Separation of Business and Life
Ironically, one of the most difficult things...
Ironically, one of the most difficult things for small business owners to
overcome is themselves. This manifests itself in how and why business decisions
are made. When a business is ones livlihood, it is difficult to look at things
from a standpoint of "what's good for the business," instead of "what's good for
me, my family, and the business."
Overcoming this is as difficult as it is
rewarding. This type of behavior is especially prevalent with more successful
businesses. As revenues increase, business owners often compensate themselves in
proportion to the growth of their business. This type of thinking can lead to
extremely short-sighted management. When a business owner is considering
upgrading their information systems or hiring another employee, they should not
be thinking of how it would result in their postponing a family vacation to
Miami or even how they are going to pay the mortgage on their home. They should
be considering how it will help achieve the long or short term goals of the
business.
Business owners should consider themselves employees. They are, in fact their
own boss and they should take care of themselves, but to be successful they need
to act like a manager. Who they are should be reflected in their business, but
their business should not be restricted by who they are.
An excellent solution is to develop a strict long-term compensation plan for
yourself. This plan should go forward at least five years and should not be
directly proportionate to net income. In effect, it should not be some
percentage of your profits. Instead think of how you would compensate someone if
you were to hire them from the outside. If you succeed at making your business
grow, you deserve a reward, or a bonus of some sort; however, if you save money
by not investing in your own business, thereby reducing the rate of growth, as a
manager, you do not deserve a raise.
As I said before, this is not an easy task and eventually it is wise to step
aside entirely, allowing a professional management staff to take over your
company. At this point, it may be wise to take a percentage of profits as your
own dividend income, so long as you stay out of most business decisions.
Euthanasia, Suicide, and Letting Die
Today after the class I felt greatly unsettled...
Today after the class I felt greatly unsettled, bordering on being angry and
I didn't know why. The long car ride home helped to distill and give words to my
feelings. Partly, I felt much as Joyce expressed in class about these recent
chapters - they don't go far enough; something is missing (Joyce, I know I don't
have your words but I hope I have the sense of what you said. If I don't, I
apologize). Jane, at the end of her posting said: "I don't feel more prepared to
answer these questions than before reading Fowl's article." The part I'm having
trouble dealing with is part about letting die; for some reason it just doesn't
sound real. Since we just talk about stories, let me tell a story and maybe in
the process I'll discover that Bailey Stoneking and I are saying the same thing
with different words.
Just about ten years ago my wife, Mary Jo, went to the doctor's office - she
felt that she had a cold that she couldn't shake off. We found out she had a
lung mass; the next day they found tumors on both adrenal glands. A few days
later we had confirmation of what we expected, she had a very aggressive form of
cancer. We began to live out the term "palliative care" Time (as in the story
from out text) took on a new meaning. At first, we talked in terms of one to two
years; within a few weeks we began to talk in terms of months, within the month,
we began talking in terms of weeks and finally in terms of days. The time
between her first doctor visit and her death was 16 weeks. As she herself put it
towards the end, "t was a fast ride!" During this "fast ride" we talked in
terms of good time and not so good time. The good time was sometimes, time
without pain. Another aspect of time we looked forward to was "normal time";
a time when we didn't think or talk about cancer, or, other people would treat us
a "normal couple" and they too would forget about the cancer. Finally, there was
the good bye time. This is the time when you sense time rather than observe it
pass by. A time where we let go because we could not go where the other was
going. For me this is the meaning of time when dieing.
Patience and reflection; who the hell had time for either? But then again,
maybe I did learn this lesson in another way. The first few weeks of Mary Jo's
illness was nothing but a series of bad news with more bad news. It was
overwhelming to say the least. However, we did learn to let all the bad news
wash over us. Not denial, we took it all in. And then when we had all the bad
news we tried to sort it all out. We figured out what we could do, what we
couldn't do, and, more importantly, what wasn't worth doing.
The most important lesson I learned was that we did not lose hope, but what
we hoped for changed. And it changed continually throughout the 16 weeks. At
first, we hoped for a cure, then we hoped for good normal time, and then death
because it was real. We were at peace with that. For those of you doing CPE this
summer remember that lesson - You don't lose hope, but what you hope for changes.
Rights and Wrong
On one side of the debate surrounding the public...
On one side of the debate surrounding the public testimony of Condi Rice
before the 9/11 commission is the need for the American public to know
more about what the Bush Administration knew and did regarding the terrorist
threat to the United States and the horrific attacks on September 11. The Bush
administration position on this matter is that if Condi Rice publicly appeared
before the 9/11 Commission it would compromise the separations of powers
doctrine, which is the right of each branch of the federal government to be free
from interference from the others. It is unclear why she can appear before this
panel in private yet a public appearance would be improper. However, there is a
larger inconsistency with this administration on the issue of constitutional
rights.
This debate, like most, is not without context. The 9/11 Commission is
investigating the worst terrorist attacks suffered by the United States. The
precedent of these attacks has cause a re-examination of some fundamental
liberties and freedoms enjoyed by Americans. In particular, to assist in the
battle against terrorism the Patriot
Act was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush less than
two months after the attacks. Moreover, the Bush administration has drafted for
congressional consideration further measures to battle terrorism, dubbed Patriot
Act II. Even by its most ardent supports' estimations, the Patriot Act (and
Patriot Act II if made law) erodes civil liberties heretofore guaranteed to
citizens of this great country. But, in exchange for the loss of some basis
rights of its citizens, the government, we are told, is better equipped to meet
the terrorist threat and protect these same citizens.
Yet, this same government that tells us that the cost of our safety is a
measure of our liberties, places itself above offering a public explanation
under oath by Condi Rice of its knowledge and actions prior to the 9/11 attacks.
Ironically, they cite the rights of the President (and his close advisors) to be
free from Congressional investigation. We must remember that the government
ultimately serves to protect the rights of its citizens. Therefore, the rights
enjoyed by the government, such a separation of powers, needs to be viewed
through the lens of extraordinary circumstances that we now live in- just as
they did when examining the loss of civil liberties of the citizens with the
enactment of the Patriot Act. The People have a right to hear Dr. Rice tell
publicly and under oath what she knew and what action she did or did not take
and why. Interestingly, one civil right left untouched by the Patriot Act is the
right to not self-incriminate. Maybe this the right actually being asserted by
the President.