The car manufacturer Kia has been running an ad recently that I absolutely love. Because I can't put my finger on exactly what about the ad I love, I've been picking away at the ad and my response to it for the past few days. In brief, the ad shows a bunch of children's toys, enlarged to adult human size, taking on Vegas. As an ad, I'm uncertain of the intended effect, or if it achieves what it set out to do. The ad doesn't make me want to buy a car, let alone specifically a Kia. But I can see where the positive feelings I have for the ad could spill over into my emotions towards Kia, a company I've previously associated with plastic cars, good for someone's first car maybe, but not one I'd probably ever buy.
So why do I like the ad? A lot of reasons. I like the whimsy of the premise: what if your toys were people and did things that people do. I like the cleverness of the details: the sock monkey gets a tattoo that is sewn in with a needle and thread. I like the cinematography of the ad: it's like watching a thirty second art film. The arrangement of the elements in each frame, the bold colors, the use of different speeds for the action. One section grabs me every time: the five toys are walking into a building together, fanned out, with the red one eyed alien (apparently Muno from Yo Gabba Gabba) in center front. The shot is slowed down just slightly and you can feel the swagger in the toys' walk. But I think the real reason I like this ad so much has to do with the message I take away from it. The ad shows a bunch of children's toys going wild, being bad. With the backdrop of the music lyrics saying, "How you like me now," it reminds us that you never know what others are thinking or capable of. Even the most seemingly harmless individual could one day cast off the restraints society puts on them and act out. And it reminds all of us seemingly harmless individuals that we could one day act on the thoughts in their head, saying, "How you like me now?"
Author's Note: I'll be honest, I've been debating whether or not to write about this topic for a few days. Mostly because I do not want to become one of those navel gazing self obsessed bloggers that everyone makes fun of. But two things swayed my decision. First, this blog has already strayed from my original vision of what it would be. So, since it’s already not the professional level blog I thought I'd be writing, what difference does it make if some of my posts are more self reflective? Second, I titled this blog Life Analyzed because it was a good description of my thought processes and the way I approach the world. How applicable would the title be if I didn't every now and then give my readers a glimpse of the ridiculous depth of analysis I give even the most banal of subjects? And third, although it wasn't really a swaying factor, the subject matter really did push me to go outside the restraints I'd put on myself. So, how you like me now?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Setting Priorities
It will probably come as no surprise that my husband and I discuss our jobs and work together. It allows us to consolidate our thoughts and opinions on issues at work, and provides an outsider's opinion and solutions that we would not otherwise have been able to obtain. One of the topics we have discussed on more than one occasion is managing millenials. Personally, I'm not really of the opinion that generations make for huge differences in work ethic and personality. I think a lot of the complaints older generations have about millenials can be chalked up to inexperience, rather than some generational psychology. I also think the ideas the younger generations embrace have more to do with culture change than generational differences. At the same time, there are things in the work environment that younger generations seem to have a harder time grasping or working with.
One thing I've noticed about millenials is that they have difficulty setting priorities. A lot of this is inexperience. Whenever you start a new job, you have to determine which work is more important. And it's not always easy. In a perfect world, priority levels would be based on the urgency or need for the finished product, but in reality, office politics, company policies and client demands can alter the order in which things get done. However, millenials have an obsession with priorities. When given a list of tasks with equal priority, they want their manager to tell them in exactly what order they should perform the tasks. It can cause a mutual frustration between manager and employee - the manager because they just want the work to get done, they don't care about the order; the employee because they feel a need to achieve and think that they cannot unless the tasks are done in the right order. On the other hand managers can get in trouble for setting priorities. Give your employee too many top priority tasks and they may think they're authorized for overtime. Give an employee a low priority task and it ends up never getting done. As my husband says, if it's low priority that means you can check facebook before doing it. It's actually the low priority tasks that get millenials in the most trouble, because they don't get done - there's always something more important to do. One of the things I've tried to explain to millenials I've coached is that the longer something sits on your desk the higher its priority becomes. If you have a project that's been on your desk for over a week, and you don't have anything due five minutes ago, that project is now your top priority.
Speaking of facebook, the internet and its use in the workplace is another area where millenials get a lot of criticism from older generations, and also have trouble adjusting. A lot of managers and older workers feel that surfing the web while at work is wrong. Personally, I'd be a hypocrite if I supported that opinion, because I've done plenty of web surfing on the job. I have always felt that as long as the work was being done in a timely manner, and took priority over personal web use, there was no harm in looking at facebook, or looking up airfare. As a manager, when I felt my employees were on the internet too much, I evaluated whether they were getting their work done correctly and on time. If so, and they still had a lot of time to surf, I simply gave them more work. If they weren't, I had a heart to heart with them about getting their work done and prioritizing that above internet usage. Not everyone gets that message, but most millenials understand that they are in the office to work, and alter their behavior. I think a lot of the conflict over web use during office hours has to do with a difference in how older generations and younger ones view pay. Most younger employees are non-exempt, even if their wages are stated in an annual format, they are still technically hourly employees, which leads employers to think that every minute for which they are being paid, they should be working. But millennials don't see their pay as hourly. Sure they come in from 9 to 5 and get paid extra if they work more than that, but really you pay them to do a set number of tasks in that time, and if they can accomplish those tasks and get some web surfing in, that's fine. This mindset also leads them to not understand why they can't leave at 4:30 some days if all their work is done. All this has led analysts to say that millenials are more project oriented and would prefer contract work to regular salaried employment. I'm not sure that's true, but I see the basis for that belief.
There are other mistakes that inexperienced employees, or maybe millenials make, but these two stand out as the most contentious and relevant. If both sides could see where the other is coming from, maybe a lot of office tension could be resolved.
One thing I've noticed about millenials is that they have difficulty setting priorities. A lot of this is inexperience. Whenever you start a new job, you have to determine which work is more important. And it's not always easy. In a perfect world, priority levels would be based on the urgency or need for the finished product, but in reality, office politics, company policies and client demands can alter the order in which things get done. However, millenials have an obsession with priorities. When given a list of tasks with equal priority, they want their manager to tell them in exactly what order they should perform the tasks. It can cause a mutual frustration between manager and employee - the manager because they just want the work to get done, they don't care about the order; the employee because they feel a need to achieve and think that they cannot unless the tasks are done in the right order. On the other hand managers can get in trouble for setting priorities. Give your employee too many top priority tasks and they may think they're authorized for overtime. Give an employee a low priority task and it ends up never getting done. As my husband says, if it's low priority that means you can check facebook before doing it. It's actually the low priority tasks that get millenials in the most trouble, because they don't get done - there's always something more important to do. One of the things I've tried to explain to millenials I've coached is that the longer something sits on your desk the higher its priority becomes. If you have a project that's been on your desk for over a week, and you don't have anything due five minutes ago, that project is now your top priority.
Speaking of facebook, the internet and its use in the workplace is another area where millenials get a lot of criticism from older generations, and also have trouble adjusting. A lot of managers and older workers feel that surfing the web while at work is wrong. Personally, I'd be a hypocrite if I supported that opinion, because I've done plenty of web surfing on the job. I have always felt that as long as the work was being done in a timely manner, and took priority over personal web use, there was no harm in looking at facebook, or looking up airfare. As a manager, when I felt my employees were on the internet too much, I evaluated whether they were getting their work done correctly and on time. If so, and they still had a lot of time to surf, I simply gave them more work. If they weren't, I had a heart to heart with them about getting their work done and prioritizing that above internet usage. Not everyone gets that message, but most millenials understand that they are in the office to work, and alter their behavior. I think a lot of the conflict over web use during office hours has to do with a difference in how older generations and younger ones view pay. Most younger employees are non-exempt, even if their wages are stated in an annual format, they are still technically hourly employees, which leads employers to think that every minute for which they are being paid, they should be working. But millennials don't see their pay as hourly. Sure they come in from 9 to 5 and get paid extra if they work more than that, but really you pay them to do a set number of tasks in that time, and if they can accomplish those tasks and get some web surfing in, that's fine. This mindset also leads them to not understand why they can't leave at 4:30 some days if all their work is done. All this has led analysts to say that millenials are more project oriented and would prefer contract work to regular salaried employment. I'm not sure that's true, but I see the basis for that belief.
There are other mistakes that inexperienced employees, or maybe millenials make, but these two stand out as the most contentious and relevant. If both sides could see where the other is coming from, maybe a lot of office tension could be resolved.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
A Few Thoughts About High Fructose Corn Syrup
Lately, The Corn Refiners Association has been running ads refuting claims that High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) is unhealthy. I find these ads to be of particular interest for two reasons. The first is that while I have been a critic of HFCS for a long time, I have not heard or noted a groundswell of avoidance of the sweetener. The ad campaign almost seems to be bringing the subject up for a majority of people, rather than addressing concerns they may have. (Or maybe it's targeted at me alone. . .) The second is that the ads note that HFCS is like any sweetener: fine in moderation. While I'm a big believer in moderation, including with things that are 'bad' for you, this comment is laughable, because HFCS is in practically every food product the average American buys. Don't believe me? Check the ingredients for your loaf of bread or your pasta sauce. Manufacturers put HFCS even in items that are not supposed to be sweet.
I have long believed that both sugar and corn are unhealthy for a majority of Americans and culprits in the 'obesity epidemic' everyone is so concerned about these days. While every individual's dietary needs and problems are different, for me, cutting these ingredients out of my diet completely and then adding them back only in low quantities has allowed me to arrest rapid weight gain, have more energy, fewer episodes of 'sugar crash', and better digestion. The Corn Refiners Association is probably correct that HFCS is no worse for many people than regular sugar, but for some it is probably the worst combination out there.
While I'm on the subject of food and obesity, I'd like to take a moment to get on my soap box about dieting. I don't subscribe to the calories in/calories out diet. I have not seen where it is a valid weight loss technique. Sure, you can lose weight if you limit your caloric intake to 1200 calories a day, but all you're doing is starving yourself. Unless you want to be hungry for the rest of your life, you're going to gain the weight back (and probably more) when you go off that diet. It's called yo-yo dieting and it's been proven to be one of the most unhealthy lifestyles there is. In addition, I've noticed that reducing foods to caloric value alone leads people to make bad food decisions, such as skipping a healthy vegetable in order to 'save' the calories for desert. I'd much rather see a lifestyle of exercise and good food decisions, with less concern about body weight, shape or size. An active, well fed person who carries a little extra weight is more healthy than a yo-yo dieter who eats dessert instead of vegetables.
I have long believed that both sugar and corn are unhealthy for a majority of Americans and culprits in the 'obesity epidemic' everyone is so concerned about these days. While every individual's dietary needs and problems are different, for me, cutting these ingredients out of my diet completely and then adding them back only in low quantities has allowed me to arrest rapid weight gain, have more energy, fewer episodes of 'sugar crash', and better digestion. The Corn Refiners Association is probably correct that HFCS is no worse for many people than regular sugar, but for some it is probably the worst combination out there.
While I'm on the subject of food and obesity, I'd like to take a moment to get on my soap box about dieting. I don't subscribe to the calories in/calories out diet. I have not seen where it is a valid weight loss technique. Sure, you can lose weight if you limit your caloric intake to 1200 calories a day, but all you're doing is starving yourself. Unless you want to be hungry for the rest of your life, you're going to gain the weight back (and probably more) when you go off that diet. It's called yo-yo dieting and it's been proven to be one of the most unhealthy lifestyles there is. In addition, I've noticed that reducing foods to caloric value alone leads people to make bad food decisions, such as skipping a healthy vegetable in order to 'save' the calories for desert. I'd much rather see a lifestyle of exercise and good food decisions, with less concern about body weight, shape or size. An active, well fed person who carries a little extra weight is more healthy than a yo-yo dieter who eats dessert instead of vegetables.
Monday, March 1, 2010
An Invasion of Privacy
Not long ago the Pennsylvania school district of Lower Merion came under scrutiny for questionable use of the remote activation of the webcam in school issued laptops. In short, there is a class action suit filed against the school claiming that the school used the webcams to spy on students, without disclosing the remote activation abilities to students or parents. The school has responded that their policy was to only activate the cameras in cases of lost or stolen laptops, but the fact that a student was disciplined for behavior at home with a photo taken by his laptop's webcam belies that claim.
Frankly, I'm appalled by the idea that a school could use the educational materials it issues to students to spy on the students while they are not at school. In my opinion the school's responsibility for student behavior ends when the student leaves campus. Additionally, as others have pointed out, laptops are frequently open and on while people dress or perform other personal activities. Thinking of my own personal laptop, which I take with me when I travel, and how I use it in the morning at a hotel, I'd worry if someone could remotely activate my webcam and watch what I was doing. Adding that the students are under 18 also raises the possibility of child porn laws being broken. All told, while the ability to track thefts of the laptops is useful, the opportunity for abuse and misuse far outweigh the good.
A few critics have raised the idea that problems generated by a "free" laptop from your high school are not really problems, and that these students should suck it up and stop whining. But honestly, a person's privacy is worth more than a $400 laptop. The idea that a person should be willing to trade their privacy and submit to being spied on by their school just to get a laptop they can use, and a decent education is so blatantly false that I can't imagine someone proposing it.
I will be interested to see how this case turns out. I'm glad that at a minimum the school has voluntarily disabled the remote activation system and the new version of the tracking software they have installed will no longer have this feature. Now to make sure my personal laptop's webcam can't be hacked. . .
Frankly, I'm appalled by the idea that a school could use the educational materials it issues to students to spy on the students while they are not at school. In my opinion the school's responsibility for student behavior ends when the student leaves campus. Additionally, as others have pointed out, laptops are frequently open and on while people dress or perform other personal activities. Thinking of my own personal laptop, which I take with me when I travel, and how I use it in the morning at a hotel, I'd worry if someone could remotely activate my webcam and watch what I was doing. Adding that the students are under 18 also raises the possibility of child porn laws being broken. All told, while the ability to track thefts of the laptops is useful, the opportunity for abuse and misuse far outweigh the good.
A few critics have raised the idea that problems generated by a "free" laptop from your high school are not really problems, and that these students should suck it up and stop whining. But honestly, a person's privacy is worth more than a $400 laptop. The idea that a person should be willing to trade their privacy and submit to being spied on by their school just to get a laptop they can use, and a decent education is so blatantly false that I can't imagine someone proposing it.
I will be interested to see how this case turns out. I'm glad that at a minimum the school has voluntarily disabled the remote activation system and the new version of the tracking software they have installed will no longer have this feature. Now to make sure my personal laptop's webcam can't be hacked. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
