The Military Doesn't Want Effusive Thanks ... A strategy would do

Clausewitz said, "War is the continuation of politics by other means". With a US military that reports to civilian leadership, Clausewitz is spot on for the US. Only the Congress has the authorization to delcare war, appoint officers or raise an army as stated in the US Constitution. Only the President has the authorization to direct the military.

This being the case, I find it disingenuous when leaders from either political party obfuscate what should be a discussion about the purpose and direction of military action by focusing instead on the honor and sacrifice of our military. The American military is a professional fighting force that doesn't want thank you. What it does want is clear strategy provided by its civilian leadership. Thank you's don't prevent any more combat deaths; strategy can.

I know that many in our military would have rather had President Bush spend his two minutes on substance during his State of the Union instead of emotionally charged thank yous and vignettes. Long term (10+ years), I believe the US can be better off for having gone into Iraq, but only through execution of a clear strategy.

I'm not making a republican or democrat criticism here ... I'm making a political criticism. Politicians need to step up to their responsibility under the US Constitution and treat the military like what it is ... their instrument for advancing US aims. Not something that should be used to manipulate emotions. If Politicians want to honor the 2200+ military people who have been killed, they can begin to do so by providing clear strategy. Start with Iraq and continue on through the quadrennial defense review ....

Milt ... should I focus on profits or shareholder value?

Milton Friedman wrote a piece in 1970 which said that the sole responsibility of a corporation is to increase its profits. Somewhere along the line, that got translated into "increase shareholder value", which is the mantra students hear parrotted throughout business school. However, with a material percentage of stocks now held for less than 2 months, companies must ask themselves what they should focus on: longterm value or short term moves that might hurt your company's long term viability. These short term moves include reducing R&D, freezing wages which drives out your best employees, in some cases stock buybacks, etc.

The answer? I would like to say companies should only focus on value investors (e.g., people like Buffett who invest in companies for the long-term), but does a company have a right to ignore a group of shareholders who want short term results? I believe it does, as long as management and the board are clear about its focus and objectives. So in the end, companies should still focus on "increasing shareholder value", but just make sure they are clear about what shareholders they are focused on.

Job Qualifications: 5 Years Experience, Jack Bauer Type Capabilities

I was talking to a friend the other day about the Chuck Norris & Jack Bauer (of Fox's "24" fame) threads that have been emailed around over the last couple of weeks. The ones that go something like, "Jack Bauer - He would have gotten the ring to Mordor in 24 hours". The difference between the two guys is that you laugh at Chuck Norris, but you would want to hire Jack Bauer. Just consider his qualities:

• Succeeds at working within a matrixed organization without direct lines of control
• Leads a team while also acting as an individual contributor
• Makes spot on decisions with 80% information
• Possesses honesty and passion
• Masters all the skills necessary for his job
• Gets stuff done with a Macgyver type sense of innovation

In fact, if anyone is trying to set their business objectives for the coming business year, just put down you want to be more like Jack Bauer, perhaps sans the violent tendencies, and leave it at that. Who would I pick for real life Jack Bauer for 2005? Probably Admiral Thad Allen who seemed to be one of the only people capable of action during the Katrina crisis.

Guess I can't (virtually) go home again ...

To get up to speed on Wiki's and how the community content process works, I posted a few things about my hometown on www.wikipedia.org under the dedicated encylopedia entry for my town. Now, my town is small (~50K population) and I wouldn't think anyone is taking an active interest in the post. Was I wrong. I posted my name under the "natives" section, which lists natives of my town, and someone removed me. I posted again, someone removed my name again. More due to a stubborn streak than anything else, this process has gone through 8 cycles over the last month of me posting, being erased and posting again.

Today, I learned how to track changes. One single person has been removing my name from the "natives" section and justifying it with the comment "fixing vandalism". It's interesting. I think I'm adding valuable information (I am a native of the town and have accomplished things at least on par with some of the other natives in terms of societal impact). My nemesis apparently has some strong ideas about the filter through which notable natives must pass and keeps removing me. I'll enjoy seeing how this plays out - an experiment on how the community content process works. The broader implications are more serious. I've spoke to people who use wikipedia as a first source of information. To be useful, the process has to achieve a balance between the information zealots who might provide structure and the perceived "vandals". I'll see if I can virtually go home again.

What we should expect from journalism

I don't want to weigh in too deeply on the "what is a journalist?" debate. Jeff Jarvis has covered that enough. Maybe more important a question is, "what is journalism?" I tend to think that journalism is only a sensor and distribution methodology for disseminating information. Journalism is made necessary by imperfect information. In societies where there is imperfect information (due to the slow spread of news, limited access, oppression, etc) it makes sense to have a group of people practicing something called "journalism".

If journalism is basically a sensor and distribution methodology for a society with imperfect information, what happens when the information flow starts to move towards perfection? The United States , or any country for that matter, will never have perfect information, but in so many ways the information flow now is better than it was 10,20,50 years ago. Does this mean that the umbrella of "journalism" should now apply to all information sources that abide by the canons of journalism (responsibility, freedom, independence, truth, impartiality, fair play)? I think the answer is yes, which leads to two fundamental shifts in modern journalism:

1) Focus on analysis over the news. In the past, journalists controlled news and could get away with just presenting the facts. Look at any old newspaper, which often reads like a diary. Now, since news isn't the scarce resource, journalists now focus more on analysis. I tend to think of journalists today more as referees. For many things, I don't need an intermediary to tell me what happened, but for those close calls I still need someone to sort out the details.

2) Working with sources as opposed to against sources. I think journalists still need to maintain an adversarial relationship with some news makers to keep impartiality, but there are so many outlets for news makers to get their own news out (blogs, forums, press releases, etc) that journalists can't really afford to always work against them. For instance, it is ludicrous to think that a company in today's world would cede all news control to a journalist. Companies are going to use all means at their disposal to get out the news they want to get out. I don't have a good answer for how journalism incorporates these sources, but it is happening. The days of a journalist saying "whoa, that's my job" to someone outside of the established walls of the newsroom are over.

Right versus legal

The debate around the NSA wiretapping highlights the difference between what is right versus what is legal. The former is a subjective judgement call (e.g., “I have no problem if the government listens to us” or “I want my conversations private.”). The latter is about what is allowed under an established body of law. Regardless of whether you think wiretapping is right or wrong, I think the legal question deserves scrutiny. In such a polarized country about so many issues, the legal question really is the only thing worth debating with people of different beliefs.
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

Can't We All Just Get Something Done?

Innovate: v. To begin or introduce something new for the first time

Everyone needs to innovate these days. Governments should innovate to better serve citizens. Companies should innovate to better serve shareholders and customers. Parents should innovate to better raise healthy kids. I am all for change, cool ideas and new paradigms. But I think innovation has it's limits in the way it is discussed. Seldom does it include any aspect of execution.

Perhaps if I'm looking at it from an entire systems perspective (e.g., innovation in the US) it's fine not to put any bounds around innovation - some percentage of innovators in my system will succeed and I don't have to worry about the rest. But If I'm in a single entity, like a company or a government division, innovation has to be carefully managed because it can take you down rabbit holes, suck up your resources and push you in the wrong direction. For only one costly example, consider space based ballistic missile defense.

Popular business press would tell you that everyone needs to innovate these days ... from the leadership to the line manager. I think that is part of it. But I would supply a few adjectives to that. Focused, executable innovation. Sure, somewhere in your organization you want a free flowing idea lab where anything goes. But in the other 90%, you want leadership actively managing innovation.

My simple test to see which companies innovate well? Look at the amount spent on consultants (Bain, BCG, Mckinsey) versus the percentage of people who can actually tell you what those consultants accomplished. Consultants are about innovation, new ideas. Everyone loves to be part of a cool consulting project because it seems fresh and new. 80% of the time, though, nothing is executed. So, did they innovate? Yes because they came up with new ideas. But often this does little for revenue, increases costs and sucks up focus.

Military academy standards

Misconduct at military academies is intolerable. Admiitedly, I'm a little full over on the obligation of future officers to act with honor and integrity. My view might be dated as I have recently begun to reconsider the nature of the armed forces. Still, I can't comprehend how the egregious problems at the air force academy, ranging from sexual misconduct to forced religious participation, were allowed. More amazing is the minimal justice doled out under what can be a harsh code of military justice.

Now, all military academies have suffered some sort of scandal and I don't want to simplify why the air force is having so many problems. However, if one take character into consideration, you would logically reason that recommendations would be an important part of the air force academy selection process. However, according to the NYT education section this past Sunday, Air force places little importance on recommendations. This is in contrast to the naval academy. The Air Force should begin considerig recommendations. Taken as a whole and compared across all the applicants, an admissions office could use recommendations to deny entry to what have turned out to be some despicable individuals.

Secrets of success

Another year, another perfomance management cycle. In my different organizations, I've gone through different iterations of this ... from quick feedack focused to a full system of setting objectives early in the year which are then tracked and graded. I've never been impressed with any of the systems. Good intentions, but not sure whether the results are worth the effort. But as I was going through the process, I started to think about what actually makes a person successful. I think it boils down to five aspects. Either alone or combined, these are what drive success.

1. Luck - nothing else to say here, but I believe 10% of those who succeed do so through luck
2. Passion - Really caring about what you are doing
3. Skill - Being good at what you are doing
4. Dedication - willing to work the extra hours
5. Likability - believe it or not, 80% of people would rather work with someone incompetent, but likable as opposed to the other way around. If you are likable, you get opportunities, people cut you breaks, etc
6. Defining your own success - not letting other people define your boundaries, but setting them yourself

No one possesses all of these. Having one aspect probably allows you to be successful some of the time. Having 2 or 3 probably sets you up for life.

The Building Block Of A Nation - Corruption

The amount of corruption in our government, epitomized by the ongoing Abramoff scandal, amazes me. Even more, i'm continually amazed at how blase we are about this corruption. And I'm not sure if this blase attitude results from indifference, reluctant acceptance or ignorance - probably all three play a role.

Some level of corruption is natural in any democracy, but I have faith that technology and process can help reduce it. The key is transparency .... knowing where the money is. I'm willing to bet that Abramoff wouldn't have been caught 30 years ago.