Maturity

Ramana suggested this week's topic, maturity. Arguably, everyone goes through the maturation process. Most go through at minimum a two-stage process, physical and mental. 

I think it is safe to say people mature physically first. This is easy to see in athletics. High school star athletes can dominate and usually they are a step ahead of most teammates in the physical maturation process. Some grow physically early. I, for example, was 6'2 and 230 lbs when I was 13 and entered Senior league and high school. In Senior League I was the big guy, in high school I was one of a bunch of big guys. I was strong but not exceptionally so - I was really quick. Each time I advanced to the next level in a sport  - frosh-soph to Junior Varsity to  Varsity I became just another stronger, quicker guy. When I graduated high school I was 6'2, 265. I was a big, strong quick guy but others continued to grow, I didn't. My dream of playing baseball evaporated, as the body was made for football. My friend Ed Galigher was 6'2 190 when he left Sunset High and was 6'4 265 when he went to UCLA on a scholarship for his last two years after we played two years together at Chabot. He was drafted by the NY Jets and had a solid NFL career with the Jets and 49ers. I ran into him after one of my brothers games at Chabot (Ed was one of my brother Mike's coaches) and he said all of his advantages disappeared and it was mental toughness and maturity that made the difference in the NFL.

Mental maturity and toughness has extra components in athletics due to the injuries suffered by athletes at the professional level. In truth there are significant injuries at all levels of certain sports like football and basketball.

Everyone goes through the physical maturation process at around the same time - just about when we are in high school. Good old adolescence - it starts around 10 and goes through the late teens and early twenties. Good old puberty when boys and girls go through sexual maturation. I was terribly shy back then - actually I still am. It is a wonder I got through that part. That's my journey in three stages at the top of the page.

As I said, I was extraordinarily shy in high school. In four years I went to about six dances -Junior Prom, Senior Ball,  Christmas dance, a Sadie Hawkins dance and one just to watch my friends in the New Chessmen. So now we come to the mental maturation process.

To me, you reach maturity when you are more interested in doing the right thing than just worrying about what you want. Mature people do the right thing, even when nobody is watching. Of course, the process is not an epiphany, but one that develops over time. In my case, a big step came when I agreed to move across the country in 1976 to support my wife who was offered a promotion to establish the New England office for the small company we both worked for. I essentially put everything on hold to support Lynn. The final proof of the success of my journey was my experience as Lynn's caretaker during the last ten years of her life.

Interestingly enough, boys and girls do not develop at the same time or pace. There's a reason girls tend to perform better in high school. Girls' brains tend to be more developed during puberty. Read about that here. It is an interesting read. I really had no issues in high school beyond Algebra 2. Why? simple -I stopped taking math when hit that wall, thus ending any hope of becoming a rocket scientist. My good pal Stuart in New York kept at it and he was closely involved in developing cellphones. I used to get calls from Stu while he was in a cab in Chicago testing the latest switching technology that his group at Bell Labs was developing. So, at some point in time, it is fair to say the boys catch up with the girls. My old friend and editor Kathi insists men never catch up. I told her she shouldn't judge all men based upon her experience with me, but she laughs and says we are all alike.

That is my take on Ramana's chosen topic. Be sure to visit his blog here Ramana.

I'll see you next week, same bat time and same bat channel.

 

 

Transactional vs morality driven and which are you?

 This week's topic - transactional vs morality driven and which are you - was suggested by Conrad. It is a rather esoteric topic, not the kind of thing you might discuss around the dinner table or the fireplace with a bottle of Johnnie Walker Blue Label (the really expensive stuff).

So, what's it all about? Leadership styles. If you are a political junkie you have probably heard Donald Trump called transactional. Other transactional leaders include Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Norman Schwarzkopf, Vince Lombardi and Howard Schultz.

"When placed in command, take charge."

Transactional leaders follow regular rules, reward success, and reward followers for punishment or failure. However, they do not act as a catalyst for growth and change in an organization. Instead, they apply current rules and expectations and focus on maintaining it to apply.

 "The price of success is hard work, dedication to the job at hand, and the determination that whether we win or lose, we have applied the best of ourselves to the task at hand."

These leaders tend to be good at setting expectations and value that maximizes the efficiency and productivity of an organization. They give constructive feedback regarding follow-up performance, which allows group members to improve their output for improved feedback and strengthening.

"The first rule of any technology used in a business is that automation applied to an efficient operation will magnify the efficiency. The second is that automation applied to an inefficient operation will magnify the inefficiency."

Characteristics include

• Focused on short-term goals
• Favor structured policies and procedures
• Thrive on following rules and doing things correctly
• Revel in efficiency
• Very left-brained
• Tend to be inflexible
• Opposed to change

Transactional leadership pros:

• Rewards those who are motivated by self-interest to follow instructions
• Provides an unambiguous structure for large organizations, systems requiring repetitive tasks and infinitely reproducible environments
• Achieves short-term goals quickly
• Rewards and penalties are clearly defined for workers

Transactional leadership cons:

• Rewards the worker on a practical level only, such as money or perks
• Creativity is limited since the goals and objectives are already set
• Does not reward personal initiative

There is definitely a place for transactional leadership in the world today. One of its best uses is in multinational corporations where not all of the workers speak the same language. Once the structure and the requirements are learned, it is easy for workers to complete tasks successfully. This works because transactional leadership is simple to learn and does not require extensive training. The transactional approach is easy to understand and apply across much of an organization.

The military, policing organizations, and first responders use this style of leadership so that all areas of the organization are consistent. It is also easier to apply in a crisis situation, where everyone must know exactly what is required of them and how a task is to be done under pressure.

To many people, money and perks are a powerful motivator. Most people need a job to pay the bills. They have other obligations and distractions and would just as soon know exactly how to do their job in order to keep it and reap the rewards.

Morality (ethics) driven leadership is a completely different animal. What are the principles of ethical leadership?  Practitioners and scholars of ethical leadership point to several key principles of ethical leadership: honesty, justice, respect, community and integrity. There are other lists with varying numbers but I think these five work well within the framework of this discussion.

Ethical leaders champion the importance of ethics regularly and they need to be good communicators. Good relationships between leaders and their teams are built on fairness, integrity, and trust. They need to hire ethical employees, and exhibit zero tolerance for ethical violations. Lastly, they need to practice justice and respect.

Interestingly enough, Bill Gates, previously cited as a transactional leader is also considered an ethical leader. The same can be said about Howard Schultz. Still picking your brain over who Schultz is? Schultz built Starbucks into the behemoth that it is. He was replaced in 2017. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX is considered an ethical leader - interesting when you consider what a divisive figure he is. He earned his ethical stripes by refusing to compromise his values. He is going to land people on Mars no matter what.

Pros and Cons of ethics driven leadership?  It is a long game style. Ethics driven leaders want to be good and do good. They enjoy being creative.

Which am I? Quite simply, I am both and neither. It all depends upon the task at hand - or rather depended upon the task at hand. These days I am retired and no longer interested in management styles, wherever they come from or are heading. I have a passing interest in political leaders and that, in and of itself, precludes ethical leadership it seems. 

That's a wrap on this week's topic. Be sure you hop over to Ramana, Sanjana, and Conrad to see what they have to say on their blogs and I'll see ya next week, same bat time, same bat channel.

 

 

 

 

Books vs e-Readers

This week's topic is books vs. e-Readers. The topic was my suggestion.

For most of my life I have been a voracious reader. I have said many times my preference is fiction, typically mysteries, or thrillers, and science fiction. Several years ago my annual total was over 300 read. Yes that is a big number, but way back in the 7th grade, a forward looking teacher named Rex Pinegar taught speed reading in English class. I read the typical mystery fiction book in under 4 hours. If for some reason I feel so inclined I do slow down and yes recall can be an issue, so while in school I kept the speed more reasonable. Some of you may find  that speed hard to believe but I assure you it is easily attainable.

There is nothing more satisfying to me than reading a book. A real book - the look, feel, and smell are all part of the experience. That said, unfortunately my age and eye conditions have forced me to rely on an e-Reader. With the flexible font styles and sizes, there is nothing I cannot read on my Kindle.

It is also quite easy to read multiple titles at the same time on an e-Reader, although that is not a habit I ever developed. I tend to get into the story and read straight through to the end.

Another advantage of books is collecting. I had 26 signed first editions at one time. Titles tend to be much cheaper for e-Readers, many classic titles even being free. Want to check out a new author? You don't need to invest much to check out new material. I found I enjoy native American mystery fiction that way - I started with Tony Hillerman and his Navajo police procedurals and found similar styles for Apaches, Metis, Cheyenne and Alaskan. Since Tony Hillerman passed away, his daughter Anne is keeping that series going and Dana Stabenow and her Kate Shugak series in Alaska are my favorites. There is a great detective series set in Australia - the Cliff Hardy series by Peter Corris. San Francisco has Bill Pronzini's Nameless detective series and then there are the classics - John D. McDonald's Travis McGee series, Robert Parker and the Spenser series, a unique series set in Hollywood by Stuart Kaminski - the Toby Peters Series and  too many more to name. One worth mentioning though is James Lee Burke and his Dave Robicheaux series set in Louisiana. Burke is as fine a writer as has ever put pen to paper (or finger to keyboard).

Read. Read some more. In this day and age of alternate universes and fake everything, protect yourself by reading -become your own fact checker. Don't become a slave to some cult of personality. The future of your family may depend on it.

That's my quick shack take on this week's topic. Be sure you hop over to Ramana, Sanjana, and Conrad to see what they have to say on their blogs. Just click on their name to be whisked half a country away or half of a world away. Nothing keeps travel costs down like reading!

See ya next week, same bat time. same bat channel.

 

Philosophy and What It Means to Me

Philosophy and what it means to me is this week's topic, suggested by Sanjana, the youngest member of our blogging group.

The word "philosophy" is derived from Greece. It originates from the words "philein sophia," which mean "lover of wisdom". "Phil" is the prefix that relates to love, while "soph" is a word root that means wisdom. Therefore, the word "philosophy," like the original Greek, means "lover of wisdom or knowledge." The Cambridge English Dictionary says philosophy is the use of reason in understanding such things as the nature of the real world and existence, AKA the meaning of life.

There is an interesting list of the supposed major philosophies on the meaning of life from the last 5000 years or so in a blog called Adioma. Check it out - maybe one of the philosophies listed is the same as or similar to your own.

You may even find that no single philosophy is all-inclusive and you find yourself a combination of two or more. In a world as complex as ours, it actually makes the most sense to me. While one's outlook on life is primarily defined by a single philosophy, snippets of others are recognizable. I find myself being a subjective, modern humanist according to the list of philosophies offered in the posted link - a combination of subjectivism and modern humanism.

Many people I know consider themselves Christians - theists in the philosophies listed. Then there are the logical positivists - the folks who believe life has no meaning until you give it one, and boy do they like to argue with those determinists that say everything is predetermined. Those damned hedonists are always too busy partying heartily to even join in the conversation. Maybe the absurdists are right and we should all just stop trying to find a meaning and just live.

Yes, folks, it is my belief that philosophy is all firmly etched in water. Do any of you spend much time looking at philosophy? Did you ever answer that question I posed last week- the one that asks if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it does it make a sound? Philosophy discussions tend to be similar to circular firing squads. I tend to take the easy road - treat people the way you want to be treated - well unless you are a sadist. You make your own choices in life and the meaning of your life is up to you. Unless, of course, you are a huge Monte Python fan.

It might look like I don't take philosophy seriously. The truth is, I am not a huge fan of the discipline if you can even call philosophy a discipline. My degree is in political science - an oxymoron of the highest order. Too often, philosophy discussions in my observation turn into exercises wherein people try and impress each other with how many classical philosophies they can name and compare. To me, that is like only considering classical literature real literature. IMHO there is no better observer of humanity these days than James Lee Burke, with Dana Stabenow a close second. They happen to be primarily mystery authors.

In all seriousness, if discussions about philosophy and the meaning of life cause a surge in polite discourse and actually get people talking to each other, then let the conversation begin. That would certainly be an improvement over the current divide.

That ends my quick take on Sanjana's suggested topic. Be sure to take a look at what  Ramana, Conrad, and Sanjana have to say on their respective blogs.

See ya next week, same bat time and same bat channel.

Doing the Wrong Thing at the Right Time

This week's topic, doing the wrong thing at the right time, reminds me of the mind games college philosophy professors used to play back when I was a student. You remember them - things like if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? Right and wrong are even more nebulous.

Right and wrong are relative terms. Being precise in their definition is often difficult, perhaps even impossible. You might even say or think there is no absolute right or wrong in this world. What is most often the basis of "right" is religion. Right is what a given society determines to be moral, just, and legal. That leaves wrong things to be those things that are not in accordance with morality or the law.

So, in relation to our topic, Ramana has proposed doing the immoral or unlawful thing at a time when it is determined to be moral, just and legal. Is there a right time to do the wrong thing?

In a world where there is no absolute right or wrong almost anything is possible. People with strong religious upbringings will most typically do the right thing. Unless, of course, like  religious right here in the USA, they choose to support  amoral, falsehood-based policies and practices to pack the Supreme Court with conservative justices to facilitate overturning existing law with which they disagree. Apparently, everyone has a price. I myself find little if anything done by radical Muslims to be moral, just or legal. There are many more examples.

For a long time climate change was laughed at and considered folly by conservatives here. Several consecutive years of radical temperature change, extended drought and the great state of Texas almost losing its electricity grid in an exceptionally cold winter seems to have awoken a few to reality. Climate change is the right thing to address, so can there really be a wrong time for that discussion?

Man's contribution to pollution? One of the unadvertised benefits to the pandemic we have been enduring is cleaner air. Why? Travel has been severely restricted. There's that nasty science bugaboo raising its head again. Can there be a wrong time for that discussion?

The wrong thing at the right time has been justified for centuries when the outcome is considered positive - in other words, the end justifies the means. It's what Arthur got wrong with Camelot - might for right. That is really no different than might is right.

Considering the high regard in which science holds evolution, we can easily conflate might makes right with the survival of the fittest. Is that always correct? I think not.

Thomas Jefferson had an interesting take on religion and Jesus. The "Jefferson Bible” was created by Thomas Jefferson in 1820 as a collection of the Biblical teachings of Jesus that he found sound, with passages that Jefferson found unreasonable, such as miracles and the resurrection, removed. To me, it is a humanist view of Jesus. Strip away the magic from Jesus and the Bible reveals a real guidepost for life.

We all have the capacity to choose right over wrong. We do it daily in our lives. Many times we habitually do the right thing which helps maintain stress levels. Imagine how you would feel if you actually had to ponder every decision you make daily. Turn left, turn right, stop at the sign, and so on. Habits can be a good thing. Sounds like a 9AM naptime to me.

Since there are no real absolutes, you could be forced to do the wrong thing at the right time quite often. Take each action as required. It is all about perception and as long as your moral compass, be it god-based or humanist, leads you down a sound moral path, I suspect you will be just fine.

That's my quick take on Ramana's wrong thing at the right time conundrum. Be sure to check what Ramana and Conrad have to say. We'll see you next week, same bat time and same bat channel.

How is today's world compared to the 21st century you imagined as a child?

 As a child in Colorado, my view of the 21st century was shaped by what I saw in the movies and on television. I saw some of the old Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers serials and my favorite at the time- Jet Jackson, Flying Commando. Jet Jackson was actually Captain Midnight with a different title and sound dubbed. His sidekick, Ichabod Mudd (with 2ds) was the same in both incarnations. 

Then, of course there was Forbidden Planet, a big budget Hollywood movie that I remember seeing at the drive in.

Forbidden Planet introduced us to Robby the Robot and futuristic flying machines and space travel. Alas the special effects were in their infancy and it would be years until things got really interesting.

It wasn't until the TV show The Jetsons that real speculation about life in the future would be seriously imagined.

As you can see, we are light years away from the Jetsons' flying car and Orbit City. George worked a two hour workweek and complained about being overworked. Interplanetary travel? Tesla is working on it. Robotic maids? We are making great strides in robotics. Much of what the Jetsons predicted is on its way.

Flat-screen televisions  and tanning beds were predicted by the Jetsons. The show was canceled after 24 episodes because there were not enough color televisions in homes. Only 3% of homes had color televisions at the time. We did not get one until the first time the Oakland Raiders made the Super Bowl (1967).

Science fiction literature and Star Trek and Star Wars became prime predictors of future life. Not surprisingly, Star Wars and Star Trek focused on military technology. Our war machine is very efficient and we have kept it very busy. Lasers, satellites, and cloaking have all advanced.

Technology these days is about what I expected it to be. We are geeks at heart, I suspect. Rather than active  physical play, kids gravitate to the latest technology. Texting has largely replaced conversation as a means of communication. Interpersonal communication and conversational skills are severely lacking in my opinion. Nearly half of our population chose to support the verbal flatulence and belicose ramblings of an amoral, pathological liar. Our interpersonal discourse is at the lowest levels in recent memory. I most definitely expected better of us. I do not see the divisions in our society going away any time soon. Ayn Rand would be delighted at the degree of selfishness rampant in our selfish society. And yet, we see random acts of kindness regularly. So maybe there is hope for us yet. Only time will tell.

That is my quick take on Conrad's suggested topic. Be sure to check what my compatriots Conrad and Ramana have to say on their blogs.

I'll see ya next week, same bat time and same bat channel.

Has the Pandemic Wrought Any Positive Changes?

With all we have been through in the last year, have any of the changes been positive?

That is this week's topic. Initially, I confess that what immediately leaps to mind is being cooped up in this trashy trailer park for a year and there sure as hell is nothing positive about that. Frankly it is still too early to assess the positive effects of the pandemic. Upon further reflection, though, it has not all been negative.

Many people have been exposed to working from home for the first time in their lives. It is something I have taken for granted for years. My late wife Lynn was home based for years and I spent most of the last ten years at my namesake RadioShack woking from home. I was substantially more prdouctive working from home. Why? Simply because my dog Ginger and I had no water cooler conversations. I was mindful of the fact my boss was doing me a huge favor staying home and caring for Lynn. 

Then there was my commute - dodging an overly affectionate basset/collie mix hound walking  down the hall. On a bad day that took at least 45 seconds and surely beat the hell out of taking the freeway.

I have to think many companies have discovered in the last year that having some employees working from home is a good thing. Hopefully it will become a permanent option. I see it as a net positive for companies and the family life of employees (especially when the kids return to school in the classroom).

For the last year there has been a reduction in CO2 emissions - in fact in general global greenhouse emissions have dropped because of reduced travel. That is not likely to continue long term but it has been a very good year and surely adds credibility to the notion that we humans are the cause of much pollution with our burning of fossil fuels. It should be a huge impetus for new green product development.

Cleanliness - both personal and disinfecting our environments has become second nature to most of us. Save for mask-wearing, it is likely to remain a good habit for us. 

Are you interested in what psychologists think? Psychology today published an article with 30 positive factors - 30 Ways the Pandemic Has Changed Us for the Better.

These are but a few of the positive changes that have come about because of the pandemic.

My optimistic angel has gotten stronger of late.

We have much to overcome. We here in the USA stand at the brink of a second civil war as we look ahead at finishing the racial issues we left incomplete in the sixties. It isn't going to be easy, but we are backed into a corner and as Japan discovered in WWII, the sleeping giant has been awoken.

That is my take on this week's topic. Be sure to check what my compatriots Conrad and Ramana have to say on their blogs.

I'll see ya next week, same bat time and same bat channel.