Have you ever thought about why things take so long to get done at work? It’s change. Think about it. If every person in every company simply maintained the same productive output every day, every task would be completed on time every time. But of course, just like on the road, conditions are not static. Most businesses actively evade inertia. If they are stagnant, they want to grow. If they are growing, they want to grow faster. Something is always changing, and that change can be accomplished without snarling the business—if there are drivers that know the rules and can stay focused. In other words, they can’t get distracted!

On the road, distracted driving is dangerous. In an organization, it is unproductive. On a podcast, it’s a great title, allowing for an infinite number of metaphors and double entendre (see previous paragraphs) and a clever logo that vaguely personifies a car that itself seems unable to focus. After years of idle discussion, a pandemic, and two presidential administrations, Rex Williams and I have finally “shipped it.” The Distracted Driving Podcast is available now at www.distracteddrivingpodcast.com and on a podcasting syndication platform near you.

I’d be lying if I said it’s for everyone, but we think you’ll like it if:

• You enjoy, as I do, the sound of my voice.

• You are a change agent. Continuous improvement is in your DNA and you love to get ideas for new approaches.

• You hate change and want to find out why it is so painful and how to make it better.

• You work in a large organization and constantly feel like you are trying to make a U-turn in a cruise ship.

• You work in a small organization and constantly feel like your speed boat is stuck making left turns and going to capsize on the ocean.

• You like listening to stories, especially if it involves the folly of others.

• You enjoy obscure pop culture references to things like Steve Martin’s Socrates sketch.

• You like useless bits of trivia and enjoy learning things like podcasting actually started in the mid-1960s.

• You drive a lot and need a whimsical yet inspiring distraction to interrupt the lull of the road.

• You appreciate the juxtaposition of the previous bullet with the theme of the first three paragraphs of this post.

• At some point in your life, you have stepped in dog poop.

• At some point in your life, you expect to step in dog poop.

• You have nothing better to do.

We cover a lot of ground on the show; sometimes silly, sometimes philosophical, but always with the intent to introduce the audience to people that have found ways to overcome distraction and persevere in the pursuit of change. Rex and I enjoy celebrating these people while sharing their techniques, attitudes, and accomplishments in order to inspire others. We’ve already dropped a few episodes, so give them a listen—or if you prefer, watch them on YouTube. It’s not very good, but we’re working on changing that.

While a beautiful gesture, it turns out this was not OK. The local fire department had adopted color codes as defined by the National Fire Protection Association. The color of each hydrant represents the flow rate available at that location and conveys it instantly to responding firefighters. This revelation changed my life—I have become obsessed with fire hydrants ever since. It also made me think about effective ways to convey technical information. Engineers are good at analysis, but not always effective at curating that analysis in a manner that gives people a convenient way to act. How can anyone—especially engineers—convey technical information as simply and effectively as looking at a fire hydrant? I suggest focusing on content, format, and delivery.

Content means identifying the right problem to be solved. This sounds straight forward, but it’s not. People think they know what problem they are solving for, but often they are chasing a symptom or projecting a solution as the problem. Let’s say my daughter comes to me and says “daddy, I need a new bike.” I begin researching the best bike deals. I put content together to allow us to make the most economical bike purchase. A quick visit to the garage, however, reveals a flat tire on the bike. The bike didn’t work correctly, so my daughter brought the problem to me to help her solve it. In reality, she brought me a solution disguised as a problem—a solution to the wrong problem. This caused me to generate the wrong content. Conveying information effectively relies on understanding the real problem to solve.

That brings us to format. The key here is choosing appropriately. Imagine I tell you my goal is to visit all 50 states. I provide you an alphabetical list of the states I’ve visited and ask you to plot the most efficient route through the remaining states. I’ve given you the content needed to solve this problem, but is an alphabetical list the best format? Wouldn’t a map of the country be better, with the states I’ve visited shaded in or color-coded? Picking the right format is a function of the content to convey, the audience it's being conveyed to, and the desired outcome. Since technical information is usually being presented because action needs to be taken, the content and format should be delivered in a way that gives the decision maker a convenient way to act.

First responders are good at giving people a convenient way to act. In 2014, my brother was on duty as a police officer and responded to a gruesome scene where three people had been shot. This was the message he relayed over the radio to the dispatcher:

“Frank 31, code 33. We have three down at the corner of Segovia and Del Norte. I need three ambulances here.”

In 21 words the dispatcher knows what’s happening, where it’s happening, and—most importantly—what action needs to take place: get three ambulances to the scene. It’s also worth noting that my brother didn’t tell the dispatcher how to get the ambulances to the scene. He trusted the training and experience of the dispatcher and the ambulance drivers to do their part, but he made it convenient for them to decide what their part was.

As engineers we convey information so that decisions can be made. We don’t want decision makers wasting time trying to understand what the problem is or what the options are. Our job is to curate the information so that, like an arriving firefighter or a police dispatcher, decision makers can immediately act. When creating your next presentation or preparing for your next meeting, take a minute to consider the content, format, and delivery of the message. And as you walk or drive through your neighborhood, take a look at the fire hydrants. You’ll never see them the same way again.

For more examples of content, format, and delivery, check out this video.

A few days later, I was flying that very same drone on my street, taking pictures of my daughters riding their new bikes. As the drone drifted down the street, I was paying a little too much attention to the camera view and I lost track of which direction the craft was pointed. It started to drift, I panicked, and the drone crash landed on the roof of a house at the end of my street.

The first thing that went through my head was my wife’s voice: “You idiot. This is why we can’t have nice things.” Truth be told, this was not the first drone under my command that had taken an alternate flight path. I walked down the street and stared up at my drone wedged into a corner of the roof. As I started feeling sorry for myself, my 9-year-old daughter skidded to a stop next to me. Daddy, what do engineers do?

Engineers solve problems! We solve problems by curating solutions, and that starts with framing up the problem—and understanding that some people don’t even understand there is one. Imagine walking up to the door of someone you don’t know. You ring the bell, and you tell the person who answers: Get a ladder and use this long pole I built for you to get the drone off your roof. When you’re done, bring it to me. I live at the end of the street. Put yourself in this person’s shoes (we’ll call him Sam, because that’s his name). Sam’s thinking, what do you mean there’s a drone on my roof? I don’t know how to process that information, and you’re telling me to go get a ladder and use some tool you built for me!

I knocked on the door. Nobody answered. Summoning every bit of humility in me, I wrote a note: “dear neighbor, I was flying my drone today and it crashed on your roof. Give me a call or a text and I am happy to come and remove it for you.” I didn’t drop off a solution, I gave him a convenient way to act. 48 hours later, Sam texted me: “come by today after 5, but I want to be there.”

Of course he wants to be there, this is his house. I’m the invader, just like a process improvement or a new consumer product disrupting the status quo. It is my job to properly identify and communicate the problem to be solved (there’s a drone on your roof) and then use my training and experience to engineer a solution (see the drone recovery tool picture above, patent pending), and deliver it in a way that gives people a convenient way to act (in this case, all Sam had to do was show up). No one expects a drone to land on their roof, so when you show up with a solution, make sure the person you’re selling it to understands the problem. Engineers solve problems by curating solutions, not dropping them off.

As an industrial engineer, I am process oriented. That means, amongst other things, I can help literally any organization thrive. Unlike other engineering disciplines, industrial engineers don’t need to be experts at what an organization does, we specialize in understanding and analyzing how it is done. My current organization provides 3D printing capabilities to the dental industry. Although I have several 3D printers and teeth, neither one of those facts helped me last week.

I was on a conference call with a member of our sales team and one of our external clients. We were having a conversation about the client’s work flow in order to align on requirements and make sure we are engineering a solution that most effectively meets the client’s needs. I listened for a few minutes before realizing I was getting lost. I opened up Visio and started visually mapping out what I was hearing. For 15 minutes I said nothing, quickly building a visualization of what I heard, which it turns out was two people talking past one another. It wasn’t occurring in a mean way. It was more like when I ask my daughter if she has finished her homework and she answers, “yes.” What I really want to know is if she finished all of her homework. What she answers is that she finished some of her homework.

After 15 minutes of back and forth on this conference call, my sales colleague and our client were satisfied they had defined everything and asked if I had any questions. Rather than waste time describing what I heard, I shared my screen and started asking if I had placed the various boxes and arrows correctly. As I suspected, I got it wrong—there were holes in the communication!

It’s a simple concept, drawing something to make it clearer. Industrial engineers call this process mapping, but why does it work? That is a question my former colleague, the aforementioned Michael Erickson, has thought a lot about. Michael is a self-proclaimed “envisioneer.” His job for the past 30 years is to sit with technical people and let them data dump. While they are talking, he draws a picture of what he hears them saying. He shows them the picture and they tell him it’s wrong. They discover holes in their thinking that were not captured by verbal communication. Sound familiar?

On my call last week, everyone was speaking English. Everyone understood the technical details being discussed and yet, there were holes. That’s because, as Michael once explained to me, technical dialects are often not exactly the same. Even amongst people speaking the same language with similar backgrounds, there is a very small percentage of the language that’s different, and that’s the part that fouls everything up. It’s the difference between “all” of your homework and “some” of your homework. In my conversation last week, it was the difference between “always” and “sometimes.” Imagine if my company engineered a solution on the assumption that something “always” happens, when in reality there are variations that occur up to 50% of the time!

As an envisioneer, Michael helped me understand that communication is the end of a process, not the beginning. His pictures, like my process map, synthesize information in order to achieve coherence. Only then can real communication occur. Technical people are like musicians with instruments, they come together with information that represents a facet of a bigger idea. Between those facets are holes that prevent coherence. Just as a band leader pushes music notes around into a coherent piece of music, a person like Michael uses art to push ideas around and synthesize them. Drawings help synthesize the facets of verbal stories—they hold the space in the conversation until coherence is reached. This is the core of systems thinking, being able to integrate pieces of things and understand how those pieces relate to one another. Without coherence and systems thinking, you just have a lot of noise, and noise is what a lot of organizations solve for.

Last week, I used a process map to help my team see what they were saying and thus understand what they know more deeply. It cut down on the noise and helped us focus on the real problems to be solved. We found the holes in our thinking. Does your organization solve for noise or fill in the holes to reveal the real problem? Perhaps you can be the hole finder on your team. Go to the white board, load up Visio, or just take a picture of a napkin sketch. You’ll be amazed at where communication really begins.

For me, the answer is yes. I am an industrial engineer and I see factories everywhere, that’s just how my brain works. The products aren’t always physical, but the process is always the same: raw material in some form is transformed into another form by people or machines. You may be wondering: how can a factory produce a product that isn’t physical? Here’s an example.

At Disneyland (and in Disney parks around the world), there is a roller coaster attraction called Big Thunder Mountain Railroad. To the casual observer, Big Thunder is a high-speed roller coaster themed to look like a runaway mine train in the time of the California Gold Rush. It usually has a long line that Disney guests are happy to endure in exchange for the experience of Big Thunder’s drops, turns, sound effects, and animatronic goat chewing a stick of dynamite.

For me, Big Thunder is a factory. That long line is a backlog of raw material representing unfulfilled orders. An operator loads 45 thrill seekers onto the train and pushes a button, beginning the manufacturing process with a now famous pre-recorded warning to “hang on to them hats and glasses.” Three minutes and fourteen seconds later, the train returns with finished goods: 45 thrilled passengers.

If you got lost in the math—or the metaphor—don’t worry. There are nearly 300,000 industrial engineers working in the United States, and way more covert industrial engineers (those formally trained in the profession but not necessarily sporting the title of “industrial engineer”). Chances are good that, wherever you work, there is someone like me with an industrial engineering mindset that can help you or your team. Our job is to view everything as a factory process, quantify capabilities, then look for and implement improvement opportunities. We will also do the math for you.

Industrial engineers are systems thinkers. Through training and experience, we look beyond individual processes and consider how each one fits into the bigger picture—the system of processes that make up each factory. Systems thinking is important for a factory to operate as effectively and efficiently as possible, but organizations often seek to optimize one process at the expense of others. This can result in sub-optimizing the overall system.

For example, let’s say you are responsible for operating Big Thunder Mountain Railroad and you’ve been tasked with getting more riders through the factory each hour. You decide to add another car to the train. This successfully increases the number of riders on each run, but is the station large enough to accommodate the extra train length? If not, the process of loading and unloading may become slower while you move the train back and forth to allow access to the station. The benefit of extra passengers is offset by the added time it takes to load and unload, potentially reducing the number of riders through the factory each hour. One process is improved, but the overall system is sub-optimized. A systems view of the factory focuses on processes as they relate to one another in order to add value.

We live in a network of factories, filled with interconnected processes. These factories change the fit, form, and function of raw material, whether tangible or not, into finished goods—or sometimes experiences. The next time you are at the supermarket, or the gas station, or a theme park, consider the systems view: what are the processes in the factory? How are they related? The next time you need to improve a process or optimize one of the factories in your business, consider finding an industrial engineer. We’ll help you quantify capabilities, look for improvement opportunities and implement them. And of course, we’ll even do the math for you.

Our show had no budget and no company sponsorship. Like our guests, we didn't wait (or ask) for permission. We produced, directed, hosted, and edited on our own time, using whatever resources we could scrounge up. I loved it. Producing the show allowed me to dust off skills I learned in Eagle TV, my high school's video production club. We sourced our guests from the network of colleagues Rex and I knew throughout the enterprise. As the show gained viewers, that network grew. Fans of the show started reaching out to us with suggestions for guests. We got to meet new people--really great people with really great ideas. In turn, we got to introduce those great people--and their ideas--to the rest of the company (at least the ones who were viewers of the show). In Rex's words, "we want everybody to know everybody." When I left the company in late 2017, the show was about a year old, and the wrap of my farewell episode was number 21.

Most of our episodes involved interviews with informal leaders who had figured out how to execute great ideas with limited resources and no explicit permission. They weren't in management (though we did interview the vice president of engineering, Dennis O'Donoghue). Hopefully one day I can share some of those episodes with you. In the meantime, Rex and his new co-host, Jeremiah Bonsmith, invited me back on the show last week for a special quarantine episode. We recorded from our homes and talked about quarantine, so this one I can readily share. Doing the show one more time reminded me of how much fun it was to make and how much I miss it. There may be a new video podcast coming in the near future as a result. In the meantime, I am pleased to share this quarantine episode of The Movement Maker Show with you. I hope it brings you some inspiration in this time of national COVID quarantine. At the very least, maybe it will give you something to watch briefly besides The Tiger King.

Go be a movement maker.

Within each one I have tried to identify what I see as the two ends of the spectrum. Also, it should be noted that in larger organizations I think it is possible to have individual culture pockets that differ from the overall company culture. For that reason, I use the term organization instead of company where applicable.

Generational Identity: traditional versus millennial

Companies, like people, are born. Companies, like people, often assume the values of their time. The ability of an organization to recognize and adapt to the values of the time has a direct impact on their ability to attract and retain both talent and customers. As an example, work used to be about where you had to go to do something, so traditionalists valued “time in the chair.” Long hours at the office thus became synonymous with achievement. Technology advancements have eliminated the need to work from where the tools are because the tools are often mobile and work can be done anywhere the Internet reaches. Millennials thus value results over “time in the chair” and do not equate being present with being productive.

Risk: averse versus entrepreneurial

Trying new things is generally riskier than maintaining the status quo. Just as generational values change over time, so does the business environment. Risk averse organizations are satisfied to continue doing things the way they’ve always been done. New ideas are often met with skepticism and resistance. Entrepreneurial companies are constantly trying new things and aren’t afraid to fail. The emphasis is on the experience and the value of the learning rather than the result.

Decision Making: cost versus value

Cost is easy to calculate and react to, but value often requires gathering facts, analyzing data, and understanding unintentional consequences (both positive and negative). Does the organization routinely choose options with the least cost or the greatest value? Managers who rely solely on their title, experience, or dollar cost to guide decisions i.e., “I know best,” often shortchange the organization by choosing options with lower costs AND lower value—often not in proportion to one another. This translates directly into how people are treated: are employees a sunk cost or a valuable asset worth investing in?

Velocity: slow versus fast

Time is money, and waste slows things down. Things that cause waste can be cultural indicators. Do actions take a long time to complete because they sit idle? Perhaps the lack of urgency is caused by complacent attitudes. Does the bureaucracy of making a decision cost more than the result of the decision? Perhaps management has trust issues. Do meetings start and end on time? Perhaps meeting organizers don’t understand the value of time (or maybe they are just inconsiderate). Furthermore, if it can wait until tomorrow, is it really worth doing?

A great way to measure this is how long it takes to hire someone. Is there a robust and reliable process in place, or does hiring rely on people that must be supervised by each other? Which one produces quality results faster?

Rule #6: Theory X versus trust

Rule #6, simply stated, is don’t take yourself too seriously. Theory X management assumes that people don’t really want to work and won’t unless constantly supervised and micromanaged. As a result, managers take themselves and their role very seriously. Behavioral science, on the other hand, suggests that people not only want to work, they seek autonomy, mastery, and purpose in the endeavor. Organizations that don’t have enough trust in their people or themselves struggle to stay calm and solve problems because everything is an emergency. Theory X organizations have managers and employees that take themselves so seriously information is closely guarded because only they have a need to know. Trust organizations share information freely in order to maximize their ability to solve problem and provide employees with the autonomy, mastery, and purpose they desire.

There is also a 30 minute video covering the same material in a presentation format.

Part 1: The Human Factor of Technology in the Workplace

Part 2: Generational Differences In The Workplace

Part 3: Motivation At Work

Part 4: Technology and the Human Factor

Part 5: Technology as Obstacle

Part 6: A Culture of Collaboration

Part 7: The Collaborator's Dilemma

In the wee hours of a spring morning in 2009, Marcus Luttrell heard a gunshot. He grabbed a pistol and left his rural East Texas home to investigate. Luttrell discovered his dog, DASY, dead in a ditch and four teenagers standing by a car on the road laughing about it. A chase ensued, and four counties over, law enforcement apprehended DASY's killers.

This was likely not the first time Luttrell awoke to gunfire in the middle of the night. In 2005, the Navy veteran was part of a four man SEAL team sent on a recon mission to scout one of Osama Bin Laden's known associates, Ahmad Shah, in the hills of Afghanistan. The mission was compromised when the SEAL team was surrounded on three sides by an armed militia force of over 50. Prior to being confronted by the enemy, the SEAL team had encountered a group of goat herders. Unable to verify any hostile intent, Luttrell convinced his teammates to let the goat herders go rather than kill them. They apparently repaid the American mercy by tipping off the militia. 

After a fierce two hour firefight, over 35 insurgents and all three of Luttrell's teammates were dead. An MH-47 helicopter carrying 16 U.S. soldiers was also shot down during a rescue attempt. Badly injured, Luttrell managed to travel seven miles to a local village where he was cared for until his rescue four days later.

Fast forward seven years to Josh Hoekstra's classroom, where the man who's been teaching history for 13 years took 64 famous Americans and randomly pitted them against each other in tournament brackets. And when I say random: think Merriwether Lewis versus Marcus Luttrell (Luttrell won). Every day students came to class prepared to argue the case for their assigned courageous American. Each of Hoekstra's five classes got a chance to vote based on the arguments presented and, at the end of the day, he (or she) with the most votes advanced to the next bracket.

I'll admit, reading through the list of "contestants" there are a lot of names I don't know. I'm having a blast looking some of them up and imagining the compelling argument that must have taken place to sway the votes of the students (none of the heroes of the Alamo made it past round two). As the school year came to a close, so did the tournament. This time the last man standing wasn't Luttrell.

Marcus Luttrell's dog was given to him to aid in his recovery following his return to civilian life in the United States. Her name, DASY, is actually an acronym for the members of his SEAL team: Danny Dietz, Matthew Axelson, "Southern Boy" Luttrell, and Michael "Yankee" Murphy. During the firefight in Afghanistan, communications Petty Officer Danny Dietz was shot in the hand while trying to radio for help. Lt. Michael Murphy took over. Realizing the radio would not transmit from the hilly location where they were fighting, Murphy moved into the open. Without cover, he was shot in the abdomen, at one point dropping the satellite phone. He picked it back up, continued his call for help, and then resumed the fight with his fellow SEALs, dying a short time later.

In his many appearances on Bill Bennett's Morning in America radio show, Josh Hoekstra described how his students ramped up their engagement as the tournament progressed. Not only were they into the spirit of competition, but they began to delve into the spirit of research, in some cases making personal connections with the American for whom they were arguing. The winner of this year's "Most Courageous American" competition at Rosemount High School is Michael Murphy, but it wasn't because of his courage under fire. It wasn't even because he had the incredible presence of mind to say "thank you" after making his team's distress call. The winning salvo in this battle was actually fired over fifteen years earlier in the halls of a Long Island middle school.

One of Hoekstra's students uncovered the fact that, in the 8th grade, Murphy protected a special needs student who was being bullied. "Walking into a situation where you knew you would be shot and killed by the enemy to relay the position of his team is what earned [Murphy] the Congressional Medal of Honor," says Hoekstra. "Sticking up for an 8th grade special needs kid who was being bullied most likely sealed the deal for him in our Most Courageous American tournament--especially when that story was delivered by a special needs student."

Hoekstra has released a how-to guide for teachers wishing to replicate the experience in their own classroom. In honor of this year's Most Courageous American, a portion of proceeds from sales of the book will benefit the Navy SEAL Warrior Fund. You can buy the book from his web site, http://teachwithtournaments.com/.

Today my wife and I purchased new phones. We have been shopping for weeks in anticipation of our upgrade eligibility last Friday. We finally decided to buy two Samsung Charges from Costco. The Costco price on the phone new was $70 cheaper than the price of a certified pre-owned phone from Verizon. When I mentioned this to a Verizon customer service agent on the phone yesterday, she was amazed and agreed that it was a great deal.

My wife upgraded to the Charge from a “dumb” phone. Her dumb phone never could successfully connect to Backup Assistant. As a result, we wanted to have the numbers transferred from her old phone to the new smart phone. Figuring the easiest way to do this was with the help of technology available at the Verizon Store, we left Costco and visited the Verizon Store on De Zavala and I-10 in San Antonio. When we arrived and told the employees that greeted us what we wanted to do, they made it very clear that because we bought the phones at Costco there would be a charge for the service of transferring the contacts. When my wife explained that we had just upgraded and the Costco representative suggested the service should still be free, the two Verizon employees made it abundantly clear that reps at Costco do not work for Verizon and should not have told us that information. They went on to say that it’s not fair to them to have to deal with customers coming from Costco as it makes them look bad. I assure you, these people needed no help making themselves look bad. Not only does their argument make no sense, but it has no place being presented to a customer. One of the employees even went so far as to tell the other to make sure to get the Costco rep's name so they could have him reprimanded. The entire exchange made us feel like we had done something wrong by purchasing devices from somewhere else at half the price—devices for use on the Verizon network, for the next two years, on which we will pay hefty data surcharges. How dare us.

I can only guess the real motivation for the behavior is that Verizon Store reps work on commission and they were bitter about losing a sale. That is not my fault, and I do not appreciate the attitude of the employees that it somehow is. To suggest I should spend twice the money on a device in order to save $25 on a data transfer fee tells me they think I am stupid. To be clear, I happen to think it’s a silly policy to authorize a reseller to sell Verizon phones and then punish customers that choose to do so by charging fees for extra services that only Verizon provides. Such a business model seems counterproductive to me. But my real beef about what happened today is not the $25 extortion, but the unprofessional attitude and derogatory tone of the Verizon employees. That is unacceptable.

Eight years ago I transferred my cellular phone business to Verizon. I left my previous provider due to issues related primarily to poor customer service. During the last eight years I have been very pleased with my relationship with Verizon, beginning that first week I made the switch when a customer service agent in Dallas called me simply to say "welcome." That simple attention to detail impressed me—so much that I still remember it eight years later, even after being treated poorly in the store today. Thinking back, I have never had a negative interaction with a Verizon customer service agent over the phone. Time and again, they are cordial, helpful, and they go out of their way to help me get the most out of our relationship, often suggesting things I am not aware of that end up helping me get more value out of Verizon services and that ultimately save me money. For that reason, I have brought with me nearly a dozen new subscribers to Verizon over the years.

Verizon Stores, on the other hand, are a different case. Recently I published a post to my blog in which I was critical of the fact that Verizon Wireless operates brick and mortar stores yet fails to stock those shelves with “live demos” that customers can interact with before spending hundreds of dollars on a phone they will be stuck with for the next 24 months. I wrote:

“Why on earth would a company invest in a brick and mortar storefront—paying rent, utilities, and employees to demo current technology—but stop short of an extra $500 to put a live demo of that technology in the store?”

I privately surmised that the real goal of physical Verizon stores must be to provide “added value” services in the form of selling accessories, providing tech support, etc. My experience today causes me to question that assumption and the purpose of having stores at all. This is not the first negative experience I have had or heard about at a Verizon Store, but it most certainly was my last. I have no reason to visit a Verizon Wireless store ever again, and that is a decision I intend to communicate when I share this story with people. However, because of our eight year history, I wanted to give you an opportunity to shape how this story will be told. In today’s fast-paced world of retail technology, eight years is a long time. Prior to today, I would have said with confidence that Verizon Wireless and I have at least eight more. Today’s experience gives me cause to question which direction Verizon Wireless is headed. I have reevaluated my choice in cellular provider before. What I would like to know from you now is, has that time come again?

Sincerely,

Sean Genovese

In preparation for my long-awaited upgrade, I began paying attention to what's current in the way of cellular devices a couple of weeks ago. After some preliminary online research, I narrowed my selection down to just a couple of phones and set out to "touch and feel." The increased capabilities of cell phones--and the cost that goes with them—has made the touch and feel more important to me on my last couple of exchanges. Though it may seem like a contradiction to the more utilitarian consumers, human factors is still a very important aspect of technology product design. I like to know how a device feels in my hand, what the screen actually looks like, how warm the battery gets, etc. Add to that the fact that I'm stuck with whatever I choose for two years and I end up pretty motivated to thoroughly fondle my phone before purchasing. One might surmise this is the reason cellular providers continue to operate (and even expand) brick and mortar stores.

I started my quest during a trip to Best Buy. I normally don't associate the big box consumer electronics retailer with cell phones, but there were some rather massive displays for all three of the big cellular providers taking up quite a bit of retail floor space, so I figured I'd check it out. Unfortunately, the store did not have any live demo phones for me to play with. That kind of made sense to me since the big three all operate brick and mortar stores of their own. Investing in quality, third-party retail coverage on top of that seems counterproductive. I get it.

I went across the street to the Verizon store, hoping for better luck. To their credit, the representative was very nice and tried her best to be helpful, even showing me her own phone when it turned out the store had no live demos of anything I was looking for. She also directed me to a store in town she knew had a complete arsenal of live demo phones. I visited that store the next day and, as it turns out, she was right. But why is that the only branded Verizon store in the city (and I've been to three now) with live demos of nearly every device?

I understand maintaining live demos of so many different handsets poses some logistical challenges. But if those challenges are big enough to force a store to stock its display shelves with non functioning plastic bricks, why bother with a store? I can see the phone and read the specs online. This afternoon I decided to make a stop at another branded Verizon store to check out a phone released only a few days ago. This store features a prominent marquee out front proclaiming "Premium Retailer" status. Premium retailer, I discovered, does not mean they carry live demo phones. When I pressed the salesman on the issue, he shrugged his shoulders and said "I guess it's just too expensive to carry demos of a $500 phone." How absurd! Why on earth would a company invest in a brick and mortar storefront--paying rent, utilities, and employees to demo current technology--but stop short of an extra $500 to put a live demo of that technology in the store?

A friend of mine who used to work in retail phone sales suggested it's perhaps a loss prevention issue. That at least makes logical sense. But again, if loss prevention is so expensive, why bother with the brick and mortar sales model? Besides, in this era of technology, with phones that can do everything but wash your car, how hard can it possibly be for a retail store to keep track of a couple dozen phones? The devices by their very nature communicate. Surely in the event of theft, Verizon has the technological capability to transform a functional phone into the brick they are currently putting on the shelf in hopes of enticing me to buy one. 

Maybe it's time to sharpen the role of technology in the retail store--especially one selling technology that could help. 

IBM's 5150 Personal Computer

The human factor of technology adoption—the ability of people to seize new technology and use it for something other than making existing business practices look more glitzy—is being influenced by Draconian IT policies that no longer make sense. IT departments, reduced to “that class of interoffice Brahmins that decides, ridiculously and capriciously, how people should work”[iii], are robbing people of the intrinsic motivators that keep them creative, engaged, and happy. “When people have high demands and low control, their life is both hectic and miserable. There is nothing to figure out. They are trapped in a system that piles on the demands but denies them the control to meet those demands"[iv].

Thirty years after the first IBM-compatible personal computer entered the office, technology is changing the nature of collaboration. Companies must adapt their IT policies to accommodate this new culture of technology or risk their competitive advantage. IT resources within firms need to break free of mundane process improvement efforts and enable a fundamental transformation of how work is done. They must focus on enabling, not preventing, collaboration. In a results oriented, information-centric economy, attendance is optional; but innovation and creativity are critical.

[i] Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organization Studies , 1435-1448.

[ii] Bonasia, J. (2010, June 10). Business 'Facebooks' Will Boost Innovation. Retrieved July 27, 2011, from Investors.com: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=536945&p=2

[iii] Manjoo, F. (2009, August 25). Unchain the Office Computers! Why corporate IT should let us browse any way we want. Retrieved August 13, 2011, from Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2226279/  

[iv] Ressler, C., & Thompson, J. (2008). Why Work Sucks. New York: Penguin Group.

In his book Here Comes Everybody, Clay Shirky writes about the “institutional dilemma.” Institutions “exist to take advantage of group effort, but some [institutional] resources are drained away by directing that effort.”[i] This creates a gap between what an institution is theoretically capable of and what it actually produces. An extension of this dilemma is the productivity paradox. “The productivity paradox is the perceived lack of increased output resulting from investments in information technology.”[ii] A study focused on examining data related to the productivity paradox concluded that “the value of IS staff and staff training was also quite apparent and exceeded that of computer capital. This confirms the positions of several authors, that the effective use of IT is far more important than merely spending on IT.”[ii] Yet more and more, workers are complaining about IT policies that hinder effective use, whether it’s the choice of a web browser or the ability to install software.

In 1981, effectively using the IBM 5150 undoubtedly required a small army of IT “experts” to keep the machines running and the users educated. Today that’s just not true. Computers, smart phones, and online collaboration tools have become ubiquitous. IT should be focused on finding ways to prevent threats without hindering productivity. Simply locking computers down threatens autonomy which limits people’s ability to tap creative innovation. “In the information age, most companies' success depends entirely on the creativity and drive of their workers. IT restrictions are corrosive to that creativity—they keep everyone under the thumb of people who have no idea which tools we need to do our jobs but who are charged with deciding anyway.”[iii]

Wikis are one specific example of great potential in the arena of collaboration tools. Wikis are collaboratively created web sites and are slowly gaining traction within companies of all sizes. They are a proven way to boost creativity and innovation and capture tribal knowledge that might otherwise walk out the door with employees on their last day with the company.

Pfizerpedia started as a grass roots effort at Pfizer in 2006. It has since become a mainstream part of Pfizer’s research and development process, with over 13,000 employees using it in the first year.  The United States Department of Defense started DoDTechipedia in October of 2008 to increase collaboration between scientists, the military, government, industry, and academia. The public version of the site has received 37 innovative ideas, with six in consideration for funding.  Networking giant Cisco and Angel.com, a provider of interactive voice response systems for call centers, have experienced similar success. As of 2008, Boeing had over 300 active wikis[vi]. “Wikis are often seen as a grassroots phenomenon and therefore have been viewed as a more informal collaboration and communication tool,” [iv], yet their success still relies on IT policies that permit and foster their existence. A key factor in the success of wikis is their ability to satisfy intrinsic motivators. Contributing to a body of knowledge via a wiki reinforces a person’s mastery and provides a common sense of purpose with the organization. Consumers become producers, and as producers, we must be given access to the tools required to create as well as consume. [iv][v]

It’s true that communication technology can be used for malicious purposes, and a certain amount of IT protection and oversight probably makes sense. But this isn’t 1981. The level of savvy among most professional workers (even the Traditionalists and Baby Boomers) is far greater than it was in the days of the IBM 5150. Worse yet, many policies are in place not to prevent malicious intent like viruses, identity theft, etc., but to enforce productivity. “Even though many companies are now looking to popularize their products or brands using social-networking sites, IT departments routinely restrict access to Facebook, Twitter, and their ilk.” [iii] Their concern is that such distractions in the workplace are a time waster and zap worker productivity. A recent paper by Leading Edge Forum reinforces that just the opposite is true. “The rise of social networking will enable new forms of collective intelligence that can create business advantages.” [vii]

In fact, social networking helps workers sharpen mastery of their skills and reinforces their sense of purpose by interacting with colleagues. A 2009 study conducted at the University of Melbourne found that workers engaged in ‘Workplace Internet Leisure Browsing’ are 9% more productive than those that don’t [viii]. Social networking is teaching us is that our means of data collection, analysis, and collaboration is antiquated. Some companies have begun to realize the potential. Nikon, Dell, and Symantec have all created successful internal social networking sites [ix]. The power of social networks is the ability to link people together even in the absence of institutions—and in some cases in spite of them.

Boeing learned its social media lesson the hard way last year. The company generated headlines when it famously sent a form letter to an aspiring airplane designer. The letter informed eight year old Harry Winsor that “most ideas had already been considered by [Boeing] engineers and that there can be unintended consequences to simply accepting [unsolicited] ideas.” [x] Lucky for Harry, dad is in advertising and, after a brief bit of crowd sourcing, Boeing made good on the faux pas. A spokesperson later admitted—via Twitter no less—“We’re expert at airplanes but novices in social media. We’re learning as we go.” [x] A promising step for such an established company, but it drives home the point. Shirky points out via the institutional dilemma, institutions are inherently exclusionary and expensive. Historically we have not had all the groups we wanted, we’ve had all the groups we could afford. [i] Technology has delivered tools to overcome some of the ‘institution as obstacle’ barriers, but corporate policies and fear over things like intellectual property rights are preventing them from taking hold—even among eight year olds.

[i] Shirky, C. (2008). Here Comes Everybody. New York: Penguin.

[ii] Sircar, S., Turnbow, J. L., & Bordoloi, B. (2000). A Framework for Assessing the Relationship Between Information Technology Investments and Firm Performance. Journal of Management Information Systems , 69-97.

[iii] Manjoo, F. (2009, August 25). Unchain the Office Computers! Why corporate IT should let us browse any way we want. Retrieved August 13, 2011, from Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2226279/

[iv] Standing, C., & Kiniti, S. (2011). How can organizations use wikis for innovation? Technovation , 287-294.

[v] Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks.

[vi] Anklam, P. (2008, April 15). Approaching Web 2.0 at Boeing. Retrieved August 14, 2011, from the{app}gap: http://www.theappgap.com/approaching-web-20-at-boeing.html

[vii] Bonasia, J. (2010, June 10). Business 'Facebooks' Will Boost Innovation. Retrieved July 27, 2011, from Investors.com: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=536945&p=2

[viii] The University of Melbourne. (2009, April 2). Freedom to surf: workers more productive if allowed to use the internet for leisure. Retrieved August 14, 2011, from The University of Melbourne: http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/5750/

[ix] Kopytoff, V. G. (2011, June 26). Companies Are Erecting In-House Social Networks. Retrieved August 14, 2011, from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/technology/27social.html?_r=2&ref=technology&pagewanted=all

[x] The New York Times. (2010, May 3). Boeing's Social-Media Lesson. Retrieved August 14, 2011, from NYTimes.com: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/03/boeings-social-media-lesson/

At work I use Outlook for my email. I often find myself instinctively yet futilely hitting the “R” key to respond to messages (that’s how Gmail works). I prefer Firefox to Internet Explorer—those are my two IT-approved options—but many of the internal web sites aren’t designed to work with Firefox. Ctrl-T will open a new tab within Firefox, but I can’t drag that new tab to other windows like I can with Google Chrome. Trying to access Google Docs results in a menacing red-lettered “ACCESS DENIED” screen—surely intended to let everyone around me know I’ve tried to do something wrong. Photos at work are stored in hard to manage file folders. Searching for information requires three separate efforts: one for files, one for Email, and one for the intranet. External social networking is allowed, but only after clicking “I Agree” to a message that essentially acknowledges you probably shouldn’t be doing it. Everything at work is disconnected and frustrating.

Pink’s discussion of motivation includes the fact that there must be some balance between intrinsic and extrinsic motivators. In other words, you absolutely have to pay people fairly. Doing so satisfies a need for extrinsic motivation and, more importantly, it takes the issue of money off the table[ii]. When people aren’t paid enough, the issue of money becomes a distraction to the real work of problem solving. IT tools are the same way. Not only do people need to be paid enough, but they need to have the right tools to do the job. Not providing the right tools means that the focus is no longer on the problem to be solved but on the missing resources.

In 2007 I went on a business trip for a week to Park City, Utah. The purpose of the trip was to attend a conference and training seminar on a simulation software package we had recently purchased. A week before my trip, I talked to my manager about needing to have administrative rights granted to me for my company-issued laptop. It was understood that the training was hands on and I would need the rights in order to install the software onto my computer. The request was routed through the proper channels, but the rights were not granted. The request was eventually escalated to senior management and finally, three days into the training, the rights were granted and I was able to install the software. Extrinsic motivation is not only about paying people enough, it’s also about providing them with access to the resources they need to get a job done. Otherwise, that stuff just gets in the way, dampening productivity and stifling innovation.

Central to a ROWE is the idea that you don’t have to be physically present to get work done. This concept relies on the implicit assumption that mechanisms exist to stay connected with your boss, other members of the team, customers, suppliers, etc. Thirty years ago, those mechanisms did not exist. Today, wireless communication technology makes it possible to stay connected in nearly every corner of the globe—usually at a reasonable cost. That capability is not always viewed as an asset. Cell phones, though quite common, are often viewed as a perk in the workplace, especially if the phone does more than just make calls.

Treating smart phones as a perk rather than a tool for increased productivity results in an army of employees equipped with technology that has the functionality to solve yesterday’s problems but is only modestly helpful today. Treating technology with the functional equivalence of a cash bonus or extravagant pleasure trip cuts into an employee’s extrinsic motivation and also hinders autonomy. Technology gives us the autonomy to be anywhere and still remain connected. Sometimes that means doing work from home, and other times it means being able to stay at work (as in the case of a business trip) while still connecting with loved ones back home. The generation gap often drives policies that contradict this autonomy, reducing productivity and innovation. Companies failing to recognize the realities of the new economy risk alienating otherwise productive employees.

Last week, at work, I needed to take a picture of a model airplane to use in a presentation I was working on. Nothing proprietary was involved, the model is the same one you could pick up at the local toy store for about twenty bucks. As recently as just a few years ago, cameras were forbidden on company property. This included any device capable of taking a picture. For years employees were left with two options: leave your camera enabled Smartphone in your car; risk facing disciplinary action if caught with it. The policy was eventually amended to allow an exception for camera-enabled devices—though their use on company property is still strictly prohibited.

The reason for the change unfortunately had little to do with wanting to empower employees with more autonomy or encourage collaboration; it simply became too difficult to purchase company phones that did not include a camera. There are a smattering of phones with the requisite use permits around my work site. Despite that fact, and despite my posession of two camera-enabled Smartphones, it was easier to simply take the model home and snap the pictures.

Another example of technology clashing with generational differences and getting in the way occurred when an employee at a company was dinged on her performance evaluation for texting during meetings. The manager, a Traditionalist, interpreted the action as a disrespectful waste of time. In actuality, the employee was texting coworkers to get answers to questions that were brought up during the course of the meeting. As a Millennial, she values multi-tasking and instant gratification[iii]. She figured, rather than wait until the meeting ends to go track down answers, why not get them right now? The mentality that assumes an employee is goofing off during a meeting because of a text message is the same mentality that causes policies against issuing smart phones or working from home. After all, how do we know company resources are being used only for productive company business?

The answer is that it doesn’t matter. The concept of a ROWE is that you want people focused on the work itself, not where the work is done, how the work is done, or the technology standing in the way of getting the work done. To solve creative problems, employees must be able to tap their need for those intrinsic motivators. Pink writes that people come out of the box wired for curiosity and self-direction[ii]. Management is a man-made concept invented by people trying to organize to solve the problem of coordination.

Jeff Gunther owns a company called Meddius that makes computer software and hardware for the healthcare industry. In 2009, he transitioned the company to a ROWE. In an interview with Daniel Pink, he said “‘management isn’t about walking around and seeing if people are in their offices’...it’s about creating conditions for people to do their best work.”[ii] If that means issuing phones with Internet access or allowing text messaging, IT policies prohibiting those things become conditions preventing people from doing their best work. In contrast to autonomy, mastery, and purpose, “thwarted satisfaction of the needs will undermine motivation and have maladaptive consequences.”[iv]

[i] Manjoo, F. (2009, August 25). Unchain the Office Computers! Why corporate IT should let us browse any way we want. Retrieved August 13, 2011, from Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2226279/

[ii] Pink, D. (2009). Drive. Riverhead: Riverhead Books.

[iii] Graham, M. L. (2009, April). Leveraging the Power of Cross-Generational Teams. Anaheim, CA, United States of America.

[iv] Deci, E., Ryan, R., & Baard, P. (2004). Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A Motivational Basis of Performance and Well-Being in Two Work Settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 2045-2068.

“The science shows that the secret to high performance isn’t our biological drive or our reward-and-punishment drive, but our third drive—our deep-seated desire to direct our own lives, to extend and expand our abilities, and to make a contribution.”

Pink refers to these desires as autonomy, mastery, and purpose. His observations about motivation are largely based on the work of a researcher named Edward Deci, whose work deals with self determination theory (SDT). SDT claims that opportunities to satisfy the needs of autonomy, mastery, and purpose will facilitate motivation and innovation[i]. Furthermore, these intrinsic motivators trump extrinsic motivators like money when it comes to solving problems that are creative in nature[ii].

The idea that autonomy, mastery, and purpose provide intrinsic motivation that drives creativity and innovation is validated by the efforts of two former Best Buy employees, Cali Ressler and Jodi Thompson. In 2003 Ressler and Thompson were working out of the corporate headquarters in Minneapolis, struggling with the dichotomy between “managers…mired in analog-age inertia” and the “giant work kibbutz” enabled by wireless communication technology[iii]. Inside the office, Traditionalist managers valued face time and long hours while outside the office a new information age was evolving, freeing people from the confines of having to physically see anyone or be anywhere.

Prior to 1981, people had to go to the office because that’s where the resources were to get work done. Even with the introduction of IBM’s 5150, the lack of widespread network connectivity made it impractical to use the device anywhere besides the office. “People couldn’t work virtually because there was no virtual, only physical space and real time”[iv]. The physical reality of work drove us to some faulty assumptions about what’s really important when it comes to work. “The assumption is that you need to keep track of your time for more than billing purposes. Without knowing how long a piece of work takes you can’t measure its true value”[iv].

Ressler and Thompson’s solution to the motivation problem is the Results Only Work Environment (ROWE). In a ROWE, time becomes relative. How, where, and when work gets done is at the discretion of the worker. Results are what get measured. For ROWE, the results are promising.

Ressler and Thompson piloted the concept in the web division of Best Buy. Turnover within the group dropped 16%--to zero. Productivity and quality also increased and employee engagement measures rose to an all time high.[iii] The success of ROWE at Best Buy demonstrated that, in general, workers thrive on autonomy, mastery, and purpose. That success is enabled by the myriad communication and collaboration technologies now available. Despite the preponderance of both evidence and enabling technology, firms continue to operate using the principles developed during the Industrial Revolution. “Technology seems to have changed the game—people telecommute and do business via BlackBerry 24/7—but we are still playing by the old Industrial Age rules, the rules of the factory floor and typing pool” [iv].

[i] Deci, E., Ryan, R., & Baard, P. (2004). Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A Motivational Basis of Performance and Well-Being in Two Work Settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 2045-2068.

[ii] Pink, D. (2009). Drive. Riverhead: Riverhead Books.

[iii] Conlin, M. (2006, December 11). Smashing the Clock. Retrieved August 12, 2011, from Businessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_50/b4013001.htm

[iv] Ressler, C., & Thompson, J. (2008). Why Work Sucks. New York: Penguin Group.