Showing posts with label Scarce Resources. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Scarce Resources. Show all posts

January 16, 2020

Sucking It Up

Here we are sucking up leaves in January. 

It almost looks like we're sucking up the whole ground with it!

After the warmest decade on record, we seem to be having the warmest year on record. 

It's 52 degrees out, and we've been reaching up into the high 60's so far this month.

Global warming or the big fires in Australia or action with Iran are heating things up here in Washington, D.C. ;-)

(Credit Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

June 13, 2019

Monument To The Homeless

I really had to take a second look at this. 

From a distance, it looked like another homeless person sleeping on the bench in Washington., D.C. 

But as I got closer, I realized this was a statue of a homeless person.

And the only thing real about it was the empty cup of Dunkin' Donuts coffee next to it. 

Honestly, I am not sure what the point of this statue is. 

There are enough REAL homeless people to remind us of their serious plight and the critical need to help them. 

The money that went into creating this monument would've been far better spent on helping these real people in need. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

September 27, 2018

Who Took The Cheese?

So this is a photo from today in the cafeteria of the mac and cheese. 

What I see without fail, day-in and day-out ,is that the people take the yummy crispy cheese off the top of the mac and cheese. 

The result is that just a few people get all the cheesy cheese from on top and everyone else is left with the noodles underneath.  

So for cheese sake, why do they do it?

- For the Love of Cheese - People simply love melted cheese so much, they'll do anything to get more of it.

- Because They Can Take Cheese - People take the best part, the crispy cheese on top for themselves, because they can and there is only benefits to themselves and no adverse consequences if they do it. 

- They are Very Hungry for Cheese - People take the cheese because they are so famished, only the cheese on top can satisfy their hunger pains. 

- Sense of Cheese Entitlement - People have a sense of entitlement for themselves, and if there's cheese to be had, they they are entitled to it.

- Cheese Narcissism - People are innately selfish for cheese and they will take and take and take until there is no cheese on top for anyone else. 

- Anti-social Cheese Behavior - People have anti-social personality cheese disorder, so they can't help but take all the cheese. 

- Not Enough Cheese to Go Around - People feel their is simply not enough cheese to go around; in other words cheese is a scarce resource, which makes it a valuable cheese commodity to scoop up for themselves. 

What is really funny-sad about this whole cheese situation is that every day the food service seems to put out the same leftover mac and cheese with a fresh topping of the cheesy-cheese on top, only for it all to be taken off again--cheesy day after cheesy day. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

November 18, 2017

Invasion of Dinosaurs



So what's with the invasion of dinosaurs. 

First one is standing next to the checkout line in Whole Foods in Maryland.

Second one is actually on someone's terrace overlooking the beach in Fort Lauderdale.

Third one is the real McCoy from the Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. 

Certainly, dinosaurs aren't cute and cuddly--even the plush ones from Whole Foods--they'd eat you and I for dinner if they could!

So why do we gravitate to relics from the Ice Age past?

Perhaps, just like looking forward to Aliens from outer space, the dinosaurs represent an important historical link for us, and thus anchor us in a much larger perspective of time and space. 

In a way, it all points to the dichotomy between us as humans with great--almost endless--potential, and yet at the same time, how small we are relative to the enormous dinosaurs that roamed the earth of yesteryear as well as the distinct possibility of mighty extraterrestrials that we may someday (soon) encounter from outer space. 

From this context, I guess what's really amazing is that we, as a people, are still here!

Despite our bad habits and unsustainable living, we continue to innovate our way out of own messes of greed, conflict, contagion, pollution, and resource depletion, and create a future far beyond what destroyed our predecessors or even what may come from current or potential future foes. 

Like the economy, we think we can grow ourselves out of all our troubles--and who knows, maybe we can if we can continue to stay at least one or two steps ahead of all the challenges and threats--but, at the back (or front) of our minds is what if we can't or don't?  ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

July 25, 2017

Conflict - Resolution or Escalation

So I thought this was interesting on the cause of conflict. 

There are four main parts:

1) Deprivation - You believe that someone is depriving you of something you need or want. This could be something physical like money, or an object or it could be inanimate such as love or respect. The feeling of deprivation is anchored in a real or perceived feeling or being deprived of access to resources or the imbalance who has those resources. 

2) Name - You identify the person you feel is causing you this deprivation. 

3) Blame - You blame them for their role in causing you harm. 

4) Claim - You justify the accusation by anchoring it in a claim that the other person has violated some social norm such as taking something that doesn't belong to them or violating an agreement you have with them and so on. 

As the conflict comes to a head, it is clear that people are feeling hurt, that there is a desire to correct the situation, and that you are going to confront the (perceived) culprit and make your case on why what they are doing is wrong and how it should be resolved. 

If you have the wrong person in the cross-hairs, your justification is weak or you're not telling the whole story (i.e. maybe you played a part or harmed the other person too), or the person just won't give you a fair hearing and sincerely work with you to resolve it, then the conflict may escalate from here.  

Usually, it's best to listen, empathize, negotiate, compromise, try to be reasonable, and resolve the situation at the earliest point possible.

If there is a greater conflict or risk to either party involved, then heels may get dug in and all avenues to resolving it can be open including legal and even all out war. 

Conflict is no game, but in some cases it may be unavoidable--and then the ramifications can be earth shattering. 

What to do when you're in a conflict situation? Think before you act, and then think again. 

Ultimately, peace is one of the greatest of blessings. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

April 3, 2017

Under The Feet Of Haters

So there is a saying in Washington, D.C....

"You know you've made it when you have your haters."

This is a very political town!

But more than that, a leader has to take a position. 

You have to stand for something. 

There are oodles of constituencies and no matter how hard you try, you will never satisfy everyone. 

Yes ideally, we always want to create a win-win situation. 

However, every give, usually has a take, since the pie isn't infinite. 

Compromise where possible, but hold your ground where necessary. 

The key is to choose a direction from your conscience and follow your moral compass and do the most good for the most people and what's right in the eyes of G-d. 

Unfortunately, some people will declare themselves your mortal enemy and try to stamp you out of existence just for being and following who you are. 

Many of us who have experienced racism, discrimination, slavery, and even genocide know this senseless hate all too well. 

Be strong of of good courage and do righteousness. 

G-d is our rock and shield. 
Psalm 27: "The L-rd is my light and salvation--whom shall I fear?  The L-rd is the stronghold of my life--of whom shall I be afraid." 
So as your enemies advance to step on and try and crush you, remember that G-d will decide where their feet actually land and how they will fall. :-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

April 2, 2017

Why We Fight?

Well first of all, let me say that I really liked this image on Google the other day. 

Beautiful to see the diversity and brotherhood (and including those with disabilities)!

I had a an interesting conversation with my daughter the other day about why people often don't get along. 

She said something that I thought was really astute:

"If there were unlimited resources, then no one would have a reason to fight!"

Think about that a moment...

Everyone feels they don't have enough or someone else has more then them or they are afraid they won't get their share, and so what happens?

Like jealous little children, we fight for the pail and shovel in the sandbox. 

Only as adults, our sandbox is a lot bigger and it involves hate, bigotry, racism and deadly weapons including guns, knives, and even nukes!

So this isn't the Garden of Eden where everyone prances around free and with plenty and nothing to worry about. 

Instead, everyone has to work "by the sweat of your brow," and there are limits to what we have, and there is fighting over who has what.

Yes, truly "greed is the root of all evil."

What we need to learn and internalize is that it's more important how we act towards each other than what we have and that the real gold in life is the good we do and not the plenty we amass. 

Sure we each need enough to be able to survive and excel as human beings, but it's fool's gold that prevents us from seeing each other as the real brothers and sisters we all are. 

If only we had enough--in both perception and reality--then peace could reign among mankind. ;-)

(Source Photo: Google)
Share/Save/Bookmark

December 26, 2016

Special Blue Bird

Just wanted to share a photo I took of this beautiful blue bird that I came across in Florida. 

This bird was something special. 

I couldn't help admiring his amazingly blue feathers punctuated by the yellow around his smart eyes 

He wasn't the only beautiful animal or flower that we saw there, there were many.

They all just left me in wonderment at the unbelievable beauty that G-d created for us in this world.

No one is going to tell me this is all random by evolution, and that there is not a profoundly wise and all-knowing Maker behind it.

Perhaps, we never really left the physical Garden of Eden, but being expelled from there meant more of a mentality where we have to work and fight hard to keep it all pristine.

Mankind's inclination is to take and use abundantly almost without thought as to the sustainability of his actions.

- Cities expand and encroach on natural rural areas. 

- G-d's beautiful creatures are in retreat and often in danger of extinction. 

- Resources are used willy nilly as we dig and dig, chop and chop, and burn and burn. 

- Garbage is expelled and piles up virtually anywhere and everywhere.

- Pollution fills the land, air, and waterways.

Eden is still here, but people must act more like angels and less like snakes if G-d gracious gifts to us are to survive. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

July 25, 2013

Less With Less

This was a funny picture of a "Complaint Jar".

"All complaints must be written on $1.00 bills or larger. Thank you."

Hey, if you're going to complain, put your money where you mouth is. 

The person on the receiving end isn't looking for more negativity and insults about the job they are doing--they want compliments and tips!

This is similar to a story I heard today about an executive where he and his team where stretched thin and stressed out.

So at one point, when he was once again asked to do more with less, he slams his fist on the table and says, "No, we are going to do less with less!"

It is interesting that nationally and in our organizations, we are constantly asked to increase productivity, but at the same tighten our belts. 

And in the short to intermediate term, we are able to shed "dead weight" and become more efficient.

However, over the longer-term, there does come a breaking point, where trying to do more with less results not in cutting fat, but in cutting bone--and the stress ends up in a fracture. 

Before you know it, fists are slamming on desks, absenteeism is going up, people are getting sick, fights--verbal and otherwise--are breaking out at work, poor decisions are being made, fighting for scarce resources become fierce, and collaboration becomes overt warfare, and perhaps, even someone commits suicide or "goes postal."

Cutting for efficiency can work up to a point, after that all bets are off and you cut at your own and your organization's risk--then even the complaint jar or suggestion box will be nothing but a broken marquee. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

September 8, 2012

We Are Driven!

Riots
We are driven to do what?


Some of us to succeed and others, seemingly, to various destructive behaviors that thwart our success.

In the book, The Charge, by Brendon Burchard, he argues that we need to harness our drives to increase our success rate. 

Burchard categorizes our drives into baseline and forward drives--and has 10 of them--almost like the Ten Commandments (Cs)--five in each area (or on each tablet). 

Baseline drives are those which he says make us happy:

- Control
- Competence
- Congruence
- Caring
- Connection

Forward drives are those which help us evolve:

- Change
- Challenge
- Creative Expression
- Contribution
- Consciousness

Wonderful--10 C's, all nicely packaged. 

While I generally agree with these human drives, something is not satisfying about these--they seem academic, stale, and the fodder of a marketing brochure.

Where is the energy of humans to live, love, and laugh? 

Where is the longing for spirituality, purpose, and meaning?

Where is the drive to do good and occasionally, to do what we know is wrong. 

Where are the vices--the drives to conquer, to own and to hoard, to go crazy at times?

Burchard has provided a very one-sided picture of human nature--maybe the side, we would rather acknowledge and focus on, but in ignoring human frailties and tendencies to veer off to the other extremes as well, he is missing an important point--and that is the human nature is a fundamental push and pull. 

Yes, we are driven to happiness and evolution, and on one hand these drives manifest in the rosier side of human nature such as care and contribution, but on the other side, people drives to happiness and evolution may mean their taking what they want, when and how they want it, and to the exclusion of others who are competing with them in a world of limited resources.

It is nicer and easier to envision a world, like the Garden of Eden, where there is plenty for the few, and everything is provided and just a pull from the fruit tree away. 

But in the real world, it is wiser to recognize that our happiness and evolution may mean someone else goes hungry tonight--sad, but true; and only when we are real, can we work to overcome this and to provide plenty for all--through safeguarding of basic freedoms and human rights for everyone. 

Happiness and evolution can be different for the individual and society--for the individual, one's gain may come at another loses (e.g. the stock market, competing for a spot in top-tier school, or beating out the competition for that plume Wall Street job), but for society, success means creating win-win situations where everyone can go to bed with a full stomach and knowing that they have a fair shot at opportunity tomorrow. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Beacon Radio)

Share/Save/Bookmark

May 5, 2012

Understanding Risk Management

Information Security, like all security, needs to be managed on a risk management basis.  

This is a fundamental principle that was prior advocated for the Department of Homeland Security, by the former Secretary Michael Chertoff.  

The basic premise is that we have limited resources to cover ever changing and expanding risks, and that therefore, we must put our security resources to the greatest risks first.

Daniel Ryan and Julie Ryan (1995) came up with a simple formula for determining risks, as follows:

Risk = [(Threats x Vulnerabilities) / Countermeasures)]  x  Impact

Where:

- Threats = those who wish do you harm.

- Vulnerabilities = inherent weaknesses or design flaws.

- Countermeasures = the things you do to protect against the dangers imposed.

[Together, threats and vulnerabilities, offset by any countermeasures, is the probability or likelihood of a potential (negative) event occurring.]

- Impacts = the damage or potential loss that would be done.

Of course, in a perfect world, we would like to reduce risk to zero and be completely secure, but in the real world, the cost of achieving total risk avoidance is cost prohibitive. 

For example, with information systems, the only way to hypothetically eliminate all risk is by disconnecting (and turning off) all your computing resources, thereby isolating yourself from any and all threats. But as we know, this is counterproductive, since there is a positive correlation between connectivity and productivity. When connectivity goes down, so does productivity.

Thus, in the absence of being able to completely eliminate risk, we are left with managing risk and particularly with securing critical infrastructure protection (CIP) through the prioritization of the highest security risks and securing these, going down that list until we exhaust our available resources to issue countermeasures with.

In a sense, being unable to "get rid of risk" or fully secure ourselves from anything bad happening to us is a philosophically imperfect answer and leaves me feeling unsatisfied--in other words, what good is security if we can't ever really have it anyway?

I guess the ultimate risk we all face is the risk of our own mortality. In response all we can do is accept our limitations and take action on the rest.

(Source Photo: here with attribution to martinluff)

Share/Save/Bookmark

March 18, 2012

Your Leadership Ticket Is Waiting

A lot of colleagues tell me that they hate office politics, and for many it represents their one-way ticket to ongoing bickering, infighting, and a virtual endless cycle of unsatisfied wants and unhappiness.

Office politics is where the interests of multiple parties either converge or collide--where convergence occurs through feelings of interdependence (i.e. enterprise) and acts of teamwork, while collisions predominate by stressing independence (i.e. isolationism) and head-butting.

This is where good and bad leadership can make a huge difference.

- One one hand, a bad leader sees the world of the office as "us versus them" and fights almost indiscriminately for his/her share of scope, resources, influence, and power.

- On the other hand, a good leader looks out for the good of the organization and its mission, and works to ensure the people have what they need to get their jobs done right, regardless of who is doing it or why.

Thus, good leaders inspire trust and confidence, because they, without doubt, put the mission front and center--and egos are left at door.

Harvard Business Review (January-February 2011) in an article called "Are You A Good Boss--Or A Great One?" identifies a couple of key elements that inherently create opposition and competitiveness within the enterprise:

1) Division of Labor--This is the where we define that I do this and you do that. This has the potential to "create disparate groups with disparate and even conflicting goals and priorities." If this differentiation is not well integrated back as interrelated parts of an overall organizational identity and mission, then feelings of "us versus them" and even arguments over whose jobs and functions are more important and should come first in the pecking order will tear away at the organizational fiber and chances of success.

2) Scarce Resources--This is where limited resources to meet requirements and desirements impact the various parts of the organization, because not everyone's wishes can be pursued at the same time or even necessarily, at all.  Priorities need to be set and tradeoffs made in what will get done and what won't. Again, without a clear sense of unity versus disparity, scarcity can quickly unravel the organization based on people's  feelings of unfairness, dissatisfaction, unrest, and potentially even "mob rule" when people feel potentially threatened.


Hence, a bad leader works the system--seeing it as a win-lose scenario--where his/her goals and objectives are necessarily more important than everyone else, and getting the resources (i.e. having a bigger sandbox or "building an empire") is seen as not only desirable but critical to their personal success--here, their identity and loyalty is to their particular niche silo.

However, a good leader cares for the system--looking to create win-win situations--where no one element is better or more important than another, rather where they all must work together synergistically for the greater good of the organization. In this case, resources go not to who fights dirtier, but to who will most benefit the mission with them--in this case, their allegiance and duty is to the greater enterprise and its mission.

HBR states well that "In a real team [with a real leader], members hold themselves and one another jointly accountable. They share a genuine conviction they will succeed or fail together."

Organizations need not be snake pits with cut throat managers wanting to see others fail and waiting to take what they can for themselves, rather there is another way, and that is to lead with a shared sense of purpose, meaning, and teamwork. 

And this is achieved through creating harmony among organizational elements and not class warfare between them.

This type of leader that creates unity--builds enduring strength--and has the ticket we need to organizational success.

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Share/Save/Bookmark

March 6, 2011

The Exponential Road To Peace




When Charlie Rose interviewed Ray Kurzweil, the renown futurist (BusinessWeek--March 7-13, 2011), Kurzweil assures us that in just 8 more doublings of solar power output (each, which is happening every 2 years), we will be able to meet 100% of our energy needs.

This is the amazing power of the speed of exponential technology change to potentially solve our seemingly unsolvable human problems.

As always, Kurzweil's optimism about our future is noteworthy.
I hope that Kurzweil and the Prime Minister of Israel who discussed energy advice also shared insights about the prospect for Middle East peace.

Let the amazing promise of technology coupled with the ultimate in faith (and a strong military deterent) bring genuine peace to us soon. Amen!

Share/Save/Bookmark

November 13, 2010

A Spiritual Approach To Material Success

Anyway, I’m reading this book about achieving personal wellbeing and there is a section about a study that was done where people were given two choices:

1) Earn $50,000, while your peers earn $25,000 or

2) Earn $100,000, while your peers earn $200,000

Well, the study found that about half the respondents choose #1—even though they would earn significantly less (i.e. literally half) and be able to afford less in real purchasing power.

In other words, many people choose to be poorer in real terms, in order to be relatively well off compared to their peers.

This is in stark contrast to the notion of collaboration. In leadership classes, books, etc., haven’t we been trained by now to believe that by working together, we can increase “the pie” for everyone? Well, increasing the pie seems appealing to many, only if their slice remains the largest piece!

The question is—why? Is it that people are unabashedly competitive, overwhelming selfish, or endlessly jealous of others? Or is this a survival-based choice, where we are “hardwired” to fight not only to stay alive, but also to achieve status?

Frequently at work—particularly around budget time—we hear people say things like this is “a zero-sum game”—meaning that what goes to one, comes from another. In other words, there is a winner and a loser in every transaction. For example, if I give you the resources, someone else has to give up some resources, so we can achieve our overall budget numbers.

Similarly at performance time, there is typically a “performance pool” with a certain allocation of money available for bonuses. The more that goes to one/some, the less that is available for others.

So despite all the “platitudes” about sharing, in real life a message about competition vs. sharing seems repeated again and again in life, with the doling out of the best education, job opportunities, healthcare, housing, and so on. There are limited/scarce resources and so not everyone is going to get what they want. The message sent to all: you have to compete to get your due—and the more someone else gets, the less that’s available for you.

But is striving for superior status really always desirable?

From a business perspective, there is a compelling case to be made that competition drives performance, and that we need to reward the best performers. At the same time, collaboration and information-sharing can improve our competitive edge. In other words, working with your peers effectively can improve everybody’s chances for success.

However, to many, there is an inherent notion of inequity in promoting competition, because we are all people—all children of G-d—all worthy. Why should some get more than others?

Unfortunately, there is a misperception of what competition is really all about and what it means to succeed.

Many believe or are taught that those that “win the race” are the more deserving—i.e. they are better people, chosen, or selected by fate or DNA; and those that get less are either a lower class or caste, punished or cursed, or that they must simply work less or just don’t try. Many unfair and ridiculous judgments are thus cast on why some have more and less. (Even the people who “lose the race” often feel this way.)

So it is no wonder, when people are asked to choose real or relative wealth, in a way, it is no wonder that so many may choose relative over real wealth—because winning means that they are deserving and therefore better.

If only we could let go of our judgmental attitudes, our superiority complexes, and the notions of entitlements because “we are who we are,” then maybe we could see past the illusion of superiority and move toward a society where we all seek a larger pie for everyone to share and benefit from.

In that world, everyone will chose option #2—to not only do their best, but also to maximize the best for everyone else.

In the end, competition is not with others but with ourselves. And success is helping others succeed, and maybe even being happy for them if they do better than we do.


Share/Save/Bookmark