Monthly Archives: August 2006

Hello. I'm Bob, and I'm Abrasive.

Posted on by

What do carpenters, diamond cutters and writers have in common?

The other day Denham Grey over at Knowledge-at-Work brought up the phrase creative abrasion, and it’s been stuck in my head for a few days.

In case you didn’t notice (and WHY haven’t you been paying attention?), I’ve been having a spirited discussion with Dustin Walper in the comments on yesterday’s post about fast versus slow leadership. We’ve each presented good, well-reasoned rationales for our respective positions. It’s been fun – and sparking such discussions is one of the reasons I started blogging in the first place (thanks, D.W., you fell into my well-laid trap. Bwa-ha-ha-hah!)

The point is, by engaging in creative abrasion, we’ve both learned something, and both been tempered, at least a bit, by the opposing view. In other words, we’ve grown. And that’s the desired outcome – in the activity of presenting point and counterpoint, both sides have the opportunity to learn something, and be enriched by the exchange of ideas. (Note the italics – learning is always a choice.)

I love this quote from Beth Agnew’s article:

“In its quietest form, creative abrasion is the catalyst for producing a pearl. The oyster is so bothered by the unpleasant abrasive effect of the sand inside its smooth shell, that it works on the sand to smooth its rough edges and coat it with essence of pearl. The result? A beautiful, valuable gem.

In its most energetic form, creative abrasion brings two teams, people, or ideas together like flint on steel. It creates sparks that ignite a wildfire of ideas or innovation.”

Thus the purpose of creative abrasion is to find new ideas or prompt innovation.

A few years ago, when out of work for a while, I organized a company called Mars Hill Group composed of nineteen fellow job seekers, all of whom held PhDs (alas, “The Society of Extraordinary Gentlemen” was already taken. As was “The Society of the Large-Brained”). The plan (no wait – let me add sneer marks: the ‘plan’) was to pool our collective knowledge, experience and capabilities and come up with something that would earn us a living.

We even developed and submitted a proposal to the Dept. of Homeland Security, and developed another that would help with Iraq’s post-war recovery. Sadly, nothing came of it. But the idea that bringing together folks with different outlooks, experiences and even cultures to spark new ideas was and is still sound.

Think of creative abrasion as a continuum, with polishing compound and fine sandpaper on the left (the “quietest form”) and fireworks and dynamite on the right (the “energetic form”). Where do you fit in this spectrum? Someone like Seth Godin, who describes himself as “the guy who likes to set off fireworks in a propane farm” would obviously be on the far right of the scale. (It’s easy to spot the energetic ones – they’re the ones who get all the “press”.) Others manage quite well being abrasive in a more subtle, quiet way (Mars Hill Group is an example of the latter).

Now back to my original question. What these professions have in common is that all of them use sharp and/or abrasive instruments in their work. (The pen is mightier than the sword, remember?) Each one uses these instruments (a saw, a grinding wheel or a pen) to change or modify rough objects (wood, carbon crystals or words) into “a thing of grace and beauty and a joy to the eye of the beholder” (a phrase I picked up somewhere.)

For me, at least, that’s what blogging is all about – creating (or synthesizing, if you prefer) something new out of existing thought.

It got me to thinking (in case you were wondering what that grinding noise was): what if we established a small, select group of bloggers (maybe 3-6?), choose a few topics – change management, relationships, or bird watching – it doesn’t really matter as long as controversy is likely – and start blogging with the goal of deliberately sparking spirited discussions. Publicize it widely.

Speaking for myself, of course, I would have a few rules: stay away from politics (mainly because it’s being done to death already), keep the language “G-rated”, and positively NO flames. Otherwise, let the dogfights begin. Now wouldn’t that be fun!

Pretty soon others will find the discussion, start following along, and eventually join in via comments. (To help speed the engagement process, it would help if at least some of the bloggers had a large following already.) Then, as its popularity grows, our Technorati rankings go up… soon we’re in the top 100… the top 10… we take over the blogging world… overthrow governments… become kings of the world… masters of the universe – oh, sorry, was I thinking that out loud? (By the way, that’s not my goal. Really.)

Actually, it reminds me of something I used to see on PBS; a group of 4 or 5 actors portraying actual historical figures sitting a table, discussing various ideas as if they were the actual persons they played. I think one show had Attila the Hun, Abraham Lincoln, Marie Antoinette, and one other I can’t remember. Remarkably engaging discussions!

So what about it? Like the idea? Who would you pick for this “dream team” of bloggers?

Fast? Slow?

Posted on by

I’m confused.

First, a friend sent me a link to Slow Leadership, a site dedicated to helping you take the time to make the best decisions possible, instead of just making good decisions that will “do”. The eight principles of Slow Leadership:

  1. Right tempo
  2. Right attention
  3. Right balance
  4. Right perspective
  5. Right direction
  6. Right relationships
  7. Right enjoyment
  8. Right gratitude

Yesterday’s post

by Carmine Coyote (is that a real name?) reasonably points out that being under deadlines and stress tends to make us accept the first solution found, rather than taking the time to seek out the best solution. I can’t argue with the idea, and it certainly sounds like a worthy goal. However, one can guess that the actual follow through would be the real crux for most people. Probably not too many who suffer from a (perceived or real) lack of time are going to be willing to slow down enough to make it work.

But still, it makes sense, yes?

Okay, now turn with me to a post by Dustin Walper, where he advocates – you guessed it – Fast Leadership. Dustin points out that many of today’s business leaders pride themselves on the ability to make fast decisions. In fact, he advocates that making a decision, any decision, is better than taking too long to deliberate.

All right, there is something to that. It’s sometimes true that when inactivity is bad, then ANY activity is better than doing nothing. I’ve experienced that situation myself. And yes, you’ve probably all heard the example of the ship’s rudder (no matter how big or small it is, it’s only useful if the ship is moving).

So which is it? Slow? Fast? I’m confused! Help me, Obi-wan Kenobee, you’re my only hope!

I guess that’s one of the fun things about having the whole world (via the Internet) at your fingertips. The absolute wealth and diversity of viewpoints on any given subject is absolutely awesome! And that’s where the hoary head of responsibility rises up. It’s up to us to choose what we’re going to do with all that information. I can almost hear the ghostly voice of Alec Guinness saying, “choose wisely!”

As in most things, could balance be the key?

Power Point Ripples the Pond Again

Posted on by

Back in High School physics class we studied light waves with something called a wave table, which was basically a large white table with a shallow, water-filled glass tray elevated about two feet above it. A bright light shone downward over the assembly, and when you caused a ripple in the water, the waves were clearly visible on the white table surface below. It was a beautiful way to illustrate the properties of light waves as they traveled and interacted with various objects.

Touch the surface of the water at any point, and ripples would immediately spread out, only to be reflected back by the sides of the tray, eventually filling the entire tray with complex patterns that could be quite beautiful to behold. It became even more complex when you placed various-shaped objects in the tray for the wave to reflect against. It was times like this that really ignited my interest in the physical sciences.

You can often observe the same ripple effect on the Internet as well, and not just about big events, like the war in Iraq or Mel Gibson’s latest faux-pas. For instance, lately there’s been a buzz of comments (practically a fist-fight, really) traveling around the blogosphere about Microsoft PowerPoint. (I’ll bet you were wondering where I was going with this. So was I.)

It seems odd that this particular set of ripples is going around again. I haven’t been able to determine what set it off. The arguments I’ve found on both sides of the PowerPoint issue (at least those referenced in the current discussions I’ve seen) are at least several years old (see here and here). And yet, like a fish popping up out of a still pond, the ripples begin yet again. So what the heck, I’ll toss my hat in the ring as well. Why not?

Perhaps the best guidelines I’ve found so far are here, by Darren Strange. Here’s another, completely different take from Guy Kawasaki. And for a really radical style (at least to me), check out any of Tom Peter’s slide sets, freely available at his website. Finally, here’s a good ongoing blog at Presentation Zen (where you’ll also find the hilarious Darth Vader vs Yoda PowerPoint Styles). And who could forget the Gettysburg Address as a PowerPoint presentation?

Having used PowerPoint myself, I have to admit that, at least for me it’s very easy to get hung up on what the program can do. I love all the fancy bells and whistles. But when you get right down to it, the most important thing is that it’s really about communication. Here, Darren’s advice on making your point says it best:

I used to say, know your three points and make them. Now I think people only remember one thing from your presentation – and that’s if you do a good job. So be sure what that one thing is and be sure they get it!

I’ve had some people tell me it’s a crutch. Others have said it’s the greatest thing since sliced bread. What’s your opinion? After yesterday’s landslide poll question response (three votes, so far), let’s try another one. Maybe this one will be easier.

C’mon, it’s just a little click!


Create polls and vote for free. dPolls.com

Please Leave Your Skepticism at the Door

Posted on by

“Warning, Will Robinson! Warning!” - robot from TV series “Lost In Space”

In case you missed the revolution, about 10 days ago humanity’s energy problems were solved, forever. No kidding. Just leave your skepticism at the door.

Steorn, a technology company located in Dublin, Ireland, has thrown down the gauntlet to the world’s scientific community, claiming to have developed a new technology that produces “free, clean, and constant energy. They originally put a large ad in, of all places, the most recent paper copy of The Economist to announce “the challenge” as they put it. And, oh, by the way, it also violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (you know, the one that says energy can neither be created nor destroyed.)

The main page of their website is about what you’d expect from someone making such a claim. This includes a pertinent quote and lots of stuff calculated to suck you in, like a dramatic banner noting “(number of) days since we challenged…”, “(number of) scientists that have expressed interest” and “(number of) people registered to receive results (by email)”. And if that’s not enough, there’s a poll you can vote in (“do you think the scientific community should accept our challenge?”) Interestingly enough, “NO” is winning by about 2-to-1. Hmm, good – maybe there are more skeptics than I thought.

The folks over at Crooked Timber (I love that name; and don’t miss the comments!) helpfully point out that Steorn hews nicely to the seven warning signs of bogus science laid out by the Chronicle of Higher Education. What is it about stuff like this that people just WANT to believe, in spite of what we know? Why are we so willing to suspend our disbelief when the idea is attractive enough?

I’d like to conduct a quick poll. (For a decent sample size, do me a favor – tell your friends to pop over and take the poll.)

When you hear or come across a claim like this, what is YOUR immediate reaction? Select your answer below. This poll will be open for 7 days – I’ll post an update next week.


Create polls and vote for free. dPolls.com

So the real question is, why do you react like you do? Do us all a favor and tell us, via comments, WHY your reaction is what it is. Thanks, all!

OOB #3

Posted on by

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the time has come for another exciting edition of… OOB! (For those of you who don’t know, OOB occurs about once a month to try to catch you up on wierd, whacky news from around the blogosphere.)

Dumb News Dept.

Taking the definition of “dumb” in new directions, four Frenchmen were recently arrested in Madrid for filming themselves jumping in front of moving cars. Their business plan, apparently, consisted of “sell the videos on the internet and make big money”. Guess I can understand why they would be embarrassed to do it in their own hometown.

And then there’s this guy, who thought he could disassemble a rocket-propelled grenade himself… with a hammer. Alas, he’s dead now. Maybe a doctor should have prescribed these “anti-stupid” pills for them first?

On the other hand, maybe they’ll be famous after all… as a recipient of the Darwin Awards.

Delightfully Dumb Dept.

If you haven’t seen it yet, here’s a list of dumb (and hilarious) domain names circulating the blogosphere. I saw it here first, but I don’t know where it started.

Possibly Useful Information Dept.

Ever wonder what a million pennies looks like? Ten million? A billion? Well, as proof that there’s something for everyone on the Internet, The Megapenny Project can provide you with a simple visualization of what a stack of pennies looks like – from just one penny, to “all the pennies in circulation”. Actually, this may be more helpful than you think. If your kid (or you for that matter) have ever had trouble visualizing large numbers, this may help.

For fun, try extrapolating with objects by calculating them in “penny-units”, like this:

Average Twinkie = 2 pennies wide x 7 pennies long x 13 pennies high = 182 pennies

A billion Twinkies = 182 times the size of a billion pennies, or about 182 football fields of Twinkies. WOW!

I’d Rather Not Know Dept.

From blogger Improbulus at A Consuming Experience:

From the Feedback column of an old New Scientist magazine I was about to throw away.

On the packaging for Johnson & Johnson rectal thermometers: “Every rectal thermometer made by Johnson & Johnson is personally tested.”

I wouldn’t want to work as a tester for Johnson’s…!

Silver Lining Dept.

A check at Technorati reveals that out of the claimed 50.7 million blogs tracked, I can humbly report that Middle Zone Musings ranks 637,031! Let’s see… divide by 3… carry the 5… multiply by .891… well if my calculations are correct, that ranks me in the top 2% of all blogs tracked (1.274074%, actually).

If the “Long Tail” theory is really true, then I can see I’m making progress. Hey, thanks, readers! Keep those cards and letters coming! (Next goal: a five-digit rank)

Definitely Useless Information Dept.

Speaking of Technorati, you may or may not have noticed a new readout at the bottom of the sidebar on the right saying “My blog is worth…” followed by some dollar figure. I have absolutely NO idea how Technorati figures this out. I’m sure it has something to do with how many links you have, quality of said links, etc., etc. So if you’ve ever wanted to start a blog but didn’t want to start from scratch, I might be persuaded to sell you mine. Just make the check out to – (sound of blunt object hitting back of head)

Posted in OOB

Say What You Mean

Posted on by

Most of you spend at least a part of your time writing all kinds of stuff. Depending on your profession, job description, or hobby, you could be writing anything from Annual Reports to the Great American Novel. So what’s the most important ingredient in really good writing? (Sound of crickets)

Matthew Stibbe at Bad Language points to an article written by Peter Seebach at IBM’s website about really bad language usage in software dialog boxes. It’s amazing how perfectly competent people can come up with something as complicated and technically beautiful as a fully-functional software program, yet the dialog boxes can still look like they were written by someone with no language skills whatsoever! My favorite part of the article is this quote:

“One trend that I suspect may be at issue (and it’s hardly unique to computers) is a tendency for people to become incoherent when they try to talk real pretty.”

Yup, that’s the problem all right. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve started to write some mundane report or (especially) a blog entry, and found myself tending to “wax eloquent” (an old-English term that translates roughly as “laying it on thick and polishing it to a nice, shiny finish”.) It’s a sadly common problem, unless you’ve had many, many years of practice. Or you’re a lawyer.

The thing is, nobody writes in a vacuum (well, sometimes it feels like I do when I blog, but what-ever), but once the words are all arranged on the screen or notepad or envelope, I’ve discovered the most useful ingredient to good writing is… feedback! So if you want to avoid that deer-in-the-headlights look when your audience reads your work, here are a couple of tips for you that pretty much ought to be automatic.

#1 – Say What You Mean. My comment about lawyers above was not meant as a snark. I have a lawyer friend who helps me be continuously aware of words and their meanings. (Thanks, Mr. T.) I can’t imagine a successful lawyer who is imprecise in his or her use of words.

#2 – Proofread It. Depending on the importance of the document (or report, note, blog or email), it wouldn’t hurt to go get a cup of coffee first before proofing it. It’s amazing how a simple shift of focus for even a few moments can give your brain a fresh perspective.

#3 – Check Your Speeling. Sure, spell-checkers have gotten better, but they stumble a lot. Also, don’t assume grammar checkers are that good. I’ve had running arguments with MSWord’s recommendations for years.

#4 – Watch Your Tone. When writing an email, and particularly when you’re responding to one, for Pete’s sake, read what you wrote before you punch the SEND button! (Pete, we’re doing this for YOU!) Good communication (with other people) is reduced the fewer channels being used: visual, aural, and verbal. It’s amazingly difficult to convey tone when you don’t have all three, so as that great American scholar, Elmer Fudd, would say, “Be vewwy, vewwy careful.”

#5 – Avoid Jargon. If you have a problem with jargon, and you’re writing with no feedback, here’s a little free application called Bullfighter I found recently that may help. It installs as a simple toolbar in MSWord. Once you’ve written your document, simply push the “Bullfighter” button and within a few seconds you’ll get a critique that identifies the bull words you may have inadvertently used, plus recommendations for better clarity. Pushing the “Bull Index” button measures readability using something with the yucky name of the “Flesch Index”. (It’s based on the length of sentences and average number of syllables per word.) Overall a handy little gizmo!

#6 – Get Feedback. Whenever possible, run your masterpiece by someone else. However, as mentioned before, sometimes you have to provide your own feedback. If that’s the case, go back to points #1-5.

And just so ya know – I can, with total humility and modesty, report that Bullfighter certifies this blog entry – and the previous three – as “Bull-Free”. This means either I’m being very clear, or that Bullfighter is as bad a critic as I am a writer. I think I’ll go with the former.

Relaxed… or Complacent?

Posted on by

An article by Philip E. Ross at Scientific American reveals much about how people become experts in their fields. I’m afraid it’s a bit dense, but it’s still worth a look. His conclusion: experts are made, not born.

While not necessarily earth-shattering in its implications, this might still raise the eyebrow of the typical layman who, while watching violin virtuoso Itzhak Perlman do his thing in Carnegie Hall, say to themselves, “I could never do that!”

I’ll not bore you with highlights when you could simply read the article, but where I’m going is near the bottom of the article where it talks about how to “create” an expert. There are two key paragraphs I’ll go ahead and replicate here:

“Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but “effortful study,” which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one’s competence. That is why it is possible for enthusiasts to spend tens of thousands of hours playing chess or golf or a musical instrument without ever advancing beyond the amateur level and why a properly trained student can overtake them in a relatively short time. It is interesting to note that time spent playing chess, even in tournaments, appears to contribute less than such study to a player’s progress; the main training value of such games is to point up weaknesses for future study. Even the novice engages in effortful study at first, which is why beginners so often improve rapidly in playing golf, say, or in driving a car. But having reached an acceptable performance–for instance, keeping up with one’s golf buddies or passing a driver’s exam–most people relax. Their performance then becomes automatic and therefore impervious to further improvement. In contrast, experts-in-training keep the lid of their mind’s box open all the time, so that they can inspect, criticize and augment its contents and thereby approach the standard set by leaders in their fields.”

Here are a couple of things I get from this particular passage:

First, it’s not experience but “effortful study” that creates an expert. This is the “lifelong learner” phrase we so often glibly use to describe ourselves on resumes. But it’s a real term, and a real attitude. Simply doing something over and over, even if doing it well, does not always yield learning experiences; you must continually go “beyond yourself” or it becomes merely rote.

Second, once that mental level is reached in our minds and we become “good enough”, we tend to relax and no longer learn any further. As the article notes, what’s scary about this is that we may actually become “impervious to further improvement!” Yikes!

OK, now let’s take this in a slightly different direction. I ran across this blog at BizHack, where John Koetsier quoted these paragraphs and then asked a very insightful question: “In what areas have I relaxed?”

Well, my fine feathered friends, that indeed is an interesting question, isn’t it? In what areas have you gotten so “relaxed” that you’re no longer able to improve? Just to kick things off, I’ll list two areas where you can get into big trouble if you get too complacent. Feel free to add to the list.

Marriage – what happens when you’re complacent about your marriage? Well, it’s entirely possible you’ll find you’re on the road to divorce! A good marriage requires plenty of effort, and you can never afford to start taking things for granted if you want to have a successful, long-lasting one.

Job (or, if between jobs, your Job Search) – By this I mean not your career, but what it is you do every day. For instance, although I am an Engineer, my job is to manage projects. (Note that the word that defines my career is basically an abstract term, while “job” refers to the practical aspects of my particular career.)

What other areas would complacency not only be unsafe, but maybe even unhealthy? What about “growing up”? Growing old? Growing hair? (OK, I don’t have any say in that last one.)

So what’s on your list?