Here’s Your Brain On…

Posted on by
45

…The Internet: I Won’t Try to Argue the Point

Do you remember the TV advertisements back in the ’80′s where the topic was DRUGS?  Setting: a kitchen with some earth-toned appliances, a frying pan on top of a stove with a voice over that went something like: “This is your brain…”  Plop an egg into the hot pan: voice over: “This is your brain on drugs.”  


The message?  Drugs will fry your brain.  


The ad should be modified for current times: we should drop a hard drive or a motherboard into the frying pan: “This is your brain on the Internet.”


Nicholas Carr (His Blog) is the man of the hour with his new book: What The Internet is Doing to Our Brains: The Shallows.  He’s on NPR, reviewed in Bloomberg BusinessWeek (talk about branding…Bloomberg??).  And, of course, he’ll soon be on Oprah.  


I won’t try to debate the premise.  What I will do is ask us to look back, first, about 5,000 years.  That was the time that the Jews were thought to be writing texts.  (The Mayans could have had hieroglyphics by then, too.) 


I’m guessing that, at that time, there were those who thought that a book was a revelation of a demon deity.  I’ll bet there were even people who could have been quoted as saying something similar to neuroscientist Michael Merzenich: we are “training our brains to pay attention to the crap.”  


Excuse me?  May I beg your pardon: not my brain: my brain pays attention to both the good stuff and the crap.   (And, by the way, Mr. Merzenich, from an atmospheric perspective, isn’t it all crap?  What has getting to the moon done for me…lately?)


Gutenberg?  Some thought he was the devil.  Polio, may I remind you, was the result of a naturally occurring virus but we applied technology on that one, too.


The Point, with a capital “P,” that I’m trying to make — after four or five paragraphs, sorry — is that there are always detractors to the new technologies.  Technology will always advance ahead of society’s ability to understand how to use it (true for the stone axe? hmm).  Stem cell research is finally coming close to its potential after W’s moratoriums.  


And, finally, try not to pontificate while one is the middle of a tech revolution: the view is in the shallows.  Only time will allow a more balanced view.



Moskoff Gets Some Recognition from Alma Mater

Posted on by
2

Skidmore College: Feature Piece on “Human Natured” Moskoff

My alma mater decided I had been doing enough important things to warrant some attention.  Surprise to me: I feel like the cobbler with his head down, aimed toward his work.

I’m grateful for all the collaborators and supporters who have blessed me with their gifts.

A small piece from the article:

“While performance and profit are inevitable topics of discussion, what interests Moskoff most is the concept of community.  ’I'd like to see people asking “Why?” more often.  Asking “why” helps ‘steer the conversation towards values and principles rather than tactics,’ Moskoff explains.  ’I'd like to see organiztions working on a more purposeful existence.’”

High Anxiety Makes Sense: What Model is Next, Emerging?

Posted on by
3

Macro View Creates Grave Concerns: Is Society Viable?

Phillip Blond is a senior lecturer in theology and philosophy at the University of Cumbria. He is currently writing Red Tory, a book on radical conservatism. He writes frequently for the mainstream press on economics, politics and religion

“Look at the society we have become: We are a bi-polar nation, a bureaucratic, centralised state that presides dysfunctionally over an increasingly fragmented, disempowered and isolated citizenry.” 

– Phillip Blond, British author, lecturer at U of Cumbria

So, tell me: how does one run a business — for- or non-profit — in times like these?  When the model that should be steering behaviors and strategies seems…absent or no longer applicable?  No rudder?


Phillip Blond’s acute analysis, referenced in a David Brooks New York Times Editorial, displays one of the great difficulties of the times that mirrors the incessant reminders of fiscal betrayal by Goldman Sachs and the like: We’ve been duped!  Where does one go from there?  A retreat seems likely.


How to make sense of this twisted situation? Blond would argue that we need to come back to our human associations, to our original sovereign station of “the people.”


Because of the inherent flexibility of organizations — they’re more nimble than governments and…more responsive —   these institutions can assist in the movement quite effectively.  Ironic yes and true, too: here’s the reality: your company can be the agent of change in the world: a focus on community, association, service above self.

“The welfare state and the market state are now two defunct and mutually supporting failures.” — essay by British writer Phillip Blond.  

If Blond is right, we’re in a limbo period, waiting for a more effective model to emerge.  While we’re waiting, he would argue that we could be the creators of that new model: should we give it a try?  First step?  Try listening a bit more and talking a bit less: humans like that.







Theory of Constraints (TOC): Part Deux

Posted on by
2

Two News Pieces Stimulate a Review of TOC



Forgive me: I listen to NPR.  Last weekend’s “This American Life” chronicled the disappointing uptake of Toyota’s manufacturing and management methods (NUMMI Audio Program) by General Motors in the late 1980′s.  (Remember those years?: Cameron’s epic “The Terminator, ” disco, spandex.)

Over and over again, in the radio piece, we would hear the same refrain from GM workers who were interviewed: “get ‘em [the cars] out the door…we’ll fix ‘em on the lot…”  The predominant goal of these well paid and bored workers was this: DON’T STOP THE LINE.  That is, of course, if there were problems like…a Chevy Monte Carlo front end on a Buick Regal. Which was less rare than we might predict.   (If you’re Jewish, at this point you say “Oy!”)

Nummi, (Nummi’s Website) a 1984 Toyota-GM joint venture experiment in the SF Bay area (Fremont), was a breakthrough attempt to bring Toyota’s Team Based methods to the rival GM whose market share was, and still is, in a perpetual decline.  Did GM use the methods that were learned at Nummi?  I’ll be kind and say, “sometimes.”  NIH (Not Invented Here) was the shield that GM management wielded to fend off attacks of common sense and/or humility.

Toyota’s approach, in stark contrast to GM’s, was this: “if there’s a problem with something as simple as a bolt that won’t fit, we stop the line and we fix it: quality, not quantity, comes first.”  That is, to some extent, why Toyota’s cars achieve greater reliabiliity marks than the Big Three’s cars…even while being manufactured in the U.S. with U.S. workers. 

On to the next stimulus: I also read “Business Week”.  The latest issue hails Ford’s entry into the Asian market: China and India, mostly.  I shake my head and rub my eyes and think: “Fuel driven cars have to be obsolete in 15 years and Ford is entering the Asian market…big woop.”  BW dubs the article: “Alan Mulally’s Asian Sales Call.” 

So, I have this fascination with the contrast between the U.S. management model (top-down) versus the Japanese model (heterachical: everyone has power to stop the line).  Theory of Constraints (TOC Wiki) once again comes provides a way to explain the situation, provide a framework for comprehension.  

After extensive analysis 20 years ago, Goldratt — the guy who introduced TOC — finds that policies (“don’t stop the line”) are usually the biggest constraint to boosting performance, output, throughput.   Toyota’s plant had a different policy: “don’t fix it later: fix the problem now.” 

What policies does your company maintain that might not be serving: customer satisfaction; throughput; effectiveness?


February 10, 2010: An Historic Day in Sonoma County

Posted on by
3
Nearly Forty Professionals Do Something Absolutely New: An Organic Process

February 10, 2010

Rohnert Park, California — Sixteen (16) professional consultants and twenty (20) non-profits come together to: give the consultants some challenging work, and; provide some needed support and help to the non-profits who are serving social change initiatives; the disadvantaged, etc.

All of this was done without: government support; grants; a supporting non-profit organization or corporate sponsorship.  Refreshing?  You can do this too! Go to The Minerva Project Blog for more information or contact the founder, George Moskoff.

Using a variant of Open Space Technology to create a “marketplace” and encourage connections between Non-Profits and Consultants, the Group’s members produced new alliances. 

Sonoma Mountain Business Cluster a Minerva Project client and emerging non-profit, was the host site for this endeavor. 

Purpose of Minerva Project is to:

provide an opportunity for undermployed consultants to share their expertise …while keeping their skills sharp

 
Our Partner: The Minerva Project is a collaborative, an effort. 
It is governed by ethics and integrity and a belief that teams are
smarter than individuals.  It is a partnership with the Center for
Community Engagement (CCE) at Sonoma State University.

Minerva Project on Google Groups


Minerva Project on LinkedIn

Powered by ScribeFire.

Tough Times? Turn Inward: A Report

Posted on by
3
“Hunkering Down:” Our Natural Response?

Richard Harwood of the Harwood Insitute reveals the results of his latest study, sponsored by the Kettering Foundation: The Organization First Approach: How Programs Crowd Out Community.  (Go to Harwood’s Report: The Organization First)

“Just when leaders and organizations need to turn outward toward their communities, they turn inward toward their organizations.”


Is this something we naturally do…as a sort of self-protection?  Like some suit of armor that, while providing some protection, ironically leads us away from opportunities?  I believe it is.  So, just as it is the human to be compassionate in the presence of anger or evil, this is another skill we must acquire: looking outside when we’re scared.  For opportunities and partnerships with others who…are scared, too.

My own informal analysis leads me to conclude that this trend proves true for both non- and for-profit organizations.  intuitively, it’s understandable: “things are bad…I’ll just focus on what’s going on inside the company…looking outside could be…risky…”

Harwood’s study reveals the flaws in thinking: the leaders gave explanations of the various internal barriers to an expanded role in their organization’s efforts in community engagment: “A lack of funding was typically the first obstacle they mentioned; the lack of appropriate skills was second; for others, internal interest presented yet another barrier.”

This response reminds me of Peter Drucker’s admonition back in the early 90′s: in his gravelly, German-crusted accent, he offered: “…nothing is more ineffective than to make efficient what should not be done in the first place…” 

Are these — are most of them — organizations engaging in a vicious cycle of fear-based introspection that is encouraged by the terror that is the “outside world?” 




Powered by ScribeFire.

Minerva Project Hosts Second Confab

Posted on by
1
February 10 Confab for Non-Profits and Consultants
Uses Elements of Open Space Technology


What: An opportunity for Non-Profits to get help from underemployed professional consultants.

When: Noon to 2pm.  Lunch is $10. 

Where: At Sonoma Mountain Business Cluster, 1300 Valley House Drive, Rohnert Park.  Luncheon workshop and connecting session.

Our Goal: We envision each consultant attending (12 are now signed up) will walk away with one Non-Profit to whom s/he will be engaged to conduct some pro bono work.  A project. 

How: Introductions, facilitated experiences.  Agreements provide the framework for Consultants and their clients, the NP’s, to become successful in their professional relationship.

Our Partner: The Minerva Project is a collaborative, an effort.  It is governed by ethics and integrity and a belief that teams are smarter than individuals.  It is a partnership with the Center for Community Engagement at Sonoma State University. 





Powered by ScribeFire.



What Do YOU Do? Not.

Posted on by
1
A Small Suggestion…

…that could change the world!

Instead of that archaic and backward business conversation starter, “What do you do?,” can I propose a new, different question?  Why couldn’t we ask: “Who are you?” 

This is another volume, a different perspective, on the piece I posted a few weeks ago:
For the New Year: Be Yourself, Upset the Experts In that piece, I suggested that “we crave connectedness but we settle for transactions.” 

This different perspective comes out of two influences: 1) my experience attending an Institute of Management Consultants (IMC) workshop over the weekend.  (In the hallway of a hotel banquet area, we did our best to network; we were all forced into the “elevator speech.”)

The second influence is driven by Meg Wheatley’s book turning to one another: simple conversations to restore hope to the future.

So, when you meet me, do me a favor: don’t ask me that worn-out, generations old and hackneyed starter “what do you do?,” ask me “Who are you?”  Don’t be surprised if I smile.

Powered by ScribeFire.

(How) Words Make a Difference

Posted on by
2

Why must we wordsmith the best parts of our enterprises?

“Talent management” is a term that has been irritating me for…at least a year.  It’s time for me to say something.  And, say it loud and well: we’re wordsmithing the best parts of our enterprise.
Do you recall how the Bush Administration / Rove was so clever with words?  They took “global warming” and softened it to “climate change.”  When asked, directly, whether there were some errors with the oxymoronic “war planning,” he confessed that “mistakes were made.”  Notice, he didn’t say that “I made mistakes.”  No, that would be sobering, to accept responsibility. 
This post is not about polticis; I’m trying to point out how powerful our wordsmithing can be.  I’m referring to “word craftiness.”  (Is that a similar word to Stephen Colbert’s “truthiness?”)
Well, there’s something that’s been going on in the Corporate world analagous to all of the design folks choosing colors for the next few years (you didn’t think that the colors of chocolate and light turquoise just poppped up, did you?)
My beef is with deflection via wordsmithing; getting less close, less intimate, more institutional.  The wrong approach: this is a time when we need to be more genuine, more vulnerable. Look at the history: in the 60′s and 70′s, it was called the “Personnel Department.”  Then, in the 80′s, it became “Human Resources.”  As opposed to “Industrial Resources,” the other, non-human side of the enterprise. 
Now, it’s “Talent Management.”  Huh?  Like a “Talent Show” or “American Idol” with the grimacing Simon.  As if the guys in the upper or middle echelons really believe they’re “managing talent.”  (Let’s just agree to be real and cynical as opposed to buying into the idea that all these terrified people, regardless of rank, can’t find enough courage to care.)
I like what Max DePree at Herman Miller called it back in the 90′s: Vice President for the People.  People.  What a novel idea.
What is it about we humans that requires us to complicate so many simple things?  Is there a gene for it, a location in the pre-frontal cortex?

Powered by ScribeFire.

For the New Year: Be Yourself, Upset the Experts

Posted on by
1
We Crave Connectedness But We Settle for Transactions

I’ve got a new thought for the New Year: tell the experts they’re nuts.  Well, on just one subject: explaining yourself…in business.  For the New Year, commit to “be yourself” and to hell with the so-called authorities and all their fancy “service platform explanations.”  (Does that make any sense?  I didn’t think so either.)

In the process, you just might find that you like yourself, and others, just a wee bit better.  And, that you’re not always measuring yourself against an untenable yardstick of “professionalism” and “propriety.” 

OK, if someone is explaining his/her business service to you, hang in for a minute: you can do it.  Don’t assume s/he will get it all laid out quickly, efficiently and elegantly; sometimes, the smart ones need time, you know.  And, this is how we build connections: what we crave.  We listen.  (Ask the expert, pensive, in the picture; he knows.)

If you’re in the professional service business, you’ve been told — how many times? — how important your “elevator speech” is to promoting your business.  (I’ve got news for you: you could be the Bill Gates of Consultants right now: you ain’t gonna sell nothin’ because no one’s buying nothin’.  Just the way it is.  [Excuse all of my colloquial double negatives, please.]  Well, they’re not buying much!)

What spurred this counter-revolutionary theme? (Some think it was my birth!)  I got to hear an “award-winnng” journalist and consultant speak recently on the subject of partnerships. The talk was a “blur” but I seem to recall a strong emphasis on the “message;” saying what one does in a specific format so that she, the speaker, or some prospective partner, could understand quickly.  Transactions not relationships: isolated vs connecting.  The old industrial model: we are “units of labor.”  Not my cup of tea.

From now on, I’m going to revolt against this type of “packaging:” I really don’t need someone to explain to me his/her business to know whether or not I’m going to like that person and can possibly do business with him or her.  (You know that language is less than 10% about words?)

Some call it the “elevator speech” or “escalator speech.”  I call it “deadsville” because it seeks to package what is hard to wrap: my passions, my expertise, my life. 

So, if the experts suggest you have ten seconds, tell ‘em off and use thirty, hell, use sixty, instead.  I’ll listen and if I don’t, I’m not being respectful.  How’s that for a New Year’s resolution: I will behave more respectfully in 2010.  Towards others, the planet, my clients/customers, my colleagues.  I’ll listen: I’ll make more of an effort to connect.

I’m being encouraged, no coerced, to commoditize myself so that you can understand, in an instant, whether or not I have anything to offer you, as another business person, potential partner, etc.  How have we arrived here?  Slick commercialism?  Greed?  Fear?  Whatever it is, I don’t want to buy it: if you want to tell me about your work, your livelihood, I’ll wait to hear what you’ve got to say: I’ve got plenty of time: I am interested in connecting.

So, when I’m told that I have to explain my work in the “right format,” (What do you offer?…To Whom?…How do they hear about it?…) I’m being told to state my rank and serial number.  I’m being told I’m a “thing.”  Corn, soybeans, crude oil: I’m a commodity.  Trade me on the Mercantile Exchange.  That’s not connecting!  But…it is safe.  (We crave safety, too.)

If I’m a “thing” to you, a tool of some sort that seems to fit your current conundrum, don’t buy me.  If you want to know who I am, great.  I’ll tell you.  But, it will take more than ten seconds.  Sorry, just the way it goes if…you’re interested in connecting.  How’s that for a New Year’s resolution?  We’re not in an economic crisis…we’re in an emotional crisis: a lack of meaningful connection.

Powered by ScribeFire.