A Smart Worker is still a Hard Worker

“Work smarter not harder.”  It’s become a cliché.  The idea is that it pays to become more efficient and effective in your work by being smart about it, minimizing unnecessary effort, expending less energy, and saving time on the job, for example.  To work smarter not harder is to be more productive while expending less energy, time, and resources.  That’s good.

But there is a negative side to this quip.  It seems to encourage the idea that hard work is something to be avoided altogether, as if you’re crazy or stupid to work hard for anything, a kind of subtle encouragement toward laziness.

Doing good work and being a smart worker still requires working hard.  For example, a smart worker is a developing worker.  She or he continues to learn by developing his/her skills and talents.  This takes time, effort, focus, and commitment.  It is a form of hard work, if done rightly.

The “smart” part of working smarter doesn’t just happen.  It is intentional, sought after, and worked for, obtained by old fashion sweat-of-the-brow daily practice, pursuit of education and training, and focused attentiveness in habit formation.  And it doesn’t skip steps or take short-cuts.

For example, working smarter not harder may involve reading the directions first, as time well spent, rather than tossing them aside in an effort to save time and quickly get the job done.  Likewise, following through each step properly, without skipping steps, is working smarter, rather than harder, as in the old saying: “Measure three times before you cut once” or more commonly said, “Measure twice; cut once.”  Thus, taking extra steps to do a job well and quickly, may seem counterintuitive, but it is still an example of working smarter rather than harder.

Giving attention to detail takes concentration, mental energy, and extra time; but this too is also an example of working smarter not harder.  As the saying goes, “The Devil is in the details.”  Walt Disney is an example of one who gave much attention to detail.   He was both a hard worker and a smart one. 

While attending graduate school, I had a roommate who was a chef.  He taught me the kitchen-working principle of “clean as you go.”  I don’t cook much.  But, when I do cook, I clean as I go.  It makes the overall cooking experience so much easier to deal with, no big mess to clean up afterward.  This too is working smarter not harder, though it is still working hard.

Planning ahead, staying organized, putting things back where they belong once you’ve finished with them, maintaining a current and updated filing system, making a “to-do” list, not procrastinating but doing immediate follow-through, taking the initiative to contact others to get answers to pressing questions, rather than waiting for them to come to you, these all appear to be extra steps and perhaps unnecessary steps, hard work, but are examples of actually working smarter not harder.

Bottom line: When one consistently does good quality work, you can be sure that he or she is not only a smart worker but a hard worker as well.  Working smarter does not negate the need to also be a hard worker.  We should all be good workers.  And since most of us have to work hard to make a living, let us learn to be smart about it as well.

Good Job or Bad Job? It’s More Than the Work or Position

It’s not so much what you do or the position you have.  It’s the how and why, and the company for whom you work, that often makes it a good job or bad one.

Do you feel good about the company for whom you work?  Or would you rather not think about it?  Consider the following questions about your employer.

Would your company think nothing of asking you to do something that goes against your principles?

Is the company only interested in the bottom line or does it believe itself to have a mission beyond the making of money, believing that it is doing an actual service and/or providing a meaningful product that adds value to people’s lives?

Is your company well-respected in the community?  Does it have a good track-record?  That is, has it legitimately earned the people’s trust and admiration?  Is it known for its honesty, trustworthiness, and community involvement, for example?

Are the company’s values well known, readily expressed, and actually adhered to?  Are they the kind of values that you are happy to support and buy in to?  For example, does it care about the environment?  Does it value people of all ethnic, racial, and cultural backgrounds?  Does it value women in the work force as much as men, the young and inexperienced as well as seniors with much experience, the disabled?  Is the company family oriented, supporting benefits and time schedules that aid and support family realities rather than oppresses them?

Does the company respect you as a person?  Is the company interested in your personal growth?  Does it provide opportunities for developing your own particular set of personal talents and skills?  Does it appreciate you for who you are and not merely for what you can do?

If you gave your company a plus to these questions, than you are most likely happy with your employment and believe yourself to have a “good job.”  If, on the other hand, you feel disrespected, taken advantage of, oppressed, and abused, you have a lousy job, no matter how prestigious the position may be.

Hence, it’s not simply what you do in your job, or the position that you have, that makes a job good or bad.  It’s for whom you work, and the how and why of your work, that counts.  Considering that most of our life-time waking-hours are spent at work, it’s certainly something to think about.

Politics and Finances Require Trust, a Trust People No Longer Have

A solid banking system requires trust.  Trust is the grease that keeps the banking industry running smoothly, not money.  That is to say: Having trust in one’s bank is more important than having money in one’s bank.

Depositors must have faith in the bank’s ability and trustworthiness to manage their money wisely and profitably.  Borrowers must trust a bank’s integrity and have confidence that loans will not only be made available but will be managed honestly and justly. 

Of course, banks are first and foremost a business.  They expect to make a profit from their services.  Yet, bankers provide necessary and fundamental financial services to a community, all of which presumes a great deal of trust and integrity. 

Because banks deal with huge amounts of money, their trustworthiness must be independently verifiable.  That is, there must be regulatory oversight on our banking system.  Why?  Because: banks are run and managed by humans and humans are not to be trusted with excessive amounts of money (or power)—not without a good amount of oversight, checks and balances.

This is why it was and is dangerous to allow banking and other financial institutions to become “too big to fail.”

In fact, no business or corporation, financial or otherwise, should ever be allowed to become bigger than a community’s ability to keep it accountable through independent oversight.  Note: “community” may be defined as either local, state, national, or even international.

To put it another way: the bigger a corporation or financial institution gets, the easier it becomes for that entity to escape healthy monitoring and to side-step fundamental rules of honesty, integrity, and accountability.  And so the more threatening and dangerous it becomes to the very community it is supposed to serve, the very same community from which it also happens to be reaping a good amount of profit and gain.

In that sense, bigger is not always better—for the community.  Who is monitoring our huge interstate and international corporations and financial institutions?  How is it even possible?  We want large industries to succeed because they provide jobs.  But, are we going back to “selling our soul to the company store” just to have job security again?

Now let us consider the political landscape.  The average American citizen is frustrated with the politics of the day.  Our two parties are often deadlocked in impasse after impasse.  But who “owns” the political machinery these days?  Is it not large special interest groups?  And by “large,” I mean corporations and financial institutions that effectively have an unlimited amount of money to spend on political campaigns, along with their kissing cousins, the collective wealthy-set of individuals who also have vast amounts of money to spend on political campaigns.  Is it no wonder that the people no longer “trust” the political system and have always distrusted the mysteriously well-financed politician?

Here we are again, talking about “trust.”  As it turns out, both a healthy financial system, as well as a healthy political system, demands the ability to trust.  This is why a good working democratic system, and/or financial institution, is an “open” system rather than a “closed” system; which is to say they are transparent—are held accountable and readily submit to independent and verifiable oversight.  Yet, sadly, our two most important national systems, the financial and the political, are losing, or have already lost, the people’s trust—and for good reason.

What will it take for the people to regain their trust in our great systems?  The answer is obvious.  Open up!  Full disclosure!  Our major political and financial institutions must have open books to public scrutiny, if, that is, we are to trust them.  Transparency is what makes both a strong and healthy democracy as well as a strong and healthy capitalistic system.  A healthy capitalistic democracy will not allow powerful influential institutions to hide behind walls of secrecy.

Facing our Hardening Hearts

Are you familiar with the phrase, “Hardness of heart”?  It’s a Biblical phrase.  Jesus Himself refers to our human tendency toward hardness of heart.  What does a hardened heart look like?

The more obvious and well known depiction of a hardened heart is one of sheer coldness, caring not for and unmoved by the plight of human suffering, heartache, and pain.

Biblically speaking, the heart’s source of cold uncaringness is disbelief, refusing to accept the fact of a God of goodness, a God of peace, truth, righteousness, justice, and redeeming love.

However, even believing hearts can be icy cold and quite hardened.  These hearts tend to slice others with their sharp-edged sword of intolerance, are quick to judge and condemn others for failing to live up to their standards of rightness and goodness.  This kind of cold heartedness is hidden behind a veneer of righteous indignation (self-righteousness).

For example, our society seems to be moving more and more in the direction of discarding the historically hard fought for legal and moral differentiation between juveniles and adults, when it comes to applying justice.  Nowadays, more often than not, when a juvenile commits a heinous crime or is even indirectly involved in one, the local District Attorney’s knee-jerk reaction is to immediately ask that he/she be tried as an adult.  And this, despite the abundance of evidence that juveniles do not yet have a fully mature developed brain/mind.

Why?  I’d say that it is a form of our society’s growing hard-heartedness.  We have a growing desire for swift and immediate vengeance (as in “shoot first, ask questions later”).  Indeed, I’ve noticed that the attitude and spirit of a victim (or victim’s family) can often be more exacting and cold-blooded than that which was initially in the heart and spirit of the offender when he/she committed the harm against the victim.  Are there cold-blooded criminals out there?  Of course there are.  However, the justice process requires that we take the time to understand the context and true mitigating circumstances of a crime that has been committed.  We seem to no longer have any patience for this.  We want immediate blood-for-blood, and more!

Another example can be seen in the way we deal with drug addicts.  Switzerland, like any modern Western country, including the U.S., recognizes that there is a drug problem affecting a percentage of its citizens.  However, instead of categorizing the drug problem under the heading of “criminal activity,” they categorize the problem as a health issue.  Thus, instead of throwing addicts in prison and building bigger and more expensive prisons to house addicts, they spend less money by diverting social resources toward more effective means of helping addicts deal with, manage, and hopefully eventually overcome their drug addiction.  What a concept!  Meanwhile our hard-heartedness has little patience for even entertaining the idea that drug addiction can actually be seen as a health issue rather than a criminal one.

It was Jesus who said in effect, “he who is without sin cast the first stone”; referring to the idea of stoning to death one caught in obvious wrong-doing that is deserving of death.  As a society it seems that we are moving further and further away from the enlightened principle that Jesus was trying to teach humanity, the principle of having mercy, grace, compassion, and forgiveness, allowing for the possibility of change, renewal, and transformation.

The next time you want to apply swift harsh and exacting justice on one who has harmed you, be sure that you are willing to receive the same when it is your turn to face judgment for the harm you have caused another—for you have indeed harmed others yourself.  Jesus made it quite clear that no one is guiltless in that realm.  Only he/she who is without sin can claim otherwise.

“For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.” – Jesus Christ, the Messiah (Matthew 7:2)

Planning for Death?

Sounds morbid, doesn’t it.  But it’s wise.  And actually, can be quite healing for the family.

Are you an aging parent in that grandparent/great-grandparent stage of life?  Do you have aging parents?  If so, are you talking about, and planning for the final departure, that inevitable last goodbye?  If not, why not?  Did you know that refusing to talk about one’s inevitable departure upon this earth is not only unwise it can also be quite hurtful to your family?  Hurtful, how so and to whom?

The loved ones you leave behind will be faced with having to make major decisions upon your death, perhaps with little or no time to appropriately process and think about their consequences—if, that is, you have not adequately discussed these things prior to your final departure.

Upon your death, wouldn’t you rather have your family spend precious time together fondly reminiscing and reconnecting, and enjoying each other’s comforting solace, rather than hurrying and scurrying, and worrying about the business aspect of death—what to do with the body, looking for legal documents, wondering about money and expense, and so-on and so-forth?

Your local funeral director can provide a list of information that you need to consider.  You’d be surprised at all the little/major things that a family must think about and decide upon, once a person is pronounced dead.  Depending on the age and cause of death, there are questions of organ donation, burial or cremation, a memorial service versus a funeral service, open or closed casket, how many death certificates to order and why, etc.  It is much, much better if these questions are more or less answered before one’s demise.

Death and dying is a reality of life.  One should neither hide this fact from one’s children nor from one’s self.  Speak both casually about it as well as plan a special family time to discuss important issues and questions about your will, preferences, and desires regarding what is to happen to you or a loved one upon death.

It is not being morose.  It is not being negative.  It is not being rude and inconsiderate of a loved one’s life.  In fact, it is the opposite.  It can perhaps be one of the most considerate and respectful things one can do with someone whose life is on the decline.  Talking openly, respectfully and realistically about one’s impending death can be freeing, releasing, and healing on many levels—relationally, emotionally, and spiritually to name a few.  Individuals who avoid and resist facing the inevitability of the death of a loved one often have the most difficult time with it, both during the dying process as well as afterwards.  Family members need to talk openly about it, in order to adequately deal with it.

Do yourself and your family a favor.  Talk about your final departure, your last goodbye, express what it means to you, including how you want your family to handle your remains.  It’s good, it’s wise, and can be very redemptive and healing for everyone involved as well.

Ban SNIPES Now! Drop Those Irritating TV Ad Streamers

Okay, this may sound petty, but I’m fed-up.  It’s those dag-nabbed Snipes.  Know what I’m talking about?  Those highly infuriating in-your-face TV ads that stream across the bottom of your screen, advertising another movie or program, distracting from and even blocking parts of scenes from the movie or program you are presently watching.

Yes, people have been complaining to the network stations about this.  No, thus far, station networks are simply ignoring the complaints and continue to interrupt and invade our program watching with intrusive animated ads, blocking subtitles for example and other parts of movie and program scenes, while doing so.  On top of that, they even superimpose large TV station logos that are set at the corner of the screen, all the way through a program or movie.  It’s quite put-offing!

I say that we viewer/consumers don’t have to take it.  After all, they do it because they think they have the power (might makes right) to do it.  We, the average viewer, are too passive and think we can’t do anything about it.

We could unite and say enough is enough!  Perhaps we should threaten them with a “We refuse-to-watch” day (or week, or month even).  Whatever it takes to get their attention and show them that we mean business.  They need to get the message: Quit interrupting our programs with your Snipes, Streamers, and Logos.  Do your advertising during the commercial-break, not plopped right over the ongoing show or movie itself.

How hard can it be to get a movement going?  Use your Facebook and Twitter connections.  Call it what you will: “Quit Sniping” day or “We Refuse to Watch Snipes” day, or whatever.  We can commit ourselves to collectively turn off the TV in unison and show the networks that we mean business.  What’s our message?  NO more SNIPES!  We will no longer tolerate the rude interruption of our favorite programs and movies by these annoying graphic animated ads scrolling across our TV screens.

Remember, their business depends on our viewing habits.  If they lose viewers, they’re out of business.  If we mean what we say, they’ll have to listen.  After all, they do depend on us being faithful viewers.

What does W. Virginia’s Chemical Spill Teach Us?

So-called Tree Hugging Environmentalists are often bashed and ridiculed for their determined effort to save endangered animals and plants, what is often viewed as insignificant though exotic flora and fauna.  Yet, over and over again we witness ecological disasters that are directly linked to humans.

To put it mildly, I’d say that, collectively speaking, we humans are proud, arrogant, and overly self-confident to the point of being ecologically and environmentally abusive in the use of our science and technology.

Fracking companies, energy and oil companies, chemical companies, and their allies, who include business investors and their political lackeys, tirelessly take the offensive in assuring the populace that there is little or no threat to the environment in their daily operations—especially if they are merely storing dangerous chemicals.  Their message is simple: “Not to worry!  Our plants are well-built.  We have plenty of redundant safety measures in place, dependable machinery, a well-trained and trustworthy workforce, and a highly efficient emergency procedural protocol that we follow, to ensure public safety and environmental protection.”

Yet, always, somewhere, sometime, somehow, something bad happens.  Either there are structural flaws, or machinery break downs, or safety-measures are ignored, or it is a simple case of human error—good intentions coupled with miscalculations or misjudgment, misinformation, or plain ole ignorance and stupidity.  This is NOT a perfect world and there are no perfect humans.  Mistakes WILL be made!

So what have we learned?  What should we learn from such accidents and disasters?  I’d say the following is a good start.

First we learn (or are reminded of the fact) that there are no guarantees.  There never will be and never can be a 100% guarantee that nothing will go wrong.

Secondly, we can never be too careful when it comes to taking appropriate steps to assure that we are protecting and preserving irreplaceable and invaluable precious resources, such as basic clean drinking water.  (Note for example: We must have available clean drinking water to survive!  Period!!  There is no exception to this basic human need.)  Thus, it is better to error on the side of caution.  Therefore, tough regulatory oversight serves the populace best, as opposed to weak and mild or impotent oversight that does little to actually assure that companies are in compliance with expected safety measures.

Thirdly, we must be willing to pay for the extra precaution.  Higher standards of safety and protection may cost a little more.  So be it.  It is worth the cost in the long run.  A little more caution and expense up-front far outweighs the cost of cleaning-up or recovering from an ecological and environmental disaster.  We have to raise the value of environmental health and stability as being more important and economically beneficial to us than our mere exploitation of it.

It’s not that we should shut down these companies, for our present lifestyle depends on their production outcomes.  However, these companies should not be seen as the sole heir and proprietary beneficiaries of our precious natural resources.  They, us, we, all-of-us, need to be held more accountable for how we are using and exploiting our natural resources.

Lastly, perhaps it’s time we begin to mold or shape a different kind of environmental economy.  The earth is OURS collectively, not them and theirs singularly.  Gone should be the days when big company executives have the power and right to claim this and that natural resource for the taking, just because they have the money and power to do so.  What the executives of these powerful companies may not realize is that they live here on this orbital island called earth, same as everyone else (unless, with the use of their powerful finances, they find a way to escape earth itself, to go off and live in a better place, which is highly unlikely), that being the case, they need to become better neighbors to their fellow human beings all the way around.