The Six Shooter.
October 18, 1953.
Program #5. NBC net.
“Rink Larkin”.
“Eleven year old Rink Larkin learns that the sheriff has killed his father and is determined to get his revenge on the lawman. Jimmy Stewart, Sammy Ogg, Frank Burt (writer, creator), Russell Thorson, Basil Adlam (music), Hal Gibney (announcer), Tony Barrett, Jack Johnstone (director).“
The Six Shooter.
October 11, 1953.
Program #4. NBC net.
“Silver Annie”.
Sponsored by: Coleman Home Heating.
“Silver Annie Huxley refuses to sell her silver mine to the railroad, to the distress of the rest of the town of “Virtue City.”
Jimmy Stewart, Dan O’Herlihy,, Robert Griffin, Parley Baer, Frank Burt (creator, writer), Hal Gibney (announcer), Jeanette Nolan, Herb Vigran, Basil Adlam (music), Jack Johnstone (director).”
The Six Shooter.
October 4, 1953. Program #3, NBC net.
“The Stampede”.
Sponsored by: Coleman Home Heaters.
“Britt Ponset finds himself on a cattle drive with two feuding brothers. Jimmy Stewart, Lou Merrill, James McCallion, Frank Burt (creator, writer), Jack Johnstone (director), Basil Adlam (music), Hal Gibney (announcer).“
The tragic part of living a life of “quiet desperation” (in the Henry David Thoreau sense) is usually the lost opportunity to do good as opposed to “intentional malice.”
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Sonnet 94 (William Shakespeare)
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.
In 2023 Merriam-Webster tells us that a “tragedy” is “a disastrous event : CALAMITY”
Back in Mr Shakespeare’s time a “tragedy” was closer to “a medieval narrative poem or tale typically describing the downfall of a great man” (Merriam-Webster definition 2C – and I used the term as in Merriam-Webster definition 3: “tragic quality or element”)
fwiw: Mr Shakespeare’s plays tend to be divided into “tragedy”, “comedy”, and “histories” – kind of the broad “genres” of his time. In Shakespearean “tragedy” a lot of people will be dead at the end of the play, in a “comedy” folks will pair up/get married, and “histories” were obviously “based on a true story” BUT tended to be presented to “please the sponsor” much more than be an accurate representation of historic events …
The Ancient Greek concept of tragedy would have required a “great man” – to suffer a great downfall BUT more along the Merriam-Webster 2A definition (“the a serious drama typically describing a conflict between the protagonist and a superior force (such as destiny) and having a sorrowful or disastrous conclusion that elicits pity or terror”)
Ancient Greek “tragedy” tends to involve a “mostly admirable” king/leader that does nothing “wrong” but still suffers because of a relatively small character flaw – e.g. the hero tries to avoid his “destiny”/fate and ends up bringing about his fate BECAUSE he tried to avoid it.
Wikipedia tells us that Sisyphus was the king of Corinth, punished in Tartarus by being cursed to roll a huge boulder up a hill in Greek mythology.
BUT the myth of Sisyphus is more of a “cautionary tale” about divine justice rather than a “tragedy” – the “lesson” the Ancient Greeks were passing along with the myth of Sisyphus was probably “don’t mess with the ‘gods’” not “don’t fight your fate”
The punishment aspect of the myth of Sisyphus is always that he is sentenced to an endless AND pointless task – just pushing the boulder up a hill might not seem that bad, but being forced to do it FOREVER for no reason, well, that wouldn’t be any fun …
The Ancient Greek concept of tragedy would have required a “great man” – to suffer a great downfall BUT more along the Merriam-Webster 2A definition (“the a serious drama typically describing a conflict between the protagonist and a superior force (such as destiny) and having a sorrowful or disastrous conclusion that elicits pity or terror”)
Ancient Greek “tragedy” tends to involve a “mostly admirable” king/leader that does nothing “wrong” but still suffers because of a relatively small character flaw – e.g. the hero tries to avoid his “destiny”/fate and ends up bringing about his fate BECAUSE he tried to avoid it.
Wikipedia tells us that Sisyphus was the king of Corinth, punished in Tartarus by being cursed to roll a huge boulder up a hill in Greek mythology.
BUT the myth of Sisyphus is more of a “cautionary tale” about divine justice rather than a “tragedy” – the “lesson” the Ancient Greeks were passing along with the myth of Sisyphus was probably “don’t mess with the ‘gods’” not “don’t fight your fate”
The punishment aspect of the myth of Sisyphus is always that he is sentenced to an endless AND pointless task – just pushing the boulder up a hill might not seem that bad, but being forced to do it FOREVER for no reason, well, that wouldn’t be any fun …
Now, the “average Ancient Greek” was a subsistence farmer (well, the “average Ancient human” was also a subsistence farmer – but that isn’t important).
Life as a “subsistence farmer” (i.e. trying to live off of growing your own food) probably sounds “hard” to modern humans – but it would have had the advantage of a clear purpose/reason for daily labor (i.e. “survival” – feed yourself and your family).
Fast forward to the 20th Century and there are still subsistence farmers – but they tend to be in what gets called “developing nations” in 2023.
(aside: The concept of “Third World” nations is a relic of the “Cold War” – i.e. countries could be divided into “us” vs “them” with “not us or them” being the “Third World” – of course those countries were probably NOT “us” OR “them” because they were “undeveloped” – but now I feel like I’m going in circles.)
Just like in “ancient times” the average “modern” subsistence farmer is most concerned with survival – and that daily struggle for survival is an obvious “purpose for work.”
In the “developed world” the “people” can still be divided between “haves” and “have nots” – but the daily struggle for “food” has been replaced by a “subsistence paycheck” in exchange for labor.
Of course the “problem” for “modern workers” can become CHOOSING a profession — i.e. again, for most of human existence the problem was growing enough food to survive – not “self-fulfillment”
The last half of the 20th Century saw a lot of “progress” but human nature didn’t change. We “know” more and we “have” more in the “developed world” but humans are still the same “stuff” we have always been.
Better nutrition and health care means the average height and weight have increased – people are bigger and healthier but still the same ol’ “people.”
The unintended consequence of material prosperity has been to replace the “fight for survival” with a “search for meaning.”
A lot of folks have ALWAYS managed to avoid the subject – and these are those folks leading the “unexamined life is not worth living” (as Socrates put it) or “lives of quiet desperation” (as Mr Thoreau put it).
The late 20th century version of that struggle is found in “Say Anything” (1989) when the protagonist points out:
“I don’t want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don’t want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed.”
–Lloyd Dobler
From a “big picture history” point of view the rise and fall of “great societies”/Empires can be seen as a failure of “values.”
Yes, different cultures have different concepts of “normal” – BUT for them to be a “culture” they have a “set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices.”
It should be obvious that just living in the same geographic region does NOT make a “culture” – unless you count hating ‘those people’ as a “culture”
I won’t bother with multiple examples – e.g. “Arabs” and “Jews.”
On a MUCH smaller scale I laughed at myself when I didn’t apply for a “tech job” with a school system in southwestern Ohio because THEY were rivals with US in high school sports (ok, there were other reasons as well – but the friendly sports rivalry was my first thought when I saw the job posting).
“The Who” (one of those “rock & roll” bands) serves as a modern cultural example of that human “desire for meaning” and “belonging” – one of their songs asks the big question but American poet E.E. Cummings asked a similar question in 1923:
seeker of truth
e.e. cummings
follow no path
all paths lead where
truth is here
The obvious problem for “seekers” is that it is possible to be deceived into thinking “truth is here” when it isn’t – this verse comes to mind –
I tend to be suspicious of ANYONE that asks me to “trust them” about ANYTHING without any proof/verification – but that is just me (Luke 6:43-45 also comes to mind)
Just because someone believes something and is sincere DOES NOT mean they are “true” – it is possible to be “sincerely wrong” …
of course I could ALWAYS be wrong so you shouldn’t trust me on that –
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