I really appreciate those who go out of their way to learn new things. They always find they learn much more than they ever anticipated. Thomas Keller, the celebrated American chef, tells a wonderful story of how he wanted to learn how to slaughter a rabbit. One day, he decided he wanted to try doing it himself and asked his purveyor to show him how. The purveyor demonstrates on the first rabbit. Then he leaves Keller to do the same with the remaining rabbits from the day’s order. Keller has trouble with his first one. There is suffering. It was a terrible experience. He had simply wanted to learn how to slaughter a rabbit. But he got a bonus lesson. He also learned much more about the true cost of the food that comes into his kitchen and now he takes much better care of his ingredients, knowing what it took to get them. Needless to say, waste is not tolerated in his kitchen. (Read the full story in his book, The French Laundry)
So go out and try to learn something new. You may just get more than you bargained for, but you won’t regret it.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
When things become effortless, we stop paying attention
We place a very high premium on making things easy for ourselves. Staples capitalised on this, to great effect, with their ‘easy button’ campaign. Many of our goals, it seems, is to make things easy. But, as my mom firmly believes, everything comes with a cost. When we get things easy, there is a price to pay, and not just in monetary terms. The cost is that we learn nothing and we grow little, if at all.
If the Renaissance man ever met a man of our era (if you can even call it that), he’d be appalled and probably run back to his grave. Forget being able to do everything. Who wants to do that? I want to do nothing. That’s the voice of our generation.
When was the last time you sought out something difficult?
Decreasing marginal returns
That’s what you get when you work on a natural progression. Don’t get me wrong. I believe in letting things develop naturally. But natural development can only take you so far. The example I often use is that of strength training for athletes. Any converts of P90X will understand. If an athlete begins a strength training program, he or she will see fairly dramatic improvements at the onset. But if the athlete stays on the same program, the magnitude of the improvements will become gradually smaller. Sooner or later, the athlete will plateau and see very little improvement, regardless of how much time is invested in training. That’s because the muscles become familiar with the movements and feel less challenged each time. They figure, “I’ve seen this before, I know what to expect,” and don’t work as hard. They grow comfortable. And growth slows to a crawl, if not a complete stop. The only way to address this is to change things up. Challenge the muscles with new movements and force them to become uncomfortable, force them to learn new things.
It’s like that with us too. If we allow ourselves to become comfortable, the pace of our personal growth slows down considerably. We go through the same motions over and over again. Activities become mindless. Weeks and months fly by, and with them, our lives. We look around and wonder “Wow, where did all that time go?”
Saturday, May 9, 2009
agendas vs. accomplishments
a lot of us have agendas. we set and manage to-do lists, and we do our best to follow them. some of us know exactly what we plan to do for the coming day down to the minute.
but amidst all of the various tasks on our schedules, how many meaningful things do we actually accomplish?
have you ever had the feeling, upon reflecting on the day that has just passed, that you didn't really do anything at all? it could be that a) we're not that good at setting our agendas, allowing them to become filled with lesser priorities, or b) we don't really set our own agendas, answering to external demands. neither option sounds good.
so it is that we find ourselves with lots of things to do, not enough time to do them, and not enough time for anything else, really. nothing spontaneous. nothing different (unless one of us were to be so inventive as to include doing something different on our agenda).
when things don't work according to plan, we often get frustrated, stressed and annoyed. but sometimes i think that that's what it takes for God to get our attention. otherwise, we could just focus on our task lists and rush around without ever paying attention to anything else.
but amidst all of the various tasks on our schedules, how many meaningful things do we actually accomplish?
have you ever had the feeling, upon reflecting on the day that has just passed, that you didn't really do anything at all? it could be that a) we're not that good at setting our agendas, allowing them to become filled with lesser priorities, or b) we don't really set our own agendas, answering to external demands. neither option sounds good.
so it is that we find ourselves with lots of things to do, not enough time to do them, and not enough time for anything else, really. nothing spontaneous. nothing different (unless one of us were to be so inventive as to include doing something different on our agenda).
"in his heart a man plans his course,
but the LORD determines his steps."
- proverbs 16:9
when things don't work according to plan, we often get frustrated, stressed and annoyed. but sometimes i think that that's what it takes for God to get our attention. otherwise, we could just focus on our task lists and rush around without ever paying attention to anything else.
Monday, May 4, 2009
on ownership
i recently went to look at flats here in london. we're going to be renting and, to keep with our budget, many of the places we've seen are flatshares, where we would share the flat with other people. a typical question we would ask the current tenants is how long they intend to stay there. this is so we can gauge the stability of the household and whether significant changes were to be expected in terms of the interpersonal dynamics.
in one case, we asked a guy and he said that if it was possible, he intended to stay in the flat for the rest of his life. that is, he intended to rent his room in the flat and share the other facilities (kitchen, bathroom) for the rest of his life. perhaps it is the small bubble that i lived in when i was in toronto, but i found that to be a very interesting statement.
you see, in toronto, i got the sense that it was almost assumed that the natural progression in your life is to own a property of some sort. a house, an apartment, a condo, a townhouse, a cottage, a cemetary plot - something. perhaps it's because we all studied "the apprenticeship of duddy kravitz" in school, where it was impressed upon us that a man without land is nothing. or perhaps we're a pragmatic group of people who believe owning property and having equity is more financially prudent than paying rent until the end of time (or at least, your time here on earth). but we do seem infatuated with this notion of ownership.
i'm sure there are plenty of people in toronto who will always rent. but i'm equally sure that it's a choice the people i know would publicly tolerate (in fine canadian fashion) and frown upon in private. in london, there are people who own properties, but probably an equal or larger proportion of the population who do not. here, renting forever is something that is quite widely accepted. in fact, it is assumed that you rent the flat in which you live unless you specify otherwise.
but this ownership of land and property also leads to an interesting contrast when it comes to shared spaces, such as the street, a park, or a church. we own our homes and cars and, in some cases, are fanatical about keeping them clean and tidy. but we're also decidedly less picky about how we treat shared spaces. the litter on the streets is testament to that. so is the gum that you accidentally step on. smokers, some of who may have pristine apartments and homes, are remarkably tolerant when it comes to the numerous butts that are scattered around their designated areas.
for a generation that loves to own things, there is a stark contrast when it comes to taking ownership, particularly of shared spaces. preceding generations are known for fighting wars, liberating women and abolishing slavery. ours may very well be remembered for keeping our own homes clean, but little else.
in one case, we asked a guy and he said that if it was possible, he intended to stay in the flat for the rest of his life. that is, he intended to rent his room in the flat and share the other facilities (kitchen, bathroom) for the rest of his life. perhaps it is the small bubble that i lived in when i was in toronto, but i found that to be a very interesting statement.
you see, in toronto, i got the sense that it was almost assumed that the natural progression in your life is to own a property of some sort. a house, an apartment, a condo, a townhouse, a cottage, a cemetary plot - something. perhaps it's because we all studied "the apprenticeship of duddy kravitz" in school, where it was impressed upon us that a man without land is nothing. or perhaps we're a pragmatic group of people who believe owning property and having equity is more financially prudent than paying rent until the end of time (or at least, your time here on earth). but we do seem infatuated with this notion of ownership.
i'm sure there are plenty of people in toronto who will always rent. but i'm equally sure that it's a choice the people i know would publicly tolerate (in fine canadian fashion) and frown upon in private. in london, there are people who own properties, but probably an equal or larger proportion of the population who do not. here, renting forever is something that is quite widely accepted. in fact, it is assumed that you rent the flat in which you live unless you specify otherwise.
but this ownership of land and property also leads to an interesting contrast when it comes to shared spaces, such as the street, a park, or a church. we own our homes and cars and, in some cases, are fanatical about keeping them clean and tidy. but we're also decidedly less picky about how we treat shared spaces. the litter on the streets is testament to that. so is the gum that you accidentally step on. smokers, some of who may have pristine apartments and homes, are remarkably tolerant when it comes to the numerous butts that are scattered around their designated areas.
for a generation that loves to own things, there is a stark contrast when it comes to taking ownership, particularly of shared spaces. preceding generations are known for fighting wars, liberating women and abolishing slavery. ours may very well be remembered for keeping our own homes clean, but little else.
Friday, April 10, 2009
standards
here's something i found in my journal from last summer...
few people will admit that their standards are lower than those of others. there's something about our standards that we link to our rank or status in this world. if i have high standards, then it suggests that i know what is good and what is not. and if i have higher standards than those around me, then it must mean that i am better than them. a) i must know more than them, and b) it takes more to satisfy or please me - even if i don't hold myself to the same high standards in the things i do.
it's interesting how we can elevate our own status through being unhappy and disappointed. i would argue that having higher standards doesn't necessarily mean you're a more evolved person - it just means you're more likely to be miserable.
i think it's like what anton ego says at the end of the movie "ratatouille":
he's saying that being a critic is low risk because you can puff yourself up without ever offering anything up. you don't have to put yourself out there. you just have to declare your own disappointment. if you want to get a good example of how this works, simply tune in when they televise question period (government).
now, this isn't a condemnation of standards. nor is it an invitation to be blase about everything or to settle for mediocrity. but just to be aware of how and why we critique.
the best example of this is, naturally, God himself. He's got the highest standards of all: absolute perfection. after all, He is perfect. but in His perfection, he introduces grace and love. so He still has his high standards, but instead of disdaining us or succumbing to that very human trap called pride, He patiently and lovingly works with us to help us improve. sure, He gets frustrated and angry when we don't meet His standards. but it's more likely to test His patience when we simply don't care.
so the next time something doesn't match up to my expectations, i pray that i'll remember the grace and patience that i've been afforded so i, in turn, can extend the same grace to others.
few people will admit that their standards are lower than those of others. there's something about our standards that we link to our rank or status in this world. if i have high standards, then it suggests that i know what is good and what is not. and if i have higher standards than those around me, then it must mean that i am better than them. a) i must know more than them, and b) it takes more to satisfy or please me - even if i don't hold myself to the same high standards in the things i do.
it's interesting how we can elevate our own status through being unhappy and disappointed. i would argue that having higher standards doesn't necessarily mean you're a more evolved person - it just means you're more likely to be miserable.
i think it's like what anton ego says at the end of the movie "ratatouille":
In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.
he's saying that being a critic is low risk because you can puff yourself up without ever offering anything up. you don't have to put yourself out there. you just have to declare your own disappointment. if you want to get a good example of how this works, simply tune in when they televise question period (government).
now, this isn't a condemnation of standards. nor is it an invitation to be blase about everything or to settle for mediocrity. but just to be aware of how and why we critique.
the best example of this is, naturally, God himself. He's got the highest standards of all: absolute perfection. after all, He is perfect. but in His perfection, he introduces grace and love. so He still has his high standards, but instead of disdaining us or succumbing to that very human trap called pride, He patiently and lovingly works with us to help us improve. sure, He gets frustrated and angry when we don't meet His standards. but it's more likely to test His patience when we simply don't care.
so the next time something doesn't match up to my expectations, i pray that i'll remember the grace and patience that i've been afforded so i, in turn, can extend the same grace to others.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
forever xxi
whoever called the recession failed to notify several hundred women in the north toronto area.
this morning, i went with my wife to the grand opening of a store called forever xxi at fairview mall. fairview mall, the dominant mall in my early youth (due to the fact that it was geographically the most accessible), has been undergoing an overhaul in an attempt to attract a more upscale clientele. forever xxi is the latest in a wave of new stores that target this trendy set with, apparently, a fairly unlimited disposable income (more on that later).
first, let's break down some elements of the opening (this is the marketer in me). first the boards put up during the construction of the store pegged the grand opening to be around february 2009. actual opening: april 2009. keeping people waiting (my wife included) amps up the anticipation, excitement and desire. it may not have been intentional, but you can see it as helping the brand in some ways. i like it. one of my marketing profs told me that it's never a bad idea to "always keep someone's face pressed up against the window."
next, the offer. first 200 shoppers to enter the store receive a gift certificate. of course, no amount is specified in any of the marketing communications surrounding the opening. pretty ingenious. this is because it could be a large amount, the possibility of which increases the likelihood of a shopper considering to go for it. sure, it could be a small amount, but what if it isn't? classic fear of loss. it turns out the amounts were randomized and ranged from a small amount up to $250 (or at least that's what i heard other people saying).
my wife pointed out that the mall opens at 9:30am and the grand opening of the store was scheduled for 10:00am. the offer drew quite a number of ambitious shoppers. by the time we got to the mall, there was already a sizeable lineup. of course, we fell into the ambiguous range that may or may not have been past the 200 mark. so the offer drew a crowd. this crowd was, in turn, set up for other shoppers to see. nothing draws a crowd like a crowd. if you ask me, setting the grand opening a half hour after the rest of the mall opens was brilliant. draw in other normal shoppers (who may not have been exposed to the marcomm efforts) by using the existing crowd. the spectacle is born.
i could have done without the lame clapping from the store managers and staff at the cash register - either celebrate properly or not at all. but other than that, the opening seemed fairly successful. not so successful for my wife and i, because we ended up being 207th or so and missed out on the gift card. my fault, really. had i gotten out the door 15 minutes earlier, we probably would've scored.
the store itself was fairly large and brightly lit. there were several rooms built into the layout, some to mark a separate collection (e.g. twelve by twelve), and others for the type of clothing (e.g. shoes, men's clothing). accessories were en route to the cashiers, i think placed in hope of stimulating impulse purchases while waiting in line.
i think what struck me most, though, was how much merchandise was still hanging after several hundred ravenous young women had been in the store for half an hour. the lineup for the change rooms was pretty long and more than several girls had a pile of selections they had gleaned off the racks. but yet, the store didn't look anywhere close to empty, even without any apparent restocking efforts made by staff. it barely looked like it was touched. that was kind of scary. just how much stuff there was. and the fact that, despite this economic downturn, so many people are still so hungry for this stuff and eager to spend their money to get it.
this morning, i went with my wife to the grand opening of a store called forever xxi at fairview mall. fairview mall, the dominant mall in my early youth (due to the fact that it was geographically the most accessible), has been undergoing an overhaul in an attempt to attract a more upscale clientele. forever xxi is the latest in a wave of new stores that target this trendy set with, apparently, a fairly unlimited disposable income (more on that later).
first, let's break down some elements of the opening (this is the marketer in me). first the boards put up during the construction of the store pegged the grand opening to be around february 2009. actual opening: april 2009. keeping people waiting (my wife included) amps up the anticipation, excitement and desire. it may not have been intentional, but you can see it as helping the brand in some ways. i like it. one of my marketing profs told me that it's never a bad idea to "always keep someone's face pressed up against the window."
next, the offer. first 200 shoppers to enter the store receive a gift certificate. of course, no amount is specified in any of the marketing communications surrounding the opening. pretty ingenious. this is because it could be a large amount, the possibility of which increases the likelihood of a shopper considering to go for it. sure, it could be a small amount, but what if it isn't? classic fear of loss. it turns out the amounts were randomized and ranged from a small amount up to $250 (or at least that's what i heard other people saying).
my wife pointed out that the mall opens at 9:30am and the grand opening of the store was scheduled for 10:00am. the offer drew quite a number of ambitious shoppers. by the time we got to the mall, there was already a sizeable lineup. of course, we fell into the ambiguous range that may or may not have been past the 200 mark. so the offer drew a crowd. this crowd was, in turn, set up for other shoppers to see. nothing draws a crowd like a crowd. if you ask me, setting the grand opening a half hour after the rest of the mall opens was brilliant. draw in other normal shoppers (who may not have been exposed to the marcomm efforts) by using the existing crowd. the spectacle is born.
i could have done without the lame clapping from the store managers and staff at the cash register - either celebrate properly or not at all. but other than that, the opening seemed fairly successful. not so successful for my wife and i, because we ended up being 207th or so and missed out on the gift card. my fault, really. had i gotten out the door 15 minutes earlier, we probably would've scored.
the store itself was fairly large and brightly lit. there were several rooms built into the layout, some to mark a separate collection (e.g. twelve by twelve), and others for the type of clothing (e.g. shoes, men's clothing). accessories were en route to the cashiers, i think placed in hope of stimulating impulse purchases while waiting in line.
i think what struck me most, though, was how much merchandise was still hanging after several hundred ravenous young women had been in the store for half an hour. the lineup for the change rooms was pretty long and more than several girls had a pile of selections they had gleaned off the racks. but yet, the store didn't look anywhere close to empty, even without any apparent restocking efforts made by staff. it barely looked like it was touched. that was kind of scary. just how much stuff there was. and the fact that, despite this economic downturn, so many people are still so hungry for this stuff and eager to spend their money to get it.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
on bonuses
so there's a lot of talk in the news these days about bonuses, particularly those being paid out to executives of large financial institutions. the topic of bonuses has come up a number of times this past month. mainly because i had my performance review recently and also started discussing goals for this year with my boss, but it seems to be a recurrent theme in my life. it's gotten me to think about it a bit more. i've noticed that our attitudes towards bonuses is a reflection of the sense of entitlement that is slowly pervading our society. it doesn't always stem from avarice or a purely selfish attitude, but it's kind of scary to see how it's becoming almost (or fully) subconscious.
an example: in the course of my goal setting process, i presented my proposed goals to my manager. she remarked how i missed some things, such as setting the strategy for acquisition campaigns. but herein lies the difference in our approaches. she meant well, you see, and wanted to ensure that i was recognized for my accomplishments. however, setting the strategy for acquisiton campaigns is a core part of my job. the way i see it, i shouldn't receive a bonus for doing my job. that's what my salary is for. those are the terms: here is the job description and here is how much you will be paid to fill the role. i shouldn't be rewarded or recognized for doing something i was hired to do in the first place. if i didn't "accomplish" those things, i wouldn't be doing my job. in that case, not only should i not receive a bonus, i should be scheduled for some development.
the topic of bonuses also came up in a conversation with my friends the other day. my friend was saying how the bonus structure at his company was revised and he didn't feel he was getting enough money from his company. i noticed this trend in a conversation i had with one of my coworkers about a year ago - that is, the trend of seeing the bonus as part of what your company is paying you. she was saying that the bonus structure was something she considered when she moved to the company from another one. to be sure, even my current employer is quick to point out the "total compensation package" they give me, which is more than just salary and includes benefits, bonuses, etc. and i know people usually take these things into consideration when they make a decision on whether to accept an offer and it can sometimes be a deal-breaker.
but the part that gets me is the attitude towards the bonus. perhaps it's because we've been conditioned to see it as something that is as given as our salary. but it's not! if it was a certainty, then it'd be part of your salary. but a bonus is supposed to be just that - a bonus. if you don't get it, it should be okay, because you shouldn't have been banking on it anyway. yes, you can aspire to it and work hard towards attaining it - that's the point of having a bonus in the first place. but the second you slip into thinking that it's for sure or that it's owed to you, then you've lost the meaning of what a bonus is supposed to be. if you're not happy with how much you're compensated without your bonus, then you should negotiate for a higher salary!
a lot of people i know pay a lot of attention to the "market rate." that is, they are always checking to see whether they are receiving as much as they can in terms of compensation for their work. more often than not, it seems they believe they are underpaid (and vastly so). see, i've always been quite content with what i'm paid. it has always been more than i could ever ask for. i've never asked for a raise. i've also never negotiated for a higher raise when one has been granted to me. i simply enjoy my work and believe i receive adequate compensation for it - enough to eat and drink. could i be paid more? maybe, but i guess i've never really cared enough to look into it.
an example: in the course of my goal setting process, i presented my proposed goals to my manager. she remarked how i missed some things, such as setting the strategy for acquisition campaigns. but herein lies the difference in our approaches. she meant well, you see, and wanted to ensure that i was recognized for my accomplishments. however, setting the strategy for acquisiton campaigns is a core part of my job. the way i see it, i shouldn't receive a bonus for doing my job. that's what my salary is for. those are the terms: here is the job description and here is how much you will be paid to fill the role. i shouldn't be rewarded or recognized for doing something i was hired to do in the first place. if i didn't "accomplish" those things, i wouldn't be doing my job. in that case, not only should i not receive a bonus, i should be scheduled for some development.
the topic of bonuses also came up in a conversation with my friends the other day. my friend was saying how the bonus structure at his company was revised and he didn't feel he was getting enough money from his company. i noticed this trend in a conversation i had with one of my coworkers about a year ago - that is, the trend of seeing the bonus as part of what your company is paying you. she was saying that the bonus structure was something she considered when she moved to the company from another one. to be sure, even my current employer is quick to point out the "total compensation package" they give me, which is more than just salary and includes benefits, bonuses, etc. and i know people usually take these things into consideration when they make a decision on whether to accept an offer and it can sometimes be a deal-breaker.
but the part that gets me is the attitude towards the bonus. perhaps it's because we've been conditioned to see it as something that is as given as our salary. but it's not! if it was a certainty, then it'd be part of your salary. but a bonus is supposed to be just that - a bonus. if you don't get it, it should be okay, because you shouldn't have been banking on it anyway. yes, you can aspire to it and work hard towards attaining it - that's the point of having a bonus in the first place. but the second you slip into thinking that it's for sure or that it's owed to you, then you've lost the meaning of what a bonus is supposed to be. if you're not happy with how much you're compensated without your bonus, then you should negotiate for a higher salary!
"A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work."
+ ecclesiastes 2:24
a lot of people i know pay a lot of attention to the "market rate." that is, they are always checking to see whether they are receiving as much as they can in terms of compensation for their work. more often than not, it seems they believe they are underpaid (and vastly so). see, i've always been quite content with what i'm paid. it has always been more than i could ever ask for. i've never asked for a raise. i've also never negotiated for a higher raise when one has been granted to me. i simply enjoy my work and believe i receive adequate compensation for it - enough to eat and drink. could i be paid more? maybe, but i guess i've never really cared enough to look into it.
Monday, March 9, 2009
here's to less
i was reading marketing magazine today and came across a pretty good ad from debeers (you know, a diamond is forever). here's how it reads:
"our lives are filled with things. we're overwhelmed by possessions we own but do not treasure. stuff we buy but never love. to be thrown away in weeks rather than passed down for generations.
perhaps it will be different now. perhaps now is an opportunity to reassess what really matters. after all, if everything you ever bought her disappeared overnight, what would she truly miss?"
yes, yes, it's fairly ironic because it's still fundamentally based in consumerism and, at the end of the day, they want you to buy something. but put that aside and just let the words sink in for a bit, because they do ring with a certain measure of truth.
there has been a lot of commentary on the generation of consumers looking for instant gratification, and how we've become a society of users. our consumerist culture may have poisoned our attitudes so much that we now believe almost anything can be bought at a price. but many things (if not everything) are also seen as disposable. if it's broke, don't bother fixing it. just throw it out and buy a new (upgraded) one. which means we really don't treasure them.
if everything you owned disappeared overnight, what would you miss?
"our lives are filled with things. we're overwhelmed by possessions we own but do not treasure. stuff we buy but never love. to be thrown away in weeks rather than passed down for generations.
perhaps it will be different now. perhaps now is an opportunity to reassess what really matters. after all, if everything you ever bought her disappeared overnight, what would she truly miss?"
yes, yes, it's fairly ironic because it's still fundamentally based in consumerism and, at the end of the day, they want you to buy something. but put that aside and just let the words sink in for a bit, because they do ring with a certain measure of truth.
there has been a lot of commentary on the generation of consumers looking for instant gratification, and how we've become a society of users. our consumerist culture may have poisoned our attitudes so much that we now believe almost anything can be bought at a price. but many things (if not everything) are also seen as disposable. if it's broke, don't bother fixing it. just throw it out and buy a new (upgraded) one. which means we really don't treasure them.
if everything you owned disappeared overnight, what would you miss?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
