Reading List: June 2015

A sampling of what's been intriguing me this past month (June 2015):

Smartphones,selfies and salvaging art tradition: museums grapple with technology tension
by Jeremy Story Carter for RadioNational
I tweeted this one out, just because it's a relatively concise summary of what many of us grapple with daily at the intersection between fine art and digital technology:

Re: #musetech @sree says "let's work together & increase access w/out reducing scholarship" Could not agree more! http://t.co/zmJqSTIzmr

— Douglas Hegley (@dhegley) June 3, 2015

The Myers-Briggs Personality Test Is Bunk But I Don't Care | WIRED by Sarah Seltzer
The author points out that the popular and well-known Myers-Briggs personality test is reductive, simplistic, and based on a false assumption that we are defined by clear dichotomies. In addition - and for me this harks back to my graduate school training in psychology - the test doesn't meet the basic tents of social science:

• Lacks reliability (isn't consistent over time)
• Isn't valid (doesn't hold logically)
• Isn't independent (plenty of variables muddying the waters)
• Isn't truly comprehensive (doesn't explain everybody)

And yet ... the author argues that the test is still useful. "Any means for busy adults to take time to comprehend ourselves and see how our styles converge and diverge from others has a use ... "

I find this interesting. There are so many possible "personality tests" and/or organizational tools used by businesses to identify strengths and weaknesses in teams and/or individuals. Most of these would suffer in light of the same criteria. However, if the output of the instruments can be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, it can be argued that each has the potential to foster:

• Insight
• Tolerance
• Empathy
• Patience
• Embracing diversity

What Makes an Organization "Networked"? by Greg Satell for hbr.org
The author argues that the industrial revolution required bureaucracy to meet scale, then the information age engendered matrix organizations in an attempt to foster cross-functional collaboration. He goes on to argue that even the matrix organization cannot keep up with the rapid change of pace and the complexity of the marketplace " ... matrices, in a sense, led to the worst of both worlds, a cumbersome organizational structure and the inability to adapt to fast changing contexts." So what to do? So-called small world networks, which arise organically in any connected system, are seen as the next step in business evolution. Interestingly, he doesn't proclaim that flat organizational structures nor holocracy are necessary to achieve the most-effective networking. What matters most are clustering (small groups of individuals working together closely and focused on a goal) and path length (the distance, or number of links, between clusters). Shorter path length increases communication and enables alignment and productivity. Organizations must encourage networking, and leaders should instill passion and commitment. While this formula, in my humble opinion, is a bit of a simplification, I find it resonates with leadership styles that I attempt to embody. If anything, the article reminds me that success isn't based only on the raw number of connections across the organization, but on the inter-connectedness of the clusters within the organization. Achieving that is truly silo-busting.


8 Ways to Tell if You're a Good Boss, on Leading with Trust blog
Okay, so this blog post starts off with a rather silly Wizards of Oz reference & photo, but read on and perhaps find some food for thought about leadership and being a "good boss". It's based on the findings from Google's People Operations unit, in which they crunched a lot of feedback in an attempt to find out what makes a good boss. It's a summary of course, and perhaps lacks nuance, but when I read through, it made me pause for a moment to think about whether I consistently meet these criteria. I won't repeat the list here, please click through and read for yourself. I will say that I *think* I strive to meet these characteristics, although I'm sure that I fall short at times. I plan to share this post with my team and get their thoughts not only on the criteria but also on my/our performance. Might not always be easy to look in the mirror honestly, but in my opinion it's an extremely useful effort that can pave the way for better success. Am I a good boss? I have to leave the answer to that question up to those who work with me.

Image Source: http://bit.ly/1e4Qkz1

This is the Product Death Cycle, by @andrewchen

I think this article interested me so much because it seemed to argue against being customer-focused. However, as I re-read it, I think it's making a more nuanced point. While I suppose it's possible to emerge from some kind of intensive period of seclusion with "the next big thing", I also think it's much more likely that iterative cycles that include customers help most companies develop products that are more-refined, more likely to work, and capable of creating buzz leading to peer-to-peer marketing.

That being said, shirking the responsibility for designing products by simply polling the public isn't the same thing. If you are saddled with a poorly-performing product, then asking people what color to paint that thing isn't really going to move the dial. I'd argue that there must be a balance of some kind - take the poor product, redesign it with public input, then test it to see if the new product is improved (on whatever measure your company cares about). In short, it's less about "what features should we add?" and more about "what are our customers trying to accomplish and how can be help them?"


Making Decisions Transparent, by Joan Baldwin on Leadership Matters blog
The author makes strong points about the importance of a transparent style of leadership. I was particularly struck by the ties made to trust, learning, and respect for alternative points of view that arise from effective transparency and sharing. I also agree wholeheartedly with the point that a " ... closed-door process left everyone else free to fill in the narrative. And narratives, whether created at museums or schools, whether about policy, personnel or change, take on a life of their own." I was discussing my decision-making with a colleague last week, and reflecting on my discomfort at making any decisions completely on my own. I much prefer to sound things out and explore the ripple effects of any decision with other people, before "deciding" - I put that in quote, because to me it often feels more like a consensus + commitment than it does a decision. By sharing the process openly and honestly, everyone has an ownership stake in the decision itself and (I think) more skin in the game to help reach successful outcome. Like collaboration, transparency isn't a magical pill that solves all problems - handled poorly it can lead to suspicion of incompetence! But applied professionally and thoughtfully, true transparency empowers an entire organization.


Back to Basics: Setting Priorities on @lifehackorg
The author of this post makes the very important point clearly: "When we don’t set priorities, we tend to follow the path of least resistance". We are all susceptible to this. When feeling overwhelmed, it's a lot easier to deal with your Inbox or check out the latest Twitter feed than it is to really dig in and figure out the hard stuff.

To overcome this problem, the author lays out three potential strategies, and advises us to try each in order to understand what works best for each of us individually. I'll summarize briefly here, but I recommend you read the article (it's short) to learn more.

1. Eat that frog: Tackle the hardest, least-pleasant task FIRST, every day.
2. Move big rocks: Prioritize, then focus on those priorities. 
3. Organize tasks using Covey quadrants: This enables you to see clearly what you should be working on, instead of constantly reacting to whatever crosses your plate.

Three potential strategies, and not a comprehensive list, but at least thought-provoking. I think at the core it's about having an intentional and thought-through approach to your work, whatever form that may take. People who've worked with me probably get sick of me interrupting meetings by saying "Wait, what are we trying to do here?" Each time I ask that question, I'm trying to reframe the discussion to focus on the meaningful goal(s) and then make sure that we're driving toward that set of goals, instead of getting mired down in details or spinning off into scope-creep hell. That's what "Back to Basics" is ultimately about for me.