We’ve all heard about “Tough Love,” but why does love have to get tough, what is it?
All healthy relationships require two things: (1) boundaries or limitations, that is, a certain amount of respect for imposed rules and authority, and the acceptance of the external discipline and control that comes with it, out of respect for the other—Law. And, (2) freedom to BE, independence from external control or excessive rules and regulations and overreaching power and authority over one’s self, so as to become internally whole, personally assertive, and individually complete, out of respect for one’s self—Love.
The two relational dynamics, Law and Love, are interconnected. One cannot have a healthy sense of freedom from the other, to assert one’s individual and independent Self, without an adequate acceptance of boundaries and limitations from others. Nor can one freely and healthily respect and submit to a set of external rules and its concomitant authority, without having the freedom to assert one’s individuality and the personal responsibility that comes with it.
These two interconnecting principles, what I’m calling the Law of love and the Rule of Law, seem to be at odds with each other. How so?
The Law of Love persistently seems to say, forgive and forget, whatever the wrong, hurt, or damage done, give the Loved One a second, third, fourth chance, ad-infinitum. This is often demonstrated in a mother’s love. The only one willing to protect and defend an apparently incorrigible criminal is his/her mother, pleading and begging society to be lenient, to have mercy, to consider extenuating circumstances, etc. A loving mother will ignore the immensity of her child’s crime and turn a willful blindness to the deep and penetrating hurt and offense her criminal child has caused to others. Love forgives all and excuses everything, even the worst offenses, basically wants to sidestep the Law.
On the other hand, the Rule of Law is cold, precise, deliberate and unrelenting. It is exact and calculating, demanding swift and immediate retribution when boundaries are crossed and laws are broken. It seeks absolute obedience, compliance to the letter of the law, and expects unquestioned submission to its authority. And if a law is broken or its authority challenged, it will seek complete and unmitigated vengeance in payment for a wrong done, period. It wants nothing to do with Love (which may be willing to forgive and forget).
The irony is that both extremes elicit the same negative result in personal character development. Love without enforced discipline results in the Loved One accepting little or no personal responsibility or accountability, free to do what he/she wants, there is a move toward license, unable to exert self-restraint, personal behavior seems to display an ignorance of ethical and moral limits, resulting in a kind of careless lawlessness—having no care or respect for rule and authority of any kind.
Likewise, authoritarian legalism, with its heavy handed application of the Law, has an oppressively cold attitude towards its subject, and provides little room for the internal growth of the person under its power. Demanding absolute conformity and obedience to every rule it decrees, and without question, there is no ability for the Submissive One to grow in individual responsibility, no room for development in the area self-regulation and no allowance for personal ownership of self-determination within appropriate limits and boundaries.
Thus, parents who over emphasize loving their children—at the expense of discipline, failing to allow consequences or to hold their children responsible for their actions—raise children who tend to have little self-control, who tend to avoid personal ownership for the consequences of their actions, and tend to escape accountability to others.
On the other hand, parents who exaggerate discipline and authority over their children at the expense of demonstrating any love and respect to their children, while demanding absolute conformity and obedience from them, raise children that either become submissively dependent and subservient, in other words raise children who become weak and vacuous as individuals. Or, find that their children will violently rebel and/or flee from the clutches of their control the first chance they get.
Tough Love is the healthy balance between the Rule of Law and the Law of Love.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Monday, November 4, 2013
When Judging Others is Wrong
Quit judging me! You’re so judgmental! Judge not, lest you be judged!
These are defensive statements, often told to someone that we feel has become too critical and judgmental of us.
None of us like being judged by others. It is offensive and we are quite taken aback by anyone who would presume to stand as judge over us. In short, we extremely dislike judgmental people. But we encounter such all the time. Indeed, we are often guilty of the same—if we are truly honest with ourselves.
To be clear, we must first note that there is a significant difference between work-related judgment and the judgment of one’s person. A common phrase for work-related judgment is called “being evaluated.”
When one is judged for one’s work, one’s skills and actions are being evaluated for quality results, in light of pre-set standards and expected outcomes. Results are measured against desired ends or goals. Judgment at this level is a good thing. For it helps us to learn and to see where we need skill improvement or knowledge build-up, not to mention the obvious—to determine whether or not we are successfully producing the intended results that we set out to accomplish in the first place. All of us—whatever work, profession, or job/task we have embraced—do well to accept judgment of this kind.
Personal judgment, on the other hand, has an altogether different focus. Whereas evaluative judgment is focused outwardly, on one’s actions, personal judgment is inwardly focused, judging one’s personhood so as to determine one’s personal value; it is the sizing up of one’s character and worth as a person, and is often coupled with the judgment of one’s motives behind one’s action—that is, also judging one’s reason (justification) for being and reason for doing. This is where we are most offended and become most fearful of other’s judgment of us.
Why do we fear this level of personal judgment? Well, for one, we are already insecure and unsure of ourselves in this area. That is, somehow all of us seem to have a nagging suspicion that we really don’t “make the grade” when it comes to justifying our reason for being: are we really worthy, do we really have personal value—do I have the right to take up space on this planet earth as compared to others—am I significant, important, needed and wanted?
Another reason why we fear this level of personal judgment is the fact that most of us can think of someone or some group or other, who would, if given the chance, jump at the opportunity to denounce us as invaluable and unworthy and would even like to erase us off the face of this planet. (You don’t think so? If you are an American, how do you interpret radical extremists who chant “Death to America”? Or how about those who show disdain to someone simply because they have the wrong skin color or speak the wrong language, etc., etc.)
A third reason we fear this kind of judgment is that we are familiar with it in ourselves, often guilty of doing the same to others, easily ignoring or dismissing those we deem inferior to us, those for whom we have no personal sympathy care or concern. In short, we are fellow participants and we know what it means. We just don’t want to be on the wrong side of it.
We also fear this kind of judgment because it is a means of attack, a deliberate attempt to make us feel small and little. The one exercising such judgment over us usually wants to drive home the idea of our insignificance in thick palpable terms. And if done so effectively enough, others may agree and also turn against us.
Personal judgment is, more often than not, subjective and relationally driven. That is, if the relationship is good between you and the one doing the judging, you’re not so worried, you relax and are confident that you will not be cruelly judged and unfairly criticized. On the other hand, if the relationship is bad, then your defenses are up and your personal radar is working overtime to detect any sign of biased, subjective, and unjust criticism or denouncement of you, which you are sure will come.
In the end, who, if anyone, has the right to determine our worth? Who shall declare me a good or a bad person, a valuable or a worthless person? Who are you, who is she, him, who are they to judge me as a person? What right does anyone have to judge me at such a level? Yet, at some point, at some time in our life, we will have to come face to face with this kind of final judgment, if you will, of our lives: Did we live well, do well; did our lives mean very much. Did we have value and add value to others?
In effect, only God is capable of that kind of judgment—to handle it fairly, justly, and without personal bias. Perhaps it is in this light that Jesus says: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” [Matthew 7:1-2]
These are defensive statements, often told to someone that we feel has become too critical and judgmental of us.
None of us like being judged by others. It is offensive and we are quite taken aback by anyone who would presume to stand as judge over us. In short, we extremely dislike judgmental people. But we encounter such all the time. Indeed, we are often guilty of the same—if we are truly honest with ourselves.
To be clear, we must first note that there is a significant difference between work-related judgment and the judgment of one’s person. A common phrase for work-related judgment is called “being evaluated.”
When one is judged for one’s work, one’s skills and actions are being evaluated for quality results, in light of pre-set standards and expected outcomes. Results are measured against desired ends or goals. Judgment at this level is a good thing. For it helps us to learn and to see where we need skill improvement or knowledge build-up, not to mention the obvious—to determine whether or not we are successfully producing the intended results that we set out to accomplish in the first place. All of us—whatever work, profession, or job/task we have embraced—do well to accept judgment of this kind.
Personal judgment, on the other hand, has an altogether different focus. Whereas evaluative judgment is focused outwardly, on one’s actions, personal judgment is inwardly focused, judging one’s personhood so as to determine one’s personal value; it is the sizing up of one’s character and worth as a person, and is often coupled with the judgment of one’s motives behind one’s action—that is, also judging one’s reason (justification) for being and reason for doing. This is where we are most offended and become most fearful of other’s judgment of us.
Why do we fear this level of personal judgment? Well, for one, we are already insecure and unsure of ourselves in this area. That is, somehow all of us seem to have a nagging suspicion that we really don’t “make the grade” when it comes to justifying our reason for being: are we really worthy, do we really have personal value—do I have the right to take up space on this planet earth as compared to others—am I significant, important, needed and wanted?
Another reason why we fear this level of personal judgment is the fact that most of us can think of someone or some group or other, who would, if given the chance, jump at the opportunity to denounce us as invaluable and unworthy and would even like to erase us off the face of this planet. (You don’t think so? If you are an American, how do you interpret radical extremists who chant “Death to America”? Or how about those who show disdain to someone simply because they have the wrong skin color or speak the wrong language, etc., etc.)
A third reason we fear this kind of judgment is that we are familiar with it in ourselves, often guilty of doing the same to others, easily ignoring or dismissing those we deem inferior to us, those for whom we have no personal sympathy care or concern. In short, we are fellow participants and we know what it means. We just don’t want to be on the wrong side of it.
We also fear this kind of judgment because it is a means of attack, a deliberate attempt to make us feel small and little. The one exercising such judgment over us usually wants to drive home the idea of our insignificance in thick palpable terms. And if done so effectively enough, others may agree and also turn against us.
Personal judgment is, more often than not, subjective and relationally driven. That is, if the relationship is good between you and the one doing the judging, you’re not so worried, you relax and are confident that you will not be cruelly judged and unfairly criticized. On the other hand, if the relationship is bad, then your defenses are up and your personal radar is working overtime to detect any sign of biased, subjective, and unjust criticism or denouncement of you, which you are sure will come.
In the end, who, if anyone, has the right to determine our worth? Who shall declare me a good or a bad person, a valuable or a worthless person? Who are you, who is she, him, who are they to judge me as a person? What right does anyone have to judge me at such a level? Yet, at some point, at some time in our life, we will have to come face to face with this kind of final judgment, if you will, of our lives: Did we live well, do well; did our lives mean very much. Did we have value and add value to others?
In effect, only God is capable of that kind of judgment—to handle it fairly, justly, and without personal bias. Perhaps it is in this light that Jesus says: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” [Matthew 7:1-2]
Monday, October 28, 2013
Avoid Busy Work and Do Productive Work
Many employees are much busier at work these days yet may be much less productive—in terms of adding real value to company, client, and employee. Obviously it’s a mistake to equate busyness with real productivity. But it’s done all the time. Merely being busy only leads to burn out and frustration. It also results in feelings of inadequacy, worthlessness, and low self-esteem. Likewise, a busy, busy professional is often not only a less productive one but a very frustrated one at that.
What’s the difference between real productivity and busyness? Think of a painter’s goal of painting a room the color blue. The actual job’s goal, painting the room blue, is relatively easy to do. But the hard part, the real pain of the job, is the prep and setup work, as well as the take-down and clean-up work, that must be done before and after the room is actually painted. Old rotten wallpaper may have to come down, holes may have to be covered, water damage from old leaks may have to be repaired, and so-on and so-forth. Suddenly merely painting a room blue is not as simple as it sounds.
One should adjust time allotment for a job, by the task(s) required to do the job right, not the other way around. That is, cutting quality in order to get the job done faster and cheaper, usually leads to long-term waste, unnecessary redo’s, unhappy clients and workers, and disastrous bottom lines. Yet this seems to be the prevailing focus these days—cheap fast work, rather than solid, quality work done within a reasonable amount of time. Cutting corners (and therefor value) is always a mistake.
And so (given our example of painting a room blue) because prep work, take-down and setup, etc. is a necessary integral part of the job, it must be included as part of the overall job estimate and analysis. It’s the real dirty work of the job, the unpleasant part. Yet it must not be confused with the actual job’s goal or purpose, which is nothing more than getting the walls painted blue. Nevertheless, it’s in the difficult details of a job where “busyness” can take over. Busyness can often simply be a means of avoiding the real dirty work, that unpleasant side of working toward a job’s real intended outcome.
Avoidance of real work is often a failure to see its value or purpose and one’s personal role in adding value to that purpose. It is a failure to see the good that one can bring to others by doing one’s job well—in a timely fashion and with quality. In that sense it helps for an employee to see that prep work, set-up and take-down etc. is in fact as significant as the job’s goal itself—so long as it is efficiently and effectively done to actually reach the intended goal.
The bottom line is that though people obviously are working for MONEY, money will never fully satisfy as much as knowing that one is adding value and goodness to the world by the work one is doing. A job’s real purpose is to add value to humanity and humanity’s wellbeing. In that sense, no job is too low or demeaning to do if one considers the benefit or value it adds to others. Where would we be, for example, if we didn’t have someone picking up our trash on a weekly basis? Now there is an example of a significant worker that adds value to our way of living to whom little appreciation is given.
Anyway, the point is that we must not lose sight of the end-goal of a job, the final outcome for which we are working: adding value to our lives with intended outcomes that are to benefit all stakeholders.
One last thing, the thing about time is that time is both within and beyond our control. And so, neither take shortcuts to save time or money, nor become so tediously busy that you lose sight of the job’s intended outcome. Rather, respect both time and money by working efficiently and rhythmically, if you will, which is to say consistently, persistently, and purposefully—with a determined focus on the job’s goal, which is a quality product, accomplished in a timely manner, with superb results, benefitting all—clients, company, and employees.
What’s the difference between real productivity and busyness? Think of a painter’s goal of painting a room the color blue. The actual job’s goal, painting the room blue, is relatively easy to do. But the hard part, the real pain of the job, is the prep and setup work, as well as the take-down and clean-up work, that must be done before and after the room is actually painted. Old rotten wallpaper may have to come down, holes may have to be covered, water damage from old leaks may have to be repaired, and so-on and so-forth. Suddenly merely painting a room blue is not as simple as it sounds.
One should adjust time allotment for a job, by the task(s) required to do the job right, not the other way around. That is, cutting quality in order to get the job done faster and cheaper, usually leads to long-term waste, unnecessary redo’s, unhappy clients and workers, and disastrous bottom lines. Yet this seems to be the prevailing focus these days—cheap fast work, rather than solid, quality work done within a reasonable amount of time. Cutting corners (and therefor value) is always a mistake.
And so (given our example of painting a room blue) because prep work, take-down and setup, etc. is a necessary integral part of the job, it must be included as part of the overall job estimate and analysis. It’s the real dirty work of the job, the unpleasant part. Yet it must not be confused with the actual job’s goal or purpose, which is nothing more than getting the walls painted blue. Nevertheless, it’s in the difficult details of a job where “busyness” can take over. Busyness can often simply be a means of avoiding the real dirty work, that unpleasant side of working toward a job’s real intended outcome.
Avoidance of real work is often a failure to see its value or purpose and one’s personal role in adding value to that purpose. It is a failure to see the good that one can bring to others by doing one’s job well—in a timely fashion and with quality. In that sense it helps for an employee to see that prep work, set-up and take-down etc. is in fact as significant as the job’s goal itself—so long as it is efficiently and effectively done to actually reach the intended goal.
The bottom line is that though people obviously are working for MONEY, money will never fully satisfy as much as knowing that one is adding value and goodness to the world by the work one is doing. A job’s real purpose is to add value to humanity and humanity’s wellbeing. In that sense, no job is too low or demeaning to do if one considers the benefit or value it adds to others. Where would we be, for example, if we didn’t have someone picking up our trash on a weekly basis? Now there is an example of a significant worker that adds value to our way of living to whom little appreciation is given.
Anyway, the point is that we must not lose sight of the end-goal of a job, the final outcome for which we are working: adding value to our lives with intended outcomes that are to benefit all stakeholders.
One last thing, the thing about time is that time is both within and beyond our control. And so, neither take shortcuts to save time or money, nor become so tediously busy that you lose sight of the job’s intended outcome. Rather, respect both time and money by working efficiently and rhythmically, if you will, which is to say consistently, persistently, and purposefully—with a determined focus on the job’s goal, which is a quality product, accomplished in a timely manner, with superb results, benefitting all—clients, company, and employees.
Monday, October 21, 2013
Boehner’s “Fought the Good Fight” Comment Says a Lot!
Admitting defeat, House Speaker, John Boehner, summarized it this way: “We fought the good fight. We just didn’t win.” This is very telling. How so?
First, it conveys the fact that he and the extremist minority rightwing group within the Republican Party (Tea Party, et. el.) see themselves as morally superior to all their opponents. This phrase, “I have fought the good fight…,” is from the New Testament, found in the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:7). In other words, they see themselves as fighting a moral cause.
Believing that they are entrenched in a moral battle, they have little or no interest in actually negotiating with their opponents. For them, it is an all-out battle against the forces of darkness, goodness verses evil. Furthermore, as such, they see themselves not as one of two opposing but legitimate parties, that is, two opposing sides that still have a unified foundation with a unified overarching purpose and set of values; rather, they believe themselves to be the only true and legitimate side for all America.
Thus, totally one sided, they attack the other party as if it has no legitimacy to exist at all, wanting to annihilate, nullify and make void, anything and everything their opponents aim at and hope to accomplish. For them, this is what it means to be in a moral battle against their opponents, taking their so-called good fight towards total victory and total repudiation of their enemy—no compromising ever!
Secondly, it conveys the fact that they approach the political negotiating table in terms of war. For them, it’s always: “This means war!” A warlike mentality presumes that there is to be only one victor; therefore, combatants must aim to win at all cost. Furthermore, engaging in war is always for total victory, that is, total control: winners take all! And losers are to lose everything. Indeed, this very attitude was reflected in Boehner’s willingness to drive the whole country off the economic cliff vis-à-vis the government shutdown; and, on top of that, to also threaten to refuse raising the Debt Ceiling as well.
Thirdly, it sadly reflects a presumptuous attitude that they actually believe themselves to be speaking for, and taking action in behalf of, and protecting the concerns of, the majority of Americans. Or worse, knowing that they are an extreme minority group, they still aim to control all of America with their own narrow ideology, despite their minority status.
That being the case, it shows that they are sorely out of touch with contemporary America as a whole. Fighting this so-called good fight of theirs, they arrogantly and presumptuously sacrificed many average Americans and their precious paychecks, apparently caring very little for the harmful collateral damage done to many vulnerable American citizens. Which says that they really only care about themselves and their own precious agenda.
Summing them up:
First, they are absolutist in their attitude; having an all or nothing attitude, they take action accordingly and sweepingly denounce everyone that does not line up with their agenda. As we’ve seen, they are even willing to hold the whole country hostage in order to get their way and only their way.
Secondly, they are militant in their political spirit and approach, believing that it’s an all-out fight for absolute and total control—take no captives. This prevents them from seriously engaging in real negotiations, in the true sense of the word.
Thirdly, they are purists in their belief. They think of themselves as elite, morally superior, and high and mighty, compared to everyone else, especially as compared to their opponents.
And finally they are exclusivists. Theirs is the only true way, the only real party of value and worth, and the only ideal for the American way. This is what makes them both obnoxious as well as dangerous to the rest of America—whether left, left of center, center, right of center, or normal right.
First, it conveys the fact that he and the extremist minority rightwing group within the Republican Party (Tea Party, et. el.) see themselves as morally superior to all their opponents. This phrase, “I have fought the good fight…,” is from the New Testament, found in the Apostle Paul’s Epistle to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:7). In other words, they see themselves as fighting a moral cause.
Believing that they are entrenched in a moral battle, they have little or no interest in actually negotiating with their opponents. For them, it is an all-out battle against the forces of darkness, goodness verses evil. Furthermore, as such, they see themselves not as one of two opposing but legitimate parties, that is, two opposing sides that still have a unified foundation with a unified overarching purpose and set of values; rather, they believe themselves to be the only true and legitimate side for all America.
Thus, totally one sided, they attack the other party as if it has no legitimacy to exist at all, wanting to annihilate, nullify and make void, anything and everything their opponents aim at and hope to accomplish. For them, this is what it means to be in a moral battle against their opponents, taking their so-called good fight towards total victory and total repudiation of their enemy—no compromising ever!
Secondly, it conveys the fact that they approach the political negotiating table in terms of war. For them, it’s always: “This means war!” A warlike mentality presumes that there is to be only one victor; therefore, combatants must aim to win at all cost. Furthermore, engaging in war is always for total victory, that is, total control: winners take all! And losers are to lose everything. Indeed, this very attitude was reflected in Boehner’s willingness to drive the whole country off the economic cliff vis-à-vis the government shutdown; and, on top of that, to also threaten to refuse raising the Debt Ceiling as well.
Thirdly, it sadly reflects a presumptuous attitude that they actually believe themselves to be speaking for, and taking action in behalf of, and protecting the concerns of, the majority of Americans. Or worse, knowing that they are an extreme minority group, they still aim to control all of America with their own narrow ideology, despite their minority status.
That being the case, it shows that they are sorely out of touch with contemporary America as a whole. Fighting this so-called good fight of theirs, they arrogantly and presumptuously sacrificed many average Americans and their precious paychecks, apparently caring very little for the harmful collateral damage done to many vulnerable American citizens. Which says that they really only care about themselves and their own precious agenda.
Summing them up:
First, they are absolutist in their attitude; having an all or nothing attitude, they take action accordingly and sweepingly denounce everyone that does not line up with their agenda. As we’ve seen, they are even willing to hold the whole country hostage in order to get their way and only their way.
Secondly, they are militant in their political spirit and approach, believing that it’s an all-out fight for absolute and total control—take no captives. This prevents them from seriously engaging in real negotiations, in the true sense of the word.
Thirdly, they are purists in their belief. They think of themselves as elite, morally superior, and high and mighty, compared to everyone else, especially as compared to their opponents.
And finally they are exclusivists. Theirs is the only true way, the only real party of value and worth, and the only ideal for the American way. This is what makes them both obnoxious as well as dangerous to the rest of America—whether left, left of center, center, right of center, or normal right.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Republican Power Move—Holding the U.S. Government Hostage—Did NOT Work. No Surprise!
It is a power move, short and simple—minority, right wing, Republican Extremists holding the government hostage to try to force Obama to negotiate on their terms. It’s not working. And it won’t work. This is no way to run a nation. It is no way to negotiate with an opposing party. And it is no way to serve the American people—right, left, or center.
It is selfish, myopic, and childish, and very arrogant on their part. Their defenders try to ward off accusations that they are holding the government hostage. But that is exactly what it is. And they are desperately trying to place the blame on Obama. Americans know better. American voters are not that stupid. Most Americans see it for what it is, political maneuvering, a last ditch effort to get their way using the only weapon, club, force, or leverage that they have at their disposal—shut down the government. And so they did!
What petty nonsense! The government should never have been shut down in the first place—not for the reasons that the Republican extremist group give (which of course keep changing now). Obama was and is right to resist efforts to negotiate under such conditions.
And Americans are right to hold the Republican Party responsible for the Government shut down. Especially blameworthy are the extremist rightwing, self-righteous, holier-than-thou subgroup within the Republican Party, who act as if they are God’s gift to America, as if they are the only right and true representatives of American values, practices, and virtues. They are not! And they are wrong for presuming as much.
And now comes the Debt Ceiling threat!
A word to Congress: Quit stalling! Quit negotiating for short term fixes and long term postponements. We’re right here where we are, because you’ve been kicking the can down the road all along, creating these artificial deadlines and due dates and refusing to soundly deal with the issues forthrightly for fear of not getting everything you want and demand. Quit cow-towing to a talk-to-my-hand, hardnosed, recalcitrant and fractious minority group; go to work for the good of ALL of America. Oh wait! You can’t do that, can you—because your re-election coffers are being filled by big-pocket minority special interest groups! Is that it?
It is selfish, myopic, and childish, and very arrogant on their part. Their defenders try to ward off accusations that they are holding the government hostage. But that is exactly what it is. And they are desperately trying to place the blame on Obama. Americans know better. American voters are not that stupid. Most Americans see it for what it is, political maneuvering, a last ditch effort to get their way using the only weapon, club, force, or leverage that they have at their disposal—shut down the government. And so they did!
What petty nonsense! The government should never have been shut down in the first place—not for the reasons that the Republican extremist group give (which of course keep changing now). Obama was and is right to resist efforts to negotiate under such conditions.
And Americans are right to hold the Republican Party responsible for the Government shut down. Especially blameworthy are the extremist rightwing, self-righteous, holier-than-thou subgroup within the Republican Party, who act as if they are God’s gift to America, as if they are the only right and true representatives of American values, practices, and virtues. They are not! And they are wrong for presuming as much.
And now comes the Debt Ceiling threat!
A word to Congress: Quit stalling! Quit negotiating for short term fixes and long term postponements. We’re right here where we are, because you’ve been kicking the can down the road all along, creating these artificial deadlines and due dates and refusing to soundly deal with the issues forthrightly for fear of not getting everything you want and demand. Quit cow-towing to a talk-to-my-hand, hardnosed, recalcitrant and fractious minority group; go to work for the good of ALL of America. Oh wait! You can’t do that, can you—because your re-election coffers are being filled by big-pocket minority special interest groups! Is that it?
Monday, October 7, 2013
Do You Work for a Dehumanizing Corporation?
No one likes to work for work’s sake. Work is work after all, as opposed to fun and games. But work can be rewarding, even pleasurable at times, if it is done in the right spirit and with the right attitude and gives more than monetary payoff. But work cannot be done in the right spirit with the right attitude if the corporation for which you work is constantly minimizing, trivializing, or otherwise dissing your worth as a person.
People are not machines and that is a good thing. And though work may be hard, tiresome and irksome at times, that is not always a bad thing. Work is about making, producing, building, and growing things. And that is what we humans are about. We want to build, grow, and produce. We want to add value to our lives. We want to be valuable to others. We want to be part of something meaningful. Corporations that understand this life principle treat their employees very well and have very happy clients and customers.
However, many dehumanizing corporations are solely task-oriented in their approach to reaching their financial goals. They distribute their goals from the top down, without ever inviting, including, or involving input from their employees in the lower ranks. Indeed, they tend to treat their lower ranking employees as usable and expendable objects. Thus, key players in their company may lack ownership as to company quality, may become resistant as to company processes, and worse, may end up having no interest at all as to the company’s overall success.
A robotic, dehumanizing, task-oriented corporation begins with the bottom line and ends with the bottom line, measuring productivity by dollars and profits and evaluates success on the basis of profit margin only. Everything is about the dollar. Such an approach to business not only appears reasonable but seems necessary for a company’s success, if not survival. Nevertheless, it is misdirected.
A people-oriented company, on the other hand, measures its success by the actual value it adds or service it provides to others that require, need or want its product, providing that product to its clients as equitably and reasonably as possible in a way that brings “profit” to all—owner, employee, and client. It is not that it has no interest in the bottom line or the profit factor; it’s that it puts it in the right perspective. Its first goal is to meet human needs in a humanizing way, adding to humanity’s overall prosperity in life so that everyone benefits and profits from its product and business. That is, its reason for being is more than the making of money.
Too many corporations devalue their employees by treating them as cogs in a machine. The idea is that the more you can make a human like a machine, the more productive he/she will be—if only humans were more like robots. Companies with this kind of attitude toward their work force tend to dehumanize their employees. In the short run, it looks as if it works. In the long run, they lose dollars and profit, productivity slackens, and good employees are wasted. Bottom line, it is not in the best interest of a company to dehumanize its employees. What kind of company do you work for?
People are not machines and that is a good thing. And though work may be hard, tiresome and irksome at times, that is not always a bad thing. Work is about making, producing, building, and growing things. And that is what we humans are about. We want to build, grow, and produce. We want to add value to our lives. We want to be valuable to others. We want to be part of something meaningful. Corporations that understand this life principle treat their employees very well and have very happy clients and customers.
However, many dehumanizing corporations are solely task-oriented in their approach to reaching their financial goals. They distribute their goals from the top down, without ever inviting, including, or involving input from their employees in the lower ranks. Indeed, they tend to treat their lower ranking employees as usable and expendable objects. Thus, key players in their company may lack ownership as to company quality, may become resistant as to company processes, and worse, may end up having no interest at all as to the company’s overall success.
A robotic, dehumanizing, task-oriented corporation begins with the bottom line and ends with the bottom line, measuring productivity by dollars and profits and evaluates success on the basis of profit margin only. Everything is about the dollar. Such an approach to business not only appears reasonable but seems necessary for a company’s success, if not survival. Nevertheless, it is misdirected.
A people-oriented company, on the other hand, measures its success by the actual value it adds or service it provides to others that require, need or want its product, providing that product to its clients as equitably and reasonably as possible in a way that brings “profit” to all—owner, employee, and client. It is not that it has no interest in the bottom line or the profit factor; it’s that it puts it in the right perspective. Its first goal is to meet human needs in a humanizing way, adding to humanity’s overall prosperity in life so that everyone benefits and profits from its product and business. That is, its reason for being is more than the making of money.
Too many corporations devalue their employees by treating them as cogs in a machine. The idea is that the more you can make a human like a machine, the more productive he/she will be—if only humans were more like robots. Companies with this kind of attitude toward their work force tend to dehumanize their employees. In the short run, it looks as if it works. In the long run, they lose dollars and profit, productivity slackens, and good employees are wasted. Bottom line, it is not in the best interest of a company to dehumanize its employees. What kind of company do you work for?
Monday, September 30, 2013
More Evidence of Global Warming…Urgent Warnings Means What?
So, we now have more evidence that Global Warming is in fact human induced. An official UN report tells us so. According to an astute scientific panel, it is indeed very likely that we’re doing it to ourselves! Yes, we are responsible for climate change. Connect the dots. There’s no denying it. We have a direct link to Global Warming.
Yet, for so long, and with such intensity, we have been constantly hearing the very opposite by contrary voices—that there is no real evidence for Global Warming, that it is scientifically unverifiable that we humans are contributing to climate change, that to say so is a mere scam to rip off the people, and so-on and so-forth.
The reality is that those who oppose the very idea of accepting Global Warming as a fact, let alone accepting any human responsibility for it, are the same big, powerful, money and corporate people that stand to shoulder a great deal of responsibility and blame, when confronted with reality—that their own business practices have directly fed into the Global Warming phenomena (though, admittedly, we all are to share some degree of blame, given the lifestyle that we have chosen to embrace at the expense of good ecological earth management.
Now we are being told that it is urgent we act now, immediately! Or, we shall soon see terrible traumatic effects on our weather patterns, our sea-levels, and a dramatic change in the arctic region. Duh! Honest good-hearted scientists of integrity have been trying to warn us of this reality for decades now. But they were effectively told to shut up! Until now, I suppose.
We must immediately reverse decades of global greenhouse gas emissions, which are accumulating in the atmosphere and are a direct link to the cause of Global Warming. We must find and use the technology, funding, and the social/political will to reverse the trend of climate change and build what is called a new “low carbon society.”
But here’s a question, who is going to pay for it? I’ll give you a hint. It won’t be the rich and powerful or the mega companies and corporations whose industrial polluting actions have been, and continue to be, the major contributing factor in our Global Warming phenomena.
And just how exactly are we going to combat this climate change phenomena? Obviously it is a national, domestic and private, as well as multi-corporate and international problem, a problem for all of us on planet earth. But, what then are the specifics for addressing this global problem? What kinds of sacrifices are we going to have to make? What! Make sacrifices? Most likely, yes! But who exactly will be bearing the brunt of the most extreme sacrificial acts that will be demanded of humanity in order to prevent global warming disasters? Take a guess.
My guess is that the very same people that have forestalled and persistently denied and constantly countered the reality and existence of Global Warming in the first place, will also be the same people who will most resist accepting any responsibility for making any sacrifices toward correcting the phenomena, yet will have been most directly linked in having created this climate change crisis by virtue of their industrial business practices from the get-go. It’s called, “Take the money and run.” Even so, it is still true that we all share responsibility and blame for this global crisis. For, most of us continue to be quite complacent about it.
Yet, for so long, and with such intensity, we have been constantly hearing the very opposite by contrary voices—that there is no real evidence for Global Warming, that it is scientifically unverifiable that we humans are contributing to climate change, that to say so is a mere scam to rip off the people, and so-on and so-forth.
The reality is that those who oppose the very idea of accepting Global Warming as a fact, let alone accepting any human responsibility for it, are the same big, powerful, money and corporate people that stand to shoulder a great deal of responsibility and blame, when confronted with reality—that their own business practices have directly fed into the Global Warming phenomena (though, admittedly, we all are to share some degree of blame, given the lifestyle that we have chosen to embrace at the expense of good ecological earth management.
Now we are being told that it is urgent we act now, immediately! Or, we shall soon see terrible traumatic effects on our weather patterns, our sea-levels, and a dramatic change in the arctic region. Duh! Honest good-hearted scientists of integrity have been trying to warn us of this reality for decades now. But they were effectively told to shut up! Until now, I suppose.
We must immediately reverse decades of global greenhouse gas emissions, which are accumulating in the atmosphere and are a direct link to the cause of Global Warming. We must find and use the technology, funding, and the social/political will to reverse the trend of climate change and build what is called a new “low carbon society.”
But here’s a question, who is going to pay for it? I’ll give you a hint. It won’t be the rich and powerful or the mega companies and corporations whose industrial polluting actions have been, and continue to be, the major contributing factor in our Global Warming phenomena.
And just how exactly are we going to combat this climate change phenomena? Obviously it is a national, domestic and private, as well as multi-corporate and international problem, a problem for all of us on planet earth. But, what then are the specifics for addressing this global problem? What kinds of sacrifices are we going to have to make? What! Make sacrifices? Most likely, yes! But who exactly will be bearing the brunt of the most extreme sacrificial acts that will be demanded of humanity in order to prevent global warming disasters? Take a guess.
My guess is that the very same people that have forestalled and persistently denied and constantly countered the reality and existence of Global Warming in the first place, will also be the same people who will most resist accepting any responsibility for making any sacrifices toward correcting the phenomena, yet will have been most directly linked in having created this climate change crisis by virtue of their industrial business practices from the get-go. It’s called, “Take the money and run.” Even so, it is still true that we all share responsibility and blame for this global crisis. For, most of us continue to be quite complacent about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)