For The Record:
A Nerd is someone who is passionate about learning/being smart/academia.
A Geek is someone who is passionate about some particular area or subject, often an obscure or difficult one.
A Dork is someone who has difficulty with common social expectations/interactions.
You scored better than half in Nerd and Geek, earning you the title of: Modern, Cool Nerd.
Thanks Again! -- THE NERD? GEEK? OR DORK? TEST
| The Time of Fulfilment Has Come! Advent 2007 Meditation | ||
| by Beth Ferrell | ||
Scripture: Isaiah 7:10-16; Psalm 80:1-7, 17-19; Romans 1:1-7; Matthew 1:18-25 Isaiah prophesied; the psalmist had a sure hope; Mary was willing and obedient; Joseph was true to God's revelation in a dream: JESUS, THE SON OF GOD, WAS BORN AS A TINY BABE IN A GIANT WORLD!! Yet to be fulfilled is the part that you and I, as individuals and in community, are to play in the unfolding chronicle of God's plan.
In the United States, we tend to forget we are a part of the world community, the majority of whom do not enjoy the blessings of the abundance that we have. Significantly, God chose a lowly Jewish girl to be the mother of his son, and Christ's birth was first announced to shepherds, marginalized people of that day. Their simplicity was fertile ground. They had nothing to lose and everything to gain in the new kingdom of Immanuel, "God With Us." What chance does further fulfillment of God's unfolding plan have in our lives? Do we need to have an increased awareness of God's true Word today, to dare to hope, to be willing and obedient and to follow Jesus in the true way? To do so, we must, in Christ's name, share our material blessings with people in need and be open to receiving blessings from them. In these chaotic times, can you and I be as simple and humble as Mary, Joseph, and the shepherds? Prayer Lord, may we be forgiven through your grace, filled with your love, directed and empowered by your spirit to be instruments, individually and in community, for the continuing fulfillment of your kingdom in the "here and now". In Christ's name we pray. Amen Scripture ReadingsIsaiah 7:10-16 Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, you who lead Joseph like a flock! You who are enthroned upon the cherubim, shine forth before Ephraim and Benjamin and Manasseh. Stir up your might, and come to save us! Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith among all the Gentiles for the sake of his name, including yourselves who are called to belong to Jesus Christ, To all God's beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means, "God is with us." When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. Beth Ferrell is a missionary with the General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church currently serving as Mission Interpreter in Residence (MIIR) in the North Central Jurisdiction (Midwest). http://gbgm-umc.org/global_news/full_article.cfm?articleid=4763 |
The statement, "You can do anything you put your mind to," leads us to believe that all you must do is imagine what you'd like to accomplish, set your mind to the task, and wait for success.
To a certain degree this is true. Focused intention combined with action is a powerful force. But the statement is misleading because it fails to mention the difficulty and necessity of focusing your mind on a specific goal.
Most of us don't know what we want. We think we do, but we really don't. We only know what we don't want. We don't want a boring job. We don't want to be poor. We don't want to disappoint our loved ones.
Knowing specifically what you want is much different than knowing what you don't want. When you only know what you don't want, your intentions aren't focused. Consider this example.
Pete doesn't want to be poor. He's sick of earning less than his friends, and he's determined to raise his status. To accomplish this goal, Pete could take many different paths. He could train for a high paying profession, such as doctor or lawyer. He could start his own company, go into real estate, or do many other things that would lead to acquiring wealth.
But Pete isn't sure what he wants to do. He doesn't know which path best fits his skills and personality, so he doesn't resolve to follow any particular path.
Hoping to answer this question, he investigates a dozen possibilities, but as soon as he runs into adversity he decides that path isn't for him and moves on to a new solution.
Pete's actions aren't focused. Although he works very hard, his efforts don't build on each other. Rather than building one giant impenetrable sand castle, Pete has built twenty smalls ones that are easily toppled. He ends up confused and discouraged. Ultimately Pete's
lack of focus leads to failure.
Now, what if Pete had chosen a specific path? Suppose he decided on the law profession. His actions would have been clearly defined:
A set of specific goals is much easier to achieve than a vague end goal like becoming wealthy. Being focused on a path gives Pete a logical set of actions to follow. Each accomplishment is one step closer to the final goal.
I think we can all agree that committing to a clearly defined path, regardless of which one, gives Pete the best chance of becoming wealthy.
But how can he choose a path if he doesn't know what he wants? Maybe money isn't his only goal. Maybe he wants to do something he loves at the same time. Maybe he can't afford to go back to school. Reality is complicated, and Pete doesn't want to commit too soon.
And that's why he fails.
But I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Most people don't fit neatly into a predefined path. Forcing yourself into one may lead to success, but it probably won't make you happy.
This is the point. If you want to be conventionally successful, to attain wealth and status, you need to choose a specific path (preferably something mainstream) and follow it to the letter.
On the other hand, if you aren't particularly concerned with wealth or success, you can take your time searching for that perfect niche.
Just don't wait too long to decide. Each moment you deliberate, your already committed competitors sprint further ahead.
But, then again, maybe life isn't a race, and maybe the most interesting people follow a path all their own.
The Proven Benefits of Thinking Fast | ||
| Manic behavior is typically thought of as a bad thing. It can include abnormally high excitement (usually because of tension), extreme busyness, impulsive behaviors, excessive physical activity and rapidly changing ideas.
But there's at least one aspect of mania that is beneficial for you (and your mood in particular): manic thinking. If you've ever lain in bed at night with thoughts racing through your mind, you've experienced manic thinking. Likewise if you've been brainstorming or just thought of a great idea, and your thoughts seem to be coming in at lightening speed. Manic thinking (also sometimes called fast thinking or racing thoughts) is also a symptom of the clinical psychiatric disorder bipolar disorder, or manic depression. During a manic episode people tend to feel extremely alert, energetic and even euphoric. The problem is that the euphoria soon gives way to depression -- and feelings of hopelessness, guilt and fatigue. As it turns out, healthy people who are able to take part in manic thinking -- without the corresponding crash -- have much to gain emotionally. Fast Thinking Can Make You Happy A study by Princeton University psychologist Emily Pronin and Daniel Wegner of Harvard University found that fast thinking impacts your mood -- in a very good way. In the study, they asked participants to read a series of statements, then manipulated the pace at which they were read. Half of the group read the statements at twice the normal reading speed, while the others read at a pace twice as slow as normal reading speed.
When the participants were asked about their mood, energy level and more, the fast readers felt:
Interestingly, some of the participants also read statements that were either very depressing or very positive. It turned out that the speed at which they read the statement impacted their mood just as much as the content of the message. So even when they read something very sad, if they read it quickly it made them happy. "The results of our experiment suggest the intriguing possibility that even during moments when people feel stuck having depressed thoughts, interventions that accelerate the speed of such thoughts may serve to boost feelings of positive affect and energy," the researchers said. So the next time you're feeling down, try this out for yourself. Speed up your thoughts, read faster, and avoid thinking slowly. The researchers feel confident that such simple manipulations could improve your:
And, the next time a light bulb goes off in your mind and your thoughts begin to accelerate, go with it. It should leave you feeling great about yourself, and you'll likely accomplish something grand. Sources Psychological Science Volume 17 Issue 9 Page 807-813, September 2006 | ||
| |
If you google the word "trust," it can be a surprising experience. I was more than 20 pages into the results before meeting a single instance of trust in the sense of belief in something or someone.
There were all types of financial trusts, businesses with "trust" in their names, companies eager to help you set up personal trusts, charitable trusts of every kind—but nothing about putting your trust in anything or anyone. When I did find an entry relating to trust in this common sense, it was about mistrust; a psychiatrist offering help for people whose trust had been abused through infidelity or fraud.
What is going on? Is talking about trust becoming merely another form of selling—more of a marketing concept than something heartfelt and real?
Trust is fundamental to life. If you cannot trust in anything or anyone, life becomes intolerable—a constant battle against paranoia and looming disaster. You can't have relationships without trust, let alone good ones. Intimacy depends on it. I suspect more marriages are wrecked by lack of trust than by infidelity. The partner who can't trust the other not to betray him or her will either drive them away or force them into some real or assumed act of faithlessness.
In the workplace too, trust is essential. An organization without trust will be full of backstabbing, fear, and paranoid suspicion. If you work for a boss who doesn't trust her people to do things right, you'll have a miserable time of it. She'll be checking up on you all the time, correcting "mistakes" and "oversights" and constantly reminding you to do this or that. Colleagues who don't trust one another need to spend more time watching their backs than doing any useful work. The office politics in a place like that would make Machiavelli blush.
Organizations are always trying to cut costs. Think of all the additional tasks that are caused directly by lack of trust.
Audit departments only exist because of it. Companies keep voluminous records because they don't trust their suppliers, their contractors, and their customers. Probably more than half of all administrative work is only there because of a pervasive sense that "you can't trust anyone these days." If even a small part of such valueless work could be removed, the savings would run into billions of dollars.
Think about at all this extra work—plus the work we load onto ourselves because we don't trust people either. The checking, following through, doing things ourselves because we don't believe others will do them properly—or at all. If you took all that way, how much extra time would you suddenly find in your day? How much of your work pressure would disappear?
I'm constantly amazed when people claim to be overworked and under constant pressure, yet fail to do the one thing most likely to ease their burdens: trust other people more:
It's not the pressure of actual work that's driving them towards some stress-related illness, it's their lack of trust in anyone and anything. Is it any wonder many are so close to burnout?
Someone has to begin the cycle of trust by an act of faith. It's no use waiting for the other person to make the first move. They're waiting for you. It takes a conscious act of unconditional belief in that other person's good sense, ability, honesty, or sense of commitment to set the ball rolling.
Will your trust sometimes be misplaced? Of course. Life isn't perfect and some people aren't trustworthy. But will increasing your willingness to trust produce, on balance, a positive benefit? Will it make your life more pleasant and less stressful? I believe so. You have little to lose by trying.
Trust has to start somewhere. Why not with you? Why not today? Why not right now?
http://www.slowleadership.org/blog/?p=305
In the movie You’ve Got Mail, whenever Tom Hanks’ character wants to avoid responsibility for some piece of aggressive or unpleasant business trickery, he says the same thing: “It isn’t personal, it’s business.” But surely business is personal. It’s all personal. Every choice you make is personal, because you’re a person doing it, and people are involved in the outcome. Nobody can walk away from responsibility in that way. Thinking about business in personal terms is going to be the best way of avoiding the kind of ethical mistakes which have been staining the reputations of so many corporations in recent years.
The depersonalization of business is a tempting idea to all those executives who would rather not have to think to hard about what their “business” decisions are doing to real men and women. By saying, “It’s not personal, it’s business,” they distance themselves from the human dilemmas involved when the obsessive search for profit collides with the well-being of employees, customers, or society at large.
What this phrase reveals is today’s tendency to dehumanize the business environment; to make it into a matter of figures on a balance sheet and abstract conceptions of return on investment and market share. These oh-so-scientific and objective concepts allow the leaders involved to act as if they are simply moving inanimate objects around, not meddling in the lives of others.
This isn’t a cheerful topic at a any time, but it’s a necessary one if we want to remain a civilized society. It’s easy not to think about it, just as it’s easy not to think about the poor, the lonely, the homeless or the dispossessed. In the frenzy of grabbing and competing that is modern business, the emphasis is shifted onto how much business can be gained, and at what level of profit, not whether it should be gained in the first place—or gained in that way.
When the news media talk about “outsourcing,” it sounds comfortingly like just another piece of business jargon. Of course, what it really means is shifting work away from one set of people—deemed too expensive and demanding—and placing it with another group who can be employed at less cost and with fewer (or no) benefits.
Who gains? Well, some people in a Third World country somewhere get new jobs, but often at bad rates or pay. I guess they gain something. The corporation gains profits, which disproportionally benefits already rich executives, plus big financial institutions. And a whole lot of people in the corporation’s home country lose their jobs, pensions, and other benefits—not to mention their hopes and dreams.
I’m not arguing that outsourcing is never justifiable and that there is not a perfectly good case to be made for helping developing countries by using their resources of labor. But how often are the human aspects of such situations—the cost-benefit analysis of lives enhanced versus lives diminished—set alongside the financial ones when the decision is being made?
Depersonalizing a situation is a favorite trick of oppressors and cheats throughout history. If you can persuade people to believe that those they oppress are less than human, they will carry out torture and murder on an epic scale . . . and still sleep at night. If the feelings of the people you cheat are ignored, or they are seen merely as impersonal “consumers,” it’s much easier to focus on the profits involved and forget the ethical violations behind them.
Fortunately, we’re still a long way from businesses resorting to physical oppression, but the principle of dehumanization is well established in other ways. Are “consumers” human beings—or creatures to be manipulated for profit? Is “increasing market share” the same as finding things to sell that more people want to buy—or a competitive game played between businesses where people are the pawns on the board, to be tricked or bluffed into buying, if that is what it takes? Is “focusing on the bottom line” a sensible financial strategy—or evidence of unchecked corporate greed that’s ready to destroy people’s livelihood, enrich a very few at the expense of everyone else, and morally taint our whole society?
Before you laugh, think about this. Much of the problem of so-called “sub-prime loans” was simply the result of companies large and small deliberately persuading people to take on more debt than they could reasonably afford. In some cases, their financial status was deliberately mis-stated to justify bigger loans. They were persuaded into loans with payment terms that began easily, then swiftly imposed ruinous rates of interest; or told not to worry about punitive conditions that prevented them from re-financing to get away from the worst results of their actions.The purpose was simple—to make money from them. It was an extremely lucrative market, so: “it wasn’t personal, it was simply business.”
Is that an acceptable business strategy? Should companies sell harmful products, or do so in unethical ways, just because they can create a profitable market to be exploited? Is it enough to say that the customers agreed to the terms, when everyone knew most of them were financially naive and blinded by the opportunity dangled in front of them to purchase the kind of home that they believed (rightly, as it has turned out) they could never afford? Should the social consequences of burdening people with crippling debt be ignored for the sake of short-term profit?
In working life, it’s so very easy to label people in ways that dehumanize them and thus make it easier to justify treating them badly for the sake of short-term profits. Handing out pink slips to boost quarterly results “isn’t personal, it’s business.” Yet I guess those being laid off feel it personally enough. Following the advice to fire the lowest ten percent of performers, as judged by flawed and crazy performance appraisal data, “isn’t personal, it’s business.” So, presumably, they shouldn’t feel bad about it either. Making profits out of lending money to people who can’t afford the payments “isn’t personal, it’s business.” So it’s alright for them to face bankruptcy and foreclosure, while the organizations hurt by their own eagerness to profit from risky investments howl to governments for support to save their bacon.
Being personal about our choices is our best guard against unethical or downright unpleasant actions, whether individually or in business situations. Being personal forces you to think about the human consequences of your actions. It puts you, for a moment, on the receiving end, able to feel what it is like to be treated in that way. To touch a computer key and fire ten thousand people you never see is not the same as facing one person in your office and watching his or her emotions as you destroy hopes and peace of mind.
Nobody likes to be a cog in the machine or a number. Why allow it to be justified on the spurious grounds that “it’s not personal, it’s business?”
http://www.slowleadership.org/blog/?p=262Tempura
rice flour
cold water
salt
enough oil for deep frying
Make a light batter with the flour and cold water, and season with salt. Dip flowers to coat, then drop in hot oil. Cooks in seconds. Drain well; the flower cavity tends to accumulate oil so drain the flowers pointing downward.
A Japanese lady once said that her grandmother taught her how to cook tempura by telling her this story: Tempura like to swim, and at first they go to the bottom of the hot, hot lake. But they also need to come up for air, so after a while they will rise to the top. When they do, catch them quickly lest they get away. That’s actually an excellent method of imparting deep frying techniques. Well done, Grandma!
Stuffed Flowers
squash flowers, cleaned and trimmed
pork, minced fine
scallions
sesame oil
salt
pepper
rice flour
cold water
enough oil for deep frying
Combine meat, scallions, sesame oil and season with salt and pepper. Fill the flower cavities but do not over-fill (might burst). Dip in a light, unseasoned batter of rice flour and cold water, then drop into hot oil. Drain well. Serve immediately.
Scallions and sesame are an excellent pairing. Try a scallion and sesame omelet one time – you won’t regret it, provided you don’t brown anything.
Not one to throw anything away, I next focused on the stalks. Although we’ve never had squash flowers ever, I figured that since the whole talbos ng calabasa is edible the flower stalks can get the same treatment.
I am not sure if trimming the stalks is a crucial step, but I like to take the extra step. As the stalks get older, the skin toughens up and becomes gritty eating – not happy. It’s easy enough to trim, just nip the end furthest from the flower with your knife, and pull the “strings” downward. Then cut to your preferred length. Tastes nutty when fried or freshly green if blanched, but with a firm and stringy texture either way.
Crisps
stalks, trimmed and cut
rice flour
salt
pepper
cold water
enough oil for deep frying
Combine flour, salt, pepper and cold water to make a light batter. Toss in the stalks and drop batter by spoonfuls into very hot oil. DRAIN WELL.
It’s important to drain the crisps very well. The crisps take on a rice cracker quality if made thinly, and will be rock hard if over-cooked. You can actually skip the stalks and just make plain crisps.
Pickles are always a welcome side to fried food, with the acid cutting through the oiliness. A balance between sweet, salty, sour and spicy is also refreshing.
Quick Pickles
stalks, trimmed, cut, and blanched
cold water
vinegar
salt
sugar
pepper
Combine everything to taste. Let the stalks soak up the pickle solution for a bit before serving.
Some tips:
I assume you can deduce why, but let’s expound on it further anyway.
Be a gentleman. Even if she is the most gorgeous creature you have ever set eyes on and she seems to like you DON’T START GROPING HER. (I hope the capitalisation underscored the point very clearly.) Restraint, finesse, and manners all point towards your understanding of social politesse – or lack thereof.
Women may like to play with bad boys, but they settle down with gentlemen. And oh, cavemen are as welcome as candidiasis.
Wanting to be “complete” is one thing, but being “completed” by another person is stupid. It’s not impossible, but the likelihood of crashing and burning is far greater than if you come to the relationship acknowledging who you are.
Recognise your strengths and accept your weaknesses; most people will choose those “on the level” on any given day. Do what it takes to know yourself; if you need to be touchy-feely by your lonesome – whatever works, buddy.
That’s just plain vanilla loser-ish. As much as most women would want to marry and breed, suddenly coming on like you’re her saviour from spinsterhood simply won’t cut it. It might actually work, if she were Rapunzel or Cinderella.
Why is that? Because wanting to be with someone for the rest of your life is a feeling and conviction. Imagine spending eternity with someone as suave as a sledgehammer – err, no thanks.
In the age of instant gratification we gotta have everything now, Now, NOW. However, relationships don’t work that way, regardless of “culture.” There’s this notion that those who have more “Western” than “Asian” values are direct, frank, and measure time precisely. That may be true, but where in all those qualities does it suggest lack of self-respect? To everything there is a season, a time and purpose under heaven.
Make the effort to discover each other using discreet methods and go slow. For example, pointedly asking “Are you romantic?” simply displays your own limited understanding of romance. Everybody appreciates being wined, dined and romanced; it’s an experience that can bring on giddiness and sensual thoughts. Asking such a question outright quickly dispels any romantic notions the lady may have had.
By the way, taking her to dinner without warning her that she may have to pay her share is just crude. Going Dutch isn’t a bad idea at all, but it can be disastrous for a first date especially if you didn’t discuss it. Nobody likes horrid surprises, so if this is your route do be upfront about it. She most probably won’t mind if you tell her beforehand.
Remember!
Patience is a virtue, and civility and urbanity make excellent brownie points when catching that gorgeous creature’s undivided attention. Now, don’t forget to breathe.
The first and only United Methodist hospital in the country takes pride in announcing its selection by the Methodist Healthcare Foundation to receive the
Living Award for International Inspiration in Faith and Health for 2007.
The award is given to organizations that positively impact the health and well-being of national or international communities in a humanitarian way. The organization shall have affected healthcare nationally or internationally in a positive and extraordinary manner, being an inspiring example of a dedicated advocate for quality healthcare initiatives on a national or international scope, demonstrating concern, compassion, and commitment through its innovative programs and special services.
Dr. Myrna Puno-Velasquez has been invited to personally receive the award during the Foundation’s Annual Dinner on 25 October 2007 at the Hilton Memphis in
Listening properly takes time and attention. It means that you have to concentrate on what the other person is saying, not on what is going on inside your head. Sadly, in our rushed, frantic world, with its obsession with quick gains, less and less real listening takes place. Yet to listen to another person fully and patiently is probably one of the greatest gifts you can give them.
You’re buying a car. The sales person asks you what kind of vehicle you have in mind. You start to explain—but how far do you get before he or she says: I’ve got just what you need?” The quicker that point is reached, the less actual listening has taken place. That salesperson isn’t listening to what you want to say. He or she is listening only for what can be used to make a quick sale.
Most people can hear—and more or less understand—words as fast as they’re spoken. They can even make superficial sense of what is being said. What they can’t do at high speed is listen—in the sense of understanding fully what the other person is wanting to communicate and what it means to them.
That takes time. Time to make sure you heard everything and understood their real meaning. Time to weigh all the facts and reach a reasoned conclusion. Time to hear what is not being said and take that into account too. Time to note the emotions behind the words and feel enough empathy with the other person to get on their wavelength. Time to consider the implications of their words and work out a comprehensive response.
When people listen and respond quickly, they can only operate on first impressions and gut responses.
The sales person who talks over your explanation with a pre-digested list of product features is only doing what they’ve been taught: responding to the first buying signals they think they’ve detected with an immediate attempt to close the sale. Their objective is to sell as much as possible as quickly as possible, not to understand what each customer might really want to explain.
In our hurly-burly world, speed has become a god. There’s no time for something as slow as proper listening. All there’s time for is reaching a quick decision on which pigeon-hole to push each event into, so you can get on to the response—the action part—as quickly as possible.
Real communicators differ from the far more common, fake kind because they start from a different set of assumptions
People like this are, of course, far more successful communicators than those whose mouths typically work twice as hard (and fast) as their ears.
When they respond, what they say is exactly what is needed. When they ask questions, every one is relevant and insightful. When they offer a comment or an idea, it will be right on the button.
They may be slower, but they are orders of magnitude are more effective.
Only fools value speed over effectiveness; and only arrogant fools assume that they know what others are saying without showing them the courtesy of listening with care and close attention.
http://slowleadership.org/blog/?p=230Every jobseeker dreads being told that they’re not a good fit for a particular position. In fact, according to Orville Pierson, career coach and author of The Unwritten Rules of the Highly Effective Job Search, many men and women in the market for a new job strictly limit the positions they apply for in order to avoid this kind of rejection.
But in truth, most successful jobseekers aren’t a perfect match with the stated qualifications for the jobs they’ve landed. And by writing off large numbers of positions just because you feel you might not be fully qualified for them, you may be severely curtailing the professional opportunities that are available to you.
Of course, employers outline minimum qualifications for a reason. You can’t expect to land a head chef position if the sum total of your kitchen experience is one summer as a part-time line cook. On the other hand, if you’ve got years of experience under your belt, it’s probably safe to expect that applying for an entry-level position is going to raise a few eyebrows.
In short, if you're vastly under- or overqualified for a particular position, it's probably not worth your time to apply for it. But if you, like the majority of your fellow jobseekers, fall into the grey middle area of the qualification matrix, it may be well worth it to take a risk and apply anyway. Maybe the help-wanted ad calls for 3 years of experience and you only have 2, but you also earned straight A’s in related college coursework. Or perhaps you’ve got an advanced degree when the job posting calls for an associate’s.
These are the type of qualification discrepancies that can easily be overcome with a bit of planning and strategic thinking. Apply these tips to increase your chances of coming across as the perfect match in your next interview.
To be accountable means to be liable to give an account of your actions and their results. It should not mean either accepting a duty to deliver those results, come what may; or always carrying the blame if results fall short. We are all accountable for our actions, but not in the way that is often interpreted. Today’s myths of management accountability are destroying careers and making the workplace into a forced-labor camp.
When things go wrong, the first impulse of many people is to look for a scapegoat. “Who is to blame for this?” they yell. “Heads must roll!”
Even a cursory glance at reality will tell you that heads rarely roll amongst those in senior positions. If any must be sacrificed to pay for the shortfall, it will be some hapless middle manager who wasn’t able to shift the blame elsewhere fast enough.
But what benefit arises from such purges? Do they represent anything save public relations: seeming to take resolute action to buy off criticism, while doing nothing to address the basic causes of the problem?
As Peter Cook once said to Dudley Moore in one of their famous TV sketches: “I believe I have learned all there is to learn from my mistakes. Indeed, I can repeat every one perfectly at the drop of a hat.”
We hear a great deal about holding managers accountable. It is, if you like, the serious and acceptable face of the lust for scapegoats. In the Hamburger Management Game Plan that is in use by so many organizations today, there is no room for subtlety or shades of gray. You either deliver the expected results—however ridiculous those expectations are—or you are “held accountable.”
It’s a neat, satisfying doctrine . . . and almost completely false.
Shouldn’t managers be held accountable for what they do? Isn’t that the essence of what it means to accept a managerial position? Managers are charged to get things done as requested, and must suffer the consequences if they fail.
This, of course, assumes that results flow neatly from actions. So any shortfall can fairly be traced back to some managerial blunder.
In reality, chance accounts for results—good or bad—at least as much as anyone’s effort—usually more. Effort is often thwarted by a range of problems from poor strategy to uncooperative colleagues and unexpectedly resourceful competitors. Much genuine hard work goes to waste through chance events and unforeseen changes in circumstances.
Accountability did not originally imply either responsibility or blame. It simply meant that the person was liable to give an account of their actions: to explain or defend them in a higher court—whether that meant the top executives, the shareholders, or the court of public opinion.
A game plan that imposes blind demands and punishes people who fail to meet them, for almost any reason, is a tyranny, not a management technique. The steady stream of executives facing charges of insider trading, falsifying accounts, and manipulating returns shows you the levels of desperate action people feel they must use to cope with the demands to be “accountable.”
Accountable managers should be able to give account of their stewardship and be listened to with care. Not only is that a civilized way to behave; it’s the best way to discover the true reasons for events, so that appropriate action can be taken. To be allowed to explain is what you expect for adult professionals. To be blamed without the opportunity to be understood is the kind of punishment inflicted on servants or slaves by tyrannical masters.
Let’s return to the true meaning of accountability. When things go wrong, make people explain and account for their actions. Give them a chance to defend what they have done, before they are thoughtlessly condemned.
If more organizations were to do that—and do it genuinely, not as a sop to PR, with the verdict already decided—most would discover that the causes for poor results or operational problems have little or nothing to do with the manager in question, or his or her team.
Poor systems, poor strategy, penny pinching, following fads and fashions, inadequate products and—yes—sheer bad luck are the most common causes of what goes wrong in organizations. The punishment of scapegoats simply proves a way to avoid placing the blame where it really lies.
By substituting a set of myths, based on supposed personal accountability for everything, today’s macho management approaches actually prevent organizations from improving what most needs to be improved—their systems and policies.
People who want a slower, more civilized kind of working life need to concentrate on what will produce that, not what doesn't fit their vision. Instead of focusing on cutting time at the office (which will just make you uncomfortably aware of what you are leaving undone), think about the positive ways you are going to spend the time instead.
Spending the commute home in pleasant anticipation beats spending it worrying about what you left behind—only some of which will be still there to deal with tomorrow. A surprising amount will somehow have evaporated overnight, or been reduced to trivia you can safely and happily ignore, if you stop obsessing about it.
Slowing down isn't just giving up on rushing. It's moving to a different, more pleasant, and more effective lifestyle. Focus on that and even the urge to rush will dissipate.
In the end, the power of the habits that we most want to break lies in the amount of attention we lavish on them while doing so. Give that up—focus instead on what you will put in their place—and you will weaken them so much that they'll stop bothering you.
Posted by Carmine Coyote http://slowleadership.org/blog/?p=159
Ayon din sa kanya, ang mga court stenographer ay nahihirapan din at hindi makasunod sa mga proceedings. Kadalasan ay hindi nila makuhang ulitin ang mga arguments ng mga abogado at fiscal - kahit na trabaho nila na itala ang bawat salita na nasambit sa proceeding na iyon. Dahil dito, kanyang iminumungkahi na ilipat na lang sa Pilipino ang pamamaraan sa korte, mas lalo na't ito ang wika ng mga karaniwan.
Marami ang sumasangayon sa kanya. Oo nga naman, Pilipino tayo, may sariling wika at sambayanang diwa na ating maitatangi. Bilang Pilipino, ito ay dapat natin gawin. Ang paggamit ng Pilipino sa pananalita ay isang makabayang gawain. Bakit natin ipipilit ang isang bagay na hindi naman likas sa atin?
Wikang Pambansa laban sa wikang banyaga. Magandang adhikain ang pagtangkilik ng sariling atin; sino pa nga ba ang magmamahal sa ating sarili kundi ating mga sarili din.
Ngunit ano ba ang batayan ng pagiging makabayan? Ito ba ay nababatay sa wika lamang? O ang paggamit ba ng wika ay ang pinakamalaki at pinakamahalagang bahagi sa pagiging makabayan ng isang tao?
Ayon sa Saligang Batas ng Republika ng Pilipinas, ang wikang Ingles ay isa sa dalawa nating Wikang Pambansa. Kung gayon, ang wikang Ingles ay hindi banyaga sa atin. Ito ay bahagi ng ating pamumuhay.
Ang mga paaralan ay naatasang ituro ang at magturo sa wikang Ingles. Maraming banyaga ang nagtutungo sa Pilipinas upang mag-aral ng Ingles. Marami ang humahanga sa kakayahan ng ating mga kababayan na gumamit ng wikang Ingles. Ito ay hindi iba sa atin. Isa itong advantage ng mamamayan, mas lalo na kung ihahalintulad mo ang Pilipinas sa ibang bayan.
Tama, ang kahalagahan ng wika ay nasa pag-unawa ng mga tao. Ngunit hindi kasalanan ng wika ang kahinaan ng tao. Hindi kakulangan ng wika ang kawalan ng pang-unawa ng tao; ang kaledad ng pang-unawa ay nasa nagtuturo, at hindi sa itinuturo. Iba-iba ang mga tinuturuan, marami ang pamamaraan ng pagtuturo, ngunit ang nilalaman ng itinuturo ay iisa.
Huwag nating balewalain ang kaalaman na dapat nating natamo mula sa pag-aaral. Karamihan sa atin ay nakapag-aral, mas lalo na kung ikukumpara mo sa panahon ng ating mga magulang. Nasa atin ang kakayahang mamuhay ng maayos, matiwasay at makabayan, at hindi ito batay sa wika lamang.
Ating intindihin ang tunay na diwa ng pagiging makabayan. Bukod pa ito sa pananalita at panlabas na anyo. Ang Babel ay hindi hihinto, at kung matigil man ay matagal na panahon pa bago ito mangyari. Sa paggawa nakikilala ang puso at pag-iisip ng isang tao, at hindi lamang sa wika.
While driving around town one afternoon, I noticed the prevalence of gated communities, homes and establishments. It is common practice in this day to have a gate, whether a cute, white picket fence, or practical metal interlinks, or thick, high walls. Even building doors act as gates – if you don’t have your ID or electronic pass you can’t get through.
Which led me to ask: Are gates meant to keep people in, or to keep them out?
Much later, someone remarked why I asked, and where did I get the question from? My response was, I formulated the question and that it came to be because of what I saw. But does that matter, I asked again, since I believed the answer is more important than the question itself.
So what is the answer?
The answer is both! Its job is to allow limited passage; its purpose, to demarcate the land. Those who are inside are meant to be inside and should stay inside, while those who are outside are not meant to be inside and should not come in. And the gate tells us where “inside” begins and “outside” ends. That is why a gate exists.
More often than not people take for granted the things that they see and use in their daily lives, not realising the impact that those things have on their person. Frequently the whys and wherefores escape us, and over time the compounded incomprehension rears its ugly head and confronts us.
Take, for example, the lowly jeep. What is the jeep’s purpose? To move people or goods from one point to another. It can also generate income for its operator and/or driver. But it is a conveyance; that it can also be a source of income is an added benefit, and not its primary purpose. Put simply: Will the jeep create income if it does not fulfil its purpose of transporting you to your destination? It can’t, because it’s not designed to make money in the first place. People pay for the ability to reach their destination, regardless of vehicle. If it is, in fact, costing more to maintain and run a jeep then it isn’t a cost efficient means of transport, even more so as a means of income.
Purpose is not readily seen nor understood. Purpose is that “hidden agenda” that requires some questioning on one’s part in order to surface. Ask yourself, without prejudice and presumption, why something is the way it is. You’ll be surprised at the answer.
