To all,
Just a question out of sheer curiosity. What are the requirements or qualifications, in the SOKE or Shohei for obtaining a Shihan? I have not seen Sensei Mattson or anyone else for that matter issue one in Uechi, so what is the purpose for having it on the books? If we are going to keep it, shouldn't that too become something better codified for people?
Thoughts?
mike
rank (cont.)
Moderator: Available
-
mikemurphy
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Mon Oct 05, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Randolph, MA USA 781-963-8891
- Contact:
-
gmattson
- Site Admin
- Posts: 6069
- Joined: Wed Sep 16, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Lake Mary, Florida
- Contact:
rank (cont.)
Mike:
We discussed the 'Shihan' issue awhile back. My position is that 'Shihan' can be anything the organization wants it to be. At one time, anyone could send $100 to Okinawa and get a 'teacher's certificate' (Which many call a shihan certificate). Lots of people have them. Some deserve them, most do not!
Issuing another worthless certificate doesn't address the needs of our industry. Perhaps the government can use the title as part of its certification process of dojo!
------------------
GEM
We discussed the 'Shihan' issue awhile back. My position is that 'Shihan' can be anything the organization wants it to be. At one time, anyone could send $100 to Okinawa and get a 'teacher's certificate' (Which many call a shihan certificate). Lots of people have them. Some deserve them, most do not!
Issuing another worthless certificate doesn't address the needs of our industry. Perhaps the government can use the title as part of its certification process of dojo!
------------------
GEM
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
rank (cont.)
NOTE:
I heavily edited this piece because I accidentally posted something in the wrong place. But the thread would be COMPLETELY lost without me saying....
Three cheers for Mary's spanking new shodan!
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 11-18-99).]
I heavily edited this piece because I accidentally posted something in the wrong place. But the thread would be COMPLETELY lost without me saying....
Three cheers for Mary's spanking new shodan!
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 11-18-99).]
rank (cont.)
Maybe I’m missing something but I don't understand what you are getting at in random thoughts. Maybe you are agreeing with me, maybe you disagree without saying so directly. I'm not sure.
If the challenge is to make things better, the question to focus on is "what would you do if the system agreed to from the bottom up worked?" What would it be like it there was agreement across the organization on the essential matters of fairness and consistency?
Can you honestly believe consensus would build over a Machiavellian model of governance and merit? It's the only way to open the discussion and allow folks to speak openly and take on the sticky issues.
Looked at another way, and following your line of questioning, ‘what is done now when current standards are not adhered to?’ Perhaps if you answer that question honestly and candidly, we can advance the discussion.
If for no other reason, such squabbles and self-aggrandizement are bad for business.
If the challenge is to make things better, the question to focus on is "what would you do if the system agreed to from the bottom up worked?" What would it be like it there was agreement across the organization on the essential matters of fairness and consistency?
Can you honestly believe consensus would build over a Machiavellian model of governance and merit? It's the only way to open the discussion and allow folks to speak openly and take on the sticky issues.
Looked at another way, and following your line of questioning, ‘what is done now when current standards are not adhered to?’ Perhaps if you answer that question honestly and candidly, we can advance the discussion.
If for no other reason, such squabbles and self-aggrandizement are bad for business.
rank (cont.)
JD, since you and Bill seem to be bandy-ing my name around I thought I would respond.
I neither considered myself a "minnow" prior to the Dan test nor a "small-fry" after the Dan test.
My plan was, and is to continue working out to the best of my capabilities and continue my journey along the path I have chosen. I know this may "smack of lotus" but I consider myself first and foremost a student of Uechi-ryu as it is taught to me.
------------------
I neither considered myself a "minnow" prior to the Dan test nor a "small-fry" after the Dan test.
My plan was, and is to continue working out to the best of my capabilities and continue my journey along the path I have chosen. I know this may "smack of lotus" but I consider myself first and foremost a student of Uechi-ryu as it is taught to me.
------------------
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
rank (cont.)
Mary
All these terms J.D. throws around are "endearing" labels with a touch of self-deprication. I am genuinely happy that you got shodan. We all spend lots of time talking about broader issues. But in the end karate comes down to individual practice and accomplishment. One should never minimize those special moments. Savor the accomplishment, and allow me the vicarious pleasure of enjoying it with you. Every tapestry is made up of individual threads, and you, Mary, are a special one.
Phil
No wonder you misunderstood me; I put this in the wrong thread. It is totally out of context. And at first I thought you were crazy. Mea culpa.
I'll re-post this back in the thread I intended it to go.
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 11-18-99).]
All these terms J.D. throws around are "endearing" labels with a touch of self-deprication. I am genuinely happy that you got shodan. We all spend lots of time talking about broader issues. But in the end karate comes down to individual practice and accomplishment. One should never minimize those special moments. Savor the accomplishment, and allow me the vicarious pleasure of enjoying it with you. Every tapestry is made up of individual threads, and you, Mary, are a special one.
Phil
No wonder you misunderstood me; I put this in the wrong thread. It is totally out of context. And at first I thought you were crazy. Mea culpa.
I'll re-post this back in the thread I intended it to go.
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 11-18-99).]
rank (cont.)
I found this article in Workforce Magazine
While it's not exactly the topic, it has some good information how other organizations handle 'turnover'.
Feature: The Meaningful Workplace
Creating a Workplace With Flexibility
Let's play by the rules mission.
By Tom Terez
---------------------------------------------
You know all about TQM, as in Total Quality Management. But have you ever heard of Toenail Quality Management?
I encountered the new TQM during my research into meaningful workplaces. It was explained to me by a woman whose own workplace had gone completely mad with rules.
It seems that one day, several top managers from her company got together to discuss their staggering turnover rate. The owner was a stickler for formal business attire—to such a degree that the rules on workplace attire were like something out of a Marine Corps handbook. The managers figured this was prompting that sky-high turnover, and in short order, they had their solution: Every Friday would be "casual day." Surely that would stop the exodus!
After getting the owner's grudging go-ahead, a new rule on casual days was added to the already hefty policy manual. Then the personnel manager met with each work unit to explain how things would work.
That's when the question came up: Can we wear sandals?
Yes, the personnel manager said to the employee.
Open-toe sandals?
The personnel manager paused, looked down at the freshly written policy, then made her declaration: You're permitted to wear open-toe sandals, but only if the toenails are covered with nail polish.
Okay, not all organizations are pursuing Toenail Quality Management. Yet so many workplaces seem obsessed with creating rules and enforcing rules and ruling on rules. It's bad enough for the employees, but it's even worse when customers pay the price.
Another case in point: On December 23, Debbie and her colleagues were working feverishly to fill orders at an appliance superstore. Nearly all the products were sold on-site and either taken home by customers or delivered locally by truck. Then a rare phone order came in. Someone wanted to send a small stereo to an out-of-town relative. Debbie, who had been on the job for just a few weeks, would have to ship the item via express mail to ensures its arrival in time for Christmas.
She took the caller's credit-card information, hung up the phone, did the necessary paperwork—then discovered that there was only one person who arranged for overnight shipping. He happened to be off that day.
Fine, Debbie told her supervisor. Where are the shipping materials so I can do it myself? We have to send it today, or it'll arrive after Christmas.
Sorry, the supervisor said, but we have a rule around here that sales people don't do any of the packing and shipping. You'll have to wait for him to come in after the holiday.
Completely frustrated with the inflexibility of it all, Debbie called back the customer and gushed with apologies. And before hanging up, she recommended a competing appliance store down the street.
In many more interviews with people from all walks of work life, I heard stories like these. And I started to ask myself some questions.
Do all these rules help employees? Do they help customers? If not, why do we keep them?
Why do we want to populate the workplace with people who "play by the rules"? Our goal is to be mission-focused, right? Shouldn't we expect people to "play by the mission"?
Wouldn't it even make sense for employees to break a rule or even abolish a rule every now and then if it freed up their potential and meant better service to the customer?
In a meaningful workplace, it's all about flexibility. Mission and people come first, and the rules are there only to the degree that they help. They're few in number, and they bend easily. This has nothing to do with having a "loose" environment where people eagerly abuse the "lack" of rules. It has everything to do with creating a workplace built on trust, support, and freedom.
So how do you go about creating a workplace that's mission-driven instead of rule-driven? Here are some ideas:
Don't be "mission-driven" in word alone. Take the time to develop a unifying purpose, a shared vision, and a common set of down-to-earth goals. Widely involve employees in the process so all this good stuff is deeply held in their hearts and minds. Make it an ongoing effort so the mission remains relevant, prominent, and up to date.
Be on the alert for situations in which organizational rules, policies, and procedures are put to the test. These are opportunities to conduct a snap "flexibility test." Does it seem like the rules have become more important than people? If so, address the immediate situation in a flexible way—and recommend changes to the policies so flexibility is easier to achieve in the future.
Organize a dialogue on this topic of organizational flexibility, focusing on rules and policies that seem to be causing the most heartburn. Apply the mission test: Do the rules contribute to the greater mission of the organization, or are they actually making it more difficult for people to carry out the mission? This is guaranteed to be a robust conversation. Be ready to act on the answers.
Avoid the "rule creation reflex," which can afflict well-intentioned managers who face difficult situations. Example: An employee is found using work time to browse "adult" Web sites. Unfortunate Response #1: Browsers are removed from the computers of virtually all employees. Unfortunate Response #2: Employees who are allowed to keep their browsers are issued a list of permissible Web sites, along with the requirement that Internet research should be kept to a maximum of 30 minutes per day. Result #1: The company seals off a massive pipeline of information, much of which can serve the business. Result #2: Employees complain about yet another rule and begin finding ways to sneak their Web searches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other columns by Tom Terez:
Getting and Giving Respect"
The Challenge of "Challenge"
Can We Talk?
Making the Most of Acknowledgment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Terez is a consultant and speaker specializing in "meaningful workplaces" and how to build them. His Meaning At Work site (www.meaningatwork.com) provides extensive information on the 22 Meaning Keys. Each of Tom's monthly columns will focus on a new key. He can be reached at 614-891-6930.
Top of Feature | Features Archive
Related Topics:
Policies and Procedures
Top of Feature
1. Creating a Workplace With Flexibility
Copyright © 1992-1999 ACC Communications Inc.
All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement
While it's not exactly the topic, it has some good information how other organizations handle 'turnover'.
Feature: The Meaningful Workplace
Creating a Workplace With Flexibility
Let's play by the rules mission.
By Tom Terez
---------------------------------------------
You know all about TQM, as in Total Quality Management. But have you ever heard of Toenail Quality Management?
I encountered the new TQM during my research into meaningful workplaces. It was explained to me by a woman whose own workplace had gone completely mad with rules.
It seems that one day, several top managers from her company got together to discuss their staggering turnover rate. The owner was a stickler for formal business attire—to such a degree that the rules on workplace attire were like something out of a Marine Corps handbook. The managers figured this was prompting that sky-high turnover, and in short order, they had their solution: Every Friday would be "casual day." Surely that would stop the exodus!
After getting the owner's grudging go-ahead, a new rule on casual days was added to the already hefty policy manual. Then the personnel manager met with each work unit to explain how things would work.
That's when the question came up: Can we wear sandals?
Yes, the personnel manager said to the employee.
Open-toe sandals?
The personnel manager paused, looked down at the freshly written policy, then made her declaration: You're permitted to wear open-toe sandals, but only if the toenails are covered with nail polish.
Okay, not all organizations are pursuing Toenail Quality Management. Yet so many workplaces seem obsessed with creating rules and enforcing rules and ruling on rules. It's bad enough for the employees, but it's even worse when customers pay the price.
Another case in point: On December 23, Debbie and her colleagues were working feverishly to fill orders at an appliance superstore. Nearly all the products were sold on-site and either taken home by customers or delivered locally by truck. Then a rare phone order came in. Someone wanted to send a small stereo to an out-of-town relative. Debbie, who had been on the job for just a few weeks, would have to ship the item via express mail to ensures its arrival in time for Christmas.
She took the caller's credit-card information, hung up the phone, did the necessary paperwork—then discovered that there was only one person who arranged for overnight shipping. He happened to be off that day.
Fine, Debbie told her supervisor. Where are the shipping materials so I can do it myself? We have to send it today, or it'll arrive after Christmas.
Sorry, the supervisor said, but we have a rule around here that sales people don't do any of the packing and shipping. You'll have to wait for him to come in after the holiday.
Completely frustrated with the inflexibility of it all, Debbie called back the customer and gushed with apologies. And before hanging up, she recommended a competing appliance store down the street.
In many more interviews with people from all walks of work life, I heard stories like these. And I started to ask myself some questions.
Do all these rules help employees? Do they help customers? If not, why do we keep them?
Why do we want to populate the workplace with people who "play by the rules"? Our goal is to be mission-focused, right? Shouldn't we expect people to "play by the mission"?
Wouldn't it even make sense for employees to break a rule or even abolish a rule every now and then if it freed up their potential and meant better service to the customer?
In a meaningful workplace, it's all about flexibility. Mission and people come first, and the rules are there only to the degree that they help. They're few in number, and they bend easily. This has nothing to do with having a "loose" environment where people eagerly abuse the "lack" of rules. It has everything to do with creating a workplace built on trust, support, and freedom.
So how do you go about creating a workplace that's mission-driven instead of rule-driven? Here are some ideas:
Don't be "mission-driven" in word alone. Take the time to develop a unifying purpose, a shared vision, and a common set of down-to-earth goals. Widely involve employees in the process so all this good stuff is deeply held in their hearts and minds. Make it an ongoing effort so the mission remains relevant, prominent, and up to date.
Be on the alert for situations in which organizational rules, policies, and procedures are put to the test. These are opportunities to conduct a snap "flexibility test." Does it seem like the rules have become more important than people? If so, address the immediate situation in a flexible way—and recommend changes to the policies so flexibility is easier to achieve in the future.
Organize a dialogue on this topic of organizational flexibility, focusing on rules and policies that seem to be causing the most heartburn. Apply the mission test: Do the rules contribute to the greater mission of the organization, or are they actually making it more difficult for people to carry out the mission? This is guaranteed to be a robust conversation. Be ready to act on the answers.
Avoid the "rule creation reflex," which can afflict well-intentioned managers who face difficult situations. Example: An employee is found using work time to browse "adult" Web sites. Unfortunate Response #1: Browsers are removed from the computers of virtually all employees. Unfortunate Response #2: Employees who are allowed to keep their browsers are issued a list of permissible Web sites, along with the requirement that Internet research should be kept to a maximum of 30 minutes per day. Result #1: The company seals off a massive pipeline of information, much of which can serve the business. Result #2: Employees complain about yet another rule and begin finding ways to sneak their Web searches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other columns by Tom Terez:
Getting and Giving Respect"
The Challenge of "Challenge"
Can We Talk?
Making the Most of Acknowledgment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Terez is a consultant and speaker specializing in "meaningful workplaces" and how to build them. His Meaning At Work site (www.meaningatwork.com) provides extensive information on the 22 Meaning Keys. Each of Tom's monthly columns will focus on a new key. He can be reached at 614-891-6930.
Top of Feature | Features Archive
Related Topics:
Policies and Procedures
Top of Feature
1. Creating a Workplace With Flexibility
Copyright © 1992-1999 ACC Communications Inc.
All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use Privacy Statement
rank (cont.)
JD-San, sniff, sniff you have warmed the very cockels of my heart....who knew???!!! Now I do!!! I figured you meant no disrespect. And I apologize if my words implied that.
I agree with you that all deserve respect regardless of rank or title...
Hope the check clears... Mary.
------------------
I agree with you that all deserve respect regardless of rank or title...
Hope the check clears... Mary.
------------------
