Phil Hauck's TEC Blog

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Phil's January 2019 Blog ... A Bit Too Much??

It’s been awhile since I last created a blog … primarily composed of interesting things I’ve heard and read … and sometimes a comment on a political view trend.
Here’s an update:

From TEC/Vistage speaker Holly Green, on FOCUS:
Winning in business requires focus … for ourselves and our organizations. Start each morning by asking, “Of what I plan to do today, what will get me closer to my definition of winning?” Then, organize your day around the tasks and activities that move you closer to your goals, while letting go of those that are less valuable.
To keep the organization focused, make sure all employees know:
THEIR THREE primary objectives for the week/quarter/year.
How they will have succeeded at the end of these periods.
How their job responsibilities support the organization reaching its destination.
Our world may be driving to new levels of chaos and uncertainty, but that doesn’t have to get in the way of achieving our goals. By pausing, thinking, and focusing, we can manage our innate need for certainty and closure in a way that doesn’t prevent us from winning.

Tom Foster’s Blog
Do you get this? He hits me several times a week with VERY QUICK model dialogues about problems with supervision. I think they’re great, and on the mark. Great for forwarding to your management team!
Consider it:
Read example blogs:

Health System Insights
Therese Pandl, CEO of Hospital Sisters hospitals in N.E.W., made these interesting points in a talk to the Bay Area Community Council recently:
•  Who are the Payors, the reimburses for HSHS:  Medicare 43%, Medicaid 14%, Insurers 34%,
                  Self-Pay and Other, 9%.
•  Today, after making considerable efficiency initiatives over the years, the hospitals operate
                  break-even at Medicare reimbursement levels.  They have to make more than that to 
                  have dollars for technology investments.  Medicaid reimbursement is still 35% below
                  actual costs.
•  U.S. spending on the medical system is still very high at 17% of GDP, well above the next
                  highest developed country, France, at 12%.  Most other developed countries are in the
                 10% range.  We still have a VERY LARGE problem/opportunity. But:  Whose ox do 
                 we gore?
•   Research on why and who from Single Payer (i.e., government) For All is being suggested:  
                 From the 12% still uninsured, the 16% insured but can’t afford it, and general confusion 
                 on how the system works (actually, doesn’t work).
•  Community Efforts should be:  (1)  Improving Personal Health Lifestyles, and (20)Stopping 
                 the Opioid/Meth progression.

•  Brought to me by Anna Steinfest, head of the Packers Mentor/Protege program:  “You are not 
                paid by how hard you work.  You are paid by how hard you are to replace.
•  Three Ways to Start a Speech, by Conor Neill:
3.  With a question that matters to the audience!
2.  A factoid that shocks!     “There are more people alive today than have ever died."
1.  (Same way you start a story for a child):  “Once upon a time, …”  The person leans 
                         forward and engages.  It’s a story!!
    A story from your own life about why this topic/point is important for you!

A Little Political

U.S. Representative Mike Gallagher’s great article in The Atlantic, where he explains why Congress is ineffective, and three suggestions for making it much more effective … which won’t happen, of course:

What We’re Watching ...
TEC/Vistage resource Gustavo Grodnitzky talked to us three years ago about dealing with Millennials (Generation Y) … but he also projected that Millennials will be the generation that sets the U.S. straight again.  For particular reasons.  
He might now add Generation Z, the students who are jelling to rail against the intransigence/gridlock of legislative leaders and want to bring rationality and action back to the governing process.
His logic was that the last generation to spawn truly effective U.S. presidents, who dealt successfully with the problems of the times, was the Silent (Great) Generation (born 1925 to 1945), which spawned seven generally effective Presidents.  No other generation has done that since.
Gustavo’s analysis looks at what circumstances formed the experiences and outlook of the adults of each generation, looking in particular at two formative periods … growing up (birth to 18 or so), and responsible early adulthood (18+ to 40).  In the Silent Generation’s case, their growing up (1924 to 1942) involved deprivation, chaos and instability … and their responsible early adulthood (1942 to 1964) involved slow growth, low aspirations, but commitment.  They knew the needs they had to fix, and went about doing it.  Subsequent generations haven’t, with their focus on self and aspiration.
He contends that Millennials have experienced similar formative period impacts:  Born between 1982 and 2001, their growing up period (1982+ to 2000) has involved social chaos and unraveling of social structures … and their responsible early adulthood (2000+ to now) has involved slow growth, low aspirations, and a frustration with the way things are.  Thus:  They will do something about it.
Project that to today’s student-inspired marches that are a catalyst for multiple generations rising to the gun control challenge.  If successful, it will energize massive youth-inspired initiatives aiming to fix other challenges.  And the trend of more women running for office, and succeeding.
Is a not-very-quiet revolution emerging?
I think so.

Gun Violence Cause Studies
If we’re to create initiatives aimed at reducing gun-related violence, where do we aim?  Is it truly the people who wield the guns to create the violence (mentally ill)?  Will raising the age for purchase, or lengthening the waiting period, or banning fast-action guns … do the trick?  (Probably not)
Of interest:
•  Gun violence research by the federal government was actually sharply reduced by an NRA-sponsored amendment (the Dickey Amendment) back in 1996.  It aimed at prohibiting advocacy, but had the effect of reducing research as well.  The Amendment was inspired by a CDC report that said gun ownership in homes actually reduced safety, not improved it.
•  Two independent studies have appeared recently that, based on sophisticated regression analysis of gun violence causes over a bunch of years and many countries, say the primary driver of gun violence is … the number of guns … their availability.  Not mental illness.  Not regulations.  Not …, etc.
The U.S., of course, has more guns per capita … by far … than any other country.
My interpretation:  It might suggest that banning certain types of guns, such as the fast action ones, and requiring guns stored in homes to be under lock-and-key (with the owner responsible if a gun is mis-used) … might be viable improvements?  These logically would reduce the volume of deaths in mass violence events, as well as haphazard killings … while not impugning the Second Amendment yet allowing the responsible use of guns in all the practical ways that happens in America.

On the “Conservative Supreme Court for Decades” concern”
We are a nation of laws, uniquely on our planet a nation of laws.  The Supreme Court is the final stop in insuring that we stay that way.  To encourage it to make decisions not based on law is to erode this critical balance.
The furor over Judge Kavanaugh raised this issue again.  
Conservative in judicial parlance isn’t a political term.  It means that you interpret the Constitution (called “originalism), or the laws/statutes of the U.S. (called “textualism”).  You try to interpret what the creators of the Constitution/laws/statutes “mean”!  Not what they “ought” to mean now.
The concept that the Constitution should be a “living document”, interpreted by the justices as a group based on an upgraded set of values or insights … is false. That’s the responsibility of Congress, the representatives of The People. They should give the Court new laws to interpret. Justices shouldn’t.
The contentiousness that has arisen and now become incredibly political is a result of appointing judges who think and act based on their sense of evolved morality. As one writer said, women didn’t get the right to vote (an evolved morality) because of a Supreme Court decision. Rather, because of the 19th Amendment. On the “overturn” of Roe v. Wade: Maybe Roe v. Wade is an example of justices thinking their evolved morality should settle an issue. If that’s the case, then another set of justices might think differently with a new evolved morality. A big fear by many today, and a hope by others. So, let’s find some justices who will fit “my” evolved morality. 
Lawyers are trained in interpreting the law. Their value judgments aren’t superior to anyone else’s.
Let’s put pressure on Congress and state legislatures to do their jobs. Their job is to reflect our “evolved morality."

Trump’s Salary
There is a partially false claim out that President Trump donates his entire $400,000 salary to maintenance of military cemeteries.
Not quite true. Here’s what he does, according to
Every quarter, he has donated his after-tax salary as follows:
National Park Service’s maintenance of a Civil War site.
STEM program for children overseen by the Education Dept.
Opioid addiction public awareness program of Department of Health/Human Services.
Infrastructure program overseen by Dept. of Transportation.
Mental Health caregiver support program within Veterans Affairs
SBA’s “Emerging Leaders” program to help veterans adjust.