Category Archives: Human Resources

Job Killing: The Republican Prime Directive

25 Thursday May 2017

Posted by in About Reno, Branding, Business, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, History, Human Resources, Management Practices, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Taxes, Technology, Universities, US History, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

There may be no political party in the history of the world that has killed more jobs, or enacted legislation to kill jobs, than the Republicans of the United States of America. They attempt to deny their legacy and claim that it is government that is killing jobs, while also claiming that illegal immigrants are taking high paying jobs from our citizens. Those are damn lies.

Trump’s SS forces raid homes to allegedly save high paying jobs for U.S. citizens

Business and Republicans are one in the same. Republicans always do what business wants, and in the past thirty years there have been few, if any, examples where a majority of Republicans have voted for legislation that was contrary to business wishes. When manufacturing jobs leave the United States, a Republican businessperson is behind it and it is done with the blessing of Republican politicians.

Manufacturing jobs in the U.S. 1939 to present. Growth occurs under Democratic leadership and shrinks under Republican leadership. (Source:  Bureau of Labor Standards)

Trump’s feigned anger at businesses sending jobs overseas is almost comical if it weren’t so pitiful. In 1995, the sixty-year reign of Democratic majority control of Congress ended. in that sixty year history Democrats controlled either the House of Representatives and the Senate for all but four of those years. Republicans controlled the House of Representatives for six additional years during the Reagan administration. Since 1995, Republicans have controlled the Senate, House, or Presidency for all but two years under a banner to thwart all Democratic legislation.

Four years after the Republicans seized control of Congress and passed major business-friendly legislation, the number of manufacturing jobs in the United States began a plunge that would take it down to levels not seen in fifty years.

Job killing our country’s key employer is a primary goal of the Republican party. Federal, state, county, and local governments have been under attack since the Reagan administration. Republicans have consistently sought to strangle funding for public schools as our population has grown, eliminate jobs of the people paid to protect workers and consumers from unethical businesses, prevent funding for workers providing veteran services, and attack critical jobs that provide services for the typical citizen.

The goal of every business person is to make money, not create jobs. That is why Republicans seek to eliminate costs by killing jobs, rather than spend money to create jobs. To a business person, jobs are an expense, and are the obstacle to making money. What Republicans don’t understand is that jobs move the money through the economy, and eliminating high paying government jobs takes money out of the economy. This is why our economy is barely moving forward.

Trump supporters can’t understand the complexities of a national economy, which is why they are the problem in perpetuating Republican domination of our government. Trump is trying to push our economy into a disaster that we may never recover from unless he is stopped.

Conversations With Conservatives: The 37 Year Lie

13 Thursday Apr 2017

Posted by in Aging, Business, Communication, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, History, Honor, Human Resources, Management Practices, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Religion, Respect, Space, Taxes, Technology, US History, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(NOTE:  This is Part II of this article. Read Part I, here.)

The social and economic issues that people are concerned about in the United States of America don’t necessarily fall along party lines. Some issues, like immigration and applying religion to public policy, have a distinct political division; however, many other issues cross the lines of the ideologies.

In conversations with conservatives I learned that the deep division between conservatives and liberals can be traced back 37 years, to when Republicans managed to break the hold of Democratic leadership of our country in 1980. For 37 years, conservatives have been able to maintain control of our country by singing one anthem, ‘Everything is the government’s fault, and business is the solution.’

Ronald Reagan: Founder of the Cult of Conservatism

Ronald Reagan was elected on the idea that Democrats had failed the country. It was an easy story to sell for one reason. The Iran Hostage Crisis. Every night the news reminded our country of how many days our citizens had been held and humiliated by a group of Iranian students. Most in the United States did not understand the complexities of the situation, and were angry that we didn’t go to war with Iran.

The result was to give Republicans an early opportunity to erase the shame caused by Richard Nixon’s illegal involvement in fixing the 1972 presidential elections during the Watergate affair. The Hostage Crisis ended at the exact hour that Reagan was sworn in as President, a coincidence that causes questions of Republican collusion with the Iranian government during the crisis. Suspicions of collusion were raised again when Reagan’s administration worked a bizarre deal to sell arms to Iran several years later during the Iran/Contra Affair.

The Big Lie
Reagan is famously quoted in his first Inaugural speech when he said:

….government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem…”

Ronald Reagan, January 1981

The demonization of government was necessary for conservatives to achieve their goals. Government is the ethical referee that prevents business from underpaying employees, polluting for profit, abusing and endangering the customer, engaging in banking practices that protect the account holder, etc. Government oversight and regulation keeps business from devouring itself in greed.

Additionally, government collects business taxes for the privilege of having access to our country’s rich consumer markets. By eliminating these taxes, business could keep more of the spoils of capitalism and drain revenues from the entity that kept business fair and ethical.

The other shoe dropped by conservatives was to preach that the solution to our problems was business. In the holy corporate world, business was the shining light on the hill for all to worship.

37 Years Later:  The Cult of Conservatism
In my conversation with average conservatives I have discovered that conservatism has now become a cult. The code word for a conservative is ‘fiscal conservatism.’ Ask anyone who votes for a Republican candidate why they vote for the party they will automatically answer, “I believe in fiscal conservatism.” They don’t even pause.

For conservatives, issues are caused by government and solved by business. Among the issues discussed with conservatives I learned the following:

Finance regulation:  Conservatives believe that the government is at fault and less regulation will solve the problem, even though a lack of regulation and business greed caused the 2007-8 financial/bank crisis.

Housing Inflation/Bubbles:  Conservatives that government is the problem because…I didn’t get an answer on this, but the free market will solve the problem, even though the bubbles that occur with rapid housing price increases are caused by capitalisticitic factors, not government involvement.

Economy:  Conservatives believe that business is the creator of jobs and growth in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and government inhibits both. The evidence contradicts this as job and GDP growth have been anemic under almost 35 years of Republican economic policies, and the pre-conservative period of government initiated infrastructure projects and the space program generated massive job and GDP growth.

Healthcare:  Conservatives believe that government has been the cause of uncontrolled price increases in healthcare and drug prices, even though it’s the lack of government regulation that has allowed the price increases, especially in the prescription drug market, where Republicans pushed for, and passed an end to competitive market that would help to restrict price increases.

Trump and Republicans have succeeded in creating a cult-like status around the concept that government is the problem and business is the solution…and like any cult, the believers surrender themselves to ‘faith.’ Truth and facts are fiction to a conservative.

The Republican party has no need to be logical, compromising, or reasonable. Their believers have no choice but to hate government, and worship business.

PR Fail: What United Airlines Should Have Done

28 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Aging, Branding, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Honor, Human Resources, Internet, Management Practices, parenting, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Travel, Women

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

United PR:  At least we don’t shove the children out at 35,000 feet!

Sunday morning United Airlines once again proved that they have some of the worst public relations people in the business, which is likely a reflection of their top management.

The Situation
Two young girls, ages estimated to be around ten to eleven years old, were prevented boarding a United Airlines flight from Denver to Minneapolis with their family. These were children, not adults, nor young adults. According to United Airlines, they were flying on what is known in the industry as a “Buddy Pass,” which is a relatively free (taxes have to be paid) ticket that is one of the benefits of airline employees.

The girls were wearing leggings, which again, according to United Airlines, is in violation of the dress code of people flying on a Buddy Pass. The gate agent apparently approached the family and told them the girls could not board the plane wearing leggings.

It is important to note that two of the girls did not have any other clothing options at the gate, and the family apparently checked bags with the girl’s clothing in them at the main ticketing, where a United representative had to weigh the bags, check the tickets, and confirm the identifications of each of the passengers. Despite this close contact with the passengers, the ticket agent did NOT prevent the children, nor the rest of the family from heading to the gate.

The gate agent that confronted the family was involved in a “tense” discussion of the dress code issue in front of other passengers. At one point the gate agent bragged, “I don’t make the rules, I just enforce them.”

This became a major public relations issue because passengers in the area were witness to the scene and a passenger from another gate investigated the situation and reported it on Twitter. The gate agent’s handling of the situation was overt enough to cause another family, not involved in the incident, to have their daughter put on a dress over her leggings.

United later reported that the girls later changed and boarded another flight.

What United Should Have Done
It boggles the mind as to the many public relation fails occurred by United staff, but here is what the public relations people should have said and done:

On Sunday, March 26, a family was boarding one of our flights on a special ticket that includes a dress code requirement for the passenger. One of our gate agents determined that the children were not dressed according to that policy, and the family was not allowed to board the flight.

While the gate agent technically followed our policy, we regret that this situation became a public scene. We also regret that our staff did not remind the family of that policy when they checked their bags at the main ticket counter, when the children would have been able to obtain appropriate clothing before their bags were checked.

Our policy is meant to encourage a professional appearance of those passengers who are flying as a benefit of being employed, or being a family member of one of our employees. When this involves children, we attempt to be sensitive to the difference in the typical appropriate dress for their age.

We regret to the manner in how this situation was handled and apologize to the family involved and to the passengers who were witness to this situation at the gate. We are reviewing our policies and how those policies are enforced.

The United Blood Bath
Rather than apologizing, United decided that it would work to sway public opinion against the traveling family and humiliate them further. Their announcement in response to the situation put all the blame on the children and their family and implied that the gate agent who created the scene was the hero.

It is a Trump-like strategy that is based on never admitting failure, even when the failure is obvious. It did produce a wave of approval by people who enjoy watching someone being crushed by a more powerful and insensitive force.

However, this type of strategy builds mistrust of an organization and clearly demonstrates United’s lack of empathy for its passengers, paying or not. It also demonstrates the lack of humanity by a corporation that doesn’t understand the deferred cost of bad public relations, and proves that United doesn’t know the quality of mercy.

Republicans Living Down to Expectations

09 Thursday Mar 2017

Posted by in Aging, Business, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, History, Honor, Human Resources, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Respect, Taxes, US History, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

GOP’s big loser takes from the elderly and poor to give to the rich

They did exactly what was expected and then went further. Republicans put together a plan to shred our healthcare, and then added more tax breaks for the wealthiest. Ryancare could best be described as the bomb dropped on the United States to distract us from noticing how deep Vladimir Putin is in Trump’s pants.

‘Repeal and Replace’ is, as expected, ‘Flush and Make the Wealthiest, Wealthier.’ By bullet point, this is what the Republicans shot down.

  • Mandatory coverage, gone. A return to pre-Obamacare
  • Subsidies, still there, but smaller
  • Medicare money raided to give the wealthy a big tax cut
  • Elderly and people with pre-existing conditions will pay up to five times more for insurance

Many believe that Ryancare will undergo significant changes; however, none of the discussed changes will improve the existing law. Republicans are committed to carnage and destruction. Business as usual.

The Joy of No

01 Tuesday Dec 2015

Posted by in Aging, Business, Club Leadership, College, Communication, Consulting, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Government, Higher Education, Honor, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Recruitment, Membership Retention, Passionate People, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Relationships, Respect, Rotary, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, The Tipping Point, Tom Peters, Universities

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

_DSC1990No is a perfectly acceptable answer….providing,

  • The idea or suggestion lacked thought or had no basis in fact. (e.g.; Would Donald Trump be a good President?)
  • The idea or suggestion has obvious flaws. (e.g.; Should we let a gun be in a room with a bunch of 2nd grade children?)
  • Is a matter of personal opinion or seeks personal approval. (e.g.; Would you go out with me?)

But when an idea or suggestion doesn’t fall under any of these categories, the “no” answer becomes a potential weapon of personal destruction for the person saying it, and a beautiful opportunity for the person on the receiving end.

Being the youngest of four boys, my brothers and parents became accustomed to telling me ‘no.’ I was constantly asking questions and making suggestions, and the ‘yes’ answer was likely to encourage me. In those situations where I actually had a good idea, it was enough that as the youngest member of the family, a ‘no’ answer was valid.

As an adult, I never had any expectations that my ideas and suggestions would be better received, so hearing ‘no’ was an irritation, but I accepted it as part of life.

However, I as grew older I noticed that some people seemed to enjoy telling other people ‘no.’ Often these people were in leadership positions and their tactic was to dominate and/or intimidate others. In some cases people would act as a dictator within the organization, silencing the ideas and opinions of others with a type of ‘no’ answer that implied dire consequences if the person didn’t drop the subject, or the idea was treated so lightly as if the person was unintelligent for making the suggestion. For years I thought that part of being a good manager was to have the privilege and responsibility to tell others, “NO!” 

Then several years ago I joined a service club and became very involved in the organization. I served on several Boards and committees. I discovered that I could manipulate some people because I always knew their response to whatever I suggested would be, ‘no.’

It was then I realized that when someone says ‘no,’ it is a gift. The “No-ee” has done all they are required by making the suggestion or asking the question. The “No-er” has put their reputation and respectability on the line. The ‘no’ answer gives them all the responsibility, and, as a situation plays out, their failure to consider someone else’s idea or suggestion may be the fatal decision that brings them down.

I still find enjoyment of sometimes asking a perfectly legitimate question of someone I know will give me a ‘no’ answer. It is even more interesting to do this when I have more information about the issue or situation than they do and they can’t help but give me an answer that will eventually haunt them.

Still, I have learned that organizations and relationships with ‘no’ people are typically doomed. There’s a time to experience the joy of ‘no,’ and then there are times it’s best to walk away and shake the dust off your sandals.

The Quality of Respect

04 Wednesday Nov 2015

Posted by in Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Retention, Politics, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Respect determines the quality of relationships

Respect determines the quality of relationships

I have had a few instances of being told I was right. These typically come years after the fact when the acknowledgement is almost meaningless regarding the original idea, issue, or choice. The irony is that the issue discussed years ago is irrelevant, but how the person responded to my idea or concern established the quality of our relationship.

Years of interactions with people through work, social, and personal experiences has taught me that relationships are defined by the quality of respect the two people have for each other. Communication is about sharing information and being correct or not about an issue is secondary to the quality of the relationship. We are not taught that in school, but it is something learned as patterns develop with the people in our social circles.

The way a person responds to our ideas and concerns defines the quality of respect they have for who we are as a person, and that defines the relationship.

Dismissive Response
A dismissive response is the lowest form of respect to a person. Adults often are dismissive of children, and that is a valid description of the relationship between two adults when one is dismissive or condescending to another person. The classic, “Let’s just agree to disagree” is a great example of a dismissive response. If this is happening in a work relationship it means that your value to that person is nonexistent and that you should be seeking a different work environment.

In a personal relationship it means that you are a pet or child to the person and you should take action to get them out of your life. Once a person treats you as an inferior, others will model that and everyone around you will devalue your relationship with them.

Deflective Response
The next lowest form of respect is when someone is deflective or derogatory to you when you express concern about an issue. This behavior can be recognized by responses that begin with or include the following:

“You’ve always disliked. ..” or “You don’t know for sure that…” or “Here you go again…”

The point here is that the person is not responding to your concern, just devaluing you and anything you have to say. It is a close cousin to a dismissive response, but the person feels a need to answer your concern, even though the answer is actually an insult to your intelligence.

Illogical Response
Another close relative of the Dismissive Response is the Illogical Response. It is the type of response that has the appearance of a discussion of two people who mutually respect each other; however, the response is often a desperate attempt to suggest Point A is negated by Point B, but in reality Point A has nothing to do with Point B.

An example of this is if Ryan is saying that a school’s quality is on the decline because some of the best teachers in a school are leaving and Barbara counters by saying the school has a great reputation for the quality of education. Barbara’s argument is based on past performance, but Evan’s argument is talking about current and future performance.

Respectful Discussion
The hallmark of any valid discussion is the respect the people involved have for each other. When both people respect each other every attempt will be made to reach a reasonable solution because the relationship is more important than the argument.

Finally, when someone comes back to you years after a discussion and tells you that you were correct, it really is about admitting the lack of respect they had for you, and they are attempting to recognize their error. Never assume that they have found a new respect for you because respect is not a quality that returns once it has been lost.

Death By Incentive Program

04 Monday May 2015

Posted by in Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Honor, Human Resources, Management Practices, parenting, Public Image, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Relationships, Respect

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

_DSC0363 (2)Incentive programs are the tip of the sword in organizational suicide. They are often designed by people who believe that there is a single cause leading to a positive effect in achievement. The reality is that life isn’t that simple. Here are three examples of incentive program fails:

EXAMPLE 1 – Retaining Major Customers
ISSUE:  A business owner loses a major customer and believes that it was because his employees weren’t responsive enough to the major customer’s needs.

INCENTIVE:  The owner creates and incentive program that rewards employees for being more attentive to major customers. (Potential measures:  Major customer satisfaction surveys, increase in revenue from major customers, response time data.)

EFFECT: Some employees learn how to gain the favor of the major customer through unethical tactics:  i.e. kickbacks, access to inside information about the major customer’s competition, sacrificing minor customers in order to be more attentive to major customers, giving more product or service to the major customers and charging it to minor customers, etc.

RESULT:  The owner finds out that some unethical employees look like superstars to the major customers, while ethical employees seem to be failures. Minor customers, a primary source of new revenue, leave for competitors leaving the company with a few major customers that demand special treatment.

EXAMPLE 2 – Improving Student Performance
ISSUE:  Recognizing and reinforcing good student behavior and educational achievement.

INCENTIVE:  Teachers are given special reward tokens to give to students who display good behavior, or who perform exceptionally on class or homework assignments. Students with the most tokens are given a special reward at the end of the school year.

EFFECT:  Some teachers give out tokens liberally and gain favor with the students. Some teachers attempt to ethically administer the program, but find that they are not consistent in giving out tokens to the students for similar positive events. Some teachers do not buy into the incentive program and rarely give out tokens.

RESULT:  High performing students discover that their behavior and achievements is subject to different evaluators who create an reward system that is not objective. Students who are recognized feel superior to other students, and other high performing students become angry, frustrated, and discouraged.

EXAMPLE 3 – Improving Productivity
ISSUE:  Motivate management to improve to eliminate wasted time and resources.

INCENTIVE:  Financial bonuses for top managers who have higher output per employee and/or expenses, OR have lower cost per dollar of revenue.

EFFECT:  Managers discover that by making salaried employees work longer hours and not replacing old equipment as needed, they can look more productive. Employees may not like working with broken or outdated equipment, or be required to work longer hours, but that is not what is measured, so it is irrelevant to the manager.

RESULT:  Other indicators (high turnover, loss of customers, etc.) might indicate a failure of the manager in performing his or her duty; however, because the incentive is to improve productivity, those factors are ignored. The manager looks like a superstar and yet the division or department has severe morale issues and is a business failure._DSC0361 (2)

Why Incentive Programs Fail
Despite the popular idea that incentive programs are a good motivational tool, there are four reasons why they are not.

Organizational success is not a science, but an art

Incentive plans are based on the old idea that the ends justify the means. True organizational success is all about the ‘means’ and the success comes only after multiple factors combine. Organizational success often can’t be repeated because it was contingent on the talents of key team members who brought key talents or skills into the formula of success.

Cause and effect are rarely in a one-to-one relationship

Whatever is defined as the positive outcome, people will find multiple ways to achieve the desired goal, regardless of ethics.

People are not ethical by nature

Incentive programs encourage unethical behavior. The goal is assumed to be the highest priority and that is tacit approval to some that anything goes as long as the goal is met or exceeded.

Some organizations intend the incentive program to encourage unethical behavior

Executives cannot tell their employees to be unethical, but they can create the environment that fosters unethical behavior in pursuit of the indicators of success. This protects the company and puts all the risk on the employees.

Incentive = Manipulation

People who design incentive programs explain that the intent is to reward good behavior, and they fail to complete the sentence, “through manipulation.” Manipulation requires a lack of respect. Most people want to do the right thing and don’t need to be tricked into doing it. It is possible that unethical behavior is stimulated by incentive programs because the person feels disrespected by the use of manipulation and responds by obtaining the reward while sabotaging the program.

The Need For An Incentive Program?
Organizations that need an incentive program indicate a failure in leadership. Any business or school should know who its best performers without an artificial measurement program in place to identify them. In addition, any organization should have an ongoing effort to recognize and reward the best performers. Leadership that is effective in celebrating success will be setting the example for others without manipulation through an artificial program that disrespects people and will likely be vulnerable to unfair evaluation and unethical behavior.

Corporate Religion Decision Will Determine Supreme Court’s Corruption

27 Thursday Mar 2014

Posted by in Business, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Human Resources, Management Practices, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Religion, Respect, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Image by Paul Kiser

Healthcare decision to force Supreme Court to judge themselves

This week the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether or not the government can require private businesses to provide contraception coverage as part of the healthcare benefit package for employees. Ironically, the decision may expose the level of political corruption of the Court, rather than resolve a legal issue.

Image by Paul Kiser

Contraception: Individual choice or employer usurpation of individual right?

The issue before the court is simple. Religion is a mythology, not a constitutional right. An individual has the right to indulge in religious beliefs, providing they are legal, and don’t infringe on another individual’s right to believe in their own mythological dogma or not.

Because religion is, by its nature, manifested by humans, anyone can invent the restrictions of ‘their’ religion. Many of those restrictions are classified as sins by that religion.

However, a person, who is by law a voluntarily participant in any church, has the right to abide by those restrictions or not. Punishment for not abiding by those restrictions may result in banishment from the religion, but most violations are considered to be a matter between the individual and their mythological God.

What the owners of Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel argue is that their mythological beliefs trump their employee’s own mythological belief, along with the employee/doctor relationship. Not only do the employers want to force the individual into the restrictions of the employer’s mythological beliefs, they are also asking the Court for control their employee’s right of choice outside of the employment environment.

Image by Paul Kiser

Employer mythology trumps Freedom of Religion?

To be clear, the Affordable Care Act does not require anyone to use contraception methods; therefore an employer can’t argue that their mythological beliefs are being violated as they are not being required to use contraceptive methods. The law only allows the employee and their doctor to have access to contraception as an option as part of their health plan.

The Supreme Court has no choice under the Constitution but to deny business owner’s attempt to usurp employee’s right of Freedom of Religion. A quid pro quo relationship is not a license to inflict an employer’s religious beliefs on individuals, nor does it elevate the employer to be the ‘hand’ of their mythological God.

Despite the obvious legal determination, the Supreme Court may rule in favor of the employer and that ruling will drop the robes of the Justices to show the naked corruption of the highest court in the land. The Court has been stacked with conservatives who have abandoned good jurisprudence for ultra-conservative perversion of the law. 

Regardless of the outcome, the issue demonstrates that business woes in America are not due to government taxes or regulation, but simple stupidity of business management. Like many other conservative zealot business owners, Hobby Lobby and the other businesses in this suit will find that their religious and political issues have no place in a free-enterprise economy. Customers don’t like being forced into a business’ religious or political conflict, nor do employees want their employers to use them as pawns.

A Cup of Like

26 Wednesday Mar 2014

Posted by in About Reno, Branding, Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Passionate People, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Re-Imagine!, Relationships, Respect, The Tipping Point, Tom Peters, Travel

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Grande cup of Like

Grande cup of Like

I don’t feel it’s appropriate for a business to ‘love’ its customers. Loving someone is a personal bond that shouldn’t be related to business, (unless you’re Lady Gaga, then you can love your ‘monsters.’)

However, I do feel strongly that a business should ‘like‘ its customers. When I go into a coffee house I can tell if they are serving drinks, or if they are offering a cup of like. Anyone can serve a drink, but serving like requires more than the mechanics of taking an order, knowing how much milk to put in a cup, and/or yelling, “I have a Venti Latte with two shots on the bar!”

My home Starbucks on 7th and Keystone in Reno, Nevada has ‘like’ down. They seem truly happy when a customer walks in the door. That doesn’t mean they don’t have their down days, but most of the time you will get more than your drink from the staff.

This is not what I experience when I travel. It’s easy to pick on airlines, because if there is one group of people who don’t ‘like’ their customers, it’s the air travel industry, but even finding hotel or restaurant staff that makes you feel liked has become harder and harder to do.

In fact, a business that likes their customer is so rare that a genuine friendly person stands out among the ugliness of customer service in most businesses. The opportunity to beat the competition is to simply like your customers.

The place to start is with management. Managers have to like their staff and like their job. If their not happy then how can the staff possibly be?

One more thought:  In a world of Twitter, Facebook, and Yelp, how can any business not afford to like their customers?

Management Study for God

19 Wednesday Mar 2014

Posted by in Business, Consulting, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Fiction, Generational, Government, History, Human Resources, Management Practices, Opinion, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Religion, Sports, Tom Peters, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

WORLD MANAGEMENT STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On March 1, 2014, Kiser and Co. was retained by God to perform a study of the world management. After a thorough review of the processes and effectiveness of the current management practices on Earth we submit the following analysis and make the following recommendations.

ANALYSIS

FINDING ONE:  Ineffective World Leadership
Our researchers found the world leadership to be largely ineffective, self-promoting, and in some cases cruel and corrupt. In most advanced civilizations we would expect to see leadership to evolve into higher quality leaders as lessons learned from poor leadership would be applied to avoid repeating past failures. In fact, we have seen the reverse is true in many situations.

Key examples are Russia and North Korea. In both cases, the eventual failures of past leaders who used military force, prisons, politically controlled media, covert police enforcement, and corrupt practices have not deterred the current leadership of these countries to return to, or continue those practices. In addition, religious-based organizations seem to be among the worst offenders in promoting policies and practices that marginalize people and encourage hate and violence.

Immediate changes in world leadership will be required if management of the planet is to move forward.

FINDING TWO:  Lack of Vision
There seems to be a lack of concern for the future of the world. Consistently we saw an attitude that can best be described as “What’s in it for me?” Companies focus on next quarter’s profit, not long-term viability. Governments tend to lack any sensitivity toward the underprivileged, tending to blame them for their problems while passing laws that benefit the privileged at the expense of those who cannot afford the basic necessities to survive and prosper.

Again, immediate changes in world leadership will be required if management of the planet is to move forward.

FINDING THREE:  Obstruction of Progress
Many in leadership positions use propaganda and destructive techniques to prevent effective management. By focusing on meaningless, but highly controversial issues, some leaders have been able to keep discussions away from relevant issues and waste time through generating anger on topics among key population groups. The result is wild, pointless discussions on issues that cannot be resolved unless everyone works together. The key element in the obstructive leadership’s tactics is to announce that any compromise is a failure. In this way they create an “all or nothing” situation that effectively stops progress.  

Again, immediate changes in world leadership will be required if management of the planet is to move forward.

FINDING FOUR:  Inequality
We were shocked to discover the issues of inequality. The gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” is vast and continues to grow. People are grouped and identified with certain expectations that determine their treatment by the world’s leadership. Slavery has become replaced with subtle tactics of discrimination that tend to become more bold over time. In many cases, the discriminatory practices have become accepted as normal.

Again, immediate changes in world leadership will be required if management of the planet is to move forward.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Despite the scope of the problem, the solution is surprisingly simple.

PROPOSAL 1:  Downsize the Male Gender
Among the four major findings, men were found to be the principal source of the problem. The current ineffective leadership group (Finding One) is overwhelmingly male dominated and they tend to be the people who demonstrate a lack of vision (Finding Two,) an inability to compromise (Finding Three,) and promote inequality (Finding Four.) Without men almost every current issue disappears without any further action.

Eliminating all males will also result in many benefits. The world population will be dramatically reduced, sexual harassment will virtually end, most, if not all, wars will end, and most pay equality issues will cease. Issue after issue becomes smaller, or disappears completely without men on the planet.

COUNTER FINDINGS
It is difficult to find negatives to this solution; however, here are some of the areas that may feel the impact of downsizing the male gender:

Reproduction — A lack of males would seem to create an issue in the propagation of the human species; however, there is believed to be enough frozen sperm available to continue reproduction on a smaller scale and the new males will be raised in a female-dominated environment, which may weed out the personality and behavior issues of the current male gender.

Male-dominated jobs — There are few jobs that truly require a male worker. Just because females have been excluded from many jobs doesn’t mean they can’t be trained to perform the work effectively.

Sports — Without males, most competitive sports will end. We cannot find a downside to this issue.

IMPLEMENTATION

It is believed that a 100% downsizing of the male gender may not be necessary for an effective change in world management. It might be more advisable to put all males on a 30-day Improvement Required Action. At the end of the 30-days those who have not demonstrated a clear reversal of  the findings of this study should be downsized. The remaining males could then be re-evaluated at 60 and 90 days to determine if the initial downsize resolved the problem or not. It is suggested that the changes required should be permanent as a condition of continued existence.

We do have recommendations about downsizing certain females; however, those may be handled on a case by case basis in a closed meeting with Human Resources.