Indians sweep Rays with 2-1 victory yesterday
If that isn't bad enough The Rays have lost 5
in a row overall & 17 straight in Cleveland,
and Monday they BLEW a 10-0 lead !
Luke Scott homers twice, leads Orioles over the
Tigers 5-1, Nolan Reimold homers for the second
straight game and the Orioles have won 4 Straight.
Pitchers and Match ups to watch tonight: Detroit
Tigers Dontrelle Willis, Andy Petitte 4-1 4.30Era
at Cleveland vs Cliff Lee 2-5 3.04Era, Toronto
Toronto's Blue Jays are now losers of 9 Straight
a losing streak that started with Boston continued
with the interleauge play against Atlanta and then
against Baltimore. Tonight they are at home against
those same Red Sox and Tim Wakefield 6-2, 3.99Era,
maybe they can get some payback, but I doubt it.
Surprising Cincinnati is at the Brewers in a battle
for 1st in the NL central?? Did I just write that??
Chicago White Sox at KC, Brian Bannister 4-1 2.79Era
starts as both teams try to get back in it.
The Arizona Republic reports that "Word is" Anquan
Boldin is set to hire Tom Condon as his new agent.
NBA Playoffs Orlando Cleveland is 3-2 and as far as
I'm concerned, Cleveland almost blew it last night,
Especially after jumping out to such a huge lead.
Orlando can only blow this series. Tonight the Lakers
will try and close out in Denver, I don't think they
will though, see you in Game 7!
NHL Playoffs Red Wings-Penguins in Finals SATURDAY
SHAME ON ME for listening to that
Penguins fan who said that the Penguins beat the
Red Wings the last time they met, NEVER HAPPENED,
AND this is a rematch from last year, so Wings are
the defending CHAMPS
Are you surprised that Memphis is being investigated
by the NCAA? I'm not, but John Calipari supposedly
is NOT a target of this probe.
STUPID STUPID STUPID
A Nigerian Manchester United fan kills rivals
by running them over after the match, what an
idiot. Read The story
*************REMEMBER*****************
BRING STORIES I MISS TO MY ATTENTION
Mad Stork Sports Thoughts
BRING STORIES I MISS TO MY ATTENTION
---DOWNLOAD THIS, IT'S A PODCAST---
Johan Santana, Jose Reyes, Carlos Delgado,
Carlos Beltran, Randy Johnson, Drew Rosenhaus,
Anquan Boldin, The Arizona Republic, Ken
Whisenhunt, Denver Post, Denver Broncos, J.J.
Arrington, The Chicago Tribune, Chicago Bears,
Jerry Angelo, Matt Jones, Devin Hester, Earl
Bennett, and Rashied Davis, CBS 39, Boston,
New England Patriots, Bill Belichick, Gillette
Stadium, Brian Belichick, NCAA Lacrosse Championships,
Syracuse, The Rivers School, Weston, Minnesota
Vikings, Atlanta, 790 The Zone, Fran Tarkington
NBA Playoffs, Denver Nuggets, LA Lakers,Orlando
Magic, Cleveland Cavaliers, NHL Playoffs,Detroit
Red Wings, Pittsburgh Penguins, Stanley Cup Finals,
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh Steelers,
James Harrison, Steroids, Washington Capitols,
Washington Nationals, Mike Tyson, Exodus Tyson
Steroids Story
---DOWNLOAD THIS, IT'S A PODCAST---
Johan Santana, Jose Reyes, Carlos Delgado,
Carlos Beltran, Randy Johnson, Drew Rosenhaus,
Anquan Boldin, The Arizona Republic, Ken
Whisenhunt, Denver Post, Denver Broncos, J.J.
Arrington, The Chicago Tribune, Chicago Bears,
Jerry Angelo, Matt Jones, Devin Hester, Earl
Bennett, and Rashied Davis, CBS 39, Boston,
New England Patriots, Bill Belichick, Gillette
Stadium, Brian Belichick, NCAA Lacrosse Championships,
Syracuse, The Rivers School, Weston, Minnesota
Vikings, Atlanta, 790 The Zone, Fran Tarkington
NBA Playoffs, Denver Nuggets, LA Lakers,Orlando
Magic, Cleveland Cavaliers, NHL Playoffs,Detroit
Red Wings, Pittsburgh Penguins, Stanley Cup Finals,
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh Steelers,
James Harrison, Steroids, Washington Capitols,
Washington Nationals, Mike Tyson, Exodus Tyson
Steroids Story
What are you talking about...Talent?
So, I will continue to at least partially disagree with you.
I do agree however that HR leaders and practitioners have lost all control of their language and that works against their ability to be precise and effective. Talent, skills, competencies are all great examples. They are each different things, but they all suffer from the same underlying issue...HR folks are not clearly and precisely defining them. So, people are talking to each other but using different language and different definitions and the conversation is sloppy and wasteful, as are the efforts that follow.
I do not believe that talent is innate. I do think that you are a talented speaker, and I would assume that parts of that are innate and parts of that have been learned...in fact in your particular case I know that is true. You are a more talented speaker now than you were five years ago and that is at least partially due to things that you have learned about speaking during that time. But my definition and understanding of what talent is is of no importance here.
I think that the larger and more important point is that leaders need to address this within their organizations. If HR is going to have clarity of purpose it must have some real clarity of the underlying concepts and fundamental variables it works with. I do not think that the profession is going to come to specific and applicable definitions, but I think that this can and should be done within organizations. Before you talk seriously about talent management, your organization should have clarity on what talent means to you. Before you talk seriously about competencies, your organization should have clarity on what a competency is for you.
I see this same thing happen all the time in talking to organizational leaders about diversity. They are often incredibly confused about why diversity is important, about why they should invest and how they should invest in diversity, and 90% of that confusion is based on inaccurate and differing definitions and understandings of diversity.
This all important foundation is often missing, and the work that is built without a foundation is always in jeopardy.
-joe
I do agree however that HR leaders and practitioners have lost all control of their language and that works against their ability to be precise and effective. Talent, skills, competencies are all great examples. They are each different things, but they all suffer from the same underlying issue...HR folks are not clearly and precisely defining them. So, people are talking to each other but using different language and different definitions and the conversation is sloppy and wasteful, as are the efforts that follow.
I do not believe that talent is innate. I do think that you are a talented speaker, and I would assume that parts of that are innate and parts of that have been learned...in fact in your particular case I know that is true. You are a more talented speaker now than you were five years ago and that is at least partially due to things that you have learned about speaking during that time. But my definition and understanding of what talent is is of no importance here.
I think that the larger and more important point is that leaders need to address this within their organizations. If HR is going to have clarity of purpose it must have some real clarity of the underlying concepts and fundamental variables it works with. I do not think that the profession is going to come to specific and applicable definitions, but I think that this can and should be done within organizations. Before you talk seriously about talent management, your organization should have clarity on what talent means to you. Before you talk seriously about competencies, your organization should have clarity on what a competency is for you.
I see this same thing happen all the time in talking to organizational leaders about diversity. They are often incredibly confused about why diversity is important, about why they should invest and how they should invest in diversity, and 90% of that confusion is based on inaccurate and differing definitions and understandings of diversity.
This all important foundation is often missing, and the work that is built without a foundation is always in jeopardy.
-joe
Around The Leagues
IF I MISS ANYTHING BRING STORIES TO MY ATTENTION!
--------DOWNLOAD THIS, IT'S A PODCAST-----------
Detroit Tigers, Zach Greinke, Toronto Blue Jays,
Florida Marlins, Roy Halladay, Nolan Reimold,
Johan Santana, New York Yankees, San Diego Padres,
Drew Rosenhaus, Anquan Boldin, Arizona Cardinals,
NBA Playoffs, Denver Nuggets, LA Lakers, Orlando
Magic, Cleveland Cavaliers, LeBron James, National
Hockey League Playoffs Detroit Red Wings, Chicago
Blackhawks, Pittsburgh Penguins, Carolina Hurricanes,
Fenway Park Rink, Boston Bruins, NHL Winter Classic,
Peter Zezel, Barcelona, Manchester United, Champions
League Soccer, A-Rod
--------DOWNLOAD THIS, IT'S A PODCAST-----------
Detroit Tigers, Zach Greinke, Toronto Blue Jays,
Florida Marlins, Roy Halladay, Nolan Reimold,
Johan Santana, New York Yankees, San Diego Padres,
Drew Rosenhaus, Anquan Boldin, Arizona Cardinals,
NBA Playoffs, Denver Nuggets, LA Lakers, Orlando
Magic, Cleveland Cavaliers, LeBron James, National
Hockey League Playoffs Detroit Red Wings, Chicago
Blackhawks, Pittsburgh Penguins, Carolina Hurricanes,
Fenway Park Rink, Boston Bruins, NHL Winter Classic,
Peter Zezel, Barcelona, Manchester United, Champions
League Soccer, A-Rod
Not knowing best
This public display of pure organic fuckery does not belong on the cover of an album. It belongs on the hood of a Trans-Am owned by a tranny chaser. This is every kind of WRONG. I know the recession has made all of us do some shit we're not proud of, but getting your album artwork drawn by a fourth-rate t-shirt airbrush artist from your local strip mall is not the answer.
VIA Idolator
Check out her new vid with her boy toy
Brooke Hogan f/ Stack$ (OFFICIAL VIDEO)
Memorial Day Slam
Dontrelle Willis, Detroit Tigers, Edwin Jackson,
Zach Greinke, NHL Playoffs, Carolina Hurricanes,
Pittsburgh Penguins, NBA Playoffs, Orlando Magic,
Cleveland Cavaliers, Washington Nationals
Bobble Head
Jose Canseco MMA debut, Hong Man Choi
BRING STORIES I MISS TO MY ATTENTION--- DOWNLOAD THIS PODCAST
Zach Greinke, NHL Playoffs, Carolina Hurricanes,
Pittsburgh Penguins, NBA Playoffs, Orlando Magic,
Cleveland Cavaliers, Washington Nationals
Bobble Head
Jose Canseco MMA debut, Hong Man Choi
BRING STORIES I MISS TO MY ATTENTION--- DOWNLOAD THIS PODCAST
A Sports Potpourri For YOU
Milwaukee Brewers, Toronto Blue Jays, Boston Red Sox
Cleveland Indians: Fausto Carmona, Kansas City Royals:
Gil Meche, Kerry Woods,Yiovanni Gallardo, Houston Astros:
Wandy Rodriguez,St. Louis Cardinals, Chris Carpenter
Chicago Cubs, Texas Rangers, Detroit Tigers, Jake Peavy
Chicago White Sox, Minnesota Twins, Zach Greinke, Roy
Halladay, Chicago Sun Times, Drew Rosenhaus, Rex Grossman
NFL, UFL, Cleveland Browns, Donte Stallworth, "causation",
Josh Peter,Yahoo! Sports, Travis Henry, Mike Shanahan,
Associated Press, NHL Playoffs, Carolina Panthers, Pittsburgh
Penguins, NBA Playoffs, Denver Nuggets, Los Angeles Lakers,
Orlando Magic, Cleveland Cavaliers, Dwight Howard, Joe Smith,
LeBron James, Arizona Diamondbacks, Scott Schoenweiss,
Jason Cole Story on Donte Stallworth DUI
Josh Peter DUI Story
Cleveland Indians: Fausto Carmona, Kansas City Royals:
Gil Meche, Kerry Woods,Yiovanni Gallardo, Houston Astros:
Wandy Rodriguez,St. Louis Cardinals, Chris Carpenter
Chicago Cubs, Texas Rangers, Detroit Tigers, Jake Peavy
Chicago White Sox, Minnesota Twins, Zach Greinke, Roy
Halladay, Chicago Sun Times, Drew Rosenhaus, Rex Grossman
NFL, UFL, Cleveland Browns, Donte Stallworth, "causation",
Josh Peter,Yahoo! Sports, Travis Henry, Mike Shanahan,
Associated Press, NHL Playoffs, Carolina Panthers, Pittsburgh
Penguins, NBA Playoffs, Denver Nuggets, Los Angeles Lakers,
Orlando Magic, Cleveland Cavaliers, Dwight Howard, Joe Smith,
LeBron James, Arizona Diamondbacks, Scott Schoenweiss,
Jason Cole Story on Donte Stallworth DUI
Josh Peter DUI Story
What are you talking about . . . Talent?
Joe,
You are right, talent is an overused and under-defined term. If our recent debate is any indication, even those who work in the business of talent don't operate under a common definition.
Talent, by definition, is an innate capability or potential capability of an individual in some area. Talent in this definition is not learned, we are born with it--it develops organically within us. If you were to say that I have a talent for public speaking, I would assume you to mean that I have a natural capacity, greater than most people perhaps, for the act or art of public speaking. It might be that I have a natural confidence when I'm in front of people. It might mean that I have some charisma that differentiates me from others. People in the arts use the word talent a lot because it's more obvious in the arts that some people are born with creative ability and others are not. There are a lot of people who sing, but even an untrained ear can tell the difference between a talented child singer and the rest.
But, the word talent has been contorted recently. While I believe that those at the forefront of the Talent Management movement would argue that their vision was to take people and place them in jobs and roles that fit with their innate talents, I think that much of the HR and business community have taken the word talent to now mean "skill" or "behavior." We talk about finding someone talented to hire into our companies when what we mean is that we want someone who is skilled in the right areas and knows how to behave in alignment with our cultural norms. In recruting, talent has morphed into even meaning job "fit" at times. The right "talent" for a role is the person who a hiring manager will hire. At best, what we are really talking about most of the time in corporate settings when we talk about talent is competence.
These uses of the word talent really dilute the power of what talent truly is. HR practicioners and Talent Managers need to return to the root definition of talent. They need to commit to the idea of talent as our innate, natural abilities and capabilities. If we focused on this definition of talent, we'd spend our time truly setting talent free by placing it in situations where it could flourish and grow. We must also be talking about and working on skills and competence, but talent is the magic part of the equation.
Jason
You are right, talent is an overused and under-defined term. If our recent debate is any indication, even those who work in the business of talent don't operate under a common definition.
Talent, by definition, is an innate capability or potential capability of an individual in some area. Talent in this definition is not learned, we are born with it--it develops organically within us. If you were to say that I have a talent for public speaking, I would assume you to mean that I have a natural capacity, greater than most people perhaps, for the act or art of public speaking. It might be that I have a natural confidence when I'm in front of people. It might mean that I have some charisma that differentiates me from others. People in the arts use the word talent a lot because it's more obvious in the arts that some people are born with creative ability and others are not. There are a lot of people who sing, but even an untrained ear can tell the difference between a talented child singer and the rest.
But, the word talent has been contorted recently. While I believe that those at the forefront of the Talent Management movement would argue that their vision was to take people and place them in jobs and roles that fit with their innate talents, I think that much of the HR and business community have taken the word talent to now mean "skill" or "behavior." We talk about finding someone talented to hire into our companies when what we mean is that we want someone who is skilled in the right areas and knows how to behave in alignment with our cultural norms. In recruting, talent has morphed into even meaning job "fit" at times. The right "talent" for a role is the person who a hiring manager will hire. At best, what we are really talking about most of the time in corporate settings when we talk about talent is competence.
These uses of the word talent really dilute the power of what talent truly is. HR practicioners and Talent Managers need to return to the root definition of talent. They need to commit to the idea of talent as our innate, natural abilities and capabilities. If we focused on this definition of talent, we'd spend our time truly setting talent free by placing it in situations where it could flourish and grow. We must also be talking about and working on skills and competence, but talent is the magic part of the equation.
Jason
Trashing and Bashing
Much to talk about and getting the BS
out of the way fast!
Raider piece by "MJD"
Jason Cole story on NFLPA President Demaurice Smith
George Brett on criticism of Trey Hillman
out of the way fast!
Raider piece by "MJD"
Jason Cole story on NFLPA President Demaurice Smith
George Brett on criticism of Trey Hillman
James Harrison Says No, So What ! ! !
Some people have lots of nerve, and it
seems that many of them play sports for
a living, others just do their job.
Let's praise them instead of the prima
donnas like we have here.
Robert Gallery Charity Event
seems that many of them play sports for
a living, others just do their job.
Let's praise them instead of the prima
donnas like we have here.
Robert Gallery Charity Event
What are you talking about?
Jason-
Since you and I spent our last several posts talking (and disagreeing) about talent and behavior, I thought it might be interesting to spend a little time considering definitions. In the fields of human resources, recruiting, talent management, and leadership and organizational development there is a great deal of conversation and thinking about talent, competence and performance. While certainly important topics I generally feel like the discussion is a little sloppy and I think that my feeling has a lot to do with definitions.
I think that:
a) we talk about these things as if we are all using the same definitions (which I think is inaccurate)
b) we talk about these things as if they were far more tangible than they actually are
So.
Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong, but either way it might be valuable to spend some time collecting definitions. I did this a little bit on Twitter last week and got some interesting responses. So, lets open it up...
HOW DO YOU DEFINE TALENT?
Since you and I spent our last several posts talking (and disagreeing) about talent and behavior, I thought it might be interesting to spend a little time considering definitions. In the fields of human resources, recruiting, talent management, and leadership and organizational development there is a great deal of conversation and thinking about talent, competence and performance. While certainly important topics I generally feel like the discussion is a little sloppy and I think that my feeling has a lot to do with definitions.
I think that:
a) we talk about these things as if we are all using the same definitions (which I think is inaccurate)
b) we talk about these things as if they were far more tangible than they actually are
So.
Maybe I am right, maybe I am wrong, but either way it might be valuable to spend some time collecting definitions. I did this a little bit on Twitter last week and got some interesting responses. So, lets open it up...
HOW DO YOU DEFINE TALENT?
How do you reach a non-believer?
I was on a mom's web site last night and was astounded when I read a post from a woman who says she doesn't believe that postpartum depression exists. And yet she has been suffering from various ailments for the past 3 months, including weight gain, major lethargy, headaches that don't seem to go away, sadness and frustration. Oh, and did I mention she has a 3-month-old baby? If she doesn't believe in PPD, then just what does she attribute all those yucky symptoms to?? She also mentioned that the women who say they have PPD are just wimps who need to get a grip and focus on their baby instead of themselves. Nice.
So how do you reach women who don't believe in PPD?? I did post a comment in her conversation thread....how could I not? I tried to let her know just how real PPD is, and barraged her with links to web sites such as PSI's, Susan Dowd Stone, and other PPD resources. I also mentioned that mental disorders like PPD can be more insidious than your average disease because they are invisible. But try to tell someone with Autism that it's not real just because you can't see it. I hope she checked out at least one of the resources I listed. I hope she gets help. It's tragic to think of someone suffering from PPD when it's so easily treatable.
LC IS DUNZO!
MTV has announced that The Hills will return in the fall with more episodes of the current fifth season, even as Lauren Conrad bows out of reality TV.
"Lauren has moved on, but Heidi, Audrina, Spencer, Brody, Stephanie, Justin-Bobby and Lo will all be back as the drama continues with fresh faces, new stories and shocking surprises," the network said in a press release.
"Viewers will find out that life in Los Angeles only gets more complicated as friendships, relationships and loyalties are tested like never before."
Another "fresh face" to look for in the fall? Kristin Cavallari, who made a rare appearance at Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt's wedding and even managed to catch the bride's bouquet for MTV cameras.
She's in talks to guest star in six upcoming episodes of The Hills next fall. The Spring episodes conclude May 31 with the airing of the Speidi nuptials.Kristin and Lauren co-starred on Laguna Beach. After the second of two hit seasons, Kristin left town, and the show to attend Loyola in Los Angeles.
A few months later, The Hills debuted and Lauren became a huge star.
Now she's come full circle - but what will Kristin Cavallari actually do on The Hills? The show will play up some drama relating to her ex, Brody Jenner, who she dated from 2004-2006, according to reports. LC dated him after that.
Interestingly, K-Cavs took over the narrating duties from Conrad once before, during their Laguna Beach days after LC moved on (for college).
Also interestingly, Brody Jenner isn't the only romantic interest they've shared. The two battled for Stephen Colletti throughout high school
A Little Bit Of What's Going On
NBA? NHL? MLB? What's you flavor?
It's all here, and then some. Enjoy!
It's all here, and then some. Enjoy!
Just A Little Something Of The Sports Variety
Manny, Papi, Texeira, Where are the Numbers?
6 Month long NHL, NBA Playoffs start to head
for the home stretch, and much more.
6 Month long NHL, NBA Playoffs start to head
for the home stretch, and much more.
Victim number 2
The stunning new girl on Chris Brown’s arm, Natalie Mejia, tells Radar Online exclusively that Brown has been a total “gentlemen.” Mejia, of The CW’s Girlicious, was spotted with the embattled R&B singer this past Saturday in Los Angeles, visiting a Sunset Blvd tattoo parlor.
Meija tells us “it’s true we did visit a tattoo parlor together but I can’t say if we got anything done because that is personal.”
While reports that the pair visited the shop for just ten minutes, Mejia says “things are going well between us but I really do not want to comment much more than that right now.” The sexy singer maintains that Brown “has treated me like a [sic] gentleman at all times actually and there are no complaints.”
She would not elaborate on she and Brown’s initial meeting or courtship thus far. She does wax philosophical on her MySpace page, however: “Life is too short to wake-up in the morning with regrets. So love the people who treat you right, forget about the ones who don’t and believe everything happens for a reason.”
Mejia is of Mexican descent and was born in West Covina, California. She’s been home schooled since the age of 9 and simultaneously studied at Millennium Dance Complex, which has famous alums like Britney Spears.
This Talent Thing (aka Simon - Part 6)
Jason-
Dude.
I think that American Idol example is a perfect framework for examining the ideas of talent and behavior, but we can move on from that.
I do not believe that I changed the topic, I believe I was making a point that applied to both talent and behavior (and competency, performance, etc.).
And my point (which you are now also making through your questions) is this...
The idea that "talent" (or behavior, competency, performance, ability, etc.) is some tangible, measurable scientific thing is horribly, horribly flawed. We all talk about "talent" like it is a gallon of milk...we all know what it is, we are all talking about the same thing and we can measure it with great precision.
That is all bullshit.
This is the same kind of fantasy that we tell ourselves and each other with all of our "best practices" lies. We have a very real habit of taking something very complex and denying its complexity. We have a very real habit of taking something interdependent and ignoring its interdependence. We have a very real habit of taking things that are correlated and assigning causality. We have a very real habit of applying static, finite principles to messy, complex, unpredictable, nonlinear, beautifully flawed human beings, their relationships, interactions and social dynamics.
It does not change the fact that we need to talk about and think about and attempt to quantify talent, but we are being dishonest with ourselves and each other when we talk about talent like it is a gallon of milk. It's not.
My understanding of, expectations of, interpretations of talent are as much about me and as much about the context as they are about the idea of "talent."
When we convince ourselves that we have perfect understanding of and perfect measure of something like "talent" we set ourselves up for a dysfunction, and we make it harder to bring real value into the organization...because when we build a barb wire fence around what "talent" is, we are locking a lot of stuff out...and that stuff that we are locking out is also as much about me and about context as it is about anything.
-joe
Dude.
I think that American Idol example is a perfect framework for examining the ideas of talent and behavior, but we can move on from that.
I do not believe that I changed the topic, I believe I was making a point that applied to both talent and behavior (and competency, performance, etc.).
And my point (which you are now also making through your questions) is this...
The idea that "talent" (or behavior, competency, performance, ability, etc.) is some tangible, measurable scientific thing is horribly, horribly flawed. We all talk about "talent" like it is a gallon of milk...we all know what it is, we are all talking about the same thing and we can measure it with great precision.
That is all bullshit.
This is the same kind of fantasy that we tell ourselves and each other with all of our "best practices" lies. We have a very real habit of taking something very complex and denying its complexity. We have a very real habit of taking something interdependent and ignoring its interdependence. We have a very real habit of taking things that are correlated and assigning causality. We have a very real habit of applying static, finite principles to messy, complex, unpredictable, nonlinear, beautifully flawed human beings, their relationships, interactions and social dynamics.
It does not change the fact that we need to talk about and think about and attempt to quantify talent, but we are being dishonest with ourselves and each other when we talk about talent like it is a gallon of milk. It's not.
My understanding of, expectations of, interpretations of talent are as much about me and as much about the context as they are about the idea of "talent."
When we convince ourselves that we have perfect understanding of and perfect measure of something like "talent" we set ourselves up for a dysfunction, and we make it harder to bring real value into the organization...because when we build a barb wire fence around what "talent" is, we are locking a lot of stuff out...and that stuff that we are locking out is also as much about me and about context as it is about anything.
-joe
Absolute Talent (aka Simon - Part 5)
Joe,
As I began to think of my retort to your last post, I realized how ridiculous it is that we are using the American Idol judges as an analogy for talent and behavior in a "normal" business situation. The criteria for assessing an American Idol judge's effectiveness has very little in common with how we measure performance everyday in corporate America. American Idol is about driving viewership, so being candid (or crazy) can accomplish that goal.
I also think that while I started the conversation on the topic of behavior, you have taken it into the realm of talent--two very different things, in my opinion. Behaviors are about how we react to the world around us. Talent is about innate skills and abilities. I could hire a company full of untalented individuals who exhibit the behaviors I listed and have a failure of a work force (and vice versa). So, rather than continue to add to the confusion of this debate, I'd like to turn to some interesting questions that your last post raised in regards to talent.
As I began to think of my retort to your last post, I realized how ridiculous it is that we are using the American Idol judges as an analogy for talent and behavior in a "normal" business situation. The criteria for assessing an American Idol judge's effectiveness has very little in common with how we measure performance everyday in corporate America. American Idol is about driving viewership, so being candid (or crazy) can accomplish that goal.
I also think that while I started the conversation on the topic of behavior, you have taken it into the realm of talent--two very different things, in my opinion. Behaviors are about how we react to the world around us. Talent is about innate skills and abilities. I could hire a company full of untalented individuals who exhibit the behaviors I listed and have a failure of a work force (and vice versa). So, rather than continue to add to the confusion of this debate, I'd like to turn to some interesting questions that your last post raised in regards to talent.
- Does the concept of talent exist without context? If you are the only person in the room, you are the most talented singer in the room (even if you have what other's would qualify as sub-par singing skill). This boils down to how we define talent. One definition of talent I found on dictionary.com is a "natural endowment or ability of a superior quality." The use of the word "superior" implies comparison with others. So, I agree with you that the context you use has an enormous impact on how you judge an individual's talent. However, I would challenge that you may not be able to make a judgement regarding talent without the benefit of context.
- Can talent be judged independently of the opinion and perception of others? You point out that my judgement of Simon Cowell's talent (or behavior) is based on my own opinion and my perception of the talent of those around him. If I must take out my own reasoning related to making a judgement about Simon's talent AND I cannot use context to judge his talent, how then am I to determine who is talented? This brings me to the big question.
- Is there such a thing as "absolute talent?" Are there abilities or endowments that are of as superior quality in every situation, regardless of our judgement of it? OR is talent by it's nature relative and situational? When I am recruiting for an individual, I look for the right talent for the current situation and the likely future situation of the team. That talent is judged in large part through the lenses of the people closest to the situation.
Talent, like beauty, may lie in the eye of the beholder.
Your ball . . .
Jason
Roch Kubatko of MASN Stops By MSS
We cover it all today and much of
the baseball talk is a credit to
our special guest Roch Kubatko.
Don't Miss It !
the baseball talk is a credit to
our special guest Roch Kubatko.
Don't Miss It !
Simon - Part 4
Jason-
Understood. But...
You like Simon. You think that Simon is a good judge (talented). I would suggest to you that your evaluation of Simon is as much about you and about the people Simon is surrounded by and next to as it is about Simon and what he does. Part of the reason you like Simon is because he is seated next to someone you consider to be borderline incompetent. Part of the reason that some people like Paula is that they believe Simon is borderline incompetent.
My point here is not really even about the value of diversity, but about our evaluation of someone being influenced strongly by the context, and the contrast of who they are surrounded by (and our own preferences, tendencies and orientations). Some of us are drawn to Simon and would like to work with more people like him. Some of us are more drawn to Randy or Paula or the New Person.
The 7 behaviors you are looking for are pretty commonly appreciated behaviors...those are things that many if not most of us are looking for in co-workers...the difference is in our individual interpretations and the context. For you, Simon is the embodiment of those behaviors. As crazy as it may sound, there are people that consider Paula to be the perfect embodiment of the exact same behaviors. There are people that value those 7 behaviors, but would hate to work around Simon.
So, I believe that you could set out to hire people with those 7 behaviors and end up with a team much like the American Idol judges...or you could set out to hire people with those 7 behaviors (and what they look like from your perspective) and end up with a team that is much more like a group of Simon clones...and likely dysfunctional.
-joe
Understood. But...
- I would be willing to wager a large sum of money that each one of the other judges on American Idol would say that those 7 behaviors also apply to them.
- I would be willing to wager a large sum of money that we could find American Idol fans that would say that those 7 behaviors also apply to other judges...maybe in some cases more so than Simon.
You like Simon. You think that Simon is a good judge (talented). I would suggest to you that your evaluation of Simon is as much about you and about the people Simon is surrounded by and next to as it is about Simon and what he does. Part of the reason you like Simon is because he is seated next to someone you consider to be borderline incompetent. Part of the reason that some people like Paula is that they believe Simon is borderline incompetent.
My point here is not really even about the value of diversity, but about our evaluation of someone being influenced strongly by the context, and the contrast of who they are surrounded by (and our own preferences, tendencies and orientations). Some of us are drawn to Simon and would like to work with more people like him. Some of us are more drawn to Randy or Paula or the New Person.
The 7 behaviors you are looking for are pretty commonly appreciated behaviors...those are things that many if not most of us are looking for in co-workers...the difference is in our individual interpretations and the context. For you, Simon is the embodiment of those behaviors. As crazy as it may sound, there are people that consider Paula to be the perfect embodiment of the exact same behaviors. There are people that value those 7 behaviors, but would hate to work around Simon.
So, I believe that you could set out to hire people with those 7 behaviors and end up with a team much like the American Idol judges...or you could set out to hire people with those 7 behaviors (and what they look like from your perspective) and end up with a team that is much more like a group of Simon clones...and likely dysfunctional.
-joe
Be like Simon Cowell - Part 3
Joe,
I am going to have to disagree with you on this issue. I agree that the diversity of a team is important. The reasons I shared for why I think Simon is a good model has little to do with "what" he does or "who" he is and more to do with the way in which he does his job. I want to share my list again becuase I don't think it has much to do with the diversity of the team.
I am going to have to disagree with you on this issue. I agree that the diversity of a team is important. The reasons I shared for why I think Simon is a good model has little to do with "what" he does or "who" he is and more to do with the way in which he does his job. I want to share my list again becuase I don't think it has much to do with the diversity of the team.
- He is passionate about his work.
- He's honest and he speaks his mind.
- He has his own opinons and isn't swayed by pressure to say the popular thing.
- He doesn't mince words.
- He has fun at work.
- He doesn't appologize for who he is.
- He is good at what he does.
You can have a very compelling and functional team who demonstrates these behaviors while at the same time being diverse and varied in their experiences and talents. Simon stands out in his situation because he happens to sit next to a borderline incompetent judge, although the measuring stick in entertainment is admittedly very different than in business.
Perhpas restating my position would help. I would take a whole company full of people who demonstrate the behaviors that I believe makes Simon stand out (my list above), not a whole company full of Simons.
Peace.
Jason
Manny & A-Rod
It's tough to even be surprised
anymore. Good thing it's not
all bad. Have a listen !
Scott Boras Criminals linked to
performance enhancing drugs.
anymore. Good thing it's not
all bad. Have a listen !
Scott Boras Criminals linked to
performance enhancing drugs.
On Being Like Simon Cowell
Jason-
I am not usually a terribly big fan of Simon, but I should probably get over that, as my wife says I am a lot like him...not sure how to feel about that.
But Simon clearly resonates with people in his approach to what he does. I think that all of the reasons that you list are important ones, but one of the factors of his success that we often overlook is the team he is a part of. Whether we like the other judges or not, Simon stands out in the way that he does because the the other judges are not like him. If all the judges were very similar to Simon in his approach, we would find less value in it. In fact if all of the judges were like Simon, I think the show would probably be miserable. I think that part of the reason the show works is that you have a balanced cast of characters for judges.
Simon does certainly stand out from the others and part of that is about him and part of that is about who he works with and I think that the very same thing is true at work. A big component in our evaluation and translation of the behavior of others is who they are around and with...and we have a hard time factoring that in and even recognizing it. I think there is a real leap from identifying a talented individual to building a talented team. We have a very real tendency to say "Simon is very good at what he does, go find me more Simons", but each additional Simon adds less actual value and you are probably more likely to end up with dysfunction.
I do think one of the really valuable (and rare) things that Simon does is he is consistently straight forward and honest...he does not beat around the bush, and that is something we could all use a bit more of.
-joe
I am not usually a terribly big fan of Simon, but I should probably get over that, as my wife says I am a lot like him...not sure how to feel about that.
But Simon clearly resonates with people in his approach to what he does. I think that all of the reasons that you list are important ones, but one of the factors of his success that we often overlook is the team he is a part of. Whether we like the other judges or not, Simon stands out in the way that he does because the the other judges are not like him. If all the judges were very similar to Simon in his approach, we would find less value in it. In fact if all of the judges were like Simon, I think the show would probably be miserable. I think that part of the reason the show works is that you have a balanced cast of characters for judges.
Simon does certainly stand out from the others and part of that is about him and part of that is about who he works with and I think that the very same thing is true at work. A big component in our evaluation and translation of the behavior of others is who they are around and with...and we have a hard time factoring that in and even recognizing it. I think there is a real leap from identifying a talented individual to building a talented team. We have a very real tendency to say "Simon is very good at what he does, go find me more Simons", but each additional Simon adds less actual value and you are probably more likely to end up with dysfunction.
I do think one of the really valuable (and rare) things that Simon does is he is consistently straight forward and honest...he does not beat around the bush, and that is something we could all use a bit more of.
-joe
Be like Simon Cowell
Joe,
As I sat watching American Idol this week, it occurred to me that we need more people like the outspoken judge Simon Cowell in our work places. Here's my list of reasons why:
As I sat watching American Idol this week, it occurred to me that we need more people like the outspoken judge Simon Cowell in our work places. Here's my list of reasons why:
- He is passionate about his work. It is clear that Simin loves what he does.
- He's honest and he speaks his mind.
- He has his own opinons and isn't swayed by pressure to say the popular thing. You can always count on Simon to say what he thinks, even when it's not popular.
- He doesn't mince words. Sometimes, those words are harsh, but Simon delivers feedback in a way that is hard to ignore.
- He has fun at work. Granted, joking around might just be a survival technique to deal with sitting next to the clearly insane Paula Abdul.
- He doesn't appologize for who he is. Simon comes as himself to his job and doesn't make appologies for his opinions or his wardrobe (which he takes a lot of flack about).
- He is good at what he does. I'm not sure what Simon did to become this way, but he clearly seems to have a great deal of credibility and expertise when it comes to judging talent.
I'd love to have a whole company full of people like this. Sure, it might get a little crazy at the office at times, but we would get things done.
How about you? Do you want to sign up to work with Simon?
Jason
Aussie luv
Kylie's North American fans will finally get a chance to experience the pop superstar live in concert when her 6-city tour kicks off in Oakland, San Francisco on September 30th!
Over the course of her extraordinary 20-year-career, Kylie has undertaken 8 sold-out world tours including last year's KylieX2008 tour which traveled to 21 countries throughout Europe, South America, Dubai, Asia, New Zealand and Australia, generating an estimated $70,000,000 in ticket sales. Kylie
couldn't be more excited about her first ever tour through North America.
"I've wanted to tour in America and Canada for years," admits Kylie, "I know that fans have been waiting a long time for this and I'm thrilled that the opportunity has finally arrived."
Kylie's eagerly-awaited North American concert debut is being produced by Los Angeles-based concert promotion firm Bill Silva Presents (BSP).
"Kylie has such a successful career outside of North America that it has taken quite a while to find a window in her schedule for the U.S. and Canada," said Silva. "Her amazing fans in North America will be well rewarded for their patience when they experience her show and its entire spectacle. We are confident in the tour's success, and hope that Kylie will make this the first of many tours to our shores."
Tickets will go on sale in each market on the weekend of May 15, however early access to tickets in the U.S. will be available to American Express Cardmembers beginning this Thursday, May 7, through Ticketmaster. Members of Kylie's mailing list via her official website www.Kylie.com will receive an
exclusive email that contains information of special ticket pre-sale offers.
Kylie Minogue North American Tour
30/09 Fox Theatre - Oakland, San Francisco Bay Area
03/10 The Pearl 'Palms Resort & Casino' - Las Vegas, NV
04/10 Hollywood Bowl - Los Angeles, CA
07/10 The Congress Theater - Chicago, IL
09/10 Air Canada Centre - Toronto, ON
11/10 Hammerstein Ballroom - NYC, NY
The Yankees Disappoint, and LeBron Rolls
He is just having too much fun, and seems
destined for another finals appearance.
This is also meant to serve as a public
announcement: IF YOU HAVE MONEY TO THROW
AWAY, THE YANKEES ARE YOUR TEAM, NO REALLY !
destined for another finals appearance.
This is also meant to serve as a public
announcement: IF YOU HAVE MONEY TO THROW
AWAY, THE YANKEES ARE YOUR TEAM, NO REALLY !
The Shaking of the Fist
Jason-
Great question.
I think that we need to find a way to bring more emotion back to work with us. This is another of leading less and managing more and I think that it is very costly to us. Fact is, we have come to value politeness, calm and the myth of order over the truth. And the truth is messy. And the truth is emotional. And you can't manage the truth...although our elected leaders love to try. The truth demands leadership.
This focus on calm and polite turns us into soulless zombies or raging passive-aggressives, because we are emotional beings, and when we can't bring that to work our work, something has to break.
We need more fist shaking.
I am not talking about having a vicious, hyper-competitive, dysfunctional culture at work, but a truly functional, healthy and authentic culture. A culture that values the truth. A culture that wants its employees to bring their whole selves to their work. There is a great deal of value in healthy, creative tension...although we may need to re-learn some communication skills if we are going to spend time in that space. That is a space where a lot of opportunity for competitive advantage lives, because it is full of better ideas, bigger questions, creative approaches and the future.
Necessity may be the mother of invention, but frustration is the father. Frustration is under-appreciated, as a source of great value and as an indication of engagement. If companies want robots in their cubicles then they should go buy robots. If they want people, then they should expect and encourage some healthy fist shaking.
-joe
Great question.
I think that we need to find a way to bring more emotion back to work with us. This is another of leading less and managing more and I think that it is very costly to us. Fact is, we have come to value politeness, calm and the myth of order over the truth. And the truth is messy. And the truth is emotional. And you can't manage the truth...although our elected leaders love to try. The truth demands leadership.
This focus on calm and polite turns us into soulless zombies or raging passive-aggressives, because we are emotional beings, and when we can't bring that to work our work, something has to break.
We need more fist shaking.
I am not talking about having a vicious, hyper-competitive, dysfunctional culture at work, but a truly functional, healthy and authentic culture. A culture that values the truth. A culture that wants its employees to bring their whole selves to their work. There is a great deal of value in healthy, creative tension...although we may need to re-learn some communication skills if we are going to spend time in that space. That is a space where a lot of opportunity for competitive advantage lives, because it is full of better ideas, bigger questions, creative approaches and the future.
Necessity may be the mother of invention, but frustration is the father. Frustration is under-appreciated, as a source of great value and as an indication of engagement. If companies want robots in their cubicles then they should go buy robots. If they want people, then they should expect and encourage some healthy fist shaking.
-joe
Shake that fist
Joe,
You have been known to shake your fist at a few things in anger to voice your frustration from time to time. So I ask you, how important is anger, dissatisfaction and general malcontence to the success of an organization? I know from personal experience that many leaders want calm within their organization because calm is comfortable and easy to manage. I would argue that growth and progress are not synonymous with calm, but rather with a little chaos.
On my own personal journey as a leader, it seems that the higher within organizations I get, the more patience and "calm" is called on from me. However, as I reflect on my past experiences, it was the times when I was most malcontent and angry that I drove the greatest change. Anger and dissatisfaction often come from passion and commitment. If I didn't care about my work, I would not have been so upset. And, it was that emotion that drove me to action.
On the other side of anger and frustration are distructive behaviors, so this is a complicated situation. My feeling is that we benefit by having people within our organizations who are going to get angry once in a while. We need people who are so passionate about the organization that they will forgo patience and politeness on occasion to rattle cages when it's needed. But, it requires skilled management and leadership to allow this emotion to exist without it becoming toxic.
Should we allow manager to be the cage rattlers or does that go against "setting the example" for others? How can you allow or even foster this type of emotion at work without it becoming distructive?
What do you think, Joe?
Jason
You have been known to shake your fist at a few things in anger to voice your frustration from time to time. So I ask you, how important is anger, dissatisfaction and general malcontence to the success of an organization? I know from personal experience that many leaders want calm within their organization because calm is comfortable and easy to manage. I would argue that growth and progress are not synonymous with calm, but rather with a little chaos.
On my own personal journey as a leader, it seems that the higher within organizations I get, the more patience and "calm" is called on from me. However, as I reflect on my past experiences, it was the times when I was most malcontent and angry that I drove the greatest change. Anger and dissatisfaction often come from passion and commitment. If I didn't care about my work, I would not have been so upset. And, it was that emotion that drove me to action.
On the other side of anger and frustration are distructive behaviors, so this is a complicated situation. My feeling is that we benefit by having people within our organizations who are going to get angry once in a while. We need people who are so passionate about the organization that they will forgo patience and politeness on occasion to rattle cages when it's needed. But, it requires skilled management and leadership to allow this emotion to exist without it becoming toxic.
Should we allow manager to be the cage rattlers or does that go against "setting the example" for others? How can you allow or even foster this type of emotion at work without it becoming distructive?
What do you think, Joe?
Jason
Sometimes the Sporting World is Just Ho Hum
And other times it isn't, but at least
I can make it interesting for you, so
listen in !
I can make it interesting for you, so
listen in !
The Whole "Generational" Thing - Response
Joe,
Thanks for braining up this list that Jamie Notter presented from the book Generations at Work. I think it's dangerous to start listing liabilities and assets of the generational groups. When you make the jump from describing characteristics of a generation to describing assets and liabilities, you've inserted judgments. These judgments about generations are generally colored by our own biases or even our own generation.
For example, as a Gen X'er, I have often criticized Generation Y for the fact they have grown up in a world where they aren't told they do anything wrong. They have been coddled and supported more than any generation in history. We commonly talk about the fact that they are the generation that has grown up with no winning and losing in PE class and instead, everyone is a winner because everyone all participated. This goes against my nature as someone who believes that healthy competition can bring out the best in people. So, I have been one to say that Gen Y isn't equipped for the workforce because they don't know how to take and use negative feedback.
On the flip side of this argument would be that Gen Y is equipped to succeed in a very different way than the generations before them because of their confidence. Since they have grown up with parents and schools that didn't punish them for losing or failing, they don't see failing as fatal. This means that they are more fearless with new things. They are more willing to experiment and test out new approaches because they aren't as concerned about having to get things right every time. In many ways, they are far better equipped for our new rapidly changing world of technology and multimedia.
In my opinion, judgment is dangerous and borders on irresponsible, particularly when talking about generational stereotypes. But, I guess they need to sell books and give people like us something to debate about.
And to your comments about the Manifesto, I do think that it is definitely colored with our Gen X perspective. I think that the message underlying the manifesto definitely comes from the cynicism and skepticism we have developed as a result of our experiences growing up. The Manifesto is a handbook for organizations who want to evolve their workplaces to attract and retain not only Gen X but also the generations of the future. I'm not sure that the actual changes we call for in the Manifesto are specific to only Gen X, but our tone surely is.
What do you think?
Jason
Thanks for braining up this list that Jamie Notter presented from the book Generations at Work. I think it's dangerous to start listing liabilities and assets of the generational groups. When you make the jump from describing characteristics of a generation to describing assets and liabilities, you've inserted judgments. These judgments about generations are generally colored by our own biases or even our own generation.
For example, as a Gen X'er, I have often criticized Generation Y for the fact they have grown up in a world where they aren't told they do anything wrong. They have been coddled and supported more than any generation in history. We commonly talk about the fact that they are the generation that has grown up with no winning and losing in PE class and instead, everyone is a winner because everyone all participated. This goes against my nature as someone who believes that healthy competition can bring out the best in people. So, I have been one to say that Gen Y isn't equipped for the workforce because they don't know how to take and use negative feedback.
On the flip side of this argument would be that Gen Y is equipped to succeed in a very different way than the generations before them because of their confidence. Since they have grown up with parents and schools that didn't punish them for losing or failing, they don't see failing as fatal. This means that they are more fearless with new things. They are more willing to experiment and test out new approaches because they aren't as concerned about having to get things right every time. In many ways, they are far better equipped for our new rapidly changing world of technology and multimedia.
In my opinion, judgment is dangerous and borders on irresponsible, particularly when talking about generational stereotypes. But, I guess they need to sell books and give people like us something to debate about.
And to your comments about the Manifesto, I do think that it is definitely colored with our Gen X perspective. I think that the message underlying the manifesto definitely comes from the cynicism and skepticism we have developed as a result of our experiences growing up. The Manifesto is a handbook for organizations who want to evolve their workplaces to attract and retain not only Gen X but also the generations of the future. I'm not sure that the actual changes we call for in the Manifesto are specific to only Gen X, but our tone surely is.
What do you think?
Jason
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)