The loss of Brad Davis has been sudden and sharp – so much so that it’s left many of us at a loss for words.
Taylor Owen has best articulated what those of us who got to know Brad through the leadership race are feeling.
Here is why I love the internet. It allows anyone to take their idea or research and share it with the rest of us. In this case Johnny Lee shows us how $250 worth of gear can enable us to create something people have been trying for decades to get right. Better still, he shared the code so others could do it too – and even build on his work.
Everything about this video is great. From the idea, to Johnny’s presentation style (which is clear to the non-expert) as well as his casually humour and charming delivery.
It will be interesting to see how Nintendo reacts to this and Johnny’s other innovations. 
Sony both set the bar and wrote the book on how to alienate your customers when it launched lawsuits against the owners of its digital AIBO dog (pictured right) who offered up software hacks that allowed the digital pet to do (cool) new things.
So far my google research shows they’ve been silent. This is at least one step up from Sony.
I’m presently reeling in frustration with a call I made to Aeroplan today. (Yes, in good old eaves.ca ca fashion I’m off bashing Air Canada again – there is just so much to hate!)
Yesterday I called Aeroplan’s new number (They change it every year so only current Elite members have the active number). As usual I reached automated telephone service – which I don’t mind.
However, the new service doesn’t let you use the keypad. Everything has to be spoken. So you have to tell it what language you’d like to speak in. Which it repeats back to you and asks you to confirm. Then you tell it your aeroplan number, which it inevitably hears incorrectly, so you say it again. Then it asks to confirm that the number is correct. So you say yes. Then it asks if you are who it thinks you are. Then it asks “are you the member or someone representing the member.” As I type this out I realize it all sounds fairly painless. But because of errors and the fact that you have to say everything relatively slowly, and then confirm everything, it took me 3 minutes just to get to the main menu.
I know 3 minutes doesn’t sound like long – but it feels like an eternity when you are a) talking to a machine and b) not even talking about the reason for your call. You are just jumping through the hoops to get to the menu where you can try to get the service you are looking for.
Under the old system I hit “1” for English and then punched in my 9 digit number. Total time to get to the main menu? 15 seconds and zero frustration.
If rule #1 of automated telephone service is “make it easy for customers to find what they are looking for” then rule #2 has to be – make it as painless and as quick as possible.
Aeroplan could at least allow both system (spoken and keypad) to work. But they chose not to. Why? I don’t know. But its given Air Canada’s most frequent flyers yet another reason to get frustrated. Nothing new there.
[Epilogue: Of course, after getting through to the main menu, I was quickly informed I was calling the wrong 1-800 number. I then called Air Canada ticketing and after being allowed to use the key pad to direct me to the right person spoke with a delightful lady who was friendly and cheerful.]
Last week I had the good fortune of being invited to give a talk and be part of a panel at a conference organized by Health Canada on Intergenerational Workplaces. I had a great time presenting, listening to the other speakers and meeting the participants.
Acknowledging the dangers of speaking in terms as broad as generations, there was a highlight moment about generational differences worth sharing. This moment reaffirmed to me how poorly Generation Y is understood – even the alleged “experts.”
During the panel someone asked (what has become and inevitable question) about Generation Y’s attitudes towards security and privacy. In short – don’t they know that the photo they are sharing on Facebook is accessible to the world?
Both the technology expert and the “generational” consultant on the panel talked about how Gen Yers obviously didn’t realize that when they post a picture (say, for example, a photo of them greedily swigging a beer at a conference they helped organize in Toronto) there are a ton of people who can access it – such as everyone in your municipal network (this could be, for example, all of Toronto). Both concluded that if Gen Yers realized what they were doing then they’d behave differently. As a result, it was up to us older – and obviously wiser – members of the audience to educate them.
This, to me, was a stunningly problematic diagnoses which in turn led to a flawed prescription.
My fellow panelists were basically asserting was that they – a boomer and a Gen Xer – had a better grasp of Facebook than the early adopting Gen Yers. They were arguing that Gen Yers who share photos and information the panelists wouldn’t choose to share were – to put it bluntly – at best ignorant or naive, at worst, dumb. Remember, the conclusion is that these people mistakenly believe they are just sharing something with friends. If they knew it could end up getting shared more widely, they’d make a different choice.
Really?
When a young person shares a scandalous piece of news on Facebook or posts a picture of themselves drunk at a party you really think they believe others won’t be able to end up seeing it? More often than not… no! They know that all of Toronto may be able to see it. They just don’t care.
That’s right, many Gen Yers just don’t care.
Many take the attitude that what they do on their time is their business, and if you don’t like it… well that’s okay, I probably wouldn’t want to work for you anyway. And in an era of labour scarcity (who else is going to fill the jobs of all those retiring boomers) that attitude probably won’t push them out of the labour market.
What’s important here is that if you realize they don’t care – telling them that the photo they share is viewable by anyone isn’t going to change their behaviour. They already know it is viewable by everyone. While some may make different choices if they believed their career prospects might be impacted – many (and I mean many) will not. A number of Gen Yers (recognizing the enormous problems of using sweeping generalizations like generations) will be making different choices than both boomers and even Xers around both issues like privacy and what they feel is acceptable to share with the world.
I know many boomers believe this will impact Yers employment opportunities. Maybe. But then, boomers did elect a democratic president who admitted to smoking pot (but not inhaling) and a republican president whose done coke. Why shouldn’t a Gen Yer believe that if it is okay for the president to have engaged in that behaviour – how can a photo of me drunk at a party be a deal breaker?
Before Christmas I was fortunate enough to be invited to the Liu Institute to give a negotiation workshop to a group of visiting Ugandans. As some people know, but many do not, Uganda has had a large rebel force – called the L ord’s Resistance Army (LRA) – operating in the country’s north for over 20 years.
What makes this conflict particularly troubling has been the LRA’s strategy of kidnapping and indoctrinating and ultimately converting children into soldiers and supporters of the movement. To give you a sense of the scale and scope of the problem Wikipedia talks of the sadly named “night commuters” who: “between the ages of 3 and 17… would walk up to 20 kilometers from IDP camps to larger towns, especially Gulu, in search of safety.”(Photo on the right is of such a safe haven.)
I met with tribal leaders who were attempting to negotiate the release of their women and children who, over the course of the conflict, had been kidnapped, indoctrinated and ultimately integrated into the LRA community (many to a degree that, even if their release were secured it is unclear that they would wish to leave their newly adopted home). In addition to running through some negotiation advice I decided to conduct a choice analysis. This is something I often do with clients – it is an ideal tool for understanding why someone you are negotiating with keeps saying “no.”
A choice analysis rests on a two simple assumptions:
To conduct it you need to determine:
In the case of the Ugandans I was working with – the Choice Analysis looked like as follows:
|
Decision-maker: Kony (leader of the LRA)
The question they hear: Shall I today bow to the pressure of these weak and powerless tribal leaders and give up one of my best forms of protection? [One should always frame the question in the most negative way possible]
|
|
|
+ I keep my human shields and help ensure my safety + I keep wives close to me + I protect my own children + I assert my authority + My soldiers and followers see I am a tough negotiator + I demonstrate I’m more powerful than those who are asking + I can always say yes tomorrow
– The women and children are more likely to be caught in war zone
|
– I may be seen as conceding that I held people against their will and violated international law – I lose future soldiers and supporters for my army – I no longer directly protect the released members of my own and my soldiers families – It may be perceived as a sign of weakness – My subordinates may believe that I no longer have confidence in our future – Undermines central abduction ‘doctrine’ of LRA – People may think I believe others can take better care of these people than me – I disappoint (and possibly betray) those women and children who are released but who don’t want to go – I create expectations among other women and children that they too may get released if they would like + I gain credibility as negotiator and allow peace talks to continue + My reputation among local and international actors improves
|
You know you’ve done the analysis effectively when, if looking at it, you tell yourself – “Looking at it from this perspective I can see why they are saying no.”
So what does this analysis give us? It gives us a window into the interests and concerns that we have to address in order to craft a proposal that our target is more likely to say “yes” to.
In the above case Kony has legitimate concerns about the safety of these women and children should he release them back to their communities (in an effort to seek revenge against him an aggrieved individual might try to attack someone who is believed to be one of his wives or children). More importantly, life at the head of a rebel army in the African bush is fraught with danger – Kony can never show any sign of weakness lest he be overthrown. As such he can only say yes to a proposal that affirms his power and does not weaken him in the eyes of his soldiers and subordinates. Also important is the fact that “releasing” these women and children would be a tacit acknowledgment that they had been kidnapped in the first place – something he is unlikely to want to do since that would strengthen the legal and political case against him.
There are of course, some who will argue that Kony is not a rational actor – that he is a murderer and a sociopath. The problem here is that if you adopt these as starting points where do you go…? How do you negotiate with him? Kony himself is alleged to have said “I’m not evil. I’m not stupid, I’ve built this whole army.” We can debate whether or not Kony is evil, but one doesn’t survive for 20 odd years as the head of a successful rebel army without a) being extremely smart; and b) possessing a finely (even ruthlessly) honed sense of self-interest. As difficult as it is to negotiate with someone like this we must appeal to these traits to be successful. Your odds will be better than negotiating with someone who is truly crazy.
/* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:”Table Normal”; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:””; mso-padding-alt:0pt 5.4pt 0pt 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0pt; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:”Times New Roman”; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Yes, it shocked even me – I have a post on fashion. And women’s fashion to boot!
The other week I was in Banff conducting a negotiation workshop and one of the client representatives who (literally) made the event possible had this hand bag (pictured to the right). I thought it to be quite cool. Not only was it fashionable but it was both environmentally friendly and the art work was done by her husband.
The bag is manufactured by a company called Little Earth Productions. All the materials used are recycled from other products. For example, the strap on the bag pictured to the right is made from old tires.
For guys looking to give that ultimate purse/bag to their women, they also have a line of bags with NHL or NFL logos on them. It’s a special kind of women who’ll be looking for one of those…
As a cool aside, the photo of this bag was taken with an iPhone… not one owned by me mind you.
In the most recent version of Optimum Online Angela Majic writes a response to my piece entitled “Generation Y Challenges the Public Service” (which is itself a transcript of a speech I gave to the Association of Professional Executives in May of 2007)
Unfortunately, Ms Majic’s comments say very little about my article. At best her critiques are either aimed at arguments I don’t make, or inadvertently confirm the arguments I do make. At its worst her piece is a case study in why public service renewal may indeed be far off.
Take, for example, one of her opening sentences:
“One gets the impression from his comments that Gen Yers may be frustrated by the dominance of Baby Boomers.”
This however, is not the case. There was very little in my talk about intergenerational conflict or frustration with boomers. What my talk did focus on was challenging the assumptions that many of us hold about the Public Service and to outline the growing gap between the culture of the public service and that of younger (and all) Canadians.
There is frustration – but it isn’t directed at boomers. It is directed at organizational structures and modes of thinking that increasingly hamper public servants. My arguments aren’t generational. Indeed the problems outlined affect Gen Yers (who are simply unsure about the Public Service), as much as they do Boomers (many of whom tell me they are howling in their cubicles). Indeed, what makes Gen Y important is that they are growing up in a world of labour scarcity and may not tolerate howling in a cubicle. They’ll simply turn their back on the public service and seek opportunities elsewhere.
After misleading readers about both the purpose and substance of my article, Ms. Majic then launches into a spirited defense of “experience” and the need for “intergenerational dialogue.”
“Going to school longer is not necessarily the same thing as being better educated. While one cannot deny the benefits of formal learning, and the fact that educational qualifications are crucial to being able to function effectively in a knowledge-based economy, experience can be a great teacher. At the risk of restating the obvious, people who are older have more experience…
…Only through a genuine dialogue that respects the abilities, knowledge and talents of all parties can we hope to bridge the often mentioned, yet seldom understood, “generation gap” in the workplace.”
Sadly there is nothing in my talk that suggests I’m opposed to either experience or dialogue, nor did I suggest at any point that education was alone sufficient to fulfill every role in the public service. Indeed, my invitation to APEX was extended in order to prompt that dialogue – by sharing with executives (mostly boomers, with some Xers) the perspective of Yers and younger Xers.
So I’m neither opposed to dialogue or experience. However, I am opposed to unstated and strongly held assumptions that cause us to misunderstand a situation or engage in faulty analysis. In addressing this part of my talk, Ms. Majic fails to tackle my argument. Responding to my comment that that the insular nature of the Public Service should be measured against that of other sectors (such as the non-profit and private sector) as opposed to the Public Sector of the past she states:
As for the supposed insularity of the public service, there may be some truth to a particular ethos pervading throughout any organization over time, but that may be over-stated. The federal public service today generally is more representative of linguistic duality, has more women employees, and has more visible minorities.
There are two things worth noting here. First, Ms Majic’s basis for comparison is the Public Service of yesterday. however, when I’m choosing a place of employment and wish to gauge how open it is to new ideas I don’t compare it to how it was 20 years ago, I compare it to the other organizations I could work for today. In my talk I joke that only an insular culture would make itself, 20 years ago, the benchmark for insularity. Sadly, Ms. Majic does just that.
Second, Ms. Majic’s argument presumes that increasing racial and linguistic diversity limits insularity. There is no doubt that it can help. However, she misses the thrust of my argument: namely that the strength and influence of a corporate culture should not be underestimated. The Public Services’ lifelong system of employment means its employees grow up within the system and adopt its norms, values and assumptions – regardless of their background, race, language or other trait. I quote Jim Collins for a reason. His research shows that corporate cultures are incredibly powerful in their capacity to both reject and eject those who think differently. Insularity is not a function your background, it is a function of culture.
This is not just a issue for the public service – every organization must grapple with this problem. The difference is that virtually every other organization (private and non-profit) experiences a higher rate of turnover, often across all levels. This means new ideas and perspectives that can test organizational assumptions flow into the system on a regular basis. Within the public service this occurs less frequently. Fewer outsiders come in, especially at the EX level. Consequently, the system simply has more careerist who have often only known a life in the public service – especially in its mid-level and senior ranks. This is unprecedented among organizations in Canada today.
So the public service may be less insular than 20 years ago… but does it matter to Gen Y? No. The real issue is how insular the public service is in relations to other organizations today. Here the situation is less rosy.
I’d also like to step back and share an observation. I’ve now given this and similar speeches at several government retreats and conferences and have noticed an emerging trend. Frequently after I give a talk the Boomers and Gen Yers in the audience approach me to thank me for articulating what they’ve been thinking and to share stories and engage me further. The Boomers often talk of how they know the system needs (dramatic) reform and how they hope that they can change it before they leave (or that their mass departure will help prompt its reform). Gen Yers also react positively – “you know me better than I know myself” – one recently commented. But they also confide in me that they are only starting out on their career and that most believe they will not stay in the public service for too much longer anyway, so these challenges don’t feel overwhelming.
Those most predisposed to be frustrated are the Gen Xers. It’s not hard to see why. This is the cohort that has only recently begun moving into the EX category. As such it is the group with the most invested in the current system and with the most to lose if the rules of the game are changed. It is Xers – like Ms. Majic (not the Boomers as everyone suspects) who are often the strongest defenders of the status quo. Take for example the three arguments in Ms. Majic’s article: experience trumps everything; government is not insular; and hierarchical and top-down systems are “time-tested” and good – each is a defense of the status quo.
This bodes ill for those who expect radical reform to occur when the Boomers retire. But it also points to an important short coming of current reform efforts. Gen Xers are an important – nay critical – group within the public service. They are the emerging leaders and so occupy a vital role role within the bureaucracy. Without their support, reform will be at best difficult, at worst, impossible. Consequently, any program of reform is going to have to meet and address their legitimate fears and concerns. If not, then the public service really could end up with intergenerational conflict in its midst.
My friend Mark Surman, all round nice guy and Open Philanthropy Fellow with the Shuttleworth Foundation, recently sent out an email asking people to take note of, and if possible sign, the Cape Town Declaration on the future of open education.
The Declaration is the brainchild of the Shuttleworth Foundation, Wikimedia and several other organizations, as is set to be released shortly.
What is it? This extract will give you a clue:
Educators worldwide are developing a vast pool of educational resources on the Internet, open and free for all to use. These educators are creating a world where each and every person on earth can access and contribute to the sum of all human knowledge. They are also planting the seeds of a new pedagogy where educators and learners create, shape and evolve knowledge together, deepening their skills and understanding as they go.
This emerging open education movement combines the established tradition of sharing good ideas with fellow educators and the collaborative, interactive culture of the Internet. It is built on the belief that everyone should have the freedom to use, customize, improve and redistribute educational resources without constraint. Educators, learners and others who share this belief are gathering together as part of a worldwide effort to make education both more accessible and more effective.
These are exciting times, and it is critical that the legal and network infrastructure that enables them to be exciting is preserved so that more people can use these newly emerging educational tools to grow and learn.
If you are interested in this movement, please be sure to check out there webpage and, sign their petition.
Last night I was acclaimed as part of the Vision Vancouver Executive (see story here). There was great turn out for the AGM, which is good news in preparation for the upcoming municipal elections here in Vancouver.
Needless to say I’m excited to be part of the Vision Team. After a rejected op-ed and traveling to 8 cities in 12 days I’m exhausted and a little beat up. The good news and cheer from the AGM was very much welcome. Sadly, it was off to the airport for Edmonton right afterwards so not even a chance for a beer with everyone to celebrate.
I apologize for the thin postings last week – come Wednesday and a 12 hour nap, I’ll be back on top of things.
The day has come – I’ve flown WestJet.
Readers may be familiar with my many rants and raves about Air Canada. I’ve long been curious about WestJet – but Air Canada always suckers me with a) Access to lounges (which you get with elite status and higher); and b) its Airmiles (which enable me to travel for free).
So what does WesJet offer? Let me count them off:
And where does Air Canada come out on top?
The biggest downside with WestJet is that they charge extra for everything (lounge access, entertainment, etc…) which means that business travelers has to pay for those perks out of pocket as opposed to having them folded into the ticket price.
So am I surprised that people choose WestJet? Not at all.
eaves.ca 