~synthesis~

the time is now

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

content, bandwidth and lunch

Marshall McLuhan was right - the medium is the message.

In almost every case, those that thought content was king were proven wrong. From analog modems (remember baud rates?) to DSL to Cable to FIOS, people routinely (and happily) pay a premium for bandwidth,  but they absolutely hate to pay for content.

Think back to the days of the original Napster and Kazaa - if I had been one of those that used either service, my thought process was simple: "I hate paying for content, but I don't mind paying as much or more than $100/month for bandwidth." I may only download 50 songs in a month but I'm still going to be happy with my killer bandwidth vs. having paid $50 for music.

These days people actually pay for multiple sources of bandwidth - I have broadband at home, a data plan for my phone (and a voice plan) and then also pay for hot spots when the need arises. But I still dislike paying for content, I do use Pandora/Hulu, etc. and will buy content, though grudgingly.

Mark Cuban wrote brilliantly about the DVR vs. internet video. In it he talks about how in their typically narrow-minded (the only thing I know is a hammer so everything looks like a nail) mentality, media companies want cable companies to eliminate or cripple DVRs because they allow viewers to avoid commercials. This perspective is shared by most if not all content publishers. They're crazy!

You know others are progressively eating more of your lunch and yet all you want to do is hang on to the meager scraps you have now? Why?

Digitization has altered the equation for publishers - they had the corner on both the medium and the message, but now anyone can distribute content (we haven't even talked about bit torrent) and most people can publish without needing an "official" publisher.

From music to video to books, each publishing machine has attempted to preserve its original business in the hopes of extracting yet one more drop of revenue. But in trying to preserve history, they're losing sight of the future.

People are willing to pay for access, but content ...not so much. Content is less-valued - not just in publishing, but also pharmaceuticals with generics, with clothing and jewelry and knock-offs, etc.

Here's the thing - digitization increases profitability. Manufacturing costs drop dramatically (no physical bits), distribution costs drop dramatically (no bits, no inventory, no returns), cost of sales drops dramatically (eliminate the middle-man), and market size increases dramatically (direct to every customer on the planet, no retail constraints).

If you had all four of these factors beckoning you, why not go that way? Why not actively pursue tomorrow instead of trying to live in yesterday?

Because the greatest predictor of future failure is past success.

achieve

I recently attended a presentation by Richard Barth (CEO of the KIPP Foundation) where he talked about the 82 KIPP schools they've built since 1995, and their vision and plans for the future. I've also had the pleasure of hanging out with two other leaders of schools in the last few months - Bill Kurtz of Denver School of Science and Technology (DSST), and Larry Rosenstock of High Tech High (HTH).

Each is different, but they share some traits. They almost always say "our," "we," or "us" instead of "my," "I," or "me." Their motivation is not personal recognition but rather the success of their students. Their outlook is more futuristic and forward-looking/inspiring than most, but they have the gift of blending that with operational effectiveness today. They have an unwavering commitment to one thing - graduating students who are on a path to personal greatness.

There's more to being a leader:

You need a great bench - are you grooming those who will follow you? (When I asked Richard Barth, he said he views this as one of KIPP's core competencies - interesting.) Are you creating those who will be recruited to lead other organizations? (I have seen this personally at High Tech High.) How effectively will your organization run when you're not there? (When I visited Denver School of Science and Technology and met the deputies (plural) it was pretty obvious.) We measure an organization by how well it performs when the leader leaves - while each of these individuals is truly great, I can say with conviction that if asked, they will care more about the legacy of the institution, and more the destiny of each graduate of the institution than their own "brand."

There is one final characteristic to great leadership - achievement.

Each of these gents has gotten it done.

But I also know none of them are satisfied - there are many more children to serve.

Is there more? Yes. Meet the people that work at KIPP, DSST and HTH and you'll see a perfect example of yet one more dimension of leadership - they are able to bring people to the table who are amazing, committed, brilliant and relentless about their students' destinies. They each feel empowered, supported and impelled to do great things. And you can meet each group and know which leader each works for. Each leader has a distinct personality and their people embrace it wholeheartedly.

It is this last that is most magical to me - the ability to attract great teachers and create this powerful ethos. Hiring a great leader is the most crucial factor in creating a successful school - now we just have to find them.

tribal self-preservation

Our DNA prioritizes self-preservation (fight/flight, procreation, etc.) - this is human-nature. "Self" goes pretty far - we see this behavior extend to the family unit, or even the community, and in the case of larger threats, to entire nations (witness 9-11). We also see this in less urgent situations like team sports and at work.

Does self-preservation ever lead to self-destruction?

At work, management sometimes bands together and starts listening more to themselves and ignoring the truth from the trenches even when the source is their own employees. This can lead to strategic myopia or the grasping of scarily flimsy straws. The team ends up feeding off of its cognitive dissonance vs. facing reality. This might be sustainable in the short term (possibly because they're riding their own inertia + euphoria), but it will fall down at some point.

Scott McLeod pointed to an article on the end of teacher sameness and loyalty, which predicts that teachers unions' hold will erode as teachers' roles get more varied (flaunting the unions' goal of a totally consistent and standard teaching remit); in time, they'll just fade away as fewer teachers "fit" their criteria of standardness.

IMO he is overlooking the fact that a lot of the power of unions actually comes from the employer, yep - the unions' power comes from the employer.

While It is true that great teachers create great students, it is more true that great teachers with crappy administrators create crappy schools. I've been to many schools in the last 18 months, and every school I've seen that is wonderful has an administrator/leader who relentlessly and passionately pursues the best for their students. Whenever the leader is bad/stodgy/status quo, the school is too.

David Warlick's post on common core standards scorns the work that the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers have published. He calls out this sentence:

These standards will be research and evidence-based, internationally benchmarked, aligned with college and work expectations and include rigorous content and skills.

Wow - that sounds really good, doesn't it? When David dug deeper, he found that the detail was an amalgam of existing, 20th century ideas. No new news at all.

The "employers" that wrote this appeared to prioritize self-preservation (getting reelected or reappointed) over the best for students. To get re-upped, they need the unions' (most powerful voting bloc) support. By writing a sound byte like the one above, and then putting the same old stuff in the fine print, they preserve themselves and their fellow tribe members, the unions.

The "tribe" seeks the appearance of driving change, but the reality of preserving the status quo.

Teach for America is small - 7,300 TFA teachers out of 6.8 million total - but their effect is huge. We all know the acronym, and teachers and unions are paying attention and changing behavior.

What's the TFA equivalent for Principles and Superintendents? Is it Charter schools? They are almost always the brainchild of a visionary, but the "tribe" scorns if not reviles them. Is it money? America spends more per student than most countries - it hasn't made a difference. It's not shame or guilt (that just strengthens their resolve).

What if Superintendents were paid exactly the same wage (in Massachusetts for example, they make $144k/year) as their lowest paid teacher but budgets had to stay the same or go down? Would that weed out those who were less committed? Would it create a massive gap in leadership? Would anyone notice?

advocacy

I had a brilliant conversation last night with two public school teachers. We talked about so many things, but invariably it came down to our education system and what can be done about it.

As I write this, I'm watching the Bob Dylan 30th Anniversary tribute DVD, and Stevie Wonder is singing "Blowin' in the Wind" - interesting coincidence?

In Dylan's words:

There ain’t too much I can say about this song except that the answer is blowing in the wind. It ain’t in no book or movie or TV show or discussion group. Man, it’s in the wind—and it’s blowing in the wind. Too many of these hip people are telling me where the answer is but oh I won’t believe that. I still say it’s in the wind and just like a restless piece of paper it’s got to come down some ...But the only trouble is that no one picks up the answer when it comes down so not too many people get to see and know ...and then it flies away I still say that some of the biggest criminals are those that turn their heads away when they see wrong and know it’s wrong. I’m only 21 years old and I know that there’s been too many ...You people over 21, you’re older and smarter. --Bob Dylan, Sing Out! 1962

The song talks about oppression, being trodden upon, and injustice; most people connect that (as Stevie Wonder did) to civil rights, Vietnam, apartheid, Watergate, global starvation, etc., but as my two teachers affirmed, we forget the injustices that are befalling our students and teachers in schools across America. Who's singing about them?

One (recently moved to Washington State) said that she was forced to join the union - "they just stood over me and refused to leave until I signed the form." They wouldn't even let her take it home to read it. That kind of coercion can't be right? How is it that an organization founded in the spirit of advocacy for the downtrodden can be so oppressive?

Both (widely acknowledged by students and parents as great teachers) talked at length and with passion about how difficult it is to really do what's right in the classroom. They talked about how difficult it will be for them if they're accountable for individual student performance when they can't control the quality of the students they get, whether those students might just be resigned to life in a gang or joining the Army and dying in Iraq. In that scheme of things, how much does school really matter? How are they to be held accountable for that student's results? How are they to teach 10th grade English when the student's incoming reading proficiency is grade 3? Here's the worst one - if they do get singled out in any way (by the community, other outside agencies for some exceptional work), they're totally ostracized by their peer teachers!

No spirit of advocacy or camaraderie here at all. A clear sign of siege mentality. It's no wonder so many prefer the charter school model, and it's no wonder (though it is a crime) that unions violently oppose charters.

What would they change? First - we don't need the unions anymore - they're slowing us down; they're lowering our standing. Lawyers, doctors, other professionals don't have unions, the fact that we do makes us less - we are as important [I argue more important], and we should govern and represent ourselves appropriately. We also need to get rid of unions because tenure is killing our profession - it's the biggest impediment to change. [How often do you hear a teacher say that???]

Second - we need to rethink how principles are hired - it's really two jobs - the visionary (critical) and the operations manager (equally critical, but fundamentally different). It should be two people who work in partnership vs. one person who inevitably defaults to the operations side, causing us to lose out on any kind of evolved thinking, policy or practice. We lose out on an environment that is enriched and collaborative and passionate and challenging.

Third - we need to rationalize the structure - there is no clarity in the Constitution about where responsibility for Education lies; by default it goes to the States, but let's face it the Feds are pretty involved, and so are districts, etc. This is a mess. It's not about salaries (teachers don't teach for the money), it's about a coherent, equitable (every student in the country should have the same opportunity for an education), and consistent system that focuses first on honoring and doing the best we can for our children, and second but equally important, on helping prepare them for their futures. We need one system; we need a new Amendment.

Where are our true advocates? Who is really standing up for teachers like these two (and their peers around the world)?

To the presidents of the NEA, AFT, Secretary Arne Duncan and President Obama: mark these words by Dylan (now sung brilliantly by Tracy Chapman on the DVD):

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Dont stand in the doorway
Dont block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
Theres a battle outside
And it is ragin.
Itll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin.

define winning

When a good leader embarks on a journey, he knows why they're going, where they're going, and when they'll finish. The goals and outcomes are clear. Achieving them is a matter of execution and circumstance, but beginning with a clear statement and vision of what success looks like is crucial.

Seth Godin wrote about the problem with transoms being that it's too easy to throw stuff out there in the hopes that something sticks. He argues that without credibility you will likely struggle to make yourself heard above the fray, that companies could make it easier for people to share ideas with them, and who knows what could come of that?

It underscores idea that good leaders know their destination when they embark. If you want your idea to be heard, or you want to be open to new ideas, create the circumstances to ensure that you will get what you want. Don't just hope that good things will come.

But in our world, the focus all too often is on the symptoms and processes and not the underlying cause or the eventual outcome. Your odds of blundering into a good outcome this way are infinitesimal. This is why so many people feel like their company or government seems to relentlessly churn over the same ground every bloody day. There is never real progress, just "metrics that show progress." It really does suck to be us, and worse, we don't seem to be able to get past the suckiness.

Take education - what is the goal? Is it happy teachers? Beautiful schools? Quality curricula? More budget? Competition with other countries? Improved assessments? What about healthcare? What outcome do we want to create? Is it happier doctors? Cheaper medicine? One payer? Happier insurance companies? Universal access? Better hospitals? More innovation?

In both cases, we rudderless because there's no clarity about the end goal. Shouldn't education be about ensuring that every child is best-prepared to excel in whatever future they choose? Shouldn't healthcare be about creating the healthiest society possible? Why don't we measure effective education by what students are capable of doing after they graduate? Why don't we measure effective healthcare by how infrequently people need to go to the doctor?

Without clear guidance, a team flounders. Without clear guidance, a nation can flounder as well. Take the "war" in Afghanistan. What is success? Is it the eradication of the Taliban? I despise what they stand for, but that feels awfully like extermination, or genocide. The Taliban are a socio-political faction in Afghanistan. Others might not agree with their principles, but that doesn't mean anyone has the right to erase its member from existence. I know many people who are passionately opposed to President Obama and the Democratic Party, or Gordon Brown and the Labor Party in the UK, or whatever, but I don't see those opponents building a military machine to exterminate them. We are civilized ...aren't we??

Is it the eradication of Al Qaeda? Terrorism is the use of violence to provoke social change - this is a criminal act, requiring a police force not a military. You don't stop violence with violence - you feed it. It is exactly the reaction they are looking for, and exactly what they can then use to recruit more poor and desperate people to their cause. Racism is a form of terrorism, but Martin Luther King Jr. taught us that "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

If the goal in Afghanistan is to exterminate a political party, we should stop and ask ourselves what that says about us. If the goal is to eliminate terrorism, we should stop and ask ourselves how that work began in the United States of America with the (ongoing) elimination of terrorism against black (and other) people.

Frank Rich's OpEd in the NY Times compares (as many others have) Afghanistan to Vietnam - wondering if we will make this same mistake yet again? I see that the President is taking a step back to deliberate. It is true that Al Qaeda attacked America, but they are a band of criminals, not a sovereign nation.

I hope at a minimum the President's deliberation yields a clear statement of the meaning of "winning"; but I really hope he realizes that the only nation that has declared war thus far is America.

hammers and nails

There's this saying that if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. It makes sense, doesn't it? If you ask a neurosurgeon what's wrong with you, chances are he'll point to a problem with your brain, but a heart specialist would call out something to do with your circulatory system, etc.

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about a group of people who met to try and figure out what could be done to increase STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) graduates in America. But the only people in the room were nerds! If you're trying to attract other people to your party, shouldn't you invite some of them to the room to at least explain why they're avoiding you in the first place? But no - that room felt it was an engineering problem - let's keep it just us nerds - hah!

We all approach the world based on our context, but that's not always the best way to actually solve problems.

Today NPR reported on a "war" status update by General McChrystal (senior US/NATO military officer in Afghanistan). We've already been there 8 years; during that time, the enemy has grown in strength despite not having any armored vehicles, aircraft, or advanced communications and weaponry. According to McChrystal, their opponents are using prisons (prisons!) to recruit and train future soldiers! The terrorists are actually using jails paid for by their enemies to house and train future militants.

McChrystal is quoted as saying: "Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it." My interpretation: "we have no strategy, so let's stay the course, throw more resources at the problem, and see if that helps." But it's not his fault - he's military - his context is clear, and his approach predictable.

So let's talk strategy. First, you declare war on sovereign nations, not people, and certainly not terrorists. Terrorists are mere criminals; by elevating them to the stature of a sovereign nation (declaring "war"), you give them strength, credibility and righteousness. The police, not soldiers deal with criminals - they're designed to keep the peace and bring criminals to justice. They should lead this effort.

History has shown that occupying a country in the interests of peace and freedom are not only oxymoronic but also futile. Sustained peace and freedom can only come from within.

Mr. President - isn't it time to find another tool?

RIP guiding light

Nope - this is not about the TV show. Seth Godin wrote a post about making lists in business that prioritizes your goals in order to help you hone in on what's really important.

Building that list is not easy, and prioritizing it is even harder. In sales, if you had XXX additional resources (time, money, people, whatever), do you spend it on improving customer service to create lifelong customers; up-selling existing customers to grow revenue per customer; or as Seth put it, try to win game-changing deals? What's the right choice? This is why leaders get paid the big bucks.

Before Dell entered the computer business, what did the other manufacturers think about and prioritize? In all likelihood, the Compaqs, HPs, and IBMs of the world focused things like Six Sigma for process improvement. I'm willing to bet none said - "our customers deserve to get made-to-order vs. our generic models, let's rethink this." I bet there was even argument about offering a different colors or specs due to their impact on metrics, quality, cycle times, and throughput.

Why does it happen? Size matters - my theory: the farther away you get from the real intention of the organization, the less likely you are to contribute to it. It's true at the top, middle and bottom.

At the bottom, you're too close to the action and have to focus on your context and what you can control. At the top you're too far away; whatever insight you get is colored and filtered by your minions' interpretations; and worse, it's also shaped by your entrenchments - your past successes constrain your future opportunities. I'm convinced the latter is one of the greatest causes of decline in successful corporations. The middle is caught - they're too far away from the trenches to viscerally know what's going on, and too far away from top to really understand where the company's headed.

Let's face it in the business world, you don't succeed by raising your hand and asking the director "what is my motivation in this scene?" So what do you do? You control what you can, in the hopes that executing well in your microcosm will have positive effects on the world outside you. This might work in some instances, but it's not predictable, and you have to overcome the organization's natural (almost entropic) tendency to girth, which requires the ability and willingness to fight human nature.

When your small world becomes the whole world, you don't see context properly - motivation becomes about self-preservation and self-elevation vs. overall organizational success. You can be and feel righteous about your vision in your small world, you don't know if that micro-view really helps. As with the people on the factory floor at Compaq or HP or IBM, until someone (Dell) hits you on the head with it, you're mired.

Many parents in America know that they can't afford to send their children to university. Beth Breselli wrote an article yesterday at Rethinking Higher Education about Financial Aid Reform. In it she questions whether recent legislation aimed at making all student aid public will succeed or not. One of the benefits Beth cites is a simpler application form. But if we were really interested in this problem, why fix the process at all? The only reason to focus on this is because we're mired in the micro at the expense of the macro.

The problem is not who lends, who qualifies, or how the forms get filled out. The goal is to ensure every student who can attend university does so irrespective of financial situation. The easiest way to do this is to make university free (in Finland it is not just free, you actually get a stipend for being there). Assuming that's not possible (or at least the topic of another blog:-)), then start at the beginning of the process. when do parents (and students) eliminate university from consideration due to economics? I have no data to back this up, but I bet they explicitly do this during the freshman year of high school, and tacitly do it long before.

If I ran the government, I'd make it simple - once you declare your child as a dependent on your tax return, the IRS does an evaluation of your financial situation and tells you that your child(ren) are pre-qualified for financial assistance for university. There are no forms to fill out, here are the amounts and limits, don't worry - you're good - once the university accepts your child, we will automatically pay the amount based on their social security number. Every year, they update your status based on your current financial situation, if all other things are equal, you're still good. I bet many more parents would encourage their children, pay more attention to school, etc., and in the end, with minimal effort on either side, we achieve the goal and eliminate complexity, bureaucracy and cost.

Peter Drucker is in my opinion the single definitive voice in modern business thinking. I had a chance many years ago to spend some 1:1 time with him - it was the single greatest moment of my professional life. Our conversation was wonderful, wide-ranging, provocative and inspiring. This quote to the right should be the first and last words read at every meeting, planning session, review, etc. in the business world. We talked about this at length over lunch that day - business leaders need to understand the difference between management and leadership. Leadership is about subverting the natural tendency towards organizational entropy by making sure the list is correct and properly prioritized. Management is implementation.

Our guiding lights are waning. Why are most of our leaders now merely managers?

the lombardi curse

A very good friend sent me this awesome map yesterday. If perception is reality, this is a pretty telling barometer of how the rest of the world perceives the United States (my friend is from Johannesburg). My reply to him was - "this seems complicated, I would think most Americans would just have a map that read "us" and "them," and go: 'see - U.S.!!!'"

This also got me to reflecting on politics inside America. The recent healthcare debate is but one of the many aspects of this country that make me go "hmmm..." It feels like Americans have an obsession - that has to do with Vince Lombardi's words - "Winning isn't everything; it's the only thing."

Patriotism for Americans has to do with standing up for the country, but it is grossly colored by politics. When George W. Bush was president, the Democrats were opposed almost everything done in the name of America - they argued passionately and violently against their duly elected leader's actions and behaviors (even debating the legality of his election) - they wanted him out, and wished to denounce any connection they might have with him. (When President Bush was elected to a second term, I (I'm Canadian) got eight marriage proposals from female Democrats who wanted to escape their country!) The did all this in the name of patriotism!

Now that there is a Democrat in the White House, the Republicans are doing everything in their power to subvert him, to create as strong (ideally stronger) an uprising against him as there was against their standard-bearer (including questioning his citizenship). Like the Democrats before them, they actively denounce the sitting president's every action in the name of patriotism.

Even the winning side in an election seems to want to step on the vanquished, this despite the lip service on "bi-partisanship" or "working across the aisle" or "coming together."

We've had many a debate in this blog about leadership in America, including things like the formation of a third party or creating a singular government (vs. local, state, federal), or federalizing education. It's been a fantastic discussion, with many diverse points of view, so I'm certainly not saying everyone is politically polarized.

Healthcare and a speech to students have been top of mind lately. But why isn't the issue: we want a healthier nation - and we don't care who the author is, we just want what's best for our citizens? Is it even possible that a President of America would go on TV to brainwash students? How can people be that naive? I bet the children can see through more crap than the adults in this country.

Vince Lombardi was trying to inspire the athletes he coached to always focus on the outcome. In sport, the outcome is more easily determined and much more clear than in life. To trivialize something as complex as the United States of America into this simple an outcome is frightening, and yet this is where we are.

The goal of leadership is not merely to win (that's too easy, and too fleeting) - the goal of leadership is greatness. That is what our leaders and citizens should be aiming for. Greatness has many aspects - here are three that I think are important - integrity, elevation and longevity.

• Integrity requires us to do what is right, we must seek and accept accountability, we must be judged by that most powerful of forces - the reflection of our eyes in the mirror.
• Elevation is about improvement. We must continually be the best we can be, and bring everyone ... everyone with us.
• Longevity is about foundations that don't crumble when shaken, it is a test of time spanning generations.

If America is the "leader of the free world" then should it not be leading the world to a better place? Rather than putting all our energy into beating down a fellow American, why not put all our energy into making America (and the world) great?

If I had written President Obama's speech to Congress last week, I would not have called out the nay-sayers as he did - why strengthen resistance? Instead, here's how I might have begun his speech:

I've only been President for eight months, but with every speech I've delivered as President, there have been three reactions - first, from those that agree with me calling it brilliant, ground-breaking and visionary; second, from those that don't calling it a travesty to basic American values, a fool's errand that undermines our very essence as a sovereign nation; and finally, from those that calmly look at the substance and wish to constructively debate it because the premise makes sense, and let's get to the next step of creating the best outcome. It is to this last group that I address this speech.

My goal is a healthier, safer and better-educated America.

The government (be it local, state or federal) is expected to ensure the safety and security of Americans and America. No-one is saying that safety should only go to those who can pay for it, nor is anyone saying we should not spend the taxpayers' dollars on defense. Our government is also entrusted with intellectual upbringing of our children. Every child is entitled to a free education until the age of 18 (I would argue - "why stop at 18?" but that's for another day). No-one is saying that we should close public schools and convert to a fully private system where education goes only to those that can afford it. The outcomes of "safe" and "better-educated" are critical to our future as a nation, and the government must do its part - we all agree on that. In fact, we all expect it.

But a strong and well-defended America isn't just about soldiers and weapons, or diplomacy, or trade and economic policy, it's about that one person with H1N1 (swine flu) who was on an airplane and infected the rest of the flight, and then everyone with whom they came into contact. That is a national and personal security threat - why?

Because that individual could be anyone, whether they had health insurance or not; today's health problems aren't all self-contained - they're not all just about your personal health. You and I are as subject to the people with whom we share the air we breathe as we are to our own genetic makeup. Healthcare is not just about you the individual, it is about you and everyone around you, friends and strangers alike.

We must apply the same vigor and focus to protecting our country from the threat of pandemics that President Bush demonstrated after September 11, 2001 when confronted with another threat to America.

The healthier Americans are, the less likely we are to succumb not just to H1N1 or SARS or Avian Flu, but also cancer and heart disease and diabetes. These last three are not mere threats, they are diabolical killers; they have taken more American lives than any other cause in history. This year alone, X [insert correct number] hundred thousand citizens will be killed by these three diseases. This year we will spend $XXX billion in public and private treatment for those afflicted with these diseases, and this year our economy will lose $XXX billion due to lost work hours from these three diseases. If that's not a threat to the essence of America, I don't know what is.

My fellow Americans - my premise once again is a healthier, safer and better-educated America. I don't have all the answers, I have the beginnings of a plan, but am hoping that those among you who agree with this premise can work with me to help create a healthcare system for our country that results in every American being healthier and more resilient to the diseases above and many, many others.

Whatever our approach, it can't be one of compromise. We should never compromise our health, safety or education - they are too important. But by working together and using good old American ingenuity, we can and will find an answer that is right for America. My only requirement is that the plan be ready before the end of 2009, and that it be fully-implemented before 2015.

OK - the President's speech writer would do a much better job of writing this, but if he is able to convey the point that healthcare is no different from education or national security, and that there should be a national mandate for every American to be as healthy as possible, it goes a long way, and hopefully places the obsession on the outcome (healthier people) and not partisanship, or winning and losing.

outcomes!

Have you noticed that in most big projects you're a part of, success is measured by solving symptoms instead of creating outcomes? Off the top of my head the best example of focusing on outcomes is President Kennedy's proclamation: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth."

JFK didn't talk about how it should be done, whether we'd use rockets or levitation, whether we needed bipartisan support, or anything else that reeked of symptoms. The outcome was clear, and while many thought it unattainable in 1961, the nation (and the world) held onto the goal and found a way to make it happen.

Seth Godin's post on positive thinking has a similar feel to it. We all suffer from NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome, our natural reaction to someone else's ides is "why it won't work" vs. "let's give it a try!" This tendency creates barriers to outcomes that can become insurmountable, because for some reason, it's easier for us to believe in "no" than "yes." It's of course much easier to say why it won't work than participate and help create the outcome. Think of every "official opposition" in politics, and even why more candidates argue against their opponent than for their own ideas.

Health care in America is one example of this. Understandably, there is intense debate on this topic - it's complex, rife with vested interests, political rhetoric, and sadly, outright lies. The difference between health care and putting a man on the moon is that the former has been around for ages, affects everyone, and has a direct effect on each of our wallets. The latter had none of those constraints. These are all of course excuses for why we can't fix it...

What if President Obama's inaugural speech had said: "We will have universal health care in America while reducing overall costs before I complete my second term as President." (Note presumptive close on 2nd term;-))

The mandate does not require that we emulate European or Canadian systems, or that we will have a public option, or that we will cut this or increase that, or anything like that. As with JFK's mandate, the "how" is left up to the experts. The only constraints are what (universal health care), when (in 8 years), and how much (less than today).

Is it possible? I think so. What would this uniquely American health care system look like? I have no idea, Would there have to be compromises? Almost certainly. Does this country have a history of rising to the occasion? Yes.

I'm reminded of the scene from (ironically) Apollo 13 - see video to the right - where the NASA team had a problem to solve. The CO2 scrubbers on the ship were damaged. The team of engineers was essentially locked in a room, given exactly what the astronauts in space had at hand, and a deadline. Guess what as in the movie, they solved it in real life too.

Having no expertise in any aspect of health care (other than being a reluctant customer), I may have some ideas, but don't know enough about medications, insurance, HMO vs. private care, the role of physicians, nurses, etc. to respond intelligently. But I think if you put all these stakeholders in a room, lock the door and give them a deadline, we might get somewhere.

If I were in their shoes, I'd start with this: the system today succeeds when more people are sick than when less people are sick. Rather than figure out how to fix health care, why not look at what it takes to create a substantially healthier America??

the expressional

Have you noticed that when candidates are seeking office they are over-the-top communicative? Driven to capture every foot-candle of the limelight, they expound about everything, including how "expoundive" they'll be when in office. Even veteran candidates (incumbents) promise transparency when elected, realizing that the electorate is dumb enough to ignore their prior acts.

Once elected though, things change. The idea that some things are better left in the hands of a few and not to be entrusted to the general public suddenly resonates. For example, (thanks to Dana) the FAA doesn't trust the public with information about how frequently flocks of birds fly into and damage airplane engines! As someone who does travel by air, I am very interested in understanding all the risks associated with travel, and then want to make my own informed decision.

Even the current Obama administration (thanks to Andrew Rotherham), despite assurances to the contrary is taking to keeping data to themselves when convenient, as in the case of the effect of school vouchers in DC.

In both cases, it was determined for whatever reason that the public did not "need to know" certain findings, results or whatever. I can see that being reasonable in certain national security situations, where the government wishes to protect a source, not publicize the ability to decipher secret conversations, or disseminating critical research. But I don't see why it applies to mainstream, everyday information.

Once in office or a position of leadership, people have a propensity for not trusting the judgment of "the people," believing the issues too complex, the analysis too esoteric, the information too nuanced to be entrusted to "them." We know only too well how often corporate executives "fail" to disclose seemingly important information, to their customers, employees, investors, or all three.

Why?

I think it's laziness (and maybe faux control). When too much information is available you give up the ability to manage and craft the message, to tell the truth vs. the most convenient story. You may also expose aspects of yourself, your image and your organization that you believe need to be kept well subterranean.

But during the hiding process (and let's face it, we've all done this), we never think about the consequences of being found out. We never realize how much worse it is to keep secrets, but also how much worse things become once you are outed vs. if you had simply come clean in the first place. When you scale this to the level of a large corporation or a powerful politician, the impact of being outed is huge.

The Communications Revolution makes this even more likely - individually people get outed all the time with something as simple as being tagged in a Facebook picture, and then the fit hits the shan doesn't it!

When corporations get outed, the ramifications are much, much greater (more fits and bigger shans), and the process is much more complex. Why? Because large organizations don't have as effective a sense and response machine as an individual. It takes time, process and politics for inputs to bubble up to decision-making layers, and then time, process and politics for them to bubble back down to the actors.

In politics, it's maybe a bit more efficient (their organizations (politics vs. government) tend to be much more horizontal), but all-too-often, the wrong people are driving the decision-making. PR and pollsters tend to have a much stronger voice than they should; they distill information into bite-sized chunks that don't have complexity and nuance (by definition). It's so easy to obfuscate complexity this way, and spin the situation to the point where strategy and integrity are compromised for expediency.

One example of this is President Bush's strident and dire warnings about how close to disaster the economy was so that he could get Congress to urgently vote to approve TARP, but then once they did approve, he realized that his warnings also had the effect of immediately arresting the people's desire to spend, which actually caused a more accelerated slow-down, made TARP less effective, and maybe caused a worse economic decline.

When running for office, you're always out there, and facing the barrage head-on. When you're in power, you're cloistered, and maybe rely more on others for that finger on the pulse. Doing that makes you more likely to agree with spin artists, and make you believe that the public really doesn't need to know everything. Town hall meetings could be a good way to do this, but in then end, they're also about creating spin, and getting a message out. Sharing, listening and responding doesn't really happen. When you're in business, the more senior you get, the more you rely on intermediaries to connect you to reality. But they have a stake in biasing your experience to accommodate their agendas, and that compromises your view of reality. Just like town halls, executive customer or employee visits are crafted - you don't get the real truth.

In the end, the more open and transparent you are, the more likely you are to have a truer grasp of reality, and make a real differences in the most sustainable and efficient way possible.

house rules

You might have noticed that I am a big fan of Aaron Sorkin and in particular the West Wing. There's this other TV show I quite like - House M.D. I was thinking today about organizational theory, how one goes about building an outstanding team, and whether they thought about that at all when they created the premise for this program.

If you're not familiar with the show, House is a brilliant but acerbic diagnostician who can solve cases others can't. He has a team of three very talented doctors who work for him, act as his foil, and create the experience of one doctor for the patient because House doen't like patients. House does have responsibilities outside of pure diagnostics (clinic duty, people-management, etc.), but if he does what he's good at, his performance (or lack thereof) in the other areas is overlooked. This even (shockingly) applies to the fact that he's addicted to Vicodin because of a problem with his leg.

The administrator of the hospital recognizes that House is a phenom, tenacious, and narcissistic problem solver; and that he is abysmal at the other parts of being a doctor, and frankly a jerk. But she also knows that without him, her hospital is less.

So she built an organizational framework (House + 3 doctors, a legal defense fund ('cause let's face it, he needs it:-), etc.), in which he can operate effectively, and where his performance is measured differently vs. the other (typical) doctors in the hospital.

Why? Because in the end, House creates profound value for the hospital, and saves lives no-one else could. The impact and benefits outweigh the "cost" of the special treatment.

Now look at any large corporation. Like most school systems around the world, large companies are infected with HR and MBA "parameters" that herald standardized performance and benchmarking, and reward micro-successes that serve only to further the careers of HR/MBA drones and "typical" performers. Anyone who is atypical is managed out because they don't have the skills to navigate the gauntlet of girth; held back because "they just don't fit our model;" or skate by hardly ever revealing the wonderful potential they have to create profound value.

When a company is small enough, the leader has the strength, confidence, vision to recognize these unique performers, grasp their value to the organization, and construct a workplace that will let them achieve. All because s/he knows where they're going, recognizes that "mundane" is the fate of a business filled with "normal," and has the cojones to flaunt the HR/MBA guidelines because of her/his burning desire to achieve greatness.

Is it any wonder that most large organizations today are devoid of soul, and almost never make a real difference?

actually, "gov"-up

Creating a converged government is controversial, some of the comments I received (like J.R.'s) made me ask myself, "what if we could do a full tear-down and start over, what would the new house look like?" But before I get into that, as d.eris pointed out, the result would no longer be a federation, so instead of a federal government, there would be a national government, or just a government:-).

So... here goes - this is mostly about the process of getting elected, some of the political accountability and it touches on a couple of other aspects like taxation and some core national services. This is by no means exhaustive. Hopefully it provokes a debate about how things could be in iAmerica (i=imaginary;-).

Elections

There are only two kinds of elected officials - the President/VP and the 435 members of Congress; there is no Senate, nor of course are there any local officials. The President can run for one six-year term. Congresspeople can run for up to two four-year terms, and they overlap - so half the House is reelected every two years.

Campaign Financing

Actual or prospective government employees may not accept any kind of gift - public or private, cash or otherwise. To become a candidate, you must be nominated by 1% of your district's citizens, or 10,000 voters, whichever is less. Once nominated, you are entitled to $0.50 per voter in your district, or approximately $250,000 in government funds for your campaign. The presidential candidate follows roughly the same process, and is likewise constrained to $0.50/voter of national funding.

Voting

Voting is mandatory and fully electronic. The penalty for not voting is harsh - your tax bracket is raised to the next level until your vote is recorded (i.e. skip two elections and you're in a higher tax bracket for four years).

During the election (one month every two years), candidates must speak not only about their national interests, but also their local/district commitments. Each candidate must declare their ten most critical local priorities, which forms the basis of their "local" platform and part of the framework for their accountability to their voters.

Voting is a three-step process:

1. Indicate your top ten local issues/priorities based on the published list of each candidate's top ten (so if there are three candidates, you pick your hot issues based on the aggregated (30 or less, since some issues will overlap) candidates' list).
2. Vote for your Congressperson (you will also see how each candidate matches up to your top ten; if there is an incumbent, you see how they performed in support of your top ten issues).
3. Select your presidential candidate (potentially with a similar prioritization model).

By first being asked to prioritize the local issues you care about, we create a sensitivity to local needs for the eventual winner, plus the voter is now able to clearly see which candidate(s)' priorities are most closely aligned. It doesn't force you to vote for the best match, but at least you are making a more informed choice. Moreover, it is in the candidates' best interests to understand their voters' issues up-front and focus on the things at top of mind in their platform to create the most matches on voting day.

Reach

A mandatory electronic voting process includes the provision that the government provide every citizen with the means to do this. As you probably know, every wireless device in the world (phone or PC or whatever) has a unique (MAC or IMEI) address. The government must provide each citizen with a basic device (that is registered to their social security number; if the citizen chooses, they can purchase their own device, but each citizen must have a "registered" device).

This device will be provisioned with basic, free wireless access to deliver government services (voting, emergency services, information, potentially health care records (in a health vault of some kind), financial information (e-wallet), etc.). Each citizen will therefore be able to "connect" and vote wherever they are on Election Day. Since the incentive is quite powerful (see above), it is expected that turnout will be virtually 100%, ensuring that every individual's voice is heard.

Further, the system will capture local priorities (this could also be extended to national priorities), aggregated by district to ensure local needs are met, and when mapped to voting records, actual outcomes, etc., will create a powerful accountability model. I would imagine getting a quarterly report card on how my Congressperson is doing vis-à-vis the aggregated priorities of the district, and the ones I outlined.

This might create the perception of a more big-brother-ish society, but I think with the right regulatory safeguards, it actually creates the opportunity for a leaner, more accessible government, and a better-served citizenry.

Once Elected

The three branches of government remain intact, though Congress does have additional responsibilities.

Congresspeople are required to spend two-thirds (67%) of their time in their district, overseeing national agency focus and prioritization based on the local top ten issues, etc.; and one-third (33%) in Washington on national issues (education, health care, security, infrastructure, defense, etc.).

The local responsibility is much greater than in today's Congress. In this regard, Congresspeople act more like governors of their district. This will require a larger local staff, a deeper understanding of local needs and issues, as well as the ability and accountability for all of the constituents' governing needs.

Since the penalty for accepting private or commercial funds is termination, lobbyists will have a harder time creating influence. Congresspeople will also be judged based on their track record versus the priorities their district set out during the election; this will create a more powerful accountability dynamic, and given that they are required to "govern" their district as well, build a deeper appreciation and focus on the needs and challenges facing their constituents.

When in Washington D.C., Congresspeople will focus on national issues alongside the President. This process operates similarly to the current House, but with the dynamic of a multi-party system (vs. the two that currently dominate). As we've discussed here and here, I think a 3+-party system offers a better representation of the people's wishes, creates more moderated governance, and provides a stronger checks/balances model than we have now.

Checks and Balances

While in principle the federal/state/local model is a check/balance model, I don't believe it works in reality. Look at how much power the Feds wield during crises (9-11, Katrina, etc.), but more importantly, when you follow the money it's very clear that in the end, federal dollars are worth way more than local dollars. You only have to look as far as No Child Left Behind - the Feds account for only 9% of the total national education budget, and yet through NCLB, they basically defined an education model that dramatically altered every state's approach to education.

But if you want more evidence of this, ask any state or local official that you know how much time they have spent (as a percentage) trying to figure out how to maximize their access to federal funds (TARP, stimulus, or otherwise). It's now common for a city to have a stimulus package lobbyist in DC!

When a municipality or state is beholden to the Federal government for handouts, the checks and balances have evaporated. 

I therefore feel that the Congressional accountability model, change in their job descriptions, constraints to financing rules, and the multi-party approach, combined with the current Separation of Powers are enough to ensure an improved government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Taxation

There is only one form of taxation allowed in the country - a simple and progressive income tax. We would start from scratch and create a simpler tax policy for the country that achieved three things - enough income to operate the country (no deficit financing); the ability to set aside some funding as a national reserve; ideally operated so that the poorest third (or higher) of the population paid no taxes. Note that if you didn't vote in an election but were in the lower third of income earners, you would now be subject to taxation per the penalties of not voting.

National Standards

There will be national standards for things like education, health care, infrastructure (roads, air/marine traffic, etc.) and domestic and national security. These standards will ensure equal access to all resources for all people and across the country. Every school for example will operate under the same guidelines and expectations, much like this. In the same way, all roads, railways, airports, ports, etc. should be managed equitably.

Health care... that's a whole separate kettle of fish - I may write a separate post on this, but in the mean time, suffice it to say that today Americans are not the healthiest people in the world, and much work is needed to get them closer to good health. Defense - I believe this is a matter of foreign policy vs. global policy, where in almost every case, economic acts trump military acts.

As I began to write this, it became clear how expansive and complex this is. It raised to a higher notch my respect and admiration for the gentlemen that wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It made me realize how much they were able to accomplish with so few words. They were quite something.

In a related vein, I think these next-generation Congresspersons have an incredibly difficult job. In this new world, I think it might actually be the place where true impact is created, and where leadership and the qualities of being a great leader are tested and honed.

fed-up?

Hello everyone and sorry for the two-week gap in posts - you gotta love vacation-time!

All levels (from municipal to federal) face tough, tough financial challenges; each layer is dealing with its own challenges and scrambling to survive. Even if one level finds balance, it is still subject to the whims of those around it. In California for example, the state's recent budget agreement requires the municipalities to "contribute" money to the state's coffers, so a resident of a city can get hit twice - first with a state-wide program cut, and then because the city's revenue stream is impeded, a potential (and potentially related) municipal cut as well; all of this with no aggregated consideration of that individual or organization's situation.

For example, an education program cut by the state could reduce an inner-city school's funding, and when combined with a separate municipal cut, could result in the school canceling specific programs, or closing its doors altogether.

Additionally, both the state and city leaderships are also aggressively pursuing federal funds to mitigate their failures, creating a dependency on yet another branch of government. In good times when taxes are flowing, this type of thing doesn't happen often enough to cause any wide-spread grief. But now, when things are pervasively bad, the impact is profound. What becomes glaringly clear is the extent to which every level of government is intertwined, and really one big morass instead of a set of "small" ones.

Small Government?

A lot of people (me included) believe in the idea that small government is better, that the Feds should delegate legislation, decision-making and authority as far down the chain as possible on the assumption that local issues are best dealt with by local governments; thereby keeping the Federal government small. But this has spawned a system where each of the levels runs elections, legislates, is responsible for collecting its own revenue, and forming and staffing its own organization(s), defining separate priorities, perpetuating more bureaucracy, etc. But the delineation of responsibilities between the layers isn't clear, things like education or health care or law enforcement all have multi-layered and often competing or conflicting agendas.

With all this layering and duplication and potentially conflicting actions, surely the last thing that's accomplished is a smaller government?

Wherever you may go

Let's start with something as simple and seemingly innocuous as marriage, which is bizarrely deemed to be a local issue. The opening of the Declaration of Independence states that, We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. With the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln posited the idea of a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.; and whose closing demands that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Whether gay, straight or otherwise, you are equal and have the right to be happy no matter what. Hmmm... How then does one state get to have one law about marriage, and the state right next door an altogether different law? What happened to the citizen in all of that? How is it consistent with the Declaration that a gay person is prevented from being equal and pursuing happiness in one state, but by literally crossing a street, they suddenly have rights?

And when it becomes an inter-state issue, courts and governments at all levels have to deal with the issues of marriage - because it's clear that in reality, no one level owns it.

Money changes everything

How about taxation and spending. Today every layer of government must find a way to raise funds from the citizenry. It is possible for you to be subjected to three or four taxes that are separately progressive and regressive, that create tremendous pain not only for you the tax payer, but also the collection system. The result is organizations at each level doing the same thing, not thinking about each other, and wasting money, due to the the inherent redundancy and inefficiency.

When it comes to spending priorities, one state might choose health care over education, because more of their voters are closer to retirement and in need of more care. Maybe this is reasonable, but in tough times, when they have to close schools because they can't get budgets balanced or borrow to cover shortfalls, what happens to the children of that state, and their future?

The disparity of student performance by state in the USA (as well as the disparity in curriculum goals, learning standards, etc.) is proof that American students are victims of district, state, and nation-wide discrimination. This can't be right, and it certainly doesn't save money when each city, district, or state makes their own decisions about closing schools, changing curricula, etc. In this the communications revolution era, it is stunningly naïve to think that education should be local vs. global.

In the end...

Why is "many governments" considered small government? Why not have one national government that assures every student the same educational opportunities; where everyone lives by the same laws; that we should all pay taxes, but that those taxes ought to be collected once, be progressive, and cover the needs of all the citizens, according to the laws of the land?

A valid argument against one big government is that there is nothing to temper its behavior - without a system of checks and balances, a government could turn authoritarian, no longer represent the will of the people, and potentially even harm them. No doubt this is a huge risk, and one that should be guarded against. But then I think about the Cheney/Bush presidency, and imagine if a second 911-like attack had occurred just after the 2008 Primaries, that Cheney might have declared a state of emergency and delayed or canceled the elections in the interest of national security... that doesn't seem implausible does it?

A second argument is that local issues can't be dealt with "federally" - exactly which issues fall into this category? And why can't a federal machine solve them?

I think a three (or more)-party political system reduces the Authoritarian risk. I think a purely federal government is a viable governing mechanism. It would be much more efficient, ensure that every citizen is equal, and not be subject to the sometimes idiotic whims of locally-elected "leaders."

necessity and invention

I've been reading a lot about increased funding and expanded budgets for "innovation" in education lately. America spends a lot of money (among the highest) per student on public education; most people are unsatisfied with the results, and yet the prevailing strategy to improve things is to throw more money at the same system.

The Numbers:

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the 2005-2006 (the most complete data I could find) school year for public K-12 schools:

1. Total number of students: 49,113,000
2. Total number of teachers: 3,143,000
3. Spending per pupil: $9,154
4. Total operating budget: $449.6billion
   • Instruction $274.2billion - 60.98%
   • Support Services $157.1billion - 34.95%
   • Food $17.3billion - 3.84%
   • Enterprise Operations $1.0billion - 0.23%
5. Total budget: $528.7billion (#4 + $7.4b other current expenses, $57.4b capital outlays, $14.4b interest on loans)

ASIDE: According to the US Census Bureau's Public Education Finances report, of the $274.2b for Instruction, 89.8% or $246.2b goes towards teacher salaries and benefits ($78,334 per teacher). That's a pretty good wage these days, but as I've said before, I believe that teachers should be better-paid, and respected as peers to doctors, lawyers and engineers. Regarding this last point, I wonder then if it's time for teachers to secede from their unions? Most lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. are not union members; I wonder if being union members creates the impression of not being on an equal footing with those professions, and actually diminishes teachers?

I'm not judging whether the level of funding above is too much or too little for America. Let's say it's just right. Now combine this with the graph to the left, and it's pretty clear that the budget is big, and has and continues to grow very rapidly.

I don't know enough about the public sector, but in business when growth like this occurs, it is likely that bad habits form. People get lazy, money is not spent wisely, and consultants get hired to do what employees should be doing, or to provide management with a CYA safety net. Management gets in the rut of preserving the status quo/gravy train. Most organizations that survive past the rapid growth phase have to go back to the drawing board and rethink their whole business. They must develop a strategy re-defining success, specifying new resource allocation models, and advocating entirely new business processes and approaches in order to achieve their goals.

With the kind of funding growth education has enjoyed, I wonder if the administrators have simply been adding more $$ to existing line items - taking the easy way out?

Have they taken the time to form a strategy that establishes where the puck will be, enumerates and prioritizes their current resources, and defines a plan for how to get there? If the current budget won't get to the puck, they should first look inward, make trade-offs, and then demonstrate exactly how additional funding results in specific outcomes that other stakeholders want and would fund.

I've written before about how organizations can get waylaid by their own success, and the effect of size on performance. While both blogs were about commercial companies, I wonder if some of the same principles might apply to education?

At one time, the American education system was among the best in the world, and it appears that the formula from that era remains in force today despite many changes to the world around us. Why is that? Despite all the lip service paid to edu-evolution, except for very small pockets, the system appears to be just the same as it was two or three generations ago. It feels like Education is trying as hard as it can to live up to this Peter Drucker quote.

Can education achieve innovation when increased funding is not a part of the picture? If necessity is the mother of invention, is it possible that the constant increases in funding have resulted in precisely the wrong (zero-innovation) outcome?

Humans tend to think most creatively when their backs are against the wall, and they have to adapt or die. If put in that situation, would the American education system find a completely new and innovative way to achieve its goals? I think it's possible.

It takes leadership to achieve this, but I don't see the present administration (President Obama or Secretary Duncan) taking this on. We remain in desperate need of an education sensei to lead us.

focus and discipline

There are two aspects of American politics that I find painful - length and complexity. The former is the interminable process from Primary to General that ought to be shrunk dramatically. I proposed an approach to reducing the time and cost of elections a while back - I still think it's applicable. In the same post I also talked about a simpler and less cumbersome voting process; it and the vote counting part seem complex as hell.

In my last post about a third party, d.eris' blog and the post he pointed me to (whose numeric analysis of the recent election is very interesting), we're all talking about a 3rd party in American politics.

I wonder if the biggest obstacle for a 3rd party is the agony of the primary/general election and then the horrible voting process - who in their right mind would want to run there?

According to most pundits, the recent general election had a strong turnout, which equated to a mere 51% of the electorate actually voting! So President Obama's 52% popular vote equates to only 26% of the electorate vs. the 25% that Senator McCain received. Of those that voted and those that didn't, I imagine it broke down like this:

1. I'm a member of the D or R party and I always vote for our candidate
2. I love the R or D candidate and am voting for him
3. I hate the R or D candidate and will vote the other way so he doesn't win
4. Neither candidate is great, I'll vote for the one I perceive to be least bad
5. Neither candidate is great, but D or R stands for XXX and I will support him because of that issue
6. I'd really like to vote but it's a real pain and/or I'm tired of this process and can't wait 'til it's over and won't vote
7. My vote won't make a difference either way/don't really care, won't vote

In all of this, we know for sure that the 1-5 basically split their vote between the two parties, and if 6-7 had voted for a separate party, that 3rd party would have won a landslide victory with half again as many votes as either D or R. #3-7 might have gone elsewhere if there had been a compelling alternative and the act of voting was easier.

Compelling Alternative

What if a prospective candidate's platform were ethics-based (per the Jacksonian Party post) and they committed to only one term? In other words - vote for me, here are my ethics, and I won't run again, which means if I win, I don't need to raise money for reelection or campaign - my decisions will be based on my ethics platform, and I will not be influenced by lobbies.

I think a candidate like this has a good chance to create a stir and even win, if their platform is compelling to at least #s 3-5 & 7.

Voting Simplified

Now imagine if all citizens were able to vote from home (or from their mobile phones), and imagine that like Australia, people were required by law to vote. These two things will never happen per the comments to this post - incumbent politicians will NOT allow voting to be made easier or require all voters to vote. They like it as difficult as it is, and only want the voters that voted for them to vote.

If by some miracle voting became simpler and all voters were required to vote, then the election process would be cheap, cheap, cheap, and much easier. A significant percentage of a candidate's budget goes towards building massive local machines to get the vote out. Combine not having to spend that because voting is mandatory with social networks and the internet and the media to directly reach your audience, and you have a whole new ballgame.

Back to Reality

Let's face it - this aint going to happen in America. So what's possible? d.eris suggested we must first build confidence in, and a perception of viability for a 3rd party. I'm not sure that's needed - you're not trying to win people who vote. At a minimum, it feels like #4 & 7 would be inclined to vote for a separate candidate, and some of #5 might join the party as well. Additional momentum can be built based on a compelling voice, and the strategy I outlined above (a commitment to only run once) might achieve that, especially when combined with an ethics-based platform. The critical success factor though is being ULTRA-precise about the target audience (if it's just #4, 5 & 7, then focus ONLY on those people); do not fall into the R/D trap of trying to win everyone. Commit to and engage your audience ONLY - if you happen to get votes from others, that's their problem, not yours.

One thing that pervades the electorate is the feeling that politicians can't be trusted. If it is possible to be the trustworthy candidate, by admitting your motivation and your strategy, this might be a winner. Here are the promises I'd make (in no particular order):

• Will only serve ONE term
• Will not spend more than $X on this campaign - most of the outreach will be done electronically at very low cost, there will be no advertising
• Will NOT accept any donations once the campaign is over - no way to be bribed while in office
• Will make no more than three program (ex. change education in XXX way) commitments, because that's all you can do in one term
• Will clearly describe leadership style integrity, transparency, accountability
• Will never spin

Net

With a commitment to Ethics, a precisely targeted campaign, and a clearly articulated platform, it is possible for a 3rd party to coalesce, and achieve critical mass. It will only work with discipline and a strict, rigid adherence to the strategy.

risk shmisk

Accenture recently conducted a risk management survey of 260 CFOs from large companies in 21 nations that has (didn't think this was possible) increased my disappointment in corporations around the world. 85% of those surveyed said they are ineffective at considering risk, return and capital issues when making decisions. The same number said there is a lack of alignment between their company's strategy and appetite for risk, and 93% said it was really hard (whine, whimper) to align strategy to effective risk management.

C-Sense

How can you be a C-level officer, leading your corporation and yet be unable to effectively factor risk into decision-making? In good times, risk failures were compensated for by strong earnings, but now that either or both revenue and margins are shrinking, it's more difficult to hide or write off errors in judgment.

Theoretically, an executive achieves C-level status by being smarter than the average bear, having more foresight, vision and leadership skills than his or her peers, and the ability to skate to where the puck will be, and not where it is. If true, they should have recognized the following:

1. Good times creates bad habits
2. We're in the midst of a communication revolution
3. Tough times require focused investment

#1 - In good times, mistakes are forgiven/ignored because things are going so well that bad judgment is overlooked. But most critically, organizations forsake discipline in favor of expediency. Then when things change, the bad habits of the organization, which were compensated for with excess spending and often excess hiring, now surface unhidden, result in severe changes or layoffs, and are harder to fix because they're well, habits.

#2 - The stress caused by #1 creates internal and external disaffection/disloyalty, which makes people much more inclined to blog/Twitter/whatever their views and experiences. Malfeasance becomes very rapidly visible to the public, giving the company little or no time to sense, develop a strategy, and respond. In can we talk?, I wrote about transparency and immediacy being the offshoots of the communication revolution. This is either a huge risk or opportunity for most companies - the C-level "risk" executive leadership must account for this. Most don't.

#3 - If you have the means, the best time to invest is when times are tough. Whether that's acquisitions, new investments, or increased staffing, you are sure to get good (if not great) value for money, and be much more primed for growth when the market does turn. Choosing the best place to invest requires clarity of purpose - if the company's strategy is not clear, it's ability to evaluate and mitigate risk not solid, and it's leadership not focused, the resulting investments will likely accelerate poor performance and lead the company down.

C-Accountability

Chief X Officers (whether X = Executive, Financial, Marketing, Operations, etc.) get paid really well, this is because the expectations are commensurately high, and performance is expected and required. In addition to being a great sales tool for their services, the Accenture survey above is a confession by these C-levels that they don't know how to cope with change, or how to lead in these changing times.

At this level, they must own their actions, take responsibility for both their failures and those of everyone who works for them (the whole company). Shouldn't the 85% who said they didn't know what they were doing resign, so those who do can lead?

C-Response

From my can we talk? post: The industrial revolution created mechanical speed, the information revolution changed space (specifically, the distance between points in space), and the communication revolution changed time (sense and response time).

Thriving in this world requires discipline. If all C-executives in a company can't clearly (so that a 12-year-old can understand it) and consistently state:

1. Why they are in business
2. What makes their company special or unique
3. How they succeed
4. Where the company is heading

Then how likely is it that their employees are being guided properly? How likely is it that any management discipline exists, that the company's behavior and performance are predictable?

Ensuring this is step one for the CEO. Step two is to establish a discipline of two-way information flow so that all levels of the company know; and step three is to ensure that decisions get made, and are executed predictably and with accountability. Seems like management 101?

Think of Apple during Steve Jobs' current tenure. They don't always build the best product, not all of their products succeed, not all their customers are loyal and happy. But in the main, their business runs brilliantly; most customers are rabidly loyal; every employee has (from the outside anyway) a clear, consistent view of the all that is Apple; and you'd be hard-pressed to find an organization that had a better grasp of where the puck will be than Apple - both economically and product-wise.

If you took the 221 (of 260) companies representing the 85% of executives who admitted their inability to manage risk and created a fund that shorted their stocks, I wonder how it might do in the next 12-24 months vs. say Apple?

233

Eleven score and thirteen years ago, a document was signed - it demanded greatness from a people and a place. The principles were simple - we must honor and respect everyone, and celebrate each person's right and opportunity to achieve their best. It set the stage for incredible achievements on so many fronts.

A tradition of success can be fraught - generations grow up expecting results, expecting preeminence, and expecting the ride to be easy. The mindset of being owed outcomes creates complacency. The reality of sure and steady economic growth creates a sense of entitlement. When this happens, I think beginnings and ends are most overlooked - beginnings = education, ends = retirement - because people are most focused on the middle. A good social safety net also gets ignored because prosperity seems so attainable for anyone.

But when times do get tough as they are now, these three are most tested. Today we recognize that each has much room for improvement. In the spirit of America's history, we need revolutions in education, retirement and social safety nets to reach or restore greatness.

Revolutions are of course not a foreign concept in America, nor is heroism, creativity or leadership. Two months ago, I wrote something about a path towards peace that I felt was worth repeating:

Last week I wrote about a new diplomatic approach to the Middle East that began with an apology; achieving this won't be easy - people have emailed me saying that this is too high a price to pay, and too difficult a task for America to achieve. But today I was watching part 2 of the 20 Hours in America episode of the West Wing, and President Bartlet's speech that closes with a reference to a terrorist incident at a school.

...restoring abundance amid an economic shortfall, securing peace in a time of global conflict, sustaining hope in this winter of anxiety and fear. More than any time in recent history, America's destiny is not of our own choosing. We did not seek nor did we provoke an assault on our freedom and our way of life. We did not expect nor did we invite a confrontation with evil. Yet the true measure of a people's strength is how they rise to master that moment when it does arrive. 44 people were killed a couple of hours ago at Kennison State University. Three swimmers from the men's team were killed and two others are in critical condition. When, after having heard the explosion from their practice facility, they ran into the fire to help get people out. Ran into the fire. The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels tonight. They're our students and our teachers and our parents and our friends. The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels, but every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless. this is a time for American heroes. We will do what is hard We will achieve what is great. This is a time for American heroes and we reach for the stars. God bless their memory, God bless you and God bless the United State of America. Thank you. Source.

The emphasis above is mine. I am not American but I live in the United States. Living with, working with, and knowing the people who live where I now do, I am convinced that even if the people in that practice facility were known to be Middle Eastern Muslims, the swimmers from the men's team would have run into the fire without a second thought.

This speech always touches me, it fills me with pride and purpose, and it brings a tear to my eye. It convinces me that I'm right to be optimistic, despite sorry being the hardest word.

Education, Retirement and a Social Safety Net are difficult, difficult problems, but if America opens its mind to new ideas and creates a sense of urgency, I know it can spark the revolution that will create greatness.

Happy 233rd.

uniting divides

Why is abortion such a pivotal and polarizing issue in the United States? Why doesn't the death penalty get the same level of attention? If one is deemed murder, how is it that the other is not?

Pro Life proponents argue that abortion is wrong because life is life; that from the moment of conception, a fetus is alive and human. While I get that capital punishment responds to a criminal act, if life is life, then killing is murder - period. No life (irrespective of how good or bad it is) should be ended, and society is equally guilty of murder if they employ the electric chair or an abortionist. Why then doesn't the Pro-Life movement fight the death penalty with the same vigor?

By the same token, why doesn't the Pro Choice lobby advocate for the death penalty? Why are they not also proponents of euthanasia? Why is their energy not equally applied to all forms of life-related self (or societal)-determination?

Similarly, the equal access to marriage debate (exemplified by Proposition 8 in California) is also polarizing but flawed. If all men are created equal, then how is it possible for a law to discriminate against some but not others? Moreover, how is it possible for a law (Proposition 8) to exist claiming that it protects the sanctity of marriage, and yet there is a sister law (divorce) that facilitates dissolution of this "most sacred institution"? How is giving people a legal "out" to marriage an acceptable compromise, but allowing "different" people to get married wrong?

What about rape? With mandatory sentencing rules, it is possible for someone to get a ridiculous sentence for a relatively benign crime (like Billy Ochoa a drug addict who at 53 was sentenced to 326 years to life for welfare fraud totaling $2,100.00, yes - a lousy $2k), while David Harold E. Earls was sentenced to one (1) year in jail for raping a 5-year-old girl. [This just makes me want to vomit.]

It feels wrong that these other issues have such relatively small bases of support vs. abortion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying abortion is OK or trivial, nor am I advocating for one side or the other. I'm just trying to figure out why this one issue, which for decades has dominated American society, politics and jurisprudence, has no resolution, but rather an ever-rising level of angst and vitriol.

Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. This qualifies - both sides are insane and sadly, appear to have no intention of stopping the insanity.

Thanks to J.R., I first re-read sorry seems to be the hardest word, then read a John Baldoni post that J.R. referenced, and then listened to President Obama's Cairo speech. Like John, I was struck by this statement in response to another insanity:

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

How true.

Is there anything that unites these two sides (Pro Life - Pro Choice) besides the word "Pro"?

I think there is - the unwanted pregnancy; irrespective of how it came about (consensual or otherwise), I believe both sides would wholeheartedly agree that it is a far, far better thing for all if the number of unwanted pregnancies goes to zero.

Then why not work together - Pro Life/Choice side-by-side - to educate youths and adults alike, to offer free and unencumbered (no strings attached) counseling, and to also provide free contraception to those that need it?

Their precedent is Portugal legalizing personal use drugs, causing overall drug use to fall dramatically.

Both sides would have a productive mechanism through which to participate and channel their passion. They would be able to measure success by helping more and more babies in this country and around the world be born to healthy, happy, willing, and prepared parents, thus eliminating the reason for fighting in the first place.

Imagine that.

Then imagine all of us together putting our energy and focus behind the next big issue, and then the one after that... <-- this is democracy in action.

performance anxiety

How will it go? Will all my hard work be appreciated? Was all that extra stuff I did noticed and appreciated? Was I better than the rest? How often might you ask yourself these questions in life ;-) ? How often might you ask yourself these questions at work? Many of us face these questions at least once a year, during our annual reviews.

There's a fantastic conversation between Gillian (an HR professional) and J.R. about employee performance management, what works, what doesn't and whether it makes a genuine difference to both the employee and the organization. It began with an assertion on my part that when organizations grow, they begin to hire people whose abilities and intent only create micro-outcomes. In and of themselves, these micro efforts might achieve (or indeed exceed) their individual objectives, but there's no assurance that they aggregate up to something meaningful for the business as a whole. Sometimes (perhaps too often) they can even detract from the mission. The micro-performers exist because there is supposedly a role for them to play in a big company. Convention dictates that one must have a lot of microbes (sorry) buzzing around doing all sorts of micro-work; it emerges when an organization gets to a certain size and starts believing that it needs microbes because it is now "big" and must have girth (only they call it "gravitas").

About four months ago, I suggested that there was a way for an organization to avoid girth/gravitas and reduce its microbe quotient by focusing on being great vs. growing bigger. But I conveniently ignored performance and compensation. This is of course the subject of many organizational behavior PhDs and I don't presume to know anything, so here goes :-).

Harvard Business Review recently talked about The 10 Most Common Failures of Bad Leaders - see adjacent table. First, wow! Who hired these rubes? Second, not sure about you, but it looks pretty consistent with the failings of non-leaders doesn't it? But since these are "leaders" the failings are even more severe, and in need of more urgent remediation (vs. the peons). So my first take is that this is a really big and hairy problem - it's not simple, it's not clear what the answers are, and it's also more likely that your management is fumbling and bumbling with this. First implication - scary!!  Second and more critical implication: it sucks to be you...

Performance management in smaller companies is simpler - "if the company does well, we all do well (and vice-versa)." It can also be easier to identify the strongest (and weakest) performers and do the right thing.

Some argue that compensating sales people must be done on a short-term revenue basis. I suppose that's true, but it really depends on the business. If there is value to be had from maintaining a customer relationship over time (not always the case) and creating a long term revenue stream for your company, then here's a way to reward those that do best by you and your customers over the long term. But what about the rest of the organization? How do we reconcile team output with individual recognition? Herein lies the apparent rub...

Some of the challenges include employee morale and output; recruiting ability; rewarding your best people and remediating (or culling) your worst; and recognizing that you need both leaders and workers and that both are critical to success.

Scary as this is for me, what about the model the US Armed Forces use? Their total compensation plan is completely laid out, transparent, and visible to everyone. You know exactly where you stand and what you can hope to accomplish either by level growth or tenure. There is also clarity about what you need to do to move from level to level, and the decision to stay at a given level because you happen to like what you do doesn't seem to have as big a stigma as it does in the private sector.

Now what if you combined this clarity with a bonus matrix based on percentage of salary by level (but not by tenure) that is tied to a published company-wide goal of performance. (Example - 20% of our year-over-year revenue growth will be allocated to bonuses" - we will all benefit from our mutual success - we're a team.) And what if there was no individual recognition model (other than promotion) whatsoever? The implication - those people that need individual recognition, and must be anointed with "superstar" status will leave because "they've outgrown you." Hmmm... is that so bad? How often is true and lasting value created by these people? How often do they end up compromising team chemistry?

Would you want to work for a company that was only measured on how the team did? It works for smaller organizations (which common wisdom says are the most efficient and effective and resilient part of our economy) - doesn't it?

I would.

gauntlet of girth

I was watching Pixar's brilliant film Wall-E again today, and got to thinking about how the spaceship was built in the movie. The well-intentioned designers decomposed every anticipated act into a process and then automated it. This certainly created a more efficient, streamlined, and predictable system, one that did exactly what it should when it needed to. It did this to the point where every micro action had a pre-defined reaction, and success was measured by that micro actor's ability to do what it was supposed to. Of course the best example of this in the film is "Mop."

In the end, the result of all the problem decomposition, process management and operational efficiency was a profoundly well-managed and controlled environment that worked, provided everything happened according to plan. Over time, in the controlled environment, the system worked well enough that humans (the original constructors and source of inspiration) became superfluous - there was no need or expectation for them to do anything, be anything, or act in any way. With the system meeting every need, people became lazy and dull - aspiration-free. How horrible. How frightening.

Ironically, it took a machine with a soul to rekindle man's soul and give it purpose. The predictable, programmed, precise (but soulful) machine became the random act that re-ignited aspiration and re-awakened humanity.

As organizations in our reality mature, growth rates are harder to maintain because the revenue base keeps getting larger. A natural reaction for many is to prioritize operational efficiency, process management and business predictability vs. new growth opportunities. Why? Because at least you can control what's inside and maintain (and potentially grow) profitability by being a "better-run company."

There is no doubt that size does matter - the markets have proven that. There's equally no doubt that size is not an assurance of success, the markets have certainly proven that. There is also this truth that when organizations get bigger, they seek something (perhaps vindication?) that requires or results in ...girth.

The organizational equivalent of human girth - aka cellulite - is groups like HR, Legal and of course MBAs. As with cellulite, these elements seem to have an innate ability to multiply and expand at the expense of the value-creating parts of the company. At their best, HR, Legal, MBAs, etc. manage to create micro-successes, and cause companies to bias and measure micro-outcomes on the assumption that they are additive or multiplicative, and will result in macro success. Business processes form around the micro, funding and resources become contingent on the micro, performance is rewarded based on micro behavior, and most sadly, those who wish to innovate and transform cannot do so without first running the gauntlet of girth.

So what's my solution for corporate liposuction? I think there is at least one way for organizations to form and be lead so that they maintain the adaptive, sense and response essence that characterized their initial trajectory of success.

It is possible to be great and be lean. It is possible (though shocking to many I'm sure) to successfully run a company where PowerPoint and McKinsey analysis are not the lingua franca. It is possible to do this, but not easy. It requires one to flaunt the laws of girth-gravity. Who among us is able?

criminal freedom

The Social Science Research Network published an analysis which concludes that when you criminalize a thing, it becomes institutionalized. The example the author (Aaron Simowitz) chose is prostitution; Aaron's paper is divided into five parts - to quote his abstract (my emphasis):

Part I of this paper will examine the practice of prostitution in North America prior to the prohibitionist and criminalization campaign ushered in by the Progressive Era. Part II will examine this campaign and the immediate effects it had on the organization of prostitution. Part III will demonstrate that prostitution, particularly in urban centers, achieved a remarkable degree or organization and structure shortly after criminalization. Part IV notes that the independent contactor [sic] model that typified the 19th century in North American remains prevalent in the Dutch system of prostitution, a radically different framework owing to the absence of criminalization. Part V will set out an analysis of the forces behind the criminalization to institutionalization link. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the policy implications of better understanding the relationship between criminalization and institutionalization.

When something gets criminalized, the government abdicates oversight; by making something illegal (i.e. against or outside the law), the law is no longer available to control it. The only power the law has is to say it's wrong, and describe the penalties. Everything else is literally outside the law.

So what happens? When the legal system or any other legal oversight mechanism is unavailable, the void doesn't stay empty for very long - it gets filled by those opportunists that have something to gain. By definition, these people operate outside the law. But without oversight, they have have free reign, as long as they have good lawyers and know and how to avoid being found out or being penalized. In very short order, they form their own rules, their own policies and processes, and hence build a vibrant institution that's outside the law.

Yesterday I proposed that the US government get in the business of drug production and distribution; I was serious. Why? Because you can't change things without being a part of them. History has shown us that regulation is participation, but criminalization is abdication. If we don't care to get involved, we are not likely to control the outcome.

40 years of failure to legally control drug production, distribution and usage in the United States combined with a worsening drug situation for the country should point to the fact that staying outside the game is not working - we need to get in the thick of it.

By getting involved, we can control and regulate usage; by decriminalizing, we de-romanticize the idea of drugs; by being a part of it, it is possible to proactively treat people who have a drug problem; "Drugs America" should eventually work itself out of a job by making treatment and prevention a priority, and hopefully reduce demand, impede "external" suppliers and eventually reduce the problem to the point where it can be managed.

What's next? Prostitution America? Getting in the game is always better trying to influence it from the outside.

criminal insanity

To succeed in American politics, all politicians, Democrat and Republican alike must have a reputation of being tough on crime. In fact, on a percentage basis, you're more likely to succeed vs. any opponent if you've got a background in criminal justice (prosecutor, attorney general, etc.), and specifically on the "jes' throw all them f#($ers in jail" side.

According to this, in 2007 more than 7.3 million adults were under some form of correctional supervision. That's 2.4% of the country, or 1 in 41 people! But only 75% of America's population is adults, so it's really 3.2%, or 1 in 31 adults!! OMG!!

This includes those in prison, jail, on parole or probation; so for context, the number of people in prison or jail was just under 2.3 million, or about one-third.

The impact to our economy is noteworthy. Check out the chart on the right - I'm not a mathematician, nor am I a statistician but even my tiny little brain is able to spot the trend here. America spent about $210 billion on criminal justice in 2007, up from just under $36 billion in 1982. This amounts to a pretty modest 583% growth over 25 years. If the trend continues, that would put us at $1.2 trillion in 2032.

Want more? Projecting the 7.3 million people puts us at 29 million adults who would be guests or "friends" of the American judicial system in 2032.

Now take a look at the chart on the left (click to enlarge; source: Wikipedia). Assuming all judicial systems around the world are basically right and that everyone in jail is supposed to be there, the United States of America (home of the brave and land of the free) is by far the most criminally-infested country in the world, followed only by Russia. The rest of the planet is basically filled with decent, law-abiding citizens.

This can't be right can it? This country whose capacity for greatness is limitless cannot possibly also be the one that contains the most evil and socially-divergent people, can it?

It is time to recognize the insanity and abolish the "tough on crime" litmus test. We must instead find leaders who believe in the inherent goodness of people, the idea that crime is not the individual's failing, but rather society's failing. It is the obligation of a great and caring society to seek out and nurture the best attributes of its people and not assume the worst. If we draw the line in the right place, we can create a safer, healthier and more vibrant society where prisons are viewed as an absolute last resort, and we look first at the better angels of every person's nature.

limitless capacity

I am a pacifist - I believe that violence rarely if ever results in a peaceful outcome. I'm not opposed to a military for defense purposes - we can't be naive about human nature. But by the same token, we can't use the military as the first resort. There are absolutes.

Last week I wrote about a new diplomatic approach to the Middle East that began with an apology; achieving this won't be easy - people have emailed me saying that this is too high a price to pay, and too difficult a task for America to achieve. But today I was watching part 2 of the 20 Hours in America episode of the West Wing, and President Bartlet's speech that closes with a reference to a terrorist incident at a school.

...restoring abundance amid an economic shortfall, securing peace in a time of global conflict, sustaining hope in this winter of anxiety and fear. More than any time in recent history, America's destiny is not of our own choosing. We did not seek nor did we provoke an assault on our freedom and our way of life. We did not expect nor did we invite a confrontation with evil. Yet the true measure of a people's strength is how they rise to master that moment when it does arrive. 44 people were killed a couple of hours ago at Kennison State University. Three swimmers from the men's team were killed and two others are in critical condition. When, after having heard the explosion from their practice facility, they ran into the fire to help get people out. Ran into the fire. The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels tonight. They're our students and our teachers and our parents and our friends. The streets of heaven are too crowded with angels, but every time we think we have measured our capacity to meet a challenge, we look up and we're reminded that that capacity may well be limitless. this is a time for American heroes. We will do what is hard We will achieve what is great. This is a time for American heroes and we reach for the stars. God bless their memory, God bless you and God bless the United State of America. Thank you. Source.

The emphasis above is mine. I am not American but I live in the United States. Living with, working with, and knowing the people who live where I now do, I am convinced that even if the people in that practice facility were known to be Middle Eastern Muslims, the swimmers from the men's team would have run into the fire without a second thought.

This speech always touches me, it fills me with pride and purpose, and it brings a tear to my eye. It convinces me that I'm right to be optimistic, despite sorry being the hardest word.

sorry seems to be the hardest word...

I watched Traitor on TV last night - I turned it on because I like its star, Don Cheadle. It's a good (not great) movie about Islamic terrorists, American anti-terrorists, and how one foils the other. There was a scene in the film where one of the terrorist leaders is explaining why they do what they do to prospective recruits, why this war against America must happen, and why everyone needs to participate.

True or not, one big motivator is that "they [Americans] have invaded our countries and killed our women and children, and destroyed our way of life; to remove them and prevent this, we need a persuasive deterrent. Since we don't have an army that can defeat America, terrorist acts are our only option. We must do what we can to stop them." My paraphrasing of the sentiment from that scene.

A quick search led me to this essay on how the Koran has been interpreted to favor the terrorists' goals, and this essay explaining how the only sure path to Paradise for a Muslim is to die fighting in defense of Allah. Finally, I found this excellent paper entitled Motivational Parameters in Islamic Terrorism by Michael Taarnby of the University of Aarhus in Denmark that talks also about the social and Western influences on Muslim reality and how they have resulted in disaffection and desperation. This paragraph from page 16 is telling:

Furthermore, the perceived, and often very real, oppression carried out by the respective governments contributes to the loss of existential meaning for the individual. The Muslim notion of the concept of honor and shame makes this situation hard to bear. Perceiving oneself as a failure is very much like a stain on personal honor, one that does not rub off easily. The correlation between the consequences of modernity and the real or imagined oppression creates a void, a social space in which the desire to change unfortunate circumstances leads to action, sometimes violent. Fundamentalism represents an important tie between the individual and a larger social group, and although this group is a construction it becomes very real for those personally involved. Seemingly incomprehensible acts of terrorism, and in particular the issue of martyrdom, become the ultimate manifestation of meaning and identity.

But what about the West and America in particular - why are they so vilified? Here are four issues that seem to come up a lot:

1. America's seemingly blind support of Israel
2. America's open disdain for any political and social system that is not like theirs, and specifically their antipathy towards Muslims and their forms of government
3. America's willingness and ability to unilaterally perpetrate warfare on countries they don't like
4. America lack of accountability for creating, enabling and supporting some of the worst Middle Eastern situations in recently history, including the Taliban and Saddam Hussein

All this (and much more - read Taarnby's paper) says to me that it's no surprise that Muslims are so easily able to align against America, but not against Christianity for example - it's not a fight among religions.

This is an incredibly complex problem with no simple answers. But if America, the West and Muslims are truly seeking peace and prosperity for all, I wonder if there aren't a few simple steps that could signal the start of a new beginning?

First, I believe America needs to realize that this is their game to control, win, or lose. There is no other player that plays as pivotal a role - America is the quarterback.

Second, as with business habitats, it behooves America to viscerally understand, without judgment, the truth and social reality that is the heart and mind of a Muslim.

Third, America needs to recognize that the approaches taken thus far have failed; and like the typical tourist in a foreign country, saying the same thing progressively more loudly in English does not miraculously endow the French person with comprehension; it just pisses them off.

Here's my proposal for the first steps in this thousand mile journey - but you aren't going to like it:

1. America must apologize - it must publicly demonstrate contrition for all its unilateral actions and how it has disdained Islamic (and other) ways of life just because they are not the American way.
2. America must stop exclusively favoring Israel, and be equal in its support of all peace-loving people in the Middle East, never excluding, or giving any special treatment to any one people. This will cost the American administration a bunch of grief and certainly fund-raising power in the next election, but it's easily worth the price.
3. America, starting immediately, must never have a unilateral military presence in the Middle East, ever. To do this, Secretary Clinton must negotiate a safe transition with the UN and Middle Eastern leaders.
4. America must convert it's Defense investments into foreign investments designed specifically to develop the infrastructure for and economic well-being of Muslims in the Middle East. One approach is this proposal for foreign policy transformation, though I would amend the scope to make it globally-funded with strong personal and financial participation from Middle Eastern leaders.

Beginnings come at a high price, but if nurtured, result in valuable and sustained dividends.

Let's face it there is no way to trump a guaranteed entry into Paradise by dying in defense of Allah. Implication: taking away the perception and reality of a threat to Allah removes this incredibly powerful incentive from the equation!

Let us begin by believing and acting in ways that demonstrate our genuine respect and admiration of Islam and all Muslim people. This is saying that we prioritize Muslims, their religion and their homelands equally to everyone else, their faiths and homes in the world. Steps 1-4 are the beginning of this journey, and in doing this, we must recognize what Taarnby talked about at length in his paper, that this is a matter of face and honor. We must be a part of helping restore face and honor for our brothers and sisters of the Muslim faith.

If our intention and acts are genuine, we will remove the perception and reality of a threat against Allah, and build a pathway towards peace, prosperity and harmony. It won't be easy, but boy will it be worth it.

the "Ed"

Andrew Rotherham recently pointed to a McKinsey analysis of national education data. A few things jumped out at me after a quick scan of the supporting materials to the article:

• We can learn from our neighbors (Canada is among the highest performing countries)
• We can spend less money (the US spends more per achievement outcome than anyone else)
• We can create more potential (effective graduates)
• That potential is worth a lot (the more graduates you have, the greater your GDP)

Then there's something missing - there has to be, otherwise how could the American education not be be better than it is?

If you were told: "You can spend less to create a better product that will make you more money, and one of the best examples of this is your next-door neighbor." Wouldn't you do it?

What are we missing??

This reminds me of The Karate Kid, a coming of age film where a boy learns how to defend himself from a group of thugs with the help of his Japanese superintendent. The Super starts him off with some work around his house, painting the fence, washing the floor, waxing the car - all done in a very specific way. After doing all these seemingly meaningless chores, the boy gets angry and frustrated, and that's when the old man, with a slew of attacks, shows him that he's unknowingly built the muscles and reflexes that are the essence of self-defense!

The sensei was wise, proven and savvy enough to know what elemental skills the boy needed, how best to teach them to him, and once these seemingly unrelated skills were mastered, he helped the boy realize that he had learned something altogether different.

The American education system needs a sensei. Someone with the wisdom and guile to craft a profound outcome out of a series of seemingly unrelated acts that suddenly explode on the American people,  forming the basis of a great education system.

The traditional approach is based on the Everett Rogers Innovation Diffusion Curve to the left. School teachers fit this curve very nicely. The most visible, Web 2.0, twittering blogger-types are all in the Innovators category, with Early Adopters, the Majorities, and maybe a slightly bigger than smaller category of Laggards.

But the Innovators are too far ahead of everyone else, so much so that the mainstream simply can't connect with them. Traditionally, the Early Adopters would bridge the gap to the Majorities and help pull them along into the future, and while this is how grassroots/organic change will happen in education, I think this process is too slow and too fragmented to yield meaningful results by itself. Moreover, the Majorities have enormous inertia and inadequate incentives to be receptive to quantum change.

We need a catalyst (sensei) with unimpeachable authority and strength, based on wisdom and experience to create the circumstances where "epiphanically" a national transformation occurs. It might take a decade to happen, but we all know it will, because our sensei is just that good.

I wonder - who is the Peter Drucker of Education?

Where is this person who has the chops and cred to be able to make profound change happen? And how would it happen?

It's time for America to create a non-political, national sister organization to the Federal Reserve/Ben Bernanke for Education.

We could call it "the Ed."

We just need to find our sensei.

basest instincts

Might as well panic is Seth Godin's latest. I like it. Essentially, panic is the only sure impetus to creating real outcomes, or as he put it "panic is an acceptable substitute for forethought."

It is a management and leadership travesty how easily we overlook bad planning and lack of anticipation. We routinely forgive offenders that have the ability to freak out well, explode into frenetic activity, and come up with a plan overnight that should either have taken substantially more deliberate thinking, or been avoided altogether because people were keeping their eye on the ball and reacted ahead of catastrophe.

There is no shortage of examples - you only have to look at 90% of what the US Congress does to know this. Their "sudden" realization that the economy was in the dumper, and then the gun-held-to-everyone's-head reaction (TARP), is but one example. The FEMA non-response to Hurricane Katrina (something they knew was coming), and the panic and uncertainty last year with Gustav despite knowing how badly things went with Katrina is embarrassing. Even something as irrelevant Congress' random hearings on drugs in baseball should simply not be allowed to happen. Talk about panic gone bad.

In most cases, these knee-jerk reactions results in some action, certainly the perception of activity, but rarely well-thought-out, strategic approaches to complex problems that result in long-lasting solutions that make sense. The only thing you can be assured of is that a limelight-grabbing exercise will happen.

Panic-driven management is of course not limited to the public sector, it happens every day in the commercial world. Speaking from personal experience, I know of more than one "long-term corporate strategy" that panic-stricken leaders at my employer(s) authored overnight or over a weekend in response to a competitive act or even a worrying report from an industry analyst. In some cases, the ideas are good, but not "fully-baked," and end up "evolving" in the weeks that follow. The result is a more expensive strategy, as certain actions need to be undone or written-off and the ship's course needs to be tweaked so that it is aiming correctly.

In most cases though, the ideas suck, but because "we need something to present to the big boss in three hours," we put lipstick on the pig and go with it. The hope is that he is just as panicked, won't notice, and we get to live another day. In this case, the recovery cost is much higher because somehow in the post-meeting-survival euphoria, we forget how stupid the idea was, now believe our own spin, actually get the minions to go implement, blithely ignore their incredulous looks, and of course, declare victory.

Two characteristics are consistently present when you think of well-run organizations. First their strategies force others to react (i.e. they make or shape markets); and second even when things are done unto them, their effective responses make it seem as if they'd already anticipated that contingency, and had a plan that was ready to go.

Why aren't more companies like this? Why aren't more governments like this?

Simple - they're not paid to be and there is no "executive" motivation to be. Why pave the way when someone else can do the difficult, market-making work and you can follow along and ride their wake? Why bother building all those contingency plans or even do some game-theory analysis to figure out what might happen three-to-five years out when you will almost certainly be in a different job then and won't even care about this?

Cynical? Yes - but I bet if you look at the organization where you work, you will find some hints of this type of behavior. More than that, you will find that those who argue for better planning or analysis are laughed at and told to sit in the back of the room and let the action-oriented MBAs take over.

Here are three suggestions for how to avoid this (besides the obvious, which is to change human perception and expectation :-)):

Be smaller - you must sense, respond and adapt. Being smaller allows you to be most in tune with your environment and able to respond quickly.

Be more transparent - the more you expose and communicate as a leader, the more insightful, engaged and motivated your organization will be. Ivory towers are never a good thing. The out-behave manifesto must expand to include executive accessibility and transparency, so that the employees can rescue their bosses.

Create a community of committed supporters - this one is tougher. Companies like Apple, Ben & Jerry's and others have managed to do this really well - it's about creating fellow travelers that will ally with you and be as committed to your well-being as you are. I think it starts with being absolute and visible about your integrity; those that share your ideals will be there for you.

All three acts require concerted leadership and a willingness to stay with it. They don't require re-shaping human nature, or altering the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately market mentality. They are all possible, they are all practical, and they all exhibit what I believe is an organizational sense of what's right.

This is one way for us to transcend our basest instincts.

business habitats

I had a meeting yesterday in Beijing next to The Place, which sports one of the most amazing open-air displays I've ever seen. A colleague (David Ho) and I were talking about organizational structures, my recent post on corporate brittleness, and his perspective from living in Hong Kong and working across Asia. He came up with this really fascinating idea - that organizations have no choice but to form according to the habitat they inhabit - we had to cut our conversation short when the rest of the group showed up, so I hope David doesn't mind me riffing on this.

If we define a habitat as a social, physical space with a pre-defined set of rules and expectations, then here are a couple of examples:

America - hierarchical, ever-abrupt, time-centered, measured by quarterly performance, driven by MBAs, lawyers, and a lot of management layers. Success is defined by the last deal closed, funds are raised based on a frenetic performance rate, and sustainability is a marketing gimmick. Business is done quickly, without preamble and concluded with a strong, manly handshake as a demonstration of personal and corporate prowess.

Asia - hierarchical, sometimes abrupt, far-sighted, deliberate, outcomes measured in decades, driven by familialness, protocol, a complex, interconnected socio-corporate lattice. Success is much like a game that takes minutes to learn and a lifetime to master, Go - it's all about occupying as much space that you can hold on to for the long haul as possible. Funds are raised based on navigating that same lattice with proven ideas, trustworthiness and long-standing relationships. Business is done when the time is right, minds have met, bonds have formed, subtleties explored, and ideals intertwined. There is more preamble than not and a strong handshake connotes weakness, bluster and a profound lack of substance (read: "walk softly and carry a big stick").

Is it any wonder that operating outside one's habitat is so difficult? It's akin to a baseball player taking home run swings at fastballs, only to suddenly notice that the "pitcher" is actually playing badminton. "Steeerike Three!!"

I bet most companies don't even realize that they live in and instinctively behave according to the rules of their habitat. They are so immersed that it is nigh impossible to perceive the forest from their tree. If they have a better sense of their habitat, they'd traverse it more effectively, and use its rules to their advantage. More critically, if they aspire to do business in other habitats, their capacity to understand how they are regarded from the outside based on the filter that the other habitat uses will be of tremendous advantage, and misinterpreting this a most significant risk. Of course one must also understand the premise, rules and traditions of the other habitat.

I am reminded as ever of the words of history's most brilliant strategist (Chinese as it turns out), Sun Tzu:

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. -- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Master the Art of War, for it deciphers the rules of all habitats. One hopes that more MBA schools discover this text - who knows - maybe that'll lead to the occasional single or double.

absolutely

Defining moments are often ones where difficult trade-offs are made. It can be personal sacrifice vs. personal safely - someone (firefighter) deciding to run into a burning building to save a victim. It can be commitment vs. profitability - a company altering its usage contracts after people have "signed up" to take advantage of a revenue opportunity. It can be morals vs. expediency - a politician deciding that even if citizen's lives are at stake, we don't compromise our laws proscribing torture.

These trade offs are generally about integrity (sacrifice, commitment, morals) versus necessity (safety, profitability, expediency). It is not necessarily about ethics, though they do play a role, nor is it about legality, though that also plays a role. It's about principles.

I'm reminded of a line from a film, in this case, The Contender, where the main character says: "Principles only mean anything when we stick by them when they're inconvenient." The most famous principle of all time is the ethic of reciprocity, or the golden rule - "do unto others as you would have them to unto you."

How often have you flaunted this principle in the interest of necessity or convenience? Did you feel a twinge? As individuals we should hopefully not violate this rule very often.

Publicly traded companies are ironically almost required to violate this rule - they routinely attempt to undermine their competition. But they have other principles that together form their integrity. Things like fair treatment of employees, customer service, truth in advertising, obeying commercial rules, adhering to intellectual property rights, etc. It's the idea of the new green being corporate behavior - not social responsibility or the environment, but integrity.

What about the principles of a nation? How should a country's integrity be characterized? For most, the rules governing treatment of the citizens are enumerated in their Bill of Rights or their constitution or both. But these documents don't talk very much about how the government should behave. It's not surprising - the authors probably wanted to give the government of the day as much latitude as possible, but I wonder if there are any absolutes that every leader and government of this country ought to adhere to?

I'd start with three for the United States:

1. Every person on the planet should (by the US government, defense, security agencies, etc.) be treated like they were an American citizen, and accorded the exact same rights. This is a global "do unto others..."
2. Government and religion should never be connected. Laws should not be biased by religion; the only advantage organized religion should get is their tax-free status.
3. Government should prioritize serving its citizens above anything else - for example, domestic fundamentals (national education, health care, domestic infrastructure, etc.) should come before foreign policy - you don't get to fund the latter if the former isn't funded.

The standard for adherence to the laws of the land is highest with the governments, and their accountability should greater as well. If these are the right absolutes, then they can't be violated - if the government does violate it, the individuals should be terminated.

Some might consider this drastic, but that's what absolutes are...

edu-urgency?

Understanding the target audience is critical to the success of any business. Understanding the business model of your company is rather important as well. If you don't know why and how you make money, any success is a fluke.

How do schools or school systems "make money"? If a school is like a restaurant - the chef is the principal, the sous-chefs are faculty, the maitre d' is the vice principal, and the waiters are the staff. The differences (in no particular order):

1. A chef knows immediately if his work is successful, the principal doesn't
2. A chef gets paid by his customers, the principal doesn't
3. Chefs get fired if their product isn't good, the faculty has tenure
4. The restaurant (except in Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares) succeeds by giving it's customers the best, a school succeeds by meeting its funder's targets
5. A restaurant is inspired to be special, unique and ever-evolving to attract the best clientele, a student has no choice, and will attend school no matter how un-special, average, and boring it is.

Conclusion - schools are not set up to care about their customers, just their funders. The business model for learning in this country bears almost no accountability for the satisfaction or success of its customers. The decentralized model of learning in America theoretically avoids this issue by operating "close to the customer" and being driven by the expectations of parents (theoretically closest to their children). Boy - that's really worked well hasn't it!

Instead of student-driven, adapted to local requirements, direct accountability, we have inefficiency, inconsistency, budget shortfalls, and poor leadership. More than one quarter of high school students fail to graduate. Last year more than 1.3 million graduates required remediation (inability to read, write or do basic math effectively) before entering college or university.

The situation is dire, but there's no urgency or imperative for change (I'm thinking of something at the level of "national security" on September 12, 2001). We are capable of rapid and dramatic change, we just need to feel the urgency - we felt it after 9-11, and IMO the Education crisis in this country is much, much more serious.

Moreover, we're not short on benchmarks for success in our very own backyard. Seattle Girls' School and High Tech High are proof that learning greatness is possible, and can be successful. Why are they unique? One reason is the brilliance & strength of their leaders, the other is the fact that they sit outside the system. No doubt there are many innovators within the system as well - some that I admire are in my blog roll. They should all be the rule and not the exception.

How do we create a structure that allows SGS & HTH to be the norm? To start, let's federalize learning. The distributed model has failed, let's centralize. Let's redefine success - schools must be more accountable and directly tied to the end result of their work - successful graduates. 

BUT - we must only Federalize the "what" not the "how." The Feds should finance Education, and they must define success in a way that is external to the K-12 schools. It's not about erasing creativity and local context, it's about creating a national mandate for learning outcomes - the "what." The "how" should still be in the hands of schools and teachers - they're the ones who understand their own students and community and how best to serve them.

The great thing about this approach is that no school gets left behind. Funding should be available to all schools whether rural, urban, inner city, or suburban. Every school should be held to a single standard of accomplishment, and budgets should not be victims of local or state circumstances. Many of us live in States where budgets are being cut, and education is being made to pay the price - that's not an acceptable scenario.

We must create an apocalyptic sense of urgency about Education in this country and then take drastic measures.