~synthesis~

spintegrity

As a kid, I routinely proclaimed my innocence when “stuff’ happened . It is possible that sometimes “I didn't do it” wasn’t exactly accurate; it's also possible that had I come clean right away (or even before the “stuff” was discovered), I would have spent much less time being well-grounded...

When I was in that “innocent” moment, I always felt it was possible that the broken fish tank (or whatever) might not actually be discovered, or that I could find a way to not make it my fault.

As in childhood, “stuff” also happens in business; but the consequences are worse than a wet carpet (the fish were saved, though I got zero credit for that). Sadly, the “adult” leaders are often as righteous as I was, and as convinced that they can somehow get away with it.

A teacher I admire recently posted a link on Facebook to a blog by Gary Rubinstein entitled: Why I did TFA, and why you shouldn’t. As a former TFAer, my friend was understandably upset about this. I too am an admirer of TFA (Teach for America), and this article was an eye-opener, it exposed perspectives I hadn’t considered.

Money quote: "Rather than be honest about both their successes and their failures, they deny any failures, and charge forward with an agenda that has not worked and will never work. Their ‘proof’ consists of a few high-performing charters. These charters are unwilling to release the data that proves that they succeed by booting the ‘worst’ kids — the ones that bring down their test scores."

A few months ago, the Susan G. Komen Foundation was accused of politicizing their grant-making (which they denied despite information to the contrary); they were further accused of singling out Planned Parenthood, which the head of Komen, Nancy Brinker also denied. When asked if their reputation was at stake, Brinker responded: “...all I can tell you is that the responses we’re getting are very, very favorable." They reversed their decision 24 hours later, apologized for causing any distress, while reiterating their righteousness.

Like TFA (23 years), Komen has been around a long time (30 years), both are very effective, and widely regarded as resounding successes. They had to overcome huge obstacles; persevere through difficult times; and finally gain traction and slowly win people over. Now, rather than begging to get an invite to the dance, they are the main attraction.

To get to success, it is often necessary to transcend negativity; it is always necessary to believe in yourself, your vision, and your strategy, even (or especially) when everyone else doubts you. This thick skin is critical to progress in the early days, and if you are fortunate enough to "win," it is sadly also very effective at helping you forget who and what you were when you started, and think only of how great you are now.

Humans are designed to forget, minimize, or even romanticize tough times -- I can't imagine a mother wishing to give birth to second child if this weren't true; it is certainly how adults forget the angst and difficulty and complexity of puberty and teenagehood, when they vowed never to be the jerks their parents were.

In life, as we learn and grow, we hopefully never lose sight of the principles and morals that we were taught as children -- these neural pathways were formed when young, and ideally persist and guide us throughout our lives. But in business (and politics), there is no such memory, especially when it comes to leadership. Principles or morals are routinely forsaken in the name of expediency. What's worse, it is the very leaders who were closest to those principles that are most likely to ignore them.

But how is the ideal that caused shivers down your spine, brought a tear to your eye, and drove you to do just one more thing before going to sleep so easily replaced??

I think it happens when you hire two- and three-lettered people - JDs, PRs, MBAs. The "2-3s" are designed to manage situations by respectively telling you scary stories about what will go wrong if you admit things; telling you lies about how great you are, and assuring you about how easy it is to fool the public; and by "helping" you measure success with generally-irrelevant metrics. The 2-3s also help you forget the big picture -- the very reasons your organization exists in the first place.

The result? You've been spun.

Spin is a powerful thing - it is intended to "shape" truth into convenience: "the fish needed a new home anyway, and let's face it the floor also needed a wash." The problem happens when you start believing your own spin. Back to TFA: Education is a difficult, difficult challenge -- we spend $100s of billions on it and are still failing. Rather than admit that some of their efforts have also failed, and help others learn from their mistakes, they're forsaking their original dream -- we can make education better -- for their new mandate -- TFA must succeed at all costs. This is true for Komen, for many large corporations, and certainly in politics.

As Gary put it, “TFA spawned leaders suffer a type of arrogance and overconfidence where they completely ignore any evidence that their beliefs are flawed.  The leaders TFA has spawned are, to say this in the kindest way possible, ‘lacking wisdom.’ ”

When you start believing that your 2-3s can help you hide or spin failures and acts of stupidity, you’re in trouble. When you start believing that these things didn’t really happen, you’re an idiot. And when you start thinking you can now do no wrong, you’re sunk, for you are now without integrity.

The standard to which we hold ourselves is our greatest asset. When we are honest about our successes and failures, we show our humanity. When we are open to external scrutiny, we are worthy of other people’s trust.

impossible??

You are what you measure. What gets measured gets done. These and other phrases are taught in most business schools around the world -- if you want someone to do something, pay them based on getting it done.

In sales, it's commissions -- if you don’t sell, you don’t eat; outside sales, many use MBOs (management by objectives). The process is slightly different, but the effect is roughly the same. The key is designing the measurement to ensure the desired outcome.

When students are measured based on test scores, the skill created is not understanding the curriculum, but rather knowing how to pass tests (an unhelpful skill in the working world). More insidiously, if schools are paid based on standardized test scores, an easy was to improve is to expel the poor performers. Sure the numbers look good, but is that really the right outcome? Are we measuring the right thing?

You need money to live, you work to earn money; like students who learn test-passing but not curriculum, adults learn how to game their system, how to interpret and translate their MBOs into the greatest income at the lowest effort.

Health care is rife with “gaming,” and like any other player in this game, (some) doctors are no exception. I was listening to Marketplace recently, and their fascinating show on billing codes -- every patient-related activity has a code assigned to it, and doctors must map their work to these codes to then bill the insurance companies and get paid.

To “clamp down” on rising costs, the insurance companies are reducing the $/code - so if lancing a boil used to pay $100, it now only pays $90. The result? Increased payouts, and more sophisticated gaming. Not exactly the desired outcome.

According to the show, 2.2 people are employed to do billing for each doctor in America. They even have their own conference -- CodingCon, where they “equip medical coders, billers and related healthcare professionals with best practices and tools needed in correcting codes from the start, avoiding claim denials, maximizing productivity and increasing practice’s bottom-line.”

Or, “learn how to not only overcome the $10 cut on boil lancing, but also add $100s more to your bottom line.”

The Marketplace doctor’s codistas have increased his revenue by 70% ("hundreds of thousands of dollars per year”). A codista at a hospital discovered that instead of claiming knee surgery and rehabilitation under one code, they could discharge the patient from surgery and then readmit them to the physiotherapy clinic downstairs, thus billing against two codes, and making much more.

How big is this? An additional $360B (yes, BILLION) per year is spent on the whole coding process - a concept that was introduced to standardize care and lower costs... We reap what we sow.

Net -- the best way for a doctor, clinic, or hospital to dramatically grow revenues is not by providing better care, adding more doctors, or serving more patients; it is by hiring more coders, and sending them to CodingCon.

We are what we measure, and what we measure gets done.

What if instead of student test scores and attendance, schools were paid according to how well their graduates did after they left that school? (Click for more info.) Now principals, teachers, staff, unions, etc. have a common purpose: the more prepared their students are for the future, the more money they earn. You’d better believe they will work together to ensure that their students are prepared for elementary (if a pre-school), middle, high school; or college/university, and the workplace. Attendance and tests are a piece of the picture, but the key measure is student preparedness.

The (state of federal) secretary of education’s only concern is tracking how students do after they graduate (something they, and the census system already does). By eliminating tons of redundancy and complexity, we should be able to educate all public school students at half the cost of today, saving $2-300B/year.

What if instead of procedures, doctors were paid based on how healthy their patients were? (Click for more info.) The job of health care is not to perform procedures, it is to assure a healthy community. This measurement would save $2-300B/year in coding procedures and such.

It is possible to create centralized (federal) funding with autonomy at the point of execution. The key is to ensure that the recipient of funds does NOT control how their performance is assessed or reported. Create the right measures...

For both education and health care, we can accomplish this with existing measurement systems and existing funding mechanisms. Not only would we achieve better graduates and a healthier population, we would do it for as much as half a $trillion less.

These are but two examples - consider the 39-year long war on drugs (metrics: arrests and interdictions). The result is $billions spent jailing street corner dealers (3 years in jail @$33k/yr for a $200 transaction) and intercepting tons of easily and inexpensively replaced drugs, with NO corresponding drop in consumption (constant for the last decade). If instead the last 39 years had been spent helping addicts, the war might already be over.

To quote a man of immense wisdom: “Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing."

child abuse

Have you ever seen a therapist or a counselor? Does your employer have workplace policies that protect you from isms (ageism, sexism, racism, etc.) or undue physical hardship (excessive hours, moving heavy objects, etc.)? Are you able to take a day (or a few days) off if some thing personal comes up? Are there advocacy groups to support you if you feel in some way wronged by your employer, or if your life is in some kind of stress or distress?

Despite all this "help," many of us will come home after a tough day at the office and feel horrible, exhausted, drained, and just ...done. How often have you heard (or said) the words, “I need a drink”??

Adults have advantages: we are mature, we have freedoms, we can speak for ourselves, we have advocates and advocacy groups, there are laws that protect us, and perpetrators of “bad” behavior are prosecuted or sued everyday. Lawyers who specialize in these issues are prolific, and work on a pure contingency basis - caring for adults is a thriving business.

While it’s disappointing that all this is needed, at least we have access to support, friendly ears, and recourse.

What about our children?

They have access to a fraction of the resources or recourses that we do; they even have fewer legal rights! Worse, they’re going through one of the most difficult things in the world - transitioning from child to adult - puberty, growing pains, emotional transformation and upheaval, sexual awakening, first loves, responsibility...

Add to this, middle and high school are pivotal to their one (really only) ticket to happiness, good health, and independence in life. Without a great education, their destinies are ...uncertain at best.

Stress, complication, emotional overload, difficulty, rule changes, a persistent feeling of powerlessness. This is what confronts children in our society.

Talk about pressure.

Who is their advocate?

• Parents? Nope - most parents delegate their children's upbringing to school as soon as they're in full-time school. More often than not, they side with the “system,” telling the child it was much tougher when they were growing up.
• Teachers? Nope - they are similarly victimized by a system that mandates ridiculous measures of performance, absurd outcomes, embarrassing working conditions for relatively little pay, and lately, a ton of social vilification.
• Government? Nope - kids don’t vote.
• The legal system? Nope - it’s almost impossible to sue the government or a school. They are happy to sue teachers (who are the vogue target these days), but nothing else gets any traction, and teachers are broke anyway.
• The media? Nope - they love to hype stories of bullying, suicides, other abuse, but they don’t do anything about it or cause others to change.
• Who?

No one.

Humans are designed to forget the worst experiences we have - otherwise no woman would give birth to a second child. Teenagehood is not a happy time, but once past it, our memories become very selective. As proof, think of how many times you said, “I’ll NEVER be like them [parents/adults] when I grow up.” And then...

Adults (even parents) may not remember or even understand what it is like to be a teen/student; BUT they are CONVINCED they know what’s right for kids, what they need, and how best to help them become adults.

So here’s what we (adults) have decided is the optimal approach to “educating” children:

1. At the beginning of each year, they are notified of the school rules [you *must* click this link (note: this is for middle school)!], which presume every child is a cheating, lazy, misanthropic vandal. Animals are held in higher regard and given more love and understanding. [If you treat impressionable kids like criminals, how do you expect them to behave? Is it any wonder bullying, delinquency, etc. are on the rise?]
2. Each student in a grade is assumed to come in with same knowledge, context, motivation and home life, and expected to learn the same thing at the same time and in the same way. There is no room for individuality; there is no tolerance for “deviants.” [If they had their way, I think Education America would prefer every student to enter the factory as powdered potatoes and exit as identical, extruded McDonald’s fries/graduates.]
3. They must wake up at 6:30AM and be sitting in class by 7:30AM. Most walk through metal detectors, into buildings that more closely resemble factories or prisons; all are assessed for attendance and dress code. [Do you need a jolt of caffeine so you can face the morning? Do you feed your 6-year old a shot of Red Bull before school? "Of course not - that would be horrible and cruel! How dare you!" And yet you expect them to learn things at 7:30AM.]
4. Sit with 29 others in a room designed for fewer, where they are required to be attentive (silent), docile, take copious notes, and speak only when spoken to. [Schools, like prisons are designed to control and monitor the population, not to enable learning.]
5. Change rooms every 50 minutes, "enjoying" a steady stream of lectures covering new and altogether unrelated topics, and of course, be assigned copious quantities of homework. [Are you able to learn so many new and disconnected things everyday, with just a break for lunch (crappy food) and then pass the tests??]
6. “Learning” is measured by completion of homework assignments and of course lots and lots of tests. In all cases, students are judged individually - teachers are required to be vigilant in preventing plagiarism, cheating, and other bad acts. [When’s the last time you took a test that judged your whole year as a success or failure?]
7. The children are required to carry 15-20lb packs containing expensive and outdated textbooks to and from school. [Workforce rules protect most adults from carrying this much weight every day. But not so for our children and their growing bodies.]
8. Adults in "higher" institutions have deemed that grades alone wont get a student into their university - they need a gazillion extra curricular activities, to be a volunteer, have interned somewhere, and written an essay begging to be considered for admission. And if the gods smile and they are accepted, they have the privilege of graduating just slightly more educated, saddled with at least $75k in debt because of the exorbitant tuition.

So this is the best way to prepare our children for adulthood during their already difficult growing years. Who knew?

But wait, there’s more! Shrinking federal, state, and local budgets have resulted in teacher layoffs, equipment reductions (no more labs), increased class sizes, school closures, elimination of most “non-core” classes (arts, phys-ed, clubs, etc.), the killing of recess (yes, recess!), and even guidance counselor layoffs in middle schools.

Rest assured though, our Defense budget remains largely untouched. Whew!

Adult feelings, wants, needs, and satisfaction are routinely surveyed by our bosses, who at least try to be responsive. When is the last time a school district asked its students how they like to learn, or what environment is most conducive to learning? And if they did deign to ask, did they actually listen, much less change??

Abuse is defined as "any action that intentionally harms or injures another person."

It is time that America admitted that her 50 million public school students are victims of wide-spread, systemic child abuse.

Do you recognize these words?

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

I bet the younger amongst us will. When, I wonder will they heed them and declare their independence from us despots??

As for me, all this typing has really stressed me out, and I’m feeling a tad overwhelmed. I'm going to visit my therapist, get a massage, have a martini or three, and then take a few days off...

social reality

I’ve received a lot of email over my last post :) - my thanks to all of you! Most questioned the alignment between advocating killing Social Security and community-related posts like this or this.

So...

I believe that the role of society is to care for those that can’t. When pre-humans began to coalesce into communities, they discovered that it was possible to specialize - hunters, child raisers, security-providers, shelter creators, etc. As these specialists became more efficient, wealth was created; in this case, it was the wealth of time and reflection and communication and innovation.

Over time, they used fire for cooking and protection, they used farming to grow and improve their diets; they used knowledge of the human body and medicine to reduce infant mortality and increase life spans; and the community was able to “support” caring for the ill and aged, learning, art, and other “civilized” pursuits.

This is the essence and power of society and community, ...and civilization.

Then why nuke Social Security?

Western society has “evolved” to the point where necessities (healthcare, education, infrastructure, security, etc.) cost too much, and our organizations (governments, corporations, etc.) are so big, inefficient, and pendulous that real change/improvement is impossible.

For more than a generation, Western nations have had to borrow massive amounts of money just to maintain status quo. Despite deep programmatic cuts, operating costs today are still much higher than revenues. Bureaucratic inertia + embarrassingly juvenile (apologies to the world’s youth) and avaricious elected officials have prompted credit agencies to put most governments on “watch,” and recently, downgrade America and Italy, among others. This plus the prospect even bigger dufuses being elected in 2012 assures a future of worse government, greater ineptitude, and growing (more expensive) debt.

What to do? Short of a total national reboot, we must prioritize at the program level, and make some tough calls.

What programs must remain, and which can be eliminated? I say education and healthcare for all are more important than Social Security. With an effective education (early childhood through post secondary), and the comfort of basic healthcare, we give people the building blocks to not just survive, but thrive. Eliminating a safety net like Social Security creates an impetus for people to care for themselves and their families, or else.

Unfortunately, the Republicans/Democrats/Tea Partiers are proposing small, inconsequential but politically palatable cuts to everything; if they do recommend the elimination of programs, they are small and budgetarily inconsequential. Our situation is far too serious and dire to tolerate this kind of futzing around.

To protect the essence of our society and the viability of our community, we need someone with serious cojones to step up, take the bold step of throwing partisanship, politics, and silly amendments aside, and lead.

flaunting the third rail

The third rail in many railway systems (tubes, subways, metros, etc.) is electrically charged, and fatal if touched; unless you’re contemplating suicide, stay away from it.

In American politics the third rail is Social Security (SS). The people most affected are the fastest growing segment of the population (older people); they have very strong lobbies (AARP); a lot of sympathy (we’re all planning to get old + Congress’ average age is 57); and they turn out in droves and vote in both primaries and general elections.

After reading Monique Morrissey’s testimony before Congress and talking to a few people I thought SS was a sustainable program, needing only minor rate increases, and that Governor Rick Perry’s Ponzi claim was specious. But...

SS beneficiaries receive significantly more than they + their matching employers invest; to make this sustainable, the system counts on a reasonable return on invested capital, a certain mortality rate, and more people contributing than consuming (i.e. disproportionately younger, income-earning population).

This is similar in design to a Ponzi Scheme, so it is reasonable for Gov. Perry to make his claim. Plus here’s Alex Tabarrok at Marginal Revolution quoting three Noble Laureates who agree with Perry, and argue that people are having fewer babies and living longer (= more older people, fewer SS contributors), and economic growth has slowed (a lot); all of which affirms that Social Security as-is is no longer sustainable and in a literal sense, fraudulent, especially to younger contributors.

The "fix" strategy is to pare things back a little - increase the contribution percentage, implement a means test, delay eligibility, and significantly reduce the amount of benefit paid. Does this make the return worth it for seniors? Can they live on this reduced benefit? Are Republicans right that it should be self-managed? Can the public do better on its own? I say, "Yes."

The President is fumbling the ball all over the place, has a largely vision-free and uninspired record thus far, and could very well lose the 2012 election. This is no time to be timid or take half measures. He could overcome his legislative impotence and take a bold step to redefine entitlement - he could propose that we face reality and sunset Social Security.

The first question in all of our minds - how will this affect me? Well, if you're:

1. Over 50: Three changes - increase in contribution percentage (+2%), a means test for recipients, and an increase in the retirement age (+1 year). You keep paying in, and you will receive what was promised until you die.
2. Over 35: You stop paying into the plan, and you get the current value of your historical contributions back in a locked, tax-deferred US Treasury Bond that you can access upon retirement. All your very important future contributions into this nest egg are tax deferred.
3. Under 35: Sorry, and thank you - your contributions will go towards your parents’ and grandparents’ retirements. You are encouraged to contribute towards your own retirement with tax-deferred deductions of up to 15% of your annual salary. You have the option of buying the same US T-Bonds, or a number of other tax-deferred instruments.
   
4. Federal employee: The same (#1-3) formula will apply to federal employees for their pensions - we will increase salaries slightly to compensate for this, but per the scheme above, times are tough, and we can't afford this benefit anymore.
5. Elected official: Historically, the President, Vice President, Congress, etc. received pensions to discourage, well... bribery. We will continue to offer this pension to elected officials as long as it is their ONLY source of income.
   

This is a long sunset - it will take about 40 years for those who are now 50 to die, at which point Social Security dies with them.

Advantages:

1. Take the government out of the pension business.
2. Screw everyone a little bit - spread the pain.
3. Create a palatable, self-managed savings scheme for American workers.
4. Offer tax-deferred T-bonds as a secure retirement investment, that are also a way for the Feds to raise money, put more of America’s debt in the hands of Americans, who have the greatest vested interest in ensuring its repayment.

This is a dramatic step to be sure, but real leaders face issues head on; they don’t patch things up and leave them for future generations to deal with. Will this be the only step in the “face and deal” process? Nope - MMO (Medicare/Medicaid/Obamacare) also needs to be rationalized, consolidated, and made available as a basic service to all Americans in a way that encourages well-being and good health vs. the current system which funds visits and procedures and tests, but that’s for another post :).

If President Obama has a hope of not just winning, but winning a decisive mandate, he must LEAD. He should not marry this to taxes for jet plane owners or any other silly ploy. He should set the precedent for proposing simple, clean legislation that deals with our most important problems one at a time.

Start with entitlements, show that you're bold enough to go where others have feared to tread, and that you have our nation's best interests at heart, with no fear of the political consequences.

how can you be so obtuse?

Sound familiar? It will if you've seen The Shawshank Redemption, and recall when Andy Dufresne (protagonist) finds proof of his innocence, but Warden Norton (antagonist/scumbag) dismisses it. Andy "knows" he is innocent; the warden "knows" that all criminals are guilty. We are on Andy's side, and appalled that the warden doesn't even consider the possibility of innocence. In the end, the warden is vanquished and Dufresne is free, but both remain obstinately true to their beliefs.

I was reminded of this when reading The Science of Why We Don't Believe Science - a brilliant analysis on the strength of our belief systems, and why persuasion is so difficult. Psychologists use the term cognitive dissonance to explain it - when we are faced with conflicting ideas, we "reposition" things to reduce the discomfort. Like when justifying an expensive purchase - "Sure this is an expensive car, but that's because it's well-engineered, safer, and will last so much longer than that cheap clunker you just bought - you get what you pay for."

Unprovoked, most of us are somewhat open-minded, but when pushed, we forsake reasonable for defensive and obstinate, and that leads to bad decision-making.

As American politics kicks into gear for the 2012 elections, apparently *every* politician feels pushed and under siege, and none are capable of making good decisions. The abject disinterest in governing has never been more present than during the recent debt ceiling and FAA debacles. The good of the nation is/was forsaken for the good of the Party or the individual politician.

Why? Because politics is a zero-sum game - there is only one winner. It used to be that candidates would campaign on the merits of their vision, their ideas, talk about who they were as a person, and "may the best (wo)man win." But as politics has "evolved," they've discovered that it is much easier to make your opponent(s) lose than it is to show why you should win. Rather than being the best candidate, it's about being the one with the best opposition research and counter-marketing.

Bizarrely, this new breed of politician's cognitive dissonance causes them to actually believe that integrity and good is about partisan one-upmanship and not about service and governing.

How can they be so obtuse?

On Friday Standard & Poor's lowered America's credit rating from AAA to AA+; their analysis wasn't based on numbers (i.e. is America actually a trusted investment), but rather on the politics - can Congress and the White House stop the posturing and juvenile finger-pointing, and focus on running the country?

Is this a reasonable basis for judging credit-worthiness? Will a loan officer at a bank decide to lend money to a couple based on the numbers, or on whether they keep bickering all the time? I'm sure the bickering should be a factor, but am not convinced it is the ONLY factor.

How can they be so obtuse?

Having said this, the reaction so far from both the White House and Congress is partisan drivel. The ONLY thing politicians are capable of is showing how the other side is to blame for everything that's bad, and how they are righteous and good (there is no pressure to talk about compromise, leadership or governing). If immaturity and petulance were the only factors, America should receive a rating below that of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain - maybe closer to that of Syria or North Korea.

A strength of democracy is that the fringes are attenuated by the center; and that effective partisanship impedes government overreach. A weakness of democracy is that it is possible for enough of the electorate to be swayed in the moment, that the most fringe voices are rewarded, and the more honorable and insightful are ignored.

Today the American public is as polarized as her politicians, no-one is considering the ramifications of the downgrade or our economic state, instead we are each bent on making sure everyone knows how screwed up the other side is, and how we'd be better off if they didn't exist. This is our cognitive dissonance, founded on our deepened commitment to the votes we've cast.

How can we be so obtuse? 

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things; and no good thing ever dies." These are the last words spoken by Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption.

Does good come out of bad? I hope so. Has American been harmed enough by our politicians' failings to demand and expect more from ourselves than angry sound bytes? Not yet, but perhaps soon.

I was listening to a show on NPR asking, "What is life?" I agreed with the NASA definition - life exists when there is procreation and evolution. I was talking to a friend later about the unasked question, "What is humanity?" I think humanity exists when there is empathy and aspiration.

Survival requires community - we must have more empathy for our brothers and sisters, because the community prevails when the least among us survives and thrives. Success requires ability and desire - we must make our children more capable than we are, and we must imbue in them a desire and urgency to be greater than their parents.

Out of all that has happened recently, my hope is that we overcome our cognitive dissonance, and resurrect our humanity.

this above all

Seth Godin's post today on tiny media is spot-on. It reminded me of a social media panel I sat on a couple of years ago with the two people who respectively ran John McCain and Hilary Clinton's e-campaigns in the 2007/8 primaries and general election.

Despite having polarized political views, they were totally aligned on web2.0. Paraphrasing: "Everyone needs to jump on social media and web2.0 - if you're not in, you'll be left behind. This is the cheapest and easiest way for you to get the word out - if you post a video on YouTube that doesn't work, it's OK - you didn't lose anything by trying."

My argument: "Marketing is marketing, YouTube, Twitter, newspapers, TV, radio, etc. - are just channels. If your marketing fundamentals aren't strong, you will fail. The advantage of social media is that the channels have fewer gatekeepers. The disadvantage of social media is that the channels have fewer gatekeepers. The impact of social media is that anyone has a voice, and at any point in time, any voice can rise above the fray."

Seth's point - these "tiny media" voices, unlike mainstream press or traditional advertising, are not susceptible to conventional corporate PR machines and can't be bought. While corporations might be used to buying advertising and even editorial, it is impossible to manipulate "any" voice because you have to manipulate every voice. In his words:

If you're hoping that this now important form of media is going to sit there and promote your average stuff for average people made in bulk but pretty cheap product merely because you're used to paying media companies to run ads... I think you're wasting a lot of time and money.

This goes deeper than that. You'll need to take that money and change the product and the service instead.

I agree but I don't think Seth took it far enough. More than product and service, you also have to evaluate your philosophy for the intent to deceive will out. I wrote this last fall in response to a NY Times post about Apple's voice in media:

The reason Apple dominates is that they have no interest in PR per se vs. a fundamental desire to create and achieve incredible and inspiring consumer experiences. Their integrity and authenticity in this is obvious and undisputed. While there are product hiccups (recent iPhone 4 antenna issue), they weather these by staying true to their mission vs. via a well-crafted PR strategy.

Microsoft, Google, etc. on the other hand invest in efforts whose sole or overarching purpose is to drive PR and coverage; ironically making the message the medium. I don’t believe this is authentically who they are, but it is how they act.

Their (MSFT/GOOG, etc.) target audiences and the press can smell this, and obligatorily cover them vs. wanting to be a part of their world because of their products' compelling, profound, and far-reaching implications.

Your organization's purpose is to become a trusted adviser to your customers – a powerful mission to be sure. I wonder sometimes if proactive PR helps or hinders? If your greatest and most visible business successes are measured mostly on PR metrics, you run the risk of pursuing the wrong things, and diminishing your genuine and authentic commitment to the premise that technology can help achieve profound, pervasive, and sustainable improvement.

It’s the difference between doing things that happen to be coverage worthy vs. doing things because they are coverage-worthy…

Tiny media's advantage vs. conventional PR and media: their ONLY currency is integrity and authenticity; the "conventionals" can be bought. Since the former is by definition "any" voice, you can't find it, or buy it, or manipulate it - you don't know which one(s) will surface and be heard. We are increasingly more likely to seek out and believe tiny media because we're tired of the bias and lack of discipline and integrity of conventional media (witness Fox and MSNBC) - this is why I read Yelp reviews.

For "old-school" organizations that count on their secrets remaining intact, and on owning and controlling their image, beware. If your fundamentals aren't sound, and your beliefs and practices can't stand up to external scrutiny, you will be found out. But you won't realize it until it's too late - unbeknownst to you, your own marketing and PR people and agencies are now spending more time spinning you than spinning the market.

kill skills

It's easy to get caught in a rut - the greater the risk or threat of change, the taller the walls become, the harder it is to accept new things, and worst of all, the less aware you are of your self-imposed exile.

When change occurs in a team, or they are asked to rethink their business given new market conditions, rutted people will produce a PowerPoint presentation that references new market research, extensive analysis of Twitter feeds, and select customer quotes that proving that strategy X is exactly what's needed to achieve success.

X is of course the current mission restated with a new team name, new logo, renamed programs, and one or two tweaks that come with incremental budget requests - PowerPoint lipstick on the status quo pig. They will also revamp their "scorecard" with additional rows to reflect the tweaks, and of course the team leader will require a business manager to manage the growing "burden" of command.

Does this sound familiar? Have you looked back after a couple of years of genuinely hard work to see what was really accomplished? There will have been a TON of "busy" results that can be documented in scorecards and spreadsheets (thanks to the now entrenched business manager), but how have you helped the business?

In consulting with organizations, the first question I ask is, "What is your why?" Once we are clear on why you exist, figuring out how you will get there and what you will do are easy. This is a difficult discussion because even CEOs are in a rut of busy work that is assumed to be of value, but rarely mapped back to the why. I wrote a few weeks ago about an organization I knew with ~90,000 employees, and my belief that they could achieve the same results with 30,000 people. One reason is this organization has misplaced its why; there are many brilliant people who are accomplishing amazing things that have little or no contribution to the business and have nothing to do with their why. In fact, I bet fewer than 30,000 could accurately state their why.

The reason clients resist the why discussion is because it leads to evaluating every investment (the whats) vis-à-vis its contribution to why. Many of the investments were created for good reason, but do those reasons exist today? If the what is still meaningful, then its contribution to why must be clear; if it isn't, then why are we still doing it?

Whenever something new comes along (especially in large organizations), if there is an openness to try it, it will never come at the expense of something old. "Without incremental resources or funds, fugedaboutit!"

What just happened? The organization chose NOT to make a difficult decision. "This new what is great, it can and will help us achieve our why. Which of our current what(s) should we kill to do this?" The text in red creates tension, angst, the killing of sacred cows, and a lot of hand wringing and unhappiness, and that is always difficult.

The reason organizations fall into ruts, the greatest impediment to good business is an inability and unwillingness to confront every (existing and new) what with why? Rationalizing ruts is easy; making difficult trade-offs is not. The more you rationalize, the more ingrained your siege mentality; this mistrust makes you think you can't be dependent on "them," thus justifying redundant what's in your portfolio. This balloons rapidly - contributing to the 60,000 excess employees in the example above.

Leadership is not just about the salary, stock options and the big office. If you can't make tough decisions, you are not a leader; the skill to kill investments that don't contribute enough to the why is a fundamental criterion of leadership.

the greater bad

Have you ever told a white lie? I have, many times. We tell them because it's convenient or more tactful than the truth, thinking that serves a greater good.

Saying those trousers don't make you look fat is one thing; claiming that we should invade a country because there is incontrovertible proof (a lie) that they have weapons of mass destruction is an altogether different thing.

Or is it? In both cases the truth was stretched; the consequences (they do look fat vs. thousands dead, $billions wasted) were ignored; and the liars weren't held accountable.

Where should we draw the line? When is it polite or forgivable vs. unethical? Most of us push personal limits, but rarely legal ones - the threat of being caught and the possibility of harming someone prevents me from speeding excessively. What constrains governments?

In democracies policing the government is the job of the opposition party(ies) and voters, though recent history hasn't shown either to be effective. Freedom of the Press is a constitutional safeguard, but most journalists work for news media owned by large corporations (=bias), and others (liberal MSNBC, conservative FOX) are excessively partisan. Plus let's face it, they're not motivated to find truth as much as they are to get elected or draw eyeballs.

Our governments (America, Britain, Sweden, etc.) are conspiring to undermine and attack organizations like Wikileaks, and many are rising up against the government to "fix them." Read for example John Pilger's speech at a recent Sydney Town Hall meeting, where he implores the ~2,000 people that attended to rise up and demand change. Will they succeed?

The ethos of government is integrity, it achieves sustainability through accountability, and its strength comes from transparency. The authors of the American Constitution and the Magna Carta believed this, but time hasn't been kind to our leaders.

Rather than aiming for the greater good, our governments are bent on sweeping their bad acts under the rug. Democratic governments come into power through a process of lies and exaggerations (aka elections); and from that beginning, they have no precedent on where to draw the line once in power. We citizens are so drawn to the political rhetoric that we forgive current and prior bad acts and vote the liars back into power!

Look at China's alternate fuel (vs. oil & coal) investments - they are NOT interested in climate change or reducing greenhouse gasses; they are simply uncomfortable being dependent on foreigners for something so critical as power. Their motivation is energy independence and market advantage; any climate change impact is a pleasant but uncritical byproduct.

There is no greater good, there is only what's good for the government of China, or America, or whomever.

It's naive to think that politicians will suddenly develop morality. Politicians are designed to self-aggrandize, grandstand, and win elections. Serving constituents is a pleasant but uncritical byproduct. Political ethos is tied directly to ego and a compass that points to power and reelection.

Voters are no different - we're self-centered as well. Whatever the situation, most of us will first figure out how it helps or hinders us, and then (if at all) consider societal consequences. We therefore "reward" the politicians that we believe will help us most, or more specifically, help us most right now.

Our elected officials have been conditioned (by the voters) to tell us only what we want to hear, whether that's a promise or a threat (or a lie). We apparently don't care about truth, we're just looking for a good pandering.

Shame on us - the burden of citizenship and the right to vote is enormous and not to be taken lightly. No wonder our leaders routinely aim at the greater bad... we ask them to.

real service

During elections, candidates will tell you that their primary motivation for entering politics is to serve. They are called to a higher purpose, and wish to devote their time and energy to public service. Hmmm... I'm thinking "No..."

Paul Krugman's latest OpEd suggests that the only motivation Republicans have is to benefit wealthy people at the expense of the poor. Krugman thinks the new Republican House is bending their own rules to repeal the Health Care Reform Bill "because it would cover the uninsured — and that’s something they just don’t want to do."

In the wake of the killing spree in Arizona, Democrats also feasted on the militaristic attitude of Republican campaign tactics aimed at stirring their base into a frenzy of fear and anger and frenetic action at the thought of a Democratic leadership. This story was almost as big as the actual shooting - "political rhetoric caused that idiot to arm himself and shoot people." Of course the Dems sought to mark the Republicans as the instigators. For shame!

Both sides are seeking to paint their opponents as evil, misguided fools, ostensibly in the hopes of getting them to see the truth, and come around.

But I think we're being naive - Democrats and Republicans exist neither to create a gay loving, baby-killing Socialist state, nor to create a redneck, gun-toting military state. They simply wish to win; to beat the other party and win.

It turns out governing is almost like the tax they have to pay for winning. I used to wonder how politicians ever work together following campaigns that have so much vitriol. Imagine for a minute that Sarah Palin had run for Congress in 2010, and been voted Speaker of the House -- how might she have "partnered" with Nancy Pelosi to create a bi-partisan Congress? To steal a quote from one of the best movies of all time, "Inconceivable!"

Hence the benignly-titled "H.R. 2: Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." It aims to paint the opponent as "job killers" in the lead up to the 2012 election. It isn't about governing or improving health care, or even about creating jobs, it serves only to position one side as job creators and rescuers of the American worker, and the other side as misguided wrong-doers. A good marketing strategy at least.

Surely not all politicians are bereft of the desire to truly serve? Will voters ever prefer a genuine commitment to representing the electorate? Will there come a point in our future when people look back on idiots like Palin and Pelosi and wonder what the hell we were thinking?

Survival (or getting reelected) is the basest of motivations - the system requires politicians to be in constant campaign mode or they die. We live in a very connected world; to rise above the noise and become the preferred candidate, you need to raise and then spend a ton of money promoting yourself and de-positioning your opponent. The economics make actual governing an afterthought.

Can we fix this? What if we limit the President, Senate and Congress to only ONE term, and also ban private campaign spending. Each candidate gets a fixed amount of public money to spend on their election. This might make a difference, but it doesn't eliminate the D vs. R vitriol.

What does? The real problem is not the candidates, it is the electorate. They choose not to engage, hold their representatives accountable, or take the act of voting seriously. Until the right to vote is not given but earned, it will be squandered, and the voters will continue to suffer.

clarity

Our governments (especially elected ones) are mired in the never-ending cycle of getting reelected. This leads to the never-ending cycle of creating polarizing issues that place candidates on the side of a cash-rich and moron-filled fringe who will donate $$$ to the campaign; and even more insidious, the never-ending cycle of creating ever more pointless laws, oversight, and pandering to feign congressional value-add.

Lest this be a rant on the depths to which politicians have sunk, let us take another tack. How does one help government be less ...pendulous?

Why not reboot the country every century or so to eliminate incumbency, any laws written by Congress, the tax code, all departments, etc.? Let us revolt and create a new system with a clean slate!

Whether we like it or not, some governments are already there with bankruptcies, and others are close behind. If the US national debt continues to grow by more than $4 billion per day, it's seems pretty certain that a reboot is impending.

I would design the next government around very clear and specific boundaries; being explicit about what government will and won't do for its citizenry. Here are the five things my government would do (and NO more):

1. Education - Free, and starting at age zero (yes, zero), to where the student has completed their undergraduate certificate (2-year/4-year), or until about age 22.

   You start organized education at birth because we know it makes a HUGE impact on a child's development. You also do this to ensure that every child is well cared for and nurtured. The fruits of this are more independent (economically, physiologically, and psychologically) children/adults; less youth crime and hopefully less adult crime; healthier kids ('cause they'll learn about health, eat better food in school, etc.); and hopefully things like less teen pregnancies, gang activity, etc.

   This will require more teachers, more classrooms, etc. It will also require an education system that imparts knowledge in practical facets of life (how to prepare for and participate in a job interview, communication skills for the workplace, diet, fitness, banking, parenting, birth control, etc.) - these must all be mandatory for every student. It is through these last that we make the rest of the system less expensive.

2. Healthcare - full coverage for all residents from pre-natal to death, including medicines.

   Prioritizing diet, preventative care, and a mindset of quality service for all is fundamental. The system should be completely free to all residents of the country (IMO it should be free to anyone that needs it, irrespective of status), and include medical, vision, dental, prescriptions, etc. Elective work for purely cosmetic reasons will not be covered. This implies there will no longer be a health insurance industry, physicians, nurses, etc. will likely make less money as most will be federal employees.

3. Security - from creating laws, to enforcing laws, to civil and national defense.

   First - the primary motivation for Congress should NOT be to create new laws, but rather to ensure that the existing Code be well-adhered to, and that the citizenry be incented to better behavior. There should be one law-enforcement body in the country spanning local, regional, transportation, organized crime, etc. There will be an emergency response system that includes fire departments, ambulances/paramedics, nature-related calamities (weather, volcano, earthquake, etc.), and any other type of civil support. All of these capabilities will be linked and operate as one unit.

   National defense will focus on protecting the nation from others, not proactively engaging any nation in armed conflict. Since the system is rebooting, there will no longer be mandatory minimums, or idiotic wars (drugs, etc.) on anything.

4. Civil Service - core professional/infrastructural services plus employment for those that aren't easily employed in the private sector.

   This is the most complex organization, and one most at risk of untamed growth. It delivers all national services to the country, including infrastructure (roads, rail, , airports, ports, etc.); utilities (energy, water, etc.); foreign and economic policy; and things like election systems. It also includes an employment machine aimed at those unemployable in the private sector; the work done will span a variety of public service/peace-corps/disaster relief-type services. If you wish to earn a living, you must contribute. There will be no welfare system.

   Limits on the size and scope of this organization will be one of the most critical and contentious pieces of legislation that the new government will write. The core set of services performed will be enumerated in the new Constitution, along with a mechanism to control budget and organizational size. Amendments to this part of the Constitution will require a mega-majority (at least 75% of Congress).

5. Taxation+ - a simplified (progressive flat income tax mechanism to cover the costs of #1-4, basic government operations, and a bit extra for an emergency fund. There should be no sales tax, state tax, or local tax - just a simple income tax. The "+" connotes other forms of economic oversight like the SEC.

Yes, these are expensive and complex undertakings. Fundamental to this is a Constitution that rewards government (and government officials) for being as small as reasonable and no smaller.

To help rein things in, the government is NOT allowed to give money away (bailouts, unemployment benefits, social security, welfare, etc.), it is also not allowed to pay for things like food and shelter. It encourages a simpler service delivery model - one police force across the country; one school system; one healthcare system, etc.

Human nature is such that when a thing is given, it is expected (entitlement); and when you get one thing, you also expect related things. For example - if you get food stamps, you aren't as desperate to work because you know it's available; then you wonder why there aren't "home stamps" so that you can "afford" better accommodation. Thus begins the dependency-cycle.

A system where people willingly abdicate responsibility to society is not acceptable.

If you've read this blog at all, you know I believe a fundamental precept of society is to care for those that can't. But every parent knows that you also have to teach your children certain lessons; they have to fend for themselves, not always look to others to bring them food from the kitchen, or walk them to school, or whatever. At some point, they must be pushed out of the nest and allowed to fly on their own. This is also a form of caring for those that can't. It is more difficult to do, so society instead throws money at it. Wrong.

People need to take responsibility for themselves and their destinies; if you're living hand-to-mouth now, why bring a child into the world? Why not heed what you were taught about family planning and contraception, and take advantage of the healthcare system (free contraception) to prevent bringing one more child into your already difficult reality? Today you might want to have children because Social Services is more likely to care for you - that's the wrong incentive.

Similarly, if you have a job and are worried about how a disability might prevent you from keeping food on the table and a roof over your head, invest in insurance to reduce your risk. If you wish to change careers and need training and some help tiding you over, save or borrow what you need - it's not the government's role to help you with that.

Systems that promise everything for everyone are not sustainable. Almost every government on the planet is facing a significant budget squeeze; whether we like it or not, a reboot is in order. Let's not repeat the same mistakes in the next cycle.

If there is absolute clarity about what government will and won't do, people will use what's given (education, healthcare, security) and find other means bridge any gaps - this too is in our nature.

reinforcement

How do we regard and celebrate good behavior? What are our expectations of people and how do we help reinforce what we want?

What would have happened during the 1992 Democratic Primary if Bill Clinton had said: "You know, while I'm devoted to my wife, I view sex as something altogether different. My wife and I have an arrangement, I do and will have other women in my life, but that in no way compromises my leadership."?

He would not have won the Democratic Primary, he would not have been President, but he would have been truthful (something we presumably value). Clinton is not the only politician to have ever strayed; one might argue that faithful politicians are the outliers. Do voters want to know about these affairs? Or would they prefer to assume goodness, hope the infidelity stays hidden, and then be self-righteous if it comes to light.

Of course infidelity is not particular to politics; it happens in sports, religion, business, and in everyday life. Despite this, "customers" - fans, congregants, employees, media, partners, friends, etc. - are always shocked at the behavior, wonder what mysterious and diabolical circumstances contrived to make it so, and wonder why these people are unable to "control" themselves?

What's more, by turning a blind eye to any one "bad" behavior, are we not tacitly sanctioning them all? Having "gotten away" with the fidelity lie, is it any wonder that President Clinton claimed not to have inhaled? Sure eyes rolled at that, but in the end, there was no accountability for either smoking pot (not that that really matters) or lying about it. There are many other peccadilloes that human nature says are within us, yet we persist in expecting people to transcend their genes.

Taking this to the next step, if we expect and forgive lies, surely we can't expect the lies to be limited to meaningless acts like smoking pot or having an Oval Office "O"? What else might a dishonest President lie about??? Are we ready to accept that?

In the business world, a smart company will under-promise and over-deliver. They do this knowing the value of setting clear expectations and the cost of failing to meet them. If the company develops a reputation for always achieving or exceeding expectations, they know that that currency is worth something - it could be a premium at the point of purchase or market value or even more critical, customer retention and loyalty. Equally, a smart company will not make a promise it can't keep. They will not set an expectation knowing that they can't meet it. This is good business. In both cases, the rewards are clear and the company benefits in the long run.

Facing your truth and setting the right expectations is what we should all aim to do; but our society doesn't want this; it prefers the illusion over reality. Look at Enron or Bernie Madoff or every too-good-to-be-true diet program, and the fact that people will flock to the next Enron or Madoff or diet pill to know that we prefer to gamble on goodness or outlandish promises despite the history or the massive odds against success, believing that this time we will buck the odds and find the one honest politician, or win the lottery. Either way, we mostly end up disappointed. And because we keep coming back for more, there is no shortage of predators creating "disappointment opportunities."

I think this phenomenon contributes to the downward morals/ethics/behavioral spiral. In the old days, we lived in (and were known within) communities. The community - your neighbors and friends and family helped ensure a broader ethos using both active and passive reinforcement; we don't have that today.

Instead the precepts of society and the canon of law expect us to fail; they spend all their energy anticipating and policing these (potential) failures, and publicly "recognizing" the miscreants with trials and the like. So what behavior is modeled for impressionable minds???

Are there societal examples where good behavior is rewarded (i.e. "Congratulations!! You get a free petrol/gas coupon because you adhered to the speed limits!")? I can think of two - first where good students or talented athletes (or both) are able to get scholarships to reduce higher education costs, and second, reduced prison sentences for good behavior.

So other than helping convicted felons reenter society early (a rather ironic incentive), when does society actively reward positive behavior? I did a quick search to see what I could find, take a look for yourself - it's not pretty.

Isn't it a shame that there's so little we do to reward ourselves when we've achieved more than expected? If human nature is so filled with "vices," why shouldn't Clinton have gotten some kind of reward for being honest and admitting that he's a horny old man, but still a good leader?

Instinctively, most parents (or pet owners) know that positive reinforcement leads to better (and more sustained) behavior in children or young animals than negative reinforcement. Why do we flip that as we become adults? Science tells us there is a big difference between telling someone "Don't forget to pay the rent" and "Remember to pay the rent." The parts in bold are the most likely outcome.

It is this simple - we must expect more of ourselves, and we must encourage others to do the same; we can do this by taking the energy we invest in finding and showcasing failure, and putting it into rewarding success.

unjust disparity

Bob Herbert wrote A Sin and a Shame in the NY Times, where he argues that over the last several years, corporations have used the "desperate times call for desperate measures" sentiment to lay people off, even when their economic situation didn't really require that dramatic a reduction in workforce.

The "surviving" employees feel they have to double down and work much, much harder to keep their jobs. The result is even more profitable corporations (profits up $572 billion, payrolls down $122 billion), whose cash positions have improved (now $1.84 trillion, a 27% increase from 2007) dramatically, and an employee base stressed to the limit.

Here's the real killer - from Q4-2007 to Q4-2009, real GDP fell by 2.5% while payroll fell by 6%. This is big.

Two questions:

1. Why is this bad? Is it wrong for corporations to be as lean as possible, to have their employees be as productive as possible, and of course to be as profitable as possible? Isn't this how we judge corporate performance?
   
2. How will this end? Will they relent, reduce profitability, hire back, and expect less? Will people grow to love the idea of being this productive and want to keep it going? Is people's ability to contribute at such a high level sustainable?

Nowhere are desperate times more felt than in the home. It's not as difficult for a company to lay someone off as it is for that person to actually be laid off. For the company it's simply a numeric exercise; for the employee it's about a roof over their head and food on the table. So how do the employees react?

Things don't suddenly hit the fan; there is a lead up that gets to the point when people, despite the risk, say "Enough." It is at this point that revolutions are born, that causes are formed, that the Man is made to pucker.

As the unjust disparity grows, the people's desire to hold on to the status quo shrinks to the point where what was once unthinkable becomes thinkable.

Unjust disparity is the gap between being controlled and being in control. [I just made this up, and I'm sure there are other more "official" terms for it, but this is mine. So there. :-)]

This is not about wealth vs. not-wealth - there is tolerance for this, especially now (with sports and music) that so many once-poor people have struck gold. It's about hitting some kind of personal limit. This is about a more fundamental, and intentionally-created inequity. I'm reminded of the first time I heard Meat Loaf sing I'd Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That) (my emphasis); coming from a man who called himself "Meat Loaf," that seemed like quite the repugnant thing.

To the two questions above, corporations must be successful it's what their shareholders expect; the issue is their ability to sustain it. What the leadership does to achieve that is the that that will damage organizations that choose corporate bulimia (purging employees) as an effective strategy.

Of course there are moments in business when extreme effort is required, but they are moments, not months, and they are not sustainable. Greed combined with corporate myopia will take the productivity peak achieved in crunch time and turn it into the worst kind of backlash. There is a progression:

1. Those that can't handle the stress begin to fall over or leave
2. Those that can handle the stress, but have a sense of moral purpose and the knowledge that they are employable (even in tough times) begin to leave
3. Future stars that are now forced to pick up the slack of the current top talent (#2)'s departure begin to leave (this is disaster)
4. It goes on...

Smart organizations are actively recruiting disaffected #2s, and one of their selling points is that they won't do that. They are also networking with #3s, knowing that they are much more fickle and open to change. This is not good for those that did do that.

Organizations where HR/Legal/PR rule, where there is a feeling of soullessness, and where management has no empathy or visceral understanding of how the employees feel, will suffer. Their management is so reliant on reports and analysis and McKinsey-type presentations, that they view their people as things, and have little or no sense of what's really going on, be it within their walls, or in the minds of their customers. Good leaders don't allow knowledge to be filtered; they most certainly want to be connected to their people and their customers. Those that claim that it's not possible to manage without the filters are the ones the Board needs to replace.

The unjust disparity is never more clear than when we choose the company over the individual. You can't sustain success when it comes before those that create it.

local heroes?

The US Department of Defense can't account for $8.7 billion out of the $9.1 billion intended to help rebuild Iraq. Bell, California city officials were forced to cut their salaries by 90% because they were found out (the worst offenders were the city manager ($787,000/yr) + assistant city manager ($376,000) + chief of police ($457,000/yr) were all forced to resign). Also in California, while spending for K-12 education rose 22% over five years (from $45.6 to $55.6 billion), actual classroom spending fell from 59% to 57.8% of the budget, and 38,000 school teachers have lost their jobs; California has a $20 billion deficit. Where is the money going?

There is profound inefficiency in the American education system - California alone has over 1,000 school districts. First - why are so many districts required? Surely one is enough? With 1,000 separate district organizations (each of which has an average $55m budget), surely there is waste, fraud and excess staffing? With 1,000 districts, surely a percentage of them have leaders that are abusing the system, and siphoning money away from students and teachers? With 1,000 districts, surely there would have been a way to fire 38,000 bureaucrats, retain 38,000 teachers, and give tens of thousands of students a better education?

"They" say that we should keep the Federal government small, and leave as much work as possible to the states and below. Most politicians will argue that this is the key to success, but where's the proof?

While local government is theoretically more in tune with local needs, the price you pay is significant. By definition, a decentralized model with redundancy at every level is actually more government not less. Look around the world today and you see a dearth of great leaders and great managers. The more distributed government is the more leaders and managers and honest people it needs; and let's face it, there just aren't enough of those to go around. The result - bad management, shortsighted thinking, poor budgeting, massive inefficiencies, wasted money, wasted time, wasted lives, wasted air...

When the system is this fragmented, it is also impossible to ensure accountability - imagine how big, how pervasive and how resistant to "influence" the oversight organization would have to be to police the whole country's fiefdoms? The theory that local elections serve as the "cops" is laughable - just look at the "wonderful people" that keep getting reelected in local and regional (and federal I suppose) elections). It's too easy to hide, and people are too disengaged to pay attention. In the end, elections are not the best way to do anything other than win a popularity or fear-based contest.

The 8.7 billion dollar throwaway by the DOD means this isn't just a local problem; there are massive failures at the Federal level as well (this is but one).

Is there a way to prevent fraud and abuse and just plain stupidity? No - being unscrupulous is part of human nature (or better said, trying to get away with something you know to be wrong is human nature); and you only have to look at the Darwin awards to know that there are a whole lot of less-than-bright people that grace this planet, and many of those seem to be drawn to politics.

The arguments against federalizing everything are many - too much distance from people and local issues, too much bureaucracy, too much excess spending, and my favorite with budgets that big, any screw-up is sure to just as gigantic (at least locally it's only hundreds of thousands of dollars or millions, and not billions).

I don't buy that. Saying that this alternative sucks less so let's do it is not the way government should work, and it's certainly not the way citizens should be served.

My first instinct was to say we should accredit government workers - they must be trained and pass an exam to be judged "Competent to Spend the People's Money" (or CSPM ;-)). But that's a non-starter - just look at the fact that 90+% of politicians are lawyers (who had to graduate from university and pass the Bar), and how incompetent they are.

I wrote something a few months ago that I think might have merit - I was talking about how we incent or mandate a balanced budget:

Quid pro quo. If we're punishing Congress for excessive spending, we should also reward them for good behavior. Every year that there is a budget surplus, all Federal employees will receive a bonus of X% (1 or 2%?) of the total surplus, divided equally (same percentage of salary). When they've also retired the gross deficit, the percentage should double. There should be no cap on this - the better they do, the better they do.

But how do we prevent fraud? Two things - first, if everyone's pay is dependent on a more efficient system, maybe that creates an incentive to play better. Second, if the number of agencies is reduced profoundly (reducing the 14,866 school districts to 50 + 1 (for Washington DC) for example), then maybe it's possible for the GAO to police all of them? And what if the GAO is also similarly incented to find bad behavior and eliminate it? For example - one incentive I might consider for the GAO is they're penalized if a behavior is reported in one year, and remains just as bad in the next, and they're rewarded if it improves (their bonus pool could increase by a percentage of the improvement).

It should be noted that there are a ton of federal organizations that do have a local presence, and are able to tune their efforts according to local needs - it's just a matter of policy.

The three steps to reduce bad behavior - consolidate so that fewer more qualified people are doing the work; create a pay structure that rewards fiscal responsibility and improved service for the citizens; and motivate the oversight organization so that it wins if the citizens win.

Sadly - the easier way to do it - trust the citizens to vote well - hasn't worked...

expectations

Does a customer have a right to be served? Is there a law that requires every customer to be catered to? Does that law make sense?

It's true that there have been occasions in history where people were not served [see picture on the left] because of some kind of visible difference. It also happens today, case in point being this eight (yes, 8) year old girl, Evelyn Towry, who was arrested and handcuffed by the Boise police department at the request of her school principal because of her autistic behavior and I suppose they (full grown adults) felt physically threatened by her (yes, 8).

But I don't think the law makes sense. The existence of anti-discrimination laws doesn't always create the right outcome. In both cases not only were the perpetrators evil and wrong, but law enforcement was as well! Exactly what protection did the victims get? When we have too many rules, it becomes too difficult to enforce any of them, and the level of specificity creates too many loopholes, allowing fundamental wrong-doing to be forgiven.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with the jerks that denied service to black people, or abused a poor eight-year-old child. Both parties should have been/be severely punished. In my opinion, people (white and black) should have boycotted the former's restaurant, and the latter all need to be terminated - the teachers, staff, principal and police officers should all be out on the street (and ideally not allowed to ever procreate again, but I suppose some might consider that harsh).

When does it make sense to exclude a customer? Seth Godin wrote about a failure heirarchy (I like this idea a lot) - it argues that you have to live up to your intentions and expectations, and that failure is critical to success. Part of this license to fail comes from choosing the right customers.

Roger Kay claims that Apple is firing its customers and that that's wrong. His view is that Apple should be much less exclusive in its dealings and be open to all types of customers. I don't agree.

When you build a product (say an item of clothing, you "optimize" it for a certain gender, a particular body-type, and sometimes even for certain skin colors - and that's acceptable. If you've ever eaten at the Carnivore in Nairobi, you know that they don't care about or cater to anyone other than meat-eaters. Aston Martin does not cater to poor people. etc. So why does Apple have to serve corporate clients?

Not only do I think they should avoid corporate customers, I also think catering to this clientele will cost Apple it's margins (profitability), as well as its reputation. As a commercial vendor, Apple will have to build products with specific features (security, manageability, interoperability); it will have to test products with greater rigor to ensure compatibility with applications built by 3rd parties; it will have to build a more extensive sales, service and support engine; and it will absorb a much greater change management burden to ensure that commercial clients are "whole" when then do upgrades, etc.

Even in the consumer space, Apple is going through some struggles with product quality. Now imagine if they'd sold the iPhone4 as a commercial product, and their antenna issues caused companies to lose business - there would be lawsuits galore ('cause let's face it, they're flush with cash, have a huge market cap, and are in some categories, dominating their markets) claiming lost income due to Apple's product flaws.

I think Apple was brilliant to deliberately step back from the commercial business (and think they should move away even more concertedly); it enabled them to dramatically streamline their business and operating model. As a consumer goods company, their only obligation is to the consumer. This allows them to:

1. Confine their sales channels (their stores, other resellers, the web).
2. Implement the most basic upgrade/switching support - easy to move from one Mac/iPod/iPhone to another, but not much else.
3. Focus their engineering efforts on specific and Apple-chosen consumer capabilities (aesthetics, music, photography, etc.) versus responding to features their corporate customers demand.

Corporations don't like as rapid a product update cycle as Apple is used to (it's too expensive and difficult for them to upgrade that often); they want a lot more "personal" care and feeding than Apple would want to fund; and they're a lot more particular about standards, compliance, interoperability, and a host of other things.

Further to #2 above, today the barriers to change are much lower in the home than the office (it's waaaay riskier and more expensive for corporations to upgrade or switch). Apple's success is predicated on a rapid innovation rate and the only market segment able to absorb that kind of re-purchase cycle is consumers. Why go after a market that can't keep up with your business?

By treating everyone in the same way - as mere consumers with disposable income and a sufficient degree of panache to be able to pull off owning an Apple device(!), Apple is able to go after the market that is most able to buy and buy often. Their customers' expectations are set and set clearly. If a corporation does wish to buy their products, they essentially have to do it as consumers.

By setting expectations correctly, Apple is not only able to remain focused while lowering their cost of doing business, they are also able to maintain their premium pricing, while creating an ever-more loyal fan/customer base who readily forgive Apple's mistakes and eagerly await their next Apple purchase. That's why a business should have the right to choose its customers - it allows it to set, live up to, and succeed based on clear expectations.

lunch

"If someone is going to eat our lunch, it may as well be us." This is an oft-quoted phrase in the business world. Its meaning is simple - we have a successful product in the market, the competition is after us; rather than allowing them to usurp our position in the market, we should do it ourselves with our own newer/better or altogether different products. Or put another way, better to cannibalize our own revenue streams and hold on to them vs. letting others take them from us.

However you say it, this sentence points me to one, very powerful truth: be more defined by what you will do than what you have done.

I'm not saying forget your past (though that's sometimes a huge temptation!), but rather that we can only control our future actions, that embracing paradigms that got us to a place may only serve to hold us back, and not allow progress.

Andy Zaky wrote a great post on the irrelevance of the iPod to Apple's future. In it, he includes two graphs - one showing the decline in iPod as a percentage of Apple revenue, and the other showing Apple's overall revenue growth.

The lesson - while the iPod was HUGE in resurrecting Apple (at its peak representing 55% of all Apple revenue, vs. 8% in the last quarter), and while it remains a significant contributor to revenue (and margins), Apple has moved on. They no longer count on the iPod as a growth engine, indeed, much of the decline in iPod sales is the direct result of the success of newer Apple products (iPhone, iPad). This is why new announcements from Apple are so well attended - people want to be connected to the next new thing, knowing that instantly the last (now old) new thing will be utterly outmoded and boring.

Of course there are many organizations that don't take this approach, and sometimes for good reason. If you have a cash cow that's amazingly productive, why stop milking it? Why not get every last drop out, especially when the latter "drops" are so much more profitable than the former. After all - new products are always risky, and may never come close to the potential of existing. Whilst these companies might not have the "innovation aura" that Apple has, they can be just fine, enjoying steady and predictable revenues and plodding growth.

It is possible though for this approach to lead to a state of strategic entrenchment, where an organization is so committed to a past formula for success, that it loses sight not just of future opportunity, but also present and future threats.

This behavior isn't confined to corporations; it also applies to other industries, education and government to name but two.

In education proposed change must be proven and peer-reviewed before it is accepted; we can't afford to do something untested to our children - a reasonable concern. (The problem of course is that you can't test innovation at scale without implementing it.) Consider for a moment how the current system was established - there was very little analysis, brain science didn't exist, and of course there was no research at the time that said learning was best accomplished in an authoritative, homogeneous, teacher-in-front, instructivist system. They just decided to do it that way.

I can understand not wanting to change if things are working really well (much like strategically-entrenched companies), but let's face it, education in America is not a success - dropouts are on the rise, and those that do graduate aren't learning nearly enough to be competitive with the rest of the world.

In education "historical success" is also something of a tautology - the "successful" graduates happen to be running the current system, and by definition, since it got them to this place, their education and the system they had was successful. Therefore innovation is less of a priority vs. "back to the old ways," and therefore there is very little open-mindedness to change. Sure they're willing to tweak things slightly, but real change ...no. There's no external motivation either because the parents are a product of the same old system, and there's no competition that is anywhere near the scale of the American public school system.

Change is therefore unlikely or even worse, impossible.

Governments face the exact opposite problem. Politicians measure success through action (at least that's how they promote themselves to the voters). Action = creating laws or setting up commissions, or I suppose, going on "fact-finding" tours. But because their goal is not a better society, but rather to get re-elected, success is merely passing laws, not passing good laws, or indeed enforcing existing laws; commissions only needed to happen, not resolve or repair anything.

I'm reminded of a West Wing episode where, among other things, the discussion is about the Republican vs. Democratic view on laws. Here's an exchange between Sam Seaborn and Ainsley Hayes (with my emphasis):

AINSLEY: I'm a Republican ...I believe that every time the Federal Government hands down a new law, it leaves for the rest of us a little less freedom. So I say let's stick to the ones we absolutely need in order to have water come out of the faucet and our cars not stolen. That is my problem with passing a redundant law.

SAM: You know, you insist that government is depraved for not legislating against what we can see on the newsstands or what we can see in an art exhibit or what we can burn in protest or which sex we're allowed to have sex with or a woman's right to choose. But don't you dare try to regulate this deadly weapon I have concealed on me for that would encroach against my freedom.

AINSLEY: And Democrats believe in freedom of speech unless you want to pray while you're standing in school. And you believe in the freedom of information act except if you want to find out if your 14 year old has had an abortion.

SAM: We believe in the ERA. ... How can you have an objection...

AINSLEY: Because it's humiliating. A new amendment we vote on declaring that I am equal under the law to a man? I'm mortified to discover there's reason to believe I wasn't before. I'm a citizen of this country. I'm not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old white men. The same Article 14 that protects you protects me. And I went to law school just to make sure.

So like the commercial and education sectors, politicians can't resist the "tried and true approach" to governing. They will therefore make spurious, ill-conceived laws to try and look good to naive and frankly stupid voters. Like education, government has no competition, they know that most new politicians are just as dumb as they are, and follow the same traditions; they know this because enough of them will get reelected to ensure continuity. Yet again there is no sufficiently credible perceived competition to create a change in behavior.

Most corporations, school systems and governments are afraid to do something new or interesting; they are afraid to go beyond their self-imposed limits, and will therefore diminish whatever is connected to them. Is it any wonder so many parts of the American fabric are in decline?

Competition is crucial; it creates pressure and the urgency to outperform. When there is no competition (or perceived competition), you rest on your laurels and stagnate. This is less important for corporations - you only risk money; but when the stakes are as high as they are with education and government how can we afford to be sloths? There is competition in the tall grass, and it's not lazy.

We must seek to be defined by what we will do and not what we've done.

the matrix

In the movie, The Matrix is a simulation - a world constructed by an artificial intelligence that is powered by the energy of its human captives. The humans are deceived into believing that they live normal, contributing lives, all the while they're alone in pods having their energy leeched; until one of them - Neo - is freed by a band of underground revolutionaries that believe him to be the "One" (note the anagram) who will defeat the Matrix and free humanity.

In the real world, the earliest reference to the matrix I found was JR Galbraith in 1971. This matrix is an artifact of man, and was intended to help make organizations more efficient. The idea is simple - optimal performance lies in being functionally-integrated vs. vertically-integrated. The specialized teams (Sales, Marketing, Engineering, Design, Research, etc.) will provide their services across product lines, allowing the company to benefit from deep skills and experience by specialty, and the employees to benefit from clearer career paths and professional growth. Makes sense.

Matrix-managed organizations can be more effective and successful if the leaders are able to transcend their team and prioritize the company's success vs. their own. At the top, there are methods like balanced scorecards and dashboards to create an aggregated management view, but it can be difficult for a "line" executive to stand out, and demonstrate their value, ability, and achievement.

How are line executives evaluated? If the organization (like most companies) uses a zero-sum performance model, then the people are measured against each other, despite their work being very different (e.g. Sales is compared to Marketing, Engineering, Design and HR). Sales creates value in a very different way than Marketing, so if Sales exceeds their quota, and Marketing delivers outstanding campaigns, then which manager "wins"? Surely self-interest will prevail, and Sales will want to look better than Mrketing so that it is viewed and rewarded more favorably, which means that in addition to Sales creating value for the company, it has to do it in a way that also shows it to be more valuable than Marketing.

Smart managers will develop their own scorecards to showcase their value (define their own rules of success); if they're "really" smart, some of their metrics will try and take credit for others' success, and thereby increase their odds of a better performance review, and relatively greater recognition and reward.

If a matrixed organization by its nature creates competition between line executives, then why would the C-suite expect there to be cooperation between these competing teams? Look on Monster.com and you'll see a ton of job descriptions that specify the ability to "influence people without authority," or "operate effectively in a matrixed environment," or "work well in cross-team settings." These skills are in demand because managers recognize the value of talent that can get "sister" teams to support and contribute to their activities and success.

A second skill in demand (so much so that it often becomes a discrete role or even a discrete function) is "orchestration." These are the people that develop processes and systems (reports, performance management processes, etc.) that look across organizations to "formalize" horizontal perspective and oversight. In other words, their job is to build patches between the separate horizontal functions.

There is no doubt these skills are necessary and valuable; there is no doubt that specialization is a good thing - the better you are at something, the better you are at it. There is also no doubt that a well-run matrixed organization can be more efficient than the alternative. Why then is there so much angst/difficulty/stress about getting things done, being more agile, and being more responsive to the changing market in matrixed organizations? How do we make the matrix work?

I think it's simple, and the movie can teach us something. To prevail against the AI and win humanity's freedom, Neo and the resistance had to set aside local priorities and ego and work together towards the common purpose. Their measure of success was freedom for all people, and the price of failure was death (or re-absorption into the matrix). First, it was easy to keep score; and second and most critically, the penalty for failure and the rewards of success were shared equally by all participants. That's what kept them motivated, and what helped them persevere when things looked most dire.

Organizations (matrixed or otherwise) are more successful and stronger when everyone's success is based on the company's success; and the knowledge that if the company fails, everyone takes it on the chin. Everyone's success should be a function of the company's success, and everyone should similarly know what it's like to lose.

For example, we will all get a share (equal amount or percentage of salary) of "profits" when we succeed (no other bonus), and get no bonus when we fail. The rule should be applied universally and irrespective of whether you did all the work, but your colleague in the next cubicle did nothing but watch YouTube videos all day. This will put all sorts of positive pressure on the company and its people - to want everyone to be productive (and "help" or "encourage" those that aren't); to hire well (so critical); and of course to work across teams (I need to help Sales, and Marketing and Design so that the company is successful and that we in Engineering helped make us so).

In the end, it's not whether you work in a matrix (or The Matrix), but rather how you get compensated. A matrixed approach will not guarantee success, but the right measurement scheme will.

Shared vestedness begets participation, which begets teamwork, which begets shared success.

good business

If you hire someone to do something for you, how do you control quality and outcomes? Do you outline the expectations, milestones, and deliverables explicitly? Do you track progress regularly? Are you careful to negotiate well but equitably?

If you're the vendor, would you rather the definition of success was in your hands or those of the people that hired you?

Say someone came up to you and said "I want you do this job, I'm not going to tell you how, I'm not even going to tell you what success looks like, you have to figure that out for yourself, but I will pay you a ton of money. Oh and by the way, I'm almost never going to check up on you." Would you be interested? Well - duh!! You get paid and you get to say what you have to do get paid, and they may not even check that you actually did the work - how sweet is that!

Does this happen often? Yep, and especially in governments and other ultra-large organizations. Two examples come to mind - first, the use of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan:

According to a recent Wartime Contracting Commission report, there are about (the exact number is not known) 240,000 contractors in these two theaters.  The commission states that the greatest opportunities for improvement include focus on the "leadership, culture and accountability" of the agencies that do the hiring, the process for defining contractor requirements, performance and cost-effectiveness, and visibility into and accountability of subcontractors. This can't be good...

This NY Times article on a Pentagon-funded Afghani warlord is classic - the US military has anointed an illiterate highway police officer with more wealth (gets paid $2.5 million/month!!), and more power than any democratically elected or appointed official in the region! First, I'd put money on this guy and his army going against his current "benefactor" at some point very soon. Second, how does accountability work when your vendor has more power than the local government, and is protecting your employees (soldiers) and property?

Literally $ billions are spent on these contracts, an untold number of random people become wealthy and powerful, and yet there is almost zero oversight and hardly any expectation of actual performance. Let's not even think about what happens to these "made men" a few years hence (think: Taliban, Saddam Hussein, etc.).

The second example is the No Child Left Behind Act - while conceptually a good thing, it is hampered by the weird jurisdictional dance that the Feds have to play with the States and local governments on education. The concept was good - let's figure out a way to push schools to graduate every student, and also improve what is taught.

Using the only power they had (money), the Feds paid for outcomes, but left it to the States to define those outcomes, define their baseline, and define how to measure progress. The results speak for themselves - students got dumber, money got wasted, everyone was more frustrated.

When the measure of success is a specific test, and all the actors (school administrators, teachers, parents, students) know it; then with their short-term brains in full gear, they also know that passing that test (vs. actually teaching/learning anything) is all that matters, nothing else "counts," helps them get paid, and all else falls by the wayside.

Another classic example of wanting to do something, having the best intentions (as with the Pentagon above), but making an absolute mess of execution.

To their credit, though they haven't rescinded No Child Left Behind, the present Department of Education has implemented a new approach (Race to the Top), though again the performance measures are flawed. Measuring teachers based on student outcomes is a failed strategy, and will ultimately create poorer graduates - let's hope they fix this before it creates irreparable damage.

Are there ways to avoid these outcomes, or at least improve one's odds of success? There are no absolutes, but here are some things to consider:

1. Think before you act, and then think again. If your first (and only) thought is "I'm going to pay someone else to do this," you're going to fail. Before the "how" you've got to know "why" you're doing something, and then "what" you will do. The "why" helps you clarify the goal and the desired end-state. The "what" helps you map your approach to the goal, and test to make sure it does get you there; then you can worry about "how."
2. Own the outcome. Just because you've hired a vendor to do the work doesn't mean you don't own it anymore. No matter what happens, you own the "why," the "what," and the choice of this particular "how" as it relates to the goals you need to achieve. The larger the organization the more likely the people who made the decision will be in different jobs when there is a reckoning - that doesn't absolve the organization of responsibility.
3. Separate performance from measurement. This should be obvious but it isn't. If the people you're paying are also measuring the results and reporting them back, there is NO realistic expectation that you will ever get the truth. Consider the simple fact that they get paid if their results look good, and they get paid more if their results look better...

These are pretty universal, and any well-run business will operate this way. It seems though that the bigger you get, the dumber you get...

grow some

There are three reasons to have a meeting - to share information, create insight, or gain agreement.

How many meetings do you attend where there are too many people in the room, and the agenda's so crammed that you are certain never to get through it, plus you're immediately irked because the topic you're there for is last on the agenda and is sure to get postponed? Why do people create meetings like this? I suppose for the same reason that a dinner party host fears that the food will run out, or not enough people will show up.

I can understand that about the eating, but not the meeting. If the point is to share, create, or gain agreement, don't all of those things come before time-keeping? Saying "sorry, as interesting as this is, we have to cut it off so that we can get through the agenda and be finished on time" is an indication of failure.

We all know that when they buzz through the last few slides or points, what gets cut off or rushed is either the payoff of the presentation or the vital discussion afterward. We also know that by rushing or cutting things off, the real goal is rarely accomplished.

This last part is also when the nay-sayers get to debate the issue, resolve concerns, and become supporters; where those that didn't fully understand can see the whole picture; or where the presenter can really land their critical message; etc. Cutting that off is like missing the last 10 minutes of your favorite sporting event ('cause the TV station had to cut over to a soap opera), or if your Rear Window DVD breaks right when Grace Kelly is inside the bad guy's apartment, and he's about to walk in.

If I want to achieve "share," "create," or "gain agreement" - doesn't that matter? Doesn't that matter most? Forsaking actually effective meetings in favor of on-time, well-attended meetings is, well ...pointless.

What's wrong with having one objective, accomplishing it, and getting done early?

Large organizations send employees to trainings on running effective meetings/events. The classes teach you to plan the meeting/event, impose structure, send everyone a pre-read and the agenda, and account for every minute of the meeting.

So you embark on your meeting just as the course prescribes, with high hopes of a good outcome. Then someone questions a critical premise, key people don't show up, and yet a third (more senior than you) person wishes to discuss and debate an issue beyond the allotted time, and you kiss your happy ending goodbye.

I've met "executives" (especially in large, MBA-ridden corporations) who actually "evaluate" meetings! They will judge a meeting to be a poor execution that just happened to go well (got lucky) because there wasn't a crisp, clear agenda, with well-defined outcomes; the meeting was too open-ended; progress didn't occur in the "proper" way; and the organizer appeared inadequately "driven."

The ensuing email: "That a good outcome occurred is unfortunate given the failed execution of process. XXX's inability to orchestrate an effective meeting raises concerns about their competence as a manager, and their eligibility for our leadership program."

The failure is that the meeting has become an outcome unto itself; this is especially true in highly matrixed organizations, and is a classic example of micro-thinking. It contributes to a lack of agility, arrested decision-making, and profound inefficiency because so many meetings are required to actually get something done.

To be a great meeting convener, you need the maturity (understanding of human nature, patience, wisdom, confidence), combined with the cojones (confidence, wisdom, patience, understanding of human nature) to overcome the corporate training and overzealous MBA-types, and stand firm in the conviction that less is so much more than more.

Sadly, people who have developed this level of sensei-ness tend to avoid meetings altogether.

all for one...

When something becomes too big, it is or is perceived to be domineering and dictatorial. America was formed in response to an overbearing Britain. To quote the Declaration of Independence: But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Brilliant.

In writing the constitution, the framers were mindful of this, and built a structure intended to prevent a federal government from ever getting too big. They did this by separating power in two ways - federally with three "independent" branches (executive, legislative, judicial), and overall with federal, state and local governments (or more appropriately - federal and not federal).

But today these layers are so tightly connected that they can't really act independently - the state and local governments are so economically beholden to the Feds that there is no practical checks/balances capability (biting the hand that feeds gets toothless pretty quickly).

I favor a (benevolent) central model vs. a local/state/federal model. The American system is redundant, inefficient, and with a dearth of great (even good) leaders (but a surplus of great egos), suffering from bad management and egregious excess. In tough time, the more layers you have the less revenue each layer is able to collect; the less each layer is able to raise, and with bad management, the more the whole system (not to mention the citizens) are at risk.

Creating a central government would of course require a serious Constitutional amendment, but is closer than you might think. If this had been a slightly deeper and more protracted recession/depression (Detroit plans to literally shut down parts of the city because it's too expensive to service them (street lights, police patrols, trash pickup, etc.); elsewhere schools are closing, teachers laid off, hospitals are cutting back, state employees are furloughed, it's endless), I bet a dozen States would have declared bankruptcy and ceded control to a higher power, ultimately creating the United State of America (note the singular).

It's not just America - Greece, Spain and Portugal in the European Union are all struggling. The "Northern" Eurozone (Germany, France) and their taxpayers will bear the brunt of bailing them out, and while they agree the bailout should happen, there is also resentment. "Why are we always sending € billions to them?? All they ever do is go on strike and take vacations!" In the United States we have angst against Wall Street, the automobile manufacturers, and even consumers who can't manage their own debt; think of how New York and Texas will feel if they have to bail California out.

What happens if the United States or European Union fails? What then?

We need a different approach to government.

Most people don't like centralization, believing it results in bloat, bureaucracy, declining services to the citizenry, and worst of all, the risk of an unchecked power running roughshod.

I agree :-) -- BUT - I'm pretty sure we already have this in our current Federal/State/Local government model???

The Constitution delineated Federal responsibilities based on specific portfolios (foreign policy, treasury, military, etc.) combined with omission (what's left is state or local). This was fine when things were easily separable, and there was physically no way for a central government to reach and connect to every corner of the land. Neither is true today. Not only are there overlaps in purview, but the physical portfolios are so intertwined that changes in one have ripple effects on others, and most critically the citizens.

Is there a way to create a government system that achieves both the efficiency and equitability of centralization with the effectiveness, local empathy, balance and accountability of de-central? I wrote about federalizing education, where the Feds were responsible for "the what" and the schools (local leadership) "the how." Extrapolating this to the larger context:

The What - Centralized Laws, Mandate and Funding. This body will set:

1. Rights - create the fundamental laws and principles that should govern the land
2. Vision - define success, identify the "customer," the desired outcome, and how it will be measured, and most critically, have a long-term perspective
3. Funding - raise money and provide financing; $$ per outcome, penalties for non-performance, bonuses for exceptional performance
4. Oversight - policy and remediation; clear process to track performance, and manage poor performance
5. Synchronization - look across programs to create leverage, economies of scale, manage interoperability

6. People-focused - they serve at the pleasure of the citizenry

The How - Decentralized Service Delivery. These bodies will be:

1. Focused - suited to one task (middle school, building bridges, public transportation, hospitals, etc.)
2. Public or Private - could either be government owned with federal employees or private
3. Local, regional or central - organizational structure and span based on need (TSA = central, road builders specializing in cold weather = regional, school = local or regional or national)
4. Outcome-driven - compelled to deliver per the metrics and oversight above
5. Creative - not constrained by "tried and true;" free-market approach to problems and opportunities
6. Customer-centered- their customer is the central government, whose customer is the citizenry

Is it this simple? No - but I think simplicity + decoupling funding and oversight from execution is how a government should be run.

plight and prejudice

How many public school teachers can you name who are only in it for the money? I struggle to name one. Are there bad eggs in the system? Of course, and here's an example of a more insidious variant (plus it quotes one of the more choice movie lines of the 1980s!). But most of the three million+ teachers in America teach because their stomachs and hearts demand it of them. It is a calling and their intentions are good.

I have been told of places in this country where being a teacher is a "way out," and people go into it because it's one of the very few choices available to them. I'm willing to bet that most of these teachers view it as a path to earning a living, being respected in their community, and helping future generations transcend.

Last night I was talking to a good friend about teachers in America; we talked about these two amazing teachers I had dinner with last October, and about Tyler Hester - a rather academically accomplished TFA teacher who was laid off recently from his school in Pasadena, CA; he was a victim of their policy of layoffs based solely on tenure.

There is a lot of talk about teachers being the most influential factor in a child's education, and that because student achievement is declining, they must be the point of failure. This type of scapegoat hunting is easy - it's not about solving a problem, it's about finding someone to blame - that's politics. As Aaron Sorkin put it in The American President (with my emphasis):

We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who's to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character, and you wave an old photo of the President's girlfriend and you scream about patriotism. You tell them she's to blame for their lot in life. And you go on television and you call her a whore.

The "problem" is a failing education system, the "President's girlfriend" is the public school teacher, and rather than "whore" it's incompetent. Good politics is about establishing ONE enemy that is easily understood, easily vilified, and where a simple fix (student testing - something they have also admitted doesn't work!) can be applied.

Like Bob Rumson in the movie, none of these "complainants" has a viable solution for the problem. None recognizes that students are only in school for seven hours a day, and that learning also happens in the other seventeen. None speaks of the role of parents and parenting in education, none recognizes that the most formative learning happens before a child is even of school age!!

This is the plight of teachers in America and the prejudice fomented against them. Look no farther than the rhetoric of Presidents Bush and Obama, their respective Secretaries of Education, many "lesser" politicians (Governors, Superintendents, Congress people, etc.), and even major foundations (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to name but one) to find the same story played over and over again. These are people who in one breath speak of dramatically increasing investment in our futures, and in the next of budget cuts that require teacher layoffs, cutbacks in classes offered, and even the closing of schools.

Phooey!

As Elizabeth Bennett (Jane Austen's Pride & Prejudice) had to overcome her tendency towards hasty judgments and headstrong approach, so must American teachers overcome their first reaction - the raising of hackles.

As Seth said today that you must choose what of the myriad ...stuff that comes your way to accept; teachers need to focus not on a tide of disaffection, but what they would want to see in the system in order to improve it; some of this will require change on their part, and they can't shirk that. They must view being in the cross hairs as an opportunity and not a threat.

Like Elizabeth they must realize that beneath the prejudice their Mr. Darcy has a genuine desire to improve education, he just doesn't know how. In the book, circumstances contrived to help Mr. Darcy demonstrate his innate goodness and win Elizabeth. In reality, teachers must take the bull by the horns and create their own destiny.

euphemasia

I haven't been blogging very much lately; I just haven't been in a mood to write. I wonder at times if this is it? Have I said all I have to say, and no more is left? I hope not. I have begun with a title and written this much - let's see what comes.

As a child, I wondered why it was wrong to call a fat person "fat" or call a short person "short." I wondered why we said "passed away" instead of "died," why it was better to say "enhanced coercive interrogation technique" than "torture," or a bunch of other such examples.

At that age it felt like lying. Now it seems to me that all of these words represent an act of dehumanization instead of the intended act of compassion. I am who I am - whether that's brown, white, thin, fat, dumb, smart, ugly or whatever. I am who I am.

When someone euphemizes me, they take something away from my self. An obvious and defining characteristic or aspect of me is suddenly made generic.

Is a fat person also heavy? Yes. But "heavy" is intended not to offend, though the meaning is the same. But if the meaning is the same, then how is it less-offensive to be considered heavy instead of fat? Haven't we just insulted this person by assuming they're too dumb to notice that "heavy" is equally as pejorative? Shouldn't we rather be truthful?

When we euphemize, we generalize, we profile, we stereotype, and we assume that all of "them" are one. Every member of this "xxx" group is now the same. We've erased their individuality, voice and power.

Euphemisms convert people into demographic variables. The individual is killed.

But we don't confine our euphemistic ways to individuals - politics and business are equally "blessed."

President Truman called Korean War a "Police Action" - he did this for political reasons - to make it seem smaller and less than it was. The soldiers and civilians that died couldn't tell the difference, they were just as dead irrespective of the President's spin. In this case, the goal was to dupe a nation and even other countries into thinking a thing was more benign that it was. There are many others: "revenue enhancements" instead of raising taxes, "collateral damage" instead of military screw-ups, etc. The political world is rife with them, and in the end, they all serve to perpetuate lies.

This happens in business too, examples include "right-sizing" or "volume-based involuntary reductions" instead of layoffs and firings, "market corrections" instead of stock market collapses, "earnings restatements" instead of accounting failures, etc. Here's one a hospital network used recently: "negative patient care outcome" instead of deaths - imagine being told that your parent or sibling or child were unfortunately a negative outcome.

When you read these in a document or hear them in a presentation, you don't really realize what's being said; it's not clear even whether it's a bad thing (I suppose that's the goal), and what ends up happening? Middle management will euphemize poor results, failures, screw-ups when talking to upper management so that they don't look bad, but then the leaders have incomplete (bad) information and the company can't make good decisions.

In every case - personal, political, or business, we euphemize to take the edge off, and in doing so, we sacrifice clarity, we sacrifice truth, and worst of all, we avoid facing reality.

Try stopping yourself from using euphemisms - they are so entrenched in our vocabulary, our behavior, our very thought processes that it's almost impossible to be truly truthful - whether to yourself or those around you.

We say that children can be really cruel because they are unfiltered - I prefer cruelty and facing reality to killing with kindness.

admissions

A recent eSchool News headline: Are unions blocking school reform? A provocative title - but I think the wrong question.

We always look for silver bullets and scapegoats - movies like the one referenced in the article (Waiting for Superman) can be the worst offenders - it's very easy to present one side of an argument. Superman names unions and teachers as the scapegoats, and evaluating (and paying) teachers based on student test scores as the silver bullet.

We are also cause-fiends, as with Michael Moore films, people jump on the bandwagon, believing that in a mere 102 minutes a film-maker can objectively and thoroughly explain education in America, clearly show who's good and who's bad, and in this case, lay the blame on unions and teachers. Seems naïve and inflammatory to me.

Unions do have problems - they've been around for decades, but working conditions, salaries, etc. for teachers haven't substantively improved. In fact, one might argue that teachers are worse off today than they were three or four (maybe less?) decades ago. Worse, the quality of graduating students (the work product of schools) has also declined. Change is needed, but is it all the teachers' and unions' fault? I don't think so.

If I were Randi Weingarten (president of the American Federation of Teachers), I'd consider an altogether different strategy. I would admit that unions are part of the problem, but they're not the whole problem. I'd start every speech with "AFT's mission is to work ourselves out of existence within ten years. Unions exist because management didn't care enough for the workers - we want to work with governments and administrators in this country to create schools where teachers no longer need the protection of their union, where there is joy and learning in schools, and all students graduate prepared for their next step in life. We aspire to work ourselves out of existence."

She can change the basis of her union from one that opposes management to one that enables it. To get management to put their sacred cows (moronic standards, standardized testing, 13,000+ districts, poor pay, etc.) on the table, she must put everything (tenure, open to change, quality teachers, etc.) on the table as well. She could quell the issue of ulterior motives (prevent innovation, expand membership dues, increase political power) by taking the high road - her goal should genuinely be to admit that we (including unions and teachers) have problems, that our previous approach hasn't worked, and if we work together on specific change that leads to sustainably improving student outcomes at scale, good things will come (for students, schools, teachers and yes, even the union).

I am convinced that there is no such thing as a public school teacher in America that chose this profession for the money. They all came because they were called - it is/was in their hearts and their stomachs. It may have waned over time, but the intention was good. I believe we vilify teachers because they're an easy and convenient target, and because as with anything, it's easy to find bad teachers among the more than three million teachers in America.

Going back to the opening paragraph, the right question is - do we really want better? If yes, (and I'm not sure I believe we really do), then let's stop spending tons of money NOT changing things. Let's start spending less money more effectively to create something worthy of our children and their future.

Unlike the vaunted but ultimately limp recent healthcare summit, Secretary Duncan's would-be education summit should include unions, administrators, superintendents, teachers, students, politicians, etc., and it should only have one objective (one they can't leave the room without accomplishing - a cage match as it were) - unanimous agreement on the goal [note singular] for education in America. Subsequent summits will decide how we get there, but the first step is knowing what success looks like, and that all stakeholders have unequivocally signed up.

We can then challenge the administrators and unions to take a clean slate approach to design great school system(s) that meet that goal. There are many exemplars - High Tech High and Seattle Girls' School come to mind right away, but there are others. There is no disputing the quality of their graduates, but what strikes me is how exacting both are about hiring, ensuring flexibility, trust and open-mindedness (of the students and teachers alike). Note that despite public school salaries, they have hundreds of applicants for each open position. Hmmm...

It begins with a great leader who has the fortitude to remain true to his and her (respectively) convictions. I wrote about how "he" creates a public a week ago. But how do we do this at scale? We know it is rare (if not impossible) to have a great organization remain great with a poor leader.

Sadly, the public school principals that I've met are little more than operations bitches for the district. Unlike Larry and Marja, they have zero latitude to be real leaders. This means that as much as they might have innovative ideas, creative approaches to management, a desire to give their teachers the room to be great, etc., they're shackled. Going back to Weingarten, I imagine her teachers would be much happier and more effective if their bosses (principals) were leaders like Larry and Marja, and all of them shared a common goal and were empowered to achieve it. Why is it not possible to trust well-vetted and qualified leaders to do what's right?

Education is a system - it has many components, including districts, administrators, teachers, students, parents, unions, publishers, sates, the feds, etc. Today there is way too much overlap among the players, too much oversight over mundane issues, and enough internal mistrust to create an impossible situation. The approach I suggested for the AFT could easily apply to all the other stakeholders. But until there is a common definition of success, and until every part of the system is held accountable for achieving it, we won't get anywhere. 

In the end, we should not vilify any one part of the system - we should instead agree to a clear goal for education, and admit that the system as its currently defined doesn't work for broad public school education. Admissions are the first step..

balanceation proclamation

"Who's responsible for this mess!?!"

This question makes most people except politicians and psychotics (hmmm...) nervous - they are impervious to the concept of responsibility; they're good at laying blame, but have this remarkable ability to shake accountability.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a landmark moment in American history - it recognized the rights of a people theretofore viewed as property. Just as America has a human rights framework (based in part on the Emancipation Proclamation and the Declaration of Independence), surely there should be a more rigorous governance framework for the country?

I can think of three (vain) efforts at Federal political governance - the voters (elections and term limits for the President); the players (separation of powers); and the outers (GAO and the media). But each has failed - the voters are simply not smart enough to know what's going on, too partisan to vote based on actual performance, and too removed from the failures to "get it"; the players are overly self-centered and inbred; and the outers are in the former, employed by the politicians, and in the latter, too obsessed with sensationalism to make a difference.

What is the legislative equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation? I was having a conversation about changing the mission in Afghanistan with some friends and the proposed 1% increase in income taxes to cover war costs. I think this is good, but not enough - let's take it further:

As of 2009 the gross (cumulative) American national debt is just under $13 trillion - or just over 90% of the country's entire GDP!! By the end of 2010, it will roughly equal the US GDP - this is horrible! Worse, Congress feels ZERO accountability; and since virtually NONE of their equally guilty predecessors have ever been spanked, and many actually rewarded by being reelected, they are convinced they will never have their feet held to the fire.

What if we changed that - what if we created another proclamation - the Balanceation Proclamation, which mandates a balanced budget? Simply, if the budget exceeds income, Congress must raise income taxes to cover the overage. Every taxpayer/voter must immediately feel the pinch their representatives cost them (the IRS should document your hit in your tax return). This would help the voters more directly tune into and respond to bad behavior, require Congress to proactively defend their actions within their constituencies, and generally make Congress pucker just a little bit.

But what about economic depressions, when only the Feds are in a position to stimulate the economy, and taxes will impede growth? The easy answer might be "tough," but society is responsible for those that can't help themselves, and we can't ignore that. My compromise is that the Proclamation have a clause requiring a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate to secure debt-financing solely to stimulate the economy and avert or mitigate a depression - it cannot be used for any other purpose. Subsequent budgets must set aside funds to pay back the debt as quickly as possible. In the ideal case, this would be funded by the federal surplus emergency fund, but given our current debt, that won't be a reality for many years.

To help the outers, legislators (and political parties) may NOT receive contributions from anyone (individual or organization) that benefits from the spending that caused the deficit. For example, if the budget included new subsidies or credits for oil exploration, or if there was a new war, Exxon or Chevron, and Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed or Boeing, etc. would respectively be banned from any political donations for the duration of the benefit plus six years (Senators serve six year terms).

Quid pro quo. If we're punishing Congress for excessive spending, we should also reward them for good behavior. Every year that there is a budget surplus, all Federal employees will receive a bonus of X% (1 or 2%?) of the total surplus, divided equally (same percentage of salary). When they've also retired the gross deficit, the percentage should double. There should be no cap on this - the better they do, the better they do.

Today Congress exhibits the worst kind of partisan behavior, with almost zero focus on the electorate, and excessive focus on self-aggrandized power brokering. This is so because the incentive system is broken - success is getting funded and reelected, not actual public service.

The Balanceation Proclamation would reward good behavior and punish bad. If the country does well, they get paid; Congress will be incented to serve the citizens and fight for programs that help their constituents; but they know that excess spending will directly harm their electorate.

This just might be the way to help them "focus."

create a public

When leaders are asked about how they got to where they are, many share a story; a story that makes visceral the journey they traveled, the experiences that influenced them, and hints at some of the challenges they faced.

The leaders I admire most embrace the principles of Aikido - when confronted, they seek to at least neutralize their opponent (without causing either party harm), and ideally transform that negative energy into something positive for both sides. This approach doesn't just lead to progress, it leads to sustained progress where in time, nay-sayers might even become advocates.

I've also noticed that leaders are perennial students - it is that openness that creates new possibilities and partnerships. And this almost goes without saying - you won't find a leader whose mission can't be articulated in a single, clear and succinct statement.

I was talking with my dear friend Larry last week about his creation - in his words: "our mission is to create a public." Larry is a great leader, this is his starting point, and his simple and powerful intention.

Parsing this statement, we first discussed it's Jeffersonian connection - schools must reflect all of society, and in the right proportions. It must represent all the peoples of the state (irrespective of gender, race, economic status, etc.) - that's what public means. Sadly, our current system doesn't - while desegregation is law, most schools are in fact segregated, and worse, our policies and philanthropy are intent on perpetuating this segregation! (You get more funding if your school has more underserved students - so schools tend to become all underserved to maximize $$.)

It hasn't worked with prisons (let's put all of societies transgressors together in one place in the hopes that they will rehabilitate while being surrounded by fellow criminals), what makes us think it will work in schools? Every school needs to be a place where all of society mingles, collaborates, and evolves. It is the first representation of that more perfect union, where you bring students from all walks together and give them a place to learn about each other, to work together, and learn from each other. You must create a possibility for tomorrow that is vastly superior to lumping all the poor urban kids in one school, and all the rich in another.

Larry also talks about head and hand - you must learn and do, learning theories and concepts and reading about things is not enough - you must not only build things, you must be those people - to learn biology you must do as biologists do; to learn engineering, you must be an engineer - only then can you really know, and only then can you really choose your own destiny. This is why his graduates are more focused, more adaptable and more open to a changing future.

When you explore his village of six (one elementary, two middle and three high) schools, some things occur to you - first that you would have loved to go to a school like this, second that you'd want this for your children, and finally, you'll ask: "why isn't every school like this?" So much of it is so obvious (and so right) when you see it, that you are shocked to learn that the mainstream school system resisted it because it is different; not "normal," and not how they've always done it (some continue to resist).

But with time and with leadership and with perseverance and with results, minds are changing - there is hope. Maybe one day all schools will be like this.

I'm left with this question - how do we accelerate the transformation? It's not that every school must look like Larry's. It is rather that real leaders must be in charge of all schools. These leaders should be as exacting as Larry is about hiring people, as committed to creating a place that is open to possibilities, and as intent as Larry's teachers are on helping every child find that spark that elevates them from bored to compelled, from observer to participant, from consumer to creator.

We've made education complex - it isn't. We've created a system whose rules require a book that's several inches thick, whose administrators are intent on saying no, and whose staff is only interested in test scores. We've forgotten what it's like to be a student. We've forgotten that it is about graduating children whose future is profoundly more brilliant than anything we might conceive. We've forgotten that it's about creating a public.

We need more leaders that won't ever forget.

merits of merit

I work for a large corporation where compensation is based on merit. This theoretically ensures that everyone aspires and those who achieve are rewarded. In practice you need a way to normalize performance so that you can judge relative achievement, to pay the best performers appropriately.

In the hands of some managers, normalization (aka standardization) can be effective because they assess and value the tangible, intangible, and extraordinary; they override "the model" because certain people contribute the magic ingredient that creates greatness or inspires team performance but isn't easily documented. They also recognize that a team requires different types of contributors to achieve consistent success over time, some are visible, many are not; but without these "invisible" contributors, success doesn't happen. In the end, effective teams don't really have a normalized model.

The bigger the organization, the less latitude and appreciation there is for "abnormalized" performance. The natural result is competition between team members to the detriment of their customers, and tension between the team and its management, to the detriment of their mission.

David Warlick used this fabulous quote in a recent post: "We don’t stop playing games because we’re getting older – We get old because we stop playing games" (anon). Seth Godin wrote a brilliantly-titled post called the false solace of vilification, where he suggests that when stuff happens, we tend to lash out, often at the person in the best position to help us. Then there's Amanda Ripley's piece in The Atlantic which attempts to dissect the anatomy of a great teacher. The premise being that there are great teachers who can accomplish amazing things - so how do we make all teachers individually accountable for creating great students?

President Obama, Secretary Duncan, Chancellor Rhee, Amanda Ripley and a gazillion others are putting all their money on merit-based pay for teachers as the next panacea. They are doing what Seth cautioned us not to - vilifying the people that can help us.

Merit pay ONLY succeeds in individual, competitive games; i.e. when you have to beat someone else to win. It's really easy to motivate salespeople based on merit 'cause they control their destiny; they can only win when their employer wins; and when they win, their competition loses.

Unless you're the only educator in the school, merit pay will fail. The community must work together to help every child achieve their true potential. If the community members are competing against each other, the one person that matters most is ignored or abused. I have written about this here and here. But don't take my word for it - check out this fabulous article thanks to Larry.

Obama et al are grasping at the teacher merit pay straw because they're not teachers, they need to do something, and No Child Left Behind tried and failed to improve things by making schools accountable. So let's make teachers accountable. This will result in David's quote becoming more true - teachers will lose any desire to play, and their classes will grow old and decrepit before our eyes.

When teacher merit fails, should we then legislate that American students must be smart or we "fire" them? When that fails, maybe we'll legislate parenting - hmmm... that could be a good thing - let's let the US Government decide who should be a parent! The one "interesting" outcome with this is when it fails, there won't be a need for an education system at all!

I think NCLB was mostly right - we have to make schools accountable for student achievement. Everyone within the school should act as one team; all benefited equally when their graduates leave with the best preparation possible for the next step in their journey. NCLB's failure is in how they chose to manage and measure performance.

It gave schools and districts control over the definition of success - this is just plain dumb. I'll take your money every time if I get to decide whether or not I did a good job. The proof of this is profound increases in American per-student spending with no improvement (often a decline) in student achievement.

What would I do? Well, I wrote insanity defined over a year ago, when I was just learning about education, and my perspective hasn't changed. Since then I have visited many successful schools, and all employ something of the approach I advocated; all teach as a team and not as individuals; and all have leaders whose very essence is committed to student greatness first, and all measure their achievement based on their students' success after graduation.

barriers

Barriers keep things away from other things - they might be levees that keep dangerous waters away from communities; they sometimes separate nations at border crossings; they might even be erected around buildings (as happened often after 9-11) to prevent wrongdoers from entering.

There are other kinds of barriers too - ones that aren't so physically tangible, but every bit as real. Consider barriers to entry for a company trying to get into a market or reach a demographic; consider also barriers to entry for a person trying to gain employment.

In this last case, there are a few ways that would-be employees can break through these barriers - I think it boils down to:

• Accreditation - a diploma or certification attesting to something you've learned that is of value to the employer
• Connection - someone you know either in the company or that the company wants to know
• Reputation - being proven or having a following that you bring to the table that improves the employers' ability to do something (attract new customers, build credibility, etc.)
• Experience - jobs you might have had, or work you may have done that is meaningful to the employer

Of these, the first two are most cited as likely to get you in the door, and the last two are the ones most likely to have them seek you out.

For most people starting out, having a piece of paper from the right institution accrediting their education is the only thing they have. In the past, you may have been hired solely for having a diploma, but today with the scarcities we face and the glut of prospective candidates, employers can be much more selective. It's not enough to have a piece of paper; what that paper represents is actually more important.

I wrote a while back about universities being at risk because of their steadfast commitment to keeping things as they were a century ago, but now we know that institutions do this at their assured peril.

I have written a ton about K-12 education and how it's being impaled into the ground, but a couple of thoughts stand out. I'm the first to agree that we are what we measure - but we should also know that if you lower the barrier to entry, people won't try as hard!! If you protect management from failure, they won't feel as accountable!! 

Seth Godin wrote this great post today about how career fairs are (my words) the aspiration to be average. He didn't need to prove it, but here's more proof of this - the NY Times reported that several states are lowering their high school graduation test standards!!

How often have you seen a person say - well if I only need to produce 10 widgets a day, and no matter what I do, I only get paid to produce 10 widgets, I'll produce 20 (or even 11) anyway, just because I can and I care?

What gets measured gets done - if you lower the standard, guess what, you've guaranteed that the students will learn less! These legislative charlatans are trying to put a better spin on things - Dr. Gerald Zahorchak, Pennsylvania's Secretary of Education in one breadth said that 20,000 2007/8 graduates required remediation at a cost of $26 million before they were ready for their next step - a pretty damning condemnation of current graduation standards. BUT in the next breadth, of their plan to lower the standards for testing, he said: I want more than anything to be able to say with confidence that every Pennsylvania student who receives a diploma is ready for the real world.

I am speechless.

I think Dr. Zahorchak and all of his peers must be required to face the tens of thousands of unemployed high school graduates in their state every day, and hear from each of them about how their 13-year investment in public school has failed them.

The school system in this country is in peril - there should be a sense of urgency that eclipses the post 9-11 fervor on national security for approaches that improve the potential of every child in the school, not lower the standards so some imbecile with a big office can look good.

The barrier we are missing is the one that requires politicians to have an IQ above that of a grape.

Y-shmy

I've been reading a lot lately about people who are trying to figure out ways to connect with and engage the Gen Y demographic (I've been reading even more about "consultants" that are "available" to "help" with this). Managers and business leaders (certainly HR people) are worried about recruiting, creating effective working conditions, making them happy, etc. There is a projected shortfall of millions of teachers with more than 40% expected to retire in five years (other industries have similar data); Harvard Business Publishing posted an article on low-cost approaches to motivating employees.

I wasn't around then, but was this type of thing discussed (albeit not blogged or twittered) when the baby boomer generation was about to hit the workforce? Were employers at the time worried about how that generation would be recruited, create outcomes and be happy? Were they worried at that time about potential staffing shortfalls in some industry? I think so.

In the end, what happened to all the Gen-Hippies? Did they fundamentally alter the work environment or recruiting or employee morale?? Not so much.

If you're employed (like I am), there is only ONE reason you go to work every day. This one reason is universal to everyone who is employed - whether its is at Microsoft or GM or McDonalds or the White House. And we all know for a certainty that if this one thing stops, we stop working - no ifs ands or buts.

We work because they pay us.

I don't care whether you are Gen Hippie, Gen X, Gen Y, or Gen Purple - if you don't have money and want to earn some, a job is required, and money is conveyed in exchange for work done. That's the bottom line.

If I were "consulting" employers on how to lure any candidate (irrespective of demographic) to come work for me, I would offer this employee perspective:

We go to work because we're paid. We enjoy work because we care. We thrive in the workplace because you care.

If you have the cash flow to make payroll, the first is easy. The second is self-selection combined with a belief that good work is being done. It is about the purpose of the organization and how it is conveyed - a barista at your local coffee shop has purpose, as does the assembly line worker at an auto manufacturer, as does a software engineer at a high-tech firm. It boils down to having a clear link between the mission of the company and the actions of each employee; it boils down to clarity about each job and its contribution. If a company is well run, one of the signs is employees that care about what they do.

Seth Godin said you have to watch the money to gauge a person's belief in the work they do - that's a great "indicator" of genuineness. When you're a leader, you have to go further.

The third sentence is about management's authentic commitment to greatness. You can smell that a mile away, and you can absolutely tell when it's being faked. You know when it's proxied through HR practices, and you know when the "all-hands" communications sent out by the leader are crafted by HR and PR.

Authentic commitment to greatness requires leaders to care - it requires leaders to be transparent and accountable, and it requires absolute integrity.

If you need HR and predatory consultants to "help" you understand people - perhaps it's because you've stopped being one yourself.

anti ex parte party

What branch of the federal government has the highest level of integrity? Which would you trust more than the others?

The Executive and Legislative are infected with special interests, and motivated not by what's right, but by what's popular and what sells. The Judicial seems to be the most transparent and the one where outcomes and implications are most easily observed and measured.

The Supreme Court is generally at the back of the decision tree - they don't create, they interpret and to some degree, enforce. But they have a system that prioritizes integrity and peer review in a way that the other two don't.

Is it because judges were deemed to be less trustworthy and therefore had to have walls put around them? Is it self-imposed? Judicial is the also only branch that has a competence/experience/academic barrier to entry - the others are a free for all - anyone can apply - all you need is citizenship, access to money, and a gullible electorate (this last you get for free).

Is there a way to inject trustworthiness into Congress and the White House? I suppose the founders felt that the election process was the best policing agency for this, but let's face it - that hasn't really worked.

Judges are required to explain and document their analysis and rulings (unlike the White House or Congress).  Judges can only communicate (directly or indirectly) with any person or group that has a connection to a case if it's "on the record." Any communication that violates this is called ex parte.

Why can't we apply the same standards across all three branches? What if every conversation related to a bill/measure/whatever was required to be on the record and fully-disclosed to the public as a matter of law? For national security issues, the conversations should be documented and available after an appropriate period. No matter what the discussion, or with whom, everything must be part of the public record.

If I had an interest in a particular law or ruling, I'd want to be able to see the "paper trail" of influence for every Congressman or Senator that voted for or against it, or helped craft it; and I'd want to see it in roughly real time (i.e. within a day of the conversation). I'd also like to eliminate the statute of limitations for violations, if an elected official is found to have done something inappropriate even after they've left office, they're still liable and subject to judgment

In 1994 the Republican party drew up a Contract with America that made a series of commitments that would be kept if they won a Republican majority in the House. I thought that was a brilliant tactic and wonder if they might not do it again?

If I were running their party and facing a possible worst-case scenario with Sarah Palin, I would want to reestablish my party with all demographics, and unshackle myself from any one interest group. The heartland, religious right, tea party, or whatever are all important constituents, but to win I need them and more. The American politic isn't as parochial as it once was; you are a victim of being fractionalized (the Palin effect) if you allow any one person or community to define the essence of the party.

Like the Contract, I'd also want to define a new game and force the others to come to me, and play by my rules (straight from Sun Tzu's Art of War).  My opening gambit: "we are now the anti-ex parte party; all of our candidates have signed this pledge and we call on our opponents to share our commitment of integrity and accountability to the American people." It would be a way to jettison the anti-Cheney/Bush sentiment, the religious right leaning that has turned off many voters, and the Palin effect. It would also put the President and many Democratic leaders in a difficult position, because either way (take the pledge or not), they lose. Can't beat those odds.

But the best thing is it would bring a measure of integrity and accountability to Congress and the White House.

the time is now

This week, I had the great pleasure of meeting Prof. Deborah Ball (math teacher and Dean of UMichigan's School of Education) as she spoke to a group of math teachers (I crashed the party). She was there to talk about teaching math, but really, her presentation was about two issues that I think we ignore at our own peril - a national education approach vs. state/district, and that teaching is a professional discipline and not a just a job.

With respect to federalizing - IMO it is utterly moronic to have more than one school district in America. According to the 2002 census there are:

• 13,506 school district governments
• 178 state-dependent school systems
• 1,330 local-dependent school systems
• 1,196 education service agencies (agencies providing support services to public school systems)

That's 16,210 separate entities that govern this country's public school system! There's just no way a rational person can say that's a good thing. It turns out, neither the Constitution or any of the 27 Amendments ever mentions the word "education" - that's a mistake.

My thanks to Larry for the African proverb below - it is brilliant, has many messages, not the least of which is "sure if you had had a brain you would have done this ages ago, but since you didn't then, it's time to grow some and get it done now." President Obama and Secretary Duncan need to grow some (the Republicans will likely endorse this before the Democrats), argue that eliminating 16,210 agencies is a good thing, and that we need a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to mandate that public education be nationally funded and administered.

As Deborah pointed out, every country that does education well, does it as one - we can learn from that. Moreover it is morally abhorrent for the government to discriminate against a child's right to a great education just because of their zip code. <-- Where are our student-rights advocates?

The second (and best) part of Deborah's speech was about teaching as a profession, with specific skills, discipline and capabilities. Lay teachers (i.e. parents, etc.) do create learning experiences for their child, but they have nowhere near a professional approach, worse, they often do the wrong thing if their goal is to grasp the child's current understanding and help them learn more. (If the goal is to make the "teacher" feel good, then they're successful.)

Read at least the first 2-3 presentations on Deborah's website, and you will see that she talks at length about how a professional teacher is distinguished from a lay-teacher. She also answers the question "what persistently impedes progress?" by identifying five contributors:

1. Persisting with extinct arguments about skills versus conceptual understanding
2. Lack of a central or common curriculum
3. Persisting with outdated and refuted ideas about "teacher quality," especially with respect to content knowledge
4. Persisting with pendulum shifts from teacher-proofing to teachers, but rarely focusing on teachING
5. Persisting with approaches to teacher education that emphasize things other than practice (e.g. reflection, believes, propositional knowledge, experience)

We've talked about #2 already, the other four are all aspects of respecting teachers as professionals, treating them as such, measuring their ability to teach separately from domain knowledge, and providing them with the tools and mentorship and support to become more skilled teachers. During her lecture, she gave us all a bunch of tests that show how different it is to be a professional teacher vs. a lay-teacher. It was fantastic.

But do teachers really want to be professionals? Do they really want that obligation and expectation? I think they do, I think the bulk of teachers go into it because they are called to it. BUT - as Deborah points out, that doesn't mean they're going to be good at it. It's also not the case that teaching is more art than science. There are specific tools and techniques that effective teachers use that lay-teachers or ineffective teachers don't. This needs to change.

But achieving professionalism isn't just about the teacher, it's a systemic commitment. It must start with the school leaders and administrators providing an environment where teachING is valued and developed; it goes to teachers colleges who must focus on developing these skills from the outset and for accreditation; it goes to the unions who must support these initiatives to measure and compensate their members in terms of their professional ability vs. tenure. It goes to teachers who have to sign up to evolve their technique in order to improve their performance.

Note that I didn't say teachers should be accountable for student outcomes. I think that's the job of schools vs. individual teachers. BUT - teachers do need to be accountable for developing their craft. They need to be paid based on their ability (vs. tenure) in this regard.

If we are able to go from 16,210 to 1 and treat teachers as professionals and measure their proficiency accordingly, change will happen. Not planting the tree 20 years ago shouldn't stop us from planting it today.