Uniforms: All in a word

 

     Every once in a while, a discussion pops up about "professional" attire. No, it's not about a tool belt for a carpenter or a plumber. Nor is it about a wrist guard for an archer. It isn't even about a pocket protector (talk about "old school" -- not many still remember those) or a slide-rule holder (😊) for an engineer. What is usually referred to has nothing directly to do with a profession. It is attire of an expected nature. Although it goes by many synonyms and euphemisms, it is a uniform.

     A uniform is created to make a group of people "obvious" members of that group. There are uniforms for military service -- usually separate variants for casual, workday, use as opposed to formal, "dress", occasions. There are uniforms for special positions such as a "door person" who guards the entrances of higher-income dwellers. The clothing for a particular social status will vary -- more often for women than for men but for both. The expected clothing for a "man of means" of the 1800s would be quite different from that of a "dress for success" male of the 2000s. However, between 1950 and 1960 there would be very little change -- perhaps a change in button, lapel, or overlap in the ubiquitous dress suit.

     Of later years, the mode is less obvious and meant for more "discerning" tastes. A CEO may wear a $500 t-shirt which only those "in the know" who recognize specific fabric and brands would easily notice. This offers a blend of impression -- part of the general people while also being able to be slotted into an upper-level echelon. Friends (Quakers) of the 1700s and 1800s sometimes did this. The religion emphasized "plain" clothing so the general styles would be similar for all people within the Meeting. However, that plain grey apparel -- when examined closely -- might vary with the wealthier wearing grey silk while the poorer wore grey homespun cotton. Unless immersed within the customs of the group at the time, it can seem quite amusing. But it did matter.

     Uniforms work in two ways -- for external recognition and for self-reinforcement within a group. A school uniform will be mandated to be of a particular style, material, and pattern which is expected to create both a recognition of people of the group as well as a homogeneity. Yet, somehow, little additions such as lapel pins, brooches, belt buckles, and such still sneak in to create small subgroups.

     What happens if you don't wear the "appropriate" uniform? Most of the time, you will be treated as if you don't belong. The exact reaction can range from being ignored to having the police come to check your "credentials". The more exclusive that a group is, the less forgiving they are of members not adhering to their standards -- or for others trying to appear to be part of that group without the credentials for membership.

     There seems to be a general urge for people to want to be recognized as part of a group. As long as that urge exists, there will be uniforms. Those outside those groups may not like the uniforms or may be envious of the uniforms but they will, consciously or unconsciously, tend to band together with their own uniforms that indicate NOT being part of the original groups. The result of avoiding the uniforms ends up being a situation of a different uniform.

Ethics: Always in process

 

     There is a lot of talk about ethics currently -- especially in relation to developments in AI. According to the dictionary, ethics are the moral principles that govern behavior. Note there is nothing about "universal" or "unchanging" in the definition. Ethics are based within a specific society and their rules of behavior. Societies vary a lot in their viewpoints on many issues -- sex, gender roles, religion, death, expected behaviors, taboos, and so forth. A society that expects resurrection of the individual will look at death a lot differently from a society that expects only one life (whether they believe in an "afterlife" or not).

     Ethics also change along with societal norms. Fifty years ago, there were a set of behaviors that were normal, and expected, from the members of the community. Now, in this present time, some of those behaviors are no longer acceptable. The ethics relating to current societal norms may reasonably be applied to behaviors that are happening now. They can also be applied to past societies, writings, and other memorabilia but ONLY as if one is using a microscope. They can be examined and the difference between the ethics of that time and the ethics of the current time can be looked at as documentation of change. But the past behavior WAS acceptable at the time that it happened because the rule set, the ethics of the time, was different. Each period of time and each distinct society has its own rule books that should not be applied to judge behavior within other times/societies.

     The above is true -- but only in the abstract. In real life, everyone believes that their current ethics are THE correct ethics and ethics that differ are WRONG. People with different ethics -- whether of the past or of a different society or culture -- are BAD. This would be true in the opposite direction of course -- people of the past would consider OUR behavior to be BAD when judged according to the ethics of the past. This almost always leads to conflict and even to wars.

     A cultural anthropologist must always be very careful upon entering into a different culture/society because they are there to examine, analyze, and document. Since the new ethics are not known, it is easy for them to violate those in some manner which would make their work much more difficult or even impossible.

     We have been talking about the flux of ethics. Within the current time and current society there is a set of ethics rules that applies to everyone within that time/society. If they do not follow them they have to face social, and possibly legal or martial,  consequences. This is what is typically called an ethics problem.

     AI can face issues similar to that of human individuals. One is the ownership of intellectual property. For humans, taking such is called plagiarism. Generative AI systems need to be "trained" by giving it access to much information -- not all of which is legal for general use. In that way, AI may be considered to be plagiarizing or even stealing from others within the same subject matter? It may also affect the value of those systems, or people's valuable intellectual property, from which it absorbs information? I put question marks because those are part of the questions posed about defining ethics for AI systems.

     Humans can (and do -- much too often) lie. They do such deliberately (called with malice) and accidentally (by not verifying information before passing it along). If AI is trained with bad information (deliberately bad or non-verified information) then IT will use that bad information and pass it along as "good". For humans, this is called slander or libel -- but often not subjected to legal ramifications if done within social media. What is such when done by AI? Can this distortion of reality, and worldview, be considered a dangerous crime by AI systems? Another area of ethics in connection with AI systems.

     Humans can, and do, commit crimes as defined by the legal systems of their society. AI systems can be trained to do such faster, and possibly less noticeably, than that which is done by humans. AI systems can be trained to "phish", steal private (supposedly inaccessible) data, forge accounts, and other non-physical actions. If given access to "waldos" (physical systems capable of being controlled online) then they can even do physical crimes. What is the legal aspects, and ethics, of using AI systems for such actions?

     Humans can, and do, violate ethics systems. AI can be trained, or designed, to do similar violations and be done faster, and more effectively, than humans. These are the areas that badly need to be addressed before the problems that will occur become too unwieldy to deal with.

Boxes: When a label is used to connect

 

          Back in 2013, two of my sons moved from the box labeled "Asperger's" to a box labeled "Autism Spectrum Disorder" because of a change in the Diagnostic Manual (DSM). Did this change their behavior, diagnosis or challenges? Absolutely not. BUT, because of the way laws, rules, and regulations are written it meant they now qualified for certain programs for which they were not previously qualified and NOT qualified for others in which they may have participated for years. The benefit, or disadvantage, of being "diagnosed" and "labeled" has been discussed for years among the parents and those working with such challenges. But there is always a direct connection between the label and the benefit or penalty so the labeling matters. When the label changed, it broke the link between the behavior and the treatments.

     We have many, many laws and regulations that are written specifically for a person and their "spouse". If a person is not legally considered to be a spouse -- they have no access to any of the benefits, obligations, and responsibilities of being a spouse. This has caused a whole lot of problems. Once again, it is because of the direct link between label and associated rules, benefits, and obligations.

     There are many situations where a specific label works to include/exclude groups of people. Once upon a time, the word "man" was "understood" to  mean a human of male, female, or other gender. Then, the word "man" was considered to mean something different -- perhaps only male, perhaps only pale-skinned people, perhaps something else. The definition, and use, of the word affected the way the linkage worked between the word and the treatment within society.

     Labels, or boxes, are not used only within legal linkages. They can also be used for presentation and discussions. Labels can be used to mislead. A piece of legislation that is called "The Flobert Bill" will be assumed, by those that hear the label, to be associated with Flobert and, even more likely, direct aspects of dealing with Flobert. The reality, however, is that the legislation is just as likely to be AGAINST Flobert as it is to being FOR Flobert -- and it may have nothing at all to do with Flobert. The naming of such legislation is one more "slight of hand" or act of misdirection -- and it often works.

     Then again, there is the self naming of groups or activities that, once again, can either inform or mislead. For every "pro-" group there SHOULD be an "anti-" group. Alas, the media are often more interested in gathering attention (with attendant advertising revenue) than in accuracy. Thus, we have "pro-x" groups compared to opposing "pro-y" groups where x and y may, or may not, have anything to do with the groups. We can only be certain that one, or both, groups are misleading as they have not allowed themselves to be framed within the "pro-" and "anti-" categories. You cannot reasonably have two "pro-" groups facing against each other and you cannot reasonably have two "anti-" groups facing against one another.

     Finally, there is use of words that well exist within a dictionary. But, how many people actually have a dictionary in hand -- or bother to use such to make sure a term is properly used? Thus, we have many words used in intense, and popular, discussions where the same word is used -- with completely different understandings of meaning -- by different parties with different directives and reasons. This can only properly be called "anticommunication". Communication occurs only with common understanding of what is being communicated.

     The person, cause, event, idea, or whatever is what is important. But humans have a desire to summarize, to categorize, and to condense into a label. Alas, the label will be connected to something but it may serve only to confuse communication rather than to clarify it.

Group projects: Not for school only

 

     With three young men in college (one graduating this month with his CS degree and encountering the oxymoronic stonewall of "entry-level" requiring a year or two of experience) I have been hearing about the travails of group projects for at least a dozen years. I keep telling them that it is good practice for working in groups once they enter the job market. And that is true. However, the group projects in college seem to be even more haphazard than the ones we all went through in elementary and secondary school.

     This is second-hand, of course, since it has been a while since I have been in college. Apparently, the idea of forming a group is to pick out three or four people, either at random or in some type of alphabetical order, and then handing out an assignment to them. As much as I want to encourage my sons, and tell them the experience will lead to greater abilities in the work world, that's just not the way groups are "normally" formed in the business world (or, at least, successful groups).

     In elementary and secondary school, the teacher has a pretty good idea of personalities, strengths, and weaknesses after a couple of months with a class. Secondary school teachers have less knowledge because they deal with multiple classes with distinct classes but they still have some. So, there is knowledge behind the choices of composition of a group. (Because of lack of experience, an "ideal" group is often still a matter of luck.)

     A group needs a leader -- or a coordinator -- and it needs people who have specific known skills. Elementary school teachers know who the dominant children of the class are -- but may not know, or have enough children to choose from for, the type of leadership qualities that those dominant children may have. Thus, in some cases, there will not be a sufficient number of dominant children to have one per group and, in other cases, they might be someone who does all the work or who directs other children rather than working with them. In other words, just being dominant does not inherently mean a good leader.

     In elementary school, there is rarely a real aspect of evaluation of success. If, at the end of the group project time, they are all still alive and have something they can present -- success! If, at the end of the group project time, they are all still alive and have pieces of a bit of a mess -- success! It is hard to have a failure.

     In secondary school, they try to actively evaluate the results of the group but there is likely to be individual results presented as well as the group project. Evaluation can be weighted towards individual results with bonuses passed out for a successful group project. People who work within the group may grumble about those who are not showing an outstanding work ethic but they are not penalized much for them being part of a group.

     Let's skip college for a bit and head to "real life". In real life, the results of the group project are of primary importance. This is true for a group, department, laboratory, or company. If the project is successful, the management will try to give greater weight to rewards for those who seem to have contributed the most (they may not be correct in their evaluations but those are the goals). If the project is unsuccessful, then all in the group will suffer. The ones who did "better" or "more" may be recognized but it is not much to their credit as they will also have a greater share of responsibility for the desired success and any shortcomings that occurred.

     College groups appear to go above and beyond what is required in real life. All are rewarded for a success. All are penalized for failure and if you do your very best and it still fails, you still fail. The primary lesson learned is to do what one can to not become part of teams with less than optimum people in it. Perhaps a valuable lesson  but not something that is always possible within the corporate environment.

Porch Talk: Part of the Community

 

     Do people remember old-style social media? People gathered around particular spots. These included the water cooler at work as well as the beauty shop, barber shop, local hardware store, and most powerful of all -- the front porch. (This was the front stoop for apartment buildings.)

     Why was the front porch so important? Sitting on your front porch was the same as putting up a shingle saying "open for conversation". Anyone of the neighborhood might walk by and come up and talk. It might be about  a sports game or the recipe for a favorite pie. The topics were not important. The contact was. Small children might come up and sit around listening to the "old folk" talk. Most wasn't worth listening to -- some might be vital for a person starting to grow up.

     So, what happened? A primary reason was the strong encouragement, by for-profit advertisement-supported media, of paranoia and distrust of neighbors and the community -- local, national, and global. Yes, bad things happened in past years and happen now. But the extreme focus, that keeps the media selling advertising, totally eliminates perspective. One instance of evil in a population of 333 MILLION can change the behaviors of a nation.

     I remember when one group of razor blades was found in the fresh apples given out for Halloween in one community. Luckily, no one was hurt but it changed Halloween forever. My grandmother no longer could get children to accept her homemade donuts. My aunt's popcorn balls were left in the bowl. Only the candy manufacturers benefited -- as everyone insisted on getting unhealthy, factory sealed, candy and merchandise. For quite a few years, police departments would x-ray the contents of trick-or-treat bags. Was anything bad every found? Not that I ever heard of -- though that doesn't mean it never did.

     And, as the behavior of the community changes, the market changes to accommodate. People stopped getting to know the neighbors. Walking in a neighborhood is likely to arouse the suspicions of the police and neighborhood watches. Walking when one does not fit into the cultural, ethnic, or racial composition of the neighborhood can be downright dangerous.

     If walking in the neighborhood is suspicious and few people do it then what reason is there for cities to require sidewalks? If no one stops by at other people's houses then why go out onto your front porch in the first place? Why even build front porches -- or front stoops for apartment buildings -- added cost for no benefit?

     Some people say "ah it was better in the old days". Well, memory is malleable,  There were things that were worse, some things -- like the front porch -- were better. Some things were better for certain groups of people and worse for other groups of people. Opposing the purpose of the front porch, laws prevented some groups of people from interacting with other groups of people. Food was of better quality but more people died of infections and diseases. It is not a good idea to over-generalize.

     Is there any way to recover the good of prior times but not go back to the bad aspects (and, hopefully, continue to make those areas better)? I believe so. I hope so. I pray so.

     But I don't have any answers. And don't believe ANY politician who says they have easy answers or have some group to blame for all problems. Somehow, we need to resurrect perspective. Somehow, we need to learn about our neighbors again -- including the important lesson that we are ALL neighbors as we expand the size of the community. Children need to be taught to stay safe and the caution of "stranger danger" without choosing a path where everyone they encounter forever STAYS a stranger.

     Answers? I don't have them. But awareness of the problems, I believe, is a start.

To Waste or to Waist: That is the question

 

     As is true of many people growing up in the US, I was encouraged to always clean my plate (encouraged is putting it mildly -- I remember being required to still be sitting at the dining table at 3am (and even longer if "necessary") because I hadn't cleaned my plate). The general principle of not wasting food is a good one -- the dangling of "there are starving people in xxx" is NOT a good one as the reason for people starving in parts of the world is political and not economic (cleaning my plate, or not, would make no difference).

     If I took food onto my plate and then told "take what you want, eat what you take" then that would also be reasonable. I would learn to take only what I was hungry for and would eat and there would not be any immediate wastage. (Eventual wastage was/is dependent on how much was left at the end of the meal and whether there were unplanned meals where leftovers were a strong source of food.)

     Having others put food on my plate and then being required to eat it was NOT a good principle. It primarily taught me to ignore my feelings of satiation. There was no such thing as being "full" or "content" as long as there was still food left. This system of superfluous portions continues into the present day with "supersizing" and eating-out portions in general. There is always the possibility of bringing food home but, honestly, how many times does it go home to be later thrown out?

     Being able to overeat has been a source of status in many societies in the past. Actual overeating, however, has not been, and is not, healthy for anyone.

     This principle also comes true in business areas. It's always tempting to get a lot of something because you can get it for less per unit. Buy 50 for $100,  buy 100 for $150. But there are hidden costs to buying more than you currently need. Storage, logistics in general. Yes, you may save money (even allowing for hidden costs) but might that extra capital being held as storage of an item be more useful for something "now"? This is the primary driving principle for "just in time" deliveries of materials. When this is combined with primary storage working with multiple consumers then both types of savings can take place -- quantity savings for the primary storage location with "just in time" savings of space and capital for the consumers.

     As personal consumers of food, we also tend to put the surplus into storage. That storage affects our health and our waistlines. It is difficult to average out food consumption and purchasing to create an optimum "no extra, no waste" situation. It is more difficult with one person than two, more difficult for two people than for five. There is also the need to balance need versus cost. If buying four cucumbers costs only 25 cents more than buying two, then buying four is the obvious bargain, correct? But what if I said that you can only reasonably use two cucumbers before the others go bad? You end up saving 25 cents (and storage space) by NOT buying the larger quantity.

     "To waste or to waist". My childhood training taught me one set of values. My knowledge, as an adult, tells me otherwise. But that doesn't make it easy to change. It can also be difficult, in business, to pass up bargains where the real value received does not match up to the price. As always, all aspects of a transaction -- or transaction's journey -- must be considered.

     

Interrupt Driven: Design and Alternatives

 

     It should not be surprising that there are many aspects of computer architecture which mirror how humans think and behave. Humans designed computers. Humans developed programming. Humans devise algorithms. Is there any way that the patterns of thinking and behavior for people could NOT have influenced the design of computer systems?

     Sometimes, you want to do multiple things "at the same time" or you want multiple programs to run "at the same time". As discussed in my blog on multitasking, this isn't really possible but, on a computer, it is possible to make it LOOK like it is doing multiple things at the same time. The computer can produce this illusion because of how quickly it can follow instructions. The speed at which it changes back and forth between programs is quick enough that humans cannot perceive the difference. It is different with humans -- the swapping of tasks is very noticeable and humans are not as good at it as computers.

     Sometimes it is possible to want to do one thing most of the time but, occasionally, need to do something else. Sometimes that "something else" is only ready to be done at unknown times. Sometimes that "something else" is just of lower priority than your main task but you still want to have it done when possible.

     This latter situation is usually done on computers by means of the operating system (Windows, iOS, Linux, ...) and using priorities of tasks as a criterion for when programs, or tasks, are scheduled to run. In the world of the human, it is an organization matter. It is still most efficient to continue on one task to completion and then change to a different task but it is possible to schedule the tasks to take different amounts of the day. You work on cleaning the house for two hours, then you watch your favorite serial streaming program for an hour, then you resume cleaning the house for another two hours, and so forth.

     The first situation -- where a secondary task is not always ready to be done -- has a couple of primary ways to be handled. One -- you can check on the readiness of the secondary task every once in a while (either at regular intervals or just "whenever you think about it"). This is called "polling". The other is you have some type of indication that interrupts you and tells you that the secondary task is now ready to be done. That is what doorbells are used for. Rather than checking the front door every few minutes to see if someone is present, you expect them to ring the doorbell when they arrive. (If someone arrives, and you are expecting to hear the doorbell, then there may be a long wait if the doorbell is broken or they don't feel comfortable pushing the button.)

     So, when do you do one method and when do you do the other? Polling has the advantage that it is done when you are ready for it (the secondary task may not be ready but you are ready to check). Being ready, you have no additional things to do before you go check the front door. Interrupts (as long as they are reliable to happen) have the advantage in that you go to the secondary task ONLY when it is ready so there is no added inefficiency of checking and having the secondary task not ready.

     Sounds as if interrupts are best? Ah, but there are a couple of problems. First, since an interrupt may arrive when you are NOT ready, you have to quickly do whatever you may need to do to become ready before you attend the secondary task (turn off the heat on your cooktop, put the ice cream back into the freezer, put a bookmark into (or within for an ebook) a book you are reading, and so forth). This is "save and restore" (when you leave to get the secondary task and when you return from the secondary task) and it can be significant overhead for being able to handle the interrupt. Second, sometimes it just is NOT a good time to be interrupted. Ever take a good soaking bath and have the doorbell ring? You can disconnect the doorbell before you enter the bathtub but then you risk missing someone arriving. (In the case of computer systems, you may miss some critical thing that MUST be worked with in a certain amount of time -- thus, you never turn off interrupts within a nuclear power console -- you just become ready to go to the control panel in your bath robe.)

     The decision as to whether you poll or allow an interrupt to trigger a response depends on many factors. One important one is -- how time critical is the second event? Can the secondary event wait five or ten minutes? Perhaps even a half hour? It is important to reduce the heat under a sauce after it is ready but it may allow five or so minutes leeway. But, if a smoke alarm goes off it is very important to check as to what is wrong very quickly -- if only to silence the alarm. A secondary task that is not time critical is a good candidate for polling (checking every once in a while). The smoke alarm generates its own interrupt in the form of an audible sound. Another factor is "how often is this going to occur?" Remember that unexpected interrupts have an overhead, an extra amount of work needed to prepare to handle the interrupt. If the event happens (and is ready) frequently then polling is a good way to monitor it (because the percentage of times you check and it is ready is a high percentage).

     Life will carry on. You will continue to get unexpected interrupts. You will occasionally get back to doing something too late and a pan may burn. But if you understand what is going on and how you can handle it you may be able to organize matters to optimize how you work with those events.

Transitions: A part of life

 

     Transitions occur as part of many aspects of life and business. On a personal level, transitions occur as we grow older and as we accumulate experience and start applying that experience in different ways. For a business, key personnel will come and go, products will be retired and new ones come into being, and events will bring about unforeseen changes -- perhaps very rapid changes.

     We all grow older. We make transitions from newborn to toddler to young child to older child, adolescent, early adulthood, etc. It is certainly possible to separate the phases differently. In some ways, the transitions are continuous. We each age a day per day. But, usually, there is a defining event to indicate a transition. In some cultures, there are specific rituals and customs to mark the occasion of moving from adolescent to young adult, but many have no such thing. The transition may be obvious -- first time walking unaided, for example.

     Although our specific futures are not available for us to know, we can sometimes prepare somewhat. A baby practices the movements, and exercises the muscles, needed to walk. But I am not convinced that we can really prepare for adolescence (when those hormones kick in and changes our moods, interests, and reactions). In the business world, we can prepare for known changes and, perhaps, improve skills and methods that will allow easier adaptation to unforeseen future changes.

     Similar to transition lenses versus bifocals, transitions may be gradual or abrupt. A gradual transition may seem like an easier one but it may lead to a situation when you pass from safety to danger without noticing the change -- it is easier to notice danger when the change is abrupt. Note the old tale of the frog who was put into a pot of cold water which was gradually heated up to a boil. Much situational training concerns being able to make plans quickly, and act upon them, when faced with a difficult (possibly dangerous) situation. This can apply to being charged by a tiger or a necessary supplier going out of business.

     The one thing you cannot do safely during a transition is to ignore it. A change in circumstances (which affect you) means there will be a need for changes in reactions, processes, and attitudes. (Of course, if the change affects only someone else you can still be there to listen or offer assistance.) Although it is not true that an ostrich will hide their head in the sand upon encountering approaching danger, the metaphor is valid. Perhaps the monkey triad of "see no evil", "hear no evil", "speak no evil" is better. It probably depends on the circumstances and the direction from which the transition occurs.

     Internal transitions are, by definition, not visible to others. This makes them hard for others to help. There is an additional difficulty that the person involved with the internal transition may, themself, not be able to properly describe the changes. These are likely to be among the more difficult of transitions.

     How can a person prepare for transitions (whether in personal lives or business)? The foundation element is that of recognizing that circumstances, needs, and goals change -- and can change in a moment. This is much easier for Myers-Briggs types "P" (process oriented) who are inherently not as fixed on a goal. The "J" (judicious) types must learn to be flexible and ready for change. Although Myers-Briggs is directly applicable to humans, some of the same behaviors are true about corporate cultures.

     Other preparations are to know how to determine the components of a change. Much easier said than done, especially with internal transitions. Even external transitions may have important parts of which no one is aware. You cannot know all of the components of a change before the change (though you may know many of them) -- you are wanting to learn how to identify those components.

     Once the components are recognized, it will be time to decide what responses need to be. It is very difficult to do this in advance as there are so many unknowns leading up to most transitions.

     We do know, however, that there will be transitions.

ROI: Methods and Pitfalls

 

     When at the company I co-founded (TeleSoft International), we had a lot of the components of success, but missed a number of crucial ones -- which eventually led to a dwindling and a slow death of the company. But one area that we did recognize (but likely did not do as well as needed) was that we needed to focus our limited resources where we had the best potential for income. This is the area that is called "Return on Investment" (which, I am sure, most of you already know) or ROI. The area of Investment includes labor, capital, goodwill, time, existing equipment, and (I'm sure) other aspects. Return on investment often is listed as a number -- the amount of income generated by use of all of the resources invested. But, in reality, income is not the only return that can be generated. "Goodwill" -- or a positive image and, perhaps, some later assistance -- is a completely valid return worth an investment.

     The first aspect of attempting to determine ROI (which is an art rather than a science, no matter what people may want to believe) is to adequately determine resources. How many people are available? What are their experience levels? What are their particular expertises? What can they do better than the average person at another company? How much money is easily available and for how long could it last before replenishment of capital is needed? Are there any areas (sales, marketing, distribution, quality control, testing, engineering, ...) that are not sufficiently staffed? If not, are there plans to get them staffed?

     Are processes in place to allow for growth? Can you handle a tripling of orders in a week or two? Can you survive success? If your growth curve started to become geometric rather than mildly linear, would you be screaming with success or with panic?

     Once resources are well known, you have the capability of comparing potential products against the amount of potential gain versus the amount of resources needed. It is not sufficient to just read about product notices and other industry press. Much of that is information trying to convince you that the products and services are important and needed. You need to know just what is being USED and what is in real upcoming budgets to be purchased. If you have access to huge unused resources then you can afford to take risks approaching potential market niches opening up. Most companies do not have such.

     So, you must focus on what is and what is being planned for. You need to be able to analyze other companies sales status and be able to actively network with people in other companies to exchange non-proprietary information that indicates direction of spending and growth. This was the primary area in which my company failed -- those in charge of gathering information did not like to go to conferences and other networking activities. The news from the ivory tower of publications and announcements were the primary indicators -- and they often were only wishful.

     You have your known resources and you have targets of development and expansion that can bring back revenue. Now you have to match them. Why should your company be working in this area? Does your expertise give you a learning curve advantage to allow you to take the lead in the market? Will people obviously turn to you with the expectation that you can provide what they need or do they need to be convinced? The former is definitely the preferred path. You must establish priorities. What resources need to be committed to what, and for how long? How do you determine a dead path -- when you should stop and devote your resources to other projects that still seem viable?

     You know your resources. You know what you would like to produce. You know what best matches between your resources and desired products. Now go to it.

     

Biases and Prejudices: There is a difference

 

     It is always difficult to choose people on a jury. Every potential juror has a history, education, and daily life which influences their attitude towards everything. And this set of experiences varies from person to person. Show a person a red rubber ball and one person will smile, thinking about enjoyable times in the playground. Another person might grimace and say "get that thing out of here" because, for them, that ball is a reminder of being pelted in dodgeball in gym class and going home with circular welts on the body. Same red rubber ball, very different reactions.

     Considering that each person likely has a different perspective and history what are they to do in a court? First, of course, is whether the person has any direct knowledge of the people or events in the case. In such cases, they might be prospective witnesses but they should not be members of a jury. The prosecutor is going to want to find people who will come back with a verdict in their favor and the defense attorney is going to want to find people who will come back in their favor.

     This is a problem because everyone will have biases. A bias is a feeling towards something, a first impression and reaction towards something. But it is only the first feeling -- it may change as things happen or they learn more. A child is initially scared of a vacuum cleaner because it makes so much loud noise. As they get used to the noise and watch what is done with it, they may start to appreciate it when the floor becomes cleaner and the air fresher. It might go the other way and they may dislike it even more as they get older and they are given the task of being the person to push the vacuum cleaner from room to room. But show them a vacuum cleaner and make it clear that it is not there for them to use and they will be okay with its presence.

     A prejudice is what the word breaks down into -- a "pre" "judgement". You have made a firm reaction, or decision, with no direct interaction with the current situation or information around the event. Prejudices could conceivably be about a thing or a cause but the word is predominantly used about groups of people. A lot of people have prejudices about athletes. Some think that, because the athletes have better-than-average physical abilities, they must not have intellectual abilities. Even if given test scores, awards, and well-testified examples, the best outcome with a person with such a prejudice is that "that person must be an exception".

     So, in the case of a potential juror, everyone has biases. If they favor short people then, if possible, they will be glad to support short people. But, if they are given evidence that this particular short person has done something bad, they will not support them. Or vice versa, they don't like people who dress as if they are wealthy, but when the evidence indicates that this particular suited individual has not done any harm, then they will support them and their position.

     If a potential juror has prejudices then they will support, or oppose, no matter what the current circumstance or evidence. Whereas, with biases, they are open (perhaps not eagerly open) to being presented with evidence that will lead to a verdict either direction. The prosecution would love to have people prejudicial in favor of guilty and the defense would love to have people prejudicial in favor of not guilty. Each will try to eliminate jurors prejudiced in the other side's favor. Biases are less important but each would like people biased in their direction -- it would mean less effort to convince.

     The "fairest" trial would have all the jurors without prejudices or biases -- working to make a judgement solely on the evidence presented. But all people have a history so awareness is our best hope.

We Are All Influencers

 

     A couple of years ago, I wrote a blog on the effect of influencers within our society. All that is still actively happening but I started "taking a step back" to recognize that we are ALL influencers.

     To influence is to be noticed. You might be seen, heard, sensed, or noticed through the effects of your actions. Influence can be positive or negative -- though for remembering a name on a ballot, it seems that just the "name recognition" is the most important and whether that person is known for behaving well or poorly is of secondary importance. Positive influence generally encourages positive behavior on the part of the observer. We want to be like them and we want to be acknowledged as such. Negative influence is not as clear. Observation of someone, in a position of influence, doing negative behaviors may be interpreted as permission for the observer to do similar negative behaviors.

     A great teacher can help self-motivate a student for the rest of their educational ladder. A rotten teacher can knock them out of a groove -- but a good one, or great one, can put them back on their path. In all cases, the idea is to help the person internalize the feelings that occur when someone external acts as an inspiration or cheerleader. That person may be family, a friend of the family, a teacher, or a respected friend but the process is to lay the foundations to become our OWN inspiration and cheerleader.

     Most of the time, we do not know when we are being influencers. There are some, of course, who are deliberately trying to influence. But much of the most important influences upon our lives come from those who are just living their lives -- doing the best (or worst) that they see to do.

     A "foundation" of mores and behaviors is created in our very early years. A strong foundation is internalized quite early and can support the person throughout their lives. This foundation gives them strength to choose among later influences that will help mold their growth. But, in many different circumstances, the foundation may not get a chance to develop -- or for the person to internalize a set of values that can sustain them through the challenges of life.

     To the best of my knowledge and awareness, every person (unless raised in complete isolation) -- in the process of growing up -- is surrounded by a peer group and, as themselves, are a peer to others. Depending on the strength of their early foundation, the peer group can have a greater, or lesser, ability to impress upon someone growing up. Joining a gang can be choosing a specific peer group. based on perceived values, when a person's foundation is weak or absent.

     The purpose of a leader is to guide, inspire, and support. If they work hard, and we feel acknowledged and supported, then we work hard. If they are not seen/heard/known to do significant work, then their influence can become unimportant or even negative. If they are extremely highly paid and work only moderately then it does not inspire, and motivate, as it does when recompense is aligned with amount of work.

     Inspiration by leaders lets us have a reachable goal for our efforts --- having a poor example does not inspire our best efforts. It gives us a feeling that our efforts are not worthwhile. Working more than others and earning less than those people is not encouraging.

     The effect of influencing is not always such a "weighty" matter. A smile may be passed from one person to another -- lightening the heart of each that encounters it. A cheerful "hello" may mean much to someone -- even if their immediate reaction is to growl back at you.

     We are all influencers. We often do not know when we are influencing others. It is thus important to continue to strive to do our best and be the best example of which we are currently able to be. (And forgive ourselves when that "best for the moment" does not meet our standards.)