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 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.

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 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....