Change - Get used to it

"The only constant is change ..."(Isaac Asimov). Or so the saying goes. It's a fact that people often (usually ?) resist change. I suspect that all people resist change some of the time, but certainly how much, and what, people resist depends on the person. The problem is that it isn't useful to resist all change, and also not productive. Even tougher, the resistance is often a reflex - not something thought over. I know that I have caught myself doing this, and it is glaringly obvious in one of my sons.

I want to suggest that people should train themselves to live with change. By purposely making changes that we have control over - just because we can - we may gain an edge dealing with change that we have no control over. I guarantee that you will experience change you have no control over.

"Take a walk on the wild side." (Lou Reed)

Separate change from risk. Although change and risk are intertwined, they are not the same thing. Risks should be analyzed separately from the change that produces it (be careful also to realize that not changing can also create risk). What I am advocating is making change for change's sake, but only for low risk changes. High risk changes need to be analyzed a lot more closely. Here is a personal example. Last June I decided I would shave my head, and then let my hair grow for a full year. Having a shaved head was a change, as is now having long hair. The risk is minimal. Neither situation was likely to cause me problems (or advantages for that matter). I just wanted to try it. Although this post isn't about changing your hairstyle, you probably know people that haven't changed their hairstyle in decades because they are afraid to.

So my challenge to everyone is to practice change. Find something in your life that has very little risk and make a change. It's ok if you find you don't like the change - change back. You won't know though unless you try. Although the possible changes you might make are limitless here are a few ideas to get you thinking (you should leave other ideas in the comments section).

• Do you usually go to the same restaurant (or the same kind of restaurant) when you go out for dinner. Then try something new - really new, like an ethnic food you've never tried. If you want to lower the risk go with someone that has been before.
• Instead of going to a movie, try the theatre (or if you usually go to the theatre, try the movies)
• Try a new sport (I'm not talking about as a spectator). Many organizations will allow you to try before making any committments
• Take a course in something interesting (but not necessarily useful to you). Photography, food, human sexuality, foreign language, religion, creative writing, whatever
• Listen to some type of music you've never really listened to before (listen long enough to give it a real chance). This is one area where I used to resist change. I would never have admitted to enjoying "rap crap" 10 years ago. Now I'll give anything a listen - that doesn't mean I'll like it
• Visit somewhere new (of course finances can interfere here)
• Try some different (not necessarily new - just new to you) fashions. I'm not suggesting throwing out an entire wardrobe and replacing it
• If you don't read - try reading. If you read, try reading something different than you usually would

Hopefully in the end this sort of practice will help you to accept other changes. Perhaps it will be easier to truthfully analyze changes for benefits/problems instead of simply rejecting them because they are a change.

(I'll post a couple of pictures of me with shaved head and long hair later.)
Before
Bald

And still to come - hairy.

Climate change is real

Just a really short post on climate change. It is happening. That doesn't mean where you live will be warmer, or colder, or drier, or wetter. It simply means that the overall global climate is changing. The second point is that humans are contributing. Would there be climate change anyway - of course there would (ever hear of an ice age?). Would it be the same or happen at the same rate? No.

I can't believe the number of people still digging up "facts" from really obscure scientists or who think they are experts because they read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" (for the record - he didn't believe) and trying to show that humans aren't affecting it, or that it isn't happening. Yeah - and the world is flat!

Here are two articles - the arctic ice cover may disappear quicker than expected (notice that it isn't in doubt that it will disappear) and some stats on just how many ignorant (in this field) people there are out there. I like the quote "... no longer sure whether to be more concerned about global warming or global ignorance."

Finger Revision

A few people in the real world have commented on my new "big bandage" on my finger. I finally got an appointment with a surgeon to see my finger. Up to that point my family doctor had been telling me that we were just trying to let it heal while we waited for this appointment and that the surgeon would decide what needed to be done.

Well she decided that it needed to be "revised." Definitions: revision - changed edition, or new version. The revision was basically to fashion me an entirely new end for my finger. This involved removing what I figure is the rest of the fingertip bone (still just a small part of my finger) back to the first knuckle. Then the hollowed out finger (see the Dr Seuss drawing on this page) was folded and snipped and sewed to make a new end. I don't have any pictures yet but I will take some at the first dressing change (next Tuesday because of the holiday) and I think it will be obvious how much better the finger looks (the new pictures will be posted with the old - see the link in the original post). I will not have a fingernail. In fact, if any part of the nail should grow in I am supposed to go back for another revision. I haven't had a chance to compare yet, but I think it is now shorter than the index or ring fingers.

For me this basically means my finger is back to being freshly amputated - so it hurts just as much as the first time. Actually, for some reason it bothered me more this time than it did the first. The pain level has gone down quite a bit already though - perhaps due to the pain-killers - but since I have already started skipping pills I think just naturally.

Paid The Big Bucks

$$ People are upset about the huge bonuses that have been handed out to CEOs, presidents, and other high level employees of companies. Some of those companies aren't exactly doing well, and some of those bonuses have been paid with "bail-out" money. Many people's anger is misplaced. They shouldn't be upset that the bonus was paid - that's a matter of contract law. Perhaps the bonus was tied to the employees annual evaluation, or some other measurement such as customer satisfaction surveys. If a certain goal is met then they will be paid a certain amount. These people were hired under a contract that included those bonuses - therefore they should get paid those bonuses, even if the company is now failing (many employees at these failing companies were still individually performing well).

However, people should still be upset. They should be upset that the contract was signed in the first place (not that it was paid). The problem is that these types of bonuses should also be tied to the company's performance. At the very least to the performance of a certain well defined area of the company. So it might read that a person's bonus depends on how well they score on her/his annual review AND on the financial performance of the company. This is especially important for the high level management and executives.

At this level the employee should be taking personal responsibility for the organization's performance as well as the performance of all subordinates. If the organization isn't doing well it is the executive's fault. Using the auto manufacturing sector as an example it is clear that not all companies are suffering equally. And yet the CEO of one particular organization (the one that used to be #1) insists that the problems are not their own organization's. Instead he blames entirely different sectors (banking for one) for his corporation's problems. Then he has the temerity to say his company just needs some money to get through this period. It doesn't need to "fix anything" just survive another year or so and all the problems will go away. He clearly is not accepting any of these problems as his own - no wonder Obama told him to resign if he wants his company to get anymore money (he is now known as the ex-ceo of GM).

The excuse by these companies for the salaries and bonuses offered is often "we have to pay the big bucks to attract the best talent." I say that's a crock. It is similar to high level sports where the difference between the best is measured in hundredths of a percent. Just like high level sport, having the absolutely best person does not guarantee that the team will do well. Having a well organized and motivated team that are individually "pretty good" will always beat a poorly organized, under-motivated, team that happens to have a superstar.

Most of us aren't paid "the big bucks" but if offered them we would probably take them. Don't blame these people for accepting the money that they were promised when they signed their contract. Blame the organizations that are stupid enough to have such contracts.