Reminder; primer; connections; commonality; community; L’Arche, an example
************************************************************************
Above may be reproduced in full if that fact is stated and Howard Wolosky at http://howardwolosky.blogspot.com is credited as the author.
© 2012
Showing posts with label COMMUNITY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label COMMUNITY. Show all posts
Monday, January 23, 2012
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Howard’s Inner Circle, No. 35: How Developed is Your Self-Control Intelligence?
This has been an issue since the first human took a bite out of that apple. But now in We Have Met the Enemy—Self Control in an Age of Excess, Daniel Akst makes a strong case that social, economic, and technological changes have dramatically altered the self-control landscape.
He believes people are having greater difficulty sacrificing short-term pleasures for long-term gains. In part, Akst indicates it is because practical barriers to short-term pleasure are now a lot lower. He also points to a decline in the importance of certain types of communities, changes in attitudes to religion, lack of familial influence, and the appeal of individual self-actualization.
I always thought that lack of self-control was just a matter of not having enough willpower. But it is much more diabolical than that and can be attributed to many other reasons including biological, economic, and even visual ones. Do you know that there is a study that shows people eat dramatically more M&Ms simply by putting ten different colors into a bowl instead of seven (consumption increased 43 percent)?
All is not lost since Akst offers some ideas as to how you can improve your self-control. My favorite is utilizing the Web site StickK.com referred to as a “precommitment device.” That site lets you put up some money and make a binding agreement let say to lose a pound a week for 15 weeks. You can appoint a person to monitor the progress. If you fail, stickK.com gives some of the money to a charity you have chosen.
A number of years ago I discovered a book by Daniel Goleman that illustrates in extraordinary detail the importance of emotional intelligence. I believe self-control intelligence is no different, but maybe not as obvious.
© 2011
*****************************************************************************
Above may be reproduced in full if that fact is stated and Howard Wolosky at http://howardwolosky.blogspot.com is credited as the author.
He believes people are having greater difficulty sacrificing short-term pleasures for long-term gains. In part, Akst indicates it is because practical barriers to short-term pleasure are now a lot lower. He also points to a decline in the importance of certain types of communities, changes in attitudes to religion, lack of familial influence, and the appeal of individual self-actualization.
I always thought that lack of self-control was just a matter of not having enough willpower. But it is much more diabolical than that and can be attributed to many other reasons including biological, economic, and even visual ones. Do you know that there is a study that shows people eat dramatically more M&Ms simply by putting ten different colors into a bowl instead of seven (consumption increased 43 percent)?
All is not lost since Akst offers some ideas as to how you can improve your self-control. My favorite is utilizing the Web site StickK.com referred to as a “precommitment device.” That site lets you put up some money and make a binding agreement let say to lose a pound a week for 15 weeks. You can appoint a person to monitor the progress. If you fail, stickK.com gives some of the money to a charity you have chosen.
A number of years ago I discovered a book by Daniel Goleman that illustrates in extraordinary detail the importance of emotional intelligence. I believe self-control intelligence is no different, but maybe not as obvious.
© 2011
*****************************************************************************
Above may be reproduced in full if that fact is stated and Howard Wolosky at http://howardwolosky.blogspot.com is credited as the author.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Howard’s Inner Circle, No. 22: I Could Be …
On the whole according to Karen Schulz, “our indiscriminate enjoyment of being right is matched by an almost equally indiscriminate feeling that we are right.” She adds “If being right is succulent, being wrong runs a, narrow, unhappy gamut from nauseating to worse than death.”
This aversion for being wrong is perhaps why I found “Being Wrong—Adventures in the Margin of Error” by Kathryn Schulz so fascinating. First of all it is a subject that few fully understand, explore, or write about. Second, and most important, it is a professional journalist’s treatment of the subject. Ms. Schulz provides many well-documented examples that illustrate how being right and being wrong are interrelated in so many surprising ways and how significantly they impact our emotional and societal frameworks.
As to the individual, Schulz points out that “…[O}ur beliefs are in extricable from our identities. That’s one reason why being wrong can so easily wound our sense of self.” Regarding to the communities we live in, she points to a so-called disagreement deficit which supports what we think as being right. “First our communities expose us to disproportionate support for our own ideas. Second, they shield us from the disagreement of outsiders. Third they cause us to disregard whatever outside disagreement we do encounter. Finally, they quash the development of disagreement from within.” Schulz observes.
One of the questions that Schulz asks is: “Do we have an obligation to others to contemplate the possibility that we are wrong?”
Is she right?
© 2010
*************************************************************
The above may be reproduced in full if that fact is stated and Howard Wolosky is credited as the author.
On the whole according to Karen Schulz, “our indiscriminate enjoyment of being right is matched by an almost equally indiscriminate feeling that we are right.” She adds “If being right is succulent, being wrong runs a, narrow, unhappy gamut from nauseating to worse than death.”
This aversion for being wrong is perhaps why I found “Being Wrong—Adventures in the Margin of Error” by Kathryn Schulz so fascinating. First of all it is a subject that few fully understand, explore, or write about. Second, and most important, it is a professional journalist’s treatment of the subject. Ms. Schulz provides many well-documented examples that illustrate how being right and being wrong are interrelated in so many surprising ways and how significantly they impact our emotional and societal frameworks.
As to the individual, Schulz points out that “…[O}ur beliefs are in extricable from our identities. That’s one reason why being wrong can so easily wound our sense of self.” Regarding to the communities we live in, she points to a so-called disagreement deficit which supports what we think as being right. “First our communities expose us to disproportionate support for our own ideas. Second, they shield us from the disagreement of outsiders. Third they cause us to disregard whatever outside disagreement we do encounter. Finally, they quash the development of disagreement from within.” Schulz observes.
One of the questions that Schulz asks is: “Do we have an obligation to others to contemplate the possibility that we are wrong?”
Is she right?
© 2010
*************************************************************
The above may be reproduced in full if that fact is stated and Howard Wolosky is credited as the author.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Howard’s Inner Circle, No. 14: What is a Community?
Some might suggest a dictionary is the best place to find the definition of the word “community.” Others might point to the entry in Wikipedia. After reading, Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community, it is readily apparent that the definition depends upon the context in which you are using that word.
You no longer have to live in the same town, nor have direct personal and business contacts, or vote in the same local election to be part of a community. The Internet, e-mail, and other technologies have really broadened what constitutes a community and how many members can belong at any particular time. Also a member of a virtual community takes many forms including being an observer, a registered member, an active participant, and a community administrator. The form can change in an instant. Unlike geographic communities, there are often few ties (a job, home, family, etc.) which bind you tightly. You can simply leave that community and go to another if it doesn’t serve you well.
What do you look for in a virtual community? How about a mission statement you feel comfortable with, that the members believe in, and try to follow. Throw in a code of ethics and list of responsibilities for all its members and participants, including advertisers? How about transparency and full disclosure? And like some geographic communities, security, comfort, and diversity. Deep down a community that promotes the common good, while still encouraging, within reason, self-interest.
Much of business is obtained from referrals. In my experience, writing about CPA firms for many years, they were often the result of a CPA’s relationship building skills with clients and other professionals in the immediate geographic area. The problem is those geographic communities don’t have the stability they once had. Globalization, changing economic conditions, and technology are decimating some communities and creating new ones, often at a dizzying rate.
What communities you belong too is an important decision. In the past, it often revolved around the geographic location and great thought and due diligence would occur before joining a particular community. Because of the ready instant access and the need to participate within these virtual communities, I believe similar standards should be applied in selecting all the communities that we “live” in.
© 2010
*************************************************************
The above is from the newsletter, Howard’s Inner Circle, which periodically appears on the blog, “Instigator” at http://howardwolosky.blogspot.com/. It may be reproduced in full if that fact is stated and Howard Wolosky is credited as the author.
You no longer have to live in the same town, nor have direct personal and business contacts, or vote in the same local election to be part of a community. The Internet, e-mail, and other technologies have really broadened what constitutes a community and how many members can belong at any particular time. Also a member of a virtual community takes many forms including being an observer, a registered member, an active participant, and a community administrator. The form can change in an instant. Unlike geographic communities, there are often few ties (a job, home, family, etc.) which bind you tightly. You can simply leave that community and go to another if it doesn’t serve you well.
What do you look for in a virtual community? How about a mission statement you feel comfortable with, that the members believe in, and try to follow. Throw in a code of ethics and list of responsibilities for all its members and participants, including advertisers? How about transparency and full disclosure? And like some geographic communities, security, comfort, and diversity. Deep down a community that promotes the common good, while still encouraging, within reason, self-interest.
Much of business is obtained from referrals. In my experience, writing about CPA firms for many years, they were often the result of a CPA’s relationship building skills with clients and other professionals in the immediate geographic area. The problem is those geographic communities don’t have the stability they once had. Globalization, changing economic conditions, and technology are decimating some communities and creating new ones, often at a dizzying rate.
What communities you belong too is an important decision. In the past, it often revolved around the geographic location and great thought and due diligence would occur before joining a particular community. Because of the ready instant access and the need to participate within these virtual communities, I believe similar standards should be applied in selecting all the communities that we “live” in.
© 2010
*************************************************************
The above is from the newsletter, Howard’s Inner Circle, which periodically appears on the blog, “Instigator” at http://howardwolosky.blogspot.com/. It may be reproduced in full if that fact is stated and Howard Wolosky is credited as the author.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Howard’s Inner Circle, No. 13: Two Diverging CPA Firm Business Models
Being a detached, independently paid and unpaid observer of CPA firms for over two decades allows me to freely comment.
The early successful business model was a firm with a number of rainmakers, often as little as two or three. They were great at business development especially via one-to-one contacts, and also adept at maintaining and working a tight referral network where referrals were expected to go both ways.
Over time, this well-established model has morphed itself into two new distinct business models. One is where those rainmakers have become the executive committee of a CPA firm that runs in a corporate style. Where previously, firm policies and strategies were hashed out in open discussion at partner meetings, decisions are now made at closed executive committee meetings. And no matter how it is sugar-coated, it is understood who are the powers-that-be, and how getting into the inner sanctum, the management committee, is only done by invitation or by a successful power play.
Contrast that with the second business model that also developed from the earlier rainmaker model. These are firms that strive to operate as a team with management building consensus and having a real understanding of the importance of the various individual’s contributions in the firm’s successes.
If I were to predict which of these two models will prove better, I would select the later. This modified team approach:
• Grooms successors;
• Encourages collaboration;
• Has greater multi-disciplinary capacities;
• Rewards innovation
• Promotes a firm-wide project management instead of a capture-what-you- kill mentality;
• Is more susceptible at building real working alliances;
• Taps well into intergenerational resources;
• Promotes widespread mentoring in both directions;
• Supports technology at all levels; and
• Is structured for everyone to be focused on their roles in business development.
In both models relationships remain the key, and referrals are still the main source of new business. The real difference is the lack of community in the corporate model. Although lip service might be given; it exists only in name and spin. The second model, the modified team approach, with a real manager rather than a CEO, truly promotes community. This approach will turn out better in the long run as all indications are technology, globalization, outsourcing and many other factors are permanently changing the rules of the game. Businesses and professional firms will be seeking to become members of various communities and will do so only by building trust and cultivating loyalty as the basis for relationships. Only one of these diverging CPA firm business models lives that.
© 2010
*************************************************************
The above is from the newsletter, Howard’s Inner Circle, which periodically appears on the blog, “Instigator” at http://howardwolosky.blogspot.com/. It may be reproduced in full if that fact is stated and Howard Wolosky is credited as the author.
The early successful business model was a firm with a number of rainmakers, often as little as two or three. They were great at business development especially via one-to-one contacts, and also adept at maintaining and working a tight referral network where referrals were expected to go both ways.
Over time, this well-established model has morphed itself into two new distinct business models. One is where those rainmakers have become the executive committee of a CPA firm that runs in a corporate style. Where previously, firm policies and strategies were hashed out in open discussion at partner meetings, decisions are now made at closed executive committee meetings. And no matter how it is sugar-coated, it is understood who are the powers-that-be, and how getting into the inner sanctum, the management committee, is only done by invitation or by a successful power play.
Contrast that with the second business model that also developed from the earlier rainmaker model. These are firms that strive to operate as a team with management building consensus and having a real understanding of the importance of the various individual’s contributions in the firm’s successes.
If I were to predict which of these two models will prove better, I would select the later. This modified team approach:
• Grooms successors;
• Encourages collaboration;
• Has greater multi-disciplinary capacities;
• Rewards innovation
• Promotes a firm-wide project management instead of a capture-what-you- kill mentality;
• Is more susceptible at building real working alliances;
• Taps well into intergenerational resources;
• Promotes widespread mentoring in both directions;
• Supports technology at all levels; and
• Is structured for everyone to be focused on their roles in business development.
In both models relationships remain the key, and referrals are still the main source of new business. The real difference is the lack of community in the corporate model. Although lip service might be given; it exists only in name and spin. The second model, the modified team approach, with a real manager rather than a CEO, truly promotes community. This approach will turn out better in the long run as all indications are technology, globalization, outsourcing and many other factors are permanently changing the rules of the game. Businesses and professional firms will be seeking to become members of various communities and will do so only by building trust and cultivating loyalty as the basis for relationships. Only one of these diverging CPA firm business models lives that.
© 2010
*************************************************************
The above is from the newsletter, Howard’s Inner Circle, which periodically appears on the blog, “Instigator” at http://howardwolosky.blogspot.com/. It may be reproduced in full if that fact is stated and Howard Wolosky is credited as the author.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
