Baggage Fees

July 28th, 2010

Those of you who fly know that the airlines have joined the ranks of extortionists: that despicable group of people who want to charge for everything they can think of. I don’t know about you, but boycotting them and others is something I’m considering. Between the US security and charges for using the toilet, you’d think they’d rather you just stayed at home. It’s an idea, you know.

Jonnelle Marte, in an article entitled “How to Beat Baggage Fees” makes a number of suggestions on how to transport your baggage without additional charges. The trouble is that whatever you don’t pay when you check-in, you’ve already forfeited before you even bought the ticket. We’re talking loyalty cards here, and the weird thing is that airlines appreciate your business so much that they’ll slap another $249 charge on your credit card just for the privilege of having it. (If this really excites you, I’ll make a few cards for you to carry around for the knock-down price of $50 or $100, depending on the color you choose. The cost of owning a credit card, in case anyone has forgotten, is in the interest that you pay on the balance.

United Airlines Boeing 777-200 landing
Image via Wikipedia

Anyway, here’s an example of what I mean.  The United Airlines credit card costs $249 per year. In return for that fee, you and eight other companions can check up to two bags each on any given flight. Let’s say that you and your extended family decided to fly to Colorado to go skiing over Christmas. (If you can afford to do this, you probably don’t care about extra costs for your bags or the fee.) $249 divided by 18 bags equals $13.83 per bag, a savings of $11.17 on each bag. The usual price is $25 per bag. If there were only five of you, however, you’d save ten cents on each bag. That’s right. A dime. Of course, five of you could do this twice in one year, or one of you could still break even if you flew on five occasions in a year. I know that some business people do this routinely, but the majority of them are having their expenses paid for by their companies. How many people do you know who fly this often at their own personal expense.

Yea. I couldn’t think of anyone, either.

What’s my point? Do the calculations. Ask yourself when in the past 12 months the criteria that makes the “offer” actually applied to you. If it didn’t, then don’t allow yourself to get seduced by it. You’ll only lose money in the long run.

Bruce Hoag, PhD, CPsychol
Work Psychologist

Enhanced by Zemanta

Links as Spam: What will they think of next?

July 26th, 2010

You’ll have to be in international traveller who lugs around a laptop to appreciate what I’m going to tell you.

I’m in the States right now, but I regularly receive The Independent feed of headlines. Today, I noticed that there were various words in each of the stories that were printed in blue and double-underlined. Curious, I hovered my mouse over a couple of them. Surprise, surprise, the links had nothing whatever to do with the story. Not only were they ads for products, but the ads were germane to my current location. One was even for new windows. It seems that living outside of the UK is not enough to protect you from the dreaded double-glazing saleman.

I know times are tough, but in my mind the inclusion of such advertising seriously denigrates the value of the news it reports.

Is this the way of all journalistic flesh? I hope not.

Bruce Hoag, PhD, CPsychol
Work Psychologist

Enhanced by Zemanta

Actions Speak Louder than Words

July 25th, 2010

Today marks the 42nd anniversary of the Pope’s famous Humanae Vitae, in which all forms of artificial birth control were prohibited by the Roman Catholic Church. I, for one, believe that because only God can create life from non-life, that only he has the right to terminate it.

And when does life begin? At conception, of course. This is obvious because only when two lives come together can another be created, and even that’s a miracle. That said, not all forms of artificial birth control terminate life. Instead, they only prevent a new life from being started in the first place.

Earl Lauer Butz, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.
Image via Wikipedia

There’s a certain hypocrisy, however, about the Pope’s remarks. This was captured beautifully by the then Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, who, incidentally, had to resign for his comments. (So much for the 1st Amendment.) He said, “He-a no play-a the game, make-a no the rules.” I still chuckle when I think of that, and now that I live in Italy, I’m amused even more because I hear so many English words pronounced as if they ended in “a.”

We all  know that doctors are more likely to listen to doctors, teachers to teachers, and mechanics to mechanics. But when a celibate tries to tell us how we should conduct ourselves behind the bedroom door, that’s taking matters a bit too far. Truth, whatever it is, ought to come from a credible source. In matters pertaining to procreation, it should be promulgated, at the very least, by someone who is married; not by a person who doesn’t even approve of it among his peers.

Organizations are full of hypocrites, too. How often have you been obligated to work a shift schedule that was written by someone who only ever worked Monday to Friday, from 8 to 5 and took an hour for lunch? When was the last time you saw the division manager assembling something in your shop after telling you that greater productivity was needed? And why is it that when cost-cutting becomes a necessity, those at the bottom of the food chain are laid off first while the CEO and the Board still fly first class?

Talk is cheap. Anyone can say what he or she thinks ought to be done, as long as someone else has to do it. I’ve said this before, but it’s worth repeating: You get the behavior you reinforce, and that goes for what others are allowed to do, too. If you want people in your organization to work shifts, then at least have a shift-worker write the schedule. If you want greater productivity, then by jove, go down to the shop or assembly line and show people how they can improve. And if the company needs to cut costs, then start by paring the fat from the top and put everyone in economy class.

The way to combat hypocrisy is to demand of yourself those things that you demand of others. You can’t have one without the other.

Bruce Hoag, PhD, CPsychol
Work Psychologist

Enhanced by Zemanta

Methinks They Protest Too Much

July 24th, 2010

While reading about North Korea’s latest threats with respect to the large military exercise near its waters, I was reminded of just how hard that country, as well as others, try to make us believe that they are democracies, even when it’s patently obvious to the rest of us that they are not. Here’s what I mean.

The official name of North Korea is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The official name of China is the People’s Republic of China And not to be outdone by either of them, the former East Germany used to be called the DDR – Deutsche Demokratische Republik. The granddaddy of them all was the USSR – The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. You’ll notice that in each case, extraordinary pains have been taken to stress the democratic nature of countries which are anything but.

Flag-map of North Korea
Image via Wikipedia

This hypocrisy, however, is not limited to the names that governments give to their nations. They same kind of thing happens in organizations. When I was in the US Air Force, there were numerous instances in which some new commander was referred to as a “people person.” Such protestations were practically cult-like.

The view I’ve always taken of these things is that if these leaders and managers were so people-oriented, why did anyone have to say so? It would obvious to everyone. So, when such a claim is made, I’m immediately suspect that I’m not being given the full story.

The examples above prove my point.

Bruce Hoag, PhD, CPsychol
Work Psychologist

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Tip of the Iceberg

July 22nd, 2010
The Iceberg suspected of sinking the RMS Titan...
Image via Wikipedia

I can’t recall exactly when I first heard the phrase, but there was a time when the” tip of the iceberg” referred to one small part of a ginormous problem. Icebergs, as you know, are just large, misshaped ice cubes that float around the North and South Atlantics, and that push the happy buttons of some oceanographers. Hollywood made a movie about the demise of the Titanic, the largest and most luxurious cruise ship of its day, which failed to complete its maiden voyage in April, 1912 because of an encounter with one.

It’s fairly well known that only 10% of an iceberg is visible above the surface. The rest is below the water line. So, the “tip of the iceberg” is that relatively small bit that can be seen. So the phrase was intended to be a metaphor for the idea that the part of a problem that was being discussed was a very small part of the whole.

Somewhere along the line, the meaning changed 180 degrees. Instead of it being a bad thing, it became a good thing as well, such that it referred to a small part of anything that was huge: a problem, a concept, an idea, etc. This has done nothing to help interpersonal communication in organizations, one of the biggest problems at work today.

If you read my free newsletter, you’ll know that each month I talk about a topic from the perspectives of both managers and employees. Each group has its own ideas about how to interpret any particular issue, what should be done about it, and what one group’s behavior means in terms of the other’s.

Misunderstandings are a fundamental part of the challenges of interpersonal communication. But, what can be worse than using a phrase that refers to two diametrically opposed ideas? This is not as simple as using a word such as “cleave,” for example, where the context makes it easy to discern what is meant. The interchangeability of the phrase “the tip of the iceberg” makes its use refer to a negative interpretation as easily as a positive one. And that means that before any discussion takes place about the problem, concept or idea, the parties involved already have conflicting opinions about what happens next.

In order to resolve interpersonal communication problems at work, the parties concerned must at least agree on the meanings of the terms they intend to use, and that means that neither can assume that the other knows the definitions.

This is a ginormous topic of its own, so I’ll leave you to think about it yourself. I hope that you will return to this blog and leave your comments.

Bruce Hoag, PhD, CPsychol
Work Psychologist

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Species That Should Be Made Extinct

July 16th, 2010

Don’t get me wrong. I’m as concerned about species being made extinct as much as the next feller; but there are some things that I’m convinced we could live without and be better for it.

Take mosquitoes, for instance. This story must be one of the most bizarre attempts at genetic modification on record. Scientists at the University of Arizona apparently have found a way to prevent mosquitoes from infecting someone with malaria. Because only the oldest females can transmit the disease, the idea is to shorten their lives by design.

Countries which have regions where malaria is ...
Image via Wikipedia

Although a quarter of a billion people are infected with malaria each year, and about one million of them die, it seems to me that the scientists have solved the wrong problem.

I’ll admit that my knowledge of the food chain of which this insect must be a part is limited. On the other hand, you have to realize that I don’t eat them; they eat me. When a mosquito sees me, she sees three square meals plus snacks for the entire neighborhood, and proceeds to invite all her friends. The manner in which I’m bitten resembles the tight pattern that law enforcement officials strive for on the firing range. I even get bites on my bites.

So, you won’t be surprised when I say that a better problem to solve would be how to eradicate the little blighters altogether. Not only would that eliminate the spread of malaria, it would also enable me to come out of hiding on a summer’s evening.

Bruce Hoag, PhD, CPsychol
Work Psychologist

Enhanced by Zemanta

Would You Like to Fire Your Boss?

July 16th, 2010

You would? Well, you’re in good company. According to a survey conducted by BadBossology.com , nearly half of you would give your supervisor a pink slip, given the chance. Of the remaining bosses, 29% would be sent to a psychologist for some kind of assessment, and the rest would be given mandatory management training. It seems that the only thing that’s keeping them in work is the pleasure of those who hired them.

I can hear your thoughts. You’re thinking to yourself  that you’d love to fire your boss, but that you’re only able to do so in your dreams. We’ll, hang in there. Your opportunity will come, and when it does, you want to be ready.

NEW YORK - NOVEMBER 11:  Wall Street job seeke...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

So, how can you prepare to fire your boss? It’s a new world of work, so merely updating your resume and trolling through the “help wanted” ads isn’t going to do much for you. If you rely on that method, you could be simply jumping from the frying pan into the fire because you’re hoping to find a better situation using out-dated methods.

You must begin by thinking like your boss and your company. What do they value about you? Do you consistently contribute more value than it costs them to keep you, or can anybody do what you do? If  what you do is anything less than priceless, then you’re first step is decide how you can become invaluable in your next position. No one said it would be easy.

It used to be that if you were indispensable, you couldn’t get promoted. Today, your value is bound up in your ability to be irreplaceable. Don’t underestimate the importance of what I’m saying.

In the next few weeks, I’ll be discussing this in much greater detail in a free ebook. Only subscribers to Two Sides of the Same Coin will get it. If you want to obtain this valuable information, then go to http://www.p-advantage.com/Newsletter.php and sign-up today.

Bruce Hoag, PhD, CPsychol
Work Psychologist

Enhanced by Zemanta

We’re not doing anything about it, & neither should you

July 7th, 2010

In case no one noticed, the US Government has a virus. For lack of a better name for it, I’m calling it the Nimby Virus. Nimby is an acronym for not-in-my-back-yard, and usually refers to attempts by local people and/or their politicians to prevent the construction of unsavory structures in their vicinity. Think waste disposal areas and prisons.

But, there’s another kind of Nimby. It occurs when one entity encroaches on what the other believes is its own territory.  Think gangs, hierarchy and, in this case, a state passing laws that threaten national sovereignty. This post is about the law recently passed in Arizona to deal with its problem of illegal aliens. The US Government has filed suit against them on the grounds that it has jurisdiction over this issue.

Official Portrait of President Ronald Reagan.
Image via Wikipedia

The suit seeks to prevent the new law from taking effect at the end of July and makes it a state crime for an alien to be in the US illegally. It empowers state law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of suspects.

I suppose that the wording of the law is a bit unfortunate. Had it just made it a crime to be in Arizona illegally, I don’t think there would have been a case to answer. But, extending it to anywhere in the US does step on at least 49 other toes.

The reasons that this story made this blog, however, is because of the general attitude of the US Government. They know there’s a problem, and some day, but not anytime soon, they might get around to actually doing something about it. But, woe to those who take the law into their own hands, even if they are state legislators.

I think it was Ronald Reagan who famously said that you can get a lot done if you don’t care who gets the credit. It’s about time that the federal government cured itself of the Nimby Virus.

Bruce Hoag, PhD, CPsychol
Work Psychologist

Enhanced by Zemanta

Fatties & Food Contests

July 5th, 2010

This must be one of the greatest ironies on earth. The nation that has more people who are morbidly obese and has created a reality show for shedding weight also happens to have a contest to see who can shove the most hot dogs in his or her gob in 10 minutes. I mean, who really cares? Joey Chestnut, apparently. He ate 54 of them to win the all-you-can-eat sprint for the second year in a row. There’s also the small matter of the $20,000 he took away as his prize. That should buy him enough Alka-Selzter to hold him until next year.

The annual, July 4th event has been held on Coney Island for the past 95 years, however, something like one billion people in the world today are starving; and worse still, even more than that are piling on the pounds like there’s no tomorrow. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we diet.

NEW YORK - JULY 02:  Former champion Takeru Ko...
Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Both Mr Chestnut (what a name for a foodie) and Nathan’s, the company sponsoring the event, ought to be ashamed of themselves. There are at least 53 other people in the world who would have savored every morsel, but instead went to bed without eating anything.

Bruce Hoag, PhD, CPsychol
Work Psychologist

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Employee is Dead

June 30th, 2010

I don’t know about you, but I’m active in various social networks. And, apart from what I consider to be a few disreputable professions, I’ll connect with just about anyone. After all, that’s what networking is about. First you connect, then you get to know one another. Then you might even “like” someone, and eventually you’ll get around to talking about the nature of your businesses.

Every now and then, I’m contacted by someone who’s looking for another job. Maybe the person has been made redundant, or works for the boss-from-hell, or would like to move to Europe or the US. Invariably, I’m asked the same sort of question: Do I know of anyone who is interested in their skills. Some even send me their CVs (resumes). My pat answer is that they’re asking the wrong question. It’s not a case of whether or not someone will give them a job; rather, it’s a question of the value are you offering.

Inland Revenue Offices - Somerset House. The w...
Image via Wikipedia

A typical “employee” costs the hiring company at least 40% more than the “employee” receives in taxes and benefits. The value that you offer must exceed, at a minimum, 140% of what you think you should be paid. If all you’re doing is filling time, then you shouldn’t expect to be hired. Any entry level person can fill time as easily as any unskilled person. The people who are entitled to higher pay are those, and only those, who bring much more value to the company than they cost. That’s the criterion. Age doesn’t matter, whether you’re married or not, is irrelevant, and your apparent seniority is of no value. So, stop pretending that it is. No one cares how many years experience you have. If you’re so good, then prove it.

If you want to get paid what you think you’re worth, then package yourself as an independent contractor and approach companies with a view to supplying their non-core business. Let them outsource to you.

I’ve had sales people and project managers tell me their the greatest, but that they want a company to hire them so them. I say, let them demonstrate it as independent contractors. If you’re the great sales person, then put together a plan for how you will sell their products or services as an independent contractor. But, don’t expect them to hire you. Why should they?

The flip side of this, of course, is that you’re not beholden to just the one company. Aim to provide your service two three or more simultaneously. It’s your expertise that you’re selling; not your time. If you do this, then you’ll never have to worry about being employed; and companies will clamour for your expertise.

Enhanced by Zemanta