Is there any order to a Corporate structure?

Working for a corporation is entirely different than working with a small business. There are a bunch of middlepersons that one must go through to get to the top person, yet when it comes to fulfilling duties, there is a large trickle down method used for diffusion of responsibility. It is necessary to delegate responsibility to others in certain management positions but to what extent is it to be designated when it finally hits an end of the line. You can only require people to do so much before their actual job description is pushed to the side and they are doing the labor that someone above could have performed, even had more time to perform than the persons that have finally been designated to do so. Should the person at the end of the line be upset? This is where it could go one of two ways, sure there could be a gray area, but lets focus on the simple one way or the other. First, it could be that the person would not be upset if they are able to manage all of the new responsibilites without it preventing them from getting their job done. Second, it could affect them negatively if it seems to take precedent over what they are doing and there has been no clear direction of what is priority. In the second situation, time management is not an issue, what is an issue is prioritizing. Unfortunately, corporate structures forget the simplest things and then leave the persons doing to work without any indication of what is priority. Remember, at the bottom of the ladder, there are many leaders above and if one discrepancy begins to appear, then it creates a stressful environment that proceeds into a domino effect that not only slows production and prevents attainment of goals but also creates undue chaos. It is ok to delegate responsibility if needed, but make sure that there are clear expectations of priorities and expectations to those that it is being delegated too. If you give me an assignment that is not part of my normal job, please do specify if this should take precedents everytime, just this time, or for me to work it into my time management objectives and goals. With this little effort from managers, it will not only increase production, but will also prevent turnover and churn and promote a healthier and less stressful work environment. Take a look at this link: http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/hr014.

Sensory memory...could it lead to genetic memory?

While walking the dog in the wonderfully comfortable weather this morning, June 14, I pondered at how certain colors, smells, sounds, and even the breeze and temperature triggered memories from my childhood and adolescents. It provoke memories that I don't think I have ever recalled before. It is even more unique in that the historian side of me began to recall some of the imagery given from some past research and readings I have done and at how relevant those are even today.  Quite relaxing I should say. Then of course, my mind goes into ludicrous speed, yes a refernece to Spaceballs by Mel Brooks. I begin to wonder if the imagery is just recollection of those I have experienced in the past or if it could actually be linked to genetic memories of my ancestors. Both of my familial history observed nature in it's importance and honored it in their different ways. Of course there is no experiments that can differentiate between experienced and genetic memories, but it is a fun perplexion to fixate upon when one is able to enter a temporary state of Nirvana. 

The Media, a harbinger of information or destroyer of society?

The media has become this massive beast that many people cannot find a middle ground. I have witnessed the media first hand invade someone's privacy to the point that person is no longer seen as a person but as a fodder for gossip. I have seen the media step up as provider and guardian of the country in providing information that is needed for the masses to make educated choices instead of opinionated ones. How then is it that when we look at the different sources of media, they are skewing the information that is being presented. The television medium has made President Obama out as a man without error and has consistently refused to push issues and demands to know why he is doing what he is doing behind people's backs. If one listens to the radio medium, they find the opposite. The internet itself is poor in it's processing of information to the public and has shown even greater positioning than what it was designed. The internet is suppose to be this massive free speech area, but it has become the speech of those with the most money. It gets even more pathetic when we can no longer open a newspaper and see the putrid journalism that has resulted in the loss of being above sides. Up until about the era of World War II, one could find true journalism that presented the facts as they came across them. The 40s through the 60s showed the decline of what it is for journalists and news media. The government dictated what was said, what was released, and then destroyed or slandered and libeled against those that did present the information unbiasedly. The late 60s and 70s showed a comeback of investigative journalism that did have an ultimate goal of truth in all mediums. However, the 80s showed decline due to people being stuck in a pop culture binge that they are still following. Every now and then a medium will present a truly spectaclar piece that has authentic sources, shows support through evidence other than just heresay, and makes it worthwhile to sit down and read a newspaper whether it be in print or electronic. When the media was providing pictures, stories, even live on the scene shots, they became a major proponent for political figures. It is amazing that many of the most important decisions politicians make over our lives is dependent upon what the electoral college wants, or what will help them win the next election for themselves or their parties. If making a decision could save millions, but is politically unsound, then the vote will never pass. On the side of disturbing, if the decision will kill millions, but would likely lead to re-election, the vote will be casted that way. So now we are stuck with the very worrying proposition, is it the politician that is leading things or is it media? How can us simple few Americans step up and make the important ideas that are necessary to push our country, it's economy and people, back to the forefront of what the world is to be modelled after? Finally, one must take into consideration, is it proper to rock the boat....wait a minute, the average citizen is following the act of appeasement, we have all seen how well that works with Hitler, Napolean, modern day politicians.  What do you think?

Social Role Traditions....still around?

Throughout the last two decades, I have noticed a dramatic schism in the citizens of this country and many others over the traditional roles of society. There is a greater push to abolish the traditional concepts and to promote greater equality, with conditions of course. I do not believe in conditions, it should be total equality or none at all. Narrowing down the focus to the United States...actually, lets focus on just North Carolina. The "traditionalists" use religion texts as their bases as well as grasping to the old school thinking that men have this set of roles and jobs while women have theirs.  If they believe that then fine, leave them be, and they in return should not press upon us their structured ideas and demand that we curtail our way of living to abide into their philosophy. There are the "progressivenist" who have accepted the switch of roles, or I should say, integration of roles within the gender roles. These persons are typically persecuted behind their backs by traditionalists, and yes, I did say persecuted. Don't believe me, sit in a church on a couple of Sundays and you will here them preach tolerance and at the same time intolerance of those that do not follow the roles that are claimed to have been preordained. I see more women out there working and striving for the exact same goals that men were suppose to strive for. Ironically, there are many more men becoming home makers and taking on the roles of running the house and maintaining things while the wife is at work. This role today has actually surfaced more than 2000 years ago, but the typical masculine viewpoint of history has attempted to suppress the evidence or try to write it off as a statistical anomaly. So this leads us to the ever present questions, who determines the social roles and which do we follow? There is great hypocrisy amongst those that still deem what is a man's role versus a woman's role. This is because it resorts to what is convenient at that time and then this allows them to push the expectations upon the other sex to fulfil that role or be looked upon as less of a person. Yet, these same hypocrits demand equality. I believe that if you are going to be a hypocrit, then you should not be seen as equal to those of us that take on both roles. Also, if you are not willing to take on the demands or needs, then why expect those of others around you. Of course this could lead to further degradation of society as a whole, but it is about time to evaluate our present state of mind and ideas and either move ahead or be forever stagnant like a cesspool. Society has shown constant failure after failure that the traditional roles do not work any longer. It also has created greater hypocrisy amongst those that claim to want equality but refuse to share the burden of those of us that promote equality. Welcome to the land of the easily offended and whining. What do you propose?

world politics

While doing some research, I have found that the greatest follies and failures are made by politicians and presidents that focus on some statistical group or another and also base their decisions on how it will affect their political clout and position versus what is right. Ironically, this is the same folly that is followed by any person that has power over the lives of others whether it be government, church, community, or any other local level group. With this theory, does this mean that there is no consensus between one extreme to the other? To that degree, if one is a leader, they will forever commit to the folly presented above and those that follow will never allow the person to make a choice on the basis of morality, ethics, and just plain and simple being right or wrong. This leads to the inevitable conclusion, how can those of us that see these issues, place persons in power that can rise above it and at the same time, how can we prevent the persons from going down the same dead end road?