The Big Idea Blog - Philosophy

Goals. Ours. Yours.

nospam@example.com (David Walbridge) — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 10:48:00 -0500

So what are we doing here? What's the whole point of the big idea?

What we are doing here is ideas. Big ideas. By that we mean we hope to send you useful, actionable ideas that you (dear reader) can put to use in your world. your business, your art, your life. Sometimes things we have just discovered. Sometimes old chestnuts that we have used for years. Tools. Techniques. technology.

We started this planning to blog for a full year - new ideas, musings, resources; something new -- a 'big idea.'
Our backgrounds are different -very different. And that gives us a unique platform. Though we are both business owners, we are in vastly different fields. We like ideas, discourse, reading and thinking on the edge of the envelope.

In a few weeks we will have reached out first goal -- to complete a year. After that, time to reflect and decide how to approach our second year. We welcome you thoughts.

WTF: Why Things Fail

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:00:00 -0500

My general approach to planning for outcomes boils down to the following three guidelines:

1. Hope for the best
2. Plan for the worst
3. Expect to land somewhere in between

It goes back to my epiphany of figuring out why so many people are so unhappy most of the time: Bad expectation management.

In corporate America this is ever so present with projects that fail, and usually spectacularly. You know the projects/initiatives/corporate mandates I'm talking about -- the ones where everyone is having hall conversations about how there is no way project X is going to come in on time, let alone even close to the original budget and likely won't solve the underlying unmet need of its intended audience. Over-promising and under-delivering.

Failure in and of itself isn't a bad thing -- in fact when you "fail fast" you achieve actual agility. Practice and experience controlled failure and you achieve fault-tolerance.

Failure to manage expectations on the other hand, comes down to two, almost diametrically opposed forces at work: Faith, or blind hopeful optimism versus sheer incompetence. I say almost opposed because you'll frequently find both of these qualities in the same person. It is most dangerous when that person is in a leadership role. Let me explain.

As human's we have a unlimited capacity for self-delusion. The path to ruin starts with a fundamental need to be "right" and almost always begins with the pattern of behavior called "seeking confirming evidence." We gather "success stories" about other people in what we think are similar situations and hold them up as iconic examples of why we do or should do X. In corporate America, if the evidence can't be found, it's invented -- created out of thin air. Two examples from a recent trip I made through a Fortune 500 medical device manufacturer.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Agenda

Jon* was a starry-eyed visionary executive -- at least that's how he saw himself. He probably had a semi permanent shrine to Steve Jobs somewhere, if not physically, mentally in the big mansion he believed he would own someday. Jon was desperate to be "right" -- when his closest lieutenants, the ones that weren't officious sycophants, disagreed with the direction he was taking the division, what did Jon do? He hired an outside consulting firm to help validate his beliefs. When this highly respected Bay-area ideation firm didn't shower Jon with kudo's and high-fives, thus depriving him of his richly deserved "atta-boy" pats on the back from his boss, what did Jon do next? He hired another firm to get a second opinion.

This second firm dispensed the glowing adoration Jon craved so much to the point where this companies CEO would jet around the globe with Jon to gather user stories that helped confirm Jon's beliefs. However, when that firms independent survey's came back negative, Jon decided to do his own survey of company clients to get the word from them directly. Third times a charm, right? Fortunately by this point Jon had spent so much money and wasted so much time that baseline projects were slipping because of resource constraints and his new manager wanted to know why.

In the end, the results of this third survey yielded the same results that everyone internally had been trying to tell Jon since day one: its a bad idea! When word got out that their top customers not only didn't want what Jon thought they wanted, but would actually stop buying any product if Jons change in service model went through, the division president stripped him of title, budget, and resources. Rumor has it he had to be told three times by the division president that he was "being redirected" before the exasperated boss told Jon to "put a bullet in it."

To this day Jon thinks that it had nothing to do with the vision, it was the teams fault for not explaining it well enough. Last I heard Jon is being "managed out" -- falling from being a Division VP to a "sole contributor" -- I'm sure they are hoping he'll quit since firing him for arrogance and incompetence is harder than it sounds.

All because of a desperate need to be right, instead of passionate need to do right.

Sometimes, Where There is Smoke, There are Mirrors

This is the story of justification after the fact. One of the divisions had invested heavily into a technology believed to be a veritable gold mine that would set fire to product development. After nearly 5 years of upgrades and enhancements, and day long training sessions to use the tool, its adoption rate and usage was a tiny fraction of the number of seat licenses that had been purchased.

When it was proposed that a fresh look at collaboration tools be kicked off, the team responsible for managing this monstrosity immediately joined in the fray to help with "lessons learned" -- every new potential system that was up for serious consideration, somehow this old tool magically "does that and more", or "its coming in the next version." It really started to make me wonder if my fellow team mates weren't actually paid shills by the vendor. Anyway, in order to try and build more excitement the team started sending out weekly "success stories" of how the tool had miraculously delivered on its promise.

When the team failed to sway anyone's opinion, their management proposed hiring an outside consultant to come in and help with the assessment. It took all of about 10 minutes to figure out that the consultant had been constrained to help justify the sunk-cost project, and that there was in fact going to be no independent evaluation. I politely withdrew from any sponsorship of the project at this point. The last I heard, the only people excited about the consultants findings are the people that hired him. Everyone else has pretty much checked out and given up on the idea that any real change can happen.

The fastest way to disenfranchise your team is to pretend to be transparent. Not every sign of smoke means fire. Unless you're talking about what management is smoking in which case they ought to be fired.

Never Trust an Opinion You Have To Buy

Wether it's having your palm-read, tea leaves, tarot, ouiji board, or just paying Accenture to tell you want you want to hear -- when it comes to opinions, you get what you pay for. Remember, it takes courage to tell the emperor he has no clothes.

The common playbook in corporate America is that when management doesn't like the answer they are getting (from their own highly qualified, talented people inside the company who are presumably motivated by the same desire to do the right thing), they go outside to find someone to tell them what they want to hear. Personally I think this is grounds for a demotion in rank, since it calls into question their sense of fidelity, not to mention just basic good judgment. It shows that they are not working from a common goal or need, but rather from a personal hidden agenda to be vindicated. To be right.

In other words, they believe that the organization exists to serve themselves instead of understanding they serve the organization.

Today's Big Idea: Things that make you say WTF!?! about your job are probably good indicators that something is about to fail.

Like a good used car salesman once said, "If you get the customer to ask the right questions, the answers are easy!" If you can't get your management to ask better questions, politely ask to be taken off those projects that are death marches and watch from the sidelines. In these cases its better for your sanity to be a spectator than one of the champions on the field when the lions are set loose or the buzzards come in after to pick the remains.

* Not his actual name per se...

Not using RSS yet? You should be! You can also get the updates on Twitter at http://twitter.com/TheBigIdeaBlog

Freedom of Speech, Freedom to be Offended and Freedom to Ignore

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:00:00 -0500

One of my friends on FaceBook recently posted a little blurb about being entitled to his opinion. My response was that sharing it was a privilege that had to be earned. Like so many of my blog entries, it got me thinking about the broader issue, in this case Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of Speech is a two-way entitlement (at least currently in some countries like the USA) -- you are also entitled to ignore any comment or content that offends you. It doesn't grant you the right to seek someone else to stop offending you -- a point that seems to be so lost on so many people. Your offense at anything in particular is a personal issue -- yours. And your offense is your current opinion or sentiment, for how many times have we come to change our minds based on further experience, information, or simple reflection??

In the Bhuddist tradition, actions and outcomes are neither positive or negative -- that our discriminating mind makes it so, but in reality has no bearing on existence. In other words, the world is largely a neutral place and our somewhat "absurd" reflections on the qualities of events are a matter of personal opinion. And you're absolutely entitled to your opinion. Sharing it with someone else is a privilege that has to be earned.

I think words are very powerful, but they are just icons or sounds expressing ideas. I would even go out on a limb and suggest that the concept of "hate speech" is misplaced. Most adults have the abilities to determine for themselves if they consider the source worthy of their respect. The speech may reflect an internally held belief, and the speech may in fact coincidentally precede an action -- but it is the action alone that has the basis for determining the effect and you'd be hard pressed to be able to prove that the speech in fact caused the action.

If you don't respect someone, why would you ever let something they say that you might find offensive bother you? Don't give them the pleasure of knowing that they can push your buttons. Practice mental Aikido and bend in the wind to let the poison darts pass.

Start with questioning why you think you respect them? Is it a self-esteem issue? Do you want to be liked by this individual? Do you want mutual respect? Admiration? To be recognized as competent? As a peer?

In this aspect "respect" is very similar to the formula for determining trust and confidence; do you believe that the individual is competent? Do you trust their motives? If they are offending you, and they continue to do so, it seems pretty evident that they don't respect you.

This is one of the reasons why I don't think that anonymous feedback in employee performance evaluations has any real and lasting impact. Without being able to determine whether or not the provider is someone I respect, how can I properly consider the feedback? Positive or negative?

So, Today's Big Idea is this: Freedom of Speech is a two-way entitlement. You free to speak, to offend, and be offended. As does your audience. It's a mutual thing.

You may be entitled to your own opinion, but sharing it is a privilege that must be earned. And privileges can be revoked at anytime.

In my own case, you can probably now understand why I really don't give a rats ass what people like Rush Limbaugh or Mark-5 robot opinions are on just about anything. Since I neither trust their competence nor their intentions why would their opinion matter? They aren't thought-leaders

Who are you guys and what are you doing here distracting me? The Big Idea Blog is written by David Duccini & David Walbridge

Would you want your son or daughter reporting to your boss?

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Mon, 31 May 2010 12:01:25 -0500

Now that I've had some time off, I've been thinking about the last re-org I went through at BSX, and the kind and qualities of the management du jour that my group reported up through. I've heard that a certain Director evidently thinks its okay to yell at his direct reports. As in literally angry shouting. Personally I'd never put up with that. I'd let the freak finish ranting, and then as cool and as calm as I possibly could muster, I'd say: "Are you finished?" And then I'd point a finger directly at their face and say slowly, using small words, "I'm not sure who you think you are, but let me be clear: Don't you EVER talk to me like that again." Nothing unhinges robot management like resetting the conversation on your terms.

Peter Drucker, the veritable father of modern management theory, was known for having an amazing ability to pick the right people for leadership roles. Well into his late seventies he was asked what criteria he used:

"I always ask myself, would I want one of my sons to work under that person? If he is successful, then young people will imitate him. Would I want my son to look like this?"*

If the answer is "no", then why are you?

Being an authentic leader means "walking the walk" -- if you wouldn't want your son or daughter (or niece/nephew) reporting to your boss, what kind of signal does that send? What kind of new normative behaviors might you inadvertently be picking up? In other words, what kind of person (or robot) are you turning yourself into?

Today's Big Idea: If your boss isn't the kind of person you'd want your son or daughter working for, it's time you found a new boss.

And, if you're promotion minded, figure out if you would enjoy the work your boss does. If not, it might be time to switch careers. Companies are hiring again -- go be valued somewhere else!

* This story can be found for the "5 April, Picking a Leader" entry in The Daily Drucker

Not using RSS yet? Get the updates on Twitter at http://twitter.com/TheBigIdeaBlog

The Courageous Leader

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 08:01:57 -0500

My friend Rob blogged about an observation he had in his MBA program, namely the propensity of his fellow students to act like Monday Morning Quarterbacks when it came to issues of ethics. Rob's case was the fraud that went on at WorldCom during the '90s.

Robs keen analogy to the monday morning quarterback is spot on. The element that's missing for the casual outside observer is situated context. The best example I can think of is sitting in the pilot seat of a Cessna, actually feeling the plane pivot and tip when practicing a cross-wind landing. Simulator alone won't prepare you for it. It's why I used to joke that after my morning lessons that my clothes would have the smell of avgas and fear! Situated context means "being there".

What happened at WorldCom, and Enron and what happens at thousands of other companies around you everyday is that the organizations do not have, nor value, empowerment. People have to feel empowered -- not enabled -- to stand up and "pull-the-chain" on the factory floor when they see a defect.

Social psychologists have studied this bystander effect, where shockingly the more people in a crowd or group, the LOWER the level of collective responsibility drops; in otherwords diffused responsibility. The "Genovese syndrome" so named after Kitty Genovese, a 1964 case of where her stabbing death was witnessed by 38 of her neighbors and not a single one called the police. By all accounts, we haven't progressed much given the disgusting gang rape incident that happened last year.

Essentially the same thing happens in businesses. An ethically impaired executive, in a position of authority, exercises bad judgment, putting the company, its employees and shareholders at risk. It usually starts with something small, an inappropriate charge to the company credit card here, a swank junket to play golf in the desert there, and eventually escalates into full fledged influence peddling. All the while their direct reports, those not in for the fun of the ride, are quietly whispering among themselves about how wrong it all seems. And yet no one is willing to stand up and pull-the-chain.

There's a line from a movie, and for the life of me I can't remember which one it was, had something to do with the idea that "most bad things people do in the world are because of a mortgage." (I thought it was "Thank you for Smoking"??)

When people have mortgages and families and "good jobs" -- they tend to let their high-minded ethics take a back-seat. Let's be perfectly honest for a moment:

There is no such thing as permanent employment.

If you let the fear of losing your job guide your ethics, you have no place in management.

Today's Big Idea: If you feel like your ethics or sense of right-and-wrong are being compromised by the company you keep, it's time to find a new company.

You might need a job, but you probably don't need this one. You should have faith in your own abilities and the courage to lead by example. Don't be a bystander.

meme replication on the internet

nospam@example.com (David Walbridge) — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 09:08:00 -0500

Short

Looking to create memes that people follow? Check out TED or Olga Kay Olga got so many views, Ford gave her a car. Gave. Car.

Best comedy films of all time

Extremely readable science about memes

Wikipedia chimes in here

Todays big idea: Create memes.

Republican health care plan, Tea baggers and the opposite of helping....

nospam@example.com (David Walbridge) — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:00:00 -0500

Generating new ideas is hard.

Implementing them is harder.

But its easy to be a nay-sayer, drag your feet and to prevent change.

The Republican party, top to bottom is opposed to health care reform. We get that. The Democratic plan is imperfect and expensive. Very expensive. We get that. But -- it is a plan. Its something. Obama is pushing for support. Pushing hard. (Wonder if he'll go so far as to book a guest spot on Oprah?)

Block, block, block. No, no, no. We get that.

But what is the Republican alternative? To get coverage for the poor and the 'already have health issues' block of people. Anything?

Here. Their plan..

How much the Republican plan would cost and how many uninsured Americans would gain coverage remains unclear. Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.)

And it has no specifics -- like cost or coverage.

A dog in the manger?

This blog is about ideas -- Creating them, championing them, and sometimes -- change the world ideas. Where are the ideas in the GOP?
"Not that" is not a solution. (Palin opposed single payer health care, but used single payer health care. Natch) In every group, there are those who have ideas, and energy to move things forward. And those who while not offering ideas or energy of their own, oppose new ideas, movement and any change. The world changes. Your business is changing. Technology advances -- You can fight this, or you can think ahead. Plan. Come up with creative solutions. suggest. Support. Or fight every change.

Today's big idea: You can be part of the solution. Or you can fight it. But the world will change without you...

A reader responds with this link to the rep health care plan . Telling quote from that story "The analysis shows the Republican plan would do little to expand coverage, which Democrats were quick to point out in a late night missive to reporters." So their response is, mostly, things are fine, don't change it. Block, resist, interfere, fight.

The CBO chimes in today --- and the democratic health care plan reduces the deficit. "The Congressional Budget Office estimated the legislation would reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion over its first 10 years, and continue to drive down the red ink thereafter"
And the republican response? ROADBLOCK

Discussion point -- What are the tea party members in favor of? Or are they just simply opposed to everything?

Bogworld - In which joe reviews both healthcare and 'How to train your dragon."

When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 07:30:00 -0600

When you introduce yourself to someone new, does the conversation almost immediately center on what you do for a living? Who you work for?

Do you think of yourself in terms of your current job title? Do you think that title accurately describes what you do? And more importantly, who you are?

Today's blog title comes from a Lao Tzu quote I really like:

When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be

There is usually a pretty huge disconnect between what your job title is, what you actually do for your company, and how you get compensated for it. It's one of the reasons why in the early years at BackPack Software we didn't have official job titles and everyone in the company was paid the same salary. In fact when asked I would often joke and say that my title was "Chief Bottle Washer!"

Job titles are bit like Maslow's Hammer -- best known as:

"When the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail."

By thinking of yourself in terms of what you currently do for a living as embodied in your job title, you are creating an artificial lens by which you view the world -- and worse, you're creating a lens for other people to view you. And viewing you in any particular (anchored) way is just another form of bracketing. We might be handing people hammers...

Are we only defined by the job titles we've held? Absolutely not! And yet, that is how we may end up viewing ourselves and actually encouraging other people to see us in the same way. It's really no surprise that this very condition has been studied. It's called The Looking Glass Self -- in a nutshell our identity, or self, is the result of the concept in which we learn to see ourselves as others do. And where do these others get most of the information upon which to see us? Why from us of course!

A friend of mine was complaining about the level of gossip in her company and was getting concerned that her manager at that time was starting to get the wrong impression of her. She was seriously starting to think about leaving the company and opined that she wished she could just go someplace where no one knew her. I went online and found a sign for her to print out that she could hang in her office to remind her:

Don't Feed the Bears

As innocent as her interactions had seemed, someone always found a way to make it out to be more than it was. It was an "a-ha" moment for her and from that day forward she stopped giving people information to use against her. Even though she's since been promoted and changed locations within her company the sign still hangs in her office to this day, and she's relayed that she passes copies of it on to her "inner-circle".

So today's Big Idea is this: "Let go of who you think you are and become what you might be"

And stop arming bears with hammers...

Not using RSS yet? Get the updates on Twitter at http://twitter.com/TheBigIdeaBlog

Those who Abandon their Dreams will Discourage Yours

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:58:19 -0600

I saw this on a bumper-sticker a while back:

Those who abandon their dreams will discourage yours

I liked it so much I bought a bunch of them and gave them away. I still have one on the side of my fridge, and I've adopted it as my .signature in all my adjunct instructor email accounts.

What I like about it is that it's a nice reminder that we should surround ourselves with positive people.

Like the Groucho Marx quote about being funny: Hang out with funny people.

The same holds true about other relationships you have.

If you want to be happy, hang out with happy people!

If your work environment is filled with disenfranchised and demoralized people, its time to find greener pastures. Or if you can't find that, look for someplace that is less brown. I still recommend The No Asshole Rule : Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn't , by Robert I Sutton.

So today's Big Idea is this: Don't let other people who have given up bring you down.

Who are you guys and what are you doing here distracting me? The Big Idea Blog is written by David Duccini & David Walbridge

Shareholder Employees: Empowered Ownership

nospam@example.com (David Duccini) — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 15:36:26 -0600

Do have you stock in the company you work for? If so, that makes you an "Owner-Employee" as compared to an "Employee-Owner". The distinction, I'll argue is an important one!

From start-ups where capital is precious to the largest multinational companies, stock incentives can be a great way to motivate and reward employees.

But first lets talk about the different types of stock you might have (or think you have):

You might own shares in a company outright. You might have been awarded a stock grant that vests shares over a period of time. You may even participate in an ESOP (Employee Stock Ownership Plan) through a payroll deduction you purchase shares of stock at an agreed market price (usually the lowest price at the start or end of the period). Sometimes companies will use its 401K matching program and give you shares of stock. If you have mutual funds, they might even have stock in your company. And finally, you can always buy shares in the open market if you really can't get enough. I'm "lucky" in that at present, I have all five forms of BSX in my portfolio. Now that I think of it, it's probably time to rebalance that.

You might have options -- these aren't actually shares of stock in the company until you exercise the option to buy. Options usually have limited lifetimes and most simply expire. They are good deal for companies to grant, since they cost almost nothing, and depending on if you work for a growing company (or not!) can end up being a bad deal for the employee -- ask any former Enron employee! They make the most sense for unknown senior executives who actually have an ability to drive share price (eg, new CEO's). Personally I don't like stock option "grants" -- they certainly don't motivate me the same way that actual ownership does. It takes away your ability to choose, and choice is equal to freedom. Stock options in effect are only the illusion of ownership.

Being an owner in the company you work for helps align your interests (and hopefully your fidelity for that matter) with what is best for the company, not the short term goals of whatever management is currently in power thanks to the latest reorganization. Which, incidentally, if you work in any large company long enough, you'll soon realize that most organizations experience some form of internal reorganization on average about every 13 months! Don't believe me? How many people have you reported to directly, or in-directly (one layer above your current manager) in the last X years? I've had four Directors in the last three years...

A friend of mine who works at a large financial company sits down with his new manager on day one and says something like "I'm not sure where you're headed next, but if history is any indicator, it will probably be sometime in the next 9-12 months. In the meantime, here's what I know about what's expected of you in your current role"

Being an owner in the company you work for means that management works for you.

One of the most successful American owner-employee companies is Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). In fact before they went public, their tag line was actually "An Employee-Owned Company"! There's something very powerful about a company that just puts that out there. No hokey tag lines.

We're owners first, employees second. Chances are we'll still be owners even after we're no longer an employee. Management has a fiduciary responsibility to its owners to run the company in a fiscally and ethically responsible manner.

So today's Big Idea is this: If your company's management isn't acting in a way that supports its owners it's time to demand new management.

The good news is, based on the re-org patterns, you'll likely have some sometime in the next year. Sit down with them on their first day and let me them know as an owner-employee what you expect of them. After all, they are working for you.

Who are you guys and what are you doing here distracting me? The Big Idea Blog is written by David Duccini & David Walbridge

the value of fun in a business setting

nospam@example.com (David Walbridge) — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:00:00 -0600

Fun. In a corporate setting. As in why should we encourage "fun" in our company as opposed to say serious work and thoughtful actions?**

Several reasons;

1) Its fun. er.
2) It relaxes people and relaxed people tend to make riskier decisions - i.e. more creative.
3) You clients will sense it. A "fun" workplace feels different from say, a law firm.
4) Wouldn't it be great is your work felt a little more like play?
5) It motivates people.
6) it increases communication (here)
7) "Research has shown that manipulating toys frees up the mind to be creative,"

BIG IDEA #222: Create and encourage a fun workplace.

** More on this later...

Naked altruism.

nospam@example.com (David Walbridge) — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:05:40 -0600

Right off the bat, let me say I love capitalism. The market rewards innovation and I appreciate that. Survival of the fastest. But, seeing as its Thursday, I offer a counter-point...

You should help.

Others.

My reasoning:

1. Its fun.
2. In most cases, giving of your abilities returns things (goodness?) to you.
3. In many cases, its the best or only way to develop a field.(*)
4. Its one of those things that's so counter-intuitive that it surprises people. That alone, might make it work doing.

Today's big idea: You should help. Others.

I'll say more on this later -- and how I'm incorporating it into my GTD program -- but it seems suddenly timely.

DW

(* I refer here to artistic fields; the mentor relationship is still a widely used model to develop really great artists/ shows/ etc.)