In 1826, James Smithson bequeathed his estate to his nephew, who if died without heirs would thereafter go -- "to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men" if the nephew died without heirs. The estate was transferred at the nephew's death in 1835, with the motives behind the bequest remaining mysterious. The gift amounted to slightly more than $500,000. States' rights advocates, nationalists, federalists, and others disagreed over the possible repercussions of accepting such a gift; and even whether the acceptance by the federal government was constitutional.
- John Quincy Adams suggested the money should go toward scientific research,
- Thomas Cooper advocated a school that could help to improve social condition,
- Joel R. Poinsett wanted to use the Smithson bequest for a national museum to showcase relics of the young country and its leaders, to celebrate American technology, and to document the natural resources of the North American continent; and
- Alexander Dallas Bache, great grandson of Benjamin Franklin,wanted it to support scientific research.
Community Leaders had differing opinions of how the money should be used. Each with their own perspective that added to the pot -- convinced of the obvious merits of their opinions. 8 years of sometimes heated debate, and ultimately the Smithsonian Institution was established as a trust to be administered by a Board of Regents. Over 160 years later, debate reigns on!
TAP is like that. Capital lore states that the founding of the program was with JBL, others credit Joe Higdon. And even others suggest it originated from the collective desire to create a succession plan of leadership. Another set of lore says that JBL (sometimes JMBL) never wanted the program to feed into the investment group. Yet today, many analysts had their start with TAP.
The website says the program "increases your understanding of investment management" and "gain a better understanding of your own strengths, weaknesses and preferences." It could also be said it's an opportunity to allow Capital to benefit from creative talent for 2 years.
When people ask me about the program I say that it's all of those things. The program is an organic discussion that provides a continuing catalyst for dialogue about our core values and competencies. It's a way to keep departments connected through living beings with the organization. [Unlike a manufacturing company, what we sell is knowledge and people power]. It keeps individuals within the company challenged and at the forefront of an ever-changing world filled with new generations of ideas, cultures, and beckons of truth.
Like the Smithsonian it was started with an idea that has taken on a life of its own, that morphs with each board's touch and required to evolve with its changing times. The program is everything everyone says it is -- and none of it.
So, where does that leave me? After 2 years, I feel a little sullied. As though I have been examined, groped, rejected, and accepted by a hoard of holiday shoppers. I've been evaluated and slapped with a "Certified Pre-Owned" sticker. Retaining the same body, short one organ, a little worn from the usage; but wiser, steadier, and certified to do nothing special!
Essentially, I'm coming out the other end and what they've spend all this money on is --> ME!
TAP is like that. Capital lore states that the founding of the program was with JBL, others credit Joe Higdon. And even others suggest it originated from the collective desire to create a succession plan of leadership. Another set of lore says that JBL (sometimes JMBL) never wanted the program to feed into the investment group. Yet today, many analysts had their start with TAP.
The website says the program "increases your understanding of investment management" and "gain a better understanding of your own strengths, weaknesses and preferences." It could also be said it's an opportunity to allow Capital to benefit from creative talent for 2 years.
When people ask me about the program I say that it's all of those things. The program is an organic discussion that provides a continuing catalyst for dialogue about our core values and competencies. It's a way to keep departments connected through living beings with the organization. [Unlike a manufacturing company, what we sell is knowledge and people power]. It keeps individuals within the company challenged and at the forefront of an ever-changing world filled with new generations of ideas, cultures, and beckons of truth.
Like the Smithsonian it was started with an idea that has taken on a life of its own, that morphs with each board's touch and required to evolve with its changing times. The program is everything everyone says it is -- and none of it.
So, where does that leave me? After 2 years, I feel a little sullied. As though I have been examined, groped, rejected, and accepted by a hoard of holiday shoppers. I've been evaluated and slapped with a "Certified Pre-Owned" sticker. Retaining the same body, short one organ, a little worn from the usage; but wiser, steadier, and certified to do nothing special!
Essentially, I'm coming out the other end and what they've spend all this money on is --> ME!
No comments:
Post a Comment