23 May
0Comments

USPS: No iPads, Kindles For Troops And Foreign Consumers

The United States Postal Service has banned all international shipments of electronics with lithium batteries effective May 16–including iPads, Kindles, smartphones, and laptops. Here’s the scoop.

Starting on May 16, new United States Postal Service (USPS) regulations will prohibit iPads, Kindles, smartphones, and other electronics with lithium batteries from being mailed to overseas troops or foreign customers. American firms with customers outside the country’s borders or people with loved ones serving overseas will have to use private parcel services at higher prices. The news is a headache for USPS employees, military families and electronic manufacturers and resellers… but a boon for private delivery firms like UPS, DHL, and FedEx.

Lithium batteries, which power many personal electronic devices, can explode or catch fire in certain conditions. In order to get around this, consumer electronic manufacturers such as Apple or Amazon ship their products with a minimal charge–which mitigates the safety risk. Fully charged, improperly stored, or improperly packed lithium batteries do pose a risk of explosion, however. Lithium batteries have been implicated in at least two fatal cargo plane crashes since 2006, including a UPS jet in Dubai.

For cargo shippers and postal services, this poses a quandry. Improperly shipped lithium batteries are a serious safety risk. However, shipping of personal electronics is a multibillion dollar business annually. According to the USPS, they will prohibit shipping of lithium batteries and any device containing them effective May 16. In a publicly issued document, the USPS says that the ban was made because of deliberations between the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Universal Postal Union (UPU), two international bodies which issue semi-binding guidelines for global trade. The IATA’s 2012 regulations for lithium metal and lithium ion batteries allow for the shipment of consumer electronics with proper safety precautions, while the UPU’s lithium battery regulations are ambiguously worded–worthy of an entire phalanx of lawyers.

Lithium batteries have been implicated in at least two fatal cargo plane crashes since 200.

The USPS tells customers they anticipate “on January 1, 2013, customers will be able to mail specific quantities of lithium batteries internationally (including to and from an APO, FPO, or DPO location) when the batteries are properly installed in the personal electronic devices they are intended to operate.” In the meantime, Americans hoping to send iPads, Kindles, laptop batteries, and smartphones overseas will be forced to either break the law by lying about their package contents or to shell out dearly for higher-priced private shipping services.

Fast Company spoke to Darlene Casey of the Postal Service, who explained the new regulations. According to Casey, the revision was required by ICAO and UPU standards, both of which prohibit lithium batteries in mail shipments on international commercial air transportation (while allowing them in non-mail shipments such as private courier services). The May 16 start date was chosen “to provide mailers with time to make shipping adjustments;” the Postal Service also acknowledges that the change will be an inconvenience to cus­tomers and that the “USPS is working with expert organizations to determine if any new exceptions can be developed prior to January 2013. Further announcements will be made should USPS be able to accept lithium batteries in certain types of mail shipments as soon as any new options become available.” As a courtesy, Fast Company was provided with a graphic of consumer electronic items which will be forbidden on outbound U.S. international mail after May 16 (below).

Of course, the group hardest hit by the USPS decision are American troops. Servicemembers residing overseas with APO and FPO addresses are served only by the USPS and FedEx. Neither DHL not UPS deliver to APO or FPO boxes; however, both do ship to countries and cities where troops are based. After May 16, friends or family members hoping to send low-cost tablets and ereaders to servicemembers abroad will no longer be able to send parcels by US Mail. It’s important to note that the restrictions do not reply to shipping lithium batteries domestically or to American residents receiving lithium batteries; the ban only applies to outbound lithium battery products shipped international.

Winnie Pritchett of non-profit organization iPads for Soldiers, which ships iPads without any financial assistance from Apple to troops overseas, notes that they currently send the bulk of their iPads overseas via USPS.

Pritchett calls the new regulations a case of the Postal Service “shooting themselves in the foot.” iPads for Soldiers sent over 600 iPads to Afghanistan in 2011; each iPad took approximately two weeks to make it from the United States to Afghanistan. According to Pritchett, the iPads were a particular hit with wounded warriors with missing hands–they were able to use the touch-based iPad much more easily than a conventional computer.

As private parcel services, FedEx, DHL and UPS all permit shipping of lithium battery-powered electronic devices. UPS’ Mike Mangeot told Fast Company that the shipping giant handles lithium battery-containing electronic devices in compliance with U.S. and international shipping regulations, conducts extensive employee training for handling lithium battery shipments, and audits customers for proper packaging, handling, and documentation of lithium batteries.

Although the Postal Service claims to be adhering to international regulations, their strict ban on any international lithium battery shipment is semi-exceptional–among major worldwide postal services, only the Australia Post has a similar regulation. Other major postal services have less stringent rules; the Royal Post (UK), for instance, allows smartphone, iPad, and Kindles while forbidding laptop computer batteries, and Japan Post restricts lithium batteries to slower sea mail. Yet other services, such as the German Bundespost, still allow international air mail of lithium batteries within stringent safety requirements.

Another group hard hit by the USPS lithium battery ban are commercial resellers. Aaron Hall of bay.ru, an American firm specializing in consumer electronics exports to the Russian market, told Fast Company that “few outside of our industry realize that world’s best express shippers like FedEx, DHL, and UPS still have major challenges in Russia. That said, there is often one preferred shipping solution for any given good.” Hall’s firm will use alternate shippers for the Russian market; the issue is a large one for giants like Apple and Amazon, along with smaller resalers.

Other services, such as the German Bundespost, still allow international air mail of lithium batteries within stringent safety requirements.

In the end, the USPS’ rush to ban lithium batteries is surprising. Although the Postal Service claims they are just getting in line with international regulations, the Bundespost and Royal Mail either successfully straggled getting in line with overly cautious (and ambiguous) safety regulations, or find loopholes to get around them. The USPS has legendary financial difficulties and a track record of institutional paralysis and poor decision-making. Despite implied promises of a January 2013 policy change, shutting off Kindle exports to Amazon and iPad shipments to American troops is simply puzzling. The root of the matter is that lithium batteries, with proper safety precautions, are safe for air shipping. While it is the job of the ICAO and UPU to enact overly-stringent bureaucratic restrictions, a blanket ban offers minimal safety benefits and massive economic damage to the USPS.

Top Image: Fickr user Wheat_In_your_Hair/ Bottom Image: USPS

Via Fast Company: http://www.fastcompany.com

26 March
0Comments

Cyber Cops Stop Mohammed Merah, Scour Web For Missing Murder Videos

Mohammed Merah, the French terrorist responsible for attacks on Jewish schools and paratroopers, is dead. Here’s how authorities used modern techniques such as IP address forensics and digital surveillance to track him down.

Mohammed Merah, the 24-year-old Frenchman responsible for an Al Qaeda-inspired shooting spree that left seven dead, was killed by police after a day-long siege this morning. Before authorities tracked him down, Merah carried out multiple attacks on a French Jewish school and three paratroopers of North African and Caribbean origin. Modern times being what they are, Merah was primarily caught by cyberdetectives who tracked his online activities.

During the siege, Merah reportedly proclaimed allegiance to Al Qaeda.

Merah was caught because he used his family computer to arrange the first paratrooper’s death. The terrorist pretended he wanted to buy the soldier’s motorcycle; when the soldier met him, he was shot to death (shades of American Craigslist robberies!). The victim, paratrooper Imad Ibn Ziaten, was trying to sell a Suzuki Bandit. In the advert, Ziaten noted that he was a soldier and provided his first name–which identified him as a Frenchman of Arabic or Muslim heritage. Ziaten made plans to meet with Merah on a Sunday afternoon; upon meeting, he was shot in the head at close range–a M.O. that repeated itself in all the killings that followed. Media sources including CNN, France 24, and Le Monde variously report that the computer belonged to either his mother or brother.

Merah was caught because he used his family computer to arrange the first paratrooper’s death.

According to Le Monde’s Yves Bordenave, French cyber police found that 580 users viewed the original motorcycle advertisement. The police obtained IP addresses for these users and attempted to geolocate them, focusing on unspecified districts in the city. Users on the smaller, geotargeted list then became the focus of investigation. Merah became the primary suspect after they viewed emails between him and Ibn Ziaten.

Interestingly, French authorities appear to have been monitoring Merah’s family’s IP address and Internet activity even before he was a suspect. On France24, a public prosecutor working on the case said that the IP address had been monitored two days before Ibn Ziaten’s death, but that further checks still needed to be made. Merah’s brother and girlfriend were also taken into custody; the brother is also known locally for sympathy for Islamist causes. Reuters reports that Merah was not particularly religious and was primarily angry at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and NATO’s presence in Afghanistan. However, the New York Times’ Dan Bilefsky and Maia de la Baume indicate that Merah was radicalized in prison.

For French speakers, a short profile (including amateur video) of Merah from French public broadcaster France 2 is shown below.

youtube kFGvd38lU-Y

About 30 French guerillas trained by the Taliban are believed by French intelligence to have participated in attacks on NATO troops in Afghanistan.

Later on, Merah visited a Toulouse scooter shop where he requested staff remove an anti-theft GPS tracker device from his Yamaha T MAX 550cc scooter and repaint the vehicle a different color. An employee at the shop discreetly tipped off police. In that classic line beloved by criminals everywhere, Merah told the garage staff that the GPS device-tracked scooter belonged to “a friend.” It has not been confirmed whether Merah stole the scooter or not.

In a post-modern tech twist, Merah is believed to have filmed his murder spree. Survivors at the Ozer Hatorah school in Toulouse reported the gunman appeared to be filming the attack. According to French Interior Minister Claude Guéant, Merah wore “a kind of filming apparatus” on his chest; the country’s police (and a horde of amateur crimesolvers) are currently combing the Internet to see if video was posted online.

Other observers believe Merah may have even made a martyrdom video. Ben Venzke of American jihadi video disseminator IntelCenter claims that “if the French gunman Mohammed Merah met with senior al-Qaeda leadership in Pakistan and was given a mission to conduct attacks in France, as he has claimed, he would have likely recorded a video message while there as occurred with terrorists Mohammed Sidique Khan and Faisal Shahzad.”

Merah has apparently been under surveillance since making two trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan; according to The Daily Beast’s Tracy McNicoll, French intelligence interrogated Merah in November 2011 about his activities in those countries. Merah provided photographs he took and claimed he visited the countries for “tourism.” Guéant also added that the decision to put Merah under surveillance was also influenced by him “already having committed certain infractions, some with violence.” French authorities stated he was arrested 15 times as a youth.

Shortly before French authorities raided Merah’s apartment, the gunman called into French news network France 24 to explain himself and his motives. Senior editor Ebba Kalondo, who took the call, is featured in the (French-language) clip below talking about her conversation with Merah. During the 11-minute call, Merah told Kalondo that he filmed all seven killings and planned to post them to the Internet. He then addded, “I will go to prison with my head held high or die with a smile. Nothing else.”

youtube vd0bTjkci5c

Reportedly, Merah previously attempted to join the French military but was turned down. It is not known at press time whether he acted alone or as part of a group.

For more stories like this, follow @fastcompany

23 May
0Comments

YouTube Matches Congress Members For Debates On New Town Hall Platform

YouTube is matching up members of Congress for debates on hot issues in a new channel launching on Wednesday.

The channel, dubbed YouTube Town Hall, is filled with debates surrounding the budget, economy, energy, Afghanistan, education and healthcare. Initially topics were chosen by popularity on Google News and Google web search over the past year, but YouTube plans to accept questions from viewers in the future.

Each debate features two members of Congress who explain their points of view on the given topic in videos made especially for the Town Hall channel.

Sides are not necessarily drawn along party lines, and viewers only find out what party each debater belongs to (unless they recognize him or her, of course) after they choose which person’s perspective they support. Those votes will be tallied and displayed on a leader board to show who is “winning” the debate.

YouTube first started encouraging Congress members’ content in January 2009, with the launch of The Senate Hub and The House Hub. YouTube Head of News and Politics Steve Grove estimates that at that time, about half of the members of Congress had YouTube channels. Now, well over 90% have them, and several presidential candidates — including President Obama — have used YouTube to launch their campaigns.

“Politicians are realizing that being on YouTube is not just a hobby,” Grove says. “It’s faster than other media, more ubiquitous than other media. It’s sight, sound and emotion all in one. It’s probably the most comprehensive way you have to get a message out there.”

Via Mashable: http://www.mashable.com

16 June
0Comments

The value of a mouthful of blood

The unfortunate yet necessary business of getting punched in the mouth

You learn a lot about yourself during your first fist fight. Especially when you know for a fact that the other guy is going to mop the deck with your face just because he can.

And that’s just the thing: It’s one thing to get into a fight you’re pretty sure you’ll win. It’s another completely to get into a fight even though you’re pretty sure you’ll lose, and still find the courage to stand your ground and see things through.

Close your eyes and hold that thought. We’ll come back to this in a sec.

Okay, so I know… this may seem like an odd topic for a blog that deals mostly with brand management, social media, business strategy, etc., but as I found with my “21 things” blog last week, there is a deeply human side to making inspired business decisions that we need to start focusing on a little more (not just here – in general). Why? Because business decisions don’t happen in a vacuum. People make these decisions. Human beings, with good days and bad days, filled with courage and plagued by cowardice, swelling with passion and weighed down by apathy. People as imperfect and flawed and riddled with self-doubt as you and I. Yes, the Steve Jobs, Jack Welches, Henry Fords, Walt Disneys, Bill Gates, Richard Bransons and Julius Caesars of the world are just as human as the rest of us, with their own problems, their own doubts, their own insecurities and their own challenges to overcome. But one of the things that separates them from the majority of people is their willingness to step forward even when the odds are squarely against them, and risk taking a very public and humiliating beating if things don’t turn out as they had hoped. But even they can come to a professional impasse if their “education” along the way skipped the essential rite of passage known as the boyhood brawl.

The first thing you probably need to get from this post is this: Because decisions cannot be divorced from the people who make them, who we are as human beings impacts those decisions at least as much as what we do professionally: A CEO is a role, not a personality trait. A general is a rank, not an emotional profile. A manager is a job description, not an indication of natural leadership. In other words, don’t let the cover story fool you: a title printed on a business card doesn’t reflect an individual’s ability to lead, inspire and show cunning any more than the size of their bank account or the make of their car.

What does a title really tell you about someone? If you live within a regimented corporate or military culture, it tells you something about where they stand in the pecking order and what power they yield over you and others, but that’s really about it. In matters of leadership, courage, integrity and mental fortitude, a job title doesn’t really tell you a whole lot about someone’s mettle. More to the point, a job title doesn’t tell someone a whole lot about themselves and what they are capable of when the chips are down.

The importance of dangerous tests and contests

Back in not-so-ancient times, boys were routinely tested as they grew up: Going into the woods alone for the first time. Climbing the tallest tree. Swimming across the river. Diving to the cold dark bottom. Catching your first fish. Killing your first fowl. Standing your ground against the older village or neighborhood kids. Tribal rights of passage. By the time a man reached adulthood, he knew exactly who he was. He knew his own strengths and weaknesses.

And the rest of the community did as well.

Via regular social tests and challenges, stars rose, stayed stagnant, or fell from grace. There was no hiding from it. The pecking order in human communities was always in flux, with the smartest and strongest leading, and others following, hoping for their chance to prove themselves someday and improve their position.

Only now, it seems that such personal tests, the ones that cemented not only reputations but confidence, self respect, courage and wisdom have fallen mostly by the wayside. Just for the record, graduating from kindergarten is not a rite of passage. Landing a 20% off coupon isn’t either. Neither is unlocking a fifth level prestige badge in COD Modern Warfare 2 on X-Box Live.

Here’s an observation. It isn’t a judgment. Just an observation: None of the people I have ever worked with or worked for while I was in the corporate world had ever been in a real fight. None had ever fought back when the bully shoved them in a locker or stole their lunch money. None had ever stepped in to help someone being mugged. None had ever finished a fight that some drunk jerk forced on them or one of their peers. And… coming from France – a country where little boys haven’t yet been taught that getting into the occasional fisticuff is a sign of deplorable behavior – I found this both surprising and unfortunate. Not because I find fights to be particularly edifying (I don’t enjoy them a whole lot, especially since I am not Chuck Norris), but because fighting – which mostly amounts to dealing with fear, confrontation, pain and the social pressures not to quit or lose – has been part of young mens’ “education” for tens of thousands of years. Like it or not, fighting each other is baked into our DNA. Men need these types of experiences in order to move from childhood to adulthood. Sport can be a decent substitute for some time, martial arts as well, but ultimately, nothing can truly take the place of actual combat. By creating an entire generation of men who have never experienced the fight or flight gauntlet of a knuckle duel, I am not certain that we are properly preparing young men for the types of mental and emotional challenges required of them in high stakes leadership positions.

Asserting yourself in a business meeting, negotiating a settlement, managing a takeover, speaking to investors, presenting to a crowd of bloggers and journalists, convincing banks to back your next venture, these things don’t go well unless you have a certain level of quiet confidence about you, the kind of confidence that frees your mind to get the job done rather than worry about whether or not you’re up for it.

Reassuring the American people that the country is safe, customers that it is still safe to bank with you, drivers that your cars won’t accelerate out of control and explode, investors and employees that your company is still a sound bet, and the public that you have the oil spill under control can’t be left to folks who haven’t tested themselves to find out what they are really made of.

Remember Michael “Brownie” Brown, the guy in charge of FEMA during the Katrina crisis? His impeccably pressed, perfectly white dress shirts? Not a hair out of place while the people of New Orleans drowned and starved to death? Nice guy, I’m sure. Smart too. Probably great with the whole IAHA Arabian horse thing, and corporate luncheons and country-club brunches, before being appointed to lead the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Except… Wrong guy for the job. Why? Hmmm. You tell me.

Now put a military officer – especially an Iraq or Afghanistan combat veteran – in his place to do the same job and see what happens. My bet: Night and day. The difference between both men? One made a point to put himself through the gauntlet time and time again. The other, not so much.

Rites of passage matter. They matter a lot.

Fight Club is only a novel. This is real.

If I am starting to sound like Fight Club’s Tyler Durden, so be it. There is a reason why Chuck Palahniuk’s novel struck a chord when it came out. As much as the novel itself may be an unapologetic exaggeration of the death of masculinity in modern times, its message is dead on target. And the impact that a generation of untested men in leadership positions has already had on the corporate world may be in great part responsible for some of the trouble we are in: Enron. Wall Street. The massive oil spill in the Gulf: All arrived at by decisions made by not by incompetent men, but rather untested, socially and emotionally incomplete men.

Think this is a stretch? Possibly. But consider that mid-life crises tend to happen to men riddled with complexes and self-doubt. Far more than an overcompensation or an indulgence brought about by professional success. Any decent Jungian psychotherapist can explain the link between mid-life crises and a common mother complex in men: Adult in form but not in heart. Boys whose bodies grew up but whose souls didn’t. The erosion of significant, terrifying, often violent rites of passage from childhood to adulthood, particularly when it comes to my gender, is a problem that doesn’t only impact divorce rates and Porsche sales in the US, but also the business world and the economy as a whole: A man who isn’t whole cannot effectively lead. He is a Fisher King, an impotent, lame-duck regent whose wound infects his entire kingdom and drags it down with him. When captains of industry are drawn drawn from among the ranks of untested men rather than those who can and should lead, the system breaks down: Exploration, experimentation and progress come to a grinding halt. Strategic planning takes a hit. Appearances begin to overtake substance. Nepotism prevails. Good old boys networks take root. Mediocrity, hypocrisy and corruption begin to poison corporate and political cultures.

There is something missing in a man who hasn’t pushed himself far beyond what he thought were his own limits. Something we look for in leaders. Something without which our faith in a man cannot ever be truly realized. We all felt it in the school yard. On the playing field. In boot camp. And yes, in the board room. A phony is a phony. The real deal, however, walks wrapped in the knowledge of who he is as a man, because at least once in his life, he walked deep into the dark recesses of his cave and found what really lurked there.

Growing up in France in the 70′s and 80′s – and having been raised in a family of former soldiers – making it to adolescence without a few black eyes and busted knuckles wasn’t an option. Not that I was pushed to go looking for fights, but let’s say that certain circumstances were occasionally brought up around the dinner table as acceptable reasons to find out what I was made of. For many little French boys, playing cowboys, cops and musketeers wasn’t just play. It was preparation for an inevitable school yard confrontation that would determine much about the types of men they would later become.

A quick word about the French and silly stereotypes

Not that the French fight a lot or win a lot of wars, or anything. Aside from the Foreign Legion (mostly composed of foreigners at that) and a few key Police and military units, French culture isn’t exactly known for its warrior spirit. The Gauls were pretty solid warriors, but the Roman legions dealt with them in the end. Twice in the last century the Germans cut through our borders like a warm knife through butter. So yeah, sure, we invaded England back in the day, we’ve had bloody revolutions, and Napoleon helped us unlock our very own bloody conquests badge on Foursquare, but in general, the French are relatively well-behaved anti-violent people. Our soccer fans are pretty tame compared to England’s, we aren’t particularly fond of violence in sports and entertainment (Americans, in contrast, like their sports and movie heroes to be full-contact – while tennis doesn’t exactly require helmet and shoulder pads), we don’t really like guns, and most of our cops walk around without the need for bullet-proof vests. The French, as people of the world go, are not high up on the socially violent list.

Yet, in sharp contrast with many of my American peers who grew up on violent entertainment and a glorification of US military might, my childhood and early adult years were not without incident. Starting with a few kids at my school trying to work the pecking order to their advantage, to street thugs in downtown Brussels looking to score my wallet, to dealing with drunk French soldiers aiming to prove themselves by knocking out a few sailors, I’ve had to deal with unfortunate contests of the knuckle-to-face variety a number of times. Before I go on with my tales of clumsy hand-to-hand combat, let me make it clear that I didn’t always prevail. I am not Chuck Norris or Jean Claude Van Damme. Quite the contrary. My roundhouse kick is weak. My karate chop is clumsy. My punch often misses the mark. So by default, the lessons in this post have nothing to do with winning or beating the odds. We’re talking about something else altogether today.

Which brings us back to that mouthful of blood thing. You learn a lot about yourself, shaking off the pain of a punch to the mouth. It’s a simple fight or flight reflex: Stunned and dazed, your blurry surroundings spinning around you, searing pain flashing across your face and a dull ache spreading deep into your skull, you are at once confronted with two conflicting emotions: The first -back off and hope the punishment is over. The second – Get back on your feet and feed the other guy a Royal McKnuckle-with-Cheese sandwich out of principle, even if it earns you another trip to the cold, hard deck.

Fight or flight: DNA, tens of thousands of years of evolution, and the importance of not running away

Fight or flight. It’s a simple choice. And, as my friend Ben Schowe would say, “it’s just science.”

In terms of personal tests, this goes well beyond the simple (yet grueling) act of surviving boot camp, completing your first 5K, passing the bar, or completing an Ironman triathlon. In fact, in a very real way, getting into a fist fight teaches you as much – if not more – about yourself as summiting Everest or swimming across the English Channel.

Why? Because there is a huge difference between walking to the sidelines and running from a fight. You can quit Ranger school. You can quit an Ironman. On a mountain top, you can stop and turn back to base camp. But walking away from a fight once the first punch has connected, that’s a very different thing. It’s fight or flight in its purest form. It’s the difference between a dog baring its teeth and having another go at some melee carnage… or lying on its back with its tail coiled up between its legs.

In war, you can hold your ground and engage the enemy or you can throw down your guns and run away. Same thing. Except for most people, war is something other people fight for them. It’s something that happens overseas and on TV. It isn’t something that happens in a crowded parking lot after school, in front of hundreds of students cheering for the other guy instead of you.

Like I said, you learn a lot about yourself during your first fight. And your second. And your third. What you learn is – what you learn first, anyway, is – whether or not you have any real fight in you. When that first punch in the face hits you and your eyes flash just as what feels like a brick flying at 500 miles per hour turns the entire front of your skull into a flaring, throbbing strobe of pain, you get your first glimpse of who you are. Before you even land on your ass, your brain is already trying to decide if you will simply lie down and hope the fight is over, or spring up and hit the guy back twice as hard and see how he likes it.

What my first fight taught me

I remember my first fight vividly: Second grade. Parc Monceau. The biggest kid in my class decided he was going to use the smallest kid in the class (me) to cement his Alpha status for the school year. Words were exchanged, shoves ensued, and next thing I know, we were rolling around in the dirt, scraping our knees and elbows, trying land a solid hit on the other. Planting a solid punch at that age would have surely ended the fight – to the delighted cheers of our classmates – and would have secured immediate popularity for whomever emerged victorious. As it turns out, neither one of us did. But the other kid, desperate to break free from the scuffle, accidentally head-butted me in the face, knocking me clear off him. I remember hearing the ugly thud sound of his skull bouncing off my cheek, my head snapping back, and my little French behind landing squarely on the hard-packed dirt. The other kids immediately fell silent and stared at us to see what would come next. I tasted blood in my mouth, from where I had bitten my tongue. I was surprised by the taste… And by the fact that I was more excited than scared.

Up until that moment, I had imagined that being on the receiving end of a head-butt would be the worst thing in the world. Yet there I was, realizing that the other guy wasn’t as strong, as mean, as dangerous or as invincible as I thought he was. And, equally important, realizing that perhaps I had more of a fight in me than I originally thought. Fighting back tears of pain and fear, I got back up, swallowed a mouthful of blood, and threw myself at him. Though he was a lot taller and bigger than me, I tackled him and knocked him to the ground. The rolling around and wild kicking and punching resumed, but before either one of us could land a solid punch, the fight was broken up by our teacher. We were both sent to the principal’s office – the dragon-like Mme Gomez – and sat there for about fifteen minutes before she finally called us in.

Those fifteen minutes were invaluable: The entire time, not once did the other kid dare return my stare. After a quick inspection of my knuckles and clothes, and after having pondered what punishments would follow both at school and at home, I looked over at him and caught him quickly blinking away. Feeling that I was still staring at him, he didn’t look up again. It was at that moment, not before, that I realized I had won the fight. Not because I had beaten him, mind you – I hadn’t. What I realized was that, for me, the real fight wasn’t against him. It was against myself: Fight vs. Flight.  Flight lost. I wanted more. Test passed.

From then on, I knew I would never again be too afraid to stand my ground.

This is a defining moment in a man’s life, and one that far too many boys today never get to experience, to their own detriment, and that of society as a whole when they eventually join the workforce.

To this day, I don’t remember a thing about what the principal had to say or what my punishment was. I grinned from ear to ear the rest of the day, beaming with pride and excitement at the realization that there was more to me than just pretend courage. Later, what I remember from being walked to my mother’s car by my angry teacher wasn’t the fear of punishment or the embarrassment of the public escort, but the looks of awe I saw in the other kids’ eyes. Still grinning at my scowling mother after my teacher explained what had happened, I hopped into her Autobianchi and told her my side of the story: He started. It wasn’t my fault. I was only defending myself. He got what he deserved. I took a skull to the face and it still hurt a lot, but it was okay. She lectured me all the way home, but I know that behind the stern threats of being sent to Jesuit boarding school if I couldn’t behave, was a quiet pride that I hadn’t punked out. Later that afternoon, my father  inspected my swollen black eye, obviously amused by the entire incident, and probed me for details until my mother reminded him that the brawl wasn’t something to be proud of. Yet it was, and all three of us knew it.

The kid never bothered me or any of my classmates again. I don’t even remember his name anymore. It doesn’t matter.

Contests of this type happened again over the years, each one teaching me a little bit more about myself, until I graduated to the more subtle and underhanded type of combat favored by many corporate types.

Leadership from the outside-in: Understanding the mechanics of the pecking order

Here’s the thing, and be sure not to underestimate the potency of the metaphor: We are all either lions or lambs. Men walk into a conference room, a basketball court, a bar, a gym, the first thing they do is size each other up. Hierarchies are often established before anyone takes the initiative to speak. Body language, stress hormones, eye contact and behavior help determine the social order in a matter of minutes if not seconds. Before the lions begin to fight for the top spot, the lambs aremarked and set aside. Few of us ever talk about it, and for many men, the process is completely subconscious, but it happens everywhere men go. This has probably been going on since long before we lived in caves.

Care to see a fine example of the process? Watch the first twenty minutes of Ronin, John Frankenheimer and DavidMamet’s tale of trust and betrayal among intelligence operatives: In any group of men, a pecking order must be established before the group can function. Though the process now takes into account job titles and artificial leadership, lambs are not lions. A leader in title only is a liability to himself and the group he is responsible for.

Riddle me this: How can you earn the trust and respect of a company of professional soldiers if even one of them thinks he is more qualified than you to lead them all? If he thinks he is a better soldier, a better leader? Stronger, faster, tougher?

While you ponder the question, here’s something to think about: How is a group of men in uniform any different from a group of men in suits? Each culture may emphasize certain leadership qualities differently, but the principles are the same: If a leader is imposed on the group rather than arrived at by mutual selection, then the leader must prove his worth, or his tenure is doomed from the start. If the guy in charge, when sized up by the rest of the men in the room is found… wanting, you are looking at a dangerous level of inevitable dysfunction that will result in disaster somewhere along the road.

The weakest guy in the room can’t be the leader. Regardless of what his business card says, it just doesn’t work that way. You can’t get rid of thousands of generations of evolution just because we’ve decided to trade spears for pens and caves for cubicles. It may seem silly, but it’s also true and well worth acknowledging.

The true value of a mouthful of blood

I know this is going to sound strange, but a CEO who has put himself through the gauntlet – whether it was a fist fight, a combat tour in Iraq or a wrestling match against a great white shark knows how to be fearless in the face of uncertainty. He can look his competitor in the eye, say “bring it,” and mean it. He can look at an economic crisis as an opportunity to prevail against adversity and cement his company’s reputation by taking market share rather than merely hoping to hold on to what it has.

A man who has the confidence to stand his ground in the face of adversity, a man who has learned the value and excitement of fighting for something he believes in, a man who knows that no amount of pain or fear will weaken his resolve, this kind of man can lead any company away from defeat, towards success.

The guy who has never been punched in the face doesn’t yet know how tough he is. That man doesn’t know if he should get up or beg for mercy when his lip gets split. He doesn’t know what he is made of yet. Take him by surprise, upset his routine, put him in the hurt locker, and he sits there wondering what he should do next. He sits there stunned, gagging on a mouthful of his own blood, wishing he weren’t in so much pain. For precious seconds, he hesitates, not yet knowing what to do. Indecision: The antithesis of leadership.

The CEO, the Senior VP, the Director of this and that, untested, are all liabilities. Lamb playing at being lions.

The truth of it is this: What you learn fighting off bullies in your childhood, learning to stand your ground and take real hits comes back to either serve or haunt you later in life, when faceless enemies set their sights on your endeavors. Knowing that you can overcome physical adversity and survive your fear of the unknown arms you with the ability to make intelligent decisions in the heat of the moment. It teaches you to keep a cool head when everyone else panics. It teaches you not to retreat unless you absolutely have to, but to instead make your way through the storm and find calmer waters waiting beyond it.

The real beauty of it is that once the people who look to you for leadership realize that this is the type of leader you are, they will follow you anywhere. Their loyalty, their dedication, their support will be assured. And that, when it comes to building strong brands, isn’t something you can either buy or do without.

So parents, teachers, law enforcement personnel and passers-by, consider this: Next time two little boys decide to brawl, don’t stop them right away. Let them throw a few kicks and punches. Let them sort it out on their own, even if only for a few seconds. What they discover about themselves in those short, precious, terrifying moments could help shape them into formidable leaders someday. I know it sounds pretty weird, but trust me: They need to put themselves through it, black eye, mouthful of blood and all.

Cowards make lousy leaders. Give your kids enough space to learn not to be.

By The Brand Builder: http://thebrandbuilder.wordpress.com

08 June
0Comments

good business

If you hire someone to do something for you, how do you control quality and outcomes? Do you outline the expectations, milestones, and deliverables explicitly?
War profiteering Do you track progress regularly? Are you careful to negotiate well but equitably?

If you’re the vendor, would you rather the definition of success was in your hands or those of the people that hired you?

Say someone came up to you and said “I want you do this job, I’m not going to tell you how, I’m not even going to tell you what success looks like, you have to figure that out for yourself, but I will pay you a ton of money. Oh and by the way, I’m almost never going to check up on you.” Would you be interested? Well – duh!! You get paid and you get to say what you have to do get paid, and they may not even check that you actually did the work – how sweet is that!

Does this happen often? Yep, and especially in governments and other ultra-large organizations. Two examples come to mind – first, the use of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan:

According to a recent Wartime Contracting Commission report, there are about (the exact number is not known) 240,000 contractors in these two theaters.  The commission states that the greatest opportunities for improvement include focus on the “leadership, culture and accountability” of the agencies that do the hiring, the process for defining contractor requirements, performance and cost-effectiveness, and visibility into and accountability of subcontractors. This can’t be good…

This NY Times article on a Pentagon-funded Afghani warlord is classic – the US military has anointed an illiterate highway police officer with more wealth (gets paid $2.5 million/month!!), and more power than any democratically elected or appointed official in the region! First, I’d put money on this guy and his army going against his current “benefactor” at some point very soon. Second, how does accountability work when your vendor has more power than the local government, and is protecting your employees (soldiers) and property?

No child left behind Literally $ billions are spent on these contracts, an untold number of random people become wealthy and powerful, and yet there is almost zero oversight and hardly any expectation of actual performance. Let’s not even think about what happens to these “made men” a few years hence (think: Taliban, Saddam Hussein, etc.).

The second example is the No Child Left Behind Act – while conceptually a good thing, it is hampered by the weird jurisdictional dance that the Feds have to play with the States and local governments on education. The concept was good – let’s figure out a way to push schools to graduate every student, and also improve what is taught.

Using the only power they had (money), the Feds paid for outcomes, but left it to the States to define those outcomes, define their baseline, and define how to measure progress. The results speak for themselves – students got dumber, money got wasted, everyone was more frustrated.

When the measure of success is a specific test, and all the actors (school administrators, teachers, parents, students) know it; then with their short-term brains in full gear, they also know that passing that test (vs. actually teaching/learning anything) is all that matters, nothing else “counts,” helps them get paid, and all else falls by the wayside.

Another classic example of wanting to do something, having the best intentions (as with the Pentagon above), but making an absolute mess of execution.

To their credit, though they haven’t rescinded No Child Left Behind, the present Department of Education has implemented a new approach (Race to the Top), though again the performance measures are flawed. Measuring teachers based on student outcomes is a failed strategy, and will ultimately create poorer graduates – let’s hope they fix this before it creates irreparable damage.

Are there ways to avoid these outcomes, or at least improve one’s odds of success? There are no absolutes, but here are some things to consider:
Dilbert

  1. Think before you act, and then think again. If your first (and only) thought is “I’m going to pay someone else to do this,” you’re going to fail. Before the “how” you’ve got to know “why” you’re doing something, and then “what” you will do. The “why” helps you clarify the goal and the desired end-state. The “what” helps you map your approach to the goal, and test to make sure it does get you there; then you can worry about “how.”
  2. Own the outcome. Just because you’ve hired a vendor to do the work doesn’t mean you don’t own it anymore. No matter what happens, you own the “why,” the “what,” and the choice of this particular “how” as it relates to the goals you need to achieve. The larger the organization the more likely the people who made the decision will be in different jobs when there is a reckoning – that doesn’t absolve the organization of responsibility.
  3. Separate performance from measurement. This should be obvious but it isn’t. If the people you’re paying are also measuring the results and reporting them back, there is NO realistic expectation that you will ever get the truth. Consider the simple fact that they get paid if their results look good, and they get paid more if their results look better…

These are pretty universal, and any well-run business will operate this way. It seems though that the bigger you get, the dumber you get…

12 April
0Comments

balanceation proclamation

Who’s responsible for this mess!?!

This question makes most people except politicians and psychotics (hmmm…) nervous – they are impervious to the Emancipation proclamation concept of responsibility; they’re good at laying blame, but have this remarkable ability to shake accountability.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a landmark moment in American history – it recognized the rights of a people theretofore viewed as property. Just as America has a human rights framework (based in part on the Emancipation Proclamation and the Declaration of Independence), surely there should be a more rigorous governance framework for the country?

I can think of three (vain) efforts at Federal political governance – the voters (elections and term limits for the President); the players (separation of powers); and the outers (GAO and the media). But each has failed – the voters are simply not smart enough to know what’s going on, too partisan to vote based on actual performance, and too removed from the failures to “get it”; the players are overly self-centered and inbred; and the outers are in the former, employed by the politicians, and in the latter, too obsessed with sensationalism to make a difference.

What is the legislative equivalent of the Emancipation Proclamation? I was having a conversation about changing the mission in Afghanistan with some friends and the proposed 1% increase in income taxes to cover war costs. AesopI think this is good, but not enough – let’s take it further:

As of 2009 the gross (cumulative) American national debt is just under $13 trillion – or just over 90% of the country’s entire GDP!! By the end of 2010, it will roughly equal the US GDP – this is horrible! Worse, Congress feels ZERO accountability; and since virtually NONE of their equally guilty predecessors have ever been spanked, and many actually rewarded by being reelected, they are convinced they will never have their feet held to the fire.

What if we changed that – what if we created another proclamation – the Balanceation Proclamation, which mandates a balanced budget? Simply, if the budget exceeds income, Congress must raise income taxes to cover the overage. Every taxpayer/voter must immediately feel the pinch their representatives cost them (the IRS should document your hit in your tax return). This would help the voters more directly tune into and respond to bad behavior, require Congress to proactively defend their actions within their constituencies, and generally make Congress pucker just a little bit.

But what about economic depressions, when only the Feds are in a position to stimulate the economy, and taxes will impede growth? The easy answer might be “tough,” but society is responsible for those that can’t help themselves, and we can’t ignore that. My compromise is that the Proclamation have a clause requiring a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate to secure debt-financing solely to stimulate the economy and avert or mitigate a depression – it cannot be used for any other purpose. Subsequent budgets must set aside funds to pay back the debt as quickly as possible. In the ideal case, this would be funded by the federal surplus emergency fund, but given our current debt, that won’t be a reality for many years.

To help the outers, legislators (and political parties) may NOT receive contributions from anyone (individual or organization) that benefits from the spending that caused the deficit. For example, if the budget included new subsidies or credits for oil exploration, or if there was a new war, Exxon or Chevron, and Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed or Boeing, etc. Stimulus cartoonwould respectively be banned from any political donations for the duration of the benefit plus six years (Senators serve six year terms).

Quid pro quo. If we’re punishing Congress for excessive spending, we should also reward them for good behavior. Every year that there is a budget surplus, all Federal employees will receive a bonus of X% (1 or 2%?) of the total surplus, divided equally (same percentage of salary). When they’ve also retired the gross deficit, the percentage should double. There should be no cap on this – the better they do, the better they do.

Today Congress exhibits the worst kind of partisan behavior, with almost zero focus on the electorate, and excessive focus on self-aggrandized power brokering. This is so because the incentive system is broken – success is getting funded and reelected, not actual public service.

The Balanceation Proclamation would reward good behavior and punish bad. If the country does well, they get paid; Congress will be incented to serve the citizens and fight for programs that help their constituents; but they know that excess spending will directly harm their electorate.

This just might be the way to help them “focus.”

Valve Interactive
An online marketing and design agency in Portland Oregon