I noticed that Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco flourished in their rookie seasons because they have a great supporting cast in the falcons rushing game and with the baltimore defense.
With what you’ve seen in Stafford’s college performances, can he do the same without a great rushing attack and a semi good linebacker corps?
No, Ryan and Flacco were both put in good situations. Ryan had Turner to run the ball and they had a decent offensive line. Flacco played on a team that wasn’t going to allow him to cost them games, his job was to hand the ball off and let the defense do the rest.
The problem for Stafford is that the Lions aren’t very good at anything. It was a mistake naming him the starter for the 1st game, because he doesn’t give you the best opportunity to win games now. I see the Lions breaking Tampa’s record of consecutive losses (26).
Why do you feel that companies do not pursue the changes needee to stay competitive?
Stagnation, worse yet workers leave to pursue other opportunities.
global factors
well I know for certain that all (that’s every one of them) the managers over at Taco Bell are up in arms about being left off the global factor training….
You know now that you mention it The Southland Corp (7-11) and Mc Donald’s only recently certified their first globally factored managers and in so doing the rest of the fast food and quickie market chains are very upset about being left out in the cold about it too!
Because they’re the ones affected the most; they’re the ones actualizing the changes. Best to include them in the process if you want a smooth transition.
Ultimately, management has a responsibility to the business, to make decisions in the organization’s best interests. Can be kinda cold…
The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (precursor to the NDP), under Tommy Douglas introduced universal health care to Canada.
TITLE: Darwin and the Evolution of Industries and Firms
SPEAKER: Hayagreeva Rao
SPONSOR: Sponsored the by Weatherhead School of Management
LOCATION: Dively Center Room 202 on the campus of Case Western Reserve University
DATE: February 25, 2009
ABOUT THE SPEAKER: Professor Hayagreeva Rao is the Atholl McBean Professor of Organizational Behavior and Human Resources at Stanford University where he studies the social and cultural causes of organizational change.
DESCRIPTION: What are the motors of evolutionary change in industries and firms? In this talk, Professor Rao discusses how technological innovation and social movement are motors of variation that transform industries, and elucidates how ’selection’ in industries hinges on technical and social fitness. He then turns to variation and selection in firms, and closes with an account of the challenges for harnessing collective intelligence in enterprises.
Duration : 1:25:22
Read the rest of this entry »
What might happen if the need for change is not addressed?
If an organization merely reacts to change, at best they are always playing catch up, at worst they will lose market share to competitors and substitutes of who anticipated the changes and acted accordingly.
If organizations don’t change, they will ot "fit" their environment. Igor Ansoff, and old time strategist advises this fit is determined by the "gap" that you can find from your SWOT analysis.
The change process doesn’t start at a level it starts with an individual prepared to take the initiative to bring it about. In a healthy organization that is learning from experience and change is an ongoing process.
Unfortunately, because some people get too comfortable, and the organization stalls, development stops. People at all levels have an investment in the status quo, risk is discouraged and the organization stagnates until its "inhabitants" (at this point in time they are really not active members of anything) are forced to change – usually by the prospect of loosing their jobs.
With inspiration, however, everyone is more willing to take the risk something new. The inspiration appears inside as a confidence that different personal behavior can bring about different results. When someone takes that risk and the results are seen to be promising, others will follow. They can be subordinates and/or peers and/or more senior people who have been waiting for someone to take a risk and identify alternatives.
There are examples showing that the instigator can be anywhere from someone at the lowest level who demonstrates what is possible by winning back a lost customer, or demonstrating a new process, to the board room when the chair decides to bring in a new CEO.
The lesson in all this is that we cannot wait for someone else to start change because it might not happen. By waiting we are depriving the organization of our contribution and depriving ourselves of the satisfaction of knowing we have done our best. By changing, by learning, we are acknowledging we are alive and that we still believe in ourselves.
The US Coast Guard has undergone a reorganization but this was due to increase effeciency.
The Coast Guard has always had the mission of Port Security. The only thing that has changed is the increase in authority with the advent of new laws.
What we had was Captain of the Port Authority and 14 USC 89s (our main law giving us LE authority). COTPs are responsible woith the overall safety and security of a port under their control.. These Coast Guard Officers receive authority from the Commandant of the Coast Guard via District Admirals.
33 CFR 6 COTP Authority
○ Prevent damage or injury to any vessel or waterfront facility
○ Safeguard harbors, ports, territories or waters of the united states
33 CFR Part 6 authorizes the Captain of the Port to issue and enforce COTP orders establishing security zones and regarding vessel movement and operations. THE COTP has the authority to search and remove any person or article regarded as posing a risk to any vessel or waterfront facility
What is new post 9-11 is the MTSA and PWCS acts. This increases our Law Enforcement authority:
PWCS Authority
33 CFR 1226 Ports and Waterways Security Act
○ Prevent Acts of Terrorism
○ Identify Measures that the Secretary may emply
46 USC 70118 Maritime Transportation Security Act
○ 46 USC 70118 allows uniformed Coast Guard LE personnel to carry a firearm ashore.
○ While at a facility, such personnel may make an arrest without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence and seize property as otherwise provided by law.
○ Unarmed Coast Guard personnel deployed ashore are prohibited from exercising this statute.
○ Limitations:
§ Facilities adjacent to the water
§ Conducting Port Security Ops
§ Offenses clearly ties to ICG Statutory Missions
Boarding Oficer (Ashore) A USCG Federal LE officer under the command and a direct representative of the COTP
• Carry a Firearm
• taking necessary LE actions to protect property, themselves, and others, as well as using deadly force if necessary
• Protect Property
• Execute Warrantless Arrests
• Execute Search Warrants
In addition to the law, we have MSSTs and Port Security Units, these units are designed to execute the CONUS and OCONUS Port Security missions.
Why is systemic change in business essential?
Duration : 0:2:11
Read the rest of this entry »