I just ran across The New Charm School, which had lots of interesting stuff. For example, this post points out the practical reason to keep the sexy stuff out of the office:

According to a recent Tulane University study of MBA-degreed working women aged mid-20s to 60, nearly half had at some point engaged in sexualized behavior - such as crossing their legs provocatively, letting men linger at certain places of their body while hugging them, or implying they were attracted to certain men, even if they were not - to get ahead in their careers.

However, data showed that those who said they had not used sexual behavior as a career strategy earned an average of three promotions and were earning an average of $75,000-100,000 a year.

The women who chose behaviors like intentionally leaning over so that men could look down their shirts, telling male co-workers they looked sexy, and massaging the shoulders and backs of their male co-workers at the office, had only received two promotions, and had average earnings of $50,000 to $75,000 annually.

There are lots more interesting items over there, especially for women looking for career advice.

This is what makes all these hot and steamy days worthwhile: Last night we had what we call “The Sauce,” and it was so the essence of summer that I have to share.

Grab a bunch of tomatoes fresh off the vine or from a farm stand (they have to be fresh!)—half a dozen or so work fine. Chop them up with a couple of handfuls of mushrooms, about a half-cup of chopped fresh basil, a couple of minced garlic cloves, a half-pound of shredded mozzarella, a pinch of salt, and enough olive oil to make it all juicy. Let it meld at room temperature for a while, then serve over pasta with some parmesan on top.

Anyone have any good zucchini or cucumber recipes to share? Our garden runneth over, but our ideas on what to do with the stuff isn’t.

I’m participating in the blogjam over at Fast Company Now, which is a lot of fun. Check it out: Johnnie’s talking about changing the world and Jeff’s getting holistic about innovation–and all I want to talk about is jerks in the workplace! Here’s what I posted there:

While of course we’d all like to work with competent, likeable people, I found it really interesting that, when given a choice in this Fast Company poll between working with someone who is less skilled and likeable and someone who is more competent and a jerk, 90 percent chose more likeable over more competent.

What I find even more fascinating is how people interpreted the question, particularly the word “skill,” which people took to mean everything from intelligence to talent to creativity in the poll’s comment section and elsewhere (for example, here and here).

If the question had replaced the word “skill” with “creativity,” “talent,” and “intelligence,” would your answer change? Having interpreted “skill” as being more along the lines of knowing how to use the tools of a particular trade (a software program, say, or a hammer), I voted with the majority. But I could be swayed to the other side, mainly because I can’t imagine not being able to find something to like in a truly talented, creative, and intelligent person.

Do these qualities trump jerkitude in your mind? Or do they actually make a person more of a jerk because all that talent, creativity, and intelligence might make them impatient with–and jerkier to–those who don’t play in the same sandbox?

And, while you can teach skills (as I define them, anyway), can you train employees to be more likeable? Should you, given the value so many appear to place on likeability?

From CNN: Costa Rica bars swimming with dolphins, sharks (I think the shark thing is a typo since the article mentions dolphins and whales, but no Great Whites or Hammerheads).

While I think it would be downright magical to swim with dolphins (whales, now that’s another story!), it’s not a great idea to hobnob with the wild creatures like that, anyway. They start to get a little too dependant on human contact, which could end up hurting them in the long run.

By the way, does anyone remember an episode of a TV show—I think it was one of the early CSIs, but I could be wrong—where a dolphin trainer ends up getting killed when her overly amorous trainee takes her for a love dive? I can’t remember anything but that one scene, and it’s been bugging me since I mentioned it in a comment I made on a post by Gary the Sabre Geek on the same story (and thanks for the pointer, Gary!).

As I was search-engine optimizing the August issue of Corporate Meetings & Incentives, I ran across this little gem:

An incentive program needs to offer a minimum of 3 percent to 5 percent of each participant’s annual compensation to get their attention. So an employee who earns $50,000 a year needs at least $1,500 to $3,000 in incentives to drive his or her behavior.

Source: Salesdriver.com—now I’ve learned my new thing for the day.

I just heard about ZazzleStamps, a new service where you can upload your own image to be placed on postage stamps. This could be a very cool way to further brand your meeting mailings.

Association Meeting’s e-newsletter AM Extra, has some good items in it. I particularly liked this one: Getting the Next Generation on Board. A snip:

How can associations build membership and program their events to attract younger generations while retaining baby boomers? This is the central question explored in a report being developed by SmithBucklin Corp.’s William E. Smith Institute for Association Research.

“A Generational Profile of Association Participation” is being written by Arthur C. Brooks, an associate professor of public administration and director of the Nonprofit Studies Program at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. The study looks at how different age groups participate (or do not) in association activities, and it suggests appropriate messages for reaching these groups.

Initial findings show that Generation X’ers (those born between 1965-1975) are just as likely as baby boomers (1946-1964) to join associations. The primary challenge for associations is that there are simply fewer Generation X’ers. To retain current membership levels, associations will have to adjust their membership acquisition strategies to recruit a higher percentage of the younger generation, according to Brooks.

I’m looking forward to reading the full study when it’s released later this year.

Ever wonder why, no matter how hard you try, your meeting just doesn’t go anywhere? Why, instead of exploring new ideas, people just get more entrenched in fighting for what they’ve already determined is the right way to go? If so, check out this post from Seth Godin:

There’s no point whatsoever in having a meeting designed to elicit change if the attendees are insulated against changing their minds. Assuming you are surrounded by co-workers who are willing to try, it’s essential you go through exercises designed to loosen up the flip muscle.

Ironically, the setting and tone of a conference room work to create precisely the opposite effect. Business meetings (and sales calls) are custom-made for failure. People walk in and are reminded (in an overwhelmingly Proustian way) that this is the place to stand your ground, this is the place where good arguments carry the day and build careers, and weak-kneed flip-floppers hurt their careers. When was the last time you changed your mind in a conference room?

You have to get them out of that mindset and open to change, which isn’t easy. Seth suggests getting them to change something insignificant, just to set the mood. Some other ideas I have might be to turn the topic upside down somehow: Instead of the usual sales meeting blather—what are our challenges? How do we overcome them?—ask, “what are our customers’ challenges? How can we help them overcome their problems?” They probably aren’t coming prepared with pre-stocked answers for that one, and might be more open to discussing new ideas they hadn’t thought of before. OK, that’s not a great example, but it’s 93 degrees in here and my brain’s fried again.

Or maybe start off with an out-there example of some kind, something nobody has heard of before that will get them off their prepared stances and ready to actually discuss, rather than pontificate on their preconceived points of view? I don’t know.

How do you get people to exercise what Seth calls their “flip” muscle?

Update: I just read this idea from JigZaw, and kind of like it:

Whenever I hold a meeting I insist on a formal agenda - one which I print out ahead of time and present to everyone attending the meeting.

However, what I list as Agenda item 0 (yes Zero) before even introductions, is “go over agenda”.

So, to start a meeting I try to have us read over the agenda, agree to it, but more importantly, at that point I ask for “are there anything else that should be on the agenda? Anything which we should move up?”

In most cases it is also useful and important that the agenda spell out the time for the meeting whether typed onto the page or merely described as I read it. i.e. “We’ve agreed to meet for 45 minutes, here’s what is on the agenda, is there anything which we need to add? Anything we should move forward or remove?”

This does not always work perfectly, but by getting people into a mood of making changes, as well as getting implicit buy-in to the agenda, meetings tend to move more quickly and effectively.

From NewScientist.com:

Patents filed by an Israeli inventor Amit Weisman and US company Yardeni Associates of Connecticut make scary reading for nervous travellers.

Airport security guards already use hand-held electromagnetic wands to detect metal hidden under clothing. The same wand can also sniff for traces of the gases some explosives emit into the air.

If the passenger is a suicide bomber who realises the wand has found something, the guard might not have enough time to pull out handcuffs or a gun. So the new wand will have a hidden secret – a transformer which steps the detector’s battery power up to 100 kilovolts and feeds it to disguised metal electrodes at the end of the wand.

If the wand gives a silent warning of explosives, the guard can then subtly slide the pads onto the passenger’s neck or hands and press a shock button. The patent reassures that the effect is “temporary and reversible”.

Somehow, I do not want to see these in the hands of some of the airport security people I’ve experienced.

Jupitermedia’s CEO Alan Meckler on why they sold their search engine strategy shows. Interesting!