Renewable Synergy

It's been fascinating watching the Democratic National Convention this week.  Because I like to remain objective, I switch among channels to get different views and commentary.  What is even more interesting, though, are the commercials shown on each of the stations.  A common theme running across party lines and ideologies is renewable fuel sources.  Regardless of Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, it appears that we agree as Americans that our dependence on foreign oil is at a critical tipping point.  And since wind, solar, and biofuels are all renewable sources of power, it's to our advantage to look to them for the future.

What about the renewable energy on our teams at work?  Be they project teams or departments or task forces, how do the team members feel about showing up?  Watch the body language as people file into the room for your next meeting.  Are people showing up on time, bouncing in, talking animatedly about the work they are doing?  Are they building relationships and bridges with each other and with those outside the team who can be beneficial?  Or do they come in late, complaining, and dragging each other down?  Is there sniping and back-biting and sarcasm?  Are they building walls and spiteful alliances?

Both sets of team behaviors are renewable... whether a positive or negative culture has set in on your team, the energy driving it is contageous and easily permeable to those around your team.  So, if it's a negative culture, what can you do to turn things around?

• Bring food - I know, I know, it sounds simple.  Food is an amazing uplifter, especially if people see you have gone out of your way for them.  There's something about sharing a meal or snack that makes people open up in a positive way.  After all, there's a reason why Jesus had the Last Supper rather than the Last Board Meeting.
• Weed out the herd - if there is somebody who is negatively toxic, see what you can do to remove them from the rest.  Chances are good their negative vibes are contributing to your downward tailspin.  If coaching would improve the behavior, try that first; however, if they are chronically negative, you're better off dumping them.
• Code of conduct - ask the team to develop a code of behavior for what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior in meetings.  Allow them to define the consequence for breaking the code of conduct (a coin jar that can go for something positive like a team outing or a local charity is the most common).  It's important to let the team both define and police the behavior to prevent yourself from becoming the "bad cop" parental figure.
• Divide and conquer - have one-on-one meetings with people to discuss issues and ideas outside of the team setting.  This allows you to begin building the relationships and connecting in a positive fashion.  It also allows you to provide an constructive feedback in private (save the praise for the public forum; most people like being praised in front of their peers).

Making a concerted effort like this should have a positive, renewable impact on your team's energy level.  Think of it as putting a solar-powered wind turbine on your team's culture and relationships... and their accomplishments.

Running With The Bull

If you've been reading this blog for a while, many of you know, despite my longstanding conservative bent, I believed firmly Hillary Clinton was the best pick for president.  I've moved past my disappointment in the Democrats for choosing Barack.  It's still fun to watch as the candidates have dangled hints their VP choices in front of us for weeks.  As Letterman said of the Biden pick the other night, "Nothing says change like a 35-year veteran of the Senate."  But on the other side:  if McCain wants any shot at the White House, his VP pick will almost have be a minority or more necessarily a woman to lure the disenfranchised Hillary supporters who are on the fence over these two mediocre candidates; to have "two white males" on the ticket sets the Republicans up for almost certain failure in November.  (I don't suppose there's any chance Hillary would switch parties last minute to become John's running mate... oops... forgot to turn on my "inside voice" filter... sorry.)

Sigh.  So many office politics applications.  So little time.

But I wanted to take a moment to talk about Hillary's speech last night.  Some of the traits I admire about Hillary are her ability to turn a phrase to her own gain.  I was telling a friend of mine this past week, "All Hillary has to do is deliver a speech that makes herself sound good and will have both sides arguing about what she really meant."

Congratulations, Hillary!

She reaffirmed my reasons for thinking she was the best person for the job.  After all, the President of the United States needs to be skilled in oratory skills - not just making pretty speeches, but in letting each audience member come away with his or her own interpretation.  Reagan was a master of that.  It was entertaining on multiple levels to flip between the talking heads on Fox News and CNN last night after her speech was complete.  Wow!  One would wonder if they were talking about the same speech delivered by the same person.  Let's face it, the hosts on the talk shows on both sides are sheep; none showed much critical thinking ability in truly dissecting the speech objectively.  Last night I heard the following:

• She only mentioned Barack 9 or 10 times.
• She mentioned him more times than Kennedy mentioned Carter in the 1980 Convention.
• She merely said not to vote Republican.
• She unified the party.
• Her description of McCain was more personally glowing than her description of Obama.
• She's a strong Barack supporter now.
• She never talked about Barack's character or leadership; she could have delivered that same speech about any of her Democratic opponents.

(Just for fun, would you like to match the above comments to CNN or Fox?)

Now to the professional applications:  When we communicate a message - especially a really tough message - how much time do we really spend on things like word choice, tone, and voice?  Do we expend much effort on our audience's interpretation of our communication, or do we just spit out what we want to say?  Do we read body language of our audience to tell if we're connecting with them (by the way, someone needs to teach Michelle Obama how to smile when listening to somebody she loathes... that scowl on her face during Hillary's speech was something neither party could miss).  Whether we're communicating remotely or in person, do we do some research on our intended audience to figure out what their hot buttons are and what they want to hear?  Are there times when you need to communicate something by saying absolutely nothing?  To summarize, when we communicate, are we asking ourselves what we want to say, or are we asking ourselves what we want our audience to hear?

I'm not really looking for a political debate on this.  After all, if the talking sheep on CNN and Fox can't agree, why would a little ol' blog have anything new to add.  Believe it or not, I'm still relatively in the undecided camp, and I'll probably make up my mind when I'm casting my ballot in November.  But until then... Wow - it's going to be a fun nine weeks until the election.

I am, however, looking for a good communication debate.  What have you done in the past to communicate your message effectively... on your own terms?  Did I assess the Hillary speech correctly?  What has been your most impactful communication you've delivered?

How Green Are Your Relationships?

I almost strained a neck muscle from nodding too hard at a recent post in Joyful's Ponderings blog:

We’ve all met them. “High Maintenance” people. They’ll suck the life right out of you if you let them. You give them an inch, they take a mile. They are constantly needy. Friendship with them is draining. Seeing their number appear on the “call display” of your phone, brings hesitation as to whether you have time to pick up the receiver. Hearing their voice stifles an inner groan. Inviting them over for coffee takes mental and emotional preparation as they leave you exhausted.

Even when I wrote my post about God's Little Chew Toy early in my blogging career, I couldn't have described this class of individual any better.  Of course, Joyful goes on to develop a beautiful essay about being dependent on God's love, and how we should see these people through God's eyes and be more patient.  I'm sorry to admit it:  I'm still very, very human.  I've had people like that in my life, and eventually I had to phase them out.  It's one thing to be temporarily high maintenance.  We've all had those periods in our lives where life throws us a curve ball, and I have been amazingly grateful I had very patient people waiting for me throughout.  I'm even more grateful I've been able to help others through their bad periods.

But we're not talking about the temporarily high maintenance individual here.  We're talking the "long-term-suck-the-living-soul-right-out-of-you" brand of high maintenance.  I shared with one of my leadership classes recently that I was "going green" with my relationships.  If an individual consistently and constantly sucked up tremendous amounts of energy from me, then it was time to assess whether I needed to phase them out of my life.  Not an easy task, but many of us keep relationships around which have outlived their useful lives.  And then we wonder why we have no time for the relationships and activities in our lives which really do matter.

Before "going green" with a relationship, ask yourself the following:

• What is this person's outlook on life?  Can they make even the best of news sound horrible?
• When talking to this person, where does the balance of conversation lie?  Is it with them and their problems, or is the floor shared equally?  (After all, having friends with whom you can vent equally about life's little absurdities is healthy ... as long as it's mutually shared.)
• How do I feel after a conversation with this person?  Am I energized from having helped a friend, or am I more drained just by talking to them?
• Are the trials of this person caused by external circumstances or by their own bad decision-making?  Are they accountable and responsible for the things they do control, or do they flounder about in total helplessness?
• How long has this relationship been going on in this fashion?  Were they pleasant to be around at one point in our friendship?  Can I influence them back to that pleasant state?  Is there an end in sight to the circumstances which are making them high maintenance?
• What are long-term ramifications of keeping/ending the relationship?  Are there "residual" relationships which will be impacted?  How can you maintain the relationships you want and need to keep?  Keep in mind, going green is about sustainability.

Obviously, a decision like this isn't one to be taken hastily.  Relationships are not like light bulbs.  You can't just "unscrew" an energy-draining friend and replace them with a nice "compact fluorescent" friend.  Sometimes, a quick cut to a friendship is best.  Other times, it may mean a phased approach to closure.  It may even mean something in the middle (i.e., calling a "time out" from your friendship to allow you to regroup).  However, the thing to ultimately rememember is your relationships are still yours.  You're the one who has control.

The Geometry of Organizational Environmentalism

It's been an interesting education recently.  In anticipation of my next project, I've been ramping up on "green" corporate issues and "sustainability."  For a systems thinker, seeing how social, environmental and economic facets interact is fascinating stuff to say the least.  Whether or not one believes in global warming or climate change, this simply points to being a good planetary steward of the resources we have to ensure they will be around for multiple generations.

What also intrigues me about many organizations' approach to being green is the philosophy of executives and managers.  In organizations, executives create strategies which they expect their underlings to execute.  Strategies generally create a mix of projects and operational process tactics.  Instead of INTEGRATING green sustainable philosophies INTO these projects and processes, most executives keep them separate, running in parallel.  OK, for those of you who endured high school geometry, what is the number one rule of parallel lines?

(No peeking.)

Yup:  PARALLEL LINES NEVER CROSS.

We've seen this "parallel lines" principle played out organizationally numerous times.  When IT was first created in the early computer days, they were "those computer people" with whom nobody could communicate.  When project management was all the rage, executives created project offices to keep the project managers out of everybody's way.  When Six Sigma and Lean were the flavor du jour, these same executives kept "business running as usual" while those process improvement people earned their blackbelts.

So now we have environmentalism and sustainability facing our organizations.  And executives are keeping these initiatives at arm's length of the other strategic activities.

Unless organizations (and the executives who run them) learn that these kinds of critical iniatives must be A PART OF of the rest of the organization instead of separate from it, they will continue to suffer.  And when these executives don't see the kind of ROI results they expect, they'll blame the initiative.  It becomes a vicious cycle of failure... all because our corporate leaders need remedial geometry.

Extra Cheese With a Side of Irritation

Aren't we all creatures of habit to a certain degree?  The route from my house to Drake University is fairly well set.  Most of the streets have at least two lanes each direction to facilitate passing; however, there's a short stretch where there's only one lane of traffic in each direction.  Usually it's not an issue, nor is it any annoyance... until the other day.  The Pizza Hut delivery guy decided he would park his car on this residential stretch of no-passing, amusingly right under a No Parking sign, rather than pulling into the driveway.  Evidently, Pizza Hut doesn't believe in training their drivers to obey basic street signs.

Don't get me wrong:  I actually like Pizza Hut and their products.  And this delivery guy was simply trying to do his job (probably for minimum wage).  He simply wanted to serve his customers by getting them their pizza as quickly as possible.  His system was set.  The inputs were his car, a hot pizza, and the route to the customer's front door (among other things).  The output was a safely delivered pizza and a collection of funds.  The feedback loop was a satisfied customer with a happy tummy.

But part of his UNINTENDED feedback loop was an already irritable driver who was in a bit of a hurry.  And this driver had a camera and a blog.  And he's already been doing a lot of thinking about how systems all fit together, and how we can't just pay attention to our own systems - we have to look at how achieving our outputs affect others.

What about you?  The readers of this blog are mostly professionals who are striving to do great things for their customers.  But - in your quest to "seize the accomplishment" are you inadvertently hindering somebody else's system from reaching a desired output.  Let me ask you this:  how many times have you been called on the carpet "just for doing your job"?  How many times have you lived out the "no good deed goes unpunished" saying?  I'm not saying we shouldn't go above and beyond, and I'm certainly not advocating merely staying inside our comfort zones so we never get in trouble.  (For me, "in trouble" is more of a perpetual state than an occasional discrete event.)  All I'm asking you to do is to think about the systems around you, and how your quest for excellence may be adversely impacting somebody else who is trying to do the same.

Then our outputs can be delivered hot, fresh, and irritation-free.

Where's Your Cocoon?

I just answered a very challenging letter for Office-Politics.com.  My goal is always to provide workable strategies to allow the letter-writer to continue successfully in their current position.  However, in this case, a repeat letter writer made it painfully obvious the most feasible course of action was to leave a very toxic workplace situation (when people are committing suicide and having nervous breakdowns, it goes beyond simple office politics).

Honestly, I hate to have to give that advice.  I've overstayed my welcome in toxic workplaces and made best efforts to make things right before admitting to myself nothing will change and subsequently moving on.  My first boss out of college could best be described as an evil troll.  I endured for 18 months (collecting documentation) before threatening their boss with HR action.  I was moved to a different supervisor the next week.  Another part of my career, I worked for one consulting firm where the salesperson decided sabotaging my reputation was more fun than trying to sell my skills to clients.  While their efforts became evident early, it was tough to acknowledge somebody whom I once held in high regard could sink to such depths.

But I've also had to admit to myself that retreating isn't all bad.  I took the above picture in my backyard last week.  It was just providence that I caught the little guy in transit with his cocoon.  He's going to emerge as a magnificent butterfly, but right now he's in a state of retreat.  I was listening to Christine Kane's live performance CD "A Friday Night in One Lifetime" recently, and during one of her between-song monologues, she shared a story of a guy who stepped away from life and went camping for a while to regroup.  She stated her admiration for his decision, commenting that most of us think that when life starts talking to us, it means we should just push harder and order a venti instead of a grande at Starbucks.

I've learned over the past few years that having a retreat is a valuable part of life.  We've convinced ourselves working harder and faster is the way to success.  Where do you go when you REALLY NEED to regroup?  How do you heal the wounds inflicted?  What do you think about when you are breathing deeply and reflecting on what just happened?  What parameters do you set for yourself when retreating (time boundaries, do's and don'ts)?  What do you want to become when you emerge from your cocoon?  What is your sanctuary to move from worm to butterfly?

To All Employees

Employee Memorandum

FROM  Human Resources

RE  Supervisory Titles

A couple of years ago, it came to the attention of Human Resources that our company is behind the times on providing creative titles for our front-line supervisory staff.  We pride ourselves as being a company that responds quickly and decisively, so after much executive deliberation lasting several months and through numerous retreats, we agreed to form a committee to research the supervisory issue.

The research committee agreed that this is, indeed, a problem.  They looked at progressive companies across the world and informed us that the use of the term "supervisor" is antiquated and insulting.  As part of their final report, they recommended a task force be created to find new names for this vital role.

The task force acted with due diligence, spending millions of company dollars conducting only the foremost research.  They analyzed kinder terms such as "team leader" but still found them lacking.  They considered progressive terms such as "cheerleader" but feared some employees might find these terms demeaning.  They then looked researched more obscure walks of life, looking for terms in botany ("head nurturer" didn't sound strong enough), auto mechanics ("fine tuning technician" sounded a little autocratic), religion ("Satan" was copyrighted), and exotic arts ("pole dancer" had promise but one of the executives shifted uncomfortably whenever it was brought up).  The task force, unfortunately, came up with only one conclusion:  open an employee contest to name our supervisors.

We entertained numerous ideas from our bright and innovative front line staff.  Finally, as we were about to give up hope of ever finding a meaningful name for our front line supervisors, a drone from facilities management who has been assigned to research new cubicle configurations noticed an interesting parallel while visiting stall barn at the State Fair last week.  He submitted his idea based on his observations comparing stalls to cubicles, and we loved his insights.  Hence, it is with great pride that we unveil the new job title for our front-line supervisors, to go into effect immediately:

What's The Opposite of "Not Sucking"?

Just when I thought I'd heard Barbara Walters ask every interview question imaginable, she proved me wrong.  A few months after husband Kurt Cobain's 1994 suicide, Courtney Love was interviewed by Walters.  While the interview was very telling (drugs, sex, etc. ... all of the charming traits you'd expect from Ms. Love), Barbara FINALLY got around to asking her about her musical abilities.  "We don't suck," was Courtney's eloquent response, which prompted the follow-up question... "What's the opposite of 'not sucking'?"

Courtney Love and Barbara Walters aside, what about you and your accomplishments?  In project management and business analysis alike, we talk about success criteria; in other words, what does a successful solution look like, act like, feel like, function like?  But the opposite of "not sucking" is... well... sucking.  It's failure.  Do we take the time to define what failure looks like so we can avoid it?

Think about your current accomplishments.  What are you trying to avoid?  What are you attempting to miss?  What would make you slap your head in disbelief?  How could you drop the ball?  What will derail you?  Who wants to see you fail?  The polite term for this thinking is "risk management" or "test planning."  We try to achieve success, but do we know what failure looks like so we can avoid it?  To do so, to ask these tough questions can really keep you out of the a deep ... um... Hole.

Mirror, Mirror, On the (Great) Wall

First, we find out some of the fireworks were merely computer-generated animation during the opening ceremony.

Then we find out the cute little girl singing was merely a lip-sync because the real voice was attached to a homelier child.

Next, there's the conflict over the ages of the female gymnasts.  (My wife, who knows high schoolers like the back of her hand, said there is no way some of those girls were even close to 16.  And she's seen Shawn Johnson on a regular basis for the past couple of years.  Way to go, US team, on the silver.  We're still proud of you!)

But what's next on the Beijing Olympics Image Scandal?  The awesome drum-corps at the beginning was merely a steroid-induced Beijing High Marching Band?  The little boy walking next to Yao Ming is actually an actor?  The Bird's Nest is just a scrap metal heap surrounding an out-dated stadium?  (OK, I'm not really convinced that last one might not be true.)

I've enjoyed reading the blog of another Tim Johnson, this one the Beijing Bureau Chief of McClatchy newspapers.  He's actually had some great wit and insight about the games, and being an American in China, he's had some fun thoughts about the reflection of the culture.

As with the Chinese Olympics, professional image is one of those issues in the office where people either care too much about the wrong things or not enough about the right ones.  It's a great example of a statistical bi-modal distribution.  I've seen people get offended about the littlest things because they allowed themselves to be overly affected by others' perceptions of them.  I've also seen people not care enough what colleagues and clients thought of them and their work habits... until it came back to bite them.

Here are some of the realities about perception and image:

• You can't control others' perceptions of you, but you can control what you do that might give off certain perceptions.  Before you go to lunch with somebody, or send out an email, or wear an outfit to the office, pause and ask yourself, "What message does this send?  Is it the message I want to send?"
• Do I care about the perceptions others have of me?  If I do, how can I affect those perceptions to the positive?  If I don't, how can I insulate myself from the hurtful reactions of others?
• You can find out how others perceive you.  I know of only a couple of people utterly lacking in self-awareness who truly blunder their way through one social interaction after another.  Watch others body language when you're in the room.  Watch eye contact and facial expressions when they are around you.
• Look for patterns of behavior.  Isolated incidents can be explained away.  A series of behavioral incidents send up red flags and sirens pretty quickly.
• "Consider the source."  It was advice my parents always gave me.  If the person causing trouble has very little credibility, then don't worry too much about them.  They will burn themselves out.

What other pieces of advice have you found helpful in managing your perceptions of others or, conversely, others' perceptions of you?

Stymied By Timing

I recently fired our dog groomer.  It really had nothing to do with their quality.  As a matter of fact, Zorro looked excellent every time he came out.  Their prices had stayed constant, so we continued to get the value for our money.  The problem was time... or lack thereof.  They were such a good dog groomer demand for their services grew to the point where appointments needed to be made four months in advance.  They were unwilling to add groomers or expand, so scheduling became the critical issue for deciding to use one of the big pet store chains in town.

On a related note, I was reading the blog of one of my former students.  She was venting about a visit from a neighbor which could not have been more poorly timed (at least from her perspective).  Before I give you the link to go read this post, there's one thing you need to know about Beth, which makes her biting wit all the funnier:  Beth is one of the most professional, organized, put-together, poised, articulate, pleasant, and personable people I've ever met.  So her momentary rant about being perceived as the "white trash neighbors" is all the more hilarious, given what you now know about the woman behind the blog.

What do these stories have in common?  Simple.  Bad timing.  In your work systems, inputs may be banging at the door to be processed.  If you're not ready for them, those inputs may leave (soured customer relationships) or they may throw a wrench into your system anyway (neighborly visitor's perceptions).  Either way, you need to work at getting your inputs into your system when your system is ready for them (controllable inputs) or have your system ready for the inputs on demand (visiting neighbors).  Tom Vander Well recently posted some great thoughts on this very topic on the Iowabiz blog.  Think about the inputs to your work systems.  Are you ready for them?  Do you need to be?

Sometimes a simple awareness of what/who your inputs are and how they behave and what motivates them can be a huge step forward to designing processes that help you seize the accomplishment.

I Need More Minions! BUWAHAHAHA!

An article in the Des Moines Register yesterday led me to Marc Ward's blog, Attack of the Narcisse Clones.  For those of you outside the Des Moines area, here's the scoop:  Marc Ward lost his seat on the Des Moines school board the same year that Jon Narcisse won his.  Narcisse has been undisputably controversial in both his message and his approach since being elected.  He's done some things that make even the most naive politicians wince.  His supporters call him a straight shooter.  His detractors, well, something less flattering.  Now Marc Ward has started a blog with the sole purpose of pointing out all of Narcisse's faults, one of which is that he's gathering clones and minions to get elected onto the school board to help him achieve his nefarious plans and gain world domination (insert evil Plankton laugh from SpongeBob Squarepants here).

I'm not sure what solution could resolve the conflict between these two men, but maybe that wise sage of the ages, June Cleaver, said it best:  "Ward, I think something is wrong with the boys.  Maybe you should talk to them."

Marc Ward's accusations bring up an excellent issue with office politics, though.  How can you tell when somebody is gathering minions vs. building healthy alliances?  Because the snake politician is one can work either overtly or covertly to accomplish his goals, it can be hard to tell when a secret army of evil is being amassed.

Here are some easy tips to figure out when somebody is building alliances vs. seeking minions:

• Motive - does the person have an obvious agenda on a specific issue?  If so, there may be minions.  If not, it's probably just alliance-building.
• Independence - are the relationships able to act independently of the person building them or does everything have to funnel through one person (or a select group) in thought and in deed?
• Novelty - is this something new and sudden and urgent (a sign of minion building) or does it happen gradually over time and allowed to occur naturally through mutual interests?
• Invitation - can anybody be allowed to forge a relationship or do you need to be extended an invitation to be in the group?
• Openness - how secretive is the group that they are building relationships?  Are lunches held behind closed doors?  Do people take bathroom breaks together?  This one test is a good indicator on the alliance-vs-minion test
• Noise - is this group wreaking havoc or are they providing a calm and rational voice for their views, listening to all sides without throwing stones or sabotaging dissenting views?

As far as certain behaviors going on in Des Moines, I believe there should be a time out for big people until they realize that kids' education is more important than agendas and egos.

Contract Miley-age

"Assumptions not documented now become excuses later."  It was a favorite line of a former mentor of mine.  I've used it plenty of times during project communication presentations.  I even made reference to it in my first book.  And what I didn't realize is that my eight-year-old was paying more attention to me than I ever credited her for.

My wife and I have been "persuading" her all summer to clean her room so we could paint it.  We purchased a new quilt and agreed on a paint color.  The only critical path was the tidying up archaelogical dig it would take to plow through a world of eight-year-old treasures clutter.  Last night, I decided to provide a teachable moment to my daughter.  We drew up a contract.  We discussed what the final deliverable looked like (because for some kids, "clean room" is an ambiguous concept).  We covered timeframes.  We documented consequences for failing to deliver.  And to be fair, I asked her to document assumptions... what did she need from me to ensure successful delivery of the project?

Her requests?

• Hourly check-ups to provide feedback
• Move objects too heavy for her to carry
• Keep her little sister out of her room during the project
• Allow appropriately productivity-inducing music of her choice.

All seemed reasonable.  Everybody signed on the dotted line before bedtime.  We were ready to roll the next morning... until... where's my Miley Cyrus CD?  Miley who?  You know, Dad, Hannah Montana.  Oh, that Miley Cyrus.  Billy Ray's kid.  The one who actually can sing.  Then the news hit me:  her mother had taken away the CD and hid it as punishment for an earlier (and now expired) infraction.  Worse yet, her mother had forgotten where she hid it.

I tried negotiating.  "Can't you listen to the soundtrack to Wicked again?  You've only heard it 15,000 times.  What's one more?"  Nope.  "Isn't there at least one Princess song you haven't memorized?"  Princess songs are uncool past the age of seven.  She resolutely pointed out the terms of the contract as she sweetly and innocently asked me, "What's the balance on your iTunes account?"

I blanched.  The same iPod which housed the likes of Billy Joel, Alabama, Bon Jovi, Dave Koz, Johnny Cash, Marc Cohn, Blackhawk, Frank Sinatra, Ella Fitzgerald, Harry Connick Jr, Christine Kane, and Norah Jones was going to share giga-space with (gulp) Disney Bubble Gum Demon Spawn Miley Cyrus?  But a deal's a deal, and a contract's a contract.  After listening to the same six songs repeat in a three hour continuous loop (who says you can't tell time in Hell?), the room was cleaned.

I'll probably leave the songs on my iPod as a reminder.  And next time I negotiate a contract with my 8-year-old (or anyone else, for that matter), I'll do a quick refresher course of Rush Nigut's tips for contract negotiating... while I'm re-reading #3, I'll listen to the most recent iPod additions.  That should cement the lesson for a long, long time.  As Miley croons in her nasally adolescent voice, "Everybody makes mistakes."  Just don't tell my achy-breaky heart about it.

Worshipping the Hammer

It's been rewarding to hear comments about my upcoming book from those who have read it already.  Rosa Say has already provided a sneak peak at the importance of systems thinking after reading an advance copy.  When writing about this topic, however, I couldn't help but make a couple of playful swipes at Six Sigma, Lean, Agile and UML.  Mind you, I have nothing against these tools per se, but I have taken exception with the people who worship use them.  As I was sharing with Mike DeWitt, I've really developed a cynicism over dogmatic consultants who salivate over tools and methodologies.  Try to make a disparaging comment about Six Sigma and "them's fightin' words, boy."  Challenge them on an element of Lean Manufacturing and be prepared to "take it outside, son."

Part of the challenge is the mindset of those who use these tools and methodologies.  In systems thinking, the focus is to get people looking at desired outputs first, then the inputs needed to get them there, and finally the process which will help in the journey from point A to point B.  While any of the techniques mentioned above can assist in this endeavor, those I've encountered are so enamoured by their precious use cases and DMAIC cycles, they've lost sight of the output.  And they end up chasing down some undesirable rabbit holes and waste valuable time, dollars, and energy focusing on the process over the outcome.

Let's keep focused, folks.  Are you spending more time arguing about process than you are about outcomes?  Are you posturing and positioning on methodology more than you are on results?  Then there may be a problem.  As Carl Sandburg so eloquently put it almost a century ago:

I have seen
The old gods go
And the new gods come.

Day by day
And year by year
The idols fall
And the idols rise.

Today
I worship the hammer.