Suicide rates vary widely from country to country

The motivating factors of suicide seem to be moving targets. It varies by age, race, gender, mental status, socioeconomical situations, number of friends, closeness to family, biology, and the list could go on and on. Determining what accounts for the variance in suicide rates between countries seems to be just as elusive as determining why they happen at all.

Some of the conclusions drawn from the research based on the discussion question are quite interesting, and some are mind-numbing at best.

Comer (2013) states that his book uses more ink on the subject of suicide based on a sociocultural model than any other particular subject he writes about. The textbook gives broad coverage to the subject, but seems to lack substantial depth.

One of the most interesting factors discovered while researching this topic was how age varies based on the economical development of the country (Girard, 1993). The suicide rates in men, in just about every country examined, increases with age. However, the fascinating issue in this area is the correlation of the age of the women and economic development. In wealthy nations, suicide rates among women peak in middle age. When looking at the poorer nations, suicide rates were higher for the elderly women. The most interesting fact came from the poorest nations. Among these nations you can find that the peak years of suicide shifts to the younger women. I had assumed, prior to reading that there would be a strong negative correlation, but it turned out quite different.

In another interesting finding Lester (1987) hypothesized about a biological correlation relating a cultures tendency toward suicide. He suggested, based on his research, that the higher the number of people having Type O correlated to lower suicide rates.

Finally, there seems to be some very interesting information regarding suicide, but the downside is that there is anything to write about in the first place.

The common thread that seems to run throughout the pages that discuss suicide, and throughout the lives ended by suicide, appears to be connected to hope. It is sad that the only option some people believe they have when hope seems lost is suicide. They need to know the love of God, and understand that God, “Now to Him Who, by (in consequence of) the [action of His] power that is at work within us, is able to [carry out His purpose and] do superabundantly, far over and above all that we [dare] ask or think [infinitely beyond our highest prayers, desires, thoughts, hopes, or dreams]” (Ephesians 3:20, AMP).

The Prophet Isaiah confirms this as well, “You will guard him and keep him in perfect and constant peace whose mind [both its inclination and its character] is stayed on You, because he commits himself to You, leans on You, and hopes confidently in You.

So trust in the Lord (commit yourself to Him, lean on Him, hope confidently in Him) forever; for the Lord God is an everlasting Rock [the Rock of Ages]” (Isaiah 26:3-4, AMP).

Could life ever be so tough for you that suicide might be considered an option?

  

References 

Comer, R. J. (2013). Abnormal Psychology (8th Edition). New York: Worth Publishers.

Girard C. Age, gender, and suicide. American Sociological Review, 58: 553-574, 1993.

Lester D. National distribution of blood groups, personal violence (suicide and homicide), and national character. Personality & Individual Differences, 8: 575-576, 1987.

Body Dysmorphic Disorder and Culture

How might a culture help create individual cases of body dysmorphic disorder?

Why do some people in a society carry a culture’s aesthetic ideals to an extreme, while others stay within normal bounds?

I am not sure if  culture can help, but it might be able to create an environment where body dysmorphic disorder could flourish. We live in just this type of environment. Hollywood, the internet, television, magazines, popular music, and beauty pageants are all partners in crime when it comes to creating an environment where body dysmorphic disorder issues have seemingly risen to epidemic status. However wide-spread this disorder appears to be, it continues to be a very individual problem. Many people have a concept of what the phrase “political correctness” means, but for many women, and particularly young women, struggle with “anatomical correctness,” or what is also known as ideal female body type.

At an early age most girls play with dolls. Most of the dolls these little girls play with are made in a way to mimic what the culture embraces as the idea of combining of physical features people find attractive in a real baby. The slow slide into body dysmorphic disorder finds its genesis in these early years of life.

As the pre-teen and teenage years arrive, these same girls will almost universally begin to try to fashion their own appearance to that which our culture declares ideal via the influence of movies, television, internet, music, and magazines. However, in our culture, celebrity alone is not the only avenue to BDD. Groupthink, a problem often overlooked by most, plays a big part in how culture shapes self-image. One of the saddest programs on television is about mothers entering very young children in beauty pageants, and so many women think that this is ok. The prevailing sentiment for most of these women, involved or watching, goes something like this, “isn’t this so cute” or “aren’t they just precious.” The fact that so many buy into this line of thought should make it easier to understand why so many girls, young women, and even older women have issues with BDD. The overarching thought involved revolves around the idealization of perfecting physical appearances to meet some cultural idea of beauty. There are so many more issues we could discuss involving this topic, but I need to move on.

Beauty is one side of the BDD coin, but perceived ugliness may be the other side. Having counseled, witnessed to, and ministered to so many people over the years, I have come to determine (however unscientifically it may be) that there are large numbers of people, who because of self-image issues, refuse or avoid interacting with others because they believe or imagine that they have some sort of defect in appearance. Some have said that as many as 15% of those seeking cosmetic surgery (Comer, 2013). However, I believe the number could be much higher due to idea of the problem being medical in nature when many times it could be treated through various psychological methods. BDD seems, in my opinion, to be very closely related to OCD and social phobia.

I am sure many will automatically think of Michael Jackson when they think about extreme BDD. They should for good reasons. As I thought about his situation, I have often wondered if there were more issues at work than just trying to match the cultural ideal. For Michael, there seemed to be a huge compulsive element to his continued surgeries. He continued to change and undergo more and more discomfort to try and relieve discomfort? It seems as though his actions could have been based on intrusive thoughts about his appearance and they certainly seemed repetitive. On the flipside, I know I have experienced negative thoughts about my appearance, but I do not let them consume me. I believe those who do not go to extremes are a lot like me.

Our sense of physical attractiveness should not depend on what the culture around us purports, but it should rest on who we are in Christ. As Christians we attain self-worth and self-esteem by having a right relationship with God. We can know we are attractive because of the high price God paid for us through the blood of Jesus. “I say to the Lord, “You are my Lord; I have no good apart from you” (Psalm 16:2, ESV).

 Do you see any relationship between BDD and eating disorders?

Comer, R. J. (2013). Abnormal Psychology (8th ed.). New York, New York: Worth Publishers. Retrieved October 23, 2012

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, 2001, Crossway Bibles, Good News Publishers.

How an organization’s mission, vision, and values relate to its strategy

The simple answer is that an organization’s mission, vision, and values are answers to the questions, “What business are we in?” and “Why are we in this business?” There is no reference that corresponds to my opening sentence because after more than 25 years of reading books from Tom Peters, Mark McCormick, Zig Ziglar, John Maxwell, Andy Stanley, Stephen Covey, Lee Iacocca, Peter Drucker, Jim Collins, Al Reis, Harvey McKay, Ken Blanchard, John Kotter, Dale Carnegie, and many, many others this concept is so ingrained in my mind I could not begin to know if it is a synthesis of many ideas or something one of these men have written. Mission statements are very often platitude-like ideas such as this one from American Standard Company, "Be the best in the eyes of our customers, employees and shareholders" (Fortune 500 Companies, 2012). This company needs to invest heavily in their strategy while trying to fulfill this mission. Strategy, in their case for sure, is something that will hopefully take them from saying they want to “Be the best,” to actually formulating priorities and determining how to address each one to make sure they reach their “Ideal.” When they write the mission statement and express their goal in terms of the big picture, it is strategy that will specify the general directions and priorities (Kaplan, 2001). There is a great contrast to American Standard that comes from the Walt Disney Corporation,

 “The mission of The Walt Disney Company is to be one of the world's leading producers and providers of entertainment and information. Using our portfolio of brands to differentiate our content, services and consumer products, we seek to develop the most creative, innovative and profitable entertainment experiences and related products in the world” (Fortune 500 Companies, 2012).

I really like the specificity of their statement, “one of the world's leading producers and providers of entertainment and information” because it seems to be a much better platform in which to launch a strategy. When forming a strategy to determine how an organization will achieve, or live up to, its mission statement, having one that already points to a tangible objective is helpful. I am not sure how someone might measure which organization is the “best” in their field. Is it through profits, shareholder dividends, market penetration, brand recognition, customer satisfaction, or employee relationships? I am not sure. Some might be stronger than others in different areas, and then it seems to leave us with a subjective decision as to who is really the “best.” However, measuring who “produces and provides the most entertainment,” could be measured in concrete ways. For example, which movie company delivered the most movies, most television programs, sold the most merchandise relating to their brand, or who has acquired a larger audience share are some of the tangible ways to measure.

Saying that to say this, when an organization is trying to develop a strategy it becomes immensely more relatable to the mission and vision of the organization if they offer some tangible goal to help the leadership determine concrete goals and outcomes (Kaplan, 2001).

2. What is meant by strategy as hypothesis?

The strategy that an organization follows is somewhat of an uncertain proposition, and this being the case traveling down the path is done through studied guess-work so to speak. What the organization does, as we would say in East Texas, is to plow new ground. Having not plowed the ground before, a farmer would be making an educated guess (hypothesis) about whether or not plowing the ground and planting (strategy) will produce a profitable harvest (outcome).

However, the key for the farmer would be to clearly understand, and make sure the hired hands understand what he is trying to accomplish. He would also need to align his resources with his strategy to work the new ground. It would not make much sense if the farmer bought the new field, formed a strategy to produce enough to make a profit, but only committed a small riding lawnmower to work the ground. He would need to align everything he had that would enable him to fulfill his goal. Finally, he would need to watch the production and make necessary changes at the time they need to be made. Once again, if he plants a crop requiring X amount of water to yield the best results, he would need to monitor the field and introduce water, or drain water away in order to reach the optimal production level of the field.

My whole scenario is based on the Kaplan idea that strategy implies the movement of an organization from its present position to a desirable but uncertain future position (Kaplan, 2001). The hypotheses occur because the organization has never been to this future place (Kaplan, 2001), and getting there requires making a decision about getting to this place, although based on somewhat on existing knowledge, is still an educated guess (hypothesis).

How can managers monitor the appropriateness of a strategy over time?

The most important way, in my opinion, is making sure that the goals are in harmony with what the organization is doing on all levels. Do their goals match their policies (financial, employee, vendor). Second in importance might be making sure the ongoing level of risk is appropriate, and do not over-commit or under-commit resources by finding the needed ROI. Third, the strategy needs to be flexible. For example, when a church puts into writing their by-laws, employee manuals, constitution, or whatever they have to keep the future in mind. So many organizations set up these documents in reaction to past issues. While I understand the reasoning, I absolutely believe that it is wrong. You cannot build an organization for the future while looking back. Ever tried driving your car using only the rear-view mirror? Driving this way seems kind of goofy. Churches are not alone, but they are my wheel-house, and they make the same mistakes other organizations make.

create a climate for change

To create a climate for change a leader needs to do several things, but the first thing they must do is to inspire the organization through the sharing of his vision (Kaplan & Norton, 2001). I believe that people are much more inclined to follow an idea much more quickly than a set of objectives. However, I have found that when a leader shares a compelling vision, it is amazing how those who follow buy into the processes that make up the strategy to carry out the vision.

Following my own method of empowering people to carry out the organizational strategy, the decentralization of power (Kaplan & Norton, 2001), with the right process measurements, can create a climate conducive to change.

A big key to creating and maintaining change is when the leadership paints a vivid picture of a preferable future, and does so respecting the value systems of those within the organization.

The setting of goals that almost seem unreachable tends to help keep people focused on the “Big Picture” to maintain the change climate (Kaplan & Norton, 2001).

Refusal to buy into strategies that are meant to align organizations could be the primary obstacle to actually achieving alignment. The refusal to buy in is often a symptom of poor communication between executive level people and those they lead. Even if the communication is good, not employing an adequate implementation strategy of measurement system can create road-blocks to successful alignment (Kaplan & Norton, 2006) and (Kaplan & Norton, 2001).  Measurements used when trying to implement change should focus on the process (how things are progressing) and not so much on outcomes (Kaplan & Norton, 2006) because in order to change there can be a need to make changes to the change strategy. Other obstacles could include poor leadership, uninspiring leadership, untrustworthy leadership, and many other negative aspects the leader might exhibit.

If a leader is suspect (not trustworthy, not likable, not whatever), but their vision is compelling, would you follow them?

Do you accept good ideas from people you really do not like?

Have you ever followed someone blindly and were pleased with the outcome?

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2006). Alignment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2001). The Strategy-Focused Organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Me and Bon Jovi and Sambora

                                         Richie Sambora - TJackson - Jon Bon Jovi
                                         Circa 1985
                                    (I am trying to keep the crazies off of the autograph table)

Critique of the Balanced Scorecard Approach

Abstract

The following paper offers a critique of the Balanced Scorecard approach to organizational strategy. The paper will also address the potential limitations of the approach,
while comparing emerging approaches to organizational strategy. The paper will also present an example where the Balanced Scorecard approach failed to reach expectations.

Introduction

            The Balanced Scorecard approach, as developed by Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton of the Harvard Business School, is a tool that can be used by organizations to take their strategy and help to convert that strategy into action (Kaplan & Norton, 2006).  The authors contend that for organizations to reach the goals delineated within their vision and/or mission statements they need to create value within their organization. Kaplan & Norton constructed the Balanced Scorecard approach to help organizations improve their enterprise-value proposition using a framework consisting of four key perspectives.

The Balanced Scorecard Structure

            The Balanced Scorecard is at its most basic level is a tool to help organizations arrive at a better understanding the cause-and-effect relationships that exists within the organizational structure (Kaplan & Norton, 2006). The four areas that encompass the Balanced Scorecard approach are financial, customer, internal process, and learning/growth as shown in figure 1. 

Figure 1

The goal of the four areas is to be able to have measurable objectives within each area based on drivers that can be evaluated against one another to determine cause-and-effect. This relationship between the four areas should help the organization determine where weak points between the four areas are and provide measurable way to create enterprise-value, and to strengthen the strategy within the organization. Kaplan (1996) sums up the Balanced Scorecard in this way, “(the Balance Scorecard) is a system that provides real insight into an organization’s operations, balances the historical accuracy of financial numbers, with the drivers of future performance, and assists us in implementing strategy. The Balanced Scorecard is the tool that answers all these challenges.”

Limitations of the Balanced Scorecard

            The Balanced Scorecard seems, on the surface, to be a good tool to help answer the questions Kaplan writes about, but there are some areas that an organization needs to address when deciding whether or not to implement the Balanced Scorecard approach.

            The primary issue with the Balanced Scorecard approach seems to be time. Although simple in format, using a single sheet to present the approach, the depth of the cause-and-effect relationships could take quite a while to develop. The approach does not appear to offer any “quick fix” measures to an organizational strategy. Time is crucial, and part of the approach heralds the need to make quicker adjustments to uphold the value of the organization, but the quickness of the approach seems to remain in question to some degree. For organizations like Global Financial Services, time was a factor in their decision concerning how to implement their strategy,

“The balanced scorecard system demanded more time than the PIP due in part to the large amount of required paperwork at the branch level. Under the PIP program, branch managers allocated bonus pools to other branch employees at their discretion. Under the scorecard process, branch managers prepare scorecards for all branch employees, including tellers, and make bonus recommendations to area directors based on their overall evaluation of the employee (“above par,” “at par,” “below par”). Branch managers typically spend two and a half to four days per quarter compiling scorecards and reviewing them with branch employees” (Ittner, Larcker, & Meyer, 1997).

The time factor is critical on many levels. As in the GFS example above, it is quite possible that when the implementation takes too long the strategy can change mainly due to changing indicators (Kaplan & Norton, 2001). If an organization is measuring with information that is out of date, the whole focus could have changed and now the measurement process has become a distraction.

            Kaplan & Norton discuss how having too few measures per perspective can become a limiting factor when using the Balanced Scorecard approach. They discuss how having the right mix of leading indicators (what drives the process) and lagging indicators (the outcome of the process) is the key to successful implementation of the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 2001). The limitation here arises when the disparity between indicators makes the cause-and-effect relationship difficult to determine due to lack of balanced information. The opposite of this situation can also limit an organization’s implementation of strategy.

            There is a need to limit the number of indicators and select only the indicators that reflect the strategy and are the most critical (Kaplan & Norton, 2001). An over-abundance of indicators could, and according to Kaplan (2001), and will lead to a lack of focus trying to track too many indicators at the same time.

            It should go without mention, but an organization can eliminate their effective strategy implementation by selecting measures that are not linked to their organizational strategy. This can happen when an organization to list all of their key performance indicators without discerning which measures are actually linked to their strategy (Kaplan & Norton, 2001). Having measurements that are not part of the organizational strategy means that, when complete, the Balanced Scorecard is not translated into something that they can act upon and/or derive benefit from.

Alternative Approaches

The beginning level that might be used for implementing organizational strategy could be the basic vision or goal/s strategy. This type of approach is normally implemented by the top level management (McNamara, 2007). It usually entails a mission statement that gives a brief summary of why the organization exists, what services are provided, and how they will meet the client’s needs. This Approach would also include a vision statement explaining briefly what the preferred future of the organization should look like. With both of these items in place the top-level management team would formulate a strategic plan, and they would implement as well as oversee and update the plan as needed.

If an organization has limited resources or any number of troublesome issues, they may want to use the issue-oriented approach. This approach focuses on finding and implementing the remedy for 3-5 of their biggest challenges (McNamara, 2007). This is definitely more of a shot-range strategic approach. This approach can be determined by people other than the upper-level management as long as the plan meets their approval. This approach relies heavily on the feedback from their customers. Often when addressing issues that are hindering organizational success, the financial returns are the lagging indicators while the customer feedback is the leading indicator of whether or not the strategy is working.

The most “free-flowing” approach would be an “organic” approach. Some organizations function better using the more mechanistic (cause-and-effect) approaches, but for some the “organic” or more accurately described “value” approach might work better. This type of approach rallies around common values (McNamara, 2007). In the “organic” mode one would expect to find a more open dialog type environment, in which processes are discussed, and the strategy is more focused on learning and less on how it is measured.   

            The movement within the business arena seems to be geared more toward a real-time approach to strategy. As fast as things change these days it is easy to see how methods, measurements, and indicators could become out of date in a short span of time. By the time an organization defines their vision, mission, values, strategy, strategic plan, measurements, and implement all of these they might miss their window of opportunity to make needed changes in a timely manner. Instead of score-carding the plan, in the real-time approach the plan would change so often that having up-to-date research and evaluations might be more important than waiting to determine cause-and-effect.

Conclusion

            Having an organization that aligns itself with a vision and mission that are constantly and consistently evaluated seems to be the better foundation on which to build an organizational strategy. Like any good builder needs the right tools, an organization needs a “tool” as well to proved them the best possible information in order that they can make decisions that will improve their enterprise value proposition, board and shareholder alignment, main office to field office support, customer service, supplier relations, and corporate unity. Kaplan (2006) explains that, “The single most important component of the organizational alignment occurs at…the linkage of business unit strategies to the enterprise value proposition.” The Balanced Scorecard approach offers organizations a tool to help achieve just what Kaplan suggested.

           

References

Ittner, C., Larcker, D., & Meyer, M. (1997, November 1). Performance, Compensation, and The Balanced Scorecard Approach. Retrieved May 28, 2012, from Strategic Management: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/paper.cfm?paperid=405

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2006). Alignment. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1996). The Balanced Scorecard. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (2001). The Strategy-Focused Organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Maltz, A., Shenhar, A., & Reilly, R. (2003). Beyond the Balanced Scorecard. Long Range Planning Journal , 187-204.

McNamara, D. C. (2007). Field Guide to Nonprofit Strategic Planning and Facilitation. Retrieved May 27, 2012, from Authenticity Consulting: http://www.authenticityconsulting.com