Virtual Insanity
Mon Jun 8, 2009 4:15pm EDT
By jonathan.weber - The Big Money
Telecommuting is one of the signature game-changers of the information age, leveling out geography and creating all kinds of working relationships that had never been possible.
NewWest.Net is almost a paradigm of a semivirtual organization, with employees and contractors scattered around the West-and yet constantly in contact via e-mail, instant messaging, Skype, and the telephone.
But if someone in the Missoula, Mont., office wants to work from home without a very good reason, I have a simple answer: No. And if we're hiring, we prefer to recruit people who can come into the office every day, even if the job could be done from anywhere.
Years of experience with far-flung organizations have taught me more about the limits of telecommuting than about its advantages. I firmly believe that you should expect employees to show up for work, whenever possible, no matter what kind of company.
The reasons for this have nothing to do with checking that people are actually working. It's about efficient communications, building company culture and camaraderie, and sharing the daily bits of work and personal experiences that create a shared sense of purpose.
For starters, all the telecommunications tools and document-sharing systems in the world are no substitute for the simple act of walking over to someone's desk and pointing to something on a screen or asking a question. It's almost always quicker than any technological alternative, and there's little room for confusion.
This issue increases when more people participate in a task. Coordinating input from three or four or five people via e-mail is a recipe for errors and misunderstanding. And conference calls are so far inferior to face-to-face meetings that I barely bother with them at all. Rather than the collective engagement of a good meeting, you end up with people half-listening while they catch up on e-mail. Plus lots of awkward silences.
The little day-to-day stuff can matter more than you think. In our small office, we don't have a full-time receptionist, and everyone takes turns answering the phones. If we need stamps or office supplies, someone has to run to the post office or the store. If we need to chase away the bums that like to hang out in the alley by the door, it's always good to have a little backup. If only a few people are in the office while others are working from home, resentment can build quickly.
And the problems grow with distance. Before I launched NewWest.Net, I worked a brief stint overseeing a group of reporters in Europe from my home in Missoula. This did not work at all. With my team eight time zones away, it was impossible to work closely. And the 20-hour, three-leg flight to visit got old very fast. Even at more modest ranges, there's a disconnect when one person is finishing breakfast and chatting about the sunny day while a colleague is getting ready to head out to lunch in the snow.
Obviously there are plenty of situations where you just have to suck it up and deal with these complexities. Our Boise, Ind., editor needs to be in Boise. We draw strength from having reporters and salespeople on the ground across the region-in fact, it's central to our business model. And for the best talent, you often have to compromise, even if that means hiring someone far away or letting them work from home.
But do not make such compromises lightly. And when you do, try to find as many reasons as possible to get people together. A company retreat can be very useful even if it accomplishes no other purpose. If someone has a deal to work from home, ask them to come by the office as often as possible. Bring the out-of-towners to the home office whenever you can afford to. If you want everyone on the same page, start with having them in the same place.
[Face to face interaction is irreplaceable. No doubt. But restricting ourselves to face to face interaction as a form of communication is like sticking fingers in ears, closing eyes, and walking five miles over to the next farmhouse - it was once the only way, but it is no longer.
Virtual organizations, supported by the networked technologies available, are able to accommodate the mobility, immediacy, and multitasking reality of today's work and home life. And that's not a bad thing.
What's important is knowing WHEN and HOW to use technology to improve communications. For example, the likelihood that I, or anyone else whose primary connection to the news is via blog posts and google alerts, would have read this Luddite's ranting, is slim without the dissemination of metatags. So, really, can it unless you're planning to talk to me face to face.]
6.09.2009
Not about the hardware
At least Apple understands this: the race to $0 will always happen in the physical technology. The ideas are, however, increasingly valuable.
6.07.2009
Damn Diana Hughes!
This woman is a gamerock star!
Here's a little commentary on the impressions she made at E3.
I mean... Awwww!
Here's a little commentary on the impressions she made at E3.
I mean... Awwww!
6.05.2009
Greenspan told US so
Addressing Systemic Risk
Remarks by Alan Greenspan
By Alan Greenspan | American Enterprise Institute
(June 03, 2009)
On June 3, 2009, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan spoke at an AEI conference on systemic risk. Participants discussed the pros and cons of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's plan to create a systemic risk regulator for the financial system. Mr. Greenspan's full remarks as prepared for delivery are available here as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.
Alan Greenspan Smiling
Former Federal Reserve
Chairman Alan Greenspan
Risk of system-wide breakdown is an unavoidable characteristic of market economies. So long as there is a division of labor and, hence, private trading counterparties, the possibility of systemic failure cannot be eliminated. Financial institutions that require significant leverage to yield an adequate rate of return on equity are especially prone to a disabling "run on the bank." A depository institution depends on investors' willingness to hold its liabilities, knowing full well that if all lenders attempted to withdraw their monies at the same time, the bank or thrift would fail.
Only an institution whose assets are overnight riskless Treasury bills or their equivalent can consistently fend off failure. But no private institution could fund that portfolio, except at a loss. Thus, financial institutions, to profit, must hold portfolios of risky assets in order to obtain a rate of return in excess of private borrowing costs. And for such institutions to be consistently profitable, their portfolio must be successfully diversified.
Banking has always been a game of inducing depositors, or in earlier centuries note holders, to fund bank assets. In the 1840s, for example, U.S. commercial banks had to maintain a capital buffer in excess of 50% of assets in order to create willing holders of their notes. In modern times, this necessary capital buffer has dwindled, reflecting improved information availability and the existence of various government safety nets. However, even with deposit insurance and activist monetary authorities, many banks and other financial intermediaries, have failed, sometimes with disastrous systemic consequences.
Remarks by Alan Greenspan
By Alan Greenspan | American Enterprise Institute
(June 03, 2009)
On June 3, 2009, former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan spoke at an AEI conference on systemic risk. Participants discussed the pros and cons of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's plan to create a systemic risk regulator for the financial system. Mr. Greenspan's full remarks as prepared for delivery are available here as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.
Alan Greenspan Smiling
Former Federal Reserve
Chairman Alan Greenspan
Risk of system-wide breakdown is an unavoidable characteristic of market economies. So long as there is a division of labor and, hence, private trading counterparties, the possibility of systemic failure cannot be eliminated. Financial institutions that require significant leverage to yield an adequate rate of return on equity are especially prone to a disabling "run on the bank." A depository institution depends on investors' willingness to hold its liabilities, knowing full well that if all lenders attempted to withdraw their monies at the same time, the bank or thrift would fail.
Only an institution whose assets are overnight riskless Treasury bills or their equivalent can consistently fend off failure. But no private institution could fund that portfolio, except at a loss. Thus, financial institutions, to profit, must hold portfolios of risky assets in order to obtain a rate of return in excess of private borrowing costs. And for such institutions to be consistently profitable, their portfolio must be successfully diversified.
Banking has always been a game of inducing depositors, or in earlier centuries note holders, to fund bank assets. In the 1840s, for example, U.S. commercial banks had to maintain a capital buffer in excess of 50% of assets in order to create willing holders of their notes. In modern times, this necessary capital buffer has dwindled, reflecting improved information availability and the existence of various government safety nets. However, even with deposit insurance and activist monetary authorities, many banks and other financial intermediaries, have failed, sometimes with disastrous systemic consequences.
6.03.2009
Murdering murderers is ok by god
Media: Tiller a Martyr, Abortion Not Killing and Pro-Lifers are Crazy
By Colleen Raezler
June 2, 2009 - 09:55 ET
George Tiller, the Kansas doctor notorious for his commitment to performing late-term abortions, was killed May 31 while attending a Sunday morning church service.
By his count, Tiller performed 60,000 abortions. His clinic, Women's Health Care Services in Wichita, was one of only three clinics in the United States that offered abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy.
Loss of human life is a tragedy and should be reported as such, and premeditated murder is always wrong - something all the mainstream pro-life groups were quick to affirm in the wake of the killing. But in reporting this tragic story, the news media have much to say about a man who helped provide women with the "right" to end their pregnancies, but have little to say about lives he helped to end. In failing to highlight what Tiller's work actually entailed, reporters do nothing to help their audience understand why this man was targeted.
Noncontextual gendered typing
Post a Comment
Posted by: alan h
June 1, 2009 4:49 PM
So essentially, women want from technology pretty much similar things to what men want! I know, I know, the marketing folks out there will think it's madness, but you know? I think this study just might be on to something...
Posted by: alan h
June 1, 2009 4:49 PM
So essentially, women want from technology pretty much similar things to what men want! I know, I know, the marketing folks out there will think it's madness, but you know? I think this study just might be on to something...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)