Technology To Make The Heart Sing

ABC News person of the week, Allyson Townsend--an incredible young woman!

"She meticulously dedicates her time to signing out popular hits like Taylor Swift's "Back to December" in American Sign Language for her 15,350 viewers to enjoy on her YouTube channel, Ally ASL."

Watching her "sing" to people with hearing disabilities is so inspiring; I am deeply moved by her generosity.

Also, I am awed by the use of technology, like YouTube, for such innovative and humanistic purposes.

Here's to Allison and all the other selfless "ordinary people" out there who may never make it onto the news.

They are contributors to society above and beyond.

Technology To Make The Heart Sing

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

"Your Brain On Google"

 
Amazing video called "Digital Nation."

Some great points from the interviewees at MIT, Stanford, and more:

- "We are immersed in technology all the time."

- "Technology is like oxygen."

- "Well over half our lives exist in the digital world now."

- "We are constantly multitasking and distracted."

- "The world has sped up."

- "We just want to push the pause button."

- "The Internet has changed from things one does to how one lives."

- "We are changing what it means to be human."

- "We are rewriting the rules of interaction for human beings."

- "Can we solve the alienation that technology has created with more technology?

- "Does increasing use of technology have diminishing returns at some points?"

These questions and thoughts really resonate with me.

Looking back in my own life, things seemed so much simpler 10, 20, and 30 years ago.

Then we were less connected online and maybe a lot stupider intellectually, but more connected in real ways--doing real things with family, friends, and community.

Life is certainly faster now, but are we happier as human beings?

Are we losing ourselves and becoming part of the vast interconnected cyberspace almost as half-humans and half-machines ourselves?

"Your Brain On Google"

The Center Of Gravity Is Information

Center of Gravity (COG) is a military concept that Dr. Joseph Strange defines as “primary sources of moral or physical strength, power, and resistance.” From a military perspective, this is where we should concentrate when attacking the enemy. As Prussian strategist Carl von Clausewitz states, “that is the point against which all our energies should be directed.”

In “Center of Gravity Analysis” (Military Review, July/August 2004), Army Colonel Dale Eikmeier describes the framework for COG and how an enemy (your threat) attempts to exploit them, as follows:

· Center of Gravity—the organizations that do the work (e.g. the military/industrial complex)

· Critical Capabilities (CC)—the strengths of the organization—its “primary abilities”

· Critical Requirements (CR)—the supplies that a COG use—the inputs that are their opportunities, if leveraged for future plans

· Critical Vulnerabilities (CV)—the vulnerabilities a COG has—e.g. exposed or unguarded critical infrastructure

From an enterprise architecture perspective, I greatly appreciate this analysis of COG as it aligns beautifully with Albert Humphrey’s famous Strenghts, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis for organizational strategic planning.

Aside from typical SWOT analysis to develop your organization’s strategy, the COG analysis adds greater offensive analysis to SWOT--like the military, organizations using the COG model can disrupt competitors’ advantages by seeking to weaken them where they are most vulnerable.

For example, EA used in this fashion may lead a company to build a sophisticated online sales site that directs customers away from your competitor’s retail location. Similarly, acquiring a major supplier (i.e. vertically integrating) may disrupt a competitors’ supply capability, and so on. The point is that EA becomes a force for attack rather than a mere planning tool or information asset.

It is at this point that I disagree with the assertion in the article that “Information is not power; it is a tool, an enabler. It helps wield military or economic power. By itself, it is simply information.”

Far to the contrary, information is one of the greatest assets that we have. It is the way that an advanced, intellectually based society competes. Of note, our declining performance in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), which is so greatly worrisome to our leadership, is of concern because it is directly a threat to our competitive advantage, both militarily and economically, in the global environment.

Information, as embodied by the Internet, is now the center of our society. With it, we perform critical tasks of information sharing, collaboration and education. Used effectively, our military has developed robust command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance (C4ISR)—all information-based. Similarly, our industry is highly competitive and advanced because of the engineering, innovation, and people behind it.

Enterprise architecture, once a small part of the IT infrastructure, can actually play a far greater role in the information society if we allow it to. We have morphed from the industrial age of the 18^th and 19^th centuries to a highly advanced information society that creates new sources of critical capability, but also new critical vulnerabilities that must be defended. And we must also leverage the vulnerability of our enemies in order to stay viable. Whether it’s cyber-warfare or economic survival, information is at the heart of everything we are successfully doing today.

The Center Of Gravity Is Information

The Robots Are Coming

Forget waiters and waitresses, the new Japanese Hajime Robot restaurant in Bangkok, Thailand invested almost $1 million on 4 robotic waitstaff.

You order your food by touch screen computer, and there is a countdown on the screen for when the food is ready and the robot brings it out to you.

While the samurai clad robots are not the best looking—their huge eyes are a little cartoonish—they are certainly quite dexterous and able as they nimbly serve the food in this restaurant and dance for the customers in between courses without missing a beat.

Initially automation affected the jobs of blue-collar workers in manufacturing and mechanical work as robots displaced people on the “assembly line.” Now we see the trend continuing and expanding with automation entering the service industry and jobs involving customer interaction, entertainment, and retail being affected. This is happening not only in restaurants, but also elder care (like robot uBot5 being developed out of University of Massachusetts), and in major retail establishments such as in warehouse automation with Kiva Systems robots being employed by major companies like Gap, Staples, and Zappos.

Further, the expansion of robots into traditional human work is also happening in our military—think Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs or Drones) like the Predators and Reapers, the robotics pack animals that can carry hundreds of pounds of gear (like Big Dog) and various bomb disposal robots. This is just the beginning.

We are witnessing the transformation of our workforce from traditional blue- and now even white-collar jobs to those with an emphasis on knowledge management (think engineers and technology professionals working at companies like iRobot, Intel, and Apple). This has obvious implications for selection of education pursuits and availability of professional opportunities in the future for our children and grandchildren.

The robots are coming. The robots ARE coming!

The Robots Are Coming

A House for The People

(Source for graphic: The $300 House)

National Geographic (January 2011) reports that one out of every seven people—or 1 billion people—in this world lives in slums.


Forbes (11 June 2007) predicts “By 2030, an estimated 5 billion of the world’s 8.1 billion people will live in cities. About 2 billion of them will live in slums, primarily in Africa and Asia, lacking access to clean drinking water and toilets, surrounded by desperation and crime.”


Harvard Business Review (January-February 2011) shares an innovative idea by Vijay Govindarajan to design and mass-produce houses for the poor for $300! Moreover, these units would include “basic modern services such as running water and electricity…[and] create shared access to computers, cell phones, televisions, water filters, solar panels, and clean-burning stoves.”


The breakthrough idea of the $300 high-tech house is that this is not something governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), or charities would develop and deploy, but rather one that is a challenge for commercial interests who can take lead on creating mass scale, “ultra low cost, high value housing…as a mega opportunity, with billions in profit at stake.”


While I understand that the profit motive is very compelling and efficient in getting results, I would suggest that when it comes to helping the poor and downtrodden that we need to temper this as a driving factor, and let our humanity and conscience kick in as well. In other words, sure make a profit, but by G-d have a heart.


With The $300 House, aside from the notion of truly helping people—en masse—and making a genuine difference with moving them from slum houses to homes is the concept of leapfrogging them in their technology. Think about it:

- Solar power

- Walter filtration

- (Even) Tablet PCs

This reminds me of the One Laptop Per Child initiative of 2005 that sought to put $100 laptops in the hands of hundreds of millions of disadvantaged schoolchildren to advance their educational opportunities. It expands and augments it to make the change impactful to people’s lives on the ground today in terms of how people are able to care for themselves and their families, so that they can get to a brighter tomorrow and put that education to work.


While we may never be able to fully eradicate poverty, we can certainly significantly raise the status of living for the masses that need help through commercial opportunities, technological proliferation, and of course, through a charitable heart.

A House for The People

Hollywood Sees The Future and It Is Shapeshifting

Ever since watching Star Trek, I’ve been fascinated by shapeshifting’s potential uses for military and law enforcement.

Now, The Economist (11 December 2010) reports that shapeshifting material, or “liquid armor,” is being tested by BAE for high-tech body armor.

Traditional body armor contains about 30 layers of protective Kevlar; however, by using the new material between the protective fibers, BAE is able to reduce the layers of Kevlar to just 10, making for lighter and more comfortable protection.

The secret to the liquid armor is that it is made of “shear-thickening fluids” from nano-engineering particles of silica, which provide the shapeshifting properties: “The molecules in such liquids are closely packed, but loosely arranged. The material behaves like a liquid in normal conditions…[but] if subjected to pressure though [like from a projectile], the molecules lock together and behave like a solid.”

In the body armor, when the fluid sandwiched Kevlar is struck by a bullet, the molecules in fluid lock together and spread the impact, thereby absorbing it more effectively.

This seems like an exciting development applying chemical engineering to protecting the warfighter and law enforcement officers.

What is also so cool is that the concept of shapeshifting being a potent force showed up almost two decades ago in movies and television—and once again we have life imitating art (so to speak)!

Hollywood captured the shapeshifters in both the movie Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine series (1993-1999). In Terminator II, a shapeshifting cyborg is sent back in time to try and kill John Connor, the leader of the resistance against the cyborgs. The shapeshifter takes on the form of the various people and things to try and get Connor, but ultimately in thwarted by the original Terminator (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger). Similarly, in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Otto is a shapeshifting constable on the space station that protects the station and the Star Fleet command making frequent use of his abilities to shift forms, but always returning at rest to his liquid state to rejuvenate.

I’ve got to say that I applaud Hollywood and continue to see it as not only a creative core for our entertainment, but also a prescient forbear to technology and events to come.

Hollywood Sees The Future and It Is Shapeshifting

Anatomy, The Google Way

The new Google Body Browser (released 16 December) provides an incredible view into the human anatomy.

Here is the link to the download.

This is the a long way from the classic Anatomy of the Human Body by Henry Gray (1918).

I'm looking forward to seeing the hologram version some day soon.

All this may just be cool enough to make me want to go back and become a M.D.!

Anatomy, The Google Way

The Triple I Factors

Recently, I was watching the new ABC News broadcast called “Be The Change: Save A Life.” And in this one episode, a group of Stanford University students solved a critical life and death problem afflicting the world in which 4 million premature and malnourished babies die every year due to hypothermia and another 16 million that survive suffer life-long illness such as diabetes and heart disease because their internal organs do not form right.

The challenge in the developing world is access to incubators, which typically cost $20,000 and are not available in rural areas. In turn, some Stanford students formed a team and developed the Embrace infant warmer, a low-cost, local solution. It is a $25 waterproof baby sleeping bag with a pouch for a reheatable wax-like substance that is boiled in water and maintains its temperature for 4 to 6 hours at a time. It is hoped that this product will save 1 million babies within the first five years in India alone!

As I reflected on this amazing feat of technology, I marveled at how this group of young adults was able to overcome such a big world problem and solve it so simply. And while I understand that they focused on the end-users and the root cause of the problems, it is still a remarkable story.

After listening to the team members describe their project and approach, I believe there are three critical factors that show through and that can be the tipping point in not only their, but also our technology projects’ success. These three factors, which I call the Triple I Factors are as follows:

Idealism—the students had a shared idealism for a better world. Seeing people’s pain and suffering drove their vision. And in turn, they committed themselves to finding a cure for it. Embrace is now a non-profit organization seeking to save lives versus just making a profit.

Imagination—the product team was able to imagine an unconventional alternative to the status quo. They were able to project a vision for a low cost and mobile infant warmer into concrete solutions that were user-centric for the people in need.

Innovation—the ultimate product design was truly innovative. It marries a high technology phase-change wax substance for maintaining body temperature with a simple baby sleeping bag. Moreover, the innovation is not just in the materials of the product, but in the usability, so for example, this product requires no electricity, something that is not always available in rural India.

While, there are certainly many factors that go into successful technology product launches, including strong leadership, sound project management, and the technical competence of the team, I think that the Triple I factors—idealism, imagination, and innovation—albeit soft factors are ones that should not be underestimated in their ability to propel meaningful technology solutions.

As IT leaders, we need to create a healthy balance and diverse competencies in the organization between the hard factors and the soft factors, so that we can tackle everything from children dying from malnutrition and hypothermia to cures for cancer, and of course, ongoing IT breakthroughs in knowledge management, social engineering, and human productivity await.

The Triple I Factors

What's Next For Microsoft, Google, And The Rest Of The IT Industry?

Published in Government Technology

By Andy Blumenthal

We are living in a material world, and I am a material girl.” — Madonna



For some people, like Madonna, the “material world” represents a society where people must pay to get their way. To me it means the mortal world, where we are born, live, try to thrive and ultimately pass the baton to others. 



Mortality isn’t limited to human beings, but is also a property of organizations. Several articles have appeared about it lately in mainstream and IT publications. Industry analysts are looking to Microsoft and Google and wondering how they, like other technology organizations, will master the competency of, as Computerworld puts it, “Getting to next.”



A curious irony runs throughout these conversations. Microsoft and Google are seemingly on top of their respective games, dominating the market and earning tens of billions in revenue per year. Despite being at the pinnacle of the technology industry, various industry watchers have noticed, they appear unable to see what’s the next rung on their ladder. It’s almost like they’re dumbfounded that nobody has placed it in front of them.



Consider, for example, that Microsoft dominates desktop operating systems, with approximately a 90 percent share of the market, business productivity suites at 80 percent and browser software at 60 percent. Google similarly dominates Internet search at about 64 percent. 


Everyone is asking: Why can’t these companies find their next great act? Microsoft launched the Kin and dropped it after less than two months; Bing has a fraction of Google’s market share in search; and Windows Mobile never became a major player as an operating system. Further, as The Wall Street Journal pointed out, the Xbox video game system, though finally profitable, Microsoft will likely never recoup the initial investment in research and development.



Similarly Google gambled by acquiring the ad network DoubleClick in 2007 for $3.1 billion, YouTube in 2006 for $1.6 billion and the mobile ad platform AdMob in 2009 for $750 million. But so far, as Fortune noted, Google hasn’t seen significant benefit from these purchases in terms of diversifying its revenue stream. “The day is coming when … the activity known as ‘Googling’ no longer will be at the center of our online lives. Then what?” said The Wall Street Journal.



From the perspective of organizational behavior, there’s a natural law at work here that explains why these resource-rich companies, which have the brains and brawn to repeatedly reinvent themselves, are in apparent decline. All organizations, like all people and natural organisms, have a natural life cycle — birth, growth, maturity, decline and death. 



To stay competitive and on top of our game, we constantly must plan our strategy and tactics to move into the future. However, organizations, like people, are mortal. Some challenges are part of life’s natural ups and downs. Others tell us we are in a decline that cannot be reversed. At that point, the organization must make decisions that are consonant with the reality of its situation, salvage what it can and return to the shareholders what it can’t. 



In other words, eventually every organism will cease to exist in its current form. During its life cycle, it can reinvent itself like IBM did in the 1990s. And when reinvention is no longer an option, it goes the way of Polaroid. 



This is similar to technology itself. As a new technology emerges, time and effort is spent further developing it to full capacity. We optimize and integrate it into our lives and fix it when it’s broken. But there comes a time when horses and buggies are no longer needed, and it’s time to face the facts and move on to cars — and one day, who knows, space scooters?



Going back full circle to the human analogy: People can reinvent themselves by going back to school, changing careers, perhaps remarrying and so on. But eventually we all go gray. And that’s fine; that’s the way it should be. Let’s reinvent ourselves while we can. And when we can’t, let’s accept our mortality graciously and be joyful for the great things that we have done.

What's Next For Microsoft, Google, And The Rest Of The IT Industry?

It's About Meaning, Not Money

A colleague shared this with me and now I carry it wherever I go:

"In the quiet hours when we are alone and there is nobody to tell us what fine fellow we are, we come sometimes upon a moment in which we wonder, not how much money we are earning, nor how famous we have become, but what good are we doing." -A.A. Milne

It's About Meaning, Not Money

3G, 4G, XG...Huh?

There is a huge need for speed on our networks—as we demand the latest and greatest download streaming of books, movies, games, and more.

The network generation (or mobile telephony) standards have evolved to soon to be 4^th generation (or 4G).

While 3G standards require network speeds for voice and data of at least 200 kbit/s, the 4G-performance hurdle jumps (500x) to 100 mbit/s.

The chart from Wikipedia shows the various standards and how they have evolved over time.

What are interesting to me are two things:

1) Network carriers that are competing for your business are already boasting 4G deliveries even though they do not meet the standards set out by The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), an agency of the U.N. According to Computerworld (22 November 2010), the 100 mbit/s standard is “about 10 times the performance that any carrier…can offer today.” Moreover, technologies such as LTE-Advanced and WiMax 2 that are expected to be 4G complaint aren’t “expected to go live commercially until 2014 or 2015.”

2) While the carriers are touting their various breakthrough standards, most people really have no clue what they are talking about. According to the Wall Street Journal (4 November 2010) on a survey by Yankee Group that “of more than 1,200 consumers found 57% had either never heard of 3G or didn’t understand the term. [And] With 4G, the ranks of the confused jump to 68%.”

Some lessons learned:

In the first case, we need to keep in mind the principle of caveat emptor (or let the buyer beware) when it comes to what the Wall Street Journal is calling the “increased rhetoric underscoring the high-stakes games played by the carriers as they jockey for position.”

In the second, vendors and technologists should understand that they are losing the consumer when they talk “techno-geek.” Instead, all need to use plain language when communicating, and simplify the technical jargon.

The comic in Computerworld (22 November 2010) summarized it well with pictures of all the various GGGG… technologies and the people next it to it saying, “At this point the labels are ahead of the technology.” Of course, I would add that the labels are also ahead of most people’s ability to understand the geek-speak. And we need to fix the communications of both.

3G, 4G, XG...Huh?

Federal IT Management Reform

New IT management reform from the White House.

Very exciting development.

The plan is published at this link.

Federal IT Management Reform

8 Types of Manager

Here's a funny cartoon by Tom Fishburne on "The 8 Types of Manager"

Which one are you?

8 Types of Manager

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

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

Slow Down And Enjoy The Journey

Someone sent me this beautiful poem; I hope you find it as meaningful as I do.
SLOW DANCE
Have you ever watched kids
On a merry-go-round?
Or listened to the rain
Slapping on the ground?
Ever followed a butterfly's erratic flight?
Or gazed at the sun into the fading night?
You better slow down.
Don't dance so fast.
Time is short.
The music won't last.
Do you run through each day
On the fly?
When you ask How are you?
Do you hear the reply?
When the day is done
Do you lie in your bed
With the next hundred chores
Running through your head?
You'd better slow down
Don't dance so fast.
Time is short.
The music won't last.
Ever told your child,
We'll do it tomorrow?
And in your haste,
Not see his sorrow?
Ever lost touch,
Let a good friendship die
Cause you never had time
To call and say,"Hi"
You'd better slow down.
Don't dance so fast.
Time is short.
The music won't last.
When you run so fast to get somewhere
You miss half the fun of getting there.
When you worry and hurry through your day,
It is like an unopened gift....
Thrown away.
Life is not a race
Do take it slower
Hear the music
Before the song is over.

Slow Down And Enjoy The Journey

Leadership Lessons from 127 Hours

Rarely does a movie get an 8.7 out of 10 in the reviews, so I had to go see the movie 127 Hours about Aron Ralston, the hiker who got trapped under a boulder in 2003 while mountain climbing in Utah, and had to amputate his own arm to free himself.
This was an incredible story of survival.

The guy had to drink his own urine to survive after running out of drinking water and finally had to break his own bones and cut off his own forearm with a dull blade and use a pliers to tear through his tendons in order to finally dislodge himself after 5 days of being trapped.
But what is even more amazing to me than what Aron had to do to survive is what he has chosen to do afterwards with his life.
Aside from the media appearances, motivational speaking, writing a book Between A Rock And A Hard Place, and getting married and having a son, Aron continues to be an ardent mountain climber.
While many people would actually choose to “lick their wounds” and basically find another hobby—a safer one, Aron continues to do what he loves—climbing.
He is not deterred.
To the contrary—he climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro in 2009 and still plans to climb Mt. Everest.
Aron inspires me, yet I have conflicting emotions about his choices.
Part of me thinks this guy is off the wall, since he took so many life-threatening chances (for example, climbing without even letting anyone know where he was) and nearly got himself killed, and now he continues to do pursue this dangerous sport with only one arm!
And another part of me is awed by him. He is unstoppable. He knows what he loves and he pursues it, no matter what: Terror, trauma, two arms or one, Aron will be climbing as long as he is able.
It is a great thing to be true to yourself, to have a passion, and to pursue it relentlessly. However, I believe it is a blessing to also have the wisdom to balance even the greatest of pursuits with sound judgement, so excuse the pun, you don’t end up having to cut off your nose (or in this case your arm) in despite of your face.
Aron is an inspiration similar to the movie character Rocky in terms of his determination and perseverance, but even Rocky knew when his health was at risk and it was time to hang his gloves up. Knowing when it’s safe to go and when it’s necessary to pause or even stop is an important part of our survival skills and it doesn’t mean that we are any less passionate about who we are or what we are about or believe in.
Passion should mean we responsibly grow into our pursuits and not unnecessarily die trying. In the movie, I got the impression that Aron was more than a little reckless, and he paid a heavy price for it, but I admire his bravery and that he continues to pursue his dreams.
In our organizations, we should encourage everyone to find their passion in the work they do—because that is a motivator for people that supersedes any paycheck or bonus management can provide.

Leadership Lessons from 127 Hours

Raising the Bar By Aligning Expectations and Personality

I always love on the court television show Judge Hatchett, when she tells people: "I expect great things from you!"

The Pygmalion Effect says that when we have high expectations of performance for people, they perform better.

In other words, how you see others is how they perform.

While behavior is driven by a host of motivational factors (recognition, rewards, and so on), behavior and ultimately performance is impacted by genetic and environmental factors—“nature and nurture”—and the nurture aspect includes people’s expectations of us.

Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, people live up or down to expectations.

For example, studies by Rosenthal and Jacobson showed that if teachers expected enhanced performance from selected children, those children performed better.

When people have high or low expectations for others, they treat them differently—consciously or unconsciously—they tip off what they believe the others are capable of and will ultimately deliver. In the video, The Pygmalion Effect: Managing the power of Expectation, these show up in the following ways:

• Climate: The social and emotional mood we create, such as tone, eye contact, facial expression, body language, etc.
• Inputs: The amount and quality of instruction, assistance, or input we provide.
• Outputs: The opportunities to do the type of work that best aligns with the employee and produce that we provide.
• Feedback: The strength and duration of the feedback we provide.

In business, expect great things from people and set them to succeed by providing the following to meet those expectations:

• Inspiration
• Teaching
• Opportunity
• Encouragement

Additionally, treat others in the style that is consistent with the way that they see themselves, so that there is underlying alignment between the workplace (i.e. how we treat the employee) and who the employee fundamentally is.

Normally people think that setting high expectations means creating a situation where the individual’s high performance will take extra effort – both on their part and on the part of the manager.

However, this is not necessarily the case at all. All we have to do is align organizational expectations with the inherent knowledge, skills, and abilities of the employee, and their individual aspirations for development.

The point is we need to play to people’s strengths and help them work on their weaknesses. This, along with ongoing encouragement, can make our goals a reality, and enable the organization to set the bar meaningfully high for each and every one of us.

Raising the Bar By Aligning Expectations and Personality

Selfishness and The Paradox of Emotional Intelligence

I was fortunate to be in a terrific leadership development class this week held in coordination with University of Virginia, and one of the instructors shared this interesting explanation about the four levels of emotional intelligence (EI), which I have put into the attached graphic (note: there are other variants of this).


Essentially there are three levels of EI that have to do with “me”:

1. Self-Awareness: Being cognizant of one’s own emotions, thinking and behaviors

2. Self-Management: Being able to control negative displays of emotions, thoughts, and behaviors.

3. Self-Direction: Being able to positively choose emotions, thoughts, and behaviors.

These three levels are steps and maturity in the development of a person’s emotional intelligence.

Then, for those that are able to “breakthrough” to the next and forth level having to do with “others” (instead of “me”), there is a fourth level called:

4. Empathy: Being able to understand, share, and identify with the emotions and thoughts of others.

The idea here, as another instructor stated, is that “we close the [emotional] gap with others through empathy and disclosure.”

However, in order to get to the stage where we can genuinely connect and empathize with others, we must first work on ourselves.

From a leadership perspective, I think this model of emotional intelligence is very valuable, because it provide us the framework for maturing our emotional self-development starting with basic awareness and advancing toward gaining control over ourselves and ultimately being able to have meaningful understanding for others.

It is only with such understanding of and connection with others that we can create the foundation for successful teamwork, innovation, and improved performance.

Where are we failing on EI?

• Being so busy with “the daily grind” that we don’t have the time, energy, or capacity to do justice to the relationships in our lives.

• Lack of mastery of the “me”—we lack self-awareness and are not in control of ourselves.

• Narcissism that leads us to ignore the others around us and therefore leads us to have difficulty relating to them.

All of these, in a sense, represent a huge life paradox. We are taught that to succeed we must work on ourselves, and in turn we have become a self-focused society.


We have learned that success means being perfectly educated, thin, fit, married, earning a huge salary, and so on. But we are so busy thinking about these goals and looking at them as pure achievements to be marked off on a list that we lose sight of the process. And in doing so we actually become less effective at the things we are trying to do.


The process is about becoming emotionally intelligent—about learning the skills of self-control, self-management, self-direction, and ultimately empathy.


In fact, to succeed—and to find meaning in that success—we must give meaningfully to others in time and energy, rather than just taking for ourselves.

Ultimately, it doesn’t have to be a “breakthrough” event to empathize, give, and build healthy and productive relationships. Regardless of how much money or prestige we achieve in life, I believe that achieving the “us” rather than only focusing on the “me” is truly where the biggest payoff is at in life.

Selfishness and The Paradox of Emotional Intelligence

Who Needs Airport Body Scanners? An Alternative Approach

Not sure if this is serious or a joke, but I received an email for an alternative to body scanners at the airports -- may seem a bit crude, but then again we need to look for an effective security solution that is less invasive.

This particular idea, attributed to Israeli security, is for a booth that rather than take potentially invasive body scans, will safely (but not for you, if you are a terrorist) "detonate any explosive device that you may have on you." Poof!

Advantages: deterrence, speed, privacy, justice, and the objective of safe air transport is achieved.

Who Needs Airport Body Scanners? An Alternative Approach

A Spiritual Approach To Material Success

Anyway, I’m reading this book about achieving personal wellbeing and there is a section about a study that was done where people were given two choices:

1) Earn $50,000, while your peers earn $25,000 or

2) Earn $100,000, while your peers earn $200,000

Well, the study found that about half the respondents choose #1—even though they would earn significantly less (i.e. literally half) and be able to afford less in real purchasing power.

In other words, many people choose to be poorer in real terms, in order to be relatively well off compared to their peers.

This is in stark contrast to the notion of collaboration. In leadership classes, books, etc., haven’t we been trained by now to believe that by working together, we can increase “the pie” for everyone? Well, increasing the pie seems appealing to many, only if their slice remains the largest piece!

The question is—why? Is it that people are unabashedly competitive, overwhelming selfish, or endlessly jealous of others? Or is this a survival-based choice, where we are “hardwired” to fight not only to stay alive, but also to achieve status?

Frequently at work—particularly around budget time—we hear people say things like this is “a zero-sum game”—meaning that what goes to one, comes from another. In other words, there is a winner and a loser in every transaction. For example, if I give you the resources, someone else has to give up some resources, so we can achieve our overall budget numbers.

Similarly at performance time, there is typically a “performance pool” with a certain allocation of money available for bonuses. The more that goes to one/some, the less that is available for others.

So despite all the “platitudes” about sharing, in real life a message about competition vs. sharing seems repeated again and again in life, with the doling out of the best education, job opportunities, healthcare, housing, and so on. There are limited/scarce resources and so not everyone is going to get what they want. The message sent to all: you have to compete to get your due—and the more someone else gets, the less that’s available for you.

But is striving for superior status really always desirable?

From a business perspective, there is a compelling case to be made that competition drives performance, and that we need to reward the best performers. At the same time, collaboration and information-sharing can improve our competitive edge. In other words, working with your peers effectively can improve everybody’s chances for success.

However, to many, there is an inherent notion of inequity in promoting competition, because we are all people—all children of G-d—all worthy. Why should some get more than others?

Unfortunately, there is a misperception of what competition is really all about and what it means to succeed.

Many believe or are taught that those that “win the race” are the more deserving—i.e. they are better people, chosen, or selected by fate or DNA; and those that get less are either a lower class or caste, punished or cursed, or that they must simply work less or just don’t try. Many unfair and ridiculous judgments are thus cast on why some have more and less. (Even the people who “lose the race” often feel this way.)

So it is no wonder, when people are asked to choose real or relative wealth, in a way, it is no wonder that so many may choose relative over real wealth—because winning means that they are deserving and therefore better.

If only we could let go of our judgmental attitudes, our superiority complexes, and the notions of entitlements because “we are who we are,” then maybe we could see past the illusion of superiority and move toward a society where we all seek a larger pie for everyone to share and benefit from.

In that world, everyone will chose option #2—to not only do their best, but also to maximize the best for everyone else.

In the end, competition is not with others but with ourselves. And success is helping others succeed, and maybe even being happy for them if they do better than we do.

A Spiritual Approach To Material Success

Microsoft’s Three-headed Play

Computerworld, 8 November 2010, has an article called “Ozzie to Microsoft: Simplify, Simplify.” Unless Microsoft can become nimbler and less bureaucratic, they will not be able to keep pace with technology change in the marketplace.

Ray Ozzie, Microsoft’s departing Chief Software Architect (and Bill Gate’s successor since 2006) has prepared a five-year plan for the company that “exhorts the company to push further into the cloud—or perish.” (Hence, a recent Microsoft stock price that is half of what it was more ten years ago!)

According to Ozzie—and I believe most technology architects today would agree—the future of computing is far less about the PC and Windows and much more about mobile devices and services, which are not traditional core competencies of Microsoft.

The new technology landscape is one that is based on:

• Mobility—access anywhere (smartphones, tablets, and embedded appliances)
• Pervasiveness—access anytime (24/7, “always on”)
• Shared services—access that is hosted and shared, rather than device or enterprise-based.

Despite seeing the future, Microsoft is having trouble changing with the times and many are questioning whether they are in a sense a “one pony show” that can no longer keep up with the other technology innovators such as Apple, Google, Amazon, and others that seem to be riding the mobility and cloud wave.

Wes Miller, a technology analyst, states about Microsoft: “My frustration is that it’s a big ship, and the velocity with which the boat is going will make it hard” for them to move from a PC-centric to a cloud-oriented world. “You’re talking about competing with companies that are, if not out-innovating Microsoft, then outpacing them.”

With the deep bench of intellectual talent and investment dollars that Microsoft has, why are they apparently having difficultly adjusting with the changing technology landscape that their own chief architect is jumping up and down screaming to them to confront head-on?

To me, it certainly isn’t ignorance—they have some of the smartest technologists on the planet.

So what is the problem? Denial, complacency, arrogance, obstinance, accountability, leadership, or is it a combination of these coupled with the sheer size (about 89,000 employees) and organizational complexity of Microsoft—that Ozzie and Miller point out—that is hampering their ability to effectively transform themselves.

This certainly wouldn’t be the first time that the small and nimble have outmaneuvered lumbering giants. That’s why according to Fortune Magazine, of Fortune 500 companies, only 62 have appeared on the list every year since 1955, another 1,952 have come and gone. It’s sort of the David vs. Goliath story again and again.

While Microsoft is struggling to keep pace, they are fortunate to have had people like Ray Ozzie pointing them in the right direction, and they have made major inroads with cloud offering for Office365 (Office, Exchange, SharePoint, and Lync—formerly OCS), Windows Azure (service hosting and management), and Hyper V (for server virtualization).

As I see it, Microsoft has 3 choices:

1. Change leadership—find someone who can help the company adapt to the changing environment
2. Break up the company into smaller, more nimble units or “sub-brands,” each with the autonomy to compete aggressively in their sphere
3. Instead of focusing on (the past)—base product enhancements and the “next version,” they need to be thinking completely outside the box. Simply coming out with “Windows 13” is a bit ridiculous as a long-term strategy, as is mimicking competitors’ products and strategies.

As is often the case, this is really isn’t so much a question of the technology, because Microsoft can certainly do technology, but it is whether Microsoft can overcome their cultural challenges and once again innovate and do it quickly like their smaller and more agile rivals.

Microsoft’s Three-headed Play