Category Archives: Observations

Legacy Entrapment

Posted on July 3, 2011 | 3 Comments

Where does it all begin?  When does a pattern emerge?  How do we decide that one thing is better than another?  Why do we make the choices we do?

Obviously we can blame our parents first.  That which we know probably started with them.  Then we can blame the media and the Internet for the remaining bits.  We see, we do.  We like to copy that which we have seen.  If we see someone do something and it worked for them, then it should work for us.

This is the nature of primates.  The roots are deep.  It is hard to ignore those aspects of ourselves.  We see, we do.

Sometimes things are designed to be so easy to do it is hard to avoid them.  Once they are used, it is hard to stop.  Things like telephones and televisions come to mind.  Simplicity attracts use.  Use attracts others.  Soon, a large group of customers are avid fans of that which they use.

Enter the entrapment.  Once a user gets hooked on a way something works, the user expects it to always do certain things.  The momentum of the mind will accept minor deviations in future products but will not tolerate having its basic needs met. Continue reading →

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Internet Explorer, Microsoft, Observations

Tagged ,

The Age

Posted on April 24, 2011 | Leave a comment

We are all getting older. There is a time that is called the prime of our lives. Typically it is over before we know it. In computer times, this prime shifts much faster. Being in the right place at the right time is becoming incredibly difficult when the window of time is so small.


The theory is that if you are born in a certain age, there is a chance you will become a part of what your time offers. This is summarized in the book “Outliers” by Malcolm Gladwell.  His theories are much more advanced than what is portrayed here.  In general, he describes a very different view to what brings success.  Typically timing and practice play major roles in competing well in a world that is always changing.

It is easy to conclude that you were not born at the right time.  Based on the examples in the book, it is clear that the computer industry leaders were largely born around 1955.  Anyone around the age of 20 in 1975 was well positioned to take advantage of the emerging personal computer generation.  Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are perfect examples.

Continue reading →

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Observations, Philosophy

Ego-less Genius

Posted on May 4, 2010 | Leave a comment

A few years ago, I participated in a seminar about creativity.  Since then there have been several email updates about creativity in the business world.  From the latest email, there was a link to a speech from Elizabeth Gilbert.  You never know exactly what you are going to get with these kind of emails but this one turned out to be quite interesting.  Elizabeth is a writer and has just recently had a major success with her book “Eat, Pray, Love”.  She has struggled with the creative process much like any other artist.

If you are still interested, please watch the Elizabeth’s TED talk before continuing reading this post.  She explains it much better than I could.

In her career, she has noticed that writing has always been full of turmoil.  So many successful writers have met their doom even at their own hands.  Elizabeth questioned why it is this way.  Research led to an answer that was unexpected.  In ancient times creativity was seen as something that lived outside humanity.  It was seen as more like a spirit that influenced artists that were willing to listen.  Roman and Greek civilizations were heavily influenced by the view that creativity was at the mercy of the gods.

Modern times starting with the Renaissance shifted the creative process solely to the artist.  This shift seems innocent based on our focus on science and technology.  Unfortunately it puts too much pressure on the creative people.  If they consider themselves to be the sole source of original thought, they are also more likely to form regret and blame themselves when things go wrong.  Elizabeth points out that it is far healthier to keep the credit and blame outside the person.  She talks of how genius used to have a different definition.  It used to refer to the outside influence trying to reach the people creating.  Now it is seen as a statement of the ego.

For a number of reasons, her approach is refreshing.  Creative thinking no longer is limited to the framework of how we currently think.  The most imaginative influences often come from the most unlikely sources.  It makes sense that being this creative is not something than can be performed in the model of an island.  Acceptance of new outside ideas creates a mixed pot of blended concepts.  From this brew come really new ideas.

Regardless, it is very cool to see this kind of insight available on the Internet.  With views like this, we are well on our way to a much more interesting future.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Ideas, Observations, Video

Choice Paradox

Posted on April 26, 2010 | 2 Comments

Now and then an author writes about something that starts off being counter-intuitive.  Barry Schwartz wrote the book, “The Paradox of Choice”, to address the misconceptions about the process of making a decision.  In most modern societies, it is perceived that having more choice is always better.  According to the book, the opposite is true.  There are quite a few reasons why.  ”More choice” is a mantra that has been such a part of democracy and free markets that it will continue to be hard to see the wisdom of less choice.

Barry Schwartz starts his book by talking about all the choices available in a supermarket.  It is quite illustrative to hear about how many different items exist within specific categories.  Why is it necessary to have 200+ types of crackers?  The theory is that the consumer needs more choice to be happy with their selections.  The problem comes from not knowing which one to get.  Any kind of attempt to find the perfect cracker is doomed to fail given the widespread variety.  If a customer thinks that they are going to make the right choice if they invest more time is that much more unlikely to think that they have made the wrong choice since they have not tried all the alternatives.  Buyer’s regret (at some level) is bound to follow.  Even if the cracker is what they first wanted, they will be thinking that there is probably something better out there.

If there were only a few crackers available (like in a convenience store) it is much more likely that the choice will be fast and acceptable.  The buyer will still think that perhaps it would be better to have more choice but at least the lack of choice has made the selection process less stressful.

The assumption is that freedom equals choice.  Whereas this is true if there is no choice, it actually causes problems if the choice range grows too large.  Too much choice leads to paralysis (lack of action) and potential unhappiness.  If the choices are too close in nature and there are too many items to compare, the consumer is bound to react badly and not make any choice at all.  It is common for consumers to want the best product at the best price.  Unfortunately, this attempt to maximum the transaction comes at a high price in time and satisfaction.  It takes a great deal of time to compare potentially hundreds of items.  Also, at the end, the buyer is bound to think that one of the other choices should have been made.

In simple terms, people are only able to comprehend so many things at once.    It is estimated that people can only hold at most nine things in their short term memory.  This means, in general, once the number of things grows beyond nine, it is very difficult to process them.  Without the capacity to process more than a few items, it causes us to overload our capacity to find the right answer.    If anything, we need to filter out input to be able to see what we are really interested in.  Unfortunately, it is difficult to know what to filter as well.

Brian writes about how there are two types of people when it comes to choice.  One type of person will determine what they want ahead of time and use their criteria to analyze the decisions.  This can be categories as people that want something “good enough” for their use.  The second type of person wants the perfect solution.  They tend to spend much time comparing products and always doubt that they have seen the best.  In the pursuit for perfection, there is no perfect answer.  Tomorrow might bring a better answer and they will regret their choice almost as soon as they commit.

It the the second type of person (perfectionist or maximizer) that is going to be the most unhappy with their choices.  Regardless of how much time they spend on determining their best choice, they will typically find only disenchantment.  In the worst cases, it even leads to depression.  Because they are always seeking the best, they also are never satisfied with where they are.  The best is an idea that is always transient and heavily based on current state of mind.

Barry also asks the question about choices related to work.  In his TED video from 2005, he explains that modern technology has made it possible to work from anywhere.  So, the question becomes for the worker whether or not they should be working now.  That kind of decision causes stress for the people trying to maximize their careers.  They feel compelled to work beyond the boundaries of the workplace.  However, even when they are compelled to work, they still feel the pressure to have a family or private life.  Given that work is no longer location based, it makes it hard to restrict the choice about how the time is spent.  Citrix is one of the companies that makes it easy to work from anywhere.  Obviously mobile phones have a much larger impact on the ability to do work.  Having a laptop or similar device also plays a part.

So, when someone says that they want it all, they are really saying they want maximum everything.  The chance for happiness goes down considerably.  The reason why is fairly simple.  The person is always going to doubt their decisions.  This doubt will tend to create bad decisions that will lead to a downward spiral.  It is hard to walk the tight rope and be only focused on the end result.  You need to know where you are with the realization that your current self needs to focus not on what is to come but rather deal with the simple decisions that are happening right now.

It is ancient wisdom to understand that things should be caught when they are small.

Deciding is what our brains are built for.  Each decision leads to our specific future.  Our fear is that unless we spend more time deciding, we will have an unhappy future.  The truth is often that the best future for us cannot be foreseen from current choices.  Instead, the ego frets over different paths being completely blind to the option that makes the most sense.

In the movie, “The Matrix” there is a great deal of debate about what choice really is.  During one of the discussions, the Oracle proclaims that we can only see the through the choices that we understand.  Essentially understanding implies acceptance.  In other words, the ability to see your future is directly tied to the ability to accept what happens from your choices.  The movie takes it a step further and suggests that there is no such thing as choice (it is an illusion) and that the reliving of the choices is only for the sake of understanding.  How twisted is that?  Of course, this all fictional with roots in philosophy.  Challenges come from many sides and the results make us stronger people.

Within the business world, choices are made constantly.  As companies grow and influence increases, so does the cost of decisions that are made.  Eventually, the company will get to the stage where it stands to lose more than it gains from making aggressive choices.  This state leads to stagnation and even decline.  This model is true of nation-states as well.  Keeping in mind that technology is making it easier to generate “what-if” choices, this only increases the complexity of the environment.  Companies and countries that avoid risk will be paralyzed by choice.  Smaller companies have less to lose and have less options as well due to lack of money.  They do more with less and if they are successful, they will eventually replace those at the top.

Are rich people happy?  Well, they obviously can be.  As a whole, however, being able to have more choices (which can correspond to having more money) only leads to frustration.  Regardless of the expertise of the rich person, they are eventually going to run into choices outside their area.  Because of this, they would need to hire people to advise them and this means that there must be some kind of trust.

Which brings us to the last topic.  The choice to trust is probably the most important choice of all.  Without trust, we are islands in the deep ocean.  We decided not to choose because we do not have enough faith in either our own judgment or the judgment of others.  We sit stranded.  We are not going anywhere and as long as there are no bridges of trust, it will most likely remain that way.  It is easy to postpone an important decision simply because the damage is not obvious.  What we don’t know is that by not changing course we have already hit the iceberg.

The key to happiness is to accept the idea of “good enough”.  Instead of trying to find the perfect match, it is best to accept what you originally wanted.  Do not continue to think that there is something else better out there.  Perhaps there is.  That is not the point.  The main point is that if you always think that you can do better, you never will.  And, more importantly, if you accept the situation you are currently in, you are more likely to make choices that you understand and will bring you to the future you are meant to live (even if the ego does not agree).

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Book Analysis, Observations

Tagged

Distant Bonds

Posted on April 12, 2010 | 4 Comments

There is a trend emerging from people using communications technology.  No longer are things limited to the realm of small areas, it is now possible to broadcast information to the world quickly.  The web has the ability for other people to tell us what is going on as well as share our information with them.

One thing I have noticed is how much people use mobile phones.  This has been most obvious when there is a need to wait for some event to happen.  For example, it is common for people to communicate to friends and family while waiting to board a plane.  This is not really odd given the nature of being potentially lonely or bored.  However, it does seem that people treat the mobile phones as a link to someone just to make the time pass faster.  All it takes is the realization that there is quiet time to potentially bring the need to call someone.

Mentally, the person forming this link is no longer fully focused on wherever they are.  They are distracted by the conversation and can find it annoying to be interrupted by events happening locally.  The observation is that people that do this have stopped any potential interaction with the things around them.

It is like they have created their own personal cocoon  and only bring in people they trust into their world.  Perhaps this is not much different from before.  Perhaps it is just more likely to be able to see this private life in public.

Where could this go?  Where does this lead?

It seems it will always be true that we want certain people to be with us.  Even if those people cannot physically be there, we will always find comfort in being with those we can be ourselves with.  This kind personal contact without the physical presence will always be something we, as humans, want.  Mobile phones seem to be the direct proof of that.

Ideally, we want a link to be active whenever it is desired and we also want it to be as realistic in nature as possible.  The technology simply is not there yet.

Imagining what could be possible leads to the idea of segmented worlds.  In other words, the mind could be fooled to perceive senses that are actually not in the real world.  Researchers are working hard to discover technologies that will lead to this kind of reality modification.  Recently there were investigations into using ultrasound to trigger changes in the mind.  Current research is focused on helping to cure diseases and conditions but ultimately will lead to new branches of brain research.

Given that the mind will be better understood in the future and that technology will be advanced as well, it would be possible to create a device that could be worn (maybe glasses) that would end up being effectively a mind interface.  Once there, it would be possible to link directly to other mind interfaces of friends and family.  Of course the interface would be protected and would mostly focus on the senses.  The idea is to create the link such that the mind interface will supplement the senses and make it seem that the other person is actually there.  This could also imply that the local reality could be largely removed by overlaying images from afar.  Or, even more interesting, the two environments could be cleverly merged.

Just then I was imaging being at the airport.  If my family was around me, it could seem that they are actually there with the local furniture.   Perhaps the key is to choose which setting to share.   And, of course there would be some complications.  Maybe more realistically things would happen just in the mind with no outside actions.  This would be more like a dream.  So, in the easiest model, you share a dream with others.  There would be no need to worry about moving around.

This is sounding more and more like the idea from the “Matrix”.

What are the social implications?  How plausible is it that we prefer to dream than live in reality?

Well, most likely we would not want to do full “dreaming” in public.  It is hard to believe that we would leave ourselves vulnerable in places like an airport.  Tension usually comes from being alert.  Being unaware means being relaxed but also potentially unable to respond to any changes.  It would seem that there would be degrees of intensity of the link.  Like a sliding scale, our sense of being somewhere else would differ based on our need of being locally aware.

A much more likely event in the near future is the ability to reduce the size of audio-based communication.  Eventually the devices will be transparent.  They will also be an always-on capable devices.  Instead of focusing on the potential of calling anyone in the world, it will be more interested in links.  From these set of links, you can choose to have ones active as much as you like.  From a family point of view, this would allow for constant and instant communication with anyone family member with nothing needed except for being able to call out their name.

Personally it would be very useful for me given that it is harder to hear than it used to be.  More importantly, the instant link means that it helps to create the illusion that that person is right there near you.

Put another way, you do not dial number to talk to someone in the next room.  Why should it be necessary today to store numbers for people that you know well?  Should not the technology hide any complexity and make it like a real personal communication?

Since starting this post I have been debating about where it is good or bad to focus on distant bonds.  My initial impression is that it is bad for people to ignore their local environments.  This has been true enough that mobile phones are often banned from things like driving.  In many ways it just seems rude to have people ignoring what it going around them.

However, it also seems true that people are sharing more time together over these links than what would have been possible before.  In theory, family and friends would be able to be together more with potentially more enriched relationships as well.  Perhaps the links would be stronger for friends than family.

Thinking abstractly, Citrix is in the business of bringing information and people together regardless of location or device.  As a company, it is only recently that Citrix has explored the social web aspect of business.  Even then, the ventures are fairly limited and do not fully explore this potential.  As usual, it is not always obvious that Citrix should consider entering this field.  However, the idea of “distant bonds” could easily apply to business as well.  Given the massive popularity of Blackberry and overall instant email access, it is clear that if  you want to get ahead you need better connections with faster quality response means.  It is common for managers to monitor email constantly via their iPhones.  Being instantly informed and being able to respond comes at a price.  The line between private and work life is blurred to the point of being erased.

Maybe if the links were better managed it would need lead to such grief.  Or maybe this is just the cost of success.  Regardless, the need for better consistent connections is obvious. This is true either between the people that we care about in both the personal and business spaces.

It seems that the investment in creating a more natural way to communicate over great distances would be appealing to all.  The ultimate question is how to do with this with no external devices at all.  Last night, an idea resurfaced.  One of the biggest problems is battery life.  If your battery dies, there is no way out.  The science fiction idea that came forward is that given that we have a “brain interface” and that most likely it will be a fairly low power device, it will also be able to take energy the same way the body does.  This idea could go a bit further to allow for the possibility of burning energy for connected devices as well.  Certainly science fiction.  However, people are actually looking into this.  Check out this terse Wikipedia article.

In closing, there are lots of things coming on the horizon.  As expected, they bring new possibilities but do not necessarily make things better.

It becomes more important to be somewhere else.  As time goes by, it becomes easier to focus on something outside the local realm.  Technology has progressed far enough that our desire to be connected to others can be simple and fast.  This adoption of new technology will be widespread.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Ideas, Observations

Tagged

The Next 5000 Days of the Web

Posted on August 27, 2008 | Leave a comment

Last year Kevin Kelly gave a presentation about the next 5000 days of the web.  His views are based on what happened in the first 5000 days (roughly 13 1/2 years).  The profile for Kevin reveals a very thoughtful man.  He is in a good position to imagine what the future will bring.

Instead of talking about existing and emerging technologies, Kevin instead focuses on the more likely outcomes in the more distant future.  The point that stuck with me is that the impossible is going to be possible.  The same point of view could be expressed at the beginning of the web.  Many impossible things became common place.  And somehow, we take this for granted now.

He says “It’s amazing, and we are not amazed”.  How true.  It is only when there is a major shift that we take notice.  There is a counter point to his idea.  If we do not grow up with the technology as being new, we are more likely to be impressed.  This means older people (older than being born in the early to mid 80s) are far more likely to be impressed with the evolving web.  I admit that I am often amazed by what has happened in such a short period of time.  Perhaps if I was younger I would take it much more for granted.

He also says that originally the web was thought of as “being like TV but better”.  This model proved to be untrue.  It is clear now that we tend to shove new ideas under existing ideas to better understand them.  The web was not TV and except for the ability to playback shows, will never be the same as TV.

Kevin then states that the first lesson of the web is that we “have to get better in believing the impossible”.  This just means that things that were perceived as impossible in theory were actually possible in practice. 

This is just summarizing what Kevin says in the video.  I don’t want to give it all away but will focus on the topics that most interest me.

Kevin sees the web as a more organic mechanism that resembles the human brain in complexity.  He sees the web as a single machine which also happens to be the most interesting machine humans have ever created.  The parallels with the brain are reflected in current measurements of both the web and average brain.  Currently we are sitting at the equivalent level of one human brain based on connections and neurons.  Kevin projects that in 30 years we will reach the equivalent of 6 billion human brains on the web and therefore the web will surpass raw human computation (which assumes that only 6 billion people will be alive then).

The shift in his thinking is based largely on treating the entire web as one machine.  This is where cloud computing is heading along with the rest of the computer industry.  Isolation is becoming more and more rare as machines are becoming more linked together than ever.  Devices become windows into the machine.

There are three categories of change coming in the next 5000 days.

  1. Embodiment
  2. Restructuring
  3. Codependency

Embodiment means that we are going to incorporate more different types of devices to make the web even more diverse.  This includes things like mobile phones and other portable devices.  As things become more and more digital, the more likely it will participate with the web.  Many of the new models being put forward mix hardware in reality with virtual things in the web.  The web will also be seen as the owner of all the bits so that locally stored things will only be there for the sake of caching or offline use.

Restructuring comes with the concept of linking together data instead of just pages.  This calls for a much more intensive linking mechanism that would cross over many current boundaries.  There are some brief examples today of how this would be useful but the overall story has yet to be developed.  I would see this as an exploration in linking data together in a way that is much more natural and helpful to the users.  It would be of much more use currently in individual companies.  In a way, it addresses the need to search for relevant topics.  Links would already exist between similar ideas or objects and instead of searching, the points could be traversed.  It is a very different idea from how the web is deployed today.

Codependency comes from unloading the need to remember things.  The web will become our memory in a way.  When we need the information, we will just retrieve it when we need it.  This process is due to become more and more simpler.  The web will become further entrenched in our lives and we will become more dependant. 

The video is worth watching and is certainly much different than other talks given about the future of the web.  Even though several points could be challenged, it is not hard to see that the overall vision has merit.  Perhaps the overall message is that the machine is being built and will evolve based on our needs but we are not necessarily in full control of the overall path given its worldwide nature. 

Citrix, by comparison, is only about four years older than the web.  So many things have changed since 1989 and there are still so many things left to do.  At least it is much more clear what will happen based on our own experiences as a company.  It might be nice to conjure up a post about the future of Citrix based on its past.  That will have to wait for another time. 

Thanks Kala for the link to this video!

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Future, Ideas, Observations, Video

Tagged , ,

Technology Faith

Posted on July 28, 2008 | 1 Comment

I just returned from America a few days ago.  There was a BriForum conference in Chicago on June 16 to 18 and I was lucky enough to attend.  It’s worthy of describing the conference but I’ll save that until after I write up a summary first.

I didn’t have time to do any blogging during this work/holiday trip so this is the first post in around six weeks.  It seemed strange at first to stop but now it seems just as strange to start up again.

The topic of this post is what I would call technology faith.  The title probably gives it away but for those of you that aren’t already several paragraphs ahead, I’ll explain.

We, as a civilization, have built many inventions and some of these inventions have become embedded in our society as daily tools.  Things like the automobile, television, and the elevator are used without even any thought.  It is just expected that these things will work.  We have faith that these items will do what they are meant to do and will not break down.

The newer the technology, the more likely it will be faulty.  We still have faith that it will work well but we are often tolerate of its failings given the benefits and its young age.

Enter the era of computers and suddenly the opportunity for failure increases exponentially.  Not only can things fail from a hardware perspective, but also from bad code as well.  Add to this the expected universal addition of components and software and you have something that would be hard to test and guarantee.

This certainly is not new news.  However, during this last trip I came to realize some things that are new to me.

People are still treating computers like they are a new technology.  The truth is that core of the computer architecture dates from the 1940s.  It was heavily popularized in the business world in the 1950s and even more boosted by the introduction of PCs in the 1970s.  The point is that they have been around for quite some time.  Yet, people are still acting like it is a technology that is brand new.

Looking back, technologies that we use in our daily lives were also at one point considered unstable or difficult to use.  The original automobiles were so complicated that it took quite a bit of training to operate one.  It took nearly 20 years to build a successful popular automobile.  In general, it takes about 10 to 20 years to stabilize and popularize a new technology.

So why hasn’t this been true with computers?

The simple answer is that computers are always obsoleting previous generations.  The new generations actually inherit a core base but perform so much better that the original weaknesses are often overlooked.  In other words, there is no common technology base since it keeps on getting thrown out.  The real twist comes from the fact that each new generation makes it that much more complicated than the previous.  The guarantees that it the new platform will be more fragile than the previous.

I had a bizarre thought about how computers have so much further to go.  For example, if the human brain was modeled like a computer, any fault would cause instant paralysis.  Worse than this, most unexpected situations would likely trigger an error.  Being that the world is full of unexpected situations, this quickly leads to a very unhappy experience.

The point of this is that computers should function more like a brain in its ability to function regardless of the environment.  Obviously the brain has limits as well but the ability to function and not to freeze is a key difference.  Implicitly there is existing technology that would already allow for more tolerance of unknown events but the real flaw seems to be the fully digital nature of computer processing.  What I mean is that most decisions are made based on true/false analysis and this means that vague data does not lead to a maybe.  If the code accesses memory that causes a fatal exception (like in a driver), it seems a bit extreme to take down the whole machine.   I understand the reason why and based on the current thinking it is only way to go (except for exception handling) but the point is that the computer is so intolerant of this simply because it has no recourse for handling this kind of problem.  Its kind of like saying something bad happened and because the computer had no idea of what to do, it just gave up.  A brain wouldn’t give up that easy.  It prefers life and either finds a solution or a way to not answer the annoying question.

At this point it would be wiser to not be so faithful in computer technology.  It does seem like a good time to make it more accountable for its bad behavior.  I suspect that either people don’t know it could be better or they have just become used to the weaknesses.  Personally I’m getting tired of errors with no cures that stop me from getting something done.  Its much better to be intolerant and expect change.

It seems like the first step is to say “we aren’t going to take it anymore”.  The next step is for hardware and software companies to evolve the model so that the platform becomes much more reliable and usable.  There is still too much technology loving going on in the industry and it would be much wiser to address the old weaknesses and provide a truly usable platform.  It does seem that Apple is much more interested in this approach than others.

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Observations

Tagged

Storage Trends

Posted on May 15, 2008 | Leave a comment

The best things are found by surprise.  I’ve been wanting a history of storage capacities and costs and today I found a link to “Cost of Hard Drive Space“.  Never mind that it is in a fairly raw format and only goes to 2004.  It clearly shows where we have been and implies where we are going.

Along the lines of projection, read “What would you do with a 500,000,000,000 GB hard drive?“  That’s what you should expect to have fifty years from now based on the current growth rate.  By the year 2066, this kind of storage capacity should be common place (in theory).  What is most interesting is that this one drive could store the entire capacity of storage in the world and still have 1/3 leftover.

Lately, and very informally, I’ve noted that hard drive storage in Australia costs about $1 per GB.  Meanwhile, flash memory costs about $10 per GB.  Very unscientific but a pretty good rule of thumb.  If flash can surpass the value of hard drives, then that would cause a transition to flash based drives for most everything.  This ignores flash weaknesses that most likely would be solved by then.

This post is really just an excuse to share some valuable data.  Perhaps I’ll chart some of this later to see where a terabyte crosses over the $1 mark.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Observations

Tagged ,

First Who, Then What

Posted on April 24, 2008 | Leave a comment

1. WHO 2. WHAT

Continuing on the path of understanding what makes good into great, the next step is understanding the value of the idea “First who, then what“. This is the third chapter of “Good to Great”.

For most companies, “what to do” is often considered more important than “who to do it”. It is very common for large companies to treat employees like interchangeable gears. Back at IBM they even had a term for people that did software. On charts, we were often referred to as Programmer Units. I’ve never forgotten this attitude that all programmers were the same. This kind of thinking is prevalent amongst management structures that every worker is the same caliber.

Unfortunately for everyone’s sake, this is not the truth. Also unfortunately, the decision to focus on “what” before “who” tends to skew the results towards failing. According to Jim Collins and his research team, “who” is always more important than “what”.

The logic is this. If a manager is looking to build the right team, he or she is going to have to find the right people for that team. Much like professional sports, the individuals have to fit together and have to be in the right jobs. As Jim states, you need not only to get the right people on the bus, but you also have to get the wrong people off the bus. Once you have the right people, you need to make sure they are seated in the right locations. This goal is tied to the level 5 leadership model since the leader needs to trust the team and have strong faith that most things will take care of themselves with the right people involved.

I can relate to this perspective from the early days of Citrix. We had very few people and were always constrained to hire very few engineers per year. The team we had was strong and even though we were very different people, we worked hard and worked exceptionally well together. We would often disagree but we would always come to a conclusion.

We had an interview process that was very picky. We didn’t want to hire the wrong people. We wanted obviously to bring in the right people and have they do the right things. It’s common sense really but you would be surprised how uncommon this thinking usually is. As part of the process we had the ability to veto people. It only took one dissenting vote to turn someone down. Of course, it was necessary to justify it and argue the point but it was the way things were done.

As a result, we hired some exceptional people. Most of these people made a large contribution to Citrix and some continue on to this day. Overall, we were hiring for Citrix’s future and this process payed off.

Back to “who then what”. If you decide to hire people this way, you will be allowing your company to grow in unexpected ways. A bus of the right people is able to tackle unknown markets much easier than the wrong people. In other words, the bus of talented people is able to navigate much easier through difficult times and wonderful opportunities. It is like you are hiring for any possible situation.

That is where “what” finally comes in. The best laid plans are often changed. Something which is good now might be terrible later. Conditions are always fluctuating. The universe is not constant. People can adapt much easier than a leader can plan for. You would need to be omnipresent to be fully aware of all the possible outcomes.

The point of this is that the right “who” can handle any “what”. Any “what” cannot be handled by any “who”. This is the fatal flaw for organizations that treat all “whos” the same. Replaceable units are a mixed bag really. The mixed bag is poorly suited to tackle the random whats that will be coming.

In related hiring ideas, don’t hire the genius unless he or she can work with the team. An island of intelligence is close to useless if there is no way to get there or back. Also, never hire someone that never admits to not knowing the answer to a question. It is healthy to admit not knowing things. It is extremely unhealthy to pretend for the sake of deception. If you have any doubts during the hiring process, don’t hire. Even in desperate conditions, hiring when you have doubts is going to be a waste of everyone’s time.

If there is a need for shifting people around or even firing, do not procrastinate. Everyone suffers when decisions are not made quickly.

Finally, throw your best people on the biggest opportunities instead of your biggest problems. Opportunities are always bigger potential growth areas and are also the most challenging to get going. Problems are important to solve but do not require your best people.

When I was involved with the interviewing process, I would typically ask very difficult questions. I didn’t expect to get a decent answer but I wanted to see how the interview candidate would approach the problem or idea. Some candidates would answer “find out from a book” which was always an instant turn off. Others would attempt to remember things from school. And the last group would answer using their minds.

I had a great deal of respect for the people that used their minds creatively. This fits in with the theory that it isn’t necessarily what you know but rather how you look at things that makes you the right kind of person. “Good to Great” classifies this as either innate abilities or character traits. Based on the research, these qualities had more strength than knowledge, skills, or background.

If you hire the right people, your company is on the path for great success. If you hire the wrong people, you bog your company down into the average. It seems like a very simple choice. I guess it depends on the environment that hires people. Obviously nobody wants to hire the wrong people, right?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Good to Great, Observations

Tagged ,

Level 5 Leadership

Posted on April 22, 2008 | 3 Comments

Yesterday I wrote about “Good to Great” in general. Today I am going to focus on an idea called level 5 leadership. It is chapter 2 of the book and I remember being surprised by its revelations. At first it didn’t make sense that it would be true but by the end of the book it all fit together perfectly.

Level 5 leaders are fairly rare. There are plenty of level 4 leaders out there. The level 4 leaders match popular thinking of what a CEO should be. Level 5 is a step up and very difficult to achieve.

Being more specific, level 5 leaders are strong willed but modest. They are willing to take the blame but not the credit. They think of their companies first and themselves last. They are the ultimate broker for creating an environment that shoots into the stratosphere for performance.

It makes sense if you step back. If the leader is positioned to do what ever it takes to make the company successful and be willing to let his employees take the lead. The level 5 leader becomes more of an enabler than a king.

This presentation gives a good summary of what it takes to be a level 5 leader.

You will probably never hear of a leader who is at level 5. By definition, they are humble and do not need to be in the spotlight. The point is that level 5 leaders don’t need the flashy things in life and yet they can build a company that is truly great.

Level 4 leaders typically demand large salary packages. They have big plans that are solely their ideas. They take credit and give blame. They think about themselves before they think about the company. These are over simplifications and obviously the worst aspects. There are plenty of successful level 4 leaders that aren’t at all bad.

It is far more likely that a level 4 leader will not setup a workable plan for a successor. The reasons are fairly simple. The leader will feel threatened by the successor candidate. The leader also wants to guarantee that the company will not do better than it currently does. Bad things happening after the departure make the previous leader look good.

Part of the definition pits personal ego against company ego. A level 4 leader is thinking about personal ego mostly. A level 5 leader is bringing together a company ego. The company ego can be strong but only if the personal ego of the leader is less. The company ego defines itself through its employees. The CEO sets the tone for that energy. A great company will have a healthy ego built from individual contributions. A good company will be driven solely by the presence of its level 4 leader. Once the level 4 leader is gone, the company ego dissolves and the company will most likely falter.

The reason this was such a surprise was that it didn’t seem like level 5 leaders even existed. The media only focuses on the highly visible leaders (as can be expected). To find out that level 5 leaders are always more successful than level 4 should send a message to all businesses that there is a better way of leading companies.

The real question is why this idea has not caught on widely. Should level 5 be the goal? Is there a level 6? Is this theory sound? Lots of questions.

Does anyone know of a strong argument against what was said in “Good to Great” for level 5 leadership?

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Good to Great, Observations

Tagged ,