How do you hire for culture?

Bob Sutton wrote bravely about the No Asshole Rule, and how talent should never excuse destructive behavior. It’s a rule many companies are afraid to follow and they pay later. By the time leaders realize there’s something broken in the culture, it’s hard to fix. Avoiding assholes is certainly progress for some companies, but but that’s not enough to create a great place to work.

One of the amazing things about my experience at WordPress.com, and a theme in my next book, was the common good habits everyone had: generosity, thoughtfulness and craftsmanship. Matt Mullenweg and Toni Schnieder, the leaders at WordPress.com, put the culture and its values ahead of many considerations. Great cultures have a higher bar and to both start and grow good ones requires sacrifices many impatient CEOs aren’t willing to make.

Jason Cohen, founder of  WPEngine wrote this recently:

You can train someone how DNS works, but you can’t train someone to naturally have empathy for a customer.  You can train someone with specific ways to interact with an irate customer, but you can’t train someone to genuinely care about helping that irate customer. At some point along the way, we’ll make a mistake, and it’s our responsibility to handle it with humility…You can train skills, but you can’t train attitude, and the attitude is going to make the real difference in that situation.

…If you can’t train attitude, then you have to hire for attitude.

Hiring for culture is harder than hiring for skill. To hire for culture you first have to understand the culture you have, which is difficult since you’ve always been in it and likely don’t see it for what it is. What you think your culture is and what it really is might be very different. And even if you’re clear on your culture’s values, you have to be willing to say no to talented candidates for reasons beyond talent. And perhaps hardest of all, you have to find ways during an interview to assess a candidate’s values, which is much harder than assessing their talents.

A common shortcut is evaluating candidates based on the question “Is this someone I’d want to work with everyday?” That question is packed with many implicit values the culture you work in already contains. However following that too closely has problems too. It can lead to stagnation, or even discrimination. Organizations need people with different attitudes to stimulate growth. No matter how healthy a culture is eventually there are powerful defenders of the status quo. It takes a new coworker with fresh perspective to show  how stagnant you’ve become. Part of what keeps all cultures healthy is the introduction of new people, ideas and assumptions. As companies grow keeping the right balance is hard to do. You need to protect what you have, but continue to plant new kinds of seeds.

How do you hire for culture?

How many people really work from home? (research summary)

By Shawn Prenzlow

A few weeks ago, Scott hired me to help with research for his upcoming book. The plan is to share what we find as we go and you get to tell us what you think.  You can help validate or debunk our findings: Do they match your experience? Have you found research that proves something different? Do you know of other trends or data that we haven’t discovered?

Comment and let us know.

First up is the results from the question Scott posed for the Research Assistant contest: “What percentage of companies allow telecommuting of any kind?”

In general, my research showed that the search term telecommuting was tied to employee statistics, or breakdowns by industry or job type – but not to percentage of businesses. I am guessing that this is due to the difficulty of crisply defining what a “business” is; Fortune 500? Fortune 1000? Any business?  Include self-owned and home-based businesses? As such, it would be hard to get a baseline without some specificity.

After several searches using variants of telecommute and following leads and links, it seemed like a better direction to search on the term flexible workplace. This new term provided better results.

Here’s what I found:

 “Another nationally representative survey of employers illustrates the trend of differential access to flexi-place benefits within organizations. While 30% of organizations allow some employees to work at home either occasionally or regularly, only 3% of organizations allow all or most to do so.”

Source: Flexible Work Arrangements: The Fact SheetWorkplace Flexibility 2010 Georgetown University Law Center

Which seems to trend with the following:

…approximately 10 percent of workers telecommuted in the mid-1990s. The rate of telecommuting increased slightly to 17 percent in the early 2000s and then remained constant to the mid-2000s”

Source: The hard truth about telecommuting, Monthly Labor Review,  June 2012

Now, let’s get more specific:

21% of all medium / large businesses (100+ employees) support some level of informal telecommuting. This covers 470,000 telecommuters.

14% of all medium / large businesses (100+ employees) support some level of formal telecommuting. This covers 240,000 telecommuters.

65% do not support any telecommuting.

Source: Transportation Implications of Telecommuting, U.S Department of Transportation | Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)

And:

45% of the US workforce holds a job that is compatible with at least part-time telework.

50 million U.S. employees who want to work from home hold jobs that are telework compatible though only 2.9 million consider home their primary place of work (2.3% of the workforce).

Regular telecommuting grew by 61% between 2005 and 2009. During the same period, home-based self-employment grew by 1.7%.

Based on current trends, with no growth acceleration, regular telecommuters will total 4.9 million by 2016, a 69% increase from the current level but well below other forecasts.

76% of telecommuters work for private sector companies, down from 81% in 2005—the difference is largely attributable to increased WAH among state and federal workers.

(Unless otherwise noted, all telecommuter statistics refer to non-self-employed people who principally work from home.)

Source: The State of Telework in the U.S., June 2011, workshifting.com

But what about world-wide telework trends?

“Telecommuting is particularly popular in India where more than half of workers were most likely to be toiling from home, followed by 34 percent in Indonesia, 30 percent in Mexico and slightly less in Argentina, South Africa and Turkey.”

Source: About one in five workers worldwide telecommute, 2010 poll

But here’s what most of us want to know: Which are the best US cities for people to work from wherever they want (and apparently, in their PJs)?

“The same survey also found that Atlanta outranks other major cities when it comes to letting information employees work from home in their pajamas. Part of this can be explained by Atlanta’s growing position as a telecom and IT gateway to the Southeastern U.S., so these type of jobs naturally lend themselves to telework.”

Source: Microsoft Tracks Telework Trends, Ranks Top Cities for Home Workers, June 2011

What do you think? Does this information match your own experience? Do you know of better sources and statistics that support or refute these finds? Tell us!

Announcing guest posts by Shawn Prenzlow

A few weeks ago I put out a call for a research assistant for the new book about my year working for WordPress.com.  I hired Shawn Prenzlow, and as we talked over lunch we both thought it’d be a great idea for her to post her research here on the blog as it comes together.

I’ve never had anyone guest post here before and wanted to make sure I warned you about it – she’ll have her own by-line at the top of her posts.

She’s smart and funny and I’m hoping you’ll find these research oriented posts interesting. The spirt is to share as we go and invite you to ask questions, or help us find better answers.  Stay tuned.

Used copies of Mindfire selling for $300+

I’m happy to announce that Mindfire 1.1 will be here shortly. Over 150 minor corrections have been made, making this the best possible edition of the best collection in existence of my best work from this blog (You can of course access my best posts of all time for free).

The print edition is currently listed as out print via amazon, but that will change shortly as the logistics of getting the 1.1 edition in the pipeline take place.

A curious side effect is the backlog of used copies for sale has been emptied, raising the lowest price to $309. And ‘new’ copies list at $711.  If you have a copy you want to sell perhaps now is the time to do it? The used market on amazon is a mystery to me, and I never know what to make of the prices I see there.

used mindfire 309

Two ways to write: with your gut or with your head

An amazing comment from Charley Daveler on my post How to Write a Book:

You can tackle a book in two ways: with your gut or with your head. Most authors flip flop back and forth constantly, though they tend to favor one over the other. If you want to write with your gut, i.e. by instinct/from inspiration, disregard the idea of “should” and just go for it. This technique has its negatives as well as benefits, but the most important thing to remember is that even if it’s terrible, keep going; you can always fix it later.

If you want to work from the head, i.e. using logic, which you might considering the intellectual subject matter, then first ask yourself your goals, which you’ve already done to some extent. Start developing a specific vision (though it does not need to be fully formed to start), ask yourself how you want your readers to feel, and what you want them to take away from the read.

Read the whole comment here.

 

The Redemption of Jonah Lehrer?

Twitter is aflutter today with talk of Jonah Lehrer, the (in)famous young author caught fabricating quotes, about his recent talk at the Knight Foundation where he was reportedly paid $20k to speak.  I can’t tell if it’s the price tag of his speaking engagement, or the fact he was given such a high profile forum to speak,  that has riled people up.

Update: The Knight Foundation thinks it was a mistake to pay him so much.

What I’ve wondered about since all this happened is: how does redemption work?

We often talk about forgiveness, compassion and second chances as cultural values. These ideas are deeply imbedded in many religions and cultures. But when someone we follow fails us, those ideals go out the window. We run with our outrage and put them in a box we never let them even try to earn their way out of. Perhaps some crimes are so heinous that there is no redemption, but what are they? How do we evaluate these things?

Questions that come to mind include:

  • Is there a redemption formula?
  • Is there a number of good acts they must do, or a period of time without ‘failing’ again to re-earn our basic trust and respect?
  • Is our judgement based on something more than behavior? Was that true before we were betrayed?
  • What are the measures we use to decide?
  • What kinds of violations are unredeemable?

Shouldn’t there be some criteria, however daunting, we use to let people work their way out of the damage they’ve done?

From the talk transcript he’s clearly contrite:

12:39: Lehrer introduces himself: “For those who do not know who I am, let me give you a brief summary: I’m the author of a book on creativity that contained several fabricated Bob Dylan quotes. I committed plagiarism on my blog, taking without credit or citation an entire paragraph from the blog of Christian Jarrett. I plagiarized from myself. I lied to a journalist named Michael Moynihan to cover up the Dylan fabrications.”

But perhaps an apology was part of what the Knight Foundation demanded he do. The first challenge of redemption it seems is convincing people you’re at least as upset about what was done as they are, which is no easy task.

As my questions suggest I don’t have the answers. I don’t understand how the mathematics of atonement work, yet I’m convinced we need one.

What do you think?

[Update: Lehrer posted his talk transcript here]

Advice for speakers bored with their own material

A basic rule offered in Confessions of a Public Speaker is to pick material you care deeply about, since you can’t blame an audience for being bored if you are. But what I didn’t cover is what to do when you have to present the same material 300 times: how do you stay excited about it then?

Steven Estes asked:

As academic advisors at a large university, we have a unique presentation dilemma during summer orientation. We have to present the same material every day for six weeks. We do use Power Point, but are entertaining the idea of breaking away from it. We tried having each advisor present a different part of the short (15 minute) presentation, but it gets pretty stale by week three–and we still have three weeks to go.

There are many ways to keep material interesting, but they all involve some work, or at least paying more attention. Consider that many stand-up comedians do the same 45-60 minutes of material night after night. Broadway actors have to say the same lines again and again for weeks on end. What keeps them interested?

Primarily it’s the energy they get from their audience. If the performer is paying attention the energy in the room, from the audience and from their co-performers, it’s different each time and that’s what makes it interesting to do the same thing again and again. Although the script is the same, each day and performance is new to everyone there and as a performer you have to use that energy from the audience to help you.

Here’s a short list of things to consider if you’re bored with your material:

  1. Improvisation. If you can base part of each segment on something from the audience: a story, a question, a unique element of the particular demographic you are speaking to on that day, change will be introduced naturally as part of your material. Think of your material as a kind of Mad Lib, with segments that depend on the injection of something from the audience (or from your co-presenter). If you choose the right slot, it will be different every time.
  2. Have audiences make choices. Design the material so the audience has to make choices. Let’s say you have a story you tell 5 minutes in to drive a point home. Learn 3 different stories/examples and let the audience vote to pick which one you tell (Or randomly choose one yourself each time if the audience keeps picking the same one).
  3. Examine the room to see what options are available. Perhaps you can stand in a different place when you’re speaking. Or use a hand microphone instead of the one on the lectern. One time try walking around Phil Donahue style. Maybe use a higher pitched voice, or a lower one. If you study the room there are many variables you can add that the audience will never notice since they only see the talk once, but that will make each instance interesting for you, and you’ll learn something new about public speaking or your material each time you change something.
  4. Play secret games with your co-presenters. Each day pick an uncommon word from the dictionary at random. Every presenter has to find a way to work that word into their section. There are many games like this you can play.
  5. Improve the slides. How boring are your slides? Simpler, cleaner slides will garner more energy from your audience which will help keep you interested.
  6. Tell personal stories, not lists of instructions. Don’t you have stories from your childhood you love telling again and again? If you make the presentation a series of stories, perhaps about stupid (or amazing) things that have happened at previous summers, instead of lists of instructions, your energy will be different. They don’t even have to be your personal stories: you can tell the stories of other college students.
  7. Change something in the material every few days. Presentations are a series of linked stories. If you change even one story it forces you to also change the segue you use to get into the new story and the segue you have to use to get out of it. One seemingly small change can ripple through how you give the entire presentation, at least the first time you make the change.
  8. Make it theater. Don’t simply do tag-team speaking where one person speaks at a time. Instead of slides, use the other two speakers to act out or demonstrate every point the speaker makes. This requires the effort to write the presentation more like a play and less like a business presentation, but it will give everyone something to do all the time and likely engage the audience better too.
  9. Start over. It’s probably time to move on. Louis C.K., inspired by the great George Carlin, drops all his old material each year and starts over. You’ve learned so much since the last time you started from scratch. Give yourself and your audience a chance to have fun again with something fresh for everyone.

I’m always changing my material, even in specific talks I’m asked to give again and again. I’m a different person each time I give a talk, with new stories or opinions to share. By making changes I get excited to see what happens, and it brings life to topics I’ve talked about dozens or even hundreds of times before.

Why you should pick your own boss

Ty Clark asked me for advice on job seeking: The best advice I’ve ever heard about picking a job is to pick your boss first, not the job.

This is challenging since the system of finding jobs is designed the other way: it’s set up to let bosses pick you. Job ads don’t have a field listing a “Boss Suckiness Index (BSI)” or “what % of her reports love or hate her.” At best you talk to your possible boss during an interview, and interviews are mostly BS. Yet by focusing on who your boss will be above most other criteria changes both how you pursue jobs and how happy you’ll be once you pick one.

The simple reasons why your boss matters more than you realize are:

  • A good boss in a mediocre company will protect you and support you on a daily basis.
  • A bad boss in a good company will frustrate and demoralize you on a daily basis.

In the first case, you will learn more and possibly have more opportunities than in the latter. A good boss will recognize your talents and develop them. A bad boss may never recognize what you can do at all, or take advantage of you more than help you. The only upside to a bad boss in a good company is if working for them is the only way into the company after a year you can possibly transfer to a different team, with a different boss, and achieve the best of both worlds (assuming you survive that long).

Most people looking for jobs focus on other criteria such as:

  • Salary. This is important, but beyond your minimum needs it can be a trap. There are many people with $250k salaries who hate their jobs and, as a consequence, their lives. They work with coworkers who were also primarily attracted to salary. If you are thinking long term, or want a high growth career, salary can’t be your primary criteria. Salary is the laziest measure of the quality of a job and therefore the weakest.
  • What you will work on. Many people are attracted to specific projects or roles. I did this for years until I learned hot projects didn’t necessarily make for happy/productive work environments. While I learned much, my career suffered. I watched plenty of people thinking longer term who stayed with good managers rather than chasing cool projects, and they rose in seniority in the company as their managers did.  
  • What your job title will be. Even if you have to work as an intern, if you are talented and work hard a good boss will recognize your ability and move you into a position worthy of your skills. Even if they don’t have another job opening for you, a good boss will have a healthy network and can help place you somewhere that does, with a good manager they know who works there. Chasing the best job title you can get at the expense of who you’ll be working for is a trap: they may never let you leave that job title, no matter how much you outgrow it.

Picking bosses demands having a strong network. You need to cultivate friendships with people in your field where you can share notes on the bosses you’ve worked for. It takes time and research to put it together, but knowing who in your field the good managers are and seeking them out is the best asset you can have for a long and healthy career. If you have one or two companies in mind, investigate who the best bosses are in your job function so you know the landscape, and if the opportunity presents itself, which way to lean if an opportunity arises.

The less experience you have, the harder it is to pick your own boss when you’re hired. That’s ok. Instead ask about how much internal mobility there is: do people move between teams and groups easily? If yes, once hired your goal should be to figure out what things you need to set in motion to give you that choice and to study who is the best boss there for you.

Related: How to survive a bad manager

How to learn from a nuclear missile

One great way to learn is to study a field you know little about. By becoming a tourist, a traveler, it’s easier to be curious. You can ask big questions since you’re free from the baggage of being right or sounding smart. This is one reason films like Apollo 13Hoosiers, and Miracle are popular films among management types looking for inspiration: the  fact that they are stories that reflect common challenges business face, but are not business stories, gives them more potency, not less.

One recent find is the story of the Polaris nuclear missile management team. Could you design a breakthrough technology, under competition, short deadlines and with the defense of the free-world at stake? These folks did.

The story is told by the boringly titled book The Polaris System Development. Although published by Harvard University Press, its not easy to find. The best summary I’ve found is from, of all places, Budapest University. Here’s an excerpt:

Once given the mandate and start-up funds, the SPO had an enormous task – to bring into being an entirely new weapons system. This included nuclear powered submarines, then in their infancy, global navigation and communication systems, missile systems, launching systems, fire-control systems and maintenance, support and training programs.

Most of these components did not exist at the time – many were still only on the drawing board. All had to be designed, built, tested and integrated into one workable unit and made operational, from scratch — within five years! Building a weapons system based on the promise of one or two technologies was not unusual, but doing it on a dozen technologies was.

Read the entire summary/analysis of the book (PDF). It’s an easy read and I promise will have you thinking more deeply about your own business than your standard case studies will.

Update: here’s an additional summary and recommendation.

Hat tip to Steven Smith for recommending the Polaris story.

Have other great stories of management and innovation from unusual projects? Leave a comment.

[Note: this article originally written for Harvard Business Review.]

Research assistant wanted

[Update: This position is closed. Do not apply. Thanks]

I’m hiring a research assistant to help with my current book about working for WordPress.com, a company where everyone works from anywhere around the world.

This is an experiment at finding a win/win for working on a book: lets see if it works.

The goal of the research is to find data, and good summaries, to answer questions about remote work across different industries and cultures. It’s a task I can do, but one of you folks who likes researching things might enjoy helping with a book, and getting paid for it.

Here’s the rundown:

  • The job starts ASAP
  • It’s probably a total of 10-20 hours of work over the next month
  • The tasks will be things like “find out what companies have trait X or Y” or “what evidence is there of V or Z”
  • You need basic statistics knowledge (how to poke holes in study claims and evaluate research quality)
  • You need to have google-fu and possibly fu for academic search engines
  • You need to write well enough to organize what you find so it’s easy for me to consume, with references
  • You’d get to help shape some of the book and chat with me about various book things
  • You can tell me what you think you should be paid

To apply: [Position now closed]

  1. Answer this question: “What % of companies allow telecommuting of any kind?”
  2. Write up a brief summary and cite your sources
  3. Include the words “inchoate” and “papaya” somewhere in your message
  4. I’d expect this would take an hour or less to complete
  5. You have until EOD Friday

There’s only one position and I will update here as soon as I’ve found someone (So check back before you do this work). I don’t want to waste your time.

Position closed.

How to revise a first draft

The only faith a writer needs to have is in the next draft.

The quality of any draft does not matter much provided it’s not your last.  The goal of any writing session is to work hard, now, to give the future version of you something better than the last draft to work with. Each draft is a gift to yourself, a gift to the future version of you.

I’m working on my sixth fifth book now and I’ve developed these rules for how revise draft #1:

  1. Let it sit for a few days. The best editing happens when you are unattached. You want to read it as if it was written by someone else. You need to be willing to rip entire sections out and rewrite others. If you’re afraid to cut or change anything, you’re not ready. Let it sit longer.
  2. Print the whole thing out. We read more carefully on paper. Writing notes on paper can be easier, depending on your habits (see ‘true reading’ below). There’s also a pride you’ll feel in physically holding the book you don’t get with digital versions. A printed version will also restrict you from falling into rewriting, which is not the goal. You need to be a reader for awhile. Set wide columns and heavy line spacing so you have plenty of room for commentary and revisions.
  3. Read the whole thing (aka ‘The Big Read’). I read the entire book in one or two sittings. I need to have the entire experience in my mind to properly consider how to reorganize things. This read is often painful: you must confront all the things that aren’t finished yet, which will be many. The good news is everything is easier after the Big Read.
  4. Take high and low level notes. Catch grammar and typos, but primarily note issues of pace, flow, and unneeded paragraphs. Put question marks down for things that don’t make sense. Does the flow from one chapter to the next make sense? Is there a chapter that needs to be added? removed? Sections within chapters that make no sense? Do I rewrite this or cut it completely? But I don’t rewrite as I do the Big Read. I make notes but try to continue as much as possible, as if I were just a reader.
  5. Get feedback. A draft, even with dozens of typos and known issues, is still a complete work someone can read. Ask two or three people you know, who you trust, who you can count on to give you honest feedback to have a go. Start with a few chapters: if that goes well, give them more. Be specific about the kinds of feedback you want, when you need it by, and how they should deliver it to you. Make it easy for them: they are doing you a big and intimate favor. Make sure to separate your supporters who cheer you on, from people who will give you the tough but fair feedback you need to make the book better. They are probably not the same people. Giving the book to your bigest fan or best friend puts them in a bind: they want to be positive, but what the book needs most is an honest, knowing eye, something they may not be qualified or comfortable giving you. It does not improve the draft to be told only “your draft is great.”
  6. Get to work on the second draft. With my notes, and notes from early readers, by my side, I get to work in digital form. If I’m moving chapters into a new order or writing new ones, I do that first. Then I work in the order of the chapters, revising, rewriting, rereading and editing as I go. See How To Write a Second Draft.

Many writers never do #3. It shows. The goal of a book is to provide one experience that lasts hours. If the author doesn’t read through the entire book in draft form it will be sheer luck if the chapters hold together well.

Working on paper also forces truer reading. If you work with a digital version you’ll be tempted to clean things up as you go. This seems efficient but it takes you out of the reading experience and puts you into a writing mode. It’s more important to be inefficient, but stay in the reading mindset to truly understand what the book currently is, so when you’re done you’ll have clarity on what it needs to become.

The second draft is always a delight to actually work on.  It’s as if a gift was given to me: much of the heavy lifting is done. Even if a chapter needs rewriting the creative energy required is much less than working with blank pages. And since often the best move is to rip things out, the book gets better in big swings at every turn.

In many cases for non-fiction books, two major drafts are all you have time for.

Here’s what the first draft for my next book looks like from 10,000 feet. 76k words.

what draft 1 looks like

I’m doing the Big Read today. Wish me luck.

What rules do good friends follow? (thoughts wanted)

I’ve been thinking about friendships and why some last and others fade away. It seems there is an unwritten set of rules people who stay friends are able to follow, even if they don’t even sit down and discuss them.

I’ve certainly never had a friendship where there was an official meeting, where a  friendship charter was drawn up detailing what everyone expected of each other, or planting seeds for how to deal with difficult situations that might arise. Have you ever been a friendship where a compact for how the friendship should work was discussed?

It seems strange to me how sometimes the most important relationships in our lives are assumed to not require the same investment of consideration for how they function (or fail) as the relationships we have at work.

I’m looking for your thoughts on what the implicit, or explicit, agreements friendships that last have. And any stories you might be willing to share about how you arrived at those ‘rules.’ Or how the lack of them impacted you.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

Learning about management from open source projects

In the course of working on the new book about my time working for WordPress.com, I’ve been reading various books on open source projects and how they’re managed. The most useful book by far has been Fogel’s Producing Open Source Software.  There’s plenty of good advice for all managers of software development no matter what philosophy is used.

Fogel does a fantastic job of taking the core challenges head on, from what culture and community are, how to grow them, dealing with conflict and the roles leaders have to play for healthy cultures to grow. Some of the book does focus on tools, which I didn’t need, but that let me read the entire book in a single enjoyable sitting.

second edition is underway and you can contribute to the kickstarter project to make sure it happens. I did. The 2nd edition is slated to come out this fall.  The current edition is available online for free here to read right away while you wait for the update.

producing open source

 

Choice quotes from the book include:

Try not to let humans do what machines could do instead. As a rule of thumb, automating a common task is worth at least 10 times the effort a developer would spend doing that task manually one time. For very frequent or very complex tasks, that ratio could easily go up to 20 or even higher.

On the faith in fancy projects and heroes:

The most well-known organizational models of getting things done—whether it’s building a house, producing a motion picture, or writing software—tend to concern the prediction of and commitment to specific outcomes, mitigating risk to the plan, and correcting surprises along the way. In such models, innovation is seen to happen at the moment of inspiration of the idea—and the remaining 99% of the effort is perspiration, to paraphrase Edison. Say it along with me: “Yeah, right.” This view looks at innovation as a very solitary sport; we want to talk about Steve Jobs as the guy behind the iPod, rather than the mix of good engineers and product marketing types who collaborated with Steve to find the right sweet-spot combination of features and fashion.

On the myths and realities of crowdsourcing:

Without descending into hand-waving generalizations like “the group is always smarter than the individual” (we’ve all met enough groups to know better), it must be acknowledged that there are certain activities at which groups excel. Massive peer review is one of them; generating large numbers of ideas quickly is another. The quality of the ideas depends on the quality of the thinking that went into them, of course, but you won’t know what kinds of thinkers are out there until you stimulate them with a challenging problem.

And on managing releases out the door:

Thus, the process of stabilizing a release is mostly about creating mechanisms for saying “no.” The trick for open source projects, in particular, is to come up with ways of saying “no” that won’t result in too many hurt feelings or disappointed developers, and also won’t prevent deserving changes from getting into the release.

The Meaningful is greater than the Improbable

In Kevin Kelly’s recent article The Improbable is the New Normal, he points out how we can now see amazing things every minute of the day.

Every minute a new impossible thing is uploaded to the internet and that improbable event becomes just one of hundreds of extraordinary events that we’ll see or hear about today. The internet is like a lens which focuses the extraordinary into a beam, and that beam has become our illumination. It compresses the unlikely into a small viewable band of everyday-ness. As long as we are online – which is almost all day many days — we are illuminated by this compressed extraordinariness. It is the new normal.

He’s right. The ubiquity of video cameras mean Youtube is the largest event filter in history, allowing us to create an endless playlists of amazing things.

That light of super-ness changes us. We no longer want mere presentations, we want the best, greatest, the most extraordinary presenters alive, as in TED. We don’t want to watch people playing games, we want to watch the highlights of the highlights, the most amazing moves, catches, runs, shots, and kicks, each one more remarkable and improbable than the other.

This is not true for everyone. Highlight reels get boring, fast.  They show people we don’t know doing things in places we’ve never been. We have no emotional stake in what happens. The lack of contrast with the ordinary makes each clip less potent than it would be on its own.

Amazing things can be meaningless. The spectacle of a stranger has no personal significance.

But watching your son play in his first high school basketball game, or your best friend get up on stage at karaoke for the first time, even if neither results in any performance worthy of anyone else’s interest, will mean a great deal to you. Someone you care about will have done something that mattered to you and to them, transcending any universal evaluation of how probable it was or wasn’t.

For many people the video they care about most is meaningless to the rest of the planet. And same goes for their memories too.

I am unsure of what this intimacy with the improbable does to us. What happens if we spend all day exposed to the extremes of life, to a steady stream of the most improbable events, and try to run ordinary lives in a background hum of superlatives? What happens when the extraordinary becomes ordinary?

It’s possible it has little or no effect. For decades television has been a box of improbable events, churning out endless scenes of unlikely situations, played out by absurdly beautiful people. Mostly the effect has been nil, or worse, has drawn many people to spend much of their free time watching more television.

It’s meaning that matters. An endless hi-def video stream of amazing things may have zero effect on our courage to decide what has meaning, and to get off our asses to do something about it.

How to Run a Good Workshop

Workshops are hopeful things. They’re sold on so much promise, but that promise is often dashed as students discover their expert instructor is far from an expert at teaching them how to learn anything.

For years I was a workshop guy: I taught them, I studied them, I even hired people to do them for other companies. I watched many instructors run them and I know the common mistakes. Here’s my best advice on how run a workshop people will love.

Rule #1: A 3 hour lecture is not a workshop

The word workshop implies that work will be done in a shop like atmosphere. This means the center of attention should be on the students doing work, not on the expert talking  about their expertise. A cooking workshop means students cook things. A writing workshop means students write things. If most of your “workshop” is people not actually making anything, you should perhaps call it a class, a lecture, or a mistake.

Many experts are bad at teaching workshops because they are used to lecturing. A lecture has the spotlight on the speaker, but a workshop has the spotlight on each of the students.

The skills involved in designing workshops are very different for this reason. Instead of crafting a message for people to listen to, a good workshop is crafted to give students the opportunity for guided instruction in doing things.  Many workshops are born from lectures, which explains why those workshops are so boring.

Rule #2: The more students you have, the less of a workshop it is

Better workshop instructors make larger groups feel more interactive, but beyond 20 or 25 people the instructor is spread thin. The common approach for large groups is to have people work in teams, as they at least get to be interactive with each other while the instructor is helping other students. In bad cases group work is a copout: the exercises aren’t interesting enough, or students struggle to work with annoying strangers who are too pushy or too passive. In better situations, when the students are motivated and the exercises well designed, it can work well (but likely not as potent as time spent being coached in a small group directly by the expert).

Designing exercises for groups of people to work together is hard. And also demands more testing to get right (see #5).

Rule #3: Work the triad: explain, exercise, debrief

The simplest way to construct a workshop is to think in units of 3.

  1. Walkthrough: Show how to do something.
  2. Exercise: Have everyone actually try to do that thing (while you wander around and help people one on one).
  3. Debrief:  lead a discussion of where people got stuck, what parts were fun/hard/frustrating, and what things people learned, or realized they want to learn. Show people’s individual work, rather than your own, to the class to help explain your insights and observations, and as way to invite them to share theirs. Lead a healthy critique session.
  4. Repeat, with a more challenging thing.

These triads can be of different lengths 45 minutes (15/15/15 or 10/20/15) or longer. Its best to start with small things and build to a larger projects as the workshop goes on. It’s fine for the ratios to change. A more challenging exercise might be 1:3:1 (10 minutes, 30 minutes, 10 minutes).

Take breaks regularly. When people stand up and use their bodies for a minute or two their heart rate goes up, and they get energy back. It’s good for their bodies and minds to move around at least every hour or two. Gadget junkies can get their fix and people with biological needs can get that off their mind. Don’t see this as dead time: see it as taking a breather so everyone can bring more energy into the next exercise. Once every two hours is a good rule of thumb.

Rule #4: Stay out of the center

Workshop students come to learn and they can learn from other students often as much as they can from you. But they start as strangers to each other and you are the social link. Be friendly. Be conversational. Ask students who are good at something to help students who have questions on that thing. Do what you can to make everyone comfortable getting feedback from each other and not just from you (you can design exercises to make this happen naturally). The easy mistake is to center everything on you. This works for TV or lectures. This is a failure in a workshop.

Facilitation is the name of the game. It’s your job to create an environment where everyone is comfortable enough to take risks and learn some things. You should laugh, so they can laugh. You should be passionate so they can be passionate. At times you need to be a teacher, other times you’re game show host facilitating what’s going on, and other times you are quietly out of the way, helping people one on one.

Rule #5: Beta test your exercises

The top complaints workshop instructors hear is often “it was too easy” or “it was way too hard.” Using one exercise for 10 or 20 people guarantees a spectrum of experiences.

It takes a surprising amount of work to develop an idea for an exercise into something specific enough to be interesting, but flexible enough for different people. Since every student in a workshop will have different levels of skill, you want each exercise you use to have built in ways to make it harder or easier.

Great teachers let their students know it’s ok to raise their hand and say “Can you make this more/less challenging?” They’ve prepared wrinkles and twists to handle those cases.

It’s a great idea to beta test your exercises, if not the entire workshop. Do a dry run of half the workshop, for free, with the kind of people the workshop will be for. You’ll learn many little things to fix and adjust that will make a huge difference when you do it for the ‘first’ time.

There are tons of books with workshop exercises. If you poke around you can likely find a book for your discipline that will give you many ideas to start from.  Many workshop exercises are horrifically lame, especially ice-breaker type games, but even those can inspire you to think of worthy ones.

Rule #6: Match promises to exercises

Each exercise should be about acquiring a skill, or at least having an experience that helps acquire a skill. List what you believe students will have learned, or experienced, by the time the workshop is over. Use that as your description for the workshop: it’s the promise you are making to students. If your workshop description has a promise than doesn’t map to a specific exercise, either change the description or change your exercises. You’ll find you need to limit your promises, which is good and realistic for everyone.

Rule #7: Always have a whiteboard or flipchart in the room

You never know when you, or a student, might need something big to write on to explain something. In corporate settings you’d be amazed how often the room you are supposed to teach in doesn’t have anything to write on. Digital whiteboards aren’t the same as they often break and take 5 minutes to figure out how to use. Flipcharts are cheap: always make sure there is one available.

Rule #8: The room should look like a workshop when you are done

If its been a true workshop there will be papers, drawings, diagrams, sketches, post-it notes and other made things all over the place. Tape the output of each exercise up on the walls so people can refer to them later. The room should look like a place where a real group of workers had been working on projects all day.  Students should leave feeling like they’ve done work, and have some work they can take home with them if they choose.

Rule #9: Build a workshop checklist

There are many things to bring and remember. When you do your beta test of exercises, make notes on all of the equipment you need to bring (e.g. markers, pens, post-it notes, flip-charts, etc.), and what things students need to bring (of which you will have an extra set or two for forgetful students). You never want to have to waste time in the workshop searching or waiting for things. Build a checklist of all the things you need to bring, and put it all in briefcase or box so its ready to go.

Rule #10: Give students the next thing to do after they leave

Students didn’t come for the day: they came to keep learning. Have the next logical exercise or project available on your website, or  in whatever materials you give them. Also include a small list of the best books or other resources they’re likely to need.

You are not what you measure

On the day you die, what will your friends and family remember about who you were?

At work, they may try to measure you with numbers, but to your spouse, children and friends those measurements are meaningless. They know you from how you have helped them and hurt them. How you loved them or rejected them. What is measured about you in numbers has little bearing on the experience the people who matter most have.

There is value in careful measurement. Carefully chosen data can help us see. We are easily distracted, and good information can remind us to tend first to the important things we’d overlook in our daily chaos. I like the ideas in the film Moneyball, where wise use of information helped people see more clearly what the true value of people’s talent was.

But the trap is what is easiest to measure is nearly always the least important thing. You can measure kisses per day, but that won’t tell you how much you’ve loved someone. It won’t tell you what they’d prefer you do instead, or how they felt about you when you ignored them the rest of the day. Bad, easy data is always the most abundant kind.

And even good data can be used in dumb ways. Any measurement can be gamed. The person with the highest score may be the one who has the least integrity.

It’s a mistake to allow data to be a god. Data is dead. Numbers don’t know why they were created. Data, if granted the power, can lord over people mercilessly without any awareness that it’s out of date, behind the times, or having the opposite effect its creators intended. It is wise to be informed by data, but only a fool is data’s slave. You are more than what is measured about you.

Damp garbage and the writing process

John Steinbeck, in Writers at Work, recounts a fictional dialog with a publisher, illustrating the gauntlet of publishing a book.

His tale is cranky and entertaining, and I’m sure some authors can relate:

The book does not go from writer to reader. It goes first to the lions – editors, publishers, critics, copy readers, sales department. It is kicked and slashed and gouged. And its bloodied father stands attorney.

Editor: The reader won’t understand. What you call counterpoint only slows the book.

Writer: It has to be slowed. How else would you know when it goes fast?

Sales department: The book’s too long. Costs are up. We’ll have to charge five dollars for it. People won’t pay five dollars. They won’t buy it.

Writer: My last book was short. You said then that people won’t buy a short book.

Proofreader: The chronology is full of holes. The grammar has no relation to English. On page so and so you have a man look in the World Almanac for steamship rates. They aren’t there. I checked. You’ve got the Chinese new year wrong. The characters aren’t consistent. You describe Liza Hamilton one way and then have her act a different way.

Editor: You make Cathy too black. The reader won’t believe her. You make Sam Hamilton too white. The reader won’t believe him. No Irishman ever talked like that.

Writer: My grandfather did.

Editor: Who’ll believe it.

2nd editor: No children ever talked like that.

Editors: Lets see if we can fix it up. It won’t be much work. You want it to be good, don’t you? For instance, the ending. The reader won’t understand it.

Writer: Do you?

Editor: Yes, but the reader won’t.

There you are… You came in with a box of glory, and there you stand with an arm full of damp garbage.

He then takes all the criticism together to show how contradictory it can seem:

The Reader:

  • He is so stupid you can’t trust him with an idea.
  • He is so clever he will catch you in the least error.
  • He will not buy short books.
  • He will not buy long books.
  • He is part moron, part genius, part ogre.
  • There is some doubt as to whether he can read.

From Writers at Work, The Paris review interviews, 4th series.

How To Write A Good Bio

Many good people write bad bios for themselves. Anyone asking you for a bio, or reading it, wants you to sound awesome, but what they need and what your ego wants to say are often different things. With these five simple rules you can write a good bio for yourself in less time, with less effort and everyone wins.

1. Impressive people have short bios

Compare this:

Bob Smith won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, twice. He invented air. He’s currently the head of Amazingness at Wonderment University.

With this:

Bob Smith spent 2001-2004 staring blankly at piles of yard waste in Atlantic City, NJ. During the better part of the 90’s he read several mediocre comic books. He studied in 2002-2008 licensing regulations for circus clowns in West Palm Beach, FL. and garnered a second place industry award while merchandising mouse yogurt in Las Vegas, NV. He consulted in near-UFO experiences with random tourists on the street in Ocean City, NJ. and spent two years unsuccessfully licensing cannibalism for farmers, while maintaing his Pez dispenser collection.*

Everyone wants your bio to be shorter. The shorter your bio, the more people will read it. No one is impressed by a long series of unimpressive things. If you have a great one sentence bio, people will be curious enough to find out more. On the other hand, if you have a bad and long bio they are certain never to want to learn anything about you. When you are famous enough to appear on TV or write an article for The New York Times, your by-line will be a few words long: Author. Senator. Musician. Keep this in mind. The goal is to make your bio shorter, not longer.

2. Write for the real audience

If you are asked for a bio because you are speaking somewhere, perhaps Ignite Seattle, shape your bio to best fit what you are speaking about. Your bio will be read by people at that event to help them understand why you’re credible on your topic.

For example, if you are speaking on fly fishing, don’t do this:

Sally Shmeckes is a software developer and designer who has written code in every language known to mankind.  She works mostly as a hired gun for startups in trouble, who need a superhero to help turn trainwreck projects around. She studied 3-D Film Theory and Anti-Nuclear Architecture at the University of Ridiculousness, and has 3 children if you count her husband.

Do something like this instead:

Sally Shmeckes is a veteran software developer and designer. Her Dad taught her to fly fish before she could walk and she has fished every day since he died. She’s on twitter at @sallyschemkes56.

3. Invert your pyramid

Put the important facts first. The fancy term for this is the inverted pyramid. Assume with each word in your bio that fewer and fewer people will keep reading. It’s a great assumption because it’s true.

This is good:

Bono is the lead singer for the rock band U2. He is an advocate for many important political and social causes. His real name is Paul Hewson. He owns many interesting pairs of glasses.

Not this:

Bono likes the color red, especially on Tuesdays. He loves to drink whiskey (on all days). He learned to drink whisky from his childhood friend Zippo, when they went to school together at Mount Temple Comprehensive School. His real name is Paul Hewson, He is best known as the lead singer for the band U2.

Have two versions of your bio, one two sentences long and a longer full paragraph version. When asked for a bio, provide both. For most marketing materials a short and long version are needed.

4. Be clever only if you’re certain it’s actually clever

From the Department of Made up Facts:

  • Percent of people who think they are clever: 64%
  • Percent of people who are actually clever: 7%

If you think you are clever: write your clever bio and get feedback on it from someone else you know who you’re certain is clever. If they approve, you’re in, but don’t try to be clever all on your own. One good joke in a bio is more than enough.

5. Watch the slashes, Jack

A sad trend born of Twitter are bios where people self describe themselves by a dozen different traits. This makes you look like someone who sucks at everything. It’s fine to be a Jack of All Trades, but to insist on telling everyone you’re a Jack of All Trades mostly makes you Jack of Many Annoyances. Our species has small brains: we need you to tell us the one or two of your trades that will be most relevant to us, or to what you will be talking about.

Instead of this, which seems written like SEO metadata:

Nina Nana is a designer / juggler / smuggler / hellraiser / accountant / anti-ninja / metallurgist / snake charmer

Try this:

Nina Nana is a designer who has mastered juggling, smuggling and many glorious pursuits of diverse ingenuity.

That’s all. Happy bio writing!

[*Note: The second example from #1 is a revised creation of the auto bio generator.]

The Best Books On Public Speaking

A feature of some of my books is a ranked bibliography. I rank books that I read while doing research in the order of their usefulness. Below is the ranked bibliography from Confessions of a Public Speaker, which suggests which books are the most valuable to read.

Warning: trying to learn a skill by reading about it is never as valuable as doing the thing itself. Putting in the time to speak in front of people and getting good feedback is far more efficient and valuable than reading alone. Even posting a 5 minute web video of you practicing giving a talk and asking friends for feedback is a great investment of time.

Popular recent books like Reynold’s Presentation Zen and Duarte’s Slideology didn’t rank high on this list even though I recommend those books often. The reason is both books emphasize slide design which in my experience isn’t the primary place to help speakers improve (which explains why I only spend a few pages in Confessions with advice on slides. Also see: How To Present Well Without Slides). I needed to cover a range of subjects including history, anxiety, business, performance, neuroscience and teaching – and books on my list scored better when I learned the most.

The best books on public speaking, ranked in order of number of notes I made while reading them:

40: What’s the Use of Lectures?, Donald A. Bligh

31: Speak Like Churchill, Stand like Lincoln, James C. Humes

28: Public Speaking for Success, Dale Carnegie (This might be the best of the bunch. Highly recommended)

28: Lend me your ears: All you need to know about making speeches, Max Atkinson

26: Brain Rules: 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving, John Medina

26: History of Public Speaking in America, Robert T. Oliver

25: Money Talks: How to Make a Million As a Speaker, Alan Weiss

23: Um: Slips, Stumbles and Verbal Blunders, Michael Erard

22: Conquer Your Speech Anxiety, Karen Kangas Dwyer

22: The Francis Effect: The Real Reason You Hate Public Speaking (Oakmont Press)

20: What the Best College Teachers Do, Ken Bain

15: The Lost Art of The Great Speech, Richard Dowis

14: Speak for a Living, Anne Bruce

13: How People Learn, National Research Council

12: Secrets of Successful Speakers, Lilly White

(The list goes on for another 25 books – but the value of a ranked bibliography is you’ve now seen the highest ranked ones!)

IMG_6075

ranked