Please find my blog at
http://www.palusbusinessconsulting.com/pbc-blog.html!
Monday, July 9, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Going Postal
I'm old enough to remember when faxes seemed like magic and when "electronic mail" was an exotic and heady concept. Yup. Those days seem so long ago.
Yesterday a friend and I tried to figure out how to get her handwritten notes to me by next Monday for a project. Her scanner was broken. She didn't want to type all her notes on a new electronic file. What to do? What to do?
"Well, you could, um, mail it to me."
Stunned silence.
"That just might work."
Yesterday a friend and I tried to figure out how to get her handwritten notes to me by next Monday for a project. Her scanner was broken. She didn't want to type all her notes on a new electronic file. What to do? What to do?
"Well, you could, um, mail it to me."
Stunned silence.
"That just might work."
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Angry Words
Have you noticed that apps like Angry Birds can seduce even the most "old school" among us to try their hand? And not just once or twice, but in-depth sessions where they hone their skills. I've seen former Luddites re-run the same level ten times to get that elusive high score.
It speaks to the brilliance of the game, as well as its potential to suck away your productive hours. But I also it also speak to our perception of fun.
Most people I know don't think Word or Excel are fun. In fact, many say they hate these tools more than Brussel sprouts, ice storms, or Jar-Jar Binks. And when they bring that intense hatred to the task, invariably "it" won't do what they want it to do.
Interestingly, I look at Excel and Word, and similar applications, as puzzles and fun challenges. If I see that someone else can do something I can't, I search and read and experiment until I can do it too. It's my Angry Words, if you will.
Am I a freak? Perhaps. But the next time you are cursing Word because your headers disappeared or you can't unravel the circular logic error in Excel, think about Angry Birds (or your favorite game) and how you react to setbacks in that arena. Access that part of your brain that is curious and hands-on. Stop thinking it should work the way you want it to, and start learning how it works.
There's no high score in Excel or Word, but you'll find your way to the leaderboard if you can harness that creative side when frustrated.
It speaks to the brilliance of the game, as well as its potential to suck away your productive hours. But I also it also speak to our perception of fun.
Most people I know don't think Word or Excel are fun. In fact, many say they hate these tools more than Brussel sprouts, ice storms, or Jar-Jar Binks. And when they bring that intense hatred to the task, invariably "it" won't do what they want it to do.
Interestingly, I look at Excel and Word, and similar applications, as puzzles and fun challenges. If I see that someone else can do something I can't, I search and read and experiment until I can do it too. It's my Angry Words, if you will.
Am I a freak? Perhaps. But the next time you are cursing Word because your headers disappeared or you can't unravel the circular logic error in Excel, think about Angry Birds (or your favorite game) and how you react to setbacks in that arena. Access that part of your brain that is curious and hands-on. Stop thinking it should work the way you want it to, and start learning how it works.
There's no high score in Excel or Word, but you'll find your way to the leaderboard if you can harness that creative side when frustrated.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Do You Book Your Own Travel?
A recent acquaintance mentioned in passing that she books her own travel because she does not want to "burden" her administrative staff.
My initial reaction to that was grudging respect...(Wow, what a team player)...
...and then a little guilt... (am I "burdening" the folks who I expect to book my travel?)...
...and then counter-argumentation... (hang on - is that a smart choice?)
You may think I'm rationalizing - and I'd love to hear from you if you do (in polite discourse, of course). But I don't think it is a wise choice to book travel oneself because it flies in the face of what I consider a key law of successful business:
Give a task to the lowest paid employee who can successfully complete it.
I entered the workplace on the cusp of the professional DIY revolution. That right whippersnappers, way back in the late 1980's. When I started, there were no laptops or desktop PCs (we had mainframes), no small printers (they took up entire rooms on different floors), no email, not even a floppy disk.
Things really have evolved pretty quickly in only a few decades. Now all but the most celebrated executives can type their own memos (make that emails), print 5 copies rather than having their assistant make copies, etc.
But there is an opportunity cost to some of the DIY tasks at the office. Things that work in the background - like those 5 copies - take no time. But some things detract from the work you should be doing. There is an opportunity cost, and I think it's important to periodically assess the tasks that nibble away at your day, and make sure you:
There are several reasons I believe this is a sound strategy:
1. Economics
It's just more profitable to have the higher paid employees doing things only THEY can do. If the CEO takes 5 minutes to go to the copier and make a copy - not only did that copy cost 10-100 times more than it would have if the most junior intern had done it, it ALSO had an opportunity cost for those (expensive) 5 minutes not spent doing things only a CEO can do.
2. Visibility
For things like air travel, sure, we all have the Internet and click-click-click, we know how to book travel. BUT, there is a benefit to have some central control and visibility of the amount of travel being booked. If 100 road warriors are booking their own flights, it can very hard to get a handle on the gestalt of your travel.
3. Support
If you always book your own travel (or make your own copies, etc), there will come a day when you flat-out don't have time. In the middle of that crisis, you turn to a junior employee and say "would you..." You may face some confusion, resistance, martyrdom, or even mutiny. If you have NEVER ask for assistance, they may not know how to do it, they will have questions about your preferences, etc and all of that will come up mid-crisis. On the other hand, if you normally use an admin for travel, you get into a routine where he or she knows what you like and can quickly complete new requests...but you need a flight to Bangkok at 2am, you can book it yourself as the exception rather than the rule.
4. Hierarchy
It's politically correct these days to talk about teams, stakeholders, and collaboration - but let's be honest, we are not an autonomous collective of equally skilled and compensated partners. There is a pecking order, there are differences in skills, talents, and productivity. Doing what a junior person can/should be doing is not being a good team player, it's devaluing the team. And in some cases, it's denying the junior person the chance to try, fail, and learn at the tasks they need to master. You might say "booking travel is just admin work" - but there is a mastery there: learn to interact with different internal clients, balance priorities, keep good records, identify opportunities, etc. Seen in this light, it's a stepping stone to managing larger projects in a career. So why are you doing it?
Agree or Disagree? I'd love to know.
My initial reaction to that was grudging respect...(Wow, what a team player)...
...and then a little guilt... (am I "burdening" the folks who I expect to book my travel?)...
...and then counter-argumentation... (hang on - is that a smart choice?)
You may think I'm rationalizing - and I'd love to hear from you if you do (in polite discourse, of course). But I don't think it is a wise choice to book travel oneself because it flies in the face of what I consider a key law of successful business:
Give a task to the lowest paid employee who can successfully complete it.
I entered the workplace on the cusp of the professional DIY revolution. That right whippersnappers, way back in the late 1980's. When I started, there were no laptops or desktop PCs (we had mainframes), no small printers (they took up entire rooms on different floors), no email, not even a floppy disk.
Things really have evolved pretty quickly in only a few decades. Now all but the most celebrated executives can type their own memos (make that emails), print 5 copies rather than having their assistant make copies, etc.
But there is an opportunity cost to some of the DIY tasks at the office. Things that work in the background - like those 5 copies - take no time. But some things detract from the work you should be doing. There is an opportunity cost, and I think it's important to periodically assess the tasks that nibble away at your day, and make sure you:
Give a task to the lowest paid employee who can successfully complete it.
There are several reasons I believe this is a sound strategy:
1. Economics
It's just more profitable to have the higher paid employees doing things only THEY can do. If the CEO takes 5 minutes to go to the copier and make a copy - not only did that copy cost 10-100 times more than it would have if the most junior intern had done it, it ALSO had an opportunity cost for those (expensive) 5 minutes not spent doing things only a CEO can do.
2. Visibility
For things like air travel, sure, we all have the Internet and click-click-click, we know how to book travel. BUT, there is a benefit to have some central control and visibility of the amount of travel being booked. If 100 road warriors are booking their own flights, it can very hard to get a handle on the gestalt of your travel.
3. Support
If you always book your own travel (or make your own copies, etc), there will come a day when you flat-out don't have time. In the middle of that crisis, you turn to a junior employee and say "would you..." You may face some confusion, resistance, martyrdom, or even mutiny. If you have NEVER ask for assistance, they may not know how to do it, they will have questions about your preferences, etc and all of that will come up mid-crisis. On the other hand, if you normally use an admin for travel, you get into a routine where he or she knows what you like and can quickly complete new requests...but you need a flight to Bangkok at 2am, you can book it yourself as the exception rather than the rule.
4. Hierarchy
It's politically correct these days to talk about teams, stakeholders, and collaboration - but let's be honest, we are not an autonomous collective of equally skilled and compensated partners. There is a pecking order, there are differences in skills, talents, and productivity. Doing what a junior person can/should be doing is not being a good team player, it's devaluing the team. And in some cases, it's denying the junior person the chance to try, fail, and learn at the tasks they need to master. You might say "booking travel is just admin work" - but there is a mastery there: learn to interact with different internal clients, balance priorities, keep good records, identify opportunities, etc. Seen in this light, it's a stepping stone to managing larger projects in a career. So why are you doing it?
Agree or Disagree? I'd love to know.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Memories of 9/11
As we approach the ten year anniversary of 9/11, I've been thinking about my memories of that day.
I've also recently been reading about memories and mistakes and how often the memories we defend most strongly are those that have drifted from actual events. Our brains fill in blanks, get the sequence of event wrong and are generally not that dependable. This is why even mere moments after a hit-and-run, the bystanders often cannot agree on the make and color of the car.
So it is likely that my memories are not completely accurate to actual events, and yet they feel very real and true to me. For this essay, I checked the timeline on the key elements of the day against an excellent BBC story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14681384. I invite my friends and colleagues to add color commentary to my version of these events.
For me, the events of that day began in my office near DC with call from my friend and co-worker Dawn, who was in Minneapolis on a client visit. She was getting dressed in her hotel and watching the morning shows. She called to say they had reported a plane had run into the World Trade Center.
I envisioned a small prop plane crumpling into the giant building, and asked how could the pilot have made that kind of error. It's not like you can't see the Twin Towers from miles away. She corrected my bad assumption and explained it was a big plane ...and the Tower was on fire.
I distinctly remember saying "I'm sure it will be OK; it's not like it's World War III." Dawn quietly replied, "I think maybe it is."
Hearing the fear in her normally confident and optimistic voice, I walked down to the hall to our CIO, explained what was going on, and asked if he could hook up the television. He did. And I think we were gathered in the conference room when the second plane hit. That is a portion of the memory I am not fully certain of. I have seen that image so many times in the last ten years, on video and in my mind, that I could have the timeline wrong.
I remember watching the fire billowing from the Towers and the group in our office wondering how the firemen could ever reach those high floors. We talked about fire fighting techniques for skyscrapers and whether helicopters could help. We wondered how many people were actually in the Towers and if they could get out. We tried to manage our fear and shock with academic discussions of rescues and evacuations.
Then the third plane hit the Pentagon. Our Northern Virginia office was about 10 miles from DC. We were not in any danger, but the mood changed. Suddenly our stance as compassionate, horrified witnesses was at risk of shifting into potential victims in this tragedy.
The TV news split the screen into two in order to show the events in both NYC and DC. In that moment I had an incredibly clear and terrifying vision of the screen split into three, then six, then nine, like the Brady Bunch, with burning buildings and collapsed bridges in cities across the country.
Then the South Tower collapsed. I remember someone saying, "Something is happening; the building is shaking." But it wasn't shaking, it was dropping... at heart stopping speed. The dust cloud went up and we realized how many lives had just been snuffed out. Like other observers, we marveled that individual sheets of paper survived, floating gently to the ground in the cloud of tons of pulverized concrete and metal and glass and bone.
Like a roller coaster that jerks you into the next turn before you have fully recovered from the last, that day just kept throwing one incomprehensible event after another. We didn't know where to look, how to feel, or where the next danger would come from.
Moments later Flight 93 crashed into the ground, and as horrible as that loss was it somehow strengthening to realize it meant someone had taken action against the tide of these events.
A short while later, the North Tower collapsed. Almost the polar opposite of the first collapse - where the South Tower collapse seemed impossible, the North Tower seemed inevitable.
In my memory the closing of US airspace happened right after Flight 93 crashed; however it actually happened a few hours later. Regardless, that act remains an incredible shining moment in a bleak, black day. I don't know if this was one person's decision or the act of a committee, but it was a powerful decision. When they announced all planes were grounded, I was certain the evil Brady Bunch grid was no longer a threat.
Our office closed around 1 or 2pm and let everyone go home. It took a while. It always took a while to drive home in North Virginia, and it was exacerbated that day. I vividly remember being aware of the lack of plane noises overhead as I got closer to home, which was about 5 miles from Dulles Airport. I sat at a light in Herndon, and a military jet flew overhead....I put my head out the window and stared up, as did many of my vehicular neighbors. I wondered how long it would be before planes could fly again. I wondered if we would stop using planes....would I someday explain what "flying" meant to youngsters who had never been allowed to do it?
Dawn couldn't fly home, so she rented a car and checked in every few hours over the next two days. Back at the office, we made a map of her journey and posted a little picture showing her current position on "DAWNTREK 2001."
It was a small relief of the pressure of that week to focus on getting her home safely, as well as the other office "road warriors" who made their way back in. We celebrated their return as proof that life continued, even in the face of monumental tragedy...something we would try to keep in mind during the anthrax scare and the sniper attacks.
Like Pearl Harbor, the horror 9/11 attack was magnified by the element of surprise. In a way, the fact that we, Americans, could be surprised is a kind of blessing: unlike so many around the world, we are not inured to bombs. We have the luxury of knowing "war" is something that happens far, far away. Usually.
I mourn for the loss of life on 9/11, and for the irreversible loss of our breezy confidence that we could remain unscathed by modern conflict. The conflict came to us, but I am grateful it was not World War III and pray it never will be.
I've also recently been reading about memories and mistakes and how often the memories we defend most strongly are those that have drifted from actual events. Our brains fill in blanks, get the sequence of event wrong and are generally not that dependable. This is why even mere moments after a hit-and-run, the bystanders often cannot agree on the make and color of the car.
So it is likely that my memories are not completely accurate to actual events, and yet they feel very real and true to me. For this essay, I checked the timeline on the key elements of the day against an excellent BBC story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14681384. I invite my friends and colleagues to add color commentary to my version of these events.
For me, the events of that day began in my office near DC with call from my friend and co-worker Dawn, who was in Minneapolis on a client visit. She was getting dressed in her hotel and watching the morning shows. She called to say they had reported a plane had run into the World Trade Center.
I envisioned a small prop plane crumpling into the giant building, and asked how could the pilot have made that kind of error. It's not like you can't see the Twin Towers from miles away. She corrected my bad assumption and explained it was a big plane ...and the Tower was on fire.
I distinctly remember saying "I'm sure it will be OK; it's not like it's World War III." Dawn quietly replied, "I think maybe it is."
Hearing the fear in her normally confident and optimistic voice, I walked down to the hall to our CIO, explained what was going on, and asked if he could hook up the television. He did. And I think we were gathered in the conference room when the second plane hit. That is a portion of the memory I am not fully certain of. I have seen that image so many times in the last ten years, on video and in my mind, that I could have the timeline wrong.
I remember watching the fire billowing from the Towers and the group in our office wondering how the firemen could ever reach those high floors. We talked about fire fighting techniques for skyscrapers and whether helicopters could help. We wondered how many people were actually in the Towers and if they could get out. We tried to manage our fear and shock with academic discussions of rescues and evacuations.
Then the third plane hit the Pentagon. Our Northern Virginia office was about 10 miles from DC. We were not in any danger, but the mood changed. Suddenly our stance as compassionate, horrified witnesses was at risk of shifting into potential victims in this tragedy.
The TV news split the screen into two in order to show the events in both NYC and DC. In that moment I had an incredibly clear and terrifying vision of the screen split into three, then six, then nine, like the Brady Bunch, with burning buildings and collapsed bridges in cities across the country.
Then the South Tower collapsed. I remember someone saying, "Something is happening; the building is shaking." But it wasn't shaking, it was dropping... at heart stopping speed. The dust cloud went up and we realized how many lives had just been snuffed out. Like other observers, we marveled that individual sheets of paper survived, floating gently to the ground in the cloud of tons of pulverized concrete and metal and glass and bone.
Like a roller coaster that jerks you into the next turn before you have fully recovered from the last, that day just kept throwing one incomprehensible event after another. We didn't know where to look, how to feel, or where the next danger would come from.
Moments later Flight 93 crashed into the ground, and as horrible as that loss was it somehow strengthening to realize it meant someone had taken action against the tide of these events.
A short while later, the North Tower collapsed. Almost the polar opposite of the first collapse - where the South Tower collapse seemed impossible, the North Tower seemed inevitable.
In my memory the closing of US airspace happened right after Flight 93 crashed; however it actually happened a few hours later. Regardless, that act remains an incredible shining moment in a bleak, black day. I don't know if this was one person's decision or the act of a committee, but it was a powerful decision. When they announced all planes were grounded, I was certain the evil Brady Bunch grid was no longer a threat.
Our office closed around 1 or 2pm and let everyone go home. It took a while. It always took a while to drive home in North Virginia, and it was exacerbated that day. I vividly remember being aware of the lack of plane noises overhead as I got closer to home, which was about 5 miles from Dulles Airport. I sat at a light in Herndon, and a military jet flew overhead....I put my head out the window and stared up, as did many of my vehicular neighbors. I wondered how long it would be before planes could fly again. I wondered if we would stop using planes....would I someday explain what "flying" meant to youngsters who had never been allowed to do it?
Dawn couldn't fly home, so she rented a car and checked in every few hours over the next two days. Back at the office, we made a map of her journey and posted a little picture showing her current position on "DAWNTREK 2001."
It was a small relief of the pressure of that week to focus on getting her home safely, as well as the other office "road warriors" who made their way back in. We celebrated their return as proof that life continued, even in the face of monumental tragedy...something we would try to keep in mind during the anthrax scare and the sniper attacks.
Like Pearl Harbor, the horror 9/11 attack was magnified by the element of surprise. In a way, the fact that we, Americans, could be surprised is a kind of blessing: unlike so many around the world, we are not inured to bombs. We have the luxury of knowing "war" is something that happens far, far away. Usually.
I mourn for the loss of life on 9/11, and for the irreversible loss of our breezy confidence that we could remain unscathed by modern conflict. The conflict came to us, but I am grateful it was not World War III and pray it never will be.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
The Power of the Professional Nag
I am a professional nag. I admit it. I am sure it annoys those around me.
There are more like me. I've seen them, and I've seen those nearby roll their eyes at them. I've also seen that a team with a nag is more likely to deliver results on time and on budget. I certainly don't claim that nagging generates more creative or interesting results! In fact the opposite may be true. But unbound creativity can spin in interesting circles until the budget has exploded and the client has started a new RFP process.
So, how do you find the right balance? How to you bring enough nag to the process that you keep things on track but not so much nag that you kill the spirit and energy of the team?
I have been admonished that my nagging (which includes things like schedules, task plans, reminders, detailed goals) means that I don't trust my team. That if I trusted them I would let them run and be thrilled with the results. Interestingly, I have found that if I pull back and force myself NOT to nag, the output is rarely complete or on time. And when the milestone has passed, the players tend to ask "why didn't you remind me?" or "I didn't know that was my responsibility."
I think everyone believes they should be allowed to problem-solve in their own way, in their own time. And maybe in a different world, we could all be painters and sculptors who wait for our muses to inspire us to cross into new creative territories. But, folks, if we need a spreadsheet completed by Thursday, do you really need space to finger paint?
I guess I wish the professional nag was more valued. It is a skillset, and it does serve a purpose. What if, rather than being annoyed, the team could recognize the value AND the potential for pain..then set boundaries.? What if we harnessed the power if the professional nag for good?
There are more like me. I've seen them, and I've seen those nearby roll their eyes at them. I've also seen that a team with a nag is more likely to deliver results on time and on budget. I certainly don't claim that nagging generates more creative or interesting results! In fact the opposite may be true. But unbound creativity can spin in interesting circles until the budget has exploded and the client has started a new RFP process.
So, how do you find the right balance? How to you bring enough nag to the process that you keep things on track but not so much nag that you kill the spirit and energy of the team?
I have been admonished that my nagging (which includes things like schedules, task plans, reminders, detailed goals) means that I don't trust my team. That if I trusted them I would let them run and be thrilled with the results. Interestingly, I have found that if I pull back and force myself NOT to nag, the output is rarely complete or on time. And when the milestone has passed, the players tend to ask "why didn't you remind me?" or "I didn't know that was my responsibility."
I think everyone believes they should be allowed to problem-solve in their own way, in their own time. And maybe in a different world, we could all be painters and sculptors who wait for our muses to inspire us to cross into new creative territories. But, folks, if we need a spreadsheet completed by Thursday, do you really need space to finger paint?
I guess I wish the professional nag was more valued. It is a skillset, and it does serve a purpose. What if, rather than being annoyed, the team could recognize the value AND the potential for pain..then set boundaries.? What if we harnessed the power if the professional nag for good?
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Dropped Call Etiquette
I miss the drone of a dial tone.
At least you knew when someone had hung-up on you.
With cell phones, you can be smack in the middle of explaining the most brilliant idea since t-shirts with built-in deodorant...and realize that you've been pitching your breakthrough concept to an empty line.
But worse than realizing the other party is no longer a witness to your discourse, sometimes you find yourself in post-drop limbo...unable to reconnect because either (a) both of you are furiously redialing or (b) each of you assumes that the other schmuck will call back any minute.
Here's a simple tip: the person who initiated the first call should reinitated in the event of a dropped call.
It doesn't matter if you think the other guy's phone is the culprit. It doesn't matter if you're on a landline and he or she is driving through the Everglades.
If you dialed, redial.
At least you knew when someone had hung-up on you.
With cell phones, you can be smack in the middle of explaining the most brilliant idea since t-shirts with built-in deodorant...and realize that you've been pitching your breakthrough concept to an empty line.
But worse than realizing the other party is no longer a witness to your discourse, sometimes you find yourself in post-drop limbo...unable to reconnect because either (a) both of you are furiously redialing or (b) each of you assumes that the other schmuck will call back any minute.
Here's a simple tip: the person who initiated the first call should reinitated in the event of a dropped call.
It doesn't matter if you think the other guy's phone is the culprit. It doesn't matter if you're on a landline and he or she is driving through the Everglades.
If you dialed, redial.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
But Is It Intuitive?
A client recently voiced the opinion that a software solution was not intuitive and therefore needed more on-screen help text. Now of course "the client is always right," so more help text they shall have! But something about the exchange stuck in my brain.
First, I would argue that if something is not intuitive - that is, it's not obvious at first glance what you're supposed to do - the problem does not lie in the help text, it lies in the design.
If users stare uncomprehending at the screen, there are some foundational issues we need to revisit. And while more help text might make it better and more usable, I would argue that more help text can NEVER make it "more intuitive" - but definition. Right?
Second, I have to ask if intuitive is the appropriate yardstick for successful business solutions.
We live in a iPad world, I suppose, and everything is judge against Apple's ability to ship products with a single, tiny 2"x2" card that tells you how to "get started." The pinnacle of intuitivity (yeah, that's not a word). Or is it?... Are iPads intuitive or are users who just shelled out several hundred smackers just really curious and clever? Left to our own devices by Apple's cleverness, apathy, or hubris - do we just figure it out?
Having just gotten my own iPad out of it's shipping box this week, I'm thinking the latter.
I wanted to figure it out. And there was trial and error -- let's be frank, there is still a lot of trial and error -- but I kept trying until I got the result I wanted, because I wanted the result I got! (stitch that on a pillow, I dare you.)
In a business context, when folks bemoan, "It's not intuitive" -- I think the subtext might be: "I didn't get it on the first bounce, and I didn't care to work it out. It's new. It's hard. My to-do list is long. I'm done."
So I'm not saying "intuitive" isn't a great goal -- but truly elegant design notwithstanding, I think there's more to successful intuitive products than the design work. I think desire is the ingredient that takes it over the edge. When we want to master something new, we do. Then we forget the "labor pains" and relish in the joy of our new "intuitive" skills.
First, I would argue that if something is not intuitive - that is, it's not obvious at first glance what you're supposed to do - the problem does not lie in the help text, it lies in the design.
If users stare uncomprehending at the screen, there are some foundational issues we need to revisit. And while more help text might make it better and more usable, I would argue that more help text can NEVER make it "more intuitive" - but definition. Right?
Second, I have to ask if intuitive is the appropriate yardstick for successful business solutions.
We live in a iPad world, I suppose, and everything is judge against Apple's ability to ship products with a single, tiny 2"x2" card that tells you how to "get started." The pinnacle of intuitivity (yeah, that's not a word). Or is it?... Are iPads intuitive or are users who just shelled out several hundred smackers just really curious and clever? Left to our own devices by Apple's cleverness, apathy, or hubris - do we just figure it out?
Having just gotten my own iPad out of it's shipping box this week, I'm thinking the latter.
I wanted to figure it out. And there was trial and error -- let's be frank, there is still a lot of trial and error -- but I kept trying until I got the result I wanted, because I wanted the result I got! (stitch that on a pillow, I dare you.)
In a business context, when folks bemoan, "It's not intuitive" -- I think the subtext might be: "I didn't get it on the first bounce, and I didn't care to work it out. It's new. It's hard. My to-do list is long. I'm done."
So I'm not saying "intuitive" isn't a great goal -- but truly elegant design notwithstanding, I think there's more to successful intuitive products than the design work. I think desire is the ingredient that takes it over the edge. When we want to master something new, we do. Then we forget the "labor pains" and relish in the joy of our new "intuitive" skills.
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Database Dilemma
There are big problems in the world today - heck, gigantic problems almost beyond our ability to comprehend. Hunger, war, disease, ignorance...these hover over us and around us, and if we allowed it, these could consume our every waking thought. So we stop thinking about them.
We bring our worry closer to home. The worry-beads for medium-size problems go through our mental fingers: paying the mortgage, the leak over the garage, the kids' braces, the spouse's linger glance at the tennis pro....these, too, can overwhelm if we become too focused. So we stop thinking about them.
And then we're left with small problems. Issue that won't save the planet, won't change our lives, but at least we feel like we can get a handle on them, maybe solve them. Or can we?
Here's one that's infinitesimal in the scheme of things - but it's haunted me for decades. How do you get people to type consistently in databases. I hear you guffaw. "Who cares?" you scoff. And yet, as soon as you have "Jones Co" and Jones Co." and "Jones Company" in the same database, you may as well be writing on cocktail napkins for all the data manipulation you'll be able to do.
Do you go behind and try to clean it up like the poor schmuck who follows the elephant in the parade? Seems unending and thankless.
Do you try to put controls in place? Sounds good, but if Facebook and Twitter have taught us anything it's that control is illusory at best.
Do you just live with the inconsistencies and count yourself better off than if you had no database?
Or do you whip out the cocktail napkins and start writing - enjoying the cocktail as you go?
We bring our worry closer to home. The worry-beads for medium-size problems go through our mental fingers: paying the mortgage, the leak over the garage, the kids' braces, the spouse's linger glance at the tennis pro....these, too, can overwhelm if we become too focused. So we stop thinking about them.
And then we're left with small problems. Issue that won't save the planet, won't change our lives, but at least we feel like we can get a handle on them, maybe solve them. Or can we?
Here's one that's infinitesimal in the scheme of things - but it's haunted me for decades. How do you get people to type consistently in databases. I hear you guffaw. "Who cares?" you scoff. And yet, as soon as you have "Jones Co" and Jones Co." and "Jones Company" in the same database, you may as well be writing on cocktail napkins for all the data manipulation you'll be able to do.
Do you go behind and try to clean it up like the poor schmuck who follows the elephant in the parade? Seems unending and thankless.
Do you try to put controls in place? Sounds good, but if Facebook and Twitter have taught us anything it's that control is illusory at best.
Do you just live with the inconsistencies and count yourself better off than if you had no database?
Or do you whip out the cocktail napkins and start writing - enjoying the cocktail as you go?
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
The Problem is a Problem
It's weird how you sometimes recognized a cluster of similar situations in a narrow time frame, each in different areas of your life. I'm not sure if this is truly a coincidence or more a phenonomen where the first experience makes your sensitive to others.
In any event, I've noticed that more and more people are uncomfortable calling a problem a problem. The oh-so-cloying phrase "oh, it's not a problem, it's an opportunity" has reached epidemic proportions -- and is more virulent, I suspect, than H1N1.
In the dark and distance past, someone wisely said that you'll get further solving a problem when you see it as an opportunity for growth. And I totally agree with that. Problems are the reasons we break paradigms, stretch out of our comfort zones, and leap to new levels of execution. YAY for problems.
But, over time, the wisdom of that simple reframing advice has given way to a politically correct vocabulary where people avoid even uttering the word "problem."
The original idea was not about giving lip-service to a word that lowers our blood pressure and helps us to hide from the powers-that-be. No, the original ideas was really was meant to change our way of thinking and acting, not just our groupspeak. In other words: It's not JUST a problem; it's ALSO an opportunity.
The reason this matters is that those who prefer the "vocabulary substitution" approach cannot even answer the question at the heart of any business relationship: What is the client's problem?
If that question quickens your breath, gives you hives and you find you cannot even label a flipchart with the heading "problem"...then it might be time to re-think your approach.
Your clients have problems. Period. If they didn't, they would not need you.
They don't wake up in the middle of the night and celebrate their opportunities.
They don't lose concentration in the middle of a tennis match because they received a text with an exciting opportunity.
They don't step out of weddings, funerals, and 7th grade band concerts because an opportunity just can't wait.
Nope. They have problems.
And if you can understand and help them define the problems, then and only then, Virginia, you've arrived at an opportunity.
In any event, I've noticed that more and more people are uncomfortable calling a problem a problem. The oh-so-cloying phrase "oh, it's not a problem, it's an opportunity" has reached epidemic proportions -- and is more virulent, I suspect, than H1N1.
In the dark and distance past, someone wisely said that you'll get further solving a problem when you see it as an opportunity for growth. And I totally agree with that. Problems are the reasons we break paradigms, stretch out of our comfort zones, and leap to new levels of execution. YAY for problems.
But, over time, the wisdom of that simple reframing advice has given way to a politically correct vocabulary where people avoid even uttering the word "problem."
The original idea was not about giving lip-service to a word that lowers our blood pressure and helps us to hide from the powers-that-be. No, the original ideas was really was meant to change our way of thinking and acting, not just our groupspeak. In other words: It's not JUST a problem; it's ALSO an opportunity.
The reason this matters is that those who prefer the "vocabulary substitution" approach cannot even answer the question at the heart of any business relationship: What is the client's problem?
If that question quickens your breath, gives you hives and you find you cannot even label a flipchart with the heading "problem"...then it might be time to re-think your approach.
Your clients have problems. Period. If they didn't, they would not need you.
They don't wake up in the middle of the night and celebrate their opportunities.
They don't lose concentration in the middle of a tennis match because they received a text with an exciting opportunity.
They don't step out of weddings, funerals, and 7th grade band concerts because an opportunity just can't wait.
Nope. They have problems.
And if you can understand and help them define the problems, then and only then, Virginia, you've arrived at an opportunity.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
You've Got Spinach in Your Teeth
It's always interesting to notice how many people DON'T take the time to tell you they've found a problem in your work. It could be a typo or other small error, or it could be something more substantial. There are many times when no one tells you, then suddenly you find the problem and you realize everyone already noticed.
Why doesn't someone nudge you with the professional equivalent of "um, you've got some spinach in your teeth..."? Here are some possibilities:
Volleyball Syndrome
They are secure in the belief that if they keep their heads down and avoid eye contact, someone else will get the job done. These are the people who never raised their hands above their heads playing volleyball in gym class. ("Here it comes! You get it!" being their rally cry)
Second-to-the-Summit Syndrome
These folks notice, but assume someone had to have mentioned it, so they don't want to pile on. They reach the summit, but instead of planting a flag they start looking for the Starbucks the first guy franchised.
Karma Syndrome
These people assume it must the universe giving you a little comeuppance, and, really, who are they to interfere?
Battered Ego Syndrome
These souls see the mistake, but then have a silent argument with themselves that they must be wrong. When the mistake is revealed, they sigh "Oh, I knew that, but..."
Next time you notice a mistake, tell the person. It's nice to be nice, but, nicely or not, I'd rather know when my slip is showing (Hmm, does anyone wear slips any more?), my teeth are besmeared with foreign objects, or my infinitive is split wide open. And you?
Why doesn't someone nudge you with the professional equivalent of "um, you've got some spinach in your teeth..."? Here are some possibilities:
Volleyball Syndrome
They are secure in the belief that if they keep their heads down and avoid eye contact, someone else will get the job done. These are the people who never raised their hands above their heads playing volleyball in gym class. ("Here it comes! You get it!" being their rally cry)
Second-to-the-Summit Syndrome
These folks notice, but assume someone had to have mentioned it, so they don't want to pile on. They reach the summit, but instead of planting a flag they start looking for the Starbucks the first guy franchised.
Karma Syndrome
These people assume it must the universe giving you a little comeuppance, and, really, who are they to interfere?
Battered Ego Syndrome
These souls see the mistake, but then have a silent argument with themselves that they must be wrong. When the mistake is revealed, they sigh "Oh, I knew that, but..."
Next time you notice a mistake, tell the person. It's nice to be nice, but, nicely or not, I'd rather know when my slip is showing (Hmm, does anyone wear slips any more?), my teeth are besmeared with foreign objects, or my infinitive is split wide open. And you?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Definition Vortex
Defining a problem is important; I don't deny it. If you haven't framed the problem you have no chance to solve it.
And yet, I've seen so many people hide behind the camouflage of defining a problem. "Let's have a meeting and define the problem" turns into weeks of discussion and debate. In the meantime, the problem is getting worse, having children, planting roots -- pick your metaphor -- and we're still talking about how to talk about it.
Long ago a boss told me that if a meeting was rescheduled more than 3 times, it probably was a meeting that didn't need to happen. I propose a corollary:
It the topic of "defining a problem" requires more than 2 meetings, it's very likely you have bitten off too much to chew.
Break it down, pick a part of you CAN define and begin to work to solution. If you are creating flowcharts and Gantt charts that start with the big bang, it might be time to re-frame and simplify.
A wise woman recently told me: "If two things are a mystery, choose one." This is great advice, and this direction could kick many project teams out of the "definition vortex"!
And yet, I've seen so many people hide behind the camouflage of defining a problem. "Let's have a meeting and define the problem" turns into weeks of discussion and debate. In the meantime, the problem is getting worse, having children, planting roots -- pick your metaphor -- and we're still talking about how to talk about it.
Long ago a boss told me that if a meeting was rescheduled more than 3 times, it probably was a meeting that didn't need to happen. I propose a corollary:
It the topic of "defining a problem" requires more than 2 meetings, it's very likely you have bitten off too much to chew.
Break it down, pick a part of you CAN define and begin to work to solution. If you are creating flowcharts and Gantt charts that start with the big bang, it might be time to re-frame and simplify.
A wise woman recently told me: "If two things are a mystery, choose one." This is great advice, and this direction could kick many project teams out of the "definition vortex"!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
The Eskimo Executive
So, out of the melange of facts and factoids formed by my formal education, casual conversations, and various apocryphal forms of entertainment, I have come to understand that Eskimo language and cultures puts an emphasis on *now* -- not to say they don't plan for the future or remember the past, but they are more hard-wired to "live in the moment." I can't confirm that this is an accurate portrayal of their culture, but it is intuitively appealing to me.
I've realized that there is a class of executive who follows this philosophy. Sadly, not in the "let's stay in the moment and squeeze the juice out it" way...but more in that they have the ability to present an opinion with absolute conviction, then change their minds up to 180 degrees -- and they never acknowledge the change. The case for the new opinion is made without a twinge or backward glance. And woe to anyone who states or intimates that there was every a different point of view.
It's difficult to appreciate the Eskimo Executive when you are directly involved in the about-face (you're too busy controlling your large muscle groups from the fight-or-flight response). But if you can watch from the sidelines, it's fascinating. For a long time, I assumed these people knew they were making massive changes in their opinions/directions. I thought it was just ego or a sense of "let's not upset the little people" or "must not show weakness; pretend nothing has changed."
But I've come to realize: they do not know they've done it. The shift is instantaneous. They truly believe they always held the same (read: correct) opinion. And if tomorrow new information necessitates a change in the correct opinion, hey, they will have always held that one, of course.
I know you've seen it. There's even a country song about it: "He was frequently wrong, but never in doubt." Now, here's a question to ponder: How do you know if you are an Eskimo Executive? I mean, wouldn't the very definition of the problem mean you could never perceive it?
So I wonder if the fact that I notice this in others means I share the trait. (This is, of course, the psychological corollary to my brother's axiom: "He who smelt it, dealt it.") Or does the simply act of wondering about it mean I am not afflicted? Hmm...
I've realized that there is a class of executive who follows this philosophy. Sadly, not in the "let's stay in the moment and squeeze the juice out it" way...but more in that they have the ability to present an opinion with absolute conviction, then change their minds up to 180 degrees -- and they never acknowledge the change. The case for the new opinion is made without a twinge or backward glance. And woe to anyone who states or intimates that there was every a different point of view.
It's difficult to appreciate the Eskimo Executive when you are directly involved in the about-face (you're too busy controlling your large muscle groups from the fight-or-flight response). But if you can watch from the sidelines, it's fascinating. For a long time, I assumed these people knew they were making massive changes in their opinions/directions. I thought it was just ego or a sense of "let's not upset the little people" or "must not show weakness; pretend nothing has changed."
But I've come to realize: they do not know they've done it. The shift is instantaneous. They truly believe they always held the same (read: correct) opinion. And if tomorrow new information necessitates a change in the correct opinion, hey, they will have always held that one, of course.
I know you've seen it. There's even a country song about it: "He was frequently wrong, but never in doubt." Now, here's a question to ponder: How do you know if you are an Eskimo Executive? I mean, wouldn't the very definition of the problem mean you could never perceive it?
So I wonder if the fact that I notice this in others means I share the trait. (This is, of course, the psychological corollary to my brother's axiom: "He who smelt it, dealt it.") Or does the simply act of wondering about it mean I am not afflicted? Hmm...
Monday, March 23, 2009
Afternoon Delete
OK, how many of you remember diskettes? Cute, little, portable, magnetic miracles that let you store - gasp - 1.44Mb of data. Yes, that's right...1,440,000K (and change). Now I know you young folk with your rock-and-roll music may not appreciate this, but at the time, it was a break-through. [Quit smirking, or I'll make you sit still while I ramble on about that heady day when Lotus 1-2-3 finally enabled us to make text BOLD and COLORFUL (albeit on a separate file) with Allways.]
Today we have so much space on our computer drives that it boggles the mind....so much space that I rationalize keeping things that I should delete. The funny thing is, within my circle of friends, I'm actually one of the more ruthless deleters (is that a word?)...deletitions? Deletionists? Hell, I have fewer than 100 emails in my inbox --- as opposed to several collegues who have (I am not kidding) +13,000 sitting in their inbox...with as many as 3000 unread. And the only reason they stop at 13,000 is that IT forces them to archive occassionally.
Here's my question....why do I save all this crap? I mean, I know what I think I save it. I think I may need it one day. But I also know that when I do need something, 4 times out of 10, I can't find the right email. I could go off on a rant about people who send me emails with subject lines of "question" and "tomorrow's meeting" so that there's no chance of identifying the true topic, but that's not really my point.
Why do we do this? Why do we save 14 versions of a project that's long since been delivered? Why do we save ever iteration of an email string? Why do we faithfully store every crappy presentation that our collegues thrust upon us? It's part lazyness, part covetousness, and part paranoia. Covynoia....that's that's the technical term.
I've yet to meet an ascetic business person....though it would be interesting. "Hello, my name is Pat, and I keep everything I need on this single 1.44MB diskette. When I receive new information, I simply delete the old. So for the near term, I look forward to interacting with you. At some point, though, your contact information will be over-written by a new bit of data, and we will lose contact. Until then, as long as you don't send me any graphic or sound files, I will enjoy our interaction. Hey, don't be sad; it's a FIFO world."
Today we have so much space on our computer drives that it boggles the mind....so much space that I rationalize keeping things that I should delete. The funny thing is, within my circle of friends, I'm actually one of the more ruthless deleters (is that a word?)...deletitions? Deletionists? Hell, I have fewer than 100 emails in my inbox --- as opposed to several collegues who have (I am not kidding) +13,000 sitting in their inbox...with as many as 3000 unread. And the only reason they stop at 13,000 is that IT forces them to archive occassionally.
Here's my question....why do I save all this crap? I mean, I know what I think I save it. I think I may need it one day. But I also know that when I do need something, 4 times out of 10, I can't find the right email. I could go off on a rant about people who send me emails with subject lines of "question" and "tomorrow's meeting" so that there's no chance of identifying the true topic, but that's not really my point.
Why do we do this? Why do we save 14 versions of a project that's long since been delivered? Why do we save ever iteration of an email string? Why do we faithfully store every crappy presentation that our collegues thrust upon us? It's part lazyness, part covetousness, and part paranoia. Covynoia....that's that's the technical term.
I've yet to meet an ascetic business person....though it would be interesting. "Hello, my name is Pat, and I keep everything I need on this single 1.44MB diskette. When I receive new information, I simply delete the old. So for the near term, I look forward to interacting with you. At some point, though, your contact information will be over-written by a new bit of data, and we will lose contact. Until then, as long as you don't send me any graphic or sound files, I will enjoy our interaction. Hey, don't be sad; it's a FIFO world."
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Consider User Needs Before the Fight Begins
No doubt there are hundreds, if not thousands, of conversations going on around the world at this moment about a deceptively complex idea: report design.
The Marketing types want a report that looks great. They get really excited about creating a mock-up that could win an award on the sheer strength of its Greeked copy blocks. Colors? Of course! Charts? The more, the merrier. Pull-downs? Filters? Ad hoc queries? Yes. Yes. and You betcha.
On the other side of the conference table, you have the Technology types who are listening, tight-lipped and imagining just how little they will see of their spouse, children, speedboats, Wii, or other distraction of the next several days. Every bell and whistle that flies so buoyantly out of the mouth of a Marketer lands like a brick on the soul of the Programmer. Often they have been trained (by Marketing outbursts) that "this will all be over quicker" if they just shut up and absorb the fantasies. But sometimes even the most stoic techies reach their breaking point. You can feel the ancient word coming from somewhere deep in their brainstem...."NO!" they finally cry.
Forgotten all too often in this power-struggle is...you guessed it: the user.
There's not an easy solution that will make Marketing and Technology hold hands and skip down the report design path. Yet, you can reduce some of the strife if you are clear about key ideas like WHO is going to use the report, WHAT they need to know, and HOW they are likely to look for answers.
Not exactly earth-shaking, I know. But I also know it's a step that is forgotten much of the time. Try it next time...take 20 minutes to really thinking about and prioritize the users' needs. You might be amazed at the outcome.
The Marketing types want a report that looks great. They get really excited about creating a mock-up that could win an award on the sheer strength of its Greeked copy blocks. Colors? Of course! Charts? The more, the merrier. Pull-downs? Filters? Ad hoc queries? Yes. Yes. and You betcha.
On the other side of the conference table, you have the Technology types who are listening, tight-lipped and imagining just how little they will see of their spouse, children, speedboats, Wii, or other distraction of the next several days. Every bell and whistle that flies so buoyantly out of the mouth of a Marketer lands like a brick on the soul of the Programmer. Often they have been trained (by Marketing outbursts) that "this will all be over quicker" if they just shut up and absorb the fantasies. But sometimes even the most stoic techies reach their breaking point. You can feel the ancient word coming from somewhere deep in their brainstem...."NO!" they finally cry.
Forgotten all too often in this power-struggle is...you guessed it: the user.
There's not an easy solution that will make Marketing and Technology hold hands and skip down the report design path. Yet, you can reduce some of the strife if you are clear about key ideas like WHO is going to use the report, WHAT they need to know, and HOW they are likely to look for answers.
Not exactly earth-shaking, I know. But I also know it's a step that is forgotten much of the time. Try it next time...take 20 minutes to really thinking about and prioritize the users' needs. You might be amazed at the outcome.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
How Now Dow Jow...er Jones
I'm confused about the fascination with the Dow Jones Index on the nightly news and water cooler conversations. It's a barometer of sorts, sure. But it's hardly the most representative. And while currently it sucks and the economy sucks (sorry, technical terms, stay with me)...it's not like the DJI causes economic problems or necessarily reflects them.
I'm not trying to say everything is peachy - every indicator is in a bad place right now. But why does DJI have a choke hold on our national psyche? Especially considering the fact that many of the people who rattle off the "number at the bell" don't really have much in the stock market anyway. If the average net worth in this country is negative (i.e., families owe more than they own)...then the DJI's trajectory is interesting, but not that compelling, eh?
I own mutual funds, and I've watched them shrink dramatically -- but I still plan to continue buying. "Buy low" right? Beats the alternative: locking in those losses.
There's two polar opposite outcomes here...first, the whole thing collapses into a pile of ruble in which case my portfolio, whether in a stock or cash position, will be as useful as Confederate bonds. OR, and I admit I think this more likely, there's a recovery somewhere down the path, in which case, staying in is the right choice.
But I digress...my really point of this was WHY is the DJI the touchstone? Just because it's quick and easy? People think they understand it (though I imagine very few do).... I dunno, it just seems weird to me that in a 180 min news update, the DJI numbers get spat out as if they had great impact on our daily lives. Or maybe I'm missing something....
I'm not trying to say everything is peachy - every indicator is in a bad place right now. But why does DJI have a choke hold on our national psyche? Especially considering the fact that many of the people who rattle off the "number at the bell" don't really have much in the stock market anyway. If the average net worth in this country is negative (i.e., families owe more than they own)...then the DJI's trajectory is interesting, but not that compelling, eh?
I own mutual funds, and I've watched them shrink dramatically -- but I still plan to continue buying. "Buy low" right? Beats the alternative: locking in those losses.
There's two polar opposite outcomes here...first, the whole thing collapses into a pile of ruble in which case my portfolio, whether in a stock or cash position, will be as useful as Confederate bonds. OR, and I admit I think this more likely, there's a recovery somewhere down the path, in which case, staying in is the right choice.
But I digress...my really point of this was WHY is the DJI the touchstone? Just because it's quick and easy? People think they understand it (though I imagine very few do).... I dunno, it just seems weird to me that in a 180 min news update, the DJI numbers get spat out as if they had great impact on our daily lives. Or maybe I'm missing something....
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Big Box of Apathy
So, yeah, the economy is crashing around our ears and consumer confidence is lower than ever. Wouldn't ya think that retailers would rally their troops - get their front line employees (oh, pardon me: associates) to wake up and start treating active customers better? Wouldn't you take a moment to explain that the consumer who actually drives to their charming concrete haven has a lot of choices and should be given, if not respect, at least eye contact?
I visited 3 large retailers today, looking for electronics item that can cost $70-300. In none of these locations was I offered any help as I shifted from foot to foot comparing the options. And in all 3 of these retailers, the out-of-stock in this category was about 60%. So even if I was able to discern my choice from the cryptic shelf "talkers" (ha!), there was a good probability the one I wanted was not available.
I've been involved in some form of retail for more than 20 years. I get out-of-stocks. I get the challenge of conveying a message from the ivory tower down to the front lanes. I get the balance required to offer assistance to those who want it without being overly cloying to those who are "just browsing, thanks." I get it. Really.
But I also get that there is a bloodbath happening as we speak in retail. Too many stores, too much inventory, and too many employees who don't give a flying fig what I want, if I can find it, or if I'm happy with my shopping "experience."
What would it take? Here's a couple suggestions:
1. Demand that the floor associates to make eye contact.
Target recently initiated a policy (or at least the stores in my area seem to have) where every time an employee crosses paths with a shopper he or she looks them in eye and asks, "Can I help you find something." 99% of the time, my answer is no, but this is a huge improvement over chasing down the retreating back of a red shirt as it rushed on some internally critical task. At the very worst of the Big Box retailers I visited today, not only did I not get eye contact, when I finally found a person, he took out his walkie-talkie to have in internal discussion with another employee. Maybe he was in the middle of helping another customer, I give you that possibility -- but he neither acknowledged me or suggested that he'd be available to help in a moment. In fact he simply walked away.
2. Insist that the floor associates to stop talking to each other.
This one kills me. One store brand seems particularly bad at this -- and their associates hover around endcaps like 1950's steno gals around the water cooler. Asking them for help results in blistering sighs and eye rolls---as if you had to interrupt the cool kids after gym class to get to your locker back in 7th grade. I'm glad they enjoy their co-workers' company...but if they don't wake up to the fact that the SHOPPER PAYS THEIR SALARY, they are going to enjoy standing in the unemployment line when their company closes down.
3. Empower the greeter to identify frustrations ...and solve
Several retailers have people sitting or standing at the front door -- ostensibly to greet the shopper, but also as a line of defense, I imagine, on shoplifting. In one of my frustrating visits, I caught the greeter's eye and said "sure would have been nice to get some help in here." She replied, sarcastically, "have a nice day." The stores are big and the floor personnel is spread thin. It's certainly possible to not cross paths with someone during your stroll thru the aisles---but, why couldn't the "greeter" have served me with her little walkie-talkie, saying "I'm sorry, let me get you someone to help." Why? because she didn't care.
You can blame the economy all you want. Life sucks, yadda yadda. But here are people who have jobs. Here is a consumer with cash in her pocket wanting to buy an item, and willing to upsold if someone can explain the difference between the $70 and $300 version. You'd think it would be a match made in heaven. But no. I wasted gas driving to several places and ultimately bought the cheapest version that was in-stock at Big Box #3.
Yup, these are the time that try men's souls. These are also the times that can make a retailer stand out, if they take the time to give true direction to their front line representatives. And, Mr. or Ms. Retailer, if you discover your current employees really don't care -- go hire new ones.
We are reminded daily in the media: It's a buyer's market on hiring. So why aren't you hiring people who want to be there and want to help?
I visited 3 large retailers today, looking for electronics item that can cost $70-300. In none of these locations was I offered any help as I shifted from foot to foot comparing the options. And in all 3 of these retailers, the out-of-stock in this category was about 60%. So even if I was able to discern my choice from the cryptic shelf "talkers" (ha!), there was a good probability the one I wanted was not available.
I've been involved in some form of retail for more than 20 years. I get out-of-stocks. I get the challenge of conveying a message from the ivory tower down to the front lanes. I get the balance required to offer assistance to those who want it without being overly cloying to those who are "just browsing, thanks." I get it. Really.
But I also get that there is a bloodbath happening as we speak in retail. Too many stores, too much inventory, and too many employees who don't give a flying fig what I want, if I can find it, or if I'm happy with my shopping "experience."
What would it take? Here's a couple suggestions:
1. Demand that the floor associates to make eye contact.
Target recently initiated a policy (or at least the stores in my area seem to have) where every time an employee crosses paths with a shopper he or she looks them in eye and asks, "Can I help you find something." 99% of the time, my answer is no, but this is a huge improvement over chasing down the retreating back of a red shirt as it rushed on some internally critical task. At the very worst of the Big Box retailers I visited today, not only did I not get eye contact, when I finally found a person, he took out his walkie-talkie to have in internal discussion with another employee. Maybe he was in the middle of helping another customer, I give you that possibility -- but he neither acknowledged me or suggested that he'd be available to help in a moment. In fact he simply walked away.
2. Insist that the floor associates to stop talking to each other.
This one kills me. One store brand seems particularly bad at this -- and their associates hover around endcaps like 1950's steno gals around the water cooler. Asking them for help results in blistering sighs and eye rolls---as if you had to interrupt the cool kids after gym class to get to your locker back in 7th grade. I'm glad they enjoy their co-workers' company...but if they don't wake up to the fact that the SHOPPER PAYS THEIR SALARY, they are going to enjoy standing in the unemployment line when their company closes down.
3. Empower the greeter to identify frustrations ...and solve
Several retailers have people sitting or standing at the front door -- ostensibly to greet the shopper, but also as a line of defense, I imagine, on shoplifting. In one of my frustrating visits, I caught the greeter's eye and said "sure would have been nice to get some help in here." She replied, sarcastically, "have a nice day." The stores are big and the floor personnel is spread thin. It's certainly possible to not cross paths with someone during your stroll thru the aisles---but, why couldn't the "greeter" have served me with her little walkie-talkie, saying "I'm sorry, let me get you someone to help." Why? because she didn't care.
You can blame the economy all you want. Life sucks, yadda yadda. But here are people who have jobs. Here is a consumer with cash in her pocket wanting to buy an item, and willing to upsold if someone can explain the difference between the $70 and $300 version. You'd think it would be a match made in heaven. But no. I wasted gas driving to several places and ultimately bought the cheapest version that was in-stock at Big Box #3.
Yup, these are the time that try men's souls. These are also the times that can make a retailer stand out, if they take the time to give true direction to their front line representatives. And, Mr. or Ms. Retailer, if you discover your current employees really don't care -- go hire new ones.
We are reminded daily in the media: It's a buyer's market on hiring. So why aren't you hiring people who want to be there and want to help?
Thursday, January 22, 2009
We Rig the Game Ourselves
Today I was reading a editorial on YAHOO! Finance called "Putting an End to Magical Thinking" by Laura Rowley. It's an interesting essay, and I like the point it makes about the twisted American Dream ("Magical thinking can be defined as a perversion of traditional American optimism. Magical thinking is the can-do attitude without the do.")
You can read it here: http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/moneyhappy/136030
I agree that a scary sense of entitlement is one of the roots of the current economic woes. Both at the highest level of corporate America and in the most average Joe Schmoe. You can find it in people of all ages, races, education levels, and social strata. And, yes, it's exacerbated by reality TV shows were contests whine that they "deserve it because they want it so badly" -- as if your just deserts were correlated to your heart's desires.
Don't get me wrong. I grasp that we don't live in a meritocracy (as much as I wish we did). And who you know often trumps what you know. And people do get breaks (good and bad) along the way. At the same time....there is, IMHO, a huge correlation between effort and result. And the fact that someone may have won the lottery (literally or in terms of wealth, beauty, or intelligence) doesn't UNDO the fact that we each have our own lever in this world - our determination and perseverence.
The reason I started this rant is one of the responses that was posted to the YAHOO! essay. Someone's post included: "The game is rigged, and you will never be wealthy if you are at all honest and hard working."
That belief makes my soul ache.
Yes, the game is rigged, but not by "the man" or some power outside of us. This person has rigged his or her own game with a mindset that says "I am broke; therefore, I am honest." Hard-wire that into your brain, and you'll never be anything but broke.
I despise the oft heard "trusim" that anyone with money must have cheated, lied, or stealed to get it. Yes, some people did all those things, and I believe they will find a true reward for their behavior in the end (the very, very end).
On the other hand, many millions of people around the world have money because they worked, planned, saved, and made hard choices rather than using easy-credit to expedite an American Dream built on a rotten foundation.
The self-imposed, self-limiting beliefs we carry with us (some burnt in by our parents, some by culture/media, and some self-rationalizations we created ourselves)... these are the "truths" that stop us from using our innate talents, human creativity, and a dollop of discipine to create the life we want, rather than the life the Visa commercials tell us we deserve.
That's my two cents. And those two cents are in the bank earning a whopping 1.45% interest; does that make me evil?
You can read it here: http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/moneyhappy/136030
I agree that a scary sense of entitlement is one of the roots of the current economic woes. Both at the highest level of corporate America and in the most average Joe Schmoe. You can find it in people of all ages, races, education levels, and social strata. And, yes, it's exacerbated by reality TV shows were contests whine that they "deserve it because they want it so badly" -- as if your just deserts were correlated to your heart's desires.
Don't get me wrong. I grasp that we don't live in a meritocracy (as much as I wish we did). And who you know often trumps what you know. And people do get breaks (good and bad) along the way. At the same time....there is, IMHO, a huge correlation between effort and result. And the fact that someone may have won the lottery (literally or in terms of wealth, beauty, or intelligence) doesn't UNDO the fact that we each have our own lever in this world - our determination and perseverence.
The reason I started this rant is one of the responses that was posted to the YAHOO! essay. Someone's post included: "The game is rigged, and you will never be wealthy if you are at all honest and hard working."
That belief makes my soul ache.
Yes, the game is rigged, but not by "the man" or some power outside of us. This person has rigged his or her own game with a mindset that says "I am broke; therefore, I am honest." Hard-wire that into your brain, and you'll never be anything but broke.
I despise the oft heard "trusim" that anyone with money must have cheated, lied, or stealed to get it. Yes, some people did all those things, and I believe they will find a true reward for their behavior in the end (the very, very end).
On the other hand, many millions of people around the world have money because they worked, planned, saved, and made hard choices rather than using easy-credit to expedite an American Dream built on a rotten foundation.
The self-imposed, self-limiting beliefs we carry with us (some burnt in by our parents, some by culture/media, and some self-rationalizations we created ourselves)... these are the "truths" that stop us from using our innate talents, human creativity, and a dollop of discipine to create the life we want, rather than the life the Visa commercials tell us we deserve.
That's my two cents. And those two cents are in the bank earning a whopping 1.45% interest; does that make me evil?
Friday, December 26, 2008
A Better Yahtzee Mousetrap
I am in awe of the game called Yahtzee Free for All (by Hasbro). It's a fresh take and successful line extension of a decades-old brand, and it's perhaps the best example of consumer packaging I have ever seen.
Yahtzee has always been a fun game...but let's face it, it was not interactive. All of the strategy and luck took place in your little scorecard. So you were doing something that you could do alone, but doing it in the presence of others...hmmmm.
BUT! Yahtzee Free For All has a great spin: you roll your dice (3 rolls as in the original) to earn cards based on the traditional combinations, but when you are successful you put the card in your "home" slot for one full round of turns. The other plays can steal your card by bettering your combination (e.g., if you had three 3's on a 3 card, they could roll four 3's; if you had a full house of three 1's and two fives (13 dice points) they could beat it with three 4's and two 3's (18 dice points).) When play makes it back to your turn, you get to "bank" the card, if it's not been stolen, and try for more.
There's more to it, of course....but the bottom-line is it's an interactive and slightly cutthroat way to enliven Yahtzee -- and it's faster pace than the traditional game. So, as an avid gamester, I like it!
As a MARKETER, I was blown away by how carefully the packaging was thought out. It's hard to explain how cleverly this game is designed.
First of all, the box bottom turns into the board (folding out in to a 6 player shape (sort of like a flower unfolding). Each players petal (if you will) has a place to display their final roll of dice and their home card. The chips (used to increase point value of cards if player has an unsuccessful turn) have a clever ripple design that makes them very easy to stack and less likely to scatter. The instruction booklet is shaped like a 2D die (which makes it 6 sided), and that also opens like a flower. The box cover is felted on the inside to use as a rolling surface...everything you touch is thoughtful and streamlined.
Even if you don't like games, check this out as an excellent example of taking even the simplest element to a clean, logic, and compelling execution. An inspirational idea for any marketing campaign or deliverable. : )
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Is it them? Is it me? It's you.
A friend and colleague whom I respect recently said that he could had never had success in a situation where he delegated an outcome and let the delegatee determine how to achieve it.
Now, of course, "never" in this case is a clear exaggeration since I have done work for this person and, of course, fulfilled all aspects of the assignment with accuracy, vigor, and panache.
Hyperbole notwithstanding....why has he had this dearth of successful delegation? If it was only with one or two people, you could say - well, it must be them. But if legions of workerbees have failed him...is it him? Maybe. Or is it both parties? Maybe.
Stephen Covey has a whole system of delegation, with various steps leading up to stewardship delegation. And he argues that one should not attempt a higher level of delegation than the relationship supports. In other words, if you are dealing with a shoes-and-socks person (that's my term for the type of person who, when told to put their shoes and sock on, ends up with the socks on the outside...because, hey, that's what you said!)....if you're dealing with that kind of person, you can't really assign a nebulous outcome and hope for the best.
But let's assume that the delegatees are quality individuals, creative-minded, and ready to attack a problem. Why are there still so may times when what we get is not what we wanted?
I've assigned my share of tasks and been underwhelmed by the results.
I've also, as a freelancer, submitted a deliverable filled with pride and anticipation (like a kid presenting a stunning macaroni and glitter necklace on Mother's Day), only to be gut-checked by the silent, awkward pause that means "wow, how in God's name did you end up with this?"
This is a classic lose-lose situation. The person who assigned the task is thrown into a tailspin because the critical path has stalled (or even moved backward). The person who did the work feels a melange of emotions from unappreciated to misunderstood to incompetent. And the work, the thing, is still un-done.
I propose there are five things that could avoid or reduce these situations.
1. Clarify
Recognize that you have your own lingo and shorthand and the person you're talking to may not understand it. I've found only about 5% of the population will risk looking stupid to ask you to clarify something you say. Everyone else nods wisely, then goes back to their office or cubicle or whatever and thinks, "what the heck did she mean by "breadcrumbs on the PowerPoint"? Make it OK to ask for clarification -- one great way to do that is for YOU to risk looking stupid to ask the delegatee to explain his or her langauge. Make it safe to ask, and you cut down re-work caused by lack of clarity down the road.
2. Sketch
If you have something in mind, take out a sheet of paper or a napkin and sketch what you see in your head. There's nothing more frustrating than bringing 5 or 6 ideas for review --- kneeling before the delegator like a supplicant with one idea after another --- and getting the "eh, not quite" response. If you know what you want, don't keep it to yourself.
3. Contextualize
Even if you don't have an exact answer in mind, you need to give the delegatee a clue as to how their solution will be used. If you ask a graphic artists to "create a compelling graphic" you've really not given her anything to work with. On the other hand, if you say -- "I don't have a specific solution in mind, but I need a graphic element that we can use all year, that will work on a handout or a billboard, that is consistent with the brand, and that suggests movement through the process" -- you've provided context for the scale, the level of detail, the color scheme, and the style. Let's face it, we often delegate because we want results beyond what we would have thought of ourselves, but there are also parameters that must be met. Don't leave out the context.
4. Echo
You're already nodding...sure, sure, everyone knows this one. But do you do it? Do you take the time to ask your delegatee to explain the assignment back to you in his own language? Or do you practice drive-by-management, flinging assignments over your shoulder (or worse across your Blackberry) as you rush out the door for the airport? Three minutes...that's about the investment to get the double-handshake that means your delegatee understood you....if you don't get the echo... 30 minutes, 300 minutes? How long will it take to re-do?
5. Calibrate
If you work with someone frequently, consider co-creating a scale that defines the type of assignment. For example, sometimes you need someone do to exactly what you want -- not terribly rewarding for the delegatee, but vital to hitting a deadline. So have a code for that: "this is a verbatim assignment." In that case, the delegatee knows to listen careful and execute exactly; this is not the time to spitball alternatives. On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes you have a wild idea that may not even be possible, but you want someone to think about it and spend a little time on it: "this is a percolator assignment, put about 5 hours into it and let's see if it has any legs." (it is important to tell the person how much time to invest on this kind of thing and where it falls against other priorities). Obviously, the type of scale has to make sense for your situation...but think about a way to shorthand the types of tasks.
None of this is easy to do in the rush of an average day --- but it is simple. If you are not happy with an end result, revisit the moment of assignment. The seed of the solution is likely there.
Now, of course, "never" in this case is a clear exaggeration since I have done work for this person and, of course, fulfilled all aspects of the assignment with accuracy, vigor, and panache.
Hyperbole notwithstanding....why has he had this dearth of successful delegation? If it was only with one or two people, you could say - well, it must be them. But if legions of workerbees have failed him...is it him? Maybe. Or is it both parties? Maybe.
Stephen Covey has a whole system of delegation, with various steps leading up to stewardship delegation. And he argues that one should not attempt a higher level of delegation than the relationship supports. In other words, if you are dealing with a shoes-and-socks person (that's my term for the type of person who, when told to put their shoes and sock on, ends up with the socks on the outside...because, hey, that's what you said!)....if you're dealing with that kind of person, you can't really assign a nebulous outcome and hope for the best.
But let's assume that the delegatees are quality individuals, creative-minded, and ready to attack a problem. Why are there still so may times when what we get is not what we wanted?
I've assigned my share of tasks and been underwhelmed by the results.
I've also, as a freelancer, submitted a deliverable filled with pride and anticipation (like a kid presenting a stunning macaroni and glitter necklace on Mother's Day), only to be gut-checked by the silent, awkward pause that means "wow, how in God's name did you end up with this?"
This is a classic lose-lose situation. The person who assigned the task is thrown into a tailspin because the critical path has stalled (or even moved backward). The person who did the work feels a melange of emotions from unappreciated to misunderstood to incompetent. And the work, the thing, is still un-done.
I propose there are five things that could avoid or reduce these situations.
1. Clarify
Recognize that you have your own lingo and shorthand and the person you're talking to may not understand it. I've found only about 5% of the population will risk looking stupid to ask you to clarify something you say. Everyone else nods wisely, then goes back to their office or cubicle or whatever and thinks, "what the heck did she mean by "breadcrumbs on the PowerPoint"? Make it OK to ask for clarification -- one great way to do that is for YOU to risk looking stupid to ask the delegatee to explain his or her langauge. Make it safe to ask, and you cut down re-work caused by lack of clarity down the road.
2. Sketch
If you have something in mind, take out a sheet of paper or a napkin and sketch what you see in your head. There's nothing more frustrating than bringing 5 or 6 ideas for review --- kneeling before the delegator like a supplicant with one idea after another --- and getting the "eh, not quite" response. If you know what you want, don't keep it to yourself.
3. Contextualize
Even if you don't have an exact answer in mind, you need to give the delegatee a clue as to how their solution will be used. If you ask a graphic artists to "create a compelling graphic" you've really not given her anything to work with. On the other hand, if you say -- "I don't have a specific solution in mind, but I need a graphic element that we can use all year, that will work on a handout or a billboard, that is consistent with the brand, and that suggests movement through the process" -- you've provided context for the scale, the level of detail, the color scheme, and the style. Let's face it, we often delegate because we want results beyond what we would have thought of ourselves, but there are also parameters that must be met. Don't leave out the context.
4. Echo
You're already nodding...sure, sure, everyone knows this one. But do you do it? Do you take the time to ask your delegatee to explain the assignment back to you in his own language? Or do you practice drive-by-management, flinging assignments over your shoulder (or worse across your Blackberry) as you rush out the door for the airport? Three minutes...that's about the investment to get the double-handshake that means your delegatee understood you....if you don't get the echo... 30 minutes, 300 minutes? How long will it take to re-do?
5. Calibrate
If you work with someone frequently, consider co-creating a scale that defines the type of assignment. For example, sometimes you need someone do to exactly what you want -- not terribly rewarding for the delegatee, but vital to hitting a deadline. So have a code for that: "this is a verbatim assignment." In that case, the delegatee knows to listen careful and execute exactly; this is not the time to spitball alternatives. On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes you have a wild idea that may not even be possible, but you want someone to think about it and spend a little time on it: "this is a percolator assignment, put about 5 hours into it and let's see if it has any legs." (it is important to tell the person how much time to invest on this kind of thing and where it falls against other priorities). Obviously, the type of scale has to make sense for your situation...but think about a way to shorthand the types of tasks.
None of this is easy to do in the rush of an average day --- but it is simple. If you are not happy with an end result, revisit the moment of assignment. The seed of the solution is likely there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
