droganbloggin - meanderings and musingsNote on Posting a Comment: If your comment warrants a response and you wish it sent privately, please provide an e-mail address. Otherwise I will comment on your comment and it will be public.
...and good governance get out of the way of growth; and at best, they encourage and foster the drivers of growth.
Now, as I showed a few months ago, back at the very beginning of this new econometric world, politicians were looking for economic models that would allow them to pursue their desired political objectives. If your political objective was a small government footprint, you favored certain models which suggested that was the proper course of action. If your political objective was a larger government and income redistribution, you favored other types of models.
John Mauldin, Thoughts from the Frontline, September 1, 2014, http://www.mauldineconomics.com
This edition of Thoughts from the Fronline is worth a full read.
Here's an extract from Shevtsova, L., & Cowen, T. (2014, August 30). Putin Ends the Interregnum.
Having flipped the global chessboard with his annexation of the Crimea and an undeclared war against Ukraine, Putin effectively ended the most recent period of interregnum and inaugurated a new era in global politics. However, no one yet knows what this era will bring. The global community is still reeling in shock, when it isn’t trying to pretend that nothing extraordinary has in fact occurred. This denial of the fact that the Kremlin has dealt a blow to conventional ideas, stable geopolitical constructs, and (supposedly) successful policies proceeds from the natural instinct for self-preservation. It is also quite natural that the political forces that have grown accustomed to the status quo will try to look to the past for answers to new challenges—this is precisely what those who were unprepared for a challenge always do [emphasis added]. It was easy enough to predict that many politicians and political analysts would explain what Putin has done to the global order by using Cold War analogies. Drawing these historical parallels is potentially useful in only one respect: if they help us to see what is truly new about the current situation, and the scale of the risks involved.
While this concerns geopolitics, the same issue arises in business, education, and other matters. It brings to mind laws five and eight (Drogan's Laws).
The title of this post is a question on Quora.
The answers are interesting and provocative. I encourage you to take a look.
...the temperature at the center of the herd.
You're not far enough in front to make a difference.
In Thinking about Vocations I mention a note I have prepared for students in my freshan leadership course to encourage them to think about their future.
Additional notes include Writing Papers in Jim Drogan’s LEAD Course, a paper that discusses how to approach the development if quality papers, and Relationships, a paper that discussed the development of reelationships.
I generally teach a leadership course to incoming freshman each fall and this fall is no different. Thinking about Vocations is a brief note I've written that will, hopefully, prompt them to focus on the matter.
This morning I was browsing Tyler Cowen's Marginal Revolution wherein he provided the following link.
6. Excellent profile of Ken Regan and his campaign against cheating in chess, by using computer programs to detect play which is too good. But this is not merely a chess piece, think of it as a tour de force on the future of law enforcement, the role of Black Swans in life, the importance of social networks, and the different ways that humans organize information.
I followed the link for, I suspect, I found Cowen's use of chess in Average is Over: Powering America Beyond the Age of the Great Stagnation very compelling. I don't pretend to understand all that was in the linked article, but I was fascinated by the concluding paragraph.
In 2012, Regan lost an exhibition match to a Lego-built robot running the Houdini engine, equipped with an arm that moved the pieces on a real board and a camera that could interpret the position. The experience made an awesome impression on him. “Is technology going to be so ubiquitous that we’ll not be able to police it anymore?” [emphasis added] he asks while he, his wife, and I eat dinner at a local Thai restaurant. Regan slumps over his food, looking depressed about the need to even ask the question. “Houdini won using only six seconds per move,” he says. The exhibition reminds Regan that his calling has carved valuable time from his research and family. “He’s obsessed,” says his wife, who sits across the table. Then she adds, “But you’ve got to be obsessed to be good.” Regan ignores the flattery, his attention held by an emerging thought. Finally he springs forward in his chair, smiling. “By the way,” he says. “This project was run by a person whose mother and my mother share a best friend back in New Jersey.”
I'm reminded of Omnius in Dune: The Butlerian Jihad.
In 2002 Dave Weinberger wrote Small Pieces Loosely Joined: A Unified Theory of the Web. The conversation subsequently became one of "the internet of things."
Now comes Nanosatellites: Nanosats are Go! (2014, June 7). The Economist: "Small satellites: Taking advantage of smartphones and other consumer technologies, tiny satellites are changing the space business."
This may another one of those things that changes everything.
For some time I have been interested in the forces that shape the context in which global business must operate. See The Context of Interest for early thinking.
During 2009-2011, in order to better understand these forces, I took a MA in Diplomacy from Norwich University. Emerging out of that experience was a precursor to this image.
In a recent systems design and control class we took up the issue of the impact of geopolitics on a supply chain of China imposing duties on American-made cars and SUVs sold in China in late 2011.
This morning's New York Times brings an additional reminder of the strong influence of geopolitics on the global business context (Wong, E. (2014, June 1). American Businesses in China Feel Heat of a Cyberdispute. The New York Times).
The take-away from this is that success in global business increasingly requires a sophisticated sense of the externalities that shape the context.
I'm inclined to be sure my students adequately consider this matter when they resolve the issues I present to them.
The three of you expressed frustration and dissatisfaction with your team assessment. I owe you a response.
For a long period of time I thought the capabilities of a person were best represented by their knowledge, skills, and experiences. At least two years ago, and perhaps earlier, I began to appreciate the attitudes and behavior as important characteristics that round out a person’s capabilities. I’ve known, and now know, plenty of people with great knowledge, skills, and experiences, but attitudes and behavior that render them detrimental to resolving an issue. And I’ve known and know people with wonderful attitudes and behavior, but lacked and are lacking the knowledge, skills, and experiences required for success in a particular endeavor.
Team assessment measures the sum total of one’s capabilities in a particular situation.
Let me remind you what I had to say about assessment.
Special Note: It is tempting, inasmuch as this may possibly be your last activity in this course, to treat it lightly. Resist the temptation.
One of the most important responsibilities you will have during your career is the assessment of the performance of others. This assessment not only reflects upon the person assessed, but also on you, the assessor.
Suppose, for example, you assessed a person as extremely capable, but made the assessment in a rather casual, off-handed, quick fashion. The person is then, based largely on your assessment, hired and subsequently found not to live up to expectations. Your assessment has put the person in a difficult position, he has performed poorly, his subsequent career is affected. You are also affected because your judgment is called into question.
Take the time to think about your teammates' participation. Produce a fair assessment. Treat them as you would like to be treated.
It seems to me that whatever the nature of the assessment – favorable or unfavorable – one ought to think about why the assessment is the way it is. Human beings tend to react more to negative rather than positive assessments. I think we ought to look upon them similarly. Kipling, in his great poem If talks about, “If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster/And treat those two impostors just the same.” My observation is that people often say nice things about you because they lack the courage and ability to tell you what they really think. And, of course, in their pettiness, desire for vengeance and inability to confront their own weaknesses, people often speak ill of others.
The seminal question, therefore, is not so much the what, but the why. Only you, as the assessed or otherwise interested party, can ask the question. Only the assessor can answer.