There's been a few interesting pieces of writing I've come across over the past month that dealt with the subject of careers & work, each piece doing so in a very distinct way.
On writing as a career, there was the fascinating New York Times opinion piece "I Was a Digital Best Seller!" by Tony Horwitz a month ago. In it, the author wrote of his experience in online publishing and how the exciting new digital world of the writer not all he dreamed of.
Also a few weeks ago was "From Botanical Gardens Intern to Anthony Bourdain’s Assistant" for The Billfold. Written by Laurie Woolever, it's a remarkable first-person walk through Woolever's career and all its twists, turns, ups and downs.
The third piece to note here isn't traditional writing, but rather a slideshow about the new book The Alliance: Managing Talent in the Networked Age from LinkedIn Founder and CEO Reid Hoffman and his co-authors Ben Cashnocha and Chris Yeh. One idea from the book that's covered in the slides is how employers and employees should focus on a mutually beneficial relationship based on what each gets from working together and the knowledge that the working relationship won't continue if no longer mutually beneficial to both parties. This approach of "we're both benefiting for now" is in opposition to the idea of employees feeling a company owes them jobs or companies viewing an employee as disloyal if they leave for another job.
Again, each of these pieces very different than the other two, but there's fascinating stuff in all three.
One thing that reading these makes me think of is in relation to my own career I feel good having this blog and three books compiled from it as a body of work. I'd rather have my career progress and work opportunities come from what I've done rather than what I say I can do and the blog is as much if not more of a representation of what I've done than my education or actual work experience.
Showing posts with label work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label work. Show all posts
Friday, July 18, 2014
Monday, July 14, 2014
My ruminations on writing & work
I've been thinking lately about the point of this blog, specifically in relation to the labels "writing" and "work" that I've used for some of the posts throughout my six years of regular posting here, with the hyperlinks representing posts in which I had a label of one or the other.
To take these one at a time, perhaps the best way to look at usage of "writing" as a label is through some of the text of my post done in Feb of this year, "My new book compilation - More Words Written Down"...
More Words Written Down is a follow-up effort to the compilation book projects Words Written Down and 111 Books Reviewed with all three coming out of this blog and each an appreciation of words put down on a page in a meaningful order. The blog itself was begun 5 ½ years ago and my approach to it has been to read things of interest and then attempt to describe those pieces well and make connections between them. The result of this is hopefully both a repository of great writing and body of work with my thoughts on the pieces. As part of this body of work idea, the blog and book compilations out of it are also intended to serve as a tangible record for my two boys of what things I found interesting or important early in their lives.
Links noted throughout the print version of the book can be found at the referenced blog post and have as their criterion for inclusion the concept of Interesting. If writing was deemed interesting, it’s noted along with my ruminations on the topic and view of what makes that particular set of words grouped together into a book or story so good that they acquire permanence. The goal of Words Written Down is to highlight and pay homage to this permanence of words. Everybody's gotta have a thing, and for me, one of my big things is words. Here's to hoping that as my boys get older they find the things that have importance for them and get to spend their time pursuing and working on those.
In short, I like words, and that's why I've written this blog.
So, with that, the other label noted above is that of "work." In terms of work, I feel like I've come to the realization that I love reading, love coming across pieces of great writing, describing what it is I like about a particular piece of writing and making connections between it and other pieces of great writing, but I don't feel a particular drive to become a writer producing the type of journalism I love.
Rather, it's the idea of effective communication that I find cool, and to do that for work wouldn't require me to become a journalist, but could well be simply someone helping craft compelling business messages. To this point, one of my more memorable (at least to myself) posts I've done with the label of "work" was titled "The Ethereal Nature of Stock Valuation & Much Corporate Work Activity," with the conclusion to that post noted below...
Me thinks there's also way too much etherealness (yep, it's a word) in the corporate work done at many of the public companies out there. Just as stock valuation can be a matter of (often wrong) perception, corporations can too frequently have their best employees identified on the basis of not terribly important indicators like "being busy." I touched on this phenomenon in the Sept 2010 post "Urgent vs Important Work," but so frequently time gets spent on things that don't really move the success or failure dial much (and this is even using the public company success/failure dial of income/profit).
It's not to say all corporations are filled entirely by employees doing busy work 100% of the time as some corporations (and employees) are going to be much more productive around things of import than others, but it is an interesting morass to try to avoid, both as a corporation and it's employees. Corporate level success or failure at this busy work avoidance isn't going to change the stock increase chasing game, but is probably going to result in the companies that have employees focused on important rather than ethereal/urgent work performing better overall. Not a paradigm breaking statement to be sure, but important nonetheless.
To sum it all up, or as much as I can in this missive, I love great writing that tells an effective story, always will and hope that my boys are going to as well and while business communication may not necessarily carry as much heft as other types of communication, there is a need for people who can both craft and manage it's production effectively and doing this can very much tie into my overall love of great writing.
To take these one at a time, perhaps the best way to look at usage of "writing" as a label is through some of the text of my post done in Feb of this year, "My new book compilation - More Words Written Down"...
More Words Written Down is a follow-up effort to the compilation book projects Words Written Down and 111 Books Reviewed with all three coming out of this blog and each an appreciation of words put down on a page in a meaningful order. The blog itself was begun 5 ½ years ago and my approach to it has been to read things of interest and then attempt to describe those pieces well and make connections between them. The result of this is hopefully both a repository of great writing and body of work with my thoughts on the pieces. As part of this body of work idea, the blog and book compilations out of it are also intended to serve as a tangible record for my two boys of what things I found interesting or important early in their lives.
Links noted throughout the print version of the book can be found at the referenced blog post and have as their criterion for inclusion the concept of Interesting. If writing was deemed interesting, it’s noted along with my ruminations on the topic and view of what makes that particular set of words grouped together into a book or story so good that they acquire permanence. The goal of Words Written Down is to highlight and pay homage to this permanence of words. Everybody's gotta have a thing, and for me, one of my big things is words. Here's to hoping that as my boys get older they find the things that have importance for them and get to spend their time pursuing and working on those.
In short, I like words, and that's why I've written this blog.
So, with that, the other label noted above is that of "work." In terms of work, I feel like I've come to the realization that I love reading, love coming across pieces of great writing, describing what it is I like about a particular piece of writing and making connections between it and other pieces of great writing, but I don't feel a particular drive to become a writer producing the type of journalism I love.
Rather, it's the idea of effective communication that I find cool, and to do that for work wouldn't require me to become a journalist, but could well be simply someone helping craft compelling business messages. To this point, one of my more memorable (at least to myself) posts I've done with the label of "work" was titled "The Ethereal Nature of Stock Valuation & Much Corporate Work Activity," with the conclusion to that post noted below...
Me thinks there's also way too much etherealness (yep, it's a word) in the corporate work done at many of the public companies out there. Just as stock valuation can be a matter of (often wrong) perception, corporations can too frequently have their best employees identified on the basis of not terribly important indicators like "being busy." I touched on this phenomenon in the Sept 2010 post "Urgent vs Important Work," but so frequently time gets spent on things that don't really move the success or failure dial much (and this is even using the public company success/failure dial of income/profit).
It's not to say all corporations are filled entirely by employees doing busy work 100% of the time as some corporations (and employees) are going to be much more productive around things of import than others, but it is an interesting morass to try to avoid, both as a corporation and it's employees. Corporate level success or failure at this busy work avoidance isn't going to change the stock increase chasing game, but is probably going to result in the companies that have employees focused on important rather than ethereal/urgent work performing better overall. Not a paradigm breaking statement to be sure, but important nonetheless.
To sum it all up, or as much as I can in this missive, I love great writing that tells an effective story, always will and hope that my boys are going to as well and while business communication may not necessarily carry as much heft as other types of communication, there is a need for people who can both craft and manage it's production effectively and doing this can very much tie into my overall love of great writing.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Ruminations on creativity - by Sendak, Oswalt & others
A few different things I've seen recently that stood out to me around the creative process (which certainly includes, but is not limited to the writing process) included a post Patton Oswalt made to his website, an interview website I've come across recently and a Maurice Sendak video interview from 2011.
In addition to being a well know comedian and having a supporting role last season on probably my favorite TV show, Oswalt is an excellent writer and a few days ago posted "A closed letter to myself about thievery, heckling and rape jokes" to his website. It's pretty lengthy and contains I thought some very cool thoughts with one portion that stood out being how he's ok with turning off or upsetting some people... "As carefully as I've curated and cultivated my career, I’m now doing the same with my audience. Universality was never my goal as a comedian. Longevity and creativity are."
The interview website that I found recently is The Creators Call and it's a weekly podcast put together by Anthony Palmer, a Georgetown Law student, and Pete Barrett, a Gettysburg College student (who recently had posted to MLB.com a story he wrote on Cardinals closer Edward Mujica).
There's thus far been posted to The Creators Call audio from five different interviews with creative types. The lineup so far has been excellent (each person I've previously linked to content from has their name hyperlinked) with people featured to date being Chris Brogan, Jeff Pearlman, Glenn Stout, Jeffrey Toobin and Matthew Cerrone.
The Sendak interview was conducted a year before his death last May and included I thought some really profound and worthwhile thoughts from the acclaimed writer of Where the Wild Things Are...
"The question is why bother? and I don't mean why bother to die. Why bother to get bored?"
"It's sublime, To just go into another room and just make pictures. It's magic time. Where all your weaknesses of character and all the blemishes of personality, and whatever else torments you, fades away. Just doesn't matter. You're doing the one thing you want to do and you know you do it well. And you're happy. The whole promise is to do the work, sitting down at the drawing table, turning on the radio. And I think what a transcendent life this is that I'm doing everything I want to do. And that moment I feel like I'm a lucky man.
I'm trying very hard to concentrate on what is here, what I can see, what I can smell, what I can feel. making that the important business of life. Just looking out the window, the colors I see, reading Charles Dickens at night for an hour, little rituals I have, listening to Mozart. Learning how not to take myself so seriously.What I'm working on, what I'd like to work on, it's not earth-shakingly important. I'm not earth-shakingly important. I'm just clearing the decks for a simple death. You're done with your work, you're done with your life and your life was your work.
I think what I offered was different, but not because I drew better than anybody or wrote better than anybody, but because I was more honest than anybody. And in a discussion of children and the lives of children and the fantasies of children, and the language of children, I said anything I wanted. Because I don't believe in children, I don't believe in childhood. I don't believe there's a demarcation with 'you mustn't tell them that, or you mustn't tell them that. You can tell them anything you want. Just tell them if it's true, if it's true, you tell them. I have adult thoughts in my head, experiences, but I'm never going to talk about them. I'm never going to write about them. Why is my needle stuck in childhood? I don't know. I don't know. I guess that's where my heart is."
In addition to being a well know comedian and having a supporting role last season on probably my favorite TV show, Oswalt is an excellent writer and a few days ago posted "A closed letter to myself about thievery, heckling and rape jokes" to his website. It's pretty lengthy and contains I thought some very cool thoughts with one portion that stood out being how he's ok with turning off or upsetting some people... "As carefully as I've curated and cultivated my career, I’m now doing the same with my audience. Universality was never my goal as a comedian. Longevity and creativity are."
The interview website that I found recently is The Creators Call and it's a weekly podcast put together by Anthony Palmer, a Georgetown Law student, and Pete Barrett, a Gettysburg College student (who recently had posted to MLB.com a story he wrote on Cardinals closer Edward Mujica).
There's thus far been posted to The Creators Call audio from five different interviews with creative types. The lineup so far has been excellent (each person I've previously linked to content from has their name hyperlinked) with people featured to date being Chris Brogan, Jeff Pearlman, Glenn Stout, Jeffrey Toobin and Matthew Cerrone.
The Sendak interview was conducted a year before his death last May and included I thought some really profound and worthwhile thoughts from the acclaimed writer of Where the Wild Things Are...
"The question is why bother? and I don't mean why bother to die. Why bother to get bored?"
"It's sublime, To just go into another room and just make pictures. It's magic time. Where all your weaknesses of character and all the blemishes of personality, and whatever else torments you, fades away. Just doesn't matter. You're doing the one thing you want to do and you know you do it well. And you're happy. The whole promise is to do the work, sitting down at the drawing table, turning on the radio. And I think what a transcendent life this is that I'm doing everything I want to do. And that moment I feel like I'm a lucky man.
I'm trying very hard to concentrate on what is here, what I can see, what I can smell, what I can feel. making that the important business of life. Just looking out the window, the colors I see, reading Charles Dickens at night for an hour, little rituals I have, listening to Mozart. Learning how not to take myself so seriously.What I'm working on, what I'd like to work on, it's not earth-shakingly important. I'm not earth-shakingly important. I'm just clearing the decks for a simple death. You're done with your work, you're done with your life and your life was your work.
I think what I offered was different, but not because I drew better than anybody or wrote better than anybody, but because I was more honest than anybody. And in a discussion of children and the lives of children and the fantasies of children, and the language of children, I said anything I wanted. Because I don't believe in children, I don't believe in childhood. I don't believe there's a demarcation with 'you mustn't tell them that, or you mustn't tell them that. You can tell them anything you want. Just tell them if it's true, if it's true, you tell them. I have adult thoughts in my head, experiences, but I'm never going to talk about them. I'm never going to write about them. Why is my needle stuck in childhood? I don't know. I don't know. I guess that's where my heart is."
Friday, May 18, 2012
The Ethereal Nature of Stock Valuation & Much Corporate Work Activity
Lately I've been ruminating a bit on the concepts of corporate work and stock valuation... specifically how each can too easily become described as ethereal (definition: adj. Characterized by lightness and insubstantiality; intangible).
Ethereal seems to describe stock valuation in that it feels such a squishy science (i.e. opposite of science). Stock valuation doesn't necessarily say a company is doing well or poorly, but rather predict whether the share price will go up or down from a given point. This may mean the company is well run, with solid employees and a great product, or... it may not. On the may not side of the equation is simply the up or down guess of investors (which, as the random walk hypothesis would have it, is often wrong).
Related to this idea of stock valuation seeming to be an overly arbitrary concept is the notion of necessary growth. From a financial performance perspective, there's income and profits for a given quarter or year (both important things), but tacked on to financial analysis driving stock buy or sell recommendations/decisions is growth. If a company made a bunch of profit on a bunch of income in a given quarter or year, that's nice and all, but how much growth over their profit or income from the last quarter or year?? You know, if not a big enough increase, then... Sell, Sell, Sell.
It's an interesting phenomenon, but seems to be the methodology chosen to run our largest (i.e. publicly traded) businesses. I wrote about this in a June 2010 blog post "A Loss of Control: Running (or Hoping to Run) a Public Company", but corporate executives are mandated by law to drive towards stock price increases... and it's just interesting that the speculation driving these sought after increases often driven heavily by quarter over quarter financial improvements or declines, even if a decline in quarter over quarter performance is within a larger context of solid financials.
In terms of this whole discussion and current events, Facebook today went from a platform used by some 901 million users as of March 2012 to a publicly traded company valued at at over $100B. Sounds a huge success as a company, but since the stock was priced to open at $38/share and closed the first trading day at #38.23/share, you get stories like the Associated Press report "Facebook falls flat in public debut." It's fascinating... the company was working on the same things at the end of the day as the beginning and I'm sure performed as a company (not a stock) much the same as on the prior day, but investors believing the shares were priced just about accurately at open means the company "fell flat." Yep, seems pretty darn ethereal as defined above.
-----
To step back for a minute from the specific subject of stock valuation, me thinks there's also way too much etherealness (yep, it's a word) in the corporate work done at many of the public companies out there. Just as stock valuation can be a matter of (often wrong) perception, corporations can too frequently have their best employees identified on the basis of not terribly important indicators like "being busy." I touched on this phenomenon in the Sept 2010 post "Urgent vs Important Work", but so frequently time gets spent on things that don't really move the success or failure dial much (and this is even using the public company success/failure dial of income/profit).
It's not to say all corporations are filled entirely by employees doing busy work 100% of the time as some corporations (and employees) are going to be much more productive around things of import than others, but it is an interesting morass to try to avoid, both as a corporation and it's employees.
Corporate level success or failure at this busy work avoidance isn't going to change the stock increase chasing game, but is probably going to result in the companies that have employees focused on important rather than ethereal/urgent work performing better overall. Not a paradigm breaking statement to be sure, but important nonetheless.
Ethereal seems to describe stock valuation in that it feels such a squishy science (i.e. opposite of science). Stock valuation doesn't necessarily say a company is doing well or poorly, but rather predict whether the share price will go up or down from a given point. This may mean the company is well run, with solid employees and a great product, or... it may not. On the may not side of the equation is simply the up or down guess of investors (which, as the random walk hypothesis would have it, is often wrong).
Related to this idea of stock valuation seeming to be an overly arbitrary concept is the notion of necessary growth. From a financial performance perspective, there's income and profits for a given quarter or year (both important things), but tacked on to financial analysis driving stock buy or sell recommendations/decisions is growth. If a company made a bunch of profit on a bunch of income in a given quarter or year, that's nice and all, but how much growth over their profit or income from the last quarter or year?? You know, if not a big enough increase, then... Sell, Sell, Sell.
It's an interesting phenomenon, but seems to be the methodology chosen to run our largest (i.e. publicly traded) businesses. I wrote about this in a June 2010 blog post "A Loss of Control: Running (or Hoping to Run) a Public Company", but corporate executives are mandated by law to drive towards stock price increases... and it's just interesting that the speculation driving these sought after increases often driven heavily by quarter over quarter financial improvements or declines, even if a decline in quarter over quarter performance is within a larger context of solid financials.
In terms of this whole discussion and current events, Facebook today went from a platform used by some 901 million users as of March 2012 to a publicly traded company valued at at over $100B. Sounds a huge success as a company, but since the stock was priced to open at $38/share and closed the first trading day at #38.23/share, you get stories like the Associated Press report "Facebook falls flat in public debut." It's fascinating... the company was working on the same things at the end of the day as the beginning and I'm sure performed as a company (not a stock) much the same as on the prior day, but investors believing the shares were priced just about accurately at open means the company "fell flat." Yep, seems pretty darn ethereal as defined above.
-----
To step back for a minute from the specific subject of stock valuation, me thinks there's also way too much etherealness (yep, it's a word) in the corporate work done at many of the public companies out there. Just as stock valuation can be a matter of (often wrong) perception, corporations can too frequently have their best employees identified on the basis of not terribly important indicators like "being busy." I touched on this phenomenon in the Sept 2010 post "Urgent vs Important Work", but so frequently time gets spent on things that don't really move the success or failure dial much (and this is even using the public company success/failure dial of income/profit).
It's not to say all corporations are filled entirely by employees doing busy work 100% of the time as some corporations (and employees) are going to be much more productive around things of import than others, but it is an interesting morass to try to avoid, both as a corporation and it's employees.
Corporate level success or failure at this busy work avoidance isn't going to change the stock increase chasing game, but is probably going to result in the companies that have employees focused on important rather than ethereal/urgent work performing better overall. Not a paradigm breaking statement to be sure, but important nonetheless.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Career change pieces: on writers James Erwin & Kevin Van Valkenburg / football coach Joe Moglia
I've come across a number of pieces over the last few weeks with each interesting and all involving career changes.
Longest of the pieces was "How One Response to a Reddit Query Became a Big-Budget Flick" for Wired by Jason Fagone. I first heard of Fagone from an excellent Esquire profile on iconoclastic video-game programmer Jason Rohrer and he tells in the Wired piece quite a career change tale. Reddit is website community where people can link to or post original content they find interesting and Fagone details how Reddit resulted in Des Moines, IA based James Erwin going from being a technical writer to signed by Warner Brothers studio screenwriter.
It's a somewhat amazing path, but which actually makes sense after reading some of Erwin's content reprinted in the Wired piece. The trigger for his writing came from a Reddit discussion thread about modern day armed forces battling in ancient Rome to which Erwin posted fictional vignettes about a US Marine Expeditionary Unit dropped into that setting. It was compelling writing which then (a) acquired a subreddit heading of RomeSweetRome, (b) was found by a Hollywood talent agent and (c) led to the Warner Brothers deal to write a full screenplay and Erwin's leave of absence from his technical writing gig. It was a well written piece by Fagone that details a very cool tale of a guy who did some extremely creative work.
-----
Related to the same writing career change subject (though, not as large a change as Erwin's), I enjoyed quite a bit the commentary "Kevin Van Valkenburg: A fond farewell to The Sun and its readers." It was written upon Van Valkenburg's leaving (of his own volition) the Baltimore Sun to write for ESPN and has some profound content on writing, working and taking chances.
-----
Finally, it doesn't have the same writing career element, but another piece of note lately very much had the same career change theme... and follows up on a story seen previously. In September 2010, I did the (long-titled) post "Ex-CEO as Nebraska Volunteer Coach / Not too Late for Career Changes" that linked to a story on Joe Moglia.
I hadn't heard anything new on the former Ameritrade executive who wanted to be a college football coach until seeing the piece "Former CEO taking over at Coastal Carolina." Written by Reid Forgrave for the site Fox Sports Carolinas, the piece details Moglia's background and move from the Cornhuskers to head of a United Football League team and now... head coach for football at Coastal Carolina University. One could take the cynical view and say that Moglia's money helped him get the gig, but it seems more accurate to say his money helped him have the time to work really hard to reach this career goal. Would certainly have been easy to just be content with what he'd accomplished previously, but it was cool reading about Moglia going after something he wanted to do.
Longest of the pieces was "How One Response to a Reddit Query Became a Big-Budget Flick" for Wired by Jason Fagone. I first heard of Fagone from an excellent Esquire profile on iconoclastic video-game programmer Jason Rohrer and he tells in the Wired piece quite a career change tale. Reddit is website community where people can link to or post original content they find interesting and Fagone details how Reddit resulted in Des Moines, IA based James Erwin going from being a technical writer to signed by Warner Brothers studio screenwriter.
It's a somewhat amazing path, but which actually makes sense after reading some of Erwin's content reprinted in the Wired piece. The trigger for his writing came from a Reddit discussion thread about modern day armed forces battling in ancient Rome to which Erwin posted fictional vignettes about a US Marine Expeditionary Unit dropped into that setting. It was compelling writing which then (a) acquired a subreddit heading of RomeSweetRome, (b) was found by a Hollywood talent agent and (c) led to the Warner Brothers deal to write a full screenplay and Erwin's leave of absence from his technical writing gig. It was a well written piece by Fagone that details a very cool tale of a guy who did some extremely creative work.
-----
Related to the same writing career change subject (though, not as large a change as Erwin's), I enjoyed quite a bit the commentary "Kevin Van Valkenburg: A fond farewell to The Sun and its readers." It was written upon Van Valkenburg's leaving (of his own volition) the Baltimore Sun to write for ESPN and has some profound content on writing, working and taking chances.
-----
Finally, it doesn't have the same writing career element, but another piece of note lately very much had the same career change theme... and follows up on a story seen previously. In September 2010, I did the (long-titled) post "Ex-CEO as Nebraska Volunteer Coach / Not too Late for Career Changes" that linked to a story on Joe Moglia.
I hadn't heard anything new on the former Ameritrade executive who wanted to be a college football coach until seeing the piece "Former CEO taking over at Coastal Carolina." Written by Reid Forgrave for the site Fox Sports Carolinas, the piece details Moglia's background and move from the Cornhuskers to head of a United Football League team and now... head coach for football at Coastal Carolina University. One could take the cynical view and say that Moglia's money helped him get the gig, but it seems more accurate to say his money helped him have the time to work really hard to reach this career goal. Would certainly have been easy to just be content with what he'd accomplished previously, but it was cool reading about Moglia going after something he wanted to do.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Working... & Writing on Michael Lewis Working
Having previously done a number of posts on work (the most involved probably being Working on the Railroad... with help from Robert Fulghum & Patrick Swayze), it seemed high time to revisit the subject... and link to a guy doing work very very well right now.
A couple of concepts around work have been floating in my head lately... that of everything counts and taking a path.
Everything counts as a perspective is something to employ (pardon the pun) when looking at where we want to go or want we want to be doing career-wise. It can oft be a daunting task looking at something new, but the past shouldn't be discounted when looking to the future. Past experiences (whether those be education, past jobs held or roles within those jobs) can very well provide the linkages to the go-forward ideal.
The old jobs held may not related to the future jobs sought, but the connections and relationships from those prior roles could well provide that entree to what is desired... just gotta be proactive about looking. At the same time, skills from the past may not necessarily be the skills that a desired job would employ, but perhaps the skills learned could either get a foot in the door of something new, or even be used in the finding of thing new.
-----
Taking a path in relation to careers and job changes is the principle of just doing something. In cases of uncertainty as to how to reach an end goal (or even knowledge of of what that goal may actually be), it's best to just... do something and be going forward. One may not know whether it's the right path or not, but if the current state isn't an ideal one, it's best to be moving... and maybe the ideal will reveal itself eventually.
So... if you want to do something not done previously, think of what you have done and how that can help and then just start doing something new. Maybe it will work out, maybe it won't, but the movement probably won't hurt.
-----
Granted, all of this can seem a bit fluffy and hypothetical, but it should be noted that with talent, work, utilization of past efforts and action-taking, work efforts can come up roses.
To that point in the writer world, there's the subject of It’s Good to Be Michael Lewis. Pretty fascinating on the author by Jessica Pressler for New York Magazine. It's a solid piece and Lewis an excellent writer deserving of success... and he's certainly knee-deep in success right now.
A couple of concepts around work have been floating in my head lately... that of everything counts and taking a path.
Everything counts as a perspective is something to employ (pardon the pun) when looking at where we want to go or want we want to be doing career-wise. It can oft be a daunting task looking at something new, but the past shouldn't be discounted when looking to the future. Past experiences (whether those be education, past jobs held or roles within those jobs) can very well provide the linkages to the go-forward ideal.
The old jobs held may not related to the future jobs sought, but the connections and relationships from those prior roles could well provide that entree to what is desired... just gotta be proactive about looking. At the same time, skills from the past may not necessarily be the skills that a desired job would employ, but perhaps the skills learned could either get a foot in the door of something new, or even be used in the finding of thing new.
-----
Taking a path in relation to careers and job changes is the principle of just doing something. In cases of uncertainty as to how to reach an end goal (or even knowledge of of what that goal may actually be), it's best to just... do something and be going forward. One may not know whether it's the right path or not, but if the current state isn't an ideal one, it's best to be moving... and maybe the ideal will reveal itself eventually.
So... if you want to do something not done previously, think of what you have done and how that can help and then just start doing something new. Maybe it will work out, maybe it won't, but the movement probably won't hurt.
-----
Granted, all of this can seem a bit fluffy and hypothetical, but it should be noted that with talent, work, utilization of past efforts and action-taking, work efforts can come up roses.
To that point in the writer world, there's the subject of It’s Good to Be Michael Lewis. Pretty fascinating on the author by Jessica Pressler for New York Magazine. It's a solid piece and Lewis an excellent writer deserving of success... and he's certainly knee-deep in success right now.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Inc. Magazine Speaker Event
Recently attended a speaker panel put on by Inc. Magazine here in San Jose and found it to be pretty thought provoking. The event was titled "Helping Businesses Grow Healthy" and put on by Inc. in conjunction with United Healthcare.
Information on the event from the Inc. website:
"Building a healthy workplace is a tough job. Leaders that promote and support wellness in the work environment reap the benefits of loyal employees and gain a competitive advantage. Hear from a panel of entrepreneurs that are implementing new workplace initiatives and have been recognized for their winning culture. Even if you aren't in a position to execute ideas at once, you'll learn about the small steps that make a difference for your employees and for the health of your company."
Moderator Kyra Cavanaugh, President and Founder of LifeMeetsWork
Panelists:
Tania Binder, Senior VP of Global Sales of TRX
Chris Mittelstaedt, Founder and CEO of The FruitGuys
Eric Ryan, Chief Brand Architect & Co-founder of Method; Co-author of The Method Method: Seven Obsessions That Helped Our Scrappy Start-up Turn an Industry Upside Down
My thoughts on the event:
1. The invite was very much appreciated and while I don't imagine running these events is a profit center for Inc., having them is probably very much in line with the message and value-add of the magazine.
2. It of course relates to the "Healthy Workplace" theme, but there seemed to be such an emphasis by the panel speakers on employee culture. This manifested itself in things from the the hiring process (was interesting to hear of the difficulty in hiring good people) to how employees are treated. Ranging from things like encouraging healthy living to asking workers what matters to them, this concept of employee treatment was a big deal to the panelists. Pay value of that to the company would be to both keep attrition low and have employees be more productive and better ambassadors for the business if they feel treated well and buy in to the company mission.
3. I found myself wondering how much harder it must be for leadership of a public company to have this same focus on employee culture. The long term benefit of a positive work experience is of course there for both public and private companies, but a publicly traded business is more beholden to shareholders and short term results. That whole mandate for officers of a public company to increase shareholder value... it can be a nebulous charter.
4. Was very impressed by the panelists from the perspective they each had an idea that they made into something. Eric Ryan from Method probably has achieved the most success so far, but all had interesting stories to tell.
My take away from their accomplishments was whether it be for a product, a company or a person in the workforce… an offering or value add can be a powerful thing and shouldn't be discounted. If someone has said offering, the goal then should be to find a place for that thing rather than simply trying to sledgehammer a product, service or candidacy as an employee into an existing slot that may not jibe with or appreciate it fully.
True, this may or may not be what the panelists were really trying to communicate (and it's presumed wisdom that trends towards the squishy), but anyone having taken the time to attend the event should take from it what makes sense to them.
Back to the statement made at the beginning of this post... thought-provoking stuff that I'm glad Inc. put together and extended the invitation for.
Information on the event from the Inc. website:
"Building a healthy workplace is a tough job. Leaders that promote and support wellness in the work environment reap the benefits of loyal employees and gain a competitive advantage. Hear from a panel of entrepreneurs that are implementing new workplace initiatives and have been recognized for their winning culture. Even if you aren't in a position to execute ideas at once, you'll learn about the small steps that make a difference for your employees and for the health of your company."
Moderator Kyra Cavanaugh, President and Founder of LifeMeetsWork
Panelists:
Tania Binder, Senior VP of Global Sales of TRX
Chris Mittelstaedt, Founder and CEO of The FruitGuys
Eric Ryan, Chief Brand Architect & Co-founder of Method; Co-author of The Method Method: Seven Obsessions That Helped Our Scrappy Start-up Turn an Industry Upside Down
My thoughts on the event:
1. The invite was very much appreciated and while I don't imagine running these events is a profit center for Inc., having them is probably very much in line with the message and value-add of the magazine.
2. It of course relates to the "Healthy Workplace" theme, but there seemed to be such an emphasis by the panel speakers on employee culture. This manifested itself in things from the the hiring process (was interesting to hear of the difficulty in hiring good people) to how employees are treated. Ranging from things like encouraging healthy living to asking workers what matters to them, this concept of employee treatment was a big deal to the panelists. Pay value of that to the company would be to both keep attrition low and have employees be more productive and better ambassadors for the business if they feel treated well and buy in to the company mission.
3. I found myself wondering how much harder it must be for leadership of a public company to have this same focus on employee culture. The long term benefit of a positive work experience is of course there for both public and private companies, but a publicly traded business is more beholden to shareholders and short term results. That whole mandate for officers of a public company to increase shareholder value... it can be a nebulous charter.
4. Was very impressed by the panelists from the perspective they each had an idea that they made into something. Eric Ryan from Method probably has achieved the most success so far, but all had interesting stories to tell.
My take away from their accomplishments was whether it be for a product, a company or a person in the workforce… an offering or value add can be a powerful thing and shouldn't be discounted. If someone has said offering, the goal then should be to find a place for that thing rather than simply trying to sledgehammer a product, service or candidacy as an employee into an existing slot that may not jibe with or appreciate it fully.
True, this may or may not be what the panelists were really trying to communicate (and it's presumed wisdom that trends towards the squishy), but anyone having taken the time to attend the event should take from it what makes sense to them.
Back to the statement made at the beginning of this post... thought-provoking stuff that I'm glad Inc. put together and extended the invitation for.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Laura Dodd Book Signing - "Dig This Gig"
Closely related to the last post of Working Towards Something - a Career in Writing... I recently went to the local Barnes & Noble for a book signing with Laura Dodd, author of Dig This Gig: Find Your Dream Job - or Invent It.
Dodd's background is in television production and sometime between that work and now (she's 29) she combined together an interest in writing with idea for this book. I don't know the chronology of how it all happened, but she had a book proposal (for the aforementioned Dig This Gig accepted around the same time she got into Journalism School at Columbia.
Dodd spoke of the book as containing a number of stories of people in their 20s figuring out what they want to do and then creating that work for themselves.
One thing utterly fascinating was her mention of self-financing the book tour... and living on the cheap as she tries to get as many copies sold as possible. This provided huge credence for Dodd and her book as it shows the work she's continuing to do even though she's... you know, a published author.
To this point, I liked her mention of viewing the large number of books out there as inspiration while writing and now consternation after publishing. Gotta respect someone both doing what they want to do and putting in the work to make successful.
This dedication on Dodd's part also made me actually buy a copy to support her rather than just getting it from the library as I do most books. Looking forward to reading it...
Dodd's background is in television production and sometime between that work and now (she's 29) she combined together an interest in writing with idea for this book. I don't know the chronology of how it all happened, but she had a book proposal (for the aforementioned Dig This Gig accepted around the same time she got into Journalism School at Columbia.
Dodd spoke of the book as containing a number of stories of people in their 20s figuring out what they want to do and then creating that work for themselves.
One thing utterly fascinating was her mention of self-financing the book tour... and living on the cheap as she tries to get as many copies sold as possible. This provided huge credence for Dodd and her book as it shows the work she's continuing to do even though she's... you know, a published author.
To this point, I liked her mention of viewing the large number of books out there as inspiration while writing and now consternation after publishing. Gotta respect someone both doing what they want to do and putting in the work to make successful.
This dedication on Dodd's part also made me actually buy a copy to support her rather than just getting it from the library as I do most books. Looking forward to reading it...
Working Towards Something - a Career in Writing
After a few days ago doing the post Wanting to Do Something Not Being Done - Writing as a Career, it seems appropriate to also give space and words to a (hopefully) closely associated topic... working towards something, specifically a career in writing.
-----
In my case, the path began with the long ago high school level interest in writing that carried through to an undergraduate degree in English and enjoyment of crafting papers. It wasn't fiction writing that floated the proverbial boat, but rather doing really solid analysis type writing on a book or topic.
After this formative years education the process of real life began with work in Sales and then a graduate degree in Business (Sports Marketing Business, but really... Business). From that it's been off to said land of Business with more Sales and then Program Management / Customer Coddling work (with a brief interlude on the Sponsorship Marketing side of Business).
Throughout these years, there's always been at least a flicker of interest remaining in words and their arranging on a page... and that's where this blog began in earnest some three years ago. What I've found through the process of writing it is both that I really enjoy writing, and that I enjoy the same analytical type of non-fiction writing that I did as an undergrad.
-----
With this interest in writing and producing non-fiction work established, it then becomes a question of what careers could be done and how to work towards those. I've got significant time invested in this whole Business track thing and maybe it's a delusional view on my part, but really do think there's a need for compelling narrative writing in Business (and I do find many areas of business interesting enough to write about).
The trick becomes the figuring out exactly what type of business writing to go after and how to be successful at that.
In terms of the going after and getting part, education and work background should count for something and the blog (you know, this one) is intended as a portfolio of writing work (in addition to just the fact that I enjoy writing it). Belief is that it should be easier to transition to new role within current company (rather than having to sell ability to new company to do new role). While that belief hasn't yet manifested itself as true, it still could have legs... we'll see.
Also, some other things considered around type of writing that could be done and how to pursue it...
- Don't really envision going to Journalism School (and see what's going in in the field), but interested in the idea of Entrepreneurial Journalism and new business models around writing.
- Considering various non degree path courses like a Creative Nonfiction workshop through UC Berkeley.
- Have reached out through my contacts to people who do career coaching... some with experience in writing.
- Think sometimes about my educational background in Sports Marketing and what writing that could be done in that area of Business.
- Find myself wondering about editing as a field.
- Hear from internal company contacts about Executive Communication as an area of Business Writing... taking on someone's voice in messaging.
-----
Lots of things to consider, lots of options, lots of work. Just a matter, though, of continuing to head towards the believed goal... and trying to stay entertained in the process.
-----
In my case, the path began with the long ago high school level interest in writing that carried through to an undergraduate degree in English and enjoyment of crafting papers. It wasn't fiction writing that floated the proverbial boat, but rather doing really solid analysis type writing on a book or topic.
After this formative years education the process of real life began with work in Sales and then a graduate degree in Business (Sports Marketing Business, but really... Business). From that it's been off to said land of Business with more Sales and then Program Management / Customer Coddling work (with a brief interlude on the Sponsorship Marketing side of Business).
Throughout these years, there's always been at least a flicker of interest remaining in words and their arranging on a page... and that's where this blog began in earnest some three years ago. What I've found through the process of writing it is both that I really enjoy writing, and that I enjoy the same analytical type of non-fiction writing that I did as an undergrad.
-----
With this interest in writing and producing non-fiction work established, it then becomes a question of what careers could be done and how to work towards those. I've got significant time invested in this whole Business track thing and maybe it's a delusional view on my part, but really do think there's a need for compelling narrative writing in Business (and I do find many areas of business interesting enough to write about).
The trick becomes the figuring out exactly what type of business writing to go after and how to be successful at that.
In terms of the going after and getting part, education and work background should count for something and the blog (you know, this one) is intended as a portfolio of writing work (in addition to just the fact that I enjoy writing it). Belief is that it should be easier to transition to new role within current company (rather than having to sell ability to new company to do new role). While that belief hasn't yet manifested itself as true, it still could have legs... we'll see.
Also, some other things considered around type of writing that could be done and how to pursue it...
- Don't really envision going to Journalism School (and see what's going in in the field), but interested in the idea of Entrepreneurial Journalism and new business models around writing.
- Considering various non degree path courses like a Creative Nonfiction workshop through UC Berkeley.
- Have reached out through my contacts to people who do career coaching... some with experience in writing.
- Think sometimes about my educational background in Sports Marketing and what writing that could be done in that area of Business.
- Find myself wondering about editing as a field.
- Hear from internal company contacts about Executive Communication as an area of Business Writing... taking on someone's voice in messaging.
-----
Lots of things to consider, lots of options, lots of work. Just a matter, though, of continuing to head towards the believed goal... and trying to stay entertained in the process.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Wanting to Do Something Not Being Done - Writing as a Career
The large majority of what's on this blog is around the work and words of others... which makes sense given that my love of writing is a dual notion around both the act of writing and appreciation of great work come across.
To this point, the blog tag "writing" has been utilized on posts around the process of writing, whether that process be my own ruminations or the concept of writing as written on by others. The majority of posts with said tag link to and are about thoughts other than my own, but I do like to throw in personal ramblings occasionally.
-----
On this whole personal ramblings subject, an idea that's been kicking around in the head lately is around the concept of wanting to do something not being done. In my case it's wanting to work in writing and not doing it yet, but (to probably use the phrase wrong, but still in a pithy way) everybody has their own private Idaho.
While I may not be a working (i.e. paid) writer or even working in writing (yet), two things that give solace are (1) the idea of working towards something and (2) association.
The manifestation of my concept around working towards something isn't always easy, but is obvious. I want to work in writing... so I write.
It's enjoyable writing this blog and provides a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction when I write something with meaning (and link to something with gravitas), but there's also a portfolio being built brick by brick (totally different than Step by Step by NKOTB). Eventually and somehow the opportunity to transition to doing my aforementioned thing not being done will present itself, and the portfolio of work will be there... and by there I mean, here.
In terms of association, I find tremendous value in reading great writing, but also in reading others who enjoy great writing. The best example of this comes out of the Son of a Bold Venture blog (which I try, perhaps unsuccessfully, to not mention too much) by Esquire writer Chris Jones. There's great content from Jones around the writing process, but also some pretty fascinating comments made by others.
Tagged onto the post LAST CALL AT ELAINE'S, ft. KEVIN VAN VALKENBURG was a comment from a reader, Scott Warden. I don't know the guy at all, but from an association perspective, it feels good to read something I feel as well...
From Mr. Warden about the words from Kevin Van Valkenburg...
"This might sound a little too kiss-assy (just pretend that's a word, folks, and move along), but on a smaller scale, the way Kevin felt that night is how I feel when I read this blog. We get to chat up Chris and share the comments section with Scott Raab, Gene Weingarten, Mr. Charlie Pierce, etc. For most of us, it's the closest we're going to come to rubbing elbows with legends. Really, it's as good as it gets for those of us not on an esteemed masthead.
Twelve years ago or so, when I was younger, hungrier, I e-mailed a handful of my favorite writers, wanting to pick their brains. As a huge fan of The Sporting News growing up, I was thrilled when Dave Kindred e-mailed me back. His advice was great, but the thrill was more "Holy shit, Dave Kindred now knows my name!"
It's the same thrill I get with this place, this bastion of words and truths."
So, I may not be where I want to yet, but gonna take solace in working towards the goal and through that work, already associating with great writing and others of like mind about great writing.
To this point, the blog tag "writing" has been utilized on posts around the process of writing, whether that process be my own ruminations or the concept of writing as written on by others. The majority of posts with said tag link to and are about thoughts other than my own, but I do like to throw in personal ramblings occasionally.
-----
On this whole personal ramblings subject, an idea that's been kicking around in the head lately is around the concept of wanting to do something not being done. In my case it's wanting to work in writing and not doing it yet, but (to probably use the phrase wrong, but still in a pithy way) everybody has their own private Idaho.
While I may not be a working (i.e. paid) writer or even working in writing (yet), two things that give solace are (1) the idea of working towards something and (2) association.
The manifestation of my concept around working towards something isn't always easy, but is obvious. I want to work in writing... so I write.
It's enjoyable writing this blog and provides a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction when I write something with meaning (and link to something with gravitas), but there's also a portfolio being built brick by brick (totally different than Step by Step by NKOTB). Eventually and somehow the opportunity to transition to doing my aforementioned thing not being done will present itself, and the portfolio of work will be there... and by there I mean, here.
In terms of association, I find tremendous value in reading great writing, but also in reading others who enjoy great writing. The best example of this comes out of the Son of a Bold Venture blog (which I try, perhaps unsuccessfully, to not mention too much) by Esquire writer Chris Jones. There's great content from Jones around the writing process, but also some pretty fascinating comments made by others.
Tagged onto the post LAST CALL AT ELAINE'S, ft. KEVIN VAN VALKENBURG was a comment from a reader, Scott Warden. I don't know the guy at all, but from an association perspective, it feels good to read something I feel as well...
From Mr. Warden about the words from Kevin Van Valkenburg...
"This might sound a little too kiss-assy (just pretend that's a word, folks, and move along), but on a smaller scale, the way Kevin felt that night is how I feel when I read this blog. We get to chat up Chris and share the comments section with Scott Raab, Gene Weingarten, Mr. Charlie Pierce, etc. For most of us, it's the closest we're going to come to rubbing elbows with legends. Really, it's as good as it gets for those of us not on an esteemed masthead.
Twelve years ago or so, when I was younger, hungrier, I e-mailed a handful of my favorite writers, wanting to pick their brains. As a huge fan of The Sporting News growing up, I was thrilled when Dave Kindred e-mailed me back. His advice was great, but the thrill was more "Holy shit, Dave Kindred now knows my name!"
It's the same thrill I get with this place, this bastion of words and truths."
So, I may not be where I want to yet, but gonna take solace in working towards the goal and through that work, already associating with great writing and others of like mind about great writing.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Frequent Blog Tags: "Customer Service", "Social Media" & "Work"
On the heels of an earlier this month post on blog tags used, this missive takes a look at a few of the topics frequently tagged... Customer Service, Social Media & Work.
Looking at the first two, after Customer Service (tag search hyperlinked to) is provided either well or poorly, Social Media (tag search also linked) then comes into play. It's a fairly obvious point, but there's just so many avenues for either happy or dissatisfied customers to make their voices heard.
Work as a third tag topic is referenced in different ways on this blog. I write about it as something which can potentially be: fulfilling, important, or (perhaps even better) calling to mind a Patrick Swayze Roadhouse clip.
-----
Back to the first two topics noted, my favorite theory around Customer Service (is it weird to have one?) relates to work... the theory that outstanding Customer Service is provided by employees who feel well treated and like where they work. I've done a few posts with Workplace Culture as a blog tag and feel pretty strongly that there's something to this idea of where one works contributing a great deal to how one works.
I've had enough bad experiences at various Noah's Bagels to suspect that it may not be a great job. Flip side of that is based on the typically outstanding service I've gotten at multiple Jamba Juice locations... I'm guessing it's a good place to be employed. I can't imagine the money is that different for similar jobs at the two chains so me thinks there's something from Corporate causing the difference in employee behavior.
Interesting... Work linked to Customer Service, on the heels of Customer Service linked to Social Media. Now, we just need to have employees blogging, tweeting and doing Facebook posts on their jobs.
Oh, yeah... that already happens.
Looking at the first two, after Customer Service (tag search hyperlinked to) is provided either well or poorly, Social Media (tag search also linked) then comes into play. It's a fairly obvious point, but there's just so many avenues for either happy or dissatisfied customers to make their voices heard.
Work as a third tag topic is referenced in different ways on this blog. I write about it as something which can potentially be: fulfilling, important, or (perhaps even better) calling to mind a Patrick Swayze Roadhouse clip.
-----
Back to the first two topics noted, my favorite theory around Customer Service (is it weird to have one?) relates to work... the theory that outstanding Customer Service is provided by employees who feel well treated and like where they work. I've done a few posts with Workplace Culture as a blog tag and feel pretty strongly that there's something to this idea of where one works contributing a great deal to how one works.
I've had enough bad experiences at various Noah's Bagels to suspect that it may not be a great job. Flip side of that is based on the typically outstanding service I've gotten at multiple Jamba Juice locations... I'm guessing it's a good place to be employed. I can't imagine the money is that different for similar jobs at the two chains so me thinks there's something from Corporate causing the difference in employee behavior.
Interesting... Work linked to Customer Service, on the heels of Customer Service linked to Social Media. Now, we just need to have employees blogging, tweeting and doing Facebook posts on their jobs.
Oh, yeah... that already happens.
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Working on the Railroad... with help from Robert Fulghum & Patrick Swayze
I've done quite a few posts on work (recently there was this Oct 2010 post on the subject... which then linked to additional posts) and lately have been thinking about the subject both in terms of the goal for and approach towards it.
From a goal of work perspective, there's multiple answers... with one being first and foremost. Work gets people money, people use money to buy things that help them both enjoy aspects of life (entertainment spend) and stay alive (food and shelter). Particularly when one's got a family does this basic notion of work towards the goal of money take precedence.
Beyond this "goal 1A of work being to make money", there's also the idea of work towards the end of building something. This could be by someone who started their own company or by someone working as part of something they're invested in and trying to help grow. Either way, there's huge value in this idea of ownership in the place and a point to the efforts on behalf of that place.
There's of course nothing at all wrong with work being done for the first goal of making money. Really, this probably describes the majority of the working population and is necessary for society to function. That said, the second idea of work as building towards something more ideal, just not always attainable.
One sector of work that me thinks should fall into this second category of work being done for the purpose of building something, but oft times falls back into just a work for a paycheck category is corporate work. To this end (and going back to the intro of this post), I've been thinking lately about what happens to someone in a corporate environment who doesn't particularly see their efforts building to anything...
-----
Approaches could be to either just do the bare minimum (or less in the case of people hoping to prove themselves just replaceable enough to get offered severance packages to leave) or to take a different tact and follow the principles brought to us (in decidedly different forms) by both Robert Fulghum and Patrick Swayze.
Fulghum's principles pertaining to this topic came from the bestselling compilation of aphorisms "All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten". There's many more than this in the book itself, but here's a sampling (taken from this website)...
- Share everything.
- Play fair.
- Don't hit people.
- Put things back where you found them.
- Clean up your own mess.
- Don't take things that aren't yours.
- Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
- Wash your hands before you eat.
- Flush.
- Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
- Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
- Take a nap every afternoon.
- When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together.
- Be aware of wonder.
- Remember the little seed in the styrofoam cup: The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
- Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we.
- And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned - the biggest word of all - LOOK.
-----
Additioally, Patrick Swayze provided us wisdom around work from the movie Road House...
-----
So... Fulghum said some profound things, Swayze said some profound things (well... sure, why not?), but do they tie back to the world of corporate work (or even the non-corporate kind) as discussed in this post?
Heck, yea. I've been thinking lately that even in a setting where someone might not feel their efforts are building anything, there's still a lot to be said for just doing what you feel is the right thing with work.
At different times that may mean doing right by customers, by your own company or by your co-workers. In short... you do what you think should be done and treat people well (to put a fine and oft necessary in the corporate world) point on this, by not throwing them under the bus).
Do that and though a job may be more of a job for money than a building opportunity, it's still something to feel good about.
From a goal of work perspective, there's multiple answers... with one being first and foremost. Work gets people money, people use money to buy things that help them both enjoy aspects of life (entertainment spend) and stay alive (food and shelter). Particularly when one's got a family does this basic notion of work towards the goal of money take precedence.
Beyond this "goal 1A of work being to make money", there's also the idea of work towards the end of building something. This could be by someone who started their own company or by someone working as part of something they're invested in and trying to help grow. Either way, there's huge value in this idea of ownership in the place and a point to the efforts on behalf of that place.
There's of course nothing at all wrong with work being done for the first goal of making money. Really, this probably describes the majority of the working population and is necessary for society to function. That said, the second idea of work as building towards something more ideal, just not always attainable.
One sector of work that me thinks should fall into this second category of work being done for the purpose of building something, but oft times falls back into just a work for a paycheck category is corporate work. To this end (and going back to the intro of this post), I've been thinking lately about what happens to someone in a corporate environment who doesn't particularly see their efforts building to anything...
-----
Approaches could be to either just do the bare minimum (or less in the case of people hoping to prove themselves just replaceable enough to get offered severance packages to leave) or to take a different tact and follow the principles brought to us (in decidedly different forms) by both Robert Fulghum and Patrick Swayze.
Fulghum's principles pertaining to this topic came from the bestselling compilation of aphorisms "All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten". There's many more than this in the book itself, but here's a sampling (taken from this website)...
- Share everything.
- Play fair.
- Don't hit people.
- Put things back where you found them.
- Clean up your own mess.
- Don't take things that aren't yours.
- Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
- Wash your hands before you eat.
- Flush.
- Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
- Live a balanced life - learn some and think some and draw and paint and sing and dance and play and work every day some.
- Take a nap every afternoon.
- When you go out into the world, watch out for traffic, hold hands, and stick together.
- Be aware of wonder.
- Remember the little seed in the styrofoam cup: The roots go down and the plant goes up and nobody really knows how or why, but we are all like that.
- Goldfish and hamsters and white mice and even the little seed in the Styrofoam cup - they all die. So do we.
- And then remember the Dick-and-Jane books and the first word you learned - the biggest word of all - LOOK.
-----
Additioally, Patrick Swayze provided us wisdom around work from the movie Road House...
-----
So... Fulghum said some profound things, Swayze said some profound things (well... sure, why not?), but do they tie back to the world of corporate work (or even the non-corporate kind) as discussed in this post?
Heck, yea. I've been thinking lately that even in a setting where someone might not feel their efforts are building anything, there's still a lot to be said for just doing what you feel is the right thing with work.
At different times that may mean doing right by customers, by your own company or by your co-workers. In short... you do what you think should be done and treat people well (to put a fine and oft necessary in the corporate world) point on this, by not throwing them under the bus).
Do that and though a job may be more of a job for money than a building opportunity, it's still something to feel good about.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Doing Work You Care About: Inc. 500 List / TechCrunch / Facebook
Three different things I've come across lately that all lead to me ruminating further on the subject of work... and the goal of efforts put into said work.
Starting off on the topic was Inc. Magazine's annual Inc. 500/5,000 List of the fastest growing private companies in America.
The top 500 are in the magazine itself and then top 5,000 featured online. In reading some of the profiles of the companies and their founders, I really got a sense for how hard the whole thing has been for many of the people (yes, also with exceptions)... and also how many of them just were doing something they really liked and kept at it.
Very tied into this idea of just starting something you have a degree of passion for, "The Way I Work: Michael Arrington of TechCrunch" was featured in the October issue of Inc. The piece describes Arrington as a guy who likes to write, likes to break stories and has actually (perhaps by design, perhaps not) built a pretty large business out of it. This is a conjecture-based statement to be certain, but I got the sense that if TechCrunch hadn't hit it big, Arrington would still be plugging away writing missives about breaking news in tech... because that's something he really likes to do.
The quick, easy and obvious point to draw from all this... try to figure out what you like to do and then do it. If it's something that turns into a viable business, that's great. Heck, maybe it's not even something that would ever turn into an ownership-stake business, but even if you just build a viable career working somewhere you like for others, that's not so bad.
-----
Related to this subject of work and where it can go... went and saw The Social Network the other night.
Good movie, perhaps not as fantastic as I expected (based on reviews I've seen and that it was directed by David Fincher), but I definitely enjoyed it as a piece of entertainment (and it's acknowledged to be a fictionalized story for the purpose of greater entertaining).
Here's how the movie relates to the Inc. content and notion of working at something you care about... Zuckerberg did. He was a genius with a passion for the idea that would become Facebook and now a $25B business. Whether he thought it would get that big or not is almost besides the point that he was really really into what he was working on.
Zuckerberg has gotten rich from the idea and others who were there as early employees have also gotten wealthy, but I'm going to guess (or, perhaps just hope) that early on, they were putting in the long hours because they both liked what they were doing and saw the potential of it growing bigger. The fact that it did grow bigger than probably anyone would have imagined... a happy consequence of the idea and work to be sure, but definitely not one that was guaranteed. The actions towards that by people doing work they were into... that's something that's controllable (a different way of saying guaranteed).
-----
So, tying it all together... do work you care about. If you've got the idea and willingness to fail, try to make a company out of it. If you don't have the idea or aren't in a position to take on the risk of starting a company, still do work you care about.
Seems simple, but that goal can be just as vexing a proposition as starting a company if you're not there yet. Well, I guess this is where the old phrase comes in... if it were easy, everyone'd be doing it.
Starting off on the topic was Inc. Magazine's annual Inc. 500/5,000 List of the fastest growing private companies in America.
The top 500 are in the magazine itself and then top 5,000 featured online. In reading some of the profiles of the companies and their founders, I really got a sense for how hard the whole thing has been for many of the people (yes, also with exceptions)... and also how many of them just were doing something they really liked and kept at it.
Very tied into this idea of just starting something you have a degree of passion for, "The Way I Work: Michael Arrington of TechCrunch" was featured in the October issue of Inc. The piece describes Arrington as a guy who likes to write, likes to break stories and has actually (perhaps by design, perhaps not) built a pretty large business out of it. This is a conjecture-based statement to be certain, but I got the sense that if TechCrunch hadn't hit it big, Arrington would still be plugging away writing missives about breaking news in tech... because that's something he really likes to do.
The quick, easy and obvious point to draw from all this... try to figure out what you like to do and then do it. If it's something that turns into a viable business, that's great. Heck, maybe it's not even something that would ever turn into an ownership-stake business, but even if you just build a viable career working somewhere you like for others, that's not so bad.
-----
Related to this subject of work and where it can go... went and saw The Social Network the other night.
Good movie, perhaps not as fantastic as I expected (based on reviews I've seen and that it was directed by David Fincher), but I definitely enjoyed it as a piece of entertainment (and it's acknowledged to be a fictionalized story for the purpose of greater entertaining).
Here's how the movie relates to the Inc. content and notion of working at something you care about... Zuckerberg did. He was a genius with a passion for the idea that would become Facebook and now a $25B business. Whether he thought it would get that big or not is almost besides the point that he was really really into what he was working on.
Zuckerberg has gotten rich from the idea and others who were there as early employees have also gotten wealthy, but I'm going to guess (or, perhaps just hope) that early on, they were putting in the long hours because they both liked what they were doing and saw the potential of it growing bigger. The fact that it did grow bigger than probably anyone would have imagined... a happy consequence of the idea and work to be sure, but definitely not one that was guaranteed. The actions towards that by people doing work they were into... that's something that's controllable (a different way of saying guaranteed).
-----
So, tying it all together... do work you care about. If you've got the idea and willingness to fail, try to make a company out of it. If you don't have the idea or aren't in a position to take on the risk of starting a company, still do work you care about.
Seems simple, but that goal can be just as vexing a proposition as starting a company if you're not there yet. Well, I guess this is where the old phrase comes in... if it were easy, everyone'd be doing it.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Working & Writing... and Writing About Working
One thing I like to do with this blog is take a look back every now and then at what I've written and pull some of the disparate posts together.
Topic for today's soliloquy is going to be working and writing, and the content written here about both since Sept 1st. Additionally, a piece from back in January bears linking to because... well, because I liked writing it.
Work, it's an odd thing. People engage in it to get the money for the things they want to do (like eat and put clothes on their kids), but in many cases, work can define someone and give their identity. For many, it becomes a struggle to bridge the gap betwixt the identity created by the work they're doing and the identity sought through the work they'd like to do. Actually, to that end, I've at times been jealous of people who have a job and are fine with it. Yes, I'm super duper jealous of someone with a job they love, but it doesn't seem like that bad of a racket to have a job that you work, leave it at the end of the day and merrily not think about either that work or any different (i.e. better) type of work till the next day.
However, burdens to bear are what they are and for those of us who aspire to something different, it's a good idea to think about it and take steps towards said different.
In terms of general musings around work, I posted both Commitment. To Work? and Urgent vs Important Work in the past six weeks. Looking more specifically at the type of work I fancy, Writers Write... And Not Always Well and Ex-CEO as Nebraska Volunteer Coach / Not too Late for Career Changes (title sure sings, doesn't it) appeared on this blog since mid-September.
All this said (and linked to), here's the point... if you want to do something, the best path forward is probably to start doing it. Ergo, if I want to write and want to have a particular type of work (yep, a writing type)... there's not many better ways towards that than writing, including writing about work.
To this end (and yea, I know the phrase was already used above), one piece I particular enjoyed writing about a field of work that's becoming increasingly bigger (with associated import) is Social Media... What a Place to Be!(?) Really had all the elements for me... a topic I find interesting, something I enjoyed writing and something I'm happy with the output.
Not bad... and something to aspire to doing more and more of.
Topic for today's soliloquy is going to be working and writing, and the content written here about both since Sept 1st. Additionally, a piece from back in January bears linking to because... well, because I liked writing it.
Work, it's an odd thing. People engage in it to get the money for the things they want to do (like eat and put clothes on their kids), but in many cases, work can define someone and give their identity. For many, it becomes a struggle to bridge the gap betwixt the identity created by the work they're doing and the identity sought through the work they'd like to do. Actually, to that end, I've at times been jealous of people who have a job and are fine with it. Yes, I'm super duper jealous of someone with a job they love, but it doesn't seem like that bad of a racket to have a job that you work, leave it at the end of the day and merrily not think about either that work or any different (i.e. better) type of work till the next day.
However, burdens to bear are what they are and for those of us who aspire to something different, it's a good idea to think about it and take steps towards said different.
In terms of general musings around work, I posted both Commitment. To Work? and Urgent vs Important Work in the past six weeks. Looking more specifically at the type of work I fancy, Writers Write... And Not Always Well and Ex-CEO as Nebraska Volunteer Coach / Not too Late for Career Changes (title sure sings, doesn't it) appeared on this blog since mid-September.
All this said (and linked to), here's the point... if you want to do something, the best path forward is probably to start doing it. Ergo, if I want to write and want to have a particular type of work (yep, a writing type)... there's not many better ways towards that than writing, including writing about work.
To this end (and yea, I know the phrase was already used above), one piece I particular enjoyed writing about a field of work that's becoming increasingly bigger (with associated import) is Social Media... What a Place to Be!(?) Really had all the elements for me... a topic I find interesting, something I enjoyed writing and something I'm happy with the output.
Not bad... and something to aspire to doing more and more of.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Ex-CEO as Nebraska Volunteer Coach / Not too Late for Career Changes
Very cool story I came across the other day from CNNSI.
Written by Jon Wertheim, "Nebraska's billion-dollar assistant" is all about former Ameritrade (now TD Ameritrade) CEO Joe Moglia and his current volunteer position with the Nebraska Cornhusker football staff.
The story struck me not necessarily for the writing (Wertheim is a solid writer who seems to write on tennis more than any other sport for SI), but the story itself. Moglia is the classic example of a guy who decided to follow his passion... in this case for football and his work seems to have made him an important "consultant to the program" at Nebraska.
Now, you could say that having made himself rich through business has enabled Moglia to pursue his coaching dream, but a counter to that would be that many people who amass piles of wealth simply make it their goal to amass bigger piles.
-----
I'm so interested in this whole concept of people changing careers mid-stream. To look at the idea through the lens of writing as profession... there's certainly people like Stephen King who knew at a young age he wanted to write and always worked towards that end, but there's also alternate stories.
One good one I saw firsthand the other day was that of Skip Horack, author of "The Eden Hunter." In a library talk he made, Horack discussed how he graduated with an English degree, went to law school and then practiced law for three years... all while kind of thinking of himself as a writer, but not really writing.
He then saw lawyer colleagues who loved what they did, realized that he didn't have that for the law and gave writing a shot. Nothing profound at first, just an hour in the morning before starting his day... but, that led to finishing some short stories and then submitting them to writing journals. After a bit of success, he applied for and got a Wallace Stegner Fellowship in Stanford's Creative Writing Program. With this new path opened up, Horack left the law firm he was at and headed off to the two-year program.
Very cool story from the perspective that Horack wasn't one of those people who knew what he wanted to do at a young age and single mindedly pursued it. Rather, he realized mid-stream want he wanted and proved that it's never too late to go after a goal. Hey... that's just like the story of Joe Moglia.
Written by Jon Wertheim, "Nebraska's billion-dollar assistant" is all about former Ameritrade (now TD Ameritrade) CEO Joe Moglia and his current volunteer position with the Nebraska Cornhusker football staff.
The story struck me not necessarily for the writing (Wertheim is a solid writer who seems to write on tennis more than any other sport for SI), but the story itself. Moglia is the classic example of a guy who decided to follow his passion... in this case for football and his work seems to have made him an important "consultant to the program" at Nebraska.
Now, you could say that having made himself rich through business has enabled Moglia to pursue his coaching dream, but a counter to that would be that many people who amass piles of wealth simply make it their goal to amass bigger piles.
-----
I'm so interested in this whole concept of people changing careers mid-stream. To look at the idea through the lens of writing as profession... there's certainly people like Stephen King who knew at a young age he wanted to write and always worked towards that end, but there's also alternate stories.
One good one I saw firsthand the other day was that of Skip Horack, author of "The Eden Hunter." In a library talk he made, Horack discussed how he graduated with an English degree, went to law school and then practiced law for three years... all while kind of thinking of himself as a writer, but not really writing.
He then saw lawyer colleagues who loved what they did, realized that he didn't have that for the law and gave writing a shot. Nothing profound at first, just an hour in the morning before starting his day... but, that led to finishing some short stories and then submitting them to writing journals. After a bit of success, he applied for and got a Wallace Stegner Fellowship in Stanford's Creative Writing Program. With this new path opened up, Horack left the law firm he was at and headed off to the two-year program.
Very cool story from the perspective that Horack wasn't one of those people who knew what he wanted to do at a young age and single mindedly pursued it. Rather, he realized mid-stream want he wanted and proved that it's never too late to go after a goal. Hey... that's just like the story of Joe Moglia.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Urgent vs Important Work
A topic that I've ruminated on a bit lately is the idea of urgent work vs important work.
Basic distinction between the two is that one category is something requiring (or purported by someone to require) immediate action and one category has no immediacy, but is of import in the big picture. Really what you've got with the first category of "urgent" is two different things... "urgent / important" and "not important, but urgent to the person who says it is."
One thing to keep in mind is that urgent and important is a very relative terms depending on the work at hand. I've made a comment to this effect in a previous blog post, but the type of work written about here by Sebastian Junger is very different than the type of work referenced in this blog post.
It having now been said that fighting in a war and working in an office are about as different as two things can be, both activities are subject to this whole urgent / important distinction.
-----
First, the urgent things... and how they can double as important ones. For a solider, there's no more urgent situation than combat, and also nothing more important. In the much more mundane corporate world, a situation both urgent and important could be one with a time-sensitive deliverable that impacts the business and people who work in it.
Not all urgent scenarios in work double as important, though, regardless of the type of work at hand. For a solider, an order from a commanding officer could be urgent from the perspective that you're supposed to execute on it immediately, but that order could accomplish little beyond making the commanding officer feel powerful to have given an order acted upon. In an office environment, there can be lots and lots of non-important urgent work. Much of this coming from people being sent off to do tasks that don't accomplish much in the big picture, but make someone feel good to give directions... or that task assigner incorrectly thinks it matters.
With it established that there's urgent and important work as well as urgent, but not important work, this takes one to the third type of work... that which is non-urgent, but important.
To stay within the same comparison of a military and corporate setting... soldiers aren't going to spend 100% of their time in combat. While not engaged in an urgent activity, something of huge import would be training as well as planning and preparing for future missions. Conversely, for a white collar worker, there's important (again, relative term when compared to things done by Servicemen and Women) activities like documenting processes and tracking of activities to ensure needed activities brought to completion.
There may be nobody asking for this type of non-urgent work to be done (in any work environment), but it's certainly important. Now, in the military you're more obligated to obey orders than other kinds of work, but with this acknowledged, the goal in work should be to focus on the urgent / important as well as important activities, and not get bogged down in the urgent / unimportant.
True, it's easier said that done, but to accomplish pretty much anything you have to start with the intention towards that end.
Basic distinction between the two is that one category is something requiring (or purported by someone to require) immediate action and one category has no immediacy, but is of import in the big picture. Really what you've got with the first category of "urgent" is two different things... "urgent / important" and "not important, but urgent to the person who says it is."
One thing to keep in mind is that urgent and important is a very relative terms depending on the work at hand. I've made a comment to this effect in a previous blog post, but the type of work written about here by Sebastian Junger is very different than the type of work referenced in this blog post.
It having now been said that fighting in a war and working in an office are about as different as two things can be, both activities are subject to this whole urgent / important distinction.
-----
First, the urgent things... and how they can double as important ones. For a solider, there's no more urgent situation than combat, and also nothing more important. In the much more mundane corporate world, a situation both urgent and important could be one with a time-sensitive deliverable that impacts the business and people who work in it.
Not all urgent scenarios in work double as important, though, regardless of the type of work at hand. For a solider, an order from a commanding officer could be urgent from the perspective that you're supposed to execute on it immediately, but that order could accomplish little beyond making the commanding officer feel powerful to have given an order acted upon. In an office environment, there can be lots and lots of non-important urgent work. Much of this coming from people being sent off to do tasks that don't accomplish much in the big picture, but make someone feel good to give directions... or that task assigner incorrectly thinks it matters.
With it established that there's urgent and important work as well as urgent, but not important work, this takes one to the third type of work... that which is non-urgent, but important.
To stay within the same comparison of a military and corporate setting... soldiers aren't going to spend 100% of their time in combat. While not engaged in an urgent activity, something of huge import would be training as well as planning and preparing for future missions. Conversely, for a white collar worker, there's important (again, relative term when compared to things done by Servicemen and Women) activities like documenting processes and tracking of activities to ensure needed activities brought to completion.
There may be nobody asking for this type of non-urgent work to be done (in any work environment), but it's certainly important. Now, in the military you're more obligated to obey orders than other kinds of work, but with this acknowledged, the goal in work should be to focus on the urgent / important as well as important activities, and not get bogged down in the urgent / unimportant.
True, it's easier said that done, but to accomplish pretty much anything you have to start with the intention towards that end.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Commitment. To Work?
Heard a story from a friend of mine the other day about his boss asking whether he's "100% committed to the company" and that got me thinking about commitment to work.
Commitment as a concept is usually not at this "100% in" status. To truly exist, it requires two parties in sync and requires a progression to reach what we'll call real true commit.
The beginning stage of commitment is the evaluation... that period of time when each party is "thinking about thinking about" and making a decision as to how they feel. In the context of work, things kick off when a company needs a warm sentient body to do stuff on it's behalf. While the company is casting about to find the right person to help them make more money (which is the end goal of pretty much all companies), the prospective employee is also looking to put themselves in the best work situation they can. Often times that's based on money, but can also have lots of other criteria in play.
After the two parties meet, finish their dance and decide to pair off in the form of an employment offer and acceptance... are they committed? Not hardly. Even a signed contract is only enforceable as far as either side is wiling to abide by the terms. In most company-employee cases, though, there's not much of a contract and the worker can either be let go or walk away at any point. Particularly in the case of firms beholden to shareholders (and as I wrote about here), this is often company initiated in the pursuit of lowering expenses.
So... commitment. What is it then in terms of employment? I'd say that commitment is an employee doing such a good job that a company couldn't stand to let them go and a company doing such a good job by it's employee that they wouldn't want to leave. It's not something that gets put in place via an ultimatum from either side, but simply a genuine desire for someone to be kept around or someone to not want to be elsewhere.
It's not about the commitment, it's about the place and the work. If the place is right and the work done is right, the concept of drawing a line in the sand and having someone step forward never needs to come about... and employees don't have to ask those silly "do I have job security?" questions of their management. In line with this, I think about a post done with link to a Scott Belsky Creative Meritocracy piece... it's a free agent world for all.
With all this talk about commitment in work... really, here's where I wrote about the type of work I can think of that needs this aforementioned "100% commitment."
Everything else that we do with work is in comparison, pretty trivial.
Commitment as a concept is usually not at this "100% in" status. To truly exist, it requires two parties in sync and requires a progression to reach what we'll call real true commit.
The beginning stage of commitment is the evaluation... that period of time when each party is "thinking about thinking about" and making a decision as to how they feel. In the context of work, things kick off when a company needs a warm sentient body to do stuff on it's behalf. While the company is casting about to find the right person to help them make more money (which is the end goal of pretty much all companies), the prospective employee is also looking to put themselves in the best work situation they can. Often times that's based on money, but can also have lots of other criteria in play.
After the two parties meet, finish their dance and decide to pair off in the form of an employment offer and acceptance... are they committed? Not hardly. Even a signed contract is only enforceable as far as either side is wiling to abide by the terms. In most company-employee cases, though, there's not much of a contract and the worker can either be let go or walk away at any point. Particularly in the case of firms beholden to shareholders (and as I wrote about here), this is often company initiated in the pursuit of lowering expenses.
So... commitment. What is it then in terms of employment? I'd say that commitment is an employee doing such a good job that a company couldn't stand to let them go and a company doing such a good job by it's employee that they wouldn't want to leave. It's not something that gets put in place via an ultimatum from either side, but simply a genuine desire for someone to be kept around or someone to not want to be elsewhere.
It's not about the commitment, it's about the place and the work. If the place is right and the work done is right, the concept of drawing a line in the sand and having someone step forward never needs to come about... and employees don't have to ask those silly "do I have job security?" questions of their management. In line with this, I think about a post done with link to a Scott Belsky Creative Meritocracy piece... it's a free agent world for all.
With all this talk about commitment in work... really, here's where I wrote about the type of work I can think of that needs this aforementioned "100% commitment."
Everything else that we do with work is in comparison, pretty trivial.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
The Finding of White Collar Work & Scott Belsky Creative Meritocracy Piece
A topic I've thought quite a bit about over... I don't know, the last few years, is that of finding white collar work.
My thinking on the subject has been how difficult it is for many white collar works to quantify or even demonstrate outside of their organization their value and skills. Someone can give their title and the company they work at and those they've worked for, but I'd posit it's more difficult for the white collar worker to showcase and explain their value than a blue collar worker... such as say a mechanic or plumber.
Even within the broad category of white collar workers, there's some fields that lend themselves more easily to demonstrating value and skills than others. An engineer, writer or design person can often have either portfolios of their work or can at least speak to what they've done. For many white collar workers, though, the profession can become a bit of a trap if what they do is "manage things for their company." This jack of all trades business type role can be a difficult one to both break out of and to advance in if care isn't taken to showcase both work done and ability to do work going forward.
-----
I've been meaning to post on this, but finally compelled to do so after reading an interesting article by Scott Belsky. The author of "Making Ideas Happen", Founder and CEO of the Behance Network and guy who posts interesting stuff on Twitter, Belsky seems a good person to write about the area of work.
From his aforementioned Twitter account, I found Belsky's post "Welcome to the Era of Creative Meritocracy" on recognition and advancement of creative work and talent. Some might view it as overly optimistic, but it's a fascinating concept he puts forth. Basic idea is that as we move forward in the Internet age (my words, not his), the best creative work and workers should rise to the top because (among other reasons) more people can view their output online ("The Wisdom of Crowds" idea) and there are more places for one to post and demonstrate work.
-----
If you take Belsky's Behance Network as an example of where a white collar worker can display their work and further this "Creative Meritocracy" it makes sense, but I think his idea has practical applications as well for those white collar creative professional type who aren't necessarily Creatives in the traditional Advertising/Design sense of the word.
Even with keeping in mind that some things might be company confidential information about projects or clients, there's a ton of opportunities someone can have to put forth their work so that it's more than just lines on a resume. Portfolios don't have to be limited to the industries that speak in that language every day. Rather, anyone with access to a computer can set up a free blogspot account and create a website about what they've got to bring.
Maybe it's gonna take a while to reach Belsky's vision, but it's definitely a direction that can and should be moved in by people. Solid stuff...
My thinking on the subject has been how difficult it is for many white collar works to quantify or even demonstrate outside of their organization their value and skills. Someone can give their title and the company they work at and those they've worked for, but I'd posit it's more difficult for the white collar worker to showcase and explain their value than a blue collar worker... such as say a mechanic or plumber.
Even within the broad category of white collar workers, there's some fields that lend themselves more easily to demonstrating value and skills than others. An engineer, writer or design person can often have either portfolios of their work or can at least speak to what they've done. For many white collar workers, though, the profession can become a bit of a trap if what they do is "manage things for their company." This jack of all trades business type role can be a difficult one to both break out of and to advance in if care isn't taken to showcase both work done and ability to do work going forward.
-----
I've been meaning to post on this, but finally compelled to do so after reading an interesting article by Scott Belsky. The author of "Making Ideas Happen", Founder and CEO of the Behance Network and guy who posts interesting stuff on Twitter, Belsky seems a good person to write about the area of work.
From his aforementioned Twitter account, I found Belsky's post "Welcome to the Era of Creative Meritocracy" on recognition and advancement of creative work and talent. Some might view it as overly optimistic, but it's a fascinating concept he puts forth. Basic idea is that as we move forward in the Internet age (my words, not his), the best creative work and workers should rise to the top because (among other reasons) more people can view their output online ("The Wisdom of Crowds" idea) and there are more places for one to post and demonstrate work.
-----
If you take Belsky's Behance Network as an example of where a white collar worker can display their work and further this "Creative Meritocracy" it makes sense, but I think his idea has practical applications as well for those white collar creative professional type who aren't necessarily Creatives in the traditional Advertising/Design sense of the word.
Even with keeping in mind that some things might be company confidential information about projects or clients, there's a ton of opportunities someone can have to put forth their work so that it's more than just lines on a resume. Portfolios don't have to be limited to the industries that speak in that language every day. Rather, anyone with access to a computer can set up a free blogspot account and create a website about what they've got to bring.
Maybe it's gonna take a while to reach Belsky's vision, but it's definitely a direction that can and should be moved in by people. Solid stuff...
Friday, June 11, 2010
A Loss of Control: Running (or Hoping to Run) a Public Company
So... you start a company and want to run it a certain way... and take venture capital fund and go public. Sounds like a logical (though still challenging) goal.
However, there's a few different things I've seen lately that make me think about this idea of public companies (and ones that may hope to become public) and what's expected/required of their leaders.
In a Inc. Magazine book adaptation piece, Tony Hseih wrote "Why I Sold Zappos" about his perspective on what made the company and what then compelled him to agree to a 2009 sale to Amazon (with Hseih still running Zappos as an Amazon owned business).
In short, Hseih built Zappos on the belief that Zappos was primarily a customer service company... and the best way to have great customer service is to have really really satisfied employees. This belief came into some conflict, though, with Sequoia Capital... the source of some $50M in VC funding for Zappos. As a VC firm, Sequoia's charter (presumably) is to maximize return on investments and while satisfied employees can help grow a company, extraordinary expenses around things like employee development and health care can also reduce that return on investment.
It's not a knock on Sequoia, but I took from reading this article (which made me want to read Hseih's book) that the money they provided Zappos both helped fund the company's growth and prevented it's founder and CEO from running it how he wanted to.
-----
Also in this category of running a business (in this case one that's already public) was this DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committe) ad against Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina:
As a Democrat (perhaps even a liberal), I hope that Barbara Boxer gets reelected and Forina defeated. Furthermore, as someone that worked at the company she was fired from, I heard a common refrain from people describing her as "great on vision and getting people excited, poor on execution" and don't think this experience (which is what she seems to hang her hat on) is enough to qualify her for work in the Senate).
This said, I viewed the ad as related to the Zappos piece in that Fiorina is criticized for getting tons of money from the company and laying off a large number of employees. While neither thing endears her to me, I don't view them as character flaws, but rather functions of good contract negotiating on her part and following the mandates of the market and board.
In terms of a mandate, she to my knowledge was basically required as the CEO of a public company to have her actions all be towards the ultimate goal of maximizing shareholder value... i.e. bumping up the stock price. One primary way to do that (at least in the short term) is to cut expenses through the form of employee headcount. Doesn't make it fun for the people being pushed out the door, but Fiorina could certainly make the argument that if laying people off looked to drive up the stock, she was compelled in her role as CEO to do so.
-----
Thinking about this topic reminded me of a book I was required to read upon starting business school over a decade ago. From Eliyahu Goldratt, "The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement" is told in parable form and makes the argument that a company exists for one reason... to make money. The concept is that if the company doesn't make money, then any altruistic purposes it may serve don't matter because a money losing company isn't a self-sustaining enterprise.
My thought from this is that the idea may well be true, but perhaps there's an additional statement that could be made about companies that are traded publicly. The presence of shareholders (whether they be of the public corporation or venture capital variety) often compel a leader to take on the singular goal of making as much money as possible. In most cases this is still a fine goal, but starts one down a slippery slope if that's neither the be all end all intent of the business or if the founder/leader wants to invest now in a fashion that shareholders don't agree with.
-----
However, there's a few different things I've seen lately that make me think about this idea of public companies (and ones that may hope to become public) and what's expected/required of their leaders.
In a Inc. Magazine book adaptation piece, Tony Hseih wrote "Why I Sold Zappos" about his perspective on what made the company and what then compelled him to agree to a 2009 sale to Amazon (with Hseih still running Zappos as an Amazon owned business).
In short, Hseih built Zappos on the belief that Zappos was primarily a customer service company... and the best way to have great customer service is to have really really satisfied employees. This belief came into some conflict, though, with Sequoia Capital... the source of some $50M in VC funding for Zappos. As a VC firm, Sequoia's charter (presumably) is to maximize return on investments and while satisfied employees can help grow a company, extraordinary expenses around things like employee development and health care can also reduce that return on investment.
It's not a knock on Sequoia, but I took from reading this article (which made me want to read Hseih's book) that the money they provided Zappos both helped fund the company's growth and prevented it's founder and CEO from running it how he wanted to.
-----
Also in this category of running a business (in this case one that's already public) was this DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committe) ad against Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina:
As a Democrat (perhaps even a liberal), I hope that Barbara Boxer gets reelected and Forina defeated. Furthermore, as someone that worked at the company she was fired from, I heard a common refrain from people describing her as "great on vision and getting people excited, poor on execution" and don't think this experience (which is what she seems to hang her hat on) is enough to qualify her for work in the Senate).
This said, I viewed the ad as related to the Zappos piece in that Fiorina is criticized for getting tons of money from the company and laying off a large number of employees. While neither thing endears her to me, I don't view them as character flaws, but rather functions of good contract negotiating on her part and following the mandates of the market and board.
In terms of a mandate, she to my knowledge was basically required as the CEO of a public company to have her actions all be towards the ultimate goal of maximizing shareholder value... i.e. bumping up the stock price. One primary way to do that (at least in the short term) is to cut expenses through the form of employee headcount. Doesn't make it fun for the people being pushed out the door, but Fiorina could certainly make the argument that if laying people off looked to drive up the stock, she was compelled in her role as CEO to do so.
-----
Thinking about this topic reminded me of a book I was required to read upon starting business school over a decade ago. From Eliyahu Goldratt, "The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement" is told in parable form and makes the argument that a company exists for one reason... to make money. The concept is that if the company doesn't make money, then any altruistic purposes it may serve don't matter because a money losing company isn't a self-sustaining enterprise.
My thought from this is that the idea may well be true, but perhaps there's an additional statement that could be made about companies that are traded publicly. The presence of shareholders (whether they be of the public corporation or venture capital variety) often compel a leader to take on the singular goal of making as much money as possible. In most cases this is still a fine goal, but starts one down a slippery slope if that's neither the be all end all intent of the business or if the founder/leader wants to invest now in a fashion that shareholders don't agree with.
-----
One avenue that could be pursued to help a leader run a company in a certain way is benefit corporation status (as described in the BusinessWeek piece "New Legal Protections for Social Entrepreneurs"), but this is only going to be applicable in a limited number of cases.
-----
None of this unequivocally says that public companies or the people that work at them are bad places, but it does say to me that people either working at a public company or one aspiring to become public need to have their eyes open about what they're getting into.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Time Magazine Cover Story on Jobs... & Job Ruminations
Solid Time Magazine cover story by Barbara Kiviat titled "The Workforce: Where Will the New Jobs Come From?".
All about the economy and how eventual real growth will have to be in the form of newly created jobs (and job categories), I particularly found of note the ending of the piece (below) and what it make me consider.
-----
"If the key characteristics of the American economy are flexibility and forward motion, then we would all be better off if people felt more support — both financial and social — to invest in their education, switch jobs and industries and venture out to start new firms.
Establishing job creation as a discrete goal is a misleading enterprise. Beyond cyclic swings in demand, what we're really talking about creating is not jobs but ideas and technologies and more efficient ways of producing and selling goods and services."
-----
I've always felt that career success is a complicated recipe which incorporates the following ingredients (probably among others):
1. hard work
2. ability/proficiency
3. knowing what you want to do and actually doing it
4. being in the right place at the right time
5. being in a place where the first two things above matter and the second two are possible
Of this list, hard work and ability should (hopefully) be required things (but, sadly... aren't always).
Knowing what you want to do and actually doing it is hugely important because for many, that doesn't describe their work situation. When you hear stories about people who came up from the bottom floor of something, they in many cases were fortunate enough to know early on that thing was what they wanted, so they could start working on it early in their career when most everyone is on the bottom floor. Where it gets tougher (but, not impossible) is for people who don't know early on what they want to do... and don't have the same flexibility to start at the bottom of a field.
The fourth one is just as it's written... being in the right place at the right time is where many people have that big leap forward in their careers. If you combine effort and ability towards a goal that really matters to you, that right place at right time break "should" eventually come.
This is where the fifth career ingredient comes into play. There's a lot of different types of companies and work opportunities out there. Many of them are going to reward the first two, have the types of positions that let people let people who know their area of interest work in it and then have those chance to shine and advance... but, not all.
So, to tie back full circle to the Kiviat piece and quoted section at the end of it... I agree completely with her statement about people being willing to take career leaps, whether those be at a job role, company or industry level.
Working hard and becoming proficient at something is all good and well, but it should be at an activity that someone wants to do and in a place that provides rewards and opportunities to move forward.
Can be scary to move out of something comfortable that doesn't allow for this, but sometimes... it's just plain needed.
All about the economy and how eventual real growth will have to be in the form of newly created jobs (and job categories), I particularly found of note the ending of the piece (below) and what it make me consider.
-----
"If the key characteristics of the American economy are flexibility and forward motion, then we would all be better off if people felt more support — both financial and social — to invest in their education, switch jobs and industries and venture out to start new firms.
Establishing job creation as a discrete goal is a misleading enterprise. Beyond cyclic swings in demand, what we're really talking about creating is not jobs but ideas and technologies and more efficient ways of producing and selling goods and services."
-----
I've always felt that career success is a complicated recipe which incorporates the following ingredients (probably among others):
1. hard work
2. ability/proficiency
3. knowing what you want to do and actually doing it
4. being in the right place at the right time
5. being in a place where the first two things above matter and the second two are possible
Of this list, hard work and ability should (hopefully) be required things (but, sadly... aren't always).
Knowing what you want to do and actually doing it is hugely important because for many, that doesn't describe their work situation. When you hear stories about people who came up from the bottom floor of something, they in many cases were fortunate enough to know early on that thing was what they wanted, so they could start working on it early in their career when most everyone is on the bottom floor. Where it gets tougher (but, not impossible) is for people who don't know early on what they want to do... and don't have the same flexibility to start at the bottom of a field.
The fourth one is just as it's written... being in the right place at the right time is where many people have that big leap forward in their careers. If you combine effort and ability towards a goal that really matters to you, that right place at right time break "should" eventually come.
This is where the fifth career ingredient comes into play. There's a lot of different types of companies and work opportunities out there. Many of them are going to reward the first two, have the types of positions that let people let people who know their area of interest work in it and then have those chance to shine and advance... but, not all.
So, to tie back full circle to the Kiviat piece and quoted section at the end of it... I agree completely with her statement about people being willing to take career leaps, whether those be at a job role, company or industry level.
Working hard and becoming proficient at something is all good and well, but it should be at an activity that someone wants to do and in a place that provides rewards and opportunities to move forward.
Can be scary to move out of something comfortable that doesn't allow for this, but sometimes... it's just plain needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)