Corporations win... again!

Below is the text of an email I sent in response to something my sister forwarded.

---

I reply to all for a reason: it is all true (here's the Snopes version: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/restock.asp), and we should do something about it, more than pass along emails.

This is what we get for getting Congress to repeal all of those consumer protection laws passed in the 1960s and 1970s. Starting with Newt Gingrich and company in 1993, we vote for this... and lose because of it. Our country is no longer about its people, unless by "people" you mean corporations (thanks, Supreme Court 1886, Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad, close to the dumbest decision the Court has ever handed down). It's almost enough to make me a conspiracy theorist... because the railroads (look up "robber barons") won that case. To his credit, Hugo Black noted (in a dissent to the 1938 case of Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson) the 14th amendment was not intended to benefit corporations but to protect "weak and helpless human beings... The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations (citation here)."

Now you know why I'm so upset with the recent elections; the American people are (mostly) short-sighted, ignorant, and mind-numbed and listen to sound bites instead of doing their own research. The worst news: both parties fall for this garbage. So I don't encourage you to vote Democratic, Republican, or anything else; just please, please do some research next election... better yet, write your Congresspeople and complain! Stand up for your right not to get screwed in the name of more profits for corporations!

David Stockman, it does not trickle down... unless your analogy is bathroom-related (possibly what Will Rogers meant when he coined that phrase). By the way, Democrats voted for that garbage (tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy), not Republicans... proving my point both parties are equally corrupted.

Remember, "A person is intelligent; people are dumb, panicky animals." - Agent K, Men in Black.

Sorry for the rant, but as Howard Beale said in "Network", "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it any more!"

Evolution and science education under attack... again

Many political news items don’t excite me much, but the article “Riding High on the Right” did. To think people like Bob Reid and Tom Scott could be responsible for creating laws for this country scares the heck out of me. Take the example in the article of Reid’s tirade against the teaching of evolution in public schools.

There is a distinct difference between creationism and evolution. An evolutionist states, “Living things change over time.” A creationist states, “God created all things, which exist unchanged over time.” Things certainly change over time. We do it intentionally (look at dogs, cattle, or roses) and unintentionally (infections becoming resistant to antibiotics, insects becoming resistant to pesticides). Of course, the creationist says we’re merely interfering with God’s plan; that may be true, but God doesn't tell us his plan.

The process of finding an answer is at least as important (if not more important) than the answer itself. It’s really the how we find an answer that is what should concern school systems.

Remember, the purpose of a school is both about teaching facts and teaching children how to learn on their own. Science is only one way of doing that. The “scientific method” lets us ask questions and lets us set up tests to see if our answers really work. The philosophy of science allows us to drop our beliefs and be able to treat any question objectively. We are then free to answer questions without having to invoke a higher authority. Evolution could be driven by a higher power, but doesn’t require it. Evolution can be tested (and even proven wrong).

Creationism, on the other hand, requires a higher power. Since there is no test for God, how is the Creation of Genesis testable? You either believe it or you don’t. Therefore, it cannot be a science, since science requires assumptions to be testable.

In addition, creationism requires a specific higher power. If you’re a Hindu, a believer in Osiris, or an aborigine, creationism means nothing. Who’s to say a Christian is right and these others are wrong? Certainly not me; I’m not qualified to do so.

Our constitution grants us the freedom of religious expression. It also grants us the freedom from religious expression. Evolution, free from religious implications, can be taught to anyone, whatever their beliefs. Creationism, since it relies on the Christian religion, should not be required learning for non-Christians. Would you force a Christian to learn about the Aborigine’s dream time? Who can say which is the true creation story?

Public schools (via the separation of church and state) should not teach creationism in a science class. If it is taught (and perhaps it should be), it must be taught in a social studies or philosophy class. Creationism is not science, it is a belief system.

I’m not saying there isn’t a supreme being. I’ve never met one, but that doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist. Perhaps God works through evolution. We’ll probably never know. If you want to believe in the Creation of Genesis, go right ahead. But you have no right to force me to believe in it.

Motivations

Note: this blog entry was a long time developing. I wrote it almost a year ago, publishing it at IBM, but it really belongs here on my personal blog. Some of my Facebook connections, particularly my high school connections, will find this interesting if nothing else.

---

While doing some landscaping I had an interesting and powerful thought. What is motivation? More particularly, where does motivation come from? How does it work? My thought process started with my posting a picture from my high school yearbook on Facebook. Friends from high school commented on it and we had some fun over it.

From that, hours later, I wondered how people who knew me in high school but not now would think of my current state of affairs. I was very immature in high school, a big-time screw-off, and so poorly understood by others I couldn't get a date for our senior prom even after asking more than a dozen classmates, two of my neighbors, and friends of my family's. Partially because of not getting a date for the prom I hated high school and until recently considered it the four worst years of my life.

Before anyone takes offense, I do not now, nor have I ever, blamed anyone other than myself for that. I was immature, perhaps even emotionally messed up, but I wasn't stupid. It took many years of very hard work to overcome some of my limitations and partially overcome others. I made some very good friends in high school, and now look at my past behavior not as a cause of events but merely to assist my understanding of those bad memories.

There were many times earlier in my life where I felt a need to "show them" I wasn't a complete failure. There are two things wrong with that statement. First, I'm not a failure. I may not have succeeded in things some people thought were important; that's their opinion, it should not be mine. Second, I've come to realize "I'll show them!" is not a very good motive. Oh sure, it can be effective, but its costs are very high and the results aren't necessarily worth the cost.

After thinking about that for a while, the idea of successful motivation came to me. I dislike pigeon-holing ideas, and yet I see two forms of motivation: external (do something because someone else thinks it's good) and internal (do something because you think it's good). I invite you to consider that and welcome you to reach your own conclusions. Mine, I think, are instructive.

External motivations usually imply someone other than you is telling you how to manage your life. The cause and/or source of external motivations can change without notice. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is no way of understanding the "why" of external motivations even if they are fully explained to you. Think about all of that for a moment, and then continue reading.

----- (pause) -----

Done? OK. Think about my prom story. At first I did not want to go. I was happy with that decision. My mother (with all good intentions) tried to talk me into it ("It's the last time you'll hang out with your high school friends. You'll build some good memories."). My friends also (again with good intentions) tried to get me to go ("Come one, we've got three couples. Ask someone and we can take a whole table.") Over time this wore me down and I started asking for dates.

Did I really want to go and convinced myself I didn't want to because of insecurity? Almost certainly; I still have weird feelings about it, although after 30 years of blocking them out memories of emotions are fuzzy. The person I really wanted to take was someone whose parents had come to believe I was "trouble." I asked her anyway and, predictably, her mother grabbed the phone and told me never to call again; I never got an answer to my question. So I asked others. Perhaps I asked the wrong people, not the right ones, or a bit of both. Perhaps it was too late, although only a few told me they were already going. Perhaps if I paid more attention to people around me I may have noticed those who liked me despite my immaturity. Whatever the reasons, I went from being reasonably happy to miserable in the space of a week, and stayed miserable until well after graduation. Why? Because my motivation came from outside myself. I tried to do something I didn't want to do to please others.

Fast forward 28 years. I'm laying in a hospital bed, after my first angioplasty to clear a 100% blockage in my heart. The doctor tells me I need another four stents to open up two more 90% blockages the next day. I ask the obvious question: why me? I kept a (reasonably) healthy diet, stayed active, watched all of my risk factors, and still had a heart attack before age 50, becoming the youngest ever in my family history to have a heart attack.

What would you ask after a heart attack at age 46? I asked, "OK, doc, what do I need to do not to have another heart attack?" He told me, and I've followed that prescription since, happily, with no doubts (although I do skip a workout or eat a Sausage McMuffin with Egg® on occasion). Why? What's different about this motivation than the other one? This time, my motivation comes from inside. While fear is some of it, I believe I have value to add to my family and society at large, and living longer gives me more time to do that.

This motivation works because I want this for me and my own goals, not for anyone else's goals. While those goals include being there for my family and friends, among other things, they are not my family's goals or my friends' goals. I chose them; they are what I consider important.

Despite what some may think I am not advocating being selfish; I'm only advocating making your own decisions within your own personal space and belief system.

To summarize, then, my insight was this: the most effective motivator for you, by far, is you. I encourage you to sit down and really think about what you want. Take those goals and make motivators out of them. Succeeding at external motivators is a hollow victory; you "won" for someone else. Win for yourself and others will share your joy.

The Specializing Non-Specialist

Last year my wife Betty came home from a shopping trip complaining of stomach and back pain, nausea, and vomiting. She had no fever, just a general feeling of malaise, and asked me to check out the source of the pain. While doing so I noticed the pain was pretty much everywhere, but worse in her lower right abdomen. I said, “It's probably appendicitis, let's get you in to get checked out.”

Sidebar: appendicitis symptoms usually include somewhat localized pain (she had pain everywhere, just a little worse over the appendix) and fever, but vomiting and back pain are unusual.

When we got to the ER the resident covering for the afternoon came in, read her charts from the nurse's interview, checked her blood work, and examined her. He then asked if she had back pain. When she said she had but not any more, the doctor said, “Hmm, that's unusual, I'd expect some back pain with kidney stones.” He examined her further, more-or-less ignoring her abdomen and hitting her in her lower back (trying to determine if her kidneys hurt). I asked, “I don't know, the pain is over her lower right abdomen, not in the back; why do you think it's kidney stones?” He said, “Your wife doesn't have any signs of appendicitis; nothing at McBurney's point, no fever, white count is normal, and there's no rebound pain. I'm sure it's kidney stones; we'll send you up for a CT scan of your lower half.”

McBurney's point is the specific area where appendicitis pain centers; it's about half-way along an imaginary line between the right hip and the navel.

Rebound pain is the term used when a pain gets worse as pressure to the pain area is released. In other words, the doctor will press on the area and then release; if the pain gets worse upon release, that's rebound pain.

When the results came back the resident came in and said, apologetically, “Well, it was appendicitis. We've scheduled your surgery and you'll be going up in about an hour.”

Why am I telling you this? I'm not making a point about the hospital, doctor, or my wife; I'm making a point about specialists. The ER doctor was a urologist. He thought “kidney stones” because he's trained to see problems with the urinary tract. Specialists often do that; while they catch a lot of things most people would miss, they have an observational bias. People who have a highly specialized knowledge very often cannot break out of that role to see the general picture. They're highly intelligent, but their very specialization causes them to miss the obvious.

I bring this up to make a point. Most departments in most companies place a high value on specialization. They offer certification in various disciplines and pay specialists very well... and who can blame them? Specialists often solve problems the average person in that field cannot. Any DB2 DBA can design a half-decent database; it takes a specialist to make that database behave in the most efficient manner possible. Specialists are valuable in other ways; consider who writes white papers. Everyone working with IMS knows who Rich Lewis and Bill Keene are, and anyone working with DB2 knows the names E. F. Codd and Craig Mullins.

Now I know you're all thinking, “Yeah, yeah, we know this. What's your point?” Remember the doctor in the ER? His expertise caused him to miss a diagnosis I, a non-medical professional, made easily. Nobody in the ER believed me because I wasn't in the medical profession. And no, I didn't get lucky... I know anatomy because I've studied it. I know human morphology; my paleontology background prepares me for that. I also know every person's body is unique; not everyone shows the same symptoms, the same patterns of disease.

My point is simple: the generalist, AKA the “specializing non-specialist,” gets no respect... and yet you need them. They see things specialists miss because the generalist has no biases specific to a given situation. Not everyone's cut out to be a generalist; it takes a very open mind and a wide range of knowledge across many fields of study.

A primary tool of the generalist is systems thinking, also called the Fifth Discipline (as described in the book of the same name by Peter Senge). In effect the systems thinker sees a given thing or event as influencing other things and/or events within an overall system. In short the systems thinker sees each event as an interaction between parts of a whole, and problems as breakdowns within the system.

I'll offer another analogy, this one from baseball. Even people who aren't baseball fans know who David Ortiz or Albert Pujols are; on the other hand, many baseball fans can't tell you what teams Alex Cora or Bill Hall play for. Naturally stars have a big influence on whether a baseball team wins a lot of games or not, yet the “little players,” the utility men, have an important role. Stars cannot play every day without increasing their injury risk or reducing their efficiency (you can't play your best when you're tired). That's where the utility players come in. They can play effectively while the star takes a break, and if one of the regulars goes down with an injury these utility players can replace them for weeks at a time without costing the team. Beyond that, because they can play anywhere the manager can rotate days off for their stars, so at most one star is sitting at any given time. Maybe a team cannot win a pennant with a team of Alex Coras, but a team needs at least one Cora to be a champion. Consider how many World Series MVPs are not regular players; of the non-pitcher World Series MVPs since the award started in 1955, 8 of 30 (about 27%) of them were not regular players for their teams and, if I named them, most of you would not recognize most of the names. Expand that to include non-World Series playoff games and the percentage of "unknowns" winning MVPS is higher.

And for those who think I'm only looking at fringe backup players, consider Craig Biggio (a certain Hall of Fame-level player) played catcher, second base, and outfield during his career, and made the All-Star team at catcher and 2b. Now there is an All-Star "supersub" for you.

Baseball recognizes the jack-of-all-trades; why not the corporate world? I understand why big-name specialists get recognized regularly, and I don't begrudge them at all; they deserve it. On the other hand, we the “specializing non-specialists” are just as important to the overall well-being of the company, yet we get nothing. To the contrary, we're often chided for not paying attention to our assigned job roles, and companies will not hire us because we don't specialize enough.

I welcome any and all comments about these observations. I have made an effort to network with people about this issue, learned a lot from a few people, and hope to learn more from my readers.

O'Dea Knights, my fantasy team... a few insights.

As most of you know I do fantasy baseball, and have done so for a long time.  My first team had (among others) Kevin Romine, Dennis Eckersley, Roy Hassey, and Rickey Henderson, which will tell you how long I've been doing this.  I've been in my current league for well over ten years, and the core of it (that is, teams in the league since the beginning) is a bunch of really good people... as are the newer teams.

I did some analysis on my team this week because injuries have put me in a bind:  I don't have enough outfielders to stay competitive.  While I'm not in the league for money or prestige (I do it because it's fun), naturally those two things are still enjoyable.  The things I do for fun are the statistical analysis pieces, such as what my yearly pace is, how I stand among the other teams, and so on.  This is the first time I've put anything about those analyses in a blog entry; it's much better for league harmony than posting it on the league's web site (some owners in the league are very competitive).

Anyway, here's a few tidbits for those people who enjoy baseball statistics.

• We've just finished Week 16 of the 26 weeks of the regular season.  There are 12 teams and we count the "standard 5x5" categories.  In hitting, those are BA, Runs, RBI, Home Runs, and Steals; for pitching, they are Wins, Saves, Strikeouts, ERA, and WHIP.  (Interestingly, this is a case of Major League Baseball taking a cue from the modern groups of baseball fans, such as SABR (Society of American Baseball Research), Total Baseball (Pete Palmer), and Bill James' work, among others).  WHIP is Walks + Hits divided by Innings Pitched and is a measure of the number of runners a pitcher puts on base by himself (errors are not the pitcher's fault).  Ten years ago WHIP was a fantasy baseball-only stat; today pitchers' WHIPs are listed in the newspaper.)
• My team usually has fair to poor first halves and good second halves.  I am hoping this year is no different as I'm in seventh place now.
• This year is the most competitive in recent memory.  The difference between 8th place and first is only 14 points, and the standings change quite a bit from week to week, even day to day.  I like this; people stay happier and are more likely to come back next year.
• Injuries usually play a big part of a team's standings.  This year, last year's winner is essentially eliminated from competition, as is last year's second-place team and another team which is usually strong, all because they had all-stars who ended up out for the season early on.  They will come back strong next year; all three owners know their baseball, this year they were unlucky.

Moving on....

• At this juncture my hitters lead the league in team at-bats but rank next-to-last in team strikeouts.  That shows my team puts the ball in play a lot.
• My team is also next-to-last in number of walks.  Most of my hitters are from countries such as the Dominican Republic, where the saying "You don't walk off the island" is common, so they have high contact rates and don't walk much.  Alberto Callaspo, for example, is hard to strike out (once every 12 AB) but swings at everything (a walk every 21 times up).  The net result is a high number of AB and a good BA but only a middling OBA (on base average).
• So why am I only in sixth place in runs scored?  I answered that partially in the previous bullet (low OBA), but there's more to it than that.  Most of my hitters hit low in their team's batting order, and hitters batting in slots seven through nine do not score as many runs as those hitting lead-off or #2.
• While I don't have top power hitters, almost all of my lineup is capable of hitting 15 or more HR in a season.  In this case my team is "making it up on volume" rather than having a few top HR hitters (the one exception is Paul Konerko), so I'm in the top three in the category (usually).  After the leader there are four teams within a handful of HR of each other, so the standings change almost daily; one hot week vaults a team from fifth to second.
• 60% of my team's SB come from one player, Carl Crawford.  The reason for that is, as I mentioned above, injury.  My other SB threat, Brian Roberts, has missed the entire season.  If Roberts hadn't gotten injured I'd probably be three points higher in the standings in SB.
• Streakiness both helps and hurts.  One team had Ty Wigginton until May 15, during which time he led the AL in HR with 12 and was hitting .312.  I traded for him, knowing full well he would not continue to hit that way, and he hasn't... in twice as many AB he's hit only 4 HR and batted .210.  Some teams in the league take advantage of that, and change their active rosters accordingly.  I usually don't, because 1) the only thing which matters is team totals at year-end, and 2) whether nor not a player will have a hot week is unpredictable; I've sat players who proceeded to hit enough to move me two or three places in the standings, and also sat players who hit oh-for-the-week.
• Our league's talent penetration is so deep we have lineups featuring players who are in the minors or who are just not playing because there just isn't anyone else available.  Even without injuries I'd still have Eric Patterson in my lineup.
• Part of my "pitching problem" is simple:  the rest of the league has caught up with me.  Normally I shoot for a balanced team, and then mid-year make a shift to an all-reliever squad.  The result is leading the league in saves, ERA, and WHIP, and finishing in the middle of the pack in strikeouts and wins.  This year I moved too early, and now have to be careful to meet the league's minimum IP requirement.  Also, there are two teams using the same strategy, and they are as good at it as I am.  When I was the only one using it the strategy had an advantage; now that advantage is gone.  The other two teams using the strategy have better numbers than I do, and so my pitching staff's league ranking is among the worst I've ever had.  Thus I have to discover a new strategy which would again set me apart from the other teams.  It's too late for this year, so I need some luck; next year is another animal.
• Along the same lines, as usual I lead the league in strikeout rate but am last in the league because I am also last in IP.  In other seasons I had enough IP to be in the middle of the pack; this year I traded my starters too early (because my offense was bad) and thus my IP is too low.  I will still make the minimum IP (700 IP), but it will be hard (my prediction with my current staff is 714-1/3, and that assumes a pitcher now in the minors is called up before September).  If I make no changes to my staff I'll finish around 680 IP, and none of my pitching points will count (thus I'll finish out of the money).  BTW, I consider putting myself in this situation as a major mistake running my team; I've never had this problem before, and I know why I have it now.  It was just a stupid mistake I'll have to learn from.

I suppose that's all I really have on this; I enjoy fooling around with numbers and this has been a welcome break from making politically-charged statements.  Until the next time, "Be excellent to each other" - Ted Logan.

Follow-up to yesterday's post

In yesterday's post about people calling the Obama administration on things out of their control, I mentioned there were some things about Obama and his administration I don't like.  Well, here's one:  CBS news story on Shirley Sherrod's firing.  I know Obama wasn't personally responsible for firing her, but he is still in charge of his cabinet and should never bow to right-wing (or left-wing) extremist pressures when making policy or personnel decisions.

It's quite clear the majority of people know Glenn Beck and Fox News edited the tape of Sherrod's speech to make it seem as if she were discriminating against a white farmer (she did not).  This type of lying is very common on Fox News, and with Beck as well.  It's offensive, unethical, and just plain wrong.

And when the administration bends over to accommodate this crap, it just makes things worse.  Listen to the whole speech, learn the facts, and then act.  Gut reactions are inappropriate when running a government, and especially so when Obama makes such a point of thinking things through.

I understand compromise is necessary to pass bills and so on.  This case, though, is not a matter of compromise over different opinions or situations, it's a matter of an obvious lie and letting that lie create a political action.  At least Tom Vilsack and the White House apologized to Sherrod and offered her another position in the USDA.

For an interesting (and brilliantly satirical) take on Glenn Beck, see the South Park episode Dances with Smurfs.

Obama and the economy

It is so easy to blame our economic woes on Obama.  He is our president, and he is the most powerful single person in the US.  There are many things Obama and his cabinet have done (or haven't done) which annoy me; but I should point out our current economic woes are, for the most part, not his fault.  Yes, I know our budget deficit has skyrocketed over the last several years.  I remind you Obama's been in office only a year and a half.  Further, a great deal of the overspending we're seeing under his administration falls into three categories.

1. Paying for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  Neither of these were his doing, they belong to the Bush years.  You cannot blame those staggering costs (nearly $1 billion a year) on Obama; he didn't start the wars, he's stuck with them.
2. Paying for the bailouts of banks and automobile companies.  Most of both of those policies were decided before Obama took office in January of 2009; besides, they would not be needed if the Republican congress under Bush had not repealed most of the banking regulations between 2000 and 2006.
3. Stimulus packages.  In this case Obama had little choice:  either let a failing economy continue to fail or inject some cash into it.  Also, the stimulus bills are not his; while he urged Congress to come up with something and he did sign them, he did not create them.

Again, let's be clear here.  I do not think Mr. Obama is completely blameless for our continuing economic woes.  However, one cannot expect him (or Congress, mostly) to fix in two years a mess the Bush administration (and his Congress) took six years to create and another two years of apathy from Democrats and resistance from Republicans and Mr. Bush himself.

What I'm hearing from people is disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst.  If Obama and Congress let the Bush tax cuts expire, they'll be blamed for raising taxes; if they extend the tax cuts, they'll be blamed for worsening the economy.  The way I see it, the Bush tax cuts need to expire.  Further, regulations protecting consumers from the runaway profiteering from banks and corporations must be reinstated; those regulations brought tax income into the economy.

For those of you who think Bush did the right thing with his tax cuts, consider this:  he said it would make the economy better and help the middle class.  Well, did they?  We've had eight years to find out.  I think the answer is obvious:  we (the lower and middle classes) are not better off now, we're much worse off.  And before you blame Obama, consider this:  economists agree it takes at least two years for an economic policy to take effect, and Obama hasn't been in office that long.  Further, conservatives (mostly Republicans, and some Democrats) have been fighting Obama every step of the way; how can we know if Obama's policies would work if they aren't passed?

Final thought:  keep in mind our economy is not Obama's only worry.  Historians agree almost unanimously Bush was the second-worst President we've ever had, particularly concerning foreign policy.  Not only does Obama have to fix Bush's mess at home, he has to fix it across the entire world.  Our reputation among the world's governments suffered horribly during Bush's eight years, and the eighteen months since Obama took office is hardly enough to fix that.

The people really responsible for our continued economic problems are Congress, who cannot agree on anything, primarily because many Republicans seek to discredit Obama at every turn.

If you think I'm making this up, please see the memo sent by Republican leader Michael Steele and other strategists to Republican members of both Houses (CBS news at http://tinyurl.com/26mmnrc).  This is public information now; in the memo, Republicans are given various parliamentary and other strategies to stop any legislation proposed by Obama (primarily health care but also other proposed legislation), with no consideration whether the policy is any good or not.  Also see the Facebook group "Stop Obama" and the group StopObama,org, among others.  I cannot remember any worse vitriol directed at our presidents, ever.

In short, I don't see how we can blame Obama for our current mess because a) he hasn't been around long enough to fix pre-existing problems, and b) nor has he been around long enough to create any new ones.  What we can blame him for is not keeping some of his campaign promises, a big one being more transparency in government.  Where is that?

Managing to failure?

There are hundreds of books out there with the title, or subtitle, of something like "Managing to Success". The different methods all work, so why is it there are still people out there who seem not only to ignore these methods but actively shun them? I say those people are "managing to failure." Perhaps some management expert has used this phrase before, but I've never seen it and, if it ever crops up after this, remember you heard it here first.

So, what is "managing to failure"? What I mean by that is the manager, or team leader, assumes their staff will fail to meet expectations. Here is a simple example (taken from a recent job experience; all names are removed to protect everyone's privacy).

Each month I and several others within our area graded the quality of support we each gave. For example, my specific responsibility was managing the contract between my company and its outsourcing clients. Others reported on user ID validation, hardware and software inventories... you get the idea.  We received a reminder on the first Monday of each month, and our reports were due by the fifteenth of the month.  For most of the accounts I had, the person responsible for delivery of services would not contact us unless the grades had not been reported by, say, the 10th.  For one account, however, by the second working day after the announcement the account's service manager was reminding us (again) to do the grades, and if they were not entered by Friday (five working days) that person accused us of not being responsive.

As you can see from the above example, the delivery manager I spoke of assumed we would not enter our grades unless we were told regularly to do so.  For all contracts I supported all grades were in on time for the entire time I was responsible for grading, regardless of the managing style of the delivery manager for a given account, so there was no valid reason for this manager to act as, well, a slave driver.

By standing over us, demanding immediate response to an assignment which did not require an immediate response, the delivery manager showed both a lack of trust in us to do our jobs and a lack of respect for our professionalism.  One might think this person's management would frown on browbeating us for our responses, but instead praised this manager for being "on top of things."

Over my career I have worked for a few managers, team leaders, or coordinators like this... and invariably they are looked at as being excellent leaders.  I say this is wrongheaded, because it is a very inefficient management style.  Further, it is not in keeping with most companies' stated HR directions, which usually state "our employees will be treated professionally."  While the latter is obvious, the former requires some explanation.

First, people resent being browbeaten.  The vast majority of people are hard workers who will give their best and complete their assignments on time, even if left alone; in other words, they are self-responsible and do not need baby-sitting.  Most of us just want to be given our assignments and then given the resources to complete them.  Someone who is managing for success does that; a person who manages to failure will not, because he or she assumes the people under them will not perform unless they are watched constantly.  I don't know why managers do this; I assume it depends upon the person doing the managing.  A few possible reasons are a fear of being blamed for a team's failure, a perception of being considered a better leader if they are vocal, or positive reinforcement from senior managers who follow the same belief, that is employees are lazy and must be forced to work.

Second, when people get treated as described above and the resentment of such treatment builds, many will move on to another team.  That means a loss of experienced team members, which leads to lesser performance from the team.  Further, those who do not or cannot move perform less well as the pressure to perform increases; this is a well-known phenomenon.  The net result is an inexperienced team of people under a great deal of stress, a certain recipe for a poorly-performing team.

Note that last statement carefully; in effect, a person who manages to failure notes their team is performing poorly, puts more pressure on their team, in turn leading to even worse performance, which leads to more pressure, worse performance... in a downward spiral.

I have seen this happen over and over, and witnessed it several times first-hand.  And yet these "driving leaders," managing to failure, are often praised by middle management.  In those situations I've witnessed, often the response from middle management is, "They must be good managers, look how hard they push their team!"  A laid-back manager, even one who gets better performance from their team, is often perceived as being less capable because they do not appear to push their team.

In my experiences as a team leader (excepting my first attempt, which I was unprepared for and anyway was dropped into it without any notice), I found if I treated my team as if they were adults, let them do their jobs without hassling them, and in general show them respect they performed better than if I treat them as if they cannot or will not do their jobs.  It takes time to do that, of course; one has to learn the individual personalities of one's team before being able to know who is best at what tasks.  However, I think it's worth it.  After all, the result is not only a better team but a happier one, and that leads to higher productivity.

Now, I should point out one thing which causes even good leaders to fall into this "managing to failure" mode:  not enough staff to complete all required tasks.  During times of "resource actions" (i.e. layoffs) many leaders fear for their own jobs, and pass along that fear to their teams by becoming more aggressive in trying to wring performance from their team.  The big problem with that, besides the negativity I discussed above, is this:  the team members are already under stress from their own fears of being terminated, which can cause a lower efficiency and interfere with completing tasks.  Again a vicious cycle develops, as the fear of being terminated increases.

The situation is made worse when the team is already short-staffed and is being overworked.  I will not specify any given situation, but I will say I've been in that situation three times over my career (team is short-staffed, management piles on more responsibility (trying to do "more with less"), and under leadership which is managing to failure).  It is situations like this in which those getting laid off are actually envied by those keeping their jobs.

What a strange situation:  a person keeping their job is envious of someone who is being let go.  This is becoming all too common in companies which pay too much attention to the bottom line and not enough to giving good service.  To me, it's a sign of poor management, from the front-line team leads all the way back to the vice-president level.  If a service company provides good service at a reasonable cost the stock price increase will follow; if the stock price increases by abusing the service employees, eventually that bubble will burst and the company's service will no longer be sought out.

Goals, views, and making time for everything.

I belong to a very good web site called SparkPeople. There is a new book out by its founder, Chris Downie, called "The Spark"; it's bright orange so you can't miss it. There is so much to do and learn, both in the book and on the web site. The good part is the web site is free, no strings. Check it out and please feel free to check out my Spark page.

At one point I discovered I spent too much time there, so I cut 'way back. However, cutting back had some fallout I hadn't anticipated: I lost track of tracking my nutrition and exercise, which in turn led to some minor backsliding (particularly on the exercise part).

Don't get me wrong; I am still exercising and eating healthfully, using lessons learned from The Spark, but I exercise a lot less than I should. I found the web site a good place to keep track of my exercise and nutrition, so I make time (about twenty minutes) each day to log my activity and food intake.

I'm writing this as a related blog entry to my most recent SparkPeople blog. I wanted to share some things about what I'm doing now with those who are not on the web site. The following things are important to me right now.

1) I am finally buckling down to my master's thesis. If I don't finish it by the end of the spring semester (this May) I will have to repeat courses... and I cannot afford that.

2) I am seriously evaluating my career from scratch. I am taking "find your ideal career" courses, talking to people, building my network, and looking for certification paths. At fifty I'm too old to waste my time on stuff I don't really like; there's so much to do for the next fifty or so years. This means a great commitment of personal time for a month or so, and then a moderate commitment of same for the rest of my career.

3) Speaking of things to do I am writing several books. Two are fictional, one is a humorous look at my family (and yes, they've all bought into it, but I'll wait until they've grown up to publish it), and two are about the two things most people won't discuss: one about religion and one about politics. I have experience with being published, though not for a long time now, and it's time to go back to that.

4) I've decided thirty-five years of "putzing around" is long enough; I want to contribute all I can to society rather than just skate along. I have talents, I should share them. My mother's been really contributing for over fifty years, politically and through volunteering; I've been doing it for a long time, but only in a haphazard sort of way. I'm not doing it for the recognition; I'm doing it because it's the right thing to do... but it does take time.

5) I need time to design our retirement home. I've got my SparkPeople dream house; doing it for real will be much tougher. Psychologically it'll be good for me too; my property is three miles from my favorite beach (a five-minute drive); where I live now it's an hour one-way. Since I work from home I need time outdoors badly; where I'm moving it's warmer than where I am now, so I can go outdoors more often.

6) And finally, saving the best for last, more family time. My kids got me hooked on World of Warcraft. Now I don't intend on playing during the week, and not for more than a couple of hours each weekend... but that's time I'm now spending doing other things. I can play along with my children and I do, so this is still family time, after a fashion (my wife has no desire to play this). To make up for that, we have a family game night during the week; then all four of us can play together. Plus we're back to eating as a family; for two years we just grabbed and went. It wasn't takeout, I cook a lot, but we didn't sit together; we all went our separate ways. No more.

So you see, I have a lot of stuff to do. I am making room for SparkPeople in my schedule because it's a wonderful web site and a great resource for healthful living, but I can no longer spend hours each week on it.

"There is no try. Only do, or do not." - Yoda

Giving back

One of the greatest human inventions is civilization; more strictly, forms of government. Anarchy works really well if you're the strongest and top of the heap; unfortunately there's always someone gunning for you, so you must be ever vigilant. Look around at the animal kingdom. For almost every animal it's every animal for itself. Mating aside (and even then, sometimes) the vast majority of animals have no society at all.

The Hymenoptera (ants, bees, wasps), termites, and naked mole rats have a social structure of a very high degree; nevertheless their structure is so tight there is no freedom to leave it. The entire life of a bee, for example, is planned out. The youngest perform tasks in the hive, such as feeding larvae; storing nectar and honey; and cleaning the hive. Next they move toward the nest entrance: doing guard duties, fanning the nest, and collecting nectar from foragers. After some time doing this they start taking short flights to "learn the neighborhood". Then they forage, collecting nectar and bringing it back to the hive, hundreds of trips a day. Finally, after five short weeks of life they drop their wings, walk away from the hive, and die. All worker bees follow this pattern, and it is never broken as long as the hive remains intact.

Some species, including our closest relatives the great apes (AKA Family Hominidae, the chimps, gorillas, orangutans (and us, of course)) have looser social hierarchies. Consider the dog and its wild ancestor the wolf as a good example. There is an alpha male and an alpha female, a beta male and female (#2 in the hierarchy), and an "omega dog", the lowest-ranking animal. I call these hierarchies looser because it is possible for a lower-level member to move up the ranks. In general the alpha male rules the group, until he is overthrown or dies. This is broadly equivalent to a tyranny or monarchy in human societies.

(I know there are exceptions. Some animals, such as the hyena or elephant, are matriarchal; that is, they have an alpha female instead of an alpha male. The point I want to make is the relatively limited social structure, not which sex runs the group).

Humans, on the other hand, have invented several variations on the social structure beyond the animal-like hierarchies of monarchy, tyranny, dictatorships and so on. From simple feudalism to democracy, human society allows its members to contribute as they are able (or, at least, as their leader feels they're capable of contributing). As one of the most free countries in the world, people in the United States have a distinct advantage over simpler societies: we can take advantage of individual skills in ways the other forms of government cannot. For example, if the king of a monarchy tells you to farm you farm, even if you have the intellect of Einstein or Hume. While it is possible to break that cycle if you're skilled enough, only the very best can contribute beyond their semi-fixed role.

With this advantage comes responsibility. We set up our form of government so people with the will to do so can contribute beyond simply doing a job and doing it well. In short, we have an obligation, even a duty, to contribute our best skills to the country's benefit.

The flip side of that, of course, is the duty not to block contributions. It is difficult, if not impossible, to contribute beyond your own self-interest if your every day is a struggle to survive.

In a classic blame-the-victim strategy, conservatives will have you believe all poor people are poor because they're lazy or otherwise unwilling to work, and that's so obviously wrong it amazes me people believe it. The United States has an unemployment problem, and yet our government is still giving subsidies to companies to send jobs overseas. It's not just conservatives doing this; those laws pass the House and Senate with bipartisan support. The U.S. has fallen victim to something called "corporatism," or "what's good for the corporations is good for everyone." If you're curious about this term and what it means, both its definition and its affect on us citizens, see the book Life Inc. by Douglas Rushkoff.

Anyway, even if you are a victim of corporate downsizing, outsourcing, mergers creating vast holding corporations, or simply cannot find work because you're overqualified, there are still ways to contribute back to your fellow citizens. Here are some of the ways I contribute, none of which cost more than a bit of my time.

• Donate food to local food banks, help distribute it, or volunteer as a cook or server for civic functions.
• Join a local committee. I am on the Inland Wetlands commission within my town; our "job" is making sure wetlands are protected according to the laws and regulations of my state and town.
• Reduce, reuse, and recycle. Recycle everything your state and local government will recycle. Compost vegetable waste as well as putting cans in the recycling bin. Did you know you can recycle even those big, ugly styrofoam inserts electronic devices come packed in?
• Write your elected representatives with ideas and comments. Form letters and signed petitions are ignored; write personal emails to all of your reps. Get to know them.
• Write letters to your local newspapers.
• Vote intelligently. Try to meet the candidates; at least, take time to understand the issues.
• Volunteer at a local state park... parking attendant, nature guide, maintenance person, whatever they need.
• At work, go out of your way to spread knowledge and help across all departments. Contributing ideas whenever you have them.
• After you've read them, donate books to local school libraries and nursing homes.
• When asked on the street for handouts I try to get people help (if they look like they need it) or give them a name of a person who can get them a job. Sometimes I've offered people my lunch. I don't hand out money; that's only a stop-gap. You all know the proverb "give a man a fish...".
• If you have a computer, run the World Community Grid software and donate its downtime. WCG uses your computer's downtime to help solve world-wide problems such as cancer, dengue fever, and growing a better rice to feed people. Find WCG and download its software here: www.worldcommunitygrid.org.

It is my firm believe governments exist to provide services its people cannot provide for themselves. In conjunction with market forces many things are possible. Unfortunately, some things an unregulated market cannot manage, and I think we've lost sight of that. Two of the big ones are health care and jobs. We see the results right now: high unemployment, nearly 1/3 of our population has no health care, people going hungry within ten miles of wherever you are. We're the richest nation on earth; why do we have such problems?

I do not advocate government is the solution; what I am advocating is doing as much as you can, then the government doesn't have to step in. All of the above volunteer opportunities reduce the need for government spending and cost you essentially nothing; why not do them? Sure corporations are powerful, in my opinion too powerful; we are even more powerful, if we work together.

Banks... those bastards!

Banks are really annoying me lately. For crying out loud, they were bailed out with no restrictions, they paid some of that money out in bonuses, and they still won't loan money (which would get the economy growing, which would let them loan more money to make more income, and so on). On top of that they tightened credit rules to the point where people will face debtors' prison, a stupid idea left over from the 18th and early 19th centuries. As to the latter, here's a personal story.

Talked to a bank on Friday about a late payment. Back in November I made a late payment to a credit card (due date 11/11, actual mail date 11/13 (pay day)). The minimum balance due was $80, and I sent $100. Normally I'd accept the late fee and pay that the next month; after all, it was an honest mistake but rules are rules.

The next month's bill said (I thought) a minimum payment of $80 again, so I sent another $100. Unfortunately I did not read it properly; the $80 requested was the payment of the previous month's late minimum. To make a long story short, instead of a minimum payment for February's bill of $80 - $100 I now have a minimum payment of $344! I called the bank on it, and they gave me some cock-and-bull story about how payments are applied to fees first, then to previous month's late minimum amount due, and only then to this month's minimum.

That's bad enough. What makes matters worse: this is my very first credit card. I've had it since I was 24 years old (more than half my life), and have never before made a late payment. Nice. Just when I'm applying for a home equity loan to build a driveway on my second property this stuff happens.

Hey bank, would you rather get a bounced check or a late payment? All subsequent payments occurred on time; the late payment was a one-time thing. How can I possibly pay off the balance if you keep adding fees and hidden costs like this? But I guess that's the idea: wring as much money as they can from us regular people; their bottom line is far more important than good customer relations.

This is why my primary bank is a credit union. I'd drop the card except, with its long history, it helps my credit rating.

While certainly true for just about any large corporation, from banks this is especially egregious. Lending me money at 18% and paying me .8% on a savings account is beyond greed; I think it borders on usury. Bastards.

Letter writing: wither thou goest?

Lately I've read some articles and heard some talk on public radio about personal communication. More to the point, in summary nobody writes letters any more, and many lament the loss of handwriting. Writing as someone who usually got "D"s, with the rare “C”, in penmanship and who's been typing for almost forty years, in some ways that's a good thing. I can print clearly but it's tedious, slow, and the longer I write the harder it becomes to read. On the other hand I can type about forty words a minute with very few errors (thank you, backspace key!) and the print is clear.

And yet I think the discussions made a good point. With Twitter, blogging, Facebook and texting nobody writes any more. Even email seems to have run its course with some people. So I decided I need to write more letters. Many of them will, of course, be emails (I'd rather not waste the paper to send a letter to two dozen or so people), yet I do want to get more in touch with people.

Writing letters is not quite the same as speaking to people, whether face-to-face or over the telephone. Frankly I'd much rather sit down with people; that's so much more enjoyable. Unfortunately distance makes that impossible for some, and so they get letters instead.

Some will argue typing an email is less personal than writing a letter by hand, and I won't argue with that. I remember during and after college exchanging letters (sometimes quite long ones!) with friends from other states, sometimes as many as five or six a year. I still think, though, if I write in a stream-of-conscious style (as if speaking) that is just as personal as typing a letter, which I did sometimes do even if the typewriter was a clunky, old manual which needed a sledgehammer to use the "Q" and "P" keys.

And I have to admit I still have some of those old hand-written letters, some of them from a high-school pen pal from England named Titilope Omomo (if I remember the spelling correctly). I'm not sure where they're packed other than they are in a box with other memories such as knick-knacks, papers, yearbooks, and other things. There's something about holding a thirty-year-old piece of paper and reading words written in pen that's somewhat faded which you can't get from saving emails.

I've decided I'm going to write to my friends more often. Of course it'll be emails, mostly, but sometimes they will be hand-written letters. I'm not abandoning the old ways, just adding new ways to them.

Amazing "vomits"

Anyone who hasn't been in a box the last couple of days knows there was a terrible earthquake in Haiti. Hundreds of thousands of people are in dire straits in that already poor country. While the devastation, death, and injury toll are immense, even worse are the probable longer-term effects of a vast increase in infectious diseases.

Haiti is a tropical island. We've long known tropical habitats are hot spots for diseases seriously affecting the human condition: yellow fever, malaria, cholera, typhus, and so on. With much of her infrastructure gone, finding clean water will be difficult and many of the destroyed areas will become breeding grounds for insects (particularly mosquitoes) which spread these and other dread diseases. It's going to be a long, hard road back for the Haitians.

I truly feel bad for the people of Haiti... and yet there are still people who can take a true tragedy and turn it into a circus to spread their particular brand of hate. I'm talking about Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh.

Robertson said, in effect, the earthquake in Haiti is the result of their "making a pact with Satan to remove the French." Limbaugh said the earthquake would let the Obama administration "use this to burnish their, shall we say, credibility with the black community, in both light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country. It's made to order for them. ... We've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax." (quotes from Zennie Abraham, Zennie62.com.)

While hate speech like this ought to be embarrassing to any Christian, at least most people agree Pat Robertson is a certifiable lunatic and genuinely believes what he says. Because of that I can somewhat tolerate his deplorable comments, at least relative to Limbaugh's (after all, aren't the ravings of the truly insane just empty words?). Further, Robertson has since backed away from his comments; Rush stands by his. Limbaugh says the things he does simply to inflame people and further his political agenda, so he doesn't even have the "excuse" of being insane; he does it deliberately. It's so disgustingly, disturbingly low I don't think English has a suitable word to describe it.

Why does the broadcast media pay these people to spew their hatred? I'm all for free speech but this isn't free; Limbaugh has a $400 million contract with ClearChannel Broadcasting. Stop paying him, put that money toward helping the people of Haiti, and let him scream from a soapbox like all the rest of us.

Annual Credit Report

The only real place to get a truly free credit report is AnnualCreditReport.com. While the guys singing cool songs advertise "FreeCreditReport.com" (/~tell your friends, tell your boss, tell your mom~/) that site is not really free. The best advice: stagger getting credit reports from the three major bureaus (Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax) every four months. That way you have a frequently-updated list of credit reports and yet leave a gap of one year for each bureau.

If you want your FICO score along with your credit report, good luck; it's not free. However, on AnnualCreditReport.com both Equifax and TransUnion (Experian and FICO don't work together any more) offer a cheap FICO score, at $4.95 each. If you want a reasonably good estimate for free, the calculator at MSN's Money Central. Take the 10-question survey and get a fairly accurate (if broad) estimate of your FICO score.

Finally, don't forget to check for errors (cards not closed, mistaken late payments, theft not reported, etc.) and send each bureau a letter to be attached to your credit report. Those letters do get looked at, and they're leverage for you if a lender questions some aspect of your credit report or score.

If this is new to you, start doing it this month. Let keeping up with your credit situation be your New Year's Resolution for 2010. Good luck!