DUH-livery

I'm considering cancelling my subscription to the Des Moines Register.  It really has nothing to do with the constant shrinking in size due to cost cutting measures.  I appreciate the content of the Register.  They've been more than favorable to me as an author and speaker.  And I do like the feel of newspaper in the morning.  It really doesn't have much to do with the fact that there are other outlets available during the day where I can read the paper or get my news.  Nope, this crazy cancellation talk boils down to one thing:  carrier delivery.

Given Iowa's ever-changing climate, I've asked my carrier (MULTIPLE TIMES) to place our paper on one specific spot on our front porch so we simply have to open our door, reach out, and grab it.  She seems to think it's ok to walk half-way up our driveway and fling the paper in the general direction of the door.  Having been a newspaper carrier for almost five years in my youth, I learned the first principle of customer service before my teenage years even began:  give the customer what they want.  Their paper was always consistently placed exactly where they wanted it without fail.  So - naive me - I expect the same level of service.  When I'm up at 5 in the morning at catch her, and kindly remind her where I want the paper, I get a shrug and a week's worth of compliance before the old habits come back.

Now if you were to ask Mike Wagner about this, he'd probably tell you it's a problem with personal branding.  Ask Drew McLellan, he'd build on Mike's issue and tell you there are some marketing lapses with the customers.  Phil Gerbyshak would tag it as a gross customer service blunder.  Victor Aspengren would suggest a corporate culture flaw.  They'd all be right, albeit incomplete.  This is also a systems thinking flaw.  The Register is doing (more or less) everything right until the paper hits output stage.  The last point in the newspaper creation business is delivery, and there's a flaw.  When their output becomes my input, somebody is dropping the ball (or at least clumsily flinging it about five to ten feet out of reach in any one direction).

Let's get this crystal clear:  If the point at which your output becomes somebody' else's input is not delivered according to the precision of the INPUT's point of view, the output system has failed.  I'm sure the reporters, sales people, layout artists, photographers, and editors of the Register would be chagrined to find out that all their hard work is being undermined by one lazy delivery carrier.  They are doing their job to ensure a quality output, but the most critical point in the system - when product meets customer - is being delivered with apathetic sloppiness.  Coke learned this back in the 1980's.  Microsoft is learning it now with Vista.  The hand-off point between systems must be delivered from the perspective of the system receiving the output.

I know, I know... it's a simple concept.  But one that escapes too many businesses and individuals these days.  But if you don't understand it, your customers intuitively do.

Reasonable Force

One of the side benefits of volunteering for the SWAT team as a photographer is being able to learn some great lessons about how they do their jobs.  It seems each training session has a main theme, and there are some amazing field training officers on the force who really drive home the points with crystal clarity.  During some training a couple of weeks ago, the main emphasis was "reasonable force."  In other words, just because you have the weaponry and ability to thoroughly kick somebody's tail (or as one officer puts it, "give 'em a slug to the CPU"), doesn't mean it's always appropriate or warranted.  They listed case after case of instances where the police department was found at fault for using unreasonable force in resolving a stand-off.

Two of the criteria for reasonable force that were discussed included a history of a violent act (i.e., has the perpetrator already committed a violent crime) or whether there was imminent danger (e.g., the perpetrator is brandishing a weapon in a threatening manner).  In those cases, it is justifiable to use appropriate force to subdue the perpetrator either by bringing them into custody (preferred) or ... um ... less desirable means.

Office politicians can learn a lot from the principles of reasonable force.  I just blogged about situations where we need to let things slide and not get so hyper about various offenses; however, in some instances that is just not feasible.  So what is considered "reasonable force" in reacting to somebody else?  Well, like the SWAT team, a mix of reactive (history of violence) and proactive (imminent danger) need to be considered.  When you have to take action, does the offending party have a history of stupidity making bad choices, or does it appear as though they are about to do something boneheaded less than beneficial?  In either case, having written documentation through emails or talking to witnesses of the behavior is helpful.

Applying too much force to a situation can backfire and get everybody mad.  This includes calling an all-team meeting to address an infraction made by only one person.  Everybody already knows who is doing the offense being discussed and they are wondering why they're being dragged into it.  The person doing the offense rationalizes that others must be doing it, too, so they can keep doing it.  Not taking enough force is also bad since it causes low morale and makes employees think the boss doesn't care about bad behavior.  The other issue to address is whether the punishment fits the crime.  Sometimes it's simply a case of an adult discussion to say, "Hey, maybe you didn't realize you were doing this, but it's really becoming an issue with how we do business. How can I help you change your behavior?"  Other times, it may be more severe such as an official HR repirmand, docking pay, or dismissal.  The newspapers and blogs are littered with pending cases of individuals who were the victims of over-reaction.

So the next time you HAVE TO react to somebody else, think about how you can apply the principles of "reasonable force" to the situation to get the best outcome.  In the meantime, enjoy these employee handbook jokes demonstrating unreasonable force.

No Offense, But...

I've always been curious about what offends people.  It seems the past year has had a lot of posturing from people in both parties who are "mortally offended" by an innocent comment made by another person.  Take last night's State of the Union Address... the talking heads from both sides are dissecting and reacting and whining.  And don't even get me started about the cast of The View.  Those "ladies" can get offended by a speck of dust.

I've found in office politics, many people CHOOSE to get offended by something.  And thus begins the lobs of accusations, innuendo, and counter-insults.  I'm curious how many office politics conflicts would be avoided if we just let some things slide.  You heard me.  Don't tattle to the boss.  Don't file a report with HR.  Don't send of a scathing email CC-ing and BCC-ing 50 million others.  Just ignore it and let it slide.  Even better, just laugh it off.  Yes, if somebody is doing something that is truly WRONG (i.e., directly targeted at an individual or violation of company policy or HR regulations or illegal), then they should be called on it.  However, if someone "overhears" a comment or sees something they just don't like, can it be ... well... just dropped?

Maybe there's just too much drama in the world already and what we really need is to develop a sense of humor and laugh more.  Then we might actually get more accomplished in the long run.

Your thoughts?

Is It Halloween Yet?

It's that time of year again.  One of the favorite parts of my Drake Creativity class is the costume assignment.  Those who have read this blog for a while remember some of the bizarre combinations of my students and the odd costumes I've chosen.  This year, I opted to be a cat burglar (don't tell my law enforcement friends).  The choice was obvious for me:  I get to ransack my students' psyches, pilfer their paradigms, and steal their sacred cows.  However, my costume choice couldn't hold a candle to my students.  From Jane Jetson to Carol Burnett, from Phoebe of Friends (who could lead an entire class in her rendition of the song "Smelly Cat") to Hulk Hogan, from Transformers to Where's Waldo (I miss the 80's), it was highly amusing all around.  I had to laugh that my two resident I.T. guys both came dressed as Trekkies.

Some people ask me why I do this to my students year after year (other than for my own nefarious entertainment).  It's pretty simple.  Think back to when you were a kid right before Halloween.  You were excited that you could be ANYTHING; the possibilities were endless.  We lose that sense of wonder and curiosity as adults, so in a class on creativity, I try to restore that feeling.  Some day, Roger von Oech is going to take exception with the fact that I make my students relate their costumes to his four creative roles of explorer, artist, judge, or warrior.  Their creative juices go into overdrive with this assignment.  (Actually, I'm sure he wishes he could come to class and participate... maybe some day.)

So is it Halloween yet?

After the Lovin'

Hope you all had a nice Valentine's Day.  It was a fairly low-key affair at the Johnson household.  More weekend errand-running than anything else.  My wife and I are fairly pragmatic people by nature, so the gushy over-the-top romance is generally lost on us.  Oh, we appreciate it when it happens, but we're not 24x7 romantics.  So this year on Valentine's Day, we agreed to be very low-key on everything.  Don't spend a lot of money.  Thoughtfulness counts.

My wife likes two things a lot.  Coffee and music.  Yeah, I could get her a Starbucks gift card (yawn) or some miscellaneous CD, but where would that get me?  I decided to compile a play list just for her.  I spent the last few weeks combing iTunes for really cool songs dealing with coffee.  And quite frankly, when I played it for her yesterday, I think she was fairly impressed.

In the process, I discovered some new artists and songs that I really, really liked.  It was simple.  It was thoughtful.  It was impactful.

In our jobs, can we create a significant playlist of accomplishments?  Can we pick a theme, find 10 things, connect them together, and implement them in a short period of time?  Or do we just keep plodding along with the same mindset of doing things the way we've always done them?

We're starting a new week... can you find a way to romance your career with some new music?

Decision Incision

I so thoroughly enjoy Rosa Say.  Not just her blog, but her whole persona.  Her book, Managing with Aloha, is packed with sage wisdom derived from seemingly simple island philosophies, yet each chapter is a new nugget to be slowly savored and digested.

In true "Rosa Say fashion" she has crafted another thought-provoking blog post about decision-making, which just compelled me to comment.  (Time prevents me from commenting on a lot of blogs these days, so when I do, it's a big deal for me.)  This small paragraph is so telling I'm thinking of framing it above my desk:

For instance, is it a very solitary process for you, concentrating most deliberately on what you think, and what you then realize you believe, or is it important to you to bounce your gut instincts off others too? Do you write yourself through it (I do... my morning pages is a BIG part of my process) or do you talk your way through it? Do you bother documenting it at all, or visually mind-mapping it?

Decisions are important.  They drive us forward in business, whether they are publicly documented or privately derived.  But I'd like to take a step back from Rosa's decision-making process.  As I admitted in her comments, I'm a systems-thinking addict, and the input to any decision is ultimately a question.  So while she has beautifully dissected decision-making, I want to pick apart the questions which create the need for a decision.

In short, are we asking the right questions?

If the answer to that is "NO" then no decision-making matrix will cure the issue at hand.  In my current creativity class, I've been challenging my students to rethink how they think.  Are they looking in the right places?  Are they asking the right questions?  Are they framing the world around them in the right context?  Deep questions, eh?  Not necessarily?

I tend to categorize questions in three ways:

1. Verb-led questions:  Some people call these close-ended questions because the answer can generally be a yes or a no.  But often, people don't realize they are asking a close-ended question.  Being a bit of a grammar geek (marriage to an English teach only exacerbates the problem), I prefer to use the term "verb-led" because close-ended questions always start with a verb:  Can I...?  Did you...?  Will he...?  Should she...?  Have you...?  Are they...?  Not a lot of information comes out of one of these questions.  I use them when the decision needs a quick yes or no (which is never as often as I'd like).

2. Project-manager questions:  Who, when, where, what?  Better than a verb-led question, these will prompt you for more information... factual information.  Data-driven information.  I call these project manager questions because these are the questions most often asked by project managers.  They live in the concrete world.  Give them a date and a deliverable and they're generally a happy bunch.  Show them a resource chart to say who is working on what and they're downright giddy.  Again, there's a time and a place for this kind of question, but the decisions derived from them are still rather finite in nature.

3. Thinker-Tinker questions:  Why and how?  I ABSOLUTELY LOVE these kinds of questions!  Or throw an "if" statement or two on one of the above categories, and you've just moved into the category of really digging down deep into something.  It's the thought-process equivalent of rolling up your sleeves and getting all gooey up to your elbows.  But I don't ask these questions simply to pontificate.  I generally don't care if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it whether or not it made a sound.  (Gimme a chainsaw and I'll show you a sound, buddy).  These cannot be driven by a simple decision-diamond, nor should they.  Give some time to explore and discussion and argue and backtrack and query and quandry... these kinds of questions yield gold.  They help you solve and diagnose, examine and dissect, combine and contract  They help you THINK.

We all need to make decisions, but the pre-cursor is whether we can make an incision in the decision to find the inquisition.  Think about that one for a while.  Then take two questions and call me in the morning.

Cre-8-ivity

Lots going on right now, so I thought I would fill you all in on a couple of really exciting things.

First, Modern Analyst's e-journal just published an article I wrote on The Practical Side of Creativity.  Adrian Marchis and crew were great, and I enjoyed the experience of working with them.  If you've never checked out the Modern Analyst site, it's an amazing resource for business analysts (and project managers... and really anybody who's required to think).

Second, and this is equally exciting news:  Race Through The Forest - A Project Management Fable is nearing the end of its first run.  We will be releasing the second edition this quarter.  While Tiberius is still the publisher, I asked the great folks at Lexicon to give the cover a face-lift.  Here is what the new version of Race will look like.  More details about other improvements will be forthcoming, but if you want to get a first edition copy, you'd better hurry.

So many good things happening here.  Hope you are seizing positive accomplishments on your end as well.

Maybe Verizon Should Handle Bailout Distributions

Which begs the question:  What suggestions do you have for getting your point across to irretrievably stupid people?