Smart Elephant
Published on 3 Jun 2006 at 3:51 pm by John |
2 Comments |
Trackback
Filed under The Cargo Cults of Business, In Corporations We Trust.
Okay, this is pretty silly, but I couldn’t help making the comparison. There are some things it’s best to not even start. Given the treadmill most people of my acquaintance are on professionally, I think we all have a lesson to learn from this elephant.
How about: "If you’re forced to walk the corporate treadmill hold out for more than peanuts."
OK, that was kind of lame, but I still found the story amusing.
Correlation vs. Causation
Published on 2 Jun 2006 at 12:00 pm by Ringo |
No Comments |
Trackback
Filed under The Cargo Cults of Business.
I had two interesting discussions lately into which the distinction between correlation and causation entered. In the first case a six-year-old boy remarked that a radio commentator’s argument could be likened to (he said "was the same as”) saying that every time people put up umbrellas the streets flood, so umbrellas cause flooding. I laughed out loud at his remark but was taken aback when I realized that he was making a distinction I’d been unable to impress upon adults in a discussion a few weeks earlier.
In the earlier case I remarked, "Correlation doesn’t imply causality." This statement (which I thought a commonplace) was greeted with blank stares and then denial. How can grown people with advanced college degrees and long and productive careers behind them be ignorant of such a thing? What kind of follies has it led them to over their lifetimes? The mind boggles.
Here’s my guess about how people fall into this trap. The answer is three fold:
1. The fallacy is pervasive; it is an accepted part of pop culture. Listen to the radio, read the newspaper, watch a little TV, and like the 6-year-old you’ll find it there. People become accustomed to this type of argument and then repeat the form.
2. Correlation is an excellent way to form a hypothesis about causation. While it seems absurd to believe that umbrellas cause flooding, it is not unreasonable to use it to form a hypothesis which one could then test.
3. Perhaps the most insidious of all is the question of necessity without sufficiency. Since the lack of correlation is a perfectly good argument to refute causality the very human impulse toward symmetry tempts us to believe that the opposite is also true. If I assert that umbrellas cause flooding, you may successfully refute me with a visit to a busy beach on an August afternoon with a hot sun blazing and no signs of flooding. If honest, I would at least have to retreat into "usually" or "sometimes" — qualifiers, which by their nature suggest complex or multiple causes. Unfortunately while correlation doesn’t imply causation, neither does necessity imply sufficiency.
I should also say a word about a word… "Imply" I suppose the use of "imply" to mean something like "hint at" is legitimate, but I’m using it (and usually hear it) more as something like "requires by the nature of it."
Just Whistle?
Published on 1 Jun 2006 at 12:06 pm by John |
No Comments |
Trackback
Filed under The Cargo Cults of Business, Pure Geek, Main Stream Media.
A little off topic perhaps, but I found this story very interesting:
Dolphins Play the Name Game, too.
What a cool thing. I have all sorts of questions about how they did the experiments and how they can tell a response which indicates recognition of the "Hey, that’s Joe" variety from the "Hey, what the heck was that?" variety.
Also the story has been being related as a story about Dolphins having names when I think that’s not really exactly what’s going on. It’s something more like the call signs airplane pilots use in a traffic pattern. "Katana 2-9-0 Delta-Alpha, turning final" Sure other pilots recognize it, but it becomes a name when one of them answers using that call sign to identify them. A whistle can convey a lot of meaning, Lauren Bacall’s famous movie line comes to mind, or the "come here" whistle, or the "wolf whistle". But does that make those words?
What I’d like to know is if one dolphin has a way of using that "name" to refer to a third dolphin. It seems like that would require other language… What about merely using it in the second pers… er… cetacean, to call to a friend or family member?
Still, neat stuff.
The P in PR stands for Public
Published on 31 May 2006 at 10:10 pm by Oliver |
No Comments |
Trackback
Filed under Business and Corporation Related, Main Stream Media, Branding and Values, Public Relations and Marketing.
Everyone knows that the P in PR stands for public, but for many busy companies, PR consists of press releases and nothing more.
But editors don’t buy your products. And while there is no finer, classier, more charming, or better-looking class of humans than the folks who edit magazines, ultimately you must reach your buyers, not just editors.
Press releases have their place. But according to one study, a typical editor at an electronics-industry magazine receives 43,297,336,817 press releases each and every day. (We’re not sure who did this study; it may be the same people who predicted the growth of video conferencing. Our editor friends do tell us they get quite a number of press releases.)
Who is _your_ public? You need a specific answer to this; you may even need more than one. But whether there is one narrowly-defined group or lots of groups, you should develop a specific idea of who this person is and why he might be interested in your message.
This rule applies all the more to broadly-targeted products. Take lightbulbs. Everyone uses lightbulbs, and needs them. But a press release that begins:
"New York - Dim Glow (DMGL, NYSE, a worldwide maker of lamps, bulbs, and illumination devices) today announced its new line of BRI-TER ™ edison-base incandescent lamps. These new lights, targeted at home and office applications, are compatible with AC and DC power sources and offered in a range of wattages in both 120V and 240V version….."
Yawn. Sure, they’re nice lights, and we all need lights, but the text doesn’t really grab, does it?
But let’s define the public a little more clearly. One class of buyer is the thrifty homemaker. She works hard to maintain a nice home for her family, but has to be careful with her budget. She’s interested in things she can do to make her modest home a little more distinctive, and she fancies that she has a bit of style, even on a limited budget. She’s concerned about the environment, and recycles when she can. We’ll call her Alice.
"New York - Dim Glow (DMGL, NYSE, a worldwide maker of lamps, bulbs, and illumination devices) today announced a new line of lamps specfically designed to improve the feel and mood of indoor illumination, while offering costs savings in operation. Called BRI-TER, the lamps offer a warm overall glow, but with a hint more blue to give home interiors just a bit of snap. A new filament process allows 12% brighter operation on the same amount of current.
"They’re not for everyone or every use" says Horkle Finkbutter, VP of Incandescense at Dim Glow. "We wanted to develop a bulb that would make living nicer - a warmer glow, but efficient. A brighter glow, but without glare. These lights are for people who want a little more from a light. Use them in living rooms, bedrooms, dens. Closets or garages? Why bother? These lights are for living."
In addition to saving electricity, Dim Glow announced a free recycling program. Every retailer will accept Dim Glow lamps - all types - in return, and they’ll be sent back to the factory. Dim Glow says that over 95% of the bulb can be reprocessed and used to make new bulbs."
See? Figure out who _your_ public is, and talk to them. They’ll listen. The editorial community won’t mind, either, as long as you remember to work in the essential elements of any announcement. Editors don’t want to write boring junk any more than readers want to read it.
So break out of the formulaic mold of most press releases! Write like you care! Keep it short, put in the important stuff, and leave the boring stuff for the data sheet.
Copyright 2005 Oliver Heaviside
Career Networking - no quotes
Published on 18 Apr 2006 at 12:29 am by Oliver |
2 Comments |
Trackback
Filed under The Cargo Cults of Business, Manifest Masquerade, Principal Acronyms Only, Business and Corporation Related, Networking Technology.
From time to time one discovers that a close friend and colleague of long standing harbors, in some aspect, a world view so outlandish as to make one check the calendar so see if April Fool’s Day has come again so soon. Thus it is with my esteemed co-blogger here at Cargo Cult, the lovely and talented Ringo.
He has posted, on 3 April, on the topic of career networking. For you busy professionals, Ringo sees it as a great evil which ought to be suppressed. The short version of my reply is: (a) it pays to network, and (b) it turns out others are happy when you do it, as they are doing it in return.
But I know my loyal readership hangs on my every word, so herewith a longer version, now that I have a fresh pint of stout and a suitable frame of mind.
Ringo references a typical web site advising on job search techniques. Said site offers six suggestions; to wit:
1. You meet people who might have insight into your job search.
2. You talk to people who know people who could help you out.
3. You chat it up with strangers at parties.
4. You cold-call people you’ve read about in the newspaper.
5. You write cordial letters to prominent community leaders.
6. You cultivate an arsenal of contacts.
Ringo, I, and much of the explored universe agree that item 2 is an entirely reasonable approach. We will say little more about it, except to note that one doesn’t really know which people are the people who know people who can help you until one has chatted them up a bit.
The United States is, depending one one’s point of view, either delightfully or annoyingly commercial. We talk business at the drop of a hat, to friend, acquaintance, and stranger alike. As in any culture, there are unwritten rules for when and how much to engage in such talk, but in general it is an accepted area for social discourse, perhaps second only to sports. It has not been my general experience that inquiries about a new acquaintance’s profession, the business climate, trade and industry news, etc are viewed with disfavor generally. It might be stretching it a bit to ask the grieving widow at a funeral if her late husband’s job has been filled yet. but happily this temptation rarely arises unless one works with very unlucky, and short-lived, people.
Ringo reserves his strongest objections for suggestion 6, the cultivation of an arsenal of contacts. One wonders why? Do we not hand out business cards, conveniently printed on moderately persistent long-term store substrate, and full of ways to reach us? Perhaps we wish to be reached.
There is, I believe, a common thread to all these suggestions. When we contact an individual regarding job possibilities, we implicitly promise to return the favor when the tables are turned. And indeed, the tables do turn.
So yes, if you are seeking employment, by all means network. You will of course have the presence of mind to maintain the highest levels of courtesy; just as importantly you will strive to make sure you deliver value for the person you’re contacting. Cold-calling an executive at a company which might hire you? Do your homework – what, specifically, do you have to offer that would be of interest to him? His organization has specific needs as well as general ones. He has personal ties and preferences. How can you help him?
Ringo goes on to suggest that people who would engage in social networking as a way of furthering employment goals tend to have these personality traits:
1. Aggressive
2. Insensitive to others
3. Perhaps over confident
4. Willing to cynically manipulate people
5. Insincere
6. Disrespectful of the work/home boundary
7. Perhaps unaware of the conventions of polite social interaction
8. Or, perhaps merely obsequious, needy, or desperate
Well.
Is it aggressive to call someone? Suggest a lunch meeting with a former colleague?
In America, at least, one can often (though not always) bring up business without being seen as rude, boorish, insensitive, etc. And I certainly hope it’s not “over-confident” to suggest that one might actually be able to offer a service of some economic value.
Cynical manipulation does not enter into it. The other person knows exactly what you’re doing, and why. Quite possibly they’re pleased to know that now someone owes them a favor, as (unknown to you) they are considering leaving their current position, or perhaps fear it will leave them.
The transaction need not be insincere. Most commercial transactions have a sort of default level of sincerity, we neither wish great evil nor overwhelming good on the other party, only that they are happy with the transaction. Is that not enough? This is employment, not marriage.
Items 6 and 7 are subsets of 2; there is no reason, in our culture, why this process cannot be engaged in politely. And if you are obsequious, needy, and desperate, you might wish to cast about, via networking, for a good shrink.
Ringo makes the excellent point that hiring managers should not hire based merely on friendship or social contact. Indeed, that is correct, but we are not talking about a hiring decision. Networking is about making sure our skills and abilities are known to prospective employers. And mailing resumes ain’t the only way to do that.
We live in a fast-changing world. It’s often the case that people don’t know what sorts of options and solutions are available to meet their needs; sometimes even needs they didn’t really know they had. Have you never discovered a product or service that, upon first seeing it, thought perfect to address some aspect of your life that you hadn’t really thought about addressing? You, and your skills, might be just the solution for someone who doesn’t even quite know how to describe his problem yet, let alone formulate his requirements. Do him a favor – let him know (politely) that you exist!
Copyright 2006 Oliver Heaviside
Career Networking
Published on 3 Apr 2006 at 12:27 pm by Ringo |
1 Comment |
Trackback
Filed under The Cargo Cults of Business, Manifest Masquerade, Principal Acronyms Only.
As an IT executive and hiring manager, I’ve been giving the job search process some thought for some time. On the whole the process doesn’t seem to be serving any of the participants very well. In particular, the practice of "Career Networking" seems to me to be a source of problems. Here is a very typical example of the kind of advice I’ve seen quite frequently.
The second paragraph is the meat of the thing, in it “networking” is defined.
Let’s examine that paragraph. There are 6 suggestions:
1. You meet people who might have insight into your job search.
2. You talk to people who know people who could help you out.
3. You chat it up with strangers at parties.
4. You cold-call people you’ve read about in the newspaper.
5. You write cordial letters to prominent community leaders.
6. You cultivate an arsenal of contacts.
Of the six, item 2 strikes me as reasonable, acceptable, and sensible. The rest range from making a nuisance of oneself to being down-right obnoxious. Imagine the reactions of the recipients of these “networking” attentions. I’m sure that prominent community leaders will be the least inconvenienced since staff members will move such letters to the circular file with great efficiency and dispatch.
Cold calls of the kind described are usually screened by office staff or technology, but they do occasionally get through. My experience of receiving such calls is that the recipient is embarrassed and inconvenienced, and frequently feels the need to find some sort of face saving way of getting rid of the unwelcome call without actually responding to rudeness with rudeness. Hardly the mental state which will predispose one to help with the caller’s job search.
Suggestion 3 is merely a specific case of suggestion 1. Both amount to taking advantage of social situations and interactions in order to buttonhole the unsuspecting with boorish requests for favors. I feel the agony of the poor soul sipping a drink at a party and searching desperately for an exit. “Oh, I think I hear my mother calling me, or maybe it’s the boss, gotta run. “ (This becomes especially egregious in a later paragraph of the article, section 4, which declares that there is no shelter from these attentions. "Networking Knows No Boundaries")
In some ways suggestion 6, in that second paragraph, (ie. cultivating an arsenal of contacts), is the most objectionable. Perhaps I’m reading more into it than is there, but isn’t this nothing less than a cynical suggestion that we maintain a sham interest in people for business purposes? I have no problem with the suggestion that one should stay in touch with one’s contacts and communicate about the job search in the context of those relationships. It is also true that some people form friendships easily and have a vast "arsenal of contacts." But to suggest that one should form relationships with job placement in mind strikes me as going one step too far. I also doubt that this technique would be effective for anyone who would needed to be told to pursue it.
Interestingly, as the article cited continues, it actually makes reference to the importance of being polite and well mannered. I simply don’t believe it’s possible to be rude in a well mannered way. I will however join the author of the article in saying "If you want to be treated with respect, treat others with respect." By which I would mean that I urge refraining from "career networking" outside of a real and pre-existing social network.
From another viewpoint, this process doesn’t work well as a means of selection. It’s pretty clear that hiring those we know personally or those who have been referred by those we know personally, makes a lot of sense, since it is so difficult and expensive to evaluate the skill set and cultural fit of someone entirely unknown. But, “Networking” takes this too far. Consider the kinds of personalities this process favors:
1. Aggressive
2. Insensitive to others
3. Perhaps over confident
4. Willing to cynically manipulate people
5. Insincere
6. Disrespectful of the work/home boundary
7. Perhaps unaware of the conventions of polite social interaction
8. Or, perhaps merely obsequious, needy, or desperate
Do you want the person this process selects reporting to you? Do you want them on your team? Do you want them in contact with your clients?
Furthermore, it’s a process that, with the arguable (I’d argue with it, but not today.) exception of sales, does nothing to evaluate any of the hard skills necessary to perform a job. In technical and engineering disciplines, in fact, "Career Networking" is probably as good a system as could be constructed to screen out qualified candidates in favor of those who are not. In the technical and engineering sub-culture, I think most would agree with me that the behavior described here is the earmark of a poseur.
In the end, I hardly know what to suggest. Where do we take hold? Those who are hiring managers can continue to have their calls screened and make a serious effort to hire based upon ability and cultural fit rather than through some obscure sense of social obligation or the short term ease of hiring candidates who press themselves upon them rather than the higher quality candidates they’ll have to seek out.
"Networking" is also frequently proposed as a response to the fact (if it is, indeed, a fact) that most jobs are not posted. This too, is a step we can take. If our organizations have a need, let us take the time and energy to evaluate that need, describe it clearly, budget for compensation, and post it. There are many conflicting demands on a leader’s time, but surely defining the roles within the organization and selecting the best team members must take a very high priority.
All of us can also refuse to tolerate this kind of boorishness. The difficulty there is in not answering rudeness with rudeness. I suppose we’ll all need to cultivate the fine art of making our excuses.
EU to Admit Linux
Published on 20 Mar 2006 at 9:37 pm by Oliver |
No Comments |
Trackback
Filed under Uncategorized, The Cargo Cults of Business, Technopolitical, Business and Corporation Related, Pure Geek, Information Technology, Open Source Software, Legal, Law, and Courts, Government: Federal, State and Local, Economics and the Economy, Public Relations and Marketing.
Brussels, Belgium, 15 March 2006 - In a surprise move today, the EU Council of Ministers announced it was approving the admission of Linux to the EU, with full voting status. This marks the first time the EU has admitted a non-nation-state entity to its ranks.
"The traditional concept of the territorial nation-state is obsolete." said Jean-Pierre Bourchard de Groot, Minister for IT Acquisitions. "For too long we have clung to the idea that community is defined by geography, but let’s face it, who even knows his neighbors anymore? One’s friends are all online. The EU should admit new communities based on their online status, not geographic location."
Ministry spokespersons claimed that Linux is a truly European Community, having been created primarily in Europe and by Europeans. Its widespread deployment is said to reflect the power and influence the EU seeks in world affairs. Thus, the acquisition expands the EU not only in terms of population, but information. Ministers claim that the EU now owns 55% of the world’s data, namely all that stored in open-source databases.
"It’s a bold move" said Dr Ima Semarté, a foreign policy specialist at the Barkings Institution. "With one move they’ve expanded globally, but more importantly, they have asserted first claim to cyberspace. This is a milestone as important as Christopher Columbus claiming the New World."
Speaking on condition of anonymity, ministers were frank about the reasons for the surprising move. "The EU constitution is dead." said one, "and there is no way member states are going to support further eastward expansion. We’re up to our armpits in Polish plumbers as it is. So this is the only way to grow. Grab Linux. It’s ours, now."
Linux is installed on nearly 300 million machines worldwide, according to IDC. Revenue growth is forcasted to be above 20% CAGR for at least the next five years.
But not everyone agrees with the EU’s move. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan praised the bold nature of the move, but expressed concern over possible implications for the UN. "If we are to begin admitting so-called ‘free’ software, I am concerned that the UN may not have access to the sources of money its officials have come to rely on." Annan denied rumours that Microsoft had already applied for permanent membership on the UN Security Council. "They have enough veto power as it is," he said.
Asked at a press conference about the EU’s move, US President Bush said, "EU? What’s that?"
Linus Torvalds could not be reached for comment.
Copyright 2006 Oliver Heaviside
The First Semiconductor
Published on 10 Mar 2006 at 12:21 pm by Oliver |
No Comments |
Trackback
Filed under Networking Technology, Pure Geek, Information Technology.
Your correspondent was enjoying a fine barley-based beverage recently when he was accosted by a young lady who, happily, was not involved in the electronics industry.
"I’ve been reading about Bob Noyce" she said, "and how the IC got invented. It’s fascinating! I was never too sure what the difference was among ‘IC’ and ’semiconductor’ and ‘chip’ and ‘transistor’ but I am beginning to understand part of it."
Good, your correspondent thought, no tough questions here. Perhaps another sip to relax…
"But what I don’t understand is, what was the first semiconductor? And who invented it? And why?"
Indeed, perhaps there would be some hard questions after all. A quick refill seemed in order.
"Galena was probably the first. Galena - a form of lead sulphide - is a common mineral. Oddly enough it was discovered before radio was invented. A chap named Braun discovered the effect in galena, and several other minerals, in 1874."
The young lady seemed intrigued. "Why didn’t the transistor get invented sooner, then?"
"My dear, there wasn’t radio yet" your correspondent said, waggling a finger for a refill. "Little point, really, in inventing a radio receiver when there isn’t a transmitter, and for that matter you don’t know what radio is, yet. But a number of scientists and tinkerers investigated it, and electromagnetic waves in general. Interestingly, what was perhaps the first demonstration of radio took place in Calcutta in 1895, some six years before Marconi. A chap named J. C. Bose demonstrated radio transmission, through walls and people even, and even built the first radio-controlled apparatus. But as is so often the case, the full potential wasn’t realized - the distance covered was only a hundred feet or so; what use could there be for that?"
The young lady’s eyes began to glaze. Best to wrap this up quickly, then. "The vacuum tube detector was invented and followed quickly by the vacuum tube amplifier. That ability to amplify put vacuum - or hollow-state, as we like to call it - ahead for a generation. Freshen that drink for you, then?"
She purred. "Dunkel hefeweizen, please."
Copyright 2006 Oliver Heaviside
Guarding the Guardians
Published on 10 Mar 2006 at 12:14 pm by Oliver |
No Comments |
Trackback
Filed under The Cargo Cults of Business, Blogosphere.
A loyal reader writes in to inquire:
Tell me, Oliver, if it isn’t the media and press keeping an eye on your politicians, who is going to?
Safely ensconced in Munich, malt beverage at hand, I reply:
It’s a good question, my friend. Seriously. I think ultimately the question is about who are, and are not, what I will call the Keepers of the Received Wisdom. One might also call them the priesthood.
I think that _anytime_ you have a group of people who become, by whatever means or process, the guardians of the "Truth", sooner or later they become more concerned with guarding themselves than they do with discovering and promoting the truth.
The press have fallen into that trap. They think they’re somehow more noble than the rest of us. The folks who write the blogs, both right and left, are collectively doing a better job of getting the truth out than the media.
Ultimately, the correct approach is one that the science community uses, or at least professes to use. Scientists are human and fail in their aspiartions, but at least they strive to uphold the idea of fully open and free debate, publish ALL your data, keep NO secrets, and if you disprove your own theory you get as much praise as if you prove it, because either way you have expanded the total amount of human knowledge.
Blogs, websites, podcasts, and all such similar things which serve to democratize the media will, I think, bring about a revolution as big as the printing press. That press took around a hundred years to have its effect, in the form of the Reformation - brought about when ordinary folks could buy and read Bibles, and could stop depending on the priests’ interpretation.
Things move a bit faster now - now half so much faster as some breathless prognosticators like to predict, but it
is happening. The next twenty to fifty years will see big changes in democracy, as the digital naitves come of age and assume control of society.
Sooner or later, every successful revolutionary becomes the establishment. It’s happened to the Post and the Times; they are not the guardians they were thirty years ago. But who will guard the guardians now?
Prost! (he says from a bar in München…)
Copyright 2006 Oliver Heaviside
A Hacker’s Eye View of Disruptive Computing Technologies
Published on 8 Mar 2006 at 10:00 am by Paul |
No Comments |
Trackback
Filed under The Cargo Cults of Business, Thanks for Playing, Winners and Losers, Technopolitical, Business and Corporation Related, Networking Technology, Information Technology, Open Source Software, Economics and the Economy.
Remembering SGI
I was recently in a list group discussion about the recent layoffs at SGI. Whenever I see a former industry titan on the ropes, I can’t help showing my age by rambling on about tech industry history and the endless cycles of disruption that seem to plague it. Since these days I’ve actually got a community blog at my disposal, this time I thought I’d share my mental wanderings with the world. Who knows, if you agree with one of my former managers at Cisco that I "have an amazing ability to predict market trends and directions", maybe you’ll be able to pick up a dollar or two in the stock market. 
[It’s worth noting that since this is an impromptu ramble, I’m doing this all from memory. Bit errors are bound to happen, and of course since this is an opinion piece, YMMV :-]
Speaking with a 20+ year perspective on the technology industry, most of the churn in tech companies seems to be due to the impact of "disruptive" technologies. Now, unless one has actually read Clayton Christiansen’s book, The Innovator’s Dilemma, that statement won’t make much sense since the media quickly seized on "disruptive" as a cool, fly term for "better." But that ain’t any of it, and a pox on the media for scrambling up the discussion of such an important phenomena that we now have to pen paragraph-long discalimers before using the term. 
The best way to get a handle on how disruptive technologies work is to read Christiansen’s book:
If you are employed in the tech industry, it would behoove you to grok this concept since it’s extremely useful in determining whether the exit from an employer will be stage right with cashed out stock options, or stage left in a Chapter 13 layoff. But since I want to introduce some additional concepts on top of Christiansen’s dynamic, if you will, I’m going to offer a (somewhat) brief recap of the main concepts. (Christiansen, of course, does a much better job of exposition at the core concept of disruption.)
Read on…
