ABOUT INNOVATION: Why Are Nirvana Cover Bands So Good?

Sell the kids for food
Weather changes moods
Spring is here again
Reproductive glands

He's the one
Who like all our pretty songs
And he likes to sing along
And he likes to shoot his gun
But he don't know what it means
Don't know what it means
And I say yeah
 
--In Bloom, Nirvana

If there's one thing that's always amazed me, it's the number of artists that are absolutely ####ing awesome - but never make it in the marketplace.  

You know what I mean, right?  How many solo or group musicians have you heard and wondered why they are accountants during the day? How many sketch artists or painters have talent rivaling Nevermind
Warhol but have never been discovered - and are working an hourly job to make ends meet?

I was reminded of this a couple of weekends ago when Mrs. Capitalist joined me and some friends to go see the Atlanta-based Nirvana cover band named "Nevermind".

They were - absolutely great.  The lead singer has hair like Kurt Cobain and the Mr. Rodgers-style sweater.  But most importantly, they nailed the Nirvana sound.

WHY NOT THEM?  Why can't you stream their stuff on Spotify/Pandora?

I thought a lot about that in the days that followed.  Here's what I came up with.

Most of us don't have musical skill or artistic ability.  So we're shocked when we hear it/see it and find it to be unique.  But the real reason most artists don't make it has to do with originality/innovation.  

Originals get paid.  Innovators start new trends and cash in.  When you really stop to think about it, it's that way in corporate America as well.

The guy I saw that night sounds like Kurt Cobain.  But he and his band didn't create their own sound.  So the marketplace doesn't reward them.

Let's take someone from the business world.  There's a lot of people in American business that are as dynamic as Elon Musk - many are more dynamic.  They interview well, are great in meetings and damn, are they great presenters.  What's missing?

Elon Musk has big ideas and endless passion.  SpaceX.  Tesla. SolarCity. 

You're as good as Elon Musk on the powerpoint and in front of people.  But your ideas?  They're smaller.

Nevermind is to Nirvana as a smart executive is to Elon Musk.  One wore the sweater first.  The other followed.

It's the same thing in the business world.  You're amazed by the presentation skills of Frank in Marketing, but he hasn't broken through.

Turns out those public speaking skills are missing one important ingredient for the payoff - original ideas. 

I'm so happy because today
I've found my friends
They're in my head
I'm so ugly, but that's okay, 'cause so are you
We've broken our mirrors
Sunday morning is everyday for all I care
And I'm not scared
Light my candles in a daze
'Cause I've found god
Hey, hey, hey


 


The Tyranny of Single Stall, Gender-Neutral Bathrooms in the Workplace...

Notes to follow from life on the road...

Topic: Transgender individual's rights to use either bathroom (men's or women's) they desire.

Buckle up, people. But it's probably not going to be what you think. TG

I spend a lot of time on the road, and I spend that time in a lot of different parts of the country.  One thing that's happening in retail (shops, restaurants, etc) points to a trend I hope doesn't come to office parks.

Here's the trend... Businesses - faced with legal pressure or simply wanting to accommodate Transgender individuals - are increasing changing single stall bathrooms (one for men, one for women) to gender neutral status.  That "reclassification" means that either men or women can use either bathroom that is available.  That solves the transgender issue without the economic burden of retrofitting a third bathroom to exist alongside men's and women's facilities.

I understand that I'm probably going to get emails from what I've wrote already, because I'm not an expert in Transgender issues.  Send your emails, however, because I do want to learn more and understand to a greater degree.

But I am an expert in some things.  Allow me to school you on why reclassifying a men's and women's bathroom to gender neutral-status doesn't work:

Men are pigs.  Females deserve better.  

If 10 dudes use a bathroom during the day, odds are it is not going to be suitable for a woman, or anyone who wants to sit down.  This just in - Men often go to the bathroom standing up.  Hit this link if you want to see the legal world in action on this issue.  

When businesses make existing single-stall bathrooms gender neutral, females (anyone identifying as female) lose.  And this trend is alive and well in some areas of the country.  It's a natural, completely understandable reaction to the capital cost of building new facilities.  

I can only hope this trend can be avoided as transgender issues become more accepted and we work through the same challenges in the workplace.

Rights for everyone - Ok and check.  Let's evolve together.

Rights for dudes to use bathrooms on a frequent basis that females will have to use afterwords - we're better than that America.  

No.  Just no.

 


The Elon Musk Test For Whether You Deserve a Raise....

You're going to love this one...

In his 2015 book, "Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future," Ashlee Vance shares the story of how Musk stopped working with his longtime executive assistant in early 2014. Elon musk

According to Vance, the assistant, Mary Beth Brown, asked Musk for a significant raise after she'd been working with him for 12 years. In response, Musk told Brown to take two weeks off, during which he would assume her responsibilities and see whether she was critical to his success.

When Brown returned, Musk told her he didn't need her anymore.  

Whoops.  

OK, couple of things.  While Musk generally is on the record as saying this book is accurate he strongly denies the reporting of this encounter.  Brown also denies the reporting that she lost her job through the rigid efficiency study conducted by Musk.  Also, after Brown was no longer in the role, Musk says he needed the position, as evidenced by the fact he hired 2-3 specialists (PR, etc.) rather than a generalist executive assistant.

Still, where there's smoke, there's fire.  My take is that Musk probably did consider whether the position still worked for him based on the way his business has changed.

Add this to the list of things to be careful asking for.  The most common error employees make is taking an offer to their boss expecting a counteroffer.  The boss, rather than countering, wishes the employee luck in the new position.

Want a raise?  Interesting.  How about you take a couple of days off while I determine how vital you are to the organization?

Elon Musk.  The most interesting man in the world.


VIDEO: Happy Birthday to My Partner at Kinetix, Shannon Russo...

Thursday was Shannon Russo's Birthday!  Shannon's my partner at Kinetix, a driven leader who created a female-owned business in America in 2004.  I was fortunate to invest in 2010 and she's been a great friend every since.

The thing about driven leaders is that people can either love them or... They don't love them so much.  Shannon's respected and loved by her people, so much so they aren't afraid to provide a roast of sorts by giving their best impersonations of Shannon on video!

See the video below for the Shannon Russo impersonations from a few of her team members at Kinetix!

(email subscribers may have to click through for video) 


Can The Fired Google Engineer Show Us The Political Affiliations of Tech Companies?

By now, you've likely heard about the Google engineer who got fired for writing a diversity manifesto.  If not, here's what happened:

"Google employees are up in arms after a senior engineer at the company penned an anti-diversity manifesto that has spread through the Google-row-diversity-1company like wildfire. 

The manifesto criticizes company initiatives aimed at increasing gender and racial diversity and argues that Google should instead focus on "ideological diversity," according to a report by Vice's Motherboard, which first reported the news late on Friday. The 10-page treatise also claims that biological difference between men and women are responsible for the underrepresentation of women in the tech industry.

"We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism," reads the document, a copy of which was obtained by Gizmodo."

As you might expect, that type of manifesto was greeted with much criticism.  So much so, it created the following events this week:

  1. Google fired the engineer.
  2. There was a backlash related to the decision to fire the engineer.
  3. The Google CEO sent an email telling everyone it was all going to be OK.
  4. The email didn't tamper down the storm.
  5. Google's CEO understood the storm was so bad inside his company that he came back from a vacation in Africa with his family to be present for an all-hands meeting.

As I've said before in this space, freedom of speech is alive and well in the American workplace.  The problem is that employees believe that freedom of speech means they can't be fired.  As Google demonstrated in firing the engineer, a company's code of conduct and professional conduct policies generally give them the right to move people out if they are communicating ideas that aren't embraced by the majority of the company.

And there, my friends, is the rub.

Google fired the engineer because they thought the employee base dramatically would support that move.  As it turns out, a lot of people at Google thought his macro point was right - female engineers are hard to find because there's some genetic wiring in females that make careers in engineering less attractive to them.

So the sh*t show builds after the firing, and the CEO is coming back from halfway across the globe - because he knows he's ultimately responsible for calming this thing down.  

There's some macro points in the manifesto that many of you, if not most, would agree with.

But the guy is an engineer.  Of course, he takes it way too far.  That's what engineers who know no shades of gray do.

The most interesting thing I've seen about this case is polling on whether the engineer should have been fired across the major tech companies in America. Blind, an anonymous corporate chat app,  asked its users if they thought Google should have fired Damore, over 4,000 from different companies weighed in.

Perhaps most pertinently, 441 Google employees responded. Of them, more than half  – 56% to be precise– said they didn't think it was right for the company to fire Damore.

Here's how the poll worked out across the major tech companies - enable images or click through if you don't see the chart below.

Blind

Notable is that at Uber, 64% of employees who participated in the survey thought Google shouldn't have fired Damore. Employees at Apple and LinkedIn were nearly evenly split in the poll but leaned slightly toward approving Google's decision. Meanwhile, 65% of respondents from Lyft were good with the way it went down.  That kind of follows what we know at Uber and Lyft related to how they view the world.

The chart feels like most presidential elections, and tells you that even in the tech bubble, what seems obvious is not obvious.

Which is why the CEO of Google had to cut his vacation short to come back and try and hose down the situation.

Good times - and a reminder that employee sentiment isn't always (hell, ever) as simple as we think it is.

 


UW Study On $15 Minimum Wage Bad News For Liberals...

Minimum wage

If there's anything that will get a healthy dinner conversation going (or get people fighting), it's the idea of the $15 minimum wage.  A better wage for core entry-level workers is hard to argue against as a reasonable person.  I want it to be true as a moderate, but my business focus always makes me wonder - is it actually a good idea?

This is the problem being a moderate.  I'll get 5-7 emails from each side on this post just crushing me for even daring to be in the middle.  Only the polar extremes get the oxygen and attention these days.

Fortunately, there's some research pouring in on the minimum wage that seems to be based on reality, not theory.  

More from the Washington Post

There’s bad news from Seattle for advocates of a $15-an-hour minimum wage law. Turns out the measure’s costs to the city’s low-wage workers have outweighed benefits by 3 to 1, according to a new city-commissioned study by University of Washington researchers. The average low-wage worker has lost $125 a month because of the higher-wage decree, the study found — even before it is fully phased in.

David Autor, a leading labor economist at MIT, told The Post the study seemed “very credible” and suggested that it might have enough “statistical power” to “change minds” in the perennial argument over the minimum wage.

Autor was wrong — not about the study’s credibility, but about its potential for moving people off their “priors.” The Seattle study met a furious counterattack from proponents of a $15 minimum. Defenders of the law came armed with a much rosier assessment of its impact by economists at a pro-labor University of California at Berkeley think tank, produced a few days before the more skeptical one came out.

It seems that Seattle’s mayor, a big advocate of the $15 minimum, had gotten a heads-up on the impending negative study and asked the Berkeley group to weigh in. Seattle Weekly called it “an object lesson in how quickly data can get weaponized in political debates like Seattle’s minimum wage fight.”

Woof.  Go dig in if you dare, but the UW study found that businesses react to the $15 wage by contracting total work hours, which results in low-wage workers in the area losing $125 per month due to the law.  That's interesting.  But if you go look at the Berkley study, you'll see the opposite.

If you really want to geek out, see this article at 538.  It talks about limitations of both studies.

My gut tells me this.  Businesses probably will restrict total hours to low-wage workers when minimum wage hikes hit because the margins for success are so thin.  The left and anyone else can shake their fist and wax poetic about evil owners trying to stay cost-neutral on labor expense.

But the critics don't risk their capital or their livelihood.  Add more labor costs to any business with limited margins and one of two things is going to happen - prices are getting raised or labor cost is getting scrutiny.  Prices are hard to raise from a competitive perspective.

I believe the UW study.  Sucks to be an owner when laws get passed by people who don't have to live with the consequences.  


How To Be A Complete D**k During a Deposition (Google-Style)...

Who here has every been the subject of a deposition?  Who here has ever acted like jerk during a deposition towards an arrogant attorney from the other side?  

Great!  It's not just me.  Just one more thing we have in common... Page

A young HR capitalist was once the subject of a deposition featuring an arrogant, condescending attorney on the other side.  The young HR capitalist reacted in such a negative way that the attorney on his side had to call for a break and counsel the young HRC to stop being a d##k to the other side - even though they had it coming.

Favorite plays from the deposition playbook of mine the young HRC included -

--only answering questions in yes/no format when the question clearly called for more...

--answering questions framed in a negative tense (so you don't believe that manager...) "yes".  Because in my mind I'm saying yes to your statement, not going with the informal flow.  This is a formal event, right?

--not giving enough details on process because I can't clearly define it as it works a variety of ways - although there is a certain way it's supposed to work, but you didn't ask me that, did you?

No wonder that attorney called for a break during the young capitalist's deposition.

That's why the notes below from a deposition of Google co-founder Larry Page are so fun.  Page was recently deposed by attorneys representing Uber in a lawsuit filed by Google related to the allegation of stolen IP from self-driving car company Waymo.  Take a look at the notes below from the deposition Business Insider and see my notes in brackets and all caps:

----------------------------------------

 

The transcript is full of examples of Page responding tersely to questioning, such as this exchange:

Uber: Google invested in Uber, correct?

Page: Yes.

Uber: Do you recall when?

Page: My answer is yes. (PRO MOVE - JUST ANSWERING THE QUESTION YES/NO.  DID THEY WANT MORE? SURE, BUT YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION.  SUCKS TO BE THEM)

Page said he wasn't familiar with how Google stores source code:

Uber: Do you know the way that Google typically retains things, like source-code materials and design specifications, and things like that?

Page: Yeah, I'm not that familiar with how we do that.

Uber: Is there an online repository, or do — do you even know that?

Page: I mean, there's some code-based repository thingy.  (THE SENIOR LEVEL "THINGY" OR "DOHICKIE" REFERENCE.  WELL PLAYED)

And this feisty exchange:

Uber: You're not familiar with the details of the trade secrets that are at issue here?

Page: Yes. (ANSWERING A QUESTION CALLING FOR A SIMPLE NO WITH A YES. IT'S NOT LARRY'S PROBLEMS THAT THEY PHRASED IT IN A WAY THAT HE COULD HAVE FUN WITH. "THAT'S CORRECT" IS BORING.  "YES" IS MUCH MORE FUN)

Uber: You don't know, for example, what the trade secrets are that Uber allegedly misappropriated?

Page: No, I do not.

Uber: Whenever it was that you learned — let me make sure I'm clear on this. You don't remember, sitting here today, when you learned or how you learned that Uber may have misappropriated Google or Waymo trade secrets. Is that right?

Page: That's correct.  (MISSED OPPORTUNITY - HE COULD HAVE SAID YES)

Uber: And you don't remember how you learned?

Page: I mean, that's correct, yes.

Uber: Did you authorize the filing of the lawsuit against Uber?

Page: I mean, I'm certainly aware of it, yeah, and then allowed it to proceed, I suppose. I'm not sure I authorized it. I'm not sure that's the right word.

Uber: Well, could a lawsuit of this magnitude be filed without your consent and approval?

Page: I mean, I guess I'm not — I'm the CEO of the company — parent company of Waymo, and Waymo operates more or less as an independent company.

Uber: Is Waymo authorized to file a lawsuit like this on its own without even consulting you?

Page: I mean, I don't know all the details of that.  (I'M FLYING AT 100,000 FEET PEOPLE.  YOU REALIZE I COULD BUY YOUR FIRM TODAY, RIGHT?  I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT GOOGLE BUYING IT, I MEAN ME PERSONALLY)

---------------------------------

Pros moves all the way around.  Holla if you've ever been a barrier to a successful deposition - as the actual subject of that deposition.


Mansplaining Gender-Related Harassment...

I'm up today over at my other site - Fistful of Talent - with a post called, "A Man’s DIY Guide to Rid Your Company of Gender-Related Harassment".  Here's a taste:

"Ready for some mansplaining?  Good, because I’m a guy, and damn, it seems like companies are having a hard time avoiding gender-related harassment.  So I’m here to help.

I’m referring to s*x**l harassment, but I have to call it gender-related harassment because a lot of you have email filters at the corporate level that won’t allow content in with the word s*x**l.  You know, because you can’t be trusted.  As a result, you end up missing good stuff like this and Marvin Gaye videos your friends might send you.  Sucks to be you.  But I digress."

Go get the full post over at Fistful of Talent by clicking here.

 

A Man’s DIY Guide to Rid Your Company of Gender-Related Harassment


ASSESSMENTS (With Video): Your Best Feature Is Also Your Worst Feature...

Short post today with a "coaching others" slant.  Let's say you've just taken a behavioral assessment.  Which one?  Doesn't matter, because as the video below alludes to, almost all of them are based on the same science.

Anyway, you took the assessment.  On some of the dimensions you're a part of the crowd, lumped somewhere in the middle of humanity.

But wait - there's a couple of things where you really stand out!  Examples:

--You're high assertiveness...(you deal with things that need to be dealt with)

--You're high people....(you engage with others easy and are seen as approachable)

--You're low sensitivity...(you take feedback easily - and make quick adjustments based on the feedback with little emotion)

See what I did there?  The brackets tell you why your outlier score in the areas mentioned can be considered a super-strength.  

But for every interpretation of an outlier assessment score as a positive, there's also a negative.

Turns out, when it comes to assessments, your best feature is also your worst feature.

High assertiveness can bite you in the a$$ when you don't understand a situation where it will be perceived as highly negative. High people individuals tend to talk more than the listen, which often limits their effectiveness/results.  Low sensitivity people are often low empathy and don't automatically understand how others feel.

So celebrate your outlier scores, or those of your direct reports.  Then coach on a daily basis on where that super-strength is best deployed, and what situations the super-strength needs to be muted for best results at work.

Your best feature is your worst feature.  Video below of me talking assessments at Disrupt HR (email subscribers click through if you can't see the video)...

Lies, Damn Lies, and Using Assessments | Kris Dunn | DisruptHR Talks from DisruptHR on Vimeo.


UBER's New Leadership Exec Pledges to Wear Uber T-Shirt Every Day, Until...

Company logo gear is a tricky thing.  There's a lifespan of when and where employees are willing to wear your logo shirts in public.  The cadence goes something like this:

--Startup Mode - your employees are willing to wear your logo gear anywhere and everywhere, especially if you've done a nice job related to your colors and the logo itself. Frana To the extent you have a good/great culture, the willingness to wear your logo shirts in this stage gets magnified.

--Growing Pains Mode - with size comes complexity, and things aren't as rosy any more.  Your employees gladly wear your logo shirt on an assigned day, but you see less and less of the gear on a daily basis as employees become more neutral in their pride to work at your company.  Most companies never progress to a more negative state than this related to how their employees treat logo wear.

--Cable Company Mode - I used to be a leader at a Cable company, and this mode is the most negative spot in the employee/logo wear continuum. Your employees will change their shirt in the car - from your logo to no logo - to avoid customer confrontations and negative feedback.  Who likes the cable company?  No one, so it stands to reason your employees just want blend in with the crowd when grabbing a gallon of milk.

You know who's recently moved into the Cable Company Mode when it comes to logo gear?  Uber, at least for the time being.  The wave of news related to driver relations and harassment claims from employees has moved them straight for "logo wear pride/startup mode" to "Cable Company Mode", albeit with a certain tech swag that could retain some pride.

That's why a recent interview with Frances Frei , Uber’s new vice president of leadership and strategy was so interesting.  Appearing on stage with Recode’s Kara Swisher at a live onstage taping of the Recode/Decode Podcast, Frei wore and Uber t-shirt and told the audience and listeners that she's taking the following approach (which I'm paraphrasing)"

--"I'm wearing a Uber t-shirt every day, until it becomes acceptable to do it again."

Think about that for a second.  There's drama at Uber, and employee pride is likely at an all time low.  The struggles have been public and no one wants to be seen in the Bay area wearing an Uber t-shirt.

But a new leader makes the pledge to wear that t-shirt daily.  To engage in all the conversations that it will encourage - both good and bad.

--Wearing the company t-shirt - leadership-light.

--Wearing the company t-shirt knowing it will cause 5-10 conversations a day you could have avoided - hmmm.

The second one feels like a stab at true leadership, and a small path to recovery for whatever the culture becomes at Uber.

Well played, Frances.


HARVARD B-SCHOOL: 50% of Grades Are Based on Classroom Participation - Should You Do More of That?

Here's an interesting business school item to compare to the business world - at Harvard Business School, it's common for 50% of someone's grade to linked to the frequency and quality of their class participation.

That creates a dynamic in the "case-study" method of teaching that includes a couple of things:

--People having to prepare more diligently for the material to be discussed.

--People being under pressure to participate since they know they'll be graded on it. Hbs-mbaclassroom (1)

--A wide variety of quality and quantity of participation, which the instructor must figure out in order to assign a grade.

Are you grading your direct reports for their participation in corporate America?  Should the managers you support do the same?  Should more of the performance management rating be tied to active participation in corporate conversations - meetings, project teams, etc?

In short, are you allowing team members to hang back and not participate actively in conversations meant to get better outcomes for your company?  For those that do participate, all are equal or are you probing as a manager/leader for logic and perspective in a challenging way that might get better conversations rolling and better business outcomes?

I think the standard is that we let people who don't want to be active hide in the weeds.  Here's some notes from the HBS site related to classroom participation and how instructors manage it:

"Students and instructors are co-creators of class participation, and the stakes may be quite high, not only for collective and individual learning, but also for performance evaluation. (For example, at HBS participation often accounts for 50% of the total course grade.) During a class discussion, case instructors manage participation along two dimensions: who to call on and how to interact with students in the process of questioning, listening, and responding. In managing participation, instructors should strive to create a learning environment that students experience as fair, safe, and challenging.

During a case discussion, experienced instructors often rely on a variety of principles to decide which student to call on (or avoid selecting) at any point in time. Instructors might choose a student with expertise relating to the discussion topic to help clarify a difficult conceptual point or, conversely, select a student with little prior background to start off a discussion pasture. Instructors may seek to bring in less frequent participants by keeping a close eye out for their hands during the discussion and by cold-calling these students on occasion. Body language may also provide a useful guide: instructors may prefer to call on a student who reacts with excitement or confusion to a comment just made in the discussion, as opposed to a student whose hand has been up for some time. Instructors should track class participation on an on-going basis to ensure that their calling patterns are not biased with respect to certain demographic groups or individual students."

What that summary doesn't say is how participants are graded for a couple of things - namely, their willingness to participate actively without being asked and of course, the quality of their thought process, ideas and interactions once engaged.

Great conversations and sharing ideas in a proactive, credible way without crushing dissent is part skill and part art.  

If you're a manager of people, are you grading people in your head for their willingness to engage?  I'd think about this and add it to your senior-level stack when it comes to performance management.

50%? Nah.

10-20%?  Now you're talking.


FOXCONN & APPLE - Will The Suicide Nets Be Shipped to Wisconsin?

Did you hear the news?  Apple, through it's partner FoxConn, is bringing some of it's manufacturing to the US.  Click here to get the whole story.

Is that a good thing?  Of course it is.  The Trump administration is going to shout it from the rooftops - WE BROUGHT MANUFACTURING BACK TO AMERICA, PEOPLE!!!

For those of you that hate Trump, this has to be painful.  For politics in Wisconsin, it's going to be a visible reminder that pays dividends in 2020 - Trump won Wisconsin by a narrow margin of 47.2% to 46.5% for Hillary Clinton, thanks to overwhelming and underestimated support from working-class whites, making him the first Republican candidate to carry the state since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

You think commercials with a new Apple factory as the reminder aren't going to run on the hour in Wisconsin in 2020?  Don't be a rookie - OF COURSE THEY ARE.  Which means Wisconsin is likely done for the GOP in 2020. Suicide nets

Next stop with visible manufacturing jobs - at any incentive cost - Ohio, followed by Pennsylvania.

What type of jobs are going to be in this factory?  Pretty good ones - early reports are that Foxconn will invest $10 billion to build the massive display panel plant in Wisconsin that could employ up to 13,000 workers.  It will start with 3,000 workers making an average of $53,900 a year plus benefits.

But before my GOP and neutral Trump friends (I don't know any people who say they are pro-Trump these days) celebrate too much, put it all in perspective.  The iPhone factories aren't coming to the USA - you know why?

Because that stuff is sold en masse.  Phones are something everyone buys, and if you jack up the labor cost embedded in the phone, Americans will squawk.

Tim Cook and Apple did the smart thing by forcing Foxconn to build the factory they're going to build - the Wisconsin plant is going to make liquid crystal display panels used in computer screens, televisions and the dashboards of cars.  Less price sensitivity than the highly visible smartphone.

Advantage GOP.  I'm guessing at average pay of $53,000, the American Foxconn plant won't have suicide nets to catch workers intending to commit suicide by jumping from a building to allow their families to collect life insurance - because they've done the math and determined that's better for everyone, including themselves.  Click here for that full post on Foxconn I did in the past.  Picture of those nets to the right of this post.

Things that make you go hmmmm.

 

 

 


You Think Your Work Enemy Has Declared War: She Just Thinks It's Thursday...

"Some men just want to watch the world burn."

-Michael Caine in "The Dark Knight"

--------------------------

Intent is a funny thing.  You're in the workplace, and the workplace has established norms: Some men

--We talk to each other before we make decisions or take meaningful action

--We give people a heads up before we announce something that won't feel good to them

--We try to play nice and if confronted, we try to make the person confronting us feel good about our intent.

Of course, those are norms - guidelines if you will, not hard rules.  Every once in a while, you run into someone that does not give two ****s about your norms.  They do what they want, when they want and generally don't give you heads up that it's coming or make you feel better if you ask them about it after the fact.

You know, ass####s.  But in the era of Donald Trump, we're pretty quick to assign full villain status to people who don't play by the rules.

What's interesting about the people like this you think are enemies in the workplace is the following:

You think they're out to get you based on chaos they cause.  They probably think it's Thursday.

They aren't even thinking about you.  Tearing shit up is just what they do.  In the age of Trump, we're likely to cast them as villains and think they're out to get us.  That might be true, but in my experience, people who cause chaos can be factored into 3 categories when it impacts you:

1--They're out to get you.  It's what you thought.  They hate your guts, you're in the way and it's takedown time. 10% of the time, this is the reality.

2--They have a plan and a place they want to be unrelated to you.  They have a POA (plan of action) that's bigger than their relationship with you. You're taking it personally, but the "tearing shit up" and chaos impacts multiple people, not just you.  They're not even thinking about you, Skippy. 70% of the time, this is the reality.

3--They don't have a plan but love to keep everyone off balance as part of their managerial DNA.  Again, it's not about you.  Their business is chaos and by the way, the more positional power they have, the better that business is. 20% of the time, this is the reality.

Unless you're experiencing flavor #1 above, your best strategy is to keep an eye on it but ignore it.  Go about your business.  You do you, let them do them and save your emotional reaction and gun powder for when it really matters.  

If you're high sensitivity, this is going to be hard.  They're going to wear you out.  You think it's the workplace version of Normandy.

It's actually Thursday.  What's for lunch?


White People and College Admissions - It's Complicated...

Of course, I kid with that title - you know that, right?

But I have to tell you, there's stuff going on with white people and college admissions that, given the fact I have a rising junior who I expect will go to college, I should be interested in. Lottery_1

It all revolves around who gets the offer - which seems talent-related (as is education as a whole) so I'm covering it here.

There's two flavors going on with white people and college admissions.  Allow me to break down what I see:

1--The first flavor is white people without stellar GPAs, test scores, etc. not being able to get into universities that were once thought to be a given.  In Georgia, the state used lottery money to guarantee a form of college scholarship for the masses (read more on the Hope Scholarship by clicking on the link).  One result of more people having the means to attend college was that some affluent families no longer had the ability to get a middling-performing son or daughter into the University of Georgia, because now everyone could afford it.  Interesting, right?  

2--The second - and more problematic - flavor of white people and college admissions is that many families have kids with great GPAs and test scores, but a) due to universities seeking to become more diverse, some high achieving white kids can't get in, and b) if they do, there's no financial aid available on merit (Georgia notwithstanding) due to what the family earns.  

I don't understand all the issues yet, but a year or so ago I read a great post by my friend Tim Sackett who went on a parent rant and penned a gem of a post.  Here's taste, you should go read it all:

"My middle son is about to make his college choice. He’s got some great schools that have accepted him. He has some great ones that did not. His dream school was Duke. He also really liked Northwestern, Dartmouth, and UCLA. He has a 4.05 GPA on a 4.0 scale (honors classes give you additional GPA) and a 31 on his ACT (97th percentile of all kids taking this test).  He had the grades and test scores to get into all of those schools.

What he didn’t have was something else.

What is the something else?

He didn’t come for a poor family. He didn’t come from a rich family. He wasn’t a minority. He doesn’t have some supernatural skill, like shooting a basketball. He isn’t in a wheelchair. He isn’t from another country.

He’s just this normal Midwestern kid from a middle-class family who is a super involved student-athlete, student government officer, award-winning chamber choir member, teaches swimming lessons to children, etc., etc., etc.

What is the other something else, from a financial perspective?

He got into Boston College, another dream school for him, and one that wanted him to come and continue his swim career at the Division 1 level. BC also costs $68,000 per year.

Colleges and U.S. Federal Government hate kids who come from families that do the right thing.  What’s the “right thing”?  He comes from a family that pays their mortgage, saved some money for his tuition and put money away for retirement.

Because he comes from a family that made good decisions, Boston College, and the Federal Government thought it was a good idea for him to pay $68,000 per year to attend their fine university."

I liked the initial comments coming from both sides in reaction to Tim's post that I subscribed to the comments.  Every week, like clockwork, I get a gift - someone else has posted a comment with a hot take on the situation Tim identified.

With a rising junior starting to look at colleges, I just became interested in this talent issue.  I'm sure I'll be back to write about what I see.  Buckle up - I'll be back next spring with a hot take of my own.