One topic I plan for this blog to address is philanthropy. Writing, like philanthropy, is something that is frequently becomes an "I'll do it later" task. However, I don't want to talk about procrastination now, but rather giving without reciprocity.
Since I'm interested in both writing and philanthropy, I was really impressed by this article from Glimmer Train which discusses the indirect benefits gained from participating in a writers group (critiquing the work of others making us better writers), as opposed to the direct benefits (getting concrete pointers on what is/is not working in our writing). It's a great example of how contributing to something makes us better and how the philanthropic spirit can be incorporated into different parts of our life. Practically speaking, it's also a good reason not to get as frustrated with the other members of your writers group.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Hearing Voices
It's become cliched to say that good writers are also voracious readers. It's also true. But a side-effect of reading a lot of one writer's work is you may start hearing that writer's voice off of the page. I always find it interesting when another writer has a distinct enough voice that my writing, or thoughts, take on that writer's voice. I've been reading Jane Espenson's blog - which is fantastic if you're interested in screenwriting or just writing tips in general. She's not updating it any more but if you, like me, are coming late to her party the archives make for good reading.
Anyhow, on a friend's recommendation I've been reading Jane's blog. Jane has a clear, comedic voice and always ends her entries with a report on what she had for lunch. Yesterday, making my own lunch I found myself thinking "Lunch: Udon soup and hummus with tomatoes. Cross cultural goodness." And then thinking, "That's clearly Jane Espenson in my head!" Not just the lunch report, but the style of the commentary was Jane's.
Is this a bad thing? Not unless Jane wakes up and finds she is no longer in her head and is permanently in mine. One of the best writing teachers I had explained it well. I had been reading a whole bunch of Marguerite Duras plays and then found that the scenes I was writing for playwrighting class all had a Duras-style disembodied voices. Clearly derivative! Clearly not my voice! (Hey, there's Jane again in those short exclamations.) But the prof suggested going with it, and for me to explore how by using the convention I either would or would not make it my own.
So those voices in your head, they can be a good thing.
Lunch: BBQ chicken and homemade cole slaw with red wine vinegar and without mayo. I dislike mayo. (Thanks to Ms. Espenson.)
Anyhow, on a friend's recommendation I've been reading Jane's blog. Jane has a clear, comedic voice and always ends her entries with a report on what she had for lunch. Yesterday, making my own lunch I found myself thinking "Lunch: Udon soup and hummus with tomatoes. Cross cultural goodness." And then thinking, "That's clearly Jane Espenson in my head!" Not just the lunch report, but the style of the commentary was Jane's.
Is this a bad thing? Not unless Jane wakes up and finds she is no longer in her head and is permanently in mine. One of the best writing teachers I had explained it well. I had been reading a whole bunch of Marguerite Duras plays and then found that the scenes I was writing for playwrighting class all had a Duras-style disembodied voices. Clearly derivative! Clearly not my voice! (Hey, there's Jane again in those short exclamations.) But the prof suggested going with it, and for me to explore how by using the convention I either would or would not make it my own.
So those voices in your head, they can be a good thing.
Lunch: BBQ chicken and homemade cole slaw with red wine vinegar and without mayo. I dislike mayo. (Thanks to Ms. Espenson.)
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Bonus Problem
Everyone is screaming about bonuses. I don't need to tell you that a lot of people (myself included) are livid that companies receiving bailout funds are giving bonuses. Meanwhile on the opinion pages of newspapers and periodicals - as well as in legislative sessions - some business experts are decrying the fact that if bonuses are eliminated the top workers will go to other companies and they will lose their talent.
This, my friends, is the same kind of misplaced, 'what's in it for me' thinking that has brought us to this fun economic time.
There are two issues here. First, what is a bonus? And second, how should a company value its employees and determine whether they should be retained?
A bonus is:
1) something given or paid over and above what is due.
2) a sum or money granted to given to an employee, a returned solider, etc., in addition to regular pay, usually in appreciation for work done, length of service, accumulated favors, etc.
Source: Dictionary.com
By it's very nature a bonus is not a guarantee. If it's guaranteed by your contract, as far as I'm concerned, it's not a bonus. This works both ways -- employers shouldn't guarantee a bonus and employees should not budget based on their bonus. When I lived in NY, I knew Wall Streeters who counted on their bonus to pay their bills. Counting chickens before they've hatched is what got us into this whole mess.
In most industries a 5-10% bonus is very good - something is wrong with the system when your bonus is multiple times your salary. If the jobs that traditionally receive these mega-bonuses are worth big bucks, then then their base salary should reflect it. But the key issue here is a bonus is optional and not a right.
Second, you have an argument that talent will go elsewhere if they do not receive a bonus. First of all, there are plenty of talented people who work in industries that do not give bonuses. They stay in their jobs for a multitude of reasons, so crystallizing this argument down to 'bonus = retention' is fallacious.
In addition, when you set up a tier of workers as your stars and deem them irreplaceable you are putting your company at risk. You are setting up a system to cater to those stars rather than having your employees focus on being cohesive and working to serve the best interests of the company. This is not to say that every worker functions on the same level and that stand-outs should not be recognized. But when there's a system that rewards segments of a company that made money, even if the overall company is losing money, it begs the question - while that part of the company was making money were they doing it to the determinant of another segment? If you are putting all your eggs in the basket of your "star performers" are you creating a company with a replicable business model for consistent success? Or are you taking a short cut that doesn't include the strategy and systems that will support long term corporate growth? I'm a big believer that bonuses should be based on company performance, not individual performance.
But it comes down to this . . .
If you have a starving family and someone gives you $5, you don't give $1 to your kid who made money last year on his paper route, even though it allowed the family to pay some of its bills over that year. You spend the money on food and farming so you have a future.
This year, these mega-bonuses starve the economy. The money needs to go to the future. The hard truth is if these companies fail, the bonus problem will be solved permanently.
This, my friends, is the same kind of misplaced, 'what's in it for me' thinking that has brought us to this fun economic time.
There are two issues here. First, what is a bonus? And second, how should a company value its employees and determine whether they should be retained?
A bonus is:
1) something given or paid over and above what is due.
2) a sum or money granted to given to an employee, a returned solider, etc., in addition to regular pay, usually in appreciation for work done, length of service, accumulated favors, etc.
Source: Dictionary.com
By it's very nature a bonus is not a guarantee. If it's guaranteed by your contract, as far as I'm concerned, it's not a bonus. This works both ways -- employers shouldn't guarantee a bonus and employees should not budget based on their bonus. When I lived in NY, I knew Wall Streeters who counted on their bonus to pay their bills. Counting chickens before they've hatched is what got us into this whole mess.
In most industries a 5-10% bonus is very good - something is wrong with the system when your bonus is multiple times your salary. If the jobs that traditionally receive these mega-bonuses are worth big bucks, then then their base salary should reflect it. But the key issue here is a bonus is optional and not a right.
Second, you have an argument that talent will go elsewhere if they do not receive a bonus. First of all, there are plenty of talented people who work in industries that do not give bonuses. They stay in their jobs for a multitude of reasons, so crystallizing this argument down to 'bonus = retention' is fallacious.
In addition, when you set up a tier of workers as your stars and deem them irreplaceable you are putting your company at risk. You are setting up a system to cater to those stars rather than having your employees focus on being cohesive and working to serve the best interests of the company. This is not to say that every worker functions on the same level and that stand-outs should not be recognized. But when there's a system that rewards segments of a company that made money, even if the overall company is losing money, it begs the question - while that part of the company was making money were they doing it to the determinant of another segment? If you are putting all your eggs in the basket of your "star performers" are you creating a company with a replicable business model for consistent success? Or are you taking a short cut that doesn't include the strategy and systems that will support long term corporate growth? I'm a big believer that bonuses should be based on company performance, not individual performance.
But it comes down to this . . .
If you have a starving family and someone gives you $5, you don't give $1 to your kid who made money last year on his paper route, even though it allowed the family to pay some of its bills over that year. You spend the money on food and farming so you have a future.
This year, these mega-bonuses starve the economy. The money needs to go to the future. The hard truth is if these companies fail, the bonus problem will be solved permanently.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Brother Can You Spare a Dime
So Mr. Dime & I went out to dinner and the theater on Saturday night. This is the first time we have gone to the theater in the midwestern city we recently moved to and we discovered that our dining options are much more limited than in The City that Never Sleeps.
We wound up at a swanky, over-priced place because of a lack of planning ahead and a desire not to walk more than 1/2 mile. The restaurant had as its only option a "tasting menu" that was guaranteed to have no means of inexpensive escape. Meanwhile, the music system is playing covers of old 1930s songs. When "Brother Can You Spare a Dime" came on all I could think was -- these people don't have a clue.
We wound up at a swanky, over-priced place because of a lack of planning ahead and a desire not to walk more than 1/2 mile. The restaurant had as its only option a "tasting menu" that was guaranteed to have no means of inexpensive escape. Meanwhile, the music system is playing covers of old 1930s songs. When "Brother Can You Spare a Dime" came on all I could think was -- these people don't have a clue.
A Dime Among the Pennies
Way back in Middle School, my science teacher felt badly about always giving me a hard time because of my height. He was a nice guy and his teasing good-natured.
One day he gave me the following quote, typed up and then mounted on green construction paper:
Oliver Wendell Holmes once attended a meeting in which he was the shortest man present. "Dr. Holmes," quipped a friend, "I should think you'd feel rather small among us big fellows." "I do," retorted Holmes, "I feel like a dime among a lot of pennies."
I had it laminated and still have it nearly twenty years later.
One day he gave me the following quote, typed up and then mounted on green construction paper:
Oliver Wendell Holmes once attended a meeting in which he was the shortest man present. "Dr. Holmes," quipped a friend, "I should think you'd feel rather small among us big fellows." "I do," retorted Holmes, "I feel like a dime among a lot of pennies."
I had it laminated and still have it nearly twenty years later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
