shannonsays.com

New Job: Day -1

It was the first day of the school year for many kids last week, and I think I know how they all felt... it is my first day at my new job tomorrow, and I am feeling nervous and excited.

It's tough enough starting  a new job – you don't really know the company, you don't know the culture, you may not even have much clue as to what you're doing.  But when you're starting a new job as a manager- as I am tomorrow-  you have not only the ever-watchful eyes of your boss,  you also have the scrutiny of your reports. Of course, they may not have malicious intent, but you can bet they'll want to watch you, especially at first, to make sure you know what you're doing and what you're talking about. They may even be waiting for you to trip up.

So I am going to need my wits about me during these first few weeks, one of my biggest challenges will be to maintain a sense of humour, and keep my ego out of it!  There is no doubting that I will screw something up at some stage this week, so I hope I will be trying to handle it all with grace and humour.

I'll be investing most of time and enegry this week getting to know my new team and allowing them to get to know me and my work-style.  This is important, because I don't expect them to be as excited to be working with/for me when they don't know who I am.  So I'll be mixing it with them, getting to know their strengths and weaknesses, both as individuals and as a team, whilst allowing them to learn about me.  This time will also help me to figure out the company culture and social structure of the team, as well as identifying where our challenges lie.

Hopefully it'll be a fun week, and all-in-all, I reakon my best bet is to be approachable, remain humble, and be ready to learn everything as quickly as I can.

Wish me luck! 

Things Other People Accomplished

Stumbled Upon this today..."Things Other People Accomplished When They Were Your Age"

By the time he was my age Niels Bohr published his revolutionary theory of the atom....

Memo to self:  Do something extraordinary this year!

Fakes!

"If you can make it, they can fake it,"

And according to an article in this weeks Business Week; that statement applies to everything.... everything:

Shanghai Mitsubishi Elevator Co. discovered a counterfeit elevator after a building owner asked the company for a maintenance contract. "It didn't look like our product," says Wang Chung Heng, a lawyer for Shanghai Mitsubishi. "And it stopped between floors."

Elevators?  Who would bother with trying to make a "fake" elevator?  The same folk who copy stuff as diverse as Kiwi shoe polish, Callaway Golf Clubs, Intel computer chips, Bosch power drills, BP  oil, even Daimler Chrysler engine blocks even Viagra and Chevy Cars.   After reading the article I am convinced that for every well-known brand, there's a counterfeit version of it out there.

Most of us are aware of the "knock-off" market that has long existed at suburban markets and places like Bali and Hong Kong. But you have to be really dumb to actually believe that the $20 Rolex watch or the $30 Gucci Jeans are the "real deal".

But modern counterfeiting has grown much bigger than the suburban markets, cheap T-Shirts and sneakers:

The World Customs Organization estimates counterfeiting accounts for 5% to 7% of global merchandise trade, equivalent to lost sales of as much as $512 billion last year -- though experts say this is only a guess.

That's some serious trade, and it should be no surprise to learn that China is fast becoming the cornerstone of the international counterfeiting business, accounting for nearly two-thirds of all the fake and pirated goods worldwide.  The reason that it is no surprise?  Simple really, globalisation:

Counterfeiting thrives on the whole process of globalization itself. Globalization, after all, is the spread of capital and know how to new markets, which in turn contribute low-cost labor to create the ideal export machine, manufacturing first the cheap stuff, then moving up the value chain. That's the story of Southeast Asia. It's the story of China. Now it's the story of fakes. Counterfeiting packs all the punch of skilled labor, smart distribution, and product savvy without getting bogged down in costly details such as research and brand-building.

The result of this innovative twist on globalisation is an international industry that is starting to rival the Goliaths and multinationals in terms of "speed, reach, and sophistication".  Apparently the factories in China can copy a new model of golf club in less than a week, and use their advanced logistics systems to distribute them- quickly-, well, anywhere you want

Obviously the Chinese are applying the same ingenious, inventive and scientific approach to back engineering products and counterfeit manufacturing that they are helping the country become the international "it" place for legitimate manufacture and opportunity. 

Now that is a truely frightening thought, not only for Big Co, but for us consumers who will ultimately pay for all of this.

FInally though, I wonder if the fake Gillette will merge with the fake Proctor and Gamble? 

Beazley wins- and already the knives are being sharpened

So Kim Beazley won the Labor leadership unopposed (after Labors Right wing heavies scared off all potential challengers). Why the Labor Caucus had to go through the motions of gathering in Canberra to anoint him is anybody's guess.  But they managed to waste $100,000+ in taxpayer funds to go through the formalities.

Irrespective of the (lack of) candidates or location, after the Latham implosion, Beazley was "a given" to collect the leadeship hat.  A gun-shy Labor Party was always going to turn its back on any more "generational change", so they went the safe route- the comfortable old shoe, Kim Beazley – a competent and popular leader with a high level of support in the electorate.  But also the most practised loser in modern Australian politics.  A two-time failure.

But prooving that there is no support like ALP caucus support, Labor backbencher Rod Sawford has welcomed the new leader with this utimatum:

"I think the Caucus will hold him to that and 12 months down the track, if there has been no significant policy or party reform and there is evidence that procedures are not inclusive then people will not be quiet"

That's the way Rod!  Jump right in, support the new leader by reminding him that the gun is already loaded.  This statement coupled with the intense and deperate factional cajoling that occured this week makes a mockery of Beazleys "vow to unite the party."

All I can say is:

"Good Luck Kim.  The last month has demonstrated that your party is full of individuals that are driven more by feelings of revenge and hatred, rather than discipline and logic, infact any trace of party discipline has been shot to pieces.  Until your party realises that there is more to the game that personalities; like, I dunno, maybe some credible policies – not too many, but some policies, convincing policies as well as compelling personalities, the Australian people will never take you seriously."

So who knows (or cares) what the ALP do next , two things are assured though:

1. Under Beazley's leadership the ALP will move further to the right; both in terms of social and economic policy.  Don't believe his "sharp difference" blab; it's just typical Beazley wind-baggery
2. The ALP will continue to keep me amused....

(P.S: I reakon Kim made his first mistake by keeping the shadow cabinet intact;  he should drop some of the deadwood (like Macklin and Crean) put Rudd in as Shadow Treasurer, and work from there.  He's gonna need the best team he can muster, even if it means moving beyond factonal rules)

Biased TV Sports Commentry

Should TV sports commentators show their bias during a call?

Like countless other Australians, I spent last night flicking between the Australia-West Indies one day cricket match on Nine and the Lleyton Hewitt- David Nalbandian tennis quarter-final on Seven.  Both had the the right result- if you are an Aussie.  (Seven finished with a national share of 48.1% from Nine with 23.5% of the audience).

But, switching in between the two games, I couldn't help but notice just how obvious the tennis commentators' barracking for  Hewitt was, compared with the- in the most part- impartiality of the cricket commentry team.

There is no doubt the Australian cricket commentators see things from Australia's point of view. But they don't openly barrack for one side, and they discuss both team's prospects.

But the tennis commentators led by Bruce McAvaney were very obvious and up-front in their support for Hewitt. They wanted Hewitt to win, they said so, and they interpreted the match from that point of view.

I would have thought that the reverse would occur, given the team nature of cricket (it is "Australia" playing, after all), as opposed to the individual focus that exists in tennis.  But not last night.

So are sports commentators that barrack good or bad? 

I don't mind either way, but I would be pissed off listening to biased comm entry if I was supporting the other player, much like if I was David Nalbandian listening to Lleytons "C'mon's" and other shenanigans.  If you are supporting the same player as biased commentators, their frenzied calls can add to the excitement in your lounge room.  But the balance an impartiality that usually exists in the cricket commentary is equally as enjoyable.  The ex-players that call the action offer unique insights into how the games are progressing and what outcomes are likely.  They also surge with excitement whenever some great action occurs, irrespective of the team.

So I can tolerate both styles, but in the main I would prefer a good un-biased call.  An appropriate amount of colour and analysis matched with an accurate account of the play, is generally the way to go.

Which style of commentary do you prefer?

Australia Day

It's Australia Day today- our National Holiday- and I was think earlier about what that means....  but that would be over complicating it.  It's just a public holiday.  A day to do what you want....

We can crap on about it's importance, it's historical meaning, or link it to the mourning of Aboriginals.  But at the end of the day, it's about what we Australians do best; enjoy a public holiday.  Have a BBQ, go to the beach, watch the cricket, the tennis, whatever. Enjoy ourselves.

But every Australia Day we are presented with a whole host of academics and sociologists trying to tell us what it means "to be Australian."  The usual stuff about mateship comes out.  I was listening to a bloke from Virgin Radio (UK) this morning, and he said he thinks that Australians are "nice."  Nice?  I have never heard a academic describe us simply as  nice.... but maybe the pommy chap is right.  Maybe we are nice, maybe we are trying to be nice:

"The national image people have of themselves (is) a nice people and country. This is what everyone takes pride in. This is the image Australia wants. Nothing makes Australians blush with pride more than an overseas visitor saying how nice they consider us.

This is the national image people have of themselves – a nice people and country. This is what everyone takes pride in. This is the image Australia wants. Nothing makes Australians blush with pride more than an overseas visitor saying how nice they consider us.

We've obviously rejected being overbearing and loud like Americans and we don't like the smugness and ancestral conceit of older European nations. We're looking for our own place in the sun and it's somewhere between being smart, funny and not too intellectual."

What do some of my overseas readers think of when the think of Australians.... are we nice?

Going Off Topic

After finishing my last post, I was reminded of a comment made by Johnnie Moore following a conversation with fellow bloggers Freddie Daniells and Max Blumberg:

"(There are)bloggers who keep to a topic and those who don't. I have both sorts in my feedreader. I find both interesting. I am definitely in the second camp. I don't stick to the point here."

I am glad Johnnie likes bloggers who go off topic.  My blog goes off topic, in fact it is all over the shop!  I tend to blog about whatever "floats my boat".

After 10 months and 250 posts I have jumped around all kinds of topics,I have followed themes for a couple of days and then suddenly switched when I get a new bee in my bonnet.  I have experimented with different writing styles and tried different ways to "talk."  I have had lazy posts and posts that I am more passionate about.

However, during the last few months my blog has taken on a bit of a "political" look.  But once I start my new job I will have a whole stack of new challenges and issues to talk about, so my blog will take on more of a "business" appearance, for a while anyway.

I am sure that this extreme ad-hoc approach does piss some people off, but it probably keeps others interested.  They might even be the same people.

Hughtrain/Cluetrain... and Jeff

Hugh added this to yesterdays post:

"We live in very amazing and exciting times. I hope to God you concur."

Mmm, I don't think Jeff does (see my comments from yesterday):

"Does it matter to you at all that there are honest people just trying to do an honest day's labor to feed and house and educate their families inside the companies you want to destroy? Truly, I'd like to understand this. Do you not get the connection or do you not care that gunning after companies is gunning people's jobs? Is this just "war" and that makes "collateral damage" okay?"

Memo Jeff:  Read Cluetrain and you will see that no-one is trying to destroy your existence.  Nor is it a war, quite the contrary, it's an invitation for you to come and play!

It is all about letting YOUR company know that markets are getting smarter; they are talking a new language and exchanging knowledge like never before.  We want YOUR company to move down from the Ivory Towers and join the conversation (it's already happening!), and talk our language.  We hate how YOUR company pitches to us, sells to us, preaches to us, positions toward us.  All we want is for you (ie not YOUR company) to talk- straight- to us, to take yourselves less seriously, to find a sense of humour,   If you don't or your company won't let you 'cause you are too busy,that's cool, we'll find someone who will find the time to talk.  We'll get back to you.... actually, no we won't:

Cluetrain Manifesto #88:

"We have better things to do than worry about whether you'll change in time to get our business.  Business is only part of our lives.  It seems to be all of yours.  Think about it: who needs whom?"

Cluetrain Manifesto #89:

"We have real power and we know it.  If you don't see the light, some other outfit will come along that's more attentive, more interesting, more fun to play with."

The answer is simple, Jeff.  Talk to us, and you will survive, you can keep on keeping on earning your "honest living".

And if you dunno how to talk to us, grab Hughtrain, and read it.  Read Part Seven (How to Have Smarter Conversations) a couple of times.  It'll get you thinking about how YOU and YOUR company can talk to it's market (who are people you know, not a demographic).  For some more meat on this bone check Signs Never Sleep.

This isn't a war Jeff, but some companies will die for no other reason than they say nothing of interest to anyone, or they refuse to join the conversation.   As a result all their customers doddle off somewhere more interesting.

Ask your boss if he can still provide you with a job that allows you to earn the cash necessary to "feed and house and educate" your family, if you have not customers....

Cluetrain/Hughtrain

Yep:

Cluetrain was all about, "This is why we hate you."

Hughtrain is all about, "This is how we're going to fuck you up."

That's about it really.  It's an open attack, in broad daylight even.  We told you we were coming, and we are telling you what we are gonna do.

But still, many of you will die.

The UN Passes the Buck... again

Is it any wonder that western governments are becoming more obstructive and skeptical about the UN.  They are the kings of flip-flop-ing, changing their minds and shifting the blame whenever they held to account for their (in)actions.

Take this report for example, (via the Captain) that  blames the corruption endemic in their assistance programs on the huge amounts of money and resources provided for these rebuilding and assistance programs:

The ravages of modern warfare are too often compounded by ill-conceived and expensive post-war reconstruction projects that fuel a "feeding frenzy" of corruption and profiteering.

The report, citing graft from Liberia and Bosnia-Herzegovina to Lebanon and Afghanistan, said the overwhelming international response after wars was simply to pump large amounts of money into rebuilding programs without proper control.

"What is difficult enough to try to manage in times of peace becomes even more problematic in post-war situations where the sheer scale of works...and the weakness of public oversight create opportunities for the corrupt of historic proportions," it said.

So what to do?  If we give heed the UN's request to give more money and aid resources, we fanning the flames of "corruption and profiteering; don't give enough, and we are branded as being stingy.  Go figure. 

Do they want our money or don't they?  I think they do, but they appear to want to avoid being held accountable for how it is spent.  If we give too much and it ends up in the wrong hands, the UN can blame us!

Maybe instead of blaming those who generously open their wallets, the UN should have produced a report that examined the reasons it can't run aid programs without everyone in creation sticking their snout the trough. It is classic UN accountability-avoidance.  Where there is no accountability and large sums of money, corruption is never far behind.

So is it any wonder that countries like Australia are bypassing the UN when it comes to providing aid for the victims of the Asian tsunami, demanding a greater presence on the ground and direct personal input on how our money is spent.  We are better off working out what to do and how to do it with the big, ugly bureaucrat.  Especially given Indonesia's appetite for corruption.

I dunno why Australia even bothers to remain one of the 191 UN Member states. As the Captain points out:

"It answers to no one and controls billions of dollars in various aid programs. To blame the resultant corruption on the money clearly demonstrates what an ethically bankrupt organization the UN has become, and why we should endeavor to make it a financially bankrupt one as a result."