60 Over 60

We've all seen the articles:  30 under 30.  People under thirty who are transforming the world.

Now...Fill the Gap.

60 over 60.  

60 people over 60 who are transforming the world.

Do I really have to explain it to the television people?

• Boomers watch television.

• Boomers watch commercials.

• Boomers have discretionary income.

If you want to tap into a market for your advertisers, try doing a weekly TV show focusing on 60 over 60.

It's not that hard.

Regards,

Slim

If you find this to be helpful, please don't hesitate to send me a really tricked out Mac Book and to tuck a few dollars into the envelope along with the thank you note.  Slim.



slimfairview@yahoo.com

Box 33

Pen Argyl, PA

18072

Copyright (c) 2018 Bob Asken
All rights reserved.

Aapl Meets Hollywood

Apple Meets Hollywood

Personals:

Sexy hi-tech FIRM seeks creative Hollywood Mogul. Objective?  Hot Content.

Two years ago I suggested that APPLE and Facebook buy AOL Time Warner CNN. The reason? Content.

$1.5 Billion Dollars + 1.5 Billion Users = Profit$.

It never happened.  However, others have been buying up content.

Now, Apple is looking for content (original content) for their devices.

At the same time, another topic near and dear to my heart, is the move to move “In sync” with Cisco.  Why?  To make Apple products more useful to more people.

You all know the basic paradigm.

• An organization grows large.

• Economies to scale meet the law of diminishing returns.

• Efficiencies decline.

• Focus on the quality of some products causes the quality of others to suffer.

• There is contention among employees working on different projects.

• Profits will attract competitors.

• A large number of competitors will nibble at profits.

• Unique features of competing products will create pressure to improve your product.

• Pressure on employees (and on bosses) will effect morale negatively.

• Some competitors will go out of business due to bad products or management.

• Other competitors will blend together through M&A creating larger competitors.

• Those competitors will benefit from economies to scale as they grow.

• There will be market penetration. And innovation. And competition.

• They will innovate and or cut prices causing you more pressure.

• Big companies will begin to sell off bits of itself to:

• Concentrate on our core

• Do what we do best

• Cut costs

• Become more efficient

• Focus on R&D

• Better serve our valued and appreciated customers.

Now, APPLE is meeting with Cisco.  Great Move.

Now, about content….

We've all heard of 30 under 30. Outstanding people under 30 transforming the world.

Now, what about 60 over 60.

Boomers watch television.
Boomers watch commercials.
Boomers have discretionary income.

60 over 60

http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2018/05/60-over-60.html

If you find anything here to be helpful, please don't hesitate to send me a really tricked out Google Pixelbook and to tuck a few dollars into the envelope along with the thank you note.  Slim.

Bob Asken
Box 33
Pen Argyl, PA 18072

Warmest regards,

Slim.

Slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2015 Bob Asken

All rights reserved.

Memo to Big Oil

 

Memo to Big Oil

Diversify your perspective.

Here is the metaphor:

If people think that the Moon is made of green cheese, then Galileo didn’t explain things properly. The solution is not to explain things to the people. The solution is to explain things to Galileo.

For years, Urban Legend has been saying that the Big Oil is impeding the efforts to develop high mileage automobiles and alternative energy sources. This does not mean that Big Oil did these things. However, if this is the perception there will be a big pushback.

The solution is not to explain things to the people. The solution is to explain things to Big Oil.

To begin with, do not say, “Slim, telling us what we should have done is 20/20 hindsight.”

It is. Don’t waste time saying it. Not because you are enlightening anyone, but because you are deluding yourself.

Why is this?

Because I will say, “Now that you have 20/20 hindsight, your mistakes should be a guidepost not a hitching post.”

Your strategic planning failures of the past do not excuse your strategic planning failures for the future.

Here is a four-point plan to guide your strategic planning.

1. Invest your profits in high-mileage technology.

Why?

Because as it becomes increasingly more important, you will hold the patents. Intellectual property has value.

2. Invest in active solar power technology.

Why?

Because you will become the energy suppliers of the future.

3. Invest in electric filling station technology.

Why?

Because having gas stations all over the country, you can leverage your capital investment. This is called revenue enhancement.

4. Invest in the geothermal heating industry.

Why?

Because diversity in your portfolio and revenue enhancement are vital to continued growth.

Bon chance!

Sincerest regards,

Slim

If you find any of this information helpful, please feel free to send me on of those tricked out Apple laptops—and do please include a little WAM in the envelope along with the thank-you note.

I don’t want to be paid for what I do.

I don’t want to be paid for what I know.

I don’t want to be paid for what I think.

I want to be paid for the way I think.

Regards,

Slim

Mail: slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

The Cleavers’ Television Set is on the Way Out

The Cleavers’ Television Set is on the Way Out

One thing that has been overlooked. Social Media would not be possible without the Advertising Business.

Advertising is what really finances the operations of social media. Why then does the advertising industry act as if social media is the threat and not the partner?

I get the impression that Mad Men are doing studies to justify selling TV ads to clients because clients want TV ads because Corporate America (the clients) is infused with people who sit around discussing whether or not social media is costing American industry productivity time.

Meanwhile, the Media sees social media as a threat and not as a portal. (When I was a freelance website designer, I took out a full-page ad in a local paper listing all the people (businesses) in the local business community who had a web page on the portal website I set up. ("Fish where there are fish." -- Political adage.) )

Point being, The Media better wake up and smell the triple-shot cappuccino venti and start broadcasting via the internet. Television isn’t on the way out; the Cleavers' television set is on the way out.

Regards

Slim

Mail: slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

Edison Invented the Light Bulb by Candlelight

Edison didn't invent a better candle. Still, Edison invented the light bulb by candlelight. All the new technology lacks one thing. It cannot convey a message to those who cannot see the new technology.

Egypt, A new world order--a world without borders.

We are moving rapidly from the land of Laptopistan written about in a Times article to Netopia.

What happens when movies on demand becomes TV on demand? What happens when television goes beyond the laptop through Google TV to a direct subscription system.

Time Warner may want to go beyond the old movies of TCM and began broadcasting, what? Leave it to Beaver? The Early episodes of The Simpsons? Gunsmoke? Two and a half men?

The Wolves at Tottenham that I cannot watch on ESPN will be available over the internet. Remember a few scant years ago when the music industry was in an uproar about Napster? Remember that free phone service of ten years ago and VOIP? That debate became moot with Skype.

The best idea broadcast television has come up with to attract viewers is to start airing programmes targeted at people who don't watch television. Thus, driving away viewers who do watch television. Then there is the newer technology.

Sit down to dinner, push a button, and your dining room wall becomes a massive flat-screen television screen allowing you to have dinner with your sister and her family in Bismarck, North Dakota. (Home to the Raccoon National Cemetery.)

The social interaction will move people quickly into Netopia. Your son studying in Sweden, your daughter the doctor on a humanitarian aid mission to Japan for the recent floods, a BritCom years before it hits Channel 13. (American idiom for The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which used to be National Education Television before the marketing people realised that people don't watch television to get an education only to appear to have gotten an education. (There is a sentence in there somewhere: some assembly required.)

What a shame those in the broadcast industry can’t see what is going to happen. Then, too, they don’t seem to be able to see what is actually happening. If only we could figure out whether it’s because they’re watching too much television or not enough.

Regards,

Slim

Mail: Slimfairview@yahoo.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/slimfairview

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

India 2.0 The Future is Today

That India is a technological leader, not marching but rather moving smoothly and swiftly into the future, is seldom a matter for dispute. In fact, it is not really discussed but simply assumed as the conversation progresses.

Still, as with any country or economy, there are adjustments to be made in the economics of a country's economy.

The issue of food is uppermost on the minds of the people of India. In a previous monograph, I referred to increased supply. A literal understanding would be counter productive. The issue is not resolved by saying, "Grow more food." However, if we were to discuss the issue from that statement, we would have to ask, "Do the same number of farmers increase their output, or do we need an increase in the number of farmers?" A subtext would involve farmers joining to take advantage of economies to scale, and form large farms. (Remember, the absence of primogeniture caused the collapse of pre Soviet Russia. The absence of private ownership led to the collapse of post-Czarist Russia. Conclusion: many small farms don't satisfy the need; collective farming won't solve the problem.

The first issue to address is that India has a culture of co-operation. This will serve India well as time marches on. However, on the question of supply, we are not simply suggesting more food for today; but a stable supply of food for a foreseeable future.

Two problems indicated in recent reports from the media are that

1. India cannot get food to the market. It rots before it can be sold or eaten; and 2. That the fluctuation in food prices in a largely agricultural nation has a greater impact in that nation than they would in a heavily industrialised nation.

Some options to consider.

If there is difficulty getting food to the market,

the food can be preserved at the source. Canned and frozen foods, processed at the source, can be stored as a hedge against future food supply failures. In addition, they can be sold on the national and international market. (The marketing of Indian cuisine can become a larger industry. I had curry for the first time when I was about 9 years old. Only recently have Indian food products made their appearance in supermarkets. That is a gap of almost half a century.)

The food supply prices can be leveled slightly through the investment in commodity options. This would allow investment consortia to

a. Have food available at a more affordable price if food prices rise considerably
b. Provide a return on the investment if national supplies are sufficient to meet demand
c. Provide the necessary supply of food to process for market and hedge against a future crop failure
d. Attract investors to partner with the agriculture, manufacturing, and finance industries to bring in money for capital investment.

The government can assume the responsibility of developing roads; negotiating trade deals (read: taxes, tariffs, concessions, etc.), and provide for a stable food supply and food pricing system to stabilise the government.

The economic growth, political stability, national unity, can be promoted.

Now, many people are skilled in the various areas mentioned above. The only thing necessary is what is too often referred to as a shared vision. This monograph is a demonstration of one of the few times that the term, shared vision, may perhaps have been used appropriately.

Sincerest regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com


Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Will the FB Revolution Spread to China? Part 2--Credentialism

Will the Facebook Revolution Spread to China? Part 2--Credentialism

Today, everyone has credentials. Things are not visibly better, but the experts have credentials to explain the problems they were not able to foresee, to prevent, or to fix.

Much of that comes from what is easily discernible: much of what they write is descriptive and not prescriptive. Why do they write it? As Samuel Johnson once said, "None but a blockhead writes except for money."

Now, why talk about credentials? It is a follow up to my monograph entitled "Distortions of graphic proportions." The posting includes a bar graph that purports to show how images are used to distort the facts. This monograph will explain how the exclusion of some facts is used to distort others.

Case in point.

The pundits (experts) have said that what happened in Egypt could happen in China. They said that the Chinese government is worried. Other experts pointed out that the difference in the per capita income between China and Egypt made a Facebook revolution unlikely. Then came the unpleasant situation in Bahrain.

Now the experts are saying that the high per capita income in Bahrain repudiates those who said a Facebook revolution in China is unlikely. Their reasoning? The per capita income in Bahrain. And that is where the substance of their reasoned argument ends.

First of all, consensus among the pundits is that in Bahrain you have a majority group living in a nation governed by a minority group. To put that in U.S. terms: Imagine a nation where 8 million Methodists are governed by 2 Million Lutherans.

This situation does not exist in China. The Chinese people are Chinese. Full stop.

Second, you have the type of money as well as the amount of money to consider. Here is a metaphor.

Pretend I own a 10-unit apartment building in a modest community. I rent each out for $500 a month. I live in one of the units. I make $4,500 a month. Pretend you are an architect. You get hired by a development company to gentrify my community. My property goes up in value. I now rent out my apartments for $1,500 a month. In addition, I moved into one of the fancy new apartment buildings. I now receive $15,000 a month in income. I pay $3,000 a month rent
in an upscale building and receive $12,000 a month in income.

You, however, as an architect earn about $80,000 a year. You are not satisfied with your earnings. You decide to renegotiate your contract. While that is happening, you are not working. While you are not working, 100 bricklayers are not working. If they don't work, they don't eat.

The owner of the building has two choices. Fire you and put 100 bricklayers back to work, or negotiate with you while 100 bricklayers have nothing to do and nothing to eat. Guess what? You lose your job.

You make an income by doing what you do. I make an income by what I own. I make an increased income by what you do. If you stop doing your job, my income stagnates but the bricklayers' income ceases.

Now, let's go to China. China's wealth arises from the efforts of the Chinese people. The Chinese people make a higher per capita income than the Egyptian people. The Chinese people make a higher per capita income by the way the Chinese people earn their income.

Back to my apartment building. If we assume that I have a history of being my own superintendent; mowing the lawn, fixing leaky faucets, vacuuming the carpets, polishing the floor in the lobby, I can cut my operating expenses and increase my earnings. However, when the value of my building goes up, I can hire a superintendent to do the work for me. I can still make an increased income. You, as an architect, must continue to be an architect to continue earning a living.

Will the Facebook revolution extend to China? Probably not. The question of per capita income is only a part of the consideration. The source of the income is also a consideration. The demographics are a third consideration.

Regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Having Problems with Foreign Direct Investment?

Having Problems with Foreign Direct Investment?


What are some of the barriers?

Leverage. ROI.

It is easy to see that start up costs in some countries are much lower than start up costs in another.

If the other country does not have the physical plant for example, it will be cheaper to build that plant in the other country.

Currency considerations are another factor

Incentives from a country with little industry are greater than they are from a country where you will compete with the locals.

Market penetration. Would people in countries in the region be more inclined to buy from countries in the region or from western nations.

Partnering. It is easier to partner with business in some countries where western technology is not readily available by making that technology available.

Just a few thoughts.

Regards,

Slim

mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Virtually a Real Person

"I have a Twitter account, a Facebook account, a Linkedin account and a Blog. At last. Finally I feel like a virtual person. For a while, I didn't think I was going to make it." -- Slim Fairview


Mail: slimfairview@yahoo.com

Strategic Thinking

"Why are supermarket executives men, when supermarket shoppers are women? I'll bet a man came up with that idea." -- Slim Fairview

The Business of Egypt is Business

Yesterday, the business of Egypt was Egypt. Today, the business of Egypt is business.

For the revolution to be a lasting success, the Egyptian people have to focus on the economy, on jobs, on education, and on the infrastructure: Electricity, roads, trains, broadcasting, and a stable government.

This is not accomplished by embracing ideology.

For a start: "Free Enterprise. It works when you do."

Egypt: Now looking for global management specialists, business development specialists, new market developers, (dare I say it) Human Resources Managers, R&D Specialist, IT managers.

The Egyptian people need jobs!

Let's hope The Egyptians promotes from within before they are exploited by carpetbaggers. 'You gotta know the territory...’

Did anyone say, Professor Harold Hill?

Bon chance,

Slim

Mail: mailto:Slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

Change in the Company? Change in the Company!

Change in the Company? Change in the Company!
Change seems a bit bold. Think transformation.

As new people come on board, they will influence the company. Change or transformation will occur.

As new clients come on board, the company will have to adjust. When you start selling to Bluetopia, you will begin selling blue widgets. If no one knows how to mix up a batch of blue stuff, the company will have to hire people who can mix up batches of blue stuff.

All of this happens without a committee being assigned to study change, transformation, strategic planning, or even have to miss a three-martini lunch.

Regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

copyright (c) 2010 Slim Fairview

Watching the Process

The Process

Management, Project Management, Process Management, each a process. Can you isolate the moment you realised that?

I was in the second grade. We were out in the playground for recess. We were playing kickball.

Recess was unstructured. There was no micromanagement of children then.

The two usual classmates were captains. This was SOP. Then, one day, one of the teams had a co-captain.

While some of the other boys in my class complained, “Why do they always get to be captains?” “They always pick their friends. That’s not fair,” I observed the process.

The captains were the natural leaders. This was because they were good at the game and good at picking players. (Athletes will routinely hang out with athletes. Question: Are they picking their friends, or good athletes, or both? Answer: both.)

We root for the underdogs; but we want to run with the winners. Good at sports or bad at sports, each of us wants to be on a winning team.

However, we now had co-captains. I was less concerned with why. I simply wanted to be on a winning team. That was over 50 years ago. I still remember the day. However, we never stop learning. It was only a few weeks ago when I thought about that day that I realised something.

If you are a good athlete, and I am a good athlete, and we have three powerful players in the class; Tom, Dick, and Harry, and we toss a coin for first pick, the following are the possible results:

You have three power players: I have two power players.

I have three power players: you have two power players.

It comes down to the toss of a coin.

Plan B. I have a co-captain. It doesn’t matter who wins the toss. Either way, I have three power players on my team and you have two on your team.

Now, that was not the end of the lesson. That was the beginning.

1. We learned not only about leadership, but also about followship.

2. We learned the art of negotiation and the result of having good leaders.

3. We also learned how to get along without being micromanaged by parents.

4. There was a lesson in conflict resolution and the value of cooperation.

It went on from there.

Some of my classmates complained. They, however, had no viable alternative. They also had no appreciation for the objective assessment of what was happening.

Some had inflated views of their own skills. (If he can do it, so can I.) Yet, none ever explained why others never gravitated to them as leaders.

There was more to be learned by watching the process.

1. How did some classmates interact with others?

2. How did some interact with the teacher?

3. How did the teacher interact with some students as opposed to others?

For the last one, I can offer some insight. If the objective is to encourage a student to participate, the teacher calls on the quiet one. If the objective is to teach the class how to solve a problem, the teacher calls on the student most likely to have the correct answer.

There is much to be said for participation. There is little to be said for sitting on the sidelines. However, as Yogi Berra once said, “You can see a lot by just watching.” To which I shall add, “You can hear a lot by just listening.”

What does this have to do with project management?

Perhaps you shouldn’t be managing projects.

Regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright © 2011 Slim Fairview

Thoughts on the Marketing of India (From a Linked in Discussion)

The Marketing of India

Find a need and fill it.

Who has a need for what you can produce?
Partner with that (nation's) companies.
In addition to the profits, offer a minority interest in the company. (This will give investors an incentive to succeed.) Offer a profit share to the suppliers. (This will give the farmers(?) an incentive to join in the venture.

In addition to money, offer other incentives. [Prestige]. For example: Build schools in the areas where the people are most enthusiastic.

If one or two small companies cannot find the funding (through govt. funding--a bad idea) go to the marketplace. Economies to scale.

Create a marketing group for the several smaller companies, so they can pool their resources.

In Vermont there is a joke:

Q: "Do you think the rain will hurt the rhubarb?"
A: "Not if they're in cans."

If produce spoils before it hits the market, set up a joint effort to can the produce at the source.

Roads are a government responsibility.

Just a few ideas. (Call me old-fashioned)

Anyone care to amplify, amend, or correct?

Sincerest regards,

Slim

PS. Read The Caste Busters article in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/magazine/02Striver-t.html

Mail slimfairvew@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2011 Slim Fairview

Re: Why do companies choose NOT to do more to engage their people in workplace improvement?

Why do companies choose NOT to do more to engage their people in workplace improvement? How hard is it?

How hard is it? Nearly impossible. How do I know? I worked on the level of "their people" getting involved in workplace improvement.

1. Institutional constraints:
a. There are within various organisations different parameters (read "structure") that act like railroad tracks. If they cease to exist, the train won't get where it is going. They may be real or imagined, but they do exist. EXPERTS say this shouldn't exist and procede to help the organisation modify the "corporate cultural norms."* Example: The Post Office. Their employee involvement program back in the eighties was perceived as a "work faster" trick. After much effort was made to dispel that notion, an ei committee was set up. (End of the book answer here--It was a diversion. People become apprehensive, suspicious, etc. when they feel they are left out of the process. The USPS ei program was a palliative for discordance.) When a project as simple (simplistic) as changing payday from Friday to Thursday went through the process--brainstorming, fish-bones, etc. and went up the line, the reply was that this change was contrary to the F-1 (Finance Manual.) The ei programme was intended to modify things rules in the manual. Eventually, the day was changed. Give everyone a big gold star. (You can read more on this on my blog under the heading "How many parents want their children to get the appearance of an education?"
http://slimviews.blogspot.com/2010/06/how-many-parents-want-their-children-to.html

b. Constraints of the Group Norms This addresses the situation of employees in the workplace. Take a typical meeting. (Yes, they do exist.) where one of the people at the meeting says,
"Jack raised a good point on leadership. It reminds me of something MY SON'S coach said to the team after MY SON'S TEAM WON THE CHAMPIONSHIP at the AWARDS DINNER WHERE MY SON WAS AWARDED THE MVP...and so on."
There are people who don't know what a hidden agenda is. The fellow above was less concerned about a quote from the coach on the topic of leadership than he was about declaiming his son's excellence in sports.

I wrote about "group norms" in the corporate world and it segued into a fine discussion about cultural norms. Good points were made. But a bit off topic.

Engaging people in the process of workplace improvement is an invitation to advance personal agendas, hidden agendas, vent, and, in plain English, get even with co-workers or the institutions over real or imagined injustices.

Now it would be a bit off for me to say that companies do not do anything to actually seek real workplace improvement. Some companies are looking for risk containment--information that will allow them to limit legal liabilities. Other companies do it because heat from the higher up requires the appearance of working to solve problems. However, the biggest problem arises from examining your original question: "Why do COMPANIES choose not to..." A company is a corporate entity that exists only on paper. You removed the "people" from management, and you removed "a person" from people. I've seen too many memos signed "The Management" (Did someone say LIABILITY?) The real problem "on the floor", "in the cubilcles", "at the meetings", is this: Mr. Big did not go in to Fearless Leader's office to say, "Boris Badenov" is not successful at plotting big trouble for Moose and Squirrel. If he is not more successful, I am not going to fire him. I will let new fearless leader fire him."

Few people in the chain of command will admit that the person they hired, and have had working for them is incompetent. "I have a bungler working for me. He's been working for me for two years now but I am not competent enough a boss to fire my incompetent subordinate.

* Solution Limitations The experts have forgotten the Empirical Method of Scientific Discovery. Instead of performing the experiment, observing the result and arriving at a conclusion, they come up with an hypothesis, implement their theories then look to figure out why these solutions didn't work. Don't dare try to explain it. This challenges their ability or their credibility depending on the claims they've made (They don't want to look bad in from of their bosses, do they?) and they will become hostile, vindictive, discordant--Do you have a Phd? Did you never see the nasty, childish, contentious, ornery bickering, backstabbing, gossipy behaviour of our revered academics engaging in their one-upmanship. (Not that any of you ever did anything like that.)

Then there is 2 through 6:

2. Legal Constraints
3. Mutually Exclusive Goals
4. Ability of the employees to understand the problems and communicate them effectively.
5. Hidden agendas of the bosses.
6. Limited ability of the bosses to understand the employee--some bosses do not have a proper frame of reference. How many MBAs or Phds actually worked in the trenches?

But these are better left for another day. Work on #1.

Regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) Slim Fairview 2010

Facts v. Opinions

Facts v. Opinions

There are facts and there are opinions. On the other hand, there are facts and there are facts. Here's the metaphor:

A group of wonderful people are going to rehabilitate a 16 unit building in a fancy neighborhood. You know: SoHo, NoHo, BooHoo, one of those places. They invite 16 interior designers (one unit each) to do a complete makeover. Wall treatments, window treatments, floor covering, furniture, accessories, and so on.

Now, the night before the big unveiling, (when no one is around to get hurt) the building collapses. Everyone hurries down to stare (aghast) at the site. There, with his political wisdom and insight, Mayor Bloomberg calls Donald Trump and asks him to come down and take a look at what happened. Upon his arrival, Mr. Trump asks to see the blueprints. The city engineer shows Mr. Trump the blueprints. Mr. Trump shakes his head.

"This is no good," he says. "Supporting walls were removed. New walls were not able to support the upper floors. The floors that were replaced were not structurally sound. The wonderful people who rehabilitated this building should have called me in first to check the plans and make sure the building wouldn't fall down."

What a shame. All those beautiful opinions and no facts. Well, not quite.

• The fact is, the designers were all brilliant and creative.
• The fact is, all the window treatments, floor treatments, wall treatments were tasteful and done with products known to be of the highest quality.
• The fact is, the furniture was tasteful, expesive, elegant.
• And so on.

All facts. None related to the structural integrity of the building.

The argument could be made that the interior design was actually a matter of opinion. But what cannot be argued is that the structural soundness of the building was not a matter of opinion. It was a matter of facts not taken into consideration. (Evidenced by the fact that the building collapsed.)

The ability of a manager to filter out the opinions from the facts when dealing with issues is important. Just as crucial is having employees who can differentiate between facts and opinions. Not having opinions included can cause hurt feelings. But we are not decorating an apartment. We are working to make sure the building does not fall down.

Regards,

Slim

Mail slimfairview@yahoo.com

Copyright (c) 2010 Slim Fairview