Jay Yurkiewicz

Jay Yurkiewicz

14p

10 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

409 weeks ago @ Catarina's World - Inventories can be man... · 3 replies · +1 points

CATARINA, THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM MY ANSWER TO A SIMILAR QUESTION ON LINKEDIN FROM SEP 2008 (Can a manager who has high emotional intelligence become in a true leader?)...THIS RESPONSE DOES NOT DIRECTLY ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION, BUT HOPEFULLY, IT ADDS TO YOUR DISCUSSION :-)

Due to the fact that this question does not have an obvious and clear answer, let me express my own personal bias as it relates to your question. - I happen to be in the camp of believers that "EQ" cannot be learned/taught (due to lack of a clear definition of "EQ", I'll refer to it as a combo of interpersonal skills, charisma, ability to emphatize with others, ability to pick up on non-verbal cues such as body language, etc) . I believe EQ can be enhanced. I happen to agree with the proposition that EQ is more of "a psychological trait" rather than a "learned behavior/skill." On a very basic level: can anyone name an institution that can teach a boring person to become a successful stand-up comedian? Hitler, Stalin....two "monsters" who succeeded to persuade millions of high IQ people to follow their insane and inhuman goals...These 2 monsters were not dumb, but they must have been some of the most charismatic leaders the world has ever seen. I'd venture a guess that EQ rather IQ played the more important role. They lacked formal education, their IQ must have been quite high, but they were not Einsteins.... Hugo Chavez...I never met this brilliant leader of Venezuela, but I'll venture a guess that his "success" (ie, ability to become a leader of entire nation) has more to do with his DNA than with his intellectual abilities. Of course, I may be wrong. If somebody can sell "nonsense" to high IQ individuals, then the entire debate become rather complex (and quite entertaining). For some reason, I am rather skeptical of the IQ brilliance of President Chavez..but, it's possible he's simply a great actor who mastered the skill of acting like an "idiot" in order to persuade bright people to follow his "idiotic" theories. My logic is rather fuzzy, but such an "act" would require an incredibly high level of EQ :-) During my brief academic career I was surprised to learn that 60-70 yrs of leadership/business research failed to produce a definition of "entrepreneurship." To this day, Business School profs/researchers cannot agree on the definition of the word. To this day, the argument about the determinants of entrepreneurial success has not been settled. Entrepreneurs are born, not made vs Entrepreneurship can be taught/learned to anybody who wants to learn.. Again, overwhelming amount of reliable data proves an absolute lack of statistically valid relationship between entrepreneurial success and "education". I know several entrepreneurs with Ph.D. degrees. I also "know" thousands who never graduated from college. Leadership seems to be confused with "management." My bias is a follows: - you can teach a person with high EQ (and average IQ) how to become an effective/successful manager. - you cannot teach a person with a high IQ and average EQ how to become a successful leader. To reiterate, I am expressing my own bias. In general, leaders don't need IQ of 145...Leaders tend to succeed thanks to their ability to create a strong "emotional" bond/influence over their followers (Hitler was a screaming maniac...Stalin was a "cool" and "calm" uncle Joe...but, they both became God-like figures). Managers: some of the best managers I know seem to be nearly "mentally-challenged" (in EQ terms) in my own, extremely biased opinion. Yet, they do an excellent job "managing." As usual, I'll end my answer with the following statement: I am simply expressing my opinion & I may be completely wrong :-)... Jay

433 weeks ago @ Catarina's World - WikiLeaks - what a pub... · 1 reply · +1 points

Catarina, I just found a free moment.... I could not agree with you more re: the following question: "what's WikiLeaks mission (as they like to call it) or their business objective"?

During past few yrs, I've been actually "following" WikiLeaks. When I say "following", I mean:
- it was/is a company that seemed to be in tune with the explosive growth of social marketing phenomenon; they'd do the "dirty" work of digging up info that floats around on Facebook, Twitter, blah, blah, blah, try to piece it together, and periodically succeed in uncovering/publicizing some meaningful stories/issues....and, they'd focus on stuff other than tabloid-like celebrity scandals. THERE'S INFO OUT THERE (good example would be terrorist attacks in Mumbai in 2008... that's when I started to take Twitter seriously -- instant and constant flow of live updates from huge number of independent sources, namely "regular" people rather than media outlets). In short, I expected for organizations/companies like WikiLeaks to evolve into solid/reliable media outlets. To become solid/reputable news sources that could compete with CNN, BBC etc in providing relatively reliable info 24/7 within minutes of occurrence of some event in ANY PART of the globe. Anyway, you get my point.....

Well, I came to a conclusion that's very similar to yours. To put it bluntly (and, to use a a quote from Jerry Maguire movie.): "WikiLeaks - SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!! You've had plenty of time to prove your worth/value, so......"SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!"...Who are you? Do you have any sort of mission statement/objective? etc, etc, etc.

Of course: as usual, I am simply expressing my own, personal opinion and I could be completely wrong (as Dennis Miller loves to say :-)

To reiterate: great topic for discussion.

Jay

433 weeks ago @ Catarina's World - WikiLeaks - what a pub... · 3 replies · +1 points

Catarina, I have no time to comment right now...just wanted to let you know I enjoyed reading this post. Very timely subject - both in terms of the N. Korean crisis AND rapid growth of web/social networking phenomenon. Anyway... good stuff.

Jay

436 weeks ago @ Catarina's World - Get the energy to succ... · 1 reply · +1 points

I guess it's a bit ironic that I lack ENERGY to comment on an article about ENERGY...can we call it "efficient use of a limited resource", namely ENERGY :-).

436 weeks ago @ Catarina's World - Get the energy to succ... · 3 replies · +1 points

Catarina,
You know I would not be able to resist a comment on subjects that are of so much interest to me: determinants of success, motivation/desire/energy to persevere in pursuit of excellence, goal setting & its impact on performance, behavioral and psychological (and environmental) factors, etc, etc.
I hope you don’t mind, but I think somebody else’s words will do a better job in conveying my thoughts. A while back I came across an article (“Self-Motivation: The Desire to Succeed” by Matthew Hick and I added it to my ongoing collection of “stuff for future reference”…..I think this article addresses many of your questions/issues – I like the concise and nature of the piece.
WHAT I LIKE MOST ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PIECE: IT ADDRESSES 1) Personality traits (or, in other words, our genetic make-up), 2) behavioral factors, and 3) environmental/external factors.
ALSO, SOME OF THE AUTHOR’S “VIEWS” WOULD FIT IN VERY NICELY WITH MY DOCTORAL DISSERTATION (IE, GOAL-SETTING AS PREDICTOR OF SUCCESS). I don’t believe author’s permission is required for me to post the article & I provided full reference below, too.
In any case: a nice, concise article that includes much specific suggestion re: improving one’s performance/becoming more successful. Unfortunately, it does not mention yoga 
Jay

Self-Motivation: The Desire to Succeed By: Matthew Hick, Nov 09, 2006

It's 6 in the morning. The alarm clock is buzzing, and you're thinking to yourself, "What's the point in getting up this early for work?" For some of us, the motivation is simply the desire to shut off the clock that is vibrating off the nightstand. But for others, it is truly self-motivation. It is an internal alarm clock that motivates a person to make the best of his or her day.
Certainly, everyone wants to succeed in the world. Everyone wants to have a purpose, to be at the top of the corporate ladder, or to be the best he or she can be in any given area. But why do some people succeed in doing these things, and others do not? The answer is: self-motivation.
There are several factors that contribute to self-motivation. They include:
-Self-esteem
-Desire to succeed
-Will power
-Mental stability
-Family
-Life goals
-Daily activities
-Daily pleasures
All of these factors will directly affect success in a career, in academics, in playing sports, and in marriage and parenting. Whether you desire the highest position possible at your job, or graduating with a 4.0 grade point average, you need self-motivation to do it. Self-motivation drives an athlete to score the winning soccer goal, just as it drives a parent to be a good role model for a child.
Along with the desire to succeed comes mental stability. Everyone has a bad day here and there; but what self-motivates a person to continue on with the bad day? The answer is mental stability. The mind is a great force. When you put your mind to accomplishing something, you will try your best to do it. As a result, your will power is tested. Being able to stay self-motivated and focused on what is important rather than "throwing in the towel" allows you to succeed in the end. Will power, mental stability, and the desire to succeed are all the result of self-motivation.
Another factor that drives self-motivation is the family unit. Family can self-motivate an individual to be successful. An individual – especially a working spouse – will crave the family's pride and approval. The working spouse self-motivates himself or herself simply by worrying whether or not the family is taken care of financially. The working spouse will most likely want to earn a high paycheck, and in the end provide for the family. Children often idolize their parents and will mimic what they see their parents doing. In the end self-motivation is passed on from one generation to the next, as it is an important role in family affairs.
Lastly, self-motivation is driven by daily goals and basic daily routines such as losing weight or learning how to play a sport. The simple daily pleasure of waking up to see the sun shine, to hear the birds singing, or even listening to the rain are all pleasures which can self-motivate a person to get up in the morning.

Copied from http://www.articlesbase.com/motivational-articles...

437 weeks ago @ Catarina's World - Will regulating banks ... · 1 reply · +1 points

Rich, I was about to say: "never underestimate the creativity of the human mind".

Unfortunately, this creativity is also our curse. Regulations are necessary in many areas of life (anarchy is overrated :-). By definition, creative minds identify NEW loopholes. Again, by definition: a NEW idea is NEW. This means that regulators have NOT considered it yet (sort of like regulating Internet in 1977 or whatever...).

Result: regulators have always been and will continue to be 1 step behind INNOVATIVE exploitation of loopholes. As soon as loophole is closed, a new one opens up. Regulators cannot be blamed for failing to regulated something that doesn't exist.

Regulators should be expected, however, to ensure legality of existing and new "loopholes" etc. (ie, analogous to police enforcing existing laws). This is the area where regulators SHOULD be held accountable for failure to identify illegal activities. Madoff case is a great example: SEC/regulators FAILED to act despite abundant evidence of fraud. If regulators fail to enforce existing regulations/laws, how can we expect them to prevent creation of new loopholes?

Possible solution: treat regulators the same way we treat Enron execs, etc. If your negligence results in loss of billions of dollars for Enron's (or Madoff's) "victims", then you should be punished. Enron execs went to prison. Any regulators ever went to prison? If regulators mess up, they're not punished. If Madoff/Enron mess up, they pay for it dearly.

Perhaps the question we should ask is: "does big government/regulations benefit or hurt economic/social progress?"

I have no idea what the answer is. I do know 1 thing, though: Wall Street WILL ALWAYS (I MEAN: ALWAYS) BE 1 STEP AHEAD OF REGULATORS. So, what's the solution? :-)

437 weeks ago @ Catarina's World - Is Soros right - Could... · 1 reply · +1 points

Catrina, you got it!!! AS LONG AS SUCCESS IS LEGAL & ETHICAL, THEN IT EARNS MY COMPLETE ADMIRATION. And, I find the following fact amusing: the more successful you are, the more criticism you tend to receive even if everything you do is 100% legal & ethical.
Humans are programmed to be envious/resentful of others' success, aren't they?

Of course, my generalization about human nature opens another can of worms :-). Needless to say, this is a ploy on my part -- to make a controversial generalization in order to generate "response/reaction" :-). In all seriousness, I'd love to pose a question: is there such a thing as BAD PUBLICITY? For example in case of Tiger Woods? (haha....Tiger's name does attract attention, doesn't it?..and so it goes).
Jay Y.

437 weeks ago @ Catarina's World - Is Soros right - Could... · 3 replies · +1 points

I agree with his CURRENT position re: EU and Euro's future. Yet, Soros has a tendency to speak out on controversial subjects (especially when these comments attract media's attention). For example, his sudden lack of faith in "socialist" system sounds a bit amusing....attention is guaranteed when one of the most "notoriously socialist" American billionaires seems to lose faith in "socialism."

But, it's easy to praise socialism (read: big government, etc) and act like a philantropist when you have more money than you need. His ego (as for any financier) is rather large -- despite his only claim to success is a lucky bet against the pound that netted him billions of $. Since then, he became more interested in politics/influence/celebrity status than in actual business. For example, in the 1990's he tried to become a "major power broker" in former communist countries, especially in his native Hungary.

I put Soros and Trump in the same category re: ability to predict future :-). If you make 100 ridiculous predictions, you're guaranteed:
- media attention
- the odds are that one of your "nutty" predictions does come true...great for an ego :-)

Of course, the above comments should not be misinterpreted. I have utmost respect for Mr. Soros (and Mr. Trump) and businessmen, philantropists, human beings, etc :-)

Jay Y.

437 weeks ago @ Catarina's World - Is Soros right - Could... · 1 reply · +1 points

Soros is a speculator....well, in free-market economy, we're all speculators. Any time I acquire an asset, I assume that I am getting a great deal. Ironically, the seller believes he/she is getting a great deal. When I do business in France, I keep my mouth shut (or even praise socialism). In the US, most biz owners/decision-makers tend to praise socialism only when it serves their biz needs (oh, such as getting a government contract from Democrat-controlled government entity, etc). SOROS IS AS MUCH OF A BRILLIANT, PROFIT-DRIVEN MAVERICK AS DONALD TRUMP IS. Soros' first big financial success was a result of his ability to shake investors' confidence in Britist Pound Sterling (hey, we may dislike him and his methods, but this is business....as far as I know, he did not break any laws and he exercised his freedom of speech -- fundamentals of capitalistic system....so, SOROS AND HIS PREDICTIONS REGARDING EURO OR EU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN "BUSINESS AS USUAL" :-).

Having said the above: I don't care too much for Soros and his "methods"...but, this is my own, subjective opinion.

EU & Euro: I am pessimistic about future of Euro and EU.
I lived and worked in Brussels for a while (and few other EU countries) . To put it bluntly: unlike the Union that evolved naturally into the United States, EU/Euro are an artificial "creation." I apologize for my cynicism, but EU/Euro remind me of the game of Monopoly. Yes, the board game. Deutsche Mark's strength was a result of its economic power, etc. It stemmed from the coordinated fiscal policy by Germans....On a very basic/fundamental level: before Euro, if Germans pulled off the stunt we've witnessed in Greece, I DOUBT THAT THE DUTCH OR THE POLES WOULD FEEL TOO SORRY FOR THOSE IRRESPONSIBLE GERMANS! Let them starve so they'll learn how to live within their means!!
Anyway, I am stating the obvious: as a resident of Florida, I don't expect for my taxes to ensure a comfy life-style of Alaska or Nebraska, or whatever. If my neighbor goes bust, I try to help out, but I don't hand over half of my life savings.

EU has become a monster...national interests supersede EU interests. EU reminds me of what former European colonial powers did all over the world -- they'd created arbitrary national borders in Africa, Asia (Irag!!!) without any regard to inhabitants' sense of nationality, religion, language, etc. Sorry, but it's rather surreal to expect EU members to agree on ANYTHING!!! National/cultural identity that has evolved for a thousand yrs cannot be changed via a decree or a referendum. Look at the Balkan region...look at divided Cyprus...look at Belgium on a brink of breaking up!!!

Euro as a currency: well, call me an idiot, but I feel comfy with my US dollar.
- Greece knew that it would never be allowed to default....if Greece defaulted, then the entire European Union and Euro currency would cease to exist overnight.
- When I hear people talking about China or Russia replacing their foreign currency reserves from US dollars to Euros, I feel like laughing. For some reason, OPEC sticks to the US dollar.

Greek crisis exposed the fundamental weakness & uncertainty associated with EU and Euro. My European friends tend to say: there would be no Euro without Germany & France. My question is: WHAT HAPPENS IF GERMANY'S ECONOMY WERE TO COLLAPSE? Would the Estonians be able/willing to save this rather idealistic dream of "Europe as one nation",

EU and Euro did just fine when EU's membership was limited to a small group of wealthiest European countries and when the post-war economic boom allowed Europe to establish a comfy (but unsustainable) social safety net, etc.

The Greek crisis (which is likely to be followed by countries like Spain or whoever) drove one point home: the party is over. We lived it up for 50 yrs . Now, it's time to pay for it.

I hope I am wrong. And, I really don't care what Soros has to say about it all. Soros is simply trying to do what he did in the past -- make a financial killing thanks to instability of one nation's currency. Right now, EU and Euro are one nation just like UK was back then. So, do we really need Soros to tell us what to think and where to invest?
Jay Yurkiewicz

437 weeks ago @ Catarina's World - Entrepreneurship - do ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Catarina, just a “quick” comment (I only have a minute, but the topic is "dear" to my heart :-). I did my doctoral dissertation in 1991-1996 at Univ. of North Carolina-Chapel Hill Mngt Dept, specifically Organizational Behavior. I studied approx. 120 small-biz owners in Poland (ie, people who ACTUALLY did start their own businesses, with vast majority of the subject being 2-10 employee-firms...all located in Poland, near Lodz). Each of 120 subjects/biz owners (or, at least key decision-maker with financial stake in the firm) completed a lengthy questionnaire. Then, each subject was interviewed IN PERSON for approx 30-60 min (I speak Polish).
Objective of the study: focus on goal setting and various personality/psychological variables to see if there's a relationship between 1) those personality variables and 2) entrepreneur's/company's success.

Success was relatively easy to measure: it consisted of entrepreneur's all savings, capital, etc. In short: a successful entrepreneur would have a nice house/apt and drive a nice car. A less successful one would drive an old Fiat and live in a tiny, communist era apt.

As you can see, I was fortunate re: my timing of this study. Success is notoriously difficult/impossible to measure (especially in a field like OB). Also, almost all subject started with no/little money. There was no banking system. No capital sources. Anyway....

The findings of the study led me to believe that entrepreneurs are BORN rather than MADE.
- few of the subjects had any biz eduction (marketing??? what's that??? :-)
- few of the subject had experience of working for themselves (most used to have government jobs)

In short: biz experience and financial resources played a minor role in determining success.

What seemed to make a difference?
- goal setting (without subjects realizing that this is what they were actually doing
- proactive/positive "attitude as in: "IF I WORK HARD, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE"....I guess we could call it high level of confidence, persistence, perseverance, etc. HARD WORK ALONE DIDN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.
- on BEHAVIORAL LEVEL: successful individuals were considerably better at making adjustments to their initial plans, improvising, etc. In theoretical terms, it's pretty much a goal-setting/feedback/adjustment/outcome loop. So, successful biz owners seemed to be better than less successful ones at recognizing a need for change/adaptation and/or acting quicker/better on "signs" (ie, feedback) that an adjustment/strategy change etc.
When asked: "why did you decide to do this or that?", they'd usually credit their "intuition" as the key component NEEDED TO SURVIVE in such an uncertain/confusing environment.

To summarize:
- success was positively related to various psychological variables I mentioned above ("optimism" would be a good word to describe it)
- successful biz owners engaged in more methodical goal setting/adjustment process.

Personal interviews were extremely valuable. Either I or a Polish PhD student conducted those interviews AFTER we reviewed about 6 pages of questions. We noticed a tremendous difference between people whom we labeled as "successful" vs "less successful". I don't think this part of the study got published - it was not very scientific, to say the least :-). However, successful entrepreneurs (compared to less successful ones) seemed more energetic, extroverted, optimistic, full of plans for the future, etc. THEY WERE NOT UNREALISTIC OR DELUSIONAL.

In my opinion, entrepreneurs are born rather than made....education helps, etc. But, whenever I talked to these people, I always thought to myself: IT WAS THAT "INNER" DRIVE AND SENSE OF PURPOSE/CONFIDENCE THAT LED TO SUCCESS. I doubt that work experience/education would have made much of a difference when those individuals DECIDED TO RISK IT ALL for the sake of a biz venture. Yes, risk-taking was also correlated with success.
Regards and sorry about disorganized/rushed reply.
Jay Yurkiewicz