BLOG Etiquette

The success of a blog (and of democratic societies) depends on a commitment to civil discourse on tough issues.  In establishing this blog, I am counting on my readers to practice civil discourse, and have intentionally not created a moderated blog.

Regrettably, a number of posters to several other blogs I follow have abused those blogs, their moderators, and others in the blog communities. Those who do have, for the most part, hidden behind the “anonymous” or fake names.  In some cases, comments have verged on pornography, liable, and flat out lies.

Below are some blog etiquette dos and don’ts, put together by Pete Babb several years ago, which should govern posters’ behavior on the blog. I think about them every time I post to a blog site.  

1. Thou shall not confuse thy opinion with gospel truth. There is a strong temptation, particularly when discussing contentious issues, to claim unimpeachable authority on the subject at hand. Yes, everybody is entitled to express personal opinions, but by treating your blog or wiki like a panel rather than a pulpit, the dialogue will more likely be divine.

2. Thou shall not invoke personal attacks. One of the magical powers blogs and wikis seem to possess is the capability of turning otherwise sensible people into bickering schoolchildren. Unless the discussion See more... subject is "Say something insulting about somebody who holds a different opinion than you," leave the personal invective out. Rule of thumb: Argue with the post, not the poster.

3. Thou shall stick to the subject at hand. Blogs in particular can get tangential in a hurry. To some, that's part of the charm - you start with an idea and end up somewhere completely different. That's all well and good, but let tangents arise organically within the context of the discussion. If you've got something wildly off topic to say, start a new thread or keep it to yourself until it becomes relevant.

4. Thou shall cite thy references. As we all know, people can come up with statistics to prove anything; 40 percent of all people know that. So, set yourself apart from the herd by showing where you get your facts. You'll look knowledgeable, honest, and trustworthy. What's not to like about that?

5. Thou shall punctuate and capitalise. We're not saying you should write every post with one eye on The Chicago Manual of Style, but writing several paragraphs as one gigantic, all-lowercase, run-on sentence is a definite no-no. As is writing in ALL CAPS, WHICH IS LIKE SHOUTING! Punctuation is your friend, so use it.

6. Thou shall own up to thy mistakes. Despite online chest-puffing to the contrary, nobody's perfect. You are going to make mistakes. You are going to be wrong about things. Instead of being defensive and denying it, just admit your blunder and move on. If you have the urge to browbeat somebody about making a mistake, refer to the second commandment.

7. Thou shall not use aliases or sock puppets. If you have to invent a separate identity in order to create the illusion of agreement, then perhaps your point isn't as good as you think it is. Although it's tempting to play games with the pseudo-anonymity the internet provides, it's far better to stick with one identity.

8. Thou shall not feed the trolls. When people spew insults, pick fights, or take contrarian positions just for the sake of being contrary, ignore them. Insulting online miscreants or engaging them in arguments accomplishes nothing, it just further pollutes the pages with pointless back-and-forth. 

9. Thou shall resize thy images. Remember, not everybody has screamingly fast broadband connections like you, and not everybody has the patience to wait for that huge picture of your pet iguana to download. Plus, margin-breaking pictures are just plain annoying.

10. Thou shall respect the old adage: What happens on the wiki stays on the wiki. It's wonderful how blogs and wikis can provide you with new knowledge, insight, and perspective, and you should certainly carry what you learn with you when you leave your computer. But all the bickering, arguing, correcting, and other antics it took to get there? Leave those behind. There is no need to bring your wiki-capades home with you. 

Ken Karch, PE

Bob King's Organizational Vision

For several years, I served as a member of the Research Committee of GOAL/QPC, the organization best known for its Memory Jogger booklets used by thousands of companies and other organizations around the world. 

GOAL/QPC's primary mission was to learn what could be learned about the quality focus of companies, primarily in Japan, that made Japanese companies such effectiuve competitors in the global marketplace. As a result, GOAL/QPC was responsible for translating into English much of the Japanese quality literature during the 1980s.

The following vision was created by friend and colleague Bob King, founder and President of GOAL/QPC, to give a flavor of what an effective organization should be striving for. Bob was instrumental in bringing the messages of W. Edwards Deming, long revered in Japan, to America.

As you consider this vision, think of organizations you have worked for (or are currently working for) and compare how well you think they are doing.

"...TQM Vision

1. Imagine an organization that knows what customers will want 5‑10 years from now and exactly what they will do to far exceed all expecta­tions.

2. Imagine an organization where each employee knows what they need to do in their job to make the organization run smoothly. These actions are documented, audited and updated daily as changing situations require it.

3. Imagine an organization where each employee manages by facts, knows how to analyze problems using simple tools for understanding variability and data.

4. Imagine an organization where each employee generates 100-200 suggestions per year (2‑4 per week) and 95% are implemented and joins with the work group to maximize this progress.

5. Imagine an organization where everybody knows the most important variable to control to satisfy customers and guarantee effectiveness and efficiency and where these standards are documented and updated daily.

6. Imagine an organization where the president sets the two or three most important goals for the year, every manager knows these goals and the 2 or 3 most important tasks to help achieve these goals, has measurable milestones on these activities which they personally audit monthly and document and send up through the organization to enable diagnosis and improvement.

7. Imagine an organization where each employee understands not only how to do their job but how to make significant improvement on their job on a regular basis.

8. Imagine an organization where each employee knows all the people who supply them with data and materials and gives them clear concise advice on how to improve that data and material and where each person knows all their customers and seeks out ways to meet all expectations in providing data and materials.

9. Imagine an organization where all managers and staff people use effective and simple planning tools on a regular basis to do a better job.

10. Imagine an organization where cross-functional teams assure that quality, cost, efficiency, services and profit are managed on a con­sistently high level throughout each business unit of the organization.

11. Imagine an organization where quality assurance and reliability are managed effectively on a daily basis but also, the total organization is thoroughly familiar with the customers.

12. Imagine an organization where all problems and challenges are met by a team of the most appropriate people regardless of level or job within the organization.

13. Imagine an organization where all information flows smoothly and concisely to the people who need it and both daily and improvement activities are audited at each level of the organization to assure that each employee reaches their full potential..."

Source: Bob King, GOAL/QPC


Ken Karch, PE

Covey's Seven Habits of Successful People

Many of you have heard references to Steven Covey's Seven Habits of Successful People, but few have spent much time studying them. Each of them have application to the work of most organizations, at both the personal and workplace level. To get you started, I've included them below.

More information can be found in Covey's book by that title, and in numerous discussions on the internet.

Seven Habits of Highly Effective People

1. Be Proactive
     - personal vision
     -are my actions based upon self-chosen values or upon my moods, feelings, and circumstances?

2. Begin With the End in Mind
     -personal leadership
     -have I written a personal mission statement which provides meaning, purpose, and direction to my life?          -do my actions flow from my mission?

3. Put First Things First
     -personal management
     -am I able to say no to the unimportant, no matter how urgent, and yes to the important?

4. Think Win/Win
     -interpersonal leadership
     -do I seek mutual benefit in all interdependent relationships?

5. Seek First to Understand; Then To Be Understood
     -empathetic communication
     -do I avoid autobiographical responses and instead faithfully reflect my understanding of the other person              before seeking to be understood?

6. Synergize
     -creative cooperation
     -do I value different opinions, viewpoints, and perspectives of others when seeking solutions?

7. Sharpen the Saw
     -balanced self-renewal
     -am I engaged in continuous improvement in the physical, mental, spiritual, and social/emotional                          dimensions of my life?


-Source: Covey, Stephen R., The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People


Ken Karch, PE

Old and New Leadership Competencies

In response to a recent query about how to define leadership, I thought you might find the following from friend and colleague Peter Scholtes, in his Leader's Handbook, insightful.

This is a subject about which I'll have a lot to say in future posts. About 10 years ago I compiled over a hundred of the best writings about leadership, and prepared a "Leadership Book" for use with the Organizational Effectiveness course I taught at the University of Washington. The following is part of that compilation. 

"...Old and New Leadership Competencies

Let us first briefly examine the old competencies: aptitudes needed to survive and excel in the old organization.

1. Forcefulness. Part of a manager's responsibility was to control the workforce, making people do what they may be otherwise inclined to ignore. Good managers could look their people square in the eye and get them to respond.

2. Motivator. The "softer" side of forcefulness was the ability to inspire your people to do great work. The judicious combination of carrots and sticks, of inspiration and exhortation, was the manager's stock-in-trade.

3. Decisiveness. To make quick decisions in the absence of information was routinely expected of the old-style manager.

4. Willfulness. Good bosses knew what they wanted and were dogged in their pursuit of it.

5. Assertiveness. A good boss was outspoken. Old-style leaders could not show weakness or ignorance lest their people run all over them.

6. Result- and bottom-line-oriented. Bosses held people accountable for meeting quotas and standards and achieving measurable goals. Maximizing ever-increasing profits every quarter and minimizing ever-diminishing costs: These were the goals.

7. Task-oriented. Managers kept everyone busy and occupied. No slacking off, no socializing. People don't really want to work and, left to themselves, will screw off. Therefore, be their conscience and taskmaster.

8. Integrity and diplomacy. Good bosses covered toughness with tact and amiability. Be honest, fair, and respectful while letting your people know that you know what to do when things get out of hand.

The New Leadership Competencies

1. The ability to think in terms of systems and knowing how to lead systems.

2. The ability to understand the variability of work in planning and problem solving.

3. Understanding how we learn, develop, and improve, and leading true learning and improvement.

4. Understanding people and why they behave as they do.

5. Understanding the interdependence and interaction between systems, variation, learning, and human behavior. Knowing how each affects the others.

6. Giving vision, meaning, direction, and focus to the organization.

Source: Scholtes, Peter R., The Leader’s Handbook


Ken Karch, PE

Resisters to Change

Frank Bowsher of IBM wrote, in Educating America, about the resisters to change in Education. 

I have adapted his list of types of resisters to accomodate resisters to change, in general.

With apologies to Frank for modest editing, I hope you'll enjoy these. Watch for them in the workplace every day.

The "Positive" Resister - this person agrees with all the new ideas and programs, but never takes the first step to implement any changes.

The "Unique" Resister - All this change is good for the other areas, but it clearly doesn't apply to that individual's unique department.

The "Let Me Be Last" Resister - this person will not say your ideas are wrong. His or her strategy is to be the last department to implement changes, hoping that all these new ideas will die out before his or her department must move forward into the new world.

The "We Need More Time To Study" Resister - the "we need more time to study " resister is very common. This is one of the most palatable reasons for resisting. After all, who could object to doing more studies?

The "States Rights" Resister - The "states rights" resister is also common in large companies. This person always resists any programs from headquarters, making great presentations about how local programs are the only effective way to go.

The "Cost Justifier" Resister - the "cost justifier" wants everything cost justified prior to any change. This resister demands to have "business cases" prepared. The real message this person sends, however, is a simple resistance to change.

The "Incremental Change" Resister - one of the most difficult people to win over to a new system is the "incremental change" resister. This is the person who will try anything new as long as the new system has everything the old system had..."

-edited from Bowsher, Frank, Educating America


Ken Karch, PE

Senge's Laws of Systems Thinking

Peter Senge, writing in The Fifth Discipline in 1990, provided a set of Laws of Systems Thinking. 

THE LAWS OF SYSTEMS THINKING

1. Today's problems come from yesterday's "solutions." - Solutions that merely shift problems from one part of a system to another often go undetected because those who "solved" the first problem are different from those who inherit the new problem.

2. The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back. - When our initial efforts fail to produce lasting improvements, we "push harder"--faithful to the creed that hard work will overcome all obstacles, all the while blinding ourselves to how we are contributing to the obstacles ourselves.

3. Behavior grows better before it grows worse. - A typical solution feels wonderful, when it first cures the symptoms. It may be two, three, or four years before the problem returns, or some new, worse problem arrives. By that time, given how rapidly most people move from job to job, someone new is sitting in the chair.

4. The easy way out usually leads back in. - Pushing harder and harder on familiar solutions, while fundamental problems persist or worsen, is a reliable indicator of non-systemic thinking--what we often call the "what we need here is a bigger hammer" syndrome.

5. The cure can be worse than the disease. - The long‑term, most insidious consequence of applying non-systemic solutions is increased need for more and more of the solution. This is why ill‑conceived interventions are not just ineffective, they are "addictive" in the sense of fostering increased dependency and lessened abilities of local people to solve their own problems.

6. Faster is slower. - The optimal rate is far less than the fastest possible growth. When growth becomes excessive, the system itself will seek to compensate by slowing down, perhaps putting the organization's survival at risk in the process.

7. Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space. - There is a fundamental mismatch between the nature of reality in complex systems and our predominant ways of thinking about reality. The first step in correcting that mismatch is to let go of the notion that cause and effect are close in time and space.

8. Small changes can produce big results--but the areas of highest leverage are often the least obvious. - High‑leverage changes are usually highly non-obvious to most participants in the system. They are not "close in time and space" to obvious problem symptoms. This is what makes life interesting.

9. You can have your cake and eat it too--but not at once. - They only appear as rigid "either‑or" choices, because we think of what is possible at a fixed point in time. Next month, it may be true that we must choose one or the other, but the real leverage lies in seeing how both can improve over time.

10. Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two small elephants. - Living systems have integrity. Their character depends on the whole; to understand the most challenging managerial issues requires seeing the whole system that generates the issues.

11. There is no blame. - Systems thinking shows us that there is no outside, that you and the cause of your problems are part of a single system. The cure lies in your relationship with your "enemy."

-From The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge, 1990.

Territorial Games People Play

J. Michael Crouch, writing in a 1997 issue of Quality Digest, reported on a series of "Territorial Games" used in the work environment which I thought you'd enjoy. As you go about your work life, see how many of these you can spot.

The "games" are listed below by name, followed by their meaning.

Strategic Noncompliance - Agreeing upfront to take action while having no intention of taking that action, or cooperating in order to buy time to find a way of avoiding taking action; waiting until the last minute to back out.

Information Manipulation - Withholding or putting a spin on information, or covering up or giving false information; withholding or interpreting information in a way that keeps the initiative from progressing.

Occupation - Marking territory, maintaining an imposing physical presence, acting as the gatekeeper for vital information, and monopolizing relationships, resources, or information; monopolizing resources (people, time) to prevent them from being reallocated to the initiative.

Shunning - Subtly or overtly excluding an individual in a way that punishes him or her, or orchestrating a group's behavior so that someone is obviously out-group; socially excluding an individual in a way that brands him or her an outsider.

Discredit - Using personal attacks or irrelevant criti­cisms to create doubt about another person's competence or credibility.

Intimidation - Growling, yelling, glaring, or making threats to scare off an individual; using scare tactics or veiled threats to warn off perceived invaders; a “back-off” stare..

Filibuster - Using excessive verbiage to prevent action, out­talk objectors in a meeting or monopolize, and thereby exhaust, meeting time; talking long and hard enough in order to squander development time, leaving issues unresolved..

Invisible Walls - Actively instigating actions or creating counterproductive perceptions so that an argued directive will be, if not impossible, extremely difficult to implement; covertly blocking forward momentum by creating logistical impossibilities.

Camouflage - Creating a distraction, emphasizing the inconsequential, sending someone off on a wild goose chase, or deliberately triggering someone's anxiety buttons; diverting people with irrelevant issues or projects to keep them away from quality initiatives.

Powerful Alliances - Using relationships with powerful people to intimidate, impress or threaten others; engaging in name-dropping and strategic displays of influence over important decision makers.

Source: J. Michael Crouch, “Quality Turf Wars”, Quality Digest, October 1997