Just About Says It All

Story of human civilization in 2 minutes by Joe Bush

History majors can probably add some, but overall completely awesome!

Maybe this is a glimpse of what it's like to have a G-d's eye view of the world--where time and space are inconsequential. 

Looking at this, are we almost at the end or are we just on the verge of a new beginning?  ;-)

Just About Says It All

Confronting The New

As the kids are starting a new school year, I thought these welcome messages in chalk on the sidewalk were interesting and hopeful. 

Everyone needs support when they are starting at a new place or doing something they haven't done before. 

Doing something new means opportunity for a fresh beginning and the chance to learn and grow, but it also presents changes and challenges. 

The messages the kids drew help to confront these head on asking the other students:

- What is exciting to them and playing up the positives of the new experience.

- Encouraging people to make new friends to help make the adjustment. 

- Offer emotional support with "Free Hugs" and camaraderie.

At times, we all end up in new situations and places.

We may be looking for discovery, adventure, or a chance to do something different or perhaps change our fortunes.

At other times, we may just get thrown into something and may not even be certain exactly how we got there. 

But either way, it definitely helps when we reach out to others and realize that while we are individuals, we are not alone as we go through it. 

People need each other...some more, some less...but no man is an island. ;-)

(Source Photos: Andy Blumenthal)

Confronting The New

Garbage In, Repair The World Out

I'm sure you know the saying, "Garbage In, Garbage out"--in other words what you put into something is what you get out.

In this case, I took a photo of a garbage truck--of all things--that had prominently plastered on its side, "Tikkun Olam - Repair the World."

That is quite a positive message to put on a garbage truck!

Maybe that is our challenge in life, to make good things happen from the garbage that life often throws our way. 

Make something sweet like lemonade out of something sour like lemons.

This is not easy without some sugar, but in life, we need G-d to supply the raw ingredients and we add the elbow grease. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Garbage In, Repair The World Out

Let It Be

I remember as a kid, when I was around 10 years old, we moved, and I had to change schools, and there was an adjustment period. 

My father used to tell me a joke in the morning before school about these two grandmothers kibbitzing.

And one tells the other about how her grandson hates going to school. 

She goes on to say, "The students hate him, the teachers hate, it's just horrible."

The other grandmother replies, "Well then, why doesn't he just tell the principal?"

The first grandmother answers, "He is the principal!"

So this was a lesson to me about how no one has it so perfect in life--whether you're the kid, teacher, or even the principal, everyone has their challenges (and they may actually not look all that differently in the larger context of things). 

Basically, in life we must work to make things better where we can, but also have to accept the things we cannot change (and thank G-d, people are pretty adaptable, expecially given some time). 

While, we can try to divine the future by asking "What's going to be?"

Generally speaking, we can't fully know the answers in life before we even have the questions.

We've got to take it as it come, where we can--do our best to make a tangible, positive difference in the world--and with the rest, "let it be."

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Let It Be

Corporate Dictators Gone Wild

Interesting book review in the Wall Street Journal on Moments of Impact--corporate strategy meetings. 

The authors, Ertel and Solomon, see strategy meetings as critical for "to confront radical challenges" "cope with fast-changing threats", and confront competition.

It is an opportunity to:

- Look at the big picture, including industry trends.

- Hear different points of view from as broad array of perspectives as possible (instead of the usual "fences and silos" that prevail in corporate life).

- Decide to change ("Creative Adaptation") or to stay with tried and true strategies ("stick to their knitting").

The book reviewer, Adrian Woolridge, though has a much more skeptical view of these strategy sessions calling them "dull, unstructured time-sucks" and "more often than not, [they're] a huge waste of time":

Why?

- They produce "airy-fairy nonsense."

- Rather than abandoning the corporate hierarchy, the sessions anchor in "status hierarchy."

- Outside strategy "experts" brought in "are nothing more than cliche-mongers."

- The "games" are silly and non-impactful.

- Often rather than strategic conversations, we get "lazy consensus," where decisions are driven by senior managers with a bone to pick or a reorganization in mind.

What's the truth...as usual, somewhere in between these 2 states of idealism and cynicism.

We can choose to take planning seriously to bring people together to solve problems creatively and gain consensus and commitment or we can use strategy as bogus cheerleading sessions and to manipulate the sheep to do what the seniors already know they want.

If we really work as a team to press forward then we can accomplish great things through our diversity and strength, but if strategy is nothing but corporate dictators gone wild, then the cause is already lost to the competition.

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Corporate Dictators Gone Wild

Don't Let Debbie Downer Take You Down

Saturday Night Live has a spoof about Negative Nellie's and they call her Debbie Downer. 

We all know people like this who are the Voice of Doom and the Doctor No's.

Whatever the topic is--they've been there, done it, and have seen it fail--"We tried that before," "That's not the way we do things here," "You just don't understand," "It will never work."

They see danger and bad everywhere and in everything, even in the face of positive and promise. 

These are the people who are obstinate, the naysayers, and are against change at all cost--they fear it or just don't want to deal with it. 

BusinessWeek has an interesting perspective on this--how even these people can be employed to have a beneficial impact on projects--by having them tell you everything that can go wrong, so you can take steps to plan and mitigate against these. 

Some people only want to have positive people around them--"yes men," who only tell them how smart and right they are all the time. 

However, the best leaders don't want kiss ups and brown nosers, but rather value"truth tellers," who will provide them solid advice and guidance on issues, tell them when they think something is wrong or risky, and even take an opposing point of view or play devil's advocate.

I remember when I was asked about whether a certain project was going to meet a very near deadline, and I said point blank, "Do you want me just to say yes or do you want me to tell you the truth?"

I got a big smile to that and the appreciation that I was real and truthful and there to make a difference and not just be another lump on the log. 

The point is not to be a Debbie Downer or a brown noser, but to be an Honest Joe or Jane. ;-)

Don't Let Debbie Downer Take You Down

Adaptability And Integrity In The Face Of Catastrophe

The Walking Dead is the #1 TV show--and this past Sunday was just amazing not only in terms of the plot, but the lessons it provided.

The big question raised was can people change?

The Governor went through a seeming metamorphosis after the destruction of his prior town and murder of his people (by his own hand) and now he has a newfound family and tribe. 

When he comes to attack Rick and the prison to take it for the protection of his own people, Rick says let's just share it, it will be hard to overcome old rivalries, but we can do it--we can change!

But the Governor, yells in a blood curdling voice, "Liar!" and proceeds in a craze to chop off Hershel's head. 

What is particularly dramatics about this--aside from their opposing views of change--is that Hershel is the doctor who not only takes care of the physical health of his people, but also is the conscience of his group seeing that they don't lose their moral way. 

The Governor is a cold killer that truly can never change--and he not only executes Hershel, but screams "Kill them all!"

He also kills his newly adopted daughter after she is bitten by one of the walkers..he shoots her right in the face. 

At first, this seems like the Governor has changed, he can kill a Walker even if it's from his new family, as opposed to his own real daughter that he kept (unwilling to let her go) until Michonne kills her. 

But this was not real change for the Governor, because as he told Hershel about attacking and killing someone else's children to survive, "they aren't mine!"

The Governor is all about himself and will do anything selfishly to survive without consideration of others--this does not change. 

On the other hand, Rick and others survive by their ability to change and grow--they kill when they must, they have empathy when they can, they live by a code of right and wrong--in every situation, they adapt. 

For example, in a prior episode, Carol is forced to leave Rick's group because she brutally killed and burnt two of people in the prison when they got sick and were a threat of spreading the disease. However, Rick understood that this was wrong and banished her for what she did. Not all killing is justified, even if it helps you survive.

The Governor (and his new cohorts) are finally killed off in this episode, and although the safety of the prison is gone, and Rick and the others must leave and wander again, they continue to survive another day--changing with ever new challenges and adhering to an informal code of conduct that they maintain, even in the face of a world catastrophe.

(Source Photo: Dannielle Blumenthal)

Adaptability And Integrity In The Face Of Catastrophe

Healthcare.gov - Yes, Yes, and Yes

Healthcare.gov was rolled out on October 1. 

Since then there has been lots of bashing of the site and finger-pointing between government overseers and contractors executing it. 

Some have called for improvements down the line through further reform of government IT.

Others have called for retribution by asking for the resignation of the HHS Secretary Sebelius. 

Publication after publication has pointed blame at everything from/to:

- A labyrinth government procurement process

- Not regularly using IT best practices like shared services, open source, cloud computing, and more

- An extremely large and complex system rollout with changing requirements

And the answer is yes, yes, and yes. 

Government procurement is complex and a highly legislated functional area where government program managers are guided to hiring small, disadvantaged, or "best value"  contract support through an often drawn-out process meant to invoke fairness and opportunity, while the private sector can hire the gold standard of who and what they want, when they want, period. 

Government IT is really a partnership of public and private sector folks that I would image numbers well in the hundreds of thousands and includes brand name companies from the esteemed defense and aerospace industries to small innovators and entrepreneurs as well as a significant number of savvy government IT personnel. Having worked in both public and private sector, I can tell you this is true--and that the notion of the government worker with the feet up and snoozing is far from the masses of truth of hardworking people, who care about their important mission serving the public. That being said, best practices in IT and elsewhere are evolving and government is not always the quickest to adopt these. Typically, it is not bleeding edge when it comes to safety and security of the public, but more like followers--sometimes fast, but more often with some kicking and screaming as there is seemingly near-constant change, particularly with swirling political winds and shifting landscapes, agendas, lobbyists, and stakeholders wanting everything and the opposite. 

Government rollout for Healthcare.gov was obviously large and complex--it "involves 47 different statutory provisions and extensive coordination," and impacted systems from numerous federal agencies as well as 36 state governments using the services. While rollouts from private sector companies can also be significant and even global, there is often a surgical focus that goes on to get the job done. In other words, companies choose to be in one or another business (or multiple businesses) as they want or to spin off or otherwise dislodge from businesses they no longer deem profitable or strategic.  In the government, we frequently add new mission requirements (such as the provision of universal healthcare in this case), but hardly ever take away or scale back on services. People want more from the government (entitlements, R&D, secure borders, national security, safe food and water, emergency response, and more), even if they may not want to pay for it and seek the proverbial "smaller government" through less interference and regulation. 

Is government IT a walk in the park, believe me after having been in both the public and private sectors that it is not--and the bashing of "cushy," federal jobs is a misnomer in so many ways. Are there people that take advantage of a "good, secure, government job" with benefits--of course there are some, but I think those in the private sector can look in the offices and cubes next to them and find quite a number of their colleagues that would fit that type of stereotype as well.

We can learn a lot from the private sector in terms of best practices, and it is great when people rotate from the private sector to government and vice versa to cross-pollinate ideas, processes, and practices, but the two sectors are quite different in mission, (often size and complexity), constituents, politics, and law--and not everything is a slam dunk from one to the other. However, there are very smart and competent people as well as those who can do better in both--and you fool yourself perhaps in your elitism if you think this is not the case. 

Are mistakes made in government IT--definitely yes. Should there be accountability to go with the responsibility--absolutely yes. Will we learn from our mistakes and do better in the future--the answer must be yes. ;-)

Healthcare.gov - Yes, Yes, and Yes

Genius Consultants--Yes or No?

A lot of people think that the McKinsey's of this world are the business geniuses. 

You hire McKinsey, Bain, or The Boston Consulting Group when you need to address big organizational problems--frequently those that involve broad reorganizations, massive cutbacks, reformulation of strategy, and culture makeovers. 

According to Bloomberg Businessweek in a book review of The Firm, the notion is that these consulting big boys come in to "teach you how to do whatever you do better than you do it--and certainly better than your competition does it."

The question is can consultants really do it better than those who do it everyday, or perhaps an objective 3rd party is exactly what is needed to break broken paradigms and set things straight. 

These global consultants are usually generalists--who specialize in "rational thinking and blunt talk." 

It's like going to an organizational shrink to have someone listen to your crazy sh*t and tell it back to you the way it out to be--and then guide you with some behavioral interventions (i.e. the recommendations). 

What's interesting also is that these consulting firms hire the "A" kids right out of school--so they are inexperienced, but bright-eyed and bushy-tailed ready with their idealistic thinking to tell you how things ought to be done--the question is do they have enough fundamentals under their belts and genuine solid thinking in a real setting to make sense to your business. 

Probably the best thing is that these graduates can think out of the box and for an organization that needs to make a leap forward, these newbies can cut through the clutter and give your organizational a fresh start.

One of the problems pointed out is that with these consultant companies, it's heads they win and tails you lose--if their ideas pan out, it's to their credit--and if it doesn't, well you implemented poorly. 

Basically consultants are not magicians, but they do listen to your organizations tales of woes, put the pieces together, and tell you what you told them...many times, it's basically validation of what people already know--but now it's coming from "the experts"--so it must be true. 

Another problem of course is whether their recommendations become more shelfware, collecting dust, or whether the organization can actually make the difficult choices and changes...or perhaps, there is another consulting firm that assists with that?  ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Genius Consultants--Yes or No?

Ballmer Led Microsoft Into The Ground

Steve Ballmer, one of the forefathers of Microsoft (with a career spanning 3 decades there) and its CEO since 2000, is finally retiring.

Well what can we say except, Thank G-d!

The Wall Street Journal reports how the markets cheered yesterday with Microsoft stock rising 7% at his exit and that's with no successor identified.

In other words, better nobody, than Steve Ballmer somebody!

Ballmer managed to take the genius of Gates and a company stock valuation of $603 billion in 2000 and turn it into less than half--$290 billion--by the time he announced he was going.

Not bad destroying over $313 billion of value in a little more than a decade.

Gates was the visionary--the inventor (with the help of Apple) of Windows and Microsoft Office.

He was brilliant and he left us with products that still today dominate desktop computing, which was predominantly what existed up until he handed the reins to Ballmer.

But since 2000--we have smartphones and tablets--bringing Microsofts's share of market to just 15% today.

Ballmer was an operations guy (not what you need in a fast-changing technology market), while Gates was a innovator (who could spearhead the change itself).

Ballmer was the wrong man for the right job.

A technology guru could've taken the lofty perch Microsoft sat on in 2000 and used it as a springboard to the technology stars and beyond, but an operations nerd could only run it into the ground.

Yes, Microsoft is still highly profitable at almost $22 billion last year on sales of $78 billion--nothing to sneeze at--but the problem is they are fighting last decades technology war.

That's why Apple, Google, and Amazon eclipse Microsoft in prestige and excitement, if not all by market share (yet).

In almost 14 years, Ballmer couldn't manage one major fully new product innovation--except Xbox in 2001 (let's cough that one up to Gates), Bing in 2009 (a Google look-alike), and Kinect in 2010 (Ok, maybe one cool thing).

Ballmer couldn't even put in a place a viable succession plan and is leaving the company in a chaotic leadership void for the top spot.

Gates was smart to sell the vast majority of his stake in Microsoft--not because they are not a great company with lots of talented people, but because without a true leader at the helm, they are lost in the vast technology sea of change without direction or innovation of their own.

Ballmer, it was 14 years too long, maybe now there is still hope for Microsoft to rise and be great again. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Ballmer Led Microsoft Into The Ground

From Happy To Glad

So I heard a new saying: "From Happy To Glad."

I asked some folks "What is that was all about?"

They explained that it applies to when you give someone something to review and they make really minor, nit-picky edits.

For example, they said, when someone "just has to say something" or "they can't let it go."

This was interesting to me, because I find it really helpful to solicit feedback and vet things with a smart, diverse group--and when you do, invariably you get a better product. 

For example, with a document, the best feedback is substantive feedback about content, followed by solid edits to things like style, formatting, and of course spelling and grammar gaffes. 

The goal is to have a clear, concise, and consistent communication that is either informative or action-oriented, and with a good executive summary and enough supporting detail to answer key questions. 

Of course, this is very different than "Happy to glad" feedback--where you're getting someone who possibly is wordsmithing something to death, can't make up their own mind, wants to show how smart they are, or are just trying to drive you nuts.

With happy to glad, sure it'll satisfy the occasional control freaks and the ego-chasers.

But the changes you'll want to actually make are from the really smart and experienced folks whose input makes a genuine difference in the end product and your and the organization's success. 

So ask away for input, make meaningful changes, but don't get snared in change for change sake alone. ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Zentolos)

From Happy To Glad

Don't Underestimate The Stress of Change

Regularly in IT, we field new technologies and systems.

Often, we don't pay enough attention to the details of change management and what that means to our users. 

A great article in Government Executive Magazine by Dr. Victoria Grady really hits this right on. 

Grady points out something that is often overlooked: people have an instinctual predisposition to attach to/lean on objects and intangibles--including things like office spaces, systems, business processes, organizational structures, leaderships styles, and so on. 

If you take that away--excuse the simile, but it is like taking candy away from a baby--you are going to get a lot of (often understandable) whining, crying, and resistance.

The key is understand that people in a sense really all have a kid inside them, and they need to be listened to, understood, empathized with, and cared for. 

Changing out IT systems, restructuring the office, or doing a reorganization (as much as they may be needed) can cause people huge amounts of stress and the organization productivity losses, if not done right. 

Remember, you are changing up people's status quo, what they know, their security blanket, and you need to be mindful of and implement a robust communication and change management strategy. 

What I have found is that one thing that raises the stress tempo is when people don't have enough information on the change that is coming, how that impacts them, and how "everything will be okay."

The more unknowns, the more stress. 

While you cannot share information you don't yet have or perhaps that is not yet baked, you can be honest and tell people what you do know, what you are still investigating, perhaps what some of the options are, timeframes, and of course, solicit their input. 

To the extent that people are kept in the loop and can influence the process--the more control they have--the better they can cope and adjust. 

Not that adults are children, but the analogy still holds, when you take away a bottle from a infant, you better have a pacifier to keep them happy--in this case, the pacifier is the replacement thing that people need to attach to/lean on to feel secure in their jobs. 

If you are changing out systems, make sure the new system is well vetted, tested, and trained with the end-users, so they know and feel comfortable with the change--and they have the confidence in you and your team, the new system, and in themselves to handle it. 

Same goes for other changes in the organization--you can mitigate stress through communication, collaboration, testing, training, and other confidence building measures. 

Adults and babies are a lot happier and better able to deal with change, when they are taken care of properly.

We are all somewhat change adverse and that is a basic survival instinct, so we sometimes need to take baby steps, walk before we run, and work together to change as a group and ensure that the "new" is indeed better than the "old."  ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Don't Underestimate The Stress of Change

You Can Better The World

I am really excited about this new Social Media application called Betterific.

It looks a lot like Twitter but is focused on ideas to better the world. 

Every Betterific starts under the heading of "Wouldn't it be better if" and you fill in the rest. 

Whether you have ideas for improving products, companies, policies, or even the way we treat each other--this is a great way to get your ideas out there. 

You also add tags (metadata) to make the ideas more easily searchable by others. 

Like Twitter you can follow topics or other innovative people, friends, and family members. 

A great feature is that you can actually vote--thumbs up or down--for the ideas, and through crowdsourcing great ideas can rise to the top.

There is also a bar at the top where you can look up better ideas by search term--so individuals, organizations, or brands can harvest this information and hopefully act on them.

One of the featured Betterifics when you sign in online is from someone who suggested that toilet seats come with a pedal lift lid (like a garbage can)--being a little germophobic myself, I vote definitely yes to this one!

I hope this type of app catches on so we can all innovate and get our ideas out there simply and clearly.

This has the potential to become a tremendous archive for great ideas that can be accessed, prioritized and most importantly implemented--so we can all really make a difference for the better. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

You Can Better The World

Robots Taking Your Job

Don't get too comfortable in your job.

Yes, the economic realities of high spending are about to catch up with the country and that will threaten your livelihood, but even more than that Robots can probably do your job better than you--sooner or later. 

Wired Magazine (24 December 2012) has a great article on this called "Better Than Humans.

In the 1800's, when 70% of the working population did agricultural work, probably no one would have believed what the future had in store for this occupation--today with automation, only 1% do this work.

Similarly, today 80% of jobs are in the service sector, and people think they are on safe ground--but think again!

Make no mistake robots will replace or drastically alter your current job, as artificial intelligence, processors, memory, sensors, learning, communication, dexterity, and humanoid likeness all continue to advance.

Wired presents the 7 Stages of Robot Replacement (to which I've added my notes in parenthesis):

1. Robots cannot do what I do (denial).
2. Robots can do some of what I do, but not all (partial acceptance).
3. Robots can do what I do, but they break done (rationalization for the loss, and so do we "break down").
4. Robots operate flawlessly on repetitive tasks, but need training for new ones (you weren't born knowing everything were you?). 
5. Robots can have my old job, because it's not fit for humans anyway (acceptance with a large dose of resignation--"the train has left the station").
6. Robots can have my old job, because my new job will be better (maybe for the time being). 
7. Robots cannot do what I do now (the cycle of employment safety from automation starts anew). 

Let's face it--your special, but so is technology and the pace of advancement is extraordinary. 

For those of you in jobs that you feel could only be done by humans--Wired has some news about developments with robots doing the once unthinkable:

- Musicians--Georgia Tech has developed Shimon the musician; these robots can not only play violin and trumpets, but they can form a band, and they can improvise ("as if it's a musician with a soul!).
- Therapists--Mindmentor has an AI therapist that after a 1-2 hour session made patients feel their "problem was 47% solved."
- Artists--Vagobot has made hundreds of pictures and "even sold some to Crate & Barrel."
- Comedians--Aldebarab Robotics makes robots for all sorts of jobs, including entertainment--they can sense audience reaction (such as laughter or silence) and adjust topics accordingly.
- Professional Trainers--The Intermational Conference on Social Robots in 2011 presented a robot that could coach you on your exercise, sense your form, and correct it. 
- Teachers--University Of Southern California has developed a robot teacher that in 2 weeks helped preschoolers increase vocabulary mastery by 25%.
- Nurses--Aethon makes the TUG nurse robot that is "picking up and delivering medication and supplies, autonomously navigating hospital hallways...summon an elevator, wait in line, and politely roll aside to give hemorrhaging humans priority access."
- Athletes--Robocup compete robots that one day can be "capable of winning against the human  soccer World Cup champions.

So what will be left for humans to do--innovate, invent, build, operate, and maintain the next level of breakthrough automation to help people--maybe these are the best and most-rewarding jobs that any of us can hope to have. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal, Ft. Lauderdale Discovery and Science Museum)

Robots Taking Your Job

Montel Williams' EA Wisdom

Amazed to see this posting on Facebook by Montel Williams.

This hits the bulls eye with what enterprise architecture--both organizationally and personally--is all about. 

Love it, and thank you for sharing this Montel! 

(Source Photo: Facebook December 11, 2012)

Montel Williams' EA Wisdom

Go Safe or Go For It?

I came away with some thoughts on risk taking watching this scene from the movie "Lies and Alibis."

The girl says: "Simple is boring."
The guy answers: "Boring is safe."
The girl responds: "Safe is for old people."

(Note: nothing personal here to the elderly. Also, hope I didn't get the who said which thing wrong, but the point is the same.)

Take-a-way: Very often in life we aren't sure whether to take a risk or not. Is it worth it or is it reckless? And we have to weigh the pros and cons, carefully!

- We have to ask ourselves, where's the risk and where's the reward?

We have to decide whether we want to try something new and accept the potential risk or stay stable and go safe with the status quo that we already know.

At times, staying with a bad status quo can be the more risky proposition and change the safer option--so it all depends on the situation. 

- We also have to look at our capabilities to take chances: 

For example, in terms of age appropriateness--it can be argued that younger people can take more risk, because they have more time to recover in life, should the situation go bad. 

At the same time, older people may have more of a foundation (financial savings, built-up experience and education, and a life-long reputation) to take more chances--they have a cushion to fall back on, if necessary. 

- In the end, we have to know our own level of risk tolerance and have a sense of clarity as to what we are looking for and the value of it, as well as the odds for success and failure.

It's a very personal calculation and the rewards or losses are yours for the taking. Make sure you are ready to accept them!

Finally--always, always, always have a plan B. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Go Safe or Go For It?

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)

Out-Tech The Competition

The Dumbest Parent, No Really

So we took our daughter out to shoot some arrows.

She was really good, shooting off one after another and hitting the bullseye way down field.

Of course, when I gave it a try, I couldn't even hit the side of a barn.
Next to us, at the range, where two girls and their mother.

The girls were jumping around with their bows, grabbing the arrows, and popping off shots at a target set at a distance appropriate for their age.

What comes next is the dumbest and most irresponsible parent I've seen for some time.

The mother yells out to the girls--"Hey, I'd like to take a picture of you guys!"

Then she goes over to them and pulls them off the range and faces them at each other about a foot apart--with their bows and arrows pointed at each other!

The girls not understanding the danger they are in and playing around as kids do--pull the strings on the bows back to pose for the shot--literally, and with the mother egging them on. 

I am feeling like I am watching a horrible accident about to unfold in front of my eyes.

I say politely, but with obvious fear and concern, "Stop!--the girls are pointing the arrows at each other--that's dangerous!"

But the mother, puts her finger up as if to hush me, and says emphatically that she just wants to take a picture and "it's so cute."

I am watching what appears to be the younger of the girls--the one on the right--start dancing around with the bow and arrow, pulling back and pointing right at the other girl--who in turn mimics her and does the same back.

At this point my wife joins me, and we are not sure how to stop this or whether its time to take cover, while the mother continues to ignore any semblance of safety and refuses to pull back from her cherished photo op of the children.

This mother was not just dumb, but completely irresponsible--for the safety of her kids and everyone else around on the court.

When the "photo shoot" was over--and the kids let the strings go and ran back to the range, we sighed a sigh of relief that nothing worse had happened.

A number of days later, I found myself doing some strategic planning and using the Force Field Analysis tool.

In the Force Field Analysis, we try to identify and examine the driving and limiting forces for and against change, and more importantly the actions we can take for influencing each force. 

Usually, we view the forces for change as something positive, and the limiting forces as a hinderance, blocking our goal achievement. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that while change can be positive when undertaken for the right reasons, there are times when restraint is necessary as well. 

For example, in applying this to the situation at the archery range--the parent is hell-bent on taking the photo no matter the forces for restraint to prevent a serious accident happening to her kids or to others around them. In this case, some parental restraint would have been appropriate. From an influencing perspective, probably some much better supervision at the range would have been in order. 

To me, it was interesting to think about it in this context and contemplate how to tip the forces for change or restraint to where they need to be depending on the situation--whether it is a good goal and a good time to pursue it, or not. 

Also, it is worth noting how challenging it can be to influence driving and restraining forces, especially when dealing with ignorance, foolhardiness, or people who may just refuse to listen to reason.

As leaders, the Force Field Analysis can be a useful framework not just for planning, but for trying to understand our environment and how best we can shape the events around us--no matter how quickly or dangerously they may unfold.

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

The Dumbest Parent, No Really

Dealing With Change Resistance

In leadership class, I learned that in performance management, there are two major types of issues--conduct and performance. 

In conduct issues--people willfully do not follow the rules of the workplace. Conduct issues are those of "won't."

However, with performance problems--people cannot meet the expectations for quantity and/or quality. Performance problems are issues of "can't."

On Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, I wonder whether these same types of performance management issues apply to our lives as human beings and as children of G-d.

- Some people just won't do the right thing, instead willfully choosing to lie, cheat, steal, and mistreat others. They prefer the monetary or egotistical rewards of doing the wrong thing over the spiritual and relationship hardships and challenges to do the right thing.

- Other people can't do the right thing--they are too scarred by hurt, abandonment, loneliness, being told they are not good enough and can't compete, and so on. For these people, sometimes, no matter how hard they try, they feel that they cannot meet expectations.

Of course, willfully doing something wrong is worse than not being able to do something right. 

That is why for the first type of people--those with conduct problems--there is disciplinary action.

For the second type of people--those who have performance issues--we recognize their commitment and try to help them through things like coaching, mentoring, training, and counseling.

Performance issues may be linked to change resistance to change--and there are 3 dimensions of this:

1) Cognitive--"I don't get it"--the person doesn't fully understand and therefore agree with the rules. 

2) Emotional--"I don't like it"--a person emotionally rejects the rules of change, because they are afraid of the loss it will cause to them, personally and/or professionally.

3) Interpersonal--"I don't like you"--when people are not resisting an idea, but rather they are resisting you, personally. 

Great leadership is the ability to sense when any of these dimensions are off and help to course-correct them: 

- When people don't get it--we can inform, create awareness, and educate.

- When they don't like it--we can listen to them and show empathy, get them involved in the process, and maybe show them the "what's in it for me" (WIIFM).

- And when they don't like you (the most difficult one)--we can try to win people over by taking responsibility for the things we have done wrong, demonstrating over time that we are trustworthy, spending time together to better get to know each other and build the relationship, and maybe even give in on some issues, where appropriate.

Like on Rosh Hashanah, where we seek G-d's mercy on us and ask that he work with us, so too, we can learn to work with others to try and help them, where possible.  

(Source Photo: Minna Blumenthal)

Dealing With Change Resistance

EI Differentiates Us From ET

An extra-terrestrial (ET) from outer-space is alien to the human race and our culture and norms.

You wouldn't expect an ET--despite maybe their great technology that gets them here--to understand us Earthlings and treat us properly.

They may try and capture us and even harvest our vital resources (and organs), but no, they probably wouldn't be overly concerned with with how they act or treat us.

Hence, Emotional Intelligence (EI) is what differentiates us from ETs.

With EI we manage both our ourselves and our relationships--like (proper) human beings.

EI is made up of personal competencies and social competencies.
In terms of personal competencies--we need to be self-aware and manage ourselves with authenticity and self control--and not act like a bunch of unseemly aliens.

From a social competency perspective--we must extend ourselves to become socially aware and manage our relationships tactfully--so we don't go chasing and laser-beaming others.

There are a number of important social skills for us Earthlings to master if we want to live nicely with others:

- Listening--that's why G-d gave people 2 ears and 1 month (of course, aliens have the opposite--2 mouths and 1 ear).

- Feeling--showing empathy for our fellow human beings--understanding their interests, concerns, and perspectives (like no alien can).

- Giving--being selfless, giving, and nurturing to others personally and having a service-orientation to our customers.

- Teaming--developing and maintaining a breadth of interpersonal relationships and sharing and collaborating with them (this will help you fight off the invading ETs when they arrive).

- Managing conflict--deescalating issues and negotiating with others to reach agreements and resolutions (if only we could negotiate with the aliens not to eat us). 

- Visioning--coming up with and championing a forward-thinking and compelling strategy.

- Managing change--influencing and leading others to adopt new ideas and change the status quo (we need to change, learn, grow, and improve--because it's a big intergalactic world out there).

These are a lot of critical and challenging skills to master and no one is perfect at all of them.

But as imperfect as we are, it is our trust and test in life to be more than warring Earthlings fighting each other over continuously scarce resources, but instead to become social creatures as well--where we lean to gracefully manage ourselves and our relationships. 

Unlike ETs, we human beings are in so many ways--with EI--better than that! ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

EI Differentiates Us From ET