What Isn't Said

If you're a follower of this blog, you'll notice that my posts tend to fall into three general categories. There are posts about how do something, like put PayPal on your Facebook page, build a slider toggle, or include reference notes, posts that show a different side to things in technology industry news that catch my eye, and posts that are general career advice from someone who has spent a few years in a very turbulent industry. I'm not sure if this post fits in any of those three categories, or if I'm starting a fourth after reading the blogs written by two men I consider to be, at the very least, something more than acquaintances (http://www.thejourneyismydestination.com/ and http://www.codercowboy.com/). I should point out, I suppose, that neither of these has the reputation in the industry of Eric Meyer (http://meyerweb.com/) or Nicholas Zakas (http://www.nczonline.net/), but I suppose that gives them a little more influence in my estimation because they are writing, not because they need to but because they need to, and I see something of myself in that, and besides, their year-end posts were good.

In addition to the inspiration from other bloggers, this time, as I looked back on the past year and looked forward to a new year (as many of us do at the start of a new year) I came across interviewing tips from recruiters and one in particular caught my eye as I read through the post, asking myself the interview questions as part of my year-end self-reflection. The question caught my eye, in part because as someone who has conducted several interviews and 'phone screens', I find it to be a question that I've been asked, but have never asked - it's simply what is your greatest weakness.

This time, perhaps I found insight that has eluded me in previous years or perhaps I have rediscovered a forgotten truth, but I recognize that there are those who see my greatest weakness only as a weakness, while I see my greatest weakness as a strength as well. This difference in perspective likely comes about because we all expect that other people to not only understand our actions - because they're based on beliefs that spring from rational thought - but to share those rationality-generated beliefs our actions are based upon. However, that universally-held, unspoken belief is false - there are those who do not understand our actions and do not share our beliefs, and likely never will - their perception is fixed and the die is cast.

Here's where I offer a bit of advice. When this happens to you, and it's extremely likely it will, at some point although you will not fully realize what is happening you will attempt to cast what others see as your greatest weakness as a strength. This is a Sisyphian task, and no matter how many times you roll that boulder up the hill, scrabbling for every inch of dirt, it will roll back down, and all the while, none of us acknowledge or challenge our perspective unless we trust each other - really trust each other - and remember that we're human, doing the best we can with any given situation.

As the past year closes and a new one is begun, I am also reminded that good leaders know the strengths of those on their team, and beyond that, great leaders see strength where sometimes even team members see only weakness. As we work together, maybe we should take Peter Drucker's words to heart and listen for what's not said - search for those points of weakness - and talk about why we see them as weakness but to then use our trust of each other to move beyond that to see them - really see them - not only as weakness but as a hidden strength, because whether we're the team captain or just one of the players, we can all benefit from the humanity that comes from trusting each other.

Rules are beneficial because they give constraint, but it is in stretching that we grow (Robert's Rule #21)

[Tweeted 2011-07-17]

As an engineer, you have to be familiar with rules – mathematical formulas, design rules, data normalization rules, language rules, et cetera, et cetera. We're so familiar with rules that we could not imagine living without them, and if someone breaks a rule, we have other engineers dedicated to quality to identify those instances so they can be remedied.

So, if we're always following rules, how can we innovate or invent new things? We do both by stretching. In infinite diversity in infinite combinations (IDIC) creativity gains its full strength. Creativity is the basis of both innovation and invention.

If we consider, then, that our creativity is a muscle, we can think of the rules governing our environment to be the resistance against which we exercise that muscle. Much like our physical muscle is toned and built in striving against gravity by climbing a mountain, our creative muscle is toned and increased in striving against the 'rules'. Of course this exercise requires that you be familiar with what rules you strive against as well as how those rules impact your environment, for instance, if we didn't understand how gravity worked, we would not be able to effectively exercise our physical muscles.

In this analogy, we see can that rules are beneficial because they give constraint, but it is in stretching that we grow (Robert's Rule #21). So, go and create.

Experts are the worst teachers (Robert's Rule #3)

[Tweeted 2011-04-27]

One of the tasks I've had in nearly every job I've ever had is to train people. In some cases I've had some 'special' knowledge that they've needed, in some cases I've had to train them to replace me, and in some cases been the senior person or manager and had to train/mentor/coach colleagues to improve their skill levels.

In all cases teaching, training, or instructing...whatever you call it...has been difficult. Why? Well, just as in real estate the three most important factors are "location, location, location", the three most important factors in training is "audience, audience, audience".

First and most importantly not everyone learns in the same way. What we pay attention to and what we don't ("prehension" and "negative prehension" for Alfred North Whitehead, who was arguably the philosopher whose concepts made the modern computer possible) is critical. Some are auditory learners (hear it), some are visual learners (see it), and some are experiential learners (do it). I think this is probably why Confucius said "I hear and I forget; I see and I remember; I do and I understand."

Second, and only slightly less important is the audience's starting point. The way we add something to long-term memory is by associating it with other 'nuggets' (no, that's not the scientific term) in our memory...generally ease of recall is improved when there are more links between items, so the greater the base of knowledge the more you can link items to the easier it is to recall information. (Whoa, see how I threw in a self-reinforcing loop?! Yep, even psychology uses systems theory.)

Let's look at a specific case and see what we might glean from it.

In my first job out of college I traveled Indiana and Illinois installing payment systems (read the first time I mentioned this job). At one location, a senior-citizen community center, I installed a PC with an hand-held OCR device (state-of-the-art at the time) and had to train a receptionist who had never used a typewriter. There's not a way to develop a PowerPoint^® presentation for that. There are issues of keyboard layout (without typewriter experience, a QWERTY board was new) and flashing lights and beeps that all mean something.

Basically, I found myself in a position where I not only had to teach the skill but also teach the "associations". Luckily for me, this was my first installation and we had just completed programming the prototype 2 weeks prior, so I had just learned the hand positioning et cetera. All of the associations I had made that allowed me to perform the physical tasks were still fresh in my mind. If I had to go back and do the same task today it would take me considerably longer.

What sort of meaningful rule can we extrapolate from this experience? One that seems a little counter-intuitive at first glance, but when seen in light of this example becomes understandable, almost intuitive -- experts are the worst teachers because they're too far from the beginning to recall how they learned.

So there you have it, Robert's Rule #3 and how it came to be.