Shroud of Turin - March 24, 2005

Fresh Claim that Shroud of Turin is Fake
Wilson's Web Site
Porter's Webs Site

Do you believe that the Shroud of Turin is real or not? Does it affect your faith?

Wilson argues that the Shroud is a fake, though he has no scientific evidence to support it. However, even if it is fake, Wilson claims that it does not affect his beliefs about the resurrection. He believes Jesus died and arose, whether the Shroud of Turin plays into the reality of that event or not.

But what about you? Have you ever heard of the Shroud of Turin? How does it affect your beliefs?

To me, the New Testament and Jesus' life do not have to be scientifically proven for me to believe. Likewise, the flood, the Garden of Eden, creation -- these are aspects of my faith that I believe because I believe, not because you can prove them to me scientifically.

How often we get hung up on scientific evidence and the need to prove or disprove aspects of our faith and Christianity. I am still young, but I am fairly certain that that is not the point of faith and belief. We are supposed to believe, sometimes in spite of direct evidence to the contrary.

Who knows what they will decide on the Shroud of Turin, whether it is authentic or not. But for me, it does not really matter in terms of my belief.

powered by performancing firefox

West Wing - March 23, 2005

And so the social commentary continues. Topics for tonight included:

• Raising the Federal minimum wage
  
  
• Abortion
  
  
• Religion as a criteria for electing officials
  
  
• Corruption in government
  
  
• Corruption in political campaigns
  
  

So
raising the Federal minimum wage, that is a big issue, but something
that surprisingly our real politicians seem unwilling or unable to do
anything about. I continue to wonder why we are not talking about a
"living wage," but perhaps that will be another episode.



Abortion -- I am not even going to touch this one.



Religion
as a criteria for electing officials. Corruption in political
campaigns. Interesting topics. I am not surprised that people are
concerned about the morality of their elected officials. I am not
particularly surprised that they are interested in the worship habits
of their elected representatives. What I am surprised at is that the
populace are so easily sucked in at an obvious photo op where an
elected official, such as President Bush, makes a point of obvious
religious behavior, without any true demonstration of their faith. I
think that it is easy to stand in front of a camera and microphone and
talk about Christian values, but where are those values when you sent
our troops overseas to fight a war we did not need to be fighting at
that time, if at all? Where are your Christian values when it comes to
giving to charitable organizations? Do we really believe that Bush
gives until it hurts? When is faith going to be what it is supposed to
be, instead of a tool to get more votes?



What an interesting and thought-provoking evening of television it has been.

powered by performancing firefox

Social Commentary

Yet another repost, deriving from March 23, 2005.



I find it interesting how "coincidental"
things can be sometimes. With Terry Schiavo being one of the hottest
news items, we find that tonight's eposide of American Dreams is
about Jack's decision whether to keep his brother alive on a respirator
after a brain-damaging accident. I wonder whether this is intentional
or not. Interestingly, Jack relays to his wife verbally that he wants
to be taken off the machine if it happens to him.



So what is the message? Are they commenting on Terry's right to die? Or are they commenting that she should be saved?



West Wing
has a habit of commenting on the social/political issues of the day.
They seem to be very current on what the issues are, and they have a
distinctly liberal view of how the problems should be solved. And
perhaps they are not so incorrect about their assessments.
Surprisingly, the real government does not seem to take its cue from West Wing, no matter how right their commentary on the issue may be.



Television
and the movies have a profound ability to communicate about
social/political/economic issues. These mediums have the ability to
reach a broader spectrum of the masses than even the news does, and
they do it subtly, almost submliminally. We watch, eyes glued to the
screen, and usually only later (if at all) do we analyze that which we
have watched. Particularly among our youth, peoples' views are formed
based on what they watch and are conditioned to accept based on what
they have seen. The power that television and movies have over the
masses is unbelievable, and almost scary.



Do I really think that
people are so mind-numbed that any idea professed on the TV is
automatically accepted? No. But when you watch it over and over, on
show after show, movie after movie, you become conditioned to the view,
to what you are watching, and gradually a greater acceptance for it
sinks in. Once upon a time, a television show about a gay person was
unheard of. Now, one of the most popular TV shows is Will Grace,
which has two gay main characters. I do not think that that means
society as a whole has become significantly more accepting and
understanding of gay relationships. But given time, who knows what will
happen?



So almost 30 minutes later, and they did pull the plug
on Jack's brother. Commentary? I suspect so. But will the right people
hear this message, and take it to heart? Unlikely. Sadly, most people
who watch this episode will fail to draw the correlation with Terry
Schiavo. What a shame.

powered by performancing firefox

Called to Christianity

Yet another repost. This one derives from March 22, 2005.



I think we, as humans, have difficulty understanding what Christianity
really is. We spend significant amounts of time trying to interpret and
define that Christianity, whether we acknowledge we are doing that or
not. So many Christians are convinced that Christianity is clear-cut,
black and white. And maybe in some ways it is, but probably not in the
ways most of us think that it is.



Let me argue for a moment. If
I describe an object as "blue", what "blue" do you picture? Is it
necessarily the same blue that I saw? What if I saw sapphire blue, and
you perceive it as teal? Have I accurately conveyed to you the exact
shade of blue? Even if I were more explicit, without spectral analysis
values, accurately describing the shade of blue is next to impossible.



And
yet, many people argue that the language of the Bible is literal, even
while recognizing that it is translated from a language that has four
different words for our single word "love". People believe that the
Bible is to be taken literally in its full completeness, except where
it would challenge how they live their lives. For example, if you
accept that the Bible must be taken literally, you cannot interpret
away the myriad of laws laid out in the Old Testament.



Can you
really take the Bible literally in its entirety? Can you really abide
by everything the Bible states? And is that necessarily the point of
the Bible in the first place?



I think the clarity that I have
personally found is contained within two statements Jesus made. First,
love God above all things. Second, love your neighbor as yourself.



The
first statement is pretty clear, though difficult to follow perhaps. It
is not easy to always put God first, and to love him above all things.
One of the hardest things for us to do is "let go, and let God," yet we
are called by God to do so. We may be slow to acknowledge it, but God
is ever present, guiding us, molding us into the people he wants us to
be, if we would just let him.



The second statement is also hard
to follow, and perhaps not as clear when we look beneath the surface.
Loving your neighbor does not mean always saying "yes." Sometimes,
loving your neighbor can fall into the "tough love" category, where you
provide support, but advise a different direction. I have certainly
experienced some "no" experiences in my life, both where God told me
"no," as well as where friends and family have as well. That does not
mean they did not love me -- in fact, it derives from their love.



Part
of what got me thinking about this topic is Terry Schiavo. Terry
Schiavo, as we are probably all aware, is the topic of heated political
debate and judicial battles. While Christians are arguing about her
right to life, they are not asking what kind of life it is. Terry is
vegetable with no hope of recovery, whatsoever. The news media is an
unwitting (or perhaps willing) accomplice in keeping Terry alive
against her verbally expressed wishes. Even if she were to continue
living, what kind of life is it? Do you really think that she is there,
locked up inside, able to enjoy a bedridden life, surviving only by the
aid of a feeding tube? Do you honestly think that it is a loving
gesture to keep her alive in this state?



Mind you, I use Terry
Schiavo as an example. I could as easily use as an example the stranded
motorist on the side of the road that you ignore as you drive past at
70mph. Or the homeless person asking for 50 cents for a meal. Or the
neighbor that needs help shoveling the snow from their drive after a
snowstorm. Whatever the example, do you really love your neighbor as
yourself?



Someone proposed to me the "Platinum Rule" instead of
the "Golden Rule." Instead of treating others as we would want to be
treated, perhaps we should treat them as they would want to be treated.
I mean, do you really think your spouse wants to watch all of the same
TV shows as you? I know I drive my wife crazy with some of the shows I
watch on TV. Try to apply the Platinum Rule in your dealings with
others, and perhaps the world will be a little better place in the
future.

powered by performancing firefox

Organizational Confusion, Inefficiency and Struggle - Part 2 (2007)

So you might ask, what has changed since 2005. Here are some of the things that changed:

• I am still struggling to hold my world together, but for different reasons. I am in the process of a divorce, and those never make life simple.
• I am two months from graduation (MBA)
• I was so wrong about the premiere service offering -- it has helped my career, not harmed it
• I am the chairperson for a global committee at my company
• Our Cincinnati facility was outsourced and very few people remain
• I am now a manager, instead of a grunt
  
  
  

So what has not changed?

• Management still does not invest substantially in the development of its employees as a general rule
• Advancement still comes very slowly, and in my case, barely seems to be a crawl
• Because people are not able to move on and take on new challenges, inefficiencies still exist, resulting in sub-par performance and, in the case of Cincinnati, outsourcing of the functions in that office

So what new observations do I have?



My original post in 2005 was a disgruntled, semi-ignorant view of the world as I knew it. It was as much a gripe session as it was thought provoking. However, I think some observations hold true. First, I am true maverick when it comes to the work I do and manage, but I am not a maverick when it comes time to fight for my own cause (pay, title, advancement) with my management structure. At those times, I am a good little citizen who accepts whatever comes my way. This must change.



Managers most definitely like to maintain status quo -- it is easier, even if it is not the best route. This means they will, as a general rule, not promote unless they have to, not move people within the organization unless they have to, and will avoid change because of the cost associated with it, even if it is just the time cost of sitting down and investing. Status quo, by the way, is often the fastest way to sub-par performance and eventual IRIF/VRIF situations.



The stagnation and struggling of XGS, Inc. did not last several years. Two years later, XGS, Inc. is no more, and has been fairly well absorbed into the Xerox mothership. The reorganizations come approximately every 6-12 months still, though that is certainly a Xerox phenomenon anyway. Many inefficiencies remain, but they are often masked by reorganization and shifting of labor from one region to another. XGS, Inc. did do itself in, though some of us still remain. Xerox, however, is a stronger organization with the potential to really get things together if we can all attain global alignment.



What can I say at this point? Xerox, like many other large organizations (or frankly all large organizations), is not perfect, and has its challenges, strengths, and weaknesses. As a whole, I feel that Xerox is a very strong organization with the opportunity to be a real competitor. My division's weakness is the seeming unwillingness to cooperate and drive efficiency and process improvement, despite the fact that we are a Lean Six Sigma house. My challenge, then, is to become a voice for the change and improvement, and help drive it home. So far, I feel I have done an exceptional job at that. Now it is time for some formal recognition, which of course means I need to do it a few more times. How my future turns out is highly dependent upon my perspective today, my goals, my vision, and my ability to deliver. Pizza anyone?

powered by performancing firefox

Organizational Confusion, Inefficiency and Struggle

This posting is a re-posting of a post made two years ago on my LiveJournal blog. As I am taking that down, I am transferring some of the old posts to here. However, I find that the situation I was experiencing then is not so different than what I am experiencing now.



One semester down, several to go. Xavier is certainly a challenging program to study my MBA at. Definitely, 11 credits was too many to take in my first semester. This summer already feels a little more relaxing, even though it is not by much.



I have tried thus far to make my journal thought provoking and interesting. I have no idea whether I have succeeded or not. I have enjoyed writing the posts I have written so far. I find though, at this point that perhaps my journal should also include some personal experiences, which it really has not to this point. Why I am going out of my way to explain this, I am not sure, but I felt that it was an important thing to do.



I am struggling to hold my world together. Work has become more demanding, and more challenging in terms of time constraints, but does not seem to be becoming the more well-rounded experience I would have hoped it would as I have proceeded in my studies. Much of what I do is the same old, same old. As I seek out new challenges and opportunities, doors seem to be only cracked, not opened. I do not think that management is strongly focused on advancing me or any of the other employees in my branch. I am not clear on whether this is a function of the state of the business, or an apathy towards the development and advancement of employees. I do know that a number of other employees also seek advancement, and they definitely find the doors slammed closed in their faces.



What concerns me is this: in today's business setting, what makes a company successful and viable is the human talent and resources it possesses. Anymore, an organization cannot simply hire any warm body and hope to succeed. Employees need to be valued, developed, and advanced along their careers. Talent is not inherent in all people, and an affinity towards certain job functions definitely is hard to develop. Some people are really into finance, but most are not. Some people really show talent in technology fields, others do not. Yet, organizations seem to be relatively ineffective at matching up talent with job function, at matching up career path with employee career goals. This would seem to be one of the most important functions within the organization, and yet this strategic function is often low on the list of priorities.



I currently work on one of our premiere service offerings. I definitely have a talent at it, and am a hard worker. Yet it does not align with my career goal, except in the fact that it gives me experience in an area I would enjoy managing. Will the management opportunity ever appear? Who knows. This is the dilemma I struggle with. Other people have untapped talents and would be very interested in entering into this service area, but are blocked because the company does not want to release them from their current function. Why? Because managers do not like change, and do not like to replace good workers with unknown variables. The problem is, the organization will lose that employee eventually anyway, because they will find work elsewhere doing something they enjoy. Why not keep that talent in-house? This confuses me.



I spent many years studying the behaviors and decisions of managers around me, always tempered with the perspective of learning from what they do, what their successes are, and what their failures are. I continued that study as I began and finished my Bachelor's degree. Now I am progressing through my MBA, and I struggle because I feel I have learned a lot from these managers, but have failed to move onward in my career despite my extensive experience and knowledge. Is it a personality defect that holds me back? Unlikely. I think it is the status quo, and the determination of ineffective managers trying to maintain it even when it is not in the best interests of the business.



I am a complete maverick. I break the rules, I rock the boat. I say the things that others will not say, I do the things that others will not do. Out of this maverick behavior, I have had many recognized successes. I am, by all accounts, a valued employee. Yet I think managers fear that, with power, I will disrupt their status quo and shake their world up. Surprise surprise, I would definitely seek to do that, within reason. My most hated phrase in business is "We've always done it that way." Why? Because it lacks the committment to total quality and continual improvement that all organizations, whether for or not for profit, should have.



I think the end result is that my employer will ultimately stagnate and struggle for many years, and may go through a number of reorganizations and downsizings, before the mother organization wipes out the remaining vestiges of the former organization and makes us simply another branch of the mother organization. I see a future where XGS, Inc. becomes simply Xerox, and our prior ineffectiveness gets brought into the ineffective Xerox whole. While I do not think that Xerox is in a downward spiral, I do feel that it has a long way to go to be able to effectively compete in its various markets. I think what has held Xerox up for so long is the constant innovation and development of new core competencies out of which it can charge premium prices to make up for its ineffective pricing on mature services and products. However, that can only get you so far. Innovation is good, but without sustainable business practices and efficient processes and policies, an organization will become bloated and cost heavy, and unable to compete in a global marketplace.



So, I wait. I hope that before I complete my MBA opportunities will arise that will allow me to advance within Xerox. But that hope may be an empty hope. What the future holds is uncertain and vague. However, armed with experience and an MBA, I should be able to kick down some doors elsewhere and find an opportunity that I will find challenging and fulfilling. One can only hope, dream, and work hard I suppose.

powered by performancing firefox

More Nightime Musings - King Arthur, Trust, and Romance

Of all the times to be up late. This has been one hell of an evening. I had a really unexpected, but good, talk with a new friend, and I renewed a friendship with two old friends. I seem to be doing a lot of chasing around these days, trying to meet new people and renew friendships, with mixed and unusual results. But, I suppose that is a sign of the times -- nothing stays constant, right?



So here's the deal. It's very easy to flirt and attract someone's attention. It's very difficult to maintain it and develop it into a real relationship, be it as a friendship, a romance, or a business relationship. It's hard these days to get people to invest in a relationship, regardless of age, gender, or social status. People are generally distrustful, selfish, and unwilling to open up and share who they are with another. Building trust is not as simple as just "trusting" someone, you have to invest, you have to prove yourself to another, you have to be man or woman enough to trust first without proof that the other is worthy.



I read a good book about virtual leadership that dealt with trust. It defined several behaviors that will build trust, and used examples from King Arthur's time as symbols of types of trusting activities. The book is Virtual Leadership: Secrets from the Round Table for the Multi-Site Manager by Jaclyn Kostner, Ph.D. I highly recommend this book, but the following examples help summarize Kostner's approach:

• Excalibur - in the shape of a T, Excalibur is to remind us not of might and power, but of trust. It takes a stronger, more powerful leader to set down the sword than to pick it up.
• The Round Table - a symbolic reminder of the necessary communication that trust is built on
• Mentoring - mentoring builds trust through the sharing of knowledge
• Championing - championing the cause of another builds trust because it shows investment in the individual being championed
• Vision - common vision builds trust and cooperation between individuals

So how do you apply that to a romantic relationship? In much the same way. Excalibur holds true in a romantic relationship, in that might and power have no business in a romantic relationship -- it should be a common collaborative relationship. The Round Table also applies, as communication is key to any strong relationship, be it romantic or otherwise. Mentoring, or teaching the other about ourselves, is a strong way to foster and develop a common understanding. Championing, or taking up the other's cause, can apply in a relationship via support for the other's challenges and problems. And finally, Vision is important in that it is a shared perspective on the future plans and dreams of the couple.



Be it friendship or romantic relationship or business relationship, these five concepts are useful, practical, and show where we clearly go wrong in our interpersonal relationships. All too often we become selfish and see things only through our own eyes, without looking to see the other's viewpoint. We fight for our own cause, but fail to provide adequate support to our friends, and our loves. We miscommunicate regularly, resulting in gaps, or chasms, between us. All of this is able to be fixed, but we have to want to invest. Willingness and desire to invest are perhaps the biggest key to all of this -- you have to want it.



So where do I fall in all of this? I would say I struggle with Excalibur -- the sword feels too comfortable in my hands sometimes, particularly at work. The Round Table is an area of strength for me, though I struggle, as a technogeek, to be understood. Mentoring is something I am good at, even with the unwilling mentee. It just takes time. Championing is perhaps an area of struggle, in that it is easier to fight my own cause, and I have been guided for so many years to be clear about not including others perspectives/commitment to the cause without first ensuring that they are in fact committed. And finally Vision -- I can build a common vision, but it does take time, and it requires the foundation of the first four categories before the vision can take hold.



I am making this post and leaving this mark on my own personal history tonight as a means of being able to come back and remember this evening. Tonight I learned more about who I am, and who I want to be. Mostly, who I am is who I want to be, minus a couple of tweaks. At any rate, here is my bookmark, to remind me of a truly unusual evening that lasted into the wee hours of the morning.

powered by performancing firefox