Adonis Diaries

Archive for September 21st, 2016

 Any Reasons the Best Employees Quit?

Even When They Like Their Job

Lolly Daskal is the president and CEO of Lead From Within, a global consultancy that specializes in leadership and entrepreneurial development. Daskal’s programs galvanize clients into… Full bio

Losing a great employee is a terrible thing. There’s the expense of finding, on-boarding, and training a replacement. There’s the uncertainty of how a new employee will work out. There’s the hardship on the rest of your staff until the position can be filled.

Sometimes there’s a solid reason–the person was a bad fit for the team, or moved away for personal reasons, or was offered an opportunity too great to pass up. In those cases, even if it’s a difficult transition, it feels fundamentally right.

But what about the rest?

Keeping your best employees starts with understanding why people leave.

Here are seven of the top reasons:

1. Stagnation

People don’t want to think they’re locked into a groove and will come to the same place and do the same thing every day for the next 20 or 40 years.

People want to feel that they’re still moving forward and growing in their professional life. They want to have something to aspire to. If there’s no career ladder or structure for advancement, they know they’ll need to seek it somewhere else.

In the meantime, they’re far more likely to be bored, unhappy, and resentful–things that effect performance and the entire team’s morale.

2. Overwork

Some periods of stress and feeling overwhelmed come with most jobs, but nothing burns out great employees faster than overwork.

And often it’s the best employees–the most capable and committed, your most trusted–you overload the most. If they find themselves constantly taking on more and more, especially in the absence of recognition such as promotions and raises, they come to feel they’re being taken advantage of.

And who could blame them? You’d feel the same.

3. Vague visions

There’s nothing more frustrating than a workplace filled with visions and big dreams, but no translation of those aspirations into the strategic goals that make them achievable. Without that connection, it’s all just talk.

What talented person wants to spend his or her time and energy in support of something undefined? People like to know that they’re working to create something, not just spinning their wheels.

4. Profits over people

When an organization values its bottom line more than its people, the best people go elsewhere, leaving behind those who are too mediocre or apathetic to find a better position. The result is a culture of underperformance, low morale, and even disciplinary issues.

Of course, things like profit, output, pleasing stakeholders, and productivity are important–but success ultimately depends on the people who do the work.

5. Lack of recognition

Even the most selfless people want to be recognized and rewarded for a job well done. It is part of who we are as human beings.

When you fail to recognize employees, you’re not only failing to motivate them but also missing out on the most effective way to reinforce great performance. Even if you don’t have the budget for raises or bonuses, there are lots of low-cost ways to provide recognition–and a word of appreciation is free. People won’t care if they don’t feel noticed.

6. Lack of trust

Your employees have a vantage point for viewing your behavior and weigh it against your commitments. If they see you dealing unethically with vendors, lying to stakeholders, cheating clients, or failing to keep your word, the best and most principled of them will leave. The rest, even worse, will stay behind and follow your lead.

7. Excessive hierarchy

Every workplace needs structure and leadership, but a rigidly top-down organization makes for unhappy employees.

If your best performers know they’re expected to produce without contributing their ideas, if they’re not empowered to make decisions, if they’re constantly having to defer to others on the basis of their title rather than their expertise, they don’t have much to be happy about.

Ultimately, many people who leave their job do so because of the boss, not the work or the organization. Ask yourself what you may be doing to drive your best people away, and start making the changes needed to keep them.

The War Debate America Isn’t Having

The U.S. and Britain both intervened in Iraq and Libya. Only one is now seriously reckoning with those choices.

Over the last two months, the British public has been engaged in a debate about war that has been largely absent from the U.S. presidential election.On Wednesday, a parliamentary committee in the United Kingdom released a report condemning the government of former Prime Minister David Cameron for its role in the 2011 military intervention in Libya’s civil war.
The air campaign by Britain and other coalition members, including France and the United States, prevented Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi from attacking the rebel-held city of Benghazi, and ultimately resulted in Qaddafi’s overthrow and death.
But in the years since, Libya has lurched from democratic elections to political chaos and violence. Libya, to the extent that such an entity still exists, is now home to feuding militias, an ISIS affiliate, prospering arms dealers and human smugglers, and a flickering national government buffeted by rival governments.

Andrew Bossone shared this link. September 17 at 8:52pm ·|By Uri Friedman
The parliamentary report chastises Cameron’s government for numerous failings:
acting on shoddy intelligence about the threat to Libyan civilians, rushing to war rather than exhausting diplomatic options, underestimating the presence of Islamist extremist groups among rebel forces, allowing the mission to drift from protecting civilians to toppling Qaddafi, not planning for what would replace Qaddafi, and losing interest in rebuilding the country after Qaddafi’s fall.
If these critiques sound familiar, that’s because many echo the findings of a massive report released in July by the former British official John Chilcot, who rebuked former Prime Minister Tony Blair for joining George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 even though the intelligence justifying military action was flawed, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein posed “no imminent threat,” there were peaceful alternatives for disarming Iraq, and few preparations were made for the day after Saddam’s ouster.The BBC’s James Landale nicely captures the complex lessons of these inquiries:“The subtext [of this week’s parliamentary report on Libya] is that the lessons of Iraq were ignored,” he writes. “Yet in truth the report also reveals the uncertainty among policymakers about military intervention, torn between avoiding another Srebrenica-style massacre when the West turned a blind eye to the killings of Muslims by Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and the need to avoid another Iraq-style intervention when Western countries got bogged down in an internal conflict. What happened in Libya was a half and half policy, of intervention without occupation. And it is a model that did not work.”

I mention all this in the context of the U.S. election because last week, after a “Commander-in-Chief Forum featuring Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, moderator Matt Lauer was tarred and feathered in the media for not challenging the Republican candidate when he claimed to have opposed the Iraq War from the start.
Trump cited a 2004 Esquire article in which he labeled the war a “mess,” but conveniently didn’t mention that time in 2002 when Howard Stern asked him whether he supported invading Iraq, and Trump responded, “Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly.”
Nor did Trump mention his other stray, wishy-washy comments about the war before 2004.Yes, Trump wasn’t telling the truth. And, as countless critics pointed out after the forum, Lauer should have fact-checked him, rather than pivoting to a frothy question about Trump’s “temperament.”But this wasn’t exactly Trump’s first evasion of the truth. And the “fact” at issue here is an answer that a businessman 14 years removed from a presidential run gave to a radio host. It’s a couple lines in an interview where more time was spent discussing the looks of Trump’s girlfriend than the Iraq War.The fact—Trump’s “I guess I’m for invading Iraq” —was the verbal equivalent of a shrug emoticon.

Where, by contrast, was the outrage about Trump’s non-answer to an audience member’s question about his plan to prevent a group like ISIS from reemerging in the Middle East if and when ISIS is defeated?

Trump’s response largely consisted of restatements of the question and regret that the United States didn’t “take” Iraq’s oil. Lauer asked how America could have taken Iraqi oil, but he didn’t press Trump on his plan to win the peace in the region.

Where was the outrage about Clinton’s claim that the Libyan intervention, which she forcefully advocated for as secretary of state in the Obama administration, “was the right decision. Not taking it, and permitting there to be an ongoing civil war in Libya, would have been as dangerous and threatening as what we are now seeing in Syria.”
Clinton didn’t mention the very real fighting—the civil war, you might say—that followed the intervention in Libya. She didn’t reflect on whether, on balance, the Libyan intervention has made Americans safer. And she didn’t discuss the excruciating calculus commanders in chief must make: how she weighs the Libyan lives lost in the conflict that came after the dictator’s death against the Libyan lives that could have been lost had the U.S. and its allies not intervened against Qaddafi. Lauer followed up with a question about Iran.

Where was the outrage about Trump’s assertion that Clinton “made a terrible mistake on Libya … [and] then they complicated the mistake by having no management once they bombed you-know-what out of Qaddafi. … I think that we have great management talents.”

Lauer didn’t ask Trump why then, back in 2011, he had supported U.S. military intervention in Libya to “save … lives,” and why Trump had been so confident that it “would be very easy and very quick” to overthrow Qaddafi given his alleged longtime opposition to the Iraq War.

Lauer didn’t ask for a couple concrete examples of how Trump would have managed the post-Qaddafi period better than President Obama. Instead, Lauer asked if Trump was “prepared” to be commander in chief.

Where was the outrage when Clinton said her vote for the Iraq War (as a national political leader authorizing war, not a businessman sounding off on a radio show) was a mistake, but then didn’t explain why, specifically, her support for the Libyan intervention wasn’t?
Lauer didn’t ask for an explanation. Regarding the Iraq War, Clinton said “it is imperative that we learn from the mistakes.” Lauer wasn’t interested in what lessons she’d learned.
A national-security forum would have been a sensible time to probe the candidates on their theories of war in the post-9/11 world, and how those theories substantively differ—why they took the positions we know they took, what they learned from those decisions, and how they would apply those lessons as president of the United States.
After all, as my colleague David Graham has noted, the interventions in Iraq and Libya “show how Clinton and Trump both came to the same conclusions about hitting Baghdad and Tripoli: The wars would be short, good for America, and good for the world.
In both cases, they were wrong, and the major contrast between them is that Clinton was better versed in the specifics of both cases when she made her calls.”The Commander-in-Chief Forum was just one of many instances so far on the campaign trail when matters of war and peace have been boiled down to who was for what when, who founded ISIS, who is a gift to ISIS, and so on.In Britain, the wars in Iraq and Libya have recently prompted introspection and serious wrestling with hard truths. Not so across the Atlantic.

Note: After 9/11 in 2001, Europe blindly sided with the US foreign policies, particularly England. They joined the US interventions and then after the fact decided to perform their meya cilpa

She grabbed my balls relentlessly:

I was forbidden to express my manhood?


Elle lui interdisait beaucoup de mots qui la gênaient. Certains gestes aussi.

Elle leur préférait d’autres qui ne remuaient rien en lui.

Un jour il a injurié une abeille qui l’a piqué . Elle le réprimanda:
” C’est laid les injures.”

Les mois passèrent . Son capital de mots “autorisés” diminuait, au fur et à mesure. Sa libido aussi .

Leurs échanges suivaient toujours le même mode : usage restreint des mots et gestes, et mortification de son imaginaire jusqu’au jour où une feuille lui poussa sur le bras gauche ( il était gaucher ) puis une autre et encore une autre, puis d’autres.

Il a compris alors qu’il devenait végétal.

Ses vertèbres se sont soudées. Son tronc s’est endurci .

Il perdit complètement gestes et paroles.( pour dire quoi ? )

Elle le planta dans un joli pot, qu’elle mettait dans sa chambre à coucher la nuit, et dans son salon le jour.

Un jour de grand ménage, il se retrouva sur le balcon. Il avait un seul voeu : qu’une abeille vienne le polliniser …

( Jamil BERRY




September 2016

Blog Stats

  • 1,516,360 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 822 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: