Showing posts with label Competition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Competition. Show all posts

August 30, 2013

Pleasure At Pain

Why do people laugh and feel pleasure at other people's pain and misfortune?

The Wall Street Journal (20 August 2013) reviews the book, The Joy of Pain, on this topic. 

Schadenfreude is the German word for feeling pleasure at the calamity of others.

And we see people laugh, point, and otherwise gloat when others are hurting physically, emotionally, financially, and so on. 

When they fail and you succeed, you feel strong, powerful, self-confidant, and that you were right--and they were wrong!

Feelings of pleasure at other people's pain is partially evolutionary--survival of the fittest.

It is also a function of our personal greed and competitiveness--where we measure ourselves not by how well we are doing, but rather relative to how others around us are faring.

So for example, we may be rich and have everything we need, but if someone else has even a little more than us, we still are left feeling lacking inside. 

Thus, we envy others' good fortune and take pleasure in their misfortune.

In a sense, our success is only complete when we feel that we have surpassed everyone else, like in a sport competition--there is only one ultimate winner and world champion.

So when we see the competition stumble, falter, and go down, our hands go up with the stroke of the win!

Anyway, we deserve to win and they deserve to lose--so justice is served and that makes us feel just dandy. 

How about a different way--we work together to expand the living standard for all, and we feel genuinely glad for others' success and real empathy for their pain, and they too for us--and we go beyond our pure humanity to something more angelic. ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution for Lukas Vermeer)
Share/Save/Bookmark

June 2, 2013

Virtual Government--Yes or Nonsense

The Atlantic (2 June 2013) asks why do we even need a government these days--why not just have a virtual one--where you just "buy" the government you want, the size, the capabilities, and you tailor it for your needs?

The author sees government as menu-driven, like a videogame, by a "rotating dial," where you choose whatever government suites you best. 


In this world of virtual government, people are seen turning to private sector alternatives to get capabilities, customer service, and prices that are better than the government's--in some cases, this may actually work, like with private insurance. 


However, this article goes beyond this notion to where government is not tied to the physical boundaries of the real world, but rather to virtual jurisdictions, citizenship, and even values held or abrogated. 


While I agree that raising the bar on government is a good thing--expect more for less--and partnering with the private sector can make government more efficient, the idea of wholesale shopping government around is quite ludicrous: 



- Will we hire mercenaries instead of having an armed forces?

- Will we rely solely on CEOs to conduct our diplomacy?


- Will justice be doled out by vigilantes? 


- Will private inspectors alone regulate food, drug, and the financial system?


While compared to an iPad wheel for making service selections, Government is not the same as a library of songs or movies that one scrolls through to pick and choose what one likes and dislikes. 


Like the old joke about the difference between family and friends...you can choose your friends, but you can't just choose your family!


While government can provide services virtually, it cannot be a government entirely sliced up by choice--where you opt-in for what you like and opt-out for what you don't--if that were the case, we would all selfishly take and never contribute to the greater good. 


For example, "Hey, I like social entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, but I don't particularly care for contributing to space exploration or research and development for certain diseases that I may not be genetically predisposed to."


There is a civic commons where we must share--the prime example is a fire department. If I choose not to contribute, then the fire department still has to come to put out the fire or else it can spread to others. 


In the end, we are not just a collective of individuals, but a nation bound together by core values and beliefs, and shared interests and investments in the future--and where by sharing the risks and burdens, we fall or rise together.  


Like anything that you are seriously apart of--family, religion, organizations, and work--we take the good and work on the bad, rather than just immaturely throwing it all or in innumerable parts away. 


Yes, government should only do functions that are inherently governmental, and we should avail ourselves of all the talent and expertise in the private sector for the rest, but no, we should not wholly think that we can replace government with loose and shifting ties on the Internet and purely profit-driven private sector players. 


If Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda serving as modern virtual governments are the best examples of what can be accomplished, then we should all be running (not walking) to good 'ol Democracy of the U.S. of A.


Virtual government as a way to provision services as well as competition and augmentation by the private sector is great, but becoming a stateless state will not solve the large and complex problems we must face, not alone, but together.


Even though bureaucratic waste and abuse is bad, the system of debate, negotiation, checks and balances, basic human rights, and voting is good, and we should not just throw out the precious baby with the dirty bathwater. ;-)


(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)



Share/Save/Bookmark

March 28, 2013

Perfect, In An Imperfect World

I have a new article in Public CIO Magazine about working to perfect ourselves in an imperfect world.

Please read the article here online.

"Recognize the importance of the journey over that of the goal--and accept the task of working to perfect ourselves, rather than of truly being perfect, or as I learned in Jewish day school, there are no angels here on Earth, only in heaven."

Hope you enjoy! ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

November 10, 2012

Out-Tech The Competition

Talking with my daugter today, I learned that times have changed for our children and I realized for us as well.

It used to be that kids would work hard to out-dress each other--who has the coolest outfit, the shiniest shoes, even the best piercing, but now tech is outgunning fashion. 

In my daughter's school, she says it's no longer about clothes, but about tech devices--who has the latest iPhone 5, the iPad Mini, the thinnest laptop, the coolest apps, and so on. 

How you dress today is less important than what technology you use!

For us adults, this message was brought home by an article in Federal Times (5 Nov. 2012) entitled "Jeans and flip-flops at work." 

As the President of the American Federation of Government Employees Union Local 22 stated: "It's not about dressing up , it's about dressing down and allowing the creativity to flow." Similarly, the Director of Public Relations for Young Government Leaders was quoted as saying: "Today's young leader feel their work makes a bigger statement than what clothes they wear."
So the pressure is off with the dress code, but what about the technology your using?

Government Executive (1 Nov. 2012) in an article called "Technology Hand-off," points out the trend of Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) and as Darren Ash, the CIO of NRC points out "Apple just released the iPhone 5. In the Android market it seems like a new model comes along every month. We can't keep up."

And it's not just the CIOs that are screaming for relief from the incessant change and speed of technology change, everyone is constantly competing for the new technology...from waiting days in line for the next generation Apple device to doing a device refresh every 2-3 years on average, we are addicted to the "latest and greatest."

One CIO, who was the first in an agency to get an iPad, took it proudly to every meeting, especially in front of the executives--first it made him look very progressive and "with it," but then as the iPad envy set in, the whole executive leadership soon were carrying the devices as well. 

So out dressing the guy next to you is so blasé, now what's important is whether you can out-tech them!

Whether it's clothes or technology, the competition out there is fierce--and the cultural statement is clear--get with it or get run over by it. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Share/Save/Bookmark

October 7, 2012

Innovation Echtzing and Krechtzing


Make_a_difference

It used to be that either you were innovative or not. 

Either you came up with out of the box thinking, new paradigms for doing things, cool new designs, and products and services using the latest and greatest technology--or you would eventually be dead in the marketplace and life. 

Now as things seem to slow down a little on the innovators front--we're echtzing and krechtzing (hemming and hawing) about what is innovation anyway?

The Wall Street Journal (5 October 2012) wrote about "The Innovator's Enigma"--asking whether incremental innovation is real innovation. 

For example, when P&G took the sleepy, drowsy part of the medication of NyQuil and made it into it's own medicine called ZzzQuil--was that innovative or just "incremental, derivative."

The article notes that big periods of explosive upheavals in innovation are often followed by "period of consolidation and then by valuable incremental innovation involving the same product."

It's almost like a lets face it--you can't have the equivalent of the iPhone created every day--or can you?

When after the iPhone, people now ask for an iFighter (WSJ, 24 July 2012) and the real iRobot (like envisioned in the movie with Will Smith)--aren't we talking about applying real breakthrough innovation to every facet of our lives?

With Apple coming forward with the integration model of innovation bringing together hardware and software --the bar has been raised on the expectation for innovation not just being functionally excellent, but design cool. Now, Fast Company states (October 2012), "good design is good business." 

But even then innovation is questioned as to its real meaning and impact with Bloomberg BusinessWeek (2 August 2012) stating that "it's easier to copy than to innovate" and "being inspired by a good product and seeking to make even better products is called competition."

Here's another from Harvard Business Review (April 2012) called "Celebrate Innovation, No Matter Where It Occurs" that calls out "adjacencies" as bona fide innovation too, where an adjacency is exploiting "related and nearby opportunities." since inventions are often so large that "inventor's can't exploit them alone" and there are associated opportunities for other (think of new cool iPhone cases for the new cool iPhone). 

One more thing I learned recently is that innovation isn't just the great new product or service offering, but how you use it. 

With Newsweek (17 September 2012), calling into question the iPhone's "awkward invasion of the lavatory" with "not just phones, but tablets and e-readers and even our laptops" replacing the good 'ol Reader's Digest in the bathrooms around the world, then things have truly changed deep culturally and not just superficially technologically. 

This message was brought home last year, when a friend told me how they dropped their iPhone in the toilet leading to a speedy drowning death for the smartphone, now not looking too smart anymore. 

So innovation come in all shapes and sizes and can be mega big, incremental small, derivative, or even adjacent--the important thing is that we keep our thinking caps on and working towards better, faster, and cheaper all the time. 

Sometimes, I do look back and miss things or ways of doing them from the past, so innovation isn't always--just by definition--a good thing, but what we really come up with and how we apply it perhaps can make all the difference.  

The perfect example for me is carving out some genuine space and quiet time to really think about life and innovate in what has become a 24/7 now always-on society that demands innovation but that often squashes it with incessant noise. 

Turn down the noise, let innovation thrive afresh, and be sure you make a genuine difference, and whatever type it is that it is not just as they would say in Hebrew school more dreck (junk) or another narrishkeit (foolishness) in the making.

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Share/Save/Bookmark

September 8, 2012

We Are Driven!

Riots
We are driven to do what?


Some of us to succeed and others, seemingly, to various destructive behaviors that thwart our success.

In the book, The Charge, by Brendon Burchard, he argues that we need to harness our drives to increase our success rate. 

Burchard categorizes our drives into baseline and forward drives--and has 10 of them--almost like the Ten Commandments (Cs)--five in each area (or on each tablet). 

Baseline drives are those which he says make us happy:

- Control
- Competence
- Congruence
- Caring
- Connection

Forward drives are those which help us evolve:

- Change
- Challenge
- Creative Expression
- Contribution
- Consciousness

Wonderful--10 C's, all nicely packaged. 

While I generally agree with these human drives, something is not satisfying about these--they seem academic, stale, and the fodder of a marketing brochure.

Where is the energy of humans to live, love, and laugh? 

Where is the longing for spirituality, purpose, and meaning?

Where is the drive to do good and occasionally, to do what we know is wrong. 

Where are the vices--the drives to conquer, to own and to hoard, to go crazy at times?

Burchard has provided a very one-sided picture of human nature--maybe the side, we would rather acknowledge and focus on, but in ignoring human frailties and tendencies to veer off to the other extremes as well, he is missing an important point--and that is the human nature is a fundamental push and pull. 

Yes, we are driven to happiness and evolution, and on one hand these drives manifest in the rosier side of human nature such as care and contribution, but on the other side, people drives to happiness and evolution may mean their taking what they want, when and how they want it, and to the exclusion of others who are competing with them in a world of limited resources.

It is nicer and easier to envision a world, like the Garden of Eden, where there is plenty for the few, and everything is provided and just a pull from the fruit tree away. 

But in the real world, it is wiser to recognize that our happiness and evolution may mean someone else goes hungry tonight--sad, but true; and only when we are real, can we work to overcome this and to provide plenty for all--through safeguarding of basic freedoms and human rights for everyone. 

Happiness and evolution can be different for the individual and society--for the individual, one's gain may come at another loses (e.g. the stock market, competing for a spot in top-tier school, or beating out the competition for that plume Wall Street job), but for society, success means creating win-win situations where everyone can go to bed with a full stomach and knowing that they have a fair shot at opportunity tomorrow. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Beacon Radio)

Share/Save/Bookmark

July 3, 2012

I'll Take The Stairs

Woke up this morning to the elevator being out of service--again (and this was the sign that was up)!

Thank G-d our automobiles and airplanes aren't as unreliable (generally).

Anyway, I didn't mind walking a little more, and I got a chuckle out of this sign.

Of course, less funny this morning was news of Microsoft's $6.2 billion! dollar writedown on their Internet division.

For a long time, Microsoft has been waiting for the elevator to pick them up and take them to virtual heaven, but instead everyday they try to buy (e.g. aQuantive for $6.3 billion all cash in 2007) their way there, and they end up in a place a lot hotter and nastier.

Microsoft can still make a comeback, but it's past time for them to unleash their creative juices again.

What type of name is Bing (bing-bong) for a search engine, anyway? ;-)

Share/Save/Bookmark

April 29, 2012

Strategy, Blue and Red and Successful All Over

Recently, I was reading about something called “Blue Ocean Strategy.”

The notion is that in pursuing differentiation, an organization’s aim is “not to out-perform the competition in the exiting industry [and to fight it out turning the oceans blood red), but [rather] to create a new market space or a blue ocean, thereby making the competition irrelevant.”

While I like the ocean’s metaphor and agree with the need for organizations to innovate and create new products and services (“blue oceans”), I think that competition (“red oceans”) is not something that is inescapable, in any way.

In profitable industries or market spaces, competition will enter until supply and demand equilibrium are met, so that consumers are getting more or less, the optimal supply at the requisite demand. The result is that organizations will and must constantly fight for survival in a dynamic marketplace.

Moreover, as we know, any organization that rests on its past successes, is doomed to the trash heaps of history as John Champers, the CEO of Cisco stated: It’s “easy to say we’re the best…we don’t need to change, but that’s exactly how you disappear.”

In essence, while we may wish to avoid a duke-it-out, red ocean strategy, every successful innovative, differentiation-driven, blue ocean strategy will result in a subsequent red ocean strategy as competitors smell blood and hone in for the kill and their piece of flesh and cut of market share, revenue, and profit hide.

To me, it is naïve to think that blue ocean and red ocean strategies are distinct, because every blue ocean eventually turns blood red with competition, unless you are dealing with a monopoly or unfair competitive environment that favors one organization over any others.

The key to success and organizational longevity is for innovations to never cease.  When innovation dries up, it is the moment when the organization begins their drowning decent into the ocean’s abyss.

So as with the lifecycle of all organizations, blue ocean strategies will eventually result in red oceans strategies.  Once this occurs, either the organization will leverage their next blue ocean strategy or bleed red until their body drains itself out and dies off—leaving the superior organization’s blue ocean strategy to carry the day.

Together, blue oceans and red oceans—drive the next great innovation and healthy competition in our dynamic, flourishing market.

(Source Photo: here with attribution to freezingmariner)

Share/Save/Bookmark

February 3, 2012

Online Presence, Your Calling Card

In the age when Facebook has surpassed 800 million users, I still often hear people say that they don't like to join social networks or put any information about themselves on the Internet. 

Whether or not their apprehensions about their privacy being compromised is justified or whether they feel that "it's simply a waste of time" or that they "just don't get it," the impetus for us to all establish and nurture our online presence is getting more important than ever. 

In the competition for the best jobs, schools, even mates, and other opportunities, our online credentials are becoming key.

We've heard previously about jobs checking candidates backgrounds on the Internet and even bypassing candidates or even firing employees for their activities online.  

Numerous examples of people badmouthing their companies or bosses have been profiled in the media and even some politicians have been forced out of office--remember "Weinergate" not too long ago?

Now, not only can negative activities online get you in trouble, but positive presence and contributions can get you ahead.

The Wall Street Journal (24 January 2012) reports in an article titled No More Resumes, Say Some Firms that companies are not only checking up on people online, but they are actually asking "applicants to send links representing their web presence" in lieu of resumes altogether. 

What are they looking for:

- Twitter Accounts
- Blogs
- Short Videos
- Online Surveys/Challenges


The idea is that you can learn a lot more about someone--how they think and what they are like--from their history online, then from a resume snapshot.

Of course, many companies still rely on the resume to screen applicants, but even then LinkedIn with over 135 million members is sometimes the first stop for recruiters looking for applicants.

Is everything you do and say online appropriate or "fair game" for people screening or is this going over some sacred line that says that we all have professional lives and personal lives and what we do "when we're off the clock" (as long as your not breaking any laws or doing something unethical) is no one's darn business.  

The problem is that when you post something online--publicly--for the world to see, can you really blame someone for looking?  

In the end, we have to be responsible for what we disclose about ourselves and demonstrate prudence, maturity, respect, and diplomacy, perhaps that itself is a valid area for others to take into account when they are making judgments about us. 

When it comes to children--parents-beware; the Internet has a long memory and Facebook now has a "timeline", so don't assume everyone will be as understanding or forgiving for "letting kids be kids."

One last thought, even if we are responsible online, what happens when others such as hackers, identity thieves, slanderers, those with grudges, and others--mess with your online identity--can you ever really be secure? 

Being online is no longer an option, but it is certainly a double-edged sword. 

(Source Photo: here; Image credit to L Hollis Photography)

Share/Save/Bookmark

October 29, 2011

PwC Leading Like Idol

What does it take to spark creativity and innovation in the workforce, Hollywood style?

An article in Fortune Magazine this month (October 2011) presents how a top global Assurance, Tax, and Consultancy firm like Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) is reaching out to its people to harness creativity through a new program called PowerPitch.

PwC wants to cultivate a particular atmosphere. "We have an average age of 27, but we have roots in tax and assurance," says U.S. chairman Bob Moritz, using the industry jargon for auditing and related functions. "So how do you make this place feel like a Google or a Facebook? A place that feels leading-edge?"

PwC is spurring innovation using an firm-wide contest format and social media to drive innovation for their $29 billion organization.

An admitted fan of American Idol and The Apprentice, [Mitra] Best was drawn to the idea that contests and games could yield serious business results. Employees love the opportunity.”

The PwC program galvanizes a workforce into idea-generating teams, with proposals that are voted on and selected through an internal social media platform by all employees and others picked by a senior panel of leaders. Then the best ideas get leadership "advisors" who work with the teams to present to a top leadership committee. The best idea(s) win some nominal cash for the individuals on the winning team(s), and the proposals move forward with a "champion" to work with the team to actual launch.

PowerPitch is as PwC U.S. Chairman, Bob Mortiz, puts it "a [worthwhile] investment in time and money, but we needed to balance short-term costs against long-term sustainability."

Nearly 800 ideas were submitted from round 1 and these were narrowed down to the top 25 for round 2 and then ultimately to 5 teams of semifinalists and a winning best proposal--however all five ended up deemed "worthy of investing in."

And if even one of the proposals becomes the next $100 million line of business for the company, it will be more than worth the investment.

PowerPitch may not have Simon Cowell from American Idol to keep the competitors on their toes or Donald Trump from The Apprentice to say "You're fired!", but it has enough of excitement, morale-boosting, idea generation and widespread collaboration to keep an organization out front and advance their mission and workforce.

(Source Photo: here)

Share/Save/Bookmark

May 28, 2011

Perfect Is The Enemy of Good

Perfection is a destructive force.

And the French philosopher, Voltaire recognized this when he said "Perfect is the enemy of good."

I never really fully understood this saying, until recently reading a Harvard Business Review article (June 2011) called "The Paradox of Excellence."

The article states: "High achievers often undermine their leadership by being afraid to show their limitations."

At the heart of it...high achievers can let anxiety impede their progress through stress, alienating others, and failure to seize real opportunities.

Here from the article are some of the "classic high achiever" behaviors that can get in the way of success unless artfully managed and balanced (my views):

1) Results-driven: High-achievers can be so work-oriented that they forget the people the make it all it happen. This is why they need to remember to delegate, empower, share, and CARE about others. The work is a team effort!

2) Highly-motivated: They can be so serious about all aspects of their jobs that they "fail to distinguish between the urgent and the merely important." Instead, they should take a bigger-picture PERSPECTIVE on the tasks and prioritize these accordingly. Not everything is life and death, thank G-d, and we need to keep a sense of humor and take the time to enjoy what we are doing.

3) Competitive: They "obsessively compare themselves with others," which can cause them to feel insufficient or make false calibrations. You have to remember to INTERNALIZE that the competition is not with others but with yourself--be the best you can be!

4) Risk-managed: "They may shy away from the unknown" and avoid risky endeavors. As they say in Wall Street, without risk, there is no reward. To INNOVATE and transform, you need to take calculated risks (without betting the farm!) after doing due diligence on an investment or opportunity.

5) Passion: This can lead to powerful, productive highs, but can also result in "crippling lows." Recognize that there are natural ups and downs in the course of one's work. You can STEADY yourself through these by seeing it as incremental growth and improvement, rather than as either pure success or failure.

6) Guilt: "No matter how much they accomplish, they feel like they aren't doing enough." This is an endless trap of it's never enough and never good enough. Hey, we're all mortal. Do what you can and balance the many demands that you have on you in your life, but FOCUS on what's most important, since you can't do it all and you can never get it all done.

7) Feedback: High-achievers "care intensely about how others view their work" and they require a steady stream of positive feedback. Don't get hung up by what other people say or think--it's not personal and they have their own problems. Stay focused on delivering excellence in products and services to the customer, and use whatever feedback you can get--positive or negative--as valuable information to IMPROVE your offering.

If you are a high-achiever and demand much (if not the impossible from yourself), take a step back and a breath in and out--you can accomplish a lot more of what's important to you if stop trying to be perfect, admit your vulnerabilities and limitations, and just try to do your best--that's all that anyone can ask.

Share/Save/Bookmark

April 30, 2011

Life Building 101

The Guardian U.K. (2 April, 2011) has this wonderfully inspiring story about a very special body builder.
Dr. Charles Eugster is a dentist and athlete extraordinaire--you see Eugster is 91 years old.
And he says that "At 85 I had a crisis. I looked at myself in the mirror, and saw an old man. I was overweight, my posture was terrible and there was skin hanging off me. I looked like a wreck."
Now, he is doing dips, crunches, chin-ups, and push ups and scoring higher than contestants in ANY other age category.
Eugster says "I'm not chasing youthfulness, I'm chasing health."
Although he was already rowing 6 times a week when he was in his late-80s, he figured he could push himself a little harder and so he joined a body building club--OMG, this guy's attitude is amazing!
What an inspiration...
His outlook is that "We're told that old age is a continuous state of decline, and that we should stop working, slow down and prepare to die. I disagree...one day something will happen and that will be it. But until that day comes, I'm going to carry on working my abs!"
While none of us know when our time us up, it seems that we can choose how we approach our personal maturation--we can look at it as reaching a peak and then going over the proverbial cliff of life OR we can fight to continuously transform ourselves--for as long as we can--and to always try and be the best we can be.
Age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability--none of these should inhibit us from working our hardest and going for the gold of what is meaningful in life to us.
I remember a wise saying I learned from my teachers--the competition is really not with anyone else, it is with yourself.
So to me it's not really body building we're talking about, but rather life building--and this is something we can all strive for.

Share/Save/Bookmark

March 4, 2011

Balance, Not Brute Force

There is a new documentary called "Race to Nowhere."

It is about our 24/7 culture with it's relentless pressure to succeed and how it is adversely affecting our children.

Directed by Vicki Abeles a mother of one of these children, who was literally getting sick from from the "race to be the smartest, to test the highest, and to achieve the most."

The message these days to children and adults is "produce, produce, produce."

But what are we getting from all the hypercompetition?

As one girl at the beginning of the trailer said "I can't really remember the last time I had the chance to go in the backyard and just run around." And another boy said, "School is just so much pressure, every day I would just wake up dreading it."

This is not exactly the picture of happy, satisfied, and motivated children or of a dynamic workforce for the future.

What are we doing to our children and ourselves?

We have better technology and more information available now than ever before, yet somehow people are seemingly unhappier than ever--and it's starting with our children, but it doesn't stop there.

With the change to an information society, our innovators forget to create a shut-off valve (or filter) so people would be able "turn down the volume" on the information pouring in 24/7.

Adults can't keep up, our students can't keep up, no one can--we have opened the floodgates of INFORMATION and we are drowning in it.

No learning is good enough because there is always more to learn and no productivity is productive enough because the technology is changing so fast.

I remember a boss who used to always say "what have you done for me lately" (i.e. it didn't matter what you achieved last week or yesterday, he wanted to know what did you do for him today!)

It's the same now everyday and everywhere for everyone, yesterday is history--when it comes to learning and achievement; the competition from down the hall or around the globe is right on our tail and if you are not doing something new just about every minute, you risk being overtaken.

We know "failure is not an option" but is pushing until we have the equivalent of a societal nervous breakdown, success?

Like with all good things in life--love, vacations, chocolate, and so on--we can't overindulge. Similarly with information overload and work--there has to be a "balance," a happy medium--we can't push the engine until it overheats. We need to know when to put the peddle to the mettle and when to throttle back.

If we can handle ourselves more adroitly in these competitive times (and less like a flailing drowning victim running frantically between activities), manage the flow of information smarter (not like sucking on the proverbial firehose) and alternate between productivity and recuperation/rejuvenation (rather then demanding a 24/7 ethic), I think we will see greater joy and better results for ourselves and our children.

We can all excel, but to do so, we have to learn to moderate and take a breathe--in and out.

Success and happiness is not always about more, in fact, I believe more often than not it's about an ebb and flow. Like night and day, the ocean tides, the changing seasons, even our own life cycle, we have to know enough to compete intelligently and not with brute force, 24/7, alone.

So what if we turned off our Blackberry's for just a couple of hours a day and let our kids do the equivalent...to be human again and find time for spirituality and community and rejoice in all that we have achieved.

Share/Save/Bookmark

February 27, 2011

A Shift in Time

SHIFT HAPPENS (a.k.a. "Did You Know?") are a series of terrific videos that illuminate the amazing times of social and technological change we are living in.

(This is one of the videos)

We are fortunate to be alive today!

But we must be aware of all the change happening around us and PREPARE ourselves for a very different future.

Some interesting tidbits from this video that should make you think:

- China will soon be the #1 English-speaking country in the world.

- The 25% of India's population with the highest IQs is greater than the TOTAL population of the U.S.

- The top 10 in-demand jobs in 2010, did NOT exist in 2004.

- Today's learners will have 10-14 jobs by the age of 38!

- 1 in 4 workers have been in their jobs LESS THAN a year.

- We are currently preparing students for jobs that don't yet exist, using technologies that haven't been invented yet, in order to solve problems we don't even know are problems yet.

- The number of text messages sent and received every day exceeds the TOTAL population of the planet.

- There are 31 billion searches on google every MONTH.

- 4 EXABYTES of unique information will be generated this year.

- A weeks worth of the New York Times contains more information than a person was likely to come across in a LIFETIME in the 18th century.

- By 2049 a $1000 computer will exceed the computational capabilities of the ENTIRE human species.

All in all, the world is shifting eastward, jobs are becoming more tenuous, information is EXPLODING, and technology is SURPASSING all known boundaries.

What will the world be like in 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 years? Marvelous to be sure!

But are we prepared for all the change is that is coming LIGHT SPEED at us?

Are we getting out in front of it--can we?

It strikes me that either we harness the POWER of all the change or else we risk being OVERCOME by it.

Shift happens, YES--These are great and challenging times for us to manage to and an awesome RESPONSIBILITY.

Share/Save/Bookmark

February 6, 2011

Apple: #1 Super Bowl Commercial Of All Time


Rated the #1 Super Bowl Commercial of all time, this advertisement was used by Apple to introduce its Macintosh computer in 1984 during Super Bowl XVIII.
Apple showed the world their understanding that:

- The "drone" nature of how we did business--"just follow the leader"--was not going to make us great.

- The other "blah"--not user-centric--technology offered by the "Big Brother(s)" of the time was seducing the masses into a blind morass--a kind of an enslavement of our productive energies.
Apple was not, and is not afraid, to come out and break the paradigm and that what makes them a great company.
Innovate, innovate, innovate for a better future for mankind.
In life, there is always choice between what is and what could be and that 's what drives our competitive juices.

Share/Save/Bookmark

November 13, 2010

A Spiritual Approach To Material Success

Anyway, I’m reading this book about achieving personal wellbeing and there is a section about a study that was done where people were given two choices:

1) Earn $50,000, while your peers earn $25,000 or

2) Earn $100,000, while your peers earn $200,000

Well, the study found that about half the respondents choose #1—even though they would earn significantly less (i.e. literally half) and be able to afford less in real purchasing power.

In other words, many people choose to be poorer in real terms, in order to be relatively well off compared to their peers.

This is in stark contrast to the notion of collaboration. In leadership classes, books, etc., haven’t we been trained by now to believe that by working together, we can increase “the pie” for everyone? Well, increasing the pie seems appealing to many, only if their slice remains the largest piece!

The question is—why? Is it that people are unabashedly competitive, overwhelming selfish, or endlessly jealous of others? Or is this a survival-based choice, where we are “hardwired” to fight not only to stay alive, but also to achieve status?

Frequently at work—particularly around budget time—we hear people say things like this is “a zero-sum game”—meaning that what goes to one, comes from another. In other words, there is a winner and a loser in every transaction. For example, if I give you the resources, someone else has to give up some resources, so we can achieve our overall budget numbers.

Similarly at performance time, there is typically a “performance pool” with a certain allocation of money available for bonuses. The more that goes to one/some, the less that is available for others.

So despite all the “platitudes” about sharing, in real life a message about competition vs. sharing seems repeated again and again in life, with the doling out of the best education, job opportunities, healthcare, housing, and so on. There are limited/scarce resources and so not everyone is going to get what they want. The message sent to all: you have to compete to get your due—and the more someone else gets, the less that’s available for you.

But is striving for superior status really always desirable?

From a business perspective, there is a compelling case to be made that competition drives performance, and that we need to reward the best performers. At the same time, collaboration and information-sharing can improve our competitive edge. In other words, working with your peers effectively can improve everybody’s chances for success.

However, to many, there is an inherent notion of inequity in promoting competition, because we are all people—all children of G-d—all worthy. Why should some get more than others?

Unfortunately, there is a misperception of what competition is really all about and what it means to succeed.

Many believe or are taught that those that “win the race” are the more deserving—i.e. they are better people, chosen, or selected by fate or DNA; and those that get less are either a lower class or caste, punished or cursed, or that they must simply work less or just don’t try. Many unfair and ridiculous judgments are thus cast on why some have more and less. (Even the people who “lose the race” often feel this way.)

So it is no wonder, when people are asked to choose real or relative wealth, in a way, it is no wonder that so many may choose relative over real wealth—because winning means that they are deserving and therefore better.

If only we could let go of our judgmental attitudes, our superiority complexes, and the notions of entitlements because “we are who we are,” then maybe we could see past the illusion of superiority and move toward a society where we all seek a larger pie for everyone to share and benefit from.

In that world, everyone will chose option #2—to not only do their best, but also to maximize the best for everyone else.

In the end, competition is not with others but with ourselves. And success is helping others succeed, and maybe even being happy for them if they do better than we do.


Share/Save/Bookmark

October 2, 2010

You Can Slow Them Down, But You Can’t Stop Them

What happens when someone does something and you don’t like it—I mean you really don’t like it (and that something is painful—physically, emotionally, or even financially)—you try to get them to stop.

You see it all starts when we are little and growing up and big brother Johnny pulls our hair or takes our toy and we go running to mommy, yelling to make Johnny stop. Mommy comes out standing straight and tall and pointing her sharpened finger at Johnny, and looking Johnny straight in the eyes says stop bothering you’re little sister. Johnny looks down, sulks, and says okay (maybe even expressing a barely audible, and hollow, sorry). But then what happens when mommy leaves the room for a few minutes, Johnny’s at it again.

And that’s what happens when Johnny is doing something wrong…imagine if he believes he is doing the right thing all along, of course, he continues on his merry way doing what he was doing.

Organizations, like people, seek to stop the pain as well and if they can’t compete in the markets, they take it elsewhere.

The Wall Street Journal, 2-3 October 2010, reports “Microsoft Lawsuit Seeks To Slow Google.”

Like Johnny, Google (although technically smaller than Microsoft revenue-wise) is doing something that Microsoft really doesn’t like; Google is walloping Microsoft in smartphones: “Microsoft’s share of the worldwide smartphone market this year is expected to fall to 6.8% from 13% in 2008, while Google is forecast to jump to 16% from less than 1% two years ago, according to IDC.”

Microsoft like the kid, who wants the hair pulling to stop, and they can’t make it stop themselves through a competitive product at this time, is running to “Mommy,” in this case the courts, and seeking relief by suing Motorola, the handset maker for the Android.

As one patent lawyer put it: “My gut feeling is Microsoft is losing the hand-held wars and they’re using their patent portfolio to get some of it back.”

Certainly, Microsoft isn’t alone is using this slowing tactic, for example, recently HP filed to sue Oracle for hiring their ex-CEO Mark Hurd, even though as 24-7 press release notes California tends to favor the free movement of employees and do not enforce non-competition agreements.

While Microsoft believes their new Windows Phone 7 (i.e. the Windows Mobile replacement) is the answer to their smartphone operating system prayers, and will help them to compete against the Google Android (and the Apple iPhone), the market results remain to be seen.

If Microsoft continues with an inferior product, then like a Johnny in the right, Google will continue to go right on beating Microsoft at their own game (unless of course, the courts say otherwise).


Share/Save/Bookmark

June 25, 2010

TEAM: Together Everyone Achieves More

People are selfish; they think in terms of win-lose, not win-win. The cost of this kind of thinking is increasingly unacceptable in a world where teamwork matters more than ever.

Today, the problems we face are sufficiently complex that it takes a great deal more collaboration than ever to yield results. For example, consider the recent oil spill in the Gulf, not to mention the ongoing crises of our time (deadly diseases, world hunger, sustainable energy, terrorism).

When we don’t work together, the results can be catastrophic. Look at the lead-up to 9-11, the poster child for what can happen if when we fail to connect the dots.

A relay race is a good metaphor for the consequences of poor teamwork. As Fast Company (“Blowing the Baton Pass,” July/August 2010) reports, in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the USA’s Darvis Patton was on the third leg of the race, running neck and neck with a runner from Trinidad when he and his relay partner, Tyson Gay, blew it:

“Patton rounded the final turn, approaching…Gay, who was picking up speed to match Patton. Patton extended the baton, Gay reached back, and the baton hit his palm. Then, somehow it fell. The team was disqualified.”

Patton and Gay were each world-class runners on their own, but the lack of coordination between them resulted in crushing defeat.

In the business realm, we saw coordination breakdown happen to JetBlue in February 2007, when “snowstorms had paralyzed New York airports, and rather than cancel flights en masse, Jet Blue loaded up its planes…and some passengers were trapped for hours.”

Why do people in organizations bicker instead of team? According to FC, it’s because we “underestimate the amount of effort needed to coordinate.” I believe it’s really more than that – we don’t underestimate it, but rather we are too busy competing with each other (individually, as teams, as departments, etc.) to recognize the overarching importance of collaboration.

This is partly because we see don’t see others as helping us. Instead we (often erroneously) see them as potential threats to be weakened or eliminated. We have blinders on and these blinders are facilitated and encouraged by a reward system in our organizations that promotes individualism rather than teamwork. (In fact, all along the way, we are taught that we must compete for scarce resources – educational slots, marriage partners, jobs, promotions, bonuses and so on.)

So we think we are hiring the best and the brightest. Polished resume, substantial accomplishments, nice interview, solid references, etc. And of course, we all have the highest expectations for them. But then even the best employees are challenged by organizational cultures where functional silos, “turf wars”, and politicking prevail. Given all of the above, why are we surprised by their failure to collaborate?

Accordingly, in an IT context, project failure has unfortunately become the norm rather than an exception. We can have individuals putting out the best widgets, but if the widgets don’t neatly fit together, aren’t synchronized for delivery on schedule and within budget, don’t meet the intent of the overall customer requirements, and don’t integrate with the rest of the enterprise—then voilá, another failure!

So what do we need to become better at teamwork?

  • Realize that to survive we need to rely on each other and work together rather than bickering and infighting amongst ourselves.
  • Develop a strong, shared vision and a strategy/plan to achieve it—so that we all understand the goals and are marching toward it together.
  • Institute a process to ensure that the contributions of each person are coordinated— the outputs need to fit together and the outcomes need to meet the overarching objectives.
  • Reward true teamwork and disincentivize people who act selfishly, i.e. not in the interest of the team and not for the sake of mission.

Teamwork has become very cliché, and we all pay lip service to it in our performance appraisals. But if we don’t put aside our competitiveness and focus on the common good soon, then we will find ourselves sinking because we refused to swim as a team.


Share/Save/Bookmark

May 8, 2010

Technology Cannot Save Us From Arrogance

This week we saw firsthand what uncontrolled deficit spending can do to a modern democratic nation, such as Greece.

For all intents and purposes, Greece is bankrupt except for the ~$150 billion bailout they are getting from the International Monetary Fund and the European Union that will keep them afloat.

In return for the funds, Greece has to adopt “austerity measures” that will limit jobs, programs, and social spending.

The result this week was social unrest, rioting in the streets, and civilians killed.

Other European nations with high deficits to GDP spending are at risk, such as Portugal, Spain, and Italy, as well as major Asian countries like Japan.

The uncertainty and fear of this chaotic situation struck the U.S. stock market hard—with the S&P falling almost 800 points this week, during a time of supposed economic recovery.

Last evening, I watched on the news as a professor from Columbia University debated with the newscaster about whether or not the U.S. was susceptible to the same type of debacle that we are witnessing overseas.

The newscaster took the position that our $13 trillion national deficit—much larger than Greece’s—certainly put us at similar risk, even though we have a much larger GDP.

The professor countered that we are not like Greece—we are different and that what is happening there cannot happen here in America.

Why?

The professor said that he thought that we are more innovative, more technologically savvy, and more able to grow our way—economically—out of this. He laughed at the prospect of America running into any sort of grave financial difficulty, because of “who we are.”

As someone who is focused on the importance of technological prowess, innovation, and progressive change to our economic health, competitiveness and national security, I fully appreciate the vital importance of these factors.

Yet at the same time, it seems to me to be stretching credulity to say that technology and innovation alone can save us from the consequences of fiscal unrestraint.

While I believe in our strong political, social, and economic foundation, I question whether we are truly so different from our neighbors overseas.

For IT leaders, the point is that just because we drive investments in new technology—“the art of the possible”—that does not make us invincible.

While technology can help us grow in amazing ways and potentially solve our most complex and challenging problems, it is not a mystical, magical elixir and cannot solve our deficit no matter how large it gets unchallenged.

It seems to me that our greatest challenge is arrogance.

As a nation, we can by proud of our ideology and many achievements, but we cannot rest on our laurels, thinking that we are immune to the consequences of our mistakes. We must accept that our spending will catch up with us, unless we course-correct.


Share/Save/Bookmark