The news and expert pundits have been criticizing law enforcement in the JC missing person case. (If you aren’t aware of the 18 year missing persons case referred to as JC simply Google it and you will learn all about it). The basic facts, as I understand them, are that JC was kidnapped 18 years ago near Lake Tahoe and was not located until last week. When she was found (now age 29) she was living in the back yard among tents with two children and the man that took her (and his wife?) lived in a house on the property. That the accused kidnapper was a parolee and had many visits to his property by parole officers and the sheriff had responded to complaints about people living in the backyard in some form of tent village. That the sheriff that responded advised the accused that there could be a code violation but did not investigate further.
News pundits, proclaimed experts, and local citizens are, of course, outraged as to how this could be happening in their community and why wasn’t there some form of inspection years earlier that could have returned JC to her family earlier.
First, I am not an apologist for poor supervision of parolees nor for less than thorough police work. What I want to remind people is that once facts are known, it is easy to retrace and find earlier patterns where those facts were present. This is what I term Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Now that I know that an event has occurred, I can find all the earlier traces of that fact pattern and point out to everyone that the evidence was there but that clearly the person looking at the information/evidence was blind to it. And therefore, by insinuation, the original people looking at the fact pattern must be incompetent.
Those conclusions are incorrect. The challenge we are faced with is best summed up in the book Why We Make Mistakes. One of the reasons we make mistakes by not seeing what is there, is that we (people) aren’t designed well to see things that are present that aren’t suppose to be there.
For example - too frequently, when a woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, her older films will be reviewed and to the shock of all people, the signs of the cancer will have been in those prior x-rays and were there maybe for years. Why didn’t those other experts see it? Because it wasn’t suppose to be there. We frequently do not see that which doesn’t belong. It is why eye witnesses are terrible witnesses, we don’t see. But, once I know it is there, I can find it because I know it is there.
Another example. TSA agents frequently fail tests where guns and other nasties are sent through screening because something like 1 bag in a million has a nasty in it. Hence they don’t see the item because it is isn’t suppose to be there.
The same thing for parole officers and sheriffs. They interview on the porch a parolee, and ask questions and they look for signs that suggest they should ask more and inspect more. Absent those signs, the move on. They aren’t thinking that “hey, maybe I should inspect the back yard because 10+ years ago a girl was stolen and she could be living in a tent city in this property”. She wasn’t suppose to be there and hence they didn’t look. Now that we know about it, we see the signs.
And because we can now see the signs we project that the prior officers should have seen the signs then and now people want those officers to suffer some form of punishment. Hogwash.
The mistakes were made because we are people. We don’t see what is there. That applies to you, to me, to our children, our bosses, and our officials. We think we see and we don’t.
The way to improve our chances is to re-evaluate how we look, synthesize, challenge, observe, and inquire. Give the officers a break and recognize that because we already know more than they did then that it is unjust to openly attack their judgement.
I wish for a better future for JC as I can only imagine the trauma and experiences she has had. That the people who abducted her shall face the stiffest of penalties, and that the agencies involved in supervision of parolees and investigation of crimes continue their best efforts to observe what is difficult to see.
Yesterday, on the front page of the Wall Street Journal opposition to the billable hour went mainstream - ‘Billable Hour’ Under Attack. The article begins, “With the recession crimping legal budgets, some big companies are fighting back against law firms’ longstanding practice of billing them by the hour.”
In addition, the Journal also posted this accompanying video, in which the client (Pfizer) lays down the law (of economics that is) to her firms. While there is much here to agree with, she misses an important point. No billing by the hour can be financially beneficial to the firm as well. The question that I have for these firms is will you now eliminate the time sheet? Your customer has just told you that you have no reason to keep them. If anyone out there works for one of these firms, please let us know what the buzz is.
While reading Dan Ariely’ book, Predictably Irrational and specifically the chapter regarding Social Norms, he made reference to educational achievement (or the lack there of in the United States) and that started me thinking.
Ariely’s thesis is that the problem with our overall failure in public education is that we have moved the relationship between educators (teachers, administrators, parents, students, and communities) from one of a strong social context (think the value proposition of your local charity {baseball league with concerned and talented parents lining up to assist, scouting organizations, churches, etc.}) to one of a marketplace contract.
That all of this “talk” of treating education like a business has created the unintended (negative IMHO) consequence of less true professionalism in education and one more attuned to a factory setting where children are the “product”; the teachers are the hourly paid laborers, and the administration is the plant management, and the community/society is the customer receiving less then full and intended value (on the whole at least). Just think of how many times you have heard a business mouthpiece, without a stitch of comprehension of what it takes to be a real teacher, boast about the problem with education is that it is simply not run like a business. Hogwash. Education (at least in our current public system) isn’t a business and we should stop treating it like it is. Sound bite reporting perpetuates our problems and doesn’t solve them.
I think Arierly is on to something here. Back in the day when my mother was a teacher (late 50’s - early 70’s high school typing, shorthand, and briefhand {do they even teach shorthand anymore?) - she was paid less then alternative careers that paid more. She knew that before she signed on. The hours were long (she didn’t have a study break like they do now. I remember her sitting home at night with buckets of homework to grade (having taught at the JC level for several years - I can attest that grading papers is the sour end of a teacher’s employment contract). I remember her students (at the time they could have been current or former - some having returned from Vietnam thanking her for teaching them how to type because that kept them alive as typists and clerks rarely had to go on night patrols) stopping by our home on weekends or evenings to seek her counsel. She didn’t ask for more money or claim of fame for these efforts, they were part of her covenant with the students, district, and our community. She was a professional and yes she earned less then other jobs - but the intrinsic value of her work was superior to the pay.
Sometime after she retired, the contract changed. More money was heaped upon education, and less education occurred. Arts and humanities were scaled back to focus on the three R’s. And overall results weakened. We added more money and cut services and less and less benefits were received. Our contract changed and changed for the worse. By creating a market driven (payroll based) incentives we are receiving poor results because the goods and services are part of a market (they could be if we allowed vouchers and competition to the local schools but that would be another post and not what this one is about).
In my local school district (North Clackamas, just outside of Portland) the teachers union (I suspect without full representation of the teachers they represent) vetoed a pay freeze (the administration and non-teachers accepted a pay freeze last March) and because of budget issues, 60 teachers will lose their job, class sizes will increase, animosity is increasing, the children will receive less, and the social contract continues to weaken). All of this because today we have dramatic influence from market/labor perspectives rather than one of an important social contract, where teaching is more important then money. Teachers need to earn a fair wage, and it may be too late to change back, but I can guarantee you that more money will never solve the education conundrum that we face. Additionally - using market forces and business ideas will also continue to fall short of their theoretical objectives. Sometimes what we had is superior to what we have.
I wrote this in the hopes that you would think about education at a time so many of our children are returning to schools. Full of hopes and dreams. Full of opportunities and brimming with an infinite ideology of bright futures. It is easy and simple (probably simple minded as well) to criticize the public schools system without thinking about how we arrived at our current position and without thinking about how to adjust our course to achieve our desired outcome.
Dan Ariely didn’t say or write most of the above, these are my extensions of his writings - but I think he is onto something. When you confuse the type of contract you have, you get into trouble. When non-profit entities start acting more “business like” and place profits before purpose - they run afoul of their public trust. For schools it is the same thing.
Maybe we would be better served by reducing the wages of teachers to the relative levels they were when my mom started (inflation adjusted to be sure) and then we’ll find people dedicated to teaching and not money - maybe that matters. We all win when we align the objectives and the values. I think this is worth discussing. What do you think?
My next post will extend this social contract to the professions (legal and accounting) as I will discuss that how they approach their non-profit customers may be negatively impacting both the quality of their services, the value they are providing, and the goodwill they are seeking. Look for the connection during the next few days. Until then, think about the above.
CPA Ethics are strong. Teaching ethics to CPAs and other professionals is challenging and frustrating, simultaneously. The opportunity for lively conversation exists, yet CPAs frequently fail to engage. This blog post discusses my thoughts along with a case study that seeks the reader’s opinion.
Even the thought of summarizing the premise of George Gilder’s new book, The Israel Test, causes my mind to reel.
To attempt: The cause of the conflict between Israel and the neighboring Arab countries is not religion (although there are certainly elements) nor racism (although there are certainly elements), but rather it is caused by envy. Israel, in the 60 plus years of its existence, has been extraordinarily successful and the perception is that it has done so by taking from the Palestinians. In short, the conflict is about the zero-sum thinking of demand economics versus positive-sum thinking of supply-side economics. It is about the jealousy felt against people who have attained success and the belief that the only way they could have attained that success is by taking from others.
“The real issue is between the rule of law and the rule of leveler egalitarianism, between creative excellence and covetous ‘fairness’,’ between admiration of achievement versus envy and resentment of it,” Gilder says.
In Part One, Zerizus, Gilder, in his best and most brilliant prose since Wealth & Poverty, develops this premise and destroys any and all arguments against it. He posits his Golden Rule of Capitalism - The good fortune of others is also one’s own. One of the troubles with government, indeed with even democracy, is that government (transfers of wealth) and democracy (elections) are zero-sum, while the economic system, capitalism is positive-sum. This influences the thinking of all leaders in democracies that they need to create an equity of outcomes, not just an equality of opportunity. He terms these people, “handi-capitalists!”
In Part Two, Israel Inside, Gilder introduces us to Jewish and Israel scientists and entrepreneurs who have had a profound influence on the world as we know it and a few, who he believes, are about to have even great influence. Intel’s latest microprocessors, they are coming from Israel; Petaflop networking, from Israel; Wireless high-definition interface standards, from Israel; Algorithms which map the human genome, Israel.
In Part Three, The Paradox of Peace, Gilder puts forth his by far most controversial and thought provoking postulate - the Peace Now movement inside and outside Israel, condemn themselves to Peace Never. Gilder quotes Nobel Laureate Robert Aumann, “If you want peace now, you may well never get peace. But if you have time - if you can wait - that changes the whole picture; then you might get peace now.” Gilder states, “Peace requires the imposition of penalties on aggression.”
Simply said, The Israel Test is not a easy read, but it is absolutely a must-read.
As a follow-up to our blog post on Was Drucker Wrong About Knowledge Workers, senior fellow Paul Kennedy sent me his “brain dump” on the topic.
As usual, Paul contributes a more holistic view of this topic by introducing the concept of positioning.
In this short essay, Paul explains why you can only be more effective in the context of an objective.
Michael Gerber distinguishes efficiency and effectiveness with “what” and “how” questions so:
Efficiency—How do we do this faster? How do I do this with less waste?
Effectiveness—What should we be doing?
But other than that I think definitions as you present them work.
If the challenge is to “how to create and capture value through knowledge workers” then there may be another step in the chain (can you have a step in a chain?)—positioning.
Calling things by their proper name is a big part of the problem. To confuse terminology, Michael Porter in his famous HBR article “What is Strategy?” distinguishes between Operational Effectiveness (OE) and strategic positioning. He defines OE as “performing similar activities better than rivals"—nearer our definition of efficiency.
He goes to explain “OE includes but is not limited to efficiency. It refers to any number of practices that allow a company to better utilize its inputs, by for example, reducing defects in products or developing better products faster” (still sounds like our definition of efficiency!). He goes on to write “In contrast strategic positioning means performing different activities from rivals’, or performing similar activities in different ways.” This sounds more like our definition of effectiveness!
Porter goes on to explain that improvements in OE do not create sustainable advantage as such improvements are quickly copied. Porter points to rapid diffusion of best practice, the outsourcing of some activities often to the same organisations competitors use and role of consultants in ensuring that advantage is at best temporary. OE effectively shifts the bar for everyone but relatively for no one. Becoming more efficient is just a hygiene factor.
Has tax software made the accounting profession more profitable? No, because it has merely raised the bar. It has become a table stake.
Porter argues that to create and capture value in any organisation (including organisations of KWs) in the long term strategic positioning is the only way. My understanding of his theory of strategic positioning is that it is about alignment (he uses the term fit). I think that for a KW to be effective a KW’s capabilities need to be aligned to the needs of the organisation’s customers and the customers need to be chosen to optimise this chance. I think this optimisation of alignment goes beyond effectiveness.
Jim Collins talks about putting people in the right seat of the bus and Kaplan and Norton seek to align intangible assets to financial objectives through the use of strategy maps. These maps articulate an organisation’s theory of value creation and capture through a series of cause and effect links. They make explicit how it is hoped intangible assets are developed, orchestrated and aligned to target customer needs and how this value creation is then captured to meet overall (often financial) objectives.
It seems to me that you can only be more effective in the context of an objective and these cause and effect diagrams we call Strategy maps, go some way to articulate an organisation’s plan for being more effective in the context of an overriding objective. In my experience this is a good way of getting KW alignment to organisational objective and thereby enhancing effectiveness.
But understanding a theory of value creation does not give you a better way of measuring KWs nor, in my opinion, does it matter. Even Kaplan and Norton for all their preoccupation with scorecards don’t try to measure this stuff!
Thanks, Paul, as always your comments are extremely cogent and logical. I missed the topic of positioning, taking it as a given.
Yet as you and Paul O’Bryne teach everyone so well, you can’t value price the wrong customer—hence, positioning and strategy is crucial to this topic.
RSS Feed
0 Trackbacks | Permalink | Choose an Industry: Other