Showing posts with label Fairness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fairness. Show all posts

September 15, 2017

Management Is A Privilege

So some people have this notion about management that is all wrong. 

- Management is not a right or entitlement.

- Management is a wonderful privilege!

The privilege comes with responsibility and is earned by knowing how to manage and treat your people right.

That means:

- Acting with integrity

- Treating people fairly, with dignity, and respect

- Showing you value them

- Helping to develop them

- And of course, achieving results together!

I heard it said well like this:
"If you don't treat people well 
you won't be a manager for long."
Again, it's a privilege, not a right, to manage and lead others. 

Those who abuse their privilege and people--it's like the cycle of life. ;-)

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

July 22, 2016

Why Trump Nailed It

(Washington, DC. Our Capital of This Great Nation, 2016)

Trump is a long-shot, but IMHO here's a top 20 why I believe he is nailing it:

1. I'm with you vs. I'm with her.

2. I will be a voice for you and will fight for you vs. I really want this so bad for me. 

3. I will re establish law and order vs. I am above the law.

4. I will appropriately name the enemy, stamp out ISIS, and do it fast vs. I won't even say the word radical Islamists, ISIS is the "JV team," and absolutely "no boots on the ground." 

4. We will secure America from terrorism vs. it's just some more "workplace violence" and "what's the difference at this point," anyway.

5. We have a ballooning $19 trillion national debt and $900 billion trade deficit vs. the economy is doing just dandy (for now). 


6. I will tell you the truth vs. I will hide the truth and lie, but profoundly claim transparency. 

7. I will hire and recognize the best and brightest vs. I will hire and promote my friends and cronies.

8. I will invest in jobs, education, and infrastructure vs. I will invest in pork-barrel politics and lobbyist-controlled agendas. 

9. Fairness and equality for everyone vs. I'll pick and choose and you know who you are (at least until after the election).

10. We're going back to space, discovery, and innovation vs. we are canceling the shuttle program and riding on Russian rockets. 

11. We will bring manufacturing and jobs back to America vs. we will continue to send them, by the millions, overseas.

12. We will get a good deal for America vs. we will get a personal sham legacy.

13. We will be true to our friends and allies vs. we will embrace bitter "Death to America" enemies.

14. Over half the executives in my company are women and get paid equally to men vs. vote for me because I'm a women.

15. I build amazing city skylines vs. I destroy entire regions around the globe.

16. I am the son of a great builder and am a successful family and business man vs. I am the former First Lady of the 2nd impeached president of the United States. 

17. I work and earn my money vs. I take donations for my foundation and oversized speaking fees for myself.  

18. I am a political outsider in a system that Bernie Sanders himself admitted is rigged vs. I am the system and adept at doing the rigging. 

19. I will lead and make America great and respected again vs. I will lead from behind, with a policy of disengagement, withdrawal, and appeasement, and dishonoring this great nation. 

20. I and our children are the future vs. I am from the past and will bring more of it to you.

In latest polls from 13 July, 73% of Americans are unhappy and dissatisfied with the direction this nation is heading in!

But there is sunshine lighting up the lies of the last years. 

I have hope again for this amazing country. 

Greatness, freedom, human rights, fairness, equality, security, and prosperity. 

Oh and BTW...Ivanka is a total star on the Trump team!

(These are strictly my personal views and do not represent those or any organization.)

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

June 28, 2016

Equality Is Human Rights


I was most impressed recently with the organization (including the marketing and branding) behind the LGBT movement. 

The new bumper sticker with the yellow equal (=) sign.

The people on the street in yellow "Equality" t-shirts wanting to talk and promote themselves.

The tablet computers they are carrying equipped with slide presentation on equal rights (and their association with the larger issue on their website for human rights).  

The on-the-spot electronic sign up for either monthly donations and/or petition for the Equality Act to amend the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation. 

Religious beliefs aside, and as long as you don't hurt others, people are people and should not be discriminated against. 

All people should be treated fairly and protected from disparate or unfair treatment, bullying or worse. 

Equality really is human rights. ;-)

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

October 12, 2013

Parole By Analytics

Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about parole boards using software to predict repeat offenders before letting someone go free. 

What used to be a decision based on good behavior during time served, showing remorse to the parole board, and intuition is being augmented with "automated assessments" that include inmate interviews, age of first arrest, type of crime, and so forth.

At least 15 states have adopted "modern risk assessment methods" to determine the potential for recidivism. 

Individuals are marked as higher risk if they are:

- Young--age 18-23 (and impulsive)
- Offense was drug-related
- Suspended or expelled from school
- Quit a job prior to having another one 
- Single or separated
- Diagnosed with a mental disorder
- Believes that it's not possible to overcome their past. 

Surprisingly, violent criminals (rapists and murders) are actually considered lower risk those guilty of nonviolent property crimes--the thinking being the someone convicted of robbery is more likely to repeat the criminal behavior because the crime is one that "reflects planning and intent."

Honestly, I think it is more than ridiculous that we should rank violent criminals less risky than thieves and release them because they had what is considered an "emotional outburst."

Would you rather have some thieves back on the street or murders and rapists--rhetorical question!

But it just shows that even the best of systems that are supposed to help make better decisions--can instead be misused or abused.

This happens when there is either bad data (such as from data-entry mistakes, deceptive responses, and missing relevant information) or from poorly designed decision rules/algorithms are applied.

The Compas system is one of the main correctional software suites being used, and the company Northpointe (a unit of Volaris) themselves advise that officials should "override the system's decisions at rates of 8% to 15%."

While even a 1/7 error rate may be an improvement over intuition, we need to still do better, especially if that 1 person commits a violent hideous crime that hurts someone else in society, and this could've been prevented. 

It's certainly not easy to expect a parole board to make a decision of whether to let someone out/free in 20 minutes, but think about the impact to someone hurt or killed or to their family, if the wrong decision is made. 

This is a critical governance process that needs:

- Sufficient time to make important decisions
- More investment in tools to aid the decision process
- Refinement of the rules that support release or imprisonment
- Collection of a broad base of interviews, history, and relevant data points tied to repeat behavior
- Validation of information to limit deception or error.

Aside from predicting whether someone is likely to be repeat offenders, parole boards also need to consider whether the person has been both punished in accordance with the severity of the crime and rehabilitated to lead a productive life going forward. 

We need to decide people's fates fairly for them, justly for the victims, and safely for society--systems can help, but it's not enough to just "have faith in the computer." ;-)

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

August 25, 2013

Drone Warfare: Integration At Its Best

I learned a lot about Drone Warfare reading and thinking about "The Killing Machines" in The Atlantic by David Bowden. 

The benefits of drones for military use are numerous:

- Stealth: Drones can be relatively small (some are now even the size of bugs) and they can survey from vehicles that are aerial, terrestrial, underwater, or I would imagine, even subterranean. In a sense, even a spy satellite is a type of drone, isn't it? 

- Persistent: They can hover unmanned over enemy territory for not only hours, but also days at a time, and switching in replacement drones can create a virtually continuous stream of surveillance for months or years, depending on the need. 

- Powerful: The sensors on a drone can include high-definition cameras, eavesdropping devices, radar, infrared, "and a pixel array so dense, that the device can zoom in clearly on objects only inches wide from well over 15,000 feet above." Further, with features like Gorgon Stare, multiple cameras linked together can view entire cities in one feel swoop.   

- Long-range: Drones can function doing reconnaissance or surveillance far away and deep into enemy territory. With drones, no one is too distant or remote as to be untouchable. 

- Lethality: Drones can carry missiles such as The Hellfire, a "100-pound antitank missile" and other weapons that can act expediently on information without the need to call in additional support. 

- Precise: Drones can hit targets with amazing precision--"It targets indiscriminate killers with exquisite discrimination." 

- Safety: Drones carry out their work unmanned with (or without) controllers stationed at safe distances away--sometimes thousands of miles back at the homeland. 

- Expendable: Drones themselves are throwaway. As with a bee, a drone is more or less useless when disconnected from the hive. Similarly, a military "drone is useless as an eyeball disconnected from the brain," since drones function only as an extension of back-end satellite links, data processors, intelligence analysts, and its controller." 

Overall, the great value of drones is their integration of technologies: vehicles, global telecommunications, optics, sensors, supercomputers, weapon systems, and more. 

To me, between the questions of fairness, legality, and privacy--drones are being given a bum rap. 

- Fairness:  Just because one side has a technology that the other doesn't, should not mean it's wrong to use it. This is what competition and evolution is all about. I remember learning in school, when children would complain to the teacher that something was unfair, and the teacher would reply, "life is unfair!" This doesn't mean we should use a shotgun approach, but rather use what we got, appropriately. 

- Legality: Is it legal to kill targets rather than apprehending them, trying them, and otherwise punishing them? This is where sincere deliberations come in on whether someone is a "lawful target" (e.g. enemy combatant), "imminent threat" (e.g. self-defense), whether other alternatives are viable (e.g. collateral damage assessments), and will killing them do more hard than good to foreign relations, influence, and even possibly breeding new hate and terror, rather than quelling it. 

- Privacy: The issue of privacy comes less into play with military matters and more with respect to domestic use for law enforcement and other civilian uses (from agriculture to urban planning). The key is protect citizens from being unduly monitored, tracked, and scrutinized--where freedom itself is under big-brother attack and we all become mere drones ourselves in a national hive of complacency and brainless obedience. 

Rather than scaling back drones use, I liked Mary Ellen O'Connell vision of new drones "capable of delivering a warning--'Come out with your hands up!' and then landing to make an arrest using handcuffs."

This is the promise of technology to learn from mistakes of the past and always bring possibilities of making things better in the future. ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Don McCullough)
Share/Save/Bookmark

June 5, 2013

Why Can't We All Be As Happy In Our Jobs As This?

Lapham's Quarterly (5 June 2013) put up a matrix of the "Worst Jobs In the World," but the problem is that is completely misses the mark!

The worst jobs matrix has four dimension based on the functions of jobs being treacherous, tedious, difficult, and disgusting. 


The matrix has some doozy jobs listed, such as the food taster for the emperor (i.e. testing for poison) and the banquet attendant who cleans up guests vomit and holds the pot for partygoers to urinate in.  


However, while this infographic provide some interesting job tidbits, it completely misses the point of what it really means for a job to be bad or worst. 


What doesn't necessarily make a bad job?


- It is not how treacherous a job is, because treachery can be in the name of patriotism (such as someone who works in the Intelligence or National Security community and may commit treacherous deeds, but they are for a noble cause to protect our people and country).


- It is not how tedious a job is, because many jobs are tedious but they are necessary and important, such as working "on the line" in many traditional manufacturing jobs producing goods that people want and need. 


- It is not how difficult a job is, because often the more difficult a job is, the more rewarding it is, such as a surgeon, scientist, social worker, teacher, and so on. 


- It is not how disgusting a job is, because many jobs involve blood, guts, and gore, but are jobs that save lives such as doctors, fire and rescue personnel, and even our warfighters. 


What does necessarily make a bad job?


- If you work for a cruel boss, you have a bad job. A bad boss--one that is bullying, arbitrary, unfair, egotistical, mean, and abusive--can ruin even the best of jobs. When you work for a great boss, you can learn, grow, and are well treated and for a boss like that, you will go the extra mile. 


- If you perform meaningless work, you have a bad job. One of the most important factors in worker satisfaction is whether you perform purposeful and meaningful work. If you do, then you have a reason to get up in the morning, and that is a great feeling, indeed. 


- If you work and are not fairly compensated, you have a bad job. Most people don't mind working hard as long as they is a fair performance management system, where they get rewarded and recognized for their contributions. However, if you aren't fairly compensated and can't make ends meet to provide for your family, you have a bad job. 


- If you have a job that doesn't provide for work-life balance, you have a bad job. Generation Y really appreciates this, and they have taught us all something about the importance of maintaining a healthy work-life balance. This means working to live and not living to work. If you have a job where you miss your kids' ballgames, have no intimacy with your spouse, and don't have time and energy to take care of yourself physically, mentally, and spiritually, you have a bad job. 


Many people work in jobs that are challenging--whether they are treacherous, tedious, difficult, or disgusting--but they are in good jobs. Other jobs are for cruel bosses, doing meaningless work, and are not fairly compensated and don't have work-life balance, and they are in jobs you would never want to have in a million years. In fact, food taster and banquet attendant may sound pretty darn good in comparison. ;-)


(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Share/Save/Bookmark

September 2, 2012

From Coworker to Killer

People are people, but there are some who walk a fine and dangerous line. 

Some are stable, rational people--those, that we hope we can depend on. 

Others are prime time wack jobs--they are not "safe" and everyone knows to beware of them.

Finally, there are those who are like firecrackers, one step away from explosion--and these can pose a nasty surprise. 

These last two perhaps invoke the fear of someone in the workplace "going postal"--a reference to the 1986 killing by a postal worker of 14 people and then himself. 

In light of the workplace shooting this week in front the Empire State Building, Newsweek (3 September 2012) asks "How to Spot a Workplace Crazy?"

Their default answer--see the Department of Homeland Security's Active Shooter Booklet, which includes a list of 16 "indicators of potential violence by an employee" (page 10) from addiction to depression, over reactions to mood swings, unprovoked rage to paranoia, and more. 

Perhaps, their more genuine answer is that anybody can be the next workplace shooter--and that it is hard to really tell what demons lay in wait inside a person's head or heart or what can set them off.  

They reference  the book, Going Postal: Rage, Murder, and Rebellion, which states: "it can be anybody who's getting completely screwed in the workplace--so that's most workers in this country." 

When people feel a "perceived injustice" or they are "grievance collectors"--harboring hurt and anger at their mistreatment day-in and -out, they may be one step away from dangerous. 

As leaders and managers, we cannot control for everything that people feel or for all their personal struggles and life's circumstances, but we can do our best to treat others fairly, with compassion, to listen to them, and try to accomodate genuine needs.  

I was reminded of this again, recently, when I went with my daughter to a car dealership.  At one point in negotiating for a new automobile, I asked a question about the current odometer reading.  

The Manager yells over to a worker and tells him harshly to get on it and quickly.  It wasn't what he said per se, but how he said it--ordering his subordinate around like a thing, not like a person.  

My daughter turns to me and she is clearly uncomfortable with what she saw.  I asked her about it.  And she whispers to me, "Did you see how they treated the worker? It's not right." 

I couldn't agree with her more. And when the man came back with the information--we thanked him so much for helping us and told him what a good job he was doing getting everything ready--the paperwork and the vehicle.  

Is he going to "go postal" today, tomorrow, or never...I don't know--he seemed nice enough, but if people get pushed too far and their mental state is frayed, anything is possible, and we shouldn't tempt fate--more importantly, we should treat everyone with respect and dignity. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Charlie Essers)

Share/Save/Bookmark

June 30, 2012

What Number Are You?


This is an amazing video that has won 15 awards and was translated into 27 languages. 

It is an animation film and moves a little slowly from my perspective, but the message is terrific!

The short film is about us--all people--we live in the ever present "caste" society, not of yesteryear, but of all time. 

It is about where people are (or aren't) in the pecking order of life and that despite our "place," we can still find success. 

Some are born "Zero's" and live a life of prejudice, persecution, bullying, and torment. 

Others are born high numbers, and they are the elites in society--given the best educational and professional, materialistic, and networking opportunities. 

Many in our age have recognized that this trend continues unabated--only now it's called things like Occupy Wall Street and referred to as the 99% and 1%.

In the past, it was variations of slaves and masters; fiefs, vassals, and lords, and now-a-days even average workers and the C-Suite.

In the video, "A Zero is a zero"--he is bullied in school, and thrown into the gutter as an adult by "the higher numbers."

I am certain that many of us can relate to this...in fact, this video has been viewed almost 1.3 million times on Youtube already.

Only when Zero meets another zero and has a baby--who is born an "infinite," does everyone else stop and literally bow down. 

While I believe that we all need to work hard and contribute and in no way, believe that anyone who is able to contribute should be given a "free ride," I do believe firmly that we are all human beings, G-d's children, and deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. 

Everyone has a value in society and from nothing (or Zero) can come something amazing, if we only give people a fighting chance.

Personally, I am a child of Holocaust survivors, and my family came over with nothing. My grandmother cried that they didn't have a chair to sit on when they came to this country.  

The Nazis took everything, lives and things. As the presumed high and mighty "Aryan race," everyone else was zero fodder for the ovens in the concentration camps or to be shot through the head while begging for mercy on their knees. 

Like my grandparents, my uncle by marriage and his brother came over on a children's transport train, alone and completely on their own, to try and "make it," after being orphaned by Nazi murderers.

In the holocaust, the Nazis treated all their victims as Zero's by tattooing numbers on their arms to dehumanize them.

This is part of a long historical plot of the strong and the weak, the haves and the have nots--the high numbers and the zeros in this world.

When as a 10-year old, we moved to Riverdale, New York, a very affluent neighborhood in the Bronx bordering Westchester, most of my classmates lived in million-dollar mansions, while we lived on "the other side of town."  

I grew up understanding that I had to be determined, work hard, and pray hard to try and climb up the ladder and it's numbered stairs--in fact, like "Rocky," I used to run the stairs--hundreds of times!

But to me, determination and hard work seem to come natural--thank G-d--but even more important to me was not monetary success but decency, integrity, speaking truth, and working for the advancement of all on as level a playing field as we can get. 

I will not bow to "infinity" as the others in the movie and in real life have done, but I will try and help make infinity a place that we all can aspire to.

Share/Save/Bookmark

March 24, 2012

What Are People Hungry For?

In the Hunger Games, the storyline is of the common people being punished for rebelling against "The Capital" generations ago, by having to put up male and female "Tributes" (kids age 12-18) from each of 12 districts to fight it out to the death, while the rich and powerful in The Capital watch, laugh, and enjoy the equivalent of the gladiators in the Coliseum. 

The Games offer a restricted hope to the people--as hope is seen as "the only thing stronger than fear." In this movie, the hope for winning the games is supposed to displace the fear of the central authorities over their subjects as well as any real hope of change, equality, and justice for the masses. 

What the kids and adult fans of this movie seem to be lining up and cheering wildly for with this box-office smash hit is the main character Katniss Everdeen who defies the corrupt politicians and affluent capitalists by fighting not for her life in The Hunger Games as much as for the dignity of the common people in the districts.

From the beginning, Katniss become the first ever to volunteer for the games to take the place of her less adept, younger sister, Primrose, who is selected from District 12; Katniss put her life on the line to save her sister's life.

And all along during the movie, Katniss refuses to be a pawn in the game and simply kill or be killed, but she rises above the fight and acts all the time with humanity, caring for other tributes and generally refusing to hurt others, unless her life is threatened and she literally has no choice. 

For example, she cares for a younger girl from District 11 who eventually is speared to death by another tribute hunting them. 
Also, she cares for her companion from District 12, Peeta, who is injured, and she risks her life to get medicine to save his. 

At climax, Katniss is ready to commit suicide, rather than continue playing to the evil dictates of the authorities. 

Katniss comes from the poverty and ordinariness of the district people. However, her fighting spirit, humanity, and ability to outwit not only the other tributes, but the evil leaders--who play the tributes (and districts) off each other for their own power, permanence, and punishment of the lower class--makes her a hero among the masses who are at the ready to revolt at her simple salute to the people. 

What I thought was going to be a kids movie that would put me to sleep, turned out to be an uplifting experience watching an old, familiar theme of Rocky the fighter win against all the odds, but in this case with the added twist of defying a corrupt government and elitist culture.

I think this movie is appealing to people at exactly a time now where the 99% are simmering and fed up with the shenanigans of the 1% and elements of both the Occupy movement and Tea Party are looking for principles of freedom, justice, and dignity to be restored.

The Hunger Games is not just about the dystopian future society that doesn't exist today, but rather about a historical perspective of people who are craving for the proverbial "dirty politicians" and "greedy capitalists" to put aside their games, agendas, excuses, and pots of power and gold for a more utopian society where all people are created equal and treated fairly with hope anchored in reality. 

(Source Photo: Adapted from here)


Share/Save/Bookmark

July 24, 2011

How Do You Like Those Apples?

Apple

A new proposed method for determining Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) for people receiving Social Security and federal and military retiree pensions is called the Chained Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The Federal Times (18 July 2011) reports that "proposed COLA changes would mean smaller annuities for retirees."

Essentially, the Chained CPI doesn't just look at the change in prices for "market basket" of goods, but it "takes into account...the fact that most consumers change their buying habits when prices go up."

What this means in a simple example (exaggerated for effect) is that:

If the price of an Apple goes up from $1 to $2 instead of COLA being adjusted so that retirees get $2 for the apple, we give them instead maybe $1.25, since we ASSUME that because the price of apples went up "people are likely to buy fewer apples or switch to a cheaper fruit."

Does that sound right from your shopping experience?

Are you going to buy fewer apples or are they sort of a necessity? Further, if the price of apples goes up, is it not likely that the price of other common fruits will go up in an inflationary environment as well.

This proposal which is estimated "to save $300 billion in its first decade" sounds like quite the fuzzy economics indeed.

So how do you like those apples?

(Source Picture: here)

Share/Save/Bookmark

March 13, 2011

Essential Leadership Do’s and Don’ts

Below is a list of my top 15 recommended leadership attributes and the do’s and don’t for these.

For example, in managing people—do empower them; don’t micromanage. For supporting people—do back them; don’t undermine them. In terms of availability-do be approachable; don’t be disengaged. And so on…


While the list is not comprehensive, I believe it does give a good starting point for leaders to guide themselves with.

Overall, a good rule of thumb is to be the type of leader to your staff that you want your supervisor to be to you.

Common sense yes, but too often we expect (no, we demand) more from others than we do from ourselves.

This is counter-intuitive, because we need to start by working and improving on ourselves, where we can have the most immediate and true impact.

Now is a perfect time to start to lead by example and in a 360-degree fashion—because leadership is not a one-way street, but affects those above, below, and horizontal to us.

If we are great leaders, we can impact people from the trenches to the boardroom and all the customers and stakeholders concerned. That’s what ultimately makes it so important for us to focus on leadership and continually strive to improve in this.

Share/Save/Bookmark

May 9, 2009

“Soft Hands” Leadership

Conventional wisdom has it that there are two primary types of leaders: one is focused on the work (task-oriented) and the other is focused on the relationships (people-oriented). Of course, the exceptional leader can find the right balance between the two. Usually though it is the people skills that are short-changed in lieu of getting the job done.

Personally, I am a firm believer in the military doctrine of “Mission first, people always!”—Although, I am certain that some leaders even in the military are better at exemplifying this than others.

With the global financial downturn, there is an interesting article in Harvard Business Review titled “The Right Way to Close an Operation,” May 2009 that sheds some light on this leadership topic.

In this article, Kenneth Freeman advocates for a “soft hands” approach when closing or shrinking an operation. This approach calls for leadership to “treat employees with dignity, fairness, and respect—the way you would want to be treated.”

Wow!!! This is great--A human-centric approach to leadership.

Unfortunately some unconsciously believe that being tough on mission means being tough on people too. However, there is no need to "flick the whip." There is another way. We can embrace people as human beings, work with them, have compassion on them, treat them well, and lead them towards mission delivery.

It doesn’t have to be supervisors versus employees--different sides of the bargaining table. It can be in most instances people striving together for organizational success.

For me, this ties right in to my vision for enterprise architecture to have a human capital perspective. Human capital is critical to mission delivery. We must not focus exclusively on process and technology and forget the critical people aspect of organizational performance. A stool with only two legs (process and technology) without the third (people) will assuredly fall.

Freeman states that even when doing difficult things like downsizing we can still treat people humanly, the way we would want to be treated. He says: “reducing a workforce is painful, but you can do it in such a way that people will someday say, ‘you know I once worked for Company X. I didn’t like the fact that they shut my plant down, but I still think it’s a good company.’”

Here’s some tips from Freeman as I understand them:

- Address the personal issues for the employees—why they are losing their jobs, how the closure will affect them, what you will do to help them land on their feet…

- Communicate early and often—“People need to hear a message at least six times to internalize it.”

- Get out there—“Be visible and personal. A closure or a downsizing is not an excuse for leaders to go into hiding.”

-Take responsibility—“The leader should take personal responsibility for the organization’s behavior.”

- Be honest, but kind—“Explain that the decision is being made for the sake of the overall business not because the people who are leaving have done a bad job.”

- Treat everyone fairly—“who stays and who goes should be decided on an objective basis.”

- Help people go on—“help people find jobs.”

- Maintain a quality focus—“leaders should regularly remind everyone of the importance of quality and keep measuring and celebrating it.”

Freeman goes on with other sensible advice on how to not only treat employees well, but also customers and suppliers “like valued partners.” He has a refreshing perspective on delivering results, while maintaining human dignity.

Here's the critical point:

Having a “soft hands” approach to people doesn’t mean that you are soft on mission. That can never happen. But it does mean, we remember that delivery of mission is through our professional relationships with people—employees, customers, suppliers, partners, shareholders and more.

Treating people with dignity, respect, and fairness will positively generate mission delivery for the organization.


Share/Save/Bookmark