Two Texans were seated at the end of a bar when a young lady seated a few stools away began to choke on a piece of hamburger. She was turning blue and was obviously in serious respiratory distress.
One cowboy said to the other, "That girl is having a rough time."
The other agreed and said, "Think we should help?"
"You bet." said the first.
He ran over to the woman and asked, "Can you breathe?"
She shook her head no. "Can you speak?"
She shook her head no again. With that, the cowboy pulled up her skirt and licked her on the buttocks. The woman was so shocked, she coughed up the obstruction and began to breathe with great relief.
Returning to his friend, the Texan said, "Funny how that hind lick maneuver works every time."
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
When you're riding a dead horse...
The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.
In my leadership training, I have learned that a whole range of far more advanced strategies are employed, such as:
- Buying a stronger whip.
- Changing riders.
- Threatening the horse with termination.
- Appointing a committee to study the horse.
- Arranging to visit other countries to see how others ride dead horses.
- Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
- Re-classifying the dead horse as "living impaired".
- Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
- Harnessing several dead horses together to increase the speed.
- Providing additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.
- Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.
- Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead, and
therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other
horses.
- Re-writing the expected performance requirements for all horses.
- Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.
Does any of this sound familiar to you?
In my leadership training, I have learned that a whole range of far more advanced strategies are employed, such as:
- Buying a stronger whip.
- Changing riders.
- Threatening the horse with termination.
- Appointing a committee to study the horse.
- Arranging to visit other countries to see how others ride dead horses.
- Lowering the standards so that dead horses can be included.
- Re-classifying the dead horse as "living impaired".
- Hiring outside contractors to ride the dead horse.
- Harnessing several dead horses together to increase the speed.
- Providing additional funding and/or training to increase the dead horse's performance.
- Doing a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.
- Declaring that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead, and
therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other
horses.
- Re-writing the expected performance requirements for all horses.
- Promoting the dead horse to a supervisory position.
Does any of this sound familiar to you?
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Did he need killin'?
As a manager, I have, over the years, had to resort to the disciplinary action process with some employees. It is certainly not my preference to go this route, and, fortunately, I have been lucky enough to work with staffs over the years where the majority were solid and reliable.
Rather than reprimands, suspensions, and terminations, I prefer to work with people to help them to modify behaviors. Sitting down with someone for a quiet chat in private, one can have a discussion about the perceived issue and hopefully enlist the employees help in correcting the concern.
That being said, this does not always work and it can be quite challenging sometimes to hold someone accountable. I believe very strongly in treating everyone equally regarding accountability. In order to do that, one needs to have clear expectations that are communicated to all. Unfortunately, we do not always have the tools we need to do this. I have worked in places that have had no standard for attendance, for example. People can call off sick with staggering frequency, but they are not violating any policy in doing so. People's interpersonal interactions can run the entire spectrum from extremely rude to polite and respectful, but is influenced to a high degree by subjectivity that can be highly variable.
The decision to go the disciplinary action route can be made for you based upon the severity or frequency of the offense. Falsifying a time sheet or being negligent that results in harm to someone are pretty definitely going to require more than an informal chat.
Thinking about this, I am reminded of a story told long ago in one of my management training classes. A good ol' boy Sheriff was called to the scene of a murder in Mississippi. Upon arriving on the scene, the first question he asked his deputy was, "Well, did he need killin'?" In considering disciplinary action, I ask myself whether or not it is needed. Fortunately, most often it is not.
Most of the time, people do things right. If they didn't, not much would work in this world and those of us who were managers would hate our jobs. If disciplinary action is necessary, do it, but answer the question as to whether or not it is necessary.
So, the next time you are faced with a difficult challenge that may require an unpopular decision, remember the Sheriff, and ask yourself: Does he need killin'?
Rather than reprimands, suspensions, and terminations, I prefer to work with people to help them to modify behaviors. Sitting down with someone for a quiet chat in private, one can have a discussion about the perceived issue and hopefully enlist the employees help in correcting the concern.
That being said, this does not always work and it can be quite challenging sometimes to hold someone accountable. I believe very strongly in treating everyone equally regarding accountability. In order to do that, one needs to have clear expectations that are communicated to all. Unfortunately, we do not always have the tools we need to do this. I have worked in places that have had no standard for attendance, for example. People can call off sick with staggering frequency, but they are not violating any policy in doing so. People's interpersonal interactions can run the entire spectrum from extremely rude to polite and respectful, but is influenced to a high degree by subjectivity that can be highly variable.
The decision to go the disciplinary action route can be made for you based upon the severity or frequency of the offense. Falsifying a time sheet or being negligent that results in harm to someone are pretty definitely going to require more than an informal chat.
Thinking about this, I am reminded of a story told long ago in one of my management training classes. A good ol' boy Sheriff was called to the scene of a murder in Mississippi. Upon arriving on the scene, the first question he asked his deputy was, "Well, did he need killin'?" In considering disciplinary action, I ask myself whether or not it is needed. Fortunately, most often it is not.
Most of the time, people do things right. If they didn't, not much would work in this world and those of us who were managers would hate our jobs. If disciplinary action is necessary, do it, but answer the question as to whether or not it is necessary.
So, the next time you are faced with a difficult challenge that may require an unpopular decision, remember the Sheriff, and ask yourself: Does he need killin'?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)