reading review - tribe (the opposite suggestion)

One challenge Sebastian Junger faced as he wrote Tribe was how to use observation, intuition, or indirect evidence to prove a point. A common tactic he used in such situations was to note the absence of an expected observation and use this absence as a compelling starting point for answering a difficult question or making a challenging point.

A good example was how he approached the question – what is missing in life? Junger thought a good way to find possible answers was to observe what spontaneously arose when life was disrupted. Another example was how he studied emigration patterns for hints about what people value when they make major changes. The most startling such example was his note that on the American frontier, settlers often joined Indians yet Indians never joined settlers.

Junger also does very well throughout Tribe in sifting through observational data to make comparisons across groups that are nearly identical save for one attribute that is obviously different. I liked his comment that Northern European societies (and the USA) are among the first in human history to force small children to sleep by themselves and that they are also the only societies where small children bond intensely with stuffed animals. He uses a related technique when he notes that veterans report similar trauma rates irrespective of whether they actively participated in combat, an observation that suggests reentry to society is a much more significant issue for veterans than is commonly acknowledged.

Footnotes / leftover thoughts

0. Two more…

Another thought from Tribe that follows the theme of this post was how the way people miss aspects of a war suggests there is an underlying problem with the way we experience peace.

I also referenced in my original reading review that people who do not sacrifice for the group are unlikely to receive full acceptance from the group. To add to that thought, it is possible that if many or most people who are allegedly in the group do not sacrifice for it, then it is likely the case that the group in question does not actually exist.

tales of two cities, vol 13: may '17, part 2

05/31/2017
Cambridge Main Library at Broadway / Trowbridge St (8:31 pm)
Inman Square at Vellucci Plaza / Hampshire St (8:48 pm)

One of the weird side effects of great innovation is the careless copycat. I thought about this idea the other day when I heard a comment that although today it is easier to start a great company than ever before, it also means that it is easier to start a bad company than ever before. The point is that if the first step doesn't discriminate between those likely to achieve good or bad outcomes, making it easier to take the first step will increase the eventual result of both good and bad outcomes.

I suspect something along these lines happens at times with our bike lanes. The analogy here would mean that a carelessly implemented idea for a new bike lane may or may not result in improved cycling safety. I think about this anytime a perfectly good on-street bike lane gives way to a glamorous, multi-million dollar reconstruction. These shiny new bike lanes often seem to accomplish nothing except wasted money and increased danger to biker, driver, and pedestrian. What adds further insult to the increased risk of injury is how these construction projects take place despite being mere blocks away from far more significant infrastructure problems - giant potholes, faded paint on existing bike lanes, or poorly defined and ill-protected crosswalks.

When the new Western Ave bike lane won awards, it should have come with a warning - one size does not fit all. The process of allocating infrastructure resources should prioritize solving simple but significant issues in obvious problem areas ahead of funding glitzy incremental improvements that are designed to catch the eye of national magazines. As May wraps up, in Cambridge those problem areas include Mass Ave between City Hall and Harvard Square, the two-lane sections of Mass Ave between Porter Square and Arlington, and Prospect Street running between Inman and Central Squares. Those are the places that feature plenty of bike traffic despite poorly defined bike spaces. Those are the places to allocate resources. The 'Hollywood' projects of separated or elevated lanes along already safe roads can wait.

Of course, with all the money poured into Western Ave, I don't expect Cambridge has enough leftover for even the paintbrush needed to repaint a bike lane - my two cents might represent a significant portion of its remaining infrastructure funds. Logically, this means us cycling idealists should keep our hopes up only for Somerville, Cambridge's noisy neighbor and a city I've always felt demonstrated a far more pragmatic approach to its road construction projects. If you'd asked me at this time last year, I would have said Somerville's philosophy is generally to let us ride until repairs are absolutely necessary.

However, on this 2017 trip I admit to myself that recent events are perhaps forcing me to revise my view. Since my start with Hubway in 2015, I've always enjoyed finding excuses to zip southeast from Porter Square down the well paved and cleanly marked bike lane on Beacon Street. This small pleasure was taken away from me in 2016 when MassDOT started road construction and rendered Beacon Street impassable. I wasn't necessarily against the idea because theoretically the new construction on Beacon would greatly improve biking safety - but I'd also never felt unsafe on any prior ride. The construction forced me to take a regular detour onto Somerville Ave, the street that Beacon Street originates from, and as far as I could tell there was never any difference in the safety of Somerville Ave today and the safety of Beacon Street prior to the start of this project.

I recently left the bike in the dock and took a walk down Beacon Street. As far as my untrained eye could see, improved safety did not appear to be a very likely outcome of this project. The new elevated bike lane is bumpier than its on-street predecessor. It also pushes cyclists closer to perpendicular side streets, forcing me to wonder if this project ensures a collision in my future involving a clueless car rolling through the stop-sign free bike lane. Of course, there is still plenty of time - Beacon Street is shut down once again this spring to bike traffic and perhaps the delay means improvements are being implemented in the coming months. I'm not optimistic, but I'll remain open to the possibility.

In the meantime, I continue to zip with no issues up and down Somerville Ave. The street is wide, the bike lanes are clearly marked, and the drivers are aware of their surroundings. Here, the fancy and expensive solutions of elevated or separated bike lanes would feel like overkill.

leftovers - astroball

I was left with a handful of leftover thoughts from Astroball that I thought I should highlight on this space. First, the book taught me a couple of things I didn’t know. One example was how naps have been shown to have very little cognitive effect unless a person went through a full sleep cycle the night before. Another note was how since the Earth isn’t technically round, there are mountains whose peaks are further away from the Earth’s core than Mount Everest.

Then there was the category of things I did know but often forget. One of these notes I want to make sure I remember is that people will often make assumptions about someone’s maturity or character based on how frequently they break eye contact. Another such thought was how a leader’s main role in a team full of divergent opinions is to ensure that everyone understands the final rationale behind divisive decisions.

The final category of leftover thoughts was related to statistics. Astroball points out that the big drawback with regression is its struggle to properly consider outliers. This is related to one of the book’s main themes – the limitations of a purely statistical assessment approach – because people are so varied that we are all outliers in one dimension or another. This means people will eventually disagree with how they are being assessed, especially if the statistical model is known to ignore certain variables. If a decision maker wants to limit the perception that a statistically driven approach is dismissing the key intangibles that are not being measured by the model, it is my advice to always remember that humans are defined not just by their metrics but also by their ability and willingness to adjust, adapt, and evolve. Knowing how to identify a person’s growth mindset and making exceptions for anyone who consistently demonstrates the desire and ability to improve can overcome the limitations of any model.

the 2019 toa awards - podcasts, part 1 (storage bin)

Hi all,

Welcome to part one (finally) of the 2019 TOA Podcast Awards. Today, we’ll look over some of the shows I listen to… but never right away.

The list below is ranked from worst to first. Enjoy!

Honorable mentions

The Luke and Pete Show

This show is evidence of the age-old wisdom that two people talking nonsense is always a surefire formula for a good podcast. Luke and Pete, who I know better for their work on longtime favorite The Football Ramble, take a couple half-hours each week to discuss with humor and enthusiasm any topic that catches their interest.

Unfortunately, although I’ve always enjoyed their shows, it’s been a few months since I last listened to an episode - I've simply chosen to listen to other shows first and such evidence explains how the show lands at the bottom of my current podcast rotation. I suspect by this time next year, there is a good chance I won't consider this show for my 2020 shortlist.

House of Carbs

Around once a week, this podcast takes a closer look at a topic from the world of food. Like with The Luke and Pete Show, I know House of Carbs host Joe House for his regular role on The Bill Simmons Podcast. He brings the same zany but entertaining conversation style to House of Carbs that have made his guest appearances on other shows so enjoyable over the years.

I can’t rank this podcast any higher simply because I’ve realized that the topic isn’t quite right for me – the food discussion is entertaining but I have other podcast topics I prefer. These days, I limit episodes only to those featuring guests I already know – and in an appropriate role reversal, the most frequent of these guests is Bill Simmons.

The Rewatchables

This show breaks down movies in movie-length episodes. My approach to this podcast is very logical – if I liked the movie, I’ll listen to the episode. Unfortunately, I don’t watch anywhere close to enough movies to listen to more than 10% of the shows (and that number will shrink in the future). It’s possible that this show climbs my rankings next year but that would require that I suddenly develop a movie habit. Such a big change to my lifestyle feels unlikely (and might come at the expense of the time I reserve for writing, which would mean the likely end of the these rankings, anyway).

Bookfight

On the surface, this podcast is just like The Rewatchables except that it focuses on books instead of movies. I even pick episodes the same way, only listening to shows featuring a work or author I’m familiar with. Despite all the reading I do, it’s fairly unusual for an episode to come out that I end up listening to – there are simply far more books and authors out there than movies, it seems.

There is a little more to Bookfight that moves it ahead of its cinematically focused counterpart in these rankings. The show follows the classic ‘two people talking nonsense’ formula outlined above for the second half of each episode and I often enjoy this segment of the show more than the portion they spend dissecting the book. I think they might do better if they released the ramblings from the second half-hour as separate episodes instead of as the back end of an hour-long show.

Second runner-up: Call Your Girlfriend

If I recall correctly, I had high hopes for the future of this show in last year’s rankings but it just hasn’t quite worked out for CYG in terms of securing a regular position in my podcast rotation. There are a number of reasons, I suppose, but primary among them is the show's loose focus on politics - I find CYG valuable because I rarely listen to podcasts about politics but I suppose there's also a reason why I don't listen to other podcasts that cover politics. I think at its core CYG is not just about its discussion topics but also about applying those ideas into a certain kind of lifestyle. It’s a lifestyle I can enjoy listening about on these shows from time to time but it’s also clear to me that it isn’t a lifestyle that I’ll exemplify anytime soon.

First runner-up: Hardcore History

Of all the shows on this list, Hardcore History is the most likely to move from the ‘Storage Bin’ category to the ‘ASAP’ for next year’s version of the awards. This isn’t because the show covers urgent topics – most of these marathon episodes cover a chapter of history from long ago. It’s also not because I’m particularly interested in the topics – a 2018 episode was about pain and the various ways people throughout history have made suffering not just a part of life but also a source of entertainment. Good topic (and good show) but not a concept I spend too much time thinking about in my daily routine.

I’m predicting this show will move into the ‘ASAP’ category next year because these shows are consistently excellent, finding ways to use history as a foundation for asking deep questions about human nature and modern civilization. Whenever I get around to listening to these episodes, I find myself wondering why I left Hardcore History on the backburner for so long.

Winner: EconTalk

The weekly discussion on EconTalk always ties back to a larger theme or idea from economics, a subject I majored in, and I find that each show broadens my understanding about how today’s world works and what the various points of view are about how things might change in the future. This show succeeds because host Russ Roberts consistently nudges his guests to teach the audience as the show proceeds by using his superior interviewing skills to slow the pace of the discussion whenever an extended explanation or clarification is required.

There have been times when I’ve treated new episodes of this program with ‘ASAP’ urgency but these days I keep new episodes in reserve until my other shows slow down. This feels like the right rhythm, even if I do find most episodes are worth the wait, because the show’s topics are never pressing or urgent. The exception is for shows featuring guests I’m already familiar with. Those who are interested in starting up with EconTalk could do worse than pulling every episode featuring Mike Munger, the most frequent guest in the show’s history, because I think the episodes with him routinely stand out due mostly to his chemistry with Russ Roberts.

reading review - breakfast with buddha

Breakfast with Buddha by Roland Merullo (August 2018)

Breakfast with Buddha is essentially a delivery vehicle in novel form for a series of insights, observations, and lessons. There is undoubtedly a Buddhist undertone to much of what Merullo conveys to his readers but there is plenty of humor and general wisdom to keep me from describing the book as religious. I came by this book through a recommendation and suggest anyone who is looking for a bit of light reading to give it a try (1).

One thought I liked from the book was about teaching. A good approach for teachers is to never try to convince anyone of anything. This method rang true with me. An effective teacher must acknowledge at some point that the student is responsible for most of the learning. Also, a student who comes to a realization is probably more likely to retain or internalize the knowledge when compared to a student who is convinced by a teacher. In the case of the latter student, at the very least there is a chance the next teacher who comes along can convince him or her of something else.

I also liked the way meditation was described in this book – it means acknowledging a thought for just a moment before letting it float away on the next breath. The description demonstrates why meditation is so commonly associated with calmness and suggests that applying the process of acknowledging and letting go can be a valuable mental tool for situations outside of a meditation session.

Finally, I thought deeply about the comment that people who define themselves by their thinking and intellect sometimes struggle to recognize the effect of their words on others. In many cases, these words come from places of darkness or insecurity. The only way to stand up to an intellectual bully is with supreme calmness.

One up: I enjoyed this response to a fairly offensive comment – you could not offend me.

One down: This book poses some thoughtful questions about modern society that I thought could have benefited from further exploration. Why, for example, does modern society see grown children moving hundreds or thousands of miles away from their parents as a cause for celebration? Why do some people lead good lives just for the sake of it?

One question along these lines did get extended consideration – when the river in Chicago was making people sick, engineers reversed the direction of the water. Why not just clean up the river? As the book noted, most people find it easier to change directions in life when simply cleaning up a little bit instead could make an outsized impact.

Just saying: I can’t really speak to the accuracy of the thought but I did enjoy the comment that Jesus doesn’t want worship, he just wants you to act like him.

Footnotes / should books release singles?

1. Chapter 14…

I marked down chapter 14 for a reread and I suggest it for anyone who might be looking for a few pages of reading to pass the time.

Longtime readers of TOA will note that rereading sections of fiction is an unusual step for me. Chapter 14 – like the rest of the book – is hardly a written masterpiece but I enjoyed the process of reading it a second time. I think this speaks to the modular construction of the book and underscores my point in the first paragraph of how this book was a delivery vehicle for certain lessons Merullo wanted to pass along to his audience.

reading review - plain talk (riff offs about reporting)

Hi all,

The last part of Plain Talk I wanted to cover was about reporting. As I’ve done for a number of books recently, I’ll take a few of Ken Iverson’s ideas and try to riff off of them whenever I see the opportunity to add a note or two of my own.

Good luck, reader.

Gather information that is as easy as possible for others to put together.

Try to gather information that tells you what you must know during ordinary times while also giving advance warning of upcoming ‘extraordinary’ times.

Information overload tends to come with unneeded explanation.

These three thoughts, though basic, strike me as just the sort of thing that anyone can lose sight of if a reporting process is put together without taking a moment to consider basic principles. Reporting is an ever-present threat to an organization because it can quickly expand to use up time and energy without leading to any improvement in performance. Good reports should be easy to put together, completed well enough in advance to give the organization time to prevent disasters, and delivered with minimum interpretation lest the reporter’s point of view influence or bias the conclusions reached by those reading the report.

Try to distinguish between subjective and objective information gathering.

Like with the prior point, this is a distinction that could easily get lost if the reporting method isn’t carefully defined. In many poorly organized reports, information is accompanied by a number rating or letter grade to give a sense of objectivity to what would otherwise be an obviously subjective measurement.

Simply demanding that all objective figures must be displayed in table or chart form is a great first step. If the reporter has any other information that can’t be quantified in this way, it would obviously be subjective (and perhaps reported in writing).

Objective – some key metrics a manager should ask for from the team include bids, orders, production, backlog, inventory, and shipments.

Subjective – establishing a pattern of regular and informal conversation with the team is an important way to gather data about hard to measure variables like confidence.

As the first point outlined, a good report is easy to put together. This applies both to the manager and the subordinate. The objective part of any report should come as directly as possible from the work being measured – for example, if the inventory level is being reported, the worker in charge of the inventory should provide the figures.

The manager should take responsibility for the subjective part of the report. The manager should leverage all methods of information gathering to accomplish this task. If the report turns out to be erroneous or misleading, the manager should be the one held accountable.

Although hounding subordinates for information is not advised, delegation without information is not a very effective way to run an operation.

A manager who makes the team responsible for reporting accomplishes two things. First, the team gets a better understanding of how their performance is being measured and knows what information to pay the most attention to during the workday. Second, it makes it easier to gather information quickly in the event of a sudden emergency because the team is used to helping the boss gather information.

A good report should fit on one regular piece of printer paper.

Reports should create context by making comparisons against week, month, quarter, and prior year’s corresponding quarter (in this example, a quarter is equivalent to a thirteen week period).

A good way to implement these thoughts is to limit each page of a report to answering one question. If a manager adopted the reporting standard described above, the result would actually mean a five-page report – the first page would account for present conditions while the next four pages would make the contextual comparisons against the time periods described in the note.

Good reporting tracks cause and effect. A monthly or quarterly report should track the results generated from the operations that were tracked in the weekly reporting – costs against budget, return on assets, and sales revenue.

Cause and effect here means tracking how operational measurements impacts performance and output. If the operational reporting tracked a steady 10% rise in purchases of raw materials over a three-month period, the performance reporting should include some kind of anticipated increase in output that corresponded to how raw materials correlated to output in the past.

The lag time of any operational change on output is also a critical consideration. If a change in the level of raw material makes no impact on output for the first half year after the purchase, it would mean anticipating an output change in any of the six subsequent monthly reports would be premature.

Irish wolfhounds, French baguettes wrapped loose around, and next I think I’m hungry…

Finally, good reporting recognizes the immense responsibility of the task. When someone reads a report, they are asked to focus on one specific part of the organization while simultaneously ignoring everything else. This puts the reader prone to the sudden mental jumps and casual associations everyone makes from time to time. The reporter recognizes this and ensures the report is as informative as possible while remaining entirely impartial.

Right?

What…?

Fine – that note isn’t from Plain Talk, it’s a lyric from Courtney Barnett’s ‘An Illustration of Loneliness’. But hey, it’s a riff off, and who better to have the last word?

Thanks for reading, folks.

Tim

reading review - tribe (the divisive weight of modern society)

Sebastian Junger points out in Tribe that the sheer size of our modern societies poses a significant challenge to our ingrained instinct for unity and connection. It is, after all, the first sustained period in human history when a person can go an entire day surrounded by people who are complete strangers. This lack of familiarity with others means the checks and balances a smaller group imposes on its members to discourage cheating, dishonesty, and fraud no longer function effectively.

In theory, we rely on our institutions to reign in this behavior and make up for what we’ve lost as we’ve scaled. However, a cursory glance at the newspaper tells a different story. We’ve become so accustomed to contempt as a substitute for criticism that public conversations take on the tone of a morality contest rather than serve as a means for cooperative problem solving. The stage is set by our so-called leaders who accuse rivals of trying to harm the country (a stance Junger notes was once referred to as treason) rather than accepting an opponent’s divergent views as a starting point for working together to solve difficult problems.

The biggest threat that modern society poses to our natural inclination for solidarity is its emphasis on underscoring differences. We talk of diversity as a means to embrace differences but I agree with Junger that societies can only focus so much on differences before it stops functioning. I feel the best approach is to acknowledge differences as preparation for eventually relating across those differences. As Junger points out, there is no better way to move toward this ideal than focusing on how someone contributes to the collective effort.

leftovers – plain talk (compensation and reward)

Today, let’s examine a couple of lingering ideas from this post in a little more detail. First, I noted that Iverson felt people always worked hard for above-average pay. This was actually one of three such motivators – the other two were job security and opportunities for advancement.

Nucor’s compensation structure probably helped the former while minimizing the lack of the latter. By paying production bonuses immediately, Nucor was ensuring that a higher wage bill correlated very strongly to revenue. It also meant the reverse – a lower wage bill during down periods. This mechanism played a major role in allowing the company to minimize layoffs and positioned them to offer better job security to prospective employees.

However, the flat structure of the organization suggested to me that opportunities to advance were likely minimal (or at least less outwardly obvious) than they would be when compared with a competitor. An employee who could continue to earn higher pay by ever-improving performance in such an environment would probably not find a lack of advancement very concerning.

A final lingering thought from this post was about the way Nucor measured productivity. In most organizations, an employee’s productivity is their production. This looks OK on paper but assumes that employees are fixed costs from which the most possible output must be squeezed. Nucor’s compensation structure suggested they measured employees by labor cost per product.

On paper, these concepts look basically identical, but the advantage of the latter is that the method allows for greater flexibility in spending decisions. An employee who wants to buy a new piece of technology is going to have a much easier time making the case if production is measured by cost per product – if a 50% spending increase leads to a 100% increase in production, it’s a no-brainer. But if the employee who is regarded as a fixed-cost proposed the same, it seems more likely to me that the idea would get rejected due to the cost implications. In the very worst organizations, management might come back to the employee and ask – why don’t you try to double output without increasing cost?

the 2019 toa awards – podcasts (intro)

Hi folks,

Welcome to the first edition of the 2019 TOA Awards! Today’s post will take a closer look at the podcasts I listened to in the past year. As usual, I find organizing these a little tougher than my music or my reading. This is, of course, mostly due to my reluctance to simply say ‘here are my favorite podcasts, in order’. Longtime readers will know that for these awards, I usually end up resorting to wild analogies or convoluted ranking systems that serve no purpose whatsoever.

This year, I’ve decided to simplify my approach. First, I studied how I listen to podcasts and realized that I tend to do one of two things with each new episode – I either listen to it right away or I don’t. I then grouped each show based on this criterion to get an idea of how urgently I listened to new episodes of each show. Next, I gave bonus points if I listened to every single episode of the podcast and took points away if I only listened to shows with certain guests, topics, or urgency. Finally, I ranked the shows within their peer group to create a rough idea of how I valued the podcasts in my rotation.

The logic behind the system is based on one overriding idea – the shows I listen to right away are more important than the shows I save for later. And in theory, every time I choose one show from two podcast choices, I learn everything I need to know about the two shows. I’ve made this decision countless times over the past year and hopefully I’ve accurately aggregated those decisions to produce, for the first time in TOA history, a fully data-driven list.

Below are my two groups from the shows I listened to this year – those I listened to right away and those I saved for later.  The shows are listed in alphabetical order. Over a couple of upcoming posts, I’ll order the lists, add some comments about the shows, and hand out an official ‘TOA Pod of the Year’ award.

The Storage Bin

Bookfight
Call Your Girlfriend
EconTalk
Hardcore History
House of Carbs
The Luke and Pete Show
The Rewatchables

The ASAPs

Against All Odds
Common Sense
Men In Blazers
More Or Less
Revisionist History
The Bill Simmons Podcast
The Football Ramble
The Tim Ferris Show

Now, one final thought about the above. The system still avoids directly answering a very simple question – what’s the best podcast you listen to? But I think in the case of podcasts, the beauty is in the ear of the beholder. Podcasts tend to be so varied that the topic or focus of the show is often good enough to determine whether someone will want to hear more. Therefore, unlike with music or (especially) reading, I think the general suggestion of a ‘best podcast’ is inappropriate and the idea that I’m capable of identifying the objectively best podcast seems highly unlikely.

reading review - plain talk (compensation and reward)

A fascinating aspect of Ken Iverson’s Plain Talk was the way he described Nucor’s philosophy for paying employees. The approach was based on a number of principles he believed were essential foundations for a company that wanted to remain successful over the long term.

The first principle was that a good pay system must encourage specific behaviors that are known to make the business more competitive. Iverson felt that the most important behavior Nucor needed to encourage was a strong team ethos and therefore his organization paid team bonuses instead of individual bonuses. As Iverson put it, organizations that reward exceptional individuals get exceptional individuals while those that reward exceptional teams get exceptional teams.

The second principle was that companies remain competitive in the long term if they retain loyal and motivated employees. One way Iverson applied this principle was by compensating executives mostly through bonuses and equity. This structure helped Nucor control wages during down periods and prevented the organization from undermining its employees’ trust through layoffs (or even worse, layoffs happening simultaneously to increases in executive compensation).

The third and final principle was that people tend to work hard for above-average pay (1). This isn’t breaking news, of course, but most organizations use financial incentives over time periods as long as half a decade. Iverson didn’t think this was a fast enough turnaround to interest most people and found ways to use money as a daily motivator instead. As many psychologists have ‘discovered’ through carefully crafted studies, people behave very differently when the prospect of a reward is immediate. By harnessing the power of this basic reality, I’m sure Nucor returned far more value for their dollar than did their competitors.

the first touch

One of my consistently bad analogies is how I board the subway in the same way a technically skilled soccer player receives a pass. My goal on the subway is to get off the subway as quickly as possible – therefore, I always board the train where I expect the door to be closest to the exit at my destination. This is like a soccer player’s ‘first touch’, the term for how players tap or guide the ball as they receive a pass. A good first touch positions the ball for the fastest transition to the next movement. My analogy comes in how I describe boarding the subway as a technique to best position myself for the next movement – fleeing the subway.

My favorite part of this analogy is how most players with a poor first touch are routinely derided for being unskilled players. I think about this when I watch my fellow passengers board the subway with no thought to how their technique might simplify the future. Surely, a skilled rider would consider the future implications of each movement? The proof of my approach is in how I always stroll unhurried through the subway exits a few paces ahead of a rumbling herd of my fellow passengers, I benefiting from my impeccable ‘first touch’ while everyone behind me stampedes desperately down the platform in a race to fill the frame of the exit gate I’d just vacated.

Occasionally, station architecture prevents my first touch from being enough to win me the race out of the station. This happens frequently at Broadway station in South Boston. Though I am frequently among the first to reach the escalator, my fellow passengers do eventually catch up to me somewhere on the way up and demonstrate their agricultural interpretation of ‘the first touch’ by shoving me aside as they storm up to the street. I suppose this extends my analogy further as it is reminiscent of how soccer players often make up for the lack of a graceful ‘first touch’ with a physical, hard-charging style of play.

A good example of such an incident came last month. I was at my usual place at the head of the Broadway escalator, standing on the right hand side. I could feel the usual rumble of uncultured feet on the escalator behind me as the passengers who foolishly saw no connection between soccer and the subway reached the escalator. And then… BOOM… the first reckless passenger demonstrated his understanding of ‘the first touch’ by slamming into my left shoulder and driving me into the moving handrail of the escalator.

He’ll probably captain us at the next World Cup, I thought, as I regained my balance and gathered myself for the rest of the ride. And what kind of hurry was he in to do THAT, I wondered, as I stepped onto the street at the top of the escalator.

It took just a few moments before I had my answer. A couple of storefronts down from the station is a Subway restaurant (‘restaurant’). When I glanced into the window, I saw my assailant standing in line, breathing heavily from his sprint, undoubtedly about to complain that the Meatball Marinara footlong sandwich cost 20% more now than it did before Southie gentrified. It occurred to me at that moment that on a planet of seven billion people, there was always going to be at least one person who wanted nothing more than to get out of the subway ASAP just to get to a Subway ASAP. I suppose this isn’t very different from how on a planet of seven billion people, there was always going to be at least one person who thought the way he boarded the subway was comparable to how Lionel Messi received passes. We might not appear to have anything in common, I suppose, but at least we're both single-minded about our desire to escape the subway as quickly as possible.

reading review - plain talk (organizational structure)

Longtime readers will recall that back in February 2018 I took a new position. This job was with a big corporation and the environment was a significant change from the small, family-run business where I had worked since graduation. The biggest change was the hierarchy – in my new role, there were almost as many layers of management as I had colleagues on the first day at my former job!

I gave real thought to the organizational structure just a few months ago when I responded to an anonymous workplace survey. Although my new company had many layers of management, the questionnaire asked me to identify myself as a member of one of just four layers – worker, team supervisor, manager of multiple teams, or executive. The question made me understand that although our organization officially recognized many more layers of management, the reality of the structure was much like any other company - four layers of management, no more and no less.

The idea that even the biggest companies require only four levels of management is one of Ken Iverson’s most interesting observations in Plain Talk. It forms part of a larger theme that many of the ‘necessary evils’ in corporate life are simply results of an unnecessary emphasis on rank and hierarchy. A manager might not always have the ability to change this emphasis but a good manager can always find ways to attack or circumvent the problems caused by an overemphasis on hierarchy.

A good place to start in this regard is sharing information. In a flat structure, sharing information is vital because everyone recognizes the importance of getting the right information to the relevant colleague. When a hierarchy emerges, information becomes a currency that can be used to consolidate power or leverage influence within an organization. The managers who gather and distribute information in these organizations undermine those who hoard information. These managers also indirectly contribute to the health of the team by reinforcing the value of ensuring the right people get the information they need with only a minimum of fuss.

A hierarchy can also limit the potential of those in the organization with unusual abilities. A supervisor might be capable of managing forty or fifty people, for example, but this ability is wasted if the organizational structure limits teams at some arbitrarily determined number. Again, a good manager in these environments seeks ways to get around this problem by forming roles and responsibilities outside those defined by the hierarchy.

How can someone figure out if their organization’s emphasis on hierarchy is detrimental? I suggest looking for instances where the organization’s stated principles or values are sacrificed for the sake of emphasizing the hierarchy. For example, if your organization’s stated aim is to be ‘data driven’, look for interactions where the opinion of a superior is given more weight than the data presented by a subordinate. An overemphasis on hierarchy is, like any cultural value, a reflection of what consistently happens every day and the organizations that place hierarchy ahead of their listed core values reveal themselves in the way employees work, behave, and interact with each other on a daily basis.

the 2019 toa awards – intro

Hi everyone,

Longtime readers will know that as we round the corner of January and head into the homestretch of yet another long, cold, and mostly boring winter, it’s time once again for the start of the TOA awards. Over the next few weeks, I’ll cover what I considered the best of my 2018 in the usual categories of books, music, and podcasts (1).

Now, the careful observer among you might be wondering – but Tim, the 2018 TOA Book Award was handed out in December, so how can you talk about ‘awards season’ as if it’s some defined period of time in late winter? And my response is… well, I don’t really have a good response, except that I hope you trust me when I say that I hope to have the book award wrapped up a little earlier this year. My thought at the moment is to put up a ‘TOA Awards’ post once every seven to ten days or so, but as usual that hastily assembled schedule is subject to change.

My final thoughts for today address a pair of hypothetical questions. First, why start these in February? The obvious answer is that February is close to the end of last year, but then again, January is a little closer. I think the real answer here is that TOA kicked off just about three years ago on February 29, 2016, and therefore in a way February is the last month of the blog’s 'year'.

The second question is indirectly related – why not start doing an award or two just from this past year’s posts? Best post, worst post, that sort of thing? The answer to that one is a little tougher due purely to volume. We broke the 600 post barrier back in December and with no end in sight for the daily posting schedule the math wizards here at TOA HQ project the 1000th post for sometime early next year. It seems appropriate to maybe highlight a couple of the posts I’ve received the best feedback for around then, but again the volume is an obstacle. I’m open to suggestions here, or maybe even recommendations, if any loyal reader would like me to highlight any particularly memorable posts from TOA’s toddler years.

Footnotes

1. Food, drink, and…?

This year, I may also sprinkle in some miscellaneous items that might become their own award categories at this time next year, but let’s not make any promises now.

reading review - plain talk (managing errors)

Towards the end of my last post about Plain Talk, I made a comment about how Ken Iverson wanted to encourage an environment of regular experimentation within his organization. Today, let’s look a little closer at some of the strategies he recommends for managers who wish to replicate this environment in their own workplaces.

The most important step is for managers to continually bring ever-increasing responsibilities to their employees. Managers who fail to do this will end up running stagnant teams where they feel overburdened while their teams feel unchallenged. A manager should find some time every day to look at his or her own work and identify tasks or responsibilities that can be safely delegated or reassigned within the team.

Of course, the process of increasing an employee’s responsibilities will likely lead to errors (1). This creates an interesting opportunity for a manager – should the response be immediate and direct? In some cases there is no question that the manager must step in. However, if the manager is able to let the employee figure out the resolution then it is probably best in terms of the team’s growth and development to allow the employee to do so. A manager in these situations should simply direct attention to the error but hold back from offering solutions unless asked directly by the responsible employee.

The final and most important consideration comes in the aftermath of an error. A manager who criticizes or questions employees after things turn out badly is reinforcing a subtle but significant message – don’t try anything new in the future. To avoid sending this message, the best approach is to study the failure with the team and learn from the mistakes so that the errors do not occur again.

Footnotes / most people fall off the bike while learning to ride it…

1. The fine line…

In fact, a good manager who wants to challenge employees should expect errors because if there are no errors then it is a sure sign that the new task or responsibility was not challenging enough for the employee.

reading review - tribe

Tribe by Sebastian Junger (August 2018)

Sebastian Junger’s Tribe is a short but powerful examination of how we collectively experience unity. His main idea is that although we seem to have lost our collective ethos in the process of creating modern society, the example of groups coming together in difficult times suggests that there is significant potential if we can find a way to maintain the same solidarity with our neighbors when life returns to normal.

The way communities respond in the aftermath of a disaster is a classic example. These situations call for everyone to help their neighbor survive and the stakes are too high for chaos or pettiness. People in these situations quickly learn to assess each other based on what a person brings to the group and worry about nothing else.

The most important characteristic in this situation is the willingness to sacrifice. A person who is willing to make sacrifices for the group can be counted on to stand tall in the face of any upcoming threat. This type of person will be viewed by others as a reliable source of help and support in the rebuilding effort. Those unwilling to make sacrifices for the group are unlikely to be accepted by the group. This attitude suggests that the willingness to share whatever you have with everyone all around is perhaps the most important quality for someone who wishes to be part of a strong community.

One up: Junger points out that people who face an existential threat assess each other based solely on what someone brings to the group effort. I liked this thought and it made me think back to the time when I realized that not everyone naturally develops this skill. The moment came during a conversation I had in college with many of my teammates on the basketball team. The discussion was about how playing basketball taught us the importance of looking at other players based solely on how well they played the game. It was, we reflected, valuable preparation that allowed us to notice whenever someone was being treated unfairly based on a factor unrelated to performance, merit, or contribution. Through our experiences in basketball, we had arrived at school with a different view of the world than our fellow students who had grown up without similar experiences of competition or cooperation with peers.

One down: One of Junger’s ideas is that solidarity tends to emerge in response to an outside or unusual event. This is one of the big challenges that face suburbs because nothing ever seems to happen there. If citizens of these towns do not make a consistent and proactive effort to share with each other, the likely result is the decay of relationships and the loss of community.

Just saying: Junger mentions that ‘What would you risk dying for?’ is perhaps the most profound question anyone can answer. It’s no doubt an important question and I’m not here to make any suggestions for alternate questions.

However, I do feel like people probably don’t ask themselves this question very often, if ever. I seem to notice someone risking death every day for a reason I would categorize as ‘silly’ – swimming to a buoy, crossing a busy street, skiing down a mountain, whatever. These observations suggest to me that a lot of people don’t really consider this question at all (or perhaps just confirms how poorly we understand risk).

the bb book club - plain talk

Plain Talk by Ken Iverson (June 2018)

Ken Iverson collects and distributes the wisdom he accumulated over decades as an executive with Nucor in this aptly named book. The title really does describe it all – everything Iverson shares with us budding Business Bros is written in clear and straightforward terms (1). There is no nonsense in Plain Talk, a welcome relief for those of us whose BS filters are breaking down from overuse in this day and age of constant business nonspeak.

In fact, the aspect of the book I enjoyed most was the way Iverson dismissed a lot of the business world’s accepted truisms with the air of a grade schooler saying ‘well, duh!’ For example, Iverson has no time for teaching business ethics – for him, most people would do just fine trusting their own intuition. He also rejects the concept of a rating scale being ‘objective’, pointing out that in most cases it only reflects the scorer’s subjective rating assessment of poorly defined skills such as ‘takes initiative’ or ‘works well with others’.

Not all of his commentary is immediately accessible to those with no experience in business. His insight into debt is a good example. He notes that many businesses fail to properly align their debt burden with the cyclical nature of their business. This sounds complex at first but is immediately relatable to anyone who has seen wild revenue variations from one accounting period to another. His comment that managers should keep their promises is also a good example of an observation that will instantly resonate with anyone who has worked for an inept manager.

The most significant truism Iverson rejects is that a business must plan for its successes. He adopts an experimental approach instead, suggesting that ideas worth doing must be worth doing poorly in order to encourage continuous trial and error. A culture of regular experimentation is sure to innovate in ways that planning committees or brainstorming meetings are likely to overlook. He also reminds managers that it is natural for them to become more risk averse as they age and to therefore be more mindful of their own increasing resistance to risk-taking as they progress in their careers.

Of course, succeeding in a career these days isn’t just a matter of stating it like it is and Iverson is no exception. In a few upcoming posts, we’ll take a look at some of the other skills and principles he used to become one of his industry’s most respected leaders.

Until then,

The Business Bro

Footnotes / origins of famous expressions

1. Don’t judge…

I had to wonder if Plain Talk was responsible for the expression “don’t judge a book by its cover.” Who in the world thought this cover would get readers excited for Ken Iverson’s work wisdom?!?

i read my grandmother asked me to tell you she's sorry so you don't have to

My Grandmother Asked Me to Tell You She's Sorry by Fredrik Backman (October 2018)

This book is about a young girl and how she deals with the death of her grandmother. It covers a lot of ground in the world of grief, loss, and longing and I thought Backman did a very nice job of conveying the many emotions that come with this territory. It eventually comes to a point of acceptance and recovery, a challenge Backman meets beautifully given the varied perspectives and experiences of the characters hurt by the death.

There is a magical element to this book that comes in the form of apology letters written by the grandmother to various people she left behind. The granddaughter, Elsa, takes on a major responsibility and delivers these letters. The process guides Elsa through the grieving process while also imparting a series of important life lessons. She learns, for example, that bad things in life can be overcome with an overload of good things or that people who have never been victimized will always assume an oppressor has a valid reason for mistreating another. She also comes to understand her own feelings by recognizing the ways a survivor of a tragedy always feels left behind by its victims.

But the big lesson of the book comes in the way the grandmother’s letters bring together a diverse group of characters to share their grief. The impromptu community is eventually able to come together and find strength in each other to take the next step and move on with their lives. The shared grief allows these otherwise different people to accept their diversity and discard the outside world’s pressure to feel, act, and be normal. In other words, by coming together in the aftermath of a shared loss, the characters give each other the support to grieve, accept, and grow. Eventually, they find themselves ready to move on, not just from the immediate loss of an important person, but also from the losses and disappointments that have been long buried and unacknowledged in the deepest recesses of their lonely, abandoned, and marginalized souls.

Footnotes / endnote

0. If I had to choose just one, I would recommend Ove.

I read this book after reading another of Backman’s novels, A Man Called Ove, but I didn’t enjoy this book as much. At the time of writing, I’m also nearly done with another of his works, Britt-Marie was Here, and my feeling for that book is the same. I think the books are good reading for those who like Backman’s style but for those who just need a light read, I think reading A Man Called Ove should do the trick.

leftovers - how to setup a workplace

The cubicle is a great example of a layout that attempts to meet my criteria for a productive workspace yet manages to fall short. In a way, the cubicle is the worst of both worlds, so to speak, because it retains the isolation of a private workspace without actually giving the worker any privacy. There’s a reason why ‘cube farms’ have such a negative connotation – it’s a good way to ensure very little work actually gets done.

Another thought is the open floor layout where there are no offices for anyone. The logic behind the idea isn’t automatically problematic – if people have freer access to each other, there will be more collaboration and it will be easier for a certain type of work to get done. But people have a strong inclination toward privacy for a reason and the benefits of this get lost in open floor layouts.

I also think transparent environments create pressure toward conformity in both appearance and action. What’s the benefit of a collaborative environment if everyone just says and thinks the same thing?

Footnotes / well, endnotes / my null hypothesis would involve some kind of work from home thing…

0. If anyone is aware of the following experiment, please reach out and let me know about it…

It’s worth noting that the authors of Peopleware said the open-floor office layout was implemented without any evidence of it being a better work environment than the alternatives.

reading review - problem solving 101 (riff offs, part 2)

Hi all,

Let’s wrap up the riff off I started earlier in the week for Ken Watanabe’s Problem Solving 101.

5. Improvement means breaking down an issue until certain root causes are determined before building on the specified problem areas. For example, instead of looking at an overall average, it means looking at the components of the average to identify the biggest problem areas.

This thought addresses the difference between an aggregate statistic and the components of the aggregate. When an average goes down, it could mean that every part of it went down in tandem. It could also mean that all the components held steady while one went into freefall.

Speaking more broadly, aggregate measures hide certain truths that are blatantly obvious when examined at the component level. In the early days of TOA, I wrote this post about Simpson’s Paradox, a statistical oddity that gets at this idea in a slightly different way.

4. Sometimes constraints can help pick a solution out of a group. Think of a pepper shaker. How can we increase the amount of pepper that comes out? There are many options. We can increase the size of the top area, add more holes, increase the size of each hole, or reduce the size of the grains.

The constraint referenced here would come about if we were only allowed to consider certain types of changes. If we were told the size of the grains could not be changed, for instance, and that the overall size of the top area had to remain fixed, then our options would be to add holes or change the size of each hole. I think most people are comfortable making decisions within constraints because in these cases the best option almost picks itself.

The important extension to the idea comes when you think about altering the constraints. What if in the above example it was twice as valuable to increase the overall size of the top area? It might be easier to simply add more holes but this choice would have to be compared against the benefit of taking the extra step to alter the constraint and make the other options viable.

3. Setting a goal means clarifying as many details as possible. Saying ‘I want a computer’ isn’t as good as saying ‘I want a $500 model X computer produced by company Y’.

I think this is an important reminder because it is such an easy concept to overlook. It almost always feels better to just get started on something with basic guidelines rather than taking the extra mental effort to clarify as many of the details as possible. But I think in most cases the initial burst of effort pays off down the line.

When I was out of work for two years, I wasted a lot of time early on by not being specific enough about the details. This led me to job offers that, in hindsight, I would never have accepted. I finally got around to clarifying exactly what I was looking for and how I would measure these factors when considering an offer. This allowed me to filter out jobs that I would eventually reject and saved me a lot of time during the latter portion of my search.

2. Great teams don’t automatically mean great growth environments. Teams must work to create such places. In most teams, high performers prevent others from doing the developmental work they need to do in order to cultivate their skills.

This thought could have been its own book. It’s intuitive to think a strong organization or winning team would be the ideal place to learn and grow but it isn’t always guaranteed to work this way. Although everyone accepts the necessity of learning ‘on the job’, every employer’s tolerance for a learning curve is different. The tolerance for errors and ‘growing pains’ dictates how much an employee can learn more so than the success of the organization. The best growth environment aligns developmental work with the goals of the organization or team so that growth is not sacrificed for the sake of meeting an organization’s goals or commitments.

1. It’s forty degrees and I feel like I’m dying…

Again, the theme of thoroughness emerges in this note. A person could die for many reasons but simply citing the temperature isn’t very helpful. The unit of measurement also matters here – if we are talking Celsius, a good problem solver would immediately think of heatstroke, but Fahrenheit would probably lead to additional questions.

0. Is that really from this book???

OK, fine, that’s not from this book, it’s from Courtney Barnett’s ‘Avant Gardener’.

But who better to end a riff off?

Thanks for reading, folks.

Tim

leftovers – the single garbage bag (how I separate the trash)

My original thought for this post was to talk about a change I did make as it related to my trash and how it allowed me to accumulate more trash before I brought my bag down to the curb. However, I realized early on in the post that the problem was how one person, living alone, is going to have a really difficult time filling up a trash bag, and I figured this observation was much more interesting than how I threw out my trash.

Those interested in reading more about such problems can refer to this Onion article I enjoyed a few years ago.

how to setup a workplace

Imagine having the following conversation with your boss:

You: Boss, I have a great idea, can I run it by you quickly?

Boss: Well, I’m a little busy because, surprise, we’re behind on this urgent project and have this meeting in a minute, but, OK, explain quickly if you can, please!

You: Great, thank you. I’ve come up with a way to boost productivity.

Boss: OK, what are the details?

You: Well, we need to improve the office layout.

Boss: How will that boost productivity?

You: I think if everyone likes it more, they’ll be happier and work harder. Eventually, they’ll produce more. I bet it’ll make them more likely to stay here longer, as well.

Boss: I see. When will all this magic happen?

You: Well, probably in a few months, maybe longer. We’ll probably start seeing more projects get done on time, actually –

Boss: Wait, how will we know that productivity is going up due to the layout rather than people just naturally getting better at their jobs over a few months? And why wouldn’t the projects get done on time anyway?

You: Hmmm, well, I guess we won’t know for sure, but aren’t we always behind on projects? Like, didn’t you just say –

Boss: What does that have to do with future productivity?

You: Well –

Boss: And how will we know people are staying here because of the layout?

You: Hmmm, well, I guess we won’t know that for sure.

Boss: I think I understand. So you want to spend more money today, tomorrow, and every day afterward in exchange for a productivity boost we won’t be able to measure and a retention increase we won’t be able to attribute to the spending? And on top of it all, you, the genius behind the idea, will never even know if it’s working? How do you even know it’s a good idea?

You: Ah, well, when you put it that way…

It’s a tricky sell, right?

The question of how to best setup a workplace is the type of problem I always enjoy thinking about because it is a battleground for the classic dilemma facing all organizations – how to balance long-term investment with minimizing short-term costs. In the context of workplace environments, the challenge is looking past the easily measured costs associated with rent and services to understand how investing in productive workspaces decreases turnover and increases morale.

The big problem is that it’s not such an obvious thing to spend more money on workplaces to improve morale or retention. Even in the workplaces with the worst morale or the highest turnover, there are always plenty of people who feel good or stick around. Since everyone shares the same environment, it’s difficult to isolate the office layout as the root of any problem (unless there is a sudden exodus in the wake of an office layout change).

There is also the market-driven way to look at this. Most organizations recognize that prospective employees barely consider the office layout. This understanding is reflected in how per-employee spending in salaries and benefits is generally many magnitudes higher than spending on workspaces. Organizations understand that the reality of fixed rates of pay means most employees prefer higher compensation ahead of productive workspaces. Although I don’t know this for sure, I suspect employees paid directly by production care far more about a productive workspace compared to those who work salaried positions with no performance-based variable pay.

I think a couple of things need to happen before organizations start doing a better job of finding the best office layout for their workplaces. First, there should be some basic agreement on what environmental factors consistently lead to reduced productivity. These agreements could then be used as guidelines to prevent them from becoming a source of reduced productivity in the workplace.

What might be some good candidates for this agreement? Noise is a good place to start because of its strong association to errors. In fact, when an employee complains about noise, what it usually means is that someone should start checking the employee’s work for errors. As noise is roughly proportional to density, a smart way to address the issue might be to ensure each worker has enough space.

Another common factor is interruption. An interruption is like a red light – not only do you have to stop, you also have to decelerate before the stop line and accelerate to get rolling at the previous speed again. A workplace that accounts for the negative effect of interruptions would make workspaces private while also allowing workers the ability to silence or divert incoming communications. A good approach here would be to design the space so that intimacy increases as people move to the interior. This would corral visitors at the edges and entrances, establish spaces for teams and groups as people moved toward the center, and designate space at the core for quiet thinking by individuals.

A third factor is forced uniformity. A workplace where everyone works the same hours makes a lot of sense so long as everyone’s work is best completed in those hours. But a team responsible, say, for the ongoing functionality of a website is very different from one responsible for direct sales to businesses. The environment should be designed within the governing principle of maximizing high-quality work. This means local variation must be encouraged within the broad limits of organization-wide governing principles (1).

A quiet, customizable workspace where employees are empowered to divert interruptions – sounds obvious, right (2)? And yet, given how difficult the benefits are to prove, the only way I can come up with to measure the productivity boost of these changes is through an experiment. I would simply choose a sample of workers to shift to workspaces that meet these criteria and measure their productivity against those who remain in the old setup. A well-executed random trial should determine, once and for all, the type of layout that best serves a given organization.

Footnotes / a look behind my curtain, so to speak, if I had enough space for one

0. Curtain call…

Over the past few weeks, I surprised myself by writing so much about Peopleware. What I thought would be one or two posts quickly expanded as I realized how much this book covered important yet generally unexplored ground about management.

1. The workers should design the workplace…

A lot of companies operate under an axiom of ‘the people doing the work should decide how it gets done’. Sounds nice on paper but in practice an organization that uses top-down decision making to design a workspace isn’t managing by this principle.

The best way to identify this problem is to look for clues that the layout serves the interests of management ahead of an employee. Does infrequently used furniture or an unnecessary plant take up more space than an employee? If so, it is time to rethink the layout.

2. Or at least, I think these are the numbers – it’s noisy here and hard to concentrate…

At my new job, it is almost impossible to have less space than I do now. I have roughly seventy-five cubic feet of space – my desk is four feet wide, three feet deep, and about six feet above the ground when I raise it into a standing position. For the record, the authors of Peopleware recommend seventy-five square feet of space.

Space isn’t the only issue. Our instant messaging tools make interrupting others more efficient than at any point up to now in world history – it is almost costless. The most customizable feature of anyone’s desk is the brand of headphones used to ‘drown out’ the complete lack of privacy. It is, in short, not a productive workspace.

i read astroball so you don't have to

Astroball by Ben Reiter (November 2018) 

Astroball is an examination of how the Houston Astros rebuilt their team and went from being baseball’s worst in 2014 to being champions in 2017. Although I didn’t find this book as informative as I’ve found other similar sports books, I did take down a series of notes and observations in the area of progress, growth, and leadership that I’ll focus on today.

Though much was made of how the Astros used a statistically driven approach to fuel their improvement, turnarounds in sports tend to follow a basic formula – success = develop young players – and in this way, the Astros story was no different from many others (1). They sought players with a growth mindset, a mentality they identified by seeking players whose dissatisfaction with their current situations manifested in the desire and ability to improve. Then, they worked with these players to help them learn the best way to evolve as players. Two of the specific techniques I thought were the most applicable beyond baseball were using setbacks as opportunities to evaluate process and comparing methods to those of more successful players to identify possible improvements.

The Astros worked just as hard to build at the team level as they did at the individual. The focus on team chemistry ran counter to the way statisticians viewed baseball as an individual sport contained within a team environment. However, the Astros took a different view, summarized best by Bill James, baseball's ‘founding father’ of statistical use. Although he once firmly believe in an individual-driven view of baseball, he was quoted in Astroball for saying that he was likely wrong because athletes should not be an exception to the general truth that colleagues always make each other more or less productive. The Astros applied this observation in no better way than when they signed Carlos Beltran to serve as a veteran mentor in his final seasons. Beltran's most significant contribution to the young team was his initiative in establishing communication between the older and younger players, a responsibility he felt always should fall to the most experienced members of a team.

Finally, the Astros tied what happened with the players and team up to the front office to ensure continuity in their approach at all levels of the organization. The front office recognized, for example, that the enemy to continued success was feeling ‘smart enough’. Therefore, they always tweaked their approach to ensure their process improved from one day to the next. They tweaked rather than overhauled because they recognized that the disruption caused by sudden or sweeping changes was never offset by the benefits of the change, especially in large organizations. Perhaps the most important of these considerations was how they maintained the manager's traditional autonomy. Despite the team's reliance on a statistical approach, the front office recognized it was the manager’s job to make decisions that ran counter to the suggestions of regressions and probability. In order to maintain a harmonious working relationship in such an environment, the front office armed the manager with the trends, tools, and analysis needed to make good decisions, but never considered those as the final say for any of the decisions made by the manager.

Footnotes / sounds so simple…

1. Exceptions

The other ways to turn a team around are to do a better job than direct competitors in identifying underpaid players or to create a scheme that opponents cannot counter. Both of these alternatives face the same challenge of maintaining long-term success because underpaid players can demand raises and opposing coaches can devise their own counter-tactics.

leftovers: in theory, in practice (the environment)

One more ‘in theory, in practice’ idea that I didn’t quite fit into my original post…

In theory… your environment is a dynamic, ever-changing presence.

In practice… what existed when you grew up is the environment.

The thought above relates to technology. For most people, environment means the tools and gadgets that existed as they grew up. Technology means every new thing that comes as they get older. In general, most people feel pretty good about this process and encourage the advancement of the new and improved.

However… it would be nice if some things could stay the same, right?

The longing for returning to a home that always is just as it was seems like one of the strongest human instincts. I think this feeling is reflected in the broadest way when we talk about global warming. The conversation has always had two sides – one side demanding immediate course correction to prevent ongoing human induced climate change while the other contends that things aren’t so bad and maybe the science needs further review.

Notably absent is a third side – the one saying that it is OK to change the environment. For whatever reason, this point of view is a non-starter. The debate is about whether it is happening or not – both sides accept the idea that humans causing climate change is a bad outcome.

reading review - problem solving 101 (riff offs, part 1)

Problem Solving 101 by Ken Watanabe (September 2018)

Problem Solving 101 is a simple, short, and highly popular introduction to the basic process of problem solving. Watanabe’s target audience is business bros kids and his book is filled with the basic examples, cute graphics, and neat conclusions that appeal to business bros kids. Despite being the definition of the target audience outside the target audience, I enjoyed the book and would recommend it to anyone who is interested in a quick refresher on the subject.

I always have a difficult time doing full reading reviews for books like this one. I suspect there are two reasons. First, the book is short and I therefore took only a few notes. Second, the book focuses heavily on examples and this led me to write my notes in a generalized way that allows them to stand on their own without being put in the context of the book.

So, instead of the usual reading review I’ll just riff off the ideas I noted down. Unlike in the past, though, I took a moment to rank these thoughts in reverse order of my preference. We’ll do a few today and come back with the rest later in the week.

Good luck, reader.

Tim

10. The steps of problem solving: (i) understand the situation, (ii) identify the root cause, (iii) develop an action plan, and (iv) execute until the problem is solved, making modifications as needed.

Like I mentioned, this book is very simple…

This note highlights an important feature of good instructional books – they assume nothing about the reader. The result is a very thorough dissection of a skill most people probably already feel they do fairly well. Readers who come into this type of book expecting to learn something new on every page misunderstand the purpose. Rather, what a book like Problem Solving 101 does by its thoroughness is help a reader pick out one or two details to tweak in order to achieve better performance. Most readers will consider this book a series of reminders rather than a mind-blowing instruction manual.

9. Problem solving is a habit that combines certain skills with the right attitude.

This is the thesis statement for the book. From the list in note #10 above, the skills involve (ii) and (iii) while the attitude covers (i) and (iv). To put it another way, the right skills mean knowing how to analyze a root cause and develop a plan while the right attitude means asking questions until you understand the situation and confirming the problem is solved after execution.

8. Asking a series of yes/no questions can help create a list of possible ways to solve a problem. With the right series of questions, it is possible to place every option into a certain category.

This is a good example of the book’s preference for thoroughness. Going through every possibility until you’ve listed all the possible options isn’t necessary for solving every problem, of course, but it is probably the most important thing to know how to do for solving the most difficult problems. I suggest practicing the approach whenever possible so you can be ready to employ the method when you need it.

Most people who informally think of ways to solve a problem call it ‘brainstorming’. This works just fine for most problems. I would recommend simply ‘brainstorming’ whenever everyone involved has a good sense of all the available options. However, Watanabe’s approach of asking yes/no questions is recommended when there are unknowns about the choices because the process of asking the questions forces decision makers to clarify the details involved in the decision.

7. Collecting information and performing analysis just for its own sake is a common trap. Make sure such activity is done to answer a specific question or to achieve a specific goal.

This is the most important thought in the book. We live at a time when information is more easily accessible than at any other point in human history. The temptation is to take all the data, look at it with an unbiased point of view, and ‘let the data do the talking’ (1). Unfortunately, conclusions derived in this manner often fail the strict validations demanded by the field of mathematics or statistics.

Instead, I recommend asking a specific question and considering how information might help answer the question before performing the analysis. This approach might require more work. However, the benefit of the approach is that you will be able to accept the results just as they are and safely move on to the next step of the analysis.

6. A hypothesis must be tested to know the magnitude of a given input on a result. A given input might improve an outcome by 10% but alternate methods could achieve much more.

I’ll try to clarify this sloppy note with an example. Suppose you commute the same way to work every day and that your total time is thirty minutes. You think this is the fastest way. But how do you know for sure? The answer is to form a hypothesis then test it. Maybe you cross the street at the same intersection every day – why not cross at a different intersection for a week? If your commute for the week drops down to twenty-five minutes as a result, well, you might be on to something there, reader.

The point of the note is that testing a series of hypotheses can help clarify what is really going on in almost any situation. The process of properly testing means determining how you would prove or disprove the hypothesis before conducting an experiment under unbiased conditions (2). This process is helpful not just for problem solving but also for ongoing process improvement because it requires the same kind of mentality – if my hypothesis were true, how would I know?

Footnotes / a 24 reference? / hypothesis testing 101

1. But what if the data knew where a bomb was about to go off in an hour?

A metaphor I’ve heard more than once regarding analysis of ‘big data’ compares the process to torture – you just keep poking and prodding and putting your cigarette out on the data until it tells you the truth. My response is always – how come torture is the best comparison we can come up with? Shouldn't we be suspicious of any result derived from torture?

2. One more thought on hypotheses…

Another note I took down brings additional clarity to the ideas I discussed in point #6 above:

It’s helpful to know if your hypothesis is taking on a grouping structure or an argument structure. In a grouping structure, components of the argument are independent of each other and refuting one does not necessarily crush the argument. In an argument structure, each pieces builds on a neighbor and refuting one can break the entire chain.

This thought further emphasizes the important of understanding exactly how to refute the hypothesis before starting the experiment – if this step is ignored, you run the risk of misinterpreting the results.

the single garbage bag

Longtime readers will know (or simply suspect) that I try to minimize waste whenever possible. This isn’t done out of loyalty to some underlying mission, cause, or purpose. It just comes naturally to me to try to get the most out of what I have. As a result, over the years I’ve squeezed a lot more juice out of lemons that others probably would have given up on. (There is probably no better testament to my approach than the very computer I’m using as I type this sentence, an ancient Apple laptop that I first booted up in 2006, but that’s another matter.)

However, despite all my ranting and raving about waste efficiency, there has been one area over the years where I’ve always been relatively wasteful – trash. To be more specific, I’ve been consistently wasteful in the way I throw out my trash because I often leave a single half-filled bag on the curb for pickup. This is of course due to the lack of waste I produce but I cannot fail to note the irony of my predicament – if I do everything I can to minimize waste, then I’m doomed to waste space in the trash bag.

I’m reminded of my wastefulness every time my neighborhood has a trash pickup. I’ll wake up bright and early, collect all the final bits of trash, and bring my perfectly sealed bag downstairs to the curb. As I lay my trash down, I’ll often realize how embarrassingly light it appears alongside the other bulging bags produced by my neighbors. From a distance, it probably looks like some forgetful pizza guy left his empty carrier on the sidewalk. I can imagine the pickup guys later in the day laughing as they toss the sorriest bag on the block into the back of their truck – hey, anyone need a doormat? – or – what was this supposed to be, a balloon?

What’s a guy to do when his inability to waste leads to so much waste? I suppose one approach is to wait until the trash bag I use on pickup day is completely full before I bring it down. This isn’t a bad strategy, reader, but it’s also one I’ve tried in the past. How did it go, you might ask? Let’s put it this way – my joke about having a pet mouse didn’t write itself. In fact, my paranoia about rodents is so high that I now freeze any food trash so that the scent of rotting vegetables doesn’t bring back my furry buddies for a slumber party.

Another way could be to buy smaller trash bags. This is actually a good idea, and should be feasible. Unfortunately, reader, if there is a Beacon Hill establishment that sells smaller trash bags, I’d like to know about it. Until then, a version of the joke I made when my cousins visited from Japan applies – there’s regular size, and then there’s America size. In Beacon Hill, the only available trash bags are in America size.

I guess the only option left for this lean, green, waste-efficient machine is to somehow produce more trash. I have a hunch on how I might do this, reader, or at least what such trash might look like, because sometimes these bulging bags I’m so mindful of burst open like a ripening fruit and scatter their envied goodness all over the cobblestone and pageantry and history of Beacon Hill. On these mornings, I can see from my window everything that’s missing from my bag – takeout containers, worn out dog leashes, packaging for broken toys, and outgrown tiny clothing. I see what makes my half-filled bag feel wasted when I see this trash of a life spent at home. I leave my deflated bag next to the trash and I walk on, away from home, where the time I spend alone always feels like time being wasted.

proper admin - feb '19, part 2

Hi all,

I’ve mentioned at various points over the past few weeks that I’ve felt a strong sense of rebuilding within my routines in 2018. That’s all well and good but I thought it might be helpful if I followed up with some specific examples about what went into this feeling.

The big TOA related adjustment was how I started proofreading posts at home instead of in the library. I’m sure this change has helped the quality of writing improve in some immeasurable way but I think the biggest impact of the adjustment has been on my time management. I’ve always been unable to reliably predict how long proofreading will take and this made it difficult for me in the past to plan my time in the library effectively. On a couple of occasions, I’ve also been in danger of missing my daily posting commitment thanks to proofreading tasks piling up. I’ve felt the decision to move an inherently unpredictable task away from a time-constrained part of my day was one of the better adjustments I made in 2018 and one I can probably replicate in other contexts over the coming years.

I’ve also made a couple of changes to my morning routine that I’ve felt has produced very good results. The first was to delay my first cup of coffee to around eleven AM on workdays and to stop at just the one cup. I’ve also started eating breakfast on rare occasions when I’ve suspected it would help restore my sleep schedule. I’ll speak to both of these adjustments in more detail in upcoming posts.

The mornings have also seen a redoubled commitment to my strength workouts. These take me between ten and fifteen minutes and feature only body-weight exercises designed to strengthen injured areas or help me more effectively run long distances. There is nothing groundbreaking in any of the basic exercises I do but I feel that the renewed consistency has played a significant role in helping me feel stronger today than I did three months ago.

Finally, back in November I mentioned how I was studying feedback and openly exploring different ways to communicate more effectively. A recent result of these efforts has been my attempt to limit emails to one thing at a time. This has not been an easy or consistent change but I’ve thought the results have been good anytime I’ve managed to keep an email to one thought or question. The change has been far easier to implement with the emails I initiate than it has been with those I respond to (which is most of my email) – for now, I’m settling with just trying to match what I get (so if I’m sent three ideas, I’ll try to have a three-part response).

That’s all for today, and for the February monthly review. I’ll continue to include any changes to my routines, patterns, or habits as part of future proper admins and we’ll see how it goes.

Until then, take care, and thanks for reading.

In the next month of... True On Average...

1. How to ride the subway like a soccer star...

2. More of the usual trash talk...

3. What's the most important thing with the Buddha?

proper admin - feb '19

Hi folks,

Welcome to proper admin, a monthly rubble bucket of everything I couldn't quite turn into its own post.

Rubble bucket?

Sure, that’s a good place to start. I saw them just last week at the Paradise Rock Club. There might be a little recency bias here but I’m pretty sure it was the best show I’ve ever seen. Their new album Sun Machine is pretty solid – have a listen here.

Any other musical musings?

I thought it was hilarious that Obama included Kurt Vile on his ‘best of’ 2018 music playlist – here’s ‘One Trick Ponies’ (and here’s a live version of the same).

Book previews

Speaking of our former President, I made it a reading goal for 2019 to read all of his books. At the time, I wasn’t aware that this would commit me to reading all of… two books. Still, I remain committed. My initial report on The Audacity of Hope is that it is very well written, easy to read, and a great advertisement for the author’s politics.

Despite myself, I’m also enjoying former Manchester United manager Alex Ferguson’s autobiography, Managing My Life – it’s already among the best sports books I’ve ever read, and I’m just halfway through. Of course, maybe I’m enjoying it because I’m at the part where United are losing a lot…

Food news

Jury duty in Chelsea gave me a chance to see Ciao’s, a little pizza spot directly across from the courthouse. Again, recency bias alert, but I’d say it was the best pizza I’ve ever had (the awards certainly got it right, at least).

Ciao’s was a friend’s recommendation, and not an unbiased one given his artwork that hangs in the place. His artwork generally repurposes old street signs with his unique perspective on the world. This is my favorite piece (and you can check out some more of his work here).

I had some fun with this BBC link ranking the top 100 foods (somehow, Ciao’s missed the cut). Unsurprisingly, it’s had no impact in terms of my food decisions – I’m still sticking with foods that moved or grew – but I suppose it can’t hurt to know that pork fat cracks the top ten.

Wait… jury duty?

I think everyone has a completely nonsensical trick for getting out of jury duty – one doomed to work until the day it doesn’t – and I put my own theory to the test this month. Here it is: delay service until a Thursday before a Monday holiday. My logic is that no one will be interested in starting a lengthy case before a long weekend and therefore I’m more likely to get a one-day assignment.

Do I know for sure this works? Of course not, but it worked this time.

Ciao, jury duty, for at least three more years, and ciao to you as well, reader, until tomorrow – we’ll be back to wrap up a couple loose ends from January.

the toa newsletter - february 2019

Hi all,

In last month’s newsletter, I mentioned that I no longer sit down at the start of a year and come up with a list of resolutions. I’ve come to realize over time that this isn’t a particularly rare stance. In fact, I can’t think of a single person that told me about a serious resolution at the start of 2019 (though to be perfectly clear, I didn’t ask everyone I met about serious resolutions).

Why are so many people I know refusing to participate in such a well-known tradition? I think there are two main reasons why people do not make New Year’s resolutions. The first reason is one I commonly hear – well, I don’t like to wait until New Year’s Day. This is pretty logical. It reminds me of the post I once wrote about how Rework dismissed ‘casual Friday’ by pointing out that a good idea on Friday should be a good idea for every other day of the week. I’m going to return to this idea at the start of next month and write more about how I apply it to my own daily routine.

The second reason is pure speculation on my part but I feel pretty good about my reasoning. I think resolutions are difficult for a lot of people because they sound like admissions of shortcomings, failure, or guilt. If I tell someone my resolution for the upcoming year is to get a gym membership, what does that suggest about how I view myself or my recent decisions? I don’t think anyone wants to burden a conversation partner with these kinds of revelations, especially during a festive time of the year. I’ve found that people are more receptive to different year-end questions – what are you looking forward to this year? – or – what was your best memory of last year? – and I think these sorts of questions capture the same spirit of the New Year’s resolution.

Thanks for reading. We’ll be back tomorrow with the triumphant return of proper admin.

Tim