We're tied up in between whether this is going to be a red state or a blue state. You have a Democratic governor and a Republican president and there is all sorts of tension there and it's slowed things down tremendously.- New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin 2007Aug explaining the sluggish recovery of NOLA q.Jacqueline Adams CNN
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Fine NOLA whine
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Fun for fun and profit
8/20/2007
With real news like this it's a wonder even the Onion can survive. Sad to say, even if WWN had maintained its magical work environment (CIOs Learn Leadership Insights from Elvis KJR, 8/13/2007) and the quality reportage of its heyday -- stories like Saddam and Osama Adopt Shaved Ape Baby (part of its ongoing coverage of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's secret marriage) -- it might not have survived reality's onslaught.
For working IT managers, a more interesting question is how fun can survive reality's onslaught. Reconciling it with leanness and meanness -- the epitome of virtuous management in modern business -- is an intriguing challenge.
Let's imagine you work in an evidence-driven business -- one where the executives who make strategic business decisions use data and logic to do so. In a company like this, how might you make a business case for fun? How, that is, would you go about tabulating the costs and benefits that would let you compute the internal rate of return on the company's investment in it?
The starting point is the usual starting point: Defining fun. The dictionary definition -- "what provides amusement or enjoyment," isn't bad, but to reassure your executives you'll want to clarify that your goal isn't to amuse your employees. It's to create an enjoyable environment -- one that isn't grim. One in which, among other things, it's okay for them to amuse each other.
The next question is benefit: What the business will get out of its investment in fun.
Recall that there are three categories of business benefit: Revenue enhancement, cost reduction, and risk management. Fun can contribute to all three of these.
Revenue enhancement is the biggest opportunity. Every time anyone has investigated the subject, customer satisfaction correlated more strongly with employee morale than with any other single factor in business. Even the most skeptical executive will agree that customer satisfaction translates to increased customer retention, increased walletshare, and an increased likelihood that satisfied customers will say good things about your company to their friends -- all revenue enhancers.
It's possible that someone might challenge the connection between a more enjoyable work environment and improved morale. If you encounter skepticism on this level ... RUN!!! Your company has been taken over by Pod People!!!
Cost reduction is next. Fun's contribution to cost reduction is harder to demonstrate in tangible terms, but it is no less real.
In some work environments the employees are zombified. Dull-eyed and uncaring, they go through the motions and the motions themselves take twice as long as they should. The math is easy: If every motion takes twice as long as it should, the amount of output each employee creates in a unit of time is half what it could be. Energized, motivated employees are the cure.
And that's the smaller benefit. The larger: For most positions, replacing a departing employee costs about one year's salary. Another factor: Not all employees contribute equally, and the best employees are the ones most able to find a better place to work.
Create an enjoyable work environment and the company will reduce unwanted turnover, especially among its best employees. That saves a lot of money.
And now, risk management: As every security professional knows, disaffected employees are the single greatest risk most companies face. Mathematically, the risk is the probability of one disaffected employee doing something nasty multiplied by the number of disaffected employees. Creating an enjoyable work environment reduces this number, lowering the overall risk.
Those are the most obvious business benefits. What will it cost to create those benefits?
Here's one expense: If the company's work environment is unpleasant, it's because of the managers who place no value on employee morale. Replacing them won't be cheap (a year's salary each -- remember?).
Other than that, fun is free. There's no net cost from the time employees spend amusing each other. That simply replaces the time now lost to grumbling. Nor does fun require any capital investment. "All" that's required is a change in attitude on the part of the company's managers.
My bet: Most would welcome the opportunity. They just need permission.
That just might be the saddest statement in the history of Keep the Joint Running.
-----------------
Copyright and other stuff -- The great KJR link point
Buddhist Monks Brawl At Sri Lanka Peace Protest.No, that didn't come from the Weekly World News (WWN). It really happened. Not to pick on Buddhists, but this really happened too: According to Newsweek, the Chinese government has passed a law making unauthorized reincarnation illegal in Tibet.
With real news like this it's a wonder even the Onion can survive. Sad to say, even if WWN had maintained its magical work environment (CIOs Learn Leadership Insights from Elvis KJR, 8/13/2007) and the quality reportage of its heyday -- stories like Saddam and Osama Adopt Shaved Ape Baby (part of its ongoing coverage of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's secret marriage) -- it might not have survived reality's onslaught.
For working IT managers, a more interesting question is how fun can survive reality's onslaught. Reconciling it with leanness and meanness -- the epitome of virtuous management in modern business -- is an intriguing challenge.
Let's imagine you work in an evidence-driven business -- one where the executives who make strategic business decisions use data and logic to do so. In a company like this, how might you make a business case for fun? How, that is, would you go about tabulating the costs and benefits that would let you compute the internal rate of return on the company's investment in it?
The starting point is the usual starting point: Defining fun. The dictionary definition -- "what provides amusement or enjoyment," isn't bad, but to reassure your executives you'll want to clarify that your goal isn't to amuse your employees. It's to create an enjoyable environment -- one that isn't grim. One in which, among other things, it's okay for them to amuse each other.
The next question is benefit: What the business will get out of its investment in fun.
Recall that there are three categories of business benefit: Revenue enhancement, cost reduction, and risk management. Fun can contribute to all three of these.
Revenue enhancement is the biggest opportunity. Every time anyone has investigated the subject, customer satisfaction correlated more strongly with employee morale than with any other single factor in business. Even the most skeptical executive will agree that customer satisfaction translates to increased customer retention, increased walletshare, and an increased likelihood that satisfied customers will say good things about your company to their friends -- all revenue enhancers.
It's possible that someone might challenge the connection between a more enjoyable work environment and improved morale. If you encounter skepticism on this level ... RUN!!! Your company has been taken over by Pod People!!!
Cost reduction is next. Fun's contribution to cost reduction is harder to demonstrate in tangible terms, but it is no less real.
In some work environments the employees are zombified. Dull-eyed and uncaring, they go through the motions and the motions themselves take twice as long as they should. The math is easy: If every motion takes twice as long as it should, the amount of output each employee creates in a unit of time is half what it could be. Energized, motivated employees are the cure.
And that's the smaller benefit. The larger: For most positions, replacing a departing employee costs about one year's salary. Another factor: Not all employees contribute equally, and the best employees are the ones most able to find a better place to work.
Create an enjoyable work environment and the company will reduce unwanted turnover, especially among its best employees. That saves a lot of money.
And now, risk management: As every security professional knows, disaffected employees are the single greatest risk most companies face. Mathematically, the risk is the probability of one disaffected employee doing something nasty multiplied by the number of disaffected employees. Creating an enjoyable work environment reduces this number, lowering the overall risk.
Those are the most obvious business benefits. What will it cost to create those benefits?
Here's one expense: If the company's work environment is unpleasant, it's because of the managers who place no value on employee morale. Replacing them won't be cheap (a year's salary each -- remember?).
Other than that, fun is free. There's no net cost from the time employees spend amusing each other. That simply replaces the time now lost to grumbling. Nor does fun require any capital investment. "All" that's required is a change in attitude on the part of the company's managers.
My bet: Most would welcome the opportunity. They just need permission.
That just might be the saddest statement in the history of Keep the Joint Running.
-----------------
Copyright and other stuff -- The great KJR link point
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
CIOs Learn Leadership Insights from Elvis
If you're looking for a headline that encapsulates what's wrong with American journalism, look no further than
What Jobs actually said, in a conversation with Walter Mossberg, was,
He then wisecracked,
If Steve Jobs got a bad sunburn and I described him as being
I guess Computerworld could then run the headline,
And now, American journalism is about to become even worse. The publication most likely to run the headline
will soon be a memory. On August 27th the Weekly World News (WWN) will publish its final edition.
That's right: The publication that described the travails of Bat Boy, and the horrific scene that unfolded when a Crazed Dieter Mistakes Dwarf for Chicken, will no longer break stories like Hillary Clinton's love affair with P'lod, the space alien.
What went wrong? To understand, you first have to understand what went right.
It started when the National Enquirer bought new color presses. Rather than leave the old ones idle, the Enquirer's then owner, former CIA agent, Generoso Pope, founded WWN to cover stories that were too hot for the Enquirer.
WWN ticked along until a character named Eddie Clontz took over as managing editor.
He created magic.
No, not the magic of headlines like Heaven Photographed by Hubble Telescope. That magic came from WWN's editorial staff. What Clontz created was one of those magical work environments that allows brilliance to flourish.
In WWN's case, "brilliance" had a special meaning. It was brilliance nonetheless -- what other word would you use to describe a story like Plane Missing Since 1939 Lands with Skeleton at the Controls?
Those who wrote for WWN in its heyday uniformly described it as a phenomenal work environment -- the sort of place where, as one writer put it,
Very few of us have had the opportunity to work in that sort of environment. I know many people, though, who remember a particular work team with singular fondness. The exact chemistry differs from one account to the next, but they all have one characteristic in common: Superb chemistry among everyone on the work team.
Few leaders manage to create this sort of atmosphere. Clontz was one. William M. Gaines, the original publisher of Mad magazine was, by all accounts, another. Both kept things loose. Both, it appears, knew how to keep small frictions from growing into big frictions. How? Their shared strategy was to keep the atmosphere fun.
There are other strategies that also work -- shared dedication to an important mission, for example. Still, don't sell fun short. It has a lot going for it.
What happened at WWN was that ... I'm not making this up ... a guy named David Pecker bought American Media, which owns WWN. He replaced Clontz and much of his crew with a new team, composed mostly of comedy writers. They maintained the formula, but lost the magic.
What can you learn from this sad tale?
Business leaders take over successful work teams from time to time. It might be because they were hired to do so, or because of a merger or acquisition. Whatever the reason, if you find yourself in this circumstance, remember that your watchword is finesse, not authority.
Before you do anything to "place your stamp" on the organization, first spend at least a month learning the magic -- learning all of the interpersonal dynamics that have made the team successful. Then spend another month or two to integrate yourself into the magic.
Later on you might have to make changes. That's okay -- you're allowed to, and often have to. If you first become part of the magic, you'll be less likely to wreck it when you do.
Peter Carlson wrote the WWN's obituary in the Washington Post. It's my source for the facts in this week's column. It's a beautiful piece of writing, so it's only fair to give Peter the final word.
he wrote.
Isn't it worth trying to create an environment that allows employees to turn their fantasies ... their work-related fantasies ... into reality?
-----------------
Copyright and other stuff -- The great KJR link point
Jobs: Windows is hell (Computerworld 2007May31).
What Jobs actually said, in a conversation with Walter Mossberg, was,
We've got cards and letters from lots of people that say iTunes is their favorite app on Windows.
He then wisecracked,
It's like giving a glass of ice water to somebody in hell.
If Steve Jobs got a bad sunburn and I described him as being
red as a lobster,
I guess Computerworld could then run the headline,
Lewis: Jobs is a crustacean.
And now, American journalism is about to become even worse. The publication most likely to run the headline
Steve Jobs is a Crustacean!
will soon be a memory. On August 27th the Weekly World News (WWN) will publish its final edition.
That's right: The publication that described the travails of Bat Boy, and the horrific scene that unfolded when a Crazed Dieter Mistakes Dwarf for Chicken, will no longer break stories like Hillary Clinton's love affair with P'lod, the space alien.
What went wrong? To understand, you first have to understand what went right.
It started when the National Enquirer bought new color presses. Rather than leave the old ones idle, the Enquirer's then owner, former CIA agent, Generoso Pope, founded WWN to cover stories that were too hot for the Enquirer.
WWN ticked along until a character named Eddie Clontz took over as managing editor.
He created magic.
No, not the magic of headlines like Heaven Photographed by Hubble Telescope. That magic came from WWN's editorial staff. What Clontz created was one of those magical work environments that allows brilliance to flourish.
In WWN's case, "brilliance" had a special meaning. It was brilliance nonetheless -- what other word would you use to describe a story like Plane Missing Since 1939 Lands with Skeleton at the Controls?
Those who wrote for WWN in its heyday uniformly described it as a phenomenal work environment -- the sort of place where, as one writer put it,
There were days when I would leave work with my stomach and my face hurting from laughing all day at the ideas being kicked around.
Very few of us have had the opportunity to work in that sort of environment. I know many people, though, who remember a particular work team with singular fondness. The exact chemistry differs from one account to the next, but they all have one characteristic in common: Superb chemistry among everyone on the work team.
Few leaders manage to create this sort of atmosphere. Clontz was one. William M. Gaines, the original publisher of Mad magazine was, by all accounts, another. Both kept things loose. Both, it appears, knew how to keep small frictions from growing into big frictions. How? Their shared strategy was to keep the atmosphere fun.
There are other strategies that also work -- shared dedication to an important mission, for example. Still, don't sell fun short. It has a lot going for it.
What happened at WWN was that ... I'm not making this up ... a guy named David Pecker bought American Media, which owns WWN. He replaced Clontz and much of his crew with a new team, composed mostly of comedy writers. They maintained the formula, but lost the magic.
What can you learn from this sad tale?
Business leaders take over successful work teams from time to time. It might be because they were hired to do so, or because of a merger or acquisition. Whatever the reason, if you find yourself in this circumstance, remember that your watchword is finesse, not authority.
Before you do anything to "place your stamp" on the organization, first spend at least a month learning the magic -- learning all of the interpersonal dynamics that have made the team successful. Then spend another month or two to integrate yourself into the magic.
Later on you might have to make changes. That's okay -- you're allowed to, and often have to. If you first become part of the magic, you'll be less likely to wreck it when you do.
Peter Carlson wrote the WWN's obituary in the Washington Post. It's my source for the facts in this week's column. It's a beautiful piece of writing, so it's only fair to give Peter the final word.
Reporters loved the Weekly World News,
he wrote.
Many fantasized about working for it and casting aside the tired old conventions of journalism, such as printing facts.
Isn't it worth trying to create an environment that allows employees to turn their fantasies ... their work-related fantasies ... into reality?
-----------------
Copyright and other stuff -- The great KJR link point
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)