I’m going to try and spend about 500 words or so on this idea of “passion over profit,” often attributed to the millennial generation.
I think a lot of how we think about the concept of “passion over profit” is a bit twisted.
We talk about generational differences way too much. Let’s start there. Millennials are not that much different. They’re not all spider monkey unicorns or whatever. In fact, much of the “millennial mindset” is complete horse manure. …
I’m not going to keep you waiting. This isn’t some blogging blue balls deal here.
He cites the seminal research by economist William Lazonick, who studied S&P 500 companies from 2003 to 2012 and discovered that they routinely spend 54% of their earnings buying back their own stock (reducing the number of outstanding shares and driving up share prices) and 37% of their earnings on dividends — both of which benefit shareholders. That leaves just 9% of earnings for investment in their business and their people.
Sooooooo…. an enterprise company spends about 6x on shareholder benefit as their own people. …
Radical transparency is the core of what Ray Dalio does over at Bridgewater Associates. I guess we need to set up two principles to make this work.
First: Ray Dalio is incredibly successful in conventional terms. He’s one of the 100 richest people on the planet, Bridgewater has $160 billion under investment (insane), and he’s been called “the Steve Jobs of investing.”
Third: a lot of men, especially workaholic white men, deeply aspire to this kind of wealth and influence. …
Let’s try a little thought experiment. Go into an urban center. Find 100 white-collar professionals. Bring them into a room. Ask them, “What is the worst thing about Human Resources?”
Over 80 are going to say “HR rules,” and I can virtually guarantee you that.
(I don’t mean “HR rules!” as in “HR is great;” I mean HR rules as in processes and regulations.)
Let me hit you with one of the biggest tire fires with how we structure work:
You’d hope meaningful interaction isn’t dying and it’s not yet time to worry about futuristic outcomes that seem to dominate TV/movie concepts recently, but there is cause to worry.
For example: while many companies aren’t even remotely there yet (ha) on embracing remote work (see how I made that funny with the “remote” parallel? I’m good.), many people do work from home or a coffee shop a few days per week. (I’ve seen it as high as 40% in some studies.) Wi-Fi is everywhere in the first world, so this is certainly a possible concept. …
Work sucks. Then you die?
It’s a handy thing to put on t-shirts, sure, but for a while it was a tongue in cheek joke — kinda like my friend’s dad always telling us “The thing with life is, no one gets out alive.”
But the problem with the “work sucks” joke is that it ultimately became extremely true for a lot of people.
I want you to choke on this tailpipe of a statistic: there are about 1.2 billion full-time employees in the world. (That’s not yet the statistic.) Per Gallup research (here it comes), 15% of them are engaged with what they do. So that’s about 180 million people — maybe more than half the U.S. — who actually like going to work and dealing with their boss, etc. But it’s 180M out of over a billion. …
If you’ve ever watched the TV Land show Younger, which is actually pretty good, they have a joke in Season 4 about Kelsey (Hilary Duff) being a “doppelbanger,” which means most of the guys she sleeps with or dates look very similar.
In other words, dating types.
Sometimes the concept of “dating types” refers to like, literally types of dating. (Casual sex, long-term relationship, friends with benefits, etc.)
Here, we’re gonna use it to refer to the whole concept of “I have a type” and/or “He/she is not my type” or “He/she is my type.”
In a world where surprise and delight seemingly means so much to those looking for their own beautiful happy ending, does it still make sense to stick to specific dating types, especially if those types haven’t necessarily worked in the past? …
This argument about to be laid out might confuse a couple of people semantically, so let me say this up front: obviously, credibility — and similar notions, such as your reputation — are tremendously important to capturing and retaining business. I would think we all know that. The argument here won’t be that credibility is a bad thing. No. Credibility is a good thing.
But the quest for credibility is another story.
Interesting article from Northwestern on “when to pick the not-best candidate” for a job. Their reasoning mostly resides in this section:
In the model, a firm’s credibility — and thus its ability to motivate excellent performance — comes from rewarding past successes, regardless of whether a given employer or supplier is the best choice for new work moving forward. …
Never been too big a fan of the hierarchical structure within companies, usually because it creates a whole host of additional issues — like when people use the intersection of hierarchy and professionalism to create a mind-blowing amount of double standards in a given office. Rooting respect only in hierarchy, i.e. “You have to respect me because I make more money than you do,” is possibly one of the most soul-draining aspects of white-collar work.
Here’s the problem, though: there’s nothing readily apparent to replace hierarchical structure. In fact, in this article on Stanford’s business school website about rethinking hierarchy, a Stanford professor says that if they gave out a Nobel Prize for management, it would go to the person who could come up with a better organizational structure that actually works. …
Literally do not (and have not ever) understand the basic resume. Why is this still a thing? In the era of LinkedIn, which is apparently worth $26 billion but has essentially no value, why are we still evaluating people off the basic resume? I’m confused.
Then I run into articles like this one about how “leading companies build the workforce they need” (buzzword alert) and I see quotes like this:
The World Economic Forum predicts that “by 2020, more than a third of the desired core skill sets of most occupations will be comprised of skills that are not yet considered crucial to the job today.” …