Clarity and the 12 Sins of Poorly Defined Outcomes

It is still not enough for language to have clarity and content... it must also have a goal and an imperative. Otherwise from language we descend to chatter, from chatter to babble and from babble to confusion. - Rene Daumal

At some point, a flash of sustained clarity reveals the difference between what someone would have you believe is true, and what you know from the depths of your own heart to the peaks of your soul to be true. What happens after that is up to you. – Aberjhani

A couple of weeks ago, in the middle of some intense frustration over some  business intentions that have refused to cross the finish line no matter how much nudging and force was applied, I stepped away from social media.

I put my 25 million connections across different platforms on hold, exchanging the useful and the useless (read: mundane or inane) chatter for quiet and replacing the incessant online chatting with people I’ve never met with more high-quality, in-person time.  An observation I made to CBC Sunday Edition regarding this was read (in part) on their show last week.  It is at 43:43 of hour 1 and was in response to this interesting piece - The anti-democratic reign of Facebook, Apple, Google and Amazon.

I also went on a diet from mainstream media.  With President Trump dominating most conversation channels any, I didn’t think I would be missing much.

And in the blessed quiet that ensued, I applied a technique not often used in my industry to explore the delays plaguing my project.

As an uber-left-brained, ultra Type A personality, it is sometimes difficult for me to get the analytical side of my brain to just shut up, stop analyzing everything around it and allow the creative right side of my brain to have a go at something that intense logic alone can’t figure out.

Using a process that borrows from techniques that artists use to maximize their potential, I set about exploring the dilemma that plagued my teams.

The process goes like this, utilizing key strengths of each side of the brain in a structured, strategic way:

1. First Insight - Back away from deep analysis of the problem and explore key insights with the right side of the brain (non problem-solving mode), allowing the brain to wander “aimlessly” around the problem.
2. Saturation - Overload the left side of the brain with the background data, context, rules, constraints and other things associated with the issue but but do not try to solve the problem.
3. Incubation - Wander away from the problem and work on anything BUT the problem, allowing the right side of the brain to creatively wander through the space, unimpeded by the analytical, logical side of the brain that insists it has the solution (an assertion unproven to this point).
4. Illumination – AHA moments arrive suddenly and out of nowhere as the issue that has been bothering you suddenly has solutions presented from the creative side of the brain.
5. Verification – Bring the left side of the brain back into play and verify that the AHA solution is appropriate, relevant, viable and actionable and use the left side of the brain to create a new strategy, guided by the creativity from the right side of the brain.

For a deeper explanation of how this process works, I recommend Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain: The Definitive, 4th Edition.

In the clarity and grey-matter wandering that ensued, I came up with 12 sins regarding outcomes that were being committed by all parties involved in my current project and armed with the list, I presented them to inside and outside teams this morning.

Here are the 12 sins – how many are you or your organization(s) guilty of?

1. Unknown Outcomes – they have been defined but for a variety of reasons, are unknown to some key individuals or have been forgotten by them.
2. Hidden / Obfuscated Outcomes – an outcome important to one or more people has been intentionally hidden from some people for reasons that benefit the owners of those outcomes.
3. Poorly Defined Outcomes – almost better than having no outcomes but potentially also more dangerous than having no defined outcomes as they are missing key elements of evidenced-based assumptions, specific measurable components and date-sensitive completion targets.
4. Undefined Outcomes – some people didn’t even bother to define them for their team(s).
5. Conflicting Outcomes – outcomes from different individuals / teams are running at odds with each other because of execution or interpretation.
6. Competing Outcomes – poor prioritization or focus has allowed outcomes to compete within the brains of a single person or team.
7. Fluid Outcomes – outcomes that constantly change based on observation, perspective and the current weather forecast
8. Rigid Outcomes – outcomes that should be redefined when data, context and situation call for an intelligent adjustment but people get locked on course, even if they are heading for an open pit.
9. Immeasurable Outcomes – outcomes based on fuzzy things, emotions or feelings instead of being evidenced-based.
10. Passive Outcomes – from the “I hope this happens / works” camp even when the data screams otherwise (if there is any data at all).
11. Aggressive Outcomes – the steam roller approach, ignoring the negative impact on people, organizations and anyone / anything else touched by the results of such outcomes.
12. Timid Outcomes – leaving important things on the table, unexplored and unleveraged, because a lack of assertiveness, confidence or information.

In my early morning presentations this morning, I could have hammered and insulted everyone involved by actually pointing out who was guilty of one or more of these sins (myself included).

But great teams don’t need to be lectured – they know how to solve their own problems once they are pointed out.  The book Are Your Lights On?: How to Figure Out What the Problem Really Is, written over 20 years ago but still relevant, has some useful information on how to encourage intelligent people to solve their own problems.

Having set my team back on course towards a successful completion of the tasks at hand, I took a look at what is trending on mainstream and social media this morning based on social media’s “what’s trending” links.

Let’s see … in the midst of the Harvey Weinstein debacle, I see that Ellen DeGeneres lit up social media with this item.

@TheEllenShow: Happy birthday, @KatyPerry! It’s time to bring out the big balloons!

Sure it’s only in jest and we are hypersensitive about everything these days.  However, if a privileged Caucasian male (a certain President comes to mind) said this, Twitter would burn to the ground in indignation.

Consistency and fairness are important when we are addressing issues in our world, are they not?

Meanwhile, HBO severed ties with Mark Halperin over his own indiscretions and yet defended a comedy that they ran a few years ago that showed a child drinking from a penis-shaped water bottle. 

Apologies for the offensive picture but it is offered to make a point.

I also explored this in the post Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson and Ignorance Run Rampant.

I see also that Hillary’s “The Election Was Stolen from Me” tour continues to trend highly and is either a form of therapy for her  (Hillary Clinton’s Book Tour Is a Dose of Much-Needed Therapy for Her Fans) or a source of anger (Fear and loathing on Hillary Clinton's grievance tour).

And finally, I see that the US Intelligence community continues to control the nation as President Trump acquiesces and allows certain JFK assassination reports to remain classified.

Not to be outdone, President Trump continues to stoke fears in many that we are all about to be wiped out in a mushroom cloud.  Whether that cloud is nuclear or ego-based is still being debated.

On the social media side, I see a lot of conspiracy rants and an invitation to determine what my porn star name would be or if an algorithm can guess my age based on my song interests.

There are many useful and important conversations happening in social media but items similar to the ones shown above are the things being fed to many people who consume what is put in front of them rather than choosing to selectively digest that which improves their lives and the lives of others.

It’s too bad that irrelevant and nonsensical drivel drown important things out and that such noise prevents many people from seeing clarity in their own personal or professional situations.

It would be entertaining to reexamine measurable outcomes of society-at-large as it pertains to social and mainstream media, politicians, business and the like.

I would but I have accepted the caveat that such analysis will unlikely move the masses who prefer to deflect attention away from their own worries, laziness, ignorance, apathy or sense of inadequacy (the latter often being untrue or unwarranted) by filling their mind with such distractions.

The Bottom Line

Clarity matters and often to obtain it, we need to create a gap between ourselves and the noise that prevents us from acquiring it.  Unfortunately, too many people are afraid of quiet, solitude and the chatter within their minds.

That’s too bad, because many people have great things aching to be revealed that could make a tremendous, positive difference on this planet.

Measurable outcomes matter and those who refuse to define and communicate them appropriately often bore and irritate others who get tired of hearing them moan about results desired but not assertively, appropriately created.

Consistency in addressing our world problems matters – we can’t be offended by what people say or do if we say or do similar things, somehow holding people to a higher standard that we refuse to hold ourselves to.

And what we fill our brain with matters in regards to the results we create for ourselves and others.

What do you fill your brain with?

I wonder if your answer and your actions express the same thing.

Does it even matter?

In service and servanthood – create a great day because merely having one is too passive an experience.

Harry

The Weapons of Mass Distraction

Clever gimmicks of mass distraction yield a cheap soulcraft of addicted and self-medicated narcissists. - Cornel West

America is addicted to wars of distraction. - Barbara Ehrenreich

The #1206 “fiction” series continues …

---

September – 2000 – New York City

In a nondescript, 12-story building on Madison Avenue in New York, the CTO of a fledgling start-up finished his presentation.  His audience, a mix of suits from Washington, DC and a few senior military officials, eyed him carefully as he walked towards his seat and sat down.

“These results are impressive”, said the military officer at the head of the table.  “It is extraordinary that the algorithms your company has developed can predict human behavior as it does.  What I am more impressed with, however, and what we need are the algorithms that allow you to calculate the value of someone’s Life, whether they are capable of surviving an event of immense proportions, what people could contribute after the event and whether they are worthy of being saved at all.”

He paused for a moment and then looked at the report before him again before muttering “extraordinary” under his breath.

The CTO, his nerves finally settling down after having completed his presentation, nodded in acknowledgement.  “The only thing missing”, he said, “is data.  All of our subjects for the demonstration provided us with the data necessary for the algorithm.  The data needed to predict the necessary factors for the entire American population does not exist in the form we need it in and possibly doesn’t exist at all.”

“So”, replied the officer at the head of the table, “If we could provide you with the data, you would be able to calculate what we need?  Will the algorithm ever get stale where it has no meaning or applicability if we can’t get the data to you quickly enough?”

“The algorithm will always be relevant”, replied the CTO, “Whether you provide me with data now or in 15 years, it’s all the same to the algorithm.”

The officer pursed his lips, nodded silently and then stood up.

“This has been quite helpful”, he said, “Some day we will have an opportunity to test your theory. Until then, your corporate focus will be on human productivity and not human survivability.  Got it?”

Without waiting for an answer, he strode out of the room as everyone else stood up to say goodbye to each other.

---

July – 2015 – Camp David

The leaders of the G8 sat around a conference room table and listened intently to a voice emanating from a telephone on the conference room table.  It had been a week since the urgent communiqué had been sent to them and now a week later, they found themselves gathered at Camp David to receive an update on project Copperfield.

“As we explained to you and your predecessors more than a decade ago”, the voice continued, “The many difficulties your nations are experiencing are far too complex to solve and our solution to you thus remains as relevant today as it did when it was first recommended.”

“That may be so”, said the President of the United States, “but we are starting to find the plan harder to execute as more of our citizens are becoming unhappy with the results we are producing and the message we are giving them.”

“Do you really think it is getting harder to execute?”, asked the voice.

“Damn straight”, replied the President as he leaned in towards the phone, “The explosion in social media has enabled too many people with too many opinions to swirl around us.  Message containment is not what it used to be.  Between conspiracy clowns coming closer to the truth than they realize and a plethora of other idiots out there, sooner or later someone is going to figure out what is going on.  There are too many unsolvable problems out there – hunger, disease, wars with no purpose, GMO foods, terror, climate change, sluggish economies.  You name it and we are dealing with it and yet we know that there are no answers to any of these issues.  We are more or less just public relations mouthpieces keeping the people fat, dumb and happy while assuring them that we have answers to all of their concerns while the reality is that we are just killing time waiting for your solution.  For all of your promises, it is me and my colleagues around the table who are being forced to deal with this stuff every day with no help from you.  The so-called attraction of distraction strategy that you outlined years ago is no longer effective, which is why I feel that we are not getting any help at all.”

“No help from me?”, echoed the voice on the phone, “What exactly do you think is going on here, Mr. President?”

The President sat back and said nothing, feeling the sting of the sarcastic question.

“All we promised”, continued the voice on the phone, “is a means of separating those who are worthy from those who contribute nothing.  Having done this, as we agreed, we will divide the people, with you keeping those whom you can build your future on while we get the rest.”

“And how will that be done?”, asked the Prime Minister of Canada.

“Some years ago”, the voice replied, “A small software company in New York devised algorithms that could predict human behavior based on specific events.  They went on to develop algorithms that could calculate the value of each human Life, whether each Life could survive specific events and whether each Life could contribute to a new world after the events occurred.  We helped the software company create the algorithms, with our assistance unbeknownst to them at the time .  At the time, all they needed was data on each person, data which was not available to them.”

The room was silent.

“Good”, said the voice, “I have your attention.  Now I am pleased to announce that we have the data that we need to evaluate practically every human being on the planet by running that data through this algorithm.  The Holy Grail is how to convert soft, fuzzy data into mathematical data, something else we taught this software company how to do many years ago.”

The voice paused for a moment.

“With the data in hand, the algorithm is being run for a specific event as defined by our part of the agreement.  Now you must do your part to make that event happen as we agreed upon.  Only those who contribute to humanity in a measurable, significant way as determined by the algorithm will survive and will be at your disposal to rebuild humanity.  The rest of them, the so-called chaff of society, will be given to us to use as we see fit. So in fact, we are actually doing you a favor by culling out the useless and the worthless.”

“How many will survive?”, asked the President.

“Our current rough estimates suggest about 500 million people”, said the voice, “Breakouts by nation are not available yet.  I have my best people working with people who have the raw data.  Once we have everything we need, we will be able to provide a better estimate.  Of course, as agreed, you and your families will be safe.”

The voice paused before speaking again.  “So, ladies and gentlemen, are we agreed that execution can begin?”, it asked.

The leaders around the table looked nervously back and forth.

---

July – 2015 – Menlo Park, California

“And so”, concluded the presenter, “As agreed, we will provide your organization with the data described in the report before you in exchange for the data elements we require.  We are prepared to sweeten the deal financially if required.”

He knew that the deal was done by the greedy looks on the faces of the men and women before him.

Meanwhile, similar presentations were wrapping up in Mountain View, California, San Francisco and other key cities that were the homes of various social media giants.

Fifteen minutes later, the presenter in Menlo Park stepped out of the conference room and walked down the hallway for privacy.  He pulled out his phone and sent a single text message:

Data acquired – the algorithm has what it needs.

The recipient of the text message looked at the message and smiled.

Now all they needed was the event to take place and those plans were already in place.

To be continued.

---

© 2015 – Harry Tucker – All Rights Reserved

Background

The nervous CTO described at the beginning of this post is yours truly.  In the company that I co-founded that was subsequently involved in a very complex, blended M&A / IPO, we eventually became known for our work measuring human productivity.

The meeting around human survivability took place as described, with the meeting being set up by my former father-in-law (now deceased), then a retired Colonel in the USAF and an investor in my company.  The algorithms created to measure the worth of a human Life, pre-emergency, during an emergency and in the rebuild that occurs after an emergency, were designed, created, tested, approved and put on a shelf as we were told to do.  A copy of those algorithms was put into escrow in case our company went defunct.

While the productivity algorithms were ours from inception to implementation, my former father-in-law provided a coarse design for the survivability algorithms.  Being a pilot and not a technical person, he did not create it and while he dropped hints as to its origin, he did not officially disclose its source although I believe I know where it came from.  My company took the coarse design and implemented the algorithms from it.

The key tester for that software, Narender Nath, was killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11.  I have written about him often, including in Yellow Shirt Day – The Importance of Tradition.

The rest of the story?

Well, that’s up to you to figure out.

Who would want such a thing to take place?

Who would benefit?

Who would be considered worthy or not as defined mathematically by a mere algorithm?

What if the algorithm is wrong?

What if the algorithm separated families and loved ones, some being deemed worthy and some not.

Who could provide the data that the algorithm requires?

As always, follow the breadcrumbs to answer all your questions. 

Most of the breadcrumbs are right here in this post.

But then again, it’s only “fiction”, right?

---

Background Addendum – July 19, 2015

A number of people have asked me about the results of the testing of the survivability algorithm.  While I no longer have the results of those tests in front of me, having returned all documents when I moved on, I recall that of approximately 2,000 people who were evaluated, approximately 135 were considered worthy of preserving.

Is that a lot or a few?  I guess it depends on your perspective, your outlook on Life, your mood for the day, which side of the test results you and your loved ones fall on and whether you and your loved ones fall on the same side (worthy or unworthy).

The test subjects were never given their test result.

---

Series Origin

This series, a departure from my usual musings, is inspired as a result of conversations with former senior advisors to multiple Presidents of the United States, senior officers in the US Military and other interesting folks as well as my own professional background as a Wall St. / Fortune 25 strategy and large-scale technology architect.

While this musing is just “fiction” and a departure from my musings on technology, strategy, politics and society, as a strategy guy, I do everything for a reason and with a measurable outcome in mind. :-)

This “fictional” musing is a continuation of the #1206 series noted here.

When Social Media Reveals Our Character … Or Our Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is not a way of getting back to the moral high ground. Pretending you're moral, saying your moral is not the same as acting morally. - Alan Dershowitz

The only vice that cannot be forgiven is hypocrisy. The repentance of a hypocrite is itself hypocrisy. - William Hazlitt

Back in December of 2013, a then member of the public communication team (which in the modern era means social media team) for then Premier of Alberta Alison Redford had an interesting response to a simple question from a member of the public.

The “public communications expert” tweeted this to the citizen:

"You are a truly disgusting human being #ableg"

As a member of the same political party to which this “expert” belonged, I thought this and other tweets attributed to the team he was a member of were terribly impolite and unprofessional to citizens merely asking for accountability and so I demanded from the Premier that we choose our words more carefully when addressing the public at large.

Curiously enough, I didn’t give this individual much thought after that until last week when I was making some comments (politely as I usually do) in a political forum and the same individual surfaced again with these observations directed at me:

So yes, I can speak about good government. I was given a first hand lesson by voters. One you apparently have opted not to learn. Care to address the issue or do you just want to attack the PC's?

There was the same attitude again, confrontational and insulting, to someone merely asking questions.  When I challenged the author of the statements as to why he continued to be so insulting to people on social media, he wrapped up a reply with these words.

Do you know that after the "terrible human being" tweet I cried for hours in my office and offered my resignation three times for the disgrace I caused? For the cruelty I showed towards Michael. That it was on my suggestion that I should apologize personally because I felt it was the right thing to do?

Followed later by ….

None of this belongs on Facebook Harry, I would welcome the chance to actually sit down and have a friendly conversation with you.

And with those words, I thought “Fair enough – the guy indicated he was remorseful for that foul event in the past and had sought to make amends for his error.”

I accepted his Facebook request with an eye toward fruitful dialog, after which he then chastised me again in private.

So much for remorse.  It reminded me of this Despair.com poster of people who cannot rationally discuss pretty much anything.

Arrogance: The best leaders inspire by example.  When that's not an option, brute intimidation works pretty well too.

I don’t dwell on such stuff and so I moved on until it was revealed this week that an executive of the PC Party made an inappropriate jab at the weight of the new Health Minister of Alberta as noted in McIver to investigate after PC executive mocks weight of Alberta Health minister (the executive has since apologized when he noted on Twitter – “I recognize I made a dumb comment. I apologize to Sarah Hoffman and all who read it for my insensitive remark. Once again, I'm sorry”).

Now I could make an observation that good people should never think such things, let alone say them, but given that none of us are perfect, I let the original mistake go since we are supposed to accept apologies and move on.

However, I was surprised by the public reappearance of the afore mentioned former member of the Premier’s communication staff who made this statement on social media in response to the PC executive’s faux pas (click on the image for a larger copy – *warning* harsh language).

While much can be suggested or inferred from such a response including the need for a more positive view of himself, it is also clear that while this individual demands forgiveness for his mistakes, he is quick to judge the mistakes of others.  It is also interesting to note that when paid by the PC Party, he attacked others ruthlessly but once released from the employ of the Party, he now takes offense at others who do the same for the same Party.

Even his Twitter bio reveals some hypocrisy:

He falls into the classic trap of social media – the notion of feeling empowered to say something that:

1. We wouldn’t have the courage to say to someone’s face
2. We wouldn’t want said to us if we made a mistake
3. May not be a reflection of who we really are (good or bad)
4. Oftentimes is made before we have taken a moment to rationally think the statement through instead of letting anger carry the day.

It reminds me of the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant from Matthew 18:21-34:

Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.  Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants.  As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him.  Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’  The servant’s master took pity on him, cancelled the debt and let him go.

But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’, he demanded.

His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’

But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened.

Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I cancelled all that debt of yours because you begged me to.  Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.”

The Bottom Line

The PC Executive’s disparaging remarks against the Health Minister were not professional, ethical or fair (and not very intelligent, to be honest).

However, when we see something that needs to be fixed, how we call out the person who made the error and how we choose to address the issue reveals much about our character – possibly more than the character that we choose to criticize in others.

Demanding a higher standard is not enough.

We must live it.

Do you live to a higher standard or merely demand it of others?

Are you sure?

How do you know?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum:

I didn’t share his Twitter or Facebook profiles because while I believe he serves as an example of what not to do in social media, I didn’t want to make this post about him personally.

When I pointed out to the individual in question about his inconsistency between how he expects forgiveness for himself but gives none to others, he blocked me on social media.  It is unfortunate when “blocking” is used as a shield to hide one’s ignorance, hypocrisy or lack of authenticity instead of recognizing that they had an opportunity to make things right as they expected it to be made right for them in the past.

It’s also a shame when people don’t realize that “blocking” doesn’t really block anything nor does it prevent their rants from becoming public.

But sometimes when we allow anger to be our guide, lucid, rational, respectful, solution-focused thinking takes a backseat to pretty much anything and oftentimes reveals our true character.

For those who are vehemently defending his current actions, perhaps they should review his past, lest they be corralled into something else moving forward. 

We are, after all,  the company that we keep … or “like” …. or “retweet”.

Social Media: When TMI Stands For "Steal My Identity"

If we don't act now to safeguard our privacy, we could all become victims of identity theft. - Bill Nelson

When it comes to privacy and accountability, people always demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else. - David Brin

While in Calgary airport the other night, I happened to overhear someone from the drilling industry in Calgary speaking to an airline representative on the phone.  While in the process of making a reservation change to postpone his flight until the next day, he gave his email address to the person on the other end of the conversation.

I started twiddling on my phone and my travel companion asked me what I was doing.

“Professional curiosity”, I replied as I continued to poke on my phone.

Within 60 seconds, I had obtained this person’s name, birthday, home and work addresses, his home, work and mobile numbers, his boss’s name and contact information and how long he would be out of town.  At the same time, I obtained the same personal information for his girlfriend, thus confirming that they lived apart.  I also had his flight reservation code. One call on my part could have obtained his credit card information as well since I had sufficient information to pose as either of them.

I looked at my travel companion, sighed and then made the following observation.

“So after 60 seconds, I can do the following.  I can alter his flight information, changing or cancelling his flight.  I know he is out of town so I can arrange to break into his home.  If his girlfriend is staying at his house while he is away, I can break into her home instead since I know where she lives also.  I could stop by to see his girlfriend or stalk her if I was depraved enough to do so.  Their social media profiles are open to posting by non-friends so I could post things on either of their social media profiles just for the point of making trouble (something like “It was great seeing you last night, __name__.  I was relieved when you said that __name__ wouldn’t be back into town until __date__ and can’t wait to see you again.” or “the company that I work for, __name__, really sucks and doesn’t know how to do anything right”).

I also had enough information to begin the process of stealing both of their identifies.

All because of a couple of pieces of information that we carelessly toss around at will, not caring who hears it, and being a little too liberal with what is shared on the Internet.

People are always screaming about the importance of governments and social media platforms like Facebook working harder to protect our privacy.

However, I think that we need to do a better job of protecting our own privacy.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum

In this situation, neither of the people had children.  If they had, it is likely that I would have been able to obtain more information about the children than the parents would have appreciated.  However, I was able to obtain information about their relatives’ children.  I’m not sure their relatives would have been amused.

What if it were your kids?

The Wildrose Party – Just the Facts, Ma’am

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. - Mark Twain

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams

I was intrigued to see this little invite issued by the Wildrose Party pass through my inbox yesterday.

I found it intriguing given that since it appears to be a Wildrose Party fundraiser for the constituency of Calgary SE, it would suggest that one of the “hogs to be booted from the trough” would be Calgary SE MLA Rick Fraser, Associate Minister - Public Safety and Associate Minister - Recovery and Reconstruction of High River.

While it is the role of political parties to whip up controversy or “live on the edge”, we as citizens should insist that they stick to the facts and the data.

Unfortunately, we have a basic law of democracy that pervades our political culture:

Governments in power rely on facts, data and results while opposition parties rely on emotion and never the twain shall meet.

Also unfortunately, emotions sway people much more easily and effectively than facts.

If one examines Associate Minister Fraser’s record, whether it be in regards to new schools being built in Calgary SE, his tireless efforts in High River (very few people would have wanted this difficult job) and his contributions in other areas, I would posit that his commitment to results and to the people he serves are as good as or better than any politician we will find.

If you examine his expense disclosure reports, they are extremely modest at best, especially given the portfolios he holds as Associate Minister.

And so I would suggest that if other parties are going to take on any incumbent, especially one with a strong track record and a commitment to service, that they do so with specific, measurable counters to the actions, intentions and results of the incumbent and not imply that “dirt” is present when there likely isn’t any for the individual in question.

I also understand that Associate Minister Fraser was allegedly confronted by senior Wildrose Party officials in regards to allegations of corruption and when he reacted strongly about the perceived personal attack, the Wildrose officials backed off and said “We’re not talking about you.  We are referring to members of the PC Party”.

I don’t know about you, but when someone slags a private citizen as being potentially corrupt, it sounds like the basis for a slander or liable suit to me.

And while we’re on the subject of revisionism or accusations

I posted on a Wildrose Party official’s Facebook page, asking if the “hogs from the trough” campaign was legitimate and while he admitted that it was, he also altered part of the content of my message.  I questioned why he did it and he responded that he found it interesting that it was possible and that it was good to know such things.

While I’m not sure that the ability to do this is useful (or should even be allowed) and while his alteration was in gest, it caused me to think about social media and it’s powerful influence in the political sphere.  With this in mind and with the intention of proving a point, I in turn changed a Facebook interaction I had with him (with names blanked out for privacy) from this:

to this:

I’ve transformed him from an innocent commenter on a benign post into a traitorous tool against his own party (which I know he is not but subsequent posters to this post will sure be surprised to see his sudden political reversal).

The Bottom Line

We all know that emotion is a more useful and valuable tool than any amount of facts and data.  The sad reality is that most people are so busy making their way from one day to the next that they don’t have time to listen to, understand or comprehend the overwhelming amount of data thrown at them daily (although curiously enough, many of these same people can cite an amazing amount of info regarding the next iPhone).  I mused about the power of emotion in regards to manipulating people in my post Anger: Setting Yourself Up For Manipulation.

However, if we don’t take the time to actually pay attention to the information being sent our way (or to the words that people are putting into our mouths as in my fun little Facebook experiment), then anything is possible.

And the fact that anything is possible does not imply or guarantee that the result is necessarily a positive one.

Nor does it come with a money back guarantee when we cry foul that we didn’t pay attention the first time nor did we read the fine print.

Remember this when someone comes to your door with emotion-laden rhetoric (regardless of the party affiliation) but with no data:

Propaganda: What lies behind us and lies before us are small matters compared to what lies right to our faces.

As the great philosopher Elmer Fudd once said:

Be ve-w-w-wy, ve-w-w-wy careful.

Especially when it comes to information, its sources, the medium used to deliver it and the intention behind it.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

---

PS My unwitting accomplice in my Facebook example is a good family man, a strong volunteer in his community and believes strongly in his political ideals.  He is what I believe to be a strong contributor to society.  My example was meant to demonstrate how social media can easily twist a good person into something else.  Be cautious about how you embrace social media. 

It is important to define how you use social media – don’t allow it to use or define you.

It is also important to avoid generalizations, especially when describing individuals.  Efforts to tar everyone with a single brush often do more damage to the person wielding the brush than it does the intended subject.

---

Boston Pizza–Master of Customer Relationships

People don't buy for logical reasons. They buy for emotional reasons. - Zig Ziglar

With apologies to my many readers, this blog is going to be a rare (extremely rare) plug for a company.  Within this shameless plug, there is also a clear lesson for other companies if they choose to pay attention.

Many people who know me personally understand me to be a person focused on strategy, tactics and the high quality of both.  What matters to me equally so is the quality of execution, since brilliant ideas, great plans and lousy execution will likely produce a lousy result. 

Powerful dreams cannot overcome reality.

When it comes to brilliant execution, one of the things that fascinates me are the people who pay attention to the small details since within the small details are nuggets of gold waiting to be discovered.

And when it comes to noticing small details and as a person with a decent social media network (about 25 million third-degree connections on LinkedIn plus a plethora of connections on other social media networks), I am fascinated by who notices what I share on social media and how they respond.

Some examples

I was once in a famous international coffee chain location and tweeted that I was surprised that when I asked for a plain cup of coffee right out of the carafe, I was told they were too busy to make any.  There was no response from the corporate folks at all when I expressed surprise that the staff was simply too busy to make a cup of their signature blend.  I wasn’t looking for an apology although an acknowledgement that processes could have been improved might have been useful (especially given how much of their stuff I buy).  If you can send me a gold card with my name on it, you can acknowledge when things can be improved.

I was in their competitor’s establishment just before Christmas past and was told by my server that my Santa hat offended her religious beliefs.  I tweeted about how this intrigued me and blogged about it (Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson and Ignorance Run Rampant) but there wasn’t a peep from anyone.  I wasn’t looking for an apology here either but I noted it because I saw room for improvement.  I can’t tell if they cared or not.

I even had a VERY unsatisfactory experience with a major Canadian auto-repair chain and when I tweeted as such, I was told twice publicly that I would be taken care of.  I never heard from them again.  This customer service faux pas has cost them a few thousand dollars (to-date) in lost business from my colleagues as a result.  Oh well.  I asked for help and the implied message in return was “get lost”.  So I did but who is really losing here?

And then there is Boston Pizza

When Boston Pizza (@BostonPizza) was running their Rib Stain Camo campaign last year, I thought it was brilliant and tweeted as such.  Shortly afterward, I received a tweet back from Boston Pizza and Jim Treliving himself (@JTreliving - Chairman and Founder of BP) and I thought “Now that’s really cool – these guys actually pay attention to what is going on in social media”.  I never thought anything else of the exchange.

Shortly afterward, I was asked for my home address and was surprised a few days later to see a gift of thanks from Boston Pizza.  I was blown away.  It is the little things that count, as I noted earlier.

Just before Christmas, I received a handmade Boston Pizza Christmas Tree ornament from them which I was happy to share on social media.

And today, this arrived:

Do you know what these small acts of kindness do?

They bind a customer to a brand.  The customer feels the love and promotes it.  The company gets free promotion in exchange and everyone wins.  Commercials and slick advertising campaigns can bring someone in the door once in a while.  However, a personal connection brings someone in the door for a Lifetime.

People can say that it’s easy for a company the size of Boston Pizza to throw out a little love, knowing that this will multiply into much more business than the small amount spent sharing the love.

That may be so but if it were that easy, then why aren’t more companies doing it?

It is clearly not as easy as it seems and speaks highly of Boston Pizza that they focus on the small details

And as we all know, the devil (and maybe the angel) is in the details. :-)

The Bottom Line

Causally responding to a customer with a “thanks” or a “we’ll get back to you” is easy in social media.  In fact, bots exist to do that for many companies and so their social media strategy exists to stroke you, not to truly engage you.  Social media demonstrates repeatedly that words can be cheap and for some folks, it provides them with the opportunity to be the Twit in Twitter.

But when someone responds with gratitude for a kind word tweeted and then follows up with small acts of kindness, they are cementing a relationship.

Maybe a few other companies can learn from Boston Pizza’s example.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS

For companies that don’t understand strong customer service and the importance of relationships, I wonder if they have posters like this hung up (courtesy of Despair.com): :-)

Or this one:

Or maybe this one:

Social Media Amnesia

I am often amused when going back over family photos and seeing some where I don’t remember “being there” when the photos were taken.  Almost without exception, those photos turn out to be ones where I was the “official photographer” of some event and I was so consumed with capturing the moment that I wasn’t actually living it, thus creating a strange sense of localized amnesia.

I wonder if social media will produce similar events on a larger scale in the future.

I see so many people who can’t wait to “get away from it all” and once they do, they spend all their time tweeting updates, sharing photos on FB and Pinterest or performing other “sharing” tasks.  Some of my friends, while “resting”, post photos every 10 minutes or so (some with even greater frequency) for the entire duration of their vacation.

In fact, some post so many updates that the rest of us become exhausted by their vacation. :-)

I wonder what their families think of their social media presence or, from their perspective, their “social media absence”.

It seems that once they had a chance to “get away from it all”, that they merely shifted from one thing that consumed them (work or other source of pressure) to another thing (sharing).

What happened to “getting away from it all”?

We Need To Unplug

It’s a known psychological / physiological fact that time to truly unplug and recharge is an essential part of the human experience.

I wonder how social media and our inordinate need to share photos and updates of everything we experience will play out in terms of our need to rest once in a while in order to return to a sense of optimal performance.

For some people, they probably think “Thank goodness for social media.”, otherwise they wouldn’t have any memory of where they were.

Personally I’d rather truly immerse myself in a moment than worry about sharing it with others who may or may not even care about it.  Otherwise, in a few years I may not be able to tell when looking at old photos whether I am looking at my vacation or someone else’s. :-)

Do you prefer to truly experience your Life or do you put more emphasis on making sure that others are experiencing it?

What do you think the impact of such a decision will be on your Life in the future?

More importantly, what do you think the impact of such a decision will be on the Life of others who were with you when you were focused on being “somewhere else” mentally / electronically?

Are you sure?

How do you know?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Does Premier Dunderdale Enjoy Pornography?

More than likely she doesn’t and frankly I don’t care what she thinks of it.

However, the scuttlebutt developing in my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Premier’s interpretation of guilty by association when it comes to social media automatically implies that she does.

Doesn’t it?

Earlier this week, MHA Gerry Rogers was tossed from the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature because she was a member of an anti-Dunderdale Facebook group, a group in which a couple of stupid people made threats of violence against the Premier.

Threats against ANYONE have no place in society, especially against the men and women who give up many things personally and professionally in order to serve in public office.

However, because Ms. Rogers was a member of this group, she was informed that any comment by anyone in the group is considered to be automatically endorsed and condoned by all members of the group, including Ms. Rogers.

When the House therefore demanded an apology from Ms. Rogers for the threats she didn’t make (since she was considered guilty by association), she was removed from the House.

The Premier made a big fuss about how we should always be cognizant of who we associate with in social media, after which she had to deal with the embarrassment that she was following a porn account on Twitter.  Her embarrassment led her to close her Twitter account altogether instead of doing what most of us would do, blocking the offending account in question.

Now if I were to follow the Premier’s reasoning for punishing Ms. Rogers by association, I could state that one of the following is true:

1. The Premier enjoys pornography

2. The Premier enjoyed it for a time but stopped enjoying it this week

3. The Premier (and/or her handlers)  have no understanding of social media and the difficulties associated with managing one’s reputation in a world where anyone can state anything at any time.

Please make your selection now.

Regardless of whether Ms. Rogers was in the group wilfully (to monitor what others were saying) or she was enrolled without her knowledge, to place the words of an ignorant person into her mouth doesn’t make sense at all.

After all, heaven help us if we are all guilty based on a collision of the principles of guilty by association and 6 degrees of separation.

There wouldn’t be an innocent person left in the room …. or in the world.

As a proud Newfoundlander, I have heard many “Newfie” jokes.

But the worst (or best, depending on perspective) Newfie jokes of all are the ones where someone didn’t set out to make us laugh but did anyway.

As Premier Dunderdale did this week.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Addendum – Leadership Observation

I could have titled this blog “Premier Dunderdale’s Favorite Porn Sites” or something nastier.

However, to do so would have unfairly associated the Premier with the subject at hand and judged her without data, without facts, without merit - unfairly and unprofessionally.

Most importantly, it would have unfairly judged her character.

I think we must be careful not to jump to conclusions or to intentionally sully anyone’s character before we know the facts.

What do you think, Premier?

Addendum – April 23, 2013

The Speaker of the House of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has now offered an official apology to MHA Gerry Rogers.

Courage … But Only From a Distance

Some years ago, I was cut off by a driver who grazed my car bumper while I was parked.  Even though I was parked and she had hit me, she proceeded to issue a litany of phrases that can’t be repeated here.  Curious as to why she was so angry after hitting me, I lifted my 6’3” frame out of my vehicle and proceeded to her vehicle.

It was at that point that she realized that the safety of distance between our two vehicles no longer existed and that my frame towering over her small car now presented an entirely different situation than the one she thought she was in control of.

She muttered something and quickly drove off.

Social media, for all its good stuff, presents a similar gap that I believe is creating a dialog that is detrimental to society.

For example, I made some observations about the Occupy Wall St. movement some time ago that prompted some folks to send me death threats, offering to kill me as a representative of the capitalist system.

Now, if these people had been standing in front of my 6’3” frame, were cognizant of my martial arts training and knew of my personal belief to stand up to bullies at any cost, do you think they would have had the courage to shout such threats to my face?

I doubt it.

The other day, I happened to make a comment on Facebook about the warming / cooling cycles that the Earth has experienced in its lifetime and the insulting comments that followed surprised and disappointed me – comments that I suspect people would not have expressed if we were having a passionate conversation in a coffee shop.

How about the many people around the world who have expressed hateful comments in the Trayvon Martin case (on both sides, may I add), mostly through Facebook, Twitter and other social media that allows them to vent their hatred and calls for violence from the comfort and safety of their own home.

Unfortunately, their belief that the gap and perceived anonymity provides safety is merely an illusion.

For example, some of the people sending me death threats stopped sending them to me when I demonstrated that I had possession of their home addresses and was prepared to contact authorities.

Suddenly there was silence.

To spread hatred, intolerance or intimidation as many are doing in social media actually adds layers of complexity and confusion to the world as we attempt to work together to solve the world’s challenges.  It whips people up into a frenzy to the point where facts don’t matter – our fight-or-flight mechanism kicks in and we see the opposite side of the dialog as someone who threatens our very existence and we respond as such.

Meanwhile, as we use the illusion of anonymity (and implied safety) to spread hatred, confusion and our opinion (presented as the only “facts” that matter), the people that we charge with our safety are also watching with ever-increasing concern.

At some point, if we continue to allow our hate levels to grow, the pot will boil over and the people who we look to for our safety will be forced to take extraordinary measures to ensure our safety.

It will be at that point that the people who thought they could spout hatred from a distance will discover that they have brought the results of such actions much closer to home.

Literally.

I’m not asking people to stop spreading hatred.  In fact, my one voice is not loud enough to be heard above the din of hatred that is out there and I could wear myself out pleading with the hate-filled and ignorant of the world.  There’s nothing more that these people enjoy than an opportunity to justify why they are filled with such negativity and so arguments with such people can never be won.

However, I will say that the those whom we charge with our safety, (including our government leaders) are willing and prepared to do what it takes to ensure our safety moving forward.

Are the people who are spreading hate willing to do what it takes to not force their hand and instead, try working together towards solutions …. while solutions are still within our reach?

Hatred reaches across the miles pretty quickly and influences many, even in anonymity.  It also takes relatively little effort.

Love, respect, patience and open-mindedness also reach across the miles pretty quickly, with the potential to influence many.

The challenge is that love, respect, patience and open-mindedness often require significant levels of courage and effort.

Courage and effort that produces a much better result.

I think it’s worth it.

What do you think?

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Think Week–The Importance of Quiet Time

When I worked with Microsoft some years ago, I was fascinated and privileged to participate in a process called Think Week.

Think Week was a process that Bill Gates embraced, whereby he would disconnect from most sources of information (or interference) and would pore over technical papers submitted by Microsoft employees.  The thought was that quiet thinking time was a valuable means of recharging and receiving insight into what should be embraced next personally and professionally.

While I was initially fascinated by this, I have since discovered the power of following such a process. 

Many of us are bombarded daily with information ranging from the valuable to the mundane and even the useless.  Many of us do our part to contribute to this information stream, also making contributions that range from the valuable to the useless.

Social media has it all for us.

Sometimes it has too much.

We all know that an automobile serves us best when we maintain it well.  Low-quality gasoline, poor food choices, lack of maintenance and excessive wear-and-tear eventually cause the automobile to be less reliable and if we push it hard enough, it may fail completely.

Our brain is very similar.  When we overload it with an over-abundance of information, whether it be valuable or not, eventually it begins to not fire on all cylinders.

When that happens, one of the greatest gifts we have, the ability to think clearly, to reason, to plan and to execute our plan, begins to sputter.  Eventually we are not living up to our potential but we don’t realize it because we are too busy trying to stay on top of the information stream or we are too busy trying to show others that we are able to contribute as effectively to social media as anyone else.

Too many have become lost, using social media awareness and contribution as an indicator of how much they matter in the world.

For this reason, I have embraced the notion of a semi-annual retreat from social media.  That’s right – no Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, foursquare or any other forms of social media for a week (sometimes longer).  I even limit email as much as I can.

While I am grateful for the many social interactions that I experience daily, my brain eventually reaches a point where it needs quiet time to understand what it should be doing and how it should be doing it.

Truthfully, there are also times I get tired of hearing myself speak and I appreciate the quiet from within as I’m sure some of my colleagues appreciate as well. :-)

Unlike many, I don’t think the world will come to an end if I cease to exchange information with my many wonderful social media connections for a week or so.

For many of my colleagues who have tried a week (or more) of quiet time, where one gets to reflect on past, present and future, they have found it to be a powerful, rejuvenating experience.

And it reminds them that they are in control of the information around them, not the other way around.

Blaise Pascal once said:

All men's miseries derive from not being able to sit in a quiet room alone.

It is intriguing how many people cannot exist without social media, cannot go an hour without a peek at how their Facebook friends are doing or to see if someone retweeted their latest tweet on Twitter.

They have reduced their Life meaning to how social media defines it for them.

Perhaps if more people took some time for themselves, we would have a better sense of who we are, why we are here and what we are meant to achieve.

Maybe if we took a little more time for ourselves, we would have a better sense of what our Legacy is and how we are creating it.

Susan Taylor once said:

“We need quiet time to examine our lives openly and honestly. . . spending quiet time alone gives your mind an opportunity to renew itself and create order.”

I believe she is right.

See you in a week …. give or take.

Create a great day!

In service and servanthood,

Harry

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?

 

I just had the most intriguing interaction with a Twitter user by the name of @Donna_West that reminds me why we have so many problems in this world.

It’s because we are so busy trying to prove we are right that we don’t even bother listening to the other side.

In fact, we are so busy trying to prove we are right that we don’t even have time to respect the other side and understand their intentions before we slam them for something.

I had noted on Twitter that Senate Majority Leader Reid blocked the vote on President Obama’s Jobs Bill and within a few minutes, the White House issued an email asking people to demand that their Republican reps do the right thing and vote for the bill.

My tweet read:

Truth: Dem Senator Reid blocks vote on Obama jobs bill and then email blames GOP - tsk tsk tsk. http://t.co/lhz1g1Wa

Within seconds, @Donna_West replied:

@HarryTucker you are really so stupid you don't understand what happened and why?

Now … I hadn’t actually commented on who was telling the truth and who wasn’t.  I had merely made an observation.

The exchange with Ms. West developed into a full-on confrontational exchange where I was accused of not understanding government, not understanding how to tweet, not “getting it” in general, having an alleged ignorance of how government works, etc.  Her tweets flowed freely and venomously.

I tried to interrupt her emotional tirade with a couple of tweets, one referencing her Twitter profile where she describes herself as a “peace lover”:

@Donna_West I am always impressed when self-proclaimed "peace lovers" use intimidation to accomplish their means. #fail

@Donna_West Please find another direction to send your misguided, uber-aggressive, confrontational attitude. :-)

After a few more insulting tweets, this confrontational individual decided to report me to Twitter as a spam generator who was threatening her.  Meanwhile, I am receiving the brunt of the intimidation from this person’s network, including this gentle tweet from @good2bgreene.

@HarryTucker So you're just some schmuchk who invented the term "leadership incubation" to have purpose? And you think @Donna_West is spam?

Ahhhhhh …. what it is to experience intimidation from people who need to get a hobby.

Or attempted intimidation anyway.

The funny thing is that as I write this blog, a couple of these people are still wound up about me and continue to issue one tweet after another insulting me.  There is an incredible level of anger in them aching to escape.

Anger that is now directed at me because I posted a single tweet, disappointed that Republicans and Democrats can’t get along and solve the problems that need to be solved.

The response from a couple of people in the twitterverse doesn’t really matter.  There are lots of people in the world who won’t agree with everything I say.  If I needed 100% acceptance of every thought I ever had, I’d be waiting for the rest of my life.

What does bother me is how aggressive people will be in defending their position against someone else BEFORE they even know what the other person’s position is.

They make an assumption, the anger rises within them and they are off to the races.

Of course, what aids them in expressing their aggression is the anonymity they feel by targeting someone 1000 miles away.  If they stood toe-to-toe with my 6’3” frame, I don’t think they would necessarily be as aggressive.

Then again, I could be wrong.

The funny, sad, predictable thing is that many of these people, after insulting the living daylights out of someone, will turn around and play the victim when the person defends themselves.

Many bullies like to play the victim – it somehow helps them rationalize their actions, forgetting that often they are the instigator and not the victim.

They do it with a misplaced desire to “win” the confrontation, even if the other side is not even arguing.

But in the end, when such interactions occur, no one wins.

When such interactions occur, the opportunity to collaborate dies and with it, the opportunity to really produce a solution dies as well.

When someone uses anger, intimidation or misrepresentation to assert themselves without understanding the ideas or intentions of the other person, everyone loses.

As long as this continues to happen, whether it be in social media or on Capitol Hill or anywhere else for that matter, we will never solve our problems nor meet our true potential as individuals or as a society.

Hopefully, we are not yet ready to write an epitaph that reads “Civility – RIP”.

If that day ever comes, that and the result it produces will be the greatest disappointment we as a species will have ever created.

We can do better … in fact … we must do better.

Our future depends on it.

In service and servanthood,

Harry

PS I took a quick look at @Donna_West and @good2bgreene to see what they are posting as I published this post.  They have moved on to aggressively intimidating other people now.  Whew … I thought it was just me. :-)

Bringing Value to Your Social Media Network

Have you ever taken a moment to assess how much value you bring to your social media network?

Equally as important, have you ever taken a moment to assess how much value your social media network brings to you?

A strong social media network is a prized possession.  When people collaborate, they create opportunities to learn, to share and to change the world.

But a strong social media network is like a classic automobile.  When taken care of and nurtured, it is a source of pride and enjoyment.  It brings a sense of purpose, fulfillment and joy to your life and to the lives of others and therefore provides value.

If it is not nurtured with effective, proactive maintenance, it eventually turns into something that takes too much of your time and appears to be of little value.  It may even become something you come to resent as you seek to find the value that you know should be there but is difficult to see.  It’s the classic automobile that has potential but which is buried in a pile of junk in an old barn out back, waiting for its potential to be rediscovered.

If there is no value in some relationships, why invest in them?

When you are on your way to work, to the mall or wherever, do you stop and chat for 30 minutes with every random stranger you meet with intent of building a lifelong relationship?

Of course not – if you did, you would never get anything done.

So I wonder why people would do the same thing with certain slices of their social media network; spending too much time trying to incubate all the relationships instead of focusing on the relationships that really bring value to each participant in the relationship (or third-parties who will benefit from their collaboration).

Many spend too much time with their “broad-side-of-the-barn” approach, get very little for their unfocused activity and then complain that they aren’t producing the results they would prefer to produce.  Many who spend a lot of time doing this lament that they are run off their feet because they are so busy.

Yet when their effectiveness (and sometimes happiness) are actually measured, the results are embarrassing.  They have confused activity with productivity and action with traction (completely different from the story of success that they claim exists).

I would suggest that growing a network of immense size and unknown value that takes a small staff to maintain is not the right approach.  If people selected the members of their social media network more effectively, they might find that the relationships bring greater quality to their personal and professional lives and the lives of others.

I know that some people will cry foul with this observation.  It is true that there are people who use their networks VERY effectively.  Others can learn from how they contribute to and participate in their social media network.

However, when many people complain of poor results or the fact that they have no time to get anything done, you realize that these people still haven’t figured out how to use social media effectively.

In fact, I don’t think they are using social media at all. I think it is using them.

As with all technology, control the use of social media effectively otherwise it will control you. 

In 2011, I have decided to eliminate 80% of the connections in my social media network.  My network is quite large and has reached a point where maintaining the network is becoming a full time job (for example, my LinkedIn 3rd degree network has almost 16 million people in it and drives a lot of traffic in my direction that I have no interest in and where I can offer no value in return).

I did this last year and it greatly reduced the amount of noise in my life.  It is time for a second pass.

Feelings will be hurt.  Some people will be offended. That is unfortunate but if we live a life doing everything that everyone else expects of us for their own gain, we would have no time to live our own lives.

My Life, the time I have remaining on this Earth and my unlimited potential to make a difference are too important to waste.

I believe yours is too important to waste also.

So why waste it?

To you and yours, I wish an amazing abundance of health, wealth and happiness in 2011.

In service and servanthood,

Harry