DON'T TAKE MUCH TO MAKE ME/YOU HAPPY

http://blogs.hbr.org/anthony/2013/05/should_you_take_that_innovatio.html


WHY COMPLICATE THINGS?

New rejections for 'jobs': uggh, what a cold word that is: 'job'. But funny, how people seem to make the same mistake with me..

It doesn't take much to make me happy. Give me some space, a smile, some paper, some hay (only kidding!) and let the Universe do the rest..

No phones and no jerks, that's about it. And I'll pump your business full of value you've never seen before with everyone involved.

IS RECRUITING A CHINESE WALL? DISRUPT, LEST YE BE DISRUPTED..

'The problem with insecure people is they hire dopes'

'I want a moat, preferably with a drawbridge and shark-infested waters'.

~~

'Applying' for jobs can be tedious. The adverb itself is tedious: Connoting diligent yet ineffectual dedication to a tiresome task.

And task-based recruiting, I suggest, is the next vista for Barbarians at the Gate.

*If organisations, generally, cannot hire smart, they will look increasingly dumb.

*If regulations and onboarding take weeks and even months, talent will walk, and test the ramparts for structural flaws.

* If creativity is discouraged from the outset, competition will get creative both in supply and in attitude. Demand, like a spring rising to its source, will find its own rivulets..

*If creative people cannot design for intraprenuerial roles, they will design blueprints for external change.

Beware the Fate of the Celestial Kingdom and disrupt, lest ye be disrupted..

(This 'applies', of course, to nobody in particular).

CANDOR AND THE CAR-INDUSTRY: I OFFER MY CONDOLENCES AND SOME THOUGHTS TO FORD'S WORKERS

Having mentioned the Australian car industry in my last post - yesterday - I was shocked to hear about Ford closing operations in Victoria. But was I surprised?? That's a critical issue, and not so much a question. Without intending to offend anyone, does Victorian manufacturing risk succumbing to Detroitus, which was left behind in that once great city? It doesn't have to happen that way (ditto for Detroit), and here's why:

SOME KEY TAKE-AWAYS: REIGNITE YOUR SPARK

# Ford motor: surprise or unsurprising? Moral: change is necessary, but management’s obligation is to avoid landing workers with unpleasant surprises so far as lies in their power. Management's power is intellectual, financial and ethical. And they should utilise all sources: in fact they have an ethical obligation to do so, even if their legal duty is toward the company’s shareholders. (Cf German ‘Rhenish’ capitalism, Japan’s keiretsu and the Toyota Way).

# Globalisation is real. Those who remain in a single occupation for thirty years, as some component manufacturers did at Ford, risk obsolescence. In a global economy, risk and reward follow competitive advantage. Shareholders can emplace and remove capital at will so diversification and reinvention are crucial for workers’ job security and for industry success.

# Take your destiny into your own hands, or someone else will fulfil your destiny for you. In a global marketplace, corporate headquarters could be any place in the world. Face reality as it is when you sign onto new terms and conditions with any business. Instead of waiting on the Fates, all employees and stakeholders – executives, line managers, employees and government officials – should enable transitions with minimal disruption. In a disruptive economy (characterised by restless product and process-innovation) retraining is thus paramount and should be unending. Give people the tools to manage their own futures.

# Employers should be responsible. Treat your employees with respect at all times. If you don’t, your business assumes the reputation risk of a more ethical, creative alternative. (I am not making any observation about particular manufacturers or entities here). 

POSTCRIPT

More than any other stage, perhaps, in history, workers require introduction to the fundamentals of economic thought and history. As industries move in phases and the globe collectively considers the contours of a more human capitalism, Australians need to understand the elements of modern capitalist thinking. And the nucleus for successful transition and flourishing is embedded in the supporting family. 

In particular, I hope to review Jerry Muller's recent contribution to Foreign Affairs, "Capitalism and Inequality: What the Right and the Left Get Wrong".

Here is my list of the economists and thinkers to which Muller charitably refers (p.s. quite an extraordinary list!):

Alfred Rappaport

Hyman Minsky

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

Jan de Vries

Tyler Cowen

Joseph Scumpeter

Daniel Bell

Brink Lindsey

Michael Spence

Max Weber

Edward Banfield

Pedro Caneiro and James Heckman

Friedrich von Hayek

Alexander Hamilton

In the search for daily bread, always make room for food for thought... 

~~~ 

Condolences and Best Wishes to Ford workers and their families. 

URGENT DELIVERY: DELIVERING THE GOODS REQUIRES DELIVERING MORE AND MORE

http://www.afr.com/p/national/professional_services/accounting_graduates_face_job_market_ml4M9I3CEBdkesW84JzqoJ; Jennifer Eyers. "Paradigm Shift for Local Law Firms"; http://www.lawcareers.net/Information/Features/25022013-Adapt-or-die



I've made the point so many times: And I believe these articles merely emphasise it. The professional and commercial world is changing. So GET AHEAD OF THE CHANGE.. I will not repeat the statistics already tabulated in these Financial Review columns: (Paul Keating's favourite paper, and I appreciate why). The figures largely speak for themselves.

'WHAT COUNTS IS WHAT YOU DELIVER'

We are definitely upon the threshold of a global meritocracy. As the emerging middle class emerges in the BRIC countries and eventually, even, Africa, the power of place will matter less than the power of proximity to growing markets. Like him or loathe him, Rupert Murdoch made this point in his Boyer Lectures. Incidentally, it was Murdoch and Packer, the inconoclasts, who outflanked the establishment in the pursuit of profit.

Thus a venture partner from Sichuan Province raised in the turbulence of the Cultural Revolution likely does not care if you went to Monash, Melbourne or even Oxford. What counts is what value you add to his business or his brand. Of course, he may care: But China has minted countless rural billionaires who happened upon cost-effective and scalable business models emerging from the depths of poverty.

WITH GLOBALISATION'S BENEFITS, YOU TAKE THE COSTS

If Western society wishes to enlarge the global project - the converse could very well be a dangerous mistake - then the Euro-American and Australiasian economies will have to adapt to the 'externalities' of a global marketplace for talent, goods and increasingly ideas. If you are a one-trick financial modelling expert, and your job can be outsourced, most companies will trade players simply to compete. Be more than a utility player: Be a Global Star. If you can cut across disciplines and geographies, and exhibit presence of mind and cultural nous, you may go further than the most decorated, credentialled rival. At least I hope so..

Protectionism will not work. The Australian car industry, for instance, struggles with this conundrum. The industry's product is too expensive to serve the cost-value market (cf Kia) and too inexpensive to serve the luxury segment (think Mercedes or Lamborghini). Australia does not have any obvious competitive advantage in this field of endeavour. And to protect underperforming sectors will distort the economy and reduce our attractiveness to Asian investors.

A PROBLEM I NOTICED AT UNI

We do not, in the West as a whole, allow critical thinking to flourish. China, I understand, is mandating training in emotional intelligence or EI, a point Daniel Goleman makes in HBR. No longer tethered to Maoist orthodoxy or rote learning, Prof Niall Ferguson has suggested that Asian students outperform American and European classmates even in the humanities. They master both STEM and social science. We have to improve literacy and numeracy by broader, collaborative learning and cultural sensitivity. One-lecturer marking and examination templates have to go. They're nonsense.

For example, in Law School I would challenge the lecturer about his interpretation of a hypothetical problem or the application of complex legal principle to a case. 'No, that's wrong. The answer is X'. 'Oh, is that so", I would query, "then why did this commercial entity pay a team of QC's thousands per hour to argue the matter'? No response.. THIS IS PLAIN DUMB: AND THE EMERGING MARKETS WILL CALL US ON 'DUMB'. 

So whether you're a Harvard PhD or a mathematical genius from a remote Indian village, what counts is WHAT YOU DELIVER.. 

GOOD LUCK! 

I LOVE THE COMMON LAW! WHAT THE EAST CAN LEARN FROM US

In his Reith Lectures, Prof Niall Ferguson decried our growing litigious culture. Prof Ferguson referred, in particular, to Lord Goff's reasoning in Kleinwort Benson with respect to common law development through the 'interstices' of past decisions. According to Prof Ferguson, legal firms are rather incentivised to prosecute and prolong legal disputes.

In respect to legal reasoning, I agree largely with Ferguson and Lord Goff having long upheld the precept of Dixonian 'strict and complete legalism'. To be fair to the legal profession regarding interlocutory delay and expense, however, practitioners increasingly resort to international and commercial arbitration and the diverse forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution to allay and terminate legal conflict. Which is as it should be. Litigation is expensive and often onerous: cf Queensland v JL Holdings. In the UK, Lord Woolf's report on case management enunciated the Royal Courts of Justice's committment to the 'overriding objective' of dealing with cases justly. As the Courts should do. In all cases. 

At the same time, I would exalt the common law and the wonderful legacy it has bequeathed to the Anglo-American world. As the classic case of Donoghue v Stevenson demonstrated, common law courts are, overall, responsive to the claims and demands of struggling litigants. Indeed, Judge Christopher Weeramantry of Sri Lanka objected in his Law in Crisis to the unreasonable and objectionable overload in legislation and regulation thereunder. Since State of Victoria v Meakes & Dignan, at least, in Australia citizens and business have been deluged by a torrent of subordinate legislation and administrative procedure. (The Corporations Act is unecessarily complex, and recondite regulation should be culled). Balancing the scales, nevertheless, amendments to the Legal Profession Act in Australia and adjustments to the Practice Rules and Directions of our Supreme and Federal Courts have certainly redirected legal practioniers to their clients and their obligation to observe the due administration of justice.

And, in fact, the furiously growing members of APAC and China herself could well learn from the English tradition of justice. For all our economic and social travails, the Anglo-American world in its very 'pith and substance' inherits the Rule of Law. India, for all her problems, practices the common law tradition as the world's largest democracy. (A point Sir Michael Kirby has made repeatedly). As we learn from the East in Michael Dobbs-Higginson's 'Age of Disorder, therefore, China and her nanyang diaspora can equally learn from the principled application of practical justice which our courts of common law and equity truly afford.

FILLING THE VACUUM: "STAND UP, MADAMS/SIRS" NOT DOWN

Paul Keating said, "John Howard is the Policeman at the scene of every crime". Whatever your politics, Australia does not need more policemen.

Actual policemen are critical to our democracy; the national traffic cop is not.

For years, I have worked in entry-level roles - now I see why. From a relatively privileged background, I suspected I had not seen the whole story. And I needed to know why?

Indeed I hadn't. So flunking law school meant cutting out of the privileged loop to understand our country's real malaise: a leadership vacuum..

Throughout our businesses, people struggle to manage increasing demands - from consumers, from stakeholders, from government, from their peers - without the tools to do so.

I have seen every species of dreadful management - people who can't or don't understand how to lead..

And I have seen enormous generosity and enthusiasm; and, yes, creativity.

I am not perfect: I am so terribly imperfect. But I want to learn from others. Not get angry with them. I want to watch fellow Australians succeed.

I may be green, but I want to learn to lead. Maybe, psychically, I've graduated from the entry-level stage?

PROFESSIONALISM: WHAT WILL IT MEAN IN THE LATE 21st CENTURY?

The historian and American essayist Randolph Bourne spoke about 'transnational' history, a notion replicated in Ferdinand Braudel's oeuvre: Bourne urged, 'It is for us to educate, and be educated'. As the Helleno-Medittarenean supremacy of Western rationality recedes and meets Eastern mobility, what will an expanded knowledge base mean for professional work in the West?

As a moonshot prediction, I would suggest that the professions shall decline in importance in comparison to the tidal nodes and modalities of international commerce. The biggest and most sought-after employers will belong to global business and to global civil society. (Richard Falk, an international lawyer, for instance, has explored the concept of a Post-Sovereignty world in respect to the human rights "industry").

HOW HAS THE MARKETPLACE CHANGED? POST-WESTPHALIA

As Henry Kissinger discussed in Diplomacy, the West - through the Treaty of Westphalia - settled upon the European conception of Statehood and the Balance of Power to delineate sovereign territory. (The remaining discussion is my own, not Kissinger's). States, through the profession of arms and the law, monopolised the threat of force for the preservation of their commonweal. However, the devastation of WWI and II and mass-mobilisation, militarily and economically, established a new global balance of power: the principal actors, of course, were the USSR and the United States.

Following the Cold War strategies of  'triangulation', great power containment and regional security alliances such as SEATO, the Berlin Wall - symbol of ideological separation - came down and the Soviet Union itself fell together with the Eastern bloc and non-aligned movements in Africa. Proclaiming the 'end of history' and a global 'peace dividend', post-Glasnost and Detente, the West led by America oversaw dissolution of the Warsaw Pact as NATO-led disarmament in Europe and events such as the Madrid Summit set in train the process of marketisation/liberalisation, transnational governance and the opening up of new markets in Eastern Europe and East Asia. In many ways, these were halcyon days for international lawyers who advised on cross-border merger activity and financial deregulation. 

In the wake of the GFC, the sub-prime mortgage explosion and the near-economic collapse which followed in Europe,nevertheless,  the Anglo-European economies have imposed severe austerity and reregulation whereas China has spurred export-driven growth through a managed exchange rate. Although the CCP has permitted some relaxation of the RMB/$ band and instituted limited deregulation of the banking sector, the Chinese leadership have repeatedly pledged the country to the notion of the 'Harmonious Society' and have reoriented the country toward a consumption economy. Clearly, China and neighbouring Asia have not adopted the West's Westphalian doctrine of sovereignty.

Until we have a truly representative global architecture beyond the G20, the primary links between East and West will be market-based. Since the Western world, broadly speaking, will be unable to impose its conception of the rule of law and statehood upon the East, specialised Western legal advice will not carry such prestige. The West will not be able to prevail through force of arms. And, in consequence, the most effective links between the East and the West's rival conceptions of territory will be diplomatic, cultural and economic. In an internationalised workforce, money and management  expertise will count for more than social pedigree or Western rule-based order.

WHAT IS YOUTH WITHOUT YOUNG HOPES?

Amusing Myself : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDOuooRLvdU

Facing my wine, I did not see the dusk,
Falling blossoms have filled the folds of my clothes.
Drunk, I rise and approach the moon in the stream,
Birds are far off, people too are few.

-Li Bai 

I'm not mad; just desperate, and lonely. Chasing for years (let's call her Miss Piggy). Hoping for resolution.

WHAT AILS ME ~ Unstop the Valve () /- ~~~~ REFLECTIONS ON JOB HUNTING AND THE HUNT FOR NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE

( ET IN TERRA (Non-Nullius) PAX
Let our blood flow in not out~

*No to "haters"
*Freer atmosphere
*Speed and confidence
*Empathy for others
*Colours of the rainbow )
..


It is hard to admit, but I am looking for work like so many people at the moment. And yes, I have my folks on my back. That's a good thing - I realise they're concerned. But I'm also anxious about reentering the workplace because of one trait that I have noticed and remarked upon consistently in this country, for all its advantages. The "system" is always out to constrict our intellectual blood supply.

And I wonder: Are we constrained - strangulated even - by a system which does not work the way it should. For example, Gillard proposed an expedient (to my mind) Referendum with respect to local government which will likely fail along with every other referendum in Australia's history. This government's record is hardly sterling, and the Opposition is considerably worse ~ [What a contest!]

From School to University and beyond, it felt to me like I was continually constrained: Don't go faster, tow the line... Well, folks, the line is broken and I think we need a major fix-it job to unleash the best of this country's growing and dynamic population. And, for God's sake, let people in: They reflect the very best of our continent..

Egalitarianism is noble in prospect; reduction to an astringent mean - in tutoring, in managing, in leading - on the other hand is debilitating.

I think it is no wonder that the great nations of the earth, and culturally two of the greatest - the USA and France - were conceived in Revolution. I am not suggesting treason or violent upheaval, yet I am convinced that Australia is due for quite radical, PEACEFUL change..

But theory and vituperation aside, I think we can all free ourselves up a little in our national consciousness. And live more fully ~ in public and in private.

I would love to create and toil again, and serve as well as I can: Just, Please this time, let my blood flow ....

RED, YELLOW OR GREEN _ UP, DOWN OR SIDEWAYS, ALWAYS DESIGN FOR PASSION!!

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/10/magazines/fortune/rule5.fortune/index.htm

RINGFENCE UR STARS ~ Addendum to last post

Further to 'reverse restructuring', identify (if you haven't already) your fantastic people with performance and values and KEEP THEM, come hell or high water.

Be prepared to release someone three levels up in preference to a star player, whether she be an individual contributor, supervisor or manager. They don't come around all that often.

Once they get through, Onward and Upward!! CREDIBILITY IS FOR KEEPS

REVERSE RESTRUCTURE - WHAT DIFFERENTIATION REALLY MEANS TO ME

In a down economy, companies inevitably restructure their operations and business units. Which invariably involves personnel reassignment and laying off employees. Where does differentiation come in here?

Under Jack Welch, GE famously practiced 20/70/10. I assume the reader knows how that worked. (Google or youtube it). As Welch admitted: 'Famously known for differentiation. "Known" is a kind word!' In a restructure, I would argue this notion is crucial, whichever way you assess employees during more stable periods of growth.

However, I would propose the concept of the 'reverse restructure'. In most companies, managers and supervisors reassign and reassess or fire individual contributors. I contend that the process should obviously be backwards.

Move up the line. Why? Very often, research would suggest, it is inconsiderate or poorly performing managers and immediate supervisors who fail to inspire and motivate their reports towards objectively measurable common goals. Managers, supervisors and indeed in too many cases, executives fail, willingly or unwillingly, to communicate the business or functional strategy through to operational teams. They mismanage or inappropriately coordinate metrics, though of course this is not always the case. They neglect to speak candidly about the business climate to employees, eschewing discussion of 'what's in it for them'.

Jesus famously proclaimed, 'I am no respecter of persons'. What I consider He meant was that an ethical bond must bind all: In the circuitous discussion around organisational culture, too often, in Australia certainly, senior managers and board members leave out cultural primacy. Culture, done right, is your strongest asset. Therefore, culture must know NO BOUNDS. It must translate, in conjunction with valued behaviours, all the way up the line and to the C Suite. Positional power MUST BE EARNED.

In a merger or restructure, I would claim that 'servant leadership' necessitates employees speaking truth to power and conveying their concerns. 'Closest to the work, describing the work'. Are employees being given the material and organisational resources to succeed? Are opportunities for innovation and growth genuinely, not merely formally, available? Are superiors cultivating their reports and setting individual contributors up for lasting success?

If not, managers or supervisors should be the first to go. Not the other way around. What do you think?

LIEBE UND HASS: PARAPHRASING SIMMEL

 

I am riddled with faults: Arrogance, belligerence, confusion and dissembling. But out of these woes and my falls, mix the better elements of our nature. And, combusting with others my heart trembles as, phoenix-like, some thing ‘new’, for us, arises… 

TO KEEP UP, U HAVE 2 BE RUNNING: The Decline of Authority?

I have been in many a workplace, and in many conversations, in which 'authority-huggers' describe how they have kept to a single path for advancement. "I've been in this role for close on 5 years; I'll be in line then for the next stage. Some people wait ten!"

DO I SIT STILL, OR START RUNNING?

Globalised competition and cultural development is scary: It's also real. The Western world is competing with the accelerating curve in globalised commerce and consumption. The East has become less integral to the factors of production. The value chain is changing. China and India, with their explosive growth rates, are better positioned to service their own populations through regional links. Post-Jim O'Neill, and possibly reverting to history's pre-European norm, a BRIC has been hurled at the status quo. And there's likely no going back...

Therefore in future - and for authority-huggers, the future is just about upon us - iron stability will be the West's exposed flank in lieu of former strength. Dogged application to transactional goal-setting, to total specialisation in a single task could well spell, in the workplace, a suicidal venture for authority-huggers.

The simple fact is the developing world no longer needs us in our former capacity. And, whether China blows up or not (in reference to Ross Garnaut, an excellent thinker), APAC and India would still take up the slack. I remain skeptical about the N-11 (look at corruption in the Phillipines) but global governance has certainly bypassed the 20 C's Trilateral power bloc of Europe, Japan and the US. Whereas the US will conceivably remain the largest economy for some time and Japan hopes for a stock-market led resurgence through quantitative easing, it does appear there is no going back..

'WIFM' DOWN-UNDER?

Without a commitment to organisational and personal growth and development, I suspect very little. Further lay offs, increased international competition etc. Jagdish Bhagwati would speak for the yes case, David Harvey for the 'no'. But such is our 'new' reality..

For the moment, recruiters, businesses, managers and politicians are holding the fort on competency-based metrical stability and poorly designed management practices. (Australia has NEVER excelled the way America has in management practice).

In soon-to-be time, however, this design will be rendered redundant, if not obsolete, through global disruption.

For those who 'look' beyond the horizon in hopes of seeing, the future is bright. Increased prosperity through exciting bye-ways.

For the rest, the authority-huggers, a dispensable past.

(Sure, the Budget was a bummer) ~ NOW LET"S CELEBRATE AUSTRALIANS AS WINNERS! *[Or spare us the stats, and reach for the stars]*

A disappointing budget. As Shane Oliver stated (pace the Liberal/Nationals), however, hardly the end of the world at 11% debt-to-GDP in global terms. No, we can't believe very much this government says, and yes, the ALP cabinet/caucus is chaotic.


SO, GET OVER IT!!!!



IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO WILL WIN

As Robert Hughes wrote in Fatal Shore, Australia was for far too long protected: from international markets, from regional developments and from historical trends. We rode the sheep's back, and we had a stable banking and preference system for our exports. We were (and are) showered in minerals and raw materiel.

Today, however, the world is all ABOUT PEOPLE. And, in recent years, our branch managers have let us down. I say managers, since many of our public intellectual and political figures appear to keep us along a flat-line, stable path. Don't rock the boat.. (Alternatively, don't allow in any boats).

Why don't we junk this impoverished dialogue and aim higher?? Let me suggest, at times, we have to question the rules instead of waiting for our national "ticket-of-leave". And there is much to push for.. We are in the fastest growing and culturally evolving region on planet earth!


TO ASPIRING LEADERS: SHUT UP ABOUT THE PERENNIAL "GROWTH STATISTICS" AND AIM FOR THE STARS****!

Indeed numbers are important. They indicate results. Now is the time, however, to look beyond numbers and "statistics, damn statistics" to the cultural and political potential of our people. Let's not be trapped by numbers. (As if we were caught, eternally, in the down-under vortex of the Caryle versus Malthus debate regarding the "dismal science").

Time to look beyond an asinine oppositionalism in Parliament and civil society which generates friction, though very little heat or light. Beyond the Unions and individual workplace agreements. Beyond the promises and broken promises. TO THE PROMISE OF AUSTRALIA'S PEOPLE.


~ THE LIGHT IS WITHIN: A CONTINENTAL EFFORT REQUIRED ~


The light on a hill will be a product of Australians' enterprise and courage, yes. But we don't have constantly to wait on the State (or states') socialism or neo-liberalism or a nominalist appeal to the 'fair go', fair as that is.

WE must generate that enterprise ourselves. Among ourselves. We must grow our own superb leaders who charge for the hill!! And thus look ahead for the dividends of peaceful opinion and thoughtful commerce. We must find and enhance the very best within us.


RIDE THE DRAGON, NOT THE SHEEP


In Daoist symbolism, the dragon represents good luck. The sheep, obviously (my apologies to sheep) the ovine herd. And the sheep and the spade have served us well. For all our geographic advantages, nevertheless, we will truly enhance and deserve our position through growing home-grown leaders. (Of course, we have many wonderful leaders already. So the task is entirely doable)..

Luck and productivity facilitate prosperity and more abundant luck. So don't luck out! Opportunity starts within your workplace, your home, your community: with a focus on outrageous challenges, camaraderie, and glorious celebrations of collective scientific, artistic, commercial as well as sporting achievement. With a focus on developing phenomenal talents and aspirations not cold-hard obedience, managerialism, skepticism in hock to skew-whiff statistics. (Of course, Treasury does a difficult job well. Just saying)


A NON-POLITICAL MESSAGE: IT'S TIME FOR OZ TO STAND UP!


Academics claim we are a middle power: for all our academics do contribute, the latter prescription is rather ungenerous and probably disingenous. It is not enough to aim low. We must not armchair philsophise and must remain aware of our (interconnected, globalised) surrounding. But Australia could aim for super-power status with great leadership. She can certainly be a super country!

Hence as Australians we should hope to create and sustain homes, businesses and institutions which are the envy of the world. Not entertain pregnant doubts or capitulate to idle excuses or meaningless mediocrity.


[RECAPITULATION, NOT CAPITULATION]

This is OUR century if we want it.. But we have to want it badly. This time is sincerely ours to win.

And occasionally, we should just tune out from the clap-trap pantomine of simulated leadership. And look ahead. Together. To the stars... As a super country


:) :) :) :) :) :) `THE CHOICE IS OURS! ` :) :) :) :) :) :)

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=qxE_OaRYEvs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DqxE_OaRYEvs

'The truth is that, in the process by which the human being, in thinking, reflecting, comparing, separating, and combining, first limits that unhistorical element, the process by which inside that surrounding misty cloud a bright gleaming beam of light first arises, only then, through the power of using the past for living and making history again out of what has happened, does a person first become a person'.. 

'.. imagine a man whom a violent passion, for a woman or for a great idea, shakes up and draws forward. How his world is changed for him! Looking backwards, he feels blind; listening to the side he hears the strangeness like a dull sound empty of meaning. What he is generally aware of he has never yet perceived as so true, so perceptibly close, coloured, resounding, illuminated, as if he is comprehending with all the senses simultaneously. All his estimates of worth are altered and devalued. He is unable any longer to value so many things, because he can hardly feel them any more. He asks himself whether he has been the fool of strange words and strange opinions all this time. He is surprised that his memory turns tirelessly in a circle but is nevertheless too weak and tired just to make a single leap out of this circle. It is the most unjust condition of the world, narrow, thankless with respect to the past, blind to dangers, deaf to warnings, a small living vortex in a dead sea of night and forgetting. Nevertheless this condition—unhistorical, thoroughly anti-historical—is the birthing womb not only of an unjust deed but even more of every just deed. And no artist would achieve his picture, no field marshal his victory, and no people its freedom, without previously having desired and striven for them in that sort of unhistorical condition'... 

DISRUPT YOURSELF

www.claytonchristensen.com/‎ ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFO-GYlg9VE‎

'CHANGE BEFORE YOU HAVE TO' - WHY THE "IN MY DAY" DEFENCE IS A LOSING GAME

A YOUNG PUNK, AND PROUD OF IT!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPCN6fiI1AM

I am young. I am determined. And sometimes those closest to me, and older than me, think I am making the wrong decisions. Follow the route we followed to stability and you'll be employed, relatively safe, can have a mortgage, choose someone who is an OK life partner. In other words, follow the herd. I love learning from wiser, smarter, older people. But sometimes, I want to tell some well-meaning folk, thanks, your advice stinks! Cos if you ain't there for the playoffs, you don't get to win the game...

These people, and it hurts to say this when they are family, even, well they're playing a losing game in our post-industrial, perhaps soon to be post-digital climate.

The game moves on. And the previous game wasn't much fun. In fact, in some ways it was just plain dumb. And the winners are now discovering that.

DON'T BE A DOROTHY DIXER

Our current breed of pseudo-leadership restates what they have heard before and what (more or less) worked before. Except, of course, that standard never led to real outperformance.

Dorothy Dix famously posed questions in Parliament without expecting a considered answer. She just wanted the "right" answer. As the current Australian Parliament indicates, the right answer has been trashed by complete, unequivocal under performance. Did you even bother to watch Swan deliver his Swan song last night????

'Change before you have to'. It's easier that way. BE IN A LEAGUE OF YOUR OWN. Because those who don't field the best players can't justifiably share in the greater portion of the rewards.

(Don't play defence, or sit on the fence). It's a losing game.

In my day, we play offence.

TAKE THE RED PILL - Entering the Matrix Structure

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2013/05/are_you_considering_a_job_with.html

As the above article posits, there are two-sides (as with most debates) regarding matrix report structures in large organisations. For starters, I would point out that organisations are really people. And I am in favour of the matrix - it can speed more complete decision-making. But how do we engage the purely hierarchical naysayers? 

Well, absolute candour. How would that conversation go? 

I think we - being the organisation - should make the following points. Hierarchies have their place as decision points. However, with information so fluid and capital so liquid, the command-and-control model is pretty much gone. (Good riddance!)

Empathy and inter-personal and self-awareness, even "selfishness" in Vijay Govindarajan's sense, is at a premium. 

To rely on command and control is to shortchange your own future. Moreover, things are trending ever faster in that direction. Where the "hierarchy" gets in the way of fluid, cross-directional decision-making and team 'problem-forming' we will have to replace the line with younger, faster decision makers. But it all comes down to Awareness. 

Inspiring across lines and even geographies will become the new normal. And in order to win or advance, the above skills will not be optional or selective. They are (and will be) paramount. 

With years of experience, don't shortchange your future... 

So do you want to take the red or the blue pill?

SIGN OF THE TIMES - BE THE 1st TO WIN! / And hire me now

http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/nayar/2013/05/listening-to-your-inner-voice.html

We've seen it all before: The pretence, the showmanship, the message, the medium and cold, hard reality. Rhetoric and under delivery. 

DON'T MISS OUT ON THE REAL THING. We are in an Age which is B.S neutral. 

We will Win together, where less talk means more action..

Listen to Your Inner Voice : )$!

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND RENEWABLES: TWO INTERESTING FINANCE SOLUTIONS

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2174650

http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/policies-for-financing-the-energy-transition

Yes, Yes, YES!!!! GETTING TO YES, AND CLOSING THE DEAL - How I would negotiate for an ideal job offer

I have just read a fantastic Stanford University overview for negotiating effective conditions within medical research laboratories: http://med.stanford.edu/careercenter/management/Negotiation_Skills_MA_JMK_2_16_06.pdf

Though I am not an expert in negotiation theory, I do feel there are generic elements to negotiating practical outcomes in life and the workplace. Below, I outline my general feelings regarding my "ideal" job scenario and how that could relate to closing the gap between an employer's wants and my acceptance of an offer of employment.

*I am intrinsically motivated. I want to add value for any mission I believe in, and add value for those around me.

*I love to grapple with new problems. I am not deterred by a challenge, and will more than happily take up extra tasks to reach a complete solution.

*Take me or leave me, to an extent. I take culture seriously and, whereas I may be an unconventional candidate, I will look for exceptional solutions to growth problems, not the nearest approach to hand or necessarily the one in the textbook.

*If you want to innovate, with appropriate guidance, I'm definitely your man and will drive innovation as far as it can go with good people around me.

*I do need mentors and wise-heads around me. I value the experience of those who have "really done it" before. Show me what to learn and I'll learn it.

*I love to share ideas. I'm not a hoarder.

*I love to think about strategy and operational compexity. For me, simplifying corporate systems and market strategies would be thouroughly engrossing. I want to help you find the best way to win.

*Compensation's an issue, but not the substantial core of what I will do for you. I'd request you to submit a fair and honest offer. And then I'm happy to discuss. There should be value on the table for all..

[All for one and one for all?....]


~

Addendum

　
"People think of negotiating power as being determined by resources like wealth, political connections, physical strength,friends, and military might. In fact, the relative power of twoparties depends primarily upon how attractive to each is the option of not reaching agreement."(Getting to Yes, Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In)

"From Style to Effectiveness"

　
Traits of an effective negotiator

•A willingness to prepare

•High (but not unreasonable) expectations

•The patience to listen

•Willingness to consider the other side’s interests

•A commitment to personal integrity'

SIGN LANGUAGE

I WOULD CERTAINLY ENJOY THIS ROLE, BUT HERE'S WHAT I'D ADD....

http://mycareer.com.au/jobs/melbourne-cbd-3000-vic/financial-services/other-financial-services/8851103-executive-assistant.aspx

As an administrative and communications role, this Hays-listed job would be ideal for learning the ropes alongside senior management. But, as a real communications outlet, I would put aside the diary to make the following point to senior leaders:

You need to understand people are hurting out there. 27% unemployment in Spain is not only unacceptable, it's dangerous. We may not have experienced our Reichstag moment, but that sort of figure portends very dark times ahead if our leaders do not take note. With the benefit of hindsight, there are absolutely no excuses for a re-run of past miseries. Inaction is absolutely inexcusable.

Put people back to work. And figure out a way to be sustainable. History, we should know, does not discriminate in our favour. We have to get the game back on track, before it runs entirely off the tracks with all the destruction - of social and human capital, and human potential - that comprehends.

And no PR can massage that message -

This time around, there are no excuses...

"IT DOES NOT MATTER IF A CAT IS BLACK OR WHITE, AS LONG AS IT CATCHES MICE" - Deng Xiaoping

CATS R COOL ~ STOP KILLING YOUR CATS!

"I am the bad conscience of my Age" - Nietzsche

"Quid est Veritas?" - Pontius Pilate

~~~

A great post in Forbes leadership column on curiosity, a fine trait in any creature: http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickhanlon/2013/05/06/curiosity-didnt-kill-the-cat-it-created-the-mousetrap/ But getting down to hard tacks, do companies in Australia (and elsewhere) reward this, honestly? Don't make me laugh a wry laugh! - And what can we do about that??

In countless companies, I've come across the same old bullshit to do with curious thinking and trying new things. I AGREE, but it doesn't happen. Not only that, curiosity in young reports can often be a career killer.

Where we have institutionalised safe-play, we get close to the vest behaviour, inertia and, well, stupidity.. Sorry to be cruel - (I hope to be kind as well).

Sure, innovative people can move to another company, and the same tired old chase ensues. To echo Samuel Beckett's Ham in Endgame, 'Nothing doing'.. Meanwhile, we cultivate wilting plants not a luxurious arborium.

Innovation is more than a mantra: it's a discipline. That may sound counterintuitive, yet Goethe could tell you great new thought requires a committment to thinking aloud and thinking anew.

Quid custodiet? Who will guard the guardians? If your direct superiors talk the talk but fail to walk the walk and crush innovative thought, will you hold them accountable? No really, bullshit aside?!

Do you want people who play the game, or do you want to field a team that WINS THE GAME? That, dear sirs/madams, is the question.....

HOW DO WE CREATE HOPE????

A RADICAL HUMANITY: WHY EXTERNAL CHANGE MUST BE INTERNALISED, AND EMPOWERING OTHERS. (AGREE???)

Human beings, countless neurobiological and sociological studies tell us, are generally resistant to change. Early in this millenium, humanity has already experienced astonishing change, and perhaps, it seems, too much. How to change or not to change, is that the question? Here are some thoughts..

Social change is real. Many of our institutions do not admit so much, or more likely are disinclined to admit that change is happening in spite of expostulation or dedication to old nostrums and dogma. Our overall educational and social structure, from the Courts to the schools and Universities, appear to lag the leading indicators of economic and political change elsewhere in Asia and the Middle East. How, therefore, do we preserve the best of our social structures and thought structures while engaging this radical new humanity on our doorstep? How do we handle or (dismantle) entrenched interests or incentives which preclude necessary adaptation to a fast-flowing world of ideas and events?

To be an agent for change will mean empowering others. Too many of our current fiscal and structural deficiencies, it seems to me, are products of 'wrong thinking': Even good intentions have been lost in the maelstrom of process, disjointed language, Machiavellian dishonesty and efficient thinking which is increasingly deficient as an explanatory paradigm for the new social world. By empowering others, not 'pathologising' or managing for outcomes, we liberate peoples' best selves ~ the 'better angels of our nature'.

What happened to honesty in discussion and debate? We have to be candid. To "be" in any lasting social dimension, people need to be honest about what has worked for - and within - our societies and what has not, and ask why? Has self-regulation been a panacea, is our parliamentary system sufficiently current to be representative of the populace, what is the optimal project for a multicultural community, does 'optimality' ultimately exist, do our leaders and authority-figures mean what they say, and does what they say contain actual value in the face of problems their constituents are facing? (Is constituency, by its logical identity, far too impersonal?)

How do we renegotiate our concept of work and society? In terms of a 'radical humanity', that is, going to the root or substance of the social contract, are our substantialist definitions of a career - for example, a doctor, lawyer, marketer and teacher - fully consistent with the change we see? The majority of workers, we hear, will transition several careers over the course of their "productive life" and productivity will continue into older age. Sartre, in his autobiography Words, for instance, understood the concept of work as responsibility-to-self for a committed projection of useful existence. (Today I may work as a firefighter, but that does not exhaust my potential output). After all, neg-otiare, as mediators and classicists know, stems from the root "leisure", meaning "not-at-leisure". Change will not be optional, if our societies are to prosper. So what does that mean?

How do we encourage - literally, instil confidence in leaders and followers, groups and counter-groups - a sense of responsibility toward others beyond the immediate self and family? And how do we preserve the value of family, a value which is enshrined in the Irish Constitution? When is change too much, or more felicitously put, counter-productive? What serves as our "conservatising influence", our institutional and structural steel or ballast to borrow from Sir Owen Dixon, in a world characterised by internationalisation and transnational law and sovereignty, transnational crime and trade, and evolving capital markets and cross-cultural fertilisation?

I don't have any answers. But, together, can we at least pose some questions? Over 2 U...

HOW BAD DO YOU WANT TO? INNOVATION AND THE POWER OF PUSH-BACK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UokTE-njLRA

Innovation is THE buzzword par excellence, for the 21stC. But how bad do businesses and organisations want to 'do' innovation. At the University of Melbourne, my undergrad philosophy handbook distinguished between the academic value of having a personal philosophy and doing philosophy.

The same, I submit, holds for innovation. Innovation is not primarily a marketing excercise or a "brand promise", though those are certainly valid constituents. Innovation is delivering on that promise, adding real value through original thinking, production or design. (An imprecise definition, but a working one nonetheless).

Which necessitates the power of push-back. In short, the inner compulsion for an organisation to empower those who deal, mediately or intermediately, with a group of people to disrupt - and possibly destroy - existing practice for an intangible, prospective goal. As with blue-ocean thinking, innovation contains the potential for people to realise something radically better, or radically new. 

And that means getting on some peoples' nerves: straining their budgets, perhaps, calling on additional, numerically unwarranted resources, tearing down existing thinking or functional specialities or siloes and questioning expert and tried-and-true thinking. Innovation involves enormous push-back.

Is your organisation ready for that discontinuous leap? Or does "innovation" stand outside your organisation's wider chain of causation, a pretty promise??????