3rd From Sol

~ Learn from before. Live now. Look ahead.

3rd From Sol

Category Archives: Human Resources

How a Layoff in January Can Impact an April Launch

05 Friday Apr 2019

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Employee Retention, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Human Resources, jobs, labor, Layoff, Management Practices, NASA, Reduction in Force, Space, SpaceX, Technology, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

commercial space, Human Resources, layoff, layoffs, reduction in force, Space, space business, spaceflight, SpaceX

SpaceX has taught us all a valuable lesson. If you need five new boosters in March and April, it’s probably best to not cut ten percent of your workers in January. Three of those boosters were needed for this week’s first Block 5 Falcon Heavy launch. At least three delays of the static fire test have now pushed the launch back to next week at the earliest.

What a January layoff looks like in April

Layoff:  Cut Their Nose Off

SpaceX announced that they were laying off ten percent of their workforce in California, primarily at the rocket manufacturing plant. This came at a time when they would also be using five new Block 5 boosters for March and April. From a strategic and logistical perspective, it was a dumb move. It also indicates how bad things are at SpaceX.

Layoffs have three primary effects. First, they demoralize the workforce. When layoffs are announced, everyone lives in fear that he or she will be the one losing their job. Low morale is not usually associated with quality work. 

Second, the survivors of a layoff typically have to take on additional responsibilities. They are expected to work harder and more efficiently to make up for the workforce lost in the layoff.

Finally, layoffs tend to reduce the knowledge and skill base of the workforce. A layoff rarely allows the opportunity for the worker to pass on her or his knowledge to the survivors. Usually, the worker is called to human resources, given the goodbye speech, handed their final check, and escorted out the door.

A layoff is a bad idea at any time, but in an industry where there is no margin for error, it’s a nightmare.

Booster Shortfall?

The first Block 5 Booster was launched eleven months ago (B 1046.) Since then only six more have been launched. Seven boosters in 13 launches. Two of those seven have been lost. SpaceX was debuting a new booster at a pace just slightly greater than one a month before the layoff.

After the layoff, they needed five new Block 5 boosters in March and April, three of them for this week’s launch. Has SpaceX has been rushing to build Block 5 boosters with a workforce injured by a recent layoff?

Enter the Falcon Heavy Static Fire Test

SpaceX is silent on the this week’s static fire delays but it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to suspect something is wrong with the Falcon Heavy rocket. Knowledgable sources said that the test would occur on Monday, then Wednesday, then Thursday, Now it’s supposed to happen today (Friday.)

The delays suggest that this is why you don’t lay off your workers in January when you need new boosters in March and April.

No Pressure, But If the Falcon Heavy Fails, So Does SpaceX

31 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Human Resources, jobs, labor, Management Practices, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Science Fiction, Space, SpaceX, Technology, The Tipping Point, US History, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

commercial space, Dragon 2, Dragon Capsule, Elon Musk, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, International Space Station, manned space program, manned spacecraft, space business, space exploration, space flight, Space X, spaceflight, SpaceX

SpaceX has put themselves in a corner. Next week’s launch of the new Block 5 Falcon Heavy has to go almost flawlessly or much, if not all, of what they have will go down in flames with the rocket.

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Ignition

SpaceX’s Financial State

SpaceX played a risky game last year focusing on making money in commercial launches. That should have been a big boost to their revenue stream, but in January they announced layoffs. SpaceX also announced a sudden cut in the number of launches in 2019. [Source:  Business Insider 21 Jan 2019 – Dave Mosher] That might indicate that SpaceX was offering bargain prices to its customers to land contracts but losing money in the process.

One line in a statement made to Business Insider by a SpaceX representative regarding the layoffs is telling:

This action is taken only due to the extraordinarily difficult challenges ahead and would not otherwise be necessary.

SpaceX Statement

Taken at face value, SpaceX’s rationale for the massive layoffs in its rocket manufacturing division sounds like a proactive business strategy, but why be so forceful in the justification? They insist that the “only” reason for the layoffs is for the “challenges ahead.” SpaceX then repeats itself at the end of the sentence by saying, “and would not otherwise be necessary.”

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Upper Booster Engulfed

The Organization Doth Protest Too Much

The defensiveness of the statement indicates that the layoffs are necessary because SpaceX is already in trouble. By saying the layoffs were to prepare for a grim future, they may have confirmed that they were a reactionary, not proactive move. 

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Entire Rocket/Pad Engulfed

The Falcon Heavey Gambit

Up to now, SpaceX has landed customers on bargain pricing, but it is likely that they desperately need to attract customers that can pay top dollar. Enter the U.S. military. SpaceX has yet to gain the full confidence of the U.S. Air Force for their military satellites. Elon Musk may have thought that one successful launch using the old Block 4 boosters would have the U.S. military eating out of their hand, but that didn’t happen.

Now SpaceX desperately needs another spectacular success of the Falcon Heavy to convince those with deep pockets that their bird is equal or better than the competition.

But what if the next Falcon Heavy launch is a failure?

SpaceX 1 September 2016 Static Test Explosion – Upper Stage with payload fall to the ground

What’s at Risk for SpaceX

It is unlikely that SpaceX will experience the worst-case scenario of the complete loss of the Falcon Heavy and its Arabsat 6A satellite, but what would happen if the nightmare happened?

No space cred for the Falcon Heavy. The Falcon Heavy would not be in consideration for heavy-lift payloads by the military, nor private customers at any price.

No human-rating cred for Block 5 redesign. NASA requires seven successful launches of the Block 5 booster without a significant redesign to gain a human rating. The 15 November 2018 launch of Booster 1047 was the first with newly designed tanks. Since then, SpaceX has had six launches with the new design. The Falcon Heavy would be the seventh launch. Failure would mean another delay in obtaining the human rating for the Block 5 booster.  

Loss of two Falcon 9 Block 5 boosters and one Block 5 core. The two side boosters would be the biggest loss. They are planned to be reused on the next Falcon Heavy flight in July. That flight would have to be delayed for months and SpaceX can’t afford that delay. Remember that layoff? That hit the rocket manufacturing plant the hardest.

More expense with no revenue. Insurance would cover most, if not all, of the loss of the vehicle, but it’s not going to provide more revenue. More cuts would have to follow, pushing back the launch schedule even farther.

Loss of pad, more delays. It would be bad if SpaceX lost the vehicle in flight, but in the worst-case scenario, the loss would occur on the pad. It could be a year or more to rebuild the launch pad. The destruction of the pad and the two side boosters would bring into question whether SpaceX could make the contracted cargo deliveries to the ISS.

Testing of the Dragon 2 crew capsule flights would be jeopardized. If the April launch of the Falcon Heavy fails, Boeing would probably be able to coast into NASA’s crew capsule contract.

Enough Pessimism, What If the Falcon Heavy Flies!

A win for SpaceX would be a successful launch and recovery of at least the two side boosters, but that only buys them three months. The April Falcon Heavy launch is Act I of a two-act play. Act II is a follow-up flight in July of the Falcon Heavy reusing the two side boosters from the April launch. Part of the show is to demonstrate that the boosters can be turned around and relaunched in a matter of weeks.

The U.S. Air Force may give SpaceX a heavy-lift contract even before the July flight of the Falcon Heavy; however, it is likely that they will negotiate a below market price and it may be contingent on both the April and July flights meeting all expectations.

False Bravado

Less than a year ago Elon Musk was boasting that in 2019, SpaceX would have a 24-hour turnaround on a Block 5 booster. [Source: NASASpaceflight.com 17 May 2018 – Michael Baylor] Eight months later SpaceX was cutting their labor force by ten percent. Rather than two launches of the same booster in 24 hours, this year SpaceX is struggling to have more than one launch per month. 

SpaceX fans worship Elon Musk’s great vision but there is a fine line between vision and false bravado. Musk is known to continually overstep that line. Now one misstep with next week’s Falcon Heavy launch and SpaceX is risking a lot more than the loss of one satellite.

Is Space.com a Soviet-Style News Agency for SpaceX

29 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by Paul Kiser in Business, Communication, Communism, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Ethics, Exploration, Falcon Heavy, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, jobs, Journalism, labor, Management Practices, Marketing, Mars, NASA, Public Image, Public Relations, Science, Science Fiction, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Soviet Russia, Space, SpaceX, Technology, United States, US Space Program

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

commercial space, Dragon 2, Dragon Capsule, Elon Musk, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, International Space Station, journalism, journalism standards, journalistic ethics, manned space program, manned spacecraft, Soviet space program, space exploration, space flight, Space.com

Space.com is in love. They are head-over-heels in love with SpaceX. Reading the articles posted by Space.com writers one might think that SpaceX has already landed on Mars, colonized the Moon, and cured the common cold. It’s not that Space.com writers present false information about SpaceX, it’s just that they tend to overlook…well, almost everything negative.

This style of almost compulsory cheerleading of SpaceX by an alleged news source is reminiscent of the type of reporting from the Soviet days of TASS (Telegrafnoye agentstvo Sovetskogo Soyuza,) Russia’s official news source. From 1925 to 1992, Soviet intelligence agencies often used TASS to put out positive news and disinformation, including crafted stories praising the Soviet space program. For decades, TASS was the mouthpiece for the Soviet government reminding Soviet citizens that the Soviet government was always correct even when they were wrong.

A Fake Starship Prototype?

Space.com demonstrates the Soviet-like reporting in one of its latest articles on SpaceX. Writer Lee Cavendish published an article [Space.com 29 Mar 2019] that gushed about SpaceX’s Starship Hopper. He began his piece as follows:

SpaceX continues to amaze in popularizing space exploration. Not only is it doing fantastic work in reaching and exploring space…

Lee Cavendish for Space.com

For his article, he used this artist’s rendering of the Starship…

Artists rendering of SpaceX’s Starship used by Space.com

However, this is what the actual craft looked like at the test site in January before the top blew off in the wind…

…and this is what it looked like after it fall down, go boom….

…and finally, this is what it looked like for this week’s tests:

A test of a Starship, or a silo with legs?

It’s understandable why the artist’s rendering was used and not images of the real thing. SpaceX didn’t even bother to put the top half of the Starship back on for the test.

Not an expert, but doesn’t that seem to be a wimpy propulsion system?

Close-ups of the bottom of the Starship would indicate that almost no effort was put into making this ‘prototype’ anything but a show for the public. From top to bottom this doesn’t look like anything that can get off the ground, which is may be why Space.com used an artist’s rendering.

Is Space.com Ignoring the Problems?

SpaceX has glaring problems and yet, Space.com has nothing but praise for the company. This week I wrote two articles detailing their problems (SpaceX’s Implosion and SpaceX 2019 Launch Schedule Realities] and yet, space-focused media outlets like Space.com seem to have a blind eye regarding the issues that seem to be obvious.

Among the issues that seem to be ignored are:

  • Hidden costs of relanding the boosters (30% fuel reserved for relanding reducing lift capacity, cost of boosters built for reentry and landing, cost of maintaining an ocean landing pad, costs of launch delays because of weather conditions at the ocean landing pad, cost of transportation of reused booster, costs of refurbishment of a booster, etc.)
  • Reduction of 10% of their workers when they should be expanding
  • Failure to test a Block 5 version of the Falcon Heavy before launching for a paying customer
  • A lack of progress on Dragon 2 and Falcon Heavy testing for most of 2018
  • Drastic reduction in 2019 launch schedule
  • Significantly underpricing the cost of a mission while apparently in a financial crisis
  • A silly prototype test of the SpaceX Starship
  • Overhyping an unmanned test of the Dragon 2 crew capsule that was essentially a mimic of a cargo delivery to the International Space Station (ISS)

Space.com:  SpaceX’s Public Relations Team

Instead, Space.com publishes an unending series of articles that 1) sing praises of SpaceX, 2) seem to be expanded versions of a SpaceX public service announcement, and/or 3) are based on an Elon Musk Tweet. At times the articles cover the same topic as reported by another Space.com writer or sometimes the same writer will cover the same topic, only days apart.

Below is a list of articles that Space.com has published regarding SpaceX in the last 35 days:

  1. Meet SpaceX’s Starship Hopper [Space.com 29 Mar 2019 – Lee Cavendish]
  2. SpaceX’s Hexagon Tiles for Starship Heat Shield Pass Fiery Test [Space.com 22 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  3. You Can Watch SpaceX’s Starship Hopper Tests Live Via a South Texas Surf School [Space.com 22 Mar 2019 – Sarah Lewin]
  4. SpaceX Preparing to Begin Starship Hopper Tests [Space.com 18 Mar 2019 – Jeff Foust]
  5. SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy Megarocket to Fly 1st Commercial Mission in April: Report [Space.com 18 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  6. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Demo-1 Test Flight in Pictures [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Hanneke Weitering]
  7. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Looks Just Like a Toasted Marshmallow After Fiery Re-Entry [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  8. SpaceX Crew Dragon Splashes Down in Atlantic to Cap Historic Test Flight [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  9. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Success Heralds ‘New Era’ in Spaceflight [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  10. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Left Its ‘Little Earth’ Behind on Space Station [Space.com 8 Mar 2019 – Hanneke Weitering]
  11. SpaceX Crew Dragon Re-Entry May Be Visible Over Some of Eastern US [Space.com 7 Mar 2019 – Joe Rao]
  12. Astronauts Pack Up SpaceX’s Crew Dragon for Return to Earth [Space.com 7 Mar 2019 – Meghan Bartels]
  13. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Homecoming Friday May Be Toughest Part of Its Mission [Space.com 6 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  14. VP Mike Pence Hails SpaceX Crew Dragon Success at Space Station [Space.com 6 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  15. ‘Little Earth’ on SpaceX Crew Dragon Gives Boost to Celestial Buddies [Space.com 4 Mar 2019 – Robert Z. Pearlman]
  16. New ‘Celestial Buddies’ Earth Plush Is Even Cooler than SpaceX’s ‘Zero-G Indicator’ [Space.com 4 Mar 2019 – Kasandra Brabaw]
  17. SpaceX’s Crew Dragon Docks at Space Station for First Time [Space.com 3 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  18. Trump Hails SpaceX Crew Dragon Launch, Says NASA’s ‘Rocking Again’ [Space.com 3 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  19. SpaceX Adds Adorable ‘Zero-G Indicator’ Inside the Crew Dragon [Space.com 2 Mar 2019 – Hanneke Weitering]
  20. Elon Musk Was Emotionally Wrecked by SpaceX’s 1st Crew Dragon Launch Success — But In A Good Way [Space.com 2 Mar 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  21. SpaceX Crew Dragon Launch Heralds ‘New Era in Spaceflight,’ NASA Chief Says [Space.com 2 Mar 2019 – Mike Wall]
  22. With SpaceX and Boeing, Commercial Crew Launches Will Boost Space Station Science [Space.com 1 Mar 2019 – Meghan Bartels]
  23. It’s Just About ‘Go’ Time for SpaceX’s 1st Crew Dragon Spaceship [Space.com 28 Feb 2019 – Tariq Malik]
  24. SpaceX Is Launching a Spacesuit-Clad Dummy on 1st Crew Dragon [Space.com 27 Feb 2019 – Mike Wall]
  25. NASA, SpaceX ‘Go’ for 1st Crew Dragon Test Flight on March 2 [Space.com 23 Feb 2019 – Mike Wall]

Why?

The question is why? Why do Space.com writers seem like they are part of a Soviet-style news agency? One reason is that perhaps they are just fans of SpaceX and Space.com has become a SpaceX fansite. Another possibility is that their access to information regarding SpaceX is conditional on cooperation with the company. It may be as simple as an article that is critical of SpaceX will result in he or she being blacklisted. Maybe the writers are enamored with and afraid of SpaceX at the same time.

Regardless, it would seem that Space.com is not a reliable source of unbiased information. In 2003, Space.com won an award from the Online Journalism Association for coverage of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. That was over 15 years ago. Maybe they haven’t won another award because they actually have to do journalism to be considered.

Starbucks: The Adults In the Business World

18 Wednesday Apr 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in All Rights Reserved, Branding, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Discrimination, Employee Retention, Ethics, Honor, Human Resources, labor, Lessons of Life, Life, Management Practices, Nevada, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Respect, Social Media Relations

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

CEO, employee relations, Kevin Johnson, Philadelphia, racism, Starbucks, United Airlines

When you have with 238,000 employees, most of whom interact with the public all day, someone is going to do something stupid. That is a fact of human nature. The question is, how the leadership of a company deals with an incident? In the case of Starbucks, you be the adult and not the five-year-old.

Racists Don’t Think They’re Racist

Racism is a major problem in this country. Racists usually don’t know they are a racist. In their minds, they do what they think is ‘natural’ from their cultural perspective. What is natural is what is correct. This means most racists are in the bigot closet and don’t even know it.

There is no racism test for an employer to give a job applicant. If there were, a lot of people would be unemployable. Closet racists are going to be hired at all major corporations. Sometimes, like at Cracker Barrel, the racism is condoned by the employer; however, most companies avoid hiring overtly racists employees. At least that’s what they claim.

Regardless, when an employee does something that is racist, many executives will attempt to minimize the incident, or attempt to deny the issue was about race. The public relations (PR) people are experts at diluting the obvious by reminding the media that motivations can’t be proven. From a PR perspective, a company, like United Airlines, can do no wrong, even when it does something wrong.

Starbucks Policy of Responsibility

The leadership at Starbucks is probably not perfect, but at least they make every attempt to be aware of what is correct from what is wrong. That is why Kevin Johnson, the CEO of Starbucks wasted no time in responding to one of his employees calling the police on two African Americans for trespassing in a Starbucks when they didn’t purchase something in the store.

In this incident is noteworthy that at least six officers were present to arrest two non-combative African American males. It was overkill that the police were called, and overkill that six police responded. If a white man had robbed the Starbucks it is likely that it wouldn’t have had this response.

The victims of this incident were held for over eight hours after being arrested. They were released after the police admitted they had no crime to with which to charge them.

What Starbucks Didn’t Do

Johnson didn’t offer excuses for his company. He didn’t say the video doesn’t really tell the whole story. The CEO didn’t even hint that it might not have been a racist act.

Instead, Johnson offered apology after apology.  Johnson met directly with the men involved. He called the act “reprehensible.” It is unclear what happened to the employee in question, but the employee is no longer at that store.

Most companies today look like children trying to cover up their misbehavior after a public relations incident such as this one. It is good to know that Starbucks is capable of using common sense and decency in responding to this situation.

Sadly, the rest of the employees at Starbucks will be impacted by this one person’s act. We all pay for the bad behavior of others.

Employee Ownership? Does Business USA Own Its Employees?

11 Wednesday Apr 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in All Rights Reserved, Business, Communication, Donald Trump, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government, Honor, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, jobs, labor, Life, Management Practices, Nevada, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Reno, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Technology, United States, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

13th Amendment, Akima, Business, company, corporations, Donald Trump, Employee, employee ownership, employee relations, Employer, flipping the bird, indentured servitude, Juli Briskman, quid pro quo, slavery

Employee Ownership?

It was a chance encounter. Juli Briskman was out riding her bike on a Saturday in October. Trump was just leaving from playing another round of golf. Trump’s motorcade passed Briskman and she saluted the Resident of the White House with her middle finger. Had a photographer not caught the act it would have just been another typical day. This day, it would get Briskman fired. The company’s position:  it owns its employees.

Trump’s Single Digit Approval Rating

Quid Pro Quo

It’s important to note that Briskman was not identified in the photo, nor could she be identified as the photographer was behind her. She voluntarily told her company that she was the one in the photo. The company then fired her.

Employment is a quid pro quo environment. An employer agrees to pay compensation and benefits in return for certain specific tasks and responsibilities. Employment is not servitude, nor does it allow an employer to govern the employee’s actions 24/7/365. The Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States forbids indentured servitude along with slavery.

In the social media age, businesses have attempted to expand their authority over employees and govern hu’s (her/his) non-work activities. The problem is that if a company is allowed to govern free speech outside of the work environment they are essentially making a demand on an employee’s time, expression, and choice without compensation. Again, employment is a Quid Pro Quo environment and both parties must agree to the terms of what is offered in return for compensation and benefits.

Is the Reverse True?

The test of this situation is to reverse it. If the company can claim it can govern employee behavior during non-work hours for no pay, does that mean all employee non-work activity is a liability for the company? If an employee kills someone, can the victim’s family sue the company? The point is that a company cannot arbitrarily decide what non-work activities it governs. If it governs some non-work activities, shouldn’t the company assume responsibility for all non-work activities?

The reality is that business has failed to be reasonable in its limitations on employee rules and policies. It is now time to reestablish that quid pro quo relationship and stop attempting to ignore the 13th Amendment.

Reno Nevada Mayor Schieve Declares She is Uninformed

13 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Business, Communication, Consulting, Crime, Crisis Management, Employee Retention, Ethics, Government, Honor, Human Resources, Journalism, Management Practices, Politicians, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, Traditional Media, Violence in the Workplace, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Andrew Clinger, Bill Dunne, City of Reno, Hillary Schieve, Hogan's Heroes, Karl Hall, lawsuit, Mayor, Mayor of Reno, MeToo, press conference, Reno Attorney, Sargent Schultz, sexual assault, sexual harassment

Reno Mayor Hillary Schieve held a press conference on Thursday, 1 February. It’s purpose was to inform the public about an accusation filed with the City of Reno in October (or November) regarding a sexual assault claim. Mayor Schieve’s three-minute-or-less press conference was an apparent attempt to reprise the role of Sergeant Schultz from the 1960’s television show, Hogan’s Heroes.

If You Can’t Dazzle Them With Brilliance…

Mayor Schieve and the staff of the City of Reno were apparently responding the previous day’s article in the Reno Gazette-Journal. It disclosed a sexual assault claim by a City of Reno contract employee against former Revitalization Manager Bill Dunne. He allegedly exposed himself in a car to the employee and attempted to force her to perform a sex act.

During her micro-press conference Mayor Schieve said:

Last night I was made aware of sexual assault allegations and I want to make sure that our residents know that we take this extremely seriously at the city of Reno…

Mayor Hillary Schieve

In the press conference, Reno city officials made a point to note that no police report was filed. It is unclear why almost no information was disclosed during the media event, other than to announce that the victim did not file a police report.

Reno officials did not explain why the Human Resources Director, nor the City Attorney failed to report the complaint to police. They were aware of the complaint in November. Nor did they explain why the man accused of a sex crime was allowed to resign without further action. Nor did they explain why the Mayor and the City Council members were not made aware of the situation immediately.

Bill Dunne resigned two weeks (10 November 2017) after the complaint of sexual harassment and assault was reported to Reno’s Human Resources Director. Dunne stated that his reason for resignation:

I feel I have done everything I was hired to do, so I am tendering my resignation to pursue other opportunities…

Bill Dunne

Dunne said nothing about being accused of sexual assault.

Victim Feared Reprisal

The victim of Dunne’s alleged behavior waited until she was about to resign before making her complaint against him because she feared of reprisals. When she gave her notice and informed to the Human Resources Director of the complaint, she indicated a desire to stay on until a replacement could be found. According to the statement, the Human Resources Director told the victim:

Today can be your last day if you’re uncomfortable. We can just turn off your email and mail you your check

Reno Attorney’s Staff: Don’t Believe the Women!

The press conference came almost three weeks after another Reno Gazette-Journal article about sexual harassment complaints against the Reno City Manager Andrew Clinger. This article discloses a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by two female city employees.

In that suit, they claim that Clinger sexually harassed them. Among the accusations, he is accused of touching one of the woman on her leg with sexual intent. He is also accused of sending inappropriate text messages; however, Clinger used an application to delete the messages.

After three women filed sexual harassment complaints with the Human Resources department, Reno City Attorney Karl Hall investigated the claims. Two of the three women filed the lawsuit after they felt Hall blew the investigation.

In his motion to dismiss the women’s lawsuit, Reno’s Deputy Attorney William Cooper accused the women and two others of conspiring against City Manager Clinger. The City’s conspiracy theory suggests an effort to force him out of his position.

Cooper cited an ‘independent’ review, paid for by the city, that confirmed the primary allegations as meritorious. It also determined the secondary allegations could not be verified. Cooper’s motion ignored the findings of the primary allegations. His motion to dismiss seemed to based on the findings of the secondary allegations.

Good Ole Boys Club

Perhaps not ironically, Clinger was the person who hired Dunne in 2016 after Dunne faced political pressure to leave his job as Commissioner for Planning and Development in Troy, New York.

As for the City Manager, Clinger quit his position in October 2016 and was hired a few months later by Governor Brian Sandoval as a Senior Advisor on issues relating to economic development, workforce development, and education. Clinger was given a $288,000 severance deal from the City of Reno. He is now being paid over $117,000 in his role for Governor Sandoval. 

Both of the women involved left their positions late in 2016. They stated that the work environment at the City of Reno had become too hostile to continue employment.

Four women felt they had to end their employment with the City of Reno because of a sexually toxic environment, but Mayor Hillary Schieve wants the citizens to know that she takes sexual assault seriously…after she reads about it in the news.

Employee Relations: The You’re-Not-Getting-a-Raise-Letter

26 Friday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Business, Communication, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Health, Honor, Human Resources, Management Practices, Politics, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, Taxes, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

benefits, bosses, Business, corporations, Employee, employee morale, Human Resources, letter, Obamacare, pay raise, personnel, salary, SHRM, Society for Human Resources Management, wage

I was reading the example employee relations letter of how to tell an employee that they are not getting a raise. I decided I would give a more realistic letter.

What They Really Think

Hey, What’s Your Name,

Employee relations is important to us and you’re a valuable asset to our organization…wait, who am I kidding, you’re a meaningless drone and it’s time I put you in your place. Every year I get the same stupid question from sniveling employees like you. It’s always, “I’m I getting a raise?” NO, YOU ARE NOT GETTING A RAISE! We pay you more than you deserve and we’re not going to add to our misery by paying you more.

What you don’t seem to understand is that this money is ours, not yours, and our job is to keep as much of it as possible. It’s bad enough that when we hire a new drone, like yourself, we have to pay them more than you because most of the scum out there won’t work for what we pay you now.

We have investors. They are important people and we serve them, not you. When their not happy, they take our bonuses away. Why would you think we would put more money in your pocket that should go in our pockets???

Now I’m sure that you think we’re afraid you’ll leave. HA! To go where? We have connections everywhere and our little birds talk to all the other little birds our there. No one is going to want you once we talk to them.

You probably thought that Obamacare was going to provide you health insurance if you left our company, and now that’s gone. We’ve also decided to reduce our payment on your medical premium and reduce the coverage. Whadya gonna do…fire us?

We’re in a whole new world now, and it’s time you learn just exactly who is in control. Be happy we don’t take more away from you POS. Actually, be happy when we take more away. It’s ours anyway.

Sincerely,

Corporate America 

Why You Won’t See A Tax Cut

15 Monday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Aging, Business, Ethics, Generational, Government, History, Honor, Human Resources, Politics, Taxes, US History

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

115th Congress, 2018, Congress, corporate tax cut, corporations, Donald Trump, GOP, middle class, paycheck, payroll, Republicans, Tax Cut and Jobs Act, tax return, taxes, temporary tax cut, wealthy

Republicans are happy about the tax cut for the wealthy, oh, and the small temporary tax cut for the middle class

The Republican slant on the Tax Cut and Jobs Act passed last month is that it is primarily a temporary tax cut for the middle class. The problem is that the temporary tax cut is minor and few families will actually notice any change. The temporary tax cut will be given in small increments on the paycheck, not a lump sum at the end of the year.

By The Numbers

So how much can a person expect to see their paycheck increase? Here are examples of the average temporary tax cuts those earning between $25,000 and $75,000 per year, paid every two weeks (NOTE: Total Tax Cut/paycheck is for each wage earner in a married family):  

(Source:  NYTimes Tax Cut Calculator)

Situation    Dependents   Ave. Tax Cut    Tax Cut/paycheck

Married                    2                     $1,420                     $27.31 ($54.62 total)

Married                    1                       $  970                      $18.65  ($37.31 total)

Single                        2                      $1,290                     $49.62

Single                        1                      $1,000                     $38.46

If you live in the   states (California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington, D.C.,) the tax cut is less:

Situation    Dependents   Ave. Tax Cut    Tax Cut/paycheck

Married                  2                       $  470                     $  9.04 ($18.08 total)

Married                  1                       $  370                     $  7.12 ($14.23 total)

Two to three trips to Starbucks every week* will wipe out the tax cut for most of the middle class.

Inflation Will Swallow At Least Half

Inflation is forecast to be at 2.3 percent for 2018. That means that for every $100 spent on groceries, gas, clothing, etc., the consumer will pay $2.30 more in 2018. If a person spends $30,000, the cost of living will increase by $690. That will wipe out almost half of the temporary tax cut for most of the middle class.

In the end, the only citizens that will notice a tax cut are major corporations and the wealthy. The middle-class citizen will mostly notice what they can no longer use as exemptions.

(*Assuming one $5.00 drink per visit x 6 times per paycheck)

What will the wealthy get back?

A family making over $750,000 could pay a middie class worker’s annual salary with their tax cut.

Situation    Dependents   Ave. Tax Cut    Tax Cut/paycheck

Married                   2                   $39,360                   $ 756.92  ($1,513.85 total)

Married                   1                   $34,050                   $ 654.81  ($1,309.62 total)

About This, About Writing

13 Saturday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, April Fools Day, Branding, Business, Club Leadership, College, Communication, Crime, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, genealogy, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, History, Honor, Human Resources, Information Technology, Internet, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Membership Recruitment, Membership Retention, Opinion, Panama, Photography, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, racism, Relationships, Religion, Rotary, Science, Science Fiction, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Space, Taxes, Technology, Tom Peters, Travel, Universities, US History, Writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Blogging, Paul Kiser, Paul Kiser's Blog, PAULx talks, rebranding, Wordpress, writing

In the Beginning

Eight years ago I started writing this blog. I had assumed that writing a blog would put me in front of a broad audience anxiously awaiting my next post.

It didn’t….but I kept writing. I wrote about business, human behavior, human resources, management, social media, my personal life, Rotary, public relations, history, time, blogging, travel, Nevada, global warming, spaceflight, politics, my stroke, April Fool’s Day, religion, science fiction, science, photography, media, more history, Panama, gay marriage, the future, great people, not-so-great people, education, Moffat County, patriotism, more politics, and fantasy.

There were a few bright moments when I touched upon a topic that caught some attention, but for the most part, my writing has simply been an expression of my opinions and ideas. I’ve discovered, writing is more important than being read.

Writing, For Me

A blog is like writing a diary or a book. It is meant to a personal statement. Someday, my children or my children’s children may read it and know more about me. I find comfort in that thought. 

My articles became less frequent in the last few years, but recently I have experienced a rebirth of writing. I suspect that my sleep apnea may be one of the issues causing the decline in writing. My brain was starved of oxygen and sleep every night for many years. Now that I am being treated for it, my cognitive functions seem to be reengaging.

Writing a blog has improved my communication skills, and has helped me organize my thoughts. This, this thing I’m doing, is an unfinished novel about the world from one perspective. I’m not a great writer, but I’m better than I was eight years ago.

For the last month, I have been publishing a new article every day. I don’t know that I will keep up that pace, but it is forcing my brain to think, and that is the goal.

Rebranding My Writing

I have decided to rename my blog. First, the term ‘blog’ has developed a negative meaning to many people, so I needed to drop the term. Second, my last name is not as relevant as it was a year ago, before I discovered that biologically, I am not a ‘Kiser.’ 

I tried several title ideas but finally settled on PAULx talks. It is the 2.0 version of Paul Kiser’s Blog. I don’t have a destination in mind for my writing. I never have, but I’ll see where this takes me.

Rapid HR Hiring Process Required In Professional Environment

11 Thursday Jan 2018

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, College, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Government, Higher Education, Human Resources, Management Practices, Public Image, Public Relations, Technology, Universities, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

background checks, discrimination, EEOC, higher education, hiring process, HR, Human Resources, recruiting, references, universities

Apollo Mission Control sits empty now. Just like a lot of professional offices.

Highly Skilled Workers are MIA and HR is part of the problem

Large organizations, especially government organizations, are losing great applicants because Human Resources is not keeping pace with the reality of the recruitment environment.

Challenges to Hiring Highly Skilled Workers

The issues:

  1. the workforce has not kept pace with the growth in highly educated and skilled jobs
  2. unemployment is now nearly down to four percent
  3. professional salaries and benefits have flattened as executive salaries have fattened
  4. executives have become more insensitive to workers and less humble about their value to the organization
  5. Human Resources have created a massive bureaucracy that is inhibiting the hiring process 

The problem often comes down to the Human Resources department. About the time the Personnel Department became Human Resources, the wizards of bureaucracy established an elaborate maze of hoops and ladders that managers and departments had to push a candidate through to hire a person. Their stated justification for their hiring procedures was to avoid liability and discrimination issues.

The truth is that the policies and procedures of Human Resources also keeps their hand in the organizational functions, and that is job security. 

What Human Resources is Required to Do

Every company should have safeguards in place to verify the qualifications and backgrounds of potential employees, ensure that all applicants are considered without discrimination (regarding race, color, religion, sex – including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy, national origin, people age 40 or older, disability or genetic information,) and determine a fair and competitive salary/benefit package.

However, only discrimination issues need to be determined for all applicants, and that process must happen before the final selection is completed. Everything else only involves the person that is going to be offered the job.

Once the selection process is completed, Human Resources should be verifying the background and determining the salary and benefits package for the candidate being offered the job. There is no excuse for the final offer process to take longer than a day.

Checking References BS

Wait, I just heard every Human Resource recruiter tell me that the verification of references of a potential employee take forever. References are a joke. Anyone who offers a poor reference is risking a lawsuit, so the time-honored process of checking references is absolutely unnecessary.

Most large organizations complete an I-9 verification, a criminal background check, a credit check, and sometimes a Google Search. A reference is not going to offer as much information as other methods of background checks.

Under the current environment, checking a reference after a job is offered would be acceptable because only something that uncovered a lie by the applicant would be significant, and that would be cause for termination.

Organizations that can’t whip their Human Resources department into reality are risking more failed recruitment searches and watching great people go to their competition.

Highly skilled labor jobs outpacing unskilled labor

Religion Controls Equality For Women

27 Wednesday Dec 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Aging, Business, College, Crime, Education, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, Health, Higher Education, History, Human Resources, Management Practices, Politics, Relationships, Religion, Respect, US History, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Bible, Boko Haram, chauvinist, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, equal rights, Equality, Islam, kidnapped girls, Koran, man, misogyny, Mormon, polygamy, religion, religious beliefs, woman

Most religions reinforce women as subservient

Women are not treated as being equal to men. Most people know that and most people feel that is wrong. So why doesn’t it change?

Religion. 

Men, regardless of country or race, will never accept a woman as an equal as long as he believes his god says they are not equal.

This issue becomes obvious when extremists elements of any religion do horrendous things to women and girls because their holy writings say that man is superior. The treatment of women in many religions makes Harvey Weinstein seem saintly.

In 2014, an Islamic extremist group known as Boko Haram in Nigeria kidnapped 276 girls from a public, government-run school. The girls were raped, beaten, and sold as wives for the equivalent of $6. A Boko Haram leader said, “Allah instructed me to sell them…I will carry out his instructions.” In the first few weeks after the kidnapping, the Nigerian government, the Royal Air Force, and U.S. intelligence all had located groups of the kidnapped girls, but all failed to take action or were prevented from taking action.

In 2008, authorities removed 534 women and children from a Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints  (LDS) polygamist compound in Texas for protection after girls as young as 14 were being forced into marriage older men. According to NBC News, “The women were not allowed to wear red — the color Jeffs said belonged to Jesus — and were not allowed to cut their hair. They were also kept isolated from the outside world.”

The inequality of women is less obvious when a government bows down to the will of a religion. In the United States, many religious groups seek to interfere or ban contraceptives and abortions based on a fundamental belief that their religion allows them to dictate to what a woman may or may not do. Many of these same groups push for religious schools that reinforce the idea that women are subservient to men.

Many churches refuse to allow women into roles of leadership, deeming that their religious writings from thousands of years ago forbid it.

It is time that we accept women as equals in every aspect of life so that there is no confusion of when a woman is equal and when she is not. It will be impossible for women to gain true equality as long as religious organizations embrace inequality in their churches.

Government Regulation Makes USA Business Great

17 Sunday Dec 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in About Reno, Business, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Government, Government Regulation, History, Human Resources, Management Practices, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Respect, Taxes, Technology, US History, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

corporations, discrimination, enterprise, ethical business, Gender, Government oversight, products, race, regulation, service, Unethical Business Practices

Conservatives trash government regulation as a business killer. Ironically, the fact is that government regulation is what makes business in the United States successful. Without regulation, ethical business is pushed out to make room for people who lust for money. It is a ‘buyer be screwed’ mentality.

Business without oversight destroys ethical businesses

Sam and Joe Comparisons

Sam wants to start up a business. She determines what she must do and obtains all the needed licensing and inspections required, and abides by local, state, and federal laws. As she expands her business, she hires qualified workers and abides by the required payroll laws that protect the worker.

Joe starts up a similar business that competes with Sam’s business, but he sneaks around the laws. He only does what he has to do to not get caught. For code inspections he knows what they are looking for, and lies about what he is doing, so he avoids any government regulations that should apply to his business. As he expands his business, Jake pays people ‘under the table,’ to avoid paying taxes, doesn’t provide his employees with benefits, and doesn’t pay overtime. He warns the employees, that if they complain he’ll close down the business and they won’t have a job.

Which business will provide a more honest and trustworthy relationship with his/her customers? And which business provides good jobs? Which business will contribute more back to her/his community? More ethical? Will make more money?

Ethics and a Level Playing Field

The problem with business is that when the only rule is to make money, unethical practices will provide an advantage over the honest and ethical businessperson. Government regulation creates a level playing field for all corporations so that the honest businesses are not pushed out.

Government regulation and oversight of private business is not about crushing business, it is about saving business. It is empowering our citizens, through government employment, to serve as our protectors as workers and customers. It allows us to trust that a business is ethical and helping our nation.

By demonizing government regulation, unethical people seek to take advantage of other citizens of the United States of America. They swindle them out of money, abusing workers, bringing racism and discrimination into the workplace, and providing substandard and/or dangerous products and services.

Government regulation is not perfect, but until someone can find a better way of protecting the interests of our citizens, it is what we have, and it works.

This is NOT an Excuse: Why Older White Men Sexually Harass Women

22 Wednesday Nov 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Communication, Crime, Crisis Management, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, History, Honor, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, parenting, Politics, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, The Tipping Point, Women

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

children, Donald Trump, Education, management by intimidation, men, power, Ray Moore, sex, sex ed, sexual harassment, sexual relationships, wealth, Weinstein, Women

I need to be clear. Sexual harassment is and always has been wrong.

However, as an older white man, I can say that I am not surprised by the revelations coming out about women who have been sexually harassed by powerful older white men, I have to admit that I have been guilty of the same attitudes and behaviors.

Nothing that I have to say should be construed as an excuse for the behavior. No one should read this and feel any sympathy for men who have engaged in sexual harassment. This is simply an explanation of why I am not surprised by the recent revelations, and why I think almost all men of my age or older have a propensity to sexually harass women.

“Nothing that I have to say should be construed as an excuse for the behavior. No one should read this and feel any sympathy for men who have engaged in sexual harassment.”

I was born in 1957. My parents that raised me were married in 1939. My Dad was twenty years old, and my mother was fifteen…on the day she married. That was not typical; however, older men marrying younger women, even girls, was not uncommon, and during my childhood years, almost every Mom was a housewife.

As a child of the 1960’s, the idea that the man was dominant over a woman was not even questioned. Women were created to please men. The mindset was, women should not be overtly sexual and modest; therefore, it was the man’s place to initiate sexual actions. There was no formal instruction about initiating sexual intention with women, it was just expected that boys would learn as they go.

It was blatantly obvious to me, and probably most men my age, that power and wealth made men sexually attractive, and that women craved men who boldly took the initiative, so they didn’t have to pretend that they didn’t want sex. One way to win over a woman was to be in a position of power, and create a situation where the woman could submit to them.

“…that power and wealth made men sexually attractive, and that women craved men who boldly took the initiative, so they didn’t have to pretend that they didn’t want sex.”

The problem was, it worked. In hindsight, it didn’t work because the myth of women secretly wanting sex was true, it worked because the intimidation of a powerful man, and because most fell into the belief that it was a societal norm. Until I was in my late 20’s, the concept of sexual harassment was not even recognized as a problem in the workplace. A man marrying a subordinate was commonplace.

During my adult years, the development of workplace training began to take hold, and one of the primary topics became sexual harassment training. I, and most other men, were told that we had to be careful how we handled ourselves in the workplace, but that seemed to be focused on the workers, not so much on the executives.

When an issue of sexual harassment did come up with someone in management, companies hushed it up “to protect the woman,” and often the woman was given some type of compensation and moved out of the situation. In the business world, the human resources department enabled men to sexual harass women by treating it as an embarrassment for the company that needed to be dealt with internally, without law enforcement involvement.

There is no excuse for my behavior, nor the behavior of white men my age. In part, the problem is born of myths that are created in the absence of discussion and awareness of sex. Young boys will believe what other young boys will tell them when reliable information isn’t available.

We have to stop pretending that sex is only for married adults, and prior to marriage sex isn’t supposed to happen. Abstinence is an abomination to human interaction, and people who promote that idea don’t realize the damage they are doing to our society. Sex is not taboo or should it be embarrassing to discuss. It is a natural function of life.

We also have to stop letting companies deal with sexual harassment issues. Profit, public relations, and efficient operation of the business have no place in how a workplace sexual harassment issue is resolved.

“Profit, public relations, and efficient operation of the business have no place in how a workplace sexual harassment issue is resolved.”

Finally, I apologize to any woman who feels I have offended and/or been sexually inappropriate with. There is no excuse.

Job Killing: The Republican Prime Directive

25 Thursday May 2017

Posted by Paul Kiser 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

BLS, Bureau of Labor Standards, Employment, GOP, government jobs, high paying jobs, job creation, jobs, Manufacturing jobs, Republican, Republicans, Trump's finances, Unemployment

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 Paul Kiser 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

conservatism, Conservatives, economic growth, economy, Employment, GDP, Gross domestic product, high paying jobs, Iran Contra Affair, Iran Hostage Crisis, job growth, jobs, President Richard Nixon, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Watergate

(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 Paul Kiser 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

buddy pass, buddy passes, children, dress code, fashion, gate agent, girls, HR, leggings, non-rev, non-revenue, policies, tickets, UAL, United Airlines

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 Paul Kiser 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, health insurance, Healthcare, healthcare reform, Obamacare, Paul Ryan, Republican, Ryancare

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 Paul Kiser 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

bosses, committees, dictators, Human Interaction, meetings, No, organizations, Social Interaction, workplace

_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 Paul Kiser 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

Depth of Relationships, Friendship, Human Interaction, listening, negative relationships, positive relationships

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 Paul Kiser 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

evaluation, incentive programs, office, Pay for Performance, reward, school

_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 Paul Kiser 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

Affordable Care Act, business owner, Christian Taliban, contraception, Employee, Employer, Freedom of Religion, government mandate, Hobby Lobby, Justices, Supreme Court

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 Paul Kiser 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

Airlines, Coffee, hotels, Lady Gaga, like, people, Starbucks, tea

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 Paul Kiser 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

analysis, females, Gender, God, humans, implementation, males, management study, men, recommendations, review, Women

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.

The Seduction of Anger

03 Monday Mar 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Business, Communication, Crime, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Ethics, Generational, Health, Human Resources, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Opinion, parenting, Politics, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, Violence in the Workplace, Women

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

Anger, anger addict, anger management, angry, rage, Violence

Anger sucks you in, then eats you up

Anger sucks you in, then eats you up

I have noticed something about people (including myself) and anger. For most of us, anger is seductive. Despite popular belief, it feels really good to get angry. There is pleasure in it. Yelling and screaming, ranting, and losing control is self-satisfying. We let go of the constraints of good behavior as we explore the limits of bad behavior.

Often, our anger follows a logical thread, but anger doesn’t need logic to fan the flames. When we’re angry we choose facts based on how well they support the reasoning we want, not what is reasonable. We also look to find old issues that our compromising or humiliating to the person we are arguing with, in order to verbally attack their vulnerabilities.

In the heat of our anger we feel powerful because we see ourselves as righteous and pure in our cause for perceived injustices. Anger gives us license to ignore anyone else’s viewpoint because they don’t agree with you, therefore, they must be wrong.

How To Respond To Anger
Ignoring someone’s anger is not a solution. Ignoring an angry person enables him or her through a belief that the behavior is appropriate. Direct confrontation with the person is also inappropriate as it is likely he or she is not rationale, nor are they interested in a logical discussion.

If it is appropriate, a person expressing overt anger can be removed from the situation providing they can be paired with a calm, non-threatening person while they de-escalate. If that is not appropriate and the person seems capable of harming themselves or others, another tactic is to become their ally. Agreeing with them and helping them to make a plan of addressing the issues causing the anger may defuse them long enough to disengage from the anger.

This tactic cannot be sarcastic, nor condescending in any way. It may also require lying to the person; however, if physical harm is a possibility, lying is a small price to pay to avoid someone becoming hurt. Once you have lied to a person who is angry, you may have damaged the relationship beyond recovery, so it should not be done unless all other options have been exhausted.

Once out of the situation, the person should be directed to counseling. It may be helpful to see an angry person as an addict who turns to rage for their high, and just like an addict, the person needs expert help to disconnect from the need for a fix.

Exposing a Bully is Not Bullying

02 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Paul Kiser in Aging, Branding, Business, Communication, Crisis Management, Customer Relations, Customer Service, Education, Employee Retention, Ethics, Generational, Honor, Human Resources, Internet, Lessons of Life, Management Practices, Opinion, parenting, Pride, Public Image, Public Relations, Relationships, Respect, Social Interactive Media (SIM), Social Media Relations, Women

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

bully, bullying, Dr. Peggy Drexler, Kelly Blazek

During this past week much has been written (including myself) about the case of a person in a position of power, Kelly Blazek, the gatekeeper of a Cleveland, Ohio jobs listing for marketing positions, writing a nasty email to a job seeker. Blazek’s language in the email was unyielding in her attempt to embarrass and humiliate the job seeker. Blazek was using her power to bully someone who was in an inferior position.   

Therefore, I was shocked when I read an ‘Opinion‘ on CNN.com by Dr. Peggy Drexler, who wrote that by publicizing the email and seeking attention to the bullying, the job seeker:

“….acted with malice, and caused the older woman significant damage…”

The specific language suggests that Dr. Drexler is encouraging Blazek, the person who was the bully, to sue the victim on the grounds of malice, libel, and/or age discrimination. One might question as to whether Dr. Drexler’s motives were that of an ambulance chaser, seeking to be employed by Blazek as an ‘expert’ witness in a civil suit.

Dr. Drexler’s opinion piece did describe the nature of Blazek’s email; however, she softened Blazek’s misdeeds by saying:

“Blazek’s words were, of course, undeniably, and likely unnecessarily, harsh”

In her opinion piece, Dr. Drexler masterfully works around the most blatant language in Blazek’s email and, in at least one place, segmented the quoted language so that the most vicious remark doesn’t look like it was the climax of the rest of the paragraph. She also uses Blazek’s “Communicator of the Year” recognition as a reference of her skills, rather than the irony that is obvious after reading a complete version of Blazek’s blistering email. The most damning paragraph from Blazek’s email is missing from Dr. Drexler’s opinion:

“I suggest you join the other Job Bank in town. Oh wait — there isn’t one.”

Dr. Drexler admits that Blazek’s behavior was wrong:

“No question, Blazek lashed out first, with unprofessional behavior that can only be described as bullying.”

However, Dr. Drexler seems to enable Blazek’s behavior by accusing the job seeker:

“But Mekota responding in kind makes her no less a bully.”

In Dr. Drexler’s world, when bullied, sit back and take. Don’t fight back and don’t call out the bully. Other professionals have a different take on how to respond to a bully. In responding to adult bullying, Mental Health Support (from the United Kingdom) suggests the following :

“…if you find yourself the victim of bullying, a bully’s bad behaviour is entirely his or her responsibility, not yours,…”

The website goes on to say:

“Once you have identified a bully and know what to expect from him or her, you must choose not to be a victim, if you want the bullying to stop. Expose the bullying for what it is. Take a stand, and don’t back down…”

“…The important point here is to expose the bully and call him or her to account. Confrontation and exposure, with evidence to support a victim’s accusations, are what the bully tries hardest to avoid. Once exposure happens, the bullying is likely to stop.”

There was an injustice done to Ms. Blazek, but that was from Dr. Drexler in attempting to sanctify Blazek’s behavior by accusing the job seeker of an equal act. Dr. Drexler’s portrait of Blazek as the older woman, victimized by the young, evil job seeker, causing her to lose her career and disappear from social media is absurd. The job seeker did not write the email, nor did she make the decision to shut down Blazek’s websites and social media accounts. Blazek was in the wrong and the damage to her career rests solely in her hands.

← Older posts

Other Pages of This Blog

  • About Paul Kiser
  • Common Core: Are You a Good Switch or a Bad Switch?
  • Familius Interruptus: Lessons of a DNA Shocker
  • Moffat County, Colorado: The Story of Two Families
  • Rules on Comments
  • Six Things The United States Must Do
  • Why We Are Here: A 65-Year Historical Perspective of the United States

Paul’s Recent Blogs

  • Dysfunctional Social Identity & Its Impact on Society
  • Road Less Traveled: How Craig, CO Was Orphaned
  • GOP Political Syndicate Seizes CO School District
  • DNA Shock +5 Years: What I Know & Lessons Learned
  • Solstices and Sunshine In North America
  • Blindsided: End of U.S. Solar Observation Capabilities?
  • Inspiration4: A Waste of Space Exploration

Paul Kiser’s Tweets

Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.

What’s Up

July 2022
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
« Jun    

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,649 other subscribers

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

 

Loading Comments...