Since the oil plug seems to be working, maybe they can develop one for holder's of public office. Because those thieves leak more money in a day than BP will produce in its lifetime.
Still can't find anything blog-worthy in the news, so I'll continue yesterday's thoughts. And, after re-reading my previous posting, I think I need to clarify a few points. While I wrote that from early on I always worked for myself in fact, even though in someone's employ, I didn't mean to imply that my employers and I had different goals. It was actually the opposite -we always had exactly the same objective. To win.
So, I guess what I should have said was, I always sought employers who I thought were winners themselves, or else I simply wouldn't have shown up at all. And in that regard I was either very lucky or better at finding what I sought than most, because those with whom I stayed longest were the absolute best at their trades, bar none. They also seemed to be excellent judges of human nature because for the most part, once they learned to trust me, they left me alone to produce. And what did they get in return? Better than hoped for results.
I think a good comparison would be to major league sports. In fact I wrote a book Selling Equipment Leasing in which I included a chapter titled The Attitude of Winning. In it I describe how top performers in almost any endeavor can compare their occupational efforts to sports. And in that regard, let's look at where athletic comparisons start.
I believe the most important thing employers provide is the "stadium" where the games are played. And as a general rule the best employers put their "players" in the optimum environments conducive to their efforts. Then they surround them with the best equipment available to ply their trades, supported by staffs equally adept at delivering whatever back-up is needed. Consequently, if everything that needs to be taken care environmentally is seen to by owners, all the top performers have to do is go out and do what they do best, whatever their specialty is.
For the most part though, even if all the right pieces seem to be in place, an over-riding element needs to be there as well. And this one isn't tangible, it's sensed. I believe very strongly that folks who want to win seek out others with the same desire. And therefore, even if every possible element of the physical workplace is the best there is, winners aren't necessarily going to go all-out to help employers they feel are losers, or otherwise unworthy, to succeed.
And the fact that winners feel that way is the best insurance of wins for first-rate employers. Because they don't have to police, double-check or worry about top-performers efforts. Top-performers simply won't allow their own names to be associated with less than the best results -not because of who they work for, but because of themselves. Since they're the ones who do whatever needs to be done to win and their own names rest on the results, they're the ones who won't tolerate loss or poor performance under any circumstances.
Although the comparisons highlighted thus far sound like they might apply to only those who are at some lofty levels or occupations, I don’t think that’s the case at all. I think workers need to set performance standards and goals for themselves no matter their occupational rank. Because -except for very rare exceptions- there are always ways to improve one’s status or grade through superior performance. And, if there aren’t, it’s time to change one's employer not one's goals.
That’s it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment