How often have we heard those accusatory words? They usually convey a bit of a “moral” disappointment in someone. The attitude is that one has put in some effort and time and done a few things and IMPLICIT in that “giving” is a belief that it should come back to the giver. Now here’s the trouble I have with that. Giving with some unspoken (usually too high) expectation of a return isn’t in fact GIVING; it is INVESTING. I never saw anyone go up to a bank window and say “Here’s some cash. Take it!” One usually goes to a bank to make a deposit in one’s account and the terms of the return are clearly spelled out ahead of time (and are usually believed to be too low by the investor). I suspect that if we spelled out what the expectations were in advance for things we did for people two things would happen: (1) The receiver might not want the favor. The cost to them might just be too high. (2) WE ourselves might not feel so proud and self righteous as we do when we supposedly do “no strings attached” favors for people.
The truth is that GIVING means absolutely NO expectation of any return. The funny part is that such giving where the true reward is the feeling one gets from the act ITSELF usually comes right around and rewards you in ways you never thought of. It is the paradox of life I feel that those who don’t want to be REPAID get REWARDED many fold. The other thing I’d like to put out there while I’m on this topic is that WORK or THINGS don’t buy love and loyalty. ONLY LOVE buys LOVE and only genuine loyalty buys that. We all do things for people we don’t feel the slightest bit of either emotion for but we do it because we have to for one reason or another. Our bosses and co-workers don’t LOVE us or imply everlasting loyalty for us just because we do things with and for them. Its part of the work we do. But when we feel someone genuinely cares about us the ONLY thing we can do to show our appreciation is to reciprocate that feeling. No amount of “doing things” can replace that.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
Kublai Khan & Marco Polo
Some time back I heard this very educational tale. This guy called Marco Polo goes to work for an organization - let's call it China. the Big Boss is a guy called Kublai Khan - revered by all, feared by many. After a good tenure Marco Polo gets homesick one day and says to the Boss (who by this time thinks the WORLD of him - and THIS is the part of the story that makes sense even today) " It's been REALLY great working for you in your court but I need to get home."
Kublai takes a flat piece of gold and writes on it "This man, Marco Polo, has my blessings" he signs it with his PERSONAL SEAL. The result? Marco travels cost- and difficulty-free from Beijing to Venice. Everyone he meets looks after him like he was the Boss himself. Why? Because there are two consequences and everyone knows them. If you treat the bearer of such a tablet well, the Boss himself will compensate you tenfold. If you MIStreat such a person the Boss himself will be insulted and will bring death not only to you but to your entire family. Small wonder eh?
Why do I tell this story? Because the same principle works in our everyday lives even today. We all work in organizations and if we somehow have the favor of the Kublai Khan of that organization somehow we tend to succeed more than the next guy and the whole thing becomes a self-fulfilling cycle. If we don't or if we fall OUT of favor we might just as well head for Venice. I have seen the scenario repeat itself in MANY different walks of life and the lesson is always the same. Work to get (and stay) in the best books of the leader of the organization you want to work for or find another organization. I see many young people trying for alternative 3. THERE IS NOT ALTERNATIVE 3 if you need to work for an organization. Oddly enough, it also explains another phenomenon which I have also seen in many places. I call it the "Favor Disease".
Have you ever seen how people react to someone based on their current standing with the Kublai Khan of their organization? If someone is out of favor no one will want to be seen talking to them in the halls or sitting next to them or acknowledging good ideas from them etc etc etc lest they too will come down with the dreaded fatal disease which COULD affect nt ony them personally but also their entire families. Needless to say these folks wither and die away by themselves even if they could have been a great value to their colleagues. If you are in a position of power it behooves you to be conscious about how much YOU can affect the success of others in your organization and therefore of the whole organization itself. In this very competitive world we live in these days it may just make the difference between life and death. Just something to think about. Your thoughts are welcome.
Kublai takes a flat piece of gold and writes on it "This man, Marco Polo, has my blessings" he signs it with his PERSONAL SEAL. The result? Marco travels cost- and difficulty-free from Beijing to Venice. Everyone he meets looks after him like he was the Boss himself. Why? Because there are two consequences and everyone knows them. If you treat the bearer of such a tablet well, the Boss himself will compensate you tenfold. If you MIStreat such a person the Boss himself will be insulted and will bring death not only to you but to your entire family. Small wonder eh?
Why do I tell this story? Because the same principle works in our everyday lives even today. We all work in organizations and if we somehow have the favor of the Kublai Khan of that organization somehow we tend to succeed more than the next guy and the whole thing becomes a self-fulfilling cycle. If we don't or if we fall OUT of favor we might just as well head for Venice. I have seen the scenario repeat itself in MANY different walks of life and the lesson is always the same. Work to get (and stay) in the best books of the leader of the organization you want to work for or find another organization. I see many young people trying for alternative 3. THERE IS NOT ALTERNATIVE 3 if you need to work for an organization. Oddly enough, it also explains another phenomenon which I have also seen in many places. I call it the "Favor Disease".
Have you ever seen how people react to someone based on their current standing with the Kublai Khan of their organization? If someone is out of favor no one will want to be seen talking to them in the halls or sitting next to them or acknowledging good ideas from them etc etc etc lest they too will come down with the dreaded fatal disease which COULD affect nt ony them personally but also their entire families. Needless to say these folks wither and die away by themselves even if they could have been a great value to their colleagues. If you are in a position of power it behooves you to be conscious about how much YOU can affect the success of others in your organization and therefore of the whole organization itself. In this very competitive world we live in these days it may just make the difference between life and death. Just something to think about. Your thoughts are welcome.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Survivalism versus "Progressivism"
It hit me suddenly. The sheer obviousness of it is quite stunning. Yet I am sure that a lot of us "know" this without ever having explicitly thought about it. There are in fact two major approaches to life. I will call them the "survivalist" approach which simply wants to finish the day with life being as "same" as it can be to the day(s) before. Those folks simply want to end the day without having made a mistake, without having done something that they would regret. To them not doing the wrong thing is preferable to not doing anything. This is their "safe" zone, their comfort zone.
Then there is a different kind of beast altogether. To this person not doing anything is DEATH. To them it is better to have dreamed the big dream and made an effort to get there. To them the worst day is where they made NO progress, took NO risks, and made NO mistakes. they equate mistakes to "experience" and a day spent without gaining any experience is a day lost out of their lives. These are the "Progressivists". Life is no worth LIVING if it is not worth risking. They mouth phrases like "everyone dies... only few people really LIVE!"
Now the sad part. The world is moving at an ever increasing pace. Progress and risk taking is accelerating to the point where just to SURVIVE (the goal of the survivalists) one needs to try new things every day and at ever increasing odds. Does this mean that the survivalists are now on the horns of a very peculiar dilema? To survive they must take risks? What type of person are you? Do you want to make waves and change the world? Are you a romantic? Are you proud that you will retire in the same job you started your career in? Comments welcome.
Then there is a different kind of beast altogether. To this person not doing anything is DEATH. To them it is better to have dreamed the big dream and made an effort to get there. To them the worst day is where they made NO progress, took NO risks, and made NO mistakes. they equate mistakes to "experience" and a day spent without gaining any experience is a day lost out of their lives. These are the "Progressivists". Life is no worth LIVING if it is not worth risking. They mouth phrases like "everyone dies... only few people really LIVE!"
Now the sad part. The world is moving at an ever increasing pace. Progress and risk taking is accelerating to the point where just to SURVIVE (the goal of the survivalists) one needs to try new things every day and at ever increasing odds. Does this mean that the survivalists are now on the horns of a very peculiar dilema? To survive they must take risks? What type of person are you? Do you want to make waves and change the world? Are you a romantic? Are you proud that you will retire in the same job you started your career in? Comments welcome.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
The "Downsized" Disease
It always leaves me feeling the same way - sad for the state of the human race! All of us who have suffered the trauma of being terminated from a position for whatever reason know exactly what I mean and we have all vowed that WE would never do it to anyone else. I am referring to the contageous disease that society at large seems to think all those who lose their jobs for WHATEVER reason immediately contract. Those who still have a position seem to think that even eye-contact with the victim could immediately mark them too for this terrible affiction. They must all seem to feel that ANY association with people who have recently been "let go" from their organization (even private phone calls or personal e-mails) would be "found" and would mark them for the "kill" next time.
I have always believed in PEOPLE. They don't change suddenly if they are terminated. They are the same human beings that we knew, trusted, had lunch with etc. the day before. Their fate is not so uncommon these days and it could befall ANY of us. There is a wise saying about doing unto others... and I am always reminded of it when I see this behaviour.
I want to believe that this behaviour is the result of "not knowing" what to say and how to act with these folks. There is, on one side, a feeling of relief that it was THEM and not you. At the same time there is the guilty impulse that you don't want to show those feelings. One way to deal with this is to simply understand that YOU had nothing to do with the decision (unless you DID in which case you SHOULD think hard about how you handled the whole situation). I always try the direct approach. I say to the person "I am very sorry for your loss. I know you will bounce back because you are the same fine person today that you were yesterday to me. Let me know what I can do to help you in any way." I have found that this direct approach (of course followed with sincere actions to back up what I have just said) usually works and it cements a bond that is hard to break. The truth is that we will all be in such situations sometime. These moments help us find out the TRUE short list of REAL friends we have. And trust me, those are the friends we will help when their turn comes! The affliction is NOT contageous and it may actually be a good opportunity to make some lasting difference on earth.
I have always believed in PEOPLE. They don't change suddenly if they are terminated. They are the same human beings that we knew, trusted, had lunch with etc. the day before. Their fate is not so uncommon these days and it could befall ANY of us. There is a wise saying about doing unto others... and I am always reminded of it when I see this behaviour.
I want to believe that this behaviour is the result of "not knowing" what to say and how to act with these folks. There is, on one side, a feeling of relief that it was THEM and not you. At the same time there is the guilty impulse that you don't want to show those feelings. One way to deal with this is to simply understand that YOU had nothing to do with the decision (unless you DID in which case you SHOULD think hard about how you handled the whole situation). I always try the direct approach. I say to the person "I am very sorry for your loss. I know you will bounce back because you are the same fine person today that you were yesterday to me. Let me know what I can do to help you in any way." I have found that this direct approach (of course followed with sincere actions to back up what I have just said) usually works and it cements a bond that is hard to break. The truth is that we will all be in such situations sometime. These moments help us find out the TRUE short list of REAL friends we have. And trust me, those are the friends we will help when their turn comes! The affliction is NOT contageous and it may actually be a good opportunity to make some lasting difference on earth.
Friday, May 2, 2008
The Advertizing Invasion
Yesterday, I listened to an interesting discussion on CBC radio about the "Ad Pollution" that is going on in our society especially in urban settings. There was a lot of back and forth that boiled down to whether there were rights of INDIVIDUALS that superseded the rights of corporations to get their message out there etc. And as I listened to this discussion I was reminded of a recent car trip to Montreal. The trip involved three fillups on the road and, being a slave of convenience and a holder of the speed pass for ESSO I stopped at one of those stations for each of them. By the end I was tired and quite annoyed by the incessant visual and audio bombardment of ads that starts as soon as you take the pump handle in your hand. I thought back to the great days when we could still use those little do-hickies that allowed us to set the gas flowing and walk around the car testing air pressure and washing the windshield etc. Ironically, these devices were considered safe for about FOUR DECADES before they were suddenly too risky to use just around the time when the TVs were installed at the pump. Is there any correlation? Who knows!
After a bit of imprisoned rumination with my hand welded to the pump handle I started to use the time to think of OTHER ways that the advertizing company could achieve its own purpose without intruding so openly and aggressively on my "quiet time". Wouldn't it be nice, in these days of ever rising gas prices, if you pumped your gas in relative silence and at your own pace and then when that receipt came out it had, printed on it, something like " Thank you for using ESSO. Your tatal bill WOULD HAVE BEEN ___ (fill in a huge and ever increasing number here) but our sponsors (say CADBURY for example) have reduced that by $___ (fill in the cost of advertizing via those infernal TVs) as a token of their appreciation. have a GREAT day!" I think I would rush in to the shop and BUY a Carburys chocolate bar right away. I would do this for several reasons: first I would be thinking of one right at the time I could go in and DO something about it, and second I would FEEL like doing something back for the company that had just reduced my gas bill AND given me some peace at the same time! And after all the cost of the chocolate would be covered by my savings in the gas bill! Who knew that lurking inside me was an advertizing "expert"? Of course I could just switch to another chain that did not (yet) have those TV infomercial machines installed at the pump. That would be quicker and more effective.
After a bit of imprisoned rumination with my hand welded to the pump handle I started to use the time to think of OTHER ways that the advertizing company could achieve its own purpose without intruding so openly and aggressively on my "quiet time". Wouldn't it be nice, in these days of ever rising gas prices, if you pumped your gas in relative silence and at your own pace and then when that receipt came out it had, printed on it, something like " Thank you for using ESSO. Your tatal bill WOULD HAVE BEEN ___ (fill in a huge and ever increasing number here) but our sponsors (say CADBURY for example) have reduced that by $___ (fill in the cost of advertizing via those infernal TVs) as a token of their appreciation. have a GREAT day!" I think I would rush in to the shop and BUY a Carburys chocolate bar right away. I would do this for several reasons: first I would be thinking of one right at the time I could go in and DO something about it, and second I would FEEL like doing something back for the company that had just reduced my gas bill AND given me some peace at the same time! And after all the cost of the chocolate would be covered by my savings in the gas bill! Who knew that lurking inside me was an advertizing "expert"? Of course I could just switch to another chain that did not (yet) have those TV infomercial machines installed at the pump. That would be quicker and more effective.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
TechConnect is the place to be seen
So often in my travels to various Tech. Transfer offices across Canada I am confronted with one variant or another of these two questions : "Amongst the folks you know, who is going to Meeting X?" and a corollary question "With limited budgets for travel which meeting is the one that one shouldn't miss?"
I thought that I would pose this question of one of the shops I regard as very successful in the business of commercializing the technologies of the institutions it serves during my recent trip to Montreal. The Univalor folks had one unequivocal response : TECH CONNECT was the place to be seen. They have been participating in this conference for the past four years now and felt that it attracted the companies that TTOs want to be known to, namely the companies INTERESTED in early stage technologies (yes they really are out there!).
This year in an open competition ten technologies of theirs (5 Life Sciences and 5 non) were selected to be presented. Given that the total number of technologies selected from North America was something like 90 this is impressive. By comparison the other TTOs in
Canada stacked up as follows: Waterloo 1, Laval 1, and UBC 4 THAT'S IT! This year Tech Connect will be in Boston (June 3 to 5) Next year it will be in san Diego.
Who knew!!
I thought that I would pose this question of one of the shops I regard as very successful in the business of commercializing the technologies of the institutions it serves during my recent trip to Montreal. The Univalor folks had one unequivocal response : TECH CONNECT was the place to be seen. They have been participating in this conference for the past four years now and felt that it attracted the companies that TTOs want to be known to, namely the companies INTERESTED in early stage technologies (yes they really are out there!).
This year in an open competition ten technologies of theirs (5 Life Sciences and 5 non) were selected to be presented. Given that the total number of technologies selected from North America was something like 90 this is impressive. By comparison the other TTOs in
Canada stacked up as follows: Waterloo 1, Laval 1, and UBC 4 THAT'S IT! This year Tech Connect will be in Boston (June 3 to 5) Next year it will be in san Diego.
Who knew!!
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The R in Revolution is Silent!
The other day I pondering AGAIN the much touted revolution in innovation that is supposedly taking place in Canada when a thought suddenly appeared in a blinding flash of (misguided?) insight and I wanted to share it right away. Truth is that despite the HUGE investment from all levels of government the Innovation Revolution is not delivering on the set goals in the required timeframe. The "R" is silent and we are progressing on what is really an Evolutionary course of random selection and survival of the most politically astute grant application writers.
A (perhaps) new thought that I would like to put out there regarding this topic is outlined below. Your commentary would be welcome.
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. The engines of innovation ought to be the places where research is done. Universities, teaching hospitals, government research labs etc.
2. The Technology Transfer Offices ought to be the places where research meets industry and innovation takes place.
3. Universities need to be increasingly considering sources of income OTHER than government handouts. By and large that gravy train is coming to a halt as society asks the questions (correctly or not) about "return on investment" of these institutions.
4. We need to find ways to encourage companies founded in Canada with Canadian tax payer money to stay in Canada and generate jobs etc.
5. Having failed at the requirement to make enough cash to sustain themselves the Technology Transfer Offices have now shifted their metrics to "social good". What better good than to contribute to the sustainability of our economy and the creation of new jobs.
If we were to place the Technology Transfer Offices in these institutions into the so-called "Advancement" Offices and OUT of the RESEARCH offices where they have traditionally been placed in all universities that I know of, something big could happen. Some of these advantages are outlined below:
1. The Advancement Office (which is traditionally focussed on getting rich, successful, well-placed, alumnii to donate to the institution that made them who they are today) could use institution-generated intellectual property as one of the cards they use to get their objective done. They have the right connections to connect inventions with alumnii who could use it and who inherently trust the professors who generated it.
2. Alumnii would have a good crack at the inventions coming from labs they grew up in and trust.
3. Most important of ALL, the institutions would finally take an interest in getting THEIR alumnii to the top of their chosen profession because that would help them get better funding back into the institution. Nothing drives progress better than self interest and our academics are just human after all.
4. Finally connecting successful alumnii with promising young graduates from their Alma Maters, who share the same values and who have a built-in basis for a trusting relationship, would build teams in Canadian companies that are poised for success AND sustainability in Canada.
It all comes down to an old theme for me. Government handouts - far from helping our economy - may actually be stunting it by fostering in our institutions a spirit that they can always go back to the well and get another grant from taxpayers dollars rather than REALLY becoming interested in making their graduates REALLY succeed after they graduate because their success is tied up with that process.
As always, your comments are welcome.
A (perhaps) new thought that I would like to put out there regarding this topic is outlined below. Your commentary would be welcome.
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. The engines of innovation ought to be the places where research is done. Universities, teaching hospitals, government research labs etc.
2. The Technology Transfer Offices ought to be the places where research meets industry and innovation takes place.
3. Universities need to be increasingly considering sources of income OTHER than government handouts. By and large that gravy train is coming to a halt as society asks the questions (correctly or not) about "return on investment" of these institutions.
4. We need to find ways to encourage companies founded in Canada with Canadian tax payer money to stay in Canada and generate jobs etc.
5. Having failed at the requirement to make enough cash to sustain themselves the Technology Transfer Offices have now shifted their metrics to "social good". What better good than to contribute to the sustainability of our economy and the creation of new jobs.
If we were to place the Technology Transfer Offices in these institutions into the so-called "Advancement" Offices and OUT of the RESEARCH offices where they have traditionally been placed in all universities that I know of, something big could happen. Some of these advantages are outlined below:
1. The Advancement Office (which is traditionally focussed on getting rich, successful, well-placed, alumnii to donate to the institution that made them who they are today) could use institution-generated intellectual property as one of the cards they use to get their objective done. They have the right connections to connect inventions with alumnii who could use it and who inherently trust the professors who generated it.
2. Alumnii would have a good crack at the inventions coming from labs they grew up in and trust.
3. Most important of ALL, the institutions would finally take an interest in getting THEIR alumnii to the top of their chosen profession because that would help them get better funding back into the institution. Nothing drives progress better than self interest and our academics are just human after all.
4. Finally connecting successful alumnii with promising young graduates from their Alma Maters, who share the same values and who have a built-in basis for a trusting relationship, would build teams in Canadian companies that are poised for success AND sustainability in Canada.
It all comes down to an old theme for me. Government handouts - far from helping our economy - may actually be stunting it by fostering in our institutions a spirit that they can always go back to the well and get another grant from taxpayers dollars rather than REALLY becoming interested in making their graduates REALLY succeed after they graduate because their success is tied up with that process.
As always, your comments are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
