I believe the posting on blackboard about inconvenience is true. The argument is that those who succeed are those who work even when it's not convenient. I'd say it's related to the principle of opposition in all things. Those who achieve the most, grow the most, become the best are those who work hard even when it's not convenient.
I think that the word inconvenience was an understatement for what the writer was talking about. I think the word trials, set backs, or adversity is more appropriate. Semantics aside he's right. As I read this I remembered something Covey mentioned when he was here. As sort of a side note he said that at one point when he had three mortgages on his house he wondered if he was ever going to make it or not. Obviously he did but the fact that he had three mortgages on his house shows he was really struggling.
Just today I was leaving the plasma center and I saw a quote from Elder Russel M. Nelson he said that said that he and his wife didn't have enough money so she started donating her blood for extra money. He said he was proud of her for paying tithing on her blood money. As someone who has donated a substantial amount of plasma and blood I can tell you that it's not convenient at all. Elder Nelson and his wife were certainly blessed he went on to become a world renowned heart sergeant.
Even once people have become very successful they're still confronted with inconvenience and adversity all the time. They remain successful because they work through it. Ironically many people consider them to be lucky. Most people fail to realize that the little choices they make everyday to postpone something or forget it entirely are what keeps them from achieving lasting success.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Optimize the Whole
In order to see the reason for the principle of optimizing the whole we have to exept the fact that most resources are limited. Many times because we know resources are limited we want to be the first to use them ie musical chairs.
Remember what happened in musical chairs? When we acted on our basic impulse to take we eliminated one another from completing the goal. However, when we thought of the needs of the group we devised a system that enabled all of us to succeed.
An example of a limited resource is time. Specifically time of people. In class Brother Adams used the example of President Clark. In our case it's Brother Adams' time that's limited. Hence the need for us to schedule appointments outside of class for additional questions that I'm sure we all have about our individual assignments.
Remember what happened in musical chairs? When we acted on our basic impulse to take we eliminated one another from completing the goal. However, when we thought of the needs of the group we devised a system that enabled all of us to succeed.
An example of a limited resource is time. Specifically time of people. In class Brother Adams used the example of President Clark. In our case it's Brother Adams' time that's limited. Hence the need for us to schedule appointments outside of class for additional questions that I'm sure we all have about our individual assignments.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Marketing NASA
The primary reason for NASA's mistakes were that they felt pressure to produce results in order to maintain their funding. This pressure comes from the Department of Defense, the President, the congress and finally from the American tax payer.
The average American is not very interested in space travel. Most Americans feel like we're spending too much money in Iraq. They think we ought to be rebuilding New Orleans, paying off the national debt, fixing public schools the list goes on and on. So when it comes time to spend money on space travel most people think why are we doing this again?
That's where a solid ad campaign comes in. NASA needs to take some of the a few million out of it's multi billion dollar budget and put it into a national ad campaign. This may seem like a waste to them but the truth is a successful campaign will pay them back 10 fold.
The focus of the campaign should be looking at what great inventions have come about because of the space program. A couple of simple examples would be Tang, and the space pen. More important inventions would include modern airplanes. Equally as important as what has been done in the past is what will come about in the future. For example airplanes are being developed that will enter the earth's orbit and a flight of 17 hours from Los Angeles to Australia will now take less than two hours. None of this would be possible without without the space program. NASA needs a tagline to remind people what they've done and what they will do. Some like NASA part of our past and shaping our future.
Another part of the campaign should be aimed at children. After all children are the future astronauts and tax payers. They should be producing or sponsoring cartoons about space.
The main idea is to show that money spent on the space exploration is money well spent. Once this happens and NASA has regained the publics interest and support they won't be so concerned about losing their funding. Which means employees won't be so worried about losing their jobs and that will result in greater productivity and less accidents.
The average American is not very interested in space travel. Most Americans feel like we're spending too much money in Iraq. They think we ought to be rebuilding New Orleans, paying off the national debt, fixing public schools the list goes on and on. So when it comes time to spend money on space travel most people think why are we doing this again?
That's where a solid ad campaign comes in. NASA needs to take some of the a few million out of it's multi billion dollar budget and put it into a national ad campaign. This may seem like a waste to them but the truth is a successful campaign will pay them back 10 fold.
The focus of the campaign should be looking at what great inventions have come about because of the space program. A couple of simple examples would be Tang, and the space pen. More important inventions would include modern airplanes. Equally as important as what has been done in the past is what will come about in the future. For example airplanes are being developed that will enter the earth's orbit and a flight of 17 hours from Los Angeles to Australia will now take less than two hours. None of this would be possible without without the space program. NASA needs a tagline to remind people what they've done and what they will do. Some like NASA part of our past and shaping our future.
Another part of the campaign should be aimed at children. After all children are the future astronauts and tax payers. They should be producing or sponsoring cartoons about space.
The main idea is to show that money spent on the space exploration is money well spent. Once this happens and NASA has regained the publics interest and support they won't be so concerned about losing their funding. Which means employees won't be so worried about losing their jobs and that will result in greater productivity and less accidents.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Insights from 1-18-07
1) First I'd like to talk about what I'll call the ABC principle. It works like this Person A has an idea about how to achieve the desired results. To keep it simple the idea will be "idea A". Person B agrees as to what the desired results should be but has a different idea of how to get them. We'll call it "idea B." Person A and B go back and forth disputing about which idea is better. Both parties feel that their idea would more effectively produce the desired results. If they are truly interested in the best results and nothing more they’ll be able to come up with another idea. We’ll call this idea C. Idea C isn’t a compromise between both A and B it’s actually a better idea. The thing that prevents most organizations from ever coming up with a superior C idea is the egos of those involved. Both sides want the best results but they also want the credit for coming up with the solution. The ego of the people in the organization will hinder production of the best solutions. In some cases ego can even destroy the organization.
Ego is basically the world’s word for pride. The Lord often warns his people about the dangers of pride. The Book of Mormon shows us repeatedly the destructive nature of pride.
“And it came to pass in the eighty and fifth year they did wax stronger and stronger in their pride, and in their wickedness; and thus they were ripening again for destruction.”
Helaman 11: 37
2) Scarce resources have defined our civilization for thousands of years. We have always operated under the understanding that there is only so much to go around. Even today our economy operates on the idea of supply and demand.
When we as a class played musical chairs we knew that there was not enough for everyone. One chair, one person that’s it; so we began to fight to stay in. What happened when we played musical chairs might be similar to what happens when a company begins laying people off. Everyone begins to fight and undercut one another so that they can keep their job; as a result productivity drops and the situation gets worse. To prevent this, what needs to happen is what happened in our game of musical chairs. We realized that there was no rule that said “one person, one chair we could have as many people on a chair as we wanted. I know it’s a way over used cliché but the solution was to “think outside the box.” In the case of lay offs one solution is for employees to look for ways to help the company expand business. Another is for the employees not to panic but to look at other companies they might be able to get hired into. The possibilities are as limitless as the human imagination.
Twenty years ago and even in some circles today the well educated people say that there are too many people in the world. They say that the earth doesn’t have the resources necessary to support our rising population. In contrast the church has encouraged us to have large families. Learned men predicted that we would be starving to death by now. Once again we see the wisdom of the Lord. He thinks outside the box more than we can ever hope to in this life.
3) Ruthless compassion an interesting concept. Ruthless compassion moves beyond courage and consideration to achieve greater results. I do not dispute that an organization will function best at these levels. However, someone who seeks to utilize this technique should be aware that they will not have 100% success. The problems one would likely confront would be that most people are not used to functioning on that level. A boss who is working on that level may be taken advantage of and burned occasionally. For example working on this level requires a deep level of trust. Some employees will abuse that trust. This may come in the form of not doing their job, blaming others, or even steeling. The boss who takes up these tactics will be betrayed.
This is the best way to operate an organization. Despite the betrayals that will occur; the organization will achieve things thought to be impossible.
This is the way that Our Heavenly Father works. He places deep trust in us and is often betrayed. However, he has and will continue to achieve what most consider impossible. To make weak , selfish, men into powerful, compassionate Gods.
Ego is basically the world’s word for pride. The Lord often warns his people about the dangers of pride. The Book of Mormon shows us repeatedly the destructive nature of pride.
“And it came to pass in the eighty and fifth year they did wax stronger and stronger in their pride, and in their wickedness; and thus they were ripening again for destruction.”
Helaman 11: 37
2) Scarce resources have defined our civilization for thousands of years. We have always operated under the understanding that there is only so much to go around. Even today our economy operates on the idea of supply and demand.
When we as a class played musical chairs we knew that there was not enough for everyone. One chair, one person that’s it; so we began to fight to stay in. What happened when we played musical chairs might be similar to what happens when a company begins laying people off. Everyone begins to fight and undercut one another so that they can keep their job; as a result productivity drops and the situation gets worse. To prevent this, what needs to happen is what happened in our game of musical chairs. We realized that there was no rule that said “one person, one chair we could have as many people on a chair as we wanted. I know it’s a way over used cliché but the solution was to “think outside the box.” In the case of lay offs one solution is for employees to look for ways to help the company expand business. Another is for the employees not to panic but to look at other companies they might be able to get hired into. The possibilities are as limitless as the human imagination.
Twenty years ago and even in some circles today the well educated people say that there are too many people in the world. They say that the earth doesn’t have the resources necessary to support our rising population. In contrast the church has encouraged us to have large families. Learned men predicted that we would be starving to death by now. Once again we see the wisdom of the Lord. He thinks outside the box more than we can ever hope to in this life.
3) Ruthless compassion an interesting concept. Ruthless compassion moves beyond courage and consideration to achieve greater results. I do not dispute that an organization will function best at these levels. However, someone who seeks to utilize this technique should be aware that they will not have 100% success. The problems one would likely confront would be that most people are not used to functioning on that level. A boss who is working on that level may be taken advantage of and burned occasionally. For example working on this level requires a deep level of trust. Some employees will abuse that trust. This may come in the form of not doing their job, blaming others, or even steeling. The boss who takes up these tactics will be betrayed.
This is the best way to operate an organization. Despite the betrayals that will occur; the organization will achieve things thought to be impossible.
This is the way that Our Heavenly Father works. He places deep trust in us and is often betrayed. However, he has and will continue to achieve what most consider impossible. To make weak , selfish, men into powerful, compassionate Gods.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Insights from January 16th
Insights from 1-16-07
1) Today’s job market is looking for past results. It’s not about telling them who you are it’s about telling them what you can do. As we talked about this in class I remembered that when Covey was here he talked about it. I recall that he said something like “you can have the job you want in the place you want if your willing to work for it.” This is great news for me because I have a strong idea of the job I want and where I want to live. The next step will be to show them how I can fulfill their needs. When you tell someone you can fulfill their needs without them even having to tell you what they are I think you really set yourself apart.
2) Character—Competence—Commitment In class we talked about how important it is to have all of those things. Those are what perspective employers are looking for. I think it’s remarkable how the church tries to build those qualities within us. The experience one has a mission certainly builds all of those things. I suppose that’s how the Lord is able to promise prosperity to the righteous. Although I don’t think of prosperity as incredible wealth and a stress free existence.
3) Trust at the intrapersonal level. I’ve never really heard this idea put quite this way. In order for an individual to achieve any level of success he or she must first trust themselves. This is probably particularly meaningful for people who are fight addictions. An alcoholic, a drug addict, or someone addicted to pornography can’t go very far until they know that they can withstand the temptation. Through our class discussions my eyes have been open to the fact that trust is a principle that applies at all levels.
1) Today’s job market is looking for past results. It’s not about telling them who you are it’s about telling them what you can do. As we talked about this in class I remembered that when Covey was here he talked about it. I recall that he said something like “you can have the job you want in the place you want if your willing to work for it.” This is great news for me because I have a strong idea of the job I want and where I want to live. The next step will be to show them how I can fulfill their needs. When you tell someone you can fulfill their needs without them even having to tell you what they are I think you really set yourself apart.
2) Character—Competence—Commitment In class we talked about how important it is to have all of those things. Those are what perspective employers are looking for. I think it’s remarkable how the church tries to build those qualities within us. The experience one has a mission certainly builds all of those things. I suppose that’s how the Lord is able to promise prosperity to the righteous. Although I don’t think of prosperity as incredible wealth and a stress free existence.
3) Trust at the intrapersonal level. I’ve never really heard this idea put quite this way. In order for an individual to achieve any level of success he or she must first trust themselves. This is probably particularly meaningful for people who are fight addictions. An alcoholic, a drug addict, or someone addicted to pornography can’t go very far until they know that they can withstand the temptation. Through our class discussions my eyes have been open to the fact that trust is a principle that applies at all levels.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Columbia Shuttle Discussion
I was on the panel the question I answered was: How can it be said that its no ones fault?
My answer: I know that it is difficult to accept that there is no one person to assume the blame. After all there is a hierarchy at NASA everyone reports to someone. While that’s true and the low level employees are less responsible than the department heads. The responsibility is spread across the entire organization.
More than being the fault of a single person or a couple of people the real problem is the culture at NASA. NASA has about 26,000 employees. From reading the case study what becomes obvious is that these 26,000 people are not communicating. The culture at NASA is not facilitating good communication. In case study we read that engineers report that their concerns are not heard. What’s worse is that in one case an employee wrote a scathing e-mail to his superior but was too afraid to send it. That is the fundamental problem at NASA people don’t feel like speaking up will help.
I was then asked: Who was to blame in the Iraq situation?
My answer: The problem in Iraq is similar from an organizational stand point. Before the invasion no one was really listening to anyone on the ground. In fact there wasn’t really anyone to listen to. According to Robert Bair a CIA officer stationed in Northern Iraq during the late 90’s; US intelligence officers were being pulled out. For that reason the information about Iraq wasn’t accurate.
The real similarity between the NASA’s failures and the war in Iraq is American culture. Americans demand that someone be held responsible for everything. It’s the blame game and it’s a dangerous game. The danger is that you seek someone to hold responsible like the Mission Director or the President and you believe that once you get rid of them the problem is solved. Then the next time something goes wrong you do the same thing. After a while people loose hope that the problem can be solved. If you don’t believe that we live in a culture bent on blaming someone just think about the last time you got stuck waiting in a line at the super market. You looked ahead to see who was holding up the line. Did you ever think that maybe the supermarket was just under staffed, that the employee hadn’t received sufficient training, or that the machine wasn’t reading the coupons because they were printed on the wrong type of paper? Probably not you probably just assumed it was because your chosen scapegoat was stupid.
Insights
1) The problem isn’t a personal one it’s an organizational one. A statistician said that 96% of problems lay with the organization rather then the people.
2) Stephen Covey says agrees that 96% of the problems are organizational but it’s people that create the organization so in the end it’s people.
3) Sometimes pushing for better results will results will have the opposite effect. In the case of NASA there was a lot of pressure for them to keep launching shuttles. Due to the high pressure the launches were less scientifically significant.
4) It can be dangerous to have a large number of people reporting to one person. It creates a “bottle neck effect.”
5) Overlooking the smallest details that may seem insignificant can cause a major disaster. Columbia was destroyed because of small pieces of foam tile. The tiles falling off had been a problem for years but no one figured out how to fix it.
An Organization where I’ve seen similar problems is Alloy Ad Agency. Last semester I took over as President of Alloy Ad Agency. With the exception of me everyone was new to the organization. We had a total of 14 students aside from me. Since everyone was new everyone reported directly to me. This caused the “bottle necking”. After every meeting I would need to talk to about half the staff individually. They were always very nice about it but I could tell that they were really getting sick of waiting around to ask me questions. Many times people would just take off and say that they didn’t need anything after all; when they really did. This caused the inevitable effect of “bottle necking” delay. Our jobs weren’t getting done as quickly as they could have and the staff was getting frustrated.
Fortunately, this semester we have several returning students. We have created a couple of director positions. Each director has 6 or 7 people reporting to them. The directors then report to me and so far the whole thing is running a lot smoother.
My answer: I know that it is difficult to accept that there is no one person to assume the blame. After all there is a hierarchy at NASA everyone reports to someone. While that’s true and the low level employees are less responsible than the department heads. The responsibility is spread across the entire organization.
More than being the fault of a single person or a couple of people the real problem is the culture at NASA. NASA has about 26,000 employees. From reading the case study what becomes obvious is that these 26,000 people are not communicating. The culture at NASA is not facilitating good communication. In case study we read that engineers report that their concerns are not heard. What’s worse is that in one case an employee wrote a scathing e-mail to his superior but was too afraid to send it. That is the fundamental problem at NASA people don’t feel like speaking up will help.
I was then asked: Who was to blame in the Iraq situation?
My answer: The problem in Iraq is similar from an organizational stand point. Before the invasion no one was really listening to anyone on the ground. In fact there wasn’t really anyone to listen to. According to Robert Bair a CIA officer stationed in Northern Iraq during the late 90’s; US intelligence officers were being pulled out. For that reason the information about Iraq wasn’t accurate.
The real similarity between the NASA’s failures and the war in Iraq is American culture. Americans demand that someone be held responsible for everything. It’s the blame game and it’s a dangerous game. The danger is that you seek someone to hold responsible like the Mission Director or the President and you believe that once you get rid of them the problem is solved. Then the next time something goes wrong you do the same thing. After a while people loose hope that the problem can be solved. If you don’t believe that we live in a culture bent on blaming someone just think about the last time you got stuck waiting in a line at the super market. You looked ahead to see who was holding up the line. Did you ever think that maybe the supermarket was just under staffed, that the employee hadn’t received sufficient training, or that the machine wasn’t reading the coupons because they were printed on the wrong type of paper? Probably not you probably just assumed it was because your chosen scapegoat was stupid.
Insights
1) The problem isn’t a personal one it’s an organizational one. A statistician said that 96% of problems lay with the organization rather then the people.
2) Stephen Covey says agrees that 96% of the problems are organizational but it’s people that create the organization so in the end it’s people.
3) Sometimes pushing for better results will results will have the opposite effect. In the case of NASA there was a lot of pressure for them to keep launching shuttles. Due to the high pressure the launches were less scientifically significant.
4) It can be dangerous to have a large number of people reporting to one person. It creates a “bottle neck effect.”
5) Overlooking the smallest details that may seem insignificant can cause a major disaster. Columbia was destroyed because of small pieces of foam tile. The tiles falling off had been a problem for years but no one figured out how to fix it.
An Organization where I’ve seen similar problems is Alloy Ad Agency. Last semester I took over as President of Alloy Ad Agency. With the exception of me everyone was new to the organization. We had a total of 14 students aside from me. Since everyone was new everyone reported directly to me. This caused the “bottle necking”. After every meeting I would need to talk to about half the staff individually. They were always very nice about it but I could tell that they were really getting sick of waiting around to ask me questions. Many times people would just take off and say that they didn’t need anything after all; when they really did. This caused the inevitable effect of “bottle necking” delay. Our jobs weren’t getting done as quickly as they could have and the staff was getting frustrated.
Fortunately, this semester we have several returning students. We have created a couple of director positions. Each director has 6 or 7 people reporting to them. The directors then report to me and so far the whole thing is running a lot smoother.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
