When TMI Is PC

An interesting editorial in the New York Times (19 August 2012) bemoans the state of affairs in the workplace, where generation Y'ers, take the liberty of sharing too much [personal] information (TMI) with others.

The author, Peggy Klaus, gives examples of young workers talking about their looking for other positions, recounting family birthing experiences, or discussing sexual exploits or a shortage thereof. 

Klaus see this as a carryover of people's online social behavior or what she calls "Facebook in your face"--where you "tell everybody everything"--whether appropriate or important, or not at all!

Similarly, this behavior is viewed by some as young people simply acting out what they learned from their helicopter parents--who instilled "an overblown sense of worth" on them--where every poop is worth sharing from infancy through adulthood. 

Ms. Klaus refers to this as O.S.D. or Obsessive Sharing Disorder--and she instead calls for "decency, common sense, and just plain good manners" in deciding what to share and when.

While I agree with a certain amount of base political correctness and decorum in the office, I think too much control (TMC) over our workforce is not a good thing.

We cannot expect people to fit in, be enthusiastic about coming to work, and be innovative and productive in their jobs--when they have to constantly be on guard--watching what they say and what they do, and worrying about making any mistake. 

Assuming that people are not doing anything that hurts themselves or others, I think we should give people more room to breath, be themselves, and to self-actualize.

Holding the reins too tightly on workers, risks developing a cookie-cutter workforce--where everyone must look-alike, talk-alike, and think-alike--like virtual automatons--and such a telling and controlling environment destroys the very motivated, creative, and entrepreneurial workforce we desire and need to be globally competitive and individually fulfilled. 

Best practices for teleworking, flexible work schedules, and clubs and activities at work that let people be human and themselves--makes for a happier, more committed, and more productive workforce. 

Creating climates of workplace sterility, and fear and intimidation for every miscued word or imperfect deed--is neither realistic for human beings that are prone to make mistakes--nor conducive to learning and growing to be the best that each person can be.

I am not a generation Y'er, but I appreciate people who are real, words that are sincere, and deeds that are their personal best--whether it's the way I would do it or not. 

Yes, don't talk and act stupid at work--and shame yourself or others with hateful or abusive behavior--but do feel free to be honestly you as an individual and as a contributor to the broader team--that is better than a zombie army of worker bees who faithfully watch every word and constrain every deed. 

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Irregular Shed)

When TMI Is PC

Changing Organizational Fear To Firepower

Senator Chuck Grassley posted a video of the Acting Director of the ATF sternly warning employees that "if you don't find the appropriate way to raise your concerns to your leadership, there will be consequences."

But as Senator Grassley has pointed out in the video's description--"the essence of whistle-blowing is reporting problems outside of an employees chain of command." In other words, reporting problems to external oversight authorities like Congress is an important and protected action in exposing shortcomings and addressing potentially serious issues.

The Congressional Research Service provides an overview of The Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) of 1989--basically, as I understand it, WPA protects federal whistleblowers who report gross agency misconduct (e.g. mismanagement, waste, and abuse) and prohibits threatening or taking retaliatory personnel action.  Moreover, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) was introduced in 2009 to broaden the protections to, I believe, more violations except minor or inadvertent, but this has not yet been passed.  Further, the Office of Special Counsel investigates whistleblower complaints.

Unfortunately, as pointed out in The American Thinker, employees have taken the message as "a warning to keep their mouths shut," especially after agents exposed the Fast and Furious failed gun-running operation to Congress in 2011.

An agent quoted in The Washington Guardian states: "The message was unmistakable. Keep your head down and the only way you can report wrongdoing is by going to your chain of command. It was chilling, Orwellian and intimidating. What are you supposed to do if your chain of command is the one you think is involved in the wrongdoing? That was why OSC and IGs were created."

President Obama's Transition Website states more clearly how whistleblowers should be viewed and treated: “Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance.”

Whether one works in the government or the private sector, actions that are taken as bullying is problematic, not only from the perspective of morale but also in terms of productivity,  as pointed out in an article in SelfGrowth called Leadership: Are You a Bully Leader?

"Bully leadership is sharp, authoritative, angry, and feels uncomfortable to those in contact with it...the bully leader bark out orders, threatens consequences and use strong, harsh statements..." as many have clearly come away from with this video.

In a dysfunctional organization where employees are bullied and threatened, the results are devastating to employees and to the vital mission they serve:

- Stifling productivity--employees do not give their all--they "do what needs to be done and that is all. They don't go above and beyond," so productivity declines precipitously.

- Stomping out ideas--since the bully leader "needs to be the one with the great ideas," employees don't share their input--they know to keep it to themselves.

- Squashing effectiveness--bully leaders want to control everything and "lack trust in other people," the result is a negative (and perhaps even a hostile) work environment where motivation, quality, and effectiveness are decimated.

It leads me to wonder, can those who lead by fear become more inspiring figures who empower employees and engender communication, trust, and fairness?

Obviously, changing a dysfunctional organizational culture is probably one of the hardest things to do, because the most fundamental everyday norms and “values” that the organization runs on must be overhauled.

However, it can be done, if top leadership on down is sincere and committed to change. The goals should include things like effective collaboration, delegation, empowerment, and recognition and reward.

Fear and intimidation have no place in the workplace, and all employees should be valued and respected, period.

We should encourage employees to speak out sincerely when there are issues that cannot be resolved through normal channels.

In the end, the most positive change will be when we strive to build a workplace where employees can focus on serving the mission rather than worrying about being afraid.

This post shouldn’t be seen as a referendum on any one organization, but rather a way forward for all organizations that seek to raise the bar on performance and morale.

I know that the people of ATF are highly principled and committed, because I worked there (in IT, of course) and am proud to recall their tremendous efforts.

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Changing Organizational Fear To Firepower

Understanding Risk Management

Information Security, like all security, needs to be managed on a risk management basis.  

This is a fundamental principle that was prior advocated for the Department of Homeland Security, by the former Secretary Michael Chertoff.  

The basic premise is that we have limited resources to cover ever changing and expanding risks, and that therefore, we must put our security resources to the greatest risks first.

Daniel Ryan and Julie Ryan (1995) came up with a simple formula for determining risks, as follows:

Risk = [(Threats x Vulnerabilities) / Countermeasures)]  x  Impact

Where:

- Threats = those who wish do you harm.

- Vulnerabilities = inherent weaknesses or design flaws.

- Countermeasures = the things you do to protect against the dangers imposed.

[Together, threats and vulnerabilities, offset by any countermeasures, is the probability or likelihood of a potential (negative) event occurring.]

- Impacts = the damage or potential loss that would be done.

Of course, in a perfect world, we would like to reduce risk to zero and be completely secure, but in the real world, the cost of achieving total risk avoidance is cost prohibitive. 

For example, with information systems, the only way to hypothetically eliminate all risk is by disconnecting (and turning off) all your computing resources, thereby isolating yourself from any and all threats. But as we know, this is counterproductive, since there is a positive correlation between connectivity and productivity. When connectivity goes down, so does productivity.

Thus, in the absence of being able to completely eliminate risk, we are left with managing risk and particularly with securing critical infrastructure protection (CIP) through the prioritization of the highest security risks and securing these, going down that list until we exhaust our available resources to issue countermeasures with.

In a sense, being unable to "get rid of risk" or fully secure ourselves from anything bad happening to us is a philosophically imperfect answer and leaves me feeling unsatisfied--in other words, what good is security if we can't ever really have it anyway?

I guess the ultimate risk we all face is the risk of our own mortality. In response all we can do is accept our limitations and take action on the rest.

(Source Photo: here with attribution to martinluff)

Understanding Risk Management

Don't Let Them Fling It Onto You

So this guy has a job where he is at the front of a line of people passing buckets of sh*t to the next guy in the line. 

A stranger comes along and asks him what he is doing--"what is your job?"

The man passing the buckets replies, "I am a manager."

The stranger looks askew and quite puzzled, he asks, "What makes you think you're a manager?" 

The man at the front of the line answers "because I don't take no sh*t from anybody!" :-)

And so it goes, we work on "the line" whether passing buckets or pushing papers, and someone in the front thinks they are the boss or superior--and as someone from the military once told me, "I don't take sh*t. I give sh*t!" 

Unfortunately, for those of us who humbly go to work to do our jobs, the prevalence of workplace bullies--who push their weight around can make our (work) life very unpleasant and unproductive. 

A Zogby poll in 2007 found that 49% of workers had experienced or witnessed workplace bullying--and this included all sorts of harassment such as verbal abuse, sabotaging someones job, and abusing their authority.

Workplace bullying is being called a "silent epidemic" with a full 37% or 54 million workers in the U.S. having suffered at the hands of a workplace bully. 

The results, of course, can be devastating not only for the person's job, but often they (45%) suffer adverse psychological and physical health impacts. 

Further, as we know, when people suffer, their families usually suffer along with them, so the ultimate impact in terms of the number of people affected is disproportional to those those who experience bullying firsthand. 

Aside from the people impact of bullying, the organization and its mission suffers in terms of elevated absenteeism, decreased morale, lower productivity, and stunted innovation. 

This is why aside from the basic humanitarian aspects, an organization should be extremely watchful for and weed out bullies in the workplace. 

However, when bullies, are front and center in the leadership ranks of the organization, the problem is all the greater, because others lower in the hierarchy, but also at senior levels may be hesitant to address the issue. 

They are scared to confront the bully as perhaps they should be given the bully's threatening posture and deeds. 

But the answer is not to get personal, but rather to make it objective--know the laws and policies that protect you, document the events, identify any witnesses, discuss with organization representatives charged with investigating possible wrong-doing, and seek legal counsel, where appropriate.

Probably, the most important thing is to be clear that like the manager at the front of the line, you do not accept sh*t from anyone--that you and your family's health and well-being deserve at least that much.

(Source Photo: here with attribution to EverJean)

Don't Let Them Fling It Onto You

Speak Up or Shut Up

We've all been there--organizations that are run by the king or queen and their proverbial gang of 6 or 7 or 8 or 9.

These are the organizations that are dominated by powerful, but narcissistic leadership (notice I do not call them leaders--because they are not). 

According to Forbes, (11 January 2012) in an article entitled Why Narcissistic CEOs Kill Their Companies, in these organizations, the c-suite is dominated by those showing four narcissistic personality traits:

- Exploitative--They are in charge and everyone else had better respect--or better yet worship--them. Typically they are surrounded by "yes men" and eager beavers, ready to please at just about all costs. 

- Authoritarian--They insist on "being the center of attention," they always know better, are always right even in the face of evidence to the contrary, and with their people, it's their way or the highway. 

- Arrogant--They are full of themselves and usually something else :-) and believe they are superior and therefore entitled to their positions of power and stature.

- Self-Absorbed--They admire and and are preoccupied with themselves, and not focused on what's ultimately good for the organization, the mission, and its people. 

In such organizations, and with such pitiful leadership, generally we find cultures of fear and what Harvard Business Review (January-February 2012) says are organizations where people "are afraid to speak honestly."

In these dysfunctional organizations with inept leadership, the workforce is stunted--they cannot genuinely contribute or grow and where organizational candor, trust, and collaboration is low, organizational performance is predictably poor.

HBR suggests that greater candor and sharing is possible by "breaking meetings into smaller groups," assigning people to "notice and speak up when something is being left unsaid," and to "teach 'caring-criticism'"--where input is provided constructively and not personally attacking and where honest feedback is viewed as "generous, rather than critical."

I think these suggestions may help organizations that are fundamentally well-run by caring and professional leaders, but when narcissists and power mongers rule the day, then the culture is not speak up, but rather shut up. 

One of the things that I have been fortunate to experience and learn is that diplomacy from the top-down goes a long way in creating a professional and productive work culture. 

When people are given respect and the freedom to speak up constructively, when they can work in true-teaming environments, and when relationships matter more than winning the day, then the workforce and all the individuals therein have the opportunity to grow to their potential. In speak up organizations, people can voice their opinions, provide valuable input, and contribute to the mission--both the people and the organization thrive. 

In contrast, when the workplace is shut up, because of narcissistic and poor leadership, the workforce is essentially shut down--they are in essence muzzled in speech and ultimately in deed. These organizations choke off their own talent and lifeblood, while their head swells from the arrogance and power at the top.

Diplomacy is a skill not only in international relations, but in life and in the workplace, and diplomatic leaders are not narcissists trying to wield and hold power, but rather polished and professional leaders who foster a culture of speak up and team up--they are ready to take their organizations and people to new levels of productivity, growth, and meaning.

Speak Up or Shut Up

What's Relationships Got To Do With It

It is said that one of the key differences between leaders and staff is that leaders are supposed to spend significantly more time on relationships, while staff tend to concentrate on the task at hand.

A number of professors from the University of Virginia indicated that leaders who didn't spend at least 50% of their time and effort on relationship building, tended to be much less successful professionally.

According to them, there are 3 areas of professional competence--i.e. necessary skill-sets:

1) Technical--what you need to know in terms of subject matter expertise to do your job (e.g. finance, engineering, sales, etc.)

2) Cognitive--these are the information-processing abilities to reason and problem-solve (e.g. perception, learning, judging, insight, etc.)

3) Relationship--this is interpersonal skills and emotional intelligence (e.g. teaming, motivating, resolving-conflict, influencing, etc.)

As you role changes from staff to supervisor and to manager, so does your time spent:

- Staff: Technical 60%, Cognitive 20%, Relationships 20%

- Supervisors: Technical 40%, Cognitive 25%, Relationships 35%

- Manager: Technical 15%, Cognitive 35%, Relationships 50%

In others words, as you advance from staff to management, you job changes from being the "technical expert" to spending more time solving specific problems and building relationships.

Additionally, managers who delegated, supported, trusted, and empowered, and didn't micromanage the tasks--we're the kinds of managers/leaders that people wanted to work for and would give more of themselves to.

So leaders who excel at building meaningful professional relationships, benefit not only from developing important and trusting networks of people around them, but also from actually developing a more satisfied and productive workforce.

Relationship building is much more than the proverbial "3-martini lunch,"--although 1 or 2 don't hurt :-)--rather it means:

1) Identifying and surrounding yourself with people that are smarter than yourself--relationships are most fruitful and enjoyable with someone that can challenge you.

2) Reaching outside your "normal" boundaries (organizational, functional, industry, geography) to diversify the sphere of influence--new ideas and best practices are not limited to any one domain.

3) Ensuring that integrity and trust are cornerstones of any any relationship--there is no compromising values and principles for any relationship!

4) Giving of yourself in terms of self-disclosure, assistance to others, and our most precious resource of time--relationships are not built on thin air, but involve work by both parties; it's an investment.

Finally, while relationship-building is critical to leadership success, it is important to surround ourselves with the "right" people as Harvard Business Review (July-August 2011) states this month: "Bring people with positive energy into your inner circle. If those around you are enthusiastic, authentic, and generous, you will be too."

So choose your professional network as carefully as you would choose your friends.

(Source Photo: here)

What's Relationships Got To Do With It

How Leaders Can Imitate Art

Mental Floss (July-August 2011) has an article on the awesome art of "Christo and Jeanne-Claude." Their pieces are large, imposing, and environmentally-based. Some examples are:

1) The Umbrella (1991)--Installed 3,100 umbrellas across a 12-mile stretch in California and an 18-mile stretch in Japan."

2) The Gates (2005)--Erected "7,503 steel gates, each with a giant rectangle of orange fabric flowing from it."

3) Surrounded Islands (1983)--"Surrounded 11 uninhabited islands in Biscayne Bay with 700,000 square yards of pink fabric."

4) Wrapped Reichstag (1995)--Wrapped the German parliament in "119,600 square yards of shimmering silver fabric."

What I like about their art is the duality of on one hand, magnitude of the projects--they are huge!--and on the other hand, the utter simplicity of it--such as using a single color fabric to just line up along, spread over, or surround something.

Further, I really like their use of contrasts whether it is the colors of the blue water and green islands with the pink ribbon or the lush green valley with the blue umbrellas--it is in every case dynamic and spell-binding.

Each work even in a microcosm would be beautiful, but when done on a massive scale like with the entire German Parliament building or on multiple continents simultaneously, it takes on an air of magic, almost like Houdini.

Jeanne-Claude passed away in 2009, but together she and Christo created "20 gargantuan works of art, and Christo carries on the "couples's 45 years of collaboration" with new works today.

To me, Christo and Jeanne-Claude are incredibly inspirational:

1) They were highly productive and developed a multitude of magnificent works of art.

2) They defined a sense of beauty in both urban and rural settings that combined the natural surroundings and augmented it with human interventions to complete the creative process.

3) They took on monumental tasks, "funded all the projects themselves," and would obsessively plan all the details to get it right.

4) The were truly collaborative--Christo was the artist and Jeanne-Claude his encouragement and manager, yet they considered each other "equal partners in the creative process."

Their work reminds me of floating in virtual reality like in Second Life, but in this case, it's the real thing. And it's incredibly important because it teaches us that we are partners in the creative process and can do enormously great things in simple and beautiful ways. Similarly, true leadership is about being one with our surroundings, at peace, and yet envisioning how to improve on it and make the good things, spectacular.

(Source Photos of Umbrella and Gates: Wikipedia, and of Islands and Reichstag: here)

See the full gallery on Posterous

How Leaders Can Imitate Art

Busting The Organizational Bunkers

There is a law in Switzerland that every citizen has to have quick access to a bomb shelter and that all new residences be outfitted with these.

According to the Wall Street Journal (25-26 June 2011), there are over 300,000 swiss bunkers with enough room "to shelter all 7.6 million citizens" and with 1 million to spare!

Yet, the Swiss continue to add 50,000 new spots a year in the bomb shelters.

Note, these are not just a proverbial hole in the wall shelter, but bomb bunkers able to withstand the "impact of a 12-megaton explosion at a distance of [only] 700 meters (765 yards)"--this is 800 times the energy discharged in the bombing of Hiroshima!

So the Swiss are very serious about sheltering themselves.

According to Swiss Info Channel, this preoccupation began in the 1960s with fear of nuclear attack and soviet invasion. Hence the slogan at the time, "Neutrality is no guarantee against radioactivity."

Despite the high cost of these shelters and the end of the Cold War, the Swiss hold dear to their shelters to protect against the variety of new dangers out there from terrorist's dirty bombs to nuclear/chemical/biological accidents, and natural disasters--and the recent events with Fukushima only served to reinforce those beliefs.

The WSJ points out, preparedness comes "second nature" to them--they popularized the Swiss pocket knife, they still have a mandatory military draft for men, and aside from the U.S. and Yemen, they have more guns per capita than anyone else out there.

I find their obsession with security fascinating, especially since they are a neutral country and haven't had a major conflict for about 200 years.

Perhaps, the Swiss as a small country surrounded by Germany, France, Italy, and Austria that were pummeled in World Wars I and II, witnessed enough bloodshed to be forever changed.

It reminds me of organizations with defective cultures, where employees see others beaten down so often and so long, they simply learn to keep their mouths shut and their heads down. They have in a sense learned to "shelter in place."

Of course, being prepared to duck when something is thrown at you is a good thing, but when you are perpetually stuck in a ducking stance, then something is wrong.

I admire the Swiss and the Israeli's propensity to prepare and survive, when they are the David's amidst the Goliath's.

However, in an organizational context, I am concerned when I see so many employees hiding in shelters, afraid to speak up and contribute, because they have been marginalized by broken organization cultures.

The organization is not the place for bunkers, it is the place for collaboration and productivity.

(All opinions my own)

(Photo Source: Facts Worth Knowing)

Busting The Organizational Bunkers

Purpose Drives Productivity

Enjoyed speaking with Francis Rose today on Federal News Radio (1500 AM) on the subject of employee motivation, especially in a challenging budgetary environment.

Overall I tried to convey the importance of managers communicating to people how very important they are to the mission.

Everyone has to eat, but without a sense of purpose, we feel lost.

Hope you enjoy this audio of the interview.

(Source Photo: Photobucket)

Purpose Drives Productivity

Hooray For Motivation

Much has been written about the importance of meaning in driving a productive and motivated workforce.

Already in 1964, Frederick Herzberg's Motivation-Hygiene Theory differentiated work satisfiers (aka motivators) such as challenging work, achievement, and responsibility, from dis-satisfiers (aka hygiene factors) such as the absence of status, job security, adequate salary/benefits, and pleasant work conditions.

In other words, motivation is driven primarily by the underlying meaningful and the productive work, not by the context of the work such as the money and fringe benefits.

In that vein, Harvard Business Review in "A Spotlight on Productivity" in May 2011 describes how poor managers "unwittingly drain work of its meaning"--in essence destroying their employees motivation and their productivity.

1) Trivializing Your Workers Input--"managers may dismiss the importance of employees work or ideas." In a sense, this one is about marginalizing employees, their creativity, and their contributions and is extremely destructive to the employees and the organization.

2) Decoupling Employee Ownership From Their Work--"Frequent and abrupt reassignments often have this affect." Also, not assigning clear roles and responsibilities to projects can have this affect. Either way, if employees don't have ownership of their projects, then the productivity will suffer amidst the workplace chaos and lack of ultimate accountability for "your work."

3) The Big Black Hole--"Managers may send the message that the work employees are doing will never see the light of day." In other words, employees are just being forced to "spin their wheels" and their is truly no purpose to the "shelfware" they are producing.

4) Communication, Not--Managers "may neglect to inform employees about unexpected changes in a customers priorities" or a shift in organizational strategy due to changes in internal or external market drivers. When employees don't know that the landscape has shifted and moreover are not involved in the decision process, they may not know what has changed, why, or feel invested in it. Without adequate communication, you will actually be leaving your employees blind and your organization behind.

So while it is tempting to think that we can drive a great work force through pay, benefits and titles alone, the lesson is clear...these are not what ultimately attracts and retains a talented and productive work force.

The magic sauce is clear--help your work force to know and feel two things:

1) Their work--is ultimately useful and usable.

2) That they--are important and have a future of growth and challenge.

When they and their work mean something, they will get behind it and truly own it.

In short: mean something, do something.

To get this outcome, I believe managers have to:

1) Make the meaning explicit--Identify your customers, the services you are providing, and articulate why it is important to provide these.

2) Determine strengths and weaknesses of each employee and capitalize on their strengths, while at the same time coach, mentor, and train to the weaknesses.

3) When workers go "off track," be able to give them constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement without demeaning and demoralizing them.

4) Find the inner strength and self confidence not to be threatened by your employees actually doing a good job and being productive--that's ultimately what you've hired them for!

5) Recognize the importance of everyone's contributions--It is not a one-person show, and it takes a bigger boss to recognize that other people's contributions don't take away from their own.

6) Be a team and communicate, honestly and openly--information hoarding and being the smartest one in the room is an ego thing; the best leaders (such as Jack Welch) surround themselves with people that are smarter than them and information is something to be leveraged for the team's benefit, not weaponized by the individual.

There are more, but this is just a blog and not a book...so hopefully more to come on this topic.

Hooray For Motivation

Balance, Not Brute Force

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

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

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

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

But what are we getting from all the hypercompetition?

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

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

What are we doing to our children and ourselves?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Balance, Not Brute Force

Apple: #1 Super Bowl Commercial Of All Time

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

Apple showed the world their understanding that:

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

- The other "blah"--not user-centric--technology offered by the "Big Brother(s)" of the time was seducing the masses into a blind morass--a kind of an enslavement of our productive energies.

Apple was not, and is not afraid, to come out and break the paradigm and that what makes them a great company.

Innovate, innovate, innovate for a better future for mankind.

In life, there is always choice between what is and what could be and that 's what drives our competitive juices.

Apple: #1 Super Bowl Commercial Of All Time

Half Man, Half Machine

I continue with my infatuation with everything robotics.

Here, the new Second Generation Exoskeleton Robotic Suit, the XOS 2, from Raytheon (Note: this is not a vendor endorsement)

Life imitating art--these robotic suits have been a favorite in Iron Man and the movie Alien.

I can't forget the scene in Alien when Sigourney Weaver puts on the robotic suit to fight the alien on the shuttle and blasts the alien into deep space.

In only 3-5 years, our military men and women will be wearing these and fighting with super-human capabilities.

The big hang-up with these right now is that they are tethered to a power supply, which limits mobility, but as the video explains, untethered versions will be coming soon.

I can envision commercial versions of these being worn in construction, manufacturing, warehousing--making work easier for people, decreasing job-related injuries and raising productivity.

I can also foresee theme parks where kids (and adults) prance around in mini-versions of these robotic suits and pretend they are superheros.

I also imagine these will make it into law enforcement, fire and rescue, and other emergency management functions where keeping the peace or saving lives can be enabled by robots and exoskeletons too.

Half Man, Half Machine

How To Cope When The Boss Is A Bully

We are living in tough economic times, and according to a recent news article, even those who have jobs are often feeling the pain.

USA Today, 28 December 2010, features a cover story called “Bullying in the workplace is common, hard to fix.”

The subhead: “One in three adults has been bullied at work” – based on research conducted by Zogby International.

This reminds me of the poster “Everything I Needed to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten,” since the old schoolyard bullying is faithfully carried over to the “adult” workspace.

How unfortunate for our employees and our organizations—because abusive leaders not only harm employees through ongoing intimating and demeaning behavior, but ultimately they bring down organizational morale, innovation, and productivity.

It’s like poison that starts with the individual bully and spreads—permeating from his or her human targets (our precious human capital assets) to chip away bit by bit at the core of organization’s performance.

According to the article, the bully often behaves in subtle ways so as not to get caught:

- “Purposely leaving a worker out of communications, so they can’t do their job well

- Mocking someone during meetings, and

- Spreading malicious gossip about their target”

To further protect themselves, bullies may exhibit the pattern where they “kiss up and kick down.” Therefore, the higher ups may close their eyes to the abusive behavior of the bully—as far as their concerned the bully is golden.

By menacing their employees, bullying bosses spread trepidation amongst their victims and prevent them from telling anyone—because their targets fear that there will be “hell to pay,” in terms of retribution, if they do.

So bullied employees react by withdrawing at work, calling in sick more, and trying to escape from their tormentor by finding another job elsewhere in the same organization or in another.

According to the Workplace Bullying Institute, “slightly more than 60% of bullies are men, and 58% of targets are women.” But generally, the sexes tend to prey on their own: “Women target other women in 80% of cases. Men are more apt to target other men.”

For employees who are victims, professionals offer four basic strategies, which are adapted here. Of course, none of these is ideal, but all of them give people a way to cope:

1) Talk It Out—it may be wishful thinking, but the first thing you want to try and do is to talk with the bully and at least try and reason with him or her. If that doesn't work, you can always move on to strategies two through four.

2) Fight—document the abuse and report it (e.g. up the chain, to the C-suite, to internal affairs, the inspector general, etc.). Like with the bully in the playground, sometimes you have to overcome the fear and tell the teacher, so to speak.

3) Flight—leave the organization you’re in—find another job either internally or at another outfit; the focus of the thinking here is that when there is a fire, you need to get out before you get burned.

4) Zone Out—ignore the bully by waiting it out; this may be possible, if the bully is near retirement, about to get caught, or may otherwise be leaving his/her abusive perch for another position or to another organization.

Experts point out that whatever strategy you chose to pursue, your work is critical, but the most important thing at the moment is your welfare—physical, mental, and spiritual. And your safety is paramount.

As a human being, I empathize with those who have suffered through this. Additionally, as a supervisor, I try to keep in mind that there are "two sides to every coin" and that I always need to be mindful of others' feelings.

Finally, know that challenging times do pass, and that most people are good. I find it comforting to reflect on something my grandmother used to say: “The One In Heaven Sees All.”

How To Cope When The Boss Is A Bully

3 Things A Robot Can Do That Your Employees Can't

A little Monday morning humor...not that you'd necessarily want them to do these things...but if you're already shelling out, you may as well get your money's worth. :-)

1. "Stand on one foot, twist its waist and strike poses" (well, some of us can do that...)

2. "Travel 86 miles around the office without stopping."

3. Point at things in the office using a laser pointer in it's right eye.

But the best thing of all, seriously, is that the new wave of robots coming off the assembly line can "fetch lattes from Starbucks."

Make mine a double!

(Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek 17-23 Jan. 2011)

(Robots pictured: HRP-4, PR2, and Anybots QB)

3 Things A Robot Can Do That Your Employees Can't

The Human Capital Multiplier Effect

We all know that people respond better to some managers than others—for some, people will go “the extra mile.”


University of Virginia professors teaching a leadership class that I was fortunate to participate in shared lessons on this.


Essentially, studies show that leaders that treat their people with trust, caring, and respect—what I would call the basic elements of human dignity—are able to achieve the multiplier effect.


In simple terms, what you give as a leader is what you get back.

Multipliers—leaders that are “multipliers” believe in their people—that they are smart and will figure it out. Multipliers guide them, invest in them, give them the freedom to debate the issues and do their jobs, and they challenge them to be their best. Multipliers are "talent magnets"--people want to work for them, and employees that work for multipliers tend to contribute 200%!


In contrast, those managers that are “diminishers” believe that their employees will not figure it out without them. They are empire builders and micromanagers, who typically act like tyrants, displaying a know-it-all attitude, and they have to make all the decisions. In an un-empowered and disrespected role, employees who work for diminishers withdraw and give less than 50%.


When it comes to motivating our workforce and achieving a multiplier effect, while money and recognition are important, providing genuine autonomy and empowerment to “own the job” and get it done has been found to be the #1 impact on their productivity.


Hence there is a big difference between using technology as a tool to perform a task and doing it in a very directed way (by rules, algorithms, assembly lines, etc.) versus working through real people who have important human needs to work with some autonomy to add value and achieve not only the respect of their manager(s), but also self-respect as well.


When we create a multiplier environment for our employees—one where they can flourish as human beings—they give back rather hold back, and in a highly competitive environment that’s exactly what every organization needs to thrive.


There are two major challenges here for leaders.


One is that leaders who have attained power tend to be reluctant to relinquish any of it to their employees. They don’t see the difference between “empowerment” and their own loss of stature.


The other challenge is that there is always the chance that if you give somebody the tools to build the house, that they will either take a nap in the hammock in the backyard or even try to throw you off the roof!


In the first case, the leader has to have enough confidence to make room for others to succeed. I once heard that Jack Welch said of great leaders that they surround themselves with people who are even smarter than they are.


In the second case, I believe that we need to “trust but verify,” meaning that we provide autonomy and tools to people to do the job, but then if they don’t do it appropriately, that is addressed through individual performance management.


Managing people well is not a favor we do them, but is something that is required for the success of enterprise.

The Human Capital Multiplier Effect

Podcast and Slideshare by Andy Blumenthal on Mobility Solutions

Click here for the audio of my speech at the Adobe Government Assembly on Wednesday, November 3, 2010 in Washington, DC. (Subscribe to all my podcasts on iTunes here.)

Andy blumenthal talks about mobility solutions 20101104

View more presentations from Andy Blumenthal.

Podcast and Slideshare by Andy Blumenthal on Mobility Solutions

The Coloring Book of Leadership

In a leadership course this week, I was introduced to the “Insights Wheel of Color Energies,” a framework for understanding people’s personalities and leadership styles.

In the Color Energies framework, there are four types of personalities/styles:

• “Fiery Red”—The Director—competitive, demanding, determined, strong-willed, purposeful, and driving— they seek to “do it NOW.”
• “Cool Blue”—The Observer—cautious, precise, deliberate, questioning, formal, and analytical—they seek to “do it right.”
• “Sunshine Yellow”—The Inspirer—sociable, dynamic, demonstrative, enthusiastic, persuasive, and expressive. They seek to “do it together.”
• “Earth Green”—The Supporter—caring, encouraging, sharing, patient, relaxed, and amiable—they seek to “do it in a caring way.”

There is no one best type—each is simply a personal preference. And further, each of us is “incomplete and imperfect”.

• The one who seeks to “do it right” may miss the point with their “analysis paralysis” when something needs to be done in a time-critical fashion.
• Similarly, the leader that’s focused on “just getting it done now” may be insensitive to providing adequate support for their people, or collaboration with others in the organization.

We saw this clearly in the class. After each person was asked to self-identify which color they were most closely aligned to, it was clear that people were oriented toward one or maybe two types, and that they did have an individual preference.

While no framework is 100% accurate, I like this one as it seems to capture key distinctions between personalities and also helped to make me more self-aware. (I am Cool Blue and Fiery Red, in case you ever decide to “tangle” with me :-).

Combining Color Energies with other personality assessment frameworks, like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) and the Strength Deployment Inventory (SDI), can help us to understand both ourselves and others.

With that knowledge we can work together more productively and more pleasantly, as we empathize with others rather than puzzling about why they act the way they do.

Once we start to identify the “color personalities” of others whom we know and work with, we can better leverage our combined strengths.

To me, therefore, leaders have to surround themselves with other excellent people, who can complement their personality and leadership styles so as to fill in the natural gaps that we each possess.

The Coloring Book of Leadership

Beyond The Stick

Over a number of years, I’ve seen different management strategies for engaging employees. At their essence, they typically amount to nothing more than the proverbial “carrot and stick" approach: Do what you’re supposed to do and you get rewarded, and don’t do what your superiors want and you get punished.

Recently, the greater demands on organizational outputs and outcomes by shareholders and other stakeholders in a highly competitive global environment and souring economy has put added pressure on management that has resulted in

the rewards drying up and the stick being more widely and liberally used.

Numerous management strategists have picked up on this trend:

For example, in the book, No Fear Management: Rebuilding Trust, Performance, and Commitment in the New American Workplace, Chambers and Craft argue that abusive management styles destroy company morale and profitability and should be replaced by empowerment, communication, training, recognition, and reward.

In another book, Driving Fear Out of the Workplace: Creating the High Trust, High Performance Organization, Ryan and Oestreich confront how “fear permeates today’s organizations” and is creating a pandemic of mistrust that undermines employee motivation and commitment.

I can’t help but reflect that the whole concept of managing employees by the carrot and stick approach is an immature and infantile approach that mimics how we “manage” children in pre-school who for example, get an extra snack for cleaning up their toys or get a demerit for pulling on little Suzy’s hair.

As leaders, I believe we can and must do better in maturing our engagement styles with our people.

Regular people coming to work to support themselves and their families and contribute to their organizations and society don’t need to be “scared straight.” They need to be led and inspired!

Monday’s don’t have to be blue and TGIF doesn’t have to be the mantra week after week.

People are naturally full of energy and innovation and productivity. And I believe that they want to be busy and contribute. In fact, this is one of life’s greatest joys!

Leaders can change the organizational culture and put an end to management by fear. They can elevate good over evil, win the hearts and minds of their people, and put organizations back on track to winning performance.

Beyond The Stick

The Printer’s Dilemma

There is a lot of interest these days in managed print solutions (MPS)—sharing printers and managing these centrally—for many reasons.

Some of the benefits are: higher printer use rates; reduction in printing; cost saving; and various environmental benefits.

Government Computer News (5 April 2010) has an article called “Printing Money” that states: managed printing is an obvious but overlooked way to cut costs, improve efficiency, and bolster security.”

But there are also a number of questions to consider:

- What’s the business model? Why are “printing companies” telling us to buy less printers and to print less? Do car companies tell us to buy less cars and drive less (maybe drive more fuel efficient vehicles, but drive less or buy less?) or do food companies advise us to buy less food or eat less (maybe eat healthier food, but less food)? To some vendors, the business model is simple, if we use their printers and cartridges—rather than a competitor’s—then even if we use less overall, the managed print vendor is getting more business, so for them, the business model makes sense.

- What's the cost model? Analysts claim agencies by moving to managed print solutions “could save at least 25 percent of their printing expenses” and vendors claim hundreds of thousands, if not millions in savings, and that is attractive. However, the cost of commodity printers, even the multifunction ones with fax/copy/scan functions, has come way down, and so has the print cartridges—although they are still too high priced—and we change them not all that often (I just changed one and I can barely remember the last time that I did). As an offset to cost savings, do we need to consider the potential impact to productivity and effectiveness as well as morale—even if the latter is just the “annoyance factor”?

- What’s the consumer market doing? When we look at the consumer market, which has in many analyst and consumer opinions jumped ahead of where we are technologically in the office environment, most people have a printer sitting right next to them in their home office—don’t you? I’d venture to say that many people even have separate printers for other family members with their own computers set ups, because cost and convenience (functional)-wise, it just makes sense.

- What’s the cultural/technological trend? Culturally and technologically, we are in the “information age,” most people in this country are “information workers,” and we are a fast-paced (and what’s becoming a faster and faster-paced) society where things like turn around time and convenience (e.g. “Just In Time inventory, overnight delivery, microwave dinners, etc.) are really important. Moreover, I ask myself is Generation Y, that is texting and Tweeting and Facebooking—here, there, and everywhere—going to be moving toward giving up there printers or in fact, wanting to print from wherever they are (using the cloud or other services) and get to their documents and information immediately?

- What’s the security impact? Understanding that printing to central printers is secure especially with access cards or pin numbers to get your print jobs, I ask whether in an age, where security and privacy of information (including corporate theft and identity theft) are huge issues, does having a printer close by make sense, especially when dealing with sensitive information like corporate strategy or “trade secrets,” mission security, personnel issues, or acquisition sensitive matters, and so on. Additionally, we can we still achieve the other security benefits of MPS—managing (securing, patching etc.) and monitoring printers and print jobs in a more decentralized model through the same or similar network management functions that we use for our other end user-devices (computers, servers, storage, etc.)

- What’s the environmental impact? There are lots of statistics about the carbon footprint from printing—and most I believe is from the paper, not the printers. So perhaps we can print smarter, not only with reducing printers, but also with ongoing education and sensitivity to our environment and the needs of future generations. It goes without saying, that we can and should cut down (significantly) on what and how much we print (and drive, and generally consume, etc.) in a resource constrained environment—planet Earth.

In the end, there are a lot of considerations in moving to managed print solutions and certainly, there is a valid and compelling case to moving to MPS, especially in terms of the potential cost-saving to the organization (and this is particularly important in tough economic environments, like now), but we should also weight others considerations, such as productivity offsets, cultural and technological trends, and overall security and environmental impacts, and come up with what’s best for our organizations.

The Printer’s Dilemma