Looking At It From The Perspective Of Others

This was a funny sign hanging on a tree on one of the hiking trails. 

It's a deer and it says "Please Don't Kill Me!"

With it was a notice about hunters sparing the deer population. 

It's interesting that often we don't look at things from the perspective of others. 

In this case, the deer just wants to be free and alive--and is begging for his life. 

As people, we don't really think of what the deer wants or for that matter often what other people want--we just care about what we want.

Good to remember that we all have our perspective on life and that we should respect diversity of thinking, feeling, and being. 

Hey, and unless those deers are bothering you... ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Looking At It From The Perspective Of Others

Fair Trade Principles Are Cool

So I was up in Harpers Ferry and discovered this cool boutique store called Tenfold. 

The store carries a collection of creative "fair trade," eco-friendly products from around the world. 

They had a cool variety of clothing and accessories--that was different and special. 

We all found something there to come back with and had to choose what we liked best. 

I ended up getting a couple of handmade ties from a company called Global Mamas in Ghana and the girls got some skirts (and necklaces) made by Unique Batik in Thailand. 

I liked the quality and design of the merchandise. 

But more than that, I was truly impressed by the principles these companies adhere to under fair trade:

- Alleviate poverty and social injustice
- Support open, fair, and respectful relationships between producers and customers
- Develop producers' skills, and foster access to markets, application of best practices, and independence, 
- Promote economic justice by improving living standards, health, education, and the distribution of power
- Pay promptly and fairly
- Support safe working conditions
- Protect children's rights
- Cultivate sustainable practices
- Respect cultural diversity

Note: Fair trade is not to be confused with free trade--the later being where government does not interfere with imports or exports by applying tariffs, subsidies, or quotas.

Truly, if we give people a chance to be productive under fair trade working conditions, they can make the world a little better one product at a time. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Fair Trade Principles Are Cool

Hold The Pickles, Hold The Lettuce--BABIES!

Remember, the catchy old Burger King commercial about "Have it your way"(where you can order the burger any way you want, no problem!)?

Now, we are reaching the point with DNA testing, where we can have it your way and order up babies the way you want them.

According to the Wall Street Journal, by getting genetic profiles of egg or sperm donors, you can search for a match with the genetic profile of the would-be parent to have a higher likelihood of desired traits (e.g. blue eyes) or lower likelihood of undesirable ones (e.g. heart disease). 

23andMe, a DNA company (Note: humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes) that sells home testing kits for $99, has patented a process for analyzing DNA and providing information on health and ancestry, and this could be used for system screening of egg or sperm donors through a tool called a "Family Traits Inheritance calculator."

Calculating better babies by choosing desired matches at fertility clinics is only steps away from actually making marriage decisions based on genetic make-up--in that scenario love is only one factor in choosing a mate and maybe not the primary any longer. 

The idea being to screen potential couples before marriage to yield "the best" potential children--smartest, athletic, good-looking, etc. 

There are already genetic banks for screening and capturing genetic information on potential couples to avoid genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and others. 

While bioengineering children for better health is one thing, creating a blue-eye and blond-haired race was the Nazi's concept of an Aryan nation as a superior race that would dominate the world. 

The ethical questions of how to screen out illness without creating a situation like in China under a one-child policy, where male offspring are considered superior and so we proverbially tilt the odds in favor of what we think is best even if it may not really be. 

Neither a homogeneous superior race, nor a customized bioengineered baby is the answer--rather, we need to value healthy diversity in children, where each is a miracle and a blessing in their own right. ;-)

Hold The Pickles, Hold The Lettuce--BABIES!

A Falafel A Day

Peace comes in many shapes and sizes--peace talks, peace negotiations, peace treaties, and now even peace trucks.

Reminiscent of the peace marches and brightly painted VW peace vans of the 1970's, The Washington Post (26 January 2013) reports on a 76-year old retired Energy Department staffer with a PhD in mechanical engineering who for his second career is starting a peace food truck in DC.

The food truck will have two windows for selling kosher food from one and for selling halal food from the other. 

The owner-activist who is an Egyptian American hopes that "it will bring people from different backgrounds, who are waiting on line, to talk together."

He says: "I think it will work because, well, everyone likes food," and he hopes to fund additional food trucks in Chicago, New York, Israel, and the West Bank. 

The truck has both the Jewish Star of David and Islamic Crescent painted on it--it is truly a truck for representing diversity of people, but with a common taste in good Mediterranean food.

It's amazing what a falafel can do--perhaps, even help bring peace and security to the Middle East.   ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Shoshanah)

A Falafel A Day

We Don't Accept You Here

A number of years ago I had received an interesting job offer--not actually for a job I had applied to, but for "something else", and apparently the job was supposed to come without any questions asked. 

Because when I asked about the typical things that you like to agree on before you start a job, I found that it wasn't going to work out then for this executive because of "cultural fit."

At the time, it was quite clear that cultural fit was just another term used to discriminate not those that could do the job well from those that couldn't, but rather those who would be too thoughtful, innovative, or even challenging to the (failing) status quo. 

In this particular case, the leadership was highly corrupt (in more ways than one) and it came out in front-page investigations and findings not long after, with the actual sacking of many of the head honcho bunch.

When it comes to hiring, it is challenging for many leaders to not just punch the checklist for diversity, but too really embrace it, and this stems from many reasons including fear, bias and hatred of cultures that are different than our own, but also the need for highly insecure leaders to singularly "rule the roost" without any challenge of opinion. 

These leaders think that if everyone fits their mold and subordinates themselves to them alone, then they are by default always right--regardless of the actual consequences of their decision-making.

The problem is that there is no one to vet issues with, play devil's advocate or give an alternate viewpoint--and the insecure leadership with their minion of look-alike, think-alike followers will often drive the train over the cliff--without anyone so much as saying a boo. 

This last week, when a record number of women Senators (20) and congresswomen (82)--were sworn in to the 113th Congress, there was hope of their bringing to the old political mix a new sense and style of collaboration that could help the nation resolve the many issues that we are embroiled in heated negotiation and impasse (e.g. the debt ceiling, the national deficit, the budget, immigration, and more).

Similarly, Bloomberg BusinessWeek (3 January 2013) published an article called "Only BFFs Need Apply"--about how job applicant's cultural fit often trumps their actual qualifications.

BusinessWeek sums up the dilemma with hiring based on cultural fit: While it "may summon up obnoxious images of old boys clubs and social connections...a cooperative, creative atmosphere can make workdays more tolerable and head off problems before they begin." Put another way: the "American ideals about team diversity collide with the reality of building a cohesive, practical staff."

However, the problem with relying on cultural fit is not only that you don't often get the best candidates, but that it is used not just to describe common values and work ethics, but rather inappropriately "as an excuse for feelings interviewers aren't comfortable expressing" such as not being able to accept a person's accent or that they cover they head for religious reasons. 

While hiring lackeys may have a short-term benefit of cohesion, in the long-term, the lack of diversity may result in groupthink and even that "the one person who has a different thought could have saved a business."

Of course, there is also legal prohibitions against discrimination in hiring and personnel management, as well as the ethical issue of hiring unfairly and what that does to the moral fiber of the organization and its people--it's corrosive to their values and capabilities and will lead to the revulsion and loss of good employees, customers, stockholders, and others over time.

Here's the enterprise architecture slant on this topic: "you have to decide if you're hiring for the culture you have or the culture you want." ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Tobucil and Klabs)

We Don't Accept You Here

Building Happiness, One Contribution At A Time

There was an interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal (20 December 2012) comparing people who win the [Powerball] lottery to those on social entitlements.

The author, Arthur Brooks stipulates that money unearned--"untethered from hard work and merit"--does not make people happy.

Brooks states that "Above basic subsistence, happiness comes not from money per se, but from the value creation it is rewarding."
And this seems to jive with the concept that the greatest producer of happiness aside from social relationships is doing meaningful and productive work (and generally good deeds), not having lots of money and things!

In terms of winning the lottery (big) and not finding happiness, there was another article to this effect in Bloomberg BusinessWeek (13 December 2012), about someone who won the $314 million Powerball jackpot and had at one time been the largest lottery winner in history--but in the end, he found nothing but misery (lost his granddaughter, wife, money, and ended up a substance abuser) and wished he had never seen that "winning" ticket. Instead, he appreciated his previous life when he was known for his "good works," and not just his money!

According to Brooks, "While earned success facilitates the pursuit of happiness, unearned transfers generally impede it." And CNN reports that now more than 100 million Americans are on welfare, and that "does not include those who only receive Social Security or Medicare."

The result as Brooks states is the fear is that we are becoming an 'entitlement state," and that it is bankrupting the country and "impoverishing" the lives of millions by creating a state of dependency, rather than self-sufficiency.

So are social entitlements really the same thing?

No. because without doubt, there are times when people need a safety net and it is imperative that we be there to help people who are in need--this is not the same as someone winning the lottery, but rather this is genuinely doing the right thing to help people!

At the same time, everyone, who can, must do their part to contribute to society--this means hard work and a fair day's pay.

However, With the National Debt about to go thermonuclear, and the fiscal cliff (in whatever form it finally takes) coming ever closer to pocketbook reality, the country is on verge on confronting itself--warts and all.

We all woke up this morning, and the world was still here--despite the Mayans foretelling of the end of the world today. Perhaps, the end was never meant as a hard and fast moment, but rather the beginning of an end, where we must confront our spendthrift ways and historical social inequities.

While we cannot erase decades of mismanagement, what we can do is continue the march to genuinely embrace diversity, invest in education and research, help those who cannot help themselves, work hard and contribute, and build a country that our grandparents dreamed of--one that is paved in opportunity for everyone!

Let us pray that we are successful--for our survival, prosperity, and genuine happiness. ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Brother Magneto)

Building Happiness, One Contribution At A Time

Walking In All Shoes

Thinking about life and death and the concept of reincarnation. 

While I have heard the belief of some that reincarnation is the ultimate justice machine--if you treat others well, you come back well off, while if you treat them badly, you come back in their situation. 

So the classic example, would be if you have the opportunity to give charity, and do so, genoreously, then you are rewarded in a next life with riches, but if you are miserly, then you come back poor--to learn the lessons of charitable giving. 

However, I wonder if this concept goes even much further.

Does our journey ultimately takes us not just to occupy some positions if life, but rather to every role and status, illustrative of all peoples--so that we learn from the eyes of everyone. 

The world  is round and the number of perspectives around it are as varied as the people, races, cultures, and nations they come from. 

As the saying goes, "don't judge me until you walk a mile in my shoes," perhaps we are indeed given the opportunity to walk in a large representative sample of those. 

When the see the world not from where we sit today in life, but from where others are perched, we can get a whole new perspective on issues and ideas--we can learn true empathy, caring, respect, and justice.

Almost like having G-d's vantage point, we can learn to see the world from a multi-cultural perspective, where each person, tribe, and nation is infinitely valuable--where each holds the key to a perspective and lesson that we must all learn before our journey comes to a conclusion. 

Live life and learn well--there is much to see, hear, and experience, and no one has all the answers or is all righteous--like a large mosaic, we all have a piece. ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Fernando Stankuns)

Walking In All Shoes

Party Time, Excellent.

Passing outside, I encountered this interesting person, who reminded of when I used to visit  Greenwich Village in NY.

- Long blond wig
- Big bow on top
- Overflowing boots on their feet
- Bright blue stockings on the legs
- Underpants on the outside
- Jacket with big cuffs and strips
- And giving "the finger" to passerby's

Seemed like a real culture commentary.

It's important to value all sorts of different people--it's the fabric of our society and everyone adds to it.

Party Time, Excellent.

Leadership Lessons In a Pie

There is an interesting exercise that examines and trains leaders on strengths and weaknesses.

In the exercise, there are 8 primary skills written on the floor in a pie shape taped off into slices.

People are instructed to step into the slice where they think they are the strongest.

For example, some stepped into slices labeled visionaries, others into change catalysts, team building, or communication, and so on.

Then the group of people from each slice takes a turn and explains to everyone else how to become good at that particular skill, where they are the experts.

Then the exercise is reversed and the participants are asked to find and step into the slice that is the most challenging for them.

In this second part, the group of people in each slice then explain to the rest of the participants what makes that skill in their slice so challenging for them. 

This is a thought-provoking and helpful leadership exercise that gives people an opportunity to examine and discuss their strengths and weakness and learn from each other.

While I wouldn't say that they all slices had the same number of people--they didn't, some had more and some less--each slice did some people to represent that skill.

Some thoughts on this pie exercise:

- By having to choose only one key strength (i.e. only one slice to stand in), it is humbling to realize all the other skills where you aren't as strong, but seeing other people in spread across those slices too--let's you know that it is possible. 

- Also, by having to identify your most challenging leadership skill, the one where you need to focus the most attention on, it is comforting to see other people in the same slice--you are not alone.

- Seeing and hearing about the multiple leadership areas for people--both strengths and weaknesses--points to the importance of diversity of people and skills in the workplace--everyone can do something, but no one can do everything perfect.

- It is healthy to take a self-accounting of your strengths and weaknesses and learn where you can help others and where you can learn from others--thus, teamwork in leadership is just as critical as what is expected in the proverbial "rank and file."

- Leadership skills are generally not something that you are born mastering--although some are labeled "born leaders" (or maybe  "born with a silver spoon in their mouth" in more appropriate)--the vast majority of people learn and grow their leadership skills over a lifetime--and that is a good thing, so stick with it! ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Leadership Lessons In a Pie

Amazing 60's VW Van

Driving toward Rockville, I saw this incredible 60's VW van with all the flaming rainbow designs for peace, love, and rock & roll. 

It was parked on top of this bright orange and blue garage--not sure how it got up there. 

I asked my wife to quickly snap a photo as we went by, and she was successful. 

While I wasn't even born yet, when this van would've been all the rage, I can still feel reminiscent for the times--when things seemed so much simpler and in a way, purer. 

In my mind, it was a time when people rallied around democracy, freedom, human rights, peace and diversity.

While they didn't know from personal computers, smartphones, and the Internet, people were full of hopes and dreams--perhaps that what ushered in all the great technology that soon followed. 

(Source photo: Dannielle Blumenthal)

Amazing 60's VW Van

TED For Everyone

The New Yorker (9 July 2012) has an article on TED Talks. 

TED stands for Technology/Entertainment/Design and is a conference venue for some of the most magnificent speakers.

Just looking at some of TED's "most popular this month"--turn to TED if you want to hear about:

- Information being collected about you on the web
- How through vulnerability, we can empathize, belong, and love
- Whether through evolution our kids will be different than us
- Ways to prepare for Alzheimer disease
- New ideas for cleaning up oil spills
- How schools kill creativity
- The talents and abilities of introverts
- How to inspire and be a great leader 

TED is literally a world of information and it is presented in a high quality way.

Almost anyone would be floored by the honor to present at TED.

Talking at TED means not only that you have something important to say, but that you can pull-off saying it the right way. 

What makes TED lectures great though (and viewed 800 million times so far) maybe also makes them more than a little sterile.

Firstly, the 4-day TED conference itself is only for special people--admission starts at $7,500 and no that does not include lodging and travel, and you have to have an "invitation"--posh posh--to attend. 

Then, the actual presentations are "closely governed"--speakers are carefully sought out and vetted, material that is counterintuitive is of interest, and "TED's eye for theatre...[with] vigilance about immersion and control" are a strong part of the showmanship. 

However, while on one hand, these things perhaps are a hugh part of the TED success--wash, rinse, repeat--on the other hand, it also makes for a feel that is very scripted, uniform, almost molded. 

The New Yorker article even describes how the speakers practice again and again--repeating their monologues hundreds of times and to whoever will listen. There is essentially nothing impromptu, ad-libbed, or in a sense real about the entertainment-aspect of what you are watching and listening to. 

While the information seems to always be great--the presentation with the speaker, sound, lights, slide show, audience shots, etc.--comes across like a row of identically-built houses in a development. 

Each "house" (or presentation in this case) may be filled with interesting people, things, and love, but on the outside, as one of my friends says--they are identical, so that coming home after a long day at work, you almost don't know at times which row house is yours anymore. 

If TED ever did a lecture on how they could improve TED. these would be some of my suggestions (and there is no gloss here):

- Open it to everyone--Restricting TED to invitation-only is elitist and maybe worse. Opening TED to more people to attend, learn, and enjoy--let's everyone have an opportunity to benefit--regardless of who you are or where you come from.

- Diversify the speakers--It is nice to have scientists and entrepreneurs and stars present at TED, but it would be even nicer to have regular, common people too. Everyone has a story to tell--whether or not you have a Ph.D. or run your own company. While it is great to learn from the "experts," it would be fascinating to hear from everyday people on their challenges and how they deal with them and overcome them or not. Just as an example, regularly, I see an incredible homeless lady on the street in DC--yes, well-dressed, talkative, polite--and I would want to hear how she ended up where she is and how she copes and survives her experiences on the street everyday. The point it that every person is a world onto themselves and worth hearing about--the key is how to get the experiences, the feelings, and the lessons learned. 

- Genuine, less scripted speeches--Part of good entertainment is making it real, but when it is just another (over-)rehearsed performance, the speakers seem almost robotic. Wouldn't it be wonderful to hear human beings talk in a more relaxed and yes, genuine-way about very important human topics of significance to us all? Right now, people crave information --heck, it's the information age and nice informative lectures are racking up the views, but at some point soon, people are going to want and expect more.

- Shake it up with the venue--TED is conservative extraordinaire. The one (or occasionally two or three) speakers on the stage, the dark background and spotlighted speaker, the PowerPoint or Prezi presentation, the dangling microphone, the opening applause, the slow and methodical speech--yes TED is "ideas that inspire," but it is also a venue that bores. Perhaps, if you are an avid conference attendee and like the routine, copy-cat set-ups, you feel at home in TED.  But why not let people talk here, there, and everywhere--let someone speak on the street, in a park, on a ship, or even parachuting off a plane.  How about someone on the International Space Station?  Or on the front lines in a major military engagement. People have a lot to say and where they say it--says a lot about them and adds to their message. A stage is a stage. Even a snake-oil salesman has a soapbox. 

Not to be confused with TED, there are TEDx events--"TED-like" that are organized by volunteers on a community-level, a "do-it-yourself TED" that is occurring at a "global rate of about five per day"--and these come closer to the open ideal, but still more can be done to make TED itself an organization where truly ideas come from all people, for all people.

While TED's brand is exclusive and valuable--perhaps more important is education that is valuable for the masses.

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Juhan Sonin)

TED For Everyone

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other

This is a photo I took at Harpers Ferry.

There was a train coming by pretty fast, and on the flatbeds were what seemed like a endless line of Tractors. 

-- Red, red, red, red, blue, and then red again. 

I hurried to get my iPhone out and capture this photo while the train was rushing by at full speed. 

I love this shot, because it teaches an important lesson about diversity. 

Firstly, it reminds me of the children's song, "One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong."

From early in life, we are taught to conform a certain way--based on norms, culture, values, policies, rules, regulations, laws, religion, and so on. 

There always seems to be a reason that we have to talk, dress, think, and conduct ourselves--properly, politically-correct, and just like everyone else. 

And we are warned that "the nail that sticks out, gets hammered down"--so don't do it--it's too risky--you'll be labeled bad or worse yet, crazy. 

So while creativity and innovation is valued if it can bring someone a nice profit, we are still cautioned not to go out too far on a limb or else you risk getting ridiculed and rejected--hey "you may never work again in this town."

But in this picture, the tractors tell a different story--that it's okay to be a blue tractor in a long parade of red ones. 

No, the blue tractor wasn't a mistake, it isn't abnormal or alien or evil, it's just different and it's cool. 

The blue tractor stands out, but it isn't a bad thing to stand out--and the blue tractor won't get hammered down.

It's okay to be a blue tractor in a long procession of red tractors--and it's great to just be who you are--blue, red, yellow, green, or whatever. 

Conformity is not normalcy--it's just look-alike, copycat, and probably even boring. 

Being different can be novel, inventive, out-of-the-box and exciting--and more important it can usher in needed change.

I think we need more blue tractors in a red tractor world.

Will you take a chance and be a blue tractor too? 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other

Losing Trust In What We Need Most, Each Other

Last month, The Daily Beast (2 April 2012) ran a interesting article on "Why Humans, Like Ants, Need [To Belong] To A Tribe."

Throughout history, people have joined and held allegiance to groups and institutions "to get visceral comfort and pride from familiar fellowship." 

Belonging is a familiar way to get social connection, meaning, and to make the environment "less disorienting and dangerous."
Essentially, what this means it that we stand stronger together than we do alone and apart. 

Today, people search for "like-minded friends, and they yearn to be in the one of the best" groups--from elite fighting forces like our special operations to Ivy League universities, Fortune 500 companies, religious sects, and fraternities--we all want to be part of the best, brightest, and most powerful collectives.

On one hand, tribing is positive, in terms of the close friendships, networks, and associations we form and the problems that we can confront together.

Yet on the other hand, it can be highly negative in terms of bias, distrust, rivalry, outright hostility, and even open warfare that can ensure.

The downside to tribes occurs because their members are prone to ethnocentrism--belief that one's own group is superior to another and is more deserving of success, money, and power, while everyone else in the "out-groups" are deemed inferior, undeserving and worthy of only the leftovers. 

The negative side of tribes can manifest in the proverbial old-boys club at work looking out for each other to people associating hyper-closely with their favorite sports team and their symbolic victories and losses. 

Despite the risks of tribes, we have a strong innate genetic and cultural disposition to groups and institutions and the many benefits they can bring to us, so it is sad to see as The Atlantic reports (21 April 2012), that Americans have "lost trust in one another and the institutions that are supposed to hold us together."

The article states that the reasons for this are that we've been "battered by unbridled commercialism, stymied by an incompetent government beholden to special interests, and flustered by new technology and new media."

The result is that "seven in 10 Americans believe the country is on the wrong track; eight in 10 are dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed."

So there is now a historical break from trusting in our affiliations, institutions, and government to one represented by the motto of "In nothing we trust."

Instead of turning to each other and bonding together to solve large and complex problems, there is the potential that "people could disconnect, refocus, inward, and turn away from their social contract."

Not having a tribe is worse than working through the difficult issues associated with affiliation--a society of alienated people is not better!

When people no longer feel bonded to institutions and the rules and governance they provide, we have a potential social meltdown.

This should of deep concern to everyone, because no man is an island. 

We can see this alienation in action as people withdraw from real world social interaction to spending more and more time online in the virtual world. 

Although there is some measure of interaction on social networks, the connections are at arms-length; when it gets inconvenient, we can just log off.  

One might argue that people are still affiliated with stakeholder-driven organizations and institutions (the government, the workplace, religion, etc.), but unfortunately these are being seen as having been usurped by false prophets and marketing types who who will say whatever it takes to get the popular nod and the job, and by fraudulent leaders who are in it to take far more than they ever planned to give.

What needs to happen now is to re-institute belief in the group by insisting on leaders that have integrity and a governance process underpinned by accountability, transparency, and diversity. 
 
To get out of our web of socio-economic problems, group trust and affiliation is vital to solving problems together. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to CraigTaylor1974)

Losing Trust In What We Need Most, Each Other

Leadership Is Not A One Personality World

An article in the Federal Times (13 November 2011) called "To Change Government's Culture, Recruit Leader, Not Loners" was very unfortunate.
According to the author, Steven L. Katz, "Government in particular, attracts, rewards, and promotes people who want to be left alone. As a result we have a government of loners...seen in the scarcity of people with a healthy balance of substantive and social skills who are needed for leadership, management, and bringing projects large and small to completion."
Katz identifies these "loners" as Myers-Briggs ISTJ--Introverted Sensing Thinking and Judging. Moreover, he proposes that we consider "more people who test in the range of Myers-Briggs ENTJ--Extroverted Intuitive Thinking Judging"--to assume the leadership mantle instead.
In other words, Katz has a problem with people who are introverted and sensing. In particular, it seems that the introversion type really has Katz all bent out of shape--since this is what he rails at as the loners in our organizations. What a shame!
Katz is wrong on almost all accounts, except that we need people who can communicate and collaborate and not just in government:
1) Diversity Down The Toilet--Katz only acknowledges two Myers-Briggs Types in our diverse population--ENTJ and ISTJ. He is either unaware of or ignores the other 14 categories of people on the continuum, and he promotes only one type the ENTJ--1/16 of the types of people out there--so much for diversity!
Further, Katz makes the stereotypical and mistaken assumptions that introverts are shy and ineffectual, which as pointed out in Psychology Today in 2009 (quoted in Jobboom) "Not everyone who is shy is introverted, and not everyone who's charismatic and cheerful is extroverted." Further, shy people are 'routinely misunderstood as cold, aloof, or stuck up."
Katz missed the point as taught at OPM's Federal Executive Institute that all of us have something to learn, teach, and a preferred pathway to excellence.
2) By the Numbers--Contrary to Katz's implication that introverts are a small and social inept portion of population that should shunned, a report in USA Today in 2009 states that '50% of baby boomers are introverts" as are 38% of those born after 1981 with the onset on the modern computing age, Internet, and social media. Interestingly enough, Katz is even dissatisfied with these Millennials who according to him: their "dominant form of communication and relationships is online and on cellphones."
Moreover, according to a 2006 article in USA Today quoted on Monster.com, "Introverts are so effective in the workplace, they make up an estimated 40% of executives."
Included in these successful introverts are people like "Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg, Diane Sawyer, Andrea Jung, and Bill Nardelli"--Sorry, Steve!
3) Situational Leadership Is Key--While Katz is busy searching for personality type scapegoats to government problems, he is missing the point that Myers-Briggs is "neither judgmental not pejorative" and instead "helps assess the fit between person and job" (Reference: The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in Organizations: A Resource Book).
In fact, according to a recent study published in Harvard Business Review (4 October 2010), introverts are not only incredibly effective, but are "the best leaders for proactive employees." Moreover, HBR points out that "Both types of leaders, the extraverts and the introverts, can be equally successful or ineffectual..."
So for example, Introvert leaders (who are "more likely to listen to and process the ideas") tend to be better leaders in a situation with a extroverted team, while extroverted leaders (who "end up doing a lot of the talking") tend to excel with a more introverted one.
However, the ultimate key according to HBR is "to encourage introverted and extraverted behavior in any given situation"--that is to use situational leadership to lead and manage according to the situation at hand, and not as a one personality type fits all world!
Katz is right that communication and collaboration are critical skills, but he is wrong that there is only one personality type that gets us all there.
(Source Photo: here)

Leadership Is Not A One Personality World

Growing America's Jobs

ABC News reported tonight of a home builder in Montana making a house entirely from American made products--as difficult as they are to find.

The home uses more than 120 products from 33 states and costs only 1 to 2% more than a foreign-sourced one.

The builder who is also an economist says that if builders around the country would just increase their use of made in the USA products by 5%, we could increase jobs by over 220,000 right now.

Multiple it by ten, if we actually produced these homes 50% or more here in the USA--that's 2+ million jobs.

It makes you wonder if all the outsourcing is just another addiction where we feel good now--by saving a little today at the checkout line--but we pay the piper down the road, through the gutting of our own labor force and the future capacity for us to produce.

While, I don't believe in circle-the-wagon protectionism out of fear of competing in the global marketplace, I do think we need to assess the deals we make to ensure that we are getting the best for our people and our future--and not just for the next quarter or two, but for the long-term!

Having started my career in business, I am well aware that this is "one big balance sheet" and things have to add up or else short-term profits today are made at the expense of long-term capabilities tomorrow.

If the strategy was that we would somehow give the blue collar work to others and keep the white collar work for ourselves, it seems like we have deluded ourselves into thinking that a one-size fits all economy will keep America running.

We need broad based opportunities for our diverse workforce in all areas of work, and we need to remain strategically self-sufficient, so that we do not outsource ourselves to economic death, where we lose the know-how or capability to help ourselves.

Buy, build, and work America into an economic powerhouse that the world relies on, rather than one that is fed by others with economic loans and cheap goods made in wherever-land.

In my opinion, there is no real alternative to balancing the national budget as well our current account deficit--if we consistently spend more than we earn, and the ships keep unloading more stuff here and then going back overseas half empty, eventually the system has got to go kaput!

As the world's superpower, our coffers can once again be full and our ships can brim proud with made in America wares--but this can happen only if we focus on products that outlast, outlook, and outperform.

Competition has never been more fierce and the stakes never higher for us individually and as a nation--we will need technology to keep us steadily improving and releasing the pressure from this enormous economic cooker.

(Source Photo: here)

Growing America's Jobs

Under "The Thicker Skin"

Yesterday, I heard Pastor Robert Jeffress of a mega church in Dallas get on national television and tell Christians not to vote for a presidential candidate--Mitt Romney--because he's a Mormon and went on to describe Mormonism as a cult.

What was so shocking was that there was no basis for the decision to vote or not to vote for someone based on political issues driving the discussion, it was purely one of religious intolerance.

I imagined how candidate Mitt Romney (and the Mormon establishment) must feel like to be subjected to a form of discrimination and stereotypical name calling just because of their religious faith.

Unfortunately, religious and other forms of bigotry and hatred are not new, but they are invective and undermining.

I personally remember a situation at a organization, where I was treated religiously unfairly.

There was a planned offsite meeting at the agency, and the meeting was going to run through lunch, so lunch was being ordered.

Being Jewish, I asked if a salad or tuna sandwich or anything Kosher or vegetarian could be made available so that I could participate.

I was told by email that if I wanted anything special, I could bring it from home.

Not a problem--I didn't want to be a "Jewish problem"--I can certainly bring my own food and I did.

However, when I got to the meeting and saw the lunch spread, the agency had ordered a special meal for someone else who was vegan--not a religious preference, just a dietary one.

Try imagining just for a second how it felt to be told that you could not be accommodated for anything kosher, but someone else would be "just because."

I brought this to the attention of the "powers that be," but was told that I should go "develop a thicker skin."

Well if the thicker skin means to become part of a group that practices intolerance and bigotry, it's time to peel away that callous!

How people vote and how we treat our fellow man should not depend on their religion, where they come from, or the color of the skin.

In a year, when the memorial for Martin Luther King, Jr. was unveiled on the National Mall, the dream for tolerance and freedom still has considerable room to blossom.

Hopefully, society wil continue to develop not a thicker skin, but a gentler kinder heart that embraces each, for what they can bring to the table.

(Source Photo: here)

Under "The Thicker Skin"

Brain Sharing is Eye Opening

This is a neat video and idea from GOOD called "Brain Sharing" by Lincoln Schatz.

The idea...what if we could plug in to someone else's brain and see the world the way they do (for a period of time) or as they say in the video "swap CPUs"?

(This is a little reminiscent of the Borg from Star Trek, where species are plugged into the Collective and become sort of one ultimate race or similarly in the movie the Matrix, where people are plugged into a master computer program that runs their world--although here it's not an ominous context.)

But back to the point--what a powerful concept.

Rather than see things the way we see them, and think that's the way it is, period; instead we temporarily plug into someone else's brain (bionic implants away!) and whoa, we have the opportunity to see the world the way others see it and process the world the way they do--that is eye opening!

All of a sudden, things are not quite so simple. It's not black and white, as they say, but lots of shades of grey.

Of course, I still believe that there is objective ethics and morality from G-d for us to live by and therefore we can distinguish right from wrong, which we are often are forced to chose.

However, when we are seeing choices through others persons eyes and processing through their brains, we may see the problems anew with different variables and effects as well as see new options for solving them that we didn't even see before.

That's a great thing about being a diverse society and bringing multiple views, vantage points, and brains to the table--we can innovate together beyond the limitation of any one of us alone.

This isn't necessarily a new concept, but still one that is very important, often forgotten, and one well captured in this GOOD video.

P.S. Maybe an interesting exercise is to think about make a list of whose brains you'd like to share for a while (if only you could) and see the world the way they do.

Brain Sharing is Eye Opening

A Music Video with a Vision For Peace and Unity

This video was just great!

This is a world target architecture that I can buy into, any day.

A Music Video with a Vision For Peace and Unity

Are Feds Less Creative?

Contrary to the stereotype, in my observation government employees are just as creative as those in the private sector. The reason they may not seem this way is that they typically think very long and hard about the consequences of any proposed change.

Once an agency has tentatively decided on a course of action, it still takes some time to “go to market” with new ideas, for a few (to my mind) solid reasons:

• We are motivated by public service. One of the key elements of that is our national security and so we must balance change with maintaining stability, order, and safety for our citizens. In contrast, the motivation in the private sector is financial, and that is why companies are willing to take greater risks and move more quickly. If they don’t they will be out of business, period.
• We have many diverse stakeholders and we encourage them to provide their perspectives with us. We engage in significant deliberation based on their input to balance their needs against each other. In the private sector, that kind of deliberation is not always required or even necessarily even desired because the marketplace demands speed.

The fact that process is so critical in government explains why IT disciplines such as enterprise architecture planning and governance are so important to enabling innovation. These frameworks enable a process-driven bureaucracy to actually look at what’s possible and come up with ways to get there, versus just resting on our laurels and maintaining the “perpetual status quo.”

Aside from individual employees, there are a number of organizational factors to consider in terms of government innovation:

• Sheer size—you’re not turning around a canoe, you’re turning around an aircraft carrier.
• Culture—a preference for being “safe rather than sorry” because if you make a mistake, it can be disastrous to millions of people—in terms of life, liberty, and property. The risk equation is vastly different.

Although it may sometimes seem like government is moving slowly, in reality we are moving forward all the time in terms of ideation, innovation, and modernization. As an example, the role of the CTO in government is all about discovering innovative ways to perform the mission.

Some other prominent examples of this forward momentum are currently underway—social media, cloud computing, mobility solutions, green computing, and more.

Here are three things we can do to be more innovative:

• From the people perspective, we need to move from being silo based to enterprise based (or what some people called Enterprise 2.0). We need to change a culture from where information is power and currency and where people hoard it, to where we share information freely and openly. And this is what the Open Government Directive is all about. The idea is that when we share, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
• In terms of process, we need to move from a culture of day-to-day tactical firefighting, to more strategic formulation and execution. Instead of short-term results, we need to focus on intermediate and long-term outcomes for the organization. If we’re so caught up in the issue of the day, then we’ll never get there.
• And from a technology perspective, we need to continue to move increasingly toward digital-based solutions versus paper. That means that we embrace technologies to get our information online, shared, and accessible.

Innovation is something that we all must embrace—particularly in the public sector, where the implications of positive change are so vast. Thankfully, we have a system of checks and balances in our government that can help to guide us along the way.

Note: I’ll be talking about innovation this week in D.C. at Meritalk’s “Innovation Nation 2010” – the “Edge Warriors” panel.

Are Feds Less Creative?

Nurture Diversity to Achieve Better Results

Diversity is essential to critical thinking, innovation, and improved decision-making/governance. The more ways we have at looking at a problem, the more likely we can be to challenge the status quo, break old paradigms, and find new and better ways of doing things.

However, according to the Wall Street Journal, 25 January 2010, often diversity—even at the highest levels, such as on boards of directors—doesn’t produce the desired results.

WHY? “People often feel baffled, threatened or even annoyed by persons with views and backgrounds very different from their own. The result is that [those]…with views or backgrounds that are different are isolated or ignored. [Moreover,] constructive disagreements spill over into personal battles.” In the end, Groupthink and poor decision-making—rather than diversity and constructive dialogue—prevails.

Therefore, the imperative to improve governance mechanisms is “to unlock the benefits of diversity, boards must learn to work with colleagues who were selected not because they fit in—but because they don’t.”

WHAT WE NEED TO DO:

1. “Assist Newcomers”—Help new people to fit in. Explain how things work and how they can play an important role. Introduce them to others, provide them opportunities to connect, and make them feel comfortable to share their points of view.

2. Encourage Dissent—“diverse boards must not be afraid of conflict, as long as it is constructive and civil.” Alternate views should be encouraged, recognized, and even rewarded for benefiting the governance process.

3. Ask Everyone What They Think-- It is easy for new people “to tire of the struggle of making themselves heard. Feeling isolated and ignored, they end up self-censoring.” Obviously, this is counter-productive to having diversity and hurts decision-making. So the chair of the board needs to make it easy for people to express their views and to elicit participation from everyone around the table.

4. Assign a “Devil’s Advocate”—choose different governance board members to play the role of devil’s advocate at different meetings to counter the inclination for everyone to agree just to get along and fit in.

Overall, the key to benefiting from diversity on governance boards is not to let any individual or any group predominate. The proverbial “my way or the highway” approach is how decision-making becomes one-sided, narrow, and deficient. Instead, every one on the board must be treated with respect, courtesy, and be given the opportunity to speak their mind.

In my opinion, leaders must ensure that governance boards do not just create an appearance of diversity, but rather encourage a genuine and productive encounter between very different people that is richer for the interaction.

Nurture Diversity to Achieve Better Results