Archive for December, 2008
Night photos in Milwaukee
Chris and I went on a night photo mission and yielded a few good shots. You can see more on Flickr.
Long exposure night shot + light painting = neat.
Long exposure looking at the North Ave bridge
Brady Street at night.
Filed under Milwaukee : Comments (3) : Dec 22nd, 2008
The opportunity cost of corporate bureaucracy
I’ve had lots of time to reflect on the causes and effects of corporate bureaucracy at my current job. I’ve watched it spread right before my eyes. During my first year, I actually generated some bureaucracy myself (I’m sorry!). We all know that bureaucracy is ultimately counter-productive, but lots of intelligent people seem to spread it almost by second nature. Strange.
My thesis on why bureaucracy is so dangerous is that it’s not a zero-sum game. If I spend 1 hour filling out banal spreadsheets, forms, and templates, I don’t just lose one productive hour. I lose much more–my current estimate is at least at 4x multiplier. I’ve lost the opportunity for 4 hours of creative, productive work because I spent just one hour on bureaucracy.
There’s a reason that most (all?) highly-creative jobs are done by individuals or small teams. As a working group grows, bureaucracy almost always grows with it. At some point, the bureaucracy (with its 4x multiplier) overtakes creativity as the dominant force. Bureaucratic groups are still productive, but rarely are they creative. And within those groups, the remaining creative-types tend to work in small enclaves mostly shielded from the rest of the corporate culture.
Do not give up. There is a solution (I think).
As with most addictions, the first step is admitting the problem. Judging from the popularity of Dilbert, I think most corporate-types have already done this to some extent.
The next step is to deal with the problem. Aggressively. If you’re in a leadership position, make bureaucracy-killing a highly rewarded and highly publicized skill. Find those bureaucracy killers in your organization and empower them. (Hint : they will not be found in any of the large consulting firms [see above for why]. Second hint : they are almost certainly under 30 [and probably under 25].)
Celebrate every template that is slain.
Make “team meetings” and “status updates” rare or non-existent.
Write this on every one of your team members (and your) yearly goals :
I will kill bureaucracy this year.
The word “kill” is not hyperbole. If you don’t kill bureaucracy, it will kill your team’s creativity, productivity, and passion. Don’t become the Pointy Hair Boss.
Filed under culture, work : Comments (1) : Dec 16th, 2008
Corporate Communications vs. Gen-Y
I work for a giant global conglomorate (that shall remained unnamed) that’s facing some tough times. No surprises here–the whole global economic shutdown makes for a tough environment. In this time, the difference between Gen-Y and Gen-X/Baby Boomers is screamingly obvious.
In a move to save money, they’re replacing the free coffee machines with paid coffee machines. It’s now going to cost $0.25/cup, or a dollar or two per week. Fine. I get it.
Here’s where my Gen-Y spider sense goes wild. Instead of announcing this with a straight-forward honest communication (“These are the worst economic conditions in 80 years. We’re not giving away any more coffee.”) the powers-that-be sent a page long email detailing how it’s actually a good thing because now the coffee is “gourmet” and “fair trade” and “premium”. Oh, and we’re going to be paying for it now. Aren’t we lucky?
In the words of Gob Bluth,
Come on.
Are there really people out there who prefer to be lied to (or at best mislead)? Is there something appealing with treating your employees like they’re morons who can’t read the writing on the wall? Or is this just the inescapable law of corporate communications that they must be as vague and robotic as possible?
Or am I just a whiney Gen-Y Yuppie with a coffee addiction?
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (3) : Dec 16th, 2008
A refresher in logic
Logic is a funny thing. We all seem to think we’re logical creatures but we very often act in ways that don’t seem very logical. Maybe this is because relatively few people know even the basics of logic–we seem to confound “logic” with “intelligent” or “good decision making”. In fact, logic is a well structured discipline just like algebra or calculus.
The basic rules of logic are easy enough to follow:
If P, then Q.
P is true.
Therefore, Q is true.
Without any formal logic training, we can all follow the above example. But most of us quickly get tripped up by negation.
If P, then Q.
P is not true.
Therefore, Q is not true.
The above example appears to follow the same rules as before, but in fact it is wrong. This is easily the most common logical fallacy. Negating P tells us nothing about Q. The correct way to use negation is below.
If P, then Q.
Q is not true.
Therefore, P is not true.
A crucial distinction! But what’s the point?
Let’s apply the rules of logic to our ongoing discussion of what to do with the Big-3 auto companies.
If (massive government loans) then (no bankruptcy)
No massive government loans are made
Therefore bankruptcy
Ah ha! We’ve again fallen for the logical fallacy. Negating P (in this case the massive government loans) does not infer that we must negate Q (bankruptcy).
Of course, in the real world (and certainly in the world of politics) formal logic may not always work. People and economic systems are not always rational and are certainly not logical. None the less, it’s worth while to stop and consider the reasoning that the politicians, corporate executives, and cable news talking-heads are using when they fortell the future.
I don’t think they’re using logic.
Filed under culture, economics : Comments (1) : Dec 13th, 2008
More thoughts on automobiles
I’m breaking with the Democratic leadership in my opposition to the Detroit automaker bailout even though I voted for them in November. I’ve already written once about the subject, but given the amount of attention it’s drawing from the press I think it warrants another go. But this time I’ll weave in another frequent topic from tadfad: suburbs.
In the decades since WWII, and especially in the last 10-20 years, the vast majority of new home construction came in the form of suburbs, exurbs, and fauxburbs. All these geographies have something in common : they require personal automobiles to function.
The critical infrastructure in suburban life (home, work, commerce, food, etc.) are geographically dispersed. A lack of public transportation makes automobiles critical–and in most families this means one car per driver.
Add to this a decade or two of cheap oil and easy credit, and you have an interesting equation developing:
Aggressive suburbanization + automobile dependence * (cheap oil + easy credit) = high automobile demand
In the last few years, all four of these factors have changed.
Oil quadrupled in price (it’s come down since but the damage has been done). Easy credit completely disappeared, removing the necessary means for suburban production. The suburbs that were already built suddenly became less populated as homeowners moved out (by choice or by foreclosure).
Which brings us to today : significantly decreased demand for automobiles.
The domestic manufacturers aren’t unique in their sales numbers–Toyota and Honda also saw sales drop–but they are uniquely ill-prepared for this unavoidable decline. GM has 7000 dealerships (Toyota has 2000). Ford is just now contemplating importing the small car models that sell well in Europe. Chrysler was recently taken private, making it much easier for them to hide their losses until now.
Now here’s the big secret : $15 billion won’t fix this. $30 billion won’t fix this. Hell, $100 billion won’t fix this–only delay the inevitable.
Demand for automobiles in the U.S. went through a boom and bust cycle. The American automakers made lots of money on the way up but weren’t able to recognize the peak until they collectively fell off the cliff
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (4) : Dec 11th, 2008
