At the Consumer Electronics show in Las Vegas last week, Ford Motor Company unveiled dashboard innovations that included being able to use Twitter and Facebook from behind the wheel. Streaming internet audio from behind the wheel is one thing, but social media? Presented as Ford’s connectivity strategy, it appears that other auto makers will soon follow suit. Can you say distracted driving?

I have had a love affair with cars since the nineteen fifties. I secretly aspired to be a race car driver. Although, over the past thirty plus years, my racing has been confined to some motocross racing, a couple of years of road racing really fast go karts, and about five years of autocross. The pinnacle of my driving experience occurred when I attended to Jim Russell’s race driving school at Infineon Raceway in Sonoma California. We were fitted, literally, into open wheel formula fords and got three days of intensive training on the finer points of open wheel road racing. Too much fun for sure.

I have owned numerous sports cars including an Alfa Romeo Sprint Veloce, an MG-A, a Sunbeam Alpine, an Austin Healy 3000, a Porsche 911, two RX 7’s and several turbo charged Mazdas. My first car was a 56 Chevy with a small block V8. I love to drive and I love road trips.

My first road trip with a cell phone took place back in the early nineties. The phone was huge and didn’t work all that well. The one thing I remember about using that phone was a conference call I was able to take part in while sitting in the parking lot at Buffalo Bill’s Grave just outside of Denver. Talk about an office with a view!

Our cars are our second home. According to the National Highway Safety  Administration, on any day of the week, 800,000 people drive and use their cell phones. In a recently released Pew report, one in three teenagers admitted to texting while driving.  In 2008, 6,000 highway deaths were the result of distracted driving – a great many of which involved cell phone usage.

In the near future we will be able to access social media from inside our cars. I’m sorry, but how smart is this strategy? Given the statistics and the growing use of cell phones in automobiles, do we really want to continue down this road? I understand that some people can’t seem to function without talking incessantly, but texting and twittering? Even if you could accomplish interacting with Facebook or Twitter hands free, you still have to look at the screen.

Did you know that sales of in-vehicle gadgets is expected to surpass $9.3 billion for the last year? There are some gadgets that are aimed at reducing cell phone use or at least making it safer. One such product will shut off your cell phone once your exceed 15 mph. There are gadgets that provide traffic alerts and accident reports using cell phone ring tones.

One FCC member, Meredith Attwell Baker, puts her two smart phones in her purse and locks them in the trunk before driving. Transportation Secretary, Raymond Lahood, puts his Blackberry in the glove compartment to ensure he is not distracted. Mr. Lahood has publicly stated that texting while driving has become an epidemic in America.

During one panel discussion at the Consumer Electronics Show, Peter Appel, the Transportation Department’s head of research and technology stated that his agency is researching ways to use technology to make driving safer. There is an application that will make the drivers seat vibrate or rumble and alert the driver to an accident ahead on the road. A couple of software firms have demonstrated technologies that block text messages and incoming calls while the car is being driven.   

So what’s the answer? Should all cell and internet communication devices be banned while driving? There are states where cell phone usage is illegal. Of course, if the technology is built into the vehicle, how will the troopers and police spot offenders and enforce such laws? Can all such communications be accomplished hands free and if so, does this ensure that the driver is not distracted? Yes, I talk on my cell when I drive sometimes. And I encounter distracted drivers every day who are talking and driving.  

What’s the answer? What do you think? What’s your view on this subject? Should cell use and internet connectivity be outlawed altogether?

If you are a Baby Boomer and haven’t joined our community, www.boomeropinion.com, please consider it. It is free and only takes a couple of minutes to sign up. You can share your viewpoint and voice your opinion on the critical issues facing America. And if we recruit enough of you, we can positively impact business and political policies around the country.

First, let me qualify this blog by saying that I manage an opinion portal, www.boomeropinion.com, which is in reality a social media site. We provide polls, discussions and articles on issues facing America and Baby Boomers. We encourage Boomers to visit our site daily so they can weigh in and discuss the critical issues of the day.

I should also mention that I use twitter, but only for business purposes. I post the latest polls and discussion topics on my company’s Twitter page. I use Facebook to keep up with my friends, relatives and children. After much persuasion, I got my wife to join Facebook and I haven’t seen her since. And I use Linkedin to network with people around the world and to promote my businesses.

That said, I find that a good chunk of my time is taken up by these sites. Could I be more productive if I didn’t fall prey to these sites? Absolutely. Is social media just a new form of crack? Quite possibly. Are large numbers of Americans wasting work hours perusing these sites? I am sure that is true.

It should be obvious to every American the loss of attention caused by twitterers across the country. Remember when the President made his first State of the Union speech last year? As the network cameras panned the audience, you could see numerous Congressmen and Senators sending out tweets on their smart phones. How intently can you listen to a speech if you are otherwise occupied tweeting?

A 2008 Study in Britain concluded that workers in that country typically lose 12 hours of work a week logging onto social media sites. That’s over 25% of their time at work. If your typical American office workers are sitting at their computers tweeting about what they had for lunch or checking out the latest posts on their Facebook wall, how productive can they be during those periods. How much work are they not getting done each week?

Social media has a number of very positive benefits. Documenting protests and clashes between protestors and police or soldiers in parts of the world where network coverage is not available or not allowed. Documenting major weather events and other catastrophes in remote areas around the world is another benefit social media has brought to the table.

Instantaneous movie, restaurant and concert reviews are becoming the norm. Keeping close touch with relatives or friends in far away places, as well as keeping in touch with relatives or friends who live across town. Synching schedules or inviting people to special events is yet another benefit.

Some companies have initiated firewalls and/or filters to keep employees off social media sites and focused on the job at hand. Other companies have written policies against social networking during business hours. Without technical blocks, policing the usage of social media particularly given the new smart phone technologies will be hard to do for most companies.

There is no doubt that social networking and social media is here to stay, so what can be done to ensure that it doesn’t distract the American worker to such an extent that it significantly impacts our national productivity? What do you think? We want to hear your thoughts on this topic. And if you respond from your office computer, just make sure you have completed your work for the day.

If you are a Baby Boomer and haven’t joined our community, www.boomeropinion.com, please consider it. It is free and only takes a couple of minutes to sign up. You can share your viewpoint and voice your opinion on the critical issues facing America. And if we recruit enough of you, we can positively impact business and political policies around the country.

Since the internet became the go-to place for research, finding information, entertainment and socializing every business large and small has tried to come up with the best approach to branding, product recognition and monetizing their company’s presence on the web. It doesn’t appear that anyone one or any business has really figured out how to do this effectively.

Even the giants like Facebook and Twitter haven’t cracked the code on how to monetize their traffic. While their valuations are in the billions their profits are non-existent. Facebook is valued at $9.5 billion while Twitter’s value is estimated at $1 billion. Facebook has over 300 million regular users, but doesn’t expect to go cash positive before 2010 and that doesn’t necessarily mean it will be profitable. Twitter is not close to being cash positive, let alone profitable.

What does this say about the effectiveness of web advertising? What does this say about advertising your company, your brand or your products on a social media site? What it says to me is that no one, not even the most brilliant advertising executives on Madison Avenue, has figured out how to use this medium to bring brand recognition or brand awareness to their company or products.

The one exception is Google. Of course, they are not a social media site. Google determined this early on with their Adsense and Adwords programs. Being a search engine certainly gives Google a unique advantage and a head start on the other popular web sites. They have certainly done a tremendous job branding themselves over the years. Just “Google it”. Their name has become a verb. Google is typically the first place anyone on the web will go to when they are looking for anything. Ads corresponding to that search make perfect sense.

The most popular social media sites will have to crack the code on effective web advertising soon. In order to survive they will need a better business model. Who will figure out how to help them do this – the web sites themselves, the advertisers or the advertising community? Some smart person, entity, or agency will generate some serious income whenever they do come up with a solution to this problem.

Currently banner ads just annoy most people and instead of reading the ad, they hurriedly try to figure out the quickest method of getting it off their screen. And why put the same ad online that you would put in a newspaper or magazine. Does the term multimedia ring a bell? Then there are the pop up motion ads that try to take over your screen while you are trying to read an article or get some needed information. Again, such ads tend to aggravate their audience instead of drawing them in.

On television or radio, the audience is captive and they don’t have a choice other than changing the channel or the radio station. Of course, if you have Tivo or a DVR, then you can avoid even those advertisements. If you are watching a program using the internet as your medium, you will still be subjected to commercials, but in most cases there are fewer of them during the program particularly on sites like Hulu or a broadcast network site. Still the network ads are usually more compelling and more entertaining. Then again, how many ways can they sell us E.D. drugs? No more twin tubs please!

When it comes to social media, Steven Hodson in a recent column on Mashable.com, suggested that social media sites should ask for donations using Paypal to generate income. If you like Twitter or Facebook and use it regularly, then why wouldn’t you want to contribute $1 or $5 a month. He calculated that if 50% of the Twitter users donated $1 per month, that would result in $500 million of revenue per month for Twitter. Personally, I don’t believe users would fall for that concept, particularly given the fact that the users are the ones generating the content on that site. Without the tweets there would be no Twitter

Personally, I think the best approach would be a compelling well produced viral type video highlighting the advertisers’ product or message. Videos that people would want to watch and not be forced to watch. You can view samples of this type of video at http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=140819. Check out the bottom of that page. These are agency produced videos that appear on YouTube. 30 and 60 second segments of these videos can also be seen in standard television commercials. On YouTube, the videos last 1-3 minutes. My favorites are the roller skating babies and the bulldog playing Tony Hawk’s video game.

The most successful video ads would need a theme and be serialized. It is a proven fact that people recall and respond to ads that draw their attention. Recall is a logical process while recognition is an emotional process. Motion, such as video, evokes emotion, but the printed word normally doesn’t do that. Of course these videos would need a recurring theme or character. There are plenty of well done TV ads that come to mind. The e-Trade baby is one. Remember Joe Izuzu? Okay I might have just dated myself.

These web videos could be original content or they come from a clip of a current box office hit movie that includes a clever use of your company’s product. They could be elaborate productions or well thought out amateur videos. If you think that you can’t produce an inexpensive video that draws millions of viewers, you need to watch the Pink Glove Dance on YouTube. This video was made to promote breast cancer awareness in a hospital using hospital staff as its cast and was done for very little money.

Come on people. It’s time to think outside the box and get creative. A well-made, creatively done video ad should draw you in, not push you away. One option for Social Media sites would be to insert 15-20 second ads every 10-15 minutes. That might not be too intrusive for most people. If the user wanted to avoid these interruptions they could pay a monthly use fee to use that site, say $1 or $2. The web isn’t going away and we need to come up with ways to make it a viable commercial enterprise. Wouldn’t it be cool if the web ads were so good that your friends recommended you view some of these video ads?

With the advent of broadband and streaming video, web ads shouldn’t be rehashed versions of print ads. That is sooo nineties. Video and/or clever animation is where it’s at. Being able to quickly opt out of any web video should be mandatory. If a product ad isn’t compelling enough to make its potential customers want to watch, then the viewer should be able to click it away. On the other hand, if it is good enough to bring you back several times, then the production will be well worth the investment.

What’s you opinion about web advertising? Got a better idea? I would love to hear it. Comment on this blog and tell us what you really think.

If you are a Baby Boomer and haven’t joined www.boomeropinion.com, then please consider joining our community. We are looking for Boomers who have opinions and don’t mind ruffling a few feathers by telling America what they really think about the issues facing America.

Time magazine’s November 22, 2009 article, “The ‘00s: Goodbye (at last) to the Decade from Hell” points out that the first decade of the new millennium might be one of the worst decades for America in recent history. How could they have drawn this conclusion?

In the last ten years, we have experienced two financial meltdowns – first in 2000-2001 when the internet Bubble Burst. Then again in 2008-2009 – that one shouldn’t be that hard to remember. America also suffered through 9/11, Anthrax letters, Hurricane Katrina, massive corporate bailouts and major unemployment. And last, but certainly not least we have had to deal with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that continue take American lives and siphon off more and more of our tax dollars and resources.

So have we learned anything from the last decade? We should have learned a lot, but if Washington D.C. is any indication, we may be doomed to repeat the last 10 years. Have you seen any new government policies to address the problems on Wall St. and in the investment banking community? Have we put in place new regulations to prevent Wall St. and investment bankers from overleveraging their capital and gambling on speculative investments and derivatives? No.

Has our government initiated the legislation that would provide funding to rebuild America’s dilapidated infrastructure to prevent future catastrophes such as those that took place in New Orleans and Minneapolis? There has been a lot of talk on capitol hill and some small projects approved, but no real progress in funding major infrastructure projects. Has our government put a priority on job creation or required the banking industry to use some of their TARP money to open up credit lines to small businesses? No.

While we are drawing down our troops in Iraq, it appears that the President plans to build up our troop levels in Afghanistan. I am still waiting to hear what our objective in Afghanistan will be and why we need an additional 35,000 troops at a cost of one million dollars per soldier per year. I thought we were getting out of the nation building business.

Seems to me that Afghanistan will just be another Iraq. We initially went into Afghanistan to get Osama, yet we don’t even know if he is there or in Pakistan. Won’t our occupation in another Middle Eastern country just increase the terrorists resolve.  If we run Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and Pakistan won’t they just move their operations to another country? Do we really need to spend $35 billion per year to democratize Afghanistan? My son and I are both veterans, so don’t accuse me of being a pacifist. I am just trying to determine how our national security is protected by occupying Afghanistan.

How did we reach this point in history and how can we prevent repeating the same mistakes in the next decade? Most historians would say that we reached this point through neglect, greed, self interest and losing sight of our responsibilities both in America and globally.

So how can we get back on track in moving America forward? The economy should be our number one priority. Job creation should be right at the top. In the next ten years, our top priorities should be green jobs, investment in small business, rebuilding our infrastructure, alternative energy research subsidies, designing and building a smart power grid, and more comprehensive information sharing in key sectors like government agencies and medicine – ie. electronic medical records. Had the FBI shared information on the shooter at Ft. Hood with the military, could that tragedy been averted? Maybe, maybe not.

Financial regulations need to be put back in place to regulate Wall St. and the investment bankers. When it comes to banking regulation, investment banks and commercial banks should not be under the same umbrella. They are very different and they should be regulated and insured differently. Why should the government treat investment banks the same as commercial banks and insure speculation on the part of investment bankers? It doesn’t make sense.

The American people need to become more involved in government, business policy and government regulation of business. As long as the industry lobbyists continue have major influence over legislators in policy making in Washington, the people won’t have a say in how business and industry is regulated and controlled. We need to take back our government from corporate America and the lobbyists. Isn’t it supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people?

One way we can ensure that our voices are heard in Washington would be to leverage the internet and mobilize our voices. By democratizing the web and galvanizing public opinion on each issue, we can use the internet to tell the politicians exactly how we feel about each of these issues as they arise.

The major political parties and their leaders seem to be more interested in working against each other than addressing these issues. Instead of doing the job for which they were elected, they only seem interested in blocking each others progress, rather than working to pass the needed legislation to get America back on track. I’m not suggesting deconstructing our political party system, but giving Washington a non-politically biased barometer of what their constituencies are thinking about a particular issue at any given point in time. If millions of Americans voice their opinions on these issues, don’t you think our fearless leaders will listen and act? 

It is all about the numbers. I started my web community, www.boomeropinion.com, to give Baby Boomers a voice in America. Boomers represent one of every three adults in America and control 70% of the wealth in this country. One would think their opinion counted for something. If even 10% of the 77 million Baby Boomers in America voiced their opinions on these critical issues, I am convinced Washington would begin to listen.

Within the next few months, we will upgrade Boomer Opinion to allow our users to create their own polls, ask topical questions and start discussions on topics of their own choosing. We will follow that with opinion portals for Gen X and Gen Y. Once we get traction, maybe our political leaders will start working to fix America instead of fighting each other over partisan agendas.

What is your take on the last decade and democratizing the web? Is America ready for this? Let us know what you think.

A recent report by the Pew Research Center’s Social and Demographic Trends project revealed that the recession is having a very different impact by age. The economic downturn is keeping older adults in the workforce longer and younger adults are having a difficult time finding employment and staying employed.

Older Americans, Baby Boomers in particular, have watched as their retirement and investment accounts have decreased significantly in value and their retirement plans have gone out the window. A great many Baby Boomers did not plan adequately for retirement and have come to the realization that Social Security won’t provide them with enough money to live on. These factors are  contributing to a shift in America’s employment demographics.

When employers review their employment practices, they have to look at both sides to this issue. Should they try to maintain an older, more experienced workforce or is it in their best interests to lower the average age of their employees? There are pluses and minuses to both of these strategies.

A great many employers believe that it makes more sense to keep their Baby Boomers working because they have more experience and job knowledge. Would you rather have an employee with 2 or 3 years of experience, or 25 years of experience? In the past, employees over 50 had health issues and declining mental acuity. Today, that is not the case. The Baby Boomer generation is healthier and more energetic than past generations. Score one for the Boomers.

Other employers, particularly those in emerging technologies and creative fields are looking for employees that can provide more “out of the box” thinking and innovative approaches to problem solving. The younger generation workers argue that they are better equipped for these types of positions. Steve Jobs, a Baby Boomer himself, might argue this point, although I am sure if you look at the age breakdown at Apple, their workers probably tend to be younger.

Another issue is cost. Younger employees tend to be less expensive than their older counterparts both in salary and benefits. I know a number of folks who have lost their jobs to younger workers simply because the employer wanted to reduce personnel costs and improve their bottom line.

On the other side of the coin, some employers believe that the older workers are more reliable, dependable and have a stronger work ethic. Then again, some employers believe that younger workers can’t match older workers in math and reading skills.

Younger workers are generally more skilled in using and applying technology to their jobs. Most have grown up with cell phones, social media and computers. So they have no fear when it comes to using or embracing new technologies to solve problems. 

Each group has its pluses and minuses. And my observations are for the most part, demographic generalizations. You will find that some older candidates are more in tune with technology than their younger rivals and some younger candidates are more likely to be more dependable than their older rivals. Some older candidates are willing to work for less and some younger candidates are able to do more with less experience.

Are you totally confused about who will make the best employee for your organization? What is the best approach to hiring? The best approach is to determine which candidate is the best fit for that particular position. But do remember that past history is the best predictor of future performance.

What is your take on this topic? Who would you hire? Does age play an important role in your hiring decisions?

If you are a Baby Boomer and haven’t joined our community, www.boomeropinion.com, please consider it. It is free and only takes a couple of minutes to sign up. You can share your viewpoint and voice your opinion on the critical issues facing America. And if we recruit enough of you, we can positively impact business and political policies around the country.

Since the recession began, California’s budget deficit issues and double digit unemployment rates have a lot of people wondering if the state can continue leading the nation in technology and innovation. Ask most Californians, and they will tell you they don’t believe their state is quite ready to throw in the towel. In fact, their ability to innovate will not only play a role in their recovery, but in America’s recovery as well.

And even though I am a Texan living on the Silicon prairie in Austin, a city with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, I am convinced that California will do more than their share in helping lead this country out of recession. Why am I convinced California can bounce back and provide leadership in our nation’s recovery? Even when I was a young guy growing up in the fifties, I noticed that most trends began in California and didn’t hit the other states for at least six months to a year. Some trends never made it to Dallas, Des Moines or Minneapolis.

Of course, if that were my only evidence, I am not sure I could convince anyone that California would be able to maintain its position as a leader in technology and innovation. First, let’s talk about green industries. There’s Tesla, Fisker and Better Place. These are three electric car companies that believe they can compete with the big three automakers. California leads the nation in fuel economy standards and registered clean energy vehicles. The state leads the nation in the number of Hybrids, electric cars and natural gas powered vehicles on the road.

40% of the solar roof installations in this country exist in California. Solar prices are falling every day and most of the solar companies reside in California. Companies like SunPower, BrightSource, Solar City, eSolar, Nanosolar, and Solyndra. SunPower has over 5,000 employees and builds solar panels not just for residences, but massive power plants for utilities and roof top installations for big box stores. SunPower’s Richmond, California plant assembles the world’s most efficient solar panels in a plant where Ford built Model A’s before World War II.  

The computer scientists and engineers are moving into renewable energy and combining their computer technology expertise with solar and LED technologies. eSolar is really a software application for controlling solar arrays in order to extract the maximum energy from these arrays regardless of the position of the sun. Biotech has been displacing the defense contractors in the San Diego area.

Biotech covers sectors such as Genomic medicine and photosynthetic algae technology. A number of discoveries and treatments have been developed recently through genomic medicine and they are really just scratching the surface. Photosynthetic algae technology could ultimately produce more fuel than corn, sugarcane or soy in the same space. Exxon Mobil and Synthetic Genomics are working on a $600 Million project together to develop fuel from algae.

Vinod Kosla, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems has raised $1.1 billion in venture capital to fund clean energy and biotech companies. Mr. Khosla has invested in Calera, a company working on a carbon capturing cement and Soladigm which is using semiconductor technologies to make energy efficient windows. Another of his investments is Amyris, a startup that is working on a process that will turn sugar into diesel fuel.

A major factor that puts the state on the leading edge has to do with the fact that California venture capitalists invested 43% of all the U.S. venture capital that went into high tech, biotech, renewable energy and other leading edge technology companies in 2008. They also have more scientists, engineers, marketers, lawyers, accountants and other knowledge workers than any other state in the union.

Cisco Systems, a California success that provides a significant portion of the infrastructure that powers the internet, spent millions developing their Telepresence system. Telepresence is the ultra high definition video conferencing system that has reduced the carbon footprints of large corporations that in the past found it necessary to meet with their contemporaries in person at locations around the world. One of Steven Speilberg’s cinematographers helped create the feeling of intimacy in the video output. This is another example how one sector of California’s economy teamed with another sector to improve the breed of both.  

Generally, the little guys like to see the movie star stumble and fall into disfavor. So while the rest of America might be writing off the state governed by a former actor and body builder, folks in California are saying that the recession of 2009 is just another speed bump on the road to glory.  And I, for one, would not consider counting them out just yet. If California were a country, it would be in the G-8.

What’s you take on this topic? Do you think California will lead the nation out of recession?

If you are a Baby Boomer and haven’t joined our community, www.boomeropinion.com, please consider it. It is free and only takes a couple of minutes to sign up. You can share your viewpoint and voice your opinion on the critical issues facing America. And if we recruit enough of you, we can positively impact business and political policies around the country.

What’s you take on this topic? Do you think California will lead the nation out of recession?

If you are a Baby Boomer and haven’t joined our community, www.boomeropinion.com, please consider it. It is free and only takes a couple of minutes to sign up. You can share your viewpoint and voice your opinion on the critical issues facing America. And if we recruit enough of you, we can positively impact business and political policies around the country.

How could one technology do all of this? Prescription: Networking, an article in the December 2009 issue of Technology Review published by M.I.T., suggests that the implementation of standardized electronic medical records (EMR) would do all of these things.

According to the article, “If you ask how much in total medical spending there is in the country that doesn’t need to happen-providing absolutely no clinical benefit-the answer is probably $700 billion a year. Healthcare IT is a fundamental part of getting rid of that.” There is no doubt among any healthcare provider you ask that the $2.3 trillion cost of healthcare in America includes a lot of waste. This waste is mainly in the area of duplicated or unneeded diagnoses, treatments and tests.

It is estimated that less than 10% of the hospitals in the U.S. have adopted comprehensive electronic medical record systems. 8.3% of physicians that care for Medicaid patients use them and 13.2% of physicians caring for privately insured patients use them. Doctors that do use electronic medical records report a much higher incidence of being alerted to important lab results, avoiding drug allergies, being alerted to potential drug interactions, ordering critical lab tests, etc. The advantages should be quite obvious.

The real advantages will come once electronic medical record keeping is standardized and shared by every hospital, clinic, private practice and public health facility across the country. This is the only way to ensure that tests and procedures are not duplicated. It will provide every attending physician with all the facts before diagnosing and treating patients. It is amazing to me that these systems haven’t been implemented in more medical facilities given the advances in computing and technology over the past 20 years.

The types of jobs that EMR will provide are the best kind-high tech jobs with a future. These jobs will serve the medical community well into this century and the next. The current stimulus package includes $19.5 billion to help fund this program. There will be penalties for those medical facilities that fail to adopt EMR. Medicare will see significant savings from the adoption of EMR over the next ten years.

Hopefully, the stimulus money will provide the catalyst needed to get this program moving quickly. Given all the rhetoric that has been circulating about the cost benefits of the proposed healthcare legislation, electronic medical records should help America jump start the goal of reducing our healthcare costs.

Remaking healthcare through the use of this technology will accomplish a lot of good things for America. Job creation is one of the most important benefits. And by reducing healthcare costs, we can help American business become more competitive around the world. Both of these things will help stimulate our faltering economy. Seems like Win-Win-Win. Let’s hope that this movement takes off quickly and gets implemented as soon as possible. It is good for healthcare and good for America.

What’s you take on this topic? Do you think electronic medical records can accomplish all of these things?

If you are a Baby Boomer and haven’t joined our community, www.boomeropinion.com, please consider it. It is free and only takes a couple of minutes to sign up. You can share your viewpoint and voice your opinion on the critical issues facing America. And if we recruit enough of you, we can positively impact business and political policies around the country.

A recent article in Psychology Today by Jeff Pearlman, Success: Winners and Losers, gives insight into what it takes to build a world class team. A team of individual stars is not nearly as important as a team with a star leader. In most cases, the star leader is not the most gifted or talented person on the team. Using sports team analogies, the author points to a number of teams that had the most talented players, but still didn’t win championships because the stars of these teams couldn’t forgo their egos in order to become team leaders. The star leader is the guy who inspires his or her team though example and inspiration and not by standing out on their own.

So what are the elements that make up a team leader? These elements include a strong work ethic, humility, a love of pressure, self motivation and selflessness. Surprised? When you think about successful business or political leaders, as well as athletes, your list of traits might not include some of these items. But if you ponder what’s required of a successful leader, you can see that each of these traits is essential to success.

In order to promote team and task cohesion, the leader must inspire every member of the team to rise to a higher level in order to reach the overall goal of the team. Some people have great individual skills, but are so inwardly focused they have a hard time doing what is best for the team and foregoing their own self interests. The true team leaders focus exclusively on how to help the team move forward and that behavior is contagious.  

Work Ethic.  Having a strong work ethic is nearly always contagious, unless you work with a bunch of slugs whose only purpose in life is to collect a check and leave when the clock strikes 5PM.  Now I am not advocating working 60-80 hour weeks, but when there is a project or product launch on the line and the only way to get it finished is by putting in the extra hours, then it is up to the leader to inspire his or her team to do whatever it takes to get the job done. Leaders lead by example.

Humility. This trait should be self explanatory, but to those people with very large egos, it doesn’t make sense. Poor team leaders only want individual recognition and don’t mind stepping on other’s toes to get it. While it should be all about the team, it invariably becomes all about them. They don’t seem to understand that what is best for them is not always best for the team. True leaders should make whatever sacrifices needed to advance the team’s agenda. Period. Great leaders almost always defer the recognition for any accomplishments to their team.

A Love of Pressure. Great leaders seem to love pressure and even thrive on it. The harder the task, the better they like it. With great risk comes great opportunity. You can either let another team take the ball and run with it, or you can pick it up, rally your team behind you or in front of you…and you can all run like hell for the goal. If you look at great leaders in business, government or sports, their greatest achievements came when they had the most to lose.

Self-motivation. This trait comes from within. If you don’t believe in what you are doing, how can anyone else? When everyone else says you can’t achieve your goals, regardless of how improbable they might seem, that is when great leaders dig in and work even harder. To a true leader, the underdog label should just make the impossible seem possible. You can use it as a carrot to make your team work that much harder. If the press or your competitors scoff at your claims, then that should just inspire you and your team to prove them wrong.

Selflessness. This is probably the most important character trait of a real leader. Managers and team leaders who dial back their egos are more likely to get their team to buy into their dream. Business is full of individual stars who can’t give up their egos long enough to help their colleagues rise to the top and achieve the team goal. They want to be the star regardless of the cost. I am sure you have worked with lots of these people at one time or another in your business career.

When I managed large groups of people, I felt compelled to hire the very best staff I could find. While some people feel threatened if they hire someone with more talent, experience and skills than they themselves possess, I feel just the opposite. Some very knowledgeable person told me once that if you want a company of midgets, then that’s who you hire. On the other hand if you want to build a world leader and giant killer in your industry sector, then you need to hire accordingly.

What’s you take on this topic? Have you got any interesting ideas on what it takes to build a world class team?

If you are a Baby Boomer and haven’t joined our community, www.boomeropinion.com, please consider it. It is free and only takes a couple of minutes to sign up. You can share your viewpoint and voice your opinion on the critical issues facing America. And if we recruit enough of you, we can positively impact business and political policies around the country.

Let’s face it, given the economy and the number of people out of work, most people looking for a job are not going to be that selective. They would be happy just to find a job. There are others who believe that it makes more sense to begin the process by screening companies before submitting resumes to every company that has an open position that coincides with their job skills, background and experience.

I tend to believe that you should do a company search first and a job search second. Why? My reasoning has to do with the fact that every company has a different set of values, a different culture and a different potential for growth. Consequently, you should consider each of these factors prior to submitting your resume.

Now, if you are worried about making your next house payment or feeding your family, then all bets are off. You should probably apply for any and every job that you think you qualify for in order to feed your family and pay your bills. That doesn’t mean you should give up looking for your dream job. You can certainly continue that search while you are working somewhere else.

It really depends on the urgency factor. If you are currently employed and just looking to enhance your career by finding a better position at another company, then you have all the time in the world to job hunt. On the other hand, if you need a job this week, then you will most likely take the first one that comes along.

Before screening potential employers, you should spend some time reflecting on what is important to you? Your priorities should dictate the type of company to solicit. Some people put more emphasis on the company’s potential growth and available stock options. Others believe that it is more important to find a company that offers long term security without that much advancement. And some want to go to work for a company with a social conscience or a company that is known for its environmental efforts. And by the way, a successful socially responsible company is not an oxymoron.

Regardless of your other priorities, corporate culture should be a key factor in your search. Despite how good a particular job offer might sound, you aren’t going to last long in a company if you can’t assimilate easily and comfortably into their corporate culture.  Some of you might want to work for a company that is a market leader in an emerging technology field. There are others who are set on working at a company that ranks in the “Top 10 best companies to work for” category.

According to a recent survey of 100,000 people in 34 countries by global workforce solutions leader, Kelly Services, about 90% of the survey respondents were more likely to work for an organization that was considered ethically and socially responsible.  Of that group, Baby Boomers were more discerning than their Gen Y or Gen X counterparts, but not by that much. Almost 80% of those surveyed were more likely to work for a company that was considered environmentally responsible. And about 46% of those surveyed were willing to forego pay or promotion to work for a company with a good reputation.

Employees appear to be more fulfilled when working for organizations that focus not only on the bottom line, but also on community involvement and service. During my own career,I have met and worked with a lot of people who place a higher priority on their compensation and benefits, than on their organization’s philanthropy and social consciousness.  That said, I do believe American worker’s views are changing. At least, I hope they are.

Just keep in mind, that high pay and great benefits won’t satisfy most people’s need for fulfillment if the company that employs them is not ethical, responsible or doesn’t act in their community’s best interests. And as I like to say, “Karma will ultimately find you…and paybacks are hell”. There are thousands of reputable, socially and environmentally responsible companies in America. A good many of the companies in emerging or leading edge technology fields are progressive enough to understand the value of social and environmental responsibility.  Remember Google’s mantra, “Do no harm”. Yes, I am sure that some of you who might argue that they are not fulfilling their promise now they are a multi billion dollar company.

So what is your take on this topic? In your job search, do you search for companies first and jobs second? Are factors such as compensation and benefits your first priority or do you place more emphasis on the company’s reputation, social conscience or growth potential?

If you are a Baby Boomer and haven’t joined our community, www.boomeropinion.com, please consider it. It is free and only takes a couple of minutes to sign up. You can share your viewpoint and voice your opinion on the critical issues facing America. And if we recruit enough of you, we can positively impact business and political policies around the country.

 In the last thirty years I have worked as a product manager, marketing manager and sales manager. I even wrote a book on marketing in 2002 titled Marketing Alignment. Shameless plug number one – my book is available on Amazon.com. Based on my background, one might think it would be improbable that I would be in favor of banning any consumer advertising and marketing.

Sure, most people understand why companies can’t advertise automatic weapons or cigarettes on television. And if you NRA members won’t to take me to task on that issue, feel free, but remember I am an advocate of the second amendment. I suspect a lot of you would be in favor of at least limiting the TV advertising of fast food late at night or sugary cereal products targeting kids in the morning. After all, thirty percent of Americans are obese.

My complaint has to do with prescription drug advertising. Congress allocates the FDA $2.4 billion to regulate our foods, drugs and cosmetics. The big pharmaceutical companies spend twice that amount each year on consumer advertising.

About six years ago Congress, in their infinite wisdom, decided that the big pharmaceutical companies were wining and dining the healthcare professionals (doctors, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, etc) in order to get them to prescribe their company’s drugs. So they passed legislation to put a halt to most of these practices. Well, the executives at the major pharmaceutical companies scratched their heads and came up with a different approach. They decided to go straight to the consumers and advertise their goods on national television. 

I am certain a great many of you would be happy if you didn’t have to witness another erectile dysfunction or enlarged prostate commercial ever again. Include me in that group. There is a movement in congress these days to try to put some limits on this advertising. Representative Henry Waxman, (D) California, would like to see the FDA  bar consumer advertising for any drugs until they have proved safe in real world use. Another democrat, James Morgan of Virginia is sponsoring a bill that would ban ads for prescription sexual aids like Viagra and Levitra during prime time on grounds of decency.

The drug makers and their proponents contend that direct to consumer ads educate the public and inform them about medical advances. Personally, I think diagnosing yourself based on a television ad is dangerous and will do more harm than good. I also believe that this television advertising is a significant contributor to the rising cost of healthcare in America. It seems to me that the big pharma companies see this as an easy way to reach the more gullible hypochondriacs out there who will take any pill they can get their hands on. I believe that healthcare reform should include some type of ban on these prescription drug ads.

Marcia Angell, a senior lecturer in social medicine at the Harvard Medical School and former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, says, “Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising does exactly what it is intended to do – increase sales for drug companies. Increasingly, it does that by promoting medical conditions, as well as drugs. If the industry can convince essentially normal people that minor complaints require long-term drug treatment, its market will grow.”  She goes on to say, “The argument that ads educate consumers is self-evidently absurd. No one should look to an investor-owned company for objective, unbiased information about products it sells. Do we ask the Ford dealer whether his cars are any good?”

Still, there are those that argue that these advertisements go a long way in educating the American public about specific medical conditions and how to treat them. That would be a good argument if it were true. A study that compared the health literacy between the U.S. and Canada demonstrates the fallacy in that argument. Canada, where these ads are not allowed, has a higher health literacy than here in America where we are bombarded daily with these ads.

James P. Othmer, a former advertising creative director and author of the forthcoming book, Adland: Searching for the Meaning of Life on a Branded Planet, had this to say about prescription drug marketing, “My all-time favorite pharmaceutical ad is for something called R.L.S. (Restless Leg Syndrome) a condition whose degree of absurdity is topped only by a drug’s potential side effects: “Tell your doctor if you experience increased gambling, sexual or other urges.” Mr. Othmer went on to say, “If I had a dime for every time I heard the words “ask your doctor” or saw a crude clip of phallic imagery during a commercial break from the evening news, or was forced to contemplate a stomach-turning side effect, I’d be able to afford my own health care.”

So what is your take on this topic? Do you think these drug companies should be able to advertise freely on any medium they choose? Are you ready to contact your Senator or Congress person and tell them to ban this advertising?

If you are a Baby Boomer and haven’t joined our community, www.boomeropinion.com, please consider it. It is free and only takes a couple of minutes to sign up. You can share your viewpoint and voice your opinion on the critical issues facing America. And if we recruit enough of you, we can positively impact business and political policies around the country.