Those who know how will always work for those who know why

Some can recite gargantuan formulas necessary for understanding physics, chemistry or calculus. They might not have the first clue how to change a tire on a car, but they can explain how a lunar landing was accomplished.  Have you ever run in to this logic?  Have you ever worked for someone like this? I have and it was so frustrating that it rated a post on my blog.

I’ve always tought common sense meant that everyone had a basic understanding of how things worked. The truth is common sense is as rare as genius. People simply do not think the same about similar ideas. Some see the problem, others the solution. Some dwell on symptoms and others wonder…if it’s lunchtime.  The same issue, a thousand perspectives.

Knowledge is considered the technical side of logic, the actual design. Wisdom is the application of the design–what to do with something after it is built or completed. A person with both knowledge and wisdom can move mountains and accomplish tremendous feats of success. I’ve only met a few people like this in my life–in fact, they seem to be a declining species.

You generally see the knowledgeable workers supporting the wise leader in a company. The boss maintains the vision while the staff members orchestrate the construction to that vision. What happens when that model fails? Or is reversed? Can a business prosper if the technical knowledge is in the hands of the leaders? Of course it can, but the result is a crippling disease known as micro management.

In theory, if you as a manager have to help a staff member to do their work, remind them of deadlines and follow up after them, you can get rid of that person. This might seem cold but it’s just a theory–so hear me out.  An employee that takes that much nudging is costing you a fortune in time. So, if you are wondering where you could fine a person to replace them–you already have your answer-You! Of course you will hire someone else and engage them more fully in the job. But for now, you are doing most of that slow person’s work for them–maybe they are the smarter one?

The idea is not to fire your non-motivated workers but to show them how to change for the better. Set challenges, measure results and watch them grow!

Popularity: 11% [?]

It’s not the shot that bothers me;

It’s where you put that needle that makes me nervous.

The Air National Guard requires all of it’s members to maintain current shot records, which of course implies that I get to be a human pincushion about 3 times a year as vaccinations come due for renewal. I handle shots fairly well…I think.  I always make a joke or try to imagine I can’t feel it, whatever it takes to get past the actual stabbing part, well ok, puncture.

I prefer an older “shot giver” because immunization technicians take a few years before they get really good. There have even been a few times where I haven’t felt the needle at all. There were also times when I wondered if they were using a knitting needle for an injector. I guess no one <likes> shots, but given the necessity of them….., can’t we just take the uncertainty out of the equation?

The last immunization injection I received was for Hepatitis, not a showstopper in the vaccine world; in fact it usually doesn’t hurt much…usually! First, they have to warm up the vaccine. This is because if they pull it from the fridge and jab it in your arm, it’s going to hurt, and they know it! So usually they will warm it in their hand a second, which the young technician did. I thought, how nice, she is going to try and make this painless… ugh, and that’s where it all went wrong.

I rolled up my sleeve and she did that pinch massage thing that makes about as much sense as thumping a watermelon for ripeness. (Does that have any benchmark for accuracy?) Anyway, I looked away, relaxed my arm, and bam!…she jammed that thing in my arm like she was Chuckie the killer doll. My arm involuntarily twitched and she shouted, “Don’t Flinch”!

What?
Do I have to get another shot for flinching? Who flinched?

I was doing my best to hold still until my arm got treated like a dart board. You must be kidding! Don’t flinch?

Are you sure you did that arm pinch thing correctly?

I didn’t realize I had “flinched”, so while thinking all of the above…I said, “Well,, its that whole, you sticking a needle in my arm thing…I guess that can happen.”

She glared back at me, and pulled the needle out, wiping the blood away…a few times (always a good sign) and said, “You can go”.

“Ya promise?” I said as I wondered what kind of clinical manner this was. But then they get paid to give out pain, not to share it with their victims.

Don’t flinch?  Was she kidding?  Who could be perfectly still while a needle is forced into your body? I would think a little flinching would be expected even encouraged?

Maybe they could make it part of the preparation…“Hey you’re gonna want to flinch when I stick this needle in so uh..try to keep it steady, ok?” That would work!

And another thing, while I rant on…Was I the only flincher in the group that day? And what good is that comment after I have been injected? The needle was already in my arm; all I could do now was wonder if she knitted with it after work.

I did several rehearsals with this whole ordeal in my head, typical for me, trying to find the logic in the experience. My conclusions were not about hospitals or shots, but about customer service in the IT arena.

Do we treat our users that way? I think we do…and no wonder they get so perturbed with us when we tell them the obvious. Here’s an example..

User: Help!, I’ve lost a document that I have been working on all day

Tech: Did you back it up?

User: No, I was going to save it when I got done but….

Tech: Well you should always back-up your work as you go

User: Gee Thanks, …do you give shots too?

See what I mean? The obvious has never been much of a comfort when computers go down. People need to hear that the problem was not caused by them, assuming it wasn’t, and they also need to hear that they did everything right. Then you can lead them to a preventative solution.

I’ve found that users are a lot more responsive when I mention the things they did right and then follow on with a fix. This is especially good when you have bad news; ie: “I can’t get your file back.” If bad news follows a comprehensive explanation of the problem, possible options and your best efforts, you will find users accept the loss much better.

Perhaps saying, “But I can set this up so your system automatically saves your documents from now on.” See what I mean?

We all know that shots hurt most of the time, yet we still take them. We accept the brief pain in exchange for the long term benefits. If a customer looses information but gains the understanding to prevent it next time, they can at least feel they are vaccinated against repeating the mistake again.

Now,  about those shots that don’t go in the arm…

Popularity: 13% [?]

Question: What do you feed a four  thousand pound grizzly bear? Answer: Anything he wants!

You have probably “fed the bear” a time or two, and just not known it. A two year old child who must have a specific toy before going to bed, a parent who insists on meeting your friends, or a boss who volunteers you for yet another project. In all these cases you are “feeding the bear” or giving in to something just to patronize the need or system. This goes hand in hand with futility and if you recognize the pattern you will actually laugh at the issues at hand.

I first learned to feed the bear as a young staff sergeant in the Air Force. I was in charge of turning in old computer equipment to the local supply warehouse. The military supply system is quite complex and was never designed to accommodate computer systems. Specifically excess or broken computer systems that needed to be turned in to disposal. The disposal process is fairly simple; they put all the printers or monitors on a pallet and auction them off at a big community auction. You have heard of these guys who go their and get a Ferrari for 10 bucks, well I think they end up having to take drums of toxic waste as part of the deal or something like that.

Anyway, here I am with a ton of computer junk that has to be turned in. It’s never been on anyone’s “account” so it won’t show up on a listing—something the supply people live on. I pull up, unload, and wheel the Grinch Christmas Sleigh looking pile o’ puters over to the guy who handles such things.  He hands me a form with about 50 carbons attached and mutters, “fill that out”.

I’ve always tried to avoid formophophobia (fear of forms) but this one was a whopper. It was only a half page long, but there was only one block in English, the date!  Everything else was some sort of gibberish code, as if I would know what the “RC/CC” was. I tried to get help from his highness over at the desk, but he began speaking in tongues much like the words on this form. “Is this PMEL?” he inquired. “Um..? PMEL..that would be…?” I spun my complete confusion hoping to get some sympathy. “Never mind, all I need is your site ID and I can do the rest. You did tag this stuff right?” he asked. “Why yes, it’s all tagged, see?” I pointed to the paper tags, carefully filled out, as required on each item, “monitor, 1 each, broken.” The site ID was another story, I didn’t have one, and wouldn’t know what one was if it were stamped on my hand.

I was about to feed the bear, and this guy would never know it.  I first tried to reason with the bear, which never works. “This equipment isn’t on an account, it’s managed differently, and I just need to turn it in so you can send it to auction.” I said confidently. “I need a site ID” he repeated with the same tone. My co-worker walked over and asked what was taking so long. I told him the story about the tags and how “rain main” over there wanted a site ID. He walked over and said, “This equipment doesn’t go through supply, we just need to..” he explained and was interrupted.  I knew what he had been told; just by the way he turned and looked at me.

“All right, what should we do?” I asked. My co-worker babbled on about the futility of our system. I said, “Do we have a supply account?” He said, “Yes we do, its 732XP”. This sounded like the language on those cryptic forms! I walked over to the rain man, and said, “732XP!??” He nodded in agreement, scribbled that down on the form and wheeled the equipment away. I was stunned!

That was it? All that fuss was about some code he just had to have? I had fed the bear, gave him what he wanted and the issue was closed.  Was this futile and stupid? Yes!  Did I accomplish the mission, yes I did.

I have run into a few bears in my time, the same principal with different players.  In every case, the resolution is the same. Just give the bear what he wants. You have probably learned to do the same thing. If you have been asked to fix a computer and the user tells you that they can get it to work if they click over here two times and then turn the monitor off and back on. Which of course makes no sense, but sure enough it works. They have learned to feed the bear and get around the problem. The idea here is not feed the bear but to get rid of him.

Sometimes it is easier to just patronize and accommodate, but the true goal is to remove the bear from the equation. He is in the way after all. Removing a bear is not easy and it is harder than feeding him, but if you feed the bear, he will return.

The next time I brought computers in for disposition, the procedure was the same. Only this time I brought the instructions we were given from our leadership on equipment turn ins. There was a paragraph in there about how supply should handle the equipment. The guy on the docks made a copy of it, and followed the guidelines described. He still required a form, but he now knew what blocks could be ignored. Thus the bear went away.

Looking at problems as a bear to be dealt with may give you a refreshing way to handle situations that others would simply walk away from. This is the heart of true problem solving and few managers or executives will take the time to fix things in this way. It takes longer, requires more initiative and upsets the flow of work for everyone involved. Several companies have found their processes to be more of a hindrance than the workers or production design. Why? Because something went wrong and someone began to feed the bear (a problem) as a solution to make him go away. And when he showed up again, they did what worked last time—feed him again. A pattern is set in place and a paradigm begins.

You can see systems like this everywhere you go. Go into a fast food restaurant where they have a serpentine belt to form the line in a tight space. It works great for long lines, but when no one is there you have to walk through this maze like system just to get 4 feet close to the register.

Have you ever pulled to a red light and no one was on the road but you? Had to sit there for 5 minutes while the system got around to letting you go ahead? Even though there was no reason other than a lighted timer to keep you there, you were a victim of process designed around something else, heavy traffic.

Popularity: 11% [?]

Fairness is a concept we learn in Childhood in relation to things we see others receive.

What exactly is fair? Have you ever tried to explore this concept? A 4-year-old child can explain it best, when they see another child with a toy they don’t have, they immediately say, “that’s not fair, he has a new toy.”  As we mature we realize that someone else’s good fortune does not necessarily mean we have been slighted.  Yet in every office, there are always those who resort to this mentality as device for sowing discord. In reality this is just a way of cloaking envy, and that is how it should be handled.

Very often though, I see managers, supervisor’s even executives making decisions specifically to avoid this issue. Let’s not do too much for this department or this individual because others will say it isn’t fair. It doesn’t matter how hard that person or department has worked; the reward simply has to be diluted to satisfy those who did nothing and who will complain regardless.

If there were one thing I wish manager could identify and squelch on the spot, it’s jealousy in the workplace. Has that ever benefited a company? Name a single instance where jealousy, envy or finger pointing has increased productivity? In fact it only serves to slow productivity and decrease morale. This type of gossip runs rampant in offices, and it seems to get planted deep and never truly go away.

When something new is accomplished opinions are formed quickly. Companies go out of their way to “brand” a product early on as the best, most efficient, most attractive, etc. Why? Because: that first impression will dictate buying habits, product selection and their recommendation to others. The reverse is also true, how many times have you experienced poor service and told people about it?

Let’s take that concept a step further in the workplace. When decisions are made that will change the way a business runs, you be assured someone will want to point fingers. Especially if they feel envious of another person or group who gains from the change.  This sounds so simple and petty but it pervades modern office culture to no end.

You have heard of the ripple effect; drop a pebble in a pool of water and the concentric circles form, rippling outward, all from the one pebble in the middle. Now pretend that pebble is a new laser printer or computer. Just give one person a new device on their desk and the ripples will begin.

First, others will notice it and admire how efficient, fast, impressive or clean the new system is. Then they will go back to their desk, look at their old computer, or the empty space where one might sit. Within minutes or hours they wonder why they did not get the new item. “That’s not fair!” they will think. I do more work; have waited longer, need more than them and on it goes. Their envy masquerades itself as the voice of justice in the office. “How dare the other person get something before me—“I have been cheated and robbed!”

How did someone else’s gain take anything way from someone else? IT didn’t, yet we convince ourselves that we are truly being swindled and begin the smear campaign against the innocent recipient of the latest gadget. Why? Because: it wasn’t given to us instead. If it had been, then the rules wouldn’t apply.

In the Bible there is a story about a farmer who hired workers to work in his field on a hot day. He hired men throughout the day and when the sun had set, it was time to pay them. He gave them all the same wage. Some had only worked an hour and others all day. The men who worked all day complained, “That’s not fair” they said, we worked all day and they got paid the same as us. The landowner simply asked if they had not been paid according to the agreement, and they replied yes. “Why then are you angry over my generosity?” He replied.

Of all the Bible stories I have read, this one shows how little things have changed over the centuries. Mankind has a self-centered sense of fairness, which is his way of hiding his envy. If we could just call it what it is and moves on, we would be a lot happier.

Perhaps then we could use the interest in the rewards of others as a motivational tool. Anyone wanting a promotion, new computer better office need only look at how others are rewarded. Not for the sake of tearing them down, but in the spirit of emulating their example.

I realize not everyone gets rewarded fairly, and often there are people who take advantage of situations and cheat others. However; the focus of our goals should not be set by the achievements of others, they should be set by our motivation and dreams.

When someone moves up, the best thing to say about him or her is, “congratulations, you deserve it”.

Popularity: 13% [?]

The more things change, the more they stay the same

I have studied martial arts for several years and at different times in my life. The best teacher I ever had was a Master of the art who could demonstrate perfection in every movement. His classes were very detailed and he taught with exceptional wisdom. His knowledge of fighting was almost a hobby compared to his teaching in philosophy. “Fighting is stupid” he would say, “You only fight when the other guy won’t let you leave.” This might seem simple but when you are faced with extreme situations you find yourself repeating those words.

We were practicing a “kata” or form one night, and he had corrected a student on where they held their hand as they moved. The student replied, “Well I guess I will learn that in time, practice makes perfect, right?” The Master smiled and stopped the rest of the class, which indicated we should all listen. “Practice makes permanent! not perfect. If you learn it wrong now, you will be doing it wrong over and over and then it will be much harder to correct.”

Those words have stayed with me ever since that class. I had no idea how right he was, not just about Karate, but everything that comes with time. No one really begins things as a Master, they work up to it, each time building on past success and knowledge. Now imagine if they failed to learn a key step or movement along the way. The effect could distort their abilities down the road in extremely negative ways.

If you have been in business or management for a while, you can easily relate to this principle. How many times have you hired someone with paper experience or education only and found him or her inept to do the job? We assume a school or training program has proven this person capable but quite often that is not the case. Why is that? Why can’t college or tech school prepare a future technician to work the magic of a skilled professional?

You already know the answer; there is no teacher like experience. The lessons learned from mistakes in the real world, often sharpen abilities far more effectively than a simulation in a lab. Without pressure or possible job loss a student can’t fully realize the consequences of deleting a hard drive or crashing a server.  In business we see many kinds of managers or leaders in the office environment.  How many of these people learned their habits right away? Most of them grew or developed over time and through practice became permanent. The person with the neat or messy desk, the manager who always arrives 15 minutes early or 5 minutes late, the staff member who seems to get everything done or the one who is always behind. The comparisons are endless and we have all seen examples like these.

Each of these people, including you learned a trait here or there that was put into practice at some point in your career. This trait, though learned from someone else, became a part of you the moment you began doing it without thinking. Some call this a habit, but I think it is simply a practice, something you do to prepare for whatever is called for.

Business practices certainly become permanent. Paradigms can become so rigid that they exist as unwritten laws, or historical lessons that must be heeded and passed on to generations. This can be positive or negative. A company that began as a simple idea and grew from a founder’s garage can be a principle for creativity in an organization. Likewise, a mistake by one worker that set rules, laws or obstacles in place can also become permanent as problems.

One organization purchased cellular phones for its most mobile workers. In time the usage became expensive and a different company was chosen to provide the service at a lower cost. More phones were given out and productivity soared. Everyone felt the new phones were the answer to problems that had existed for years, availability, timeliness, and empowerment. Then one employee started making personal calls. He got used to the idea and his call usage increased, and finally his bills were examined to determine the cause. The management was outraged, policies were set in place to curtail any personal phone calls, and there would be charges, written reprimands, even dismissal if this was done by any cell phone user.

What just happened here? The workers practice made the punishment permanent. Everyone was punished for his abuse, rather than his single act being dealt with on an individual basis. How many policies exist in a company due to one act of negligence or abuse? Does that make sense? Shouldn’t the policies encourage an open and productive workplace rather than a restrictive one where suspicion and paranoia are given as the common work ethic? Since practice makes permanent, the rules that follow will be equally constricting and obtrusive.

In the end, policy manual overflows with the latest revisions to choke the appearance of impropriety from employees’ actions, even though abuse will still take place.  The rules should be directions for encouraging work to get accomplished, but when will you see a regulation that commands managers to know employees by their first name? Perhaps a weekly or monthly meeting to brainstorm and snacks are provided? Could a company benefit from creative ideas and suggestions that will save money boost morale and increase profits? Of course it could, but today most companies are too busy trying to stop the abuse through regulation, rather than rewarding those who do well, and shifting the focus of their business.

A preacher stood in his pulpit one morning and looked out over the few in attendance. He looked down at the lesson he had prepared and folded it closed, and began to speak from his frustration. He preached for over an hour on the importance of attendance, condemning all that dared forsake the assembly.  Unfortunately, the only people who heard his sermon were those who were already there.

Does your policy manual preach to those who don’t show up or abuse the system while preventing the true contributors to your mission from doing their job? If so, congratulations you just made your practice permanent, now watch how many rules are created to enforce the other rules. All while the point of work, the vision of the company is set aside like a vain notion.

Popularity: 14% [?]

Creation VS. Evolution

If you have ever remodeled a house, you will understand this analogy. Let’s pretend a family of 4 moves into an appropriately sized dwelling and live there for several years. In time, the need for more space grows; more storage, a guest bedroom, a study, a family room. The family finds a bigger home and moves to it, or they renovate the existing house and build on to the structure.

There are reasons people decide one way or the other. Moving gets the entire process over with in one painful step. Renovating is more cost effective and you are able to spread the issues out over a period of time. A course of action is chosen depending on which serves the priorities better.

Imagine a house that has been modified several times to accommodate different needs over time. Rooms are added on to rooms, hallways are extended, attics become rooms, and other equipment is brought in to facilitate the need for air conditioning, heat or hot water. Eventually the original house design is lost and the larger more “evolved” house remains. If the house fits the needs of the day, then it is sure to be changed as needs change. A pattern of addition has been established and will continue until it becomes more expensive to add than to move out.

Your mainframe or network servers will resemble one of these scenarios. You have either decided to cut your losses and migrate to a new platform/vendor or you kept the old system and updated, patched or enhanced its original design.

The decision is not an easy one, and it often has some serious consequences regardless of the choice you make. If you keep the old system you declare obsolescence in 6 months or less, if you buy a new system you are putting everyone through the learning curve, including your customer base. An IT manager or executive must understand the differences in creation (buying a new system to fix everything) vs evolution (modifying a system to repair issues that don’t work or need to be added).

Why creation:

A new system can be more comprehensive and efficient than an older one, and it is more likely to integrate better with emerging technologies. It can also be tested offline while the legacy system continues to operate.

The creationist or new approach gives a lot of freedom to the design. A question that must be asked is, “If we were starting this business today, would we want the computer system to run like it does now?” Usually the answer is no.  Therefore; design your new system to do more than what you had before. Reinventing an old system on a new platform is a paradigm centric fallacy that many follow.

A designer has to ask the right questions. Who approves this or that? Who starts the workflow, where do orders come in and how much empowerment can be attributed to the front line workers? These concerns are true of any system. The deeper questions are harder to define; how much of the process was based on the old program? Do we really need three copies of this form?

If this is new automation, consider the consequences of removing a paper-based function from the daily routine. Look at the entire process from creation to retrieval. Then asked questions to analyze everyone’s involvement in the product.  Who needs to see this information? What key words or numbers will they search on to find it? Who gets the reports? How is the information analyzed or stored?  Based on the answers, begin to build the database and interfaces that would process all of the information and make it readily available.

Creationism is the best solution because it embraces the one constant of all communication systems; change. A created system re-invents the process based on the latest developments in a company. Users will complain that things were easier on the “old” system simply because they knew the old system better. In the long run, we forget the headaches of the past and only dwell on current misery. Design your system so that you can modify it based on input in the early stages of deployment and you will have a greater success among all who use it.

System creation is based on what we are doing; system evolution is based on what we did.

Evolution:

This idea is not new of course, we have been force fed the theory from grade school. All religious implications aside, I still think evolution doesn’t work. It is an outdated model fraught with paradigms that assumes a system could not get any better, even if it is 10 years old. The only things that survive this long are flyswatters and nail clippers. Everything else tends to wear out before then.

The first fact you must face is, if the old system worked, you wouldn’t be considering a revision, modification or upgrade. What brings you to reconsider your system should bring you to the design phase. You need more drive space, faster interaction on the client side, more options or increased search capability.

The evolution approach also requires the clients to live with the modifications while an upgrade is in progress. Frequent server re-boots or system lock out time is common. And one adjustment that solves the problem can create another somewhere else. –Much like the house analogy.

A system change is akin to renovating one room in the house, the other rooms are affected.  Dust and noise creeps throughout the house.  The fumes from new paint require other rooms to be ventilated, even though they are not being painted. Furniture from the old room is placed in hallways or other rooms, crowding their traffic flow.

The final job may be impressive, but now the rest of the house needs attention since this project demanded so much time. Everything gets put on hold during revisions and the backlog created by them is never ending.

In small-punctuated issues, a revision is the perfect solution, but global concerns that span the enterprise should never be regarded with the same type of thinking. Once you set a pattern for revisions, you commit yourself to obsolescence and inflexibility with emerging technology.

Popularity: 11% [?]

No one ever complained themselves into happiness

I worked for a wise manager once. I say he was wise because he had a certain way of explaining things that made sense to me. I had approached him on one occasion about an issue concerning my position with the unit (military) and he had essentially turned down my request. It was the classic issue of being used in areas you knew were not to your full potential, and he agreed that I would be of better use in another section, but he had no one to take my place in the area I was assigned.

I thanked him for hearing me out, and he said something very profound He said, “Hey, if you are going to complain, do it to someone who can do something about it. Otherwise you’re just like anyone else.”  Those words have followed me through my career, and I have used that advice several times. If I am unhappy in my career or feel things are turning for the worse, I have gone to my boss, and pleased my case. Most of the time, they are surprised that someone would do this, but after working with me, they understand that I like to nip things in the bud.

I have noticed quite the opposite in most work centers. A shift schedule is changed, and people complain to each other.  Working conditions are altered and people complain to each other. This even happens in the customer to business relationship. A company increases its prices and customers call to complain, often to whomever answers the phone. Is there a good way to complain? Are complaints useful? Can you turn a complaint into something positive? The answer is of course, yes!

By following a consistent practice in managing complaints, you can be an agent of change and positive office culture. When making a complaint, remember what you hope to achieve: change. A complaint that only tears down, or seeks to insult, is only going to be classified as “whining”.  Most companies would have to form a line to hear every whiney complaint ever passed around, so don’t be surprised if your target is less than receptive.

Making Complaints

Rule 1: Never use personal or constant terms in a complaint or suggestion

For example, “Why didn’t you add more color options to this program?”  Do you see the presumption? The question assumes the author intended to leave colors out, rather than never considering the idea. There is no way to answer this question without being on the defensive. The author must now give reasons for things he did not intentionally do.

A better approach would be; “Could we have more color options in this on the next revision?” This suggests too things, one the color additions, and two, that a revision will take place. This allows the author to consider updating the program in a non-threatening way; it would also be received better.

Rule 2: You will take it personal, but don’t make it personal.

If you blow up at someone because they don’t like your new system, your latest program, or recent upgrade then you are showing them that you didn’t think much of it either. If it were truly great work, their complaint would seem obtuse or clueless. When Michelangelo painted the Sistine chapel, it was rumored that the Pope walked in and only commented on the nudity. If you have ever worked on something you considered a masterpiece and got minimal results like this, you can understand how the painter must have felt.

People don’t always ask you if you want their opinion. They can come across as insulting, cold, rude or even hostile. When you hear a complaint, try to remove yourself from the subject, even if it is you.

Receiving Complaints

Rule 1: Complaints assume a better way exists

A complaint assumes there is a better way. It may not suggest the better way but it assumes one exists. This can be a great tool for introspection, but often gets overlooked because we are too busy defending the original design or model in question.

If workers complain that the heating is poor, or that the air conditioning is too cold, it could be translated: I am hot, or I am cold. But there is a presumption by the worker that things could be changed. If someone said, “This new billing program runs too slow”. They are insinuating that it could or should be faster. Naturally no one wrote it to run slowly, but they may not have thought of ways to increase its speed in the design phase. This is an excellent way to turn a complaint into an action item.

Rule 2: Who should hear this?

IF you have worked for only a day in Information Technology, you will be aware of the phenomenon called linkage. You go to fix a computer and the employee there begins ranting about the company, and how out of date they are, or how ineffective things are, etc. You just came to replace the mouse, yet you end up listening as if you are the agent of change for everything in the company. I guess it’s natural that employees see an IT person as the agent of change. We do so many things that are change-centric. But that doesn’t mean we have to be the only ones. When listening to a problem or complaint that has nothing to do with your job, ask yourself,-who should hear this?

You could affirm that a problem does exist in accounting or personnel, and recommend the employee contact someone there. Quite often they will reply with no intention of doing so. This quickly resolves the seriousness of the complaint. That is; if it isn’t important enough to follow up on with the right people, then it isn’t worth your time to listen either.

Rule 3: Remove hurdles and frustration fades. Ignore them and it increases.

It only takes about 5 minutes for something or someone to drive you crazy; a gnat hovering around your face, a co-worker humming constantly, an overdosed perfume junky, wafting her scent in the air.

Frustration comes in many forms, but the kind bred by computers is chief in the workplace today. This puts IT pros in a bad light when the computer breaks down. An employee can take it personal and accuse you of doing something to his or her computer. They get angry and kick the box, or scream at the monitor. The poor keyboard usually gets pounded a few times, as if inflicting pain on the keys will show the computer you are serious and want your information back!

A hurdle is anything that blocks productivity, a Line Nazi system, or manager. A futile report to finish or a difficult procedure that takes up most of the day. These hurdles are often solvable by IT professionals, if they know how to listen for them. Not everything can be made easier with computers but it can certainly take the mundane tasks and automatically provide answers. By removing hurdles, you empower an employee to do their job without obstacles in the way. You also leave no excuses to that employee for not finishing things on time.

The opposite is also true, if you ignore complaints and fail to see the opportunities presented in them, you will increase the frustration level of workers and risk a walk out, rebellion, or apathy in job assignments.

Rule 4: Identify the problem not the symptom

Doctors ask a lot of questions, often these questions seem unrelated to the problem. The reason; they want to rule out other symptoms that may not be revealed in the initial complaint of poor health. When a computer technician is called out for repairs, they should practice the same methodology.

A complaint that a computer always runs slow, especially in the afternoon, could be revealing the true cause. Perhaps it’s multiple issues. Maybe they have a virus scanner running in the background and that affects the system speed. Perhaps they are running too many programs concurrently. Maybe the case is dirty and full of dust, creating more heat as the day goes on and eventually causing problems. However; failure to look at these possibilities or ask for more information when analyzing the system, can result in “over medication cures”, like reformatting a drive or replacing the system,

The problem is buried at the core, symptoms are on the exterior. Symptoms will appear first and are often more noticeable than the cause.  Learn to look below the symptoms! This is true not only of computer diagnosis, but in management as well.

The complaint department is an ironical term, but every company has one. Sometimes it’s the person next to you, or a friend from another section, but we all have people we go to when we feel things turning against us.  The higher you are in management, the less complaining you will hear-this might sound promising, but it is not. An executive is by nature removed from the front line workers. This is why they often come across as clueless to the “real” issues of a company. The only way to bridge the gap is to make yourself available to employees, to ask rather than wait to be told about problems. And most importantly; filter out the symptomatic complaints, and focus on the true problems. Then take action.  The only thing worse than not hearing a complaint, is ignoring one.

Popularity: 11% [?]

Mistakes happen– that’s life.  How you fix it, that’s business

How many times have you just wished someone would give you a button to push? When something breaks, when things don’t work, when all is lost, just a button to push and suddenly it all is back in operation. This idea has been around for a long time. In fact a lot of marketing has been done to give people the sense that, “When it breaks–we will fix it”. As if to say, we will be the buttons to push. Isn’t this what an auto club offers? Fire Insurance? The warranty on your computer?

Everyone wants a button to push, because a button relieves the pressure. It takes the responsibility away and provides a result. Some buttons are used to speed things up; calling the President or CEO of a company to lodge a complaint, rather than going through normal channels. Other buttons act as a yield or stop sign; reprimanding a subordinate for unprofessional behavior.

In the world of IT, everyone wants a button to do his or her work. This may sound like a vision for all IT professionals to aspire to, but it is actually a common case of “delegation by way of association”. The assumption that an IT pro works on computers is often taken a step too far and the IT Pro becomes responsible for any job that involves a computer. This may seem overly simplistic, but it is very common.

An employee at ABC Company is signing a customer up for their service and the computer locks up. She needs a button to push fast, so she calls the IT department and they send someone to look at, or talk her through a course of repair. That makes sense and never steps over the boundaries of button pushing. Everyone has a clear role to perform and they each do their task without demanding more from others.

The problems occur when the mentality becomes less demarked and anyone with a computer related title is expected to do everything computer related. For example, the Marketing department is asked to examine the sales strategy in a certain region. Immediately they flood the IT department with requests for reports, charts, mailing labels and spread sheets. The IT department will naturally want to help, but at what point is the marketing department expected to take the information and analyze it? If the marketing staff is less than knowledgeable they will divert as much responsibility to the IT department to avoid exposure. Thus any question on their progress is redirected to, “waiting on IT to provide that data”. See how convenient that is?

You can’t allow this to happen in a company. The results are catastrophic. Soon the IT department is doing a little of everyone’s work and none of their own. Job descriptions are out of alignment, support is not tracked, and people no longer appreciate your help, they expect it, it’s your job because you have been doing it!

Be careful in building buttons to push. If you over simplify a process, you will only build the users dependence on you and they will only resent your inability to make the button easier to reach. If you have technically challenged users consider training them before you enable them to have the convenience of click and go solutions. Eventually the need will change and your button will be useless. Look at your keyboard and see how many buttons you never use, yet there they are.

Popularity: 13% [?]

Digital media. The idea that something is broken down into a digital

Signature or file by using combinations of 1’s and 0’s

Mr. Morse was the first true visionary of the digital age; even though he never saw a CD-Rom, modern computer, or the Internet. His idea is still very much alive and being used by billions of people around the world. Morse gave us the most simplistic way to break information down for transmission. The telegraph was only a medium; his code was the real work of his genius.

Think about it, his idea was scaleable–it could accommodate a short or long message. It could be transmitted and retransmitted through various junctions to arrive thousands of miles from its original location. Sounds a lot like e-mail doesn’t it?  At first, very few people understood this complex language of codes and taps, but in time the practice spread to other applications. The only limitations were how far the wire could reach.

Morse Code was the first protocol for mass electronic communications. A standard that enabled growth and empowerment to otherwise cut off sections of business, government and remote regions. Most people have heard of Morse code, and they understand the simplicity of Morse logic. That is: tap long or short on this transmitter in a series of sequences, and the person on the other end will translate what you wrote.

In it’s time; Morse code was more impressive and magical than the telephone, TV or computer. The reason was simple; there had never been something like this before. The point of reference simply did not exist, but once exposed to the technology, the wheels of opportunity and possibility began to spin setting thousands of inventions in motion.

Morse had the right idea, provide a platform to enable communication and invite others to learn it, use it and embrace it. Cities lined up to have the latest technology because the possibilities were overwhelming. Imagine being able to talk to other towns, without sending a letter, or messenger! Leaders could make informed decisions quickly, without having to focus on the delivery, transport time and complications of a written message. Information was becoming more transparent and available. Content transmission of news, weather, and voting results even the birth of a baby was sent over the “wire”.  Remember this happening when websites became more common in the mid 1990’s?

There were bugs to work out of course, not everyone was as technically savvy on the Telegraph. Their messages came through with typos, errors even accidental omissions of words.  This may have been because the contraption lacked a backspace key, but compared to modern times and the e-mails I get everyday, things haven’t changed much.

The wire relay system proved to be limited in time though. Increased traffic, long-winded messages grew until the system became absorbed. On the night the Titanic sank, there was so much wireless traffic coming from the vessel about racing results, notification of early arrival to New York and other mundane messaging, that the SOS went ignored by a ship within 5 miles of her fatal iceberg strike. Messaging had already proven to be a life saving and vital element of our civilization. Unfortunately the USS Californian did not heed the calls for help and history made a grim record of the event. Even at that time, we were becoming a society obsessed with communicating. Until then, ships had used their own communications system, a set of flashing lamps that mimicked Morse code through long and short flashes. This was a clear example of taking the next step with communications. They applied a given system of logic, and used a new medium to transmit it. Like emailing photos of the grand kids in an email, rather than placing them in an envelope.

This process continues today, all of the digital technology in place works on the same platform as Morse code. Instead of Morse code, the language is binary math, but the principal is the same. A numerical code replaces a letter or number, those codes are strung together to form words, calculations, images, everything on your computer. We have digital music, digital satellite TV and new to the scene, digital paper (where information is stored on a special paper).

So what is Morse logic? Morse logic is the application of an understood communications principle into areas previously undeveloped by technology.  The spread of the Internet followed the pattern of Morse logic. College students developed a language to view server contents at other universities by way of a browser or viewer. This viewer required information to be written in a simple language called hypertext markup language or HTML. From there the idea was developed to be able to send a viewer to other pages or other sites by way of a relay language called hypertext transfer protocol or HTTP. You will see these acronyms all over the place when surfing the web, but they are transparent to the user. (Even though they are essential to the functions of web use.)

Imagine how many steps have occurred between the Internet and the Telegraph? First we wrote messages, and then tapped them in code, then radio came along and we were able to talk over long distances, which brought on the telephone. Then came the Television, and then network broadcasts, followed by cable, and followed by Satellite TV. In all cases, the technology grew in parallel with each system remaining in place, except the telegraph. We still write letters, use radios, make phone calls, watch TV and order movies via pay-per-view but we use something different for the telegraph, we use a computer.

Something is happening to this paradigm of parallel media, something that has not occurred in the history of communications. The original idea is replacing or absorbing the other mediums. Today, the computer and its attached network are replacing the need for the other devices as we know them.

Morse logic is being applied to the parallel forms of communications and as a result the next step has been taken. We can talk over the Internet, send a message to a pager, and even view camera shots of remote areas that are thousands of miles away. We can view web casts of television shows, watch live performances or hold a conference call with simultaneous participants in random locations. All of this can be done from one device, the web-connected computer. This computer though far more complex than the original Morse system, uses the same methodologies of code, relays and user flaws that were present originally with the telegraph.

The next step is now in motion; soon we will interact with television shows, and see new levels of targeted marketing. We will be driving down the street and ask our car where the nearest Italian restaurant is. The car will give us the name, directions, make reservations and display a sample menu on the vehicles built in touch screen. If this seems overly technological, or too far-fetched, remember two things:

This is transparent technology that simply enables us to ask a question, get informed and then react (like the guys on Star Trek).

This idea is already being tested with the latest automobiles, ISP’s and Wireless Application authors.

Morse logic is not about Morse code; it’s the concept of building block technology that enables the next step in transparent communications to take place.

Popularity: 100% [?]

When injured, or in pain, do not go to the hospital for sympathy.

For them, your pain is just another day at the office

Hospitals may be the best place to seek care and treatment, but they offer little in the way of comfort. I’ve seen the advertisements and listened to the insurance companies, but they are all lying! It’s not even health care anymore; it’s more like health maintenance (come in when you are broke). A patient really wants someone to feel his or her pain, to understand what is wrong, why it hurts and make the pain go away. The problem is: Doctors and nurses are around pain all the time! They are focused on a solution, not on your pain. This may seem harsh, but it is the only way for them to work effectively.

When working in intense environments a unique distancing occurs, people block out suffering or heightened emotions so that they can fix the problem. Perhaps it is easier to think of a patient as a “broken arm” rather than a 12 year old boy who broke his arm playing football, the night before the big game. But when something hurts, the last person to make you feel better is a guy with a shot, a flashlight or gloves and some KY gel. (You figure it out)

It is similar to the ride operators at theme parks. Every group goes through and screams at the top of their lungs. A thousand times a day screaming joy riders sail by the operators booth as she straps the next group in. “Thank you and enjoy your ride,” click and off they go.  If anything were to go wrong, would they even know? I can imagine the operator as a group runs by, screaming in fear of the killer bee’s that have swarmed their coach, and the operator on the floor just thinks, “yeah, yeah everyone’s having a great time”.

People, your customers, want you to feel their pain, when something breaks. You may not be equipped to distance yourself, but be aware that as time goes on and the customer base increases, you cannot treat everyone with individual attention. You can however; offer them individualized service.

In spite of all that automation offers, there are still certain dynamics to customer service that defy Morse logic. Sometimes it doesn’t matter how quickly you answer the phone, look up the information or fix the problem. You will still have customers who want you to walk a mile in their shoes. The customer does not care how many people are on hold, how busy you are or if you really care about them. They just want you to hear them out and agree that they have a problem that needed your attention.

When a customer calls in to report a problem, they may just want things fixed as soon as possible.  They might also want you to explain why things have gone wrong, as if this was a personal attack on them, and you singled them out for some reason.

I repeatedly received emails from a customer who had a glitch in his email once and he was convinced we were using a “Government Carnivore” to scan his mail. Of course we weren’t, and had no reason to do something of that nature, but to him this was a moment of pain, and he wanted us to share it with him. We sent several answers, reassuring him that he was safe from the prying eyes of the FBI, and that it was safe to e-mail his family.

This type of concern may seem trivial to a typical customer service professional, but for the customer it is a legitimate and serious matter. If you took a loved one to the hospital because they had a severe nose bleed, you might think this is very serious. The blood is everywhere, and what if it is coming from their brain or…your mind wanders as you quickly fill out the paperwork, only to sit for 5 hours in the emergency room.

Naturally the bleeding will have stopped by then, and they were kind enough to give you some cotton balls for 50 dollars, so you go home assured that no one ever bled to death from a nose bleed. Who knew? To you and the loved one this was serious, to the people who see it everyday, it was almost comical.

Imagine you know just a little about computers, and have only been on the job a few weeks. Your system freezes and you may have just erased a very important file. You call the IS shop and they snicker and say, “geeze, just reboot” and hang up. Of course they understand what is serious and what isn’t, but a failure to appreciate the learning curve for new employees, and the fear factor in modern computing will only degrade the service IT professionals give to their users.

Sometimes you just have to share the pain, let them talk about what they did and reassure them. Just as you would want a doctor to give you the same courteous service. We are after all, in the same business.

Popularity: 13% [?]