Intelligence is a responsibility. Or maybe it's creativity that's the responsibility. Whichever way you want to look at it, the things that pop in to your head are gifts and you need to take responsibility for them. That's the conclusion I came to last night.
On more than one occasion over the last many months, I've found that ideas that have come to me either in the still of the night, or as a consequence of reading or hearing something, eventually show up in the 'real' world. Often, they are being said by various 'talking head' types. This makes me realize that, hey, it wasn't such a foolish idea after all.
Trouble is, as with most other people, I tend to second guess myself. I figure, heck if I could come up with it, it couldn't have been all that interesting or special. I'm wondering though, how many times this will have to happen before I actually try to be first to market with one of these brain farts?
I'm thinking that I'm waiting to see someone make millions with one of my ideas, before I finally get my behind in gear and DO.
So I end as I started: ideas that come out of our Mother Wit, our native intelligence, are gifts and should be treated with respect. Whether or not we respect ourselves or see ourselves as worthy of having had a great idea is immaterial, we need to at least respect the ideas and give them the attention and effort they are due. Maybe they will turn out to have been duds. In that instance nothing is lost but the time invested, but what if even one really turns out to be genius? There's only one way to find out if that is the case: DO, ACT, TRY.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
I Wish
The Republicans really need to get it together.
As a student of Sociology my inclination is towards social justice. In the debate over Health Care Reform, I've never been of a mind that the cost was the central issue. I felt (and continue to feel) strongly that the focus should be on the value. But that's just me. Now that that fight is over, I sure wish the Republicans would figure out a way to stop being such troglodytes among men and start offering some real IDEAS (what a concept!) for this country's future. Somewhere in the middle between so-called liberal ideals and conservative extremes, lies the way forward that is best for this nation. Would that there were enough push and pull on each side to help us find it.
Having spent the last several months doing not much else besides saying "No", "No" and "Hell no", perhaps they Republicans could come up with something else? Banking regulation? Nix. Health care reform? Nix. Cap and Trade? Neh. Do they have anything to offer? Is there anything they will come to the table for, apart from tax cuts? I'm guessing no. Well unless the Democrats suggest drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. They might come to the table for that, since they're so big on "Drill Baby! Drill!"
What troubles me is not the no's, I'm getting accustomed to those, it's the ugliness. Surely, we can agree to disagree? Surely we can disagree on substantive issues without name-calling and ugliness. Spitting and race-baiting. But I guess, if the other side had a substantive point to make, if they actually had an idea, rancor wouldn't be the stock in trade. As it is, the Party of No is actually the Party of No Ideas. Maybe I should join? I figure anybody with a single half-baked idea could lead that party right about now, and I've got at least two (half-baked ideas that is).
Opposition that opposes for the sake of opposing, with no intention of improving the majority's ideas is useless and ultimately harms us all. Hubris steps in and chaos or bad decision-making ensues. Surely you can do better than this? Surely we deserve better than this?
As a student of Sociology my inclination is towards social justice. In the debate over Health Care Reform, I've never been of a mind that the cost was the central issue. I felt (and continue to feel) strongly that the focus should be on the value. But that's just me. Now that that fight is over, I sure wish the Republicans would figure out a way to stop being such troglodytes among men and start offering some real IDEAS (what a concept!) for this country's future. Somewhere in the middle between so-called liberal ideals and conservative extremes, lies the way forward that is best for this nation. Would that there were enough push and pull on each side to help us find it.
Having spent the last several months doing not much else besides saying "No", "No" and "Hell no", perhaps they Republicans could come up with something else? Banking regulation? Nix. Health care reform? Nix. Cap and Trade? Neh. Do they have anything to offer? Is there anything they will come to the table for, apart from tax cuts? I'm guessing no. Well unless the Democrats suggest drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. They might come to the table for that, since they're so big on "Drill Baby! Drill!"
What troubles me is not the no's, I'm getting accustomed to those, it's the ugliness. Surely, we can agree to disagree? Surely we can disagree on substantive issues without name-calling and ugliness. Spitting and race-baiting. But I guess, if the other side had a substantive point to make, if they actually had an idea, rancor wouldn't be the stock in trade. As it is, the Party of No is actually the Party of No Ideas. Maybe I should join? I figure anybody with a single half-baked idea could lead that party right about now, and I've got at least two (half-baked ideas that is).
Opposition that opposes for the sake of opposing, with no intention of improving the majority's ideas is useless and ultimately harms us all. Hubris steps in and chaos or bad decision-making ensues. Surely you can do better than this? Surely we deserve better than this?
This Healthcare Debate is making me crazy!
Ah.......so much to say, so little space.
Over the last many weeks and months I've often had to remind myself that any conversation about health care where 'cost' rather than 'value' becomes the central point around which all arguments coalesce is pretty much a waste of time as the two notions cannot peacefully coexist.
Is this expensive yes. Is this necessary yes…but only necessary if, as a nation, we believe that there are no throwaway people. If we accept that some people should just be left to their fate, then doing nothing works just fine. If we believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then perhaps we need to think again about reform.
Sometimes life is not as simple as "if you want what your neighbor has go work for it". Sometimes people get sick and can't work, what then should they do? Sometimes we are born with things growing where nothing should grow, what then should we do? Should such people never be free to have insurance and be protected from that and any other health curve balls that may be lobbed in their direction? I’m just wondering.
Let us not be coy. This reform, imperfect though it may be, isn’t about class warfare [though that’s a great clarion call for conservatives to rally round]. Seems to me it’s about life and death. It’s about access vs denial. I think once you shake all the other stuff off and quiet the noise and rancor, that’s the core principle. Is this America’s core principle? That people matter? I matter. Do you? Who gets to decide who does and who doesn't? Does my pocket book determine my value? Food for thought.
Thursday, March 11, 2010
All for me, none for you
So the other day I went to the doctor for a check up. My doctor, an uber-cool guy, always chats with his patients before we do the needful. It's part of his process and I love it. Yesterday the talk turned to health care. His main complaint was about the shortsightedness (or perhaps it was straight selfishness) of some folk. Apparently he knows this well off couple who are happily using their Medicare, but who are vehemently anti any Health Insurance reform that might give support to lower and middle income Americans in their quest for health coverage and care.
I'm always fascinated by people whose only concern is well, themselves. All for me, none for you is their motto. There is usually a strong expectation with these folk that others pull their own weight and I have no problem with that. What is troubling though, is the disdain that often accompanies the demand that others "pull themselves up by their bootstraps". Having, as these kinds of conservatives often do, zero experience of what it is to be working poor, or worse, hopelessly poor, I tend to wonder if they have ever considered what it must be like to walk in a poor man's moccasins.
Now that the bill has passed (I'm publishing this on March 22), I'm having an odd exchange with an old friend who is rabidly pro-life and yet, can see no benefit to changes in the health care system. How is that even possible? If you believe so vehemently in the sanctity and value of life, surely you should also believe in the value of health care that may indeed prolong life? But no, her challenges are simply these: naturopathic medicine won't be covered; as a nation, we can't afford this; and there aren't enough doctors to support this change. Let me try to debunk each of these in turn.
Naturopathy
Naturopathic treatments are currently not covered nor will they be under the new law. Is that a reason to dismiss the law out of hand? I don't think so. What percentage of the population currently uses naturopathic approaches? Clearly not enough to create the pressure on the system to have the interventions supported in health insurance. I'm not sure that you can lay the blame for that at the President's door. But if you must, feel free. Do naturopaths have a lobby? Who is speaking on their behalf? Clearly whomever it is, isn't speaking loudly enough. And if no one is speaking, let's be clear that silence is not the way to being taken seriously in this society. Silence buys you nothing. Without loud voices calling for their inclusion in the provisions of any health insurance reform package, naturopaths and their work will continue to languish on the sidelines. But I ask again, is that reason enough to dismiss the reform package? I think not.
Cost
Cost however is a significant concern for many, myself included. I, however, am governed not by the 'cost' notion but rather by the notion of 'value'. Too often we allow ourselves to be stymied by cost rather than do the necessary analysis to see whether the value of our purchase outweighs its cost. Health reform is not a car that will begin depreciating as soon as we start the engine, nor is it a book that valuable though it may be, will never sell for what we paid for it. Rather, this is a LIFE and DEATH matter. Who would put a dollar value on my life? Who would make so bold as to tell Mary that her life was worth saving, but not Jane's? Who? Let's not be coy about it. Health Insurance and the access to it, is about living and dying. Nothing else. We've heard foolish talk about the government setting up death panels and other such nonsense, but what is an insurance company that denies me coverage because of a congenital condition, if not a death panel? By denying me coverage, you deny me treatment options except I have cash in hand which many of us don't. So basically, you've decided that I should be denied treatment. Sounds like a DP decision to me.
What is often ignored in the 'cost' discussion though, is the cost of lost intellectual capacity. Does that cost not weigh on the economy? There is no way to quantify that which is lost, but that doesn't gainsay the fact that something precious was in fact, lost. Perhaps we haven't thought that far? Maybe we should. The loss of an Einstein or a Hawking isn't the only loss that is felt throughout the system. When other, lesser mortals die potential is lost there as well. Perhaps if we genuinely believed that every individual brought something unique and valuable to the planet we might feel differently about simply letting folk fade away because they can't afford expensive treatments or even the inexpensive tests, that would preclude expensive treatment down the road.
Shortage of healthcare professionals
Of the three complaints, this is surely the weakest. Some would suggest that by giving more people access to care, the lines will be longer and we will all have to wait for treatment. This suggests that either my doctor is so dumb that he won't know what needs to be addressed urgently and he will therefore take a 'well there's no rush posture' resulting in my demise OR that I will automatically have to wait because more people are going to need to be seen. I'm not entirely sure that I buy either argument. Frankly, if my doctor didn't feel the same sense of urgency that I felt regarding my ailment, I would get another doctor. Simple. I might have to wait, but don't I have to wait for appointments now? Some doctors aren't even taking new patients. If I must, I would look around until I found a doctor who met my needs and was free to see me. I would certainly not expect a doctor to be sitting around waiting for me to show up. If all else failed, I would go to the emergency room for immediate treatment. Options abound once I have insurance. Not so much, if I'm without it.
The second argument though is more nefarious. At its core, it holds that my treatment - my immediate treatment - is more important than yours. Far be it for me to have to wait to see a doctor. There can be no waiting time as my need is urgent. But if everyone has a right to care, everyone has a right to be seen urgently. Then the only fair way to ensure access for all, is on a first come, first served basis. We only dislike this approach when we're not first. Does anyone else see a problem with this approach? We can't always be first. I know that first is the only place that seems to matter, but really it isn't. Sometimes we need to let someone else go before us. Try it a time or two. You may find that you can stand the wait after all.
As I see it, the question we need to be asking ourselves is "What are the core national values?" Do we value life? If so then it must be ALL life that is deemed valuable. It's odd to me that pro-lifers would be anti-reform that aims to improve and lengthen lives. How can you be pro-life and claim that reform that gives 30 million people access to insurance and therefore care, is a bad idea? If you're pro-choice, you should be pro-reform, because it gives us all a choice in terms of our treatment options. No one has to just take the cheapest, lowest end treatment and pray that it works. We can all be as aggressive or as passive as we want in response to our ailments. What could be wrong about that? Or maybe I've missed something. Hopefully, someone will show me the error of my ways.
Now that the bill has passed (I'm publishing this on March 22), I'm having an odd exchange with an old friend who is rabidly pro-life and yet, can see no benefit to changes in the health care system. How is that even possible? If you believe so vehemently in the sanctity and value of life, surely you should also believe in the value of health care that may indeed prolong life? But no, her challenges are simply these: naturopathic medicine won't be covered; as a nation, we can't afford this; and there aren't enough doctors to support this change. Let me try to debunk each of these in turn.
Naturopathy
Naturopathic treatments are currently not covered nor will they be under the new law. Is that a reason to dismiss the law out of hand? I don't think so. What percentage of the population currently uses naturopathic approaches? Clearly not enough to create the pressure on the system to have the interventions supported in health insurance. I'm not sure that you can lay the blame for that at the President's door. But if you must, feel free. Do naturopaths have a lobby? Who is speaking on their behalf? Clearly whomever it is, isn't speaking loudly enough. And if no one is speaking, let's be clear that silence is not the way to being taken seriously in this society. Silence buys you nothing. Without loud voices calling for their inclusion in the provisions of any health insurance reform package, naturopaths and their work will continue to languish on the sidelines. But I ask again, is that reason enough to dismiss the reform package? I think not.
Cost
Cost however is a significant concern for many, myself included. I, however, am governed not by the 'cost' notion but rather by the notion of 'value'. Too often we allow ourselves to be stymied by cost rather than do the necessary analysis to see whether the value of our purchase outweighs its cost. Health reform is not a car that will begin depreciating as soon as we start the engine, nor is it a book that valuable though it may be, will never sell for what we paid for it. Rather, this is a LIFE and DEATH matter. Who would put a dollar value on my life? Who would make so bold as to tell Mary that her life was worth saving, but not Jane's? Who? Let's not be coy about it. Health Insurance and the access to it, is about living and dying. Nothing else. We've heard foolish talk about the government setting up death panels and other such nonsense, but what is an insurance company that denies me coverage because of a congenital condition, if not a death panel? By denying me coverage, you deny me treatment options except I have cash in hand which many of us don't. So basically, you've decided that I should be denied treatment. Sounds like a DP decision to me.
What is often ignored in the 'cost' discussion though, is the cost of lost intellectual capacity. Does that cost not weigh on the economy? There is no way to quantify that which is lost, but that doesn't gainsay the fact that something precious was in fact, lost. Perhaps we haven't thought that far? Maybe we should. The loss of an Einstein or a Hawking isn't the only loss that is felt throughout the system. When other, lesser mortals die potential is lost there as well. Perhaps if we genuinely believed that every individual brought something unique and valuable to the planet we might feel differently about simply letting folk fade away because they can't afford expensive treatments or even the inexpensive tests, that would preclude expensive treatment down the road.
Shortage of healthcare professionals
Of the three complaints, this is surely the weakest. Some would suggest that by giving more people access to care, the lines will be longer and we will all have to wait for treatment. This suggests that either my doctor is so dumb that he won't know what needs to be addressed urgently and he will therefore take a 'well there's no rush posture' resulting in my demise OR that I will automatically have to wait because more people are going to need to be seen. I'm not entirely sure that I buy either argument. Frankly, if my doctor didn't feel the same sense of urgency that I felt regarding my ailment, I would get another doctor. Simple. I might have to wait, but don't I have to wait for appointments now? Some doctors aren't even taking new patients. If I must, I would look around until I found a doctor who met my needs and was free to see me. I would certainly not expect a doctor to be sitting around waiting for me to show up. If all else failed, I would go to the emergency room for immediate treatment. Options abound once I have insurance. Not so much, if I'm without it.
The second argument though is more nefarious. At its core, it holds that my treatment - my immediate treatment - is more important than yours. Far be it for me to have to wait to see a doctor. There can be no waiting time as my need is urgent. But if everyone has a right to care, everyone has a right to be seen urgently. Then the only fair way to ensure access for all, is on a first come, first served basis. We only dislike this approach when we're not first. Does anyone else see a problem with this approach? We can't always be first. I know that first is the only place that seems to matter, but really it isn't. Sometimes we need to let someone else go before us. Try it a time or two. You may find that you can stand the wait after all.
As I see it, the question we need to be asking ourselves is "What are the core national values?" Do we value life? If so then it must be ALL life that is deemed valuable. It's odd to me that pro-lifers would be anti-reform that aims to improve and lengthen lives. How can you be pro-life and claim that reform that gives 30 million people access to insurance and therefore care, is a bad idea? If you're pro-choice, you should be pro-reform, because it gives us all a choice in terms of our treatment options. No one has to just take the cheapest, lowest end treatment and pray that it works. We can all be as aggressive or as passive as we want in response to our ailments. What could be wrong about that? Or maybe I've missed something. Hopefully, someone will show me the error of my ways.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Stuck
It's March 8, 2010. 25 years ago today, my family changed. 25 years later, in spite of having every reason to embrace that change and grow from it, we haven't. Change is difficult but that's not news. For us, clearly there wasn't enough of an impetus to move us forward to a new reality and far too much anchoring us to the status quo. The end result: loss. We lost time and ultimately, whatever will I had to champion change and move us into a new, more productive direction.
This kind of 'sticking' isn't just for families or individuals. Business examples also abound. There's Toyota. Here's a company that has already had to recall hundreds of thousands of cars for sticky gas pedals, but daily it seems, more troubles come to light. Yesterday, March 8 2010, a Toyota Prius in California went rogue racing out of control at speeds over 90 mph, completely unresponsive to owner's frantic application of the brakes. The car was eventually stopped with no loss of life, but given that this Prius model was not on the extensive recall list of just last month, one has to wonder how many more cars may yet have this problem. Toyota though, stands by its fixes and insists that no electronic problems exist. Stuck.
Think too of the US Auto industry. Here is an industry that has been caught up in its own version of the world for years. Stuck. With their well-paid lobbyists and access to the halls of power, they chose not to think more aggressively about improving gas mileage or decreasing harmful emissions. There was no need or was there? The end result of course we all know: loss of market position and a need to come, cap in hand, to Washington to beg for a lifeline. Stuck and stuck on the wrong things. Through a lack of foresight these and other businesses have gone from being front runners in their markets to being 'also rans'.
As a consequence of not being able to see the world outside and, more importantly, bring that outside in and take it into account as decisions are being made, these companies were overtaken and in some cases almost driven entirely out of business. Whether it is a family or a corporation, the end result of this inability to see beyond the prison of one's reality is real and potentially catastrophic.
I'm working on getting unstuck before catastrophe strikes. Are you?
This kind of 'sticking' isn't just for families or individuals. Business examples also abound. There's Toyota. Here's a company that has already had to recall hundreds of thousands of cars for sticky gas pedals, but daily it seems, more troubles come to light. Yesterday, March 8 2010, a Toyota Prius in California went rogue racing out of control at speeds over 90 mph, completely unresponsive to owner's frantic application of the brakes. The car was eventually stopped with no loss of life, but given that this Prius model was not on the extensive recall list of just last month, one has to wonder how many more cars may yet have this problem. Toyota though, stands by its fixes and insists that no electronic problems exist. Stuck.
Think too of the US Auto industry. Here is an industry that has been caught up in its own version of the world for years. Stuck. With their well-paid lobbyists and access to the halls of power, they chose not to think more aggressively about improving gas mileage or decreasing harmful emissions. There was no need or was there? The end result of course we all know: loss of market position and a need to come, cap in hand, to Washington to beg for a lifeline. Stuck and stuck on the wrong things. Through a lack of foresight these and other businesses have gone from being front runners in their markets to being 'also rans'.
As a consequence of not being able to see the world outside and, more importantly, bring that outside in and take it into account as decisions are being made, these companies were overtaken and in some cases almost driven entirely out of business. Whether it is a family or a corporation, the end result of this inability to see beyond the prison of one's reality is real and potentially catastrophic.
I'm working on getting unstuck before catastrophe strikes. Are you?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Voices in the cockpit
First it was children in the air traffic control center, then yesterday, I heard about CAPT Holly Graf, the Navy Commander who had to be relieved of her command for creating a hostile work environment aboard her ship. As different as the two events are, I see a theme. Well, I'm always looking for 'themes' and connections, perhaps that's why I see them. To my mind what's going on here isn't just bad judgment or bad behavior, it's bad behavior in environments where bad behavior has traditionally been ignored or justified, so bad behavior goes from mildly bad to egregious, over a period of time.
Investigations are just beginning in the case of the 'Baby on the phone' case at New York's JFK airport, but the report is already out on CAPT Graf and it isn't good. It says in part, that "[T]he evidence shows" that Graf violated Navy regulations "by demeaning, humiliating, publicly belittling and verbally assaulting ... subordinates while in command of Cowpens". It goes on to say that "[h]er actions exceeded the firm methods needed to succeed or even thrive and [that] her harsh language and profanity were rarely followed with any instruction." (follow link below for full report on TIME.com) Interesting.
Sometimes I really have to wonder who's minding the store. Who is the authority or standard bearer for management behavior, because some of the things that happen are clearly happening under the 'watchful' eye of a blind leader. In the case of CAPT Graf, was the good CAPT even being managed? I certainly appreciate that the Navy is not a commercial business and so different rules apply, but terrorizing staff - whether they be sailors or salesmen - has, I think, been conclusively proven to have negative rather than positive effects on morale and productivity. It would seem to me that if ever there was an organization where we would want morale to be high, it would be the Armed Services....but I could be wrong. Why would one want there to be high morale in the Armed Services? We're only asking them to go out and put their lives on the line. I suppose you could do that while not trusting the people around you or your commander, but I don't know that we would particularly like the outcome if soldiers and sailors went to 'work' with a mindset of "I'll just have to take care of myself since I can't trust these people to have my back".
When it comes to the children in the Air Traffic Control center at JFK, one of the busiest airports in the US if not the world, I have to ask what the decision-makers were thinking. Were they thinking? And if there was some thought process, could you please let us know what it was? Instead of just firing the father and the supervisor, which should occur post haste, I would want to hear what was going on in their heads as they made the choices that brought us these events. My guess is that once the first child had come in on Day 1, the second child insisted on coming in on Day 2. This means that a SERIES of choices had to be made, by both the father and the supervisor for two different sets of approvals (one would hope). What were those choices? Did the safety of the traveling public ever factor into the equation? It is all well and good to dismiss the staff for egregious misconduct, but without identifying where the thinking broke down, this kind of poor judgment is likely to affect us, the traveling public, again.
A less important and yet not unimportant factor in the JFK ATC story, is the question of what other AT Controllers were doing and thinking, when these children were being allowed to transmit instructions. Were they muttering amongst themselves? Were they obviously annoyed or concerned? Or were they simply quietly horrified but saying to themselves, "Let me mind my own business. Don't start nothing, won't be nothing"? Were they, Heaven forbid, not in the least bit concerned? What is the organizational culture around safety? Is there a safety-consciousness code that these behaviors should have offended? And if there isn't, why isn't there? They are in the life and death business where the tolerance for mistakes in the work they do is fairly small. One wrong call and well, bad, bad things happen. So that said, what's the safety culture and did someone on duty on either of those days, go to the supervisor and point out that this behavior was grossly inappropriate? In that line of work, as in so many others, the minute people stop feeling responsible for each other we're in deep trouble. If there was no sense of "this is a problem" then that too needs to be investigated and appropriate actions taken to change attitudes.
It's easy enough to send a couple of people home, remove someone from command and think that the problem is fixed. In reality however, today's problem is usually a symptom of a underlying pathology. That pathology - whether it is an organizational culture blind to the practice of organizational terrorism or momentary dumb think in management - needs to be unearthed and effectively treated. Without efforts being taken to find and treat the root causes of these strange and dangerous behaviors, the next headline will be about the numbers of dead on account of some entirely preventable accident.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1969602-2,00.html#ixzz0hbESTCfz
Investigations are just beginning in the case of the 'Baby on the phone' case at New York's JFK airport, but the report is already out on CAPT Graf and it isn't good. It says in part, that "[T]he evidence shows" that Graf violated Navy regulations "by demeaning, humiliating, publicly belittling and verbally assaulting ... subordinates while in command of Cowpens". It goes on to say that "[h]er actions exceeded the firm methods needed to succeed or even thrive and [that] her harsh language and profanity were rarely followed with any instruction." (follow link below for full report on TIME.com) Interesting.
Sometimes I really have to wonder who's minding the store. Who is the authority or standard bearer for management behavior, because some of the things that happen are clearly happening under the 'watchful' eye of a blind leader. In the case of CAPT Graf, was the good CAPT even being managed? I certainly appreciate that the Navy is not a commercial business and so different rules apply, but terrorizing staff - whether they be sailors or salesmen - has, I think, been conclusively proven to have negative rather than positive effects on morale and productivity. It would seem to me that if ever there was an organization where we would want morale to be high, it would be the Armed Services....but I could be wrong. Why would one want there to be high morale in the Armed Services? We're only asking them to go out and put their lives on the line. I suppose you could do that while not trusting the people around you or your commander, but I don't know that we would particularly like the outcome if soldiers and sailors went to 'work' with a mindset of "I'll just have to take care of myself since I can't trust these people to have my back".
When it comes to the children in the Air Traffic Control center at JFK, one of the busiest airports in the US if not the world, I have to ask what the decision-makers were thinking. Were they thinking? And if there was some thought process, could you please let us know what it was? Instead of just firing the father and the supervisor, which should occur post haste, I would want to hear what was going on in their heads as they made the choices that brought us these events. My guess is that once the first child had come in on Day 1, the second child insisted on coming in on Day 2. This means that a SERIES of choices had to be made, by both the father and the supervisor for two different sets of approvals (one would hope). What were those choices? Did the safety of the traveling public ever factor into the equation? It is all well and good to dismiss the staff for egregious misconduct, but without identifying where the thinking broke down, this kind of poor judgment is likely to affect us, the traveling public, again.
A less important and yet not unimportant factor in the JFK ATC story, is the question of what other AT Controllers were doing and thinking, when these children were being allowed to transmit instructions. Were they muttering amongst themselves? Were they obviously annoyed or concerned? Or were they simply quietly horrified but saying to themselves, "Let me mind my own business. Don't start nothing, won't be nothing"? Were they, Heaven forbid, not in the least bit concerned? What is the organizational culture around safety? Is there a safety-consciousness code that these behaviors should have offended? And if there isn't, why isn't there? They are in the life and death business where the tolerance for mistakes in the work they do is fairly small. One wrong call and well, bad, bad things happen. So that said, what's the safety culture and did someone on duty on either of those days, go to the supervisor and point out that this behavior was grossly inappropriate? In that line of work, as in so many others, the minute people stop feeling responsible for each other we're in deep trouble. If there was no sense of "this is a problem" then that too needs to be investigated and appropriate actions taken to change attitudes.
It's easy enough to send a couple of people home, remove someone from command and think that the problem is fixed. In reality however, today's problem is usually a symptom of a underlying pathology. That pathology - whether it is an organizational culture blind to the practice of organizational terrorism or momentary dumb think in management - needs to be unearthed and effectively treated. Without efforts being taken to find and treat the root causes of these strange and dangerous behaviors, the next headline will be about the numbers of dead on account of some entirely preventable accident.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1969602-2,00.html#ixzz0hbESTCfz
Throwaway People
I listened rapt, to the Health care reform round table last week and had the impression that there were two complete different attitudes coming from the two sides. The attitudes so different, that I ultimately began to wonder whether any rapprochement was possible. One side felt that good enough was good enough and that we should press forward with the Bill as is, while the other side seemed to feel that good enough was not only bad, but that it was so bad we should start all over again.
Everyone had a story to tell of some unfortunate who had no insurance but had been diagnosed with some catastrophic illness. They all seemed to be saying that these examples were why we must fix health care. But with such opposite approaches to reform, how can a path be made from where we are now to wherever it is we want to be? My concern continues to be that the two party approach, the two camp approach, the diametrically opposing viewpoints approach really isn't working. When are our leaders going to figure out that the best approach probably lies somewhere in the middle?
I'm reading this great book, "Getting the Love you Want" by Dr. Harville Hendrix. It's a book about relationships (obviously) but it's germane to the challenges being faced by the Congress because what's going on there, is a study in how bad relationships make for bad decisions (and policy). In the book, Dr. Hendrix makes the simple suggestion that if we want our relationships to work, we must make the relationship our primary focus. He posits that by making the care and feeding of the relationship itself the primary, if not sole, responsibility of the parties, the parties' needs are served. His view is that if we spend our time ensuring that the relationship is healthy, and doing all in our power to support that end, we will necessarily have our needs met. If they weren't being met, the relationship would suffer. In sum, serve the one (relationship), serve all (parties AND relationship). I would like to think that that could be a good way to start looking at working together in the Congress and Senate. Health care reform and everything else will benefit as a consequence.
Stephen R. Covey, writing in 7 Habits of Highly Successful People, listed as habit #2 "Begin with the End in Mind". Would that the Senate and Congress would do the same.
§ What's the end? Reform.
§ What are the hallmarks of such reform? Lower cost, continued high quality care, access for more (if not all), equity in health care delivery (no urban/rural divide; no wealthy/poor divide; no racial divide), must not derail overall national economic well-being (deficit neutral).
§ How do we get there? Working together.
Surely, these are things on which both parties can agree? If they aren't then we have really big problems that have more to do with obstinacy than they have to do with policy.
Having mapped out the broad goals of the plan and having understood that we can only get to the end together, could we not then get down to brass tacks and figure out ways, acceptable to both sides for bringing each of these pillars to life? What troubles me most, is the continued insistence on a Republican way vs. a Democratic way. Book ends. Your way, My way. Folks, there is only one way: it's the way that serves the needs of people already in need, and that best protects the needs of those who may be in need tomorrow.
I've never thought that insurance was anyone's inalienable right, but in a society where you could easily be left to die because you don't have it, I (we all) may need to reconsider that notion. How can this nation claim to adhere to the principle of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", if 'living' is predicated on having insurance which can be withheld by a nameless third party? Then clearly, we are not all entitled to life. Forget liberty and the pursuit of happiness altogether. Once you’ve been denied ‘life’ clearly the rest is just talk.
The bottom line is that we must take the approach that there are no throwaway people. The people who are in crisis now because of health travails are neither useless nor are they unimportant. It frightens me that so often when I hear people speak, there is a subtle undercurrent of disdain for these 'others' who had the misfortune to fall ill. We need to be clear that there are no Children of a Lesser God here. We all matter, we all deserve a chance to live. That’s what health reform is about....Life and Death. To make it about anything else is to obfuscate the underlying truth. The minute politicians take their eyes off that prize - life - we’re all dead, some of us sooner than others.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
My Challenge
I've been challenged to stop saying, "Didn't I say that months ago?!" whenever a news item on the television repeats one of my casual insights. The challenger (my sister) further suggested that instead of saying, "I told you so", I write my insights and see whether they are ever borne out in fact. As an unemployed (and some would say unemployable) MBA with more going on in my head than could possibly be useful, I've decided to take up the challenge. Henceforth, this blog's meanderings will consider and treat with whatever issue(s) of the day catch my eye.
The Background:
Months ago I suggested in the privacy of my home, that Toyota's troubles would be a boon for Ford. Tonight on the news, it was reported that Ford's sales were up 43% in February alone. Liesl was right. Several months before that, I had said that Ford was the car company to watch and that if I had a dollar, I'd buy the stock. Late last year, Ford reported an almost $1 billion profit. Right about that too.
Since this isn't the first time this has happened (you'll have to take my word for it), I'm going to do as was suggested and post my insights and test myself.
Next big insight: I'm suggesting that Ford, if the organization wishes to hold tightly to its new found position of supremacy in the market place, needs to call every division head to a meeting and have a no-holds-barred, tell-me-the-truth meeting. Any and all issues that might affect the brand's position in the market place (particularly issues around safety) need to be aired now and dealt with swiftly. Now is the time for Ford to actively seek out product weaknesses and proactively recall and fix them before they become a public relations nightmare, because believe me when I say this, if anything comes out later the company's stock will fall faster than a stone dropped from the top of Mt. Rushmore. If it later comes to light that Ford knew about a problem and failed to act in a timely manner, the brand will take a hit and it may never recover. I really hope that Ford has figured all this out already and I'm well behind the curve here. We'll see what happens over the next several months.
Minor insight: I also commented at home that Ford's real problem was going to be its union. A billion dollar profit sounds like a lot, but automotive manufacturing is an expensive business to be in and Ford needs many quarters of billion dollar profits to pull itself from the brink of disaster. Workers and union bosses though, may not quite understand the dynamics of the business and may simply see Ford as a deep pocket from which to draw. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is left to be seen what the union will demand when the next round of negotiations begins, and how Ford's leadership will deal with requests that could potentially put the company right back where they started....on life support.
So there they are. My Ford insights. Let's see what happens in the real world.
Next: throwaway people
The Background:
Months ago I suggested in the privacy of my home, that Toyota's troubles would be a boon for Ford. Tonight on the news, it was reported that Ford's sales were up 43% in February alone. Liesl was right. Several months before that, I had said that Ford was the car company to watch and that if I had a dollar, I'd buy the stock. Late last year, Ford reported an almost $1 billion profit. Right about that too.
Since this isn't the first time this has happened (you'll have to take my word for it), I'm going to do as was suggested and post my insights and test myself.
Next big insight: I'm suggesting that Ford, if the organization wishes to hold tightly to its new found position of supremacy in the market place, needs to call every division head to a meeting and have a no-holds-barred, tell-me-the-truth meeting. Any and all issues that might affect the brand's position in the market place (particularly issues around safety) need to be aired now and dealt with swiftly. Now is the time for Ford to actively seek out product weaknesses and proactively recall and fix them before they become a public relations nightmare, because believe me when I say this, if anything comes out later the company's stock will fall faster than a stone dropped from the top of Mt. Rushmore. If it later comes to light that Ford knew about a problem and failed to act in a timely manner, the brand will take a hit and it may never recover. I really hope that Ford has figured all this out already and I'm well behind the curve here. We'll see what happens over the next several months.
Minor insight: I also commented at home that Ford's real problem was going to be its union. A billion dollar profit sounds like a lot, but automotive manufacturing is an expensive business to be in and Ford needs many quarters of billion dollar profits to pull itself from the brink of disaster. Workers and union bosses though, may not quite understand the dynamics of the business and may simply see Ford as a deep pocket from which to draw. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is left to be seen what the union will demand when the next round of negotiations begins, and how Ford's leadership will deal with requests that could potentially put the company right back where they started....on life support.
So there they are. My Ford insights. Let's see what happens in the real world.
Next: throwaway people
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)