… a well trained “customer service representative” (CSR) – when dealing with a “customer” – will never use the phrase “I’m busy” or “I don’t have time”
first of all the customer doesn’t REALLY care – they are contacting “customer service” because they had a problem, the fact that the occasional individual CSR is new (and learning) or is just incompetent becomes another hurdle to overcome in getting “problem fixed”
the “good customers” will politely wait (because yelling at the CSR ain’t gonna make things happen faster) – but the chances of that customer leaving/switching/never coming back will increase if the “customer service experience” is bad enough
NOW if the “cost of switching” is zero (0) and customer service is “bad” then that means that “customer loyalty” will be non-existent
Business plans
if the “business” in question operates on high volume and low profit margins – then the amount of “customer service” is guaranteed to be “low”
this is by design – think “big box store” – they have low prices, but getting “help” will be a challenge. Which isn’t necessarily a problem – as long as “customer expectations” are still met – i.e. I don’t EXPECT a high level of service when I go to “big box store”
still – CSR’s should be trained to actually be helpful and polite – “helpful and polite” goes a long way (and yes, sometimes the customer IS the problem – still “helpful and polite” is the best option)
BUT the other end of the business plan spectrum is “low volume and high profit margins” — think “luxury brands” – e.g. someone can buy a watch/jewelry at Walmart or Tiffany’s but the “customer expectations” will be totally different
of course at “luxury brand” the CSR to customer ratio might be close to 1:1 – the customer is paying a lot more, so they expect a lot more
Personal Brand Building
THEN somewhere in the middle are folks trying to build an “influencer”/”artist” brand of some kind. Again the terms “I’m busy” or “I don’t have time” aren’t going to be in the competent influencer’s vocabulary.
Well, if the influencer wants to minimize the effort and lower the value of their “personal brand” – then of course tell everyone how busy you are, and that you don’t have time to interact with lowly peons like “fans.” (yes, that is sarcasm)
WHY? well – assuming the customer isn’t a sociopath they will understand the the influencer/artist is “busy” and has time constraints – responding with “I’m busy” gets interpreted as “your concern/request is not important and/or valued” – and “I don’t have time” just comes across as “go away, you’re bothering me”
umm , and if the customer IS a sociopath – well, that is why the modern world is kinda scary sometimes. Be polite, but also be careful …
again, this is from a “business” non-intimate interpersonal communication point of view — if someone you have known for years tells you they are “busy” and can’t do “whatever” it PROBABLY means they respect you enough to be honest – i.e. they ARE busy, and offers to help might be appreciated but aren’t practical
oh, and the “signal to noise” ratio for that hypothetical influencer/artist should heavily favor the “signal” side – i.e. “useful information/entertainment” should heavily outweigh requests to join their various paid subscription options.
STILL “helpful and polite” go a long way.
Yes, there are countless real (and AI generated) artists out there trying to build a personal brand. Well managed “automatic responses” can be extremely useful – but they shouldn’t become a replacement for REAL “customer engagement”
the various “comic cons” become great case studies for real world brand management and “fan engagement” – “fans” are not only willing to stand in line to meet “celebrity” they pay for the privilege of a brief interaction.
The classic example of “fan engagement” is still athletes signing “whatever” for fans – again, folks willing to wait in line for a brief interaction.
BUT in both “comic con” and “athlete autographs” the “brand” has been built by the actor/athletes performances.
If the “brand” is a tree – then “fans” are the fruit of the tree – and “fan engagement” becomes an exercise in meeting expectations.
Oh, and “come see me in person” has been a good business plan since Mark Twain’s time.
Did I have a point?
well, no.
The joke about “agents” is that when they say “trust me” what they mean is “f*** you” – and when “customer management” says “I don’t have time” or “I’m busy” what they mean is “you should go somewhere else where they value your time and business”
One of the benefits (curses?) of working 3rd shift and field service is that you get a lot of time to think.
Trust me there is only so many hours of music you can listen to before it starts grating on the ol’ nerves. The audio book industry started with a customer demographic of the blind – then truck drivers became a profitable market niche and suddenly “audio books” were mass market.
Yes, podcasting and the iPod deserve a mention. Apple, Inc did NOT INVENT the technology, maybe “perfected” and certainly “popularized” –
Not to get lost in the weeds – BUT Steve Jobs didn’t come down from the mountain with the first generation iPod and say “now ordinary people may listen to music free from restraint!”
I’m not bashing Apple, Inc or Steve Jobs. Mr Jobs was exceptional – BUT “how do we make this product better” is much different than CREATING something new. The history of “mobile audio” starts with “recorded sound” in general and then magnetic tape, and then … different subject
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
Ecclesiastes 1:9
Information exchange
My pick for the biggest “leap forward” in the speed of “information exchange” is STILL the movable type printing press. But even there we needed a lot of “prior art” for there to be a demand for those Gutenberg Bibles and Shakespeare First Folios.
(… and if you happen to have a genuine “full and original” First Folio of Mr Shakespeare’s work – you probably get $10 million+ for it at auction … and we are moving on …).
The “revolutionary part” of movable type printing goes beyond just making printed books less expensive and more available. The “paper” industry as we think of it today came into existence because of the printing requirements.
With tongue in cheek you can make a dotted line connection between “paper” becoming affordable and the Renaissance. Seriously – we wouldn’t have all of Leonardo Davinci’s “notebooks” if paper hadn’t become inexpensive. “Books” being available on various scholarly subjects allowed for “Renaissance men” to be “Renaissance men”
Of course Leonardo regretted his lack of formal education mostly because he couldn’t read Ancient Greek and Latin. Which brings us to the point that “communication” == “information exchange” and for “information” to be exchanged both sides need to speak the same language.
I’ll wave at the Tower of Babel as I acknowledge that “interpreters” have been part of the “communication process” for a long time …
Secret communication
Of course the folks that need an interpreter are at the mercy of the interpreter’s skill and good faith.
Having a trusted 3rd party intermediate talks might be fine for “international diplomacy” – but not so much in intimate interpersonal “talks.”
Being able to guarantee the “cyber security triad” of confidentiality, integrity, and availability can become an advanced topic – but the point is STILL that “communication == information exchange.”
I’m five hundred word in and haven’t referenced a movie yet Roxanne (1987) is an updated re-telling of “Cyrano de Bergerac” – the classic 19th Century French play – and also easily one of Mr Martin’s most UNDERRATED movies.
The Jose Ferrer Oscar winning performance Cyrano de Bergerac (1950) is a much more “stage adaptation” version of the story – it is available on most of the “free streaming services” because it holds up very well as a piece of entertainment, and is also in the public domain.
Full disclosure – no the French play doesn’t have a happy ending, of course Steve Martin’s version does …
oh, and Cyrano’s problem in the “19 century tragic romantic play” is much different than Steve Martin’s story problem in the 1987 romantic comedy – if comedians got nominated for “best actor” Academy Awards, Steve Martin would have got nominated that year
Synchronize
That classic dial up internet sound was the sound modems made while synchronizing/negotiating communications parameters.
Basically the “answering modem” says “I’m a modem” -> then the “calling modem” responds “so am I” -> and then the high pitched squeal is the two sides “negotiating” the speed and standards to use for the call.
In the case of modems the analog telephone connection is probably going to be the limiting factor – and then if the “line” gets disrupted the entire connection process need to start over.
fwiw: I’m gonna guess that there are still a lot of dial-up connections in 2025 – just not being marketed to the general consumer. e.g. if security is the primary concern over speed then “”dial up” still has applications
SO it is fun to point out that people can be seen “synchronizing” with non-verbal communication signals. MY cliche example involves a little “people watching” – e.g. watch people meeting at “public place” and how they “synchronize” gives you a lot of information on their relationship.
Obviously I’m not suggesting that anyone violate other folks privacy. A group of young American women meeting always reminds me of that “modem connection noise” – they will talk faster and at a higher pitch if they like other. The young American boys might synchronize by wrestling or by “King of the Hill” style grunting – “yup”, “u huh”
… still information is exchanged and communication happens
Did I have a point?
Well, the problem with ANY attempt at communication is that the “message sent” won’t match the “message received.”
With data processing we have various forms of error checking to make sure “sent == received.”
With people it isn’t always easy to gauge if “sent == received.” At one level that uncertainty is why contract law exists.
BUT with humans there is always the chance that “sent == received” and one side is malicious. i.e Humans can intentionally distort the message for various reasons AND honest ‘miscommunication” can take place.
Lying is intentionally trying to deceive which is a much different animal than “mishearing/misunderstanding.”
This is where that old “interpersonal trust bank” becomes important – i.e. those long term relationships with a HEALTHY trust balance will naturally get treated differently than the long term relationship with a NEGATIVE balance or a brand new relationship.
Chemistry and “clicking”
“Would you believe in a love at first sight?” “Yes, I’m certain that it happens all the time”
Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band
The “With a little help from my friends” quote came to mind – it jumps out at me today as a form of Greek chorus engaging with the hero/protagonist – great song, but something about nothing new under the song probably applies …
NO, I don’t believe in “love at first sight.’ Of course we have all experienced “instant attraction” or just “clicking” with someone.
THAT instant “clicking” is what I would describe at “high speed synchronization” – i.e. you meet someone and then you care able to talk to them like you have known them for “longer” – THAT is just an example of energy levels and subject matter “clicking”
Now, if that “clicking” gets reinforced with shared values and experiences THAT might look like a “love at first sight.”
Unfortunately the opposite is also possible – “NOT clicking” will feel like instant dislike.
The concept of arranged marriages in “western society” historically gave the potential couple a veto. Which plays out for humor in “Fiddler on the Roof” and “A Midsummer Nights Dream.”
Obviously if a couple is willing to accept an arranged marriage in the first place you would expect the divorce rate to be small – but that doesn’t automatically mean the marriages are happier.
ANYWAY – the point of “arranged marriages” would have been “strong marriages.” SO if the idea is that the parents of bride and groom “know better” and will pick a compatible couple THAT still requires some level of “non negative chemistry”
“Gut reactions” can be overcome – but most of the time going with your gut isn’t a bad choice – i.e. your “gut” is probably picking up on something and is just waiting on your brain to figure it out.
i.e. “instantly liking” someone is probably not as strong a positive indicator as “instantly DISLIKING” is a negative indicator – but I’m certainly not a matchmaker.
fwiw: one of my “sitting and thinking” visual aids “way back when” is based loosely on Paul’s epistles (Ephesians 5) – MY thought was a reaction to people saying they wanted someone to “meet them halfway in a relationship”
The problem with “meeting halfway” is that it can look like a head on collision if both sides approach the marriage/relationship as a contest of wills. Imagine two fists smashing into each other – THAT is “meet me halfway.”
Then if one side feels the need to compete/dominate then you open one hand and smash the fist into the open hand — in THAT case the “fist” might be getting what they want, but probably not the open hand.
With the ideal then being two open hands meeting and intertwining fingers – i.e. each side is 100% for the OTHER side. Which becomes an applied example of “loving your neighbor as yourself”
or as that great philosopher once said
“You can’t go too far wrong looking out for the other fella”
The longer answer starts with a reference to a book published in 1992 titled: “When Did Wild Poodles Roam the Earth? An Imponderables Book”
Poodles
Back in the times “before Google” books full of answers to “weird” questions were popular. The “imponderables” series were funny and sold well – I don’t think the author of the series David Feldmen is the same David Feldmen (comedian) but it isn’t important.
SO just when DID “wild poodles roam the earth?” The answer is “never.” People have been “domesticating” dogs for a LONG time (at least 15,000 years). Poodles were bred as water retrieving hunting dogs in 17th Century France.
That distinctive “poodle haircut” started for practical reasons as well – to help the dog dry faster after retrieving something from the water.
To connect the dots – the title of the book was a joke. The author had (probably) been asked the question in some form about various modern dog breeds – and the answer is basically “it is easy for humans to breed dogs for selected characteristics.”
MY guess is that most “smaller non working” dog breeds started out as “companion animals” for people – and part of the “companionship” might have included killing rats.
e.g. Chihuahuas didn’t descendant from tiny dogs fighting for survival against larger dogs. There were NEVER packs of wild Chihuahuas roaming ancient Mexico.
Of course one of the big geographic differences between ancient Mexico/Central/South America and Africa/Europe/Asia was that they didn’t have a lot of large land animals. Which meant that smaller dog breeds were common in Mexico/Central/South America. e.g. The Aztecs used selective breeding to start us on the way to modern Chihuahuas.
Random thought: when the indigenous tribal folks in North America first saw the horses that Europeans brought over that called them “big dogs.” Most of the cattle in North America also descended from animals brought over by Christopher Columbus et al –
The point being that the JOKE starts by how the question is framed. More to the point “Was Jesus an illegal immigrant?” STARTS with errors in the framing of the question.
Illegal Immigration
SO any MODERN “illegal immigration” question starts with two assumptions:
that “nation States” exist with defined borders, AND they are actively monitoring/policing those borders
large numbers of people are “immigrating”
You cannot have “illegal” immigration unless there are laws to break. There cannot be “immigration laws” to break unless there are “nation States.” Makes sense right?
THEN the way “human devised laws” tend to come about is that there is a problem that folks in power want to stop – so then then make a law prohibiting “whatever the problem was.”
Did the Ancient Roman Empire or Egypt at that time have laws prohibiting immigration? Well, not like WE think of them.
Of course travelling long distances easily, safely, and relatively secure didn’t become possible until relatively recently in human history. Arguments could be made on a specific date – but the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th Century is as good a place as any to pinpoint as the beginning of “modern” travel.
Fun to point out: if folks are “happy and prosperous” they aren’t thinking about immigrating. If folks are starving and oppressed THEN they start thinking about immigration.
In the United States MOST people lived and died within 20 miles of where they were born until trains and automobiles made it safe and easy to move about the countryside.
The history of “immigration” laws in the U.S. starts out as “descriptive” BEFORE it became “restrictive.” The early laws were much more about defining who was a citizen for voting purposes. The early U.S. actively encouraged immigration from outside the U.S. simply because there was a lot of empty land out west – and the need to laborers was high.
It wasn’t until the 1800 when laws restricting entry to the U.S. started happening. BUT that is also a different subject …
Where was Jesus born?
Now, I get the impression that a lot of folks that are asking the “was Jesus an illegal immigrant” question PROBABLY aren’t historically literate or familiar with the Biblical texts.
SO I’ll point out that what commonly gets called the “New Testament” starts with four books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Collectively they are called the “Gospels.”
Doing a “harmony of the Gospels” is beyond MY limited ability – I’ll just point out that the four texts tell the story of Jesus’ life and ministry and death. The four texts “dovetail” together – but the part important for THIS discussion starts in the second chapter of Matthew verse 1
Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem,
SO where was “Bethlehem of Judea?”
The Google AI overview tells me “In the 1st century CE, Bethlehem of Judea was a small, humble village situated about six miles south of Jerusalem, in the fertile hill country of Judea, near the border of the Judean desert. “
Roman officials had ruled the area since 63 BCE – at that time THEY would have referred to it as the “province of Judaea”
Where residents of the Province of Judaea Roman Citizens?
No. Most of the permanent residents were Jewish – which was defined by tradition, religion, and language not by geographic borders.
Jews could become Roman Citizens. e.g. The book of Acts follows the Gospels in the New Testament. The conversion of Saul/Paul of Tarsus and then the start of his travels/ministry are in the second half of Acts – at one point Paul is about to be flogged and his Roman Citizenship prevents the flogging.
i.e. without a doubt being a Roman Citizen had benefits – but just living in a province ruled by Rome did NOT automatically make someone a Roman citizen
Wise men from the East
Ok, pop quiz – how many “wise men from the East” brought the infant Jesus gifts?
I can confidently say that – having seen countless “Nativity scenes” with three wise men – MOST folks will say three.
Notice that the text doesn’t say how many “wise men came from the East” – it says they brought three gifts (gold, frankincense, and myrrh) BUT doesn’t give a number of “wise men from the East.”
Oh, yes, there is symbolism to those gifts – but that is a different subject.
Under the category of “just me guessing” – travelling long distances at the time would have been dangerous and difficult, it is hard to imagine ONLY three people making ANY long trip especially one with this significance. I imagine a small armed entourage attached to each “gift.” All of which is conjecture on my part …
Flight to Egypt
The “wise men” part of the Gospel of Matthew account also provides the background for WHY Jesus and family went to Egypt – i.e. Herod – the secular leader of the Jews at the time – wanted to harm the child:
13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”
14 When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, 15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”
… and when the “wise men” didn’t return and tell Herod where Jesus was …
16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men.
Old Testament Prophecy
Notice that Gospels refer to parts of the “Old Testament” as prophecy that was being fulfilled. The expectation at the time in 1st Century Judaea was that the Messiah was going to appear – but those 1st Century Jews were probably expecting a “King David” type to come and defeat the Romans.
umm, and that is another “Harmony of the Gospels” things …
Was Jesus an “illegal immigrant” in Egypt?
again, no.
Egypt at the time was ALSO a province of Rome. You know, Cleopatra, Marc Anthony and all that.
Again, “conjecture on my part” – There was probably a “Jewish community” in Egypt that Joseph and Mary were able to blend into without much difficulty. Obviously just because MOST of the residents of Judaea were Jewish doesn’t mean that ALL of the Jewish population lived there.
THEN Joseph has a few “divine dreams” directing him where to go and another Prophecy gets fulfilled:
23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”
21st Century immigration
What baffles me is exactly what the folks who are pushing “Jesus was an illegal immigrant” think they are going to accomplish.
Ok, I get that THEY think they have found a metaphorical “loose brick” in the argument of their political opponents. BUT it comes across as “Jesus was an illegal immigrant so open the borders!”
Personally I think the “west” needs to make it easier for LEGAL immigrants to come here and work.
Part of that process should include assimilation training for immigrants. Voting privileges and access to the “welfare state” are things that must be earned.
i.e. honest hard working immigrant willing to risk their lives to come to the “west” should be treated as a positive resource to be optimized NOT a disease to be eradicated.
I’m in favor of making it harder on the human traffickers preying on immigrates — but it also needs to be recognized that “immigration WITHOUT assimilation” is an “invasion”
The best selling book of 1925
Yes, I’ve read the entire Bible more than once – no I am NOT a minister. I’ve got some resources for individual Bible study on the top menu – (https://www.iterudio.com/?page_id=830)
as always the only “authoritative source” for Bible study should be the Bible – finding a modern translation is useful – e.g. my Bible quotes are from the “New King James”
fwiw: I found a database of different Bible versions and I have been working on generating pdfs – which will get posted on this site when completed.
I’m looking for work and always willing to accept big checks for bloviating on this or that – spam comments get treated like spam
communication, inquires, job offers sent to iterudio at clancameron.us will get looked at – but I’m gonna assume it is spam so you need to make an effort to convince me you AREN’T spam –
I enjoyed reading The Man Nobody Knows – which was the bestselling book of 1925. I wrote a short introduction that points out some of the “1925 references.”
Back in 1925 the contemporary image of Jesus was (probably) derived from famous Renaissance art works – the author of the book was working in the early days of “modern advertising” and takes a “Jesus as modern organizational leader” view.
Russel Conwell (February 15, 1843 – December 6, 1925) (from wikipedia) “was an American Baptist minister, orator, philanthropist, author, lawyer, and writer. He is best remembered as the founder and first president of Temple University in Philadelphia, as the Pastor of The Baptist Temple, and for his inspirational lecture, ‘Acres of Diamonds’.”
The story given as inspiration for the lecture (and as the introduction to the longer lecture) is available here
100 years ago …
Mr. Conwell would give the speech 6,000+ times – which is impressive. The “legend” is that when arrived in a new town (where he was going to perform the speech) that he would find out the “prominent”/successful folks in the town and work them into the performance.
ONE of the “points” of the speech being that “opportunity” can be found everywhere. The entrepreneur doesn’t (automatically) need to travel far away looking for opportunity, it (might) be in the backyard.
A hundred years ago, Mr. Conwell had to argue that “making money” was a worthwhile endeavor. The “common wisdom” of the day being that “extreme wealth” MUST have been achieved by some form of skullduggery.
Historically, the human “founders” of these United States had come from a culture where land equaled “wealth.” In the “old world” land was in short supply AND passed down by inheritance. Someone born a “peasant” was going to stay a “peasant” because those “to the manor born” controlled the vast majority of land – and therefore “wealth.”
A rising “merchant class” was in the process of disrupting things when the American Colonies and the U.K. had a disagreement in the late 18th Century — BUT most folks still lived/worked on farms until the early 20th Century.
It is unfair to call ALL of those born into privilege “parasites.” However, 18th Century England is a good case study of “those in power” using the system to keep themselves in power AND wealthy.
The grand point being that “money”/wealth is not evil. Money is a tool which can be used for good purposes OR for bad/”greed.” 1 Timothy 6:10 tell us that “LOVE of money is the root of all evil.”
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
1 Timothy 6:10
Note that “greed” is never “good.” Greed implies “getting more” at the expense of others – which is obviously impossible to reconcile with “loving your neighbor as yourself.”
New World
It is fun to point out that “technology” has always been a disruptive force. Technology is always about “application” of knowledge. Advances in “farming technology” helped farmers be more productive – while also freeing up “labor” for the factories of the industrial revolution.
If we could do a survey asking “average farm workers” (back when Mr. Conwell was giving his speech) how they could get “wealthy” they PROBABLY would have said some variation of “striking gold.”
(… and historians can point at the “gold rushes” in the middle of the 19th Century as helping populate the western United States. Of course more “wealth” was generated from folks helping the “prospectors” than from folks “striking it rich” pulling gold/silver out of the ground …)
Of course if one of those “average farm workers” that sold everything to go gold prospecting had created a “better plow” they would have been much better off.
e.g. A Vermont born blacksmith solved a common problem for farmers – and both he AND the farmers prospered. John Deere, Inc is still helping farmers be productive in the 21st Century.
Transportation
If you look at the “super wealthy” from the late 19th and early 20th Century, the common theme might be “transportation.”
e.g. Cornelius Vanderbuilt built an empire from ferries – from the time when “waterways” were the primary means of transportation in the U.S.
John Rockefeller built an oil empire – from the time when oil was used for light and heat. When Henry Ford made the horseless carriage affordable, “oil” being refined into gasoline made the Rockefeller clan even more wealthy.
Sandwiched between Mr. Rockefeller and Mr. Ford as “wealthiest American” was Andrew Carnegie – who had worked his way up from “child labor” to “steel magnate” – from a time with “railroads” and the telegraph were the latest and greatest “technology.”
No, I am NOT holding up ANY of these men as “moral exemplars” – the grand point is that they helped “solve problems” for a large number of folks, and solving those problems was the root of their wealth …
The musical “Oklahoma!” (1943) has a song where “rural residents” marvel at the advancements of Kansas City (“She went about as fur as she could go!”). By the mid 20th Century things like automobiles and the telephone system were commonplace enough to be a plot point in a musical.
(“Oklahoma!” is set around the time the territory became a State. Oklahoma was the 46th State admitted to the Union in 1907)
Again, the grand point being that some folks got wealthy from disrupting the status quo, and MANY more got wealthy by making incremental advances to cars and phones.
e.g. Thomas Edison’s “diamonds in the backyard” looked like improvements to the telegraph system of his time long before “Edison Electric.”
random thought – I’m sure there is an interesting story with the “cigarette lighter” technology. The actual “cigarette lighter” part isn’t a “standard feature” but you can find a lot of “accessories” that use the “automobile auxiliary power outlet.”
Modern Times
The sad fact is that in a LOT of nations the “economic game” IS stacked against the “average individual.” Which is why we see so many folks willing to risk everything to immigrate to “opportunity.”
Obviously a complex subject – and someone living in a “warzone” is more concerned with survival than anything.
For those NOT living in a warzone or an extremely dysfunctional government the big question becomes which “career path” to pursue.
Charlie Chaplin made a movie called “Modern Times” back in 1936. Mr. Chaplin was a world famous “movie star” at the time – the movie sometimes get held up as an example of “radical political beliefs.” I’m not sure the movie has any agenda except “entertainment” – e.g. Mr Chaplin’s “tramp” character is pursuing “happiness” NOT a political agenda.
That same idea applies to “modern workers” in the 21st century. “Happiness” probably won’t come from a “job.” Generic advice like “follow your bliss” is nice, but not particularly useful.
There is nothing wrong with “working for a paycheck.” The best case scenario is to “do what you love” for a living. the WORST case scenario is doing a job you hate to survive …
Education, intelligence, and “degrees”
“Education in the United States” has changed a great deal in the last 100 years. The first “colleges” in the North America existed to train “clergy” (e.g. Harvard was founded in 1636) and then “academics.”
The “Agricultural and Mechanical Colleges” came along later with the “land grant” colleges in the late 19th Century. The GI Bill sent 2.2 million WWII veterans to college AND 5.6 million more to other training programs.
Sputnick I (1957) had the unintended consequence of changing national educational priorities in the U.S. – as well as kickstarting NASA (founded July 29, 1958). Both events helped the U.S. get to the moon 11 years later.
World war and cold war politics aside, the 20th Century workplace was probably the historical “anomaly.” At one point in the 20th Century a “young worker” could drop out of high school, go to work at the local “factory,” and make a “good living,”
Remember that for MOST of human history, folks lived and worked on farms. Cities provided a marketplace for those agricultural products as well as “other” commerce. Before mass media and rapid transportation MOST people would live and die within 20 miles of where they were born.
Again, maybe interesting BUT I’ll point out that “compulsory” public education PROBABLY doesn’t have a great record of achievement in the U.S. (or anywhere). i.e. if the ONLY reason “student” is in “school” is because they “have to” – then that student isn’t going to learn much.
This has nothing to do with “intelligence” and everything to do with “individual interests” and ability. “Education” is best understood as a live long process – not a short term goal.
“I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.”
— Mark Twain
Part of what makes us “human” is (probably) the desire for “mastery” of skills. In the “best case” this is how “education” should look – a journey from “untrained” to “skilled.”
If an individual’s investment (in time and money) results in them having a valuable “skill set” – then they are “well educated.”
The contrast being the “academic” that has a lot of “degrees” but no actual “skills” — i.e. having a “doctorate” doesn’t automatically mean anything. “Having” a degree shows “completion” of a set of requirements not “mastery” of those subjects.
Of course that distinction is why we have “licensing” as well as “degree” requirements for some professions. e.g. The law school graduate that can’t pass the “Bar examination” won’t be allowed to practice law, but might be allowed to teach.
Nepo babies
Now, imagine we did a survey of “modern high school students” in the United States asking them “how can you become wealthy?”
It would be interesting to actually perform the study – i.e. I’m just guessing here from MY personal experience.
We would also have collect data on the parent’s education and career — i.e. if a child grows up in a family of “fire fighters” then they are (probably) more likely to pursue a career as “fire fighters” simply because that is what they are familiar.
The term “nepo baby” gets used (derisively) for some entertainment industry professionals – but if mom and dad are both “entertainment industry professionals” then a child pursuing an acting/performance career kind of becomes “going into the family business.”
Now, “having good genetics” (you know “being ridiculously good looking”) is always a positive – so there are certainly “nepo babies” out there.
I’m not throwing stones at anyone, “hiring” is not an exact science in ANY industry. That “genetic component” probably applies to families of doctors, lawyers, and educators as well — i.e. if mom and dad were both “whatever”, it is possible that “junior” will have those same skills/personality preferences.
… and it is also possible that “junior” will want to do something completely different.
BUT if “student” has minimal exposure to “work life” outside of what they see at home and school – MY GUESS is that the majority (of my hypothetical survey of high school students) will say the “path to wealth” involves professional sports or “entertainment industry.”
umm, both of which may be more likely than “winning the lottery” or speculating on the stock market — but not exactly “career counsellor” advice
(… oh, and you only hear about the “big rock stars” being told by their “career counsellor” that they couldn’t make a living as a “rock star” AFTER they became “big rock stars” – if someone quits after being told they “can’t do it” or that the chance of success is small, then they PROBABLY didn’t want to do “it” very much …)
“Keep your feet on the ground and keep reaching for the stars.”
– Casey Kasem
Did I have a point?
“Well, the “message” in “Acres of Diamonds” is still valid 100+ years later.
A certain amount of “knowledge” is required to be able to recognize opportunity. e.g. The person to “build a better mousetrap” is someone that has experience catching mice.
BUT simply inventing a “better” mousetrap is only half of the problem – the mousetrap needs to be produced, marketed, and sold.
Two BIG things that weren’t around when Mr. Conwell was giving his speech are “venture capital” and “franchising.” Neither of which “negatively” impacts the argument he was making – and if anything make his argument even stronger …
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.”
Know the audience
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 …
Feedback
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”
Praise
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”
Constructive Criticism
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.
The Pet Peeve
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.”
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.”
Corporation
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.”
Startups
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:
the “visionary/sales” person – who is good at explaining what the company does.
the person actually skilled at doing “whatever” it is the company does
the “operations” person who handles the “business” side
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.
Team
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.”
Selection
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.”
Retention
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.
Team Building Exercises
I question the benefits ofartificial “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.
Elite
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.”
In its best form “marketing”/”advertising” is just “information”
If you have a great product that does “whatever” the best use of your “marketing” budget is to build awareness of the products benefits among folks that need to do “whatever it is that your product does”
e.g. say you make beer or running shoes – and your goal is to continue to sell beer or running shoes.
Spending time educating potential customers about the benefits of your beer or running shoes is gonna be much more effective than – I don’t know, randomly pushing a social agenda.
e.g. The “craft beer” industry got its start by educating folks on how “good beer” should taste. The “athletic shoe” business had to educate/inform how their shoes improved performance.
Leadership
This is where competent leadership would say “hey, we are NOT a social advocacy company — we sell beer (or running shoes) so we are gonna concentrate on making the best beer (or running shoes) and leave the social advocacy for other folks”
That doesn’t mean your company can’t be a “force for positive change” — i.e. being a “good corporate citizen” is always “good business.” It just means that your company has a product to sell and that shouldn’t involve “propaganda.”
Donating to charities or allowing employees “personal time” to volunteer will have intangible benefits — but taking a “corporate stance” on “controversial” issues with marketing decisions is a pointless gamble.
Studio System
For most of the 20th century the above would PROBABLY have qualified as “corporate dogma” for MOST large corporations.
Back in the old “movie studio system” where actors were “under contract” – the studio made an effort to control the public image of “movie stars” and wouldn’t let the actors express “controversial opinions.”
why? because folks on both sides of the issue were potential customers – an actor expressing an opinion would (probably) offend SOMEONE – and that would mean “lower sales”
Yes, they were selling an illusion, but the point was that the studio was NOT in the “advocacy business” – they were selling “escapism”/”entertainment”
Michael Jordan pointed out that he intentionally was NOT “political” because “Republicans and Democrats both buy shoes” (or something along those lines).
Freedom of Speech
The modern business of sport is inherently tied to the “endorsement deal.” I don’t know if anyone can truly claim to have “invented” the idea of celebrity endorsements – i.e. the birth of “mass media” and “marketing” go hand in hand.
Babe Ruth was the best baseball player in the world (and an all time great) at a time when “mass media” was shifting from newspapers to radio. Baseball was helped by radio, which meant that Babe Ruth’s value as a “celebrity endorser” was helped by radio. BUT while the Babe endorsed everything from “cereal to Girl Scout cookies to soap” I’m not sure if he made more money from “playing baseball” or from endorsements.
Arnold Palmer (professional golf great) on the other hand made much more money from “endorsements” than he did from winning golf tournaments. This time Mr Palmer benefited from the growth of “television.”
If a “modern sports star” was looking for an “endorsement” role model – Mr Palmer is probably hard to beat. I’m not a golfer – but I still think of his commercials for a particular motor oil when I’m buying oil.
Of course the “products” that Arnold Palmer was selling were “golf” AND “Arnold Palmer” – I’m sure he had opinions of the controversial subjects of his day, and I’m sure he contributed to multiple charities, he just kept those opinions separate from his “golf professional image.”
In 2023, I’m not opposed to an athlete expressing an opinion on “controversial subjects” – I just prefer that they have an educated opinion on the subject BEFORE they comment.
Of course then “product endorsements” might be impacted by an athlete expressing their opinions. This withdrawal of “corporate approval” is NOT an attack of “freedom if speech” – again, the “company” needs to remember that it is in the business of selling a “product” NOT active propaganda.
You keep using that word …
Propaganda is “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause” — so is “propaganda” a form of “marketing?”
well, maybe – “propaganda” USUALLY has a very negative connotation. Propaganda is biased and “selectively true” – i.e. trying to present YOUR idea/product in the best possible way – which might also be true of “marketing.” BUT propaganda allows for “allegations” meant to “damage the opposition” – which implies (at best) unethical behavior, which tends counter productive in the long term.
Again “Good marketing” starts with a quality product/service. The goal is to educate folks on how YOUR product can help them solve a problem NOT convince them that your competitors are evil.
Maybe if you have an inferior product/idea then selling “fear uncertainty and doubt” (FUD) is your only option — but wise leadership better serve a company by “repositioning” the product or developing a better product/idea.
Marketing is NOT Manipulation
My point is that “marketing” should equal “education” but NOT “manipulation.”
If a group of “corporate executives” is sitting around thinking “We have the most popular product in the land. We have so much market share it is hard for any new marketing campaign to make a BIG difference one way of the other – you know what we should do? How about we hire a ‘spokesperson’ to advocate for a ‘controversial’ subject!” – well, it is probably time to get some new “corporate executives.”
I cannot think of ANY product at ANY time that has been so popular that the parent company could try to “force feed” a radical agenda to their customers without losing a significant market share.
If a company has “monopoly power” then their “marketing” doesn’t matter – but if there are multiple competitors and the cost of switching is just “I’m never buying that brand again – I will buy this other brand readily available from a competitor that hasn’t insulted my intelligence/integrity” – well, you will probably get “new executives” when the ones that made the terrible marketing blunder get fired
If a company is “profitable” over a long period of time that PROBABLY means it is “well run” or “managed properly.”
Of course we need to define “long period of time” — in a healthy economy companies will come and go just by the natural cultural shifts and technological advances.
e.g. Thirty years ago multiple companies making a nice profit from selling “long distance” phone service. Then the “interweb” exploded and “cell phones” became ubiquitous and I’m not sure anyone sells “long distance” phone service anymore.
Prices
the price of whatever “product/service” that “profitable company” makes is gonna be influenced by a wide range of variables
A company can’t “lose a little money” on each transaction and expect to stay in business – so MOST reasonable people can appreciate that the idea of “profit” is not evil. However calculating acceptable “profit margins” (in the real world) is harder than plugging numbers into a formula (something like “profit = (revenue – cost)/revenue”)
First – the sector/industry which the company is competing influences the idea of acceptable “profit margins.”
e.g. the “oil industry” has to include some % to finding/acquiring “more oil” – the “lumber industry” has to include some % to “planting trees” – the “pharmaceutical industry” has to include some % for “research, development, and approval” of new drugs
Second – “marginal utility” comes into play and really messes with “prices.”
How much “the market” is willing to pay for a product is influenced by how much of that product they “need.”
Remember there is a difference between “need” and “want.” Real “needs” are things like food/water/shelter. Needs are (relatively) limited. “Wants” on the other hand are unlimited – but will vary wildly between individuals.
e.g. an individual that is hungry, cold, and lost in the wilderness would be willing to pay much more for a “plate of beans by the fire” than someone that is living in a nice warm house with plenty of food.
The “value” of diamonds and water are another classic example – if you are dying of thirst, you will “pay” for water and (probably) aren’t concerned with diamonds of any quality. But if you have all the water you need (you know, it tends to fall out of the sky in certain places) – then “shiny things” like diamonds are worth a lot more.
Cost
Of course just because “water” can be obtained for free – that doesn’t mean there isn’t a “market” for water. The problem with water is that it is easily contaminated. Historically “dirty water” has been the cause of a LOT of epidemics – which is another subject.
“Water” may be obtained for “free” – but “clean potable water” doesn’t happen by accident. SO “bottled water” is its own little industry. The larger point being that the “product cost” is not directly linked to the “product price.”
The same would be true for diamonds – i.e. raw diamonds require some additional work to become “jewelry.”
SO with any product the company selling the products has other “production costs” than just “materials.”
If those additional costs are managed poorly – then a product that costs $0 could be sold for “$large number” and the company might NOT be “profitable.”
OR if those additional costs are managed properly – then the “total cost of production” might be lower so the “product price” might be lower AND the company would be “profitable.”
Of course it is also possible for a company to have “record profits” despite poor management — but those tend to be short lived “bubbles.”
As for the stock market: what the “stock market investor” wants to see in a company is “slow and steady” long term growth. Meanwhile the “stock market speculator” is looking for “wild swings” in profits.
The “intelligent investor” will do more “investing” than “speculation” – I think someone won a Nobel Prize in economics for pointing out that “diversification” was a good thing – which is basically saying that a little “speculation” is a good thing for “long term profits.” This is why “investment professionals” will talk about “risk appetite.”
In an ideal case our ‘well managed company’ would see slow and steady profit growth year over year. Each year may not set a new “record” for profits, but the graph line would be sloping upwards.
While that “hot new company” in an “emerging industry” PROBABLY won’t show profits at all for the first few years – but that doesn’t mean an investor shouldn’t risk a small % …
SO “diversification” is going to look differently for different investors at different points in their lifetime – but the “big idea” is that (from a financial planning point of view) you should never put EVERYTHING into anything …
Government intervention
My internal alarms start going off anytime a “government official” starts talking about a company/industry having “record profits” and how this isn’t “fair” to the public.
Well, we have the “history of socialism/communism in the 20th Century” to point out the dangers of “centrally planned economies.”
If you want to argue that the USSR and Maoist China were not “true communism” – fine. I understand the difference between the “speculative economics” that Karl Marx wrote about and the “real world implementation” of tyranny done under his name – that isn’t the point.
The point is that any human government intervention into individual sectors of the economy tends to be counterproductive. Modern economies are vast and complex and change at a pace faster than human government and effectively regulate.
I can appreciate the goal of “fairness” – but the problem is human nature and “information flow.” Is the purpose of government is NOT to make society “fair.” That simply is not possible with human government.
I’m not questioning the “intent” of attempts at socialism – I’m pointing out the failures of trying to arbitrarily change human nature and the problems of “scarcity.”
Mr Marx expected “capitalism” to solve the “scarcity” problem – and then “communism” would happen naturally. I tend to disagree with his hypothesis that if all of humanities basic needs were met that we would live together in peace and harmony – again, “human nature” comes into play.
But it is pretty to think that Mr Marx wasn’t completely wrong (but again, 20th Century history isn’t on his side)
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.
Ronald Reagan
All of which means that by the time “government reacts” the problem has probably changed and any government regulation is going to be pointless and ineffective.
This is why “do something” legislation after a “disaster” might actually make the root problem worse — and “don’t make things worse” is probably a good goal for any human government.
Of course being able to tell the difference between “we must act now” and “it is better to do nothing” is VERY hard. It does illustrate why “politicians” tend to be despised and true “statesmen”/leaders are few and far between …
Come my friends, let us reason together … (feel free to disagree, none of this is dogma)
There are a couple of “truisms” that APPEAR to conflict –
Truism 1:
The more things change the more they stay the same.
… and then …
Truism 2:
The only constant is change.
Truism 1 seems to imply that “change” isn’t possible while Truism 2 seems to imply that “change” is the only possibility.
There are multiple way to reconcile these two statements – for TODAY I’m NOT referring to “differences in perspective.”
Life is like a dogsled team. If you aren’t the lead dog, the scenery never changes.
(Lewis Grizzard gets credit for ME hearing this, but he almost certainly didn’t say it first)
Consider that we are currently travelling through space and the earth is rotating at roughly 1,000 miles per hour – but sitting in front of my computer writing this, I don’t perceive that movement. Both the dogsled and my relative lack of perceived motion are examples of “perspective” …
Change
HOWEVER, “different perspectives” or points of view isn’t what I want to talk about today.
For today (just for fun) imagine that my two “change” truisms are referring to different types of change.
Truism 1 is “big picture change” – e.g. “human nature”/immutable laws of the universe.
Which means “yes, Virginia there are absolutes.” Unless you can change the physical laws of the universe – it is not possible to go faster than the speed of light. Humanity has accumulated a large “knowledge base” but “humans” are NOT fundamentally different than they were 2,000 years ago. Better nutrition, better machines, more knowledge – but humanity isn’t much different.
Truism 2 can be called “fashion“/style/”what the kids are doing these days” – “technology improvements” fall squarely into this category. There is a classic PlayStation 3 commercial that illustrates the point.
Once upon a time:
mechanical pinball machines were “state of the art.”
The Atari 2600 was probably never “high tech” – but it was “affordable and ubiquitous” tech.
no one owned a “smartphone” before 1994 (the IBM Simon)
the “smartphone app era” didn’t start until Apple released the iPhone in 2007 (but credit for the first “App store” goes to someone else – maybe NTT DoCoMo?)
SO fashion trends come and go – but the fundamental human needs being services by those fashion trends remain unchanged.
What business are we in?
Hopefully, it is obvious to everyone that it is important for leaders/management to understand the “purpose” of their organization.
If someone is going to “lead” then they have to have a direction/destination. e.g. A tourist might hire a tour guide to “lead” them through interesting sites in a city. Wandering around aimlessly might be interesting for awhile – but could also be dangerous – i.e. the average tourist wants some guidance/direction/leadership.
For that “guide”/leader to do their job they need knowledge of the city AND direction. If they have one OR the other (knowledge OR direction), then they will fail at their job.
The same idea applies to any “organization.” If there is no “why”/direction/purpose for the organization then it is dying/failing – regardless of P&L.
Consider the U.S. railroad system. At one point railroads were a huge part of the U.S. economy – the rail system opened up the western part of the continent and ended the “frontier.”
However, a savvy railroad executive would have understood that people didn’t love railroads – what people valued was “transportation.”
Just for fun – get out any map and look at the location of major cities. It doesn’t have to be a U.S. map.
The point I’m working toward is that throughout human history, large settlements/cities have centered around water. Either ports to the ocean or next to riverways. Why? Well, obviously humans need water to live but also “transportation.”
The problem with waterways is that going with the current is much easier than going against the current.
SO this problem was solved first by “steam powered boats” and then railroads. The early railroads followed established waterways connecting established cities. Then as railroad technology matured towns were established as “railway stations” to provide services for the railroad.
Even as the railroads became a major portion of the economy – it was NEVER about the “railroads” it was about “transportation”
fwiw: then the automobile industry happened – once again, people don’t car so much about “cars” what they want/need is “transportation”
If you are thinking “what about ‘freight’ traffic” – well, this is another example of the tools matching the job. Long haul transportation of “heavy” items is still efficiently handled by railroads and barges – it is “passenger traffic” that moved on …
We could do the same sort of exercise with newspapers – i.e. I love reading the morning paper, but the need being satisfied is “information” NOT a desire to just “read a physical newspaper”
What does this have to do with I.T.?
Well, it is has always been more accurate to say that “information technology” is about “processing information” NOT about the “devices.”
full disclosure: I’ve spent a lifetime in and around the “information technology” industry. FOR ME that started as working on “personal computers” then “computer networking”/LAN administration – and eventually I picked up an MBA with an “Information Management emphasis”.
Which means I’ve witnessed the “devices” getting smaller, faster, more affordable, as well as the “networked personal computer” becoming de rigueur. However, it has never been about “the box” i.e. most organization aren’t “technology companies” but every organization utilizes “technology” as part of their day to day existence …
Big picture: The constant is that “good I.T. practices” are not about the technology.
Backups
When any I.T. professional says something like “good backups” solve/prevent a lot of problems it is essential to remember how a “good backup policy” functions.
Back in the day folks would talk about a “grandfather/father/son” strategy – if you want to refer to it as “grandmother/mother/daughter” the idea is the same. At least three distinct backups – maybe a “once a month” complete backup that might be stored in a secure facility off-site, a “once a week” complete backup, and then daily backups that might be “differential.”
It is important to remember that running these backups is only part of the process. The backups also need to be checked on a regular basis.
Checking the validity/integrity of backups is essential. The time to check your backups is NOT after you experience a failure/ransomware attack.
Of course how much time and effort an organization should put into their backup policy is directly related to the value of their data. e.g. How much data are you willing to lose?
Just re-image it
Back in the days of the IBM PC/XT, if/when a hard drive failed it might take a day to get the system back up. After installing the new hard drive, formatting the drive and re-installing all of the software was a time intensive manual task.
Full “disk cloning” became an option around 1995. “Ghosting” a drive (i.e. “cloning”) belongs in the acronym Hall of Fame — I’m told it was supposed to stand for “general hardware-oriented system transfer.” The point being that now if a hard drive failed, you didn’t have to manually re-install everything.
Jump forward 10 years and Local Area Networks are everywhere – Computer manufacturers had been including ‘system restore disks’ for a long time AND software to clone and manage drives is readily available. The “system cloning” features get combined with “configuration management” and “remote support” and this is the beginning of the “modern I.T.” era.
Now it is possible to “re-image” a system as a response to software configuration issues (or malware). Disk imaging is not a replacement for a good backup policy – but it reduced “downtime” for hardware failures.
The more things change …
Go back to the 1980’s/90’s and you would find a lot of “dumb terminals” connecting to a “mainframe” type system (well, by the 1980s it was probably a “minicomputer” not a full blown “mainframe”).
A “dumb terminal” has minimal processing power – enough to accept keyboard input and provide monitor output, and connect to the local network.
Of course those “dumb terminals” could also be “secured” so there were good reasons for keeping them around for certain installations. e.g. I remember installing a $1,000 expansion card into new late 1980’s era personal computers to make it function like a “dumb terminal” – but that might have just been the Army …
Now in 2022 we have “chrome books” that are basically the modern version of “dumb terminals.” Again, the underlying need being serviced is “communication” and “information” …
All of which boils down to “basics” of information processing haven’t really changed. The ‘personal computer’ is a general purpose machine that can be configured for various industry specific purposes. Yes, the “era of the PC” has been over for 10+ years but the need for ‘personal computers’ and ‘local area networks’ will continue.
Just some random thoughts – Starting off with a famous quote attributed to Albert Einstein –
If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough
Albert Einstein
Leadership
The Einstein quote came to mind for a “2 drink story” reason that I will not relate here.
I’ve been a “student of leadership” going back to my days playing “high school sports.” Athletics can become a “leadership classroom” – with “wins/losses” providing feedback – and obvious “leadership” lessons involved in “team performance”.
If a team is going to be “successful” then the “coach” needs to tailor their “coaching” to the level of the athletes. e.g. Coaching a group of 10 year old athletes will obviously be different than coaching a group of 20 year old athletes.
SO in “leadership education” they might call this “situational leadership.” In coaching this is the old “you need to master the basic skills first” concept.
You need to master crawling before you learn to walk. You need to master walking before you can run. Then riding a bike might take care of itself when/if you are ready – assuming you have “learned how to learn.”
Teaching
The task facing the coach/teacher/leader becomes helping the athletes/students/employees “master” the required skills.
The thought on my mind is that how much the coach “knows” isn’t as important as how much they can help the athlete learn.
“Playing” a sport requires different skills than “coaching” a sport. Just because someone was a great athlete does NOT mean they can teach those skills to others. Just because someone wasn’t a great athlete doesn’t mean they won’t be a great coach.
(… examples abound of both “great athletes” becoming great coaches, “great athletes” becoming “meh” coaches, as well as “average athletes” becoming great coaches – but that isn’t important at the moment)
Of course having great athletes can make an average coach look like a great coach – but that also isn’t my point today.
I’ve watched a lot of “video lectures” given by highly qualified instructors. Occasionally I run into an instructor/presenter that the only thing I get from their presentation is that THEY appear to know a lot – i.e. they didn’t “teach me” anything.
e.g. one instructor seemed to be reading from the manual – I’m sure in their head they were “transferring information” but the lessons were unwatchable. IF I want to read the manual – I can find the manual and read it. What I want from an instructor is examples illustrating the material NOT just a recitation of the facts.
Again, a presenter/teacher bombarding the audience with the breadth and width of their knowledge might be satisfying to the presenter’s ego – but not much else.
I’m a an of “storytelling” as an instructional tool – but that means “tell relevant stories that illustrate a point” NOT “vent to a captive audience.”
Education
Tailoring your message to the audience is probably “presenting 101.” It could also be “coaching 101” and “teaching 101.”
“Education” then becomes the end product of coaching/teaching/leadership and is ALWAYS an individualized process.
The worst coach/teacher might still have the occasional championship athlete/high achieving student. My experience has been that the “bad” coach/teacher tends to blame the athletes/students when things go wrong but takes all the credit if something goes right.
MEANWHILE – the “good” coaches/teachers are tailoring their instruction to the level of their athletes/students and recognize that, while getting an education is always an “individual process”, the “process of education” is a “group effort.”
Even if you go to the library and get a book on a subject – someone had to write the book for you to learn the material.
Learning to Teach
Those “bad” coaches/teachers PROBABLY don’t really understand their sport/subject – which is part of what Mr Einstein’s quote points out.
I have had “not so good” teachers tell me a subject is “easy” and that the class needs to memorize the textbook. Yes, the subject might be “easy” to some students – but not ALL of the students – and rote memorization as a means of mass instruction isn’t a particularly effective use of time.
I have also had excellent teachers tell me THEY learn something each time they teach a class. They don’t try to impress with their “vast knowledge.” They will try teach the students what is “important” (some memorization might be required but not as the major form of instruction). These instructors tend to be realistic about how much can be “taught” and emphasize the individual effort required to “learn” anything.
“You will get out of it what you put into it” is imprinted in my mind for some reason. This has morphed into my personal philosophy that “grades in a class tend to be an indication of effort and interest NOT intelligence.” Not everyone can get an “A” in every class, but if they put forth the effort everyone can “pass” the class.
ANYWAY – If someone teaches for 5 years and then looks back at their first year and DOESN’T see improvement in both teaching skills and mastery of the subject – well, they have 1 year of experience 5 times NOT “5 years” experience.