphere” tends to be slippery in bad weather and bounces funny even in the best of conditions – so “ball control” (don’t turn the ball over on our side of the field) and “defense” (don’t give up big plays) remains a sound coaching philosophy starting point …
Imagine that “Team A” gets their hands on a copy of “Team B’s” offensive playbook – does “Team A” get a substantive advantage?
Well, no. The specific formations/plays don’t matter as much as “real time general tendencies.”
IF a player has a “tell” then that is going to be useful – i.e. if a receiver only puts in his mouthpiece when it is a ‘passing play’ and holds his mouthpiece in his hand when it is a ‘running play’ then THAT is actionable intelligence.
Trying to recognize tendencies is the point of “film study” in the NFL.
The “old school football” idea that you can tell the other team what you are gonna do and they still won’t be able to stop it – MIGHT still work if your players are MUCH physically superior than your opponent.
Just having the opponents “playbook” is useless – knowing the opponents “tendencies” is priceless.
This is the substance of “traditional rivalry” games in any sport at any level – i.e. both teams are well acquainted with the other teams players and tendencies so we get the basis for another cliche about “throwing out the win/loss records” because it is “rivalry week”
At the pro level it tends to be EXTREMELY difficult to “blow out” the same team multiple times in the same year. Yes, statistically “good teams” are going to beat the “not as good teams” on a regular basis – but if they play two times a year every year the chances of two “easy victories” decreases – after all they are all “professional athletes” on both sides of the ball.
When you are talking about “College football” in 2023 there are obvious divisions – the “small school nonathletic scholarships” folks are still called “Division III” (250 schools), there are 169 “Division II” schools (about 60% of DII athletes get “athletic aid”)
I will say that the athletic facilities of the “average DIII school” are probably a little nicer than the “average large high school” – and yeah, the best large high school programs might be “competitive” against the average DIII team — but DIII is still “college football”
For what it is worth – the NCAA runs the “college football” championship playoffs in DII and DIII. “Division I” football has “Champions” going back to 1869. The “National Collegiate Athletics Association” was founded in 1906 – but “Division I” football is still kind of an outlier in the overall “college sports” landscape.
From a business point of view this “outlier” status is interesting because the NCAA does NOT control the television rights.
until the mid 1980s the NCAA had control over which teams would appear on television. Which might sound like a “monopoly” if you are not working at the NCAA – and the Supreme Court of the United States agreed in 1984 when they ruled 7-2 in favor of the lawsuit Georgia and Oklahoma (well, the Universities in those States – but it might as well have been the general population) had brought against the NCAA challenging control of “college football on television.”
(random great line from the lawsuit = “we thought that NCAA stood for ‘Never Compromise Anything Anytime’”)
The 1984 ruling opened up the television market for individual athletic programs – but (as I remember it) conferences inherited a lot of the “television” control that the NCAA used to have – but that would obviously only apply to “conference games” and certainly didn’t preclude individual Universities from signing contracts for “non conference games”
ANYWAY in the 1980’s “regional coverage” was the rule – probably an example of the last days of NCAA television control – but you could watch college football all day if you wanted.
In 1991 Notre Dame Football signed a exclusive contract with NBC for national coverage of their home games – which illustrates the history/popularity of “Notre Dame football” as well as recognized their on the field success.
In 1993 ESPN started broadcasting “Thursday night college football” – which still seems to feature teams I’ve never heard of on a regular basis. It became a “weekend preview” show just as much as competitive football game.
The Big 10 had ceased being a 10 team league when Penn State (which along with Notre Dame had up till that point been an “independent” football program) joined in 1990. Penn State football was fully integrated into the Big 10 schedule until 1993.
The addition of Penn State to the “Big 10” seemed natural – if not inevitable just from the geography involved – i.e. Pennsylvania is in the “mid west” along with Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa (out of order from memory – did I mention I live in Ohio?).
FWIW: There were (*cough*) rumors (*cough*) of Notre Dame football “flirting” with the Big 10 in the early 1980s – I honestly don’t know how close Notre Dame Football came to joining the Big 10, but that would have felt like “organic growth’ as well. Notre Dame “athletics” joined the Big East (everything except football) in 1995 and then made the same deal with the ACC in 2013.
“The Big 10” remained 11 teams as a conference took a little risk by starting the “Big 10 Network” in 2006. Ok (pun alert) it may not have been a “big risk” but is also was a guaranteed success.
The problem with running any “television network” is content. ESPN had successfully launched “ESPN classic” in 1995 – which had proved that there was a market demand for “classic sports coverage.”
“ESPN Classic” shutdown in 2021 – probably in part because of the success of “conference television networks” – but that is just me guessing. I wasn’t a huge fan of “ESPN Classic” but I remember watching a rebroadcast of a “game from the 1980s” and getting drawn into the broadcast like it was a live event (since I didn’t remember who won the game).
The Next Big 10 addition was Nebraska in 2011 – again still felt like “organic growth” – but by this time the “Big 10” network was a success and my guess is that “folks in charge” started seeing the possibility of a truly “national conference” – but I’m just guessing again.
The Big 10 adding Rutgers and Maryland in 2014 only really makes sense if you have “coast to coast” conference aspirations.
btw: I am not criticizing either school. I was stationed in Maryland when I was in the Army – I like Maryland – e.g. The Maryland Terrapins beat Indiana to win their National Championship in 2002.
I’m just pointing out that they may not be on the same “major sports” level as the other teams added to the Big 10 but their addition makes sense if you are building a “national conference.”
The “Big 10 Network” was a joint venture (51% for the conference and 49% for Fox) with Fox Sports in 2006. In 2022 the conference signed a $7.5 billion deal that was described as using an “NFL approach” i.e. with multiple networks not just Fox Sports.
With all of the above in mind – well, adding USC, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon in 2024 begins to look like “part of a plan.”
In the “just my opinion” category ‘super conferences’ have become easier to manage/pull of because of modern technology. With 18 teams it really becomes a “League” with two “conferences” – which is a time tested formula for pro-sports in the U.S. – I’m not in the “predictions” game so I’ll wait and see how they implement the 18 team “B1G” conference …
The word “team” implies a coordinated ensemble. The word comes into the English language via Old High German with obvious “draft animal” connotations.
Since modern English is a combination of Germanic and French/Latin vocabularies, we tend to have multiple words for the same concept – e.g. the French/Latin companion to “team” is probably “companion”/”company” (please excuse the mild attempt at word play).
Both “team” and “company” imply functional relationships but different connotations. If you Google for “company building” (images) you will probably get pictures of “office buildings”/real estate. Search for “team building” (images) and you will probably get groups of smiling people “doing things.”
Even less personal is “corporation” which comes from the Latin “corporatus” – “to form into a body.” In modern English the name implies a formal “legal” structure designed to allow “association” without liability – e.g. a “limited liability company” is a corporate form.
One of the first “corporations” – the British East India Company (BEIC) – formed in 1600 for “Trading into the East-Indies.” They grew to the point where company activity accounted for half of ALL world trade in the mid 1700s/early1800s. “The Company” got so big that they had all of the issues of a nation-state – and the British Crown became increasingly entangled in “company” affairs to the point that the corporation was dissolved in 1874 and the “British Empire” assumed control.
The relevant point of the BEIC story is that they were more of an “accidental empire” than a planned endeavor. The same ends up being true of MOST “startup companies.”
Just for fun we will define “startup success” as “lasting longer than 5 years” and hiring at least 1 employee. Historically “successful” startup companies consist of (at least) 3 “founders.”
In general those three founders consist of:
In the last half of the 20th Century “venture capital” became a thing – and modern examples abound e.g. Intel, Apple, Google all instantly come to mind.
This isn’t a “carved in stone” rule, the idea is that no one person is going to be able to perform all three functions for a large organization simply because they involve different skillsets. One function is not more important than another – all three have to work together for the startup/company/TEAM to succeed.
It is in that “working together” where “team building” happens.
The “division of labor” concept has an interesting history – that I won’t bother going over (“The Wealth of Nations” – Adam Smith 1776).
To point out the obvious “team sports” a require a “team” of players. The number of players varies by sport but what makes a “team” a “team” is that you need more than 1 member. The degree of specialization between team members also (obviously) varies by sport – BUT understanding “player specialization” becomes the first step when we are “building a team.”
Being able to attract, select, and retain the right “team members” is essential to any organizations success and continued existence – not just “nice for growth.”
Something like “talent” or “experience” aren’t major considerations if you are struggling to fill a vacant position. In that scenario the major challenge becomes placing “marginally qualified” players in positions.
The small “startup” faces the same challenge – but a startup is literally “betting the company” on each new hire. A “bad hire” when the company consists of a handful of employees will have a larger impact on the company’s future than “massive corporation” making a bad hire.
Remember – just in general – most startups fail. “Cash flow”/lack of financing is the major REPORTED reason for failure. While industries differ – saying that “employees are any organizations most valuable asset” is a cliche for a reason. Once an organization “settles” on hiring “lower grade” employees they are on their way to extinction.
The problem is that those “lower grade” employees will tend to stick around and hire even lower grade employees to make themselves look good. It is possible to reverse the trend – but it isn’t easy. Arguably we are discussing a “normal” cycle of “organization” life and death – but again “normal” doesn’t mean “desirable” or “inevitable.”
If you get the “selection” part right then the need to retain those employees should be clear.
For the record – the reason “good employees leave” is probably NOT “money.” Dig a little and you will find a lot of “advice” about how “money doesn’t motivate” – which is only partially true. i.e. the point becomes that if the organization is paying folks “enough” then paying “more” won’t increase retention.
BUT if the organization isn’t paying “enough” – then that is obviously the easiest part of the “retention” equation to fix.
The other parts of the “retention equation” are things like “mission”/”purpose” and then “interpersonal relations” within the organization.
e.g. if someone feels they are making a valued contribution and serving a worthwhile purpose – then they will probably stick around until they are forced to retire. Then if someone feels like they are taken for granted and EVERYTHING is a whining contest – well, the competent employees probably leave the first chance they get …
I’m also fond of pointing out that “job seekers” are “interviewing” the organization as well as “being interviewed” during the hiring process.
If you don’t like the way you are treated during the hiring process – then you should have serious thoughts about accepting a job offer. A professional company staffed by competent employees is NOT going to have a “third rate” hiring process.
I question the benefits of artificial “team building” exercises. You know, the “obstacle course” rope climbing sort of thing that is supposed to build “team spirit.”
Motivational speakers are a dime a dozen. Forcing folks to socialize while doing make work activities is ACU = Almost. Completely. Useless.
There is a lucrative market in selling those ACU activities because, well, there are a lot of incompetent executives out there looking for easy solutions to low employee moral, high turnover, and general under productivity.
HOWEVER, real, productive “training” is something it is hard to have too much of.
There are no easy solutions to guarantee “good hires.”
HOWEVER, the first step is setting high standards and having a worthwhile mission.
Comparing the U.S. Marines to the other services is a little deceptive – i.e. the “Marines” are a component of the Depart of the Navy – still “the few, the proud, the marines” rarely had to resort to “drafting” recruits.
In comparison the U.S. Army is twice as big as the U.S. Marines (well, Google tells me the Army has around 500,000 active duty soldiers and the Marines under 200,000 active duty), the U.S. Navy is around 350,000 active duty, and the U.S. Air Force also “around” 350,000 active duty
Within the Army and Navy you have “special services.” How those “special services” folks are selected and trained is the stuff of legend – and not what I’m concerned with here.
The “big concept” from a team building point of view is that those “special services” folks need the “regular service” in much the same way that the ‘edge of the knife” doesn’t exist without the rest of the knife.
They work together to serve a common mission – i.e. they are a “team.” The “rank and file” need to be treated with respect even if the “Elite” deserve a little preferential treatment.
From a “non military organization” point of view – the top 20% (i.e. the “Elite“) of employees in a large organization are probably more productive than the next 70%, and the bottom 10% probably need to be “eased out the door.”
The goal of “leadership” should be to retain that elite 20%, work with the 70% who are solid contributors (and might move into the 20%), and also treat the bottom 10% with respect while helping them find their way (which may not be with the organization).
Remember: Yes, “rank has its privileges” but that is always because “rank also has obligations.”
The good folks at Merriam-Webster give us 14 definitions for “time” as a noun, another 5 as a verb, and then 3 more as an adjective.
A quick peek at the etymology tells us that the “time” came into the English language by way of Old English and (Old Norse) words for “tide.”
That “time” and “tide” are related shouldn’t surprise anyone — after all “time and tide wait for no man” is one of those “proverb” things. e.g. If you make your living next to/on a large body of water then the tide going out and coming in probably greatly influences your day to day activities as much as the sun rising and setting.
From an “exploration” point of view “precision time keeping” was essential for sailors because they could use it to determine their longitude. Not being a sailor or even mildly comfortable on a boat that doesn’t have a motor – I’m told you can use a sextant to determine your latitude using the moon and stars.
Obviously in 2023 GPS is used for most voyages. Some high up officials in the U.S. Navy pointed out that we should still teach “basic seamanship.”
I’ve had a career that revolves around “fixing” things because, well, things break — so teaching basic navigation without GPS sounds obvious. e.g. the U.S. Army initial entry training (“basic training”) used to spend a little bit of time teaching the POGs (“persons other than grunts”) how to read a map and use a compass.
“Way back when” I was trained as a medic – which used to mean nine weeks of “basic” and then another period of “AIT” (advanced initial training) — all of which I seem to remember took 6 months in real time. In 2023 Google tells me that the “11B Infantry” training is “One Station Unit Training” lasting 22 weeks.
Before the “industrial revolution” in the 18th century gave us things like trains, and eventually planes, and automobiles – the fastest human beings could travel on land was on the back of a horse.
Which basically meant that the “average human being” would live and die within 20 miles of where they were born. Since MOST people were ‘subsistence farmers” they probably didn’t have a pressing need to travel exceptionally far.
Of course “ancient peoples” probably formed the first “cities” as equal parts “areas of mutual protection” AND “areas of commerce” — so the “local farmers market” today might be described as an example of the foundation of modern society – “people gotta eat” and “people like to socialize” …
Those ancient subsistence farmers no doubt figured out the cycles of the moon as well as the yearly seasons so they could optimize the output of their farms. Those folks not concerned with the tides still had to “plant” and “harvest” – so “time management” was a consideration even if precise time keeping wasn’t an issue.
Those Ancient Greeks even went so far as to create the idea of a “decisive battle” so they could decide conflicts and get back to their farms with minimal disruption (i.e. if you don’t plant, you can’t expect to harvest) – but that is another story.
The point being that “time” was a constant – how we “redeem the time” is up to the individual – but part of being human is dealing with the inevitability of “time passing.”
The relationship between “distance” (d), “speed” (s), and “time” (t) is probably still a “middle school” math exercise (d= st) which I won’t go into – but it is hard to overstate the impact that “fast and safe high speed travel” changed human society.
My favorite example is “transcontinental” travel in North America. Before the U.S. completed the first transcontinental railroad in 1869 the fastest you could travel from “coast to coast” would take 6 months – e.g. you could probably take a train to Nebraska in a couple days, but then the trip from Nebraska to the west coast would take several months. Or you could sail around South America (Cape Horn) which would also take 6 months (it was probably safer but much more expensive).
btw: Canada’s “transcontinental railroad” opened in 1881 – and is still in operation. Parts of what was the U.S. Transcontinental railroad are still around – but the rise of “automobiles” and the Interstate highway system made “interstate railway passenger travel” unprofitable.
AFTER the transcontinental railroads you could travel coast to coast in about a week. The original “intent” of the U.S. transcontinental railroad was that it would open up trade with Asia – i.e. good shipped in from the “far east” could be shipped across the U.S. — the bigger impact ended up being allowing immigrants from Europe to settle “out west” – which is again, another story.
It is safe to say that the “problem” of distance for “human travel” was solved by the industrial revolution. e.g. Google tell me I can DRIVE from southwestern Ohio to California in 2 days – although I could hop on a plane and travel from CVG to LAX in about 6 hours if I was pressed for time.
If I wanted to go to Chicago (298 miles from Cincinnati) the drive is about 6 hours – but with the cost of gas (if I schedule far enough in advance) the plane trip would still take 4 hours, but probably cheaper than driving.
The point being that “Travelling around the world” in ANY amount of time USED to be an unthinkable adventure because of the distances involved and the lack of safe/speedy travel options – now it is about time management and deciding on how comfortable you wanna be while you travel (and of course whether you want to be shot at when you get where you are going 😉 — and THAT is another story …
Back when I was teaching the “Network+” class multiple times a term – the textbook we used would start out comparing/contrasting common “networking media.” The three “common” media covered were 1. coaxial – one relatively large copper cable, 2. unshielded twisted pair (UTP) – 8 smaller copper wires twisted together in pairs, and then 3. “fiberoptic” cable – thin “optical fiber” strands (“glass”).
SO I would lecture a couple hours on the costs/benefits/convenience of the three “media type” – spoiler alert most “local area networks” are using some flavor of UTP because it is still hits that sweet spot between cost/speed/convenience. The take away from that “intro to networking class” about “fiberoptic cabling” was that it was exceptionally fast, but more expensive, and harder to install than the other two.
The “exceptionally fast” part of fiberoptic cabling is because we are dealing with the speed of light. Yes, there are other factors in network “speed” but physics 101 tells us that it is not possible to go faster than the speed of light (which is 300,000 kilometers per second or 186,000 miles per hour)
(oh, and the “slow” part of most “computing systems/networks” is the human beings involved in the process – so UTP is just fine for 99% of the LAN implementations out there – but once again, that is another story)
I’m not a physicist but saying that the speed of “light” is the speed of energy without mass is accurate enough for today. The point being that unless you can “change the rules of the universe” as we understand them today – it is NOT possible to go faster than light (FTL).
There was a lot of optimism that “science” would solve the “interstellar distance” problem during the “space race” period of human history. But “interstellar distance” is mindboggling huge compared to terrestrial travel – AND we keep hitting that hard barrier of the speed of light.
Of course neither “subsistence farmers” OR “trained thinkers” 2,000 years ago comprehended the size of the earth in relation to the rest of the universe – “educated types” probably thought it was round, and might have had a good idea at the earth’s circumference – but travelling “around the world” would have been the stuff of fantasy.
Some well meaning folks were predicting “moon tourism” by the end of the 20th century – and I suppose the distance isn’t the problem with “moon tourism” so much as “outer space” being VERY non-conducive to human life (read that as “actively hostile” to human life).
Gene Rodenberry (probably) came up with the idea for “Star Trek” as a direct result of the “moon mania” of the late 1960’s. Yes, “Star Trek” was conceived of as a “space western” so it was never a “hard” science fiction program – so the “Star Trek” universe tends to get a pass on the FTL issue.
After all humanity had created jet engines that allowed us to break the speed of sound, wouldn’t it be natural to assume that someone would come up with FTL engines? With that in mind “dilithium crystals” fueling warp drive engines that allow our adventurers to go multiples of the speed of light doesn’t sound that far-fetched.
Folks were using “Mach 2” to signify multiple of the speed of sound – why not use “Warp speed” for multiples of the speed of light.
It is easy to forget that “the original series” (TOS) was “cancelled” each year it was produced – after seasons 1 and 2 a fan letter writing campaign convinced the network folks to bring the show back. TOS was always best when it concentrated on the characters and stayed away from the “hard science” as much as possible.
BUT I’m not picking on “Star Trek” – just pointing out the physics …
Mr Einstein’s theory sometimes involves a “though experiment” where we have two newborn babies (or feel free to think of newborn kittens/puppies/hamsters/whatever if the “baby” example gets in the way) AND we put one of the newborns on a “spaceship” and accelerate that ship “close to the speed of light” (we can’t actually go the speed of light – we are just getting as close as possible).
When our imaginary thought experiment ship returns – the newborn on the ship doesn’t appear to have aged but the newborn that stayed behind is now extremely old. This is the “twin paradox” and a lot of folks smarter than me have spent considerable time examining the question –
The point is that Mr Einstein’s theory does not allow for “travelling backwards” in time.
Again, “Star Trek” (TOS) became famous for slingshotting the Enterprise around the sun, and going faster than the speed of light (“light speed break-away factor“) to travel backwards in time.
Of course, if you have “suspended disbelief” and have accepted that the warp drive engines can routinely achieve multiples of the speed of light – then the “Star Trek” writers are just engaged in good storytelling, which again interesting characters and good stories has always been the best part of the “Star Trek” universe.
btw: the most plausible “time travel” in a TOS episode was “The City on the Edge of Forever” – that is the one with Joan Collins for casual fans (season 1 episode 28). It tends to be listed near the top of “best episode” lists for TOS.
I seem to remember someone asking Stephen Hawking about the possibility of time travel “way back when.” (btw: Mr Hawking was a Star Trek fan and has the distinction of being the only “celebrity guest star” to play themselves – TNG Season 6, episode 26 – Data on the holodeck playing poker with Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Stephen Hawking) – as I remember it, Mr Hawking’s response was something along the lines of “if you could travel faster than the speed of light, then time travel might be possible”
Of course that is probably the same as him saying “… and it is also possible that monkeys might fly out of my butt …” – but you know, it is entertainment not “hard science.”
The “time traveler” in HG Well’s “The Time Machine” explains traveling in time as travelling in another “dimension” – since humanity had created machines to let us travel in the other dimensions (up, down, side to side – e.g. length, width, height) then travel through “time” would just require a new machine.
That “time travel device” just becomes an element of good storytelling – i.e. best practice is to tell what it does and NOT spend a lot of time explaining HOW it works.
Doctor Who and the TARDIS (“Time And Relative Dimensions In Space”) get a short explanation when required – and they added the ability to travel instantaneously through time AND space, probably both as storytelling device and as a nod to Mr Einstein’s “space-time” concept.
“The Planet of the Apes” (1968) used the basic “twin paradox” idea – but then “something happened” and rather than landing on a distant planet they end up back on earth.
In the 1970 sequel “Beneath the Planet of the Apes” the “rescue team” has followed the first group – and this time they say they were caught in a “tear if the fabric of space time” or something. Of course they conveniently land in the same general area as the first crew and everyone speaks English.
There were three more “Planet of the Apes” sequels – they travel back in time in “Escape from the Planet of the Apes” (1971) – I don’t think they bother to explain how the got back, but I haven’t been able to sit through “Escape from the Planet of the Apes” recently.
I think “Planet of the Apes” (2001) was a victim of a writer’s strike – it isn’t particularly re-watchable for any number of reasons – not least of which is that they jump through illogical hoops to have Mark Wahlberg end up back in the present with a monkey Lincoln memorial.
The Andy Serkis as Caesar “Planet of the Apes” trilogy doesn’t bother with the “time travel” trope – substituting a “engineered virus” that (unintentionally) kills most of humanity and makes the surviving humans less intelligent.
“The Final Countdown” (1980) has an aircraft carrier go back in time to 1941 just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. The movie revolves around the “can/should they change history by intercepting the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor” question – you can watch it for free on Tubi.com if interested.
This time around the time travel is a “finger of God” sort of thing – as I remember it a mysterious storm just appears and the 1980’s era aircraft carrier ends up in 1941. I’ll just point out that it is “plausible” but won’t spoil the ending …
Fred Ward had a long career as a “character actor” that died in 2022. He tried to make the move from “grizzled nice guy co-star/sidekick” to “leading man” multiple times in the 1980’s. He appears destined to be remembered as Kevin Bacon’s co-star in “Tremors” (1990) – he was one of those “instantly recognizable faces but you might not be able to recall his name” actors.
Mr Ward starred in several movies that qualify as “cult classics” (i.e. well made movies that didn’t find a mass audience at the time of release but continue to be popular years later). Mr Ward’s “time travel” movie was 1982’s “Timerider: The Adventure of Lyle Swann” – which isn’t available streaming, but has a blu-ray release which probably illustrates the “cult classic” concept better than anything
As I remember it (I haven’t see the movie in years) – Mr Ward is a dirt bike rider that accidently gets sent back in time (1870s American West) by “secret government experiment” of some kind which he accidently stumbles into — the memorable part is that they manage to slip in a version of the classic time-travel “grandfather” paradox.
Normally the “grandfather” paradox is similar to “Back to the Future” where the time traveler does something to keep their ancestors from meeting/reproducing/whatever. “Timerider” is the other option – where he ends up being his own great-great-grandfather – enjoying the movie doesn’t revolve around that point and it looks like the movie is still being sold on blu-ray in Italy and Spain, so …
The whole “time travel machine” trope got called for its inherent silliness with “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” (1989) – the movie is funny on multiple levels, and it is safe to say it skewered the whole “travel in time and change events” movie genre — “Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey” (1991) takes the joke even further but it suffers a little from “sequel-itis” …
I’ll finish with a nod toward “Land of the Lost” both the 1974-1977 kids tv show and the 2009 Will Ferrell movie – where they “slip through” rips in time or something.
I suppose the “science” behind the movie/series is similar to “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” where it is implied that there are “rips in time” or something that can be predicted and then travelled through.
Yes, I am ignoring the various “multiverse” shows out there – simply because they are just modern “duex ex machina” plots. Worth noting because they reflect humanities desire to be able to go back and “fix” the past, but they quickly wore out their novelty …