DD
MM
YYYY

PAGES

DD
MM
YYYY

spot_img

PAGES

Home Blog Page 4587

UNICEF relief materials are not for sale

0

With so much amazement and disgust, I always see folks openly hawking around and selling United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) educational relief materials. Some traders even display it brazenly for sale in their shops. The irony is that on those materials it is boldly written; “This Item is Not for Sale”, but people will out of greed and sheer foolishness trade those materials even in the open market.

Instead of sharing it with the right people freely that it is meant to, they will rather hoard it and sell it out. This is a crime and wickedness against humanity and whenever I see this I always wonder what the law enforcement agencies are doing about it or are they not seeing it as well?

Not just school bags and notebooks that are meant for indigent school children are being sold in the open markets, also mosquito nets that are to be freely distributed and shared amongst rural dwellers and those living in mosquito-prone areas as a United Nation agency fights against malaria are also be seen in the open market being sold with the inscription “not for sale” boldly written on them.

As expected, Covid 19 relief materials were also hoarded and sold by people who were supposed to freely distribute them to their ward members during the covid 19 peak.

In October 2021, the Adamawa state government arrested ten officials and charged them to court for having hoarded and sold educational relief materials like school bags and notebooks sent by the United Nation agency that is meant for indigent school children.

For those that might be ignorant of the law, when an item it’s marked not for sale, the act of selling it amounts to stealing, and both the seller and the buyer will be held liable for theft.  The buyers and the sellers are guilty of the crime of theft so when next you see an item that is not meant to be sold, do not buy such items no matter how ridiculously cheap they are, instead notify the law enforcement authorities. How you will know such items is that “Not for Sale” will be boldly inscribed on them.

The law provides that anyone who buys an item of this nature is liable to fourteen years imprisonment for receiving stolen property as provided in the criminal code act.

 

The Eagle vs Duck Analogy: How Heuristic Creeps Into Talent Sourcing and Management

0

One of the experiences you get from using LinkedIn — other than a feeling of torment or self-persecution that sometimes accompanies seeing success stories of individuals popping up on your feeds– is that you get to learn from and share thoughts with other brilliant minds on the platform. Yes, I get that regularly, and sometimes I get inspired to post my winnings too. Of course, LinkedIn is one of the go-to-places to jolt yourself up for growth; it’s a place of many great opportunities.

The other day, I latched onto an opinion piece on LinkedIn which caught my attention. The poster, a Nigerian-American lady, leads a company in the US and has many years of recruiting experience as I discovered in her profile.

In the post, the lady declares her newly developed insights in talent sourcing and people’s management, and she claims her philosophical compass was a management nugget by Jim Rohn – Never send your ducks to eagles’ school!

Jim Rohn has used this nugget to explain the Mystery of motivation, and how managers must always take cognisance of the Mystery in people’s management. However, how this generally applies in people’s management remains a case for subjective analysis. The lady made the following remarks based on her understanding of the analogy:

‘’This lesson has guided me in my hiring decision as an executive. You don’t train people to be the best at what they do. If you want the best, you hire the best and empower them to be the best.

‘’Some organisations hire ducks expecting them to become an eagle. They invest much in training and development, hoping to turn ducks into an eagle. A duck and an eagle differ in motivation, drive and attitude. These are qualities that you can’t reach’’ she said.

At my first assessment of the foregoing proposition, I could only think of heuristic and how this has influenced many recruitment decisions in corporate management.

To start with, how do you distinguish an eagle from a duck in the recruitment process? If you only work with certain values in mind, you may be dealing with a parrot or a dove or a crow or a chicken without even realizing this. In this article, it has been shown how incompetent leadership has been encouraged due to emphasis on traits such as confidence, overbearance, masculinity, self-promotion, impetuousness etc over empathy, humility and courteousness.

But of course, my rejoinder to the post was not based on that line of thought. I’d rather consider the subject from a structural functionalist perspective.

My point is this: I’d rather have fewer eagles than ducks, and as a leader, I shouldn’t be bothered about having to turn a duck to an eagle since both have their unique purposes to fulfil within the corporate system, one handling strategic decisions and the other dealing with the operational routines.

I believe an organisation that hopes to have steady growth as well as stability would endeavour to not make the mistake of having more eagles than ducks or solely eagles. I came to this realization a long time ago after observing the inclination of the eagles towards office politics compared to the ducks. My experience informed my second book, Moral Licensing Syndrome: How Your Category-Best Employees Can Endanger Your System.

Eagles are highly expensive to maintain, they rarely can be domesticated and they’d often find it condescending doing the routines which are best suited for the ducks. Also, due to their high competitiveness, eagles are more calculative, self-serving and fleeting, hence, their loyalty is seldom guaranteed.

The self-serving and fleeting proclivity of the eagle is further explained here by Dharmesh Arora, regional CEO of Asia Pacific at German manufacture Schaeffler having understood in the hard way  why it’s no use trying to keep a star-performer who’s already decided to move on.

On the other hand, the only way ducks compensate for their shortfall against the eagles is loyalty. Generally, ducks appear weak not because of a lack of talent but because of low self-esteem resulting from lack of self-awareness and poor exposure. When you train and motivate them enough, the result is often magical.

How Business Managers Can Recognise and Deal with Hubris

0

Hubris has been identified as one of the early signs of a weak corporate leadership or a business waiting to fail. Hubris almost invariably morph into greed, accelerating the downward slope of the business growth curve. Many businesses that have moved from top quintile of economic profit to struggling underdogs and from bankruptcy to extinction have been found to exhibit these two characteristics.

Hubris is the feeling of overconfidence or excessive pride usually resulting from the savour of previous achievements. At the highest level of hubris is a winning obsession or a wanton desire for more. Hubris inspires heuristic, experience bias and self-serving bias which often lead one to take excessive, uncalculated risks.

For example, when a manager or an executive thinks their domain-knowledge and professional experience always gives them an edge to make better strategic risks and financial decisions than their peers or subordinates, such executive may be said to be suffering from hubris.

Placing emphasis on short-term gains over long-term benefits is a notorious reinforcer of the tendency for hubris and greed among top executives. Studies have shown that some organizations would rather promote opportunistic pursuit of strategies that were based on self-interest if that translates to short-term monetary gains or quick profit that can easily impress shareholders or stockholders.

Even though, in some cases, appeal to self-interest may be useful to motivate managers to improve performance, excessive self-interest culminating into greed has never been the best option for organizational growth.

“Our system has fallen into self-reinforcing command loop constructs as follows; increase shareholder value at all costs without regard for the human factor. Sadly if you do not cure the cancer in the root of the tree, not only will the branches and the leaves die; but so will the tree” — Richard Branson.

Analysts have suggested that greed would invariably result from self-interest when an increase in executive benefits exceeds the marginal returns provided to shareholders and to society at large. In fact, studies have shown that many acquisition decisions made by managers with hubris have not only failed to produce higher performance or better integration of the companies but have also led to losses in shareholder value due to excessive premiums.

In his book, How the Mighty Fall, Jim Collins presents five stages of organizational decline; hubris and greed constitute the foundation of his organizational decline unsurprisingly. The book which explores many great companies, specifically in the US and Europe, that have suffered a great setback or completely gone into extinction describes declining companies to exhibit the following pattern:

Hubris born of success — Undisciplined pursuit of more — Denial of risk and peril — Grasping for salvation — Capitulation to irrelevance or Death

On avoiding the hubris, some set of behaviours must be exhibited. According Jim Collins, the opposite of those behaviours are what reinforces hubris in corporate management. These behaviours include the following:

  1. Avoiding success entitlement or arrogance
  2. Always having the why (purpose) of your business in mind
  3. Constantly reinvigorating your flywheel or building incremental momentum
  4. Keeping a curious mind and always open to learning opportunities
  5. Willingness to appreciate the role of luck in business success

Paxful Announce increment On Its Processing Fees

0

Paxful, a centralized peer-to-peer exchange for buying, selling, and trading digital currencies has announced plans on increasing processing fees on it protocol. A statement from Paxful reads;

As of December 15th (UTC 12:00), we will be increasing the escrow fee on gift cards (from 4% to 5%) and bank transfers (from 0.5% to 1%). This was not an easy decision but it is in the best interest of the platform.

Meanwhile, in a letter to Investors, Ray Youssef, Paxful’s CEO claim, “I’m responsible for the Bitcoin of over 11 million people. I take great pride in protecting our community’s funds and, unlike others in our industry, I have never touched our customers’ money.”

My sole responsibility is to help and serve you. That’s why today I’m messaging all of our users to move your Bitcoin to self-custody. You should not keep your savings on Paxful, or any exchange, and only keep what you trade here.

Why? For far too long people have trusted others to hold money on our behalf but—like we saw with the banks in 2008 and recently with FTX—you’re at the mercy of these custodians and their morals.

However, Bitcoin has given us the chance to finally be in control and we must take it. Rest assured, if you do wish to keep your Bitcoin on Paxful, your funds are safe with us but remember—only keep what you want to trade, Ray noted.

When buying cryptocurrency from another user on Paxful, you are buying at a rate set by the sellers themselves. These rates vary based on numerous factors such as your verification status, payment method, currency pair (such as USD, EUR, CNY), and order size.

Escrow amount is deducted from your Paxful Wallet at the beginning of the trade. Upon successful completion of the trade, Paxful receives the escrow fee. If the trade is not completed, the cryptocurrency is released from escrow back to the cryptocurrency seller—Paxful takes no fee.

Paxful, has recorded tremendous growth in Africa notably; Nigeria, Kenya and Ghana, where there is a rising number of unbanked people who source for decentralized ways of processing payments.

Jack Dorsey Shares Notes on Twitter Files and Quest for Open Internet

0
Twitter CEO

There’s a lot of conversation around the #TwitterFiles. Here’s my take, and thoughts on how to fix the issues identified.

I’ll start with the principles I’ve come to believe…based on everything I’ve learned and experienced through my past actions as a Twitter co-founder and lead:

  1. Social media must be resilient to corporate and government control.
  2. Only the original author may remove content they produce.
  3. Moderation is best implemented by algorithmic choice.

The Twitter when I led it and the Twitter of today do not meet any of these principles. This is my fault alone, as I completely gave up pushing for them when an activist entered our stock in 2020. I no longer had hope of achieving any of it as a public company with no defense mechanisms (lack of dual-class shares being a key one). I planned my exit at that moment knowing I was no longer right for the company.

The biggest mistake I made was continuing to invest in building tools for us to managethe public conversation, versus building tools for the people using Twitter to easily manage it for themselves. This burdened the company with too much power, and opened us to significant outside pressure (such as advertising budgets).

I generally think companies have become far too powerful, and that became completely clear to me with our suspension of Trump’s account. As I’ve said before, we did the right thing for the public company business at the time, but the wrong thing for the internet and society. Much more about this here.

I do not celebrate or feel pride in our having to ban @realDonaldTrump from Twitter, or how we got here. After a clear warning we’d take this action, we made a decision with the best information we had based on threats to physical safety both on and off Twitter. Was this correct?

I continue to believe there was no ill intent or hidden agendas, and everyone acted according to the best information we had at the time. Of course mistakes were made. But if we had focused more on tools for the people using the service rather than tools for us, and moved much faster towards absolute transparency, we probably wouldn’t be in this situation of needing a fresh reset (which I am supportive of). Again, I own all of this and our actions, and all I can do is work to make it right.

Back to the principles. Of course governments want to shape and control the public conversation, and will use every method at their disposal to do so, including the media. And the power a corporation wields to do the same is only growing. It’s critical that the people have tools to resist this, and that those tools are ultimately owned by the people. Allowing a government or a few corporations to own the public conversation is a path towards centralized control.

I’m a strong believer that any content produced by someone for the internet should be permanent until the original author chooses to delete it. It should be always available and addressable. Content takedowns and suspensions should not be possible. Doing so complicates important context, learning, and enforcement of illegal activity. There are significant issues with this stance of course, but starting with this principle will allow for far better solutions than we have today.

The internet is trending towards a world were storage is “free” and infinite, which places all the actual value on how to discover and see content.

Which brings me to the last principle: moderation. I don’t believe a centralized system can do content moderation globally. It can only be done through ranking and relevance algorithms, the more localized the better. But instead of a company or government building and controlling these solely, people should be able to build and choose from algorithms that best match their criteria, or not have to use any at all. A “follow” action should always deliver every bit of content from the corresponding account, and the algorithms should be able to comb through everything else through a relevance lens that an individual determines. There’s a default “G-rated” algorithm, and then there’s everything else one can imagine.

The only way I know of to truly live up to these 3 principles is a free and open protocol for social media, that is not owned by a single company or group of companies, and is resilient to corporate and government influence.

The problem today is that we have companies who own both the protocol and discovery of content. Which ultimately puts one person in charge of what’s available and seen, or not. This is by definition a single point of failure, no matter how great the person, and over time will fracture the public conversation, and may lead to more control by governments and corporations around the world.

I, believe many companies can build a phenomenal business off an open protocol. For proof, look at both the web and email. The biggest problem with these models however is that the discovery mechanisms are far too proprietary and fixed instead of open or extendable.

Companies can build many profitable services that complement rather than lock down how we access this massive collection of conversation. There is no need to own or host it themselves.

Many of you won’t trust this solution just because it’s me stating it. I get it, but that’s exactly the point. Trusting any one individual with this comes with compromises, not to mention being way too heavy a burden for the individual. It has to be something akin to what bitcoin has shown to be possible.

If you want proof of this, get out of the US and European bubble of the bitcoin price fluctuations and learn how real people are using it for censorship resistance in Africa and Central/South America.

I, do still wish for Twitter, and every company, to become uncomfortably transparent in all their actions, and I wish I forced more of that years ago. I do believe absolute transparency builds trust. As for the files, I wish they were released Wikileaks-style, with many more eyes and interpretations to consider. And along with that, commitments of transparency for present and future actions. I’m hopeful all of this will happen. There’s nothing to hide…only a lot to learn from. The current attacks on my former colleagues could be dangerous and doesn’t solve anything. If you want to blame, direct it at me and my actions, or lack thereof.

As far as the free and open social media protocol goes, there are many competing projects: @bluesky is one with the AT Protocol, Mastodon another, Matrix yet another…and there will be many more. One will have a chance at becoming a standard like HTTP or SMTP. This isn’t about a “decentralized Twitter.” This is a focused and urgent push for a foundational core technology standard to make social media a native part of the internet.

I believe this is critical both to Twitter’s future, and the public conversation’s ability to truly serve the people, which helps hold governments and corporations accountable. And hopefully makes it all a lot more fun and informative again.