One of Wally Bock’s tips about planning (worth reading) lead me to reread a post I wrote on the same topic a couple of years ago and reposted as a Golden Oldie last February.

The crux of the post is the difference between nouns and verbs.

It is plan-the-verb that distinguishes the winners from the also-rans and it is the verb that keeps you ahead of the competition. (…) Plan-the-verb boosts initiative, encourages taking responsibility and speeds professional growth, providing you with a stronger in-house bench from which to grow.

It is always detrimental to value the noun—plan, leader, manager—more than the verb—plan, lead, manage—but in the business world it can be devastating.

Which are you?

Being a noun involves making announcements, pronouncements, discussions, and shifting paper from here to there — and (often) back again.

Being a verb requires initiative and action.

Verbs don’t wait to be told what needs doing; they actively look for it and each time they find it they move, of their own volition, to resolve it.

In most things in life you have a choice and this is no different.

While we are all part noun and part verb, it is our individual decisions that determine which trait grows and dominates.

Image credit: Jason Taellious

I, and dozens of others, have written on the negative and downright destructive effects from social media’s FOMO.

However, I hadn’t given any thought to the idea that it had invaded the workplace, too.

As if email [at work] wasn’t bad enough at cultivating FOMO, we now have a new generation of real-time tools like chat to stoke it. Yet another thing that asks for your continuous partial attention all day on the premise that you can’t miss out.

FOMO is just as detrimental at work as it is personally. It distracts, interrupts conversations, and destroys focus.

Basecamp noticed and not only created a solution, but also gave it a catchy, sharable name.

People should be missing out! Most people should miss out on most things most of the time. That’s what we try to encourage at my company, Basecamp. JOMO! The joy of missing out.

It’s JOMO that lets you turn off the firehose of information and chatter and interruptions to actually get the right shit done. It’s JOMO that lets you catch up on what happened today as a single summary email tomorrow morning rather than with a drip-drip-drip feed throughout the day.

Once again, Basecamp hits a homerun. (Two previous posts, here and here, talk about others.)

If you’re impressed with Basecamp’s ideas, you’ll not only enjoy It Doesn’t Have to Be Crazy at Work, by Basecamp co-founders Jason Fried and David Heinemeier Hansson, you’ll also find solutions you can use.

Image credit: Basecamp

Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

An excerpt from It Doesn’t Have to Be Crazy at Work reminded me of just how much damage socially driven FOMO is causing — not just psychologically, but physically, too.

And now it’s invaded the workplace. Join me tomorrow for a look at what one company is doing to combat FOMO at work.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

People’s preoccupation with their screens has been blamed for many things and if you’ve been around someone who kept sneaking peeks while talking you know how annoying that is.

But did you know it messes up not only your brain, but also your capacity for connection, friendship, empathy, as well as your actual physical health?

Texting even messes up your infant’s future!

New parents may need to worry less about genetic testing and more about how their own actions — like texting while breast-feeding or otherwise paying more attention to their phone than their child — leave life-limiting fingerprints on their and their children’s gene expression.

It’s not just a case of being distracted.

Your vagus nerve connects your brain to your heart and how you handle your social connections affects the vagal tone, which, like muscle tone, can improve with exercise and that, in turn, increases the capacity for connection, friendship and empathy.

In short, the more attuned to others you become, the healthier you become, and vice versa. This mutual influence also explains how a lack of positive social contact diminishes people. Your heart’s capacity for friendship also obeys the biological law of “use it or lose it.” If you don’t regularly exercise your ability to connect face to face, you’ll eventually find yourself lacking some of the basic biological capacity to do so.

Do I think this research will actually make a difference in people’s actions?

No.

Even if the information becomes widespread I don’t think people would give up the instant gratification of being mentioned or conquer their FOMO and focus instead on quality face time.

It doesn’t seem a big deal right now, but look into the future at a world that doesn’t just lack connection and empathy, but is filled with people who aren’t even capable of it.

I’m glad I won’t be around.

One last item; a short essay that says better than I have in the past exactly why I don’t carry a cell phone. Enjoy!

Image credit: Mike MacKenzie

I’ve used stuff from Frits Ahlefeldt many times over the years; he does amazing cartoons, illustrations and art.

Better than anything I could say are Frits’ own words.

Drawing and wondering about how the need for personal online branding on places like Facebook and Twitter more and more influence the experiences and challenges people choose, because  they are all part of a personal media / branding strategy.

This guy took it all the way:

Image credit: HikingArtist

Are you familiar with the song Where have all the flowers gone?

It was written by Pete Seeger, with additional verses added by others, and the full circle of the song is as valid today as it was when Seeger wrote it nearly 60 years ago.

The refrain at the end of each verse is “Oh, when will they ever learn? Oh, when will they ever learn?” and it became one of the best known protest songs of the Viet Nam War. Fast forward to today you find proof across the globe that we still haven’t learned.

That refrain also applies, with some rewording, to the war being waged between technical advances and consumer safety and security.

In September, Facebook hesitantly admitted that its access keys were hacked due to flawed code — a hack that potentially affected more than 50 million users, including Zukerberg and Sandberg.

Facebook explained that the hack was caused by multiple bugs in its code relating to a video-upload tool and Facebook’s pro-privacy “View As” feature. (…)

Most recently, a major flaw was found in the AI code used in personal assistants, such as Alexa, Siri, or Cortana.

Scientists at the Ruhr-Universitaet in Bochum, Germany, have discovered a way to hide inaudible commands in audio files (…) the flaw is in the very way AI is designed. (…) According to Professor Thorsten Holz from the Horst Görtz Institute for IT Security, their method, called “psychoacoustic hiding,” shows how hackers could manipulate any type of audio wave–from songs and speech to even bird chirping–to include words that only the machine can hear, allowing them to give commands without nearby people noticing. The attack will sound just like a bird’s call to our ears, but a voice assistant would “hear” something very different.

The “damn the security / full speed ahead” mentality isn’t anything new.

Nor is the greed that drives it.

There is an old saying, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”

When will they ever learn?”

It’s likely the answer is “never.”

Image credit: koka_sexton

Last year I had an argument over lunch with a woman friend who insisted that women in tech, especially in Silicon Valley, don’t face the same kind of difficulties career-wise that other women do.

She based her argument on the successful technical careers of a number of women friends and she became increasingly an4gry when I kept disagreeing with her.

I didn’t realize until several days later that we were both right.

Her friends did indeed build successful tech careers during the 1970s and 80s — predating the dot com era.

I, however, was focused on post dot com attitudes in the wake of the rise of bro culture.

Anyone around tech these days either recognizes the bias against women or lives in deep denial.

The latter apparently includes the editors in charge of Wikipedia, who didn’t think much of Donna Strickland’s work.

Prior to winning the Nobel Prize, Strickland’s only previous mention on Wikipedia was in an article about Gérard Mourou, her male co-inventor. On May 23, a Wikipedia editor rejected a draft of an article about Strickland, claiming that it failed to “show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject.” The rejected draft noted that she was at that time the associate chair of the physics department at Waterloo, and a past president of the Optical Society.

Not surprising when you consider that 90% of Wikipedia editors are young, college-educated males. Not a group exactly known for their pro-diversity stance.

As for Waterloo, Strickland says she never applied for a full professorship, but one has to wonder why the school didn’t notice her work.

Of course, if one is going to choose who notices their work, most would prefer the Nobel Committee to the editors of Wikipedia.

After the Prize was announced, Wikipedia finally created an article about Strickland.

But in what seems like an effort to disparage her accomplishment those same editors added a “personal life” section to her page.

Strickland is married to Douglas Dykaar, also a physicist.^[7] They have two children.^[7]

Information that is conspicuously absent from her male co-winner’s page.

Finally, the video on Strickland’s page talks about a childhood trip to a science fair, while Mourou’s features his post award speech.

How’s that for bias?

Image credit: Susan Young

Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

Last week I shared an article I wrote years ago for The Conference Board magazine. Due to a mix-up I didn’t get the actual magazine for several months, which provided me with an objectivity I wouldn’t have had otherwise.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

A few months ago I received an email from the editor of The Conference Board Review inviting me to submit an article for the next issue.

The Conference Board Review is the quarterly magazine of The Conference Board, the world’s preeminent business membership and research organization. Founded in 1976, TCB Review is a magazine of ideas and opinion that raises tough questions about leading-edge issues at the intersection of business and society.

And not just for the online version, but to appear in the actual magazine.

I read the TCB article online (no longer available) and that was cool, but the thrill of seeing something I wrote in a slick magazine like TCB Review really affected me.

I often go back and read stuff I wrote days, months, even years ago and it never ceases to surprise me.

When I reread it in the actual magazine I was blown away.

As are many of us when we revisit something we did a week or a month or longer in the past.

It happens because we see it from the outside—and we are blown away.

We look at it and marvel; the quality and execution impresses; the inherent value surprises; and we revel in the fact that it is our creation.

It doesn’t matter what it is, big or small; whether it was produced at work or elsewhere; it doesn’t even matter if anyone else will ever see it.

We look and we are amazed.

Now it’s your turn; review some of the things you’ve done in the past and I’ll bet several of them will blow you away, too.

Image credit: The Conference Board

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here.

Meet your target audience — no matter their age.

Image credit: Frits Ahlefeldt, AKA, HikingArtist

I have been at my new company for a little more than a month now and continue to learn more each day. I stumbled across something last week that impacted me more the longer I dwelled on it and I thought it important to share.

We use #slack at work for all internal communications and there are several channels that cover a variety of topics. This ranges from marketing info, sales data and the most important channel of all… random.

This channel is exactly as it sounds. You can post whatever you like in here as long as it is not offensive. People post pics of cute dogs, random news stories and funny memes.

However, there is a deeper element that I have come to appreciate.

I work for a geospatial data collection company and our platform allows our users to create apps that can meet their specific needs when it comes to data collection.

If a utility company wants to document where streetlights are located they can create an app to do so. Want to track where poachers are operating in the African bush? We have you covered with an app. What if you want to track and document something a bit less serious, say what type of booze you are consuming each night?

Bingo, that’s right. Some enterprising individual in our company created an app on our platform that can track what drinks you consume. You can include a picture, your location, 1-5 star rating and any comments you may have on the drink.

However, they took it a step further. After documenting this event how can you tell the world, or in this case our company, that you consumed a wonderful beverage? Simple, you link it to the random channel in #slack and every time you create a log it sends that info to be posted on the random channel.

Each night I get to see what my team mates are consuming and the various comments people post. How does this tie into culture? It is a purely voluntary action on the part of those submitting posts. It’s not pushed by management or tracked. It’s a fun way to interact with your colleagues after hours, while enjoying the comfort of home.

Not a bad way to end the night, in my opinion.

Image credit: Slack

It is said, “Cut off the head, and the body will wither.” During World War II, the Germans made every effort to kill off enemy officers, assuming that without their leadership Allied troops would crumble. But a funny thing happened: Every time a leader was put out of commission, someone else stepped up and assumed the role—whether or not he held rank.

The impromptu replacements didn’t think about it, discuss it, or worry about whether they could successfully do it; in the chaos of battle, they took the initiative, did what was necessary, and became “leaders in the instance.”

Leaders aren’t born, nor are they promoted, appointed, or anointed. Leaders develop by doing; they develop with assistance from their managers and company, without it, and, sometimes, in spite of it.

Once in a management role, they have no choice, because today’s workplace requires an enlightened, demanding, and independent workforce that has no problem voting with its feet when unhappy.

Decades ago, a major disservice was done to business when the idea that managers and leaders were separate and that leaders were “better” than managers was introduced. Sadly, that attitude is still in force today, but look carefully at these distinctions, from Warren Bennis’s On Becoming a Leader, and ask yourself how well any manager or leader can perform in the twenty-first-century workplace without both sets of skills.

• The manager maintains; the leader develops.
• The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.
• The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.
• The manager accepts reality; the leader investigates it.
• The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.

The difference between being labeled a good, mediocre, or bad manager is often the difference between how many of the so-called leadership traits the manager embraces. Leaders are said to have vision and the ability to communicate it to their people, but that is exactly what every manager, even the lowest-level team leader, must do, within the scope of their role, if they want their people to be productive and innovative.

It is good to remember that people do not join companies because of the CEO or a few top executives—they join for the culture and the people, specifically their team and manager.

These two areas are tightly interwoven; there is an overall company culture and a subculture perpetrated by the manager to whom they report, no matter how junior. And each subculture is influenced more by the person directly above than by the person in the corner office.

Therefore, disseminating these skills throughout the organization requires a concerted effort that starts with the CEO and extends across the executive ranks, because it is on the rocky shores of culture that this effort usually sinks.

To lead means to show initiative, which means taking risks and braving the possibility of failure.

In a culture where failure is cause for anything from private sarcasm to public belittling and even dismissal, who in their right mind will show initiative? If the messenger is killed, who will speak up when the news is bad?

In short, senior managers have no choice but to push leadership down through the ranks—just as responsibility was pushed down forty years ago, as organizations flattened and companies stripped away management levels.

Life and work are always about choices, and promoting leadership throughout your part of the organization is a matter of choice, whether or not those above you make the same choice.

This article was first published in the October 2009 issue of The Conference Board magazine.

Image credit: Free Images