Think Brand First

Comments On A Difficult Custody Case

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Wed, 22 May 2013 10:42:00 +0000

Yesterday I read the following article, which has generated a firestorm of controversy, mostly anti-Chassidic. Been following the comments and adding my own.

"Ex-Hasidic Mother Loses Custody of Children: Judge orders custody switch, citing concerns that the mother's influence might jeopardize the children's religious upbringing."

Unpious.com, May 20, 2013

By Shulem Deen

Link here.

It's interesting to observe what happens when social media meets insular community. One thing is clear: people want transparency.

Below are my thoughts on reading the various threads. Bottom line: Nobody knows "the truth" except those who were there and information is more helpful than using gossip and hearsay to advance one's personal agenda.

___________________________________________________

Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal on May 22, 2013 at 6:27 am

Those who oppose the ruling and attack the judge are missing the bigger picture.

While it is true that the mother is entitled to be nonreligious, what is in the best interest OF THE CHILDREN?

The children have a right to be raised in a physically and psychologically SAFE environment.

* Physically = no beatings (“corporal punishment”) and no sexual abuse. Clearly the children were put in foster care for their physical safety. People other than the mother reported SOMETHING so the children were removed.

* Psychologically = In most of the United States, parents of varying observance level and even varying faiths is normal. In MONSEY, where the children will be living, consistency is CRITICAL.

Add to the potential psychological damage:

* The mother appears to be engaged in a physical relationship while engaged in divorce proceedings, with small children, with a member of the extended family (“one of the children’s cousins”).

* In ANY family court in America, I would imagine that a judge and/or psychologist would take issue with that.

The options here seem to range between bad and terrible.

–Forcing the children to live with an unstable, violent parent does not seem right.

–But neither does putting them into a situation where they will be told one thing (at the extreme) by the ENTIRE community, IMMERSED in religion – and then with mom, told the complete opposite and in the most hateful and angry way as would be natural after a divorce. Then ADD that she has apparently embarked on a course of action that is far outside the norms of the community.

The children would not have refuge anywhere, even in their minds…how can your most beloved life object, your mother/caregiver, also be the personification of evil? That is a cruelty they can not ever understand, but that a judge can.

This family’s personal tragedy has become fodder for hateful gossip about the father, the mother, the community, the judge, etc. etc. If people really cared as much as they said they did, they would apply the common sense test here.

Most important of all, it seems wrong to use their misery as an excuse for someone’s own personal vendetta, be it for or against the Chasidim. They have a right to live their life their way too. (Even if the insularity they created to protect themselves, has led to more harm than good.)
___________________________________________________
Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal on May 21, 2013 at 11:58 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Recommended:
http://finkorswim.com/2013/05/21/on-second-thought-now-that-ive-seen-the-court-transcripts/

Possibly original documents:

Posted By Shauli Gro’s
Excerpts from Kelly Myzner’s court transcripts.
Source:https://www.facebook.com/ENDPOLITICALCORRUPTIONINFAMILYCOURT/posts/556506051074933

.. With respect to which parent provides for the intellectual and emotional development of the children, the Mother was far more involved and vigilant in identifying the children’s special education needs and issues. She was integral in getting the children help they needed, except for not providing the private school with a copy of ******’* lEP, while the Father was more reserved or perhaps even in some level of denial about his sons’ issues, particularly ******. This Court believes that the Mother spearheaded the campaign to obtain services for ******, and that while the Father was present for the administration of the services, he was much more passive. The testimony of the forensic evaluator regarding the Father’s attention deficit issues calls into questions whether the Father has the capacity to pursue treatment for ******’* needs, but this Court is convinced that overall, the Father has been a caring and responsible parent. The Mother, while the more tenacious parent in securing assistance for the children’s issues, seems to lack insight into how her own choices and conduct, i.e. residing with the children’s cousin in a romantic relationship, stating that she would not have the children observe religious rules in her home, affects the children’s emotional health.

..This Court cannot conceive of how the Mother would think it would be beneficial to her children, who have been raised in a very strict religious manner, to see her living out-of-wedlock..
If the Mother were to ignore the rules and requirements that the children are forced to follow to remain in their current community and school while with the children, it could lead to catastrophic consequences for children who are already clearly struggling with a multitude of issues.

..If she is no longer religious, she may change the children’s conservative attire and grooming, change her appearance when she is with the children, permit the child children to view television and access the internet and permit the children to violate the rules of the Sabbath and the kosher dietary restrictions, all strictly prohibited in the world of Hasidic Judaism.

Given all of the facts and circumstances in this case, the Court awards the Father custody of the children, as joint custody is not possible “because of the antagonistic relationship between the parties.” Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 24 A.D.3d 589,591, 808 N.Y.S.2d 352 (2dDept. 2005). The Father must keep the Mother informed of his decisions, and shall endeavor toPage: 29 of 32 include her in the decision making process to best of his ability. The Court recognizes that the children are extremely bonded to their mother, and that two of the children expressed that they did not want to live with their father. Despite the children’s expressed wishes, the Court finds that the children are to commence residing with the Father as soon as the Father secures a residence in Rockland County, preferably in the’ former marital home as the Mother expressed her intentions to leave that residence. Given the Mother’s actions in this case, which served to alienate the children from the Father, the Court finds that the children’s time with the Mother should not be extended at this juncture. Perhaps as the relationship improves between the Father and children after a period of time of the children residing with the Father, additional time with the Mother may be appropriate. Further, the Father shall provide the Mother with the rules of conduct that the children’s school requires the children to follow for their continued attendance. The Mother is directed to ensure that the children follow those rules whenever possible when the children are in her care. Indig v. Indig, 90 A.D.3d 1050, 934 N.Y.S.2d 843 (2d Dept. 2011
___________________________________________________

Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal on May 21, 2013 at 7:57 pm

This whole spectacle is so sad. Jew vs. Jew.

Post the public information so that we can see what was said.

If the judge did the wrong thing then investigate that.

But don’t use a marriage gone wrong as an excuse to rail for or against G-d, Judaism, men, women, or the moon.

We have not learned anything from all these years in Golus unfortunately…it does not help to spread hatred.
___________________________________________________

Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal on May 21, 2013 at 1:26 pm

Before saying anything I want to comment that any child who has been assaulted or sexually abused by a parent should immediately be removed from that parent no questions asked.

Having said that – there are two sides to every story and I would like to see the public record too. While everybody reading this is familiar with religious extremism by Satmar, and they are extreme and crazy (look at Weberman’s victim, look at Deborah Feldman’s experience) her side of the story doesn’t ring true completely.

For example, she says she changed her views on religion AFTER splitting up rather than BEFORE. Usually a breakup is the culmination of a lot of fighting, negativity, etc.

Also, and I don’t know the law on this, she did choose a community that is very insular and different than the rest of the world. It is more than confusing to take a child out of that world – it can be shattering. I was Modern Orthodox and basically gave it up for being Conservadox, and that was extremely tough on my family. To go from Chasidish to secular is much more extreme.

Instead of scapegoating Satmar (doesn’t that seem a little too easy) how about people look at the facts, go by the facts, and try to do right by everyone here.

(Someone just read this and made a billion dollars.)

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Tue, 21 May 2013 17:02:00 +0000

There is a converging body of thought suggesting that the workplace of the future will not wait for leaders to find experts - hierarchy is old school and so is matrix management - too slow, too complicated, impossible to administer.

Rather we will assemble "flash mobs" of talent as a job needs to be done, then dissolve them afterward.

http://fcw.com/articles/2013/05/15/fose-future-leaders.aspx

"In the traditional company -- and agency -- structure, multiple layers of personnel exist for a purpose that often amounts to moving information around...Under the emerging new approach, "what you see happen over and over again...is that you just don't have those middle layers"..."What happens when you release information [is that] people on an individual level create their own networks outside their offices," said Karina Homme, senior director of social enterprise transformation at Salesforce.com. "People can now create communities around their interest areas."

In the new world it will be the networkers who survive.

The litmus test for success will be 360 peer feedback.

http://blogs.wsj.com/management/2010/07/06/hcl-extreme-management-m...

"Just about every company has its own version of a 360 degree feedback process. Nevertheless, Vineet saw several problems with HCLT’s off-the-shelf approach. First, it didn’t focus explicitly on how managers were impacting those in the value zone. Second, employees fearful of retaliation often pulled their punches when reviewing their supervisor. And third, the fact that feedback could only come from one’s immediate colleagues tended to reinforce long-standing organization silos. Today, HCLT employees are able to rate the performance of any manager whose decisions impact their work lives, and to do so anonymously."

I would not be surprised if eventually there were a website that followed you across the span of your whole career (possibly appended to LinkedIn) where people who had worked with you, and whose identities could be verified, then rated your skills and expertise. Like your avatar.

(Someone just read this and made a billion dollars.)

The other thing is that people who are proficient and engaged on networks like Yammer, GovLoop, etc. are going to be the ones called to join project teams.

A Comment On "So Good They Can't Ignore You" by Cal Newport

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:30:00 +0000

Check out this interesting book, here, and discussion at GovLoop.

This is a very good example of someone making money off of intentionally controversial hype.

The author takes a nugget of truth and blows it up into advice that could seriously harm people.

The nugget of truth is that employers reward skill not passion. Passion in fact can get in the way of career success. Why? Because it blinds your judgment when you get emotional about the work.

The harmful part is that YOU cannot go to work without some form of motivation. Lots of things are motivating -- subsistence, engagement, meaning, control and empowerment (see Penelope Trunk's excellent blog pos t here).

Work about which you feel passionate is also motivating.

When I was young, I studied what I was passionate about - writing - and I have never, ever been sorry about that. I went to a college where I could create my own courses, shape my own major and eventually got a scholarship to study sociology, which is endlessly fascinating to me and turned into marketing.

My advice to young people is:

FOLLOW YOUR PASSION

There is enough time to be practical later on - the marketplace will reward you for the things you are good at. But don't start out cynical and trying to "work it" just to make a buck. You will be miserable.

How Authorities & Experts Can Get Along

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Tue, 21 May 2013 11:26:00 +0000

What are the rules for an effective working relationship between authorities (leaders and managers) and those with authoritative knowledge (technical experts)?

And the prompt for the question is that this traditionally decent relationship has deteriorated.

Reasons for that disconnect:

1. When younger more inexperienced people manage older experienced people

2. When politicals manage civil servants

3. When external factors prompt a rush to change established norms and safeguards

The step by step deterioration usually goes something like this:

1. Expert sees problem that leader or manager does not OR leader or manager makes unrealistic demands or does something inadvisable

2. Expert tries to bring it to leader or manager's attention

3. Expert is ignored

4. Expert blows whistle

5. Expert suffers retaliation

...and at that point it can easily tip over into an ugly, costly, public, drawn-out legal matter, fodder for the headlines.

From my own observation here are some things that authorities and authoritative experts can do to eliminate the disconnect:

All Parties:
1. Have respect for what the other person can do - these are different skill sets

2. Appreciate the pressure on the other person

3. Focus on fixing the problem, don't make it a power struggle

4. Insist on having a process, even if the process is to suspend process - minimize chaos and confusion

5. Make it a practice to consult formally or informally with third party experts outside the immediate work unit - don't fall into the insularity trap, where your world becomes the whole world

For leaders & managers:

* Call on the right person to do the right job - never work with an expert through an expert's boss and never randomly assign a task to someone who is expert in a very particular thing

* Give experts special projects - they actually like those, it's not a negative thing

* Verbalize to the expert how much you appreciate their skills in XYZ - and be very specific about those skills, experts hate phony b.s. talk and meaningless compliments; praise the in public

* Give them a wide swath of control over the work, their time, their personal space

* Don't turn experts into project managers, they are not administrative types and they are not team thinkers either

* Leave the expert alone unless you need them - do not take up their time needlessly; never micromanage

* Do not make a big deal about every little thing - know when to let things pass; avoid needless confrontation

* Treat the expert as a peer

* Never ask an expert to do something you know is wrong.

For experts:

* Respond to requests for help right away - pick up the phone, answer the email

* Work extremely hard and produce - don't just spin your wheels

* Do a great job at whatever THEY need - understand that there is political and cultural stuff going on all the time, and you are a part of that show - it's not always going to make sense to you

* Be proud of what you know, but keep the ego out of it - you're not the only expert in the world

* Tone down the language, e.g. be diplomatic

* Talk about evidence not opinion

* Offer solutions that can be implemented, not pie in the sky

* Make the authority look good where possible

* Say: I am going to speak truth to power - then say it respectfully (never mouth off)

* Never go along with wrongdoing.

Marketing:Branding = Microphone:Fingerprint

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Mon, 20 May 2013 11:34:00 +0000

Marketing consists of all activities associated with creating a customer for your product. So in business marketing is everything, really: "Business exists to create a customer" said Peter Drucker. It's like a microphone in that it builds awareness.

Branding is a subset of marketing, a meta-technique applied to all the assorted activities done in marketing's name. It's what makes you unique - your fingerprint. Branding is "the way we do things," "who we are," "our personality."

Branding is the long-term action of creating perceived value: adding value to your product over and above commodity.

Branding activities have less short-term ROI but they function as long-term insurance when the product is getting best up by the market.

You don't abandon your friends easily.

Think of marketing as generating positive attention for your product and branding as building a cushion underneath it. An insurance policy.

That cushion is that people want to buy from someone they know and trust - and that is a sense you build through branding.

You do both at the same time: Marketing and branding activities overlap and integrate.

The influence of branding is to integrate disparate marketing activities into an overarching message. When activities are coordinated the message is more powerful.

Branding enhances marketing when the message is focused, differentiated, relevant, and consistent. And of course credible.

Marketing techniques typically include: advertising, PR, trade shows, social media, word of mouth, product placement and employee-focused or internal communication. It also includes research and development.

When you do marketing absent branding the message does not stick.

Example: Mouthwash

Branding activity: Create a personality around the mouthwash such that kids want to integrate into their daily lives and even pay double the price of generic.

Marketing activity: Get the mouthwash in front of kids in an appealing but safe way. Make it indispensable.

Ideally there is one person (a benevolent dictator) whose vision runs the whole show. That way the focus is truly singular.

* The above was originally posted as a response to a request to differentiate marketing and branding, posted on Quora.com.

How To Lose An Interview In 30 Seconds Or Less

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Sun, 19 May 2013 17:24:00 +0000

Interviews are a contact sport, where verbal sparring replaces fists. Don't ever walk into one unprepared. If you don't know what you're doing, you will get slaughtered.

Here are 10 tips to help you keep your reputation alive, even during the most brutal of Q&A sessions:

1. Know your subject matter cold. There is no such thing as "winging it." Study up. Get coached. Read. This should be happening far out in advance of the interview, because for the 24-48 hours beforehand you won't be able to retain any information by "crashing." If you are very knowledgeable and not just dancing around the facts, people will get that from the ease with which you speak (note they probably won't be able to follow the subtleties nor will they really care).

2. Know the interviewer or reporter. Everything is online nowadays. Study the kinds of questions they tend to ask, the articles they write, their point of view and interests, their interactive style, everything you can know you should know. Know who they are writing for. Know what their interests and equities are. Take their ideas seriously. You may disagree, but that doesn't mean you should ignore.

3. Know the context or environment. Go there early. Get comfortable. Look around you. Test the microphone. Mechanical difficulties make you look like an idiot, even if it's not your fault. Stand close to the camera, away from the camera, sit high and sit low. This is not vanity. This is practicality.

4. Dress intentionally. Look at your outfit. Don't wear weird ties with patterns that will glow or reflect. Wear appropriate clothes in flattering colors. Be extremely harsh and objective about this. Sometimes fashionable is good, sometimes classic is good. Note you don't have to be thin. You do have to wear clothes that fit. Some will judge the interview based solely on how you look.

5. Lower your voice and slow down. If your voice is high-pitched, nasal, or you talk too fast, the viewer will get turned off. You can get a vocal coach, you can get your best friend. A bad voice can ruin anybody's day.

6. Look at the host or the camera. The other day I watched an interview where the guest looked down at her notes. It was terrible. She seemed ill-prepared, untrustworthy, and lacking in confidence. She lost, totally. Don't do that. Smile. Laugh. Be at ease. You're fantastic! You aren't going to die. This is a moment to remember - you're on stage. If you can't handle being on stage, get off and let someone else handle it.

7. Don't talk off-mic. This is an easy mistake to make. The interviewer wants you to say something unguarded, controversial, and headline-grabbing. They ask you a question before or after the interview. It's supposed to be tangential to the story. It ends up leading the story.

8. Don't lose your cool. It's the interviewer's job to provoke you and sometimes to distort things. Don't be provoked. The only time you should act angry is when you're trying to send a message that is based on known fact. I cannot emphasize enough that you should only make statements based on what you absolutely 100% know to be true. If you do not know, do not say.

9. Don't disrespect, dismiss or invalidate the host or the question. If you are being asked to explain something that is of serious concern to the audience, and you do any of these things, it shows that you are arrogant and out of touch. If you are asked a purposefully combative question, simply call attention to the fact that the question is purposefully combative. For example: "I understand that you are trying to ask me a controversial question, but the reality is XYZ." Don't blame someone else. Don't deflect. Don't run away with your body language or with your words. Simply walk into the challenge and walk out the other side.

10. If you are wrong, admit it. This does not make you look bad. This makes you look honest. You don't have to beat yourself up. You should simply and objectively hold yourself accountable. If you find yourself going down a bad road - maybe you're talking too much or saying the wrong thing - simply stop. Of course, don't dwell on or end with negativity. State what you are doing to improve, increase, enhance the quality of your work and results.

Messaging, Helpful and Not

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Sun, 19 May 2013 16:38:00 +0000

A response to someone's comment about the Sunday talk shows, and learning nothing from them:

Messaging is useful when it helps the subject matter expert (SME) put their response in context rather than having the interviewer create the context for them. SMEs need to have that power because otherwise they are at the mercy of everyone else's agenda, axe to grind, point of view, ideology, etc.
Messaging is not useful when it is used to distort or suppress the truth or to propagandize. Not only don't those techniques work, but they have the opposite effect of destroying the speaker's credibility.
Over the past 10-15 years or so, coinciding with the rise of branding as a "mass" tool (meaning that everyone "gets" it and uses it for their own gain) -- we have seen the rise of phony marketing speak as a substitute for actual substantive responses to questions. Like others, I find it completely frustrating to watch a TV interview and feel that the speaker is somehow trying to hide, evade, manipulate, project an image, etc.

The solution to all this is not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Dense jargon, words with no framing or anchor or context, and simple avoidance would be the result. Rather communicators really have to up their game and understand that the audience to whom they speak is every bit as smart as them, maybe smarter.

Crises Always Hit At The Level Of The Brand

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Sun, 19 May 2013 00:48:00 +0000

Screenshot via MrDonn.org - Free Educational Resources for Government Lesson Planning

It's a common mistake when it comes to crisis thinking. You see the situation nearsightedly. From a single instance outward, rather than from the outside in.

Consider government. You may think that one agency has little to do with another, and you may be right. But when a crisis hits, every agency becomes the same.

This is because crises always hit at the level of the brand. In the eyes of the American public, the brand is the government in its totality - the collective mush of the legislative, the executive, and the judicial; the civil servants and the "politicals" alike.

Thus a crisis response that is partial cannot ever be effective. Because the brand in its totality is "government" - all of it.

This is easy to see when you think of brands in the private sector. But it's difficult when your brand is not a "brand" in the traditional, fast-moving-consumer-goods sense.

Nevertheless, it's the reality that people nowadays think in terms of branding. Unless you respond to an issue at the level where the brand resides, your response is ineffective.

Screenshot via Mashable.com

Crises Are Always Predictable

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Fri, 17 May 2013 22:43:00 +0000

There's this girl we know. Well actually, knew. Committed suicide by train.

Saw that one coming a mile away.

It's not that I would have used the word "suicide." But "troubled" came into my brain whenever I thought of her. (Occasionally.)

A lifelong celebrity gossip hound, watcher of Donahue and then Oprah, raised in a world largely made up of women, I am highly attuned to drama. And talk of relationship crises.

It is never a thing that comes by surprise.

I have studied politics, media and PR through the lens of branding for many years. It feels like my whole life.

One thing I've learned: Usually when the scandal does break, it breaks slowly. People don't see it for what it is at the time. It may even be out in the open.

And then suddenly it becomes "a thing."

The way to see crisis is not incidentally -- one thing at a time and not judged by order of magnitude. What you're looking for are patterns -- cracks in an otherwise clean facade.

Those little cracks, accepted as normal and repeated over time, become what we know later as dangerous crises.

The devil is in the details, and that's why you have to sweat them. Even if they seem unimportant at the time.

---

As always, all opinions are my own. Photo by me.

The 10 Key Components of Crisis Communication

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Wed, 15 May 2013 23:04:00 +0000

Screenshot via Pinterest.com, "Time Bomb Deals"

The biggest mistake you can make with a crisis is not to expect one to happen in the first place.
Here are 10 elements that should be common to any crisis communication plan:
1. Transparency: Make information and documentation available as much as possible.
2. Accountability: Leadership "owns" the problem, apologies are made, and person/s responsible are disciplined.
3. Immediacy: There is very little pause between incoming questions and outgoing answers.
4. Rationality: There is no handwringing or drama but rather an objective provision of information.
5. Neutrality: Absence of ideological or other bias - only the truth matters.
6. Objective Third Party: Someone with no stake in the game is empowered to investigate and bring findings.
7. Accessibility: Firsthand witnesses and participants are made available to answer questions.
8. Legality: An attorney explains to the public what they have a right to know and what information may not be shared.
9. Interactivity: Genuine back-and-forthing between the institution and the inquiring minds who want to know.
10. Positivity: Negative situations are also teachable moments - therefore emphasize progress and the way forward.

We Are So Addicted To The Idea That Consistency Is Linear

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Tue, 14 May 2013 11:35:00 +0000

I am weird, yes and I took this photo through the windowpane of someone's trunk, in a parking lot.

The reason I took the photo was that the chart caught my attention. It is not the first time I've seen people literally carrying around these kind of diagram charts in their trunks.

Possibly people in the Washington, D.C. metro area carry these things around because they are wonky policy types or academics very frequently. Maybe they have briefings on the Hill that just can't wait. Or they're consultants who want to show a process in play.

Whatever the scenario I look at these charts and I have to laugh. Because my life is not linear, my mind is not linear and neither is the life or mind of anyone I know.

It is true that I try to break things down into repeatable steps. In fact this is a lot of what I do at work. But I have found over time that steps and processes do not work they way they look on paper. In reality people work in a completely non-linear fashion, for at least five reasons:

The linear types and the non-linear types have to work together, so you can't have straight linear.
Creativity has a logic but it is not linear, and you need creativity to innovate.
The world of networking and relationships relies often on "workarounds" to make abstract procedures work in a practical way.
As leadership changes, work culture changes.
External factors like technology, the strategic environment, even the workstyle of new recruits influence the way existing procedures are implemented.

All of this matters for branding - a lot - because we tend to think of consistency as McDonald's hamburger patties coming out similarly each and every time.

The truth is branding nowadays must have inner consistency as often as outer. That is, the brand should "feel like" you even if it does not literally look or sound the same way every time.

The best conveyor of a brand is always the human being. And human beings are always quirky, unpredictable and imperfect - that's the very best part of us, and it's the part that great brands capture consistently.

The very best exemplar of this kind of branding today? The Kardashians - who, if you really watch carefully, have this narrative formula down pat.

So Talking Points Are Evil Now?

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Sat, 11 May 2013 16:23:00 +0000

I get a call the other day: "How are you?"

"Honestly," I say, slumping down in my Metro seat, "I am exhausted."

And I am exhausted. I'm so exhausted I can't remember what exhausted means. Everybody I know is exhausted. We seem to be running at a faster and faster pace and accomplishing just about...the same as before we were so exhausted.

...back to the conversation. The reply: "Well I can understand that, what with all the talking points going back and forth there in DC."

There I am, shoulders down. Literally waves of tiredness flowing upon me. It is late on a Friday, and the work is not done. Higher volume, limited resources, limited time. So much more to go.

What do I do all day? Make sure the facts are right...get the facts right.

We confuse the outcomes with the tools.

When a patient dies on the operating table, we don't stop doing surgery. We do ask - was the surgery necessary? Doctor qualified? Environment sanitary? Were there complications?

When a car goes over a cliff we do not stop driving either. (Actually I know someone who did stop driving when her car hit a side rail on the Beltway, swirled around and round in the rain, and got totaled. But that was temporary till she could work through all the trauma and the fear.) We do not outlaw cars.

And if a person is kidnapped from a grocery store parking lot, do we shut down all the grocery stores or stop shopping? Or maybe parking lots are bad?

So I ask this question now.

Why is it that every time there is a complex, sensitive issue or controversy, we veer away from the controversy itself and start questioning the need for standard communication tools?

Talking points are a critical piece of every communicator's knowledge base. Nobody should walk into a briefing without them.

Furthermore, if you're talking to the public in the early aftermath of a horrible and tragic incident, you will of course have to vet those talking points extensively - get everyone's input - and yes, of course you can have a dozen versions or more.

This post is not focused on any particular instance or incident. I'm not trying to secretly advocate a certain point of view. But I do want to call b.s. on the notion that professional communication is somehow suspect simply by the nature of its existence.

No matter what the polls say about trust in government - and it is at a historic low - we do take very seriously the content of our communication. What we say is carved in stone forever.

It's time we stop blaming surgery for malpractice, cars for car accidents, parking lots for kidnapping, and talking points for the content of the messaging.

* As always, all opinions are my own.

Bigger Government Is Not Necessarily Better Government

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Fri, 10 May 2013 12:44:00 +0000

It took me a long time to figure out what my political views were. It happened through dialogue with friends. We all shared the same kinds of views:

* Socially, "live and let live"

* Results-oriented

* Process-wise, anti-bureaucracy

...and then it dawned on me that I am a Libertarian.

I had a lot of trouble admitting this to myself. After all:

* The stereotype of a government worker is that you are all in favor of bloated, big government because it personally benefits you.

* The other problem is that there are some people who identify with libertarian views who seem quite nutty.

* Finally it seems like some kind of indictment of government to join a political party that seeks to shrink it.

But after a lot of thought I've realized that there is a kind of logic to my thinking.

* I've always been kind of a reformer in whatever social system I'm in. That's just my nature.

* I'm pretty passionate about the missions of the agencies where I've served - protecting vulnerable people from credit sharks - protecting the border - helping end extreme poverty around the world. I want the money to go to the mission and nowhere else unnecessarily.

* As a taxpayer and a steward of the taxpayer's money I feel a responsibility not to waste it. Those dollars are real!

* As a daughter I want my parents up in New York to be proud of me and not to see me as so many people view government workers stereotypically. Like we are vampires who somehow live off the dole.

* In a bigger way, like so many of us I am also descended from immigrants and there is no country like America, where we have so much freedom. It is a big honor to be chosen to serve.

It also seems to me that we are moving towards a system where strict allegiance to one political party or another is obsolete. What we want is to pick and choose the things we agree with, and discard those we don't.

For example, I agree with my Democratic friends on a lot of things - like righting inequality and helping the disempowered in particular. I also believe we are one world, and that what happens in one part of it is integrally connected with the others.

And my Republican friends make a lot of sense to me as well - the concept of letting business flourish, minimizing unnecessary regulation, keeping taxes low, protecting the Second Amendment.

So what is the key takeaway here? Well for one thing, breaking the myth that government workers are all cut from a single cloth. And for another, breaking the myth that we all have to be in favor of big government in order to serve the government well.

* Of course, as always all opinions are my own.

Remove these 5 stubborn obstacles to workflow

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Thu, 09 May 2013 12:37:00 +0000

If everyone wants to work better-faster-cheaper why don't we?

Wrong answer: We lack staff, funding, tools, training.

Right answer: We can't talk about the real issues holding us back.

These fall into 5 categories of fear: political, social, psychological, economic, biological.

* Political - I will lose power, influence.

* Social - I will lose status, respect.

* Psychological - I will feel anxious, jealous, weak, stupid.

* Economic - I will lose work, my job.

* Biological - I will not survive.

When you want to make a change for the better, focus on addressing the underlying fears.

Get the technical objections out of the way, then approach influential people one at a time.

Find out what the drivers of change really are.

For many, it's a form of cost-benefit: The cost of not learning is greater than the benefit of keeping one's feet stuck firmly in the mud.

You can't force people to change. You can only convince them that efficiency is in their best interests.

Personal Branding (Good), Self-Promotion (Bad)

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Wed, 08 May 2013 16:37:00 +0000

This is a followup to the earlier post about not hogging the spotlight, which is distinct from the very important personal branding activity that I would recommend for every professional, government or not. Some additional comments in response to a question received on that post--

1) Every professional should be accumulating things they can take credit for - titles, achievements, degrees, certificates, experiences - these are our trophies. A person won't be able to compete without them. I don't want people to confuse my recommendations on personal branding with thoughts on being a successful change agent.

2) As you get more experienced and go up in the ranks, the kinds of changes you want to introduce are subtler, broader and more sweeping. At that point you must let other people think it's their idea. Not just that -- you have to implant in them this evangelistic mission to motivate others themselves. Think about Starbucks -- it is not about Howard Schultz it's about the barista.

3) On internal satisfaction - when you get depressed about how nobody will take you seriously, think about how many inventors and great thinkers were laughed at, ignored, reviled and persecuted during their lives. Now imagine that you are as great as Freud. See how great you feel!!!

4) A special note for women - I have noticed that women tend to shy away from the spotlight and that men tend to hog it. Generally any dominant group tends to speak with a louder voice. I don't want anyone to interpret my advice as reaffirming passivity, shyness, or lack of self confidence. Rather my advice is to focus only on the goal and not on yourself. Moses was a humble guy with a speech impediment and G-d put him in charge.

5) The big message here - in government being a team player who doesn't promote themselves is a core value. In the private sector being self promotional is a given. While it's fine to be recognized for valid achievements you don't want to stick out as the person who is always drawing attention to themselves.

Generation X and Generation Y - Oil & Water?

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Wed, 08 May 2013 00:43:00 +0000

Some thoughts on what Xers and Yers have in common - where we connect:

Sense of humor
Idealism
Belief in hard work
Respect for integrity
Persistence

Where there tends to be tension:

Gen Yers tend to think of Xers as: somewhat negative, "intense," aggressive, not team players, not totally trustworthy.
Gen Xers tend to think of Yers as having an overinflated opinion of themselves - expecting reward before reward is earned; not bleak enough in their outlook; not willing to speak truth to power; not totally trustworthy.

How Gen Yers can do well with an Xer boss:

Be extremely good at what you do on a technical level.
Show that you are hardworking and want to work your way up the chain legitimately.
Be respectful.
Be responsive to requests quickly and do the best you can, even if you don't totally know what to do.
Speak up when something is wrong.

If you want to be an absolutely outstanding Gen Y employee:

Know that you are part of the "certificate" generation as in you got a certificate or a trophy for simply breathing. Forget about what you're entitled to and get to work.
Take more time to get to the heart of the matter. Consider the subtle context around a task before you say something about it.
Provide complete work that is fully thought through - not just something half-assed. If you have to do a halfway job because of the time factor, tell your boss about it so they don't get annoyed thinking you did lousy work and then submitted it - making them in effect redo your job.
Teach the elders technology in a nice way. They are scared to ask for help. In return they can teach you important institutional knowledge that you can't learn in school.
Understand that it takes time to learn the ropes.
Get out of the generational mold and interact with people at all ages, stages and groups across the agency. (This is something Yers are better than Xers at, very naturally.) Don't be put off because somebody else seems very different from you, and unrelatable.

How Gen Xers can do well with Y employees:

Let them do things their way.
Give them big responsibility and then GIVE THEM CREDIT for their work.
Don't be intimidated by their technical expertise.
Mentor them on the things they don't easily get - the subtleties that go past them.
Explain the larger context behind the task but don't be long-winded.

10 Ways To Be The Buddha Of Productivity

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Mon, 06 May 2013 16:15:00 +0000

Screenshot via Next Generation Consulting: "To Leave The World Better For Future Generations"

1. Decide you have had enough of the "overwork high." Some of the problem is that you can't let go of the idea that being frantically busy is good. Forget about what you see others doing.

2. Keep work for work time and weekend for weekend. When you force activity into a time box it gets done.

3. When you focus on one category at a time, one thing at a time you develop the habit of successfully completing things.

4. Adding some social aspect to every day, be it friends or family time, enhances your focus on work.

5. Use a timer app for boring stuff. I like Timer+. It makes elephant noises when the laundry is done.

6. Do certain things the same way every time. If you are constantly reinventing your processes it takes time away from output.

7. Co-create process with others so that the stability is mutually reinforced.

8. Wake up every day and delegate -- yes to your partner and kids too. Then let them delegate to you. Everyone can do something and we all do some things better than others.

9. Before retiring every night get organized for the next day. Eliminate things that don't need to get done.

10. Organize like tasks together "Batching" helps to attack a lot of mundane things at once.

10 Things You Still Don't Get About Generation Y

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Mon, 06 May 2013 00:15:00 +0000

1. You can't read them.
As a group they've mastered the skill of being quiet and obedient no matter how insane the adults around them. As a result, you can't tell what exactly they're thinking at work. No matter what, they'll have you convinced that everything is fine until they quit.

2. They dislike abrupt change.
Generation Y was raised on the rubric. This is a grid of rules that covers their school assignments. It is similar to the spreadsheets their carpooling caregivers use to keep track of who's picking up who from school and on what day of the week. When you shuffle the deck abruptly (or refuse to give them a defined role in the first place) it is perpetually annoying.

3. They are overqualified.
This generation is hardworking, enthusiastic, and extremely over-schooled. They think faster than we do. They can do much more on their own than we can think of assigning them. There is a serious gap between their abilities and the challenges given to them in the workplace.

4. They miss the 1990s.
In case you missed it, this was the decade of: Pop-Rocks, Barney, Mary-Kate & Ashley, Boy Meets World, and Hannah Montana. It was all about playgrounds with nannies holding Ziploc bags with apple slices. The '90s was multi-subject preschool and a lot of songs about friends and indoor, carefully supervised play. It was nonjudgmental diversity, but girl bullying, Bring It On and Mean Girls. It was the best of times and the worst of times, and you were not there. Therefore they do not trust you.

5. They hold themselves accountable to their friends.
This weekend I watched Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist on Netflix. The movie was about a lot of things but the theme running through it was the subterranean world of friends. Everyone in the movie had to answer to them. The parents were completely absent, but the friends were standing there as if with a clipboard, keeping everyone honest.

6. They care a lot about how they look.
Gen Y kids spend a lot of time looking in the mirror. They are casually and cruelly, brutally honest about that. They are not so much into branding, but it is very important to them that they look tip-top. If they've given up on how they look then fine, it's a hoodie and that's because they are really really smart. Everyone else has to get out the iron.

7. Career comes first and marriage maybe never.
Sadly from my perspective, Gen Y kids have accepted that they will not be able to have it all. They are hopeful for "long-term, committed relationships" but even that is a stretch for many. They understand that the economy is bad and that they might have to move far away to earn a living. The girls are not willing to go back in time and they want the professions they and their parents have fought for them to have. In addition they are vehemently and vociferously in favor of marriage equality.

8. They are mostly Type B and they like it that way.
This generation is very passionate about what they love doing but for them, money and life's passion do not mix. Rather, earning a living is a necessity. They are as a group laid back and they enjoy taking pleasure in life, their friendships and maybe doing some good in the world. They find aggressiveness a turnoff.

9. Having helicopter parents was nice for them.
Whereas older generations may have resented their parents' interference in their lives, Gen Yers look back on their parents' hovering with nostalgia. Many of them still live at home. They tend to appreciate their parents' efforts on their behalf.

10. They don't mind their parents much, but they view them as peers.
Despite the appreciation that Gen Yers feel towards their parents for their efforts, they do not see them as authority figures but rather as simply older (and perhaps a little clueless) peers. Life decisions happen with some parental input, but more likely on consultation with their friends from school. And they try to keep parental agitation to a minimum.

Public Affairs vs. Community Relations

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Fri, 03 May 2013 22:29:00 +0000

My response to a question on GovLoop:

--Public affairs = defensive - respond to inquiries. Generally focus on mitigating potential or actual crises. Not so much about information dissemination other than outreach re specific events or campaigns. Often viewed as a propagandistic function by the public and with disdain internally. Negative image - "spinmeisters." Seen as a necessity. Emphasis on press relations. You don't go anywhere without them. This category does not include New Media, the freaks down the hall who Tweet etc. but who most people still don't understand.

--Community relations - these are the people who embed themselves in the local community through town halls, youth programs and events, etc. Viewed fondly internally and externally. But also seen as an unnecessary expense. Not so much defensive as ongoing stakeholder engagement. Ear to the ground.

(Good or bad, I count myself part of all these communities.)

As always all opinions are my own.

Stop Thinking About Who Gets The Credit

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Fri, 03 May 2013 16:12:00 +0000

Photo by Jim Bahn via Flickr

Kathleen Taylor works for the VA. The signature line on her emails is the famous quote by President Harry Truman:

"It's amazing how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit."

You probably don't know Kathleen. That's because she lives her values. Like most government employees, she avoids the spotlight and tries to do her best.

Kathleen joined the Federal Communicators Network last year sort of out of the blue. I can't even remember how she got to me, probably through Jeff Brooke. Who has a similar philosophy: Don't brag, just help.

In any case when Kathleen joined up we were transitioning to a new kind of FCN model, more Internet-based etc. I handed her a MailChimp account with a very complicated password and said "Can you do this? We have to do the newsletter."

Very politely Kathleen said, "Well, I've never used a MailChimp before but I will try."

Kathleen did more than try - she did it. Her newsletters were great. They sounded homey and witty and warm. I loved reading them. But more than that I loved that she was willing to jump right in and roll her sleeves up and help out.

At a certain point she relocated out of D.C. But she offered to help even when she was moving! That's the kind of person Kathleen is.

Meanwhile, FCN transitioned to its new and also incredible leadership - Britt Ehrhardt and Dave Hebert, who together with the new Board continue the newsletter, GovLoop (see #1 conversations here on GL nearly every week), LinkedIn, Twitter.

Kathleen, Jeff, Britt, Dave, all the people involved in FCN and those who start and share these conversations generally - they are not looking for any credit. There are so many others with the same humility and generosity: John Verrico, Ellen Crown, Bill Brantley, Jeri Richardson. Pat Wood of course. Who else contacted me awhile back - it was Kitty Wooley - she shares so many good things on LinkedIn. It's an education just to follow her posts.

The point of all this is that everyone listed above, and you too for reading this, is helping the cause of good government. You may not think of yourself as a "champion" or a "leader" or a "trailblazer" and so on. But you are.

You don't have to be on social media either. There's a lady at work here who is quiet as a church mouse and very "old school." But she has the greatest and heartiest laugh. And her cube is filled with chocolates. That's on purpose. She wants people to stop by and take one. "I know they don't want to talk to me," she said to me the other day, seriously laughing, "and I really don't care. I just love to see them take a Snickers and be happy."

Most people in America will never know the really good people who work for the federal government. But they do not have to. Most leaders will never know what their staff can do either. And that's irrelevant too.

What I am starting to see, what really matters, is that we band together in networks of two or three or six and simply reach across the cubes and offer to help one another. If we can just do that then I think we would see a lot of benefit - in terms of training, morale, productivity, and so on.

Stress can be defined as the gap between "what I expect" and "the reality." We can enjoy ourselves more at work if we lower our expectations of our bosses, and increase our expectations of ourselves. Without waiting for someone to hand us a trophy.

To Break A Bad Habit - Try Simple Cost-Benefit Analysis

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Thu, 02 May 2013 23:32:00 +0000

"A minute on the lips, forever on the hips."

It never stopped me from eating junk food before, but some other thoughts have:

1. "This might feel good now but I don't want to be weak."

2. "Do I really want to go out and buy new clothes just to eat this now?"

3. "How will I feel when I look in the mirror and my face looks all puffed up?"

All of this is cost-benefit analysis. Immediate gratification now (benefit), emotional and physical discomfort down the road (cost).

You can apply cost-benefit thinking to any bad habit and literally change your life.

The reason it works is that you get out of the drama. In a logical frame of mind you assess: Is this action or reaction worth it?

But when your filter is not so clear you can get stuck in an endless back and forth:

"Am I right or wrong here?"

"I don't want to hurt people's feelings."

"She said this but he said that."

"Which one should I choose?"

A single, simple metric -- resources or risk expended in exchange for return -- works better and saves a lot of time.

Cheat Sheet - How To Run A Focus Group

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Thu, 02 May 2013 11:15:00 +0000

I had the rare opportunity to observe a highly respected Agency veteran run a focus group and thought to myself, "Better write this down before I forget it." It was one of those educational experiences you cannot ever duplicate in a classroom.

This leader made the following look natural ("I'll just be winging it") but in fact if you look at the steps it is highly sophisticated.

STAGE I: PREPARATION

Step 1: Recruit

Get executives to volunteer people. Reach out to the people with a short email and reassure them that the focus group will not be painful. Choose a non-intimidating setting that feels conversational.

Step 2: Homework

Give people something to think about in advance. Attachments to an email.

Step 3: Schedule & Remind

* If possible, have a third party reach out to the participants to invite them and coordinate date and time. There is a subtle hierarchical distinction between the scheduling and the inviting that should be kept intact if possible.

* Let them know a day ahead of time that you're looking forward to seeing them at the focus group.

Step 4: Structure

* Roles and responsibilities - in this case 1) executive/focus group leader 2) support person/subject matter expert (me) 3) note-taker (someone high-level who can capture the essence of what is going on, not just write things down) 4) timekeeper 5) scheduler; participants.

* Note-taker is especially important: Make sure someone is recording comments and action items for later reporting out. The note-taker cannot be the moderator. They can be the timekeeper.

* Have an order of operations ready - what are you trying to accomplish and how will you break that into tasks? (Example - you are talking about Issue A and then turning to Issue B, then coming to closure).

* Have a timeframe that you stick to. We went with 2 hours and it worked. The afternoon seemed to be a good time, it seems like people are more reflective around 2-4 p.m. versus in the morning they're trying to get things done.

Step 5: Handouts

Bring extra copies of the homework for people who forgot them. Have plain white paper and pens on hand.

STAGE 2: AT THE FOCUS GROUP

Step 1: Introductions & Background

* Go around the room. The moderator can start with themselves. Just say name and where you work. Don't introduce rank.

* Take questions about the project.

* The moderator explains what the purpose of the group is, the genesis of the project, and why it's important.

Step 2: Topic A

Allow an hour to an hour:15 for this one. Participants are asked to take out their homework and review again in the context of the group. Initial comments are requested.

The moderator:

* makes sure to elucidate the members' comments rather than inserting themselves into the comments - they are neutral.

* injects reality into the conversation at strategic points - lightly managing expectations.

* makes sure that quiet members talk and that dominating members don't talk too much.

* repeats back what the participants say to make sure their viewpoint is heard.

* uses the participants' first names and asks to be reminded if they forgot.

Step 3: Short Break

This can be an actual break or the moderator can make small talk as there is a transition from Topic A to Topic B. Five minutes.

Step 4: Topic B

Rinse and repeat Topic A, but a little shorter because people are tired by now. About 30-45 minutes.

Step 5: Closure

* Do a brief exercise to come to some form of closure, even if it's only to solicit final ideas. Have people write down final thoughts on a piece of paper and hand it in.

* Thank the participants and let them know what's going to happen next in a concrete way. Answer the question: The information from this group will go where and matter how and why?

* Note that everything is subject to change - manage expectations.

STAGE 3: AFTER THE EVENT - FOLLOWUP

Step 1: Appreciation

It's nice to send a short note thanking people for their time.

Step 2: After Action Review

Group debrief - how did that go? What are we doing next?

Step 3: Notes

Notes go back to team for synthesis. Group collaboration site is updated.

Why It Pays To Give A Damn About Your People

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Wed, 01 May 2013 23:06:00 +0000

The amount of seriousness with which employees are taken increases in direct proportion to their visibility to the public.

They are visible and speaking up on social media.

In addition the public trusts them more than they trust their bosses. So it is in the organization's interest as well to put them front and center as "brand ambassadors."

The metric for organizational goals should solely be return on investment. Win-win is where the employees' interests and the employers' interests align.

Whoever does not take employees seriously - whoever reduces their input to numbers - is not operating in a state of rational self-interest.

3 Sales & Marketing Lessons You Must Know

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:26:00 +0000

Random ideas from me and others -- the overarching concept being to entice the customer to come to you first rather than the other way around.

1. "Have breakfast with the customer" -- a former boss taught me this. Excellent salesman, he thought from the client's perspective at all times and actually did have breakfast lunch and dinner with them.

2. "Let it be their idea"--another former supervisor who was brilliant at this. I don't know exactly how she did it.

3. "Solve their immediate problem well" and then they will call you to solve others - e.g. sell them stuff they need.

If we really cared about innovation...

noreply@blogger.com (Dannielle Blumenthal) — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 10:51:00 +0000

In School

...we would let children go with their parents to work and have childcare and tutors available there.

...we would focus on helping children discover rather than on teaching them.

...we would eliminate standardized tests completely in favor of the essay, the presentation, the model.

At Work

...we would end the distinction between working and learning activities.

...we would embrace noble failures rather than worship success.

...we would work and learn in whatever setting feels natural to us.

In Our Communities

...we would make the outdoors more accessible and safe.

...we would have free, safe libraries and learning labs everywhere.

In The World

...we would unlock the data and use it - to end poverty, sickness, inequality and social repression.