Phobias: What are we afraid to be critical?

February 2nd, 2010

Well. This certainly is another fine mess.

It seems that society as a whole has flunked a very important vocabulary test. The word of the day is “phobia.” We see it used repeatedly as a suffix to many other words such as xeno-, claustro-, and agora-.

The word actually means “a fear of.” So, in the examples above, xenophobia is a fear of foreigners; claustrophobia is a fear of small, enclosed spaces, and agoraphobia is a fear of crowds, public spaces or open areas.

But, in our tolerant (another word that no longer means what it used to) world, to be critical of anything has come to mean having a fear of it. So for example, if I were to criticize those who were from a foreign country, then I would be labeled as a xenophobe; if I belittled those who were afraid of small, enclosed spaces, then I would be labeled as a claustrophobe; and if I rolled my eyes at those who were afraid of crowds, then according to the new definition, I would be labeled as a agoraphobe. You get the idea.

This change in definition represents a dangerous shift. Not only are we stifling free speech and open debate on subjects that ought to be discussed, if only to help those who suffer from such maladies, but we are also attaching a damaging stigma to those who disagree with us. To do so is one short step to calling such people enemies of the state.

Amazon: the Biggest Monkey in the Jungle

January 31st, 2010

I discovered something quite interesting today. Amazon thinks that a URL entered by anyone but them is profanity. The entire Western world has been unable to find a definition that they can agree on, but not Amazon.

I recently had another article published by Ezines.com on manager traits. I went to my profile page to see if I could find the place where authors can leave comments about themselves. Things had changed a bit from the last time I visited. I realized that I would have to be a bit creative in this respect.

I spied the Interests page and put a message in there to say that if people wanted to read about manager traits, then here was the link. I tried a Tiny URL first. Amazon flagged it as profanity. I laughed out loud. Oh, it must be the word ‘tiny,’ though I can’t imagine why. So I put in the entire original URL from Ezines. No dice. So, where did it finally go? Now that would be telling. The folks at Amazon might be reading this, too.

Poor Theo: Risking his children’s inheritance

January 29th, 2010

How often have we heard him say it? “Why should I risk £xxx,xxx of my children’s inheritance on . . .?” Of course, those entrepreneurs making the pitch for his investment money are too terrified to say anything back to him, so they just hem and haw, while being interrupted by an investor who is really asking what to him is a rhetorical question.

Well, Theo. I have a question for you. At the moment, it appears that you’re worth about £135 million ($223m). With five children, I make that roughly £27m each. Investing in small businesses is risky, don’t you know. So, however much fun it is to be a dragon, you probably ought to look for something to do that’s less risky.

Banking is out, of course. It was they who started the mess we’re in. Maybe, you should just put a big safe in the floor of the house you own, with its full gym and swimming pool, so there’s a place to store it. Oh, and stop acquiring all that “rubbish” that you’ve confessed to buying in your new book. Then, just maybe, your children will be able to start their lives somewhere above the poverty line.

Alex Mandossian: When the marketing is the message

January 27th, 2010

I don’t know about you, but when I’m directed to a blog post, it’s because I want to read something of value. What I don’t want is more marketing.

Alex Mandossian, for example, is now using his blog as a vehicle for marketing his latest product. Personally, I find this annoying; so much so, that I unsubscribed from his list. (I was tempted to give you the link, but I didn’t want to promote him.)

Today was the last straw. I was notified that he had a new blog post. I clicked on it, only to be taken to a video of him talking about a book he was reading. I was already beginning to feel uneasy about things.

Nearly all “experts” in online marketing seem to be friends with everyone else in online marketing. So, during the first part of the clip, I got to hear about who his friend was this time - the author of a new book he’s read four times, but can’t put down. (Barbara Cartland? Maybe not.) Anyway, he talks for a couple of minutes about how the information in the book can help you, and then shifts to promoting his latest service. If you buy from him, you get a deal on the book, or possibly it’s the other way around.

One of my foibles is that I hate it when other people waste my time. When I come to a website, a blog, or a newsletter, I expect the writer to say what he/she has to say, and then to stop talking. What I don’t expect is to get a marketing message that is veiled in an information message. It’s a bit like opening a box of cereal only to find that the top 5% is full and the rest of it is a cardboard frame with a message telling me how I can get a bowl made by someone else by buying another, more expensive box of cereal.

This practice is worrying because it casts aspersion on those of us who do provide something of value in that media. What we’re witnessing, therefore, is not a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; rather, it’s a product, wrapped in some information, inside a deception. Whatever you do: don’t fall for it.

Outsourcing to where?

January 27th, 2010

I know. Two blog posts within minutes of one another may seem a bit excessive; but I have to comment as and when I see something. Otherwise, I’ll forget.

I contacted an Indian company a few days ago about writing some code for me. The initial price came to just over $1000, which exceeded my expectations by 10-fold. The company claimed to charge $12 per hour. They planned to charge $500 for some template software, and then to modify it for another $500.

When I pointed out that that seemed a bit excessive, since in their words they only needed to do a bit of “simple customization,” they quickly lowered the price by $200. This made me even more suspicious about the whole thing.

A friend of mine said that Indian companies have a reputation for moving the goalposts on projects. Between his experience and mine, I’ve decided to look for another solution. What’s your experience? Good? Bad? Diabolical?

Can the left hand see the right hand?

January 27th, 2010

In the United States, there’s a law that says that parking is not allowed within 50 feet of a fire hydrant. However, the office that creates parking spaces appears to be in a different department (or maybe on a different planet with Frasier) from the one that decides where to put these emergency water sources. I see this sort of thing periodically, but I wonder if you’ve ever noticed how many parking spaces are placed next to them. It feels like entrapment to me.

The Hypocrisy of Higher Education

January 23rd, 2010

We’ve all heard of the cobbler whose kids had no shoes. How about the university that didnt believe its own press?

Consider this: When the Victoria University of Manchester and the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology (the MIT of the UK) decided to merge, not one of the professors who was knowledgeable about mergers and acquisitions was included in the consultation and implementation process.

Here’s another example: Some years ago, the president of the the Academy of Management, the preeminent professional organization for management scholars, posed a poignant question to those attending the annual conference: What would happen if the Academy mattered? This must have hit a number of people between the eyes like a two-by-four, since I’m willing to bet that most of those in attendance thought it did.

More recently, one government funding body decided to change its ground rules. In order to be eligible for funding, the researcher(s) had to describe how the results would be applied or put into practice. Scholars had become brilliant at creating proposals to obtain money so that they could study something arcane and publish it in a peer-reviewed journal, but had lost the plot somewhere when it came to putting into practice. (I’ll probably get a lot of flak for this, but even the global warming folks are beginning to discover this.)

I read recently that business schools are churning out graduates that don’t understand business. Small wonder. Apparently those in charge of the universities don’t either.

Here’s another example that applies more widely to business schools in general. There are two messages that are being promoted simultaneously: One to those who buy the teaching and the other to those who do it. Universities want the students to believe that their professors, teachers and lecturers are the best in the world so that they will persuade their parents, the government, or anyone else who’s contributing to pay their tuition, fees, and living expenses.

The other message is sent to their professors, teachers and lecturers. As my illustrations above have shown already, these same universities don’t think that those who teach know what they’re talking about. If they did, they’d listen to and put into practice what they say.

Of course, there are exceptions. Personally, I believe that anyone who wants to attend university should be afforded the opportunity to do so. But, that doesn’t mean that academic standards should be lowered so they’ll pass. It simply means that students, who might not otherwise have the chance, could go. Whether or not they succeeded when they got there would be up to them.

If you’re planning to attend yourself and/or are paying the student bills, then you ought to investigate the university’s own practices. It might make prevent you from making the expensive mistake of supporting institutions that don’t practice what they preach.

The Hypocrisy of Politics

January 22nd, 2010

Sometimes I don’t know which is worse: hypocrisy or politics. Maybe they’re synonymous. And maybe in order to be a politician, you have to be a hypocrite. It wouldn’t surprise me if that was the case; but is that the full story?

In speech scheduled for later today, the leader of the opposition, David Cameron, will say that the social recession in Britain is worse than the economic one. It’s a clever choice of words, and it’s also probably true. Kudos to the speech writers. But, Gordon Brown, the country’s prime minister, has made the accusation that Cameron will say anything to get elected. I wonder if Brown was looking in mirror when he said that.

One of my favorite professors, Dr John Riggs, said that the one thing that politicians wanted more than anything else was to get reelected. Obviously, he was referring to all of them; not just those in the British Conservative Party. In fact, if Brown loses the General Election later this year, as seems probable, he will go down in history as one of the shortest serving PMs in British history; so you can bet the farm that he wants to be reelected.

How have we managed to allow constituent representation to compromise the integrity of our elected officials? It’s probably been like that from the beginning; it’s just that we didn’t notice quite so much. Then, unlike now, we shared beliefs in the most important things. We majored in the majors, not the minors. We focused on those things that would give us the biggest bang for the buck.

I’m reading an excellent book right now entitled The 80/20 Priniciple by Richard Koch. Most of us claim to know this principle, but few of us actually put it into practice. Instead of concentrating on the 20% of things that would give us 80% of the results we want, we focus on devoting 80% of our energies to get that extra 20%. In other words, we major in the minors.

The same thing has happened in politics, and we’ve encouraged it. We’ve told politicians by our letters, emails, and most of all, our votes that if they don’t pander to our own pet projects (which fall into the 20% of the overall results), we won’t vote for them. (At the end of the day, it’s the votes that determine the outcome of all democratic elections.) Consequently, we’ve forced our elected representatives to devote their resources and, to a large extent, their integrity to giving us those things in order to stay in office.

Who then, are the hypocrites? Are they the ones who must compromise their convictions in order to get our votes, or are they the ones who force them to do so?

Keeping Jobs at Home

January 19th, 2010

Althought the recession is officially over in many countries, the effects of it are still being felt and probably will be for some time.

Kraft has recently announced a takeover bid for Cadbury Schweppes. Already questions are being asked about why British firms are losing control of their companies. The short answer is that during the course of its 200-year history, it has allowed more than 50% of its shares to be sold. That means that the door was opened for someone at some time to buy the company. If Cadbury Schweppes hadn’t done so, then any bid by anyone else would have been limited to less than a controlling interest in the firm.

Few of us will ever be put in a situation where we’re at the helm of a publicly-listed company, but the principle remains. We should never mortgage the future of our business in order to solve a short term problem.

Cart Before the Horse?

January 19th, 2010

I don’t know about you, but I like to watch auction programs for relaxation. There’s one such program in the UK called Bargain Hunt. In it, a couple of experienced auctioneers wander around with some contestants at a fair or a store to buy antiques that will then be sold at an auction.

As most seasoned bargain hunters will tell you, the best buys are at car boot sales. But, these seem to be “off limits” for this particular program, probably because there are at best only a few treasures among a lot of junk.

There certainly was a time when auctions commanded higher prices; but recessions usually dramatically knock things down. This past recession is no exception.

I’ve noticed a reversal, however, in recent months. The bargains are at the auctions, not at the fairs or anywhere else. Instead, the profits are made at the fairs where retail prices are not uncommon. This reversal seems to have been missed by the producers of this program. They continue to take contestants to stores, of all place, to find their “bargains.” Very occasionally, the contestants make some money, but rarely is it enough to cover the expenses they would have incurred if they were using their own money, and sometimes they lose almost as much as they spend.

There’s another surprising thing about this program. Each of the experts is given the money the contestants don’t spend to obtain their own bonus buy. Almost without fail, these lose money as well. You’d think that any self-respecting expert would do his or her utmost to turn a profit; but you get the definite feeling that instead they’re treating this venture as a bit of a joke. Is this any way to do business?