Terminated

California voters voted for common sense and canceled their politicians' plans to raise their taxes to pay for spendthrift stupidity. Money quote:

Schwarzenegger helped behind the scenes to garner big contributions for the measure's proponents, who raised about $30 million and outspent foes by nearly 10 to 1.

Despite a big advantage in cash and manpower, the campaign failed to gain traction from the start. Polls throughout the race showed all the ballot measures - except Proposition 1F - losing badly, as voters expressed equal parts confusion over the package and disdain for the Sacramento politicians who crafted it.

As I wrote last week on Twitter, "Cut spending, don't raise taxes, says California(!) - http://tinyurl.com/pxe2kj - omen for US response to Obama's spree."

It's a relief to see that Californians love their kids enough to protect their future. Let's hope that the rest of the country votes accordingly as well.

ETC: Found this comment here:

What has Schwarzenegger done all his life? Pump up the human body beyond its normal limits which cannot be sustained and make fantasy movies to entertain people.

What has Schwarzenegger done since he became governor of CA? Pump up government beyond its normal limits which cannot be sustained and make fantasies for stupid people to believe in.

0 Comments
by Brett Rogers, 5/20/2009 9:39:51 AM
Permalink

Iowa's Spending Addiction

Dynamite fact-based video highlighting Iowa's debt problems from Iowa's state auditor, Dave Vaudt.

Remember: oppose Iowa's Governor, Debt Culver, as much as possible when he wants to spend money.

0 Comments
by Brett Rogers, 5/18/2009 5:10:45 PM
Permalink

Team Productivity

I mentioned previously that productivity comes in two varieties: individual and group. I addressed individual productivity. Let's turn to team productivity.

How many of you remember in school when a teacher announced that your class would be broken up into teams to work on an assignment. It would be a group project and the teacher would assign your partner - you couldn't choose. How many of you were excited about that prospect? If your class was like my class, there were groans. You dreaded it.

And yet, we're taught from very early on that teamwork is the best way to get things done. From a fourth-grade standardized test given in Ohio - given to ten-year-olds! - was this question:

When people work together to finish a job, such as building a house, the job will probably:

a) get finished faster
b) take longer to finish
c) not get done

Yet team productivity is something we encounter often. We encounter it in our marriages, we encounter it in our jobs...

What's the key to team productivity?

It starts with an understanding of what works well for teams and what doesn't.

I'd like you to name for me one fiction novel written by a team that became a bestseller. Can you name one?

How about a team painting? Are there any?

Let's flip that around. Do you know of anyone who built a house with no help from others?

That's why that fourth-grade question shows a bias. It gives you the example of building a house. Nobody constructs a house alone. It requires at least two people. But the bias we're given in the way that the question is phrased is that "when people work together to finish a job, the job will probably get finished faster."

But most of the time the data doesn't support that. Most teams underperform their expectations. And most of the time, it's because of dynamics on the team itself. When the teacher assigned that first group project to elementary school students, the students weren't given any direction on how to work together within a team. They were just thrown to it, as most of us are. Consider that the teacher who assigned that group project works alone. Group teaching in a classroom doesn't happen. Teachers operate alone and independently. They're not trained in team dynamics and how to make them successful, which is why it's not taught to the students, and that's why everyone comes to dread the group project.

Consider any project... there are four main tasks:

1. You have to set the overall direction. What's the goal? What outcome is expected?
2. You have to set up the organization to best accomplish it. What roles are needed? Who might be best able to fill those roles?
3. You have to monitor the progress and ensure that the work being done meets the standards and expectations set.
4. As the work is completed, you have to turn it loose for its purpose. Sometimes, this is all at once, and sometimes it's released in stages.

This is why the data on team success shows that teams typically underperform their expectations. The more people on a team, the more opportunity there is to get tripped up in one of these areas. When it comes to team productivity, the fewer members, the better.

John Gottman is arguably the leading researcher today on relationships and marriages. Just by watching a couple over the course of a few minutes, he can, with a 90% accuracy, tell you whether that couple will last or fail. That's an astounding feat. It doesn't come to him intuitively. It comes through years of studying what makes a relationship work and not work. He can now recognize in gestures and words and facial expressions the signs of erosion that lead to demise.

Marriage is the quintessential team. It is certainly the most widely recognized and popular team. For most of us, it's the first team we experience as children. Millions of people crave to be on the team called husband and wife, and yet most marriages fail. Why is that?

Gottman writes:

In pursuit of the truth about what tears a marriage apart or binds it together, I have found that much of the conventional wisdom - even among marital therapists - is either misguided or dead wrong. For example, some marital patterns that even professionals often take as a sign of a problem - such as having intense fights or avoiding conflict altogether - I have found can signify highly successful adjustments that will keep a couple together. Fighting, when it airs grievances and complaints, can be one of the healthiest things a couple can do for their relationship.

If there's one lesson I've learned in my years of research into marital relationships, it is that a lasting marriage results from a couple's ability to resolve the conflicts that are inevitable in any relationship. Many couples tend to equate a low level of conflict with happiness and believe the claim 'we never fight' is a sign of marital health. But I believe we grow in our relationships by reconciling our differences.

If the idea that fighting well can lead to marital harmony still seems counter-intuitive, I offer you one term well regarded in marriage: make-up sex. Know what I'm sayin'?

What derails the ability to reconcile differences are what Gottman refer to as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse:

1. Criticism - attacking someone's personality or character and not their behavior - and usually with blame.
2. Contempt - intention to insult or psychologically abuse someone's sense of self. Disgust is usually the result.
3. Defensiveness - usually escalates the conflict and keeps us from hearing the other person.
4. Withdrawal - stonewalling the other person, ignoring them.

You begin by focusing on the strengths of the individuals. By recognizing these strengths publicly, within and without the team, you foster respect for each member of the team. Appreciation for each individual's indisputable strengths goes a long way.

Look at how a team leader can act in such a way as to make a team member feel defensive or even prompt them into withdrawal. A great team leader will seek to "instill in the team members not just the desire, but the burning desire, to contribute to the team again and again." You don't do that with public criticism, scorn, mocking, favoritism, disorganization, or a lack of clear goals. You do incite them to look forward to coming to the team by publicly recognizing their contributions and individual productivity, by openly embracing them, by setting clear and attainable standards and helping them to work toward those standards.

Ask yourself the next time you are on a team: how am I helping to resolve the inevitable disputes and bring us closer to our team goals? How am I encouraging others to have the burning desire to return to the team again and again?

Your quality of life is largely determined by what you do and how you showcase your productivity, whether it's your individual productivity or your productivity on a team. Your productivity is only as strong as its value to others. This week, focus on Brand You and how you can increase the value of your stock.

0 Comments
by Brett Rogers, 5/18/2009 5:03:05 PM
Permalink

Productivity

Earlier, I gave what follows as the opening for my new Internet radio show. Each week, I'll cover a topic on Monday, 2 PM to 3 PM CST. This week's topic was "productivity." (Others are part of this Internet Radio co-op... you'll see them at different times on different days.)

This next hour is the Growth Accelerator, a pro-growth, pro-capitalism, pro-business discussion about moving forward in life, personally and professionally. You can find out more about me, Brett Rogers, at growthradio.com.

Each week, I'll choose a principled topic, and break it down in fresh ways and this week's topic is productivity.

Think for a moment about productivity. Your success in life is only as solid as your productivity, and your productivity is only as strong as its value to others. Unless you have a pile of money sitting around with which to pay the bills and afford the niceties in life, your productivity is determined by the value that other people place on it. If you are productive, you are, in some way, adding value to the lives of others in a way that they recognize and appreciate.

When I was growing up, I used to hear the importance of being a "productive member of society." I don't recall the last time that I heard someone say that phrase. How about you? When was the last time you heard someone say that?

My productivity means that I can stand on my own two feet. It means that I am strong enough to be self-sustaining. And so, the more productive I am, the stronger I am. If you think about my place in society, if I'm not productive, then I'm not strong, and I can't stand on my own, and then rather than being an additive force in this world, I require others to take care of me. I become subtractive and I take from others.

My first responsibility to the world and the highest secular moral I can achieve is this: to be as productive as I can be. To be a productive member of society. To be a value add, rather than a drain. The reason is that my life requires me to consume. I need a place to live, I need food, I need clothes and other items. If I live, I am going to consume. Every living creature on the planet consumes. There's nothing wrong with consumption, although some people will tell you it's bad. But it is immoral for me to consume and expect others to provide for my consumption, unless they have agreed to do so willingly. Again, I say, it is immoral.

But if I am productive, then I have the strength to stand on my own. I contribute. I produce something of value to others for which they willingly give me money. And because I am productive, I can consume as I need because I have earned the right to do so. That's moral. I'm a plus, and not a minus in this great big world. And every person in this great big world has the moral obligation to be a productive member of society. And we have the right to expect that of others. That's how society grows and prospers.

I begin with productivity as this first topic because it is the building block upon which everything we do is built. There are two types of productivity: individual and group. Let's take some time to look at individual productivity.

Management guru Tom Peters has a cool little concept he calls Brand You. Brand You. Just like Target has a brand, just like the Olympics has a brand, you have a brand. The opening sentence in Tom's book on Brand You is, "The fundamental unit of the new economy is not the corporation but the individual." Think about that...

Individuals circulate through the economy and look for an assignment - something they can do where they can add value and be paid for it so that they can consume. Their consumption, by the way, seeks value in what others do and pays them for it. The economy works just like that - millions of individuals being productive and consuming the productivity of others. It's an ecosystem of its own, based completely on the freewill choice of each independent individual.

How do you attract the attention of all of those millions of individuals so that they will willingly give you money for your productivity? You can do it on your own. You can partner with others. You can join a company. Somehow, you have to convince others that Brand You is worth the investment of their hard-earned money. You have to convince them that your productivity has value.

Michael Goldhaber of Wired magazine said, "The attention economy is a star system. If there is nothing special about your work, no matter how hard you apply yourself, you won't get noticed. And that increasingly means you won't get paid much either."

You are the star of Brand You. You are the CEO of Brand You. You are the chief marketing officer of Brand You. You are the front office and the back office of Brand You. Today, productivity starts with that realization.

What does Brand You do? What does Brand You do best?

You might recall from the various kids' shows you've seen throughout your life that they sometimes have segments telling children how special and unique they are. While that's a true statement, just being is not distinctive enough to generate a market demand. No animal in the animal kingdom gets away with just being. They have to either go get their food or do something productive that encourages others to bring food to them.

What does Brand You produce that is distinctive and attractive? The quality of your life is largely determined by what you do and how you showcase your productivity.

I want to tell you your job description. You think I don't know you, but I do, and I can tell you your exact job description. My exact job description was told to me long ago, and I've never forgotten it. It was told to me in the middle of a busy evening, in Towson, Maryland. The cold outside the TGI Friday's where I worked was fierce, and people would come through the door into the foyer shaking that deep chill off them, fluffing their coats to invite some heat into their clothing. I was a waiter, and it was two weeks before Christmas, and the TGI Friday's where I worked was on the outside corner of a mall. Shoppers, eager for a break and a bite to eat, were coming in steadily all through the day.

Danny was my manager that shift. He was an affable guy, with some Latino in him somewhere. His easy smile and personal warmth put an instant comfort into those around him. My particular section was swamped - and had been for some time - and I had worked the lunch shift earlier, and now was swinging into a double for the night. I was tired, and he could see it. He came up to me and put his arm around me as I strode into the kitchen and handed an order to the window.

"You know what your job description is?" he asked, his voice rising just enough to be heard above the clamor of dishes and the cooks. "It's the same as mine," he said.

That stopped me mentally and I give him my full attention. "You're a manager. Our job descriptions are nothing alike."

He smiled wider. "They're exactly the same."

He removed his arm and turned to stand in front of me with both hands on my shoulders, looking me squarely in the eyes. "Your job is to instill in our customers not just the desire, but the burning desire, to return to us again and again." He watched my face as what he said sunk in. "And that's my job description too."

Then he patted me on the shoulder with a big ol' grin and spun off to the service bar.

Obviously, I've never forgotten that moment. I'm here to tell you that Brand You has a mission, and that mission is just like he said it then:

"To instill in those around you not just the desire, but the burning desire, to return to you again and again."

Answer the following questions:

• When you work a job and leave, would they hire you back?
• When you meet someone, do you give them a compelling reason to want to see you again?
• When someone creates a team to achieve an objective, how quickly are you chosen to help in the cause?

But if you work to instill in them that desire, and you work from that perspective, what a difference that can make. If you work to instill in others - everyone around you - the burning desire to crave your participation again and again, it can dramatically change your quality of life. Danny spoke of it in terms of customers - but really, isn't everyone your customer?

I began today by saying that your productivity is only as strong as its value to others. That puts them in control of what you offer. They can choose to like it, or not like it. They can choose to accept its price - or not. They can choose to part with their hard-earned money and buy it, or walk away from it. Only if they choose to buy what you offer are you productive.

It is all about them. Brand You is only as strong as your ability to sell what you offer, plain and simple. Your continued success is only as vibrant as their burning desire to return to you again and again. Everyone around you gains a perception of what you offer. Their word-of-mouth might be what sells you to your next buyer.

Remember: the quality of your life is largely determined by what you do and how you showcase your productivity.

Next up: team productivity.

0 Comments
by Brett Rogers, 5/18/2009 4:54:46 PM
Permalink

I Agree with Obama

Wonders never cease...

"We can't keep on just borrowing from China," Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. "We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt."

So if he really believes that, then when exactly is he doing to reduce the debt? Because so far he is multiplying it - and shows no sign of letting up.

He is the king of fancy words.

0 Comments
by Brett Rogers, 5/15/2009 8:42:47 AM
Permalink

Compassionate? Not So Much...

I understand the desire of people who want to increase the tax base to help the needy. The vast majority of people are compassionate and would help folks in need. They believe that those suffering adverse circumstances would get on their own feet if only we gave them a bit of help. Therefore, they look to the government to confiscate the wealth of others to give to those in need.

Our first instinct is self-preservation. And no matter how much you want to help others, that desire ceases when it threatens your own livelihood.

California, likely the most liberal state in the nation, is broke. It misspent its money until there was nothing left, and now it has to find a way to recover the money misspent. There are only two ways to grow the bank account: either reduce your expenses, or increase your income. If you're the government, that means you either reduce services or you raise taxes. At this fork in the road, Californians are clear: cut spending. 73% want to cut spending. That's clearly a majority.

Let's say that they get their way in next Tuesday's ballot on budget initiatives and the clear decision is to cut spending. What happens to the needy?

Those who need a hand look to the strong for help, but when the strong aren't so strong, there's no one there. And the reason is that the "compassionate" spent so much money that the strong no longer feel strong enough to help.

The "compassionate" ended up hurting both groups - which actually isn't very compassionate at all. Because of their thirst for the money of those better off, the "compassionate" have now dried up the pool and there's nothing left to drink.

And until the strong feel strong again, those in need are left without help. That's just the fact of it.

Isn't it better to have a steady source of help, even if it's not enough to solve everyone's problems, than to have nothing at all? Shouldn't we as a society want a reliable resource? Shouldn't we seek to preserve that resource?

The truth is that the "compassionate" are not compassionate at all... they come in two flavors.

The first wants to look good by spending the money of others. Their altruism is built with the efforts of others.

The second group simply hates the "rich." Theirs is a scorched earth policy where everyone will have less, which makes it more equal. Fairness... that's their goal.

Neither is compassionate. One is selfish and the other is jealous, and both are frustrated by personal incompetence to achieve their ends on their own. The inevitable result of this is that no one will be helped for a time. Their intentions are not sustainable, and it's evidence of yet more incompetence that they couldn't see such a logical end.

Creativity requires a lot of energy, and even more to market it successfully and make it sustainable. Government is a parasite on that sustainable strength. If government likes the host body, it needs to maintain the health of the host. No one feeds long off a carcass, and no parasite is self-sustaining.

0 Comments
by Brett Rogers, 5/14/2009 12:00:41 PM
Permalink

Running with Weights

0 Comments
by Brett Rogers, 5/12/2009 3:28:07 PM
Permalink

Measuring Sin, Statistically

Geographers from Kansas State University took data and derived sin maps for the infamous Seven Deadly Sins.

The darker a county, the more evil it is. What follows is their methodology:

Greed was calculated by comparing average incomes with the total number of inhabitants living beneath the poverty line.

Envy was calculated using the total number of thefts - robbery, burglary, larceny and stolen cars.

Wrath was calculated by comparing the total number of violent crimes - murder, assault and rape - reported to the FBI per capita.

Lust was calculated by compiling the number of sexually transmitted diseases - HIV, AIDS, syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhea - reported per capita.

Gluttony was calculated by counting the number of fast food restaurants per capita.

Sloth was calculated by comparing expenditures on arts, entertainment and recreation with the rate of employment.

Pride, lastly, is most important. The root of all sins, in this study, is the aggregate of all data. Vought and his Kansas colleagues combined all data from the six other sins and averaged it into an overview of all evil.

Notice how light the midwest is compared to, say, the south. Two lessons to draw from this: don't pick a spouse from Mississippi (see the Lust map and its methodology), and South Carolina is really conflicted.

You might not agree with the reasoning applied, but it's interesting to consider - especially since this is data-driven.

ETC: In the comments, it's suggested that I overlay Indian reservations, so I did that over the pride map, which is the amalgamation of all of the maps.

Yellow marks an Indian reservation. Since there are as many reservations without any correlation to the darker purple as there are with, I'd say the suggestion is a bust.

Some also want to suggest that sin, as measured by the folks in Kansas who assembled the maps, should be indicated by race, but that doesn't explain the darker areas in the upper Midwest or Mountain areas, despite their best efforts in the comments to assert their theory.

I posted this because I thought it was interesting, and while there is a culture in certain parts of the US where danger and crime abound, four of these maps have nothing to do with crime. In short - it's not a race thing. But you can bring your bias toward anything that you do and find some connection if you try hard enough, whether or not the facts merit the connection.

15 Comments
by Brett Rogers, 5/12/2009 3:08:31 PM
Permalink

Images from the Past Couple of Days

0 Comments
by Brett Rogers, 5/12/2009 12:36:17 PM
Permalink

Mr. Popular

How long do you keep liking the guy who's spending your money so deeply that he's spending your kids' money as well?

And what will your kids think of you for not fighting for them? I mean really, is it their job to carry America on their back before they're even out of high school?

0 Comments
by Brett Rogers, 5/12/2009 12:25:40 PM
Permalink