The Brass Tacks of Individual Development

Michele Martin on Friday tweeted a link to a Fast Company article that talks about an SAT test prep platform that helps aid student success while predicting how successful they will be. Michelle's comment that there could be interesting implications for adult learning and motivation is probably an understatement.

Michele had earlier written a blog post about how the very notion of a job is changing, and how people can generate multiple streams of income by thinking from an entrepreneurial perspective. She and many others are right: with the relative democratization of options for gathering knowledge and experience, so too must peoples' education and "job" prospects be diversified like a stock portfolio.

Speaking with respect to SAT test prep, the problem seems to be self-motivation and that all-important work factor. From the Fast Company article: "The problem...[is] that kids don't do the work because there's little immediate, incremental incentive, and it's piled on top of an already full load of classwork and activities..." One indicator of this, to my mind, is the proliferation of first year success programs in higher education. Many of them focus on educational basics I was required to have to enter college in the mid-1990s. Many people coming into community colleges and public universities, as well as for-profit institutions, come from a less fortunate educational background, but still seek higher education. However, many of them don't know how to cope with a model that essentially inundates them with choices while they lack the glue of motivation. What's left is a hybrid of a prescriptive learning model intertwined with the feel of completely open education.

Some will have the motivation to push through the early period to success. Others will lack that, and the risk is that they will feel forced to stop or put off their education. Testive, I think, hits on a workable model for motivation. Such methods were very helpful in my recent success in passing the PMP exam. The possibility of passing that test would have been remote for me if I did not have practice facilities that mimicked the real thing while providing immediate feedback and a focus on weak areas of knowledge. While Testive's platform focuses on SAT and ACT testing, I think their approach could be applied to all sorts of areas.

So how does a test success algorithm relate to career entrepreneurship at the individual level?

With the democratization of educational options, it's becoming easier for someone to steer their career in new and different directions, or to build on the current course, on a proverbial dime. Tools similar to what Testive offers can help people achieve goals more quickly by predicting success through the targeting of weak areas.

My overall perspective is that more and more tools are becoming available that will drive solutions to let people guide themselves through the entire education and career launch process. We may eventually reach the point where people onboard themselves into a company by testing and passing a particular standard for performance in a particular role. There are all sorts of positive and negative implications for this, once society has determined how best to resolve motivation problem. Society already seems to be distrustful of a future where advancement in anything depends on cold, quantitative analysis of everything. The positive side affords freedoms our forebears couldn't conceive of, though that may look like a precipice to some.

In all honesty I have some genuine trepidation about these developments as well. The future will be interesting one way or another.

Self Awareness and the Performance Review

Harold Jarche's weekend post relates a story from Harvard Business Review. It's about a sort of star candidate who was groomed to lead an overseas division of a company. All the boxes for him were set up to be checked off, but as his leadership began and things progressed early on, outcomes didn't go to plan. The status quo was followed too closely, and increasingly the operation of the business and the division suffered. How could this be?

So someone else - more or less the diametric opposite, as far as the details of the story let on - was put in place to lead the overseas division. Success resulted soon after. The moral of this particular story is that the status quo and the leaders working within it may not generate the expected level of success. But this wasn't what I took from the story.

My takeaway is the underlining of the importance of self awareness, and using external feedback to obtain that perspective. John from the story appears to have been someone who felt the system would handle whatever difficulties came up. He delegated his leadership role to the system he was supposed to be guiding. His replacement, Alex, took an active role. John didn't bother learning; Alex did. But beyond that, it didn't appear that John did much work in the way of checking his performance with his superiors. Alex, on the other hand, bucked the status quo while making begrudging admirers out of them.

Something I've done at various points in the positions I've held is to initiate off-the-cuff performance reviews. The reason I've done this is to address any concerns I may not be aware of, before someone prepares to address them with me. I've also felt that it shows some initiative and struggle to maintain a learning and improving ethic in my profession.

What about you? Do you initiate informal reviews of your performance? What ways have you sought out feedback not directly related to a training or major process change event?

Learning Technology and the Global Wealth Gap

I am a regular reader of The Verge. It's a great site that mixes tech with everything from politics to entrepreneurship, all with a healthy dose of pop culture references and lingo. This month Bill Gates is there guest editor, and I was very intrigued by an article on MOOCs and the developing world, written by Adi Robertson.

Then, just by chance, I was reviewing my RSS feed of Donald Clark's Plan B blog, and noticed this gem of his from a few weeks back. I had somehow missed it previously, but with today's unfortunate news that another terror attack on free speech had taken place in Denmark, when I saw Donald's post about Boko Haram, I had to read it. He is very often a contrarian to accepted practices and theories, and I appreciate his regular checks against the winds of the industry. I encourage anyone to read both articles.

Donald lays out a sobering picture of the where, when, why, and how of education in parts of Africa. As I reflected on the MOOC story, there were so many confirmations of the key thrust of Donald's point: “Africa, above all, has a form of schooling that is deeply colonial, defined by the academic systems in Britain and France.” He later lays out how and why this system fails youth across the African continent, and how such a grotesque machination in Boko Haram can be seeing brutal success in spreading its backward, violent, and dictatorial ends. Donald points out that there is no local face on education in places like Nigeria.

Referring back to Adi's article, a local face and spin on education appears to be reflected as a consistent theme in other places in the developing world, as well. In fact, both articles arrive at many of the same points, including the fact that even the latest learning technology will not solve the education problem.

So the question I have in light of the Gates-edited article is, if technology isn't the solution, and MOOCs are typically used most by the already-educated, what is the plan underlying the international efforts to expand education, not just for youth, but for all age groups? There are clear indications that there are a few who have devised ways to connect with education via mobile phones, but these opportunities are individualized and have a complex situational context.

The seemingly clear solution to getting any new effort off the ground is a multi-dimensional matter of money, infrastructure, properly trained local teachers, and local government and community support. In other words, the answer to the question involves lots of questions about how to handle everything that would enable education in the first place.

That is clearly no small thing to solve. More on the subject:

AEO: Education & Skills Mismatch
WSJ: Why Foreign Aid Is Hurting Africa

Can the Physical Office go Mobile?

The debate about whether more or less work gets done by companies that allow their employees to work from home has been on a vigorous burn for a while, now. There are great arguments on both sides; here's one of the negative views on the practice. I happen to work for a company where many employees work remote from home almost exclusively. I am one of those people and I am never wanting for emails to send, milestones to complete, or objectives to hit on any given day.

But part of my background has certainly included positions with a daily commute, a corporate office atmosphere, and everything associated with that. It is on rare occasion I get to visit the offices of my present company, and to directly interact with those I otherwise work with via phone, Skype, or email. When I do get those chances, I am always appreciative for the opportunity to have more fluid and potentially serendipitous conversations between individuals I would not in any other time be able to simply pull aside. Such reflections would seem to indicate that telecommuting is for the birds, right?

Well, the increasing reality of work on the go, work-life integration, and the notion of the mobile office will make at least some of the arguments for the brick-and-mortar office moot. But the question is

• can that office environment - that culture and feel - be made mobile, or can it at least be abstracted beyond the physical structure of HQ? 
• Are social media and project platforms like JIRA or Confluence enough to facilitate this?
• Will telepresence eventually solve this?
• Are all the pieces to solve this problem already out there, but lacking in cohesiveness to be a viable solution?

Is It Possible To Go About Rebuilding "Silent" Networks?

My wife and I have had a few discussions over the last year about one particular topic: Why do previous long-term contacts, be they personal (usually) or professional, seem to fall away and go silent? For starters, I'm a parent, so often times it's just not on my daily radar to text, email, or phone a friend to say hello. But I've noticed that the further I get from the last time I spoke with them, the less likely I am to get a response back when I do think to ping them. Granted, everyone's life changes at some point, and surely there is at least one reason they cannot reply within a short timeframe. But after a couple unresolved attempts to reinitiate contact, what next?

This has been a frustration point for me, as I tend to want to keep (most of) the networks I've built up over the years rather than just dropping them. Networks do require maintenance, certainly. After all, I place value in the people I've built friendships with, particularly since high school (20 years ago, eek!). But the sheer number of contacts can make this process unmanageable. Then there are those person-to-person networks from the unconnected, still pre-dotcom era 90s when I was in high school that seem to slowly be making a minor comeback as I approach my 20 year reunion.

I think this is a serious question as I proceed into the future. The reality we live in now is increasingly demanding a diverse and deep set of networks to do almost anything, from finding out things to do with your kids on the weekends, to staffing the latest project at work. Of course this phenomenon doesn't deter me from wanting to build other, new networks regardless, but I do find myself concerned over what feels like lost social capital.

My questions are:

• Have you experienced a sort of communicative "disappearance" of certain individuals similar to the above?
• Has social media helped or hindered your efforts to maintain contact?
• What have these "disappearances" meant for your network(s)?
• If you've managed to reinitiate a "silent" network, What strategy did you use?

Testing: Placebo or Salve?

I woke up to the news today that Arizona has passed a law that requires high school students to pass a "civics test" before they can walk away with a diploma or GED. The supposed aim of this test (which is required to be given by both public and private school) is for students to demonstrate an education in American civic life. Another stated goal by one of the groups behind the bill is to build a sense of patriotism in students.

The test can be taken starting in eighth grade, and can be taken as many times as possible to pass. One irony of the test is that only a 60% score is required to pass it. In other words, failing is passing. And what kind of patriot is being created - assuming the mere act of testing someone could produce such an effect - if the bar is set that low?

Now word is the test is effectively the same one given to immigrants to pass before they are granted citizenship. That's fine I suppose, but the problem for this test when it is applied to high school students (starting in 2017) is that it amounts to little more than a long multiple choice quiz. There are no requirements, designs, guidelines, expectations, curriculum, or anything else, to prepare the students to actually be good citizens.

The Joe Foss Institute, creators of this testing initiative, state that this is a way to ensure students understand the basics of American government. Judging by the sample tests in the linked stories, this "test" is definitely just a long quiz. There's no thinking to the answers, there are no lengthy response-style questions...its really more of a historical factoids test than anything else. But the JFI, also based in Arizona, seeks to convince every state legislature in the land to adopt a similar law. With the advent of ALEC and its disturbing influence, crafting law has now become an assembly-line process that others are modeling.

Maybe I'm expecting too much here, but this seems like a really pathetic initiative, considering the bill was paper-airplaned through the GOP-dominated state legislature in less than 24 hours before being sent to the new governor. And its inexplicable initiatives like these that sail through state houses unchallenged while teachers are being fired in local school districts as cities continue to vote down even flat public school spending. Maybe that 60% score isn't so low after all, when one teacher will be "teaching" 40 children in one room.

So the question must be asked: is a test like this a placebo, or a salve for a real problem. And if it's a placebo, who is swallowing it; students, or voters?

Work-Life Balance: Policy or Proactivity?

CLO's article today on mental fitness and the effectiveness of leaders raised (or rather, reminded) an interesting question for me:

To what degree does a company's culture allow for work-life balance, and what amount of latitude does someone have with their personal agency to affect that balance?

Let's be honest; the 21st century has put lots of tech on the table, but no time to digest and process everything that has thus been enabled by it. Throw in business-side concerns like project deadlines, quarterly reports, and life-side realities like parenting and soccer games, and one can be forgiven for having to accomplish goals in the way early computer chips once had. All this new technology allows us to handle work and life on a more real-time basis, but the dark underbelly is it always means we can rationalize (guilt?) ourselves into not doing more, more of the time. Missed opportunities! Lost time! Wasted profit!

Company policies are surely one part of the solution/problem. A codified statement is at the very least some sort of recognition that the balance exists and must be struck in order for a workforce's maximum net positive effectiveness. Whether or not that statement is outlined in further detail, and further still in action, remains up to the culture, its leaders, and the influence people at the various levels have to enact change - whatever magnitude - for the better.

Often times, at least from my perspective, the work side seems to be the focal point for the balance question, and rightly so. Work, especially for white collar careers, has never been more flexible in terms of where and when it can be done, or even how casually the work can progress in off-hand situations. But life can certainly be an equal if not heavily weighted contributor to the problem/solution as well, for any number of reasons.

A few of the article's points (i.e. eating right) can more or less be followed regardless of schedule. But aside from those, which side do you find the most challenging to organize for the balance equation? How has technology made the problem/solution better/worse? Has technology given you more power in this respect, or taken it away? Do you feel you have more power if the technology is yours, or the company's?

...and while we're answering this question, perhaps someone can provide a solution for getting news outlets to stop using awful clipart...

On Barbie and Glass Ceilings

Look at this face. Just look at it. This, readers, is Mattel's latest salvo in the fight against sexism and gender stereotypes. Computer Engineer Barbie. Those pink glasses are coming for you, male majority in IT!

I bit on the news link in my Facebook feed, finding myself curious how the Barbie franchise has been taken down the tech road. As someone who has been a part of designing and developing courses about information technology for young adults, this story was of unique import. There are many efforts out there right now to get young adults - or more specifically, teenage girls - interested in STEM fields as a viable career path. This is a good thing of course; women are underrepresented in IT, and getting young girls and women to consider a career in tech helps break the popular conception that IT and its many well-paying jobs are just for geeky, nerdy boys.

But the computer engineer mold cast for this Barbie is downright shameful, and indicative of the kinds of subtle/not-so-subtle sexist narratives that have come in for significant criticism lately, particularly in the still unfolding fallout from the gamergate scandal in the video game industry. Barbie's goal starts out innocently enough, with her wanting to learn how to program a game. The net result of her whirlwind education on the subject, though, is two male classmates essentially doing all the work for her as she spends next to no effort trying to learn the subject, all while botching multiple computers with viruses due to her lack of even basic computer skills.

Mattel has swiped utter defeat from the jaws of (what should have been) an easy victory.

How does a toy designer move so swiftly from lofty goal, to propagating stereotypes? What are young girls to make of a "role model" that constantly plays damsel in distress? Mattel has apologized for this particular Barbie outing, promising to do better next time. But, there's something in this that whispers some wisdom about checking assumptions, our perspective, and what we think we know at the door.

The Size of Your Organization's Toolbox

This article from Stephen Gill's Performance Improvement blog discusses how a worker's primary skill in the modern age is his or her ability to learn and learn fast. The driving force for all this learning is, of course, the swift current of technological progress.

One challenge I have been noticing of late, that exists beyond the question of learning, is the selection and use of tools that support learning and/or the transference of the information that supports that activity for groups. I have found myself in many cross-functional meetings with agenda topics that focus on what tool would be the best to adopt for a particular activity or set of activities. Inevitably there is a different tool offered by each person. Or so it seems, at least.

The goal of such conversations of course is to prevent a workplace workbench that looks like this:

The fact is there are plenty of tools. Information dissemination tools; Cloud file management tools; project management tools; communication tools; media creation tools; etc. The problem in selecting the best tools for your organizational toolbox often is hinges on factors such as:

• Tools and habits of your client - Your clients are organizations too, and they will surely have selected tools that ostensibly suit their needs. Introducing tools your organization uses can cause some friction, particularly if security measures become involved.
• Tools and habits of individuals within your group or company - Members of your team likely have a set of tools they prefer using for personal reasons. Some tools within your company or group likely are used simply because they are the tools someone else used from way back when.
• Feasibility for the organization in its current state - There may be some tools that would offer significant improvements in process, but the organization or group doesn't have the physical or procedural infrastructure to support it.
• Information security - If a client's, your organization's, or your group's activities are sensitive to the kind of exposure that external failures can present, your selection of tools is likely to be narrow.

Cost can sometimes be a factor as well, especially if the tool is intended to serve a wide array of functions or serve as the platform for major activities. But, in this day and age, there are at least a few tools you can try out before potentially having to buy one. Based on the kinds of such discussions I've been a part of recently, some of the most important considerations in tool selection are:

• The ease of integration of a particular tool and the time it takes to access it (does it require bookmarking a site, then creating an account, then logging in each time? Or, does it have a single sign-on facility that turns the tool into a 1-click activity?
• The mobility rating of the tool - does the tool in question have a smartphone and/or tablet version that could give you and your colleagues added flexibility to close work objectives on the fly?
• The habits the tool could introduce - will a tool change your organization's habits for the better? Are the internal processes in place to support the opportunity for the tool to make a positive impact?

What are your thoughts? How often does the discussion of the organizational toolset arise for you?

MBAs, Innovation, and Organizational Performance

As Julianna Davies succinctly puts it in her post today, corporate culture is often one of the most essential parts of organizational leadership for small businesses. There Is No Chalk is no stranger to corporate improvements and “outside the box” thinking, and Juliana’s ideas dovetail nicely with things that have been talked about here in the past. Juliana writes full-time about the b-school experience and what makes a good MBA program, and has developed something of an expertise when it comes to planning for success after graduation.

Creating a Thriving Company Culture Requires a Little More than an MBA 

MBA programs can offer aspiring entrepreneurs the opportunity to study under experienced and intelligent business professionals while making valuable contacts, and most business school graduates enthusiastically recommend the experience. Yet, experienced entrepreneurs are also often quick to point out the limitations of the academic world. In order to build a successful startup, for example, an entrepreneur must first build a healthy comfortable culture. Those who have been through the painstaking process frequently assert that a successful company culture can only be learned through experience in the the rigorous and occasionally cut-throat global marketplace.

Despite frequent talk within business communities of “company culture,” in reality, many business professionals are still unsure of what the concept actually represents. “A company's culture begins with its founders,” says David Roth, technology entrepreneur and Forbes magazine contributor: “what they believe in, what they value and how they work.” Essentially, a company's culture is its DNA, and in an effective company, it informs all elements of business, from management and human resources to employees and even consumers. Much of the success of companies like Apple or Google, for example, can be attributed to their easily identifiable respective cultures. Apple's culture promoting elegance and simplicity of design and Google's well-known penchant for innovation and user-empowerment have inspired and appealed to billions of consumers around the world.

When Innovation is a Company’s DNA, Leadership Follows

While few company leaders will ever lead a company with the size and scope of Apple or Google, there are still many insights that can be gleaned from these giants. Over a decade ago, Jim Stengel, author of Grow: How Ideals Power Growth and Profit, embarked on a ten-year study of companies like Apple that are revered around the world. From his analysis, Stengel found that the most successful company cultures would “champion innovation of all kinds.” Stengel asserts that a company's portfolio should “emanate from dreams, not desperation”.

A tangible example of this is the recent crisis seen at Research in Motion (RIM), the maker of Blackberry. This is a company that disrupted and then revolutionized the cell phone market; it hasn’t even been a decade since the birth of the word Crack-berry, a term used to describe someone who was addicted to their cell phone. However, unable to compete with a host of emerging competitors, RIM began to see profits fall dramatically and in the first quarter of 2012, the company saw profit margins fall by $1.4 billion, a third of the company’s income. At that point, the company began a host of new campaigns designed to shake up their portfolio that were anything but innovative. In fact, many considered their new marketing tactics embarrassing and, for lack of a better word, desperate.

The experience of RIM demonstrates that a portfolio should be much more than just product improvements, and should include better business models, customer service improvements, as well as continuous process improvements. He also suggests company managers commit to “train all the time,” utilizing daily interactions with employees as opportunities for training and coaching rather than criticizing.

RIM’s experience also demonstrates that that innovation is present when new ideas are born, not when companies need to be saved. Unfortunately, the threat of unemployment (what befell 5,000 RIM employees) is not what sparks these great ideas, in fact, it may actually hinder them.

The Importance of Employees

Of course, a company's culture is only as strong as its employees, and companies that are experiencing rapid growth must be careful to ensure effective employee interaction isn't lost in the process. “These personal interactions often will set the tone for employee collaboration in finding solutions to work-related problems,” says Erik Markowitz, Inc. reporter on startups and entrepreneurs. “If your employees are located in different offices, one of the biggest challenges will be finding ways for your employees to stay in touch and learn a bit about each other.”

Culture, ultimately, is an employee driven venture. While companies can do their best to encourage culture by hiring accordingly, it is ultimately the people working for the company who perpetuate it. And it is inspiring, hands-on leaders are often what makes this possible. Leaders of this nature are not mico-managers, but rather those that promote open communication and honest feedback. Those who are able to take criticism without punishing their employees and, conversely, can critique employees in a helpful, understanding manner.

Open communication and collaboration are often the key to innovation. 

While building a startup always involves years of energy, stress and sacrifice, the development of a new and truly innovative business can be one of the most rewarding accomplishments an ambitious entrepreneur will ever experience. Though the lessons found in most MBA programs regarding finances and marketing can be greatly beneficial, it is all but impossible for any company to find lasting success without a culture that is truly inspiring for employees and consumers alike. By looking to companies that have weathered evolving market trends while still maintaining their ideals, aspiring entrepreneurs can bridge the gap between ambition and long-term success.