Search This Blog
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
On "Leadership" in the U.S.A.
I wouldn't call Tiger Woods a leader, but some would -- or at least did before the recent debacle involving his illicit affairs. A recent Huffington Post commentary puts it into perspective. Where are our true leaders today?
Friday, November 13, 2009
Should businesses support the health care reform?
I think business should support the reform. Check out this article.
Monday, November 9, 2009
For American Consumers, a Responsibility Revolution
Can consumer spending choices really promote the kind of changes we seek and need? Here's an article that seems to think so. What do you think? Is it enough to stem the tide of global climate change, poverty, employee abuse, discrimination, just to name a few of our social problems?
For American Consumers, a Responsibility Revolution
For American Consumers, a Responsibility Revolution
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Does multimedia add to productivity or waste time?
Check our this article on the topic of texting from the Wall Street Journal on multi-tasking.
Do you think there are some advantages to texting as a way to communicate in the workplace? Will texting replace meetings or face-to-face communication?
Do you think there are some advantages to texting as a way to communicate in the workplace? Will texting replace meetings or face-to-face communication?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Do You Believe in Polls?
A day doesn't seem to pass without my hearing what the "people" have to say. How much do you trust polls? Some are conducted by establishments that use accurate methods and systematic sampling techniques. Others are not so trustworthy. Regardless of the source, we should be critical of even the most reputable of polling organizations. Consider what follows -- from a recent New York Times article: (The entire article can be reached by clicking here.)
From the NYT:
In recent weeks, polls kept showing solid support for a public insurance option, seeming to breathe new life into its viability as a provision of the health care legislation under way in Congress. In fact, advocates of a public option, from left-leaning groups to pundits to lawmakers, seized on each new number and trumpeted the news across the 24/7 news spectrum of Twitter, TV ads, blogs and headlines.
And while those polls may have bolstered Senator Harry Reid’s decision to include the public option in the merged Senate bill this week, a closer examination shows once again that public opinion on this issue shifts and shimmies depending on how you phrase the question and what you strip away from (or add to) a compound sentence.
In nearly all recent surveys, a majority of Americans simply approve of providing coverage for the uninsured, suggesting that on an altruistic level at least, they believe people deserve health care.
But differences emerge in the details. For example, support for a public health insurance depends on the order of questions, the language and the arguments posed in favor or in opposition.
For example, in a poll that NBC News and The Wall Street Journal released on Tuesday, half the respondents were asked one question about the public option, and half were asked a different one.
Just under 50 percent favored a health care plan administered by the federal government to compete with private insurance companies, while 4 in 10 opposed. But, almost three-fourths said it was important to have a choice between a public plan and a private plan.
Comment: People aren't being stupid when they answer questions in different ways depending on the wording. But we as a society are stupid to place as much stock in polls as we do. Walter Lippmann reminded us a generation ago that polls are just a snapshot of the electorate's opinion. Why should that snapshot be given reverential treatment? That was a good question when he posed it. It's still a good question.
From the NYT:
In recent weeks, polls kept showing solid support for a public insurance option, seeming to breathe new life into its viability as a provision of the health care legislation under way in Congress. In fact, advocates of a public option, from left-leaning groups to pundits to lawmakers, seized on each new number and trumpeted the news across the 24/7 news spectrum of Twitter, TV ads, blogs and headlines.
And while those polls may have bolstered Senator Harry Reid’s decision to include the public option in the merged Senate bill this week, a closer examination shows once again that public opinion on this issue shifts and shimmies depending on how you phrase the question and what you strip away from (or add to) a compound sentence.
In nearly all recent surveys, a majority of Americans simply approve of providing coverage for the uninsured, suggesting that on an altruistic level at least, they believe people deserve health care.
But differences emerge in the details. For example, support for a public health insurance depends on the order of questions, the language and the arguments posed in favor or in opposition.
For example, in a poll that NBC News and The Wall Street Journal released on Tuesday, half the respondents were asked one question about the public option, and half were asked a different one.
Just under 50 percent favored a health care plan administered by the federal government to compete with private insurance companies, while 4 in 10 opposed. But, almost three-fourths said it was important to have a choice between a public plan and a private plan.
Comment: People aren't being stupid when they answer questions in different ways depending on the wording. But we as a society are stupid to place as much stock in polls as we do. Walter Lippmann reminded us a generation ago that polls are just a snapshot of the electorate's opinion. Why should that snapshot be given reverential treatment? That was a good question when he posed it. It's still a good question.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Social Entrepreneurship
Social entrepreneurship is a topic that is gaining momentum in the entrepreneurial
community. As indicated in this article
an increasing number of business founders are combining their for-profit motives with a social good. Would you enjoy being apart of a startup that embraced this idea? What kinds of social causes could be combined with startups (for example, book selling with literacy campaigns, ship building with anti-water pollution efforts)? Why do you think the concept of social entrepreneurship is becoming increasingly attractive to business people? If you started a business would you be willing to sacrifice some profit to engage in socially responsible initiatives? If so, which ones? Do you know of any business in your community that does this?
community. As indicated in this article
an increasing number of business founders are combining their for-profit motives with a social good. Would you enjoy being apart of a startup that embraced this idea? What kinds of social causes could be combined with startups (for example, book selling with literacy campaigns, ship building with anti-water pollution efforts)? Why do you think the concept of social entrepreneurship is becoming increasingly attractive to business people? If you started a business would you be willing to sacrifice some profit to engage in socially responsible initiatives? If so, which ones? Do you know of any business in your community that does this?
Laur's Lecture on Sustainability
Last Friday Joe Laur (lecturer at Antioch N.E. Graduate School, author of The Necessary Revolution, and founder of greenopolis.com) raised some interesting issues regarding his successes in teaching corporations (such as Coca-Cola and Nike) about sustainable literacy. He also spoke about some obstacles to achieving sustainable business practices? One of those had to do with “mental models.” Are we in the midst of a change in mental models, one that will radically shift the way we view ourselves and our relationship to the earth? What do you think of his strategy to rein in and focus on helping those companies that are already “on board,” that is, those that already have the inclination and "desire" to be sustainable (as opposed to targeting the worst offenders)?
I thought of some general questions about social responsibility after his lecture: What does it mean to be socially responsible if the goal is a radical shift in “mental models”? Is it really possible for corporations to be socially responsible (within a free market, profit-seeking economic framework)?
I thought of some general questions about social responsibility after his lecture: What does it mean to be socially responsible if the goal is a radical shift in “mental models”? Is it really possible for corporations to be socially responsible (within a free market, profit-seeking economic framework)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)