Picking up a Blog draft 13 years later: The Psychology of Youth Sports

Almost 14 years since my last public blog post, I somehow stumbled upon my last two unfinished drafts. 

Remember when so many of our friends were writing interesting blogs? Is anyone even writing full articles anymore? Heck, are there even full paragraphs being published by us normal folks? Shoot, I barely see complete sentences on the major social media platforms. I mean, today's character-counting tweet culture has resorted to shorthand that barely includes complete words, or even letters. The emoji comms style feels like we have come full circle - I guess the hieroglyphic cave drawings (like the vinyl record) was bound to make a major comeback!

This week, I am reaching out to some of my circa 2008 blogging friends to challenge them to get back in the saddle. #bringbloggingback Maybe I can even get Sean Tevis to repost all of his highly entertaining and authentic content that got whitewashed when the political strategists took over his image in 2008.  (I wonder if Sean will even respond to my phone calls:  Sean DID answer the call and says he is IN!).  Other challenge call-outs go to my dear high school friend and career freelance writer Kim Olson and serial entrepreneur Kimberly Corbitt. 

I will leave it to Sean to post the official blogger redux challenge: For now, I am just going to ease into it and knock the dust off of this draft and try to figure out where I was going with all of this.... having spent countless hours on the sidelines of youth sports as a volunteer coach and photographer I have more observations, reflections and strong opinions than I would ever try to fit in one post, so let's just go back and see what November, 2009 Tom had to say about things:

The Connected Adolescent

Wow, has it really been that long since I've shared my thoughts online?! Maybe it's been the 300,000 miles on airplanes this year or the continuous mad scramble to keep business flowing in this unprecedented economy.There certainly hasn't been any lack of conversational topics, though...

It's almost a cliche' anymore to point out the ways that the internet and information age has changed our life and how we interact. Early last year, I referenced Sean Tevis' indoctrination into political activism. I still remember the day he walked into my office relaying to me how he had been encouraged to launch a campaign for Kansas State Representative, Michelle had suggested that he solicit my view on the matter. With no funds and no political background running against the incumbent retired police chief in a strongly conservative Republican district, it seemed a bit of senseless folly, and with their first child on the way....perhaps Michelle expected me to talk him out of the idea (I never went back and asked her, she intimidates me too much). Not knowing at the time that I would be moving to Oregon in less than 2 months, I told him he would be a fool not to run, and that, as the underdog, he should turn this into a new media campaign ("go with what you know" I told my favorite web developer and blogger). Remember what happened earlier this year in Malaysia, right? (actually, most people in Kansas had not paid much attention to the political revolution in Malaysia earlier that year, so the reference was somewhat lost). Well, the rest, as they say, is history. Gaining national media attention for his web-based fund raising efforts, Sean made this laugher of a race incredibly close. It was Balboa-Creed I. It was so frightening for the establishment, that they introduced the "Sean Tevis Bill" right after the election, attempting to make sure that these new media activists can't threaten to upset the balance of power ever again (good luck with that one, I guess)....

Closer to home, though, I have entered that magical phase of fatherhood known as adolescence and puberty. Probably high on the conscious mind of any parent (and child) at this stage is social development. I have noted a trend in my own social interactions over the last 5 years. With the explosion of social media and constant connectivity, I find myself continuously connected with hundreds of friends and colleagues, even from the far corners of the earth. If I need professional advice on a marketing campaign, I can instantly ping 385 of my friends and coworkers on LinkedIn, if they each forward it to a friend of a friend, it reaches a network of over 4,177,000 people! On Facebook, I'll post albums from our hockey teams, instantly notifying 225 friends and family of Tyler's game-winning goal.

So, the dilemma; at what point should a 12-year old kid be allowed to socialize online? Being the progressive parent, I decided to set up a profile for him. As it turns out, facebook requires users to be 18years old to have an account. Poking around, though, a noticed several of Tyler's classmates' profiles. After a conversation with my wife and establishment of a very strict set of house rules and requirements, we turned our 12 y/o loose on facebook. Guess I'm not the only parent choosing to overlook the minimum age requirements - less than 3 weeks later, he has a network of over 100 online friends and classmates. It struck me that, unlike those in my generation, my sons will likely not find themselves with "long lost friends". Remember when your best friend moved away after 3rd grade? Sure, you traded post cards time and again, maybe a phone call when his family passed through town (oh, the days of interstate toll calls...). But, by high school he was little more than a memory and the occasional "I wonder what ever happened to Bill Coffer?"

What about that random encounter? The "visiting from out of town - friend of a friend" you met at the Halloween party? Unless you made considerable effort, developing and maintaining a long distance friendship was a rare occurrence. Not today. Meet someone who you'll only see twice a year? Not a problem, link up on facebook, follow each other's twitter feeds and become life-long friends...

But I wonder - do we spend so much time online connecting remotely with the masses, that we will develop less deep relationships to the few closest to us? Hard to tell, really, as I sit in my easy chair receiving Farmville gifts from my wife, who is lounging on the sofa next to me, also working on her laptop. "Hey Ty," I yell to my 12 year old in the next room, "I need more chickens for my coop." "No problem, dad, I'll send you one." Such is life on the family farm....

I'm not a salesman....really!

A double knit leisure suit, blue suede shoes, slicked back hair, the confident swagger, the artificial smile and the fast talking. Yep, we've seen the stereotype - the typical salesman. "He could sell refrigerators to Eskimos," is that frequently used cliche' to describe a "natural" salesman.

No wonder most people hate salesmen. Would you feel good convincing someone to spend money on a product that they don't need? I think these people are called "con artist".

So, when I decided to leave the Navy after 11+ years of highly technical, engineering and leadership experience, the last thing I wanted to do was degrade myself to the level of becoming a salesman. Somewhere along the way, though, I came under the influence of John "the Don" Devito, a laboratory chemist-turned-salesmen in the twilight of a glowing 35-year career at General Electric. Early on, John enlightened me with a very important lesson that I have been repeating and passing on for almost 11 years. With a scowling fixed glare, and a wag of the finger, John would repeatedly tell us "You are not here to sell products. You are here to solve problems!"

These words resonated particularly well with me. Some years earlier, as a newly assigned Engineer Officer on a Nuclear Submarine, my commanding officer (and mentor) would instruct me that, as a senior officer, my primary responsibility on board was to "Identify and correct deficiencies." So, it seemed, transitioning from Chief Engineer of a Nuclear Submarine to technical Sales Representative would be a relatively simple transition. Making things even more exciting for me, GE had just instituted its Six Sigma "At the customer, for the customer" initiative. This meant that all sales personnel completed Six Sigma Black Belt training and were required to participate in at least one customer Six Sigma process improvement project.

For those not familiar with Six Sigma, it is a process improvement methodology that utilizes a collection of statistical analysis tools to analyze and control the effectiveness and variance of a process. Not knowing any better, I latched onto this concept and became heavily immersed in a number of process efficiency projects with production engineers at my customers' facilities. This wasn't "sales", this was engineering and problem-solving.

Some years later, I found myself in a position to evaluate and recommend purchasing decisions for various business software packages. This meant that I was frequently on the other side of "sales" conversations. This is where I learned to actually dislike salesmen. Expecting the sales process to follow the pattern that I was taught at GE, I would come to meetings prepared to discuss the specific problems we were trying to solve and the detailed criteria we would use in our evaluation. I was repeatedly surprised when the software sales teams would come in and immediately jump into a sales presentation and demonstration of their software - taking no time whatsoever to determine my specific needs so that they could determine whether their technology was a reasonable solution. After a while, I just started avoiding these sales pitches altogether. Ironically, I spent the following year working as a software sales executive - and I don't think I did a single "canned" sales pitch the entire time.

Moving closer to my roots, the last several years have brought me back to that familiar ground of applying technology and engineering to improve the efficiency and profitability of customers' operations. At my current company, the "sales" people are the ones who design systems, size and select mechanical equipment and even do some of their own engineering. Oddly enough, one of our biggest customers recently reiterated that he did not want to have "salesmen" call on him - he wanted only "engineers" in his facilities that could solve his problems. As always, John the Don was right - we're not here to "sell" products after all.

Like I said - I'm not a salesman.....really

Life as a Reformed Hockey Fan

At the half-way point of a 2-week business trip, I found myself with the prospect of a night alone in Chicago, with no business or social commitments. With a little help from friends, I happened upon a ticket to the Chicago Blackhawks hockey game. Not just any ticket, mind you, but a premium seat in the front row up against the glass.

I can count on one hand the number of NHL games I have attended in the past, and none in the last eight years. In that time span, I have learned a lot about the game - having coached well over a hundred youth games, attended multiple coaching clinics, read several books on coaching youth hockey, and spent several hundred hours on the ice. I guess it's natural to expect that I would have a different appreciation of the game, given the opportunity to watch it at its highest level.

I was super-excited about the game, this was my first opportunity to watch NHL players from the front row, in live action. The Hawks were playing the St. Louis Blues, which split my allegiances slightly. Last year, I was an assistance coach with ex-Blues player Tom Tilley, and the Blues were the closest NHL team to Kansas City. On the other hand, I had lived in Chicago several years ago, so the Blackhawks were my last true "home team". With no emotional ties to bias me, I could truly enjoy the game.

It didn't take more than about 15 seconds of live action to realize that I no longer watch hockey like I used to. Chicago won the face off and moved the puck into their offensive zone, after a wide shot, the Blues' left defenseman picked up the puck in the far corner and made an incredible pass to the right winger who had broken open near center ice, creating a 1 on 1 scoring opportunity against the lone defensemen who had dropped back. Despite this great scoring chance for the opposition, the home crowd was roaring in approval and excitement. It took me a couple of seconds to understand their obvious loss of synchronicity with the action on the ice - it was almost like they were watching a different game than me. This group of rabid fans were delighted by the powerful body check delivered by the Hawk's right winger on the defenseman who had just made the spectacular break-out pass. The fact that the visiting team was on the verge of a score did absolutely nothing to deflate the home crowd. Nope, I wasn't watching a different game, I was just watching the game differently.

I felt even more out of place a few minutes later when the first of 3 first-period fights broke out right in front of me. Now, anyone who knows me understands that I am not a tender-hearted pacifist by any means. Heck, I love watching one UFC fighter beat the living pulp out of his adversary just as much as the next guy. But watching two elite athletes, who master such a technically challenging game, reduce themselves to thugs on ice was, frankly, offensive. Of course, I was vastly outnumbered in my assessment of the incident. I think I captured the general atmosphere in one of my photos of the third fight of the period. [The gentleman sitting next to me, by the way, was equally as unimpressed with the stoppage of play. We were probably the only front-row ticket holders NOT on our feet, banging on the glass encouraging these athletes to beat the crap out of each other].

Luckily, it was a close game. As they always seem to do, the players set aside their UFC aspirations and focused on the business at hand for the final two periods (and the overtime period, up until the Blues' winning goal on an overtime power play.) My favorite games are the close ones - the speed and intensity stay elevated until the final horn - no THAT's hockey!

We're not in Kansas anymore....

It was only after leaving Kansas and selling my home that I became aware of just how oppressive a place it is. States like Oregon (my new home), do so much more for me.

For example - did you know that:

(1) The dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by dispensers properly trained in appropriate safety procedures reduces fire hazards directly associated with the dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids;

(2) Appropriate safety standards often are unenforceable ...in other states because cashiers are often unable to maintain a clear view of and give undivided attention to the dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by customers;

(3) Higher liability insurance rates charged... reflect the dangers posed to customers when they leave their vehicles to dispense Class 1 flammable liquids, such as the increased risk of crime and the increased risk of personal injury resulting from slipping on slick surfaces;

(4) The dangers of crime and slick surfaces described in subsection (3) of this section are enhanced because Oregon’s weather is uniquely adverse, causing wet pavement and reduced visibility;

(5) The dangers described in subsection (3) of this section are heightened when the customer is a senior citizen or has a disability, especially if the customer uses a mobility aid, such as a wheelchair, walker, cane or crutches;

(6) Attempts by other states to require the providing of aid to senior citizens and persons with disabilities in the self-service dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids at retail have failed, and therefore, senior citizens and persons with disabilities must pay the higher costs...

(7) Exposure to toxic fumes represents a health hazard to customers dispensing Class 1 flammable liquids;

(8) The hazard described in subsection (7) of this section is heightened when the customer is pregnant;

(9) The exposure to Class 1 flammable liquids through dispensing should, in general, be limited to as few individuals as possible, such as ...owners and their employees or other trained and certified dispensers;

(10) The typical practice of charging significantly higher prices ....in [48 of the other 50 states] states:

(a) Discriminates against customers with lower incomes, who are under greater economic pressure to subject themselves to the inconvenience and hazards...;

(b) Discriminates against customers who are elderly or have disabilities who are unable to serve themselves and so must pay the significantly higher prices; and

(c) Increases self... dispensing and thereby decreases maintenance checks by attendants, which results in neglect of maintenance, endangering both the customer and other motorists and resulting in unnecessary and costly repairs;

(11) The increased use...in other states has contributed to diminishing the availability of automotive repair facilities...;

(12) Self-service dispensing at retail in other states does not provide a sustained reduction in fuel prices charged to customers;

(13) A general prohibition of ... dispensing of Class 1 flammable liquids by the general public promotes public welfare by providing increased safety and convenience without causing economic harm to the public in general;

(14) Self-service dispensing at retail contributes to unemployment, particularly among young people;

(15) Self-service dispensing at retail presents a health hazard and unreasonable discomfort to persons with disabilities, elderly persons, small children and those susceptible to respiratory diseases;

(16) The federal Americans with Disabilities Act, Public Law 101-336, requires that equal access be provided to persons with disabilities at retail gasoline stations; and

(17) Small children left unattended when customers leave to make payment at retail self-service stations creates a dangerous situation. [1991 c.863 §49a; 1999 c.59 §160; 2007 c.70 §276]

Yep, you guessed it, only New Jersey and Oregon have figured out how to protect their citizens in a way that is so flagrantly overlooked by the other 48 states - stop letting them pump their own gas. I would add an additional item (items 1-17 above are quoted from Oregon State Code 480.315)

(18) Consumers who self-serve run the risk of spilling gasoline on their shoes, which could lead to very embarrassing consequences, possibly even forcing them to conduct a formal presentation at a global leadership conference wearing only socks on their feet. [I believe this really could happen - just ask Sean.]

Speaking of Sean - he's gone political on us - even showed up in the national media, thanks to a very clever fund raising strategy.

Driving across country with the family this weekend - leaving behind those repressive days of having to fill my own gas tank....

Another fun book - for serial Entreprenuers

Last month, I wrote briefly about the full day seminar I attended that was hosted by Dr. Don Kuratko. Among other things, Dr. K gave me a whole slew of new books to read (leave it to the college professor to send me home with reading assignments). The first "must read" on his list was "A Stake in the Outcome" by Jack Stack. Being from Kansas City, I immediately assumed that I would be reading about the establishment of a BBQ empire - but apparently, this Jack Stack has not relationship to my favorite smokehouse.

The Jack Stack that wrote this book was a general manager of a engine rebuilding plant in Springfield, Missouri during a major corporate shake-up. Going out on a limb, and with no real idea of what he was doing, he found a bank that would loan him the money for a management buy-out of the plant, establishing the highly successful company SRC Holdings. Having been involved in a couple of small company start-up ventures myself, I can relate to the "figure it out as you go" attitude that Jack and gang adopted in those early days. Unlike my own experiences, though, Jack started out with an existing company with a long history and an established customer base, although over 50% of their revenue came from a single client (something that nearly killed them at one point).

The cornerstone of Jack's success was the creative way in which he got every employee of the company tuned in to what it takes to make the company successful. Contrary to the typical big business approach, where separate groups within the company only focus on their own goals, objectives and measures; Jack determined that, in a small company, everyone had an obligation to understand the ENTIRE profit & loss statement, balance sheet and cash flow. To do this, he invented the "Great Game of Business", a tool that has been adopted by thousands of companies worldwide. The stories in this book are incredible. There is so much living proof out there of the power of enlightenment and engagement, yet so many companies absolutely refuse to disclose their books to more than a handful of internal employees.

This book was a really motivating read! While I don't see myself leading a management buy-out anytime soon, it sure would be fun to find a way to play the great game of business.

The Strategic Tactician

It seems like we end up having this conversation pretty frequently - like every time we debate the potential fit of a new candidate, or when we are assigning positions on the crew of a sailboat racing team. Who is the strategist and who is the tactician?...my question becomes - "Can you truly succeed in one of these roles without being equally successful in another?"

While we all come across individuals who have either by nature, or by design limited themselves to operating in either a "strategic" or "tactical "realm, I have observed that truly successful leaders have usually demonstrated expertise in both areas - I'm really not sure how you can do it any other way.

Going back to my military days - every operating plan was devised based on an overall strategic mission. The top planners, intimately familiar with this mission, would select and assemble the appropriate bundle of tactical moves that, pieced together, would accomplish the strategy. As an officer of the line, it was our job to execute those tactical components to perfection. But as the saying goes - No plan can withstand the test of actual battle. As the execution unfolded, the front line leaders were invariably faced with unexpected circumstances not anticipated by the plan developers. In order to make the right tactical decisions to adjust on the spot, we needed to be intimately familiar with the overall strategy, therefore enabling us to make decisions that not only accomplished our tactical objectives, but also progressed us towards the strategic objectives. Leaders can never de-couple the two.

Conversely, the only way to become a true strategic leader is to have battle-tested knowledge and experience of the tactical environment. Strategic planning has little chance of success if the leaders do not fully understand the capabilities, limitations and dynamics of the "tactical" part of the organization.

Admittedly, there are plenty of people out there who gravitate towards one or the other. I prefer a good mix of both - what's your preference?

The "Helmet with Shoes" - Dr. K

After weeks of anticipation, and enduring 421 pages of dehydrating college text, the day finally arrived - a full day workshop with award-winning entrepreneur and famed academic Dr. Don Kuratko. Prior to the workshop, I had a chance to meet Dr. K and felt obliged to comment on his book - ok maybe not "obliged", but I certainly felt I had earned the right to issue a commentary. After explaining how delightfully painful it was to try to devour an entire college textbook over the course of a few airplane trips, he mentioned that others had suggested a non-textbook version of the material, which he felt would be difficult to do in a reasonable level of detail and/or value. I would say that Dr. K is suffering from the dreaded Curse of Knowledge, so I naturally recommended the Heath brothers' book "Made to Stick", which I had finally finished on the airplane the night before (I offered him my copy, but he was already planning to finish "Skin in the Game" on his return trip home).



Shockingly, he opened his session with a joke, something that business presenters quit doing in the early nineties. Even more shocking to me, though, was the delivery of the joke went really well and was quite relevant to the session - addressing, head-on, the fear that every business leader has when he is about to sit through a full day seminar with an academic. The joke was an admission that college professors are notorious for delivering information that is "absolutely correct and totally useless". Then he assured us that, over the next eight hours, he would break that paradigm...and he did!



After a brief review of the material and required reading list (my next read will be "A Stake in the Outcome", by the way), he moved into a familiar ice-breaker - with a twist. Anyone who has been to enough corporate workshops has likely had to introduce themselves and include an interesting, unusual or little known fact about their personal life. Dr. K had us do it artistically. Every person had to draw a picture and show the group - the picture representing a fact about the person that everyone did not know. Then the group had to guess what the illustration was depicting. I'm tucking that one away for future reference - it was really a fun variation on a common ice breaker.



But what really stuck out of the opening ice-breaker, was Dr. K's drawing:



Even more interesting was the accompanying story:

In the early 70's, Dr. K played football at Div. III John Carroll University (Don Shula's alma mater, if you didn't know). At the time, a college football magazine ran a story about how, in 1973, the college had to special order his uniform due to his unusual stature 5'6", 118lbs - (which, by the way, is one inch taller and 40 pounds lighter than Tyler, my ten-year-old). The uniform manufacturer, knowing that no college would need an extra-small (XS) uniform, mistakenly delivered the equipment to the grade school across the street. Later that season, Don was on the field waiting to receive a punt from the other team. During the normal hush that tends to come over a crowd just prior to a kick - an opposing fan yelled out "Look - it's a helmet with shoes."

For the rest of the session, I just couldn't look at Dr. K the same way....

Tappers and Listeners

Having finally reached substantial completion of my college textbook on innovation (many more blog entries to follow), I started into my most recent book - "Made to Stick". As a student of marketing, consultative sales and public relations, I am fascinated by the dynamics associated with interpersonal communications. On today's flight from Kansas City to Frankfurt, I completed the introduction and first chapter of the book. (with a brief 97 minute intermission to do some global power plant database queries and analysis). On page 19, I read another reference to the 1990 experiment conducted by Elizabeth Newton at Stanford (I've read about this study in at least 2 other books on marketing and communications). In the experiment, she had two participants. One was asked to tap out the rhythm of a popular song while the other was asked to guess the name of the song. Before each run, she asked the tapper to predict the odds of the listener accurately guessing the name of the song. Overall, they predicted average odds of 50%. In reality, the listener was able to guess the song only 2.5 percent of the time.

If you think about it (or even try it) it actually makes perfect sense. The tapper has the benefit of a lot more background and information than the listener - they can actually hear the song in their head as they tap. In the absence of this knowledge - the tapping is little more than a random series of beats and pauses. I see this in business EVERY DAY! As communicators, knowledge can be a significant burden. If there is a mismatch between the speaker's knowledge and the listener's knowledge, the results are, at best, an ineffective interchange and can even be disastrous.

Several years ago, a mentor of mine (gee, I miss having mentors) taught me the value of "Joe Stupid". "Joe Stupid" has a knowledge base of zero and communicates on a very simple and unassuming level. Because Joe is so lacking in knowledge, he tends to learn a lot during interactions. Recently, someone introduced me as the guy that is able to explain complex concepts in a simple and logical fashion the anyone can understand, it's even seen by some as a unique trait. In reality, it involves little more than explaining a concept from the viewpoint of the listener, not the tapper. Try tapping without hearing the music, and see how you do.....

Innovation Dilemma

I've been reading a lot lately, and at a pretty good clip. Thanks to recommendations from friends and associates, I have a growing list of interesting and relevant books to consume. The pace has been pretty healthy as well, about 10 days (or two round-trip plane rides) for each book - I was in a pretty decent groove...until my latest literary conquest. When the book arrived, I sensed immediately that it would be different - it wasn't like the other books I've been reading lately. Now, I've heard that you shouldn't judge a book by its cover - but this book had a vaguely familiar look and feel. It was a hard back, with a glossy cover - reminiscent of those overpriced books you used to carry around campus. Yes - I was about to sit down and read...a college textbook! When is the last time YOU read a college text book? I'm not even sure if I read many in college....



Why am I reading a college textbook? (and will there be an exam at the end of the quarter?) The book is titled: Corporate Entrepreneurship & Innovation. One of the authors, Donald Kuratko, will be teaching a seminar next month in Charlotte that I am attending. Slow pace aside, this book is very insightful and highly relevant. I'm sure there will be multiple blog entries inspired from its pages. Page 58 in Chapter 3 lists Sixteen Dilemmas of Innovation. A few of them really hit home (and echo conversations I have had in recent years).

Innovation Dilemma # 6 - "An innovation succeeds because it addresses customer needs. Yet when you ask customers about their needs, many do not know or can not describe them to you except in general terms."

Innovation Dilemma #13 - "Technology-driven innovation often leads to dramatic new products that prove to be 'better mousetraps' nobody wants." (or can't afford) "Customer-driven innovation often leads to minor modifications to existing products or 'me-too' products meeting a competitive brick wall."

Innovation Dilemma #16 - "Being first to market is not consistently associated with success, while being second or third is not consistently associated with failure."

There are 13 others listed in the table - these 3 just struck a bit of a chord with me. Many companies want the glory and respect associated with being an "Innovator", but most don't want the exposure to potential failed initiatives. I think the fear of failure kills innovation faster than most anything else. One company, fully understanding this concept, created a "Free to Fail" program to encourage moderate risk-taking in the name of innovation. Other examples are listed in page 178 of the text book including:

- Small cash awards given to employees who try something new and fail - and the best failure of the quarter receives a larger award.

I've often encouraged people to celebrate failure - as a way of ensuring that fear of failure does not inhibit creative thinking and action. Companies that continue to only celebrate successes while "blaming away" failures will never reach that pinnacle of innovation and corporate entrepreneurship.

When was your last failure, and how did you celebrate it?

The Kansas City Science Fair

There are certain annual events that I have to include on my "can't wait until next year" list. One is the annual NSF SBIR conference (that I am unfortunately missing next week) and the other, without a doubt, is the Kansas City Science Fair, sponsored by Science Pioneers. I never actually entered a science fair as a kid - can't really say why, it's just not something I ever did.

Last year, an associate at the office asked me if I could volunteer to be a judge at the KC Science Fair. Everyone knows how passionate I get when it comes to working with and around kids, so I obviously did not hesitate. As a first year judge, I started at the elementary school level, only judging papers and displays. It was actually pretty straightforward - the required attribute sheet was very complete and most all projects were well developed. The one thing I did NOT get to do was talk to the students - that's only at the junior high and high school level. For me, the best way to judge how much a student accomplished during the execution of a project is to speak to them face-to-face, without that element, I just felt like I was missing out.

This year, I signed up for the junior engineering division - where I had the opportunity to judge and speak to several 7th and 8th grade students. It was fabulous. These young boys and girls were genuinely passionate about their individual projects, and many of them really had a good time doing them. Overall, I have only one complaint (that applies to all projects I reviewed last year and this year as well) - there is not enough emphasis on celebrating failure.

I wonder if it is human nature or just the manner in which science is taught these days. It's as if the definition of a successful experiment is one in which the student can exactly predict the results, then run an experiment that fully supports their hypothesis. As I mentioned to one student "If you proved what you already knew, then what have you really learned here?" I believe that real learning starts when we encounter the unexpected. New discoveries evolve from failed hypotheses. I fear that many of these kids are so focused on creating a nice little report that neatly fits into the standard format that they avoid true experimentation and discovery....

Of course, these were my concerns and conclusions after reading the reports, prior to the students' arrival. During oral interviews, a whole different story emerged - EVERY TIME. Talking freely about their experiments, each of the students I met had a great story to tell about experimental failures, shifts in thought process and critical thinking about follow-on projects and alternate hypothesis. This was utterly delightful! I could have visited with these enthusiastic young men and women all evening.

So, the thing that's really missing is not the method and thought process, but the ability to break from the highly structured format of a science report to adequately write their story of discovery....funny thing is - you don't have to look far to see the exact same issue in the business world. We're so programmed to fill in the template and follow the predefined structure, that we lose the ability to tell our story. My advice: throw out the form, forget the template - start with a blank sheet of paper and tell your story. By the way - this is the EXACT same advice I had for several presenters at last year's NSF SBIR Phase II grantee conference. So, what's your story?

The not-so-free press

I usually close out my work day with a quick peak at some of my favorite online news feeds and blogs. Today, I came across something a bit odd. One of my favorite bloggers included a link to "Ink" - Kansas City's new online news site. His uncharacteristically terse comment read "go see it. It's cool" Now, when it comes to web sites, very few live to earn the distinction of a "cool" rating on his web scale - so I had to check it out.

What I found was a "beta" site that was just plain NOISY. I don't think I ever really figured out what it was all about or where the real meaningful content was hidden...there was NO WAY this thing could have truly earned a "Cool" rating. I had to go back to the blog to check the date on the entry - maybe this was posted on Tuesday - as a clever April Fools prank...nope, it was new.

I happened to run into the author a few minutes later and got a rather disturbing story... Like me, he had found the site in need of considerable upgrade. True to form, he posted his unbiased and unabridged opinion on his blog - complete with a detailed list of issues that require improvement. (Fittingly - there was no "cool" rating awarded in this original posting)

What he probably failed to consider was that his wife's employer owns the site - so, naturally, she got a call into the boss's office, which led to a call to him with unambiguous instructions as to what she desired....and the honest, unabashed commentary was deleted. I wonder if this is just a small indicator of the inherent rivalry between the traditional press and the internet, which allows rapid dissemination of opinions and criticism without the benefit of political cleansing and quality checks at the hands of the editorial staff....hmmm, makes you wonder, doesn't it??

So, for those of you who might have missed the Ink.com buzz, here is a critical review for mass consumption:

I was just reading Mathew Ingram's remarkable post about the increasing trend of how news is consumed using social networks. He cites a remarkable quote from one 20-something, "If the news is important, it will find me."

The idea is that there just so much news out there that it's virtually impossible to consume it all. Instead, there is a faith that someone you know or trust will pass it on to you via email, RSS, Twitter, blog or other way. It's the new word-of-mouth for our century and it is replacing crushed trees smeared with ink as the medium of choice.

Coincidentally, today marks the launch of The Kansas City Star's new "lifestyle" newspaper named, anachronistically and without irony, Ink meant for the group Mathew Ingram talks about. There is a print tabloid version, but their website has user blogs and the ability to "friend" others into a trusted group. At first glance it looks like The Kansas City Star's team has put together something to face the future.

But it's awful.

It lacks RSS feeds. The advertising overwhelms the experience. The navigation is bereft of intuitive labeling and placement. The design has the sensibilities of a nausea-inducing MySpace profile. The blogs require "friending" to read, effectively shutting you out without a long wait. In short, it's unreadable.

The content seems like it might be worthwhile, but the design and usability obstacles are so big that I wonder if it matters. My first reaction might be a bit harsh for something that just launched and it does say on their site that it's in beta, but a launch is a launch.

Perhaps these are things they'll revisit and improve upon over time. I guess if it does, the news will find me.

UPDATE: Try Googling "Ink KC" or variations of it. They have *no* search engine visibility. I'd make that my first priority because I really want to see them succeed.

Business Travel 101

Taking a peek at the world through the eyes of Sean Tevis, I came across an interesting and very familiar observation concerning our recent national sales meeting. (excerpt from Sean's Blog)

"The Napa Marriott, for example, is a nice place, but it’s not noticeably different on the inside from other Marriott hotels except for the wine-themed artwork on the walls. For the 90 percent of the time you spend indoors you might as well be at the Marriott in Overland Park, Kansas and you would never know the difference. "

When I'm trying to convince my wife that business travel is grueling and not so glamorous, I will use this same approach - describing every city as "looking the same". You know - an airport, same old rental car, the inside of the Marriott Courtyard, a conference room at the customer's office, dinner at Applebee's...same ole' stuff - different city.

Sad thing is - it is quite possible to have this experience (many people do - including me at one point). Several years ago, during a visit to Indianapolis, my friend Peter introduced me to the concept of the 15-minute tourist. During a short break between our afternoon meetings and dinner, we made a quick side visit to the War memorial - 15-minutes of culture squeezed into an otherwise busy trip. Since then, I have made it a point to try and get out for a few minutes of "sight-seeing" whenever I travel. Sometimes this is easier said than done - but I probably have a better than 50% success rate over the last several years. Here are some tips:

1. Don't rely on "stumbling" across an interesting tourist attraction. Do a quick Internet search and find the local sites and unique attractions in the city you are visiting.

2. Bring a camera - give yourself a personal goal of taking at least 20 photos on each trip. I actually carry my Nikon digital SLR wherever I go. The kids get a kick out of viewing my photos on my zenfolio photo site - especially on those multi-night journeys.

3. If your trip includes dinner or a working lunch, incorporate a local attraction. Frequently, your local host or client will be thrilled to show off their home town - especially if you are from out of the country.

4. Even if you don't have time scheduled for a 15 minute sightseeing excursion, do your homework anyway, be ready when things change. On a trip to New York City a few years ago, we found ourselves with an unexpected 2-hour opening in the schedule. Rather than just going back to our rooms to do e-mail, Danielle, Paul & I had time for a visit to the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Now, if one of the local attractions happens to be the worlds' largest outdoor market, you may have a quite different dilemma...(see "The Joy of Shopping")

The Joy of Shopping

At the half-way point of my 4-week journey, I find myself in Bangkok, Thailand. If you read my previous post on the "Stress of Travel", you know that I was pointedly challenged on this trip to bring home meaningful and substantial souvenirs and gifts for the family. After multiple failed attempts to overcome my shopping "mental block", I found resounding success in the night time street markets of Kuala Lumpur. With the help of our local agent, Ng Kee Oei, and his fine negotiating capabilities, I was able to secure a nice collection of casual shirts for the boys and designer-looking handbags for Shelley.

Then I got stupid....and overconfident. The right course of action at this point would have been to neatly tuck the loot into my checked baggage, make no mention of it to the family, carry on with the business at hand during the rest of my trip and just surprise everyone when I get home. Yep, that would have done just fine - everyone would be happy, and quite surprised to receive something other than airline toiletry kits and coal.

Nope, I wasn't that smart. In retrospect, I'm not sure if I could have really controlled what happened next. I think there is probably a chemical explanation, perhaps it will be explored in Daniel Goleman's next book. Now, when Shelley goes on a shopping spree, she invariably comes home and rethinks her purchasing decisions, experiencing remarkable self-doubt. I think the term for this phenomena is "shoppers remorse".

Conversely, after a long morning run, the endorphins released in my system, give me a euphoric sensation, commonly referred to as a "runners' high". Maybe it was the release of stress and fear of failure - but I returned to my room with an unmistakable "Shoppers' High" that night. I will blame this chemical imbalance for my actions over the subsequent 24 hours.

Mistake #1: Immediately sharing descriptions (and pictures) of the purchased items with my family. Had I just maintained a secret and presented the gifts upon my arrival, everyone would have been happy. By reporting 'in situ', I created the opportunity for increased expectations. Seeing the types of goods available, the family's "wish list" turned into a shopping list.

Mistake #2: Admitting that I enjoyed the shopping experience. I no longer could collect 'hardship points' for subjecting myself to such an arduous and unpleasant experience.

Mistake #3: Actually enjoying the shopping experience. The human brain is a remarkable organ. It works on a complex series of pattern recognitions and electrochemical reactions. Once the pleasure centers in the brain are activated, there is an inherent (and uncontrollable) motivation to replicate the experience. Drug dealers know this "the first hit is free".

Having experienced this "shoppers' high", I undertook the singular mission of replicating the experience. Sitting at the airport in Kuala Lumpur, I research the shopping scene in Bangkok. I discovered that the largest, and most famous, of the markets in Bangkok is the weekend market; Chatuchak Market. Since the market is only open on the weekends and Sunday would be occupied with setting up our trade show booth and meeting with the local agents, I had no choice but to shop immediately upon arrival on Saturday afternoon. At 2pm I arrived at my hotel. So intent on stimulating the pleasure centers in my brain, I skipped my unpacking and set-up ritual altogether. Tossing the bags on the bed, applying a liberal amount of sunscreen to my exposed skin, I rushed out the door to the train station two blocks away.

During the 25 minute ride on the "sky train", I felt my internal anticipation building. Maybe it was the "standing-room only" crowd on the train - all heading to the same destination at the end of the line. As the train slowed approaching Mo Chit station, we passed the market below. It was HUGE! Does anyone really appreciate how big 35 acres really is? No, that wasn't a typo - I was gazing across a 35 acre outdoor shopping bazaar - and with great anticipation.

I scurried off the train amongst the masses, eager to dive headlong into the sea of bargains. As I turned down the first aisle, picking my way through the 15,000 vendors, a familiar feeling overcame me....gone was the happy feeling from serotonin release in the brain's pleasure centers. This place was WAY out of my league. Looking at the wares available for sale, fear engulfed me. None of the clothes seemed big enough to fit anyone in my family, all of the handbags looked cheap and gawdy, the articles morphed before my eyes - nothing would possibly fit in my luggage. The old feelings were coming back. Determined to beat these demons, I pressed on, determined to find that shoppers' high again. I was breaking into a sweat. (OK, maybe I'm being dramatic, I was sweating because it was 90 degrees and humid outside).

After almost two hours, (one of which was devoted to finding my way out of the labyrinth and back to the train station), I found myself carrying 2 t-shirts for the boys, quite certain they would be too big for Timothy and too small for Tyler. Slumping into a seat on the train, I came to grips with what I already knew - I am not, and never will be, a good shopper.

Will New Media change the course of the elections?

General Election, 2008

Tomorrow is election day, and it's what everyone is talking about. This is only the 12th general election held in Malaysia, so it's still a really big deal. Tyreal will not be able to accompany me to Bangkok tomorrow, he will fly out on Sunday instead. Tomorrow, he needs to drive 3 hours to his home town to cast his ballot, then turn around and drive 3 hours back to Kuala Lumpur. All to support the "illusion of democracy" as my dinner companions put it.

Malaysian TV and Radio are state owned. The ruling party decided years ago that it was not in its best interest to allocate air time to opposition parties trying to deliver their manifesto to the masses. According to some people in this city, districts who elect and support opposition candidates suddenly find their government-provided services lacking - or even absent altogether. No wonder the ruling party won over 90% of the Parliament seats in the last election - with a record number of candidates running unopposed.

Some believe that this year's election will be different. What the government in Malaysia can not control is the Internet, blogs, YouTube and SMS messages. Can this make a difference? Perhaps. In 2000, only 15% of Malaysia's 25 million people had Internet access - today, that number is almost 50%! (By comparison, roughly 50% of U.S. households had access in 2000, and 71% have access today.)

So, do Google and YouTube have the power to change the world? Guess we'll have to see.

By the way - how many people were aware that the Malaysian Parliament was dissolved earlier this year, forcing a general election one year ahead of schedule? Who thought the Florida democratic primary in the U.S. would even matter?

The stress of travel

I don't know how to shop really. Sure - I'm plenty good at buying stuff. Shopping is something of a transactional mission - head out with the target item in mind, grab the first one you see, grab a couple of other shiny objects that look like you might need some day, pay for it and get out! Stereotypically, men shop this way.


So, in the midst of a 4-week long trip that takes me to Napa, Sydney, Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok and Jacksonville; I'm feeling a bit of stress. It's not based on figuring out how to pack for multiple climates and still limit my self to no checked baggage. It's not the high level government meetings in Canberra, or my presentations in front of oil and gas executives. It's not even the fact that I'm heading to the airport at home with a ticket to Sydney and a ticket home from Bangkok two weeks later, and nothing figured out in between. Nope - those are all just aspects of business travel, especially when you're trying to link a lot of activities and meetings into a single trip.


No, the stress began as I was saying my good-byes to the kids. "Bring us back something really neat, dad," was the request...and they really meant it. Now, I haven't really been much of an overachiever in terms of bringing back souvenirs for the boys. For international trips, their standard loot is the 'ditty bag' filled with personal care items, ear plugs and sleeping blinds that is issued when you fly in international business class. Conveniently, I receive one on the way out of the U.S. and one on the way home, perfect for the two boys. I think they have run out of creative things to do with foam ear plugs and aren't as into the taste of the generic toothpaste. On a trip to a power plant in West Virginia, I did bring Tyler back a lump of coal. He had been reading the "Magic School Bus" series, one book in the series was a journey through a power plant, showing how coal was converted to electricity...so having an actual piece of coal on his shelf was kinda cool at the time.

But the family was making it quite clear this time that I was not going to get off the hook by bringing home freebies from the airlines or coal. Besides, between Australia, Malaysia and Thailand, there should be some pretty worthy trinkets and gadgets to be had. Problem is: I don't know how to shop for trinkets and gadgets. Have you ever walked into a souvenir shop? I think my brain shifts into shopping overload. Suddenly, everything on the shelf starts to morph...it all starts looking like piles of useless junk...and it all seems to look really, really big - like something I would NEVER fit into my one, already overstuffed carry-on bag.


OK, maybe it's not ALL bad. Shelley's mom is easy to shop for. She collects those little silver spoons (although, after putting up that new bookshelf in her basement last month, I'm not sure where she's keeping her rack of souvenir spoons anymore) Souvenir spoons are universal - and simple. I almost always bring my mother-in-law a new silver spoon....

I've also learned that consistently picking up souvenirs for the mother-in-law while getting nothing for the wife is not particularly good form either.

So, the challenge looms before me - what makes a suitable take-home gift for the wife and kids - I'm open for suggestions. (oh yeah, I did check bags this time - with a small duffel bag with plenty of extra room to bring stuff back.)


I am into the seventh day of my trip, and have actually walked in to several stores with the intention of purchasing souvenirs - but the trinket-shopping paralysis is still there....I wonder if there is medication available for my calamity....or maybe men just can't shop.

Birth of a Political Activist

Tevis.net › At the Kansas Caucuses

After reading Sean's most recent blog, I suddenly feel like I have nothing interesting or amusing to talk about. Funny how your life can seem so interesting and adventurous until you peek over the cubicle and see what the next guy is doing....I really gotta get out more often!

I just started a new book last night - "There's no Such Thing as Public Speaking". So far, it's a really good read focusing on the "physics" of public speaking and the similarities between one-to-one and one-to-many conversations. The basic premise is that there should be no difference between speaking in public and public speaking. Which, not surprisingly, is a simply stated observation made by one of the fifth graders in my son's class last month (refer to my "Signals of Change" entry). I'm pretty sure I'll use this book as a reference in my future presentation skills courses - it covers many of the exact points. More to follow on that - I need to work all the way through it and make sure it doesn't do anything ridiculous like advise you to "imagine that the whole audience is in there underwear" as a tactic for overcoming nerves. I don't know about you, but an audience full of business associates in their skivvies is not an image that conjures up feelings of relaxation! Not sure if you've ever tried that tactic, but I just don't see it working for me.

I - It :: I - You

In the early 90's, Daniel Goleman published the best-selling book "Emotional Intelligence". As an officer in the military, facing frustrations with the limitations of stereotypical military leadership styles and attitudes, reading this book gave me great hope and insight. At least I wasn't the only person that believed that being in touch with human emotions was critical to success - especially in a leadership role. Have you taken an emotional intelligence lately? I did OK on mine - although I obviously have room for improvement in a couple of areas...Goleman's latest book - "Social Intelligence" is equally eye opening. One theme he explores in his latest work is the personal versus impersonal mode of human interaction. He introduces the I-It concept as a common behavior in which we overlook the human aspect of people we meet in certain settings. This is especially prevalent in the medical and service industries. How many times have you treated another person as an "it"? I see it every week when I travel - so many airline employees, from ticket agents to flight attendants, passengers and customers showing utter disregard for the fact that they are interacting with another human being. The alternative approach - the I-You interaction, involves an awareness of the other person, including sensitivity to their emotional state. The I-it is certainly more convenient in many situations, and it requires a whole lot less stress and effort - when I stop at Starbucks, I just want a cup of coffee, I’m usually not prepared to hear the latest emotional ills of my neighborhood barista... But how often do we choose the I-it style when we really don't have to? Try this - next time you're out for a meal at a restaurant and the waiter/waitress refills your water glass, take the time to look them in the eye, smile and extend a warm "thank you". Hold the gaze long enough to measure their reaction. At the same time, assess your own internal reaction to the 2-second gesture - you may be surprised. The brain responds to this sort of social interaction in milliseconds - you'll be amazed at what that 2-second pause will do for you. Invest about 3 minutes in a day, in two-second increments, to these random acts of I-you and let me know how it turns out...

The Blue-Green Message

My favorite Blue Man Group skit is "internet cafe". It's a commentary on today's cyber connected society who stays in touch electronically with people all over the world while failing to acknowledge the human being occupying the seat right next to them. I've taken this philosphy into account when I travel - or even go out in public for that matter. Ever notice the competitive nature in which people board airplanes? I fly a lot (almost every week), and I've taken to people watching and social observation. Observe yourself next time you travel - what do you see? It's amazing how much better the trip can be when you travel compassionately and not competitively. I caught myself a couple of weeks ago:

I travel so much that I even know which 3 or 4 seats I can comfortably occupy on any given aircraft. In a way, I've become a bit of a seat snob - I insist on having a seat where my legs are not bruised by the seat in front of me...I like to have my elbows clear of other peoples' rib cage as well. (Apparently, when airline seats were designed, they chose not to use my frame as the design point.) On a recent flight from Houston to Kansas City I was booked on a Continental Airlines regional jet. Now, on a Continental (or Express Air) regional jet, there are exactly two seats that can reasonably accommodate me - 1A and 12A. My alternate choices are 3B and 12B, with hopes that 3C or 12C are not occupied by a large individual. On this particular flight, I had to fall back to my alternative - 12B. Sitting in the departure gate of the airport, I noticed another man, about my size, preparing to board. I chuckled to myself thinking - "just my luck, he'll be in 12C". As he walked by, I noticed the boarding pass protruding from his shirt pocket - you guessed it - 12C. I immediately was overcome with a burst of negative energy, anticipating a cramped ride with little room to even hold a book open.

That's when I caught myself and decided to take contol of the situation and steer it in a different direction. As we boarded the plane, I settled in and assisted my seat-mate in stowing his bags, with a warm smile and friendly gesture. Rather than comment on the small size of the seats, I focused on the generous amount of leg room we had in the exit row. We struck up a conversation about the books we were reading, consultatative selling and public speaking. It was one of the more pleasant flights I have had in a while. Just to think - it all could have been different, if I chose to maintain the status quo and remain disconnected with the human being sitting next to me....fly compassionately - not competitively.

I really like Blue Man Group, by the way.

Influence without Authority

I remember my first major matrix management project. In 1993, still a Lieutenant in the US Navy, I found myself leading a volunteer effort to design and build a catapult to launch a 450 lb pumpkin. Sponsored by a local radio station in Los Angeles, it really started out as a joke. Listening to the morning show (Kevin & Bean), Scott Wilson & I heard a caller suggest that he could build a catapult to replace the crane that they had used at the annual Oingo Boingo Halloween Concert pumpkin drop. This launched a slew of rebuttals from so-called experts claiming that a pumpkin of that size could not handle the forces required to launch it. Naturally, Scott and I had to perform a couple of quick calculations on our own and decided that it could be done. Not expecting to get through, I picked up the phone to call the radio station - when an intern actually answered the phone, I was shocked..and felt somewhat obligated to go through with it...




The video above includes dubs of some of the radio conversations over the one month period before the event. The video below is a highlight reel just showing the three launches of the catapult:

The Crystal Ball

"Crystal Ball" is actually a software program that is quite useful at analyzing future events. Keep in mind that "useful" does not necessarily mean "accurate". It's actually a statistical and analytics package, using mathematical methods to predict the probability of certain outcomes based on prior system behavior. Getting back to yesterday's conversation - I can't say that I would use a computer program to assess the potential success or failure of a potential candidate, but the underlying methodology is the same. The big question is this: are you an interpolator or an extrapolator?

An Interpolator only predicts future data that is within the bounds of historical observances. For example, if an interpolator were predicting the exact hour of sunrise, he would need observations from the begining of a month and the end of a month to predict the time of sunrise on, say, the 15th of the month. An extrapolator, however, recognizes trends and patterns and makes a few assumptions. So he may observe the time of sunrise on the first few days of the month and, based on this, predict the time of sunrise later in the month. From an uncertainty or "risk" standpoint, the interpolator is more certain of the correct answer.

So, what does this have to do with predicting success of a new leader? The primary data available to assess the future success of a leader is past experiences. The assumption is that the individual will perform under a similar pattern (interpolators can't be bothered assuming improvements or learning on the part of the leader). So, if I can find someone who has performed a similar or identical job function in a similar or identical company with a level of success, it doesn't take much analytical power to predict a high potential for success in the new job. Interpolators look for the "been there, done that" candidate.

Extrapolating, however, takes a bit of work and gets decision-makers a lot more nervous. Just like in statistical modeling and prediction, extrapolating human performance requires a thorough understanding of the inner workings of human motivation and team dynamics. It takes as much intuition as analytics to come up with a reasonable estimate. Going back to yesterday's conversation, this is where the discussion of learning from mistakes versus never making mistakes comes into play. What does the extrapolator use as a modeling assumption? Do you assume that the person has learned a lot from their mistakes and will be effective at avoiding similar mistakes in the future? Do you assume that someone who has made mistakes in the past is more likely to make mistakes in the future? Do you prefer someone who has a seemingly unblemished record, assuming that they are smart enough to never make a major mistake? It's always a lively discussion.

Fill a room with a combination of interpolators and extrapolators, each with a different set of experiences. Have them all interview a candidate for a newly created position in a unique matrix organization (one that has few, if any, direct parallels in peer companies), and sit in the room and listen to the debate about who is the best candidate. You don't need a crystal ball to determine the outcome of that exercise....

Celebrating Failure

Our lunchtime question of the day (Bill Wurtz contributing): which candidate would you hire; (1) the candidate with no business failures listed on her record, only a string of successes, (2) the candidate that has a mixture of failures and successes on his record, but has a good explanation for the external factors that led to the failures, none of which were his own mistakes, or (3) the candidate with a mixture of success and failures, admittedly having made mistakes along the way that contributed to the lack of success? Be careful asking this question in public - it can lead to a long and unfriendly lunch time conversation, depending on the personal experiences of the group. Personally, I think there is a right and a wrong answer on this one, and the answer "it depends" can't be used in this game. Of course, how you rationalize the right and wrong answer depends upon your understanding of human learning, self awareness, integrity and conflict management.

In the Navy, there always seemed to be those "golden boys" - the ones who somehow managed to be assigned to the perennial top-performing organizations. They were leaders in high performing and successful organizations that were high performing and successful before they arrived for their 2-year tour and long after they departed. Then there were others that somehow managed to draw all of the turn-around situations, continuously assigned to organizations with poor performance, with the assignment of turning them around. In which of these two groups would you expect to "learn" more about leadership? As a 12-year member of the latter group, I certainly have a strong opinion on the subject...

Does anyone actually "celebrate" their mistakes? What about "celebrating" their failures? To be sure, let's isolate our discussion of mistakes and failures to those that came out of honest efforts to succeed. Obvious illegal or unethical activities are excluded from this category - that's a different level of learning. Let's assume, for a minute, that after the fact, we are able to analyze and understand the faults in our logic and decision-making that led to the failure. Let's also assume that we have the insight to use this analysis to drive our decision-making in future situations with similar circumstances. We've just accomplished something called "learning" - couldn't this be cause for celebration?

I know, I know...you can learn just as much by making the correct decision the first time, right? Well, think about it...how much time to you spend dissecting the every move when the outcome was a success? I'll bet you do a lot more thorough post-mortem analysis if things did not turn out the way you expected. No one likes to be wrong - and you're much more motivated to prevent this situation in the future.

So, back to our candidates and my pointedly unfair question. Candidate #1 (aka "golden boy") has fewer learning opportunities - or alternatively, is not being forthright about his mis-steps. Not admitting to mistakes rarely works in a corporate setting. Candidate #2 (aka "the blamestormer") has everyone but himself to blame for his mistakes. While uncontrollable circumstances have a lot to do with success, the pattern of placing fault elsewhere can be very disruptive. So, in the absence of any other information - my preference is for candidate #3.


Of course, I would never hire anyone based on what they have already done. A new leader is brought in based on what they are going to do after they arrive. Which leads to the next emotionally debated topice: how do you predict success when choosing the "new guy"???

Boarding School

I have officially graduated from "boarding school". That's the marketing pitch that Southwest Airlines is using for their new and improved boarding process. If you haven't flown Southwest lately, you can see what it's all about by clicking on their "boarding school" page. This can be a good thing or a bad thing or not a thing at all, depending on your point of view. For someone like me, who at 75 inches long can only comfortably fit in one of 6 seats on the plane, it means that I get to reserve my place in line when I check in the day before the flight. Of course, if I fail to check in 24 hours before the flight, or I get stuck behind the folks with connecting flights who got a head start, I have no recourse to make sure I get one of the few seats that is made for someone my size. Not to fear - for an extra $20 above the full fare, I can now buy a "business select" ticket - which guarantees front of line privileges and includes a coupon for a free drink. (too bad I don't drink) Bottom line: I'll probably fly Southwest a little less than before...I actually didn't mind getting to the airport a little early and securing my spot in the front of the line, I met a lot of really fun people along the way....

Of course, I will certainly miss the Southwest flight attendants. What a genuinely fun, unruly and irreverent bunch! Today's crew included Reba and Cosmin based in Birmingham. They tried their best to put on a serious face for the camera, but serious, deadpan flight attendants and Southwest Airlines uniforms just don't seem to go together.

Got a minute?

Does an elevator speech really have anything to do with elevators? How long is an elevator speech supposed to be? How long is a typical elevator ride? Has anyone ever actually had a situation where they had an unexpected opportunity to deliver a short speech to an executive who suddenly stepped into an elevator with them? I know at least one believer - Patrick Kershaw.

On the plane en route to a technology summit at corporate headquarters, I advised Pat that he should have an elevator speech ready to quickly convey the status of his high visibility project - just in case we had a casual encounter with the CEO of our company. Pat had never heard of an elevator speech, so I explained the premise - you step into the elevator on the way to your destination and find yourself eyeball to eyeball with a high level executive in your company (or of a customer's or prospective customer's organization). You have less than a minute to concisely convey your message - whatever it may be - about yourself, your value proposition, your project, whatever.

Later that afternoon, Pat and I were in the elevator at corporate headquarters, on our way to the kick-off session of our conference - and who do you think stepped into the elevator with us? Yep, as if on queue - the CEO....I didn't think that stuff actually happened.

I heard someone last year describe the elevator speech as a 2 minute segment. Have you ever actually timed yourself talking for two minutes? That's really a long time. Have you ever been in an elevator for two minutes? Naturally, empirical data gathering was in order - so I started timing elevator rides. Now, the premise being that the CEO is probably travelling to the top floor of the building, and you've probably boarded at the lobby level. So every time I get in an elevator, I time the non-stop trip from bottom to top. (notice I said "non-stop", when you start adding stops, it's gets too variable, and all those extra people stepping in and out of the elevator really bust the mood) First, I started with the building where I work - SPX Cooling Technologies World Headquarters in Overland Park, Kansas. Granted, I wouldn't expect much of a ride to the towering third floor - but I timed it nonetheless - 35 seconds. (I usually take the stairs, which is about a 29 second trip).

So, just to test the outer bounds - my next timed trip was to the observation deck of the world's tallest building - Taipei 101. Thanks to the world's fastest elevator, this trip only took 37 seconds. The next week, I was at the Crystal City Hyatt in Washington D.C. The ride to the 12th floor....37 seconds. I've continued the data gathering for the better part of 6 months - regardless of building size, It always seems to take 35-40 seconds. Perhaps I have uncovered the underlying design criteria for commercial elevators - get to the top in 35 to 40 seconds.

So, I think it's safe to assume that the target time for an elevator speech is 35 seconds. That will pretty much carry you to the top floor in any building. Add some time for Q&A and you can stretch it to a minute. Got a story to tell - I'll give you a minute...