~synthesis~

mind the gap

This phrase is indelibly etched into my brain from my days riding the London Underground - and it has so many meanings.

Transparency International published their 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index last month, no surprises - poor nations are perceived to be more corrupt than rich nations. The authors of this survey are mostly of the top twenty nations, and their definition of corruption is very top-20 nation-ish. I was born in Tanzania (126th), and have spent time in some of the more "corrupt" parts of the world; I'm not saying that inequity and corruption are not present, I'm saying instead that there is a gap in the understanding of how things get done in the top-20 world vs. the rest of the planet.

How much would the list change if we added a new measure to the index - efficiency of outcomes? It would include tax rates, lobby/PAC spending, pork-barrel budgeting, government-led "preferential" spending, etc. It should also include the time it takes to get something done and the extent to which ethics and that nation's constitution are violated or flaunted by the government.

We in the "developed" world suffer from the arrogant righteousness of our way vs. "theirs", and measure others based on what we value, and not what they value. I wonder what would happen to the index if "tolerance and respect for others" was included?

American foreign policy is all about minding (or managing) the gap - it hinges on the premise that US success requires every "them" to look like "US" - it is more "Soviet" than the Soviets were. Like the Soviets, America prefers to use force as the first resort and diplomacy simply to manage perception - I wonder when President Obama will replace every American ambassador abroad with a US Marine General?

The NY Times published an article today that contrasts America's approach in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) to China's - it's an excellent read, I say this not just because it vindicates my recent post on Afghan redemption :-). Afghanistan is blessed with abundant natural resources; China (and India) recognize this and are doing something about it. The Americans in the article scoffed at China's overspending to win the contract, but how different is that from TARP in America (the overpayment is less than 1/10th of 1% of TARP, and equal to the cost of sending 1,000 troops to Afghanistan for a year)? From the article (my emphasis):

Nurzaman Stanikzai was a mujahedeen in the 1980s, using American-supplied arms to help drive the Red Army from his homeland. Today he is a contractor for M.C.C., building the Aynak mine’s electric fence, blast wall, workers’ dormitories and a road to Kabul.
“The Chinese are much wiser. When we went to talk to the local people, they wore civilian clothing, and they were very friendly,” he said recently during a long chat in his Kabul apartment. “The Americans — not as good. When they come there, they have their uniforms, their rifles and such, and they are not as friendly.”

...

The Chinese, meanwhile, have rebuffed requests to join the Afghan war effort, saying that national policy forbids military action abroad except as part of a peacekeeping force. Instead, China’s foreign policy is based on commerce. Its state-owned companies have been snapping up energy and mineral resources worldwide for years now, often by overwhelming competitors with lavish offers.

...

The Afghan government is seeking bids for its second great mineral project, a behemoth called Hajigak that is said to contain 60 billion tons of iron ore. There are seven finalists — all companies from India and China. M.C.C. is one of them.

China and India it seems have a foreign policy strategy, while America has foreign policy attitude.

According to BillShrink.com's analysis of the most profitable companies in the world, 2009 was a tough, tough year - aggregated profits for the top 100 dropped precipitously, lowest in at least the last five years. The top 6 are all oil companies, and together their profits totaled $163 billion; despite the tough economy, the United States is home to fully half the most profitable companies. I wonder which countries will host the most profitable companies at the end of the next decade?

Some gaps are shrinking and others widening... which ones are we minding?

Oh and the United States is ranked 19th least corrupt, China 79th, and Afghanistan 179th.

entropic policy

Entropy is the tendency of a system to move to its most energetic (entropic) state. For example, you expect ice to melt, turn into water and evaporate into the air. In order to maintain H2O in its solid state (ice), you have to apply energy (a powered ice box/fridge); otherwise it will eventually dissipate into water vapor.

Social entropy is a similar concept applied to people - we have a tendency towards anarchy unless society applies extensive energy (laws, police, Dick Cheney, etc.) to rein us in. The NY Times reported today that the level of social entropy in Iran has increased to the point where the government is expending significant energy to control it and keep the community "intact."

We may be dormant (complacent) for a long, long time simply because we don't know better - think about the fall of the Iron Curtain; think more about the shifts in perception/behavior/desire/unrest in countries like Japan, China and Korea. But once information about a less-constrained society is "available," it is almost inevitable that shifts happen. This is how America was colonized and eventually formed as an independent state.

What catalyzes significant changes to the social entropic state? Fear? Hope? Freedom? Safety? Opportunity? Risk? I think it's all of these (and more). There is enough knowledge and insight to be able to predictably shift a society's entropic state either from within or from outside; there are also evil and benevolent ways to do this.

Vis-à-vis Iran, I think Secretary Clinton must rethink her position - weaponizing nuclear technology is a threat, but the current tack (attack, provoke, vilify, and (over)react to every twitch) demonstrates how easily Iran is able to goad and manipulate America, and is clearly NOT working. To the contrary, and not unlike the War on Terror - Iran's hand is strengthened at minimal cost to them.

America in true Aikido fashion, must take advantage of Iran's inertia and momentum, and divert her attention from weapons, warfare and terrorism into defending the status quo inside Iran. It must do this in a way that is not invasive but rather creative and filled with guile (a foreign concept in the good ol' US of A). The recent Iranian election combined with the death of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri have opened a door for the West - one that they can help widen by being good global citizens and in no way referring to, commenting on, or vilifying the current regime.

I'd create a US-government-sponsored scholarship fund for all Iranian (why stop there - all Middle Eastern) students that covers expedited student visas, transport, tuition + room & board at any American high school or University, provided the Iranian student is able to gain acceptance (i.e. they are evaluated equally to any other candidate), and they successfully undergo a careful security screening. Clinton's statement should say "we wish to celebrate our friendship with all Middle Eastern countries (including Pakistan and Afghanistan), and do so by offering to help their children be as well-educated as possible and as well-prepared as possible to meet their future and achieve their greatest potential."

What will happen?

1. First (and this applies to everyone in the Middle East), parents will see a possibility for their children to create a better future; they will see a possibility for their families to be more than they are today; they will see a possibility for achievement and attainment that secures the destiny of their progeny, and they will push their children towards it. The side effect is that they will view America as someone that can and is helping them.
2. Second, the Obama Administration uses this to fund expansion of schools in America from the ground-up, improve cultural awareness between Middle Easterners and Americans, and save money because this is way cheaper than war. This is about as good a stimulus package as you might find.
3. Third, it is a way to create a vestedness for America in the Middle East (in particular with those who are susceptible to terrorist recruitment); despite being disaffected, you are less likely to want to bomb the country in which your brothers and sisters are studying for fear of killing your brethren (and biting the hand that feeds you) - I'm not saying this is a guarantee (suicide bombers do kill their own today), but it does engender better feelings.
4. Finally, in Iran specifically, this is a way to empower to those that challenge the status quo by recognizing and offering them a chance for a better future for their children. The Iranian government will want to resist this dilution of their power base and way of life, and focus more energy on resisting it. They will try suppression, but that will only work for so long - a willful citizenry can be very powerful.
   At some point they will have to offer a better alternative to keep Iranian students in Iran (especially as Iranians see their peers from other Middle Eastern countries flocking to a better education), with better and more "open" local schools, more freedom of expression, etc.
   They will have to respond knowing that their actions will affect their ability to trade globally.

If we use society's natural tendency towards entropy and self-determination, not usurp a country's right to self-determination, and honor that country's people by hosting and educating them in our nation, good things will come, and they will live in the form of lasting friendships and better understanding. There will be a harmonizing of all our states of entropy.

on time off

America enjoys this wonderful period from Halloween through Thanksgiving to the New Year, where there is more optimism in the air, more energy in the workplace, and a legitimate feeling of community:

• Fun is pervasive - lots going on - all centered on celebrating life, friends and family
• There are more days off per week during the last two months of the year than any other time
• Even the media gets into it, celebrating stories of goodwill and the golden rule (do unto others...)

I don't know about you, but when I'm happier, more rested and more connected to the people around me, I am more productive, more engaged, and just plain get more done. I wonder if this is true across the board? I presume there is a seasonality to America's GDP - is it higher in the last quarter of the year? If it is, there is a business case for the power of restorative thinking.

We have winter break, spring break, summer holidays and Christmas/New Year's holidays for students - why not do the same for adults? (OK - maybe not give everyone the whole summer off ;-).) If in the end the nation achieves more and is happier, I'm all for it! Who knows - it might even lead to less anger and violence in this little corner of the world.

Related to this, and paraphrasing a quote my great friend Larry shared with me a couple of days ago:

Those who can, do
Those who can't, legislate
Those who can't legislate, legislate war
Those who can't legislate war, legislate healthcare

Should Congress take more breaks? I think they should only be allowed to work one week/month and be required to have full-time jobs for the other three weeks (like the National Guard Reserves). This would viscerally improve their grasp of the realities their constituents face every day, and require them to be much more focused and succinct when at the Capitol. I think it would lead to fewer, better, simpler bills, and who knows - maybe even a more effective Congress?

Enough of this - I'm taking a nap...

fatheads

I was listening to Weekday (on NPR in Seattle) this morning - the show was about healthcare, obesity and economic status. In Seattle for example, there are six times (5% vs. 30%) more obese people in the poorer neighborhoods than wealthy ones! Even if this number is slightly off, there's no arguing this correlation.

According to the guests on PBS, if you have less money, you have less to spend on food; fatty foods are cheaper and more plentiful than non-fatty foods, and if you only have a few dollars, surely you're not going to want to waste it on boring flavors (like raw vegetables and whole wheat bread), you're going to want tasty food that fills you up.

This is related to something called the Lipstick Effect, which was first documented during the Great Depression, where people who had very little disposable income still bought small luxuries as a treat during tough times (mood management if you will). Some people might buy junk food, others cosmetics, yet others see a movie, and even others will go to a tanning saloon.

So our worthy (and wealthy) legislators who have their own healthcare, gym, and lobbyist-funded condos in the sun have decided that it's appropriate to "help" the poor fat people in America by taxing soft drinks and tanning saloons to help pay for the new healthcare bill that still ignores between 18 (House) and 23 (Senate) million of the poorest Americans.

Why? Like students, poor people don't fund lobbyists to fight on their behalf. They are victims of the false assumption that society's job is to protect the weak and defenseless.

Neither healthcare bill considers the idea that increasing the focus on healthier living in public schools could dramatically lower healthcare costs. There is nothing in these bills that requires standardized tests to include knowledge about personal healthcare and fitness; there is nothing in these bills that mandates the quality of food that must be served in schools, or that students must exercise every day while in public school; or anything else that could create behavior that helps the next generation actually be more healthy.

If I had been in Congress, rather than hold this bill hostage to get the pork that ensured my reelection, I would have traded my vote for a bill that prioritized healthier Americans vs. assuaging any lobbyist. I would have demanded:

1. Public schools - curriculum on healthcare and fitness, and phys-ed in all 13 years (K-12), standardized tests must include literacy, numeracy and personal healthcare and fitness (including sex education), only healthy food in the schools (no pop, candy, junk food, etc.).
2. Doctors and hospitals/clinics get paid based on the health of their constituency - not by procedure or visit; i.e. a hospital gets paid based on the healthiness of the entire community it serves; doctors get paid based on the aggregate health of their entire patient load (*** doctors can not choose to only serve certain (healthier) patients).
3. Government + insurance companies must create a pool of funds available to any doctor or hospital to be used to provide basic healthcare services (per #2) to uninsured patients.

There is a direct correlation between level of education and economic status; there is a direct correlation between economic status and fitness; there is a direct correlation between fitness and healthcare cost. There is also a direct correlation between the way doctors and hospitals get paid and the type of work they do. These facts are not disputed.

If the White House and Congress' goal is a healthier nation, the path forward is incredibly obvious - only a fathead would see it otherwise.

followings

If you were tasked with creating a following for your company, how would you go about it?

With most projects, I'd say you start by understanding the definition of success, perhaps asking questions like: Whom do we want to "follow" us? How will we know they're "helping" us? What's the budget? What is the first milestone and when do we need to hit it? (These are variants of "what are we trying to accomplish, and how will we know when we get there?")

But that doesn't really create a following as much as it creates a marketing outcome at a given point in time. Once the effort stops, will the following live on or does it just fade away?

I think a follower is someone who prioritizes the one thing over others in a meaningful way (i.e. I'll spend less (time, money, focus, whatever) on Y because I care about X and want to put my limited energy there).

If you are looking to get a following, your intention is not to do great things, but for others to applaud your doing of great things. Your intention is flawed. You might be successful in the short term, but you will be found out eventually.

If you're a company trying to create a following in DC, you go to the Capitol with hat (read: wallet) in hand to find someone to convince of your view/need based on what that politician wants to accomplish and how you can "help" them. Your goal is one of three things - policy advocacy (help change the rules in our favor); economic advocacy (help fund our efforts); PR advocacy (help us look good).

In all these cases, the company's currency is whatever is valued by their advocates - nothing more. Once that currency stops flowing, chances are the advocacy stops flowing as well.

There's a word for that - it's called a transaction. Ethics aside, you purchased an outcome - plain and simple.

Being followed is the same as being cool - by definition, when you seek it, or seek to emulate others who have "it" your effort is fruitless. If you are true to yourself, take pride in what you do, and take actions staying true to your integrity, you are cool.

Rarely do people or companies that have a true following begin with the goal of creating one. Their relentless passion is focused on whatever greatness is their raison d'être. It's not to say that you shouldn't be savvy about managing your political risk or ensuring market or political advocacy, but if you do it without a genuine passion for that which is you, you are at risk. As Seth Godin put it, you still need to create advocates, and "coordinating a tribe ... requires patience, consistency and a focus on long-term relationships and life time value."

A political example of this comes from one of our failed politicians - Al Gore - he achieved a following for the environment by doing what he believed in and putting all his effort into telling the story that he needed to tell. He was smart not to take the bait and run for office again - doing that would be akin to Ali actually throwing that last punch when Foreman was already going down in Kinshasa. It would have been inelegant, and offended the aesthetic (or coolness) of that moment. It was at that point that I respected Gore.

If a corporation wishes to create public advocacy for their cause in the form of a following (i.e. make politicians want to help them be successful), they have to counterintuitively avoid it - something very few CEOs have the cojones to do...

the calling

If you were on a train about to cross a bridge, would you expect the engineers that designed the trestle to know how trains work? If you were about to go into surgery, would you expect that the doctors and nurses knew how the human body worked?

When you go into a school, do you trust that the teachers know how students learn?

Greg Noack a well-regarded educator tweeted: Why is it that, the more I learn and meditate on HOW kids learn, not what they learn. The less I have in common with other teachers. This prompted David Warlick to write a post that I read, and now here I go :-):

Greg's words scare me because they suggest a classic industrial age "I just work here" mentality that I didn't think was in teachers. I have to believe that no primary/secondary teacher went into this profession for the money or the work-life balance. They went because they were called. If teaching is/was a calling for me, I think I'd want/need to be as insightful as possible on the question Greg asked. I'd expect every teacher to be that way.

David and his commenters' takes are slightly different: when most teachers were students, there was a dearth of information, today there is overload; the world (comparatively) is moving much more quickly; teachers are preparing their students for a vastly different reality from the one they know and understand.

David (and team)'s words scare me - if they really believe this then they are not the great teachers I believe them to be.

Can you think of a generation that was less complicated than the one that preceded it? Think of each successive decade from say the 1950s (I presume most practicing teachers were born in or after 1950) - can you name three things that made each decade complicated, difficult and more fraught? How about (in no particular order) the Cold, Vietnam and Gulf Wars, the Swinging 60s, the Kennedy assassinations, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, telephones, television to name but ten? Each of these was pretty socially cataclysmic, each foretold a future dramatically different from that present. Yet we survived, and thrived.

Every dissenter is going to use the "ya-but" defense, in most cases saying that this time it's different, but let's face it - life is change, life requires change, and life relishes change. If it were not so, we'd still be living in caves. 

David used these words: "We are recognizing that our students will be moving from their formal education into a world that we can hardly imagine." The future today is just as uncertain as it was yesterday; the only difference is that we know how yesterday turned out.

Sure we're all susceptible to bouts of doubt, but really, there has never been a time when teaching was not about learning, nor has there been a time when teachers knew exactly what the future held for their students.

This is the reason that we send our children to schools - to prepare them in the best way possible for whatever tomorrow comes their way. Our teachers have always done this and will need to always keep doing this. In every time there will be uncertainty - we have to prepare every child for their destinies in the best way we know how.

I think it's important to worry about whether we're up to the task for anything; but we don't make excuses, we don't just aspire to do it better, we actually work on doing it better. That's why it's a calling.

shibumi

Shibumi is one of my favorite books - it was written by Trevanian, a brilliant author of among other things, spy stories. "Shibumi" is described on P74 of the book:

"Shibumi is understanding, rather than knowledge. Eloquent silence. In demeanor, it is modesty without prudency. In art, where the spirit of shibumi takes the form of sabi, it is elegant simplicity, it is articulate brevity. In philosophy, where shibumi emerges as wabi, it is spiritual tranquility that is not passive; it is being without the angst of becoming. And in the personality of a man, it is... how does one say it? Authority without domination."

I was in my teens when I first read this book, and like the protagonist, was immediately captivated:

"How does one achieve this shibumi, sir?"
"One does not achieve it, one ...discovers it. And only a few men of infinite refinement ever do that. Men like my friend Otake-san."
"Meaning that one must learn a great deal to arrive at shibumi?"
"Meaning, rather, that one must pass through knowledge to arrive at simplicity."

I've never been able to let go of this idea, or more appropriately, this ideal. I'm rereading the book for the nth time on a flight to Washington DC, where I will have the honor of meeting some amazing people in the world of education. As I contemplated that, I recalled a post by Scott McLeod entitled Never going to happen?:

True statement by a teacher (said with all sincerity) in one of my workshops this semester:

We’re so far behind our students. How do we catch up and move past them so that we can then teach them things they don’t know?

I don't know this for a fact, but think many teachers feel this way - implicitly behind the curve because their students have the ADD to grab at seemingly infinite sources, and empty enough minds to hold on to much of what they've found.

Great teachers, dare I say senseis, have attained shibumi. Their wisdom is not founded on the ability to store ...data. It is founded on a depth of essential understanding and a capacity for humbleness (read: open-minded acceptance) that allows them to grasp, interpret and illuminate.

I couldn't disagree more with the sentiment of Scott's post. Any teacher that views their sole ...asset as data is hopeless. Worse, they're harming their students by valuing rote over understanding, regurgitation over insight. These teachers (hopefully just victims of NCLB-mentality) must be redirected or re-schooled to properly serve their students.

The Scott McLeods (respected and visible educators) of the world need to aggressively advocate teaching proficiency - there are no other voices for this.

Teachers should not be paid based on student outcomes, instead they should be paid based on their own attainment of core and advanced teaching skills. I wrote about meeting Deborah Ball a while back, she taught me that like any profession, there are objective, clear, and assessable gradations of attainment in teaching proficiency.

While I don't expect every teacher to attain shibumi, I sure as hell expect each to understand the difference between information and learning, the difference between a capacity to spout data and the ability to find, discern, interpret, create, and communicate insight (or as my friend Larry would put it: observation, reflection, documentation, exhibition).

the war on peace

One of our (Americans in particular) most powerful motivators is winning. From its inception, America has had to fight for what she believed, and keep fighting to achieve progress. More often than not, America won - the economy grew, its role on the world stage grew, its contribution to the sciences and entertainment grew, its ego grew, etc. It is therefore clear why this competitive instinct is so deeply-rooted in the American "system," and how it is fundamental to her approach to life, the universe and everything.

From birth to school to work to love to death, Americans view life as a zero-sum game. At birth we're competing for cutest baby, baby closest to the XXth percentile of development, etc.; next it's getting in the right schools; then the best jobs; the best girl/guy; etc. In every instance, keeping score is about besting someone else - the pie is only so big, and for us to win, others need to lose.

The competitive instinct can sometimes lead one astray - there have been many American declarations against rather unlikely foes. Some of these "Wars" include: Poverty (Johnson, 1964 - winner: poverty); Drugs (Nixon, 1969 - winner: drugs); Terror (Bush, 2001 - winner: terror); Greed (US Congress 2008/9 - winner: greed); ...

Even corporations have gotten into it - one recently declared War on Cost. If they actually win, price = free; success = bankruptcy. Not sure the shareholders will approve.

It is pretty hard to spot(!), but did you notice a trend among all these wars? Each has cost a ton of money, wasted a ton of lives, burned a ton of energy, and in every case, resulted in more of the "bad" thing than before the "war" was declared.

Hmmm...

"My fellow Americans there is a cancer among us, it is evil, it is insidious, and it is fomented by those will not stop until they have found the best in every one of us. I call upon every red-blooded American to stand with me, and in the spirit of our founding fathers who prevailed against a superior foe armed only with the power of their ideals, rise as one to combat what is surely the most diabolical axis of evil that has beset our glorious nation.

My fellow Americans - I stand before you today with pride and purpose to declare War on Peace. Peace is the most powerful foe America has ever faced, but I am confident that our relentless pursuit of failure will once again restore our faith and ensure our prosperity.

This is just the beginning - lead by Peace, this axis of evil contains two other collaborators that must also be quelled. Immediately upon losing to Peace, and in the spirit of all that is great, we will first declare War on Wellness, and then War on Education.

Thank you, God bless each and every one of you, and God bless America."

Yes we can!

redemption

In September 2002, President Bush established a Doctrine, which among other things, stated that America will not only wage war on countries that directly and immediately threaten her, but also wage war on countries or organizations in countries that might at some point threaten her.

In December 2009, President Obama endorsed this doctrine when he announced that he would send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. Despite the fact that Afghanistan or the Taliban pose a direct or immediate threat to America. Some argue that Al Qaeda is a threat, but the consensus is that they are based in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.

So much for a different strategy with the new administration.

But this isn't really the problem. The problem is the absurdity of a "superpower" declaring war on a few hundred disaffected criminals (it's the equivalent of Apollo or Zeus or Poseidon declaring war on the four guys that maliciously starched their chitons). America didn't stop there - they called "them" evil. Intentionally or not, both Presidents Bush and Obama created a much larger "them," one spanning both a whole race (Arabs) and a whole religion (Islam). It gets worse - unlike the superpower who lords her wealth and excess over the planet, these millions of "thems" happen to be among the more impoverished on the planet - so it's kicking sand in the faces of people who are already buried up to their necks.

If you're a sports fan and someone from a rival team thoroughly insults "your guys," are you angry? Do you want to get even, pray that your team beats the crap out of theirs? Yes, but you're not going to take a gun and actually attack their players, you've got too much to lose.

Imagine if you were one of "these people" (poor, without education, without hope) and you were dissed as roundly and viscerally as America just did - the insult wasn't just to your sports team, it was to your religion, your very way of life, your family, and your heritage. How would you react? How would you react with literally nothing to lose?

Now imagine you're a well-funded ~200-person organization looking for recruits to help reassert "our pride and honor against those arrogant infidels that have called our race and religion a cancer, and maliciously killed our women and children." Don't you think that if you offer them a chance for "respect" (not unlike what gang bangers offer young children in many American cities), and give them money to feed and educate their families, that they'd happily join up even if it was (literally) a suicide mission?

For the last eight years, America has wasted more than $210 billion vainly attempting to "eradicate evil" - an evil (Taliban) she helped create and arm when the Soviets invaded not so long ago. Now they will double down with new troops, and activate a strategy of, are you ready for this - training and arming local militias!!!

Jeez! Can we be any dumber than this??

Has anyone ever successfully created peace, democracy and good will by training and arming small communities of testosterone-filled destitute, tribal warriors??

What if instead of giving them a reason and capacity to kill, we gave them a reason and capacity to live? What if the United States worked with other developed nations to create a multi (say 10)-year trade agreement with Afghanistan where their crops (all but opium) were bought by "western" countries at premium prices - one that made it worthwhile for Afghans to put down their guns and ammo, and pick up their hoes and fertilizer? What if we provided them with tools and resources to create more arable land (irrigation, soil improvement, seeds, etc.)? What if we helped each community that was interested build a local cooperative from whom we would buy products?

The next two years are expected to cost Americans ~$100+ billion/year. Let's instead spend that money (along with $$ from other wealthy countries) to overpay for agricultural products. Let's help Afghanis develop the means (over time) to sell their products competitively. Let's give the people of Afghanistan a reason to live and a means to care for their families, and a sense of self-worth that makes it impossible for any terrorist organization to lure new recruits.

Surely this is a truer path towards peace and a self-determined society?

Y-shmy

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

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

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

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

We work because they pay us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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