Ho, ho, ho: A matter of definitions

 

    Do you believe in Santa Claus? It seems that it is still a question that is posed to people of different ages. At what age did you stop believing in Santa Claus? "Yes, Virginia. There is a Santa Claus". Perhaps, it is this latter reply, or explanation, that was published on September 21, 1897 that is the closest at heart to what I believe. Yes, I do believe in Santa Claus and I have never stopped believing in Santa Claus. Even during moments in history when it is extraordinarily difficult to believe, I do believe.

     But much of the examination of, and the full disclosure for, this reply is based on the definition. Is Santa Claus a pudgy old white male with snow white beard and hair? (I fear I might qualify for this -- especially the pudgy part -- in December some children do look twice at me.) Certainly, there are more and more pudgy (or pillow-stuffed) men whose skin is closer to the color of chocolate or ebony who don the traditional apparel and strive to bring joy to children of all ages. I see no reason why the gender and age should matter much. In "Miracle on 34th Street", Alfred, the younger man who helps Santa and dons his own suit, is certainly not of the old man variety. There is still an "icy ceiling" that shifts women over to the role of Mrs. Claus -- but also some that break through that barrier and represent Santa at their jolliest.

     Now, alas, that doesn't mean that everyone accepts every variant of Santa Claus as the one that meets the needs of their heart. And that's fine as long as all of the other incarnations of Santa are free to bring joy to the hearts of others.

     As for me, I love them all -- I love their purpose of bringing joy to all. I enthusiastically accept that the spirit of Santa Claus has a place while being very aware of the religious foundations of the holiday. In spite of the commercials that bombard us and the banners that assault us in vast numbers, I believe in the simple joy and generosity of Santa. A homemade card and an eraser and paper clip doll can bring the brightest smile if it is done with caring and to someone still open to that emotion. Sometimes, it only needs a smile and a cup of soup.

     So, to all and everyone ("God bless them everyone" sayeth Tiny Tim) -- Ho, ho, ho and may the day be one of many joyous memories to sustain one through more difficult times.

Transparency vs opacity: layers of visibility

 

     A transparent situation allows full awareness of all that is going on and all interactions. An opaque situation means that only what is seen and heard, in response to some type of action, is all that is known. In the world of software testing, these are referred to as white box and black box situations which may be used for evaluation and testing. However, such a difference also exists within interpersonal relationships.

     In many instances, we know only what a person has done without knowing anything of the reasons and methods of doing the action. We may not even know what event, or events, occurred to cause the action. If all we know is from the "outside" then it is an opaque situation. It is hard to envision a person-to-person interaction where full transparency is possible. Full open communication and active listening can help but that only reaches conscious thoughts and reasonings.

     Groups of people may allow processes that are closer to transparent. What is happening within each person is still unknown but it is possible to keep track of interactions between the people and associate that with actions taken by the group. To put together a "rule book", transparency is not needed. What is needed are the events and the reactions -- though there may be so many variants of combinations of events that a complete rule book is impossible. These sets of "rule books" may be considered to be sets of laws -- both natural laws as well as human-created laws. However, in order to potentially change reactions to given inputs, transparency is needed.

     Let's go back to the world of software testing as it is much easier to examine internal behaviors and test reactions to given input than it is to do such with people. If you are doing transparent/white box testing, then you have access to all of the software code for the project. You certainly can connect to the places where the software is SUPPOSED to connect to other pieces of software but you can also examine just how it reaches this point. With experience, you can notice certain vulnerabilities -- places where the software can be persuaded to do things that it wasn't supposed to do. This is a blessing/curse for "open source software" because people can help your software become safer and more robust -- but others, who do not have the general public's best welfare in mind, can locate and take advantage of weaknesses.

     Within this transparent mode of testing, each comparison and each test can, and should, be tested for all legal values as well as a representation of illegal values. Proper error responses should happen with all illegal values and correct output should happen for all legal values. Once the individual tests have been checked, it can be checked at the function level and then at the system component level. Finally, we are at the stage of testing the full system. At this point, transparent testing may be similar, or identical to, opaque/black box testing.

     Like an onion, layers can be removed and something hidden can be made visible. Once visible, it can be examined and tested. This is true of software, of societies, of individuals, and of other objects which are the focus of examination by scientists and other interested people.

Choices: They always exist

 

     "I don't like either choice." "Why bother? Neither choice is any good." "I'm going to wait until there is a choice I like." One of the most glaring indications of the failure of students to come out of their formal, or informal, education with the ability to discern logic is that of not understanding the ability to reverse the direction of comparison. By this, I mean that if one object is worse than the other then -- automatically -- that means the other choice is better than this one. Having a "good" choice is not required for a person to make a better choice. "All" it requires (more easily written about than done) is to be able to compare choices.

     "Ah. But if I don't like either choice then I am indicating my opinion by not making a choice." Nope, you're just improving the odds of whatever you consider to be the worst of the choices. NOT making a choice for the better choice is equivalent to improving the chance of the worse choice being chosen. Or, in mathematical terms, no "+1" to the better choice becomes (by not making a choice) "+0" and the comparison is closer.

     It is possible that both choices truly are awful -- perhaps such that you aren't easily able to make a decision as to what is worse. At this point of choosing, there may be no possibility to create, or find, other choices that you consider an improvement. You are forced to fall back to choosing the better of the two. It is also an indication that you need to improve the selection of choices for the future.

     This can happen within a democracy where there are two (or more) stages of the electoral process. By the time of the election, a choice must be made between candidates. But, before that, there is a process where the candidate is chosen between various possible candidates. If you don't like either choice in the current election, then NEXT time get involved earlier in the process (and, for the current time, vote for the less bad). And getting involved doesn't stop at attending rallies -- you have to participate and then actually vote. But, that's for the next election. For this one, vote for the better.

     Lack of making a choice does not change inertia. A rudderless boat will move but only according to the whims of the wind and the waves. Making choices is a core aspect of leadership. Even a poor choice (if evaluated and changed when it is known it is the wrong one) is better than none because it allows focus of energy and future choices. There are a few special cases where only an informed choice is useful. Any other, non-informed, choice is just a guess -- and guesses are not necessarily an improvement.

     My wife and I like to watch Jeopardy! on a daily basis. Every so often, there will be a situation where the "question" is unknown to the contestants. One person guesses and fails. Then another person guesses and fails also. At this point, I am imploring the person on the television (yes, I know this is irrational as they cannot hear me) to "don't guess, don't guess". At this point, the person who has NOT guessed is "up" in relation to the other contestants (contestant A down x amount, B down x amount, the person not having guessed is UP x amount in comparison to A and B) -- they are in the same position as if they were the person to have guessed the question correctly. Of course, it they know the answer, answering is great. But if they also guess and fail they have just lost their competitive advantage. Yet, many of these third contestants are "caught up" in the moment and guess also.

     "Hobson's Choice" is a situation where there is really only "one choice". That is an illusion. There may be only one non-ludicrous choice but there is always the choice of doing something or not doing it. Get angry or don't get angry. Push the button or don't push the button. The consequences of one of those choices may not be acceptable (and the other barely acceptable) but we are really back into the same situation described in the first paragraph -- choosing the better of alternatives.

      We cannot create what is happening now but our choices often start processes on a path which will lead to future situations and choices. The choices of today make a difference for the future. We are always in the midst of a decision tree where each choice presents us with a different set of choices depending on that original choice.

     And not making a choice is still a choice.

It's true: You cannot please everyone

 

     Have you ever been in a situation where you are evaluating what to say or do and end up saying to yourself "what if they don't like it?" I have that very much on the top of my mind when I am writing blogs -- and that awareness, I believe, helps me to watch my words carefully to attempt to communicate clearly and succinctly.

     But, do I succeed in not offending anyone? No, though negative responses (actually, any responses) have been very few. Have I succeeded in making my meaning understood by everyone? Absolutely not. I have gotten a couple of responses where I could only say "are they talking about my blog?" The responsibility of making clear what I say still resides with me -- but I cannot, or will not, accept the full burden of other people understanding.

     What about negative responses in which it is clear that they understand what I am saying and disagree? Well, I make no claims of omniscience -- I can be wrong. I may be wrong because I am unaware of other facts and instances which weigh against what I am saying. I may be wrong because _I_ don't understand some of the information that I have read, researched, and analyzed. There are, of course, subjects about which the reader has made up their mind and nothing can persuade them to consider something else. I may be perceived as wrong in areas where there is NOT a single "right" and a single "wrong" perspective. Some things just aren't that clear cut. Perhaps more agreement might occur with further clarification; "B is true if C is happening and D didn't happen in an environment where E and F are possible with interactions from G." Whew. Sure, maybe more people would be of like mind but would I be achieving anything other than making it more difficult for those other readers to understand?

     There are issues I choose to not tackle because of the likelihood of disagreement. These are areas in which I would enjoy one-on-one discussion where we can each present other examples, histories, or viewpoints where we can both benefit and, perhaps, come to better understanding. But that's not very useful in a blog with thousands of unknown readers, with thousands of unknown histories and viewpoints. Blogs aren't very useful for discussions. I would say that it is even very difficult with bulletin boards and discussion threads because for each of the people actively participating within a thread, there may be dozens who are passively reading and without that necessary give-and-take the value may be very small. There are, of course, blogs where it is the reputation of the person that creates the audience and they say (hopefully clearly and carefully with integrity) whatever they want without that opportunity for useful discussion.

     Is this lack of universal pleasure at reading what I say a good reason not to say it? Well, it would certainly be "safer" -- less potential conflict, fewer potential attacks. If you don't say anything then it can't be knowingly attacked. However, I am sure that you have been in situations where you have "bitten your tongue" when someone says something that you greatly disagree about. Having a personal shield within a "cone of silence" does not eliminate disagreement -- it just stops you from actively participating.

     As I say on my blog header, the original purpose of this blog was to expand upon technological subjects (see my first couple of years of blogs such as one on email or clouds -- but there didn't seem to be any serious questions and it is not possible to know what others do not know -- questions are needed. So, the blog changed into, primarily, one of helping to "facilitate general communication". I try to make them useful, when possible, in both the work and personal environments. But, if I am trying to facilitate communication then that means to make it easier. I can't do that by sealing myself away. My skin has to be able to take those potential slings and arrows. Hopefully, my efforts are of some benefit to some people.

Pets who own people: what, you thought it was the other way around?

 

     Throughout my life, I have never chosen a pet. Sometimes they have been given to the family by someone who could no longer take care of them. One time, my wife chose one from the animal shelter. One of my sons has chosen a couple of pets that sheltered with us in our house (the Cockatiel is still providing mutual support for him). Yet another time, I married into the household which included the cat. Cats, dogs, birds, gerbils, even goldfish -- I didn't choose them.

     As I have gotten older, I have gotten somewhat more selfish and have resisted getting another pet. Yes, I would love to have one to cuddle with and have swarm around my legs to watch out for so I don't fall. (I have this specific maneuver that I developed where I turn around in the exact same spot without moving the location of my feet (orientation, yes -- location, no) because, otherwise, I would either trip when changing directions or step on something warm and furry -- 40 years after developing it, I still turn with this method.) But the reality is I enjoy the ability to not have to take care of the pet. To be able to just go somewhere on the spur of the moment. Yes, yes, yes -- I don't actually DO that but I could. But, as one of my blogs was titled, my crystal ball has cracks all through it and I could imagine having some creature entering into my life even if I was not searching for it.

     The relationship between a person and their pet is complex and unique for each association. Any pet with whom you actively interact will have a personality (occasionally, even one with whom you do NOT actively interact with, will seem to have a personality -- what, that goldfish ISN'T looking at me?). The pet will also have a history. The cat, chosen by my wife from the local animal shelter, had apparently (only apparent after taking her home) been abused. It took a long time for her to trust us and she was the one for whom I developed my non-dance pirouette. But her purr was memorable and heart-warming and even more so because of the time, and effort, needed to establish the relationship.

     At one of the companies for which I worked, well-trained dogs were allowed to accompany their people. Often, at meetings, the dog was the best behaved and most willing to sit and listen to what was said at the meeting. A few years after the company was acquired, dogs were declared unwelcome with that often used, and rarely believed, excuse of "legal liability problems". Speaking for myself -- but probably for others also -- the dogs were missed very much. It is my understanding that many companies are reversing such restrictions as part of an effort to have the office environment be more attractive and supportive. I hope that continues to grow and be more popular. I believe it is beneficial to all.

     There seems to be a rise of "therapy pets" -- which is putting a label on an ongoing part of life. To a certain degree, that has always been why we have had pets -- though in some situations they are more work, and life, partners than "pets". Pets become family and, even if they are NOT particularly therapeutic, they remain part of the family. Perhaps the relationship may remind you of others, of the two legged variety, in your family. It is certain that, if you cannot treat a pet properly, it is unlikely you will treat other people properly either. Thus, for other people, such treatment can be an affirmation or a warning about that person.

     Legally (though, perhaps, not morally) there is a unidirectional relationship between a pet and a person. But, if they truly become part of your life, it is fully bidirectional and beloved.

Giving Thanks: where it comes from is more important than how it is shown

 

     On this day in the US, it is a holiday referred to as "Thanksgiving". There are other Thanksgiving Days around the world but, being a US citizen, our holiday is the one with which I am most familiar. Our Thanksgiving Day centers around food because the historical tale centers around a 3-day feast occurring with the Pilgrims and a local First Nation (Wampanoag) in November 1621 during a peaceful period of time. Besides the sharing of food, the Wampanoags were vital to the survival of the Pilgrims as they showed the Pilgrims methods of cultivation and fertilization to be able to grow food. Alas, that peaceful period did not persist but the Pilgrims, at the least, still had reason to be grateful and give thanks. For First Nations in the US, it is more often a Day of Remembrance rather than a celebration.

     As a feast, food was important -- as well as the fact that the harvest, and their very survival, was due to the generosity of the Wampanoags. What was eaten? Probably not pumpkin pie or turkey but the exact composition of the feast will have to be left to time-traveling anthropologists of the future.

     The central aspect of Thanksgiving, however, is not the food -- it is the giving of thanks. Acknowledgement, appreciation, and gratitude are all aspects of the process of giving thanks and, although each has a separate dictionary definition, it would be difficult to sincerely express thanks without something of all three being involved.

     Acknowledgement, or recognition, is critical. You cannot give true thanks if you don't know who they are. In a couple of the companies that I worked for, I received a fifth anniversary card in the company mail. In neither case was the card signed. In one case, the card wasn't even addressed. I joked, without feeling much humor, that I should save the card so I could use it later with someone else. This is NOT the way to acknowledge, or thank, someone. It should be personal. Preferably face-to-face but at least knowing their name, knowing what they have done, and being able to thank the person as a person.

     Appreciation stems from the awareness that, without someone (this particular person) being present to do the things for which we are thankful, that thing of interest might never have been accomplished. So, first is WHO? Second is WHAT? The third is that of gratitude -- which may be deemed HOW.

     And How seems to be something that companies and people seem to get confused about. As in my old companies, they seemed to think that a larger gift would "make up for" missing out on the first two vital aspects. They didn't know who I was and they didn't know what I had done but here's this fifth anniversary gift to mark the occasion. No, it doesn't work that way. If they had given me a signed card, addressed to me and presented by someone who knew for what they were thanking me -- that would have been wonderful and more than sufficient. (Not that I would have turned down a new Porsche <smile>.)

     The same thing is in the process when you are giving a birthday gift, anniversary gift, Christmas or Kwanzaa gift, etc. Whether the gift is forward (to another person) or as response (thanks for a gift or gifts), the acknowledgement and appreciation make the core of the thanks, or gift. Remembering to grab the dry cleaning on a regular basis is of greater thankfulness than an emerald brooch.

     So, sit down at a Thanksgiving Day meal (or any other meal -- those of us who consistently have food on our tables have much to be thankful for every day) and recognize those around us and the things they have done (not necessarily for us), and appreciate them, the food, the company, and the existence of all.

     And may everyone have even more to be thankful for, tomorrow, and the days to come.

     

Questions & Answers: Don't ask if you don't want them to tell

 

     "How are you?" "What's up?" "Howzzit going?" These aren't really questions even though they may be written with question marks at the end of the phrase. They are social interjections. There may be a response but it will probably be a standard response for the person and should not be relied upon. (As someone likely on the autism spectrum, this aspect of social dynamics was difficult for me to understand.) This does vary a bit. The more you know someone and the closer the relationship, the more likely they will take it seriously as a question and, as such, leads into the heart of this blog.

     When you seriously ask a question, then you should expect an answer. But you should not have determined what the answer "should" be before you have even asked the question. You get their attention, ask the question, and wait for the response. You should not do a "hit and run" to ask a question and then be half-way down the corridor before they start to response. Communication involves listening and this applies to both the person posing the question as well as to the person hearing the question. You cannot be listening if you are already heading off to your next item of the day.

     So, you've asked a real question (it may still be "how are you?" -- but you really want to know). You have stopped, or paused, and wait for the answer. Do you have "that's good" on your tongue before they have responded? If you have already decided on your response then, once again, you are not listening. "How are you?" "My dog died yesterday and I am really sad about it." "That's good."  Nope, you don't want to do that.

     You've now gotten to the point of asking the question, waiting for the answer, and not creating a specific response. What comes next? The answer. You may have a specific expectation for an answer, a general expectation of an answer, or it may be open-ended with nothing particular in mind. "Is the project proceeding as scheduled?" (expecting a "yes") "How is the new equipment working for the team?" (expecting a generally positive answer but with potentially some caveats) "Do you have any plans for the weekend?" (yes, I'm going skydiving on Saturday and Sunday the whole family is going to a church picnic)

     What happens if the answer does NOT fall into the range of your expectations? "Is the project proceeding as scheduled?" (No, it looks like we won't meet the current goal and the long-term deadline will need to be pushed back) "How is the new equipment working for the team?" (No one has been able to get it to work and the only people who are getting anything done are the ones who held onto the old equipment when they came to take it away) "Did you have a good day at school today?" (No, I decided it would be much more fun to go fishing, so Fred and I took off and went fishing by the dam)

     How do you respond to an unexpected answer? The worst way to respond is by demonstrating that you weren't listening. "My dog died." (that's nice) While a highly positive response is good for unexpected good news ("my daughter just got a full scholarship for Kansas State University.") explosive anger to bad, or unexpected, news does not serve any positive purpose. Explosive anger can only lead to the situation where people no longer feeling free to communicate bad news to you (shot that messenger one too many times)

     If you ask a question from which you expect an answer then wait, listen, consider, and respond appropriately and constructively.

Meetings & Presentations: They aren't the same thing

 

     During my last couple of years of work, I was in 30 hours of meetings per week. Of those thirty hours, I was an active participant in perhaps six hours. I may have taken notes in another four hours of the meetings because information was presented that I did not know and which was not available from other sources. For the other 20 hours I was an additional number in the head count.

     Is this typical? I cannot really say as I have not had a wide enough spread of work within various companies. Is it unusual? Personally, I suspect that it is not unusual. Is it useful? That depends a lot on the purpose of the meetings. If it was to gather information, then 2/3 of my meetings were not useful. If it was to be seen then I guess they were useful -- including remote situations if the cameras are all on. If it was to raise the perceived status of the presenter, then I feel it was a lot less useful than the presenter thought it was. After all, would it raise your opinion of someone if you listened to them for an hour or two of your life and did not learn anything new nor felt that your presence was useful?

     Most companies have meetings that do not need to exist. The percentage may vary depending on the processes of the company and their priorities but there are usually those that exist just to exist.

     We come, therefore, to a distinction -- the distinction between a presentation and a meeting. A presentation can have "questions and answers" during, or at the end, of the gathering. During this Q&A period, information can be clarified and additional information can be obtained. The information flow is almost completely unidirectional. The presenter is passing information along to the audience.

     Within a useful meeting, information flow should be omnidirectional. There may be a moderator who makes sure everyone has a chance to provide input. There may be a recorder who keeps track of what is said, any commitments made, and any work items to be assigned. The moderator and the recorder may be the same person. If so, that will slow down the flow of the meeting which could be a good thing or it could be a bad thing. It will depend on the initial purpose of the meeting. In a "brainstorming" meeting, I would suggest that it would be useful to have the two roles fulfilled by two different people in order to not put obstacles in the way of information flow. Have you ever had something you wanted to say and, following a relatively short interruption, no longer know quite what it was? I certainly have.

     The reason that I had so many meetings at which I was unneeded was that the presenter did not understand as to whether it was a presentation or a meeting. Thus, it was put forth as a meeting and there were people required to be present. As a presentation, it could have been put into a document or into a video presentation to be watched at a more convenient time. (A video also has the advantage of being able to be fast-forwarded past known information.) Questions and answers can still occur -- and can be distributed to the list of people who are sent, or notified of, the presentation.

     When you are setting up a gathering, first decide upon information flow. Is it unidirectional or omnidirectional? Even if multiple people are presenting information during the session, it can still be unidirectional. If it is unidirectional, is it something you want to enforce watching/listening with a specific audience? A "captive" audience still may not understand/listen to the information but they lack excuses for not knowing the information. If it is omnidirectional, then a gathering will likely be useful -- but it could be remote or in-person.

     If it is static information -- all is known and it is meant to flow in one direction (though possibly from multiple people) then do people need to receive it at the same time? Are you aware of the exact people who should know the information? If people other than invitees may need/want to know the information then live presentations should be recorded but it may also be an argument for the lack of need for a gathering.

     In summary, meetings should be gatherings of people with omnidirectional information flow (everyone potentially has information to give as well as to receive). Presentations involve unidirectional (perhaps from more than one person) information flow. It is possible to have a presentation as part of a meeting but, in such cases, it should primarily be a meeting with information exchanged. Meetings are often useful to have as gatherings. Presentations may be more useful as documents or video recordings to allow an indeterminate group of people access to the information, allow rewatching/rereading the information, or to take in the information at a more convenient time.

Results-based evaluation: Most agree so why is it so hard?

 

     I don't know of anyone (though it is possible someone exists) who doesn't agree that the most important thing with a job is to get the results when they are needed and of the quality that is needed. This is an expansion of the phrase "results-based evaluation". Who really cares how it is done (with the caveats, of course, using only legal means and not abusing or harassing anyone) or where it is done or how the work hours are distributed as long as the assignment is completed as needed with good quality?

     That's what is said. The reality differs as I am sure most are aware. That reality is the foundation of so much conflict about remote vs. hybrid vs. RTO. It is the foundation of 4-day workweeks vs. 5-day workweeks (or 3-day or 6-day). 

     So, we have an ideal of a results-based evaluation and we have the reality of wanting control over the process. Perhaps not to the extent of micromanaging but, still, with someone making sure that a certain number of hours are worked, perhaps during certain time windows, and with the ability of the physical (or at least remote video) observation of work being done.

     In my opinion, there IS a difference between a new, inexperienced, employee's need for management versus that of an experienced person with a good track record. A new person many not know how to proceed from the beginning to the finish line. They need someone to give them a framework and to be able to make sure they are not getting lost, leaving the framework, or skewing the schedule and duties in a way that results end up being unreliable. This is not an indication of a bad employee. It is an indication of an employee who does not have the experience, and knowledge, of being able to self-manage to reach the objectives.

     But how about people who ARE experienced and have a track record that indicates they know how to get to the finish line and make their objectives? Rationalization breaks down at this point. No matter what angle a person looks at it, it ends up being a matter of TRUST. Each person's tasks are relied on by other layers who are relied upon by higher layers until it is a matter for the entire company or project. It can be scary to realize that you are being evaluated, in the greater part, based upon how well people, of whom you are responsible, perform. Fear and trust are confrontative values.

     Results-based evaluation should always be feasible -- whether the people are split in location or have to coordinate different schedules. First, the objective must be well, precisely, defined -- such that both parties know whether it has been achieved. Second, it is useful to BOTH parties to have mutually agreed-upon verifiable checkpoints such that both have confidence that progress is being made as needed. These checkpoints may be frequent for relatively inexperienced people or for complex projects. They may be very infrequent for very experienced people on projects which are testable, and deliverable, in isolation from other work.

     The various methods of dealing with pandemic isolation have proven that it can work. We know how it worked and that can work towards the future for continuing functionality. Only trust, and mutual work on synchronization, is needed.

Measure Twice, Cut Once: True in most areas

 

     In spite of having young adults in the house, I don't really know much about what language is presently active. But, for me, the phrase "measure twice, cut once" was an important phrase, and lesson, within my household.

     Of course, it directly applies to building things -- specifically cutting lumber. If you cut a piece of lumber to 11 1/8 inches and you were SUPPOSED to have cut it to 11 7/8 inches then you have just wasted a good sized length of lumber (if vice verse, then you have the situation where you now have to cut 3/4 inch off a board -- that's not much fun either). It could have been even worse -- off by inches (or centimeters for the metric world). If it gets bad enough then you may end up with lengths of board that can be used for other purposes. The point is, it is really best if you cut the board the correct length. You do that by verifying the length you need. Measure more than once, make sure you write it down (or remember it) clearly and then cut it the indicated length.

     This applies to many other areas of life. How many times have you wanted to retract something you just said (or a message you just sent)? Recognizing this situation, tools have started putting in automatic delays to allow you to "take it back" when you have just sent something. But it is much better to make certain that you want to say something BEFORE you say it. Think it over (and read it over -- making sure that "autocorrect" has not changed anything critical). Consider how it could be interpreted -- what you mean to say is not always what many people will hear. Consider privacy issues. If this message was intercepted, or heard, or even ended up in subpoenaed information, does it say what you want it to and is it something you want people, other than those addressed, to hear in this manner?

     The principal applies to working with programs. I am presently learning a language (Español) using the Duolingo application. I am often working "under deadline" when I have bonus points available during a timed interval. I try to hurry and -- oops -- I hit the "Check" button when I really wanted to hit the backspace, or delete, key. (I do this on my iPad.) There goes my 100% for the exercise.

     It also applies to products. Check, test, check again, test again. Have acceptance criteria and follow them -- enhance when something slips through. For physical products, never have anything head out the door unless at least a good sampling has been checked (and check that sample twice).  Quality problems are expensive, embarrassing, and hurt reputations (which are easy to destroy and hard to build). 

     Double measuring is the antithesis of hurrying. There are other clichés and phrases about hurrying but they usually amount to the same thing. It is a lot harder (often impossible) to undo something, or make amends for something, or clean up a mess than it is to not make the error in the first place. But most of us will find ourselves in situations where we act before we think. In such cases, take a deep breath and ponder the reality "no one is perfect".

     Then try to clean up the mess.

The ever changing work week; history and technological change

 

     Once upon a time, long long ago, people did not divide their time between work and non-work. People spent the time needed to survive and did whatever they wanted the rest of the time. In certain "tropical paradises" with ample food and few dangers, most of the time was spent doing sports, enjoying flowers or doing crafts, building monuments, or whatever. In less amenable environments, most of the time was spent trying to survive and the only non-work time was during winter months when activity was severely restricted (but, often, the time was still allocated to doing activities to prepare for the warmer periods).

     As humans developed technology, including agricultural, animal husbandry, and environmental adaptive technologies, the less hospitable areas had less time required for survival. Society moved in two directions to make use of this non-work time. One direction was social stratification -- some had lots of leisure while others lost their leisure to perform labor for the higher social layers. The other direction was religious and familial development which provided more structured activities for use of non-survival time.

     Societies which had developed in the less stressful areas did not shift as much -- continuing to spend most of their time at leisure activities. In the other areas, a dynamic developed between the two directions of the shift of people's time with some wanting to do less and less for themselves and the others wanting more time to develop leisure activities. This dynamic continues unto today.

     But technology continued to develop and this push towards reallocation of survival labor time to non-work changed. This was buffered, in part, by continued population increases. The more people, with the greater strain on resources, the more efforts needed to survive -- but technology changes have continued to move somewhat ahead of those needs.

     In some areas, bolstered by religious mandates, the working people started having times, and days, where mandated activities could be forgotten. Children started to be seen as developing people rather than just another labor resource. Days were allocated for worship. Lastly, the work day was shortened to allow non-work time before and after the work day.

     In our present time, between automation and AI, we find our society entering a new period when the amount of work hours needed is becoming a smaller, and smaller, part of the total number of hours available to be produced by people. And, with automation and AI, the training and abilities needed by people who do work becomes more difficult to achieve.

     This leaves us with many hours not needed to be worked. It is no longer a survival situation -- it is a political and economic problem. If we reduce population then all of our production, and economic flow, will be at overcapacity (more than we can use). If we do NOT reduce population then there is not enough work for everyone. One possibility is to have each working person work fewer hours. Shorter days or fewer days? With commuting, fewer days means less overhead and more efficient labor movement.

     There is probably no universally "correct" solution but, unless civilization does a "reset" due to societal collapse, we need to face the problem of not enough hours of work for the number of people we have. Many object strongly to people not working but, if that is to not be the case, there must be better distribution (and better education) to spread the number of work hours among the many people.

Getting it done: The three lodgepoles of Agile

 

     Back in 2001, when the 17 developers gathered around and argued and discussed and came up with the "Agile Manifesto", there were a lot of things that they didn't agree upon and a few things that they did agree on. Certainly those 17 people, and those they have trained, can talk more in depth about Agile specifically than I can. Although I have taken "Product Owner" and "ScrumMaster" courses my own experience of Agile comes more from trying to ride herd on groups of developers (and managers) trying to make the transition from waterfall to Agile (SCRUM, as the specific variant goal). And some of their discussion and points are rooted in some of the things that I was exposed to starting 25 years before their gathering.

     Be aware that, although the Agile Manifesto was done in conjunction with software engineering, it can apply to any project -- including home remodeling or building that paper maché model for high school or putting together an anniversary party.

     One of the things that they used in discussion at, and I tried to learn from prior to their gathering, was the experiences of "The Mythical Man Month". Although the technologies used within may be considered prehistoric by many, the approaches and mistakes have certainly continued to the present day with Agile approaches attempting to divert people, and projects, away from such catastrophic results. Within this project, as relayed in the book, there was a mad, accelerating, scramble to try to bring a project back onto a schedule with proper quality and without bankrupting the company.

     There are three major aspects of projects -- resources, time, and quality. Resources can include the number of people, the amount of equipment, square footage, shoot -- basically anything that has a limitation but can be expanded (resources can extend to mental/specific expertise availability and limitations). Time is rather straight-forward (thought the general topic has been thrashed out for centuries by philosophers and scientists). Quality is a slippery object but it is usually defined at the end by agreeing whether it came out as useful as desired. (Defining acceptance criteria will almost always help to determine whether the quality goals have been met.) Although (as far as I know) they never called these aspects the "three lodgepoles", I think that it is a good description. 

     Lodgepoles are really just long, straight, sturdy poles. However, if three or more are bound together, they can form a sturdy structure for support of other things (potentially a habitation as was done with the First Nations of the Americas). They can be used to support a kettle over a campfire to cook a soup in. Three will succeed. Two, or one, will not be able to be sufficiently sturdy to hold that kettle or structure.

     So it is with "the three lodgepoles of Agile". You have these three aspects that provide the support for a project -- but you can only try to control two of them. If you try to control time and quality then you cannot control resources (the primary discovery within the Mythical Man Month). If you try to control quality and resources, then time is unknown (this happens with projects that never arrive at their goal). Or, if you try to control time and resources then achieving desired quality may be an illusion (note that most of the time what happens is, as the illusion of quality fades away then the time and/or resource restrictions start being revisited and expanded).

     When moving over to an Agile structure, this limitation is very difficult for management to understand -- and overly frustrating to other workers who are doing their very best to satisfy.

     Take a "typical" project. You decide what you want to do, how many people are available (or you can afford) to do it, and say when you want to have it done. OK, the date arrives and it isn't the way you wanted it to be -- quality has given way. Or you are continuing to work on the project and keep saying "it will be ready in just another two weeks ..." (over and over) -- time has given way. Or the quality isn't where you want it to be and that anniversary date is coming up fast (difficult to change an anniversary date), and you start calling everyone you know to see if they can help -- resources have gone out of control.

     In our conversion process towards Agile, that "time" component kept being a problem. In part, this was because the marketing and sales division was NOT moving towards "Agile" (for marketing and sales, there really needs to be some type of ongoing delivery system with steadily moving different dates with features -- such as a subscription model for software). So, huge amounts of resources kept being used to keep track of "time" -- although everyone participating knew that they couldn't really control all three lodgepoles. Delivery dates, software completion dates, etc. And that brings us back to that Mythical Man Month -- resources were allocated to doing what couldn't really be done -- which leads us back to the frustrations of the 17 people at the Agile meeting.

     Life is interesting.

Vacations: They don't work the same for everyone

 

     My father, having only a 9th grade education, had a series of low level positions -- sometimes called "blue collar". He worked hard but, at the end of eight or nine hours of work, when he came home he did not think about work. It didn't matter if the job was delivering soda (pop) to stores, lathing parts for Boeing, or cooking donuts. Work was left solely at work. This characteristic applies to most people in "blue collar" positions. My son, working at a local grocery store, does not come home and think about whether the onions will need to be moved to make room for a new crop of peaches. Having made it to the label of "coordinator" he does find himself thinking about what the personnel situation will be when he arrives -- but, not being in charge of scheduling, he doesn't really worry about it (he just tries to mentally prepare himself for possibilities).

     Besides salaries and benefits, this may be one of the primary differences between "blue" and "white" collar work. When you get to the manager level, or as a "professional", then you have responsibilities and duties that can be, and often are, worked on after leaving the actual work environment (assuming that you are not remote -- if remote, they extend past the theoretical work hour boundaries). Among other reasons, that is why "Members of Technical Staff" at Bell Labs were considered to be "managers".

     These are factors of life on a daily basis but they apply even more strongly to vacations. A blue-collar worker in the US (this differs considerably between different countries in the world) may, or may not, get a vacation. And that vacation, if given, may be paid leave or unpaid leave. Assuming that they have gotten a vacation -- once they have left work there are likely no thoughts about work until that day occurs when they have to think about going BACK to work.

     This is not the situation for most white collar workers. The situation varies a lot -- from the situation being very similar to that of a blue collar worker to the situation where it would be very difficult to recognize that they were on a vacation (perhaps a different locale). The "vacation spectrum" is somewhat designated by the position but mostly determined by the interactions between workers and the next levels "up" from their position (whether they be a VP, line manager, supervisor, department head, or whatever).

     We are split between the "ideal" vacation, the "optimal" vacation, and the "minimal" vacation. There are a lot of articles about the benefits of clean breaks from work -- an "ideal" vacation where the person no longer needs to think about work. They are able to allow the mental work grooves to fade and let those furrows rest so that they will be prepared for new crops to be planted when they return to work.

     Work situations often do not allow such "ideal" situations. This is an inherent part of the position. If you are a salesperson, your clients still may need you and your potential clients must not feel neglected. If you are a technical person, then your tasks and projects continue towards some future goal and the less you pay attention to that progress, while on vacation, the more difficult it is to resume work upon return. If you are in a managerial position, you should be able to feel comfortable that you have set things up, and delegated, such that all will continue without your intervention -- but that "should" very often does not crystalize -- in part because others doing tasks want to make sure they are doing them "right". Working with these inherent parts allows one to hit an "optimal" vacation. You get as much rest on average such that, when you return, work can continue without having to "catch up" and do two weeks worth of work during that first week of return.

     Which leads us to that "minimal" vacation (that looks almost identical to a work period) which we want to avoid. We can do a lot to avoid the "minimal" and approach the "optimal".

• Learn to delegate and make sure that they have the knowledge, and abilities, such that you can be comfortable trusting them.
  
  
• Organize, and document, the needs to be taken care of while you are absent.
  
  
• Make sure that all information (file access, customer names and numbers/email addresses, passwords if absolutely needed, ...) is known to those who have need of such.
  
  
• AND leave contact information such that they can contact you if NEEDED within a reasonable period (say 3-hours).

     Note that you should not, and should not have to, be able to be contacted every single minute. If so, then you need to work on preparation better next time. The potential to check in, or be contacted, every few hours is reasonable -- being "on call" 24/7 is not.

     You may not have the "ideal" vacation but, with proper preparation (and attitude), you can have a vacation that you can enjoy and give you a respite from, and readiness to return to, work.

Going where you aren't looking: nature's triage?

 

     Once upon a time, I was driving along and allowed myself to be distracted. I took my eyes off of the road and got into my most severe driving accident. No doubt it was my fault, and responsibility, as it is the responsibility of the driver to keep their eyes, and other senses, on what is going on outside the car -- the road, the people, deer, and so forth. But, even more so than before that accident, I became hyper aware of people going one direction while their attention is going another direction.

     In my situation, this only happened for a few seconds -- but that was too long. How many times have you watched a scene in a movie where the driver turns their attention away from the road and talks with their passenger for ten seconds, twenty seconds, maybe thirty seconds without ever looking back at the road? We all know that that just isn't real -- people can NOT do that without severe, perhaps fatal, problems. But, that's just part of the movie offset from reality. It's very similar to the fact that restroom breaks never seem to happen even though we know they must.

     This is the phenomenon behind the greatly increased accident, and fatality, rates of people who text or use a phone hands-on while driving. Driving a 3000 lb. moving object requires focused attention. Any distraction must be kept firmly in the background. In computer science jargon, they must be kept as low priority interrupts. AFTER all necessary items, needed for safe driving, have received attention then some time and attention can be diverted elsewhere.

     This doesn't happen only while driving, of course, though it is thankful that it is rarely fatal or even very serious when not driving. How many people have run into you when they are walking while looking over to the right or left while still walking forward? Perhaps you have even done such. Except when you are crossing the street while doing this, it is usually not too dangerous -- but still can be awkward and embarrassing.

     This also happens within the business world. The business plan has us working towards a particular objective and that objective has specific needs to be handled in a timely way. How often does something else divert us and has us continuing on automatic concerning what we have chosen to be our most pressing focus? Much more often than we would like to acknowledge. We "walk" one direction while looking elsewhere. Note that this is different than recognizing an emergency or a needed change of direction -- it is a matter of not paying attention to the "most important now" task.

     And the longer that attention is diverted from the "most important now" tasks, the more likely there will be problems. Perhaps even fatal ones.

Percentages: A desire to claim authority

 

     Stereotypes often have a grain of truth within. How large of a grain? It varies a lot. Any time that you find yourself saying -- Xs do this or Ys do that -- you know that there are those who don't fit that criterion. Many males do not like to ask for directions (in my household, my wife is the one who doesn't like to ask). Women, in general, have faster reflexes and higher pain thresholds. Much of the time, such statements are stated as absolutes. "Men don't ask for directions." This is true even when we are quite aware of exceptions -- with either men asking for directions or other genders not wanting to ask.

     But yet another generalization which doesn't fit everyone -- people (especially men) want to be perceived as being an authority -- knowing what they are talking about. "70% of all men have dandruff." "93% of all drivers don't come to a complete stop at stop signs." People could easily say "most drivers don't come to a complete stop" but which sounds more as if the person has done their research and knows what they are talking about -- "most drivers ..." or "93% of all drivers ..."?

     How do such percentages come about? Occasionally, the person may have read a paper stating some percentage. That percentage may, or may not, have been accurate and the person may, or may not, have remembered the percentage correctly. But there WAS some percentage associated with the event so recreate it.

    "Most becomes 70%." "Almost all becomes 94%." "Almost no one become 1%." You may have some favorite numbers that you use.

     This doesn't happen just in everyday life. It also happens in studies. Each study has a statistical range for all numbers and there is a general recognition that there may be constraints that have been omitted from the study or aspects of the population pool might make a difference with other followup studies. Yet, the results don't get summarized as "35% chance with a +/- error range of 5% under specific conditions."

     Finally, there is sloppy usage of well-defined words. The word "cause" is an oft-misused one. Somehow, in the summaries, "correlates to" or "seems to usually be present" becomes "causes". If A causes B then EVERY time A exists then B happens. There aren't a lot of absolutes in life. Even doses of arsenic will not necessarily cause death (though it certainly can raise the likelihood -- botox or plutonium have even smaller likelihoods of not being fatal). Each time I read of a study that indicates causation, I say to myself "uh-huh. How about under this condition? How about this 'exception' that I read about? ..."

     Does this apply to you? Will at least 82.5% of you read this and think about how it may apply within your life?

A good manager? What makes a good manager?

 

     LinkedIn is a place for lots of polled surveys. A recent survey asked (more or less) -- "what percentage of your managers have been good managers?". This brought up two questions within me. First, of course, is how would I answer the question? Second is "what IS a good manager?" Each person knows whether or not they believe that their manager is a good one but is there some set of criteria that most people would agree upon?

     Managerial duties will, in part, depend upon development methodology. If an Agile methodology is in use, then the managers (and I will use the same term for whatever level one may be working at) have much less input into task assignments and routing of requirements. For SCRUM, those duties will spread to the product owner, scrum master, and development team. Since a manager is responsible for primary evaluation as to how someone is performing, they do have to monitor team and individual developer progress and bug rates -- but not for assigning.

     Since titles and processes will change names depending on the development and managerial methodology being followed, I will present my views on evaluation of managers in a more generic fashion.

     There is one task that is required of all people fulfilling a managerial role -- ensuring that information about needed tasks are distributed to those who will be doing them and making sure that the tasks are done and results reported. Visually, this is a horizontal spread of information. Although tasks are likely to come from an "upward" direction, this may be hidden in some organizations. This set of tasks also includes evaluation and passing along information needed for individual improvement.

     If a person is NOT doing this task then, in my opinion, they are NOT being a manager. If they are supposed to be a manager then they are a very bad one if they don't perform these tasks. It is also possible they have a poorly chosen title and they are not meant to follow the requirements of being a manager. Perhaps their title SHOULD be something like "function coordinator"?

     Beyond the foundation of horizontal information movement, there is vertical movement. Note that some organizations consider themselves to have a "flat" organization -- but few, if any, are completely "flat". In the downward direction, tasks are involved with productivity and career growth and development of individuals. Minimal tasks are for the company. Optimal tasks extend to doing things to work with the employee. Such actions often also provide benefits to the company as a whole.

     The other vertical direction is towards "upper" layers. This is movement of product and corporate ideas. Some movement may return from upper layers but ideas, suggestions, product and methodology improvements, and other items to improve the company as a whole may use the manager as a conduit. The manager's job is to keep the information in motion and to make sure appropriate groups, or individuals, retain history and credit for such improvements.

     I started off this blog with the notice of a survey. What were the general results of such? What were my answers? I'm not certain that the survey is closed but, at the time that I last looked at results, it seemed that people felt that only less than 25% of their managers had been good managers. Their definitions of good managers may not be in sync with my thoughts above but such a viewpoint should be very sobering. It does, however, seem to be in agreement with other surveys concerning morale and employment work commitment.

     As for me, I have had six (6) managers over my career. It is a low number because a large part was spent as an independent contractor (without a manager) and as the co-founder and co-owner of my own company in which I had no manager. Nonetheless, there were six people who acted as managers. I had one who was great, one who was good, two who were mediocre, and two who were awful. So, this would give me an "above average" amount of 33% of my managers being "good" managers.

      My great manager performed all basic and proactive functions of a manager very well. Note that -- probably not coincidentally -- they continued to do very well with promotions and expansion of responsibilities and duties as their career has progressed. The good manager performed the horizontal tasks very well with vertical tasks done when thought of -- not proactive but still responsive. I have lost touch with that person so I do not know current status.

     The two mediocre managers took care of the basic horizontal tasks but really ignored both their employees as developing people as well as corporate directions and projects. Ah, but the two awful ones. They didn't even fulfill basic horizontal tasks. They were bothered by a disability of mine which did not affect my work but did create embarrassment for them. Unable to do anything directly since it was protected by the U.S. ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), they chose the routes of passive-aggressive refusal to assign work and mark it on reviews as my not doing work while failing to mention their refusal to assign work. Their actions did not do the primary aspect of setting tasks and distributing them. They certainly did no improvement upon my path. And they failed the company in deliberately not making use of my experiences and capabilities.

     People have their own stories. They will not necessarily match up with the categories which I have listed above. There will be awful managers -- perhaps basing their actions out of various -isms (sexism, racism, ethnicism, ...) Or just having reached just a little bit past their level of competency. The best reaction is often to "vote with the feet" but hope springs eternal.

     What stories do you have?

Onboarding -- just the beginning

 

     There was recently a poll to ask how important onboarding was. An answer could be given between 2 and 5. Most people chose 5 -- very important. I certainly won't argue against that. But, it is a large mistake, in my opinion, to become complacent because you have a good onboarding system set up.

     Onboarding can serve a lot of getting started questions. What are the benefits? How do you apply for them? Setting up direct deposit of paychecks. What are the basic company rules? Hours? Remote options (if any)? Security -- both physical (ID cards usually, sometimes thumb keys) and network (passwords, network access, etc.). These are all important (and I'm certain I have forgotten some important aspects). They provide a working environment for the new employee -- giving that person the ability to function within the company. This process may take as long as a week to get ID cards returned, network permissions changed, etc -- and it is to the company's (and employee's) benefit for this to happen as quickly as possible.

     But consider a fledgeling bird. They have watched their parents, exercised their wings, grown their feathers. At some point, they jump off the edge of the nest. Most of the time they stay in the air. Occasionally they fall to the ground (hopefully not far, birds still can attain a pretty fast terminal velocity). But, now on the ground, they are vulnerable -- "out of their element" and without support. They have a small window to recover or they will enter the next phase of the circle of life.

     Onboarding should, minimally, provide the nest -- the ability to survive while they become functional. But exercising that muscle means doing tasks and projects. Growing those feathers requires time and experience. And they are often required to jump off the edge of the nest before they have all of the knowledge and experience needed. (Recognizing that they would have a hard time getting it without applied efforts.)

     So, how to help the fledgelings soar? Whether in a company, a school, an outdoor survival school, or whatever. This is where mentoring and coaching (see my earlier blogs -- and other sources, of course, exist) take over.

     I would suggest that during the process of onboarding is the best time to also start the mentoring system. It may be a bit early for coaching unless both the company and the employee have a well-defined focus for their work tasks from the very beginning. But such is possible. If so, having the same person perform both coaching and mentoring may work very well (but multiple people can serve the purposes).

     By all means do prepare the plane but get that runway cleared to ascend to the heights.

Causation versus Triggering: Keeping our power

      "He made me sad". "She made me angry". "They keep me so frustrated". Do any of these phrases sound familiar to you? Do you ever think about them in preparation to not have it happen again? What do you consider? How do you approach future prevention?

     I certainly would never try to say that a person hasn't done something that you reacted to. They break that expensive vase that has been in the family for years. They track mud and leaves all over a freshly cleaned and waxed floor. He borrowed your car when you were about ready to leave for a job interview. And there are much worse actions that may become part of your life.

     But most people use the word "cause" (or "made" or "keep") in a way that isn't real. If something CAUSES something else then the result is (almost) universal. Whenever A is done then B is the result. If B sometimes happens and sometimes it does NOT happen -- then there is no "cause".

     Let's look at it in a different way. We have two households. In each household, a running child causes a vase to be broken. In the first household, the person in charge gets angry and reacts with harsh language -- perhaps even gets violent. In the second household, the person in charge exclaims, then laughs, and then has the child stop so they can discuss what has happened, how behavior needs to change for it not to happen again,  and possibly what the child needs to do to make up for the problem (they probably need to clean up their mess -- perhaps they also have to save up their allowance to buy a new lamp).

     The initial action (breaking the vase) is the same. The results, or reactions, are very different. Thus, breaking the lamp did NOT "cause" anger. There are characteristics, within the person in charge, that are different -- making each more likely to react differently.

     And that is the way it is with most things in life. There is an action. There may be a dominant reaction -- something that most people do in reaction. But there are alternate reactions possible -- many of which may be more productive.

     As a former child and as a current parent, I recognize that there are always "buttons" that can be pushed with people. Children are especially good at discovering these -- and making use of them. "If I do THIS, then they will react like THAT". Everyone has different "buttons". The full statement should be "If I do THIS with THIS person, then THIS person will react like THAT". Different person, potentially different reaction. Different person, different "button" in effect.

     And that is the way of the world. No one can control the actions that occur -- by other people, by nature, by the universe in general. But we have a LOT of control over how we react.

     Consider that next time you hear yourself say "that makes me so angry". Just why is it so?

Being Yourself: Sometimes the hardest thing

 

     According to my mother, when my father was dating my mother, they did a lot together. They went to dances. They went to the movies. They went on picnics. After marriage, my father soon settled back into a routine -- go to work (When he had work. Although a very hard worker, since he had only a ninth grade education, he was usually on the queue to be first let go), come home, eat dinner, and settle down in front of the television. And so the days went. Our family went on a vacation once in my childhood -- a camping trip with my aunt and uncle and cousins. We did not stay the full planned length of time -- some type of argument. This was not the life that my mother had expected within the marriage.

     When most of us approach a job interview, we are asking ourselves "what do they want to see in a candidate for the position?". Yes, the interview should be mutual but it often isn't seen that way by one party or the other or both. There is nothing wrong with trying to present one's best behavior and attitude in an interview (or a date, or ...) as long as it is still within the range of behaviors that you would normally do. But trying to present an image of someone you are not is a mistake. Strive towards that mutual interview where you are discovering what the company is and they are discovering who you are.

     Unless you are applying for a role in a movie or play production, it is not a good idea to pretend to be someone that you are not. Look at the situation from a long-term basis. Can you, and do you WANT to, present that person for the next 20 years? It is a tried-and-true technique, for personal behavior modification, to "fake it until you make it" but that doesn't work if you do NOT want to shift behavior in that direction. You are more likely to be tired, irritable, and angry.

     If you bring a smile to your face each morning, it is difficult to not have that influence your mood. If you glower at your workmates each morning as you arrive, don't be surprised if they start becoming hard to find in the morning.

     Dating advice often says to do things you like to do in order to meet other people who also like to do those things. But often we will find our eye drawn to those who do those things that we idealize as things we would like to do, think we should do, and admire others who do them. As an example, you admire someone who exercises on a regular basis and has a good awareness of their body to properly eat. If you are not of the same mindset then you should NOT try to be involved with that person as it is a conflict that is not likely to change. (Note that it can work if priorities are not the same for both; if one person has a high priority of financial security and the other has a high priority of aesthetic achievement then incompatibility can still achieve personal goals.)

     In general, be the person you are most comfortable being. Don't expect to be able to change others (you can't) and if others want you to change then determine what you, yourself, want to do. They can't change you but you can (if sufficiently motivated) change yourself.

     Accept that being the best you, that is natural for you to be, is good enough.

Grooming for failure: Purposefully or accidentally

 

     Grooming is a methodical preparation for the future. Parents groom their children to be sports stars or, perhaps, world-famous pianists, doctors, or lawyers. In wealthier areas and in some countries, such as Japan, the process of grooming their students for academic, and networking, success starts at birth or before. They are set up to be in the best nursery, the best kindergarten, the best elementary school, the best preparatory high school, and the best college to allow for greatest potential heights. Whenever there is a specific future envisioned, dedicated focused attention and training can facilitate that goal. It is to be hoped that the person being groomed will have the same goals as that of the person doing the grooming -- but that is definitely not always the case. Children rebel once they have grown and decide to be artists instead of lawyers. But, in many cases, that backlog of direction will achieve the groomer's goal.

     The same types of processes occur in business. We often call these processes mentoring and counseling. However, it may also include active placement into positions, carefully choosing assignments, choices for visibility and experience which interconnect between the mentoring and putting them on a "fast track" towards a goal.

     These are all instances of grooming for what most would consider a positive result but people can also be groomed for failure. At one place where I worked, a restructure of the organization, moving from a hierarchical structure to an Agile one, meant that a considerable reduction of management would be needed. Although I had trained for both Product Owner and Scrum Master positions, it was decided that I would be one of those let go rather than moved into one of the newly created positions. In order to achieve that, it was necessary to create a paper trail to justify it. So, no new assignments were made and, each year, it was written down that I was underperforming. Then another year of requests for assignments and no assignments given and more paper trail comments.  A transfer would have been useful but there were no such posts available. It happens.

     It isn't just paper trail justifications that can be set up for grooming for failure. A long-term teacher was making a reasonable amount of money because of their seniority. If the school district got rid of them they could hire two novice, inexperienced, teachers (with a bit of change) for the same amount. But, in theory, the union did not allow a "tenured" teacher to be fired just because the district wanted to save money. But what the school administration COULD do was to withdraw all support services to the teacher. No bathroom breaks. No support for discipline for misbehaving students. Students are, in general, very aware the situation in a classroom and could recognize that the teacher was being left to survive. Thefts in the classroom went up. Accusations of the teacher and of other students went up. The union, being afraid of doing anything in a period of budget crunches, would not help. The teacher "volunteered" for the early retirement being offered by the school district.

     I will repeat the beginning sentence. Grooming is a methodical preparation for the future. Most would think that that would be towards a mutually beneficial future. But it can be a situation where it is NOT mutual -- where one person wants the outcome and the other not. And it can be preparation for other outcomes not known or desired.

Mentoring & coaching: What's the difference?

 

     My first mentee was at Bell Laboratories about 40 years ago. I had just completed my Master's degree and the location was expanding quickly so mentors were needed and I was willing. Over the years, I have been a mentor to a dozen people or so and coached another couple of dozen.

     Mentoring. Coaching. What's the difference? Well, certainly there is not a single correct answer to that question. For me, coaching is when I am trying to help someone perform a specific task. They have just been assigned to do Tier 3 customer support. They have a specific task to do. I work to help them to organize the structure of their new task to help them do the best they can. This may involve putting together scripts, sets of progressive questions, methods of debugging, and so forth. This should be done in conjunction with the person being coached so that they understand the reasons and the progression of the steps. Plus, there is a good chance that they will come up with ideas that I would not have considered. Having additional experience is not always good. Sometimes, having less experience puts you more into the shoes of your customers.

     But how about mentoring? Someone who is being mentored is also likely to have a specific task, or tasks, that have been assigned. Whether or not they need coaching will depend on how much, if any, experience they have doing those tasks.

     If they are new to the group, department, or company then they may be able to take advantage of mentoring. Mentoring should never be forced upon someone -- though having a mentor assigned as part of onboarding is a good idea in my opinion. The distinguishing thing about mentoring is that the mentor acts as a scout searching for obstacles, pitfalls, traps, and short cuts. The mentor should know how the company works -- we're not talking rule books or lists of protocols -- just how things get done (and how one can set oneself up for promotion, good reviews, ...)

     In a mentoring situation there may certainly be questions from the mentee. As in a job interview, this is a good thing as it indicates they are truly interested. More importantly, the mentor is there to answer questions that have not yet been posed. As the mentee onboards, a lot will be the basics. Where are the restrooms, which areas do they have access to and how do they obtain access to other areas when needed? What are the customs for food? Delivered? Out as a group? Once a week? Daily? What are the core hours when they need to be available?

     Once past the newbie stage, the answers become more involved and more tailored to the mentee. The mentor works with the mentee about career development. If not compatible between mentor and mentee, the mentor may try to move the menteeship to someone else more directly knowledgeable. What do you do? What do you not do? What people should be approached? How should they be approached? Which people should  be avoided? What end arounds can be done if you need information from someone who will not help? How does the mentee become known (in a positive way)?

     My mentees, over the years, have tended to do better within the companies than I have done. There is a difference between knowing how the interactions exist and being willing, and able, to work within them. But, without knowing those unwritten rules, people can be at a loss and flounder.

     Mentoring: answering the questions not known to be asked.

Resentment and Anger: When the "Golden Rule" is NOT applied

     Most people have a general knowledge of what the "Golden Rule" indicates. It is not confined to the Christian religion.  It is also featured in Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, and most major religions. It is also known by, and sometimes followed better by, those who do not follow a religion. It has many phrasings but, basically, it is to "treat others as you would like to be treated".

     (Note that people tend to apply "Golden Rule" to a LOT of very diverse things which have little, if anything, to do with THE Golden Rule.)

     Much of the time, the Golden Rule is treated only as an ideal goal of behavior. It is something to strive for, something as a guide to be a better person. But, what about the results of NOT applying the Golden Rule? This is something which weakens our businesses and society on a daily basis.

     You have just gotten a new job. You are a bit nervous as you haven't done this work before. You want to make sure you do the job well and have the company proud of you and be happy they chose to hire you. At the end of the first week, you have completed your first assignment -- turning it over to the test department a week before your manager told you it was expected. But, on the second week, you find yourself called into the office. They ask you why you checked a website selling products during your lunch hour. They ask you if you normally only type 20 words per minute and why you were only active on your keyboard for 25% of your time. They are obviously spying on what you were doing and how efficiently they think you were working. (You obviously were working very well to be able to turn over your assignment in half the expected time). Do you still feel like doing your best for the company? Do you feel trusted? Do you have your resume up-to-speed? 

     Imagine that you are yourself. You have saved and have money in your pocket. You want to buy a nice gift for your mother and you are willing to spend more. So, you go into a nice store which has more expensive items. When you enter the store, all eyes fall upon you. No, they aren't deciding which among them can be first to serve you. The eyes are all questioning, suspicious. You haven't done anything wrong and your only plans are to get something nice and give money to the store yet you are treated this way. They are not only NOT treating you the way they would like to be treated but they are going out of their way to treat you just how they would NOT want to be treated. What would your normal, reasonable, rational response be? Frustration? Resentment? Anger?

     You are walking down the street because you would like to get some exercise. You have reached a part of town that you don't normally walk in but the sidewalks are clean and you see a nice park in the distance. There are a few others walking along the street also because it is a nice day. A police car pulls up beside you and asks you what you are doing and why you are there. After a few minutes, they pull away but not before telling you that they expect you to be gone when they return. The police car doesn't stop beside any of the other people walking along the street. Are you still enjoying the day? Are you still looking at the other people, treated much better, as fellow strollers? Do you want to return to that neighborhood? Are you angry? Underneath that anger, are you also afraid? Do you feel served and protected?

     There is an old cliché (yes, there are a LOT of such clichés) -- "you create what you fear". If you treat your employees as untrustworthy they will eventually be untrustworthy. If you treat your customers as potential thieves then they will be sorely tempted to become thieves -- after all, they are already being treated that way, why not? (Most will still continue to be honest even when badly treated.) If you treat your fellow people as if they are not fellow people then you will divide and ostracize. 

     So, following the Golden Rule may be hard. It may be an unachievable goal for all times and situations. But deliberately negating the Golden Rule (let's call it the "Corroded Rule") is sure to cause problems and degrade society.

     And does.

Tuning: an iterative process

 

     I'm not certain of the exact origins of the use of the word "tuning" but it certainly does work within the world of music. Tuning an instrument or use of a tuning fork, we are concerned with narrowing the result down to the right point. Sound the tuning fork then pluck the violin (or guitar or ...) string. Is the sound from the string higher in pitch than the tuning fork ... or lower? Adjust the tightness of the string and check again. Slowly you will reach the point where your ear cannot tell the difference in the note between tuning fork and string.

     Tuning works for many different things. Although listening to a radio is becoming a rarer and rarer situation, it is once again a matter of narrowing in to the correct location. Move the tuning dial one direction and the signal becomes less clear. Move it in the other and it becomes clearer. The right place will give the best signal.

     Tuning can also be used for various business practices. If you want to maximize profits then you want to maximize the profit/item times the number of items you sell. If you increase the price you will likely reduce the number of items you sell and you will probably sell more if the price is less. There is a "sweet spot" where the price gives you the greatest profit for a given number of sold items.

     So, tuning can be used for physical processes such as sound or frequency detection. And it can be used within maximizing profits. In what other ways can tuning be found in everyday life? How about budgets? We know that budgets are a matter of balancing income with outgo (recent blog). But in order to refine the budget, some things may have to be reduced, or eliminated, to make it balance. Perhaps your rent goes up -- something else has to go down.

     Menus, or diets, also have to be tuned. Factors involved include budget (and inflation), carbohydrates and other nutritional components, and variety and desirability. When I was growing up, my family was on the edge between lower income and middle income (sometimes one side, sometimes the other side) and there was a long period during which we had butter beans and ham hocks (hard to find them in the grocery store nowadays -- they were sometimes free) for six dinners a week. It took me years before I could stand eating a butter bean. But it was necessary. We needed food and we had very little money.

     How about physical comfort? I really need cool nights to sleep well. But cooler nights in the summer (depending on climate) aren't free -- how to get to that balancing point where I can sleep adequately but not blow the budget?

     I am sure that you can think of things that have trade-offs. Any such item will undergo a period of tuning. And that may change with time as components shift.

Second-guessing: (or even third)

 

     If you are on social media at all, you have been presented with survey questions -- usually in the form of multiple choice. Sometimes the choice is "obvious". Sometimes one or more choices are unclear -- they could mean more than one thing. Sometimes you want another choice (sometimes they will say "other" and ask you to clarify in comments). But, what happens after you have made a choice?

     Often, the "survey" will immediately return the current statistics with what percentage of people had which answer marked. Sometimes, they only tell you results after the deadline for participation has passed. Of course, there are those times when your survey (or suggestion in the suggestion box) goes into a black hole and is absorbed by the universe and you never find out who answered what.

     But, let's say that you DO get the results back. You have picked the most popular choice. What do you say to yourself? Is it something like "of course it was that one, everyone should have picked that one -- it was obvious". What if you picked the least popular choice? Is your reaction a lot different? Is it more like "hmm, why did I choose that one, everyone else must have known something I didn't. I better investigate that choice and see what it really means." And, having a choice in the middle of popularity isn't so bad -- you neither puff up with pride nor do you try to find a rock to crawl under.

     It isn't always so obvious. Most of us have encountered the phenomenon of "buyers remorse". Once upon a time, I wanted a new car. I researched and looked around and finally chose a car (which I loved until it was totaled in a car crash). I was mentoring someone, at work, at the time and they purchased a new car (a totally different model than what I eventually chose) about a month before I made my purchase. They saw, and rode in, my choice of car -- and went off to buy one for themselves, trading in their one month old car. That was a very expensive change of mind.

     Buyers remorse can fall into a couple of variations. One is, as above, when you decide afterward that you should have chosen something else. Another is when you purchase something and it did not lead to ultimate bliss as you, or the salesperson, talked you into believing. You purchase a game that you ended up playing for a week and then never went back to. A glass that you used once and then put up on a shelf to never be used again. We have a very consumer-oriented economy and society, so most people are in the process of deciding what to buy -- and rarely in the process of deciding whether or not to buy.

     Of course, making decisions is not always about things. Something that I have heard is that "a good executive makes decisions and a great executive makes good decisions -- eventually". A captain of a ship who cannot make a decision will eventually end up on the rocks. One who makes decisions, but not necessarily good ones, will keep moving around to avoid the rocks but the journey may be a rough one and the destination will continue to change. But the captain who makes a decision and, if it proves to be a poor choice, admits it and changes course as soon as it is prudent -- will get to a predetermined destination in an expedient fashion.

     Note that that great executive has to do a series of things. They must make decisions. They must continuously evaluate the results. They must determine when there is enough evidence to say whether it was a good decision or a bad one. If good, full speed ahead. If bad, clean up from the mistakes (including possible apologies) and make the next best guess of a decision. No executive truly knows, for certain, that a decision is a good one (though, if not listening to others, they may make what appears to be an "obvious" bad one). It is what they do afterward that determines their quality.

Walking the Shadow Line: Make a strength of your weakness

 

     I have always had fun with personality tests. Do I believe in them? Maybe. They can give you a doorway into examining yourself. Just don't let them persuade you to put yourself into a tidy box. None of us are that tidy. If a test says you are A or B -- it really means that, on that day and in that environment and with known others evaluating the results, you have answered in a way such that the result is A or B. The people who administer the Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI) say specifically that your results may vary depending on when you take the test and your environment. If you are doing the test for the office, you should take the test in the office.

     At any rate, whether you think the MBTI (or Enneagram or HEXACO or Berkman or ...) is valid or not, at best it can only give you the DOMINANT aspect at that time and in that environment.

     For example, I am INF/TJ in the MBTI. Each of the four attributes (Introversion/Extroverstion, iNtuitive/Sensing, Thinking/Feeling, and Judicial/Perceiving (some say Judging -- I think that word carries too much implied baggage)) are the labels on the ends of four sliding scales. Sometimes, along with the acronym that you end up with, they will give you a percentage score as to just how strongly you tend towards that attribute. For myself, I usually test right in the center between Feeling and Thinking, so I usually put INFJ down if it is asked for but the descriptions for an INTJ sometimes match me.

     Not only does your environment make a difference in your results, but the people you are with will affect the way an attribute (assuming you believe in the validity of such -- not all do) manifests. For example, I am moderately Judicial. I aim for the goal, the result, the destination. My wife tests out as a moderate to heavy Perceiving personality. For her, it is the journey that matters, learn and enjoy on the trip and arrive, or not, depending on whatever. When we are together, the urge is for me to move farther towards the Judicial endpoint to "balance" her Perceiving nature. I move in to "take care of the details" while she looks out the window and says "stop here, I want to look at those flowers".

     But, a large part of being in a relationship is to value what the other brings with them. Perceiving brings along with it an ability to be flexible. So, over the years, I have deliberately worked on myself to appreciate the value of being flexible. Is that my inherent, comfortable, state -- no. But, I can work with it much better than I could 25 years ago.

     And that is true for each of the sliding scales or whatever personality inventory you might be taking. All values are a strength within a certain situation. An Introvert might find it much easier to sit in an office and focus on a bunch of data to come up with useful results while an Extrovert may find it so easy to present the results to a bunch of people and bring energy to the group and the project.

     Without conscious work on being able to incorporate the "other side" of the personality scale -- each is weaker than they could be. That introvert may not be able to even consider the idea of presenting results within a group of strangers while the extrovert finds the idea of sitting down, by themself, with a bunch of data, and no external interactions, to be boring to exhaustion. But an introvert who has trained themselves to TEMPORARILY (within that limited time and situation) make use of the extrovert's characteristics will be a much more balanced, and strong individual (and, afterward, probably will need hours in a room by themselves with a good book). Someone who can work through the data, find the results, AND present them to a group in a comfortable manner? I know -- hire them!

Train Wrecks: When you can see it coming

 

     We have all encountered it -- though it is much harder to recognize when it is concerned with our own actions. We see something happening on the street, in the office, with our children. If the sequence of events does not change (and, often, what we observe is something that is very hard to change) then problems are going to occur. Possibly very bad ones.

     I call these "train wrecks". The name comes out of seeing a car (hopefully already abandoned) stuck on the train tracks with the train coming along. If I am watching a movie at home and I see a train wreck developing then I will often start pacing the floor. I may even turn the movie off, or pause it, to avoid seeing it unfold. (If watching in a movie theater, I grit my teeth and just wait for it to be over -- an advantage to going to see the movie at a theater.)

     The same thing happens when I am reading a book. I see an impending train wreck and I close the book. It may be a week or two before I accept the issue and I can turn the movie on again or open the book. If a book has multiple train wrecks in it I may abandon it and never complete it.

     Why do train wrecks bother me so much? Train wrecks occur in many successful movies and books and television series. It appears that it does not bother many people nearly as much as it does me.

     I have decided that it is an occupational hazard. I have been in the computer programming/architecture/management field for 45+ years. A large part of success in the field is structured thought and organization. Computers, and microprocessors, are very, very stupid -- they do EXACTLY what you tell them (barring hardware problems) -- they just do them very, very quickly. If you structure the program properly then it can do a LOT of tiny little simple things fast enough that it can appear to be doing complicated things quickly.

     So, how does that relate to not being able to watch train wrecks? Having a brain that has been taught that if A causes B then B will always come after A means that when I see A, my brain starts saying "B! B! B!" I start wanting to yell at the book or movie screen. "Don't do A. If you do then B is going to happen." Maybe it is a bit more complicated. Maybe it is "If A exists and choice B is taken then result G will happen. If choice B is not taken then result J will happen." So, I'll start screaming "take choice B!"

     But those characters in the movies or within the books never seem to listen to me.

     So, what about situations where the person CAN hear you? They potentially COULD take choice B if they wanted. More often than not (or, at least, so it subjectively seems) they ignore you. As a parent, people tend to tell you "they have to experience it for themselves". So your child doesn't take choice B and you have to be prepared to help clean up the mess.

     Occasionally -- in movies, books, or real life -- not taking choice B will NOT lead to result J. Maybe some outside event occurs (in the script or pages) to change the outcome. Maybe you were incorrect in analyzing the base condition, A, and therefore the results from the choice differ. But even if the result turns out different than expected you still spend the time waiting for the train wreck.

     So, please -- protect me, and the people around me, from train wrecks. Consider the consequences.