http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_h4hX7Uiyc
Tuesday 30 April 2013
NEIL-ISM OR NIHILISM? +/- A POST-EXISTENTIAL RAVE
The last century bred existentialism, totalitarianism and corporatism. Nihilism pervaded. Emotion was futile, politics was all, divorce and breakdown were rife. From Stalin to Sartre, cycnicism thrived. And humanity was a lost project..
And I'm sick of "it". Sick of devaluing human aspiration and human interiority. Even my parents, God love 'em, tried far too hard to protect me: from failure, from emotional bondage, psychological turmoil in work, school and relationships. Over my short life, I've heard every species of caution and fear: 'This subject isn't for you'; 'You should study X'; 'You need this job'; 'That's the way of things'; 'You have to play the game'; 'Forget that girl. There are other fish in the sea'.
Well, F***& "IT"! We could have other plans.
So I want to take a stand, for others' sake as well as my own. My own sake doesn't seem to matter in isolation any longer. I urge you to follow your dreams. I encourage you to put it all on the line. Near enough is not good enough, was never any definition of 'Good'. I hope you fight for what and whom you believe in. Don't give in to solipsism, darkness, madness, escape.
Life, Love and Liberty. You and I can stand for them all.....
And I'm sick of "it". Sick of devaluing human aspiration and human interiority. Even my parents, God love 'em, tried far too hard to protect me: from failure, from emotional bondage, psychological turmoil in work, school and relationships. Over my short life, I've heard every species of caution and fear: 'This subject isn't for you'; 'You should study X'; 'You need this job'; 'That's the way of things'; 'You have to play the game'; 'Forget that girl. There are other fish in the sea'.
Well, F***& "IT"! We could have other plans.
So I want to take a stand, for others' sake as well as my own. My own sake doesn't seem to matter in isolation any longer. I urge you to follow your dreams. I encourage you to put it all on the line. Near enough is not good enough, was never any definition of 'Good'. I hope you fight for what and whom you believe in. Don't give in to solipsism, darkness, madness, escape.
Life, Love and Liberty. You and I can stand for them all.....
Monday 29 April 2013
WHAT'S THE POINT??? INSIDE AND OUT-SIDE DEPRESSION
[Dedicated to my mother, father, brother and that girl who knows I really love her]
Since I have been on anti-depressants for many years, I finally arranged with my mother to see a psychiatrist regarding appropriate dosage. I won't go into the details of that confidential relationship and the matter discussed. Forced, however, to confront my thinking, I feel compelled to revisit the "consequences" of my past. For me, my depression started to seem like a logical response to an existential problem in an illogical mode. I have faced what made me 'sick' about our human sickness, and now I hope to trace our steps to wellness.
Deryck Cooke wrote that Mahler confronted the 'Spirit of Denial'. In my past, depression was my response to society's lack of faith in the power of human faith. Remember, Margaret Thatcher declared 'society does not exist'. That worm gnaws at the heart. And it gnawed at my mind, everyday - for many years..
~ I don't necessarily mean religious faith: I mean the faith that dreams are attainable; that human, romantic love, though unseen by others, IS real; that justice, truth and beauty are eternal and must never be compromised by politics or ego; that justice IS NOT for sale; that lies, duplicity and moral relativity are chancres on the soul, not clever stratagems for success; that there is life beyond the individual, indeed that life is possible no other way; that bloodshed, vengeance and hatred destroy our collective body within and others without; that one has to stand up for one's beliefs and one's joys in the face of tragedy and cynicism. That, to speak in generalities, is sometimes the road to truth.
But maybe I do not know whereof I speak... Do we?
Thursday 25 April 2013
Monday 22 April 2013
A BROKEN MODEL WILL ENCOURAGE SOME TO GO FOR BROKE
http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemyatt/2013/03/28/the-most-common-leadership-model-and-why-its-broken/
Mike Myatt's article above is a telling indictment of competency-based leadership. I will not rehash Myatt's thoughtful argument - you can read the piece. However, I would go one step further than him.
Not only will competency-enthralled organisations struggle to innovate, these structures almost invite existential competition from more savvy operators. Simply put, the world today almost demands that this shadow projection of real leadership be destroyed by more effective models.
THE GUERRILLA COMPARISON
From the guerillas of the Peninsular War and Garibaldi's Republic to the Zapatistas of Chiapas, broken social and organisational structures attract competitors without revealing the strength to repel these threats to their modus operandi.
The organisations that survive - in order to thrive - will not adopt ineffective counter-insurgency responses to external competition. Instead, they will increasingly adopt those very insurgent tactics by aligning organisational mission and behaviour with a 'soft', fluid structure. (An allegory for 'biomimicry'). Although hierarchy is still essential, leaders will strive to encourage mobile thought in their reports while constantly responding to external stimuli. This imposes a premium on intution, tenacity and humility in becoming an agent for change rather than reacting to threats.
To use a portmanteau, leaders will relegate technical competence to 'table stakes' in the deliberate attempt to en-courage their team. Soft skills and creative committment is the REAL GAME.
A BLUEPRINT FOR EN-COURAGEMENT
* Hire the best: people who can be flexible and don't get hung up on process. They are inquisitive about processes not procedure.
* REWARD the RIGHT behaviours. Kissing up and kicking down is not only unfair. It's dumb! If you're leading correctly, these people shouldn't be there in the first place. Incidentally, all levels of the organisation should be attuned to 'two-faced' behaviour. Teams can monitor their leaders and leaders must learn when to follow. The higher the rank, the harder the fall if leaders abuse that trust.
* Study strategy and strategic thinking at every level. Of course, large organisations must make allowance for different aptitudes and engagement levels, but again, with the right people, strategy can have an impact throughout the field. Cover the field.
As a corollary, leaders will make it a precondition of assuming higher responsibility that reports are aware - situationally, personally, culturally - about strategy and its impact upon bottom-line results. The mission matters. Just because you knock it out of the ballpark in a specific task doesn't ultimately tell us much.
Curiosity and candour. (Goes without saying).
Move fast and have fun!
Monday 15 April 2013
AN END TO VIOLENCE?
After the horrific events in Boston, strangely enough my mind wandered to last night's news: another car bombing in Kirkuk, Northern Iraq. The Marxist historian, Eric Hobsbawm who recently passed away described the last century as the most violent in human history. Conceptually, can we put an end to violence as a weapon of propaganda and vengeance?
Many celebrated authors from a diversity of professions have tackled the intellectual problem. Lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson QC examined Crimes against Humanity, Niall Ferguson, an economic historian the rise of 'ethnocide' and Professor Noam Chomsky, of course, has for years demanufactured consent to government violence as a whole, in the Eastern and Western world.
On our television, twitter, radio and tablet screens presently, we hear about North Korea, Falun Gong persecution in China, separatists in Syria (including Australian nationals), insurgency and counter-insurgency in Mali and North Africa and the flow of refugees and internally displaced persons from Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Afghanistan. Together with Margaret Thatcher's legacy, we confront ever-present tension surrounding the Falklands conflict and the 'threat' of independence. And my father himself hails from Derry or County Londonderry, having marched in the Civil Rights march on infamous Bloody Sunday.
How can we face this effluxion of devastated humanity?
I think it starts with recognition: of the fact that the previous centuries' countless humiliations, struggles and failed and unplanned demarcations are still with us. each and every one of us. In a globalised world, 'Al Qaeda' - according to Jason Burke, a nonsensical and convenient reification proper noun meaning in Arabic the 'Base' - has invaded our collective imagination. What the concept of terrorism has done, however, is to replace the real political desiderata of peace and war with an amorphous threat. Syria, for example, is as much a product of decolonisation, the Lebanese Civil and Iran-Iraq Wars as much as any Salafist fifth column.
Yesterday, the Soviets, the Velvet Revolution - today, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. If one looks at the history of Mali, Somalia and Mauretania, we see governments papering over age-long conflicts which accelerated during the twentieth century.
IN CONTEXT, VIOLENCE DOES NOT REMAIN IN THE PAST. IT IS NOT 'OUT THERE'. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN HERE. WE ARE VIOLENCE, AND YET WE ARE THE SOLUTION.
Let's start facing that problem..
Many celebrated authors from a diversity of professions have tackled the intellectual problem. Lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson QC examined Crimes against Humanity, Niall Ferguson, an economic historian the rise of 'ethnocide' and Professor Noam Chomsky, of course, has for years demanufactured consent to government violence as a whole, in the Eastern and Western world.
On our television, twitter, radio and tablet screens presently, we hear about North Korea, Falun Gong persecution in China, separatists in Syria (including Australian nationals), insurgency and counter-insurgency in Mali and North Africa and the flow of refugees and internally displaced persons from Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Afghanistan. Together with Margaret Thatcher's legacy, we confront ever-present tension surrounding the Falklands conflict and the 'threat' of independence. And my father himself hails from Derry or County Londonderry, having marched in the Civil Rights march on infamous Bloody Sunday.
How can we face this effluxion of devastated humanity?
I think it starts with recognition: of the fact that the previous centuries' countless humiliations, struggles and failed and unplanned demarcations are still with us. each and every one of us. In a globalised world, 'Al Qaeda' - according to Jason Burke, a nonsensical and convenient reification proper noun meaning in Arabic the 'Base' - has invaded our collective imagination. What the concept of terrorism has done, however, is to replace the real political desiderata of peace and war with an amorphous threat. Syria, for example, is as much a product of decolonisation, the Lebanese Civil and Iran-Iraq Wars as much as any Salafist fifth column.
Yesterday, the Soviets, the Velvet Revolution - today, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. If one looks at the history of Mali, Somalia and Mauretania, we see governments papering over age-long conflicts which accelerated during the twentieth century.
IN CONTEXT, VIOLENCE DOES NOT REMAIN IN THE PAST. IT IS NOT 'OUT THERE'. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN HERE. WE ARE VIOLENCE, AND YET WE ARE THE SOLUTION.
Let's start facing that problem..
Saturday 13 April 2013
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=6CpQie8ks4c&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6CpQie8ks4c
'Lay beside me, tell me what they've done
Speak the words I wanna hear, to make my demons run
The door is locked now, but it's open if you're true
If you can understand the me, than I can understand the you
Lay beside me, under wicked sky
The black of day, dark of night, we share this paralyze
The door cracks open, but there's no sun shining through
Black heart scarring darker still, but there's no sun shining through
No, there's no sun shining through
No, there's no sun shining...
What I've felt, what I've known
Turn the pages, turn the stone
Behind the door, should I open it for you....
What I've felt, what I've known
Sick and tired, I stand alone
Could you be there, 'cause I'm the one who waits for you
Or are you unforgiven too?
Lay beside me, this won't hurt I swear
She loves me not, she loves me still, but she'll never love again
She lay beside me, But she'll be there when I'm gone
Black heart scarring darker still, yes she'll be there when I'm gone
Yes, she'll be there when I'm gone
Dead sure she'll be there...
What I've felt, what I've known
Turn the pages, turn the stone
Behind the door, should I open it for you....
What I've felt, what I've known
Sick and tired, I stand alone
Could you be there, 'cause I'm the one who waits for you
Or are you unforgiven too?
Lay beside me, tell me what I've done
The door is closed, so are you're eyes
But now I see the sun, now I see the sun
Yes now I see it
What I've felt, what I've known
Turn the pages, turn the stone
Behind the door, should I open it for you....
What I've felt, what I've known
Sick and tired, I stand alone
Could you be there, 'cause I'm the one who waits,
The one who waits for you....
Oh what I've felt, what I've known
Turn the pages, turn the stone
Behind the door, should I open it for you.... (So I dub thee unforgiven....)
Oh, what I've felt....
Oh, what I've known....
I take this key (never free...)
And I bury it (never me...) in you
Because you're unforgiven too....
Never free....
Never me....
'Cause you're unforgiven too....
Oh
Thursday 11 April 2013
WITHOUT CANDOUR AND CAN-DO, AUSTRALIA CAN'T DO ANYTHING ~ An unnecessary employment crisis looming?
"The expression "Learning to see" comes from an ever developing ability to see waste where it was not perceived before".
"It is only by capitalizing on employees' creativity that organizations can eliminate the other seven wastes and continuously improve their performance."
'The team that fields the best players wins': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rByDmC0SqtM
'Stop hanging out with the guy with green eye-shades'
According to ABC News, the Australian and the Herald Sun, unemployment hit 5.6%, the highest rate in three years of data. [http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/breaking-news/aust-jobless-rate-56-in-march/story-e6frg90f-1226618102828] Only recently, I remember, Wayne Swan assured Australians that we had outrun the global financial crisis and were the envy of the world.
Yes, I acknowledge that the IMF released a strong forecast for Australia. (I also remember how the IMF nearly destroyed Indonesia. As per the Ratings Agencies, what they say should be taken cum granis saltis - another story altogether. Though to be fair, the IMF does important work).
But how much, in light of these latest figures, must be put down to luck, pure and simple luck??
Saul Eslake, chief economist at Merrill Lynch - and well known to Australian business - clearly stated, pace Swan that Australia is not running nearly fast enough. According to Eslake and the Australian,
' The economy is still creating jobs but not quickly enough to keep up with population growth.
And if the unemployment rate continues to rise, Mr Eslake believes further rate cuts will be back on the agenda as early as June.
"If this trend continues, and I expect it will, it will materially add to the case for further rate cuts," he said'.
ACCI chief ecnomist, Greg Evans also lamented the lack of real economic growth: "We are concerned the mainstream economy may not be growing sufficiently to keep a lid on an unemployment rate which is trending higher."
For me, these figures and statements collectively suggest the lack of prudence and candour demonstrated by Australian political leaders. Indeed, it is very hard to discover any "leaders" throughout this Parliament since every comment becomes a make-weight for partisanship, belligerence and, it would appear, outright duplicity. Moreover, we invest very little in critical infrastructure to facilitate urban and rural links and manufacturing growth: cf the high-speed rail and NBN debates.
Putting aside allegations of mala fides, however, I return to my broad view on the unnecessary exclusion of youth, women returning from maternity leave and students from workforce participation. In place of focussing upon rate cuts, RBA minutes and impersonal metrics, perhaps it is time for Australian government and business to focus disproportianately upon skills development, workforce training and diversity programmes to encourage under-utilised talent.
If we are ever to produce the likes of Apple, GE or Goldman Sachs, we have to place employee development and talent management above mere data-crunching and political sophistry. And the Opposition certainly does not help crowing about debt which doesn't exist: Labor have wasted money but that is the least of our worries. Abbot does need to understand Economics 101. Candour entails complete honesty and critical judgment in devising and implementing national policy.
AN EXAMPLE FROM LEAN MANUFACTURING
In line with Toyota's Production Model and the precepts of lean, Wikipedia indicates that the eighth muda - waste, or inefficiency is the under-utilisation of talent. It feels, sometimes, like our country specialises in this sin: and this sin, economically, is mortal, not venial. On the misuse or underuse of latent talent, and the other seven muda refer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_(Japanese_term)
I hope to goodness we will not be reading the same style of articles in three years time :(
In good news, the stock market is up! :)
- S&P/ASX 200
- 39.10
- 5,007
- +0.79%
We have so much going for us guys, for God's sake do something with it!
PS. Focus on the mid-market...
Tuesday 9 April 2013
TAKE A CHANCE: MOST OF US SAY IT, DO MANY 'DO' IT?
*The easiest way to climb a mountain is to climb it
Edge='Yes or no, and not maybe'
-----
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ronashkenas/2013/04/08/for-career-decisions-maximize-risks-instead-of-managing-them/
Just read another outstanding contribution from Ron Ashkenas regarding career development - which means YOUR own career progression. In brief, Ron exhorts people to maximise career risk by drawing the appropriate distinction between career opportunity and the art of risk management.
In some respects, I would say that career development is itself (partly) a case of risk assessment, transfer and mitigation. Frequently, we reevaluate our current role and at least dream of something bigger or more substantial than where we're at. Now and again, we throw in the towel or reassess our balance and our current options. Overwhelmingly, however, I agree with Ron's thesis.
GUESS WHAT, THE WORLD IS RISKY!
If the GFC has taught me anything - apart from the fact it's serious; I mean, c'mon it's got its own acronym - the crisis taught me many high-level people could not handle risk. And that includes the opportunity on the downside: for example, the opportunity to design new systems and to make and support cheap, accretive acquisitions. Reckless gambling and the Gambler's Dilemma aside, the old Chinese adage still says it: in danger there is opportunity.
A PORTFOLIO-EYE VIEW OF 'RISKY' CAREER MOVES
Personally, I think about career risk in line with Buffet and Soros' approach to financial risk and reward. Whereas their investment philosophies differ greatly, these hedge fund titans acknowledge positive risk as reward. Within due bounds, leverage can enlarge return as well as magnify loss. Smart hedge-fund managers, nevertheless, never gamble. Although they cannot guarantee financial loss, they learn from every deal, every transaction. And they take a shot. (Consider Buffet's recent purchase of out-of-favour paper media assets).
In terms of career progression, I think Ron points to the pragmatic truth: those who can deal with risk (because they have embraced it) are more capable of handling opportunities to create mutual benefit and societal reward. If you never fell off a bicycle or a trapeze, you'd never become a Tour de France cyclist or a Cirque de Soleil high-top performer.
Sometimes, I'm saying together with Ron Ashkenas, George Soros and Warren Buffet, you have to fail smart. But that means you fail - or succeed - forward...
Edge='Yes or no, and not maybe'
-----
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ronashkenas/2013/04/08/for-career-decisions-maximize-risks-instead-of-managing-them/
Just read another outstanding contribution from Ron Ashkenas regarding career development - which means YOUR own career progression. In brief, Ron exhorts people to maximise career risk by drawing the appropriate distinction between career opportunity and the art of risk management.
In some respects, I would say that career development is itself (partly) a case of risk assessment, transfer and mitigation. Frequently, we reevaluate our current role and at least dream of something bigger or more substantial than where we're at. Now and again, we throw in the towel or reassess our balance and our current options. Overwhelmingly, however, I agree with Ron's thesis.
GUESS WHAT, THE WORLD IS RISKY!
If the GFC has taught me anything - apart from the fact it's serious; I mean, c'mon it's got its own acronym - the crisis taught me many high-level people could not handle risk. And that includes the opportunity on the downside: for example, the opportunity to design new systems and to make and support cheap, accretive acquisitions. Reckless gambling and the Gambler's Dilemma aside, the old Chinese adage still says it: in danger there is opportunity.
A PORTFOLIO-EYE VIEW OF 'RISKY' CAREER MOVES
Personally, I think about career risk in line with Buffet and Soros' approach to financial risk and reward. Whereas their investment philosophies differ greatly, these hedge fund titans acknowledge positive risk as reward. Within due bounds, leverage can enlarge return as well as magnify loss. Smart hedge-fund managers, nevertheless, never gamble. Although they cannot guarantee financial loss, they learn from every deal, every transaction. And they take a shot. (Consider Buffet's recent purchase of out-of-favour paper media assets).
In terms of career progression, I think Ron points to the pragmatic truth: those who can deal with risk (because they have embraced it) are more capable of handling opportunities to create mutual benefit and societal reward. If you never fell off a bicycle or a trapeze, you'd never become a Tour de France cyclist or a Cirque de Soleil high-top performer.
Sometimes, I'm saying together with Ron Ashkenas, George Soros and Warren Buffet, you have to fail smart. But that means you fail - or succeed - forward...
YOUR SYMPHONY YET TO BE WRITTEN ~*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oA0kXDMKiLg
http://www.creativitypost.com/psychology/from_chess_to_dreams_interview_on_the_creative_writing_process_with_fred_wa
Rachmaninov, Symphony No 2, Berlin Phil and Lorin Maazel
Monday 8 April 2013
Sunday 7 April 2013
A JOB'S A JOB, RIGHT? "No WAY, are you kidding?!"
I know this is something recent graduates, struggling freelancers and employers may find hard to stomach, or comprehend. But "a job's a job" is not OK. Not for me, anyway: How about you?
----
With unemployment hitting 12% across the eurozone, and Spain in particular sitting at close to 50% youth unemployment, the majority of job seekers are prepared to accept anything - ANYTHING - and anyone to earn desperately needed income. On that level, I sincerely understand..
On another level, I think there is no worse mentality: and this is a mentality which bespeaks the terrible turmoil within the European market. (Even if Europe is slowly recovering)..
To my thinking - and I admit I don't have a mortgage, I live at home and have few expenses - accepting any job without making room for personal development is a step backwards. If a job can't "turn your crank", you will eat of course (just about) for the next few months, but you will starve spiritually, socially and culturally. There is nothing worse, in my opinion, than clocking-in and clocking-out to an uninspired series of decoupled and draining tasks.
------
THE 'FUTURE' OF WORK(?)
Keynes adumbrated in 'Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren' http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf one alternative possible future: there would be little work to do, and consequently our grandchildren (or great-grandchildren, perhaps) would seek healthy substitutes for old-fashioned labour. I could not disagree more.
Labour - or better, creativity - gives meaning to life. As a constant source of physical, financial and intellectual nourishment, together with family and fun, it is close to an isomorph for life itself. So why do we surrender to the 'Dark Satanic Mills'?
Last evening, BBC Business hosted a thought-piece regarding the Productivity Paradox. (Here is a link to Robert Solow's take on the concept as it applies to the information revolution and computer and ecnonomic science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox). Peter Day focussed upon imminent trade-offs in productivity and robotic automation and the posited distinction between manufacturing industry and services in relation to skilled and unskilled employment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p016tmg8/Global_Business_Productivity_Puzzle/.
Peter Day discovered that the interrelations between manual labour, low-value tasking and advanced tooling and robotic/computer assistance are becoming blurred. A new instance, it seems, of industrial fuzzy logic. By the same process of consolidation, jobs are not so much being eliminated as re-designed for improved efficiency and value-add. Within this developing cycle, businesses are poised to unleash a new wave of productivity with more meaningful and flexible jobs in both the manufacturing and service sectors.
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?
What I am saying is the quality of your work, and the processes and paths you choose to follow, matter exceedingly to your own wellbeing. By accepting the nearest to hand - in tools, in income opportunity - one may be writing one's value down in a highly collaborative environment which rewards super-smart workers. Just as capital cannot grow without constant feeding and nourishment, our intellectual and eudaimonic capital cannot enlarge without spiritual and intellectual nutrition.
So, don't take the first job to hand....
----
With unemployment hitting 12% across the eurozone, and Spain in particular sitting at close to 50% youth unemployment, the majority of job seekers are prepared to accept anything - ANYTHING - and anyone to earn desperately needed income. On that level, I sincerely understand..
On another level, I think there is no worse mentality: and this is a mentality which bespeaks the terrible turmoil within the European market. (Even if Europe is slowly recovering)..
To my thinking - and I admit I don't have a mortgage, I live at home and have few expenses - accepting any job without making room for personal development is a step backwards. If a job can't "turn your crank", you will eat of course (just about) for the next few months, but you will starve spiritually, socially and culturally. There is nothing worse, in my opinion, than clocking-in and clocking-out to an uninspired series of decoupled and draining tasks.
------
THE 'FUTURE' OF WORK(?)
Keynes adumbrated in 'Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren' http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf one alternative possible future: there would be little work to do, and consequently our grandchildren (or great-grandchildren, perhaps) would seek healthy substitutes for old-fashioned labour. I could not disagree more.
Labour - or better, creativity - gives meaning to life. As a constant source of physical, financial and intellectual nourishment, together with family and fun, it is close to an isomorph for life itself. So why do we surrender to the 'Dark Satanic Mills'?
Last evening, BBC Business hosted a thought-piece regarding the Productivity Paradox. (Here is a link to Robert Solow's take on the concept as it applies to the information revolution and computer and ecnonomic science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Productivity_paradox). Peter Day focussed upon imminent trade-offs in productivity and robotic automation and the posited distinction between manufacturing industry and services in relation to skilled and unskilled employment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p016tmg8/Global_Business_Productivity_Puzzle/.
Peter Day discovered that the interrelations between manual labour, low-value tasking and advanced tooling and robotic/computer assistance are becoming blurred. A new instance, it seems, of industrial fuzzy logic. By the same process of consolidation, jobs are not so much being eliminated as re-designed for improved efficiency and value-add. Within this developing cycle, businesses are poised to unleash a new wave of productivity with more meaningful and flexible jobs in both the manufacturing and service sectors.
WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?
What I am saying is the quality of your work, and the processes and paths you choose to follow, matter exceedingly to your own wellbeing. By accepting the nearest to hand - in tools, in income opportunity - one may be writing one's value down in a highly collaborative environment which rewards super-smart workers. Just as capital cannot grow without constant feeding and nourishment, our intellectual and eudaimonic capital cannot enlarge without spiritual and intellectual nutrition.
So, don't take the first job to hand....
Thursday 4 April 2013
AS A RECRUITER/EMPLOYER, ASK YOURSELF HONESTLY: DO YOU REALLY GET "IT"?
In 'Why I Like People with Unconventional Resumés', Claudio Fernández-Aráoz extols the virtue of unconventional candidates and their ability to self-disrupt. I applaud HBR and Claudio's sophisticated understanding and conviction..
(http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/07/why_i_like_people_with_unconve.html)
I am sorry to say I do not see this attitude, in spite of agonised lip-service, truly present in the marketplace as a whole.
When employers and recruiters post job ads and respond to applications, do they honestly "walk the walk" when it comes to onboarding innovative thinkers and those with capacity to execute on large-scale or skunk work projects?
In short, DO 'THEY' REALLY WANT TO WIN? Or are they among the Kodaks, who talk the talk, but end up in administration?
Do employers and the employees they accept belong to the future or the rapidly-receding past??
___
As organisations change - as they must to survive, let alone thrive - I believe employers will be forced to become more creative with respect to role description and the concept of boundaryless behaviour..
For example, the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world are frequently discarded from ordinary, 'standard' college-to-entry level-to management pathways due to their entrpreunerial bent. They are applauded en masse once they succeed, yet are disfavoured by the powers-that-be. The potential Steve Jobs's and Bill Gates's are killed at the outset by cookie-cutter programmed recruiting and marketing..
In the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche - who admittedly had a tenuous hold on sanity, a fact I will not deny - explains that, in the transvaluation of all values which accompanies change, the not-so-fast fall under the waves. Indeed, Nietzsche parodically incites those trapped in old habits voluntarily to go under in order to make way for stronger, fecund beings. I am not certainly not advocating 'Supermen' or Gattaca-sequestration of a rising master class. We live in a democracy, and that is a good thing.
Nevertheless, custom and convention, and our reaction, 're-activity' thereto will ultimately determine our collective and individual futures.
Hence:
WHO ARE YOUR VALUE-CREATORS?
If you are unsure, can you find them???
Do you discount the slightly eccentric project team for your regular operating rhythm: sure, you'll make headway with that new business but corporate needs the funds just at the moment?
Do you overlook the younger girl who outperforms far beyond her role for the tried and true medium-range organisational stalwart? Do you exclude the Zen-meditative hippy caligrapher to make way for the new MBA with all the right credentials and references? (That's not to say you don't have brilliant, tested MBAs).
Do you innovate, or reference innovation in your mission statement?
When does tried and true become 'tired and blue'?
Perhaps these are in terrorem hypotheticals.. Perhaps. But maybe employers, organisations and civil society need to start thinking differently about where we are headed and who will get us there.
In the process, we will need to be inclusive and diverse in our hiring and training practices to build (without Nietzschean baggage) cooperative, imaginative Superwomen and men who will deliver the growth society so desperately seeks.
After all, I'm not ready for another corporate bailout. Are you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)