Business In Washington - Business Operations & Management Consulting

Yesterday, I heard unhappy news. Nordic Tugs, a highly respected Burlington boat building company, announced it is closing its Burlington manufacturing plant. Their outstanding boats are clearly a luxury purchase, and one that is not selling in these difficult, uncertain economic times. This is billed as a temporary closure “forced by the ongoing effects of the Great Recession”, according to their press release. They are not closing the business entirely and are hoping to resume building in the future.

I’ve had the pleasure of being onboard a Nordic Tug, so this news made me sad on more than one level. Most importantly for this blog post, it is an example worth considering in the context of our economy and what is being proposed to help it. I speak of tax increases, particularly the drive to raise taxes for the “wealthy”.

There are two specific tax increases to consider here. First, there is the upcoming expiration of the Bush tax cuts, which will result in a huge, across the board tax increase as of January 1, 2011. (No, the Bush tax cuts were decidedly NOT just for the richest 1%. That is a political lie that has been repeated so often, and not challenged enough, that many believe it as truth. It is not.) There is talk of a delay, but there is also much talk of delaying all but the taxes that fall on the “wealthy”. Second, there is an initiative on the Washington State ballot, proposed by Bill Gates Sr., that would initiate an income tax, again on the so-called “wealthy”. This one bothers me on two levels. The first, that it is a blatant end run around our state constitution which expressly prohibits an income tax, I will set aside for the moment. The second problem it shares with the national debate on the Bush tax cuts, namely allowing them to expire for the “wealthy”.

Why use that word in quotes? Because when you are talking about taxes, “wealthy” is a concept that depends on who defines it at the moment. It is also a fluid term that absolutely will change in time. To support that statement, one has only to read up on the history of the Federal Income Tax.

I am really tired of the class warfare rhetoric! This is America where everyone is supposed to have the opportunity to become really successful and wealthy by virtue of creativity, entrepreneurship and old-fashioned hard work. Why must we continually punish that success with ever higher taxes? Punish a behavior and you will get less of it. Reward it, and you will get more. We are currently rewarding non-work and punishing success. This is a really bad idea!!!

These two proposals, Federal and State, both set the bar for “wealthy” around the $250,000 per year mark, if I remember correctly. At that level, you hit two key constituencies that will get you more results just like the closing of Nordic Tug. Let me explain.

First, you will punish small business owners, a large proportion of who pay taxes at individual rates rather than corporate, since they are subchapter S corporations. Tax them more and you slowly kill the goose that has laid the golden American entrepreneurship egg throughout our history – that job creating machine that has fueled our amazing economic success.

Second, taxing the people with disposable income, i.e. those evil rich people, and they can’t buy things. That kills the market for products like Nordic Tugs. Now, before our natural envy of people with money kicks in, remember that their consumption is the fuel in the engine of that job creating machine.

A lot of people lost their jobs when Nordic Tug closed its plant, dedicated and highly skilled workers who took personal pride in creating a quality product. Contemplate that for a while before jumping to the conclusion that taxing the rich is a good idea.

Some words make their way into the English language that absolutely should not. One of these is the unfortunate product of a crime, namely verbicide. The perpetrators took the noun “incentive” and twisted it into an awkward verb - “incentivize.” I have heard this abomination one time too many in recent days, so I decided to delve into my dictionaries. Naturally, as The Word Cop, I have lots of them.

I started with the largest, thickest dictionary on my shelf – Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. That’s “unabridged”, i.e. left alone, not shortened, nothing left out. Sounded like the right source to me.

What did I find? I found the venerable, and correct, noun – “incentive”. No reference to “incentivize”, or even “incent”, which is a shortened version that at least sounds better, if just as incorrect.

I moved on to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. This was the dictionary my mother gave me in the 1960’s. It made a big splash at the time because it included all the naughty words, the swear words, and the four-letter words. Mother, being an English teacher, got a kick out of handing out dictionaries to both of her kids and all of her nieces and nephews on Christmas Day. (To the dismay of her siblings and siblings-in-law, she also informed each child that they could look up swear words in that dictionary. To her delight – no dismay here - , they all dove right in.)

Any dictionary that includes four-letter words ought to include newer English creations, Americanisms and/or slang, right? Wrong. No “incentivize” and no “incent”. (It does include many other interesting words, however. I can still remember the day, shortly after the Christmas of the Dictionaries, when Mother called to me from the kitchen, “Margaret, look up chicken shit.” You can imagine the rest and, yes, it is there.)

I turned next to the World Wide Web. How did we ever exist without this resource? Here, I was more successful. They list newly created words, bastardized expressions, and illegitimate results of crimes such as verbicide. Dictionary.com defined it as a verb meaning “to give incentives to”. They added that it originated in 1965-70 and was an “Americanism”. (Is that good or bad? Maybe it depends on which side of the pond you are on.) They also quoted the World English Dictionary (their source being Collins English Dictionary), which defined it much the same, but spelled it “incentivise”.

Then I found www.onelook.com. Jackpot! They obligingly search multiple dictionaries and present the searcher with a handy list of links. I worked my way down the list. Most indicated that the word originated in the business world, that source of so many examples of bad English, and that it was created in the 1960’s or 1970’s, then shortened in the 80’s or 90’s to “incent”.

Beginning to get bored with the repetitious list, I worked my way down to the Urban Dictionary, www.urbandictionary.com. This one made my day, to quote Dirty Harry. They listed a couple of helpful definitions, along with examples of usage. Let me share at least one. You can surf over for more. First, their definition:

“A corporate-jargon non-word meaning “motivate,” coined in 1968. Some 10 years later, it was shortened to the equally annoying verb “incent.” Unfortunately, both are recognized by both Merriam-Webster and the OED. The only respectable form of the word is the noun “incentive.”

And now, the example:

“I would like to motivate him to never say “incentivize” again by telling him I will rip his windpipe out of his throat the next time I hear him say it.”

I roared with laughter! My husband entered my office for explanations and to share the laugh. My thanks to the Urban Dictionary! I will be surfing over there again, let me assure you. Of course, The Word Cop would never threaten such violence!

“Go ahead. Make my day……….”

Management is an under-appreciated skill. Yet nothing will make a workplace more unpleasant, even downright miserable, than poor management. Sadly, it is something I see far too much.

Part art as well as science, the ability to work well with subordinates isn’t something that should be taken for granted. Business owners, if you want a productive workplace, with loyal employees who deliver great work and stay with the company, pay attention to your first line managers. Make sure they get the guidance and training they need.

One of the more difficult tasks any supervisor or first line manager faces is delivering bad news to an employee. That news can range from “you didn’t do that right” to “you’re fired” and still be challenging. I got over the hump as new manager by reminding myself that, if I didn’t tell the employee he/she was doing something wrong and give them a chance to fix it, I was doing them a grave disservice.

Why do managers hesitate to say anything? The most basic reason is fear of confrontation. I believe this is the reason most times. I like to believe that people are basically good at heart and wouldn’t stoop to ignoring an employee in order to make him/her miserable enough to leave. Not only is this rather sadistic, it is counterproductive to the company. Poorly performing employees can do a lot of damage, both in their own jobs and by creating a miserable work environment for others.

My message to managers: Have the courage and the compassion to be direct with your employees. Don’t sidestep issues. They will fester and grow like cancers. If you need help delivering the bad news, get some. Talk to a business coach, a fellow manager, your own manager, an HR specialist. Think through your delivery carefully and rehearse it. The first time you have to do this will be the worst. It will get better with time.

Ultimately, your employees will appreciate your honesty and your guidance.

I just received an email newsletter from a local business (who shall remain nameless, but not blameless) with this statement: “SMILE your on CAMERA!” I groaned and decided it was time for a blog entry. This was one time too many. Ignore the poor punctuation, with the badly needed but missing comma after the word “SMILE”. It’s the misuse of “your” that has caused me pain.

The last time I saw this blatant error was on a sewing show. I love to sew and am addicted to the Saturday morning quilting and sewing shows on PBS. The show in question was focused on a project combining quilting and embroidery. It used the following saying (with their spelling): “In the crazy quilt of life, I’m glad your in my block.” The mistake stuck out like a sore thumb to me, but apparently the show hostess and guest both missed it. This was not only printed, but machine embroidered on a detailed project - on silk, no less. I winced.

This isn’t that hard, folks! “Your” is a possessive. Your stuff. Your project. Your whatever. “You’re” is a contraction of “you are”. Very simple, right? It amazes me how often these two very different words are mistakenly interchanged. Perhaps it’s because spell checkers don’t catch this.

The Word Cop sympathizes with the challenge of correct word usage and spelling in a rich and complex language such as English. But she also deplores the sloppiness that allows so many errors, and in business documents! Lots of us do spot these errors, and what kind of impression are we likely to have of your business?

Business owners, take heed!

I read a fascinating article in the Wall Street Journal - Why Gen-Y Johnny Can’t Read Nonverbal Cues.

The basic premise is that Gen-Y’ers are so caught up in social networking, all of which is written, that they haven’t picked up on the non-verbal cues that are basic to courtesy when meeting face-to-face. The author, Prof. Mark Bauerlein, states the following:

“We live in a culture where young people - outfitted with iPhone and laptop and devoting hours every evening from age 10 onward to messaging of one kind and another - are ever less likely to develop the “silent fluency” that comes from face-to-face interaction. It is a skill that we all must learn, in actual social setting, from people (often older) who are adept in the idiom.”

Tied into this is the split attention inherent in constant multi-tasking. Ever attended a meeting during which attendees appear to devote more attention to their “Crackberries” than to the speaker? They may think they are being more efficient. What they are actually being is rude.

Time to reincarnate Miss Manners? Perhaps, although strict adherence to old-fashioned etiquette rules can be extreme. It might be better to use our opportunities, when observing such behavior, for teachable moments. When we do so, we should strive to be courteous and diplomatic ourselves, not judgmental or high-handed. Lead by example.

Take a moment to read the comments as well as the article. It was interesting to note that the stronger notes from authors disagreeing with Prof. Bauerlein, tended to come from some of those Gen-Y’ers. They have some viable points and we should all listen to the input.

My bottom line is this. Excellent communication skills - written, verbal, and nonverbal - are critical for success in our world. Add courtesy to the mix and you have something truly effective. We can all agree on that.