The Fairness Police

Anyone who has been a manager, or the parent to more than one child, has had their turn acting as the "fairness" officer. Over many years of management and parenting, I've come to the conclusion that the concept of "fair" is perhaps our most dangerous concept. This is because "fair" depends on your perspective. "Fair" is subjective. And "fair" is a standard where humans cannot possibly measure up.

Let me just remind us all of something we've heard since childhood -- life isn't fair.

Is it fair that one person has a job and another doesn't? Is it fair that someone was born into wealth, and you weren't? Is it fair that one child gets a pink slinky, while the other has to suffer with a purple one (a current real life example here at home)? It all depends on your perspective.

These issues permeate our culture. You can see it going on in current events right now. Is it fair that half of the population pays no income tax? Is it fair that Warren Buffett pays only 17% income tax? Is it fair that some people get huge bonuses working on Wall Street even as the banking system is falling apart? Is it fair that some people can only get a temp job? Is it fair that you can get any job? Is it fair that the government had to step in and provide funds for TARP? Is it fair the government doesn't provide a free college education to everyone? Or to just citizens?

Remember -- life fundamentally isn't fair.

I submit to you that the fairness argument has no legitimate place in any of these situations. Forget about fair. Your idea of fair is different from the next person's. Fairness leads to unworkable ideas and proposals. Fairness leads to measuring your gains (or losses) against everyone else, looking for the unfavorable (unfair) comparison. Fairness seeking leads to envy, jealousy and unhappiness.

Life isn't fair.

So my proposal -- forget about fairness. Measure your life and circumstances in absolute terms. Do you have what you need? Are you happy with your choices? Can you make things better for yourself or someone you care about? If you're in good shape yourself, can you derive satisfaction from helping someone else? Continually looking for someone who's got it better, easier, etc., will just make you unhappy.

Life isn't fair, and it never will be.

So take joy in your own accomplishments. Strive to be better every day. Make a positive impact on others. Be practical. And stop wasting your time worrying about others who have more/better/easier than you.

Illegal Immigration

Generally speaking, I've avoided blogging on political subjects, but this one I can no longer ignore. I read in the paper this morning (yesterday's paper, actually -- current news is sometimes a casualty of country living) that over the weekend both Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann spoke out on the subject of illegal immigration.

Cain wanted to electrify the (mostly non-existent) border fence at a lethal level, potentially killing those attempting to get into the U.S.. Or, he offered as an alternative, the National Guard could just shoot them.

Bachmann railed against the "illegality" of immigrant's entry into the U.S. (an argument I've heard a lot, which usually starts with "What is it about illegal they don't understand..."), and wants to build a "secure double fence", whatever that is.

Folks, I just don't understand the (apparent) conservative position on this subject at all. And I've been a conservative voter all my life!

There are approximately 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States. Most of these are Hispanic, with the largest group coming from Mexico. Why do they come to the U.S. despite the obvious dangers? Economic opportunity, combined with a sentence of horrible poverty in their home country. If you want to get a sense of the desperation faced by these people, spend a little time in an underdeveloped country. I have, and it is truly eye-opening. These immigrants aren't poor because they're lazy or stupid, and are looking for a "free ride" -- they lack a chance! There are minds equivalent to today's Nobel prize winners trapped in the bush somewhere because they have NO WAY to improve their lot. Most of the European immigrants coming to the United States in prior centuries arrived for similar reasons.

I don't find it odd that these immigrants want to enter the U.S., but it still must be a frightening undertaking. In fact, you might generally characterize illegal immigrants as brave, bold and willing to take a chance to better themselves -- the kind of people we would want in our country. And the legality or illegality of crossing a border, when compared to permanent punishing poverty in their home country probably represents little more than a speed-bump. If you are willing to abandon family, culture, and language (eventually), for opportunity, what does the often flaunted U.S. law on immigration matter? It's just another risk to be dealt with.

I think most illegal immigrants would enter the United States legally, however, if there was ever any hope of them getting a visa to do so. The chances of them obtaining one are about as good as you or I hitting the lottery.

U.S. legal immigration policies are a part of this equation. Over the previous decade, the United States permitted roughly 1 million people to annually enter the country legally -- 700 thousand if you subtract those leaving. That number equals approximately 0.2% population growth per year, hardly a large percentage. Of these, approximately 1/3 are from Hispanic countries. The inflow of illegals is twice this level. This looks like basic economics to me -- unmet demand (a shortage of domestic candidates for low skilled jobs), and artificially constrained supply (not enough legal immigrants allowed to enter the U.S.) creates the temptation for people to enter the United States illegally.

Overall economic impact is hard to assess, when it comes to illegal immigrants. There appear to be opinions across the board ranging from those who tally up only costs (education for children -- many of whom are U.S. born, and rightfully citizens -- government services, and criminal justice), to those who make theoretical arguments that Social Security would be insolvent without the payments of illegal aliens -- payments which will never be claimed in benefits.

I put my stock in the near-consensus opinion of economists. In a 2006 survey by the Wall Street Journal, 46 noted economists were asked if illegal immigrants had an overall positive or negative impact on the U.S. economy. All but two believed the net impact was positive.

Is illegal immigration then a victim-less crime?

Not completely. There are some citizens who will suffer as a result of illegal immigration. A person injured in a car accident where the fault lies with an illegal immigrant. The victim of a crime committed by an illegal immigrant. And there is evidence that the availability of an illegal immigrant workforce does depress wage levels slightly in some low skill job classifications.

But on balance, I don't believe illegal immigrants are the "problem" many people make them out to be. And there are other uglier explanations for anti-immigrant attitudes. Things like fear of loss of political power, concerns over "sharing the pie" (although most economists will tell you population growth causes the pie to get bigger), or perhaps xenophobia.

So what's the solution? Certainly it isn't rounding up 11 million illegal immigrants and shipping them back to their country of origin. That would be inhumane in the extreme, in addition to being completely impractical. How can there be any other solution than to provide a path to eventual citizenship for these people?

As to border control -- I can't support Cain's plan to electrify the (mostly non-existent) fence, and or shoot anyone who wants to enter. I could support tighter border controls, but in conjunction with a more liberal (yikes, did I really use that word?) legal immigration policy which gives those living with the prospect of permanent poverty a realistic chance to enter the U.S.

None of my ideas, however, will counter the potential loss of political power of conservatives. Let's face it, the democratic party has done a good job making themselves the friends of immigrants, something the Republicans should ponder a bit. And it might mean we will continue to see more dual language signs, instructions, and the like -- a small price to pay for economic growth, IMHO. And, there is nothing in my thoughts to pacify outright racism, although I don't believe that motive deserves any pacification.

So, my conservative friends -- let's hear your arguments. Tell me where I've got it wrong.

Don't rely only on your own observations

Some people can quickly assess others. Some take a long time to get a clear picture. Many more think they can make a quick judgment, but are often wrong.

One place where the chances run particularly high that we will "get it wrong" is during the interview process.

In interviews, the normal reality is for the candidate to be in hardcore sales mode. "Doing your homework" as a job candidate means understanding what the company is looking for, and trying to "morph" your education, experience, and personality into the required mold. If you can make yourself into an ideal candidate, then at least you get to make the call when it comes time to take or reject the job.

Doing this is probably in the best interests of the candidate, and as a result, I don't fault them for trying. The downside is, of course, many people end up in companies and positions that aren't well suited to them.

Why does this happen?

Because candidates don't recognize and/or accept the implicit responsibility they are taking on when "morphing" for interviews -- they don't make good judgments when it comes to fit with the company. By "morphing", the candidate must take responsibility to assess fit. After all, the company can't do it -- you're not really letting them know who you are.

And even when the candidates accept the theoretical responsibility for assessing their fit, the don't execute it very well.

Candidates often see what they want to see, or look only for the things that were missing from their last job. And they systematically rely on their own observations alone, rarely asking for outside opinions or information.

So here's a wild idea -- why don't candidates ask to see references from employers? Why not check social media to find out what their bosses and coworkers will really be like? Why not independently track down former employees and ask them why they left, and what the environment was really like? The companies check candidate's backgrounds of employees, so why not the other way around?

Had I done this, I would have avoided a couple of difficult employers/positions during my career, and the resultant pile of angst, discomfort and agitation. I would have wasted less time, and disrupted the lives of my families a lot less.

So here is a modest proposal -- you as a candidate have as much obligation to check out potential employer, boss and coworkers, as they have to check out you. Perhaps more so, if you are doing the typical "morph" stuff during the interview process. So make sure you do it, and turn down opportunities where there is poor fit.

More Cover Art Conundrums

I've begged for help before on this subject, and have already been rescued on the cover of DELIVERABLES by Tod Foley (see the new cover for that novel near the bottom of this post).

A twitter acquaintance responded with two proposals for the INCENTIVIZE cover. They are shown here:

Just as a reminder, the working cover prior to these was, as the twitter marketing guy said, "more like a report cover than the front of a thriller". It it is shown here:

So which what is the best choice? Please help me decide...

As a reminder, INCENTIVIZE is the story of a young woman who is abducted in a harsh desert area of East Africa and ends up in the hands of mercenaries, and then later, a warlord in Mogadishu, Somalia. I think both new concepts correctly capture this idea -- there are armed men, desert, camels, harsh sunlight, and even a volcanically active area like Yellowstone. My cover only captured the "Yellowstone-esque" concept, but if you just like mine better, feel free to vote for it!

And the new cover for DELIVERABLES is below:

My thanks Tod, this is much better than I what I had before!

http://outofcorporatelife.blogspot.com/
http://www.tomspears.com/home/

Examine the Whole Picture when Job Hopping

This lesson is one I personally learned, rather than something pointed out to me by another or discovered from watching someone else's implosion. Here is the basic concept...

When you change jobs, don't focus exclusively on those items which seemed to be "missing" from your last position. If you do that, you will most likely trade one set of unfavorable characteristics for another.

One of the jobs I worked during my career was with a company which had a very aggressive management style -- one which I grew to despise. The style included screaming and yelling during most meetings with senior management, which didn't fit with my personal beliefs of how to treat or motivate others at all. And as a pretty non-confrontational person, it really stressed me out. Unfortunately, there was no exemption for good performance, just a slight reduction in decibel levels.

So what I inevitably did when moving to my next position was to look for the absence of that aggressiveness. I wanted a place where there was little to no shouting, or any other overt confrontation. And after a little looking around, I found it.

All sounds peachy, right? It didn't turn out that way.

Okay, here is what I missed. One of the things I really appreciated about my old employer (which I didn't fully recognize until I was ensconced in my new position) was the clarity of goals and the analytical approach to setting them and measuring performance. You always knew where you stood.

The new employer had very unclear goals and targets, which seemed to present a constantly moving target. There were many unclear, unspoken criteria for judgment -- known in sarcastically as "management by hinting-around" -- which tended to polarize the staff and make the company exceptionally political for an organization of its size.

Had I been a bit more complete in my strategy, I would have been willing to accept a more aggressive employer in exchange for a less political and more straightforward criteria for judging success and failure.

Admittedly this is an example of hindsight being twenty-twenty. It is definitely difficult to do on two fronts -- first, it is a lot easier to recognize what you don't like than what you do like; and second, understanding likes and dislikes requires a fairly thorough knowledge of self. For me, that understanding didn't come until mid-life, after banging my head against the proverbial wall repeatedly.

I'm sure there are better learners out there than I was, but it seems to me most of the people I meet on the management ladder are much more focused on trying to hammer themselves into the round hole (no matter how many sharp corners they have) than in really finding work and an employer that fit with who they are.

The main protagonist in my novel, LEVERAGE (http://tomspears.squarespace.com/leverage/) goes through this same learning process while in the midst of solving a murder. Ultimately, he discovers that corporate life isn't really for him, a realization many people make late in their careers.

http://outofcorporatelife.blogspot.com/
http://www.tomspears.com/home/

Guest Post - East Africa Famine

Today I have a guest post from a friend of a friend, who is delivering a call to action on the food crisis in East Africa. Please read and lend you support.

Tom

Guest Blogger: Sarah Lenssen from #Ask5for5

Family photos by Mike Fiechtner Photography



Thank you Tom and nearly 150 other bloggers from around the world for allowing me to share a story with you today, during Social Media Week.



A hungry child in East Africa can't wait. Her hunger consumes her while we decide if we'll respond and save her life. In Somalia, children are stumbling along for days, even weeks, on dangerous roads and with empty stomachs in search of food and water. Their crops failed for the third year in a row. All their animals died. They lost everything. Thousands are dying along the road before they find help in refugee camps.



At my house, when my three children are hungry, they wait minutes for food, maybe an hour if dinner is approaching. Children affected by the food crisis in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Somalia aren't so lucky. Did you know that the worst drought in 60 years is ravaging whole countries right now, as you read this? Famine, a term not used lightly, has been declared in Somalia. This is the world's first famine in 20 years.12.4 million people are in need of emergency assistance and over 29,000 children have died in the last three months alone. A child is dying every 5 minutes. It it estimated that 750,000 people could die before this famine is over. Take a moment and let that settle in.



The media plays a major role in disasters. They have the power to draw the attention of society to respond--or not. Unfortunately, this horrific disaster has become merely a footnote in most national media outlets. News of the U.S. national debt squabble and the latest celebrity's baby bump dominate headlines. That is why I am thrilled that nearly 150 bloggers from all over the world are joining together today to use the power of social media to make their own headlines; to share the urgent need of the almost forgotten with their blog readers. Humans have the capacity to care deeply for those who are suffering, but in a situation like this when the numbers are too huge to grasp and the people so far away, we often feel like the little we can do will be a drop in the ocean, and don't do anything at all.

When news of the famine first hit the news in late July, I selfishly avoided it. I didn't want to read about it or hear about it because I knew I would feel overwhelmed and uncomfortable. I wanted to protect myself. I knew I would need to do something if I knew what was really happening. You see, this food crisis is personal. I have a 4-year-old son and a 1 yr-old daughter who were adopted from Ethiopia and born in regions now affected by the drought. If my children still lived in their home villages, they would be two of the 12.4 million. My children: extremely hungry and malnourished? Gulp. I think any one of us would do anything we could for our hungry child. But would you do something for another mother's hungry child?

My friend and World Vision staffer, Jon Warren, was recently in Dadaab Refugee Camp in Kenya--the largest refugee camp in the world with over 400,000 people. He told me the story of Isnino Siyat, 22, a mother who walked for 10 days and nights with her husband, 1 yr-old-baby, Suleiman, and 4 yr.-old son Adan Hussein, fleeing the drought in Somalia. When she arrived at Dadaab, she built the family a shelter with borrowed materials while carrying her baby on her back. Even her dress is borrowed. As she sat in the shelter on her second night in camp she told Jon, "I left because of hunger. It is a very horrible drought which finished both our livestock and our farm." The family lost their 5 cows and 10 goats one by one over 3 months, as grazing lands dried up. "We don't have enough food now...our food is finished. I am really worried about the future of my children and myself if the situation continues."

Will you help a child like Baby Suleiman? Ask5for5 is a dream built upon the belief that you will.



That something I knew I would need to do became a campaign called #Ask5for5 to raise awareness and funds for famine and drought victims. The concept is simple, give $5 and ask five of your friends to give $5, and then they each ask five of their friends to give $5 and so on--in nine generations of 5x5x5...we could raise $2.4 Million! In one month, over 750 people have donated over $25,000! I set up a fundraiser at See Your Impact and 100% of the funds will go to World Vision, an organization that has been fighting hunger in the Horn of Africa for decades and will continue long after this famine has ended. Donations can multiply up to 5 times in impact by government grants to
help provide emergency food, clean water, agricultural support,
healthcare, and other vital assistance to children and families suffering in the Horn.



I need you to help me save lives. It's so so simple; here's what you need to do:

1. Donate $5 or more on this page (http://seeyourimpact.org/members/ask5for5)


2. Send an email to your friends and ask them to join us.


3. Share #Ask5for5 on Facebook and Twitter!

I'm looking for another 100 bloggers to share this post on their blogs throughout Social Media Week. Email me at ask5for5@gmail.com if you're interested in participating this week.



A hungry child doesn't wait. She doesn't wait for us to finish the other things on our to-do list, or get to it next month when we might have a little more money to give. She doesn't wait for us to decide if she's important enough to deserve a response. She will only wait as long as her weakened little body will hold on...please respond now and help save her life. Ask 5 for 5.



Thank you on behalf of all of those who will be helped--you are saving lives and changing history.





p.s. Please don't move on to the next website before you donate and email your friends right now. It only takes 5 minutes and just $5, and if you're life is busy like mine, you probably won't get back to it later. Let's not be a generation that ignores hundreds of thousands of starving people, instead let's leave a legacy of compassion. You have the opportunity to save a life today!

Sometimes in business, you have to eat your own children

This piece of advice was offered to me by one of my many bosses. And while the notion "eating our own children" sounds bizarre, or perhaps even a little comical (and knowing this boss, it was meant to be comical), there is wisdom in the underlying message.

The point of this lesson is: We become overly attached to our own ideas, and we have to be willing to let them go, or even be proactive in destroying them in favor of the next great thing.

I remember a book I read a few years ago (years after I learned this lesson) which nicely illustrated an aspect of this idea. The book was Clayton Christensen's "The Innovator's Dilemma". In it, Christensen gave us example after example of companies that became highly attached to specific products, technologies, market channels, and ways of doing things. Those products, technologies, market channels and ways of doing things served the companies well -- sometimes for generations. In a sense, they became the sacred bedrock on which the companies operated. Or, you could think of them as the company's "children".

In more of a micro-cosmic way, the same thing happens with each of us. We become attached to those behaviors which seem to work, and avoid those which don't, getting stuck in our own ruts. Those beliefs become like "children" to us -- magical formulas for success. But like the larger corporation, we often cling to those magic formulas long after they cease to work.

So why "eat your children"? As my former boss used to say -- it is better to eat them yourself, than have them eaten by others.

Discarding old ideas and embracing what is new and innovative launches us into a process of renewal and re-invigoration. If we are on the lookout for the pitfall of becoming comfortable with, or even loving our "children", we can avoid the painful disasters that comes from clinging to outdated ideas, products, technologies or channels.

To find my novels, follow the link below:

http://www.tomspears.com/leverage/

To read my blog on Corporate politics, follow the link below:

http://www.tomspears.com/corporate-politics/