What is the (Next) Message?

Me for President?!

2008-07-15T14:21:00.003-04:00

Must be some sort of write-in ballot...

...or, could it be some sort of viral marketing thing from the Ha! Ha! Made ya look! School of Marketing. Although this sort of thing scores high on the consumer-identifies-with-the-ad scale (Hey! Tha's ma name! And I'm on somethin' tha' looks lahk tee vee!), I think it misses the mark (no pun intended) when it comes to truly creating an identity connection between potential customer and the organization. For those who still believe that eyeballs and buzz sell product, tell me (without the help of Google) what brand was connected with the (in)famous Bridezilla wig-out hoax?

[Technorati tags: viral marketing | me for president]

Tasteless Satire? I Would Say the Opposite: Spicy and Bitter!

2008-07-15T09:27:00.004-04:00

Both defenders and detractors of the New Yorker's Obamas-as-Terrorists satirical cover cartoon, The Politics of Fear, miss their respective points. It is true what critics of the cartoon say, that the cover art is tasteless and offensive. But it's supposed to be tasteless and offensive! Just ask Northrop Frye:

“Two things, then, are essential to satire; one is wit or humour founded on fantasy or a sense of the grotesque or absurd, the other is an object of attack” (p. 224). Irony itself is the “humor founded on … a sense of the grotesque or absurd,” as Frye describes. Irony is the delivery vehicle; it is the attack that transforms irony into satire. As Frye observes, “The chief distinction between irony and satire is that satire is militant irony” (p. 223). [Quotations from Frye, N. (1957). The Anatomy of Criticism: Four essays. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.]

Militant irony - I like that. Sort of fits with the subject matter. The key to understanding the problematics with the cover is to understand who, or what, is the target of that militant irony according to who views the cover.

There are many in the U.S. (and elsewhere) who are literalists. They often appear on the right of the political spectrum. They do not understand the nature of either irony or satire - they are the say-what-you-mean-and-mean-what-you-say, plain talkin' folks that largely voted for GWB in the first (and second) place. Many of these people, who have already expressed their distrust of Barack Obama, will only see the cover, and not read - let alone understand - the accompanying article on "politics of fear."

As it stands, depending on which poll you read, somewhere in the vicinity of one-third to nearly one-half of Americans polled in fact believe that Barack Obama is (or was) Muslim (he isn't and wasn't), and/or cavorts with terrorists (he doesn't). For them, the satirical nature of the cartoon will be missed, and their politics-of-fear beliefs are confirmed and reinforced. They will not perceive, nor be able to comprehend, that it is their own beliefs that are being satirized through, in Frye's words, "wit or humour founded on fantasy or a sense of the grotesque or absurd."

But in thinking about it, humour founded on fantasy, the grotesque and the absurd sort of describes American politics these days, doesn't it?

[Technorati tags: barack obama | new yorker | cartoon | satire]

On Exciting Customers, and Forging Relationships

2008-07-11T14:26:00.006-04:00

So I'm finished with transcribing the first round of interviews (yielding about 400 pages of transcripts) among eighteen participants from five organizations. I'd doing a read-through of the conversations to help set the stage for the second round of interviews that more directly probe the context of relationships in organization. In that context, there is the idea that, unlike functionally-defined organizations, both customers and employees are equivalent members of the valence-defined organization. Here's how one of my participants put it, describing his idea of how his customers perceive his organization:

We believe the currency of our business is relationships, so I think that those people who reached out to us, there is … a sense that there are real people behind a real product, [who] are excited about what they’re doing, and that’s infectious.

So the question for the more conventionally self-conceived organizations is, are they as institutionally concerned about how excited their customers are, or do they just care that they continue to spend money?

I would say that in a valence-conceived organization, being institutionally concerned about customer excitement would ideally transcend the marketing function, pervading and being manifest in all aspects of the business. In a functionally conceived organization, on the other hand, customer excitement is a marketing responsibility. Regardless, organizationally pervasive concern for customer excitement would certainly be characteristic of a more-UCaPP, as opposed to more-BAH, organization.

[Technorati tags: customer | marketing | relationship | excitement]

Why Bureaucracy and Collaboration are Mutually Exclusive

2008-07-01T12:28:00.005-04:00

“I think [collaboration] is a very misunderstood way of working. That if anyone were to look at that as a vernacular shift from teamwork, it’s completely different from teamwork.”

So says Loreen Babcock, the CEO of Unit 7, and one of my research participants. There may be teamwork, or multiple contributors to a project, in a bureaucratic organization, but not true collaboration. True collaboration involves admitting that there are aspects of the situation that you don’t know that you don’t know; that non-obvious others can make a contribution in unanticipated ways; and that you are willing to reveal what otherwise might be considered a lack of competence in a public forum through the act of reaching out. Teamwork, on the other hand, is based on the assumption that information in a bureaucracy is fragmented among its component roles, and that the way to ensure complete information is to identify and bring together the necessary components.

Bureaucracy, theoretically, is built on the assumption that it represents the ideal flow of information through a structure that is specifically engineered for competence, rationality, objectivity, and legitimacy – the right information being provided by the right people to the right place at the right time. Any given person, simply by virtue of occupying their office (by which I mean their legitimized role, function, station, or location) in a bureaucracy is socialized to believe that if they have sufficient information such that no gaps are apparent, then they necessarily have complete information upon which to act. Moreover, admitting insufficient information in the absence of obvious gaps (which, de facto, occurs in the act of collaboration – seeking out what you don’t know that you don’t know from those who are not necessarily part of the pre-determined procedure) is an admission of either one’s own incompetence in their bureaucratic office, or a failing on the part of the system. Neither of these can be admitted or tolerated openly for fear of the adverse, personal consequences, namely, that the occupant of the office is incompetent, irrational, or not acting objectively in their assessments. In either situation of the incompetent office-holder, or the incompetent office, the true bureaucratic system will protect itself by eliminating the troublesome or flawed component element, and replacing it with a functionally equivalent component.

So how does this explain the difference between collaboration and teamwork, and what is the connection to Valence Theory and my earlier post on the nature of bureaucracy? Simply this: Teamwork in the context of bureaucracy is grounded in what some might call the flow of information, and that I would identify as the Knowledge valence – information, expertise, skills, experience (and secondarily in the Economic valence, indicated by the issues surrounding the transactional nature of teamwork, e.g., the so-called free-rider problem). True collaboration brings more balanced aspects among all five of the valence relationships, and is better able to enact Effective Theory of Action, that is, the ability to anticipate, perceive and act on the intended effects of the decisions we make, and the actions we take.

[Technorati tags: teamwork | collaboration | bureaucracy | valence theory | effective theory]

Visualizing the Proposal

2008-06-29T22:43:00.002-04:00

A word cloud of my proposal for A Valence Theory of Organization, courtesy of Wordle (click the image for a larger view):

(Thanks, Leigh!)

[Technorati tags: wordle | word cloud]

An Open Letter to Toronto City Councillor Joe Mihevc

2008-06-26T08:57:00.003-04:00

Dear Joe,

As you know, I have not been a supporter of the St. Clair Right of Way, and especially not of the process or analysis that was used to justify it. In fact, both came out of a very cynical type of agenda-based politics that foment citizen apathy and disregard for those, like you, who have chosen public service. It is a sad and unfair situation when the collective actions of politicians that result in many members of the public feeling that their elected representatives are simply not hearing legitimate concerns, result in all council members being tarred with the same elitist, and anti-democratic brush.

I am writing to you today to ask you to lower your shield of objection- handling, and blind support of the Mayor's transit plan for the city, to honestly consider a matter important to public safety, and the specific security of those of us who are residents along the St. Clair Right of Way corridor. As has been reported in the press over the past few days, and as Royson James of the Star points out in today's column, the concerns raised by the District Fire Chief must be seriously considered in a non-partisan way by City Council. The fact that the absolute measurements of the clearances along the RoW suggest that fire vehicles can possibly squeeze by the obstructions that the RoW design introduces does not instill confidence. In fact, quite the opposite is the case: the clear political manipulation that is occurring creates a chill of fear, both in the residents whose lives and property will now be at increased risk, and those among the public service who risk speaking out against partisan political interests.

How many lives must be lost before remedial action - at much greater expense to the taxpayers - would be taken? How much property must be damaged, including both private property lost in fires because of slower response, and public property caused by equipment collisions along the RoW as indicated by the District Chief? And, how much more risk will be created because of the tight clearances during the winter months, when snowfall creates additional blockages? Is the City ready for the inevitable negligence lawsuits that will arise from the first tragedy to occur, now that it has been warned of the danger?

And finally, how much lower will the public regard for its elected officials sink because the legitimate concerns of citizens among a variety of poorly conceived issues are systematically ignored and sloughed off? The Right of Way was one such issue. The new recycling and garbage bin plan that seriously inconveniences and discriminates against women, the elderly, the disabled, and many of those that live in the city core, is another.

I urge you to realize that these safety concerns are not proxies for yea or nay votes for the Right of Way itself. These are concerns that have been legitimately expressed in the public forum by someone with specific knowledge and the courage to speak out. Please support having the design sent back for correction now, in order to save lives later.

Regards,
Mark Federman

[Technorati tags: joe mihevc | st. clair | right of way]

Valence Marketing at Unit 7

2008-06-24T10:22:00.005-04:00

One of the consequences of framing a company as a valence organization is the realization that employees and customers are equivalent. Several of my participant organizations have recounted how the stark difference between the ways in which they regarded and treated their employees, and how they regarded and treated their customers led to their respective cultural transformations. But what does it mean to perform marketing from a valence-organization perspective?

Unit 7, one of my participant organizations (which has given me permission to disclose their identity), provides an object lesson in valence marketing. As reported in a recent article on BrandWeek.com, 39 members of the 100-person Unit 7 organization decided to immerse themselves as their target consumers to learn more about living as recently diagnosed, Type 2 diabetics.

Most are perfectly healthy people. Yet they’ve subjected themselves to a unique, pioneering experiment. For 14 weeks, the members of this group assumed the roles of patients newly diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes. They hit the gym religiously; they watched enviously as their friends ate candy bars that they could not; and they picked up a blade and forced blood from their fingers.

The aim of this experiment wasn’t to show how far medical science has come. Instead, it demonstrated how far the study of marketing has come. The members of the group are all employees of a relationship-marketing agency called Unit 7, and it is attempting to be at the forefront of what can be best described as “empathetic marketing.” In the past, marketers relied on focus groups of diabetics whom they interviewed in an attempt to guess what living with the disease was like. Since launching the program, however, some of the guesswork has been factored out; nearly half of Unit 7’s staff now has a much clearer idea of what living with diabetes is like.

This expertise is valuable to the health-related companies that Unit 7 counts among its client pool, corporations such as Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Meyers Squibb (which is currently developing new diabetes drugs with AstraZeneca). Unit 7’s leadership believed the value of this experiment went beyond what it could learn about diabetes alone; the sort of deprivations to which the firm’s marketers subjected themselves were a window into the world of any consumer forced to make health-related lifestyle changes.

Conventionally, gaining this type of knowledge is part of ethnography - living and participating as one of the community that a researcher is investigating. By itself, this is a relatively known form of research, something that Unit 7's "me-too" competitors are anxious to point out. But despite some of their sour grapes responses reported in the article, Unit 7 is onto something: Their remarkably collaborative culture is beginning to extend out beyond the walls of their agency, in true valence fashion. Unlike other marketing organizations that would consider this experiment as merely a research exercise, Unit 7's collaborative context sets the stage for this experience to be an authentic valence connection that strengthens the flux, or tactile intensity, among the companies and consumers that now comprise Unit 7's total valence-organization environment.

Congratulations to Loreen Babcock, and the other 38 members who participated in the B-Roll Inquiry.

Update (25 June 2008): Charles Green, who writes on matters of trust in business, provides his take on the B-Roll Inquiry, and why the naysayers have (cynically, in my view) missed the point.

[Technorati tags: marketing | ethnography | unit 7 | loreen babcock]

And Speaking About Placeholders...

2008-06-23T14:53:00.003-04:00

This post is a placeholder post, for yet another placeholder word replacement that I need to come up with. What is a good word (that could be derived from any language) that means the strength of one's multi-faceted valence connection to an organization? As I'm writing this, and keeping with the science metaphor of valence theory, I'm thinking flux, or valence flux.

How does that work for you?

[Technorati tags: organization | valence theory | valence flux]

What is the Question to Which Hierarchy is the Answer?

2008-06-23T13:55:00.006-04:00

In a pseudo-non-hierarchical organization, one of the most frequently asked questions is, who’s in charge? Who’s providing the leadership? Who decides what gets done first? Okay, so that’s three variations on the same theme: Who’s on top? The answer is often expressed in hierarchical terms, where the hierarchy in some pseudo-non-hierarchical cases reflects the hierarchy of knowledge, rather than the more conventional economic, or status and class hierarchies. But, perhaps the best answer emerges from my aphorism that, when no one is in charge, everyone is in charge. I observed this in my own department a while ago. Although it may be counter-intuitive, it is consistent with the emergent nature of a UCaPP-oriented, valence organization. I am finding evidence of such interesting, counter-intuitive behaviours among a couple of my participant organizations, one of which reports that when you have a more-UCaPP culture overall, bureaucratic inefficiencies (like strict procedures, protocols, and navigating administrative minefields) can be eliminated without incurring a higher risk of adverse consequences. Indeed, they find it a far more effective way of getting things done.

The secret to all of this, and something that seems to be characteristically inherent in a UCaPP culture, is a shared [something]. I’m using the placeholder [something] because I haven’t yet found the right word. It’s more than vision (since vision is the wrong sense metaphor in a UCaPP world). It’s not merely the tactility, because shared [something] incorporates worldview, imagined future, collective motivation, and collaboratively constructed group – or organization – identity. It’s not necessarily manifest in shared objectives or goals, since these are, in my view, emergent, contingent, and continually in flux. It is [something] that sustains the organization as a whole, and provides the psycho-social energy necessary for the truly organic, valence organization to maintain homeostasis in a complex world.

But to the point, the shared [something] enables emergent leadership of the organization as an entity, without the necessity of any one person (or sub-organization) being dominantly directive. How well can this possibly work? Well, in a specific instance of an organization form more conventionally known as a European city – Bohmte, Germany to be specific - they have applied this principle to the problem of traffic. As reported by Der Spiegel (in translation):

Saturday, Bohmte of Lower Saxony is official[ly] with Osnabrück, the first German municipality without traffic signs in the [city-]center. … Bohmte had taken part as one of seven municipalities from five European Union member states in the European Union project, “Shared space”, with which all road users used the street space equally. The citizens celebrated the day with a road celebration. The renouncement of traffic signs, traffic lights, Fußgängerinseln and other barriers creates mutual consideration between the drivers, cyclists and pedestrians and increases security in the traffic, said [European Union parliament president Hans Gert] Pöttering. “Consideration, indulgence and caution in handling are with one another particularly in the traffic indispensable.” The project is however not only an indication of intelligent and courageous traffic policy, but also good European co-operation. … Minister Stefan Schwegmann was pleased, which had Bohmte now a central place. “Shared space is not only a traffic concept, but it has something to do with lives, meeting and communication.”

Well said, Minister Schwegmann! By giving up the presumed need to control, and focusing more on living, meeting (especially of minds), and truly communicating, the questions for which bureaucracy, administrative control, and hierarchy and are the answers may lend themselves to far more interesting approaches.
(Thanks, David!)

[Technorati tags: hierarchy | control | bah | ucapp | bohmte | management | leadership]

Requiescat in Pace: George Carlin, 1937-2008

2008-06-23T09:10:00.003-04:00

Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker and Tits. And none of them are as obscene as "died of heart failure Sunday. He was 71." As a testimonial to his keen observation of humanity's hypocrisies, and the loss of one of our greatest comedians, here is his classic, Seven Dirty Words:

[Technorati tags: george carlin | seven dirty words]

Thunderstruck!

2008-06-11T22:09:00.003-04:00

In the midst of conducting research conversations with my government participant organization, I was hit with this inspiration:

Bureaucracy seems to ossify an organization by interfering with the complex interactions among valence relationships.

It may be that the relative location of an organization along the spectrum from BAH to UCaPP is determined by the degree to which valence relationships are able to interact with each other in complex ways within individuals, and how that complexity is expressed via the valence connections among the people.

How to Sabotage an Organization

2008-06-11T21:11:00.003-04:00

Via David Weinberger, from a declassified CIA manual on Simple Sabotage, circa 1944, to create general interference with organizations:

Insist on doing everything through “channels.” Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
Make “speeches.” Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your “points” by long anecdotes and accounts of personal experiences. Never hesitate to make a few appropriate “patriotic” comments.
When possible, refer all matters to committees, for “further study and consideration.” Attempt to make the committees as large as possible — never less than five.
Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability of that decision.
Advocate “caution.” Be “reasonable” and urge your fellow-conferees to be “reasonable” and avoid haste which might result in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
Be worried about the propriety of any decision — raise the question of whether such action as is contemplated lies within the jurisdiction of the group or whether it might conflict with the policy of some higher echelon.

It is amazing to me how much this resembles what has been reported in a few of my research interviews!

[Technorati tags: organization dysfunction | bureaucracy | administration | hierarchy]

State Religion

2008-06-10T12:04:00.003-04:00

Here are the two (presumptive) candidates for US President on the place of religion in America today. McCain: America is a Christian nation and must have a Christian president. Obama: "People are tired of seeing faith being used as a tool of attack."

Isn't it interesting how McCain's views are almost identical (substituting one Abrahamic religion for another) to those of the leaders of some Middle Eastern nations with whom the US is at odds.

[Technorati tags: john mccain | barack obama | religion | christianity]

They're All Goniffs!

2008-06-08T16:20:00.002-04:00

Goniff: [also spelled gonef, gonif, ganef, among other variants] (Yiddish) a thief or dishonest person or scoundrel (often used as a general term of abuse).

Yeah, that pretty much describes both Bell and Rogers. Rob Hyndman links to a couple stories, including this one about astronomical data fees being charged by Bell, even under the misnamed "unlimited" data plan. Bell seems to have no compunction about misleading the public through deceptive, but attractive advertising, counting on a fine-print disclaimer to undo the impression made by the tiresome beavers.

And Rogers is no better. In fact, a friend of mine just went through the maze of Rogers deception. She called the customer (dis)service department to complain about the service she was receiving, and the "helpful" customer service rep mentioned that she was probably paying too much on her cable bill. He offered to switch her to a new, digital package, that would cost her $5 less per month, and significantly increase the number of channels she could watch. What's not to like?

The tech arrives to install the new equipment. "Which TV is the HD," he asked. My friend is definitely not tech savvy, and didn't understand the question. I told the tech that neither hers, nor her roommate's, TVs are HD. Turning to my friend, I said, I hope you're not going to be charged for High Definition service, because that usually costs more. She called back to customer service, explained the situation, and the CS rep asked the tech whether he had an extra regular digital tuner that he could install. The tech said he did, and the CS representative said that he would adjust her monthly bill accordingly. But after he checked and rechecked the work order, the tech suggested that my friend call back, to make sure that the reduced price went through. She called, and found out that instead of her bill being reduced by $5, it was actually going to be increased by $30 per month! And, to top things off, she discovered her Rogers Home Phone plan was also changed (not by her) to eliminate her 500 minutes of "free" (i.e. included) long distance. Rather than being more economical as was originally promised by Rogers, my friend's next bill would have been nearly $100 more! This is apparently how Rogers treats one of its "best customers" - someone with Rogers Home Phone, High-speed Internet, and Cable service - lie, cheat, and steal.

Disclaimer: I kicked Rogers out of my home a number of years ago after becoming completely fed up with such tactics, including the deceptive bouncing cable bill, and the "free" cell phone, that we never accepted, never received, and never activated, for which we were nonetheless billed, with the bill eventually being referred to a collection agency for nonpayment, and could not cancel until it was escalated to the VP level. Why does Rogers think they have the unrestricted right to reach into our wallets? According to another friend who did marketing work for Rogers, "their attitude is that they own the customer."

[Technorati tags: bell | rogers]

Getting Quoted

2008-06-01T22:28:00.003-04:00

It's not everyday that one gets quoted in The Economist, let alone being given half a article focused on one's musings. But it happened, and I didn't even notice. Seems like someone really, really likes Johnny and Janey.

[Technorati tags: the economist | why johnny and janey can't read]

CASAE 2008 - Student Pre-Conference

2008-05-31T19:28:00.003-04:00

I'm at the beautiful campus of UBC in Vancouver over the next few days, attending the annual conference of the Canadian Association for Studies in Adult Education. As André Grace mentioned in his welcoming remarks, this is the 50th anniversary of academic adult education in Canada Today was the Student Pre-Conference: an opportunity for grad students from across the country to get together to share experiences and discuss issues that are pertinent to our particular location in the academy. It's also great to catch up with old friends, see how their research is progressing, and to meet new friends amidst a rather large conference. Lots of good food (thanks to the sponsors) and good conversation. The two main sessions focused on Research Methods and Approaches, with a particular emphasis on the researcher locating herself with respect to the participants and their community; and the diversity of Career Trajectories that await us once we finish this rather interesting voyage. Here are a few pics from today's session (click on André's picture to link to the set). More to come, I expect, as the week unfolds.

[Technorati tags: casae 2008 | student preconference]

Secret Trade Agreement That Will Have Laptops and iPods Confiscated at the Border

2008-05-29T09:20:00.002-04:00

Imagine this: You are crossing the border with an iPod or laptop. The border agent inspects your device and finds that you have some copyright material on it. Your device is confiscated, and you are subject to a fine. The kicker? All of the materials on the device had been legally obtained under Canadian law.

That's the scenario proposed under a new, secretly negotiated trade agreement that is close to being finalized among many western countries.

Called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), the new plan would see Canada join other countries, including the United States and members of the European Union, to form an international coalition against copyright infringement.

The deal would create a international regulator that could turn border guards and other public security personnel into copyright police. The security officials would be charged with checking laptops, iPods and even cellular phones for content that "infringes" on copyright laws, such as ripped CDs and movies.

The guards would also be responsible for determining what is infringing content and what is not. The agreement proposes any content that may have been copied from a DVD or digital video recorder would be open for scrutiny by officials - even if the content was copied legally.

"If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas what would they look like? This is pretty close," said David Fewer, staff counsel at the University of Ottawa's Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. "The process on ACTA so far has been cloak and dagger. This certainly raises concerns."

Concerns? I'll say! The proposed regulations are being pushed by the US Trade Representative, who has been responsible for other egregious activities on the WTO and WIPO stages. Given that major aspects of international trade policy seem to now be dictated by an industry that is fuelled by its own lies and mythologies, it is sad-bordering-on-shameful that governments cannot think through the illogic here. Minister David Emerson is the Harper sock puppet on this one.

[Technorati tags: acta | anti-counterfeiting trade agreement]

BAH Induces Stupidity

2008-05-28T18:02:00.003-04:00

Among the theoretical purposes of Bureaucracies, Administrative controls, and Hierarchies (that I refer to as BAH organizations) is the need to eliminate human judgement in organizational systems. Human judgement creates variations in procedures, and this was thought not to be efficient, effective, or acceptable in a factory-oriented, manufacturing environment coming out of the Industrial Age, and into the 20th century. Eliminating judgement means turning off the mind, that is, deliberately creating ways to interfere with thinking. In other words, BAH systems are specifically designed to induce stupidity.

That's my explanation for the comical-if-it-weren't-so-sadly-true incident that occurred Monday at the Kelowna Airport, perpetrated by the bright lights from Garda Canada, the commercial outfit that provides the quote-unquote security at Canadian airports. A Toronto woman was told that she could not board her flight while wearing a 1.75-inch, sterling silver pendant of a Colt .45 gun. It was a "replica," you see, and replicas of weapons are not allowed according to the BAH rules. What's even more laughable is the response of an agent for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority who asked (and you've got to read this in a Bob and Doug McKenzie accent):

“How do you know it wasn‘t a real gun?” asked Guy, a security agent with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority, who also declined to provide his last name. “Who knows if there is a gun that small that can shoot bullets? You don‘t know that.”

A photo of the potential security threat is on the blogTO post of this choice item; the full story is in the Kelowna Daily Courier.

All kidding and sarcasm aside, stories like this demonstrate the danger of BAH-ness: when the human mind is deliberately deactivated, when logic and reason are systemically suppressed, tragedies occur.

[Technorati tags: kelowna airport | airport security | garda canada | marnina norys | gun jewelry | silver gun pendant]

A Triumph for Reason and Sanity Over Conservative Ideology

2008-05-28T08:59:00.002-04:00

The Harper government's efforts to force ideology to trump not only science, but good social and public health policy were squashed yesterday, with the BC Supreme Court's ruling in favour of Insite. It is nice to see a judge with such, well, insight:

“While there is nothing to be said in favour of the injection of controlled substances that leads to addiction, there is much to be said against denying health care services that will ameliorate the effects of their condition,” said Judge Pitfield in his landmark, 59-page decision.

He rejected arguments from the federal lawyers that drug use was a matter of individual choice and it was up to the government whether addicts at Insite should be immune from prosecution. “Society cannot condone addiction, but in the face of its presence, it cannot fail to manage it, hopefully with ultimate success reflected in the cure of the addicted individual and abstinence,” Judge Pitfield said. “Simply stated, I cannot agree with Canada's submission that an addict must feed his addiction in an unsafe environment when a safe environment that may lead to rehabilitation is the alternative.”

After having witnessed cases of a policing and court system that has, in some cases, run amok and wreaked havoc on lives that need mental health support rather than systemic abuse, this is a refreshing and hopeful outcome.

[Technorati tags: insite | safe injection]

Go Jeff Adams!

2008-05-20T23:22:00.002-04:00

Exonerated and vindicated, although it cost nearly $1 million to accomplish. As The Globe reports today,

The flame-haired racing icon from Brampton, Ont., was exonerated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, which accepted that Adams was the victim of an assault when a woman in a bar stuck cocaine in his mouth. The drug consequently tainted his catheter. Because he was not offered a sterile catheter for his doping test after racing in the 2006 Canadian marathon championship, the CAS ruled Adams was blameless when cocaine metabolytes showed up in his urine sample.

(I wrote about it here and here.) good on his lawyers for offering to reduce their fees if Jeff qualifies for the Paralympics. But he has little more than a month to qualify, and this after not having been able to race or have access to training for over a year. But with the determination of a true champion, Jeff has vowed to win a spot on Canada's Paralympic team for the Beijing games. He has also vowed to champion the fight for athlete's rights, a struggle that is sorely needed against a system that is BAH to the core: “One goal was to race again, the second goal is to be a champion for change,” he said. “We need to understand how the sport system engages against athletes,” he said of the processes that condemned him before his final appeal. “I promise Canadian athletes I'll stand up for their rights.

Go Jeff! I'll be rooting for you in September!

[Technorati tags: jeff adams | paralympics]

Meet the Participants!

2008-05-18T20:36:00.003-04:00

It is with great pleasure, and a certain amount of relief, that I can announce that I have engaged the last of my five participant organizations. Together, they span the range of organizations according to the ways in which most people tend to slice, dice, segregate, and categorize them. One of the great things about the research observations to date is that, when viewed through a Valence Theory lens, the conventional thinking along the lines of conventional organizational taxonomies seems to break down. Large organizations share commonalities with small organizations; for-profit and not-for-profit line up in certain unexpected ways. There are uncommon commonalities between relatively young, and relatively old, organizations. All in all, my participants so far have provided me with a wealth of very cool stuff - and I'm not even into rigorous analysis yet!

I'd like to introduce them to you. A couple have agreed to allow their identities to be revealed, but for the sake of discretion, I will leave them all confidential in this venue. Alphabetically, then:

Organization A is a very large, well-established organization. It is one of the Fortune 50 companies, and (loosely described to preserve the confidentiality of their identity) involved with Information and Computer Technology.

Organization F is, relatively speaking, closer to being a start-up. They've been in existence for a little over four years, delivering a business-to-business service via the web. Technically, they are out of the true start-up phase. They are, however, very small, with the entire organization being able to fit into one large room. Interestingly, they are just about at the cusp of transitioning from having a start-up mentality characteristic of an entrepreneurship to dealing with the growing pains of becoming a company that is isomorphic with its larger corporate brethren.

Organization I is a very small, social justice Non-Governmental Organization that is explicitly run according to feminist principles. Of all of my participant organizations, I would say that Organization I is the closest to being almost completely consistent with a UCaPP world. In fact, during my conversations with individual participants at Organization I, they were pleasantly surprised that my description of a balanced Valence Theory organization described them so well.

Organization M is a ministry of a provincial government in Canada. I have yet to speak with any participants (they are the most recent to join the club), but I am keenly looking forward to my conversations with this organization's members. Of course I have certain expectations, but I am looking forward to being surprised - as I have been in unexpected ways with all my other participants.

Finally, there is Organization U. Organization U is a medium size, for-profit corporation in the marketing, advertising, and public relations field. It's based in New York City, which one might consider to be the heart of the capitalist world. It is part of a large, global conglomerate, so there is a strong focus - one might say, imperative - on making its profit numbers quarter over quarter, year over year. And, of the organizations I've engaged with so far, it, like Organization I, is very consistent with what I would expect a UCaPP organization to be.

So I've been able to engage with both public and private sector organizations, very large and very small. I have well-established, old organizations and one that is quite young. I have both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, and one that is still undergoing a complete cultural transformation from being strongly BAH to being strongly UCaPP, with all the ensuing disruption, adventure, challenges, and discoveries that go along with it.

What a fantastic and exciting group of organizations with which I have been so privileged to engage. I am tremendously grateful to those individuals who made the introductions, and those within the organizations that took up my request to participate.

[Technorati tags: valence theory | organization | organization research]

Mother's Day in Tiananmen Square

2008-05-08T17:45:00.002-04:00

I just received a mailing from Amnesty International:

It's Mothers Day in Tiananmen Square

Dear friend of Amnesty,

This Sunday, 11 May, is Mothers' Day in China. Just like here, it's a day for families to celebrate the strength and love that mothers bring into our lives.

And this year, it's a chance for us to reach out to some particular mothers in Beijing who have experienced the worst thing a mother could endure - the death of their own children, at the hands of their own government.

They call themselves the Tiananmen Mothers. They are a group of predominantly Chinese women who never wanted to be activists. But when their children were killed in the violent military crackdown on the Chinese pro-democracy movement in 1989, everything changed.

All they ask is the freedom to publicly mourn without harassment, the release all those who remain in prison in connection with the 1989 protests, full public debate about the events and an independent inquiry into what happened on those dark days almost 19 years ago.

All they want is justice. Led by Ding Zilin (who was nominated for a Nobel peace prize), they face great personal risk every time they speak out. They've suffered detentions, repeated interrogations, and prolonged house arrest. It's a long, dangerous, and all too lonely campaign.

We can never restore what they've lost. But this Mothers' Day in China, we can show these brave women just how big their global family really is, and how much we appreciate their courageous stand for justice.

If you take a moment to fill out a Mothers' Day card online, we'll deliver your comments directly to the Tiananmen Mothers by Chinese Mothers' Day. Just click below to complete and send your card:

Click here to send your card

This Mothers' day in China, let's take a moment to show the Tiananmen mothers that on this day -- which has become so bitter sweet for them -- they are not forgotten. They are never alone.

Please fill out your card today.

Thank you,

Kate Allen
Director, Amnesty International UK

[Technorati tags: mothers day | tiananmen mothers | amnesty international]

Tim Hortons? BAH!

2008-05-08T08:05:00.004-04:00

Is that iconic, and quintessentially Canadian company, Tim Hortons, truly that BAH? Apparently so, as reported in this Globe story. Timmie's apparently fired an employee for giving a free Timbit - that is one Timbit - to the 11-month-old baby of a regular customer. The three (three!) managers who participated in the firing tribunal with the heinous act of thievery caught on tape were just following orders: " Giving food away free is against the rules, said Tim Hortons district manager Nicole Mitchell. "Employees aren't allowed to give out free products and that's the bottom line,” she said. “She gave out free product and it doesn't matter if it is a Timbit or a coffee or a doughnut or 10 sandwiches or what.”"

The Bureaucratic, Administratively controlled, and Hierarchical mind cannot distinguish between a sixteen-cent Timbit given to the upset baby of a customer who, over time, likely spends hundreds of dollars at the outlet; and stealing cash from the till (which is, effectively, how they view the "loss" of the Timbit). And, of course, no consideration whatsoever for the public relations damage of this firing - a break in the socio-psychological valence with the community at large.

Pretty dumb, Timmie!

Update: Tim Hortons reversed its decision and rehired Nicole Lilliman. The Globe reports, "in a terse press release, the company blamed an overzealous manager for the firing, which threatened to become a public relations nightmare as the story gained traction in the media Thursday."

Overzealous manager? Then how does the company explain the response of the district manager, plus the action of three purportedly "overzealous" managers? BAH, BAH, BAH!

[Technorati tags: tim hortons | fired | timbit]

TinEye Image Search - Get the picture?

2008-05-07T08:47:00.002-04:00

Friends Leila Boujnane and Paul Bloore have just put a public face on the project their company, Idée Inc., has been working on for some time now. TinEye revolutionizes image search across the Internet by returning images that look like an image that you supply to the search engine. Upload an image, or point TinEye to an image URL, and it will return all the images it can find that are the same as, or are close matches to, the image provided. It's a remarkable technology, and a fabulous application. Here's Amber Mac explaining TinEye:

Congratulations, Leila and Paul!

[Technorati tags: tineye | leila boujnane | paul bloore | idee inc]

Taylor's Soldiering, Retrieved

2008-05-05T16:46:00.002-04:00

The only saving grace of transcribing interviews is being able to think slowly about what is actually being conveyed by my participants. Case in point: One of my participant organizations is a Fortune 50 company that can be broadly described as being in the technology sector. It is, as one might expect relatively more hierarchical and BAH in nature. Like many large tech companies, it has parallel status and pay hierarchies between a management stream and a technical stream - an über-geek need not be forced to manage people in order to achieve high status and an equivalent salary.

One of my participants from this organization described how the technical ladder is climbed. You have to have the credentials (i.e., one or more advanced degrees in science or engineering), the experience, and cumulative contributions to justify being granted a higher position. But in addition to the individual's own qualifications, the business has to acknowledge that there is a business need for an individual to be named to the higher position, because, as my participant says, "we expect that our higher technical community to have a significant contribution."

What this actually means is that the organization won't pay an individual what s/he might otherwise be worth in terms of their actual contribution, if it has not previously "justified" needing that contribution.

I'm sure that many people - particularly those doing manual or assembly-line type labour - can enact what Frederick Winslow Taylor called soldiering - essentially marking time so as not to contribute more to the enterprise than what they were being paid for. But for knowledge workers, and especially those in a technical track in a high-tech environment, it is pretty much impossible to "soldier." How does a thinker restrict the number or creativity of their thoughts, ideas and insights? "Gee, I would have invented a new algorithm today, but I'm only at a level 12, and I've used up my quota of ideas for the month. Now, if I was a 15, then we'd be cooking!"

Doesn't work like that.

What is happening is pure BAH: the company treating its knowledge workers as if they were factory labour. The organization is clearly gaining the advantage here in applying an Industrial Age model to solve what it perceives is an Industrial Age problem - the indeterminacy of labour. But as I write about in Creating a Culture of Innovation, the contemporary issue is not indeterminacy of labour, but indeterminacy of knowledge:

Rather than trying to measure and control the amount of
production labour that is going to benefit the organization, managers are now trying to measure and control the amount of knowledge work – thinking, creating, and innovating – that is occurring to benefit the organization. In the general industrial case, one could argue that the productivity of the entire organization is effectively limited by the slowest worker. In the case of indeterminacy of knowledge, the problem is reversed. For the knowledge worker, the lower limit of corporate knowledge “production” is that of the best worker, since that person’s knowledge can be electronically disseminated to all and become the norm, enabling new innovations and insights that can build upon, and exceed, that base level.

An executive from this organization might argue that there is a practical limitation to how much the business can justify to pay in aggregate salaries, irrespective of the beneficial contributions of stellar performers. I don't disagree. But this situation strikes me as a tell-tale indicator of BAH-ness, tightly coupling status, a priori-justified contribution, and pay. Organizations that strike me as being relatively more UCaPP also tend to decouple this previously paradigmatic trinity.

[Technorati tags: bah | ucapp | organization | salary justification | merit pay]