


Clockwise from top left - B with a selection of dim sum, the dim sum trolleys (I miss those in UK!) and dessert (mango pudding and sago)
For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost. Luke 19:10
Cherry blossoms at Shinjuku-gyoen
Hachiko the faithful Akita

Associate, Analyst, Consultant, Manager, Director, Executive, Assistant..... What is in a job title?
At the moment, I can either let people know that I'm head of my department here (to get the ooh's and wow's) because that elicits an impression of heading a department of 10 people. Or quickly add that I am the only person in my department since my team lead is on holiday (to put some context around it). So really, I am the Analyst/Assistant/Executive/Lead - pick whichever title suits the occasion; it doesn't matter because they're the same. Would it be wrong to do one or the other? I prefer to point it out in case people think my opinion is the 'be all and end all'.
I remember being impressed by someone I know who announced himself as Chief Editor, then someone pointed out that he was the only person in the team - so he is the journalist/editor/chief editor all in one. I looked at an organisational chart once which had six managers names' - I then proceeded to ask how big their teams were and who reported to them. They gave me a blank look - yes, they are managers but no, they don't have a team - it's just them. At that time, I had the stereotypical view of a Manager being well, a Manager to a team of people. I know better now - 'Manager' is a title that can be used generically from managing people to managing technical infrastructure.
Some people strive for a job because of the job title. An ex-colleague persuaded me to join his firm. He told me money would not be an issue (which I took in with a BIG bowl of salt!) and I'll get a better title. But when he started talking about the job responsibilities, it was no different to what I currently have. So why would I uproot from my current firm where I have spent reasonable time structuring my career and ensuring that most of the right people know my career path, to start from scratch again at a different firm? Perhaps I may be paid more to start with, but that's not a long term view. The title would sound more impressive when I introduce myself at networking events, but it's just a title.
When I met another ex-colleague, we compared notes on some of the job titles in the firm I'm with, with her current company. Executive, in our firm, refers to someone with 3 to 6 years experience (different to the Executive Board, which is of course the 'powers-that-be'). In her current company, Executive is the level of a Director. When I carried out a project in US, I was meeting Vice Presidents of this particular company - which I had thought meant that they were on the Executive Board. I then realised that they would actually be the level of Senior Managers in my firm. Important people, no doubt, but not the Executive Board equivalent I had in my mind.
Interesing how job titles can mean so much yet so little at the same time.... Does it actually matter?
I read in the news here recently about a national airline cutting jobs as a result of multi-million losses which led the company to leverage its air routes with another air carrier, thus significantly cutting back on its routes and hence the job losses. When I then read news from the national airline's base country, there was no mention of the multi-million losses. Instead, the news was such that it sounded like a sensible idea to leverage the routes - nothing about the huge losses. I wasn't surprised, as who wouldn't want to limit the amount of bad news within the country, right? It happens everywhere, but especially more in certain countries.
I then wondered whether there was such a thing as objectivity anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if the latter country accused the news agencies in the first country mentioned of trying to paint a bad picture of the latter country etc etc. It wouldn't be the first time this happens, rightly or wrongly. News agencies are supposed to be objective and provide us with facts and figures, however this is often tainted by personal and political views. Does it matter which fact they omit to report? Would it be better for the person/company/country concerned if certain figures are intentionally or unintentionally forgotten? Was there a reason behind the emphasis on certain facts?
We do it in our everyday lives too. Remember how when I was younger, my mom wanted to know who had higher marks than me in school. I thought it'll be better to say who had lower marks than me (which may be a shorter or longer list depending on whether you're talking about primary/junior school, secondary/high school or college). :) We are supposed to try and be objective when it comes to appraisals, reporting, etc - but can we be truly objective?

Arrived safely yesterday evening and took the chance to stroll around the centre, predominantly Bahnhofstrasse where all the big brands are. Says a lot when some of the stores don't display their prices! Had my first steak tartare yesterday too - not sure if it's Swiss; thought it was of French origin! Oh well, it was good anyways. Will post pictures later on. Have to get back to the course now!
OK, so this was taken in Leicester Square. I am sure I will be able to see this (and more) in Zurich. Leaving Sunday for a week-long business trip. I expect Switzerland to be covered in powdery snow for a winter wonderland experience (yes, yes, supposed to be working but no harm in getting some joy when looking out the window, right?). Somehow my mind associates skiing and Switzerland together. The weather forecast put a dampener on that though - forecast is similar to UK for next week - no snow. Sigh. Determine to have fun no doubt (oh, and work smart too!).