~synthesis~

bloodied introspection

Why work hard to be "united" when "divided" is so much easier?

I wrote several months ago that the personal nature of the rift between the Middle/Southern (MS) states vs. the Northeast/Northwest (NEW) states has put America on a path to divorce - the differences are simply irreconcilable. That was in the midst of the Republican Primary. Have things changed since? Did the election resolve or reconcile anything?

No. America has never faced its mortality, and thus never grasped or faced the question of what it really stands for, what is at the core of being American. Without this, there is nothing with which to trump the red/blue emotional antipathy I referenced in that blog, and without which, I don't think America can be one nation.

I joined Microsoft in 1994, during its "cool" zenith (Windows 95): success was everywhere, the stock was rising, the world was happy. Then came the DOJ. Being a convicted monopolist put the company back on its heels. We became timid, cautious, and for a long while, without mojo. They are a different company today, Windows and Office are still the flagships, but now Servers, Xboxes, etc. are legitimate multi-$billion businesses unto themselves. Tablets and Phones are new, but the company is patient and tenacious and will keep trying.

Their size and diversity has put them in a position of potential success in a number of high-margin businesses. Each of their battles (DOJ, browser wars, open source, search, Apple, etc.) caused them to question who they are, what they are, and either re-up or abandon the idea that Microsoft could exist and thrive as a "new" entrant in non-PC markets. They have faced breakups, severe loss of cool, being viewed as insignificant, and yet, the profits keep coming in.

Look also at Germany through the 20^th century -- decimated in WWI, they rose from the ashes, became an industrial powerhouse in the hands of one man. Vanquished again in WWII, they were split in half and became servants of their Eastern and Western masters. Two generations on, Germany reasserted her independence and united as one nation with a clear identity that is informed by its past, understands its potential, and has the maturity to be a world leader. It is now a global powerhouse whose citizens enjoy a comprehensive social and economic foundation.

While the WWII/Holocaust generation is waning, that Germany's behavior still colors their thought process. Rather than diminish, it has strengthened their resolve to strive for success, but with a conscience. Over the years, they looked inward, explored what it really meant to be German, evaluated their past, understood the essence of who they were, and then emerged as the culture they are.

The desire to remain whole; diversify with a long-term view; and embrace conflict and introspection does pay off. If I were picking a long-term tech investment, or betting on a country's preeminence over time, I'd buy Microsoft or pick Germany -- they've been bloodied, faced their own good and bad, and shown that they can get back on the horse, and progress.

America is divisive and divided today because she has never been bloodied; the act of being American has never been questioned. 9-11 was a blip - there is no lasting effect. Support for the military and first responders at sporting events while touching, has not prevented budget cuts and reductions in force. America and Americans have never been sufficiently challenged or provoked to true introspection. The country remains successful, but also petulant, naive, and immature on the world stage.

Today Democrats hate Republicans for their passion for god and guns, and disdain for science. Republicans hate Democrats for their passion for socialistic services, secularism, and belief in science. If America is to be a beacon for pluralism and freedom, then it must experience the worst that can be thrown its way, and yet stay true to these ideals.

This isn't about any one issue, it is about never having questioned your fundamental identity, never having faced legitimate threats to your existence, and never having risen from such challenges as one.

America was most "American" when it faced the very real threat of identity and existence from the Soviet Union and Communism. It gave the country a higher purpose than childish partisan bickering - and while that threat was credible and imminent, the country was more together than apart. Once the Iron Curtain fell, the bickering returned, and as the threat to America diminished, so did our desire to put America above partisanship. It seems the experience of falling and then rising from the ashes is required to created sustained oneness.

Visit Fukushima, Japan, and then New Orleans, Louisiana and ask yourself which cataclysm happened seven years ago, and which one happened two years ago? Ask yourself which country is more persistent, more resilient, and more unified?

Despite their absurd and moronic efforts, our politicians can not make China another USSR - our economic interdependence and China's passion for capitalism are just two reasons.

Is it possible to become one without having to rise from the ashes? Can American ingenuity and "exceptionalism" extend this far? If the post election machinations of the White House and Congress are any indication, then no.

If America is to live, it must first die a little bit.

de facto fallacies

What happens when an organization makes a “big” decision? It becomes truth. The level of cognitive dissonance is such that facts, dissenting views, and even wise and pertinent questions are disdained - the “word” has been given.

A few years ago, the Canadian government decided to upgrade their fleet of fighter planes. After a protracted “analysis” they decided to purchase 65 Lockheed F-35s for $9 billion. (They’d already spent $160m by mid-2010 + another $350m in related contracts, despite the fact that the first plane won’t see Canadian shores until 2016.)

During the process, assumptions made early on were so endemic that they became fact. This phenomenon persisted over months. In the end, the project was a house of cards vs. a rigorous, fact/truth-based analysis.

But this wasn’t the only problem. Price creep also set in. When you or I go out to buy a car, we start with a budget - say $30k. With initial good intentions, I look slightly below the limit ($25-27k), and then “out of curiosity,” check out the $30/32k cars. “Wow - this is so much better!”

Now what were luxury features become necessities, “No way I can live without heated seats.” Pretty soon, I’m looking at $35k cars, thinking, “It’s only another $5k - I can swing it.” I walk out happy, having rationalized “only” spending 17% more. Kicker #2 - my next car’s baseline is at least $35k probably closer to $40k (massaging and cooled seats!) -- price creep.

The bigger the organization, the more faux truths and creeping price risk $billions being wasted. In the case of the F-35 fighter, 2012 the “revised estimate” is $25 billion!! Ouch!

It gets worse - the original motivation is also not questioned: “Of course we need new fighter planes - we have no choice!!” Really? What would happen if we retired the current fleet and didn’t replace it? Yes - commitments and capabilities would change, and people would lose their jobs.

But we’d also save $billions - what could we do with that money to employ more people, find new ways to solve the old problem, and maybe even give back a few $billion to the national coffers.

Will this happen? No. The assumption that Canada needs fighters is based on century-old thinking (Canadian planes were part of the RAF in WWI). They’ll never question it – stupid, stupid, stupid.

Government (and most large organization) departments assume power based on the size of their budgets vs. their service to the mission. Budgets are assigned every year on a LOBA (lower of budget or actual spending) basis, which means you have to spend everything you were given, and then figure out ways to get more, ‘cause that demonstrates your relevance. There is zero incentive to do more with less - it’s actually discouraged because this kind of efficiency lowers the department’s “standing.”

This article in the Atlantic is a great example of entrenched thinking at GE vis-à-vis outsourcing. Look also at Boeing’s 787 project and how much difficulty, patching, and mitigation they’ve had to do to overcome what was initially a cute idea (multi-site sourcing), but quickly became the de facto and not-to-be-questioned strategy. Even a nimble company like Apple is going to inshore some of its product assembly.

No assumption deserves absolute faith forever.

Always, always question your assumptions. More than 50% of American marriages end in divorce because the preconceptions were proven wrong. We no longer consider marriage a de facto state; permanence, multi-race, age disparity, and gender are now part of the new normal of marriage. In the same way, there should also be a new normal for divorce - why does acrimony have to persist?

There is a Mexican proposal to redefine marriage as a 2-year contract that must actively be renewed - I think this is a brilliant approach to ensuring that the parties involved continually question their assumptions and actively choose to “re-up” vs. passively enduring a bad situation until things become so bad that hate and anger and vindictiveness ensue.

Entrenchment leads to bad decision-making, costly repercussions, and sadness.

healthy wallets, healthy bodies, healthier US?

Why are healthcare costs around the world rising so dramatically? The costs of innovation, lawsuits, and an aging population are among the “claimed” reasons. Of course they have an effect, but are they the only reason?

If you have an expense account or your parents’ credit card, your “generosity” with their money is much greater than with your own money. You’ll buy more expensive things and be more careless with them - after all - you aren't paying for it.

Health insurance = other people’s money.

If it's your own hard-earned money, you’re more likely to think before you spend; put more effort into preventing expenditures (live healthily), be diligent with your medicines, etc.

American health care was regulated [fascinating read] in the early 1900s; it resulted in better hospitals, but initially very few licensed physicians; this scarcity increased costs, and health insurance was created to ensure that patients could pay their bills. Insurance became pervasive through the 1960-‘70s, and when Medicare and Medicaid were introduced, we were off to the races. By distancing the cost from the consumer, people progressively became more cavalier.

The very existence of health insurance assures excess.

Any issue/injury/ailment/ingrown toenail is worthy of a doctor/hospital visit. We aren’t paying so what the hell! As coverage became based on procedures, doctors "found themselves" doing more tests, but since we aren’t paying, test away!

Costs escalated, insurance companies panicked. Rates increased, employers panicked. Lobbying increased, politicians panicked. Laws were written, and now citizens are panicked.

But then the economy began to slow, unemployment rose, and more people were without coverage.

This increased the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSA) and High Deductible Health Plans (HDHP), which allow individuals (and employers) to set aside before-tax monies in a savings account for routine medical care, and purchase lower premium disaster coverage with high deductibles as a backstop.

Now it's your money, from your account, and you're more careful. The effect? Health care spending growth slowed!

We not only think twice about going to the hospital, we even pay more attention to diet and behavior to keep our costs down. Doctors, knowing it’s the patient’s money, are ordering less tests and expensive or frivolous extras. When GE implemented an HDHP-type plan for its employees, there was a noticeable decline in the use of their own expensive imaging (MRI, CT) products! Not good for GE, but absolutely indicative of better overall behavior. :-)

If you’ve read this blog for a while, you know I’m a proponent of universal health care. But it is subject to abuse and mismanagement. I believe all Americans should have healthcare, but let's learn from previous mistakes. Our implementation should be universal, prioritize patient health, and save money by mandating a minimum of HSA/HDHP for everyone:

• Government pays HSA + HDHP for those earning up to 1.5 times the poverty level.
• Government pays HSA only for those earning up to 2.5 times the poverty level.
• All government employees (including ALL elected officials) receive HSA + HDHP.
• All others are self/employer insured.
• All insurance providers must offer HDHP for anyone without descrimination.
• HSA is tax-free/pre-tax; any unspent $ can roll into an IRA or next year’s HSA. 
• This supplants Medicare/Medicaid and any prescription drug benefits.
• High school graduates qualify for lower rates, as do those with a post-high school certification (see below).

Potential upside:

• Doctors say they can’t assure health because patients don’t take care of themselves or take their medicines properly. This doesn’t solve that, but people might pay more attention if it’s their money, and spend a little today (preventative) to avoid spending a lot tomorrow.
• Less excess = lower costs.
• More self-care = healthier people.
• Direct payment by the patient via HSA (debit card) reduces administrative costs.
• The elimination of Medicare/Medicaid in favor of subsidized HSA/HDHP for those that need it most.

Education mandate - it seems obvious that the more educated you are, the healthier your are, and the longer you live. Now there’s data. So why not tie universal health care to universal education? It only makes sense.

Health insurance costs in the developed world are rising much faster than GDP, and the US is in the worst shape. This approach blends universal access with the very American idea that that we should all have a vested stake.

If we see success (lower costs, improved well being) with this approach, maybe we should also try it for public education?

America is a unique country - it's approach to social services (health, education, etc.) should also be unique.

the single biggest issue in this election...

...is not the economy, unemployment, terrorism, reigning in Wall Street, foreign policy, gay rights, or anything like that.

There is only ONE thing that matters in this election and neither the debate moderators, the media, or the candidates will discuss it.

If I were moderating the debate tonight, my instructions to the debaters:

1. You will get as much time as I decide you need. It will not be equal.
2. I will ask the questions, and keep asking until I get satisfactory answers.
3. I have no tolerance for BS.

My first (and perhaps only) question to President Obama:

If you win a second term, you will most likely inherit a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. The last two years marked the least effective Congress/White House combination in memory. You've failed at working with this Congress for two years - how will this change? What assurances does the electorate have that you will be able to get ANYTHING done?

My first (and perhaps only) question to Governor Romney:

If you win the presidency, you will most likely inherit a Republican House and a Democratic Senate. The Republican caucus is dominated by a Tea Party fringe which does not suffer centrists gladly. Speaker Boehner was rendered impotent by this caucus. How will you get ANYTHING done knowing the obstacles you face in a partisan House, and an obstreperous Senate?

This may take a while...

America's greatest challenge is a Congress + White House so infantile that they would make a room full of drooling two-year old pouters and bullies appear coherent, dignified, and civlized.

is foxnews secretly pro-obama?

What if candidate Romney pulls out a miracle and not only wins the Presidency, but also drags a Republican majority into both the Senate and the House?

Whom, in the months to follow is going to be most disappointed and dejected? I say it is FoxNews, and especially Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter (the prince and princess of vitriol).

Why would these two who revel in reviling anything and everything Liberal, who can spin the smallest Democratic act into a demonic plot to strike down all God-fearing Republican Christians be sad?

Because they’d have no-one to hate. The “lame-stream” Liberal media (MSNBC) would own the self-righteous, angst-filled hate advantage, and take over the mantle of official spokesnetwork for the easily-manipulated unwashed masses. Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh and the rest, all ardent supporters of Mitt, the Tea Party, and all things Sarah Palin would languish on their airwaves with nothing to complain about and no-one to insult.

Imagine that.

My assessment of the coverage mix at Fox/MSNBC:

• 5% our candidate/party looking good.
• 15% their candidate/party looking bad.
• 70% analysis affirming how their bad behavior makes “us” look good.
• 10% update (+ lots of video) of brain dead, ultra-tanned mom arrested for bringing daughter to tanning salon.

To fill the airwaves (and garner watchers and advertising $$) the best possible outcome for Fox/MSNBC is a president of one party, and a split in the House/Senate. This way everyone gets to have someone hate-worthy in power, and of course spend interminable hours with sycophantic "analysts" critiquing minutia in order to perpetuate the hatred.

Many think today’s professional athletes sacrificed the intellectual for the physical; that they are largely one-dimensional beasts whose sole focus is winning at all costs and cashing in on that big paycheck. With American Football, it is this plus the desire to physically dominate and punish your opponent in every way.

I was watching a replay of the Giants-Eagles NFL football game last night; these teams are in the same division, play each other twice a year, and typically for one to succeed, the other must fail. A factor that no-doubt contributes to their intense and long-standing rivalry. Suffice it to say, these players get paid to convincingly decimate each other.

One might even compare them to the Democrats-Republicans in politics, though we’d have to recognize that except for Joe the Plumber (assistant plumber turned actual Republican candidate in the 9th Congressional district of Ohio), most politicians have a meaningful university degree (often post-graduate), earned on the basis of intellectual ability vs. physical prowess.

How interesting then that once the final whistle had blown and the high-stakes, intense game had ended, we saw Jason Pierre-Paul (job: pummel Vick) hug Michael Vick, who hugged him back. This is not unusual - if you watch sports at all, you know this type of inter-team camaraderie is common amongst even long-standing rivals.

What does it say about our politicians when these physically gifted, but purportedly dumb jocks are able to transcend the field of battle and recognize that there is a time and place for everything? They compete with passion during the game, but once it ends, treat each other with care and civility, after all, much more unites than divides.

And yet, our better-educated, more sophisticated, and worldlier politicians are unable to overcome their in-election combativeness to do as the electorate commanded - govern.

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

These are the closing words of Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address. But he had no experience of Fox/MSNBC - a force united to break our bonds of affection; a force stronger even than the Parties' candidates; and a force whose survival depends on discord.

There is but one way to overcome this force. Hmmm... where is that remote?

an imperfect union

A democracy is characterized by the regular, peaceful transition of power based on equitable choice (one citizen, one vote). Voting is the act of choosing the best person(s) to represent your voice in the governing process. Governing is the enforcement of laws and creation of policies that improve the citizens’ wellbeing today and tomorrow.

Seems simple enough. What could possibly go wrong?

Ego.

Today “our” elected officials care little about governing; winning is the only thing, and they will do anything, anything to win.

Why do we tolerate this?

1. We are stupidly easy to manipulate.
2. We have very selective memories.
3. We can’t see past our fears.

Think back to any primary election - did even one candidate treat their opponents with respect? Can you name them? If you can (John Huntsman), did they have hope of winning? What happened?

What does it say when candidates within a Party family so viciously eviscerate each other? Sadly, despite the hate, the “base” rallies around the winner because they've been manipulated into thinking the other Party is even more evil.

Candidates actively avoid “thinking” voters; no one wants an open, cogent discussion on policy bereft of vitriol. Look at the Party platforms - they only come up when an opponent finds a weakness to exploit. They are completely ignored by the candidate.

How to win?

1. Raise a ton of $$.
2. Identify “wedge issues.”
3. Pepper the electorate with abusive ads.

Without #1, everything else is moot - fund raising is THE priority for every Party, even above the candidate. How to raise money? #2. Even the smartest among us are susceptible to #2. (Pun intended.) Pollsters are the most influential people in any campaign; they “help” the candidate focus the message for maximum provocation and agitation, and thus more donations. Evil.

Witness the recent Romney defense of free speech - no coherent person associates the embassy’s actions as siding with terrorists, but then coherent people aren’t the target audience, are they. He just needed to paint his opponent as pro-Islamic fanaticism and anti-America, and thus raise more $$. The President’s reaction was also wrong - why stoop to your opponent’s level? Maybe because that's also your level.

With the secret recording of the Romney fund raising speech, the Democrats (and media) went off on how evil Romney is because he doesn’t care about half the country. Romney was responding to a question about campaign strategy, not governing; he said the pro-Obama 47% will never vote for him anyway, so why bother campaigning to them. I guarantee President/candidate Obama has spoken similarly about demographics and districts that hate him. Romney was pandering to his audience and he chose words that resonated with them; tell me Obama has never done that.

When an election is based ONLY on vilification, both the winners and losers emerge as blood enemies. Their abject hatred prevents any hope of collaboration (governing), and even if they can rise above it, they can’t be seen to cooperate or #1 dries up.

What about the victims of our politicians’ hatred - the Chinese, Latinos, Muslims, Olympics, gays, pro/anti abortionists, etc? Can you guess at their “favorability” towards America, Americans, and the American government??

Are you really surprised that with every election in the last 30+ years, our country has become less happy, less sustainable, more hateful, and more hated? A recent president once said, "Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos." Can you guess who it was?

It is time for we, the voters to reject cynicism and chaos, and reform our imperfect union.

a reboot

Last week I suggested a Constitutional re-think was needed to help us put our government (and country) back on track. Here first is my reason why this approach is needed, and then a rationale for the Amendments I suggested. Thank you for your emails - it's been a great conversation!

If you run a business, you know that it is possible to take shortcuts and even break rules/laws to realize short-term gains; and you also know there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.

Can you get back on the straight and narrow after an ill-gotten gain? Sure, but the longer you wait, the harder it gets. Cheating quickly becomes habit-forming; we get used to any (even bad) behavior, and soon it becomes the accepted norm.

Nowhere is this more true than politics. There was a time when running for office had a higher purpose; it was a calling to public service steeped in honor and integrity; one derived satisfaction from knowing that the greater good had been served.

As the business/economic value of having a politician in one’s pocket has grown, so has “investment” in elections and lobbying. Companies and individuals with vested interests spend absurd amounts of money financing candidates. For the upcoming election only (not all Senate seats are up for election), and as of June 30, the incumbents and their parties have raised $2.1billion (see below, source). They will of course raise much more in the weeks/months to come, bringing the total to well over $3 billion.

Even those that donate $1.00 expect something in return -- it could be supporting or opposing abortions, gay rights, gun control, raising taxes, a stronger military, public health care, or whatever. But there is an expectation of specific behavior in exchange for the $ (and the vote).

I wonder what these (see table, source) organizations expected (and received/will receive) for their contributions? Solyndra’s primary investor and executives donated $87,050 to Obama in 2008 - did this contribute to their $535 million federal loan guarantee?

Politicians seek and wish to remain in power above all else. It is in their interest to “cater” to their supporters. The ROI for these supporters has to be tangible enough to warrant the $ billions invested, so lawmakers add “helpful” riders/earmarks, or amend tax laws with credits/deductions; all to assure funding for the reelection, and maybe a nice post-politics job as a lobbyist or consultant.

What price do we the people pay for this pandering?

Over the last ~50 years, politicians have perverted the election finance, law-making, and taxation processes to the point where you can’t even excavate back to see what they looked like in the 1960s. The paybacks have resulted in layer upon layer of legislative morass, spending excess, political polarization, and voter disaffection.

What we now know to be “government as usual” is a horrible perversion to those who knew it in the 1950s and 60s.

It’s easy to overlook government excess as an acceptable “success tax” in good times; but in bad times the morass impedes action, the excess creates debt, the polarization becomes hate, and the disaffection turns into economic dysfunction.

Welcome to the America 2012.

So how do we fix this? With three Constitutional Amendments to overcome both the issue of financed politicians and the resulting morass. 

The premise: reduce (if not eliminate) the need for campaign financing, make it more difficult to “repay” prospective “investors” by creating greater transparency within the law-making and taxation process. This streamlining or legislation and taxation, might then spur business-led economic growth.

Below is a summary of the proposed amendments with commentary.

1. Election Reform:
   1. Term limits - President 1-6yr, Senator 2-4yr, Congress 3-2yr.
      • The White House should lead knowing they will never campaign again -- only then can they act in the best interests of the country. This is how we avoid the 2008 Republican #1 priority of preventing a second Obama term vs. governing.
      • Politicians must feel a sense of urgency to make a difference vs. making a career of winning elections.
   2. Election finance - Only public $ ($0.50/voter); no private or corporate $.
      • To win in the 2010 election, House members needed to raise $13,461/week to fund their reelection; Senators needed $27,243/week. This is why they got NOTHING done.
      • This is how we even the playing field and allow the President and Congress to govern, vs. becoming professional fund-raisers, and reduce the power of lobbyists.
   3. Congress & President/VP’s tax returns must be public until death.
      • Public service is not about lining your pockets, now or in the future.
2. Legislative Reform:
   1. Scope - laws/bills must be understood and explained by 5 random high school students in one week; they must only deal with ONE problem (no riders, addenda, etc.), and all sources and uses of funds must be enumerated.
      • The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act for example is 906 pages long - it is complex and can not be understood by a typical citizen. We must reduce legislative complexity and obfuscation, and clarify the funding of all expenditures.
      • If the Bill requires enforcement, that cost must be included and paid for.
      • Any citizen can challenge a bill with the 5-student-test.
      • It reduces (if not eliminates) the ability to “hide” payback to lobbyists, funders, etc.
      • A side benefit could be an incentive for Congress to improve education, thereby enabling them to create more complex legislation :-)!
   2. All laws (past, present, future) expire after 2 years; they can be renewed (provided they comply with #1); if not renewed on time, they expire by default.
      • This creates fewer, simpler, more enforceable, and more modern laws.
      • Congress is obligated to work vs. obsess with wreaking partisan havoc (or raise $$).
   3. Accountability - Congress must pass a budget on time every year, if they fail, all 535 members’ wages and benefits are garnished.
      • Nuff said :-).
3. III Tax Reform:
   1. Flat tax at source, zero deductions (includes tax, Social Security, Medicare, etc.).
      • Taxed at source, no deductions means employees with a single source of income  (majority) won’t need to file returns -- it’ll be automatic.
   2. Personal: 0% on 1st $50k, 15% on next $50k, 25% on next $100k, 40% on balance.
      • As government becomes more efficient and debt free, these rates should go down.
   3. Corporate: 3.5% of gross income - no exceptions or deductions.
      • Notwithstanding the arbitrariness, companies will prefer the clarity and predictability vs. today's complexity and randomness.

Our country is fast approaching the situation Argentina faced in the early 2000s, and the one Greece faces now -- a feckless government bent on petty self-serving agendas that in no way benefit the citizenry.

The status quo is untenable.

a rethink

If I were writing the President's speech at the Democratic National Convention:

My fellow Americans good evening. It is with pride that I accept your nomination to be the next President of the United States. It is with humility that I speak about what must come next -- both in the weeks and months before election day, and in the four years that we hope will follow.

The last three and a half years as your President have been quite a lesson -- we live in a complex, nuanced, and opportunistic society. We each have great expectations for ourselves and our country, but we each see it differently. This is the magic of America, and the challenge of America.

It was easy in 2008 to be on the campaign trail, blithely criticizing everything President Bush had done, and telling you how I would make things better from day one. It is easy because until you sit behind that desk, there is no way to understand how powerful and powerless you are.

Each of us seeks the Oval Office with the best intentions; this time the campaign is between Mitt Romney and me. I will tell you now that I believe 100% that Governor Romney is a person of honor, integrity, and with a profound desire to serve his country. He intends to do his utmost to take our country to a better place. He has articulated a number of policies and strategies that he will enact to accomplish this, and if we took the partisanship out of it, I imagine I might agree with much of what he wants to do, just as I believe he would agree with much of what I want to do.

But in the scheme of things, today’s elections are won not by extolling that which unites us, but rather by objectifying those who divide us.

This colors our approach and vision of campaigning, and causes each of us to pander to fractional but wealthy or influential interests with polarizing rhetoric. The only victim of this behavior is the citizen.

Thankfully, strategies, policies, 9-point plans, and campaign promises don’t amount to much once you get behind that desk. On the day I was inaugurated, I was raring to go, but at every turn, I found myself facing three things - incumbency, partisanship, and complexity. The system didn’t like change at all, and was very effective at resisting it; each side was bent on making the other look bad at all times; and if you did manage to get past these two, you had to appease so many people, cater to so many interests, and account for so many legacy obligations that there was no way to actually get something meaningful done.

Here is what I want to accomplish in my second term, and if you do vote for me, you must do so knowing that this is exactly what your mandate demands of all those who are elected to office this November.

If I were a Republican, I might stand here and say I want a government that is as small as possible; that all elected officials must be completely accountable for their actions; that we must only enact laws that expand freedom; and finally that we must reign in excess taxation.

My friends, I, a passionate Democrat, stand before you to tell you that this is exactly where my campaign and upcoming term will focus. Specifically, I am going to campaign for three constitutional amendments, and ask the American people to only vote for me if they believe in all three.

Amendment A: Election Reform

Elected servants take on a greater obligation than any private citizen, and must operate under more exacting rules. There are three parts to this amendment.

First term limits - Presidents will serve one six-year term; Senators up to two four year terms, and Congresspeople up to three two-year terms. Second, election finance - no private or corporate money may be used by candidates - once a candidate wins their primary, they are allocated a budget of fifty cents per eligible voter in their district. No additional money may be spent. Moreover, third party expenditures will be illegal - we will not allow any candidate to be corrupted by special interests. Third, the accountability - to mitigate corruption, once elected to the Presidency or Congress, the winners are required to publish all future tax returns until they die.

Amendment B - Legislative Reform

Our laws are overly complex, filled with hidden benefits for special interests, take too long to enact, and live forever. We will change this. There are three parts to this amendment.

First, legislative scope - Laws and bills must be written so that five randomly selected high school students can read and explain them in one day; they must only deal with one thing (no riders, addenda, etc.), and identify all sources and uses of funding. Second, duration - ALL laws (past, present and future) will expire after two years; this means that any law passed two or more years ago, comes up for renewal in 2013; but they can only be renewed after being re-written per part 1 (scope); if a law is not renewed, it is eliminated -- this means a lot of Congress’ time will be spent on this! Third, accountability - Congress must pass a budget every year; continuances will not be allowed; failure to pass a budget will result in loss of all wages and benefits for EVERY member of Congress.

Amendment C - Tax Reform

Our tax code is absurdly complex, and too frequently used as a means of catering to special interests. We will simplify the tax code (following part 1 of Amendment B) and make it very difficult to change. This amendment has three parts.

First, scope - we will shift to a flat tax with no (zero) deductions; it will be progressive and deducted at source for individuals, and include all federal income (tax, entitlements, etc.) in that one percentage. Second, personal - the tax rates will be 0% for those earning below $50k/yr, 15% for those earning $50-100k/yr; 25% for $100-200k/yr; and 40% for the rest. Third, corporate - this will be a flat 3.5% on gross income.

These three amendments will assure elected officials intent on public service; clear and active legislation; and a simpler and less costly tax system. I will publish the analysis that shows that the amendments will put more money in Americans’ pockets, reduce our debt, and restore honesty and integrity to the government.

I have decided to suspend my “active” campaign in favor of first publishing the clear and simple amendments and our analysis; and then only doing live and televised town halls to answer questions about these three amendments. I will not spend one more dollar campaigning against Governor Romney.

Does the economy matter? Does the deficit matter? Of course!

Can we fix them? Yes, but not if the White House and Congress continue as we have for the last 10+ years. Our behavior and partisanship are reprehensible.

It must stop. It must stop so we can do the jobs we were elected to do. It must stop so that elections can once more be about public service. We must stop so that governing can once more be about doing good. We must stop or our economy will not improve, and our debt will become untenable.

My fellow Americans - I seek a national mandate to enact these constitutional amendments because without them, America gives in to persistent and reprehensible partisanship; it gives up on one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I will not accept that. As President and your nominee, I will do everything to win this mandate, and I ask you to walk beside me, to pledge your allegiance to the United States of America.

Thank you

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.