Simple does not mean Easy

 

     "Pay attention", "Love your neighbor as you do yourself", "Don't stress out over the little things", "forget what hurt you but never forget what it taught you". "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." Such wonderful adages. There are business segments that have a primary product of manufacturing posters, plaques, and other items to spread these adages (and proverbs) far and wide. We can read them and say "of course, that is obvious". But, if one examines society and talk among ourselves, we find that even though the adages may be very easy to state -- and, perhaps, understand -- they are not put into action very often.

     "Love your neighbor as you do yourself." One of the difficulties in putting adages into action is that we are so awfully good at taking them apart and reducing them to small edge conditions. "Love your neighbor". Who is our neighbor? Are our neighbors the people who live next door with whom we have never spoken -- or are they people within our common religious community who are neighbors of spirit even if they live in a different city? Are they people that look like us, pray like us, have the same amount of spendable income as we do?

     Or are they everyone? In that case, it can lead to a more active separation of people -- leading some people to say that only this set of people are really people and the others are not really people. One of the first actions taken by any group wanting to initiate hostilities towards, or take advantage of, another group is to start emphasizing differences and start to separate them from the "correct" pool of people.

     "Don't stress out over the little things." What is a little thing? It surely varies between people -- one person's "little" thing may be another person's "big" thing. Or, if looked at from the view point of someone examining our lives from the vantage of Alpha Centauri, maybe everything we do is a little thing? But such an evaluation must surely be from a subjective, personal, viewpoint. And is it stress that will keep us actively working with the "thing" -- or is it stress that will cause us to neglect other "things" and negatively affect our health?

     "Pay attention". Oh boy! Sure, we want to pay attention but it is physically, and neurologically, impossible to pay attention to everything. When someone says "pay attention" they usually are saying "pay attention to me" or "pay attention to the thing I have assigned you to do". But those don't make good adages.

     "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". OK. Sounds reasonable. But, it is similar to someone giving you directions such as "turn left a street before you see a white church on the right". Unless you are aware of the situation for which you can enact the prevention, there really isn't much to be done. Sometimes you may be aware but, in that case, what you are really doing is preparation -- not prevention.

     Perhaps you have a favorite adage that sounds great, you'd love to follow it, but it just doesn't seem to happen? Or you have one that is not only simple to say and remember but also easy to follow?

     Personally, I work with a line from an old Christmas movie ("Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer"). "Just put one foot in front of the other and soon you'll be walking out the door." Sure hope I am pointing towards the door as it will be a lot harder walking through the wall.

An extension of thought and body: music, programming, and art in general

 

     Once upon a time, after I had been working on developing a project for Bell Labs for about a year and a half, I woke up with a line of code staring me in the eye (not literally -- this was before laptops -- it was all in my mind) and showing me how to fix a bug I had been told about the day before. I went to work, fixed the bug, tested it, and submitted it to the code base. Then I started looking around for a new project to work on. It might have been useful to the company but getting that merged with the software (tens of thousands of lines of code which I had written) was not a healthy sign.

     As a child, I took various music lessons. The first -- and still my favorite -- instrument was the violin. I started off really horrible (but almost everyone does). But I got better and by the end of elementary school, I was part of a string quartet. No danger of a record label but no one stood up and ran out screaming. I was getting decent but then, as part of a perpetual budget cut, the school district said goodbye to the string instructor and my family couldn't afford private lessons. Later, because brass was still possible, I tried cornet but just didn't get excited. I then tried organ which I liked but schoolwork was taking more and more time and choices had to be made.

     So, how do these experiences relate? I worked so hard, and long, on the software that I could remember, and visualize, it. I could do a virtual execution of the code, in my mind, to track down possible data paths where there might be bugs. In music, I reached the point where I no longer thought about how to play a note. The connection between written music and playing was starting to disappear as fluency was being established.

     Music, programming, art, language. Once the tools are mastered you can get an idea and then put it down in the appropriate form. For programming, that might be Java, or 'C', or machine language, or whatever. In music, it might come out as sounds from a piano, or guitar, or a sax. But the cool part is that moment when you stop making the transition from thought to action as a conscious act. The piano becomes an extension of your body. You tell it to play notes and chords with timing and rests and it does it. The more you practice, the less the conscious mind is involved. It can be equally true with software or charcoal or driving a race car.

     Of course, not all has to go through the process of conscious to automatic. The brain stem is largely ready for us at birth -- so we (most of us) can breathe and see and hear and have our bodies respond properly to food and such. There are disciplines that appear to allow conscious control over the activities controlled by the brainstem but we are fortunate that most arrive pre-programmed. Although I do not know whether it is true, perhaps fluency in conscious activity may start to intrude into brain stem use.

     Perhaps after another one or two hundred thousand more words of writing, my writing will enter into that state of fluency.

Remember the goal: moving towards a destination

 

     I am a Myers-Briggs INFJ -- for those of you who have any interest in such personality categorization methods. I have lots of other results from other inventory methods. They are of interest to me because I am always trying to understand, and improve, myself as well as gain greater insight into others so that I can better communicate with them and be of assistance to them.

     But, for this blog, it is that "J" (Judicious) categorization that is of interest. My wife is of the P direction (it's a sliding scale -- no absolutes) or "Process-oriented". I am goal-oriented. She is see-what's-on-the path oriented. Within our marriage we have each worked hard to become more comfortable with the other's inclinations. At the least, it is important to be aware so that explosions can be avoided.

      I have come to grok the reality that the journey really is important. Not only that but I now recognize that changing the goal does not indicate a failure. These are a couple of the many blessings that have come from my marriage. Such blessings arise out of the continuous work that a marriage requires.

     Just because it is important to smell the flowers along the path, stop to move the worms off the sidewalk, and watch out for uneven bricks it does NOT mean that you should not have a destination. Although I can envision the idea of trying to stay in the same place for the rest of one's life, it really is not possible. Our bodies age. Things need to be done to stay alive. Others exist as a part of life and the interaction with them will cause perturbations just as two celestial bodies do a dance through the heavens.

     Given that staying still is not possible, the direction we choose will affect what things we can observe, enjoy, learn from, and participate in along the way. If we choose to change directions because of how we, ourselves, have changed on our journey then count our blessings and move along.

     Changing goals is OK. Changing goals may be important because of changes within yourself or your environment. Changing goals may mean changing directions and that change of direction will affect what you encounter in your journey.

     Enjoy!

Plan for Success requires a different mindset than planning for problems

 

     Failure often seems to help itself be planned for -- because it is an ongoing, inevitable process of life. People get sick. Equipment breaks. Contracts are not obtained. Someone drives a car through the front store window. And so forth.

     But, even though we (all) want to achieve success, we rarely explicitly plan for it.

     When a business is starting out, it is a good thing to be "mean and lean". This means that people are putting lots of effort into it with as few people as possible. Many do multiple jobs. When I, and my business partner, started our business, I was Vice President of Engineering, head of client support and training, head of sales support, coordinating head of project development and product management, and I was also in charge of cleaning the restroom when it was necessary. We all worked 60 to 70 hours a week -- because we all had a dream of being able to build something that we could profit from and which would provide a useful societal service.

     At Bell Labs, we had a department head who was a very strong technical person and also had a lot of extra energy. He had been quickly promoted from Member of Technical Staff to manager. While at managerial level, his team did great -- because he did all of the work assigned to his team. He had no managerial, or delegating, skills and he chose to not develop them. He did what he did best -- produce products. Not quite as quickly, he was promoted from manager to department head. And there he stuck. He no longer could do all the work (it was amazing he could do the work of seven people -- 40 people was just too much). He slowly developed some managerial skills -- enough to keep his department from falling apart (and he had some good managers reporting to him) but he had reached the top for him.

     Mean and lean -- until you can't do that anymore. People can work 60 hour work weeks for a while -- but not forever. Putting more wicks on the candle just means the wax will be used up more quickly. Juggling tasks can be done when there's only a bit to be done on each -- past that and things will be dropped.

     The "best" time to plan for growth, and success, is when you aren't in the process of running as fast as you can. If you have to do several different roles, clearly identify them, decide on processes that can be used when you are dealing with much larger amounts. Be prepared to split and expand. Tools that are overkill at the beginning can be indispensable as you grow. When we started our company, we were strong on marketing and sales and technical development. We were weak on management and finances. Management skills we succeeded in developing as we went along -- though I am certain that having good, strong, managers would have greatly helped us to build the company. Finances -- that is what eventually doomed us. We made believe that we knew what we needed to do and when we needed to do it. We didn't.

     The first part of growth, and success, in business is structure and function. The second part is product. We had a great portfolio of products. Well respected in the field. An architecture that expanded and met our needs for more than fifteen years. A general base that we could continue to expand in kind -- until we couldn't. At some point, the market gets saturated or technological directions change. "The shark must keep moving or it dies."

     What did we need to do to succeed in this area? Networking would have been number one. It is vital to know what is actually being deployed, what is being marketed, in the field. You can read about maybes in technical and business magazines but the conferences and market displays is what companies are actually investing in and betting on. Second would be partnerships. They aren't vital -- but they disperse the risk in going after the "next great thing". With partners, perhaps you can have four irons in the fire rather than one or two. It is similar to venture capital. Lose on a couple, break even on a few, and hit a home run on one. It is partially a matter of numbers.

     Finally, luck is still part of the business. Luck, as defined as things happening about which we have no known control. Bet on three possible new product lines. All three can fail. Design a new widget that everyone has been demanding. A major company -- with which you don't have the least chance to compete -- brings out a parallel product three months after your launch. Things happen.

     But you can minimize the risk.

A Free Lunch is a Prepaid Lunch

 

     Looking back over my various blogs, I have approached this issue several times over the past 15 years. But it still comes up and there are different directions from which to look at it.

     "There is no such thing as a free lunch." True. Even in a situation where you are outside of the societal economy (hiking in the woods in a non-park area where you have permissions to hunt/forage -- not sure many such places still exist), the lunch is paid for with time and energy to find, capture, prepare, and then eat the lunch.

     But the phrase is more often used within a societal economy. You get a "free dinner" for listening to a lecture on how to prepare for retirement (part of a company's advertisement budget). You get a "free lunch" at a local food bank (paid for within the community's/individual's desire to help those who are less fortunate). Your company gives you "free snacks" or "free meals" to have while you are within the company building working on your assignments (paid for as part of overall "loaded" salaries).

     The point is that you can get a free lunch -- defined as not having to pay cash/credit at that time in order to enjoy the lunch. But, in the background, that lunch is included in the budget for some other individual/corporation/product.

     This applies also to other services -- not just food. Public libraries are free to use. They are paid for by community taxes which have been allocated to something that the community has agreed is important. Although there are still some "subscription" fire fighting services in the world (including the US), most are public fire fighting services and have the same rules apply. The same goes for public police departments.

     Within the community (the community can be local, county/parish/township, state, or federal), there is an agreement that the services benefit the community. Either it is desirable that everyone "should" make use of them (such as public libraries) or that they need to be available to everyone (police help, firefighters, etc.)

     It is certainly possible to have all services as pay-for-use. All roads beyond your driveway can be "toll" roads where you have to specifically pay for them to use them (and, presumably, people without cars will not pay -- except as it exists as part of a delivery charge or ambulance charge, or service charge). If you want a book and services exchange point, become a member and you have access to library services. Want armed security? Pay for a guard service (more affluent people often want/need to have additional security above and beyond that provided by the community).

     Sounds great, you say? Let people pay only for what they want to use. Sound fair? The problem is that individual choice does not always promote the best for the community. No public education -- only the better paid get education for their children and the group of uneducated gets larger and larger with each generation and the community soon does not have enough people who can keep the economy going. And that education has to continue to the point of having a sufficiently educated person to support the community.

     No public police or fire capabilities? Now we're talking "insurance" -- people often bet that bad won't happen but, statistically, bad usually does happen eventually. The family collapses and the poor group expands once again. When something is needed for a community to prosper, it is better for the community to make certain that it is available.

     Sometimes a "free" service may be provided as part of a specific product or environment. Other times, they may be investments for the future. In any case, it is not free as it is part of the overall costs in the background -- but they may be free for the individual who will either pay as part of overall fees/taxes or who use them to prepare for the future -- to be a productive member who can support the community which will then support the services.

Unions: the leverage of the group versus the individual

 

     "I'm a good employer. I already give among the best benefits in the business. Retention is high and voluntary attendance at the company functions is good. Why would my employees want to be part of a union?"

     In a private company, there are owners, employees (including managers), and customers. In a publicly traded company, board members and stockholders are added to the mix (plus market analysts). In an ideal world, everyone is well taken care of and all are happy. In a booming economy and a booming company, it may get close to that point (though the word "more" seems to be an unrelenting fixture within the market economy -- especially in the US).

     But the economy is NOT always booming. And companies, either through mistakes or changes in the market, can lose the gleaming shine that makes everyone pleased with them. In these periods of decline, even when no mistakes have been made, choices must be made as it is no longer possible to even attempt to please everyone. 

     What are the priorities of a company? I am in agreement that well-cared-for employees will voluntarily want to do the best they can for the company and the customers. Thus, a high priority exists to take care of the employees. But, for publicly-traded companies, the happiness of the stockholders translates into higher stock prices and, thus, greater value to all who have invested in the company. Depending on company benefits and ownership, this may be directly of financial benefit to many, or most, of the employees. This argues that perception of stock/company value should be of the highest priority.

     Line managers are rarely considered to be among the most important parts of a company. However, for publicly-traded companies in the US, the advisory boards seem to want to push C-level salaries, bonuses, benefits, and parachutes as high as conceivable based on the idea that if their C-level execs are paid so much they (and the company of which they are part) will be perceived as also being "winners" within the game of acquiring the "best" executive level people. This competitive formula is difficult for C-level people to resist yet it does factor into how the income of the company is distributed.

     Moving back to the original question then, why would people want to be part of a union?

     Treatment of employees depends on company policies. With changes in high-level corporate management, company policies can change. They may change due to changes in corporate profitability or they may change due to changes in company advisory culture. Without a union, employees are left in the same way that most people perceive Blanche DuBois in the play/movie "A Streetcar named desire". As her character is quoted, "I have always depended on the kindness of strangers".

     Within a smaller company, most people should know each other and, certainly, all of the employees should know their managers and the managers know their employees. But, what about within a company with thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of people? The higher-level managers will not know all of the employees. The general employee is indeed in the same situation as Blanche DuBois.

     And that is a very insecure place to be. 

     Supply/demand can give the general employee leverage. If people of desired skills and experience are difficult to attract and retain, they inherently warrant more support. But if it is perceived that the employee may easily be replaced with someone else, they have very little perceived inherent value and have almost no leverage individually.

     That word "individually" is the key to unions. While a single employee has limited leverage, the majority (or universal) set of employees of a company has great leverage.

     Does being part of a union have disadvantages? As is true of many things, the advantages have a shadow side. Being part of a group, rather than an individual, means that there is less flexibility for the company to give unscheduled perks -- such as extra "free" days, or swag packages, or anything that may not be applicable under the terms of the agreements with the workers' union.

     For smaller companies (and some well-structured larger companies), unions can lessen the feeling of being part of a company "family". Also, a union that continues to grow may encounter the same problems as happened in the 1970s and 80s where leadership is now in a hierarchical position of power over the "rank and file" and the power of the group is used more for personal power and control than for the benefit of the employees.

     Companies have many sub-groups to consider, and take care of. Changing conditions carry with them a change in the ability to take care of each sub-group. Unions can help give individuals leverage -- especially within large companies -- but that same grouping carries certain limitations.

Endless Cycles: Laundry, Sisyphus, and SRM

 

     Last night, after dinner was completed, we took all the dishes and got them ready for the dishwasher and started up the cycle. Nothing new. Just something that we had done 15,000 times (or more) before. When we had our twins, we doubled the pleasure (truthfully) and doubled the number of times per day to change diapers. I counted back then (I AM a nerd and a geek, of course) but I cannot quite remember the number of times. Probably 8,000 changes of diapers total for the twins and another 4,000 for their older brother. When I first started changing diapers, I was sometimes not quite fast enough and got surprises that I later had to clean up -- but by the end of that 12,000th diaper, I could do it in the dark, while balancing a bowl of grapes on my head, and keep the surrounding area as clean as it was before I started. "Practice makes perfect."

     Back when I was doing the laundry for the whole family (five or six in the household at a time), I would have to do laundry (usually only one washer load) three times a week -- over 1,000 loads per year. Now that the children do (or don't do -- up to them) their own laundry, I am only doing a load per week (normally, when I clean the sheets there is an extra load) so a third of that. Note that I am not (well, I am mentioning it) counting preparation of meals because each meal is a bit different. The meal has different ingredients and takes a different amount of time and goes through different processes. There have been a LOT of meals prepared but they aren't, strictly speaking, a repetition.

     These repetitions are a natural set of results from life processes. You eat, you have to clean up afterwards (even if it is just burying the bones and the ashes). Digestion involves a series of events that cannot be avoided while you are living. Clothes, and the need to wash them, are needed in colder climates and socially required in others. I am sure that many have the occasional thought (as I do) that this must be a punishment of some sort. Old Sisyphus and his endless pushing the boulder up the side of the mountain comes to mind. But it probably is NOT a punishment.

     Sometimes I think of the cartoon series "The Jetsons". To have Rosie clean up after all the messes. It doesn't reduce them, it just means that someone/something does it for you.

     Which leads to the work side of this blog (it is not too surprising that most topics have a work side as well as a personal side since life -- like the geographical planet -- has no real borders). I have done some work in an area that Google calls "Site Reliability Maintenance" (SRM). I also took a Coursera course in an introduction to the Google-explicit SRM. When problems occur (and they do occur -- the goal is to reduce them, recognizing that they can never be eliminated), fix them quickly, fix them well, and reduce the possibility of the same problem happening in the future. There are lots of statistical formulas in conjunction with different approaches and followups.

     One thing that comes up is that if a problem occurs "frequently" -- even if that frequency is still within Reliability Objectives limits -- then it should be investigated to see if there may be some way to have it handled more quickly or easily in the future. Ideally, this would mean the problem is addressed "automatically" where the recovery process is triggered and the steps are done without further intervention by humans. (It still counts as an interruption in service.) Less ideally, but still an improvement, special tools can be developed to allow humans to address the problem more quickly.

     As long as life continues, certain events will continue to happen. The world will rotate and the sun will appear over the horizon. Food will be eaten and the aftermath will need to be taken care of. Networks and services will have hiccups. And it's all to the good because it is an indication that life IS continuing.

Multitasking: Can humans really do it?

 

     Let's get more done! Why aren't you multitasking? Have these words ever been said to you? Or have you said them to yourself or others? The idea of multitasking can be very attractive. If you're doing more than one thing at a time then surely you can accomplish more. Right?

     From a computer science point of view -- which is where the concept originated -- multitasking can be a function of the operating system (the software which allows the processor/computer to do different types of programs and activity). Not all operating systems support multitasking but most, in widespread use, do. The operating system is the primary task being run by the processor.

     With a single processor (the hardware which executes the instructions), only one task can be done at any time. Multitasking is the process of the operating system switching between tasks -- preferably at a point where a task can do no more useful work until some other event happens. The switching between tasks is called a "context switch" because the operating system will save/store all necessary information for the original task to continue (later) before starting another task (restoring the information which it stored when last suspended). The more tasks in the list, and the more often they are switched, the greater will be the percentage of overhead created by context switching. It is possible to get to a point where the processor/computer does almost no useful work if it has too many tasks and swaps too often -- this is called "thrashing".

     Humans can, of course, act as a "processor" but they are certainly not computers. Humans can attempt to multitask -- but they have the same limitations of computers -- and more.

     First, as is true for computers, humans can only do a single task at a time. Second, humans also have to do "context switching" to move from one task (which is not yet complete) to another -- but human context switching is much less efficient, and prone to error, than that for a computer. Third, a computer can move between many different tasks and still remain useful -- a human will likely start losing task contexts and forget tasks or not be able to continue them efficiently.

     Today, I was working on a task at the computer -- and I had some bread toasting in the toaster oven. I got absorbed in the task at the computer and, after a while, smelled something burning. Instead of doing two separate tasks properly, one of the tasks ended up with incinerated toast which had to be thrown out (and the windows opened and fan turned on).

     I could have set an alarm to go and check the toast (but I didn't). For an operating system, an alarm is an interrupt event. Alarms may be associated with an event, an outside input, time, or other measurable event. This can allow one task to continue (but not using the processor) unmonitored (like having a sprinkler within a watering system disperse water) while other tasks are done. The interrupt may be set according to a timer, telling the system to turn off the water after a period of time.

     Note that these comments are for a single processor. When there are multiple processors, then "parallel processing" can be done -- which is similar to having a team assigned to the problem and the pursuant needs to coordinate the work between team members. Each processor, or member, can attempt multitasking but humans in teams cannot do multitasking any better than individually.

     Multitasking makes sense for a computer but it does not work well for humans and the limit for the number of possible tasks for a human to switch between is reached very quickly.

The Economics of the Road Runner: Acme is the winner

 

     As a child (and as an adult), I watched a cartoon about the Coyote and the Road Runner. The "plot" in each cartoon is for the coyote to catch the road runner in order to eat it. In spite of the overt physical violence, no longterm harm is done to either of the characters (note, there are books, videos, and probably podcasts concerning the "Physics of Looney Tunes" which do NOT follow conventional laws of physics) and the creativity and persistence are amazing. I don't know how widely these US cartoons have been distributed. They were created for Looney Tunes (Warner Brothers) and are something that I can watch over and over.

     All of the traps and schemings appeal to the technical person in me. But, of late, I cannot get it out of my head about the economics of the Coyote and the Road Runner. We have a coyote wanting to eat a road runner. An average road runner (the one in the cartoons is quite a bit larger) is about ten ounces (about 283 grams). The edible portion of the road runner is probably no more than half of that -- 5 ounces (140 grams). Baluga caviar is about $500/ounce. So, if road runner meat is as expensive as the most expensive caviar, it would be about $2500. (Much more likely, it would be about the same as alligator meat -- $1.25 per ounce -- but we're giving an extreme example here.)

     In many of the cartoons, the coyote purchases massive amounts of tools, supplies, and equipment (from the Acme Manufacturing company). For an average episode, I would make a guesstimate of maybe $15,000 of merchandise. (Some episodes are all ingenuity or low-tech stuff -- but we're talking about an average episode.) So, here is the coyote -- who has access to delivery services and mail-order/online ordering -- paying $15,000 to catch $2500 worth of meat. (And he caught the road runner only once -- and then couldn't eat it.)

     So, besides being something to think about forever, what about it? Who cares? It's a cartoon.

     Ah, but businesses and individuals do this all of the time. For businesses and freelancing individuals (who can fruitfully use their time for other things) there is a cost to time and effort coming up with solutions. At Bell Labs, we were warned on a regular basis to not fall into the NIH (Not Invented Here) trap. If I have five people working two weeks on a problem that can be purchased from someone else, is it a bargain or do I have a set of coyotes trying to catch a road runner? Maybe yes, maybe no. Does your particular "road runner" do just what you want it to or will you need to adjust the product, or the infrastructure which would use it? If so, how much? Do you have something else productive for your cast of coyotes to do (if not, you have some other serious things to think about within your business)?

     Sometimes, in order to get just what you require (or, if usable multiple times, to provide longterm economy) it is worthwhile to do it yourself. But count your costs. Especially the costs that aren't obvious. If you pay money for things, that is obvious. If it takes you eight hours to do something, that cost isn't obvious. If it causes you great stress, that adds to the "cost". If you enjoy doing it, that lessens the "cost". The balance of costs versus value (as is true for many things in life) is not always easy to ascertain.

"Quiet quitting" versus work/life balance

 

     As best as I've been able to interpret, the newly popular term "quiet quitting" is a phrase used to indicate that a person has reached the border of how much time and energy they are willing to put into their paid work and where they feel they need to put the time and energy into keeping their families, and themselves, healthy and productive.

     Of course, that is NOT what the term "quiet quitting" calls to mind. I don't know WHO in the world comes up with these meme labels but whoever picked the term appears to be quite happy with the pre-pandemic US (and some other global cultures) status quo of putting in as much time and energy as work appears to "require". Such places the control over work/life boundaries firmly in the hands of management. From some points of view, that seems reasonable for a business.

     However, there have been MANY studies that indicate that this approach is counter-productive. Work efficiency declines, and the number of need-to-recover-from mistakes increases, as a person pushes themselves beyond what they can support. The current exploration of the 4-day work week is one approach to keeping employees productive. There are other methods.

     Within Europe, there are many limits placed on work environment/home boundaries. A strict number of hours that can be worked (few, if any, after hours calls and work assignments). A reasonable amount of vacation allocated per employee which they are required to take. Maternity/paternity leaves. Und so weiter (and so forth). These are methods of legislating work/life boundaries.

     The scary part, for some, of "quiet quitting" (and the reason it is not called "life balance maintenance") is that it moves the control over maintenance of work/life allocation to the hands of the employees. It is true that many employees are not used to this control. In many cases, it might have a similar effect as "unlimited PTO" does -- when people take almost NO paid time off -- not even as many days as they would have been allotted within a fixed vacation benefit. In others, they may not find themselves with adequate self-motivation to do the amount of work expected on their work assignments.

     I will stop using the term "q q" -- and move over to "life balance maintenance" (which I consider to be a better description). Achieving this IS a challenge for the employee and the company. It requires good communication conduits and awareness of each person's situation. There will be times when the business seriously needs an extra push of effort from its peoples -- but it should not become an expected way of life. If the communication lines are open and there is respect in all directions, then almost every employee (if at all possible within their circumstances) will put in extra effort. For most employees, it is harder for them to recognize that they are reaching diminishing returns than to accept another short night's sleep and missed ballgame.

Three Wishes: The Djinn out of the bottle

 

     I don't know how universal of a practice it may be but, when I was growing up, at some time or other the question would come up "if you had three wishes, what would you wish?" Answers would vary tremendously. Someone would point out how many stories have the granter of wishes (usually a Djinn, or Genie -- sometimes Lucifer, depending on whether it was a morality tale) finding the loopholes within a wish. Using that loophole, the granter could often make the wish be a terrible thing to obtain.

     Within US culture, one story that has been repeated in prose and video is that of "The Devil and Daniel Webster" (by Stephen Vincent Binet). A frustrated, desperate man makes a deal with the devil exchanging his soul for current worldly success. As life continues, he finds that that material success does not bring the joy he had expected and wants to leave life with his soul. Daniel Webster, a New England politician and statesperson known for his oratory was begged to plead his case before a jury consisting of others that the devil had once swindled.

     In the above example, a wish was made (in exchange for something) and it was found to not be a wise wish. There are other examples of wishes twisted by the granter. Midas' wish for "The Golden Touch" left him in a situation where he could no longer pick up food to eat as the food would become gold and inedible.

     In the story "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain, the emphasis is on the double-sided aspect of wishes. If I wish for success am I also wishing for failure for another? If I ask for rain for my crops, is this water being taken from someone else who may experience drought? A wise, careful, wish would come up with a win-win response -- but how many of us have that wisdom? Especially if the granter is deliberately trying to twist the wish?

     The recipient of the wish also may try to get around the limitation on wishes. Such as having "I wish for an infinite number of wishes" as the first wish. That's always disallowed. There may be other restrictions. Some are good restrictions. Can't wish for anyone's death, for example. Some may appear to be unreasonable restrictions. But, as is true of any granter of wishes and rewards, the rules are defined by the granter.

     Wishes are not the same as plans. A wish requires a granter. A plan may include the actions of others but it is moved forward by the efforts of the person who wants the results of the plan. If you "wish" something will happen, you are saying that it is up to someone, or something, else to make it come true. If you "wish upon a star" then, somehow, that star will bring about the result that you want.

     Through the years, I have contemplated on what my three wishes would be. Have you done something similar? About ten years ago, I decided upon a wish (first, or only) that might work. I doubt I'll ever get the opportunity to find out. Meanwhile, I can work on plans.