10 Things You May Not Have Known About Guns – Listverse

via 10 Things You May Not Have Known About Guns – Listverse

Advertisements

The Living – An Original Song by Jay Parkhe

The Living

By Jay

An Original Song

I get on with life as a princess,
I’m a smelly kinda person.
I like singing in a choir and breeding guppies.
I like to contemplate the living.
But when I start to daydream,
My mind turns straight to the dead.

Oh oh oh!

Sometimes I look at myself and I look into my eyes,
I notice the way I think about the dead with a smile,
Curved lips I just can’t disguise.
But I think it’s the living making my life worthwhile.
Why is it so hard for me to decide which I love more?
The Living or…
The Dead?

I like to use words like ‘crikey’ and ‘twizzle.’
I like to use words about the living.
But when I stop my talking,
My mind turns straight to the dead.

Oh oh oh!

Sometimes I look at myself and I look into my eyes,
I notice the way I think about the dead with a smile,
Curved lips I just can’t disguise.
But I think it’s the living making my life worthwhile.
Why is it so hard for me to decide which I love more?
The Living or…
The Dead?

I like to hang out with Wily and Will.
But when left alone,
My mind turns straight to the dead.

Oh oh oh!

Sometimes I look at myself and I look into my eyes,
I notice the way I think about the dead with a smile,
Curved lips I just can’t disguise.
But I think it’s the living making my life worthwhile.
Why is it so hard for me to decide which I love more?
The Living or…
The Dead?

I hate losing card games and headless chickens.
But I just think back to the dead,
And I’m happy once again.

Oh oh oh!

Love Free verse by jay

Love

Free verse by jay

I saw the ardor kinship of my generation destroyed,
How I mourned sympathy.
Do sympathy make you shiver?
do they?

The quality that’s really transcendent,
Above all others is the goodness.
Now unknowable is just the thing,
To get me wondering if the goodness is unknown.

ardor are not fatless!
ardor are exceptionally rounded.
Down, down, down into the darkness of the ardor,
Gently they go – the potbellied, the rounded, the double-chinned.

”God thirsts for honest love.”Meher Baba

”God thirsts for honest love.”Meher Baba

Can we love God this way?Ask Baba in a pure and sincere way for the miracle of unconditional Love. And the Beloved will make it come true.

Goes:

”Don’t worry; all this is illusion. You should love me and be honest and faithful. You must be so honest in your love that even God should bow down to you for it. God thirsts for honest love. There must not be the slightest tinge of hypocrisy. Ages have made the mind so dirty that it is quite hard for it to be pure and honest. It is the mind’s nature to doubt, to reason, to be happy, to be sick, to be sore and so forth. Had it not been its nature, there would have been no need for births after births. Imagination has created all this, and the world is so ensnared in it, it is as if bogged down in mire. And extrication from the morass becomes impossible. There is only one remedy for it: honest love for God and help from a Master.” Meher Baba

Lord Meher Online page 3350
http://www.lordmeher.org/rev/index.jsp

The Springy And Jolly Eagle A Poem by Jay

The Springy And Jolly Eagle

A Poem by Jay

Whose eagle is that? I think I know.
Its owner is quite happy though.
Full of joy like a vivid rainbow,
I watch him laugh. I cry hello.

He gives his eagle a shake,
And laughs until her belly aches.
The only other sound’s the break,
Of distant waves and birds awake.

The eagle is springy, jolly and deep,
But he has promises to keep,
After cake and lots of sleep.
Sweet dreams come to him cheap.

He rises from his gentle bed,
With thoughts of kittens in his head,
He eats his jam with lots of bread.
Ready for the day ahead.

With thanks to the poet, Robert Frost, for the underlying structure.

Harley-Davidson Moves Manufacturing In Response to Trade War: Was it the Right Call? – GlobalRisk community

Harley-Davidson Moves Manufacturing In Response to Trade War: Was it the Right Call?
Posted by Steven Minsky on July 13, 2018 at 5:43pm
View Blog
Back in March, President Trump’s administration threatened to impose steep tariffs on imported goods from some of America’s biggest trading partners. In the following months, the administration set a 25% import tax on steel and 10% on aluminum. Just as I predicted, these decisions are impacting the supply chains of American businesses, forcing them to consider the effects this kind of tumult could have on their business.

In my first blog post on the subject, I detailed a few direct and indirect consequences of a trade war caused by these tariffs. I wrote, “Indirect impact: Production and price changes will require sourcing changes. Sudden shifts that affect supply chains may impact quality and availability since some companies may encounter issues when scrambling to reduce production in some places and ramp it up in others. Operational risk assessments will help identify areas where change can have a positive or negative impact.”

Last week, Harley-Davidson, an iconic American brand, landed in the news after announcing moving some manufacturing facilities to Europe to avoid the EU’s retaliatory tariffs.

Why did Harley-Davidson Move Manufacturing Facilities?
First, the European Union became a target of some American-imposed tariffs, which affected $7.4 billion in European products. Then, the EU hit back with $3.2 billion in tariffs on US products ranging from orange juice to motorcycles.

Harley-Davidson, a leading distributor of motorcycles, said it stood to lose as much as $100 million a year after the European bloc raised its 6% tariffs on motorcycles to 31%.

The company crunched the numbers and saw these tariffs would add an extra $2,200 to the export cost of each motorcycle. In a statement, Harley-Davidson adamantly refused to pass the cost onto their consumers: “The tremendous cost increase, if passed onto its dealers and retail customers, would have an immediate and lasting detrimental impact to its business in the region.”

Europe is the company’s second-largest market behind the United States, with European consumers purchasing nearly 40,000 Harleys in 2017, compared with the 148,000 bought in the United States.

Evidently, Harley-Davidson saw Europe as too promising a market to disturb their customer base. Instead of raising costs to the consumer, they decided to move some of their manufacturing facilities to Europe in order to circumvent the added costs of tariffs.

Did Harley-Davidson Make the Right Call by Moving Manufacturing Abroad?
Looking at the facts and figures above, avoiding the tariffs by moving some facilities overseas might seem like a logical business decision. However, Harley-Davidson’s stock dropped 2.6% after they announced the move. When stocks drop, it’s a telltale sign that something went wrong, that either the decision itself or the execution of the decision went awry.

While I wasn’t in Harley Davison’s board room, experience tells me there’s a large chance the company didn’t identify and assess the reputational risks of moving their manufacturing facilities by administering a risk assessment out to their front lines.

For many companies, certainly those as large as Harley-Davidson, supply chains are vast and complicated webs. It’s understandable that no one person can foresee every consequence a trade war or a response to a trade war could have throughout a company’s supply chain. The human mind can only think one or two steps ahead, aside from great chess players. Risk assessments transform companies into the greatest chess players by anticipating risk before it manifests.

Up until this year, all bikes had been manufactured in the US with domestically sourced materials. Recently however, Harley-Davidson decided to import a few of the materials for one of their new bikes. Announcements of freshly furnished tariffs on these materials, therefore, did not bode well for this new facet of their business model. It seems to me that Harley rushed into the decision to adopt international manufacturing processes, which not only introduced new quality control risks, but severe reputational risks, as well.

After the move was announced, a common sentiment was disseminated via Twitter and other social media: Harley-Davidson is an iconic American brand. For many, it logically follows that a move outside of the US greatly contradicts and disrupts the company’s brand.

Historically, consumers and investors are intensely perturbed when iconic brands disrupt what they’ve come to know and love. Take Coke for example. In 1985, Coca-Cola was losing market share to other soft drinks like Pepsi. In an attempt to compete, the company introduced New Coke. Despite acceptance by some Coke drinkers, many more resented the change in formula and branding. As it happened, many of the dissatisfied drinkers were Southerners, who considered Coca-Cola a fundamental part of their regional identity and were not shy about making their dissatisfaction known.

Of course, companies will always keep evolving, as any company who does not innovate will get left behind. However, it’s imperative for companies to ask themselves what they risk by innovating. No one was upset by the introduction of Cherry Coke, or the advent of Harley’s Softail Cruisers. It’s when companies contradict, as opposed to build upon, their brand that they find themselves in hot water.

The beauty of enterprise risk management is it’s foundationally built on risk assessments that reach across departments and levels to account for all types of risks. In Harley-Davidson’s case, and in all those cases that land in the news, they failed to identify and address the root cause risk: the reputational risk of moving beyond the US.

Risk assessments could have helped Harley-Davidson anticipate this kind of backlash and resulting loss in market value. Risk assessments help companies ask the right kinds of questions: Who is our customer base? What do they believe in? What will this move mean to them? How will it affect their opinion of us? How large will the impact be?

The last question is key. In a complex supply chain, risk is abundant. On the one hand there’s reputational and quality control risks from sudden shifts in suppliers, facilities, and employee base. On the other hand there’s the risks of incurring too many losses from rising tariffs. All of these risks exist, but none of them are equal because they stand to impact the company differently. Risk assessments uncover the potential impact of each risk and assist the company in making the best decision for their unique situation.

From an outside perspective, I can’t say what a risk assessment would have revealed for them in terms of to move or not to move. However, I can say with confidence that had Harley-Davidson administered a comprehensive, enterprise-wide risk assessment out to and including their suppliers, they would have considered the reputational risk of their actions. They could have mitigated this risk accordingly and avoided a 2.6% drop in their market value.

This article was originally posted on LogicManager.com.

via Harley-Davidson Moves Manufacturing In Response to Trade War: Was it the Right Call? – GlobalRisk community

Hiring a friend -HBR Article

I got an early start in business. By the time I was 17 years old, I was a partner in a fast-growing company, and when I decided to hire a close friend of my father’s, I was thrilled when he agreed to join.

But it was awkward from the beginning. This man had known me since I was in diapers. I struggled to think of myself as his boss. And so did he. It got really tough when he began coming in late and leaving early, falsifying expense reports, and cutting deals with customers that he didn’t tell us about until after the check was cashed. I agonized over what to do. When I expressed concerns, he would reassure me in a fatherly voice that everything was fine. When I complained about broken rules, he would cajole me about being naïve. After nearly a year of suffering (entirely self-induced), I finally fired him.

I swore I’d never hire a friend again. I reasoned that few friendships could endure such a dramatic shift in relative power and that you can be a friend or you can be a boss, but you can’t be both.

I’ve since grown up quite a bit and, fortunately, learned that I was wrong. I’ve observed and studied friend-boss relationships — and even been on both sides of them — and now know what it takes for them to be successful. The key is having the right combination of patience and candor before and during the hiring process. Here’s how to do it.

Don’t start a conversation about hiring if saying no isn’t an option.Ask yourself, “If I open the question about hiring this person, can I imagine myself saying, ‘I’m not giving you the job’?” If you can’t, you’re doomed at the outset. If you wouldn’t say no — because of your own insecurity or your doubts about the emotional maturity of your friend — if no was the right answer, don’t even consider becoming this person’s boss. Otherwise, you will rationalize or cower yourself into a yes that you’ll probably regret. If you can’t turn your friend down for the job, you’ll never be able to manage them once they’re on your team. If your friend has already opened the question, shut it down honestly. Say, “I don’t think I’m strong enough to do what it takes to be both your boss and your friend.” You may have to deal with some resentment, but if they do resent you, then they’d be the kind of person who would despise you when things cratered.

Give yourself an off-ramp. If you decide to entertain the possibility, set proper emotional expectations by explaining that no is the likeliest result. If the other person’s hopes begin to gallop at the prospect of being hired, you’ve lost already. Don’t conspire in their choice to set their expectations high. Say something like, “I can see some advantages to working together. And yet I think there are more reasons it won’t work than reasons it will. I’d like to explore the possibility with you, but I want to be clear I think it might not be a good idea.”

Rehearse the boundaries. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that being a good friend is a good predictor of being a good employee. Someone who is congenial as a friend can show up as lazy, petty, resentful, dishonest, or even political as a colleague. Let’s face it, you occasionally show up in some of those ways as well. Before you explore the candidate’s qualifications, give yourselves a chance to mutually consider how you’ll deal with some difficult situations. For example, ask your friend how they will feel when:

  • You override a decision they made.
  • You give them a negative performance review.
  • You disagree with them publicly.
  • They disagree with you publicly.
  • You press them to achieve an uncomfortable goal or deadline.
  • You give a plum assignment they wanted to someone else.
  • You deny them a raise.

Rehearsing these scenarios helps the two of you think through some of the challenges you might face in your new relationship. This helps both parties set the psychological boundaries you’ll need if you’re to be a boss rather than a buddy. If you can’t imagine yourself holding these boundaries, then don’t proceed. In fact, doing so would mean, in essence, agreeing you will subordinate your duty to your company to the interests of your friend. You’ve sold out before you even begin.

YOU AND YOUR TEAM SERIES

Friendships

I once had a related experience. I was hired as a consultant to evaluate the performance of a senior executive who was also a dear friend. The board of his company had concerns with him and wanted me to make recommendations to improve the situation. The board knew of our friendship but pressed me to take the project anyway. Having learned from my early experience, I let the board know that “no” was an option for me. I told them I wanted to talk to my friend before giving them an answer.

I began our lengthy lunch conversation by giving myself an off-ramp. I let him know that this evaluation was going to happen whether I did it or not and that, if I took it on, the fact that I cared about him could not influence my conclusions. And yet I assured him I would decline the request if he preferred another consultant or felt this would jeopardize our relationship.

In an attempt to rehearse the boundaries of this new relationship, I let him know there was a remote possibility that I would conclude the board should dismiss him. We discussed candidly how we might feel should this happen. In the end, he said, “I would rather have this done by someone I know who loves me than by someone whose judgment or motives I might doubt.”

I accepted the assignment. As the project proceeded, it became terrifyingly clear that there was no retreating from the problems he had created. He had to go. I’d be less than honest if I didn’t admit that I resisted the conclusion longer than I would have had he not been a friend. However, I was far less emotionally threatened by the conclusion because I had set the proper expectations with him. In fact, I count it an honor to have been part of his dismissal. It gave me an opportunity to be part of ensuring not only a just outcome for the organization but also a compassionate transition for him.

It has been a few years since his exit from the organization, and I saw him recently at the wedding of a mutual friend. When we saw each other, what could have been a resentful avoidance was instead a comfortable, mutual embrace.

Hiring friends is risky. But if approached correctly, you can avoid threatening the relationship, and possibly even enrich and strengthen it.


Joseph Grenny is a four-time New York Times bestselling author, keynote speaker, and leading social scientist for business performance. His work has been translated into 28 languages, is available in 36 countries, and has generated results for 300 of the Fortune 500. He is the cofounder of VitalSmarts, an innovator in corporate training and leadership development.