Question of the week 8: Complacency

Hi and welcome to this week’s ‘question of the week’. The word that will be covered in today’s question is ‘complacency’.

Question: Should complacent individuals accept change?

The term complacency is defined as a feeling of self-satisfaction where one tends to stop looking at threats and dangers. It puts an individual in a false sense of security. For instance, a person that keeps winning in tennis may become complacent, thinking that he or she has a winning training schedule and technique, and thus not training as hard as other competitors. The result is then a heavier upset when he or she loses.

The question looks at how winning individuals cope with losing. Confidence is built in how a person acts and behaves, and its successes may create a resistance to change. A successful CEO may not want to leave a company because he or she thinks its success will continue to come from him or her, even when the business environment is changing constantly over time. This is found not just in business, but also in sports. A star football player, basketball player, or motor sport racer starts by training hard and creating a reputation. However, once the reputation is made, he or she then thinks that the successes will continue. This can be especially seen in athletes returning from retirement, where the successes haven’t carried on due to changes in, for instance, techniques and training in the sport.

As such, individuals should be alert of their complacency, not think that their successes will last, and that they should continuously improve. Complacent individuals should also realize that their success is only temporary, and that times will change.

In short: Complacency, which is achieving self-satisfaction without being aware of threats and dangers, should be recognized and be a warning for the need to exert more effort. Success should be seen as only temporary, and that change is inevitable.

Have any opinions or questions about this answer? Then please leave a comment!

Question of the week 7: Frivolous

Hello and welcome to this week’s ‘question of the week’! The word that will be covered is ‘frivolous’, which is found in the following question:

Question: Should frivolous suggestions be ignored?

Frivolous is defined as something that is seen as not important, not serious, or lacking merit. A frivolous suggestion would thus not be taken seriously, and would most likely be ignored by the reader. For instance, suggesting to the weather channel that they use different colors based on the temperature forecast may be seen as frivolous compared to suggesting the inclusion of wind speeds. But does it mean that these suggestions should be ignored?

It depends on the situation. If there are a lot of suggestions and only a limited amount of time to think through each suggestion, then a lot would be classified as frivolous. These frivolous suggestions may then either be stored for future use, or ignored if they continuously come. It must be said though that any idea may spark a success, thus even frivolous suggestions can create value despite not showing it at first. Thus, reading a suggestion twice, albeit a frivolous one, may be a better approach than ignoring it right away.

In short: A frivolous suggestion means one that is seen as not important, not serious, or lacking merit. However, any idea may create a success over time, thus reading a frivolous suggestion twice may be better than ignoring it right away.

Have any opinions or questions about this answer? Then please leave a comment!

Question of the week 6: Austerity measures

Hi and welcome to the first ‘question of the week’ entry of 2011! Hoping that the New Year will bring in a lot of new knowledge and vocabulary!

The phrase that will be covered this week is “austerity measures”, which will be used in the following question:

Question: What are austerity measures?

Austerity measures are a way for governments to reduce their debts through cutting expenditures and increasing tax revenues. These debts come from money being borrowed from other countries, the world bank, the International Monetary Fund, or other financial institutions. If a government were not able to pay back its debts, then the lender would be less willing to lend money. As such, austerity measures are taken in order to regain the trust and willingness of lenders to lend.

An example of this is the Greek government, which during 2010 underwent a debt crisis. Member countries of the European Union provided funds for Greek to battle the crisis, however on condition that Greece implements austerity measures. These measures included a pay freeze, layoffs, pension plan changes, increase in taxes, and a focus on privatization. Other countries, such as England, Ireland, and Portugal have also implemented austerity measures to minimize its debts.

In short: austerity measures are a means for a government to minimize its debts and gain back trust in its lenders.

Have any opinions or questions about this answer? Then please leave a comment!

Question of the week 5: Pet Peeve

Welcome to this week’s question of the week. Before getting to the phrase however, Edit-Your-Work would like to wish you all a

For this week, the focus will be on the phrase “pet peeve”, which will be used in the following question:

Question: What are your 3 most annoying pet peeves?

A pet peeve can be defined as a certain behavior from other individuals that one finds annoying, yet what others may find acceptable. Small acts such as not hanging a jacket on a rack, like in the movie Karate Kid, may not bother me, but can irritate a mother who keeps the household tidy.

The three most annoying pet peeves that I have come across include:

1. Finding myself in the situation where a number of friends from a specific country decide to only speak in their language around me, leaving me to guess what they are talking about.

2. Individuals spitting along the path of where I am walking, making me walk cautiously over it.

3. Drivers who keep their car on the fast lane despite no cars being present on the other lanes.

These are my three main pet peeves, although any form of annoyance that you find in a person can be a pet peeve.

Are these also your pet peeves, or do you have other types? Then please leave a comment!

Next week will be the start of the New Year, and thus big celebrations will happen. As such, the next question of the week will be on the 7^th of January, 2011. To everybody, have a fabulous New Year’s celebration and may your resolutions come true!

Question of the week 4: Exoneration

Hi and welcome to this week's Question of the week! For this week, "exoneration" will be covered in the following question:

Question: Does being exonerated mean the end of guilt?

The word exoneration is used to describe a person who is accused of committing a crime or is blamed for a wrongdoing, but due to the lack of information, use of wrong information, or evidence that contradicts the accusation, the charges and/or blame are dropped. One such example is O. J. Simpson, who was not found guilty for killing his wife. Another example may be when someone is blamed for not doing work, but then provides a doctor’s note as evidence to show that it was not possible to work. In both cases the person was exonerated. But does that mean the guilt of the crime or the blame ends after being exonerated?

Depending on the situation, the person can still be seen as at fault. Factors such as bribery or lack of information may lead to exoneration, but may also twist the truth. This may lead to the creation of conspiracies, doubts over the legal system, or fear of favoritism, just to mention a few. A verdict is based on the opinion of people, and although in certain cases there are specific facts that prove a person’s guilt, it takes a story along with the evidence to come to a final conclusion. May it truly represent the truth or not. Thus, a “not guilty” verdict from a judge or jury does not necessarily mean a person is not at guilt. Likewise, being given the blame does not necessarily mean that person is at fault.

In short: Being exonerated is based on combining facts to create a story, which then is converted to a verdict. It however does not mean the actual truth is uncovered, whereby the guilt may still stay with the individual.

Have any opinions or questions about this answer? Then please leave a comment!

Question of the week 3: Cloud Computing

Hi and welcome to this week's question of the week!

For this week, the phrase "cloud computing" will be covered:

Question: How does cloud computing change the way we gather information?

Cloud computing is becoming a hype these days with big companies such as Microsoft, Apple, and Google investing and researching into this new form of sharing information. But what exactly does this term, cloud computing, mean?

Cloud computing focuses on the Internet, where users connect to the cloud and use the services on it. This cloud is run by companies that invest in powerful computer hardware so that users themselves won’t have to spend on it. In other words, with this concept, any person can run resource intensive applications by just plugging into the cloud. One such example is ‘OnLive’, a gaming service where customers can play current up-to-date games just by connecting to the cloud with a simple and cheap hardware.

In terms of changing the way we gather information, cloud computing will enable more users to access data rich information which at first may not have been possible due to computers not meeting the minimum requirements. This is especially appropriate for countries where computers are seen as a luxury good, or for users that are tied to different operating systems. Thus a greater role is put on the Internet for work, entertainment, and educational purposes, allowing us to be more up-to-date than was previously possible with periodic upgrades and updates to information.

In short: Cloud computing, which puts the actual performance of applications on the cloud providers, is an upcoming way of using and emphasizing the Internet for work, entertainment, and educational purposes.

Have any opinions about this answer? Then please leave a comment!

Question of the week 2: Gregarious

Hi and welcome! As you may already know, the Edit-Your-Work blog started last week its 'question of the week', which is meant to define a word each week through answering a question.

This week's question concerns the term gregarious:

Question: Does it take a gregarious person to be a businessman?

The term gregarious stands for an individual who is sociable and well liked by others. This may establish trust, where individuals open up to discuss about important matters. However, it may also mean that the gregarious individual loses track of the people he or she meets.

A businessman can have a whole range of roles, be it a salesperson, market researcher, management consultant, etcetera. In essence, it has to do with the managing of a company as well as the process of providing goods or services to customers, businesses, or governments.

Whilst being gregarious may lead to a social network that is beneficial to a company, and can create favoritism in biddings, it is not a necessary trait to conduct business. Some roles focus less on personal interaction, such as accounting, whereas human resources, marketing, and sales people thrive on it. Yet, a highly adaptable individual who can change a company based on market demands, but is not gregarious, can create better results.

In the end, it is the results and profitability that drive a company. This is not to say however that being sociable is unnecessary. A company is run by individuals, so being even a little gregarious can create a nicer and happier atmosphere.

In short: Being gregarious is not necessary to become a businessman, although it does help create a better atmosphere and a social network that may be beneficial to the company.

Have any opinions about this answer? Then please leave a comment!