Cause for Casual?

Recently, the dress code in my workplace, a white color corporate office, has made a strange evolution.

A few months ago, Friday was known as "Jeans Day". Each Friday was assigned a charity from a list of colleague's suggestions, and for a minor donation of $5 to an administrative assistant, one was allowed to sport Levi's or one of the ever increasing list of "designer" jeans. (Sidebar- interesting that some folk's jeans are actually more costly than their formal wear. Just an observation on the range of choice we have in the modern market.)

One month ago, the policy was questioned. Many things in the organization were going through changes, as were the executives that approved the jeans day. For a few weeks, the Friday's were no longer jeans days - the reasoning being (and as confirmed in an email communicating the policy) "...wearing casual clothes to the workplace may not convey the appropriate workplace ethic". So, with that, done were the dungarees.

A week ago, jeans made a dramatic comeback. Turning a complete 180, the Human Resources department moved to making casual dress ok all the time. The "memo" sent out was worded in a way that made it seem like the new policy was a major capitulation to the masses of workers demanding it...like a gift that had been held back unreasonably for years. Rejoice! rejoice! we can wear our sports jerseys to work! Goodbye cap toes...Mandals and socks forever!

Actually, no. The water cooler scuttlebutt provided none of that sort of joyous exclamation. Perhaps a few folks were happy about the policy, but so far, I'm guessing that there are really only a few small groups of people that were pleased with the policy change:
1. Folks that already dressed casually, and were glad that they no longer were bending the rules - mailroom, server room
2. Folks that like to change rules just to change them (think "...the man" types)
3. Folks that truly think the change to casual will spark a new excitement in the organization, with 5 jeans days a week bringing about improved productivity, better attitudes, and world peace.

So, the folks who already wore whatever they wanted continued to do so, now a bit more proudly. The folks that like to change the rules broke out their awesome 13-color, multi-textural jumpers and Nantucket pink chinos (yes I witnessed both). And the casual-dress-code-will-save-the-world types gladly donned their t-shirts or golf polos, and waited for everything to get awesome. I even noticed one of the C-level executives in jeans...on Wednesday.

However, another group of people started talking about the real potential for downsides to become causal as a result of casual. What about the distraction when a certain colleague's style is vile? It's much easier to cover up with dress clothes...hard to make a suit look really bad, unless it's drastically off-size. But offensive t-shirts, sports jerseys, and beat up jeans are drastically different. What about the possible lack of professionalism that goes along with dressing less "professionally"?

It's proven that clothes are at least PART of an impression one makes. And you'll find studies reporting everything from "casual clothing makes the workforce more creative and more productive, giving them a better attitude" to "employees tend to work less diligently when not feeling like they are in the work environment through the clothing they are wearing". It really comes down to the individual, both from the context of wearer and observer that determines to what degree their own clothes and those of others affect their professional ethic. So, do clothes matter?...that answer is definitely yes. The follow on questions on dress code is where debate and opinion begins.

As for my opinion, I'll simply say that I'm looking forward to seeing how the changes affect this corporate culture, and hope for the best - professionalism remains, creativity/attitude gets better. I'll also hope that I see at least one Bill Cosby sweater or drastically mis-sized pair of jeans each day - that will improve at least this employee's attitude.

Paring Back Swearing

Swearing's so yesterday. And perhaps it's uncouth/uncivilized/unwise as well. At least that's what my 5th grade Sunday School teacher told me after I inadvertently dropped a S bomb in class. Maybe it was my rebellious 11 year old nature that kept me from taking in the teacher's wisdom.

I read an article recently based loosely on the theory that swearing's good for a person...the premise being swearing allows one to expel some of the frustration/pain/etc - the cause for the swearing. After swearing, we feel some relief or closure.

So, all this being known, I think I've come up with a solution that fits all - a new way to both get something off our proverbial chest while also not offending or making ourselves come across as crass.

Admittedly, I didn't come up with this on my own - I was helped through overhearing some of the awesome phrases people use when they want to swear but don't:

Shut the front door! (woman who cuts my hair)
Shut the EFF up! (anonymous, in line with any phrase that simplifies the expletive to a single letter)
Fudge!
Freakin!
Flippin!
Friggin!
Cripes! (guy at Trader Joes that dropped his bags)
Crud!
Jiminy Christmas, Jiminy Crickets
Motherdrucker! (myself)
Shiest! (incorrectly known as german for sh!t)
Holy Sheet Rock! (guy at work fighting with the printer)
Son of a Bench! (dad at playground when his kid slammed him in the head while on swingset)

Ok...back to the idea of mine. Hopefully as you read the above list, you smiled a little bit, and that's exactly the point. Using these phrases (and some of your own invention) in lieu of their more offending, less humorous cousins will allow you to get it off your chest, but immediately thereafter - laugh. And both of those things should put you in a state of mind that keeps you needing to say them again anytime too soon.

A Link for Data Dorks

Quite an interesting website I was pointed to by a friend is found at the end of this paragraph. Those readers who were math or statistics majors and all other data dork readers, you better clear your schedules before pointing to http://www14.wolframalpha.com/. A minor milestone of Web 2.0.

The Out-of-Work Work Out

Recently, I've made an observation I find interesting. I've noticed that exercise, specifically group events like charity runs, bike rides, triathlons, walks, and others are "hot". Exercise events are selling out where I currently live, when they never have before. New types of events such as "Muddy Buddy" and "Adventure Racing" are being invented as quickly as the participants can sign up. Even new excuses for exercise are being marketed and selling - tour London by rollerblade, tour Chicago by running with a tour guide. Newbie sport introduction courses are up in enrollment. The trails/fields/roads are teeming. So, what's leading to this trend? Well, perhaps it's because times are tough. Huh?

Especially where I'm living, economics have become more central to people's lives than ever before, as jobs are lost, pay is cut, and the feeling of worth via worklife is trimmed greatly. So, My theory is that people are participating in sports/exercise activities more because:

1. It's a diversion from life's other downers, and the resultant endorphins create a bit of opiate type euphoria. Both allow an escape from a harsh reality, even if they are short lived. Inversely to drugs and alcohol, exercise is actually a diversion that's good for humans.

2. It's something to affirm life. When difficult times arrive, exercise is one of those base things humans can do that is simple, ageless, and provides everything from solace/introspection (individual sports) to social acceptance (team sports).

3. It's something that gives people hope, and provides an ego boost. This is something Dick and Jane can do for themselves that can't be taken away by an employer or government.

4. Charities are more needy than ever as those with hands out grow in number. Those that aren't in need see these events as something they can do to help, and likely feel less guilty for surviving with less difficulty.

Regardless of the reason, I'm really glad to see people outside doing things, feeling better about themselves, and making the world a nicer place. Perhaps we've relied on worklife to provide more than it's fair share of life satisfaction. We all know that exercise is very beneficial, and even has been shown to extend one's life through an increased measure of happiness. Here's to being truly happy!

Green and Greenbacks

It’s Earth Day!

Hopefully you can find something to do today that is a little step away from your normal routine, but yet gets the collective organic community on this planet a little step closer to a longer existence. Further, hopefully your slightly more green activity today is something you will repeat tomorrow, and the next day, and…

There are many ideas I keep close to my conscious in the name of the environment, but also in the name of economics. Luckily, there are a number of things you can do that benefit both your planet--and your piggy bank. These are “win-win”s to use that hackneyed business phrase. Like what, Scotsman? Well, let’s be a nasty judgemental type for a single blog and step through the day of someone I know to see how many areas crop up that fit this economically minded environmentalist’s ideal.

Let’s call this person Megan...
Megan arises today, and just like every other day she immediately turns on all the lights and television, often two televisions, just in case she’s in either room as she prepares for the day. The lights all on, aren’t a matter of illumination, as 2 of the 6 lights saturate the rooms she’s in with light...it’s a matter of them being there to be used.

Megan enjoys a long shower (can’t fault a person for staying clean), but this is shower number 2 in 12 hours. 20 minute showers both before and after sleep seem a bit redundant, and use quite a lot of water. More on this later. To cap it off, Megan is an obsessively clean person, and spends 5 minutes washing the shower tub down after a shower…with the shower running. So, Megan has now “showered” for 50 minutes each day.

After drying off, Megan throws on some sweats and heads outside to start her car. She’ll be leaving in 15-20 minutes after all, and it’s under 70 degrees F inside her vehicle, so of course she’s got to let it get warmed up. And I must admit, Megan should let her car warm up, for the manner in which she drives – full on gas, or full on brakes requires the car be in top operation to handle her driving “style”. That Megan’s car is in the repair shop often shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Megan then heads for the fridge, looking for breakfast material. She finds a bunch of things that she purchased, but then didn’t make a plan to eat, so they are thrown out. Megan has not just returned from a trip to Mozambique. She simply bought a bunch more food than she could possibly consume in the period between purchase and being inedible.

Megan makes a quick breakfast, and then puts the dishes in the dishwasher. Again, being the obsessively clean person that she is, she notices that the dishwasher is, to her eyes, “full”, and starts the dishwasher to run for a full regular cycle with the energy blasting heated dry option. The dishwasher truly isn’t full of course, and could go days longer until truly having the space within consumed by dirty dishes.

Megan continues to prepare, running the blowdryer up her shirt for 5-10 minutes to warm herself for the day, and then just before heading out, she sets the home thermostat (only one in the house, and not programmable) to be at a nice and toasty 73…in the winter months. This is done so that when she returns from a long day at work, she “doesn’t come home to a cold place”. However, this is Wednesday, and Megan attends a regular gym session Monday, Wednesday, and Friday evenings after work but before returning home. Therefore, when she does return home after a rigorous workout, the house feels “so hot” to her, and therefore she turns the air conditioning system on for 1.5 hours to cool it down to 68 degrees. Of course, the heat will be turned back on before bedtime so that 73 F (“room temperature” to Megan) can be achieved for sleeping.

Through the evening Megan continues to stay busy, or at least the electric meter thinks so. She’s operating 2 laptops, 2 televisions, and her telephone simultaneously until ending the evening.

But there’s one last thing she must do before bed – Laundry. Of course she dirtied clothes today, both at the office and the gym and they must be washed! So, a load of laundry is started, just as with all days to get those clothes clean again.

Eventually, Megan falls asleep, 100 watt “night light” burning, as well as each outdoor light, “just in case” Actually, the outdoor lights never get turned off, since she needs the light when returning home from a long day, and through the evening for “security”.

Hopefully, you’re not a Megan. However, Megan really does exist..the above wasn’t fiction. Her carbon footprint is larger than Sasquatch's. Therefore, those little steps you can take help. They help both the planet recover from Megan’s excesses, and help distance yourself from Megan, as you become part of Darwin’s survivor group in his theory on survival of the fittest. (Actually, Natrual Selection...read this) Lastly, they help you save money!

Here’s a handy water use website I found in case you want to check your own water pulse. I tried to use for Megan’s context, but the website threw an overload error.

Further, here’s a great list of many things you can do to easily be more green.

(super) Human Factors

Lately, some brain waves have been drawn to examining what is commonly termed "management". Be it business management, or the management of any organization, I'm focused on those individuals or groups that make decisions. Management typically has other duties based on context, but that's not my focus here.

My rhetorical ramblings here are asking you, diligent reader, to accept this posit: Management really is the most critical set of resources an organization has - next to its constituents/customers of course.

Instead of explaining why, let's go the currently fashionable route and attack the theory from the critical eye.

It isn't management that makes an organization, it's the people below management - those in the "trenches", the cogs in the machine, that really bring about successful results. Rebuttal: Sure, the people below make the company, and without these resources, management couldn't make a decision, but the decision and the process of filtering information (relevant/bad/politically charged) is on Mr. or Mrs. management. The buck stops there, and therefore, a honed skill is required to make the right decision for that organization in that context.

Management only manages the talented resources that HR delivers. Rebuttal: This may be the case for some organizations, but I'd say that any organization would benefit from having both HR and current business management involved in hiring new resources. Fit to culture, managing style, work style, etc are often more critical than having a certain minor degree of specific skill. Therefore, I would say that more often than not, Management does help get the right folks on the team.

Management only repeats what those below them tell them to say, providing no extra value. Rebuttal: See rebuttal #1 again, and beyond that, I think most would agree that nearly every argument can be backed by seemingly correct data. It's up to Management to give each case presented the common sense shakedown and present themselves only that which passes muster.

To sum, it's all about people. Numbers, be they monetary or empirical, are used often to back up reasoning for a decision/course of action. However, what most people often fail to recognize that it's the common sense/wisdom quotient number that really allows an organization to succeed.

Am I a fan of the grossly large compensation packages given many executives around the world, and especially in the western countries? No. However, I do feel this group has the most direct ability to effect success or failure, which in business either means money is made or money is not. Performance based compensation fits very well with a market economy, and this should not be artificially tuned. I'm referring to tweaking done by either the socialist leaning "compensation caps" or tweaking that arrives through collusion amongst the silver spoon set, privileged without reason.

So, ok Scotsman - make a positive suggestion rather than just observations.

Here goes:
What really must be changed is the lack of governance of a company's board of directors, which leads to false management. Fix that, (adding objective governance) and compensation/corporate success, and its waterfall factors - stockholder success, employee satisfaction, corporate consciousness will follow in a positive direction.

Our Many Faces

Dear reader, you are, through the reading of this blog, witnessing one of my multitudes. And before you point the finger and laugh, know that much of the population is just like me...having multitudes, but not the distinctly clinical condition, multiple personality disorder. Having multitudes is the sign of a healthy and active sociological life.

However, the ability to possess multitudes has been threatened for many people, in the form of the pop sensation - Facebook (and MySpace, etc). In a funny paradox, the freeing qualities of the internet age, are in this case, a constraint. A constraint on our ability to have multiple faces to the different parts/sides of our lives. Our projected online image is known as "unitary identity" by the psychologists and sociologists, and is what all online friends take away as defining "you", or "I".

Facebook is historical (record of all you've thought, done, etc), it's unbordered (all see approx the same information about you), and it's comprehensive - across all slices of your personality (except where one of your social groups isn't part of Facebook - now at 175 million active users). Therefore, our ability to reinvent ourselves, or carve out a new life is hampered by the fact that nearly all our friend groups already have access to who we entirely were yesterday or today. In the same way, we can't project different images of ourselves to different groups, as all of the groups have been pulled closer to a unitary identification of you or I.

I recently read that MySpace was launched specifically to avoid the limits of unitary identity - built on the tenet that people could create whatever personality they liked, and the wildly customized MySpace pages out there are proof positive. Even the "Fakesters" which the grandaddy social networking site Friendster would not allow, were welcomed with open arms at MySpace. MySpace didn't even verify email addresses, instead seeing itself as the place where everyone could be an MTV rock star. And that's probably why MySpace now looks much like a pre-teen's bedroom wall, and invariably without controls, criminals were attracted. Not good.

Facebook recently picked up on this constraining aspect, and recognized it as a potential limiter in its popularity - a real threat to the wildfire spread it has enjoyed to date. Addressing this, Facebook went through a major overhaul lately, now allowing "friends lists" which can be used to control what information is displayed to selected group(s) of friends. The next step is differentiated parallel status updates: to close friends, "Stuck in a boring meeting with ernie ego"; to work colleagues, "All day meeting on topic X"; to family, "wishing I were home with you".

You can likely think of many examples for the above. Hopefully the paradox of social networking sites can be resolved without becoming overly complex and difficult to contribute to. I find it hard enough to keep the different aspects of my life in order, let alone the documentation of it for the many groups with whom I'm friends. Facebook has a difficult social challenge in front of them, as the wildfire spread has already seen a major slowdown - keeping it easy while allowing for fine grain control.

It's not an easy task, but one that Facebook will need to work out on their own, as I'm busy with a difficult work meeting at the moment. Or am I actually having fun unloading my brain, typing away at a blog? Or am I missing and thinking of someone? ...D, all of the above :)

Think left and be left...behind

It is commonly understood that humans hold different intellectual facilities in different areas of the brain. The left side is associated with logic, process, analytics, and deduction, i.e. math and science. Conversely, the right brain is where humans derive creativity, imagination, and theory. Some folks definitely exercise these halves disproportionately, but if we follow a generally held belief, we find that many people lean toward the left side in their day to day brainwaves.

Further anecdotal evidence associates the hand with which one writes to the side of the brain which is dominant. If you're a righty, as an estimated 80-90% of the world is, then you're likely a left brainer. If you're a lefty, then you might just be a bit more creative than analytical.

So then, why am I dancing between the halves of my own brain to write this blog (creative) using a logical argument? I'm doing so because I recently read some bits from a book by Daniel Pink titled A Whole New Mind. Mr. Pink relates the future of the business world to being a conceptual age - one in which the right brained folks begin to dominate the success stories of the business world.

The reasoning for this proposition are a few, which I will grossly and inadequately sum:
1. Many left brained activities are slowly being replaced by artificial intelligence. Computers are doing the work that people (right handed people...think bean counters) did for quite a long time - better, cheaper, and faster. Even within a country by country look at this factor, you can see outsourcing as playing the same role - with the developing world taking over the routine first world jobs.

2. Creativity has long been valued by the business world, and is near and dear to the definition of entrepreneurism. However, as information and access to it have grown, differentiation becomes more difficult and the part time right brainer can't be as successful as they have historically. The ability to stand out and markedly respond to the market in unique methods will be the critical success factor as markets continue to mature.

Need some proof? Think Apple versus Microsoft/PC's. Think Toyota's Scion brand. Think manufacturing industry versus entertainment.

Will science and math go away? Absolutely not. Will we still need innovation and scientific exploration to progress as a global society and form a foundation for business and life? Certainly. Should we foster creativity and dynamicism in our children through school choice, etc? Indeed. Will the people who are naturally more left brainish and creative begin to progress more quickly than others? Looks likely.

Think left and be left. Fostering the right brain seems the right decision. But then that statement was based squarely in my left brain (logic) And with that humor, we're back to right again. Just 9 more volleys and my right brain exercises for the morning are through...left, right, left, right. :)

Camera Operations and People Watching 101

After a whole 30 or so years of taking in films, I've only just come to realize that I really don't care much about plot. I don't value wardrobe designers much. Music directors are acquaintances, yet not good friends. Editors come and go without notice. What impresses me most, driving a desire to watch a film more than once, are two artistic components to film creation:

Cinematography and casting. These choices, when well done by their individual experts and approved by good directors lead to a movie that I'm likely to give time. Immersion in a scene...truly making the escapism of a film feel real - what an incredible feat, especially today when it's easy to question authenticity (CGI, and its evil buddies). I also relish those moments when the hackneyed phrase becomes legit- actor becomes the role. When even the thinking viewer seriously considers that actors personality to be whats on display...and this goes beyond the speech, mannerisms, etc. Even the physical appearance of the actor aligns with people that you've actually met that have the same characteristics (mannerisms matched to physical appearance) That's a whole different point...the whole "what you look like determines partially your personality and lifestyle", that I'll leave alone, but the point is made.

Ok, so some examples:
Billy Elliot
Cast and Cinematography - only noticed cinematography after 3 viewings! This movie makes me feel England in a way that 100% matches my experiences living there. Music Director gets a thumbs up as an aside.

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof
Liz, Paul, Burl Ives...even Gooper. Absolutely crushes any modern acting by current starlets

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Again, Liz and hubby at time Burton, even Segal and his little woman. An absolutely coup de casting

The Thin Red Line
Cinematography at it's best - Nature sets the scene, but taking it in adequately and creating a pensive quality is genius. Video Excerpt

Just a few that came to mind within 26 seconds...I could go all day. Films and music...two of the fundamental keys to happiness in life.

Sure, I'm a big fan of many films that are especially well plotted, and some of the above are also great plots (Billy Elliot springs). However, whenever I'm feeling a little Howard Hughes-ish, I'll pay the cinematographer and the casting director first. Make it beautiful to watch and let the best believable acting talent make the film. All else is a backdrop. No props to props from me. (yes-I like a little dry wit mixed into movies too) :)