An Bui, Spelled An With 1 N

from merriam-webster.com

As a content creator, I’ve spent quite a bit of time thinking about sharing ideas and information online. I’ve seen the positive outcomes of information sharing:

• Increased pageviews to one’s blog, web site, marketing collateral
• Continuation of thought leadership - conversations beyond “It’s about the conversation!”
• Refinement and clarification of ideas - product feedback, improved processes

All of which translate to business value by decreasing operational costs, shortening cycle times, accelerating time to revenue, increasing leads, increasing close rates, increasing customer satisfaction, etc etc etc.

I’ve also seen the negative - the mass email offering damning evidence of illegal, unethical, or racist perspective e.g. authoring this email, or the Facebook photo that shows that the boss was lied to. Obviously, these examples fall into the “overshare”, defined by Encarta as “to give inappropriately personal or detailed information to somebody else, especially a stranger”

So where’s the line between sharing and oversharing? Is sharing value-additive or value-neutral? Is oversharing value-detractive by promoting or demonstrating a lack of ethics or social justice?

Could we develop a framework to run through before we create content?

1. Who does the information benefit?
2. Who are the other authors / speakers on the topic?
3. What are they saying?
4. Are your ideas or information somehow different by content or audience?

photo credit daveynin

Like the picture says, I’ve been working on a few things. I’ve let this blog slide and felt guilty about doing so. Rather than keep this an open action item, I’ll acknowledge that I’ve been a terrible blogger and will blog again soon, but no promises!

awkwardly petting a 'roo

So far this year, I’ve traveled to New York, Australia, New Orleans, Austin and Seattle. There’s a rumor I’ll be in Quebec before heading to Washington D.C. and Philadelphia before the summer begins!

Please leave me a comment if you’re on the East Coast and would like to schedule coffee or drinks!

xo,
A

Columbia University, Rodin's Thinker, via flickr user wallyg

Yesterday, Mark C. Taylor, chair of Columbia’s religion department, wrote in a NYT Op-Ed piece, End the University as We Know It:

GRADUATE education is the Detroit of higher learning. Most graduate programs in American universities produce a product for which there is no market (candidates for teaching positions that do not exist) and develop skills for which there is diminishing demand (research in subfields within subfields and publication in journals read by no one other than a few like-minded colleagues), all at a rapidly rising cost (sometimes well over $100,000 in student loans).

From this controversial opening, Professor Taylor argues for a hgher education system that follows an interdisciplinary, collaborative model that mobilizes scholars around problems and produces scholarship in a more consumable fashion. 

Social media applications/tools have enabled its users to do what Professor Taylor is advocating. Twitter enables the rapid mobilization to address problems. Wikis result in information in a consumable fashion via real time collaboration. All of this consumer generated media (CGM) creates a body of knowledge whose value comes from the integration of various perspectives. Holding the appropriate context and understanding how the various pieces fit should be a driving force in these collaborative processes.

Do graduate students and scholars miss the point if they think that their training prepares them only for the profession of their graduate degree, be it academia, journalism, law, planning, business, etc.?

Yes. Absolutely yes if they cannot connect what they know and what they are learning to value creation and problem solving. Thinking about the process of learning, what is being learned and what that means are some of the values of a liberal arts education. Does this create students who can apply their skills in different contexts?  Will these students have more options than those who cannot?

Professor Taylor leaves us with valuable advice: 

“Do not do what I do; rather, take whatever I have to offer and do with it what I could never imagine doing and then come back and tell me about it.” 

Applying this entrepreneurial perspective higher ed will enable it to evolve with society.

Shannon Paul brought up some great points about how Twitter helps her be effective. In a nutshell, Twitter helps Shannon (and many of us) by helping us connect the dots to solve problems/address issues by allowing access to socially vetted information. 

In other words, collaborate in a distributed fashion.

Why is this important? Because geography is a less of a barrier to information acquisition. 

You should read Shannon’s original post - she’s spot on in the ways Twitter aids professional productivity and effectiveness and her commentors are pretty smart as well. 

um, except me. From my comment on Shannon’s blog:

Blocking access to Twitter and other social networks /definitely/ inhibits an employee’s ability to be effective.

Blocking Twitter and other social networks is about limiting risk and liability… all employees are a liability… the question is to what degree?

There are arguments for and against open communication into and out of an organization…

I had marked <corporate hat> around my comment about limiting risk and liability, but it got stripped out. Understanding why leadership may take a certain policy view can help us communicate with them why tools like Twitter can enable not inhibit professional productivity. 

However, I have yet to crack the nut on how to minimize data/information leakage, especially concerning sensitive, confidential information. This problem likely limits collaboration with external parties.  

Does anyone have any ideas?

Earlier this week, TechStars launched HackStars, a program for 

UI/UX guru[s] and/or a strong coder[s] with PHP, Java, Flex, .NET, Ruby/Rails, or Javascript skills…to help interesting startups for a summer in exchange for meeting all the mentors and founders and sitting in on the mentorship sessions

and I read the public comments following the announcement and on Hacker News. Many concerns, with words like “exploit” and “unethical” included in the discussion. Andrew Hyde, the Director of Community for TechStars, is listening and he also makes the point that he is where he is because he figured out how to participate and contribute to TechStars after not being chosen as a TechStars team.

As a bit of anecdotal evidence, I’ve had both paid and unpaid internships with organizations including the federal government, a Fortune 100, and nonprofits. They spanned research and analysis as well as teaching and mentoring. When I went unpaid, I also got a paying job to pay rent and keep my personal lights on. 

So why did I take unpaid internships when I could get paying ones?

I learned the most when I engaged. I engaged when the problems were interesting and hard. They weren’t problems I’d have access to absent the internship(s). When I really cared about the problems, I figured out how to make the math (and my bank account) work. Granted, I’m not a hacker/developer/coder - the market context is different. My skills in C++ and scheme are Z-team at best. I think the fundamentals still apply though. 

Someone develops skills because s/he does. Yes, s/he listens or pays attention, figures out the needs, and seeks to fulfill them. Listening is not enough. Taking action (including hacking) is not enough. Connecting action to the business needs (uncovered via listening) provides the real value and makes the experience valuable.

While unpaid experiences aren’t for everyone, we each can make our own choices. Those choices depend on our own personal situations. If both parties see mutual benefit and assuming no fraud/deception/legal violations, are they not free to enter into whatever arrangement they so desire? 

You can hack on a project, learn those skills while figuring out how you can meet people who want you to realize your potential…

or

You can hack on a project, learn those skills while meeting people whose goals you’re helping to realize. 

Which do you think will make the impact you desire?

Belltown, from flickr user faeryboots

Tonight I spoke with a restaurant manager at a hip, hot restaurant in Belltown. Our conversation revolved around the weather, sleep (or lack thereof) and he said to me: 

I just need seven days in the desert. I don’t want a fancy hotel or anything like that - one of those motels, with an orange bedspread, tv with knobs, rabbit ears and woodgrain paneling. I don’t know why, but that’s what I want.

That discussion turned into possible reasons why someone with a very public, customer experience and service oriented role would want something that’s a very different experience from that which he strives to provide to his patrons. 

I think it goes back to expectations. For a high-end restaurant, customer expectations are high. The margin for error slim or non-existent. For a dive, the expectatons are at an entirely different level, ones that approach no real expectation. 

You’re free to relax, enjoy, or introspect. You take what’s offered, knowing up front that you signed up for the orange bedspread, tv with knobs, rabbit ears and woodgrain paneling. Disappointing you would be hard. 

What are your thoughts? Am I way off base?

Seattle Bike from Specialized - Complete w/ wood fenders & coffee cup holder

University Bicycles, in Boulder Colorado, gives great customer service. The quality of customer service there makes me wish for the impossible, just so I can hand over more of my cash.

Let’s Start at the Beginning

An is SHORT. Not 5′2” short, but not even 5′ tall. My stature is such that I ride a 38cm bike with 650c’s*, a kid’s bike. Bikes are great - they can be used for recreation, transportation and recreational transportation. Well, knowing I was going to be in Boulder for quite some time, I wanted a greener way to get around and a bike addresses the need for speed in a way that feet just can’t.

So I march myself down to University Bicycles - I’d been down there previously and like the staff. So far, so good - I drool over bikes, oohing and ahhing over the Specialized Seattle edition bike - complete with wood trim fenders (for the rain) and a cup holder on the handlebars (for the coffee). Bicycle deliciousness time ended and I needed to grab a bike. The guys at the shop showed me the smallest size they had - a 44cm with 700c’s. Previous experience taught me that a bike that size fits most petite women, but not me not matter how much I pray for a few extra inches of height. There are small bikes and then there’s an An-sized bike.

What does a bike have to do with Customer Service?

I went to University Bicycles to rent a bike. They had no such bike for me (as Tim Jackson would say, it’s a tiny market) but they did something unexpected - they called other bike stores in Boulder to see if I could find a bike. University Bicycles exceeded my expectations by seeking to solve my problem, even if it did not result in a bike rental or sale for them.

I’m sure the other bike stores in Boulder are amazing as well, but I’ll support Boulder’s University Bicycles when I can because amazing customer service matters to me.

*The first number refers to the frame size; the second number refers to the wheel size.

Red Rose from flickr user Hamed Masoumi

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.

– Juliet, Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

William Shakespeare had a point - you can call a rose a flower and it would still smell as lovely.*

Well is that true with job titles? Does title matter?

Some titles provide a clear, common understanding - CEO, Quarterback, and Host are a few examples in which people know what those roles mean. They may not necessarily know what they do and indeed, some with the same titles may do different things, depending on the organization.

For example, some quarterbacks like scrambling, getting out of the pocket, and throwing the long ball. Others prefer to throw underneath the secondary and use short passes to move the ball down the field. What they choose to do depends on many factors - their skills, strengths, weaknesses, injuries, ability to read the defense and so on. The best quarterbacks have a clear understanding of how their team works together and leads them down the field.

Other titles are much less clear - Customer Service Specialist, Administrative Specialist and Analyst come to mind. What do these titles mean? What kind of career path can they lead you on? Do you start as a Customer Service Specialist before moving on to a Senior Customer Service Specialist? What happens after that? Can you become the Customer Service Manager? Then on to Director of Customer Service?

In smaller organizations with a clearly defined, hierarchical org chart, what happens to people who start as functional specialists? They move up or they move OUT. There’s only so much room at the top, and by clearly defining them as specialists in one area, opportunities to grow in other disciplines become limited. Not only that, each person’s identity is tied to his/her job title. Reframing an identity is hard.

Select for fit, both short and long term

People moving out creates waste, in the form of lost institutional knowledge, including ways to be effective within an organization. Hiring the best and underutilizing them is another form of waste as well - you don’t want to be over human capitalized. Instead, you should hire the best person for the role and see multiple ways he or she can fit into your company long term.

*I know his real point refers to the Montague/Capulet lineage and history that resulted in the death of two young lovers, and that the female party was making the point that names shouldn’t matter

Hat tip to Adina Levin and Jim Benson for inspiring this post.

Trains, Planes & Automobiles

City planners must consider [insert core competency here]. How transportation systems work together, how traffic light systems work together or whatever it be, take your pick.

“City planners must…” polarizes; it pits the speaker against city planners. It implies that city planners don’t consider a core part of city planning. By choosing a position and stating a conclusion without stating the reasoning, does the speaker leave room for a positive interpretation for why something isn’t happening?

Polarizing statements are great - for some things. They’re effective to create controversy and to reinforce an us vs. them mindset. The us vs. them mindset is valuable for reinforcing group bonds at the expense of a them or other.

However, is this the best way? What if you look into the face of your enemy and you see yourself? Might that lead to a crisis of mission and perhaps even identity, as constructed on the (perhaps false) premise of an “other”?

Team Cohesion via Collaboration

What would be a better way to create team cohesion? Perhaps aligning your team around common goals and an understood mission. Fundamentally, the speaker above didn’t want city planners to consider how various transportation modalities worked together - she wanted to optimize transportation access for all community members.

Could collaboration help? YES! By stating a desired outcome and identifying action items necessary to achieve an outcome, the opportunity becomes about value creation, not finger pointing. The process is collaborative, not polarizing.

I’m sure city planners, as a group, want transportation systems to all work well together. I think the question should be: What challenges do planners face in creating a coherent transportation system in any given city?

What do you think the question should be?

image courtesy of Flickr user Atwater Village Newbie used under Creative Commons

What motivates you? Recently, a good friend Craig Sutton asked me: “What gets you really motivated and excited?”

I thought it a valuable question.

Why?

Motivations matter - they matter to employees, managers and leaders. Great leaders understand what motivates their team and have the ability to drive the team in the same direction. When everyone works towards a common, understood outcome, the thinking is no longer “what are my tasks?” or “what is my job?” but rather “what can I do to get us closer to achieving the desired outcome?”

This thinking is one of the reasons why kanban systems work. This thinking also enables individuals to use (and/or develop) good judgement to make decisions that move a process forward, minimizing cycle time. Autonomy in knowledge work is necessary to value creation, as much of the value comes from integrating ideas in new, innovative ways to cut costs or drive revenue. Autonomy also drives trust. Without trust, the organzation’s environment is not about cutting costs or growing revenue - it can become about fear, an unsustainable motivator.

Sustainable motivations help teams build trust, execute, and learn from their mistakes.

I ask again - what motivates you?