August 11, 2012
Technology Forecast 2013
I am an avid follower of everything technology and trends, but am tired of hearing about cloud, mobile, and social computing.
It's time to get over it with the agenda of the past and get on with it with the future of technology.
Here is my "Technology Forecast 2013" and the top 8 trends I see going forward:
1) Service Provision--Cost-cutting and consolidation into the cloud is a wonderful idea and it has had it's time, but the future will follow consumer products, where one flavor does not fit all, and we need to have globalization with a local flavor to provide for distinct customer requirements and service differentiators, as well as classified, proprietary and private systems and information.
2) Service Delivery--Mobile is here and the iPhone is supreme, but the future belongs to those that deliver services not only to remote devices, but in wearable, implantable, and even human augmentation.
3) Human Interaction--Social computing epitomized by Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and many more is a cool way in interact with others virtually, but wall posts, email, and chats are getting cliche--next up conjoining with others with capabilities such as telepathic communication, mind melding collaboration, and even virtual sex for the outlandish.
4) Robotics and Artificial Intelligence--With something like 10,000 drones flying the friendly and not-so friendly skies and even drones that autonomously land on aircraft carriers, the next robot is coming to the ground near you--drones will become (an)droids and will eventually have the AI to become part of our everyday society.
5) Service Assurance--Enough playing defense with a sprinkling of offense against our worst enemies--it's past time to move from trying to stop-gap infiltrators and do damage control once we've been robbed blind, and instead move to a hunter-killer mentality and capability--the price of being a bad boy on the Internet goes way up and happens in realtime.
6) Data Analytics--Big data isn't a solution, it's the problem. The solution is not snapshot pretty graphics, but realtime augmented reality--where data is ingrained in everything and transparent realtime--and this becomes part of our moment-by-moment decision processes.
7) Biotechnology--Biometrics sounds real cool--and you get a free palm reading at the same time, but the real game changer here is not reading people's bio signatures, but in creating new ones--with not only medical cures, but also new bio-technological capabilities.
8) Nanotechnology--Still emerging, quantum mechanics is helping us delve into the mysteries of the universe, with applications for new and advanced materials, but the new buzzword will be nano-dust, where atomic and molecular building blocks can be used on-the-fly to build anything, be anywhere, and then recycled into the next use.
Overall, I see us moving from mass produced, point-to-point solutions to more integrated end-to-end solutions that fit individual needs--whether through continued combinations of hardware, software, and services, man-machine interfaces/integration, and building blocks that can be shaped and reused again and again.
From my perspective, there a seeming lull in innovation, but the next big leap is around the corner.
(Source Graphic: Andy Blumenthal)
July 29, 2012
G-d Doesn't Have a Blackberry
"Hashem" is the Jewish name for G-d.
And he is truly the center of our real and virtual worlds.
None of it would exist without him.
G-d keeps us all moving forward technologically.
He is the greatest innovator of them all.
Thank you G-d!
(Source Poem--Chana Pessy Lunger)
G-d Doesn't Have a Blackberry
July 21, 2012
Stark Raving Internet Crazy
Physically:
- "Americans have merged with their machines"--literally starring at computer screen "at least eight hours a day, more time than we spend on any other activity, including sleeping."
- Most college students are not just unwilling, but functionally unable to be without their media links to the world."
Psychologically:
- "Every ping could be a social, sexual, or professional opportunity" so we get a (dopamine) reward for getting and staying online.
- Heavy internet use and social media is correlated with "stress, depression, and suicidal thinking" with some scientists arguing it is like "electronic cocaine" driving mania-depressive cycles.
Chemically:
- "The brains of Internet addicts...look like the brains of drug and alcohol addicts."
- Videogame/Internet addiction is linked to "structural abnormalities" in gray matter, namely shrinkage of 10 to 20% in the areas of the brain responsible for processing od speech, memory, motor control, emotion, sensory, and other information,."
- The brain "shrinkage never stopped: the more time online, the more the brain showed signs of 'atrophy.'"
Socially:
- "Most respondents...check text messages, email or their social network 'all the time' or 'every 15 minutes.'
- "Texting has become like blinking" with the average person texting (sending or receiving) 400 times3,700 times!
- "80% of vacationers bring along laptops or smartphones so they can check in with work while away."
- "One in 10 users feels "fully addicted' to his or her phone," with 94% admitting some level of compulsion!
At the extreme:
- "One young couple neglected its infant to death while nourishing a virtual baby online."
- "A young man bludgeoned his mother for suggesting he log off."
- "At least 10...have died of blood clots from sitting too long" online.
These are a lot of statistics, and many of these are not only concerning, but outright shocking--symptoms of bipolar disorder, brain shrinkage, and murderous behavior to name a few.
Yet, thinking about my own experiences and observations, this does not ring true for the vast majority of normal Internet users who benefit from technology intellectually, functionally, socially, and perhaps even spiritually.
Yes, we do spend a lot of time online, but that is because we get a lot out of it--human beings, while prone to missteps and going to extremes, are generally reasoned decision-makers.
We aren't drawn to the Internet like drug-abusers to cocaine, but rather we reach for the Internet when it serves a genuine purpose--when we want to get the news, do research, contact a friend or colleague, collaborate on a project, make a purchase, manage our finances, watch a movie, listen to music or play a game and more.
These are not the benefits of a drug addict, but the choices of rational people using the latest technology to do more with their lives.
Are there people who lose control or go off the deep-end, of course. But like with everything, you can have even too much of a good thing--and then the consequences can be severe and even deadly.
Certainly people may squirrel away more often then they should for some un-G-dly number of hours at a computer rather than in the playground of life--but for the most part, people have taken the technology--now highly mobile--into the real world, with laptops, tablets, and smartphones being ubiquitous with our daily rounds at the office, on the commute, walking down the street, and even at the dinner table.
Is this a bad thing or are we just afraid of the (e)merging of technology so deeply into every facet of lives?
It is scary in a way to become so tied to our technology that it is everywhere all the time--and that is one major reason why cyber attacks are such a major concern now--we are hopelessly dependent on technology to do just about everything, because it helps us to do them.
From my perch of life, the Internet does not break people or attract broken souls except on the fringes; more typically it puts people together to achieve a higher individual and social aggregate capability then ever before.
If the pressure to achieve 24/7 would just come down a few notches, maybe we could even enjoy all this capability some more.
Now I just need to get off this darn computer, before I go nuts too! ;-)
(Source Photo: here adapted from and with attribution to Cassie Nova)
Stark Raving Internet Crazy
July 19, 2012
What's The Internet Worth To You?
What a great question--what's the Internet or your Smartphone worth to you?
Most people seems to say they wouldn't give these up--not even for a million dollars!
Maybe $15-20 million--enough to never have to work again. Okay, now you're getting closer.
Nah, I want a billion dollars to give up the Internet--that's what some people responded.
For me, I'm not certain even a billion dollars could keep me off the Internet--but I could certainly try it for a few days.
Being able to communicate, connect, learn, share, and transact online is like air and water to us now-a-days--an absolute necessity for modern survival.
Without being able to do these things, you may as well be on a stranded island--you may own that Island (like Larry Ellison who bought the 6th largest Hawaiian Island of Lanai) and it may be quite a nice one at that, but you'll still be quite secluded and alone in the Internet age.
Yes, the Internet and all we get from it costs only pennies on the millions (and/or billions) of dollars worth we each receive from it--and that's why on some things you cannot put a price tag.
We're in this world to learn and grow and for that we need other people far and wide--either that or you'll need to have one heck of a big and non-stop party at home in paradise. ;-)
What's The Internet Worth To You?
July 7, 2012
Hierarchy of Computing
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs describes the stages of growth in human beings, and it portray's people focusing on their more primitive needs first and then progressing on to fulfilling higher order needs, as the lower ones are satisfied.
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs--starts with addressing our basic Physiological needs for food, water, shelter, clothing and so on; then Safety covers our needs for safety and security; followed by social needs for love and companionship; next is Self-esteem which is our need for respect and value; and finally is Self-actualization where we actually fulfill our potential.
What occurred to me is that computing is an aid for us to fulfill our human needs, and as such we can map a Hierarchy of Computing to the Hierarchy of Needs.
The result is a "Hierarchy of Computing," as follows:
- Automation--helps us produce the sustenance items that we need for our physiological needs and includes everything from agricultural plows and harvesters to production line automation and systems.
- Weaponization--this is the systemization of everything supporting our homeland security, military, and intelligence apparatus from nukes to drones, satellites, missile shields, cyber and bioweapons, and more.
- Social/Mobile--these are technologies and apps that help us communicate and interact with one another, whenever and wherever we are.
- Business Intelligence--addressing Big Data, this is the capability to capture, catalog, analyze, locate, and report information to drive value, power, and respect.
- Ethical--the use of technology to aid timely decision-making and meaningful, value-driven action--helps us choose and execute right from wrong and is the ultimate in progressing toward our self-actualization.
I struggled with where Robotics fits in this hierarchy and I decided that robotics is not a specific layer in the hierarchy of computing itself, but rather is a application of the technology that can be applied at every level. For example, robotics can aid automation on the assembly line or it can be used for safety to defuse roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan or they can be applied to social needs as nursing and home aids for the elderly and handicapped and so on.
I am excited by this alignment of the Computing Hierarchy to the Needs Hierarchy in that it provides a framework for advances and application of technology to supporting our very humanity.
(Source Graphic: Andy Blumenthal)
Hierarchy of Computing
June 15, 2012
Nokia and Microsoft, Desperate Bedfellows
Nokia was once the world largest vendor for mobile phones with almost 130,000 employees, but since the iPhone and Android, they have since fallen on hard times--who would've thought?
Just 16 months ago, in February 2011, Nokia announced a strategic partnership with Microsoft to try and stem their losses by adopting Windows Mobile, but this was like a drowning victim grabbing on to whoever is nearby to try and save themselves but only ends up in a double drowning.
No, Microsoft is not drowning exactly, but their stock has been more or less flat from a decade ago and one of the worst large-tech stock performers for the last ten years!
Will the acquisition of Yammer for $1.2 billion this week change this trend--I doubt it.
Between Yammer for social networking and the acquisition of Skype for video-calling last year (May 2011) for yet another $8.5 billion, Microsoft is trying to fill some of it's big holes in its technology portfolio, just like Nokia was trying to fill it's gaping hole in mobile operating systems by partnering with Microsoft.
Unfortunately both Microsoft and Nokia have essentially missed the boat on the mobile revolution and the sentiment is flat to negative on their long-term prospects.
So the shidduch (match) of Nokia and Microsoft seems like just another case of misery loves company.
Desperation makes for lonely bedfellows, and thus the announcement this week by Nokia that they are going to layoff 10,000 and close 3 plants by end of 2013 was really no surprise.
Aside from the short-term stock pop from the news of the acquisition, what do you think is going to be in the cards for Microsoft if they don't get their own innovative juices back in flow?
Can you just acquire innovation or at some point do you need to be that innovative company yourself once again?
Rhetorical question.
Hopefully for Microsoft they can get their mojo back on--meaning rediscover their own innovative talents from within and not just try to acquire from without.
(Source Photo: here with attribution to Kidmissile)
Nokia and Microsoft, Desperate Bedfellows
May 13, 2012
Facebook IPO--Love It, But Leave It
Facebook will be the largest Internet IPO in history, and would be about 4 times as much as Google was valued at its IPO at $23 billion in 2003.
Further, Facebook could be valued at offering at 99 times earnings.
This is more than the price earnings ratio of 99% of companies in the S&P Index, yet even with some estimating sales of $6.1 billion this year, Facebook would only rank about 400 in the S&P 500.
True Facebook has amassed an incredible 900 million users, but the company's revenue growth has slowed for the 3rd year in a row.
Another article in BusinessWeek (10 May 2012) describes a new social networking contender called Diaspora.
Unlike Google+ which is predominantly a Facebook copycat, Diaspora is bringing something new and major to the table--they are addressing the privacy issues that Facebook has not.
Diaspora is a distributed (or federated) social network, unlike Facebook which is centralized--in other words, Diaspora allows you to host your own data wherever you want (even in the cloud).
Each of these independently owned Diaspora instances or "pods" (dispersed like in the Diaspora) make up a true social "network"--interconnected and interoperable computing devices.
With Diaspora, you own your own data and can maintain its privacy (share, delete, and do what you want with your information), unlike with Facebook where you essentially give up rights to your data and it can and is used by Facebook for commercial use--for them to make money off of your personal/private information.
When it comes to personal property, we have a strong sense of ownership in our society and are keen on protecting these ownership rights, but somehow with our personal information and privacy, when it comes to social networking, we have sold ourselves out for a mere user account.
As loss of personally identifiable information (PII), intellectual property, identity theft, and other serious computer crimes continues to grow and cost us our money, time, and even our very selves in some respects, alternatives to the Facebook model, like Diaspora, will become more and more appealing.
So with social networks like Facebook--it is a case of love it, but leave it!
Love social networking--especially when privacy is built in--and others don't have rights to what you post.
But leave it--when they are asking for your investment dollar (i.e. IPO) that could be better spent on a product with a business model that is actually sustainable over the long term.
(Source Photo: here with attribution to Allan Cleaver)
Facebook IPO--Love It, But Leave It
May 12, 2012
It's Not iStuff, It's Your iFuture
It is written by David Gelernter, Professor of Computer Science at the prestigious Yale University and I was much dismayed to read it.
With all due respect, Gelernter makes the case--and a poor one at that--for keeping kids away from technology.
He calls technology devices and the Internet, "the perfect anti-concentration weapon...turning a child's life into a comedy of interruptions."
Gelernter states pejoratively that the "whole point of modern iToys...is not doing anything except turning into a click vegetable."
Moreover, Gelernter goes too far treating technology and the Internet as a waste of time, toys, and even as dangerous vices--"like liquor, fast cars, and sleeping pills"--that must be kept away from children.
Further, Gelernter indiscriminately calls en masse "children with computers...little digital Henry VIIIs," throwing temper tantrums when their problems cannot be solved by technology.
While I agree with Gelernter that at the extreme, technology can be used to as a escape from real, everyday life--such as for people who make their primary interaction with others through social networking or for those who sit virtually round-the-clock playing video games.
And when technology is treated as a surrogate for real life experiences and problem solving, rather than a robust tool for us to live fuller lives, then it becomes an enabler for a much diminished, faux life and possibly even a pure addiction.
However, Gelernter misses the best that technology has to offer our children--in terms of working smarter in everything we do.
No longer is education a matter of memorizing textbooks and spitting back facts on exams in a purely academic fashion, but now being smart is knowing where to find answers quickly--how to search, access, and analyze information and apply it to real world problems.
Information technology and communications are enablers for us do more with less--and kids growing up as computer natives provide the best chance for all of us to innovate and stay competitive globally.
Rather then helping our nation bridge the digital divide and increase access to the latest technologies and advance our children's familiarity with all things science, technology, engineering and math (STEM), Gelernter wants to throw us back in time to the per-digital age.
With the ever rapid pace with which technology is evolving, Gelernter's abolishing technology for children needlessly sets them back in their technology prowess and acumen, while others around the world are pressing aggressively ahead.
Gelernter may want his kids to be computer illiterate, but I want mine to be computer proficient.
iStuff are not toys, they are not inherently dangerous vices, and they are not a waste of our children's time, they are their future--if we only teach and encourage them to use the technology well, balanced, and for the good.
(Source Photo: here with attribution to "Extra Ketchup," Michael Surran)
It's Not iStuff, It's Your iFuture
May 6, 2012
Losing Trust In What We Need Most, Each Other
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
April 7, 2012
Passover 21st Century
This video (2011) by Aish.com is terrific! The story of Passover--"Google Exodus"-- with all the technology of instant messaging, email, social networking, mapping, and more.
I love how they make the traditional and sacred, new and promising again by "letting people go" and being able to see and interact with it in modern terms.
While some may find it challenging not to lose the essence of the old, when keeping it fresh, I think the past becomes more meaningful when we can truly integrate it into our daily lives.
I personally am still not comfortable with the idea of online Passover Seders or DIY Haggadah's--and I don't think I ever really will be--probably more because of guilt at not following strictly and the concern that people may change things so much as to either misinterpret or actually distort the truth of G-d.
However, I do think that we can strengthen regular people's connection to their past and their faith only by truly bringing it in our present and looking to the future, as well.
The world of religion-can often be filled with controversy between those that maintain iron-clad religious practices from thousands of years ago and those that seek evolving routes to religion and G-d today.
When we can use technology to help people bridge the religious divide, we are helping people connect with their G-d and choose good over evil in their daily lives.
Neither modernism nor technology is inherently "bad," and we do not have to run away from it--or escape through the Red Sea from it.
Rather, faith in the Almighty, in His hand that guides all, and in the doing good in all that we do, are fundamental to religion and can be shared online and off, as G-d is truly everywhere and in each of us.
Sometimes, I wonder when Orthodox people probe and judge with incessant questions of "What Shul do you go to?" "What Yeshiva do your kids attend?" "Do you keep Kosher?" and more, I imagine G-d looking down on his "people of the book," not with satisfaction that they follow his commandments, but with disdain for how people can hurt others and not even realize that is not religious.
While I agree that unguided, people and practices can go astray, I also believe that automatic suspicion and rejection of new things is impractical and actually harmful.
Modernism and technology can be a blessing, if coupled with faith and integrity.
Congratulations to Aish.com for the good work they are doing in helping people integrate the old and new in a balanced way.
Passover 21st Century
April 5, 2012
iGlasses, Your Next Smartphone
Yesterday, a hyped-up video came out by Google on Project Glass.
Basically this is Star Trek-type glasses that provide everything that's on your smartphone plus some augmented reality, where real world sensation is augmented with computer-generated information.
The video shows the glasses integrated with functionality for email/messaging/phones calls, photos/videos, music, reminders, weather, maps/directions, transportation updates, and more.
Aside from the integration into the glasses themselves, they really didn't demonstrate any major new technologies--and was sort of disappointing actually.
It reminds of Google+, which came out and didn't add anything much new over FaceBook, and hence hasn't really caught on--copycatting just isn't enough in the high-tech industry, where real innovation is what's valued.
While I like the idea of more and better ways of getting the types of information and functionality that's on your smartphone, I really don't think glasses is the way to go.
Frankly, after having LASIK surgery more than 12 years ago, I am so happy not to have to wear those obtrusive frames on my face anymore, and I certainly wouldn't want to go back.
I would envision having these functions either built microscopically into contact lens or projected by mini-wearable cameras in front of you as a true reality overlay--and I think Minority Report thought of that one first.
The only way that I would even consider wearing glasses for this was if Apple made them and called them iGlasses. ;-)
iGlasses, Your Next Smartphone
February 3, 2012
Online Presence, Your Calling Card
Whether or not their apprehensions about their privacy being compromised is justified or whether they feel that "it's simply a waste of time" or that they "just don't get it," the impetus for us to all establish and nurture our online presence is getting more important than ever.
In the competition for the best jobs, schools, even mates, and other opportunities, our online credentials are becoming key.
We've heard previously about jobs checking candidates backgrounds on the Internet and even bypassing candidates or even firing employees for their activities online.
Numerous examples of people badmouthing their companies or bosses have been profiled in the media and even some politicians have been forced out of office--remember "Weinergate" not too long ago?
Now, not only can negative activities online get you in trouble, but positive presence and contributions can get you ahead.
The Wall Street Journal (24 January 2012) reports in an article titled No More Resumes, Say Some Firms that companies are not only checking up on people online, but they are actually asking "applicants to send links representing their web presence" in lieu of resumes altogether.
What are they looking for:
- Twitter Accounts
- Blogs
- Short Videos
- Online Surveys/Challenges
The idea is that you can learn a lot more about someone--how they think and what they are like--from their history online, then from a resume snapshot.
Of course, many companies still rely on the resume to screen applicants, but even then LinkedIn with over 135 million members is sometimes the first stop for recruiters looking for applicants.
Is everything you do and say online appropriate or "fair game" for people screening or is this going over some sacred line that says that we all have professional lives and personal lives and what we do "when we're off the clock" (as long as your not breaking any laws or doing something unethical) is no one's darn business.
The problem is that when you post something online--publicly--for the world to see, can you really blame someone for looking?
In the end, we have to be responsible for what we disclose about ourselves and demonstrate prudence, maturity, respect, and diplomacy, perhaps that itself is a valid area for others to take into account when they are making judgments about us.
When it comes to children--parents-beware; the Internet has a long memory and Facebook now has a "timeline", so don't assume everyone will be as understanding or forgiving for "letting kids be kids."
One last thought, even if we are responsible online, what happens when others such as hackers, identity thieves, slanderers, those with grudges, and others--mess with your online identity--can you ever really be secure?
Being online is no longer an option, but it is certainly a double-edged sword.
(Source Photo: here; Image credit to L Hollis Photography)
Online Presence, Your Calling Card
November 16, 2011
Leadership Is Not A One Personality World
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
September 24, 2011
Have Your Voice Heard
Have Your Voice Heard
September 2, 2011
Vizualize Yourself
I tried out this new visual resume online called Vizualize Me.
Vizualize Yourself
August 27, 2011
Social Media, Fulfilling Our Every Need?
Social Media, Fulfilling Our Every Need?
August 20, 2011
Social Media: Closer Together or Further Apart?
Social Media: Closer Together or Further Apart?
August 14, 2011
Images, Alive And Profitable
Images, Alive And Profitable
August 12, 2011
To Follow Or Not To Follow
Twitter is a great streaming feed for news and information, but what you get depends on who you follow.
To Follow Or Not To Follow
July 31, 2011
Technology Anonymous
Technology Anonymous