Following The Guy In Front Of You Over A Cliff

Ira Chaleff speaks about his book The Courageous Fellowship.

After seeing holocaust survivors with numbers tattooed on their arms from the horrors of the concentation camps, Chaleff asks "How does this happen?  How do people follow murderous leaders?"

In response Chaleff comes up with the five dimensions to follow courageously:

- Courage to assume responsibility--don't expect your leader to provide for you, but you act for the common purpose that you both serve. (as John F. Kennedy said: "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.")

- Courage to serve--recognize the tough job of leadership and help to unburden and support the leader so he/she can be successful.

- Courage to participate in transformation--become full participants in the change and transformation process; ask what you can do differently to improve.

- Courage to constructively question and challenge--when policies and behaviors are counterproductive, step up and voice discomfort and objection.

- Courage to take moral action--in rare, but needed circumstances, you must be willing to dissent, leave, or refuse to obey a direct order when it is unethical or illegal.

I greatly appreciate Charleff speaking out and teaching others to do so and calling for all to "act as principled persons with integrity."

Charleff see leaders and followers less in the traditional hierarchical model and more as partners in achieving a common purpose--and this flattening of the hierarchy enables followers to question, challenge, and dissent when the boundaries of integrity are violated.

While I too believe we must serve courageously and not just follow blindly--as one of my teachers used to say, "if the car in front of you drives off a cliff, are you just going to follow him?"--I am not sure that Chaleff fully addresses the challenges and complexity in what it means to "step out."

While we may like to envision a flat organization structure, the reality in most organizations is that there is a clear hierarchy and as they say, "the nail that stands out, gets hammered down"--it is not easy to challenge authority, even though it can, at rare times, be necessary.

Finally, while Charleff focuses primarily on speaking up when there is a moral issue at hand, I think it is important to also be forthright in everyday issues and challenges that we confront.

Being good at what we do means that you don't just participate in leaderthink or groupthink, but you think on your own and share those thoughts earnestly.

However, once the decision is made--as long as and only when it is moral--then you must serve and support that decision and help make it as successful as possible.

Leaders and followers are a team and that means having the courage to fully participate and having the humility to respect chain of command and serve a noble mission, appropriately.

Following The Guy In Front Of You Over A Cliff

Let People Feel

Dr. Ben Bissell has a terrific presentation on Managing Change and Transitions.

Basically Bissell explains that when we face Significant Emotional Events (SEEs)--major life changes (personally in our lives or professionally)--we go through 5 stages:

- Shock (i.e. Denial)--I Can't Believe it!

- Emotions (e.g. Anger)--How could this happen to me?

- Bargaining--Do we have to do it today?

- Depression (i.e. grief)---I can't take it anymore!

- Acceptance--1) Intellectual--If that's what they want! 2) Emotional--Ride the train or be run over by it.

When we have major life change, we can experience loss in terms of control, influence, respect, freedom, security, identity, competence, direction, relationship and resources--in essence, we are forced out of our comfort zone and must transition.

Since according to Biseell "all change produces loss (and fear), and all loss must be grieved, it is understandable why these stages of transition track to the Kubler-Ross model of the 5 stages of grief.

Bissell explains that getting through these stages is not quick and takes a minimum of one and a half years to make it all the way through the 5 stages--during which time, it's normal to feel abnormal. 

The problem is when you get stuck in one of these five stages, then you either:

- Get burned out and quit

- Act out and get difficult

- Become sick, physically or emotionally (e.g. migraines, chronic depression, etc.)

Some ways we can help people get through changes is to:

- Recognize and accept that these stages are normal and necessary.

- Give people a safe place to vent their feelings (i.e. low morale = unresolved anger).

- Increase information flow--when people are undergoing severe life change, you need to counter the tendency for distorted perceptions and help them see where they are going and how they will get there.

- Maintain other elements of stability and familiarity in the person's life--this gives comfort.

- Protect your health--your body, your breathing, your pace of eating and living, and your sleep.

- Give yourself time and space to play, be silly, be foolish, unwind (or else you will pop).

Bissell recognizes that the pace of change is continually increasing and "technology is seeing to that."

Therefore, there is an increased urgency to help people deal with change in healthy ways--working through the stages of transition.

However, from my perspective, when people suffer huge losses in their lives, they never really get over it. The loss is always there, even if it's just behind the scenes rather than out front like the first year or so.

When it comes to loss, people can experience enormous pain, which gets engraved in their consciousness and memories, and we should not expect them to just get over it.

In other words, it's okay to incorporate feelings of loss and grief into who we are--it is part of us and that is nothing to run from or fear. 

Just like good events can having lasting positive impacts in our lives, so do severe disruptions and grief.

People will progress and continue to heal, but they will always feel what they feel--good and bad--and we should never take that away from them.

(Source Photo: here with attribution to LiquidNight)

Let People Feel

Smart Cats Aren't Afraid to Innovate

It's really hypocritical that on one hand we put innovation on a pedestal, but on the other hand, we tend to nix new ideas. 

The Atlantic (July/August 2012) has an article called "Let's Cool It With the Big Ideas."

The author, P.J. O'Rourke, rails against innovation, saying: "I don't have a big idea, and I don't want one. I don't like big ideas."

Let's just say this article by O'Rourke proves his point and not only about big ideas. 

Unfortunately, like O'Rourke, many in our society seem to have a love/hate relationship with innovation. 

We love new ideas when they work to our benefit--like having a smartphone perhaps--but we fear the worst about failing and people seem to loathe change of any kind until it's a "proven entity." 

Hence as O'Rourke points out the derogatory feelings and sayings about new, big ideas:

- What is the big idea?
- You and your bright ideas.
- Whose idea was this?
- Me and my big ideas.
- Don't get smart with me.

The last one is really the clincher with it all--without new ideas and the bravery to explore them, our "smarts" really do go out the window. 

This is reminiscent of when the great Library of Alexandria burnt to the ground almost 2,000 years ago, destroying many of the "new ideas" of the philosophers, scientists, mathematicians, poets, and playwrights of the time, leaving us for centuries stuck in the Dark Ages!

Sure, new ideas are threatening to old ways of thinking and doing things, but we are an evolving species--stagnation is death. 

According to Harvard Business Review (October 2010) in "How to Save Good Ideas"--a more enlightened article here, explains how to counter fearful and destructive people "who try to kill ideas" using "fear-mongering, delay, confusion, and ridicule."

Some of the suggestions to counter the naysayers:

- When they attack you for "dictating" a new idea--you can explain that there is a vetting process, but like with a train conductor, we need to provide direction for our people.
- When they say, no one else is doing this--for any new idea, someone has to be the first to try it, and we have the capacity to innovate and succeed.
- When they criticize your timing--acknowledge that you can't do everything and the poor projects should be weeded out, but promising new ventures should proceed.  

From a leadership perspective, we cannot shove new ideas down people's throats, but rather we need to explore ideas openly and honestly. Leaders should explain the imperative for change, explore organizational and market readiness, look at costs and benefits, mitigate risks, and help people in adopting and adapting to change--and this last one can be the most difficult. 

For those that are comfortable with the status quo or afraid of what change may mean to their jobs, status, and security--there are times, when reassuring and working together can move people and the organization forward, but there are also times, when perhaps the person-organizational fit may no longer be right, and it is time to part ways. 

The way we do things today--no matter how comfortable--is not the way we will always do them.  Times change, challenges build up, opportunities emerge, and as survivors, we either adapt or fade into the annals of history. 

"There is more than one way to skin a cat," but if we are cool to new ideas, the cat will most definitely get away from us--and it may be for good. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Ivo Kendra)

Smart Cats Aren't Afraid to Innovate

Resilient To The Core

I circled back to an article that I saved away for the last 10 years (5 years before I started blogging and practically before it really even existed)!

It is from Harvard Business Review and it is called How Resilience Works (May 2002). 

It is an incredible article about what differentiates the person that falls apart and seemingly gives up under immense stress and those that use it as a stepping stone to future success and greatness. 

Resilience is "the skill and capacity to be robust under conditions of enormous stress and change."

Literally, resilience means "bouncing back," perhaps versus jumping throw a plate glass wall from the 50th story. 

Everyone has their tests in life--whether loss, illness, accident, abuse, incarceration, poverty, divorce, loneliness, and more. 

But resilience is how we meet head-on these challenges, and it "can be learned."

The article looks at individual and organizational "survivors" of horrible things like the Holocaust, being a prisoner of war (POW), and terrorist attacks such as 9/11, and basically attributes resilience to three main things:

1) Acceptance--rather than slip into denial, dispair, or wishful-thinking, resilience means we see the situation exactly for what it is and make the most of it--or as they say, "make lemonade out of lemons."

2) Meaning--utilizing a strong system of values, we find meaning and purpose even in the darkest of situations--even if it is simply to learn and grow from it!

3) Ingenuity--this is capacity to invent, improvise, imagine possibilities, make do with what you have, and generally solve-problems at hand. 

Those who accept, find meaning, and improvise can succeed, where others fail. 

Now come forward a decade in time, and another article at CNN (9 July 2012) called Is Optimism Really Good For You? comes to similar conclusions.

The article describes how optimism works for an individual or an organization only when it is based on "action, common sense, resourcefulness, and considered risk-taking."

"It's the opposite of defeatism"--we recognize that there are things not in our control and that don't always turn out well, but we use that as an opportunity to come back and find a "different approach" and solve the problem. 

The article calls this "action-oriented optimists" and I like this concept--it is not blind hope nor is it giving-up, but rather it is a solid recognition that we can do and must do our part in this world. 

Fortune Magazine summed this up well in an article a few months back as follows--There are three kinds of people: "those who make it happen, those who watch it happen, and those wonder how the heck it happened."

When things happen in your life--to you--which of these types of people will you be? 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Resilient To The Core

Warnings: When It's Not Just "Crying Wolf"

There is a famous saying that "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana 

An editorial appeared in the Wall Street Journal (10 April 2012) by French philosopher Pascal Bruckner called "The Ideology of Catastrophe" that accuses those who warn others of danger as having "tiny minds who wish us suffering."

This "philosopher" maligns both Jewish prophets and Christian "millenarian movements" for having "no function other than indignation...and [the Prophet] becomes intoxicated with his own words and claims a legitimacy with no basis."

Mr. Bruckner must be completely clueless of those throughout history that have sought to warn us of dangers that if the world would but have listened, untold numbers of millions could have been saved. 

From the earliest of times, there have been warnings about pending catastrophes and those that paid attention were able to make a difference. 

In the Torah (Bible), G-d warned Noah of the impending flood, and Noah was able to save humankind and animals--2 by 2 they went unto the ark for 40 days and nights of pouring rain that vanquished the earth.

In the Prophets, G-d has Yonah (after being swallowed by the whale) warn the the inhabitants of Nineveh to repent and prevents them and their city from destruction. 

In the 20th century, if only the world had paid attention to the genocidal desires of maniacs like Adolph Hitler (may his name be cursed) in books like Mein Kampf, how many tens of millions may have been spared. 

In terms of the advent of nukes and other weapons of mass destructions, to at least some extent people and governments have listened to warning and retreated from a philosophy of mutually assured destruction (MAD) to instead move toward anti-proliferation, arms reduction treaties, and other safeguards, and we have thank G-d been able to avoid major catastrophes from these dangers. 

Thankfully, with dire medical issuances about various diseases, pandemics, and even warning about the dangers of obesity, smoking, and drinking, we have been able to curb harmful behaviors, promote healthier living, and lengthen life spans.

Similarly, with environmental warnings, we have been able to create awareness and educate people on more sustainable living--through conservation, recycling, reuse, as well as renewable energy sources, and more. 

Moreover, warnings about runaway spending and the national deficit have been heard for decades, but having ignored these for the most part, we now face a $16,000,000,000,000 bill and growing rapidly--soon coming due to future generations of Americans.  And we are already witnessing the effects--inflation, unemployment, default, and perhaps succession from the Euro and the EU itself--of countries on the other side of the Atlantic that have made the similar errors in their wild spending ways.

While some corporate, religious, and political leaders do use fear tactics to gain power or whatever they are personally-seeking that does not make every warning false and malevolent. 

Certainly, at the other end of the spectrum, some people would rather live in denial of any issues and pretend that everything is just hunky-dory all the time. 

Bruckner does makes some superficial and one-sided arguments--denouncing warnings and claiming that:

- Warnings cause fear, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

- Warnings "though they try to awaken us...eventually deadens us."

- People who warn "do not [really] intend to warn us as much as to condem us."

- Leaders issue warnings "to dazzle us in order to make us docile."

Unfortunately, Bruckner has failed to distinguish between fear-mongering and fact. 

Bruckner missed the point of how real warnings can help people--which is through changing hearts, minds, and behaviors. 

1) Fear is not a self-fulfilling prophecy unless people do not act in time to change dangerous and irresponsible behaviors.

2) Genuine warnings do not deaden those who seek truth and a way forward--it only deadens those who are unwilling or unable to adapt. 

3) People who warn based on facts and with sincerity to help others do not wish to condem us--rather they wish to alleviate unnecessary suffering.

4) Leaders who issue warnings to alert people to very real dangers out there in order to seek safety or change course are not trying to dazzle and make docile, but rather they seek to save lives by creating awareness, educating, and empowering people to change before it is too late.

Some people understand well from history as well as from common sense that our behaviors have consequences--other do not. 

For me, when we stray into dangerous waters, I am glad for the true heros out there looking out for us and helping guide us live better and longer lives. 

While it is good to be critical of unfounded warnings and charlatans, it is necessary to have warnings that are grounded in fact, given sincerely, not forced on others, and help people stay successfully on the road to health, prosperity, and human rights.

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Alex Peruso)

Warnings: When It's Not Just "Crying Wolf"

Making Change Probable

An article this week in the Wall Street Journal (15 May 2012) called us "a nation of whiners."

The national insult aside, what was more important was that the author lamented that whining doesn't help, but problem-solving does!

According to the article, whiners can be treated therapeutically by:

1) Mirroring--letting people see/hear themselves in this state of learned helplessness.

2) Challenging--confronting whiners and asking them what they are going to do about their situation.

3) Encouraging--providing positive reinforcement when people make positive steps to taking control of their lives. 

Similarly, there are those who get stuck in a sort of professional rut, complaining about the status quo, but they have trouble working incrementally to try and change things.

A strong leader can help their people move on from the status quo, applying the therapeutic techniques above, but also by doing the following:

1) Inquire--talk with your people and find out what they think is working, isn't, and how things can be improved.

2) Envision--together, set a vision for a better future that addresses people's genuine concerns in the aggregate.

3) Empower--delegate specific actions so everyone can be a part of the solution; give them the authority along with the responsibility to make change possible.

4) Observe--monitor progress and review whether the changes being made are having a positive impact and where adjustments in strategy need to be made.

These are really fundamental leadership skills, but applied to people who are feel helpless, hopeless, or are just plain resistant to change, the key is how we exemplify forward momentum and help others feel they too can make a genuine difference. 

Bad situations are generally not life sentences, if we can but imagine positive change, break it down into incremental steps, and then put one foot in front of the other, and we are on our way. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Rifqi Dahlgren)

Making Change Probable

Poisons Anonymous

One of the Buddhist teachings is that there are 3 poisons in this world: greed, anger, and ignorance. 

But that by turning these poisons around into generosity, compassion, and wisdom, we can create life-healing. 

While this is sort of simplistic, it does point to a number of important things:

1) We can have an impact on our destiny. We can choose our direction and work towards something that is good or we can fall harmfully into some bad and destructive ways.

2) Everything has an antidote.  While we may not know the antidote at the time, generally everything has its corollary or opposite and we can find healing by moving towards that. 

3) The answers in life are not so far away. How much of a stretch is it to turned a clenched fist into an open hand or to quench ignorance with learning--these things are doable.

If we look at people and events at face value, it is easy as times to get angry and feel hatred at the corruption and injustices out there--but I believe, the key is to channel those feeling into something positive--into change and Tikkun Olam--"fixing the world". 

By channeling our feelings into constructive actions, then we are changing not just ourselves, but can have a broader influence--one deed at a time.  

(Source Graphic: Andy Blumenthal)

Poisons Anonymous

Work Off Of Standards, But Stay Flexible to Change

Interesting book review in the Wall Street Journal (18 January 2012) on Standards: Recipes for Reality by Lawrence Busch.
Standards are a fundamental principle of enterprise architecture, and they can mean many things to different people--they can imply what is normal or expected and even what is considered ethical.
Reading and thinking about this book review helped me to summarize in my own mind, the numerous benefits of standards:
- Predictability--You get whatever the standard says you get.
- Quality--By removing the deviation and defects, you produce a consistently higher quality.
- Speed--Taking the decision-making out of the routine production of standardized parts (i.e. we don't have to "reinvent the wheel each time"), helps us to move the production process along that much faster.
- Economy--Standardizing facilitates mass production and economies of scale lowering the cost of goods produced and sold.
- Interoperability--Creating standards enables parts from different suppliers to inter-operate and work seamlessly and this has allowed for greater trade and globalization.
- Differentiation--Through the standardization of the routine elements, we are able to focus on differentiating other value-add areas for the consumer to appeal to various tastes, styles, and genuine improvements.
While the benefits of standards are many, there are some concerns or risks:
- Boring--This is the fear of the Ford Model-T that came in only one color, black--if we standardize too much, then we understate the importance of differentiation and as they say "variety is the spice of life."
- Stagnation--If we over-standardize, then we run the risk of stifling innovation and creativity, because everything has to be just "one way."
- Rigidity--By standardizing and requiring things like 3rd-party certification, we risk becoming so rigid in what we do and produce that we may become inflexible in addressing specific needs or meeting new requirements.
The key then when applying standards is to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks.
This requires maintaining a state of vigilance as to what consumers are looking for and the corollary of what is not important to them or what they are not keen on changing. Moreover, it necessitates using consumer feedback to continuously research and develop improvements to products and services. Finally, it is important to always be open to introducing changes when you are reasonably confident that the benefits will outweigh the costs of moving away from the accepted standard(s).
While it's important to work off of a standard, it is critical not to become inflexible to change.
(Source Photo: here )

Work Off Of Standards, But Stay Flexible to Change

Finding Better Ways

Saturday Night Live had a funny skit last week about people in the future looking back at us in 2012 as "digital pioneers"--and how silly many of the things we do today looks from the outside.
Here are some examples that may resonate with a lot of you:
- Driving--We drive 1-4 hours a day and "are okay with that."
- Email--We boot up our computers, go to the Internet, log unto to our accounts, and send an email and think that "was so easy, fast, and convenient."
- Clothing--We get dressed in underwear, shirts, pants, belt, socks, shoes, tie, and wrap it all under a jacket and feel that it's "not way too many pieces."
- Bathrooms--We have bathrooms in our homes and have it close to where we eat and that "seems smart to us."
There were other examples making fun of us eating fruits and vegetables, keeping domesticated animals in our homes, and thinking that living to the age of 91 is old.
While we don't know exactly what the future will look like, when we look at our lives today "under the microscope"--things really do sort of appear comical.
I believe that we really do need to look at ourselves--what we do, and how we do it--with fresh eyes--and ask why do we do that? And are there alternatives? Is there a better way?
Too often we believe that the way things are--"is simply it"--when if we would just think how this would look to someone 100 years from now, perhaps we would be quicker to open our eyes to other options and innovations.
It reminds me of the story in the Torah (Numbers 22) where Balaam is sent to curse the Jewish people but ends up blessing them. In this story the donkey that he is riding on refuses to proceed, because it sees an angel in front of them. Balaam does not see the angel and beats the donkey thinking that was the right thing to do. G-d then miraculously gives the donkey the power of speech and the donkey complains about the harsh treatment from Balaam, and G-d opens Balaam's eyes to see the angel, at which point he understands that the donkey really saved his life.
This Biblical story is similar to our lives where we go along sort of blind to the realities right in front of us, and not only that but we keep pushing forward along the very same route not seeing the obstacles or other alternatives that may be better for us.
While we (generally) don't have donkeys talking back to us with feedback or the ability to see angels, I think by sensitizing ourselves more, we can open ourselves up to question the status quo and break the paradigms that we just take as givens.
So when we do get to the next 100 years out--it'll truly be a lot better than today and without the traffic! ;-)

Finding Better Ways

Adapt and Live!

The Times, They Are a-Changin' is a song by Bob Dylan (1964), it is also the reality of our times today, and how we react to all the change can make or break us.

Like with Agile Software Development, one of the main values is "responding to change over following a plan," to improve the success of software development, similarly in the world today, we need to be able to rapidly and flexibly respond to change in order to successfully compete.

Fast Company (February 2012) has two important articles on this topic--one is called "Generation Flux" and the other "The Four-Year Career."

Generation Flux is about how we are living in a time of "chaotic disruption" and that this is "born of technology and globalization." Generation Flux is a mindset of agility versus a demographic designation like Gen X or Y.

All around us we see the effects of this rapid change in terms of business models and leadership turned upside down, inside out, and sideways.

Recently, we have seen:

- Mainstay companies such as American Airlines and Hostess declare bankruptcy

- Some titans of the Fortune 500 companies ousted, including Carol Bartz of Yahoo, Leo Apotheker from HP to name just a few

- Others, like RIM and Netflix have fallen from grace and are struggling to regain their footwork--some will and some won't

At the same time, we have seen the ascension of companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon becoming the "kings of the hill"--driven in part by their agility to get in and out of markets and products:

- In 2010, Google was getting out of China; today Google is expanding its presence once again. In addition, Google continues to start up or acquire and discontinue services regularly; just last year they closed Google Desktop developed in 2005, Google Health Service started in 2008, and Google Aardvark purchased in 2010 (and more)

- Amazon, once an online book and music retailer has now become the premier e-Commerce company as well as the No. 2 in tablets and in the top 3 in cloud computing.

- Apple was slick in developing the navigation wheel on the iPod only to get rid of it completely with the touch-screen of the iPad.

- Facebook continues to adapt to security and privacy concerns, but still has more to do, especially in terms of simplifying choices for their users.

According to Fast Company, to survive, we need to be profoundly agile and "embrace instability, that tolerates--and enjoys--recalibrating careers, business models, and assumptions." The article points out that this is just as Darwin has professed, ultimately it is the agile that will survive--not the strongest or smartest.

For organizations, change, agility and adaptability is the name of the game, and they are depending on petabytes of information and the business intelligence to make sense of it all to make the right decision every day.

For individuals, "the long career is dead" (U.S. workers have a medium job tenure of only 4.4 years and have an average of 11 different jobs over a lifetime) and "the quest for solid rules is pointless" (with automation and robotics atrophying low- and middle-skill jobs and part time, freelance, and contract work all on the rise). Now, in an agile marketplace, "career-vitality" or the continuous broadening of individual capabilities is encouraged and expected, and the "T-shaped" person with both depth or subject matter expertise as well as breadth in other areas in becoming more and more valued.

Moreover, hard skills are important, but social skills and emotional intelligence are critical to get along, share information, and collaborate with others.

Of course, not all change is good, and we need to speak up and influence the direction of it for the good, but in the end, standing still in the path of genuine progress is like standing in front of a speeding locative.

While the quiet and serenity of maintaining the status quo is often what feels most secure and comfortable in uncertain times, it may actually just be the forerunner to the death knell for your career and organization. There are no short-cuts to continuing to learn, explore, and grow as the world around us rapidly evolves.

Adapt and live or stagnate and die.

(Source Photo: here)

Adapt and Live!

Moving Forward in Reverse

There is "more than one way to skin a cat" and there are those who take the high road, and others who take the low road to get to where they are going.

The Wall Street Journal (28 November 2011) has two articles this morning on how how reverse is the new forward.

"Reverse Mentoring Cracks Workplace" is about how "Top managers get advice on social media, workplace issues from young workers." It's a reverse on the traditional mentoring model where older, experienced workers mentor younger workers; now younger technology savants are teaching their older colleagues some new tricks.

According to the article, Jack Welch championed reverse mentoring as head of GE when "he ordered 500 top executives to reach out to people below them to learn how to use the Internet...fast forward a decade and mentors are teaching theirmentees about Facebook and Twitter.

Really this phenomen of learning from the young is not all that odd, when you think that many, if not most, of technology's greatest advancements of the last 35 years came from college kids or dropouts working out their garages and growing whole new technologies, industries, and ways of doing business.

Another article called "Great Scott! Dunder Mifflin Morphs Into Real-Life Brand of Copy Paper" describes how Staples and Quill have teamed up to market a new brand of copy paper called none other than Dunder Mifflin (from the TV show "The Office" now in its 8th season).

Here again, we are in going forward in reverse. "For decades, marketers worked to embed their [real] brands in the plots of TV shows and movies. Nowadays, they are seeing value in bringing to life fictional brands that are already part of pop culture."

This reminds me of when I started seeing Wonka chocolate bars--originally from the movie, Willie Wonker and The Chocolate Factory--showing up on store shelves.

Whether the young mentoring the old or fictional brands showing up in real life, changes that are the reverse of what we are used too, are not something to "bristle at", but rather are the new normal.

There are many ways to success and we will find them through creativity, innovation, and entreprenuership--any and every way forward.

Moving Forward in Reverse

No More Excuses, Please

The New Yorker (24 October 2011) has a clever take on the urge of some--in this case, the privileged--to try and preserve the status quo. However, this can be applied more broadly.

While not an endorsement of any specific movement, this is an acknowledgement of the resistance to change by both organizations and individuals, and the many excuses offered.

Some typical ones we all have heard, in one form or other:

- It's always been this way.

- We've tried "that" before and it didn't work.

- Change is hard.

- Everything is fine just the way it is.

While change for changes sake is obviously pointless, change to adapt to new opportunities and threats is just good business sense.

Additionally, change to address inequalities on inequities is good moral sense.

Of course, we have to vet proposed changes and ensure they are constructive, the best option available, and really doable, so we are not just jumping into something irresponsibly.

When change meets the mark, then to implement it, we have to give it all we've got!

From our leaders, it takes vision, courage, and determination to see what needs to get done, get past the excuses, and inspire change.

From society, it takes sacrifice and hard work to get us to where we must go.

But if it's a destination worthwhile, then we drop the excuses and move to action.

Hopefully, we can recognize when change is indeed, necessary, and not be blinded by our fears and self-serving resistance that hinders the greater good.

No More Excuses, Please

First Stop Saying First

First came "Cloud First" in the 25 Point Implementation Plan To Reform Federal IT Management (9 December 2010).

Then came "Sharing First" and "Future First" in the "vision for information technology" (25 October 2011).

According to Federal Times (31 October 2011), there are many more 'firsts' to come-- with a "set of principles like 'XML First,' 'Web Services First' 'Virtualize First,' and other 'firsts' that will inform how we develop our government's systems. "

At this point in this blog, I can't even remember all the 'firsts' I just jotted down, so my question is at what point does assigning 'firsts' become 'second' to managing our tremendous IT asset base for the government?

Some more firsts just to be first in starting this "list of firsts":

"G-d First"

"Country First"

"Democracy First"

"Freedom First"

"Human Rights First"

"Capitalism First"

"Equality First"

"Justice First"

"Fairness First"

"Family First"

"Charity First"

"Caring First"

"Giving First"

"Love First"

"Health First"

"Mission First"

"People First"

"Insource First"

"Outsource First"

"Integrity First"

"Ethics First"

"Truth First"

"Communication First"

"Leadership First"

"Innovation First"

"Passion First"

"Security First"

"Safety First"

"Reliability First"

"Agility First"

"Adaptability First"

"Sustainability First"

"Planning First"

"Governance First"

"Execution First

"Project Management First"

"Performance Measurement First"

"Best Practices First"

"Learning and Growth First"

"Sharing First"

"Collaboration First"

"Transparency First"

"Interoperability First"

"Reusability First"

"Reputation First"

"Simplicity First"

"Requirements First"

"Effectiveness First"

"Efficiency First"

"Data First"

"Quality First"

"Customer First"

"Service First"

"Standards First"

"Cost-savings First"

"Business Process Reengineering First"

"Critical Thinking First"

"Jobs First"

"Women and Children First"

Essentially, there are a lot of 'firsts' in life and the challenge is in prioritizing and deconflicting these.

So with all due respect first, now let's get back to the business of government and technology. ;-)

(Source Photo: here)

First Stop Saying First

Human Evolution, Right Before Our Eyes

Watching how this toddler interacts with an iPad and is then frustrated by plain-old magazines is comical, but also a poignant commentary on our times.

Media that doesn't move, drill down, pop up, connect us, and otherwise interact with the end-user is seen here as frustrating and dated.

This speaks volumes about where our children and grandchildren are headed with technology adoption and then hopefully "taking it to the next level" and the next!

At the same time, this obviously does not bode well for the legacy paper and magazine publishing industry.

It can be difficult to see things changing so dramatically before our very eyes, but with every doors that closes, there us another one that opens.

And so with technology and with life itself, "to everything there is a time and a purpose under the heaven."

Human Evolution, Right Before Our Eyes

Bringing The Marriage Back Into Our Jobs

Federal Times (11 Sept 2011) reported on a human capital study done by the Partnership for Public Service (PPS) and Deloitte that found that "after the three-year [employment] mark, employee' satisfaction scores plummets" from 77.2 the first year to 66.2 after the third year.

Tim McManus, the VP for PPS underscored the significance of employee dissatisfaction on productivity and retention, when he stated that "it's more than just the end of the honeymoon period; your marriage is on the rocks."

For sometime now, we have been hearing about the high frequency of job changing for Gen Xers and Yers; this week, I actually heard of someone who had changed jobs literally 50 times before the age of 30!

Certainly, I would imagine that living in a high-tech, fast-paced culture that we do now, contributes to the number and rate of job changes, where people are looking for lots of responsibility and recognition in short order or they simply move on. There is a notion that life is too short to waste it in an unproductive or unfulfilling job.

Further, the poor economy, where layoffs have become commonplace has likewise contributed to an employment culture where employers and employees no longer feel beholden to each other, and each is looking out for their own best interests rather than their mutual success.

Unfortunately, what is getting lost in this employment picture is the notion of career. To employers, a person has become a human capital asset--kept on-board only as long as they remain more of an asset than a liability. And correspondingly, to many employees a "job is just a job" now-a-days--it is a temporary phenomena for X hours a weeks for "as long as it lasts," rather than a long-term place for personal and professional growth.

In a class this week, I had the privilege of hearing a terrific career development officer discuss the lifecycle of a job, as follows:

1) Steep Learning Curve -- We all go through it...can anyway say, "how do you use the copy machine?"

2) Strong Expertise -- This is the point where we are really excelling...we have become subject matter experts and are valued for that expertise.

3) Losing Your Edge -- At a certain point, people start to lose interest, performance, or get out of sync with their boss or the organization.

4) Hitting Rock Bottom -- If there is no course correction, employees who have "lost their edge" go on to become restless and dissatisfied and risk a precipitous decline.

Picture step 4 as a potential big SPLAT.

Most people start off their careers "bright eyes and bushy tailed," but at some point, if they are not well-managed, they become discouraged, disillusioned, demoralized and so on.

Obviously, this hurts the organization and the employee--both suffer when the two are out of sync. However, employees may change jobs at any stage in the lifecycle of a job, but the later stages become more painful for boss and employee.

So as leaders, are there things we can do to keep job satisfaction scores high or does the very notion of a lifecycle of a job mean that eventually "all good things must come to an end"?

I think we certainly can do things to make for a longer and more fulfilling job life cycle--training and career opportunities, ethical management, good communication, recognition and rewards, mentoring and coaching, work-life balance, treating people fairly, and more.

At the same time, even in ideal situations, people, organizations, and markets change, and we must change with them. It is important to recognize, when things have changed inside ourselves and our organizations, and when it's time to make a change outside in the job market. This is healthy when it's done for the right reasons and when it results in new opportunities to learn, grow, and contribute.

Every situation brings new challenges and opportunities and we need to meet those head-on striving for job satisfaction, working through times of dissatisfaction, and recognizing life cycles are normal and natural--we are all human.

Good luck!

(Source Photo: here)

Bringing The Marriage Back Into Our Jobs

The Irreplaceables

Traditionally, people like to invest in things that they feel are "irreplaceable" (or priceless to them)...that unique outfit, that piece of Jewelry (gold is in vogue again at $1900 an ounce), that one-of-a-kind art work, that special home-sweet-home (i.e. not cookie-cutter), and most importantly that special relationship (i.e. people are truly irreplaceable and they are an investment not of money, but of our heart and soul!).

In fact, when we spend our hard-earned money, only to see something break down after a relatively short period of time, we feel upset, angry, almost betrayed--like we got taken by the salesperson or manufacturer.

Years ago, engineers actually made things with "planned obsolescence"--that is built to break down after a certain period of time (i.e. "designed for the dump")--usually coinciding with the end of the period of warranty, so that consumers would be forced to open their wallets again and feed the giant sales apparatus, called our economy.

Yet, in the age of information technology and consumer electronics, while we don't want to see things break down, we do want a fast replacement cycle on them--since the technology and features are changing so quickly.

The Atlantic (September 2011) has an interesting article about this called Replacement Therapy--describing the trend of consumers of technology who actually cheer on the death of their gadgets, so that they don't feel so guilty and wasteful buying the newest models with the latest features every 18 months or so.

According to the author, many of us have "turned into serial replacers" of technology--so that the twist is that it's no longer "our devices that wear thin, [but rather] it's our patience with them."

This is Moore's Law at it's extreme--where the speed of technological progress make our most recent IT purchase practically obsolete by the time we plug it in.

I have to admit that I too don't mind replacing yesterdays tech toys, today--because the newest functionality and design make it worth it to me.

Relatively speaking the computing power and connectivity we are getting is so cheap for what it is--which is life-changing.

I rely on the technology all the time (probably way too much--cyber security beware!) and for a few hundred or a few thousand dollars, you can be at the top of your game.

To me it's not the gadget that is irreplaceable anymore, but it's the capability we are bringing to people.

Our life experiences are so much enhanced--because of the technology, we can share information, communicate, collaborate, transact, and entertain ourselves and each other like never before in history--those experiences are truly irreplaceable for each and every one of us--and that is more than any money can buy.

(Source Photo: here)

The Irreplaceables

Can't Live With Them, Can't Live Without Them

I remember years ago, my father used to joke about my mother (who occasionally got on his nerves :-): "you can't live with them, and you can't live without them."

Following the frequently dismal state of IT project performance generally, I'm beginning to think that way about technology projects.

On one hand, technology represents innovation, automation, and the latest advances in engineering and science--and we cannot live without it--it is our future!

On the other hand, the continuing poor track record of IT project delivery is such that we cannot live with it--they are often highly risky and costly:

• In 2009, the Standish Group reported that 68% of IT projects were failing or seriously challenged--over schedule, behind budget, and not meeting customer requirements.


• Most recently, according to Harvard Business Review (September 2011), IT projects are again highlighted as "riskier than you think." Despite efforts to rein in IT projects, "New research shows surprisingly high numbers of out-of-control tech projects--ones that can sink entire companies and careers."


• Numerous high profile companies with such deeply problematic IT projects are mentioned, including: Levi Strauss, Hershey's, Kmart, Airbus, and more.


• The study found that "Fully one in six of the projects we studied [1,471 were examined] was a black swan, with a cost overrun of 200% on average, and a schedule overrun of almost 70%."


• In other words there is a "fat tail" to IT project failure. "It's not that they're particularly prone to high cost overruns on average...[rather] an unusually large proportion of them incur massive overages--that is, there are a disproportionate number of black swans."


• Unfortunately, as the authors state: "these numbers seems comfortably improbable, but...they apply with uncomfortable frequency."

In recent years, the discipline of project management and the technique of earned value management have been in vogue to better manage and control runaway IT projects.
At the federal government level, implementation of such tools as the Federal IT Dashboard for transparency and TechStats for ensuring accountability have course-corrected or terminated more than $3 billion in underperforming IT projects.
Technology projects, as R&D endeavors, come with inherent risk. Yet even if the technical aspect is successful, the human factors are likely to get in the way. In fact, they may be the ultimate IT "project killers"--organizational politics, technology adoption, change management, knowledge management, etc.

Going forward, I see the solution as two-pronged:

• On the one hand we must focus on enhancing pure project management, performance measurement, architecture and governance, and so on.


• At the same time, we also need to add more emphasis on people (our human capital)--ensuring that everyone is fully trained, motivated, empowered and has ownership. This is challenging considering that our people are very much at a breaking point with all the work-related stress they are facing.

These days organizations face numerous challenges that can be daunting. These range from the rapid pace of change, the cutthroat global competition at our doorsteps, a failing education system, spiraling high unemployment, and mounting deficits. All can be helped through technology, but for this to happen we must have the project management infrastructure and the human factors in place to make it work.

If our technology is to bring us the next great breakthrough, we must help our people to deliver it collaboratively.

The pressure is on--we can't live with it and we cannot live without it. IT project failures are a people problem as much as a technology problem. However, once we confront it as such, I believe that we can expect the metrics on failed IT projects to change significantly to success.

(Source Photo: here)

Can't Live With Them, Can't Live Without Them

Deus Ex-Overtaken By Technology

Deus Ex is an action role-playing game (RPG) and first person shooter game. It sold more than a million copies as of 2009 and was named "Best PC Game of All Time."

A prequel Deus Ex: Human Evolution is due to be released this month (August 2011).

You play a coalition anti-terrorist agent in a world slipping further and further into chaos.

The time is 2052 and you are in a dystopian society where society has progressed faster technologically than it has evolved spiritually--and people are struggling to cope with technological change and are abusing new technology.

The challenges portrayed in the trailer show people using/abusing technological augmentation--the integration of technology with their human bodies--replacing damaged limbs, adding computer chips, and even "upgrading themselves".

There are many issues raised about where we are going as a society with technology:

1) Are we playing G-d--when we change ourselves with technology, not because we have too (i.e. because of sickness), but rather because we want to--at what point are we perhaps overstepping theologically, ethically, or otherwise?

2) Are we playing with fire--when we start to systematically alter our makeup and change ourselves into some sort of half-human and half-machine entities or creatures are we tempting nature, fate, evolution with what the final outcome of who we become is? As the end of the trailer warns: "Be human, remain human"--imagine what type of cyborg creatures we may become if we let things go to extremes.

3) Technology may never be enough--As we integrate technology into our beings, where does it stop? The minute we stop, others continue and we risk being "less intelligent, less strong, and less capable than the rest of the human race." In short, are we facing a technological race toward dehumanization and enhanced machines.

4) Drugs and other vices follow--To prevent technology augmentation from being rejected, mankind relies on ever larger and more potent doses of drugs. We not only risk losing elements of our humanity to technology, but also to drugs and other vices that make us forget the pain of change and rejection (physical and perhaps emotional).

Deus Ex literally is Latin for "G-d out of the machine." Perhaps, future dystopian society starts out by people trying to play G-d, but I think the risk is that it ends with the proverbial devil displacing the best laid intentions.

While technology holds the most amazing of promises from curing disease, solving world hunger, and endless innovations (even including developing the archetype bionic man/women--"We can rebuild him...we have the technology"), without a solid moral compass and frequent check-ins, we run the risk of technology getting away from us and even doing more harm than good.

Deus Ex-Overtaken By Technology

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.

A Shift in Time

Apple Cool Is Serious Business

Jim Bueermann, former Chief of Police of the Redlands Police Department in California is a visionary when it comes to his adoption of iPhones and iPads for law enforcement.

I was fortunate to have met Chief Bueermann recently when he shared his experiences with Apple technology.

Earlier than most people, Bueermann saw how smartphone and tablet technologies could change the way his department could do business. He understood that information available to his people was as potent a force as a physical advantage.

This video shows his officers using it on the beat and back in the office - it's ubiquitous for them.

On the Apple profile, Bueerman states: "It allows them (his workforce) to look at satellite maps, access the Internet, send emails, and take photos of potential victims and subjects."

Lt. Catren of the Redlands Police says that "Having all this information at your fingertips and being able to share it instantaneously with other officers in the field is invaluable" and has led in many cases to identifying perpetrators and capturing suspects.

In the video, we see police officers using mobile technologies for everything from capturing information to giving presentations, from sharing suspect photos to analyzing and reporting on criminal activity, and from scanning property to taking and watching video surveillance.

I like when one of his officers explains that because of the portability and ease of use of these technologies, they are basically "made for law enforcement."

Moving to iPhone and iPads (and Droid devices etc.) with all the available innovative Apps at the touch of button is a culture change organizationally, but also it is a game-changer for how we use information technology anytime and anywhere for protecting people and saving lives.

Just because a technology is user-friendly, doesn't mean that it isn't "serious business."

Redlands PD is a great illustration, although on a small scale, of how we can adopt what was only a few years ago considered "consumer technology" and use it to great effect in the enterprise.

While Apple doesn't have a monopoly on this technology, it is certainly a good example.

Apple Cool Is Serious Business