Brain Beats Brawn ... Usually

Taking a mental break from putting together a video series on performance management -- up soon, tomorrow me hopes -- I read Brains vs. Brawn by Geoff Colvin in the Sep 15 issue of dead tree Fortune (paper still beats digital for reading on the sofa, in the loo or horizontal anywhere).

Fascinating, all about the relative worth per pound of commodities and intellectual capital products. Not so much which is worth more: one expects small, high-ticket items cost more per pound than bulky, sold-by-the-boat-load (literally) commodities. The size of the contrast is still amazing though, that in 2000 hot rolled steel sold for 19 cents a pound and an Intel Pentium III 800mz chip sold for $42,893 on the hoof. Wow.

With all the attention recently paid to commodity prices, trending very high even with a recent softening, Colvin

suspected we were missing a countertrend: the even stronger rise in value of brands, technology, copyrights, and other purely human products.

Not so. Comparing the year 2000 baseline with today's prices, he discovered that "the true commodities, steel and gold, have risen hugely, about 170% each." Yet brain-heavy, intellectual-capital products haven't faired as well, with Viagra up the most at a 150% rise (puns intended). Most don't even come close: the chip test is stark. The far-advanced Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition chip has increased a mere 18%. Huh?

The closer a product is to the dirt from which it came, the more its price has risen, while if it has been upgraded and sweated over by hundreds of Ph.D. engineers, it is lucky just to have help steady. What on earth is happening?

First, obvious to anyone aware of what's happening outside the West, is there has been a huge increase in the amount of brainpower available, that as demand for brainy products have certainly increased, this increase has been dwarfed (snd made possible actually) by the 1000s and 1000s and 1000s of Chinese, Indian and non-OECD country engineers produced yearly. Throw a stone in Shenzen, Hsin Chu or Bangalore and you're likely to hit an engineer, 50:50 one with an advanced degree.

Thus the increase of demand and the increase of brain power--and the low capital needed in areas like brand building--have led to better and better design to meet the challenge of more and more competitors. This has depressed unit costs, or prices anyway.

Not so in commodities. The demand in the past decade for from-the-dirt products has far outstripped the supply. It takes time and money to even get permission for a new mine, let alone the time needed to start up, build the refinery and other infrastructure then ship the iron, copper, coal or gold.

Colvin contends that this is still just a cycle, that big demand/low supply high prices will slowly change, an equilibrium will be reached and prices will stabilize if not fall. Calling it a "once-a-generation" opportunity to cash in from commodities, he ends with the money quoye, that

A smart businessperson can always innovate, create a new brand, build a better prodcut. The game never stands still, but neither does it lead to an inevitable conclusion. That's why I'm still betting on brainpower.

Me too. I live in one of the world's commodity powerhouses, Canada, self-described "hewers of wood and drawers of water." Life is sure good in many parts of Canada, potash from Saskatchewan, oil from Alberta (Oilberta to the rest of Canada), coal and other minerals from BC make for happy budgets. But the writing is on the wall, if we take the time to see it anyway.

Central Canada, Ontario and Quebec, are suffering: our manufacturing heartland, jobs are disappearing and ... no one quite knows. I live in Sooke Harbour, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, a rugged community built on logging and fishing. But there are few logs left, and, by all accounts, fewer fish. It's a beautiful spot, and tourism will help, but B&Bs and diners pay little wages, certainly not enough to replace a logger paycheck.

We, like the rest of Canada, have to shift, from digging in the figurative dirt to innovating in the intellectual marketplace. Like Colville, I think we have no choice but to bet on brainpower.

Poor Logic = Poor Decisons

I have this thing about poor logic. Arguments full of fallacies frustrate me. Every judgment, opinion and decision are but the conclusions of a set of premises, that I believe/think/suggest X because of these Y facts. The success or failure, the problems and solutions of individual lives, organizations, companies and countries depend upon the quality of the logic used to analyze the situation, whatever that might be.

Conclusions reached without any formal or systematic logical analysis can be good ("gut" decisions stem, after all, on an internal, below-the-radar logical process), and conclusions reached through vigorous use of logical analysis can be bad. Logic is not magic: it just improves your chances of reaching good conclusions. (More on my logical history below.)

Premise quantity and quality (relevant, acceptable) affect the quality of the conclusion: lots of good premises increases the chance of making a good conclusion; adding irrelevant, unacceptable premises, or not including premises that hurt your case, decreases the chance of making a good conclusion. Duh.

People in business often make the latter mistake, focusing just on the points for their case and minimizing--or not including--points that hurt their case. It is a very natural, very human thing to do, "putting your best forward" and all that. It can also be a very sneaky thing to do, a strategy focused strictly on winning the case at hand, not on what might happen in the future.

Why the screed about logic? Politics, of course; Republican arguments, again: a column by William Kristol in the NY Times, "A Heartbeat Away," specifically.

Mr. Kristol defends Sarah Palin's ability to sit in the Big Chair if tradgey happens (which BTW was John McCain's stated only test for his veep pick, pre-Palin that is). How? Because she is young, and there have been two other "young" Veeps who rose to the occasion, Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman, therefore Palin can rise as well. Huh?

Standardized, Kristol's argument is:

1. Palin is young
2. Teddy Roosevelt was young when he became POTUS after McKinley died
3. Harry Truman was young when he became POTUS after FDR died
4. Both Roosevelt and Truman "rose to the occasion" and became great presidents
C: Palin will also "rise to the occasion" and become a great president if McCain dies

Hogwash. Put in standard form makes it even more ludicrous. Using youth to put Palin's pre-VP background in the same class as Truman's or Roosevelt's beggars belief. Take a look at what other "qualifications" the two gents had when picked besides being generationally challenged.

Roosevelt:
* graduated from Harvard Phi Betta Kappa and magna cum laude
* wrote book, "The Naval War Of 1812," celebrated then and since as definite study of the conflict (still in print after 124 years!)
* New York Assemblyman
* Governor of New York
* Asst. Secretary of the Navy

Truman:
* served in army before and during WWI, citations for leadership
* county judge
* entrepreneur (with bankruptcy experience as well)
* twice elected US Senate (both tough races)
* Chair of high-profile Truman Committee during WWII, ferreting out military waste and fraud
* on cover of Time magazine

Compare these backgrounds with Palin's; the only thing the gentlemen and the lady truly have in common is their age. Yes, Palin was a mayor, and a governor, but can anyone seriously contend that two years of governing Alaska (through a time of budget surpluses) equate with two years governing New York? Or that the experience gleaned from her total time in office equals the foreign policy experience of leading a prominent war-time committee?

(Please, no culture/values/small town arguments: these issues may rightly be important to being a great president, but miss my point. I am arguing strictly on the experience that comes from making sense of extremely complicated systems/process/events and from managing nationwide groups or organizations with global interests--requirements that seem to be lifted straight from the President's job description.)

Mr. Kristol's argument is another example of starting with the conclusion (Palin is not a bad pick) then finding facts to support that ... warping them if necessary ... and conveniently not including other facts that don't offer support.

A better approach--one I wish to read--would be to argue why the qualities she does have meet all the requirements of the job, i.e., objective as well as subjective requirements. Just nouns and verbs, no adjectives. Finally, this is NOT an argument against Sarah Palin per se, just a plea for better logic.

I sure think better logic is needed.
_______________________
My Logical History
My first logic class was from Mark Battersby (Capilano College, 1979-80) in a course titled "Logical Self Defense," from the book of the same name. First day he warned us that this course would "make all your friends and family hate you." How's that for piquing interest!

He was right: once you learn what the red herring and post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies (and many others) are, well, you find them everywhere! It is exciting, a skill you want to use, but students (me) take it too far, analyzing and correcting friend and family arguments. Students (me) soon get shunned or slammed: friends do not want to hear about problems in their arguments, and telling your father he is making a straw man argument is a losing proposition ... especially if true.

Wishful Thinking = Good Leaders?

Does Acme need Dick? Why should Dick be the leader? Dick is multi-cultural, well-educated, a highly-experienced manager. Not many of us compare to his qualifications; most of us don't have nearly such an impressive CV. A touch cerebral at times, an overpowering intelligence, I wager many would have trouble relating to Dick. Why not choose someone else, someone we can more easily relate to perhaps.

Maybe a small town mayor who likes to fish, hunt and play basketball. A hockey mom say, who struggles to balance family life and career. A good, god-fearin' woman, tough but with lipstick.

Okay, Acme is a corporation, not a democracy, and until it goes public Dick rules by force majeur, overwhelming force: while too cultured to put it this way, he would say to dissenters, "It's my way or the highway." But the principle is identical: what do I/you/we want in a leader?

As an investor or shareholder (hypothetically speaking) I want the top job to go to someone who has both relevant experience and a proven track record in this specific field, in other words, is qualified to get the job done. Someone like Dick.

Do such "qualifications" guarantee Dick will get the job done? Nope. No way. Decisons based on analyzing qualifications are not necessarily right, but are more frequently right. And there's the rub.

As I tell my logic students, logic is all about probability, not certainty. If you want certainty go to church. Logical analysis writ large can only make conclusions more likely right, can increase the odds of being right. No small feat that, for, as gamblers know, win 51% of time and you'll be rich.

This is in no way an argument against Governor Palin: only by actually assuming and carrying out the job of VP (or P) would we know if she could do the job. My point is not against the person, it is against the process. Oh yes, and against hypocricsy, but I'll get to that.

Okay, I live in small town (Sooke, pop. 9,000 give or take). We need a new Fire Chief. As this decision could have a direct bearing on whether my house burns down or not I am somewhat interested in who we select. While I hope we choose someone who has good communication skills and can "relate" to the community at large, this is not highest, or even high, on my list. I want someone who has shown s/he likely can do the job.

I want us to choose someone with relevant fire-fighting experience, someone who has shown they can motivate and manage a team of firefighters. I would turn down an accountant with extensive accounts receivable experience, no matter how big a team of accountants s/he led. The demands on each position, fire chief and accounting manager, are just too different.

Could the accountant be a great fire chief? Certainly, is it possible, just not likely. Not something you'd like to bet your mortgage on. Would you let a dentist perform brain surgery on your child? No? Why not? They both are medical professionals and, by my extensive experience with "specialists," I'd wager dentists are easier for most people to relate to than brain surgeons. I'm just not sure the dentist drill is the right tool for brain operations, and that's the point.

The Republicans chose the wrong tool for the VP job.

Even a true GOP sycophant can't say Palin's scant executive experience makes her "qualified" for the demands of the modern VP position (let alone qualified for the Big Chair itself). Certainly I see no way to argue that Palin's name was the result of a long, detailed analysis of job needs and qualified possible candidates. She might do a good job, but you would not want to bet your country on it ... unless you had to.

McCain chose Palin for reasons other than her qualifications for likely VP success: he chose her because he had to, had to shake up the polls, had to secure and energize the GOP base. Since the surprise choice he and the GOP polls have done back flips trying to find reasons to prove the already-decided result. The reasons (comparing needs with qualifications) did not drive the result, the result (we choose her as the candidate) drove the almost-desperate search for reasons.

Out of the many possibile fallacies, I think this is best described as wishful thinking, that:

1. I (McCain, Republicans) stand to gain from believing P.
2. Hence, I (McCain, Republicans) should, prudentially, believe P.

Now I can hope all I want to that the dentist will operate successfully on my child's brain tumor, and, as I will benefit from believing it, I of course will try my best to believe it. But don't you think I'd have a better chance believing if it was brain surgeon, not a dentist? And that if I could choose, I'd choose the dentist for cavities, not cranium.

I've racked my cranium and can't think of an area outside of politics (and faith) where we happily indulge in wishful thinking. We insist on an experienced fire chief, we (or Americans, maybe not Canucks) would sue the dentist as soon a drill touched scalp. The only time we let the unqualified do something is when we have no better choice.

Says something about the state of the GOP, both that they had to do something special to get back into the race and that Palin was the best special they could find.

Next (?) time I'll broaden the point to the anti-expert bias of the Republicans in particular, and Western society in general. Best said by Nietzsche himself,

Arrogance on the part of the meritorious is even more offensive to us than the arrogance of those without merit: for merit itself is offensive.

In defense of the barely-qualified-for-VP Palin the GOP used an anti-expert, anti-qualifications argument, going so far as the quintessentially-cosmopolitan Giuliani saying questions about Palin stemmed from Democrats thinking her town was not "cosmopolitan" enough.

Can't you just see dressed-in-drag Rudi (the video with the Donald is priceless) settling down in Wassalia, in moose fur perhaps. With lipstick.

Now that is cosmopolitan.

Fine, back to business. I hope I've made the point (long winded as usual: sigh) that we select people for position based on their suitability for carrying out the duties of that position, of their likelihood of being successful in the specific postion. Like much in life, decsions are situational, i.e., based on the specifics of the situation at hand. One size does not fit all.

As an investor/shareholder (hypothetical remember) in Acme I care very much that we have Dick in charge, and that Dick selects new hires based on the merits, that is, on their suitability for the job, not the cut of their jib or preference in fur. I want Acme to make me money.

I would hope that Republicans want their Prez and V-Prez to make them safe, rich and healthy. At least that is what I want in a leader. And as Prime Minister Harper just dissolved Canada's parliament this morning, I will get a chance to vote for leader on October 14.

Oh joy. Just for a minute I wish one of the contenders wore lipstick. I'd settle for a sense of humor.

Ideology and Pains From The "Gut"

The worst thing to be in a Political Science department is apolitical: ideologues on both sides understand each other, and even grant grudging respect, but neither understand "neutrals," nor do they trust them. How can you trust someone when you don't know what s/he will do?

Being fiercely apolitical likely had more to do with my standing among professors and classmates than anything else (though my "Success Without College" T-shirt probably came close). I always sat by myself in seminar rooms, and no discussion was complete until everyone turned and looked at me, waiting for ... heresy, at least to one side.

It is a complicated and often confusing world we must make sense of, and I understand the comfort one can get from a set of rules and principles that simplifies and explains everything. Order from chaos, truth instead of uncertainty, answers not questions, it is like putting on warm socks: all-enveloping comfort. What's not to like?

Nothing, as long as you don't mind being a lemming, occasionally following your idea off the cliff.

Allowing anything, idea or person, to do your thinking for you is a losing strategy. Comforting, at least until you hit the valley floor. Every time a person gets wedded to an idea or way of looking the world, and shapes reality to fit that idea or perception, s/he is guilty of abdicating personal responsibility for ... life? Results? Making the world better?

I raise this subject now because of the US election reality show. I'm a Canuck so can't vote, but as I see the US when I look out the window (across the Strait of Juna de Fuca) I feel I can have an opinion. And my opinion is, are the Republicans nuts?

I'm not a Democrat, just a democrat. While I easily quote fluff like the Anarcist's creed, that "The change of rulers is the joy of fools," I believe my vote counts, and that it is my duty to make it an informed vote.

One of the most useful ideas about leadership comes from philosopher Peter Koestenbaum, specifically his Leadership Diamond (also here and here; used in sports as well) explained in his book, Leadership: The Inner Side Of Greatness. It is a book John McCain should read.

I will explore the Leadership Diamond in much more details later: for now just a quick summary and one excerpt. The concept behind the diamond is that there are four critical aspects (called "strategies") to achieving leadership greatness: vision, courage, ethics and reality. The excerpt is about the latter, reality, is that:

A realistic leader always responds to the facts, for realism means to have no illusions ... Realism means that you are competent, that you are in command of the hard facts of the business. Realism ... is a commitment to obtain extensive information and maintain a stance of aseptic objectivity. [It] stands for detachment, research, facts and calculations.

There, the problems of the Bush years explained in one paragraph: the Bushies read the words then did the opposite. Too much going by the "gut," too much "knowing" and not enough objectivity. And don't get me started on performance. "Good job Brownie" sums it up.

America is in a mess. Income inequality is at a level not seen since the 20s (here, here and here) and the middle class is farther way from the Leave It To Beaver fantasy family than ever (even in Alaska). Ozzie and Harriet simply would not recognize America now. Something has to be done.

I watched damn near the entire Republican convention (I should get out more), and heard damn few arguments based on "detachment, research, facts and calculations." Reforming the senate and congress are laudatory (and needed) goals, but ending earmarks and pork barrel projects hardly will help those struggling in the 20th income percentile.

Would Obama be a good president? Who knows? There certainly are valid questions about his experience, or lack thereof. Would McCain be a good president? Again who knows? There certainly are valid questions about his temperament and decision making. (I will leave alone the point that he has equal or less "executive experience" than Obama.)

One thing I always look for in a leader (client, friend, spouse) is someone who thinks their way through an issue, who is open to facts and dissenting opinions, who chooses an action only after deciding doing it is the best current choice. I run from people who say they "know" the answer, "know" the "right" thing to do. People who "know" give me the heebee jeebees. I look for people who think, not know.

Here the conventions did answer one thing: Obama thinks and McCain knows. Just like Bush II, and we all know how that has turned out. Has there ever been a group so poorly managed as the US has been for the past 7+ years?

As this is a business blog, the Business Dictionary defines ideology as

A system of ideas that explains and lends legitimacy to actions and beliefs of a social, religious, political, or corporate entity.

To this I add beliefs in plans, strategies and tactics. Few things in business hurt more than falling in love with your (or your boss's) idea, and closing your eyes to any datum that contradicts your preferred, pre-chosen reality.

Certainly an entrepreneur (like Dick) has to have an all-encompassing idea, yet believing in your idea when others doubt you is different than closing your eyes to facts. The two Steves had an idea, a personal computer, and believed in it even when all the "experts" scoffed. As Apple grew the idea didn't change because it didn't have to: the market was ready for a personal computer.

I am not sure the market is ready for a Pit Bull with or without lipstick. Does anyone seriously think that the anti-science teaching of creationism will help the US compete with the schools in India and China pumping out legions of engineers?

Does anyone seriously think that making decisions based on gut instinct is what America needs? I mean, it didn't work for Coca-Cola and the New Coke. I think the stakes are a tad higher here.

Labour Day Long Weekend

The Labor Day long weekend (first Monday in September is Labor Day) is the strangest holiday for those with school-age children. For 10 weeks the little hellions run free, staying up long past the parents' bedtime, and sleeping in ... until noon, if not later.

Then comes this long weekend, Saturday is fun, Sunday is fun, Monday is confused, as Tuesday, bang, back to school. The school bus comes at 08:15, so out of bed before 8am, well before.

Am I describing just my daughter's experience (and my wife and my loose parental practices), or is this "run wild" situation widespread? And just what the heck does this personal tale have to do with this blog?

Good questions. For the first, I know there are families that program their child's summer, from this camp to that activity, from learn this to practice that, for 2.5 months. No real time off (as in nothing to do), just a reduced schedule spent in non-school locations. This approach to summer "vacation" is common in Asia, at all family wealth points: only the nature and cost of the chosen activities differs from rich to middle class to poor, not the principle that a "vacation" is a time for extra schooling, not for goofing off.

Do I think this is wrong? Not necessarily: my daughter would have benefited with some more summer structure than when One Tree Hill or Friends reruns were on. But I also strongly feel that if children are not allowed to have unscripted "fun" they will grow into adults who just do not know how to have fun. Maybe we Western slackers know too well how to have fun, maybe, but I have always thought of life as more than just work and duty.

And have always thought of work as more than simply doing what you are told.

While not a development psychologist (phew), I use common sense glasses to see a relationship between creativity/initiative and unscripted fun, and between (whatever the opposite of creativity/initiative is) and scheduled and supervised activities.

Children left on their own have to use their imagination to make up things to do, make up games to play. Children who enjoy (sic) only scheduled and supervised activities learn to follow the rules and to wait to be told what to do.

Hey, following rules is important, and there certainly is a place for waiting to be told what to do, yet if this is all children learn they end up being good followers, not good leaders. From where I sit, we have sufficient followers, perhaps too many, but not enough leaders.

Singapore's celebrated founder and Prime Minister for 31 years (elected, not like Mugabe), said argued that (and I can't find the quote: sigh) Singapore needed to enhance student (hence worker hence citizen) creativity, and to do that must change its top-down, scheduled, wait-to-be-told school system; must adopt the Western, subjective, teach students to think model.

Did my daughter's unscripted, unscheduled and unfocused summer teach her to become a leader, teach her to be creative and to use her imagination? Not that I can see, so far anyway, but I wager it put her closer to that path than a scripted and scheduled summer would have.

That's the point actually, that all we can do as parents and managers is to point children and staff in the "right' direction, to give them the environment within which such growth is likely. Nothing we do will create a certain outcome, but our actions do make some outcomes more likely than others.

Back to work. I contend that companies need more than a good system and staff who are good followers, they also need change leaders, staff/managers who see different possibilities and are not afriad to try them, or at least argue for them.

Staff development is too much about "do this when that happens," too much about following the rules and waiting to be told. Sure this is absolutely essential, especially with a lesser-educated workforce, yet it alone it not enough to make a company grow to its full potential.

Somehow companies must learn how to encourage creativity and to allow mistakes. Often this means letting staff enjoy non-scipted training, dare I say "fun" training.

In The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn's description of the Soviet labor camp system, he writes

If, in order to live, one has not to live, then what is life for?

I take the first "live" to mean be alive, the second "live" to mean not have fun (or be in chains, or suffer, or ... you get my drift). In plain language, he asks that if we have to suffer to be alive then what the heck is life all about?

(Please, even though this is Sunday, no religious arguments.)

Turned to the office, if we have to follow someone else's rules and to wait to be told what to do to be successful, then what the heck is work all about?

Managers don't work, workers work

Managers don't work: workers work and managers manage. Beyond semantic accuracy, this bromide is actually true.

How do you measure a manager's performance? You start with what a manager is tasked to do (international sales, video editing, accounts payable, whatever) then compare what is accomplished in the area with the objective or target the area should reach. Yes, there is more to it, but at the most basic level it is that simple: compare what is done with what should have been done.

The international sales manager does not visit every customer or close every deal, s/he manages sales staff who do these tasks. If staff achieve their goals then the manager achieves his/her goals; if staff do not achieve goals the manager does not meet his/her goals. The manager is responsible for international sales, true, but his/her performance (total sales) is the sum total of the performance of the staff s/he manages.

Staff are tools used by a manager.

One way to look management is that staff are tools the manager uses to achieve a goal. Don't like that? Not politically correct? Sigh. Fine, then how about this: managers work for their staff (not the other way around), providing staff with everything needed to achieve individual objectives ... which added up equal the manager's performance. I like them both, especially "staff are tools." People who brindle at that just do not understand tools, or tool culture (an argument for another post).

If you accept that managers work for staff then what work do managers need to do? What does "give staff what they need" mean? It means more than physical and financial resources: staff need more than a desk, chair, computer and budget. At minimum staff also need the right skills, clear objectives and sufficient time to accomplish them. They may also need encouragement, direction and continuous feedback. There is no cut-in-stone rule that "staff need X:" what each staff needs depends upon the situation.

One of the most useful (if not the most useful) principles I've found is "situational leadership" (who owns the concept is confusing: see here and here), the simple idea that how you lead a person depends upon the experience and confidence the person has in doing the specific task. An experienced person only needs the bare minimum, a goal to be achieved and a deadline to achieve it in; a true rookie would a heck of a lot more. Maybe a clear description of the task and what "done" looks like, clear instructions about how to do it and hand-holding along the way.

The experienced person would think getting what the rookie needs a waste of time, and it may affect performance; the rookie would be lost only getting what the experienced person needs, again affecting performance. The job as a manager (leader, supervisor, whatever) is to see where the person is along the experienced/confident continum in that specifi task and then to adjust leadership/management style accordingly.

I thought of this principle over and over as I worked through problems all dragon boat weekend. The top festival leadership had given the job of Site Manager (an difficlut and complicated job) to a true rookie, 21 years old with no relevant experience, then had disappeared. Of course the inevitable happened: things were not set up right, key materials were missing or in the wrong place. The chaos made two already-long days seem even longer.

I put the blame squarely on the people who selected the rookie then disappeared. The previous Site Manager was a greybeard with years of experience managing projects, including 10 years experience in the festival. Giving him the position then disapperaing made sense: he would get angry at micro-mangaging. The rookie, well, he needed to be micro-managed.

I've often seen this mistake, leadership filling a position on a organization chart with little or no regard to whether the "name" could do the job. It feels good to have the org chart filled, and, so they think, "hey, if the "name" doesn't perform then that is his/her fault. Nothing to do with us."

I am now waiting for the festival debrief. Knowing the personalities involved I expect blame to go to the rookie, at which time I will interrupt and ... heck, telling the nabobs that it was a failure of their leadership will make it an interesting meeting. Not the first (or likely the last) time I've let my loose-cannon loose.

This issue is critical to Dick and Acme. Dick is furiously building the company, hiring managers to hire managers to hire workers ... to fill the org chart. All fine--it must be done--but it must be done with an eye to what each manager needs to succeed, and that requires time to stop and learn more about each manager's experience and confidence in doing the specific tasks hired for.

It is both time consuming and a job that never really ends. Developing managerial talent is absolutely crucial for business growth (sustainable growth that is: it is always easy to grow fast by putting "names" in empty boxes, but this is growth that doesn't last). Often (always?) it is necessary to let a manager try and fail before you get a good grip on his/her useable experience and confidence level. Again that takes time.

To summarize this rather-rambling post, I've argued that:

1. managers are measured by comparing objectives to accomplishments
2. a manager's accomplishment is the sum total of his/her staff's accomplishments, thus
3. a manager's true job is helping his/her staff achieve their indivdual objectives (managers work for staff)
4. staff need more than physical and financial resources: they need a certain amount of direction and help
   
5. the amount of direction and help staff need depends upon experience and confidence in the specific task at hand, thus
   
6. managers must adjust management (leadership) style to match the needs of each employee doing each task

Phew. Developing managers and staff is a (or the) crucial aspect of Acme's growth, and one of Dick's most important jobs. The principles of managers working for staff (or speakers working for listeners) and of needing to adjust styles depending on who you are managing (or communicating with) will be examined again, and often. Each are keys to my personal beliefs in managing, communicating and, dare I say, life.

Life? Yup: I believe that the only real way to get what you want is to help the others around you get what they want. Another time.

And I will let you know what happens in the dragon boat debrief. All I know now is that I will be wearing my bullet proof underwear.

We've Always Been On The Moon

Dick plans to offer custom services (N=1) to every customer, big or small; each will receive a service unique-to-them. From watching my daughter and her friends accept unique-to-them services as a given, like air or electricity, I realize N=1 is not an academic exercise but a reality, indeed a tsunami racing towards us.

Old people everywhere tend to remark, usually with a negative moan, that the young people today think differently, act differently, dress and speak differently. Luckily still remembering my hippie, counter-culture, long-hair (well, everyone else had long hair) background, I can see the situation from both sides. The young are different. They "see" things differently. And, as the pace of change (in culture and society as well as technology) gets faster and faster the difference in "seeing" increases as well. A story.

A few years back my good friend Robert told the story of the first moon landing to his young daughter. A space and technology buff, Robert explained the excitement of that day, his family (and mine, and most) glued to the grainy black-and-white TV images, thrilling to the time-lapse, echoey, "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind," Neil first-foot-on-the-ground Armstrong homily.

Patience worn thin from listening to her dad wax on and on--as old people tend to do--about how the wonder of the event, his daughter answered,

But Daddy, we've always been on the Moon.

Yikes. To our generation the landing was a true seminal event, the culmination of Sputnik and of seeing the blue, green and white world suspended in the blackness of infinite space; we never felt more like global citizens than we did on that July 20, 1969 day.

Yet to Robert's daughter the moon landing was old news, just part of the furniture that makes up her world. Nothing special, no wonder attached.

(Which makes me wonder what might make this generation (X? Y? Z?), weaned on cell phones, text, Facebook, MySpace and iWhatevers, feel wonder? I recall the founding of Greenpeace for example, and wonder at what Rachel Carlson and her book, Silent Spring, created, the green movement that today has largely taken over--even if not always accepted. What will make my daughter feel wonder?)

Good Friends?

Anyway, I began this post with the intention to describe a truly fascinating example of N=1, the offering in India of 100% customized medical insurance based on each person's health and lifestyle, monitored on a daily basis by an R=G grouping of partners. An amazing example!

I will continue this post tomorrow (I promise!), my goal to use the medical insurance example to examine: a) what such a system requires; b) the obstacles facing implementing it today in Western countries (especially the US); and c) how the new generation (above) might accept this "based on lifestyle" method.

To bring this back to Dick and Acme, it is crucial that Dick and his key team do not simply use the way they "see" the world and the market to set policies and plans. In argument logic this is called the fallacy of Provincialism, that the way you and your friends think is the only (or the only correct) way to think. Dick must be able to step outside of his generation's and his culture's way of "seeing" if Acme is truly going to embrace the N-1, R=G world.

Pop's Garage Progress

Hi. I'm done, a couple of ways. I am tired beyond description, emotionally and intellectually, and yes, physically (my aching back), but am smiling. Why? Because the Garage is done! Maybe not to a casual onlooker but to the trained eye, wow! Progress.

Just the first floor though, and we now move to the dreaded mezzanine, then the attic and the Shed of Horrors, but ... we finished the Garage.

People can lose themselves in a big project, and forget that each major step accomplished is a reason for celebration. Maybe not champagne and caviar, but a celebration nonetheless. It is important to acknowledge success, even if the final goal is still aways away.



It is confusing times at Acme, for the newly-hired staff as well as for Dick. He needs to find small items, goals, reasons to communicate that Acme celebrates success. Staff work harder when they know their efforts are rewarded, even with a pizza and soda lunch on Friday.

My reward for reaching the milestone? Well, there is that nice bottle of red wine downstairs, and today was payday so the wife is in a good mood (it is hard when you sleep with your accountant), so ... maybe we'll stay up later than usual tonight, and sleep in tomorrow. Doesn't sound like much? Trust me, every time the alarm does not ring at 5am is a reason to celebrate.

To the wine, Tally Ho.

Pop's Garage On Speed

Have you ever been in such a hurry that you missed a step, brought the wrong file, cut the wrong branch or, and this is my particular Hell, tried to carry so much that you drop most if not all of it. More than just another Murphy's Law manifestation, going so fast that it ends up causing you to lose time is one of life's ironies, a Catch 23.

Pop had a pithy saying for this (too), that you should take time make nice. I've always added less haste more speed to the equation (not a Pop saying). So, what do these four-word English Haiku mean in the real world. Lots actually. Let's start with Pop.

What is the goal of any action? To achieve the required result. Secondary goals include doing it quickly and properly, the twin Es of Quality Management, efficiency and effectiveness. Now Pop was always looking for the easiest (quickest, cheapest) way to get something done (and here's the important part) without sacrificing the intended result.

Pop was always about the final result. Take/Make means that taking a little more time up front to get X done is better than shaving time that causes poor results, so poor that you have to fix or redo them (both adding to the cost). A direct segue into Less/More.

Haste and Speed describe different parts of an action. Haste is how you try to go fast (how you move, prepare etc.), and speed is how fast you actually go.

Chaucer wrote in 'Canterbury Tales' (c. 1387), 'In wikked haste is not profit.'. When you try too hard you begin to focus on the how--can we go faster?--and forget (pay less attention to) result quality. Trying to be super efficient hurts overall efficiency. Here's an example from the dust.

My sister was helping. An ex-public health nurse, Sis is a bulldozer (which I mean in the very best sense), all about Get The Dam Work Done Now! I pointed her towards the black hole of tools under the stairs, which she attacked even before my sound waves reached the wall.

I took a short break and came back to ... No Time Taken, No Nice Result, to ... Much Haste, No Speed. Why? Because in her hurry she only thought about her step, separate the tools, and by focusing on just that one step she was causing unnecessary steps down the road.

Sis separated the tools in record time, laid nicely in a row. See pic.

Great, except that there were more tools than she imagined, tools that defied categories, and, of course the inevitable happened. The neat row turned into a messy mound that split the garage in two.

I then took an entire day to arrange the tools how I wanted at the start, into great bug tubs (I'll take some pics today). Could they have gone straight from the black hole to the tubs, missing the entire "messy mound" step? YES. It was what I wanted.

It didn't happen because it took more time up front to find, empty and label the tubs, and Sis wanted to Get The Job Done Now. In other words, Haste = Waste(d) time and effort. Taking the Time would have made Nice, less Haste would have meant more Speed.

Now sometimes you have no choice but the Get The Job Done Now; sometimes haste is the only option left open. Fine. Go ahead, sprint. Just try to keep the intended final result in mind, and where you can take the time to at least point your actions in that general direction.

Here is a great lesson for Dick and Acme. Like all entrepreneurs, Dick is frantic (figuratively: he is not frothing at the mouth) for revenue, any revenue. I emphasize "any" because easy money ("This is generating revenue!") often leads down wrong roads. Dick should seek revenue (duh) but should take the time (now when he has time) to make sure decisions made today will give his plans a good chance of success tomorrow.

The old saw about career choice is that you don't actually make a conscious career but rather realize 10 years later that life chose one for you. The same can happen in business. Maybe the new gig is great, and should become your business, but it behooves you to Take Time, Make Nice.

++++++++++++++++
Dick is in India, hiring more people. I wanted to writ about that, about Acme (and I will, soon), but am being consumed by helping my parents downsize. Dueling Alzheimer's: screaming arguments and 80 year old-tantrums over words that quite possibly were never even said, only imagined, or said but then forgotten, totally.

Mom was rushed to hospital mid-week, chest pains: oh no! Luckily it was just exhaustion and angina, this time. So I apologize for no emphasis on Acme. Adding to my confusion is their asking me, rather formally too, if I would take responsibility for disposing of their ... stuff. (Of course I said Yes, with a silent "about bloody time" under my breath.) So I will continue to serve two (?) masters for a time yet.

Pop's Garage Philosophy 4

Warning: possible bad words ahead.

Get's 'em every time. But seriously, on the theme of projects and results and all things profitable, I have to start with a Pop's crude wisdom. Manys the times when the chips were down he'd say with some enthusiasm, "you have to **** [urinate] with what **** [penis] you have." Two four-letter words, already.

So in polite company it's, "you have to pee with what dick you have," i.e., use what you have to do the job, and forget what you don't have." I call it the "never" rule. It goes

projects never have enough time/resources but must find a way anyway

It's true in decision making, you never have enough information to make a decision; there is always more you can get. All decisions are based on insufficient knowledge. So? Even procrastinators run out of time--we all have to make decisions, or what become decisions.

Too many people moan about what they don't have. Missing something? Run out of time. So? What can you do with what you have? Then do it. You'll be surprised what happens.

And they say that optimists live longer. Bliss. But it isn't really optimism, it's realism. As long as there is any hope at all, you do whatever you can with whatever you can. Your chance doesn't end till the fat lady sings.

Pop's Garage Philosophy 3

Phew. More work on Pop's Garage (and Mom's dragon hoard of ceramics and porcelain supplies, fabrics, patterns, knitting machines and materials, stained glass, dishes, pots and pans, towels and cloths of every type, size, color and fabric, and of course a TON of part-finished projects). Carol and I walked, er, hobbled out of there last evening with a full minivan and Intrepid's worth of ... stuff. And I'm back there in, let's see, about 90 minutes. Another fun day approaches.

An old family friend showed up while my brother and I were up to our elbows in Garage ... stuff the day before yesterday. Once I again I heard the semi-rhetorical question, "How did you know where to start: I wouldn't have been able to." Oh?

A lesson from Pop's Garage is never let yourself defeat yourself. If you start off by thinking you can't win, well, you can't, and won't. Sure, some things are harder to do than others, and some you might never have the talent/kill/knowledge to do--like for example, I am totally fascinated by space and various space programs, but at my age I will never, no matter how hard I try, be a rocket scientist--but that has nothing to do with defeating yourself. A given in project management, personal, team or corporate, is that the goal has to attainable ... without using magic.

The Chinese often use a phrase, mei you ban fa, which translates as "there is no way [to do or achieve or succeed at the issue in question]." Whenever I hear it (and it is appropriate, always a consideration) I answer, "If you think there is no way then I guarantee there will be no way. But if you start by saying/thinking 'maybe there is way,' then you know, maybe there is a way." In other words, don't defeat yourself before you even start by saying that you won't be able to ...

Anyway, this is what this video is about. Was I nervous about the Garage job? Sure: I am not a fool. I knew how tough it would be. Did I fear the Garage job? No. Fear? As Aldous Huxley wrote in novel, Island (years before it became famous in the Dune novels by Frank Herbert),

Fear is the mind killer.

Well, fear is the mind killer. In the case of the friend's comments on cleaning Pop's garage, it was fear of complexity. Because something looks difficult you fear it, from there a very short move to defeating yourself.

Dick will encounter many "garage" jobs as Acme grows. Many will be the time he, and his team, shies away from certain tasks. That's okay (being nervous is actually a good thing: continued later). But fear the task? Never!

Pops Garage Philosophy Too

Now Saturday evening. Daughter's piano test today, so no go parents. Phew. I needed a break. The downsize saps emotional, physical and intellectual (what do I do with that?) energy, and all with family, who love each other but daily contact ah, not so much. Sigh. Oh, and the test went well, tears before, tears after, and fears for the next two weeks.

Video Too continues my lessons from Pop's Garage, about results and accountability.

Pop's Garage Philosophy

Tried to post this last night when I got home, but ... was too tired to redo it after the software -- made by a famous guy named Bill -- crashed at the end of my first attempt.



Hope to shoot more today, but we have arranged a truck today, so it's off to the dump, a couple of times anyway, and also to load some of the bigger tools for my place (router, chop saw and planer, each mounted on movable dollies ... made by Pop).

Anyway, enjoy.