Crossing the Generations

A favorite opinion writer of mine is David Brooks.  I am fascinated with those like Brooks who can cover a far-ranging set of topics.  Brooks is a also a sociologist and brings interesting insights into communities, behaviors, norms, etc. A while back he wrote a column in the New York Times on how we change throughout the decades of our lives.  He placed these descriptors on each:

In our 20's - superman (person), possibilities, feverish energy, joiner, brave, entrepreneurial, unsympathetic to others

In our 30's and 40's - political scientist, lower estimations of own power and greater estimation of the power of institutions where you participate, faith in your navigation skills, adaptation, responsive to the "market" around you

In our 50's and 60's- sociologist, understanding of the power of relationships over individuals, managing and coaching, ambition fades and is transferred to the appreciation of ambitions of others, reflective and sentimental

In our 70's and 80's - historian, favoring tradition, appreciation of luck/fate, recognize the power of the dead over the power of the living

See yourself in this set of descriptions?  See your customers/consumers anywhere in here?

This is a path we will all walk, the question is what we will be like when we get there and what we will do to make the most of the understanding of what it means to successfully cross the generations.

charity:water - A Novel Approach We Can All Learn From

Yesterday's New York Times Sunday Magazine ran a great story on charity:water and its' founder Scott Harrison.  It is worth reading on many levels as Scott, who was an accomplished club promoter in NYC saw a need (clean water in Africa), felt a burden to solve the problem, and identified a gap in the market to meet the challenge (give people a way to see proof of their contributions).  Along with ensuring his funding through a very business like way of approaching the market, he has grown charity:water, as a non-profit to nearly $100MM in revenue and impact.  It's a fantastic story and we can all take lessons from Scott and his approach.  A non-profit that we can learn from in our for-profit businesses, that in itself is novel.

(For s further faith based application of this post you can visit: here)

Predictive Streams

It was only a matter of time before predictive search became the topic of the day.  Yesterday the New York Times ran an article on what Google Now is doing and how getting technology to think one step ahead of us is going to be the next big thing.  If technology is about solving a problem, then I think they are right. I for one am inundated with so many inputs from multiple sources that I can't keep up with the things I want to do that really make a difference.  When we get to the point that we want to shut it all off to find time to think, then we should know that we are in need of better ways to manage all of the data and information that is flowing towards us.  If predictive search works and through anticipation and pattern recognition, technology can create prediction streams to lessen the burdens and relieve the hiccups that might occur, then I think we will forgo concerns of privacy and tech companies knowing too much about us. I stand ready for whatever this next wave will be in this area and we'd be smart to all watch the trends here.  It might seem silly to us now, but give it a few years and our consumers and customers will be expecting us to comply and fit into their prediction streams, not ours.

(For a further faith based application of this post you can visit: http://purposedworking.blogspot.com/)

Personality Power

In April, a random book hit the bookshelves in the U.S. titled, "The Cuckoo's Calling".  Since its' publishing date and through this last week it had sold a whopping 500 copies. The author Robert Galbraith had received some good reviews but the sales were like most first novels, weak and uninspiring.  With only 500 copies or so sold, there wasn't much opportunity for social buzz to get it going.  So, like most other books, the author wouldn't recoup his advance and the book would be out of print before it got started and Mr. Galbraith would be able to call himself a published author and get on with his next novel, or back to his day job.  That is until this past weekend when the world found out that Robert Galbraith was actually someone named J.K. Rowling.

Since that discovery, "The Cuckoo's Calling" has run through it's print run, the publisher is scrambling to meet demand, and I predict in a few weeks time Robert Galbraith will be a New York Times best-selling author, if not a #1 spot holder.  Lest we think that there isn't power in personality? 

This is a great reminder that we need to use all we have when launching new products or services. We so want to idealistically think that the great idea we have will take off on its' own, but in truth to make it through the clutter, it does not hurt to have personality behind it to give it the power to get off the launch pad.  This is why considering partnerships, strategic alliances, or even letting others take the spotlight in the promotion or branding may be the better way to success.

(For a further faith based application of this post you can visit: http://purposedworking.blogspot.com/)

Where We Are

Adam Alter wrote a very interesting article in this past weekend's New York Times, discussing the influence of who we are being very much shaped by where we are.  Alter draws from the research from James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling who wrote the 1982 Atlantic Monthly article that explained the "Broken Window Theory", which was broadly popularized by Rudy Giuliani as Mayor of New York City during his campaign to clean up New York. In a nutshell, we human beings are chameleons and we will adapt to the cues and signals around us.  If we are in a dirty and littered location then we will not feel inclined to keep anything neat and organized.  The opposite is also true.  We can take this research into our businesses.  The culture and environment that we create, or let appear without our creation (warning: this is what happens), is all it takes to send the messages of how we want people to work, behave and even take accountability.  A good friend has now gone back into a CEO position after a few years out.  He has returned to the company that he built.  According to those who work there, there is a feeling of change in the air.  An employee mentioned to me that the attention to detail on how the campus is kept clean is back and the messages of the environment are signaling that there is serious business about to happen, again.  And, without having to say much about it, employees are taking notice and upping their work attention and performance.  Where we are yes, can shape who we are.

(to see a faith-based application of this bolt of thinking post, you can visit: http://purposedworking.blogspot.com/ )

The Cost of Cheap

I loved this sketch and article by Carl Richards in the New York Times.  See: http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/the-case-for-spending-a-little-more-sometimes/
Mr. Richards' thesis was that waiting until we can afford to buy good things that will last, or that we will use for a long time, is a better economic decision. The old adage, "We're too poor to buy cheap things" was quoted and it reminded me of the many times in my own life when I have forgotten the power of delayed gratification and I purchase out of impulse because of the catalyst of a sale or seeming bargain. Of course some businesses are built on the principle of cheap, available and disposable, but I'd prefer to think that after time the "Old Navy's" of the world become something else.  We have a store not far from our Rhode Island home called "Benny's".  Our best friend's twin girls over the years (they are 16 now) have come to call the store, "Broken Benny's" because whatever you buy there seems to break or wear out within a few week or months of purchase.  And when you add up the dollars spent, you find that you ended up overspending versus buying quality the first time. As I once told a professional services vendor, "Look, I'm an American consumer, and that means I want it now, I want it perfect, and I want it free or at least cheap".  What Mr. Richards points out so well is that we can't have our "cheap" cake and eat it too.

Update - Why Does Someone Steal My Newspaper...And Who Is It?

10/18/10 Update:

Since originally writing this post, I have done some more investigating and this week we had a breakthrough. The neighbor across the street cleared out and trimmed their bushes and these filled blue bags were found thrown deep into the bushes. As we can see, these are the quickly identifiable blue bags of the New York Times, the same paper that goes missing on any given day from my front gate. This morning's paper was stolen. It could be that any one of the bags from this picture could have been filled this morning. A better detective might have felt for the warmest of the bags, but I thought better of it. This update is to just let the culprit know that I am on to your M.O.. You steal my paper, give the dog the signal, he/she fills in close range to the house and then you walk home with Tom Friedman and All the News Fit To Print without a bag. We are circling in on you and one day, when you least expect it, you will be exposed!


Originally posted: 1/11/10


My wife and I live in an affluent neighborhood in the Bay Area of California. By virtue of this, we live in one of the more affluent neighborhoods in the country. We have a gate on our house. It's a nice place to live and one of those areas where crime is not something that is top of mind. Which makes it even more curious to me why and who steals my New York Times in the mornings? This has been occurring now for over a year and it has necessitated having the paper carrier (who has been a delight through this) to make sure the the paper gets slid under or thrown over the gate. I am befuddled as to who and why someone wants to steal my paper. So, this has me working to profile who the culprit might be:

-I think it is a man. I have no reason to know why I think this, other than I have always had a hard time seeing a woman committing crimes. I shouldn't really be so naive as I was recently conned by a woman outside of a hotel in Rochester, NY on a snowy night who needed money to buy gas to drive 50 miles. It was New Years Eve and snowing and blowing at 10 degrees. What was I supposed to do? The hotel receptionist said it is a common scam in their area. So, women do commit crimes, but would a woman really steal my newspaper? I don't think so, so for that thin reasoning, I think it is a man.

-He is either an insomniac or he goes to bed early at night. I know this because the New York Times is delivered to us between 4:30AM and 5:00AM. I go out and retrieve the paper around 5:30AM and it is already gone by then. To be out on the streets before 5AM, he must go to bed by 8:30AM to get his eight hours of sleep.

-He knows axioms and may repeat these to others. I know this because he is an early riser and he must be following the axiom that the early bird gets the worm...or in this case the stolen paper.

-He's at least a little if not well overweight. I think I know this because it doesn't happen every day. There is no rhyme or reason to the days, which tells me that he doesn't work out every day and is not consistent in his exercise routine.

-He's a walker, not a runner. Runners don't like to carry things while they are running, so unless he lives within a few hundred yards, carrying the New York Times any further is a pain.

-He's not an early technology adopter. If he was, he would already have a Kindle or some type of e-reader and be downloading the New York Times Daily.

-He's a political liberal or left-leaning moderate. I know this because, why else would he want the New York Times? Otherwise, he would be seeking out someone where he could steal the Wall Street Journal.

-He's literate. I know that because he never steals our San Francisco Chronicle that is lying right next to the New York Times.

-He doesn't do crossword puzzles. If he did, he would steal the paper everyday and he would for sure take the Sunday paper, which he never does.

-Finally, he has a clean lawn. I know this because everything we are told is that people don't read newsprint anymore and that it is a dying medium. So, if that is the case, then he must have a dog and he has a poop-free lawn. You know, those blue bags are the best!

These are the clues I have so far. If you have any ideas for us on who it might be, please pass them along to me. They don't think this is an important enough crime for that COPS or that America's Most Wanted Show, but we all watch enough CSI, NCIS, Law and Order, and Cold Case that we ought to be able to figure out this very, very serious crime.

Thank You for your help.

The Most Un-American Statement...

Warning, this post is a bit of a rant but because the topic has bothered me deeply since I read about it yesterday morning in the New York Times, woke me in the middle of the night and has had me tied up inside all morning, I felt I needed to get it out of me.

First of all, I don't want or need to get into why anyone wants to build a mosque in the area of the former World Trade Center. I actually don't care about that any more than if a shopping mall or a condo complex was being built there. It has been confirmed that the mosque meets all zoning and legal requirements of the city of New York and that is all that matters to me.

What I am troubled by are the statements that came specifically from former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. There was a time when I was a Newt Gingrich supporter and while my political views have moved one way, while his have moved in a different direction, I always felt that Mr. Gingrich has the best for the country in his heart and that his opinions were rooted in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But yesterday, Mr. Gingrich crossed a line that has me befuddled, bothered and made me a little afraid for what is happening to our country. These were Mr. Ginrich's statements as reported by the New York times and not refuted by Mr. Gingrich:

"Mr. Gingrich said the proposed mosque would be a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and that building the mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.”

“It’s profoundly and terribly wrong,” he said."

What I am appalled by is the small minded thinking that would cause Mr. Gingrich to associate a world-wide religion with the political Nazi party and think that it okay, under our Constitution to limit the rights for Americans to worship in whatever law-abiding way they choose. I have to ask, does Mr. Gingrich really think that all people who practice Islam were involved and support the terrorist acts of 9/11? Timothy McVeigh was Catholic. Should we also restrict the building of a Catholic Church in Oklahoma City?

The only appropriate reference and comparison to Nazi Germany that I can think of in this situation is that it was this type of segregationist, closed-minded thinking that Mr. Gingrich espouses that gave Adolph Hitler the platform to single out and eradicate the Jewish population of Germany and Eastern Europe. We are also not innocent as a country as this same type of thinking put Japanese-Americans in internment camps during World War II.

We have vowed as a country to never allow ourselves to return to that type of thinking, so please Mr. Gingrich, do not try and use your platform to sway people to return to a place where any American's religious beliefs, color of their skin or national origin, in any way restricts their American rights and their pursuit of happiness.

Fast Forgiveness For Failure...

David Brook's article on New Year's Day titled "The God That Fails" felt like one of the more "practical" ways of looking at our government's successes and failures. The gist of the article was that our government does a lot of good things, but it is not a perfect system and it is filled with human beings so there will be times where the system fails. But, then most importantly is that Brooks says that when this happens we, as the citizens of the government, should not expect perfection each time, but instead, go with the flow and understand that it is impossible for government to be infallible. Those of you who know me, know that I fervently believe that there is only One that is infallible so I carry with me maybe a more tolerant attitude towards failures of others than I should. My wife Patti has always said that I forget and forgive too quickly. She considers it constructive criticism. I consider it a compliment. I know too many people who look for the hole in the doughnut. These are the same people who don't think the glass is half-empty, they think the glass is out to kill them. They take hard stances to the left or the right when it comes to the government and they are quick to criticize when something doesn't go perfectly. This happened this last week with the Nigerian who tried to blow up the flight in Detroit. When I read about what happened, I didn't like it either. I could see why someone should be held accountable and I don't have any issue with someone losing their job over not doing their job to the standards set for them. But, what I can't accept is those that say the whole system is wrong and failing because of one mistake. As I have pointed out before, the TSA has lots and lots of problems and Janet Napiltano has not done anything that I can see to make any improvements, but the entire system is not a failure and nor would it be right to think that we won't have other issues in the future. Government can't be perfect. As long as there are people involved, it is impossible for it to be perfect. Let's try this year to be a little more forgiving and understanding as a country. Maybe if we did, we would find common solutions versus staying so opposed to each other.

Scrub your Facebook and LinkedIn Friends!

I just got around to reading Bill Ayers' (you know, William Ayers, the supposed terrorist friend of Barack Obama) NY Times, December 6th, Op-Ed article. In his article he details his lack of relationship with President-Elect Obama and goes on to say, "President-Elect Obama and I sat on a board together; we lived in the same diverse and yet close-knit community; we sometimes passed in the bookstore. We didn't pal around, and I had nothing to do with his positions. I knew him as well as thousands of others did, and like millions of others, I wish I knew him better". As I read his piece and heard him say, "Demonization, guilt by association and the politics of fear did not triumph, not this time", it made me think about the associations that we make throughout our lives that could come back to haunt us, even though they were innocent at the time. What is different than the past and if we fast forward to the future will be the scouring of our Facebook, LinkedIn, and other social networks of the future to see who our "friends" are and trying to use that against us? Will the next Presidential candidate have to account for all of the millions of friends that they have accumulated or do we need to now start thinking about who we let in our friend networks or not? I casually accept just about everyone who asks to be my friend on Facebook and LinkedIn. I don't pay attention to my MySpace page anymore as it got too cumbersome rejecting one named women who were significantly younger than me. But for Facebook and LinkedIn, who are both better controlled for spam, I tend to trust that because someone knows someone else or I might have tangentially known them in the past that I let them in. But, I have no way of knowing that someone I went to college with hasn't turned into a subversive type. How would I know what secret clubs and societies they belong? And, especially I would have no idea what activities they have financed overseas on those annual vacation trips out of the country. I just accepted a friend on Facebook who I worked with early on a Frito-Lay back in 1986. He was a little wild and crazy back then but it is hard to tell now. His profile picture has him surrounded by five children who all look like him, but how am I to know that these aren't genetically engineered offspring to throw me off and never have me suspect that he is a spy for a terrorist faction? It really is hard to tell these days. Now, that Bill Ayers guy, are we really sure that when they passed in the bookstores they weren't passing secret code books between he and President-Elect Obama? Sounds like we all should just accept that we are guilty by association until proven innocent and just go ahead and have as many friends as we want because it is going to come up some time no matter what.