My Review of Roku 2 XS Streaming Player

Originally submitted at Roku

Adds an enhanced remote for playing games, plus extra connectivity options.

Roku 2 XS Streaming Player

Not worth it

By CCNA_USMC from Kansas City, MO on 9/18/2011

 

2out of 5

Pros: High quality picture, Built in Wi-Fi, Compact

Cons: Inconsistent performance, Difficult to set up, Want more video choices, Requires credit card

Best Uses: Secondary TV

Describe Yourself: Hulu plus user, Early adopter, Engineer, Netflix fan, Technophile

The unit occasionally locks up. Tech support was pretty good using chat. There are a lot of channels, but most of them offer subpar content. Great for Hulu and Netflix. Not useful for Youtube, Vevo, etc.

I think it is wrong to require a credit card just to start the Roku up, that should be optional. HUGE security risk for them to store my credit card info.

(legalese)

WikiLeaks and the Accused Leaker

Bradley Manning is the U.S. Army private who is accused of leaking information to the website Wikileaks. I have been sorting out my feelings on the Wikileaks controversy, torn between a desire for openness and freedom versus a desire for America's Government to be able to operate securely and effectively. I have quickly begun to lean in favor of prosecuting the guilty and shutting down Wikileaks. Considering the story of Bradley Manning led me in this direction.

First of all, I will concede that I do not know Manning and can not make any judgements about him. With that assumption, I can still justify an angry sense of ethical indignation against anyone who would take classified information and release it to total strangers. What he did was steal, and he stole something that belongs to every American, despite the fact that few of us can access it. Whomever revealed this information, they did so as a selfish act. They had no right to make that decision on their own, when so many other Americans were laboring tirelessly to secure that information and add value to it. This is a democracy where we make decisions through group consensus; the leaker of this information acted like a dictator when he made this decision without consulting a larger group of stakeholders.

Now what if Manning is guilty as charged? Assuming that most of what is written about him is true, Manning had a frustrating childhood, is socially awkward, and is gay. That leads me to believe that he is less a martyr for the cause, and more of an unstable personality using this opportunity to lash out at a world that never met his desires to belong and be accepted. If the stories of Manning's personal life are true, then I sympathize with him and wish that humans put a higher value on treating each other with mutual respect. However, that does not justify his actions anymore than it justified Jeffery Dahmer or Timothy McVeigh.

Leaking these videos and documents puts lives at risk, damages the reputation of a great nation, and diminishes or even nullifies the efforts of hundreds of dedicated professionals working for the causes of freedom and American interests. If he had a document that exposed a blatant act such as those that occurred at My Lai or Abu Graib, then this would be a very different conversation. In the case of Wikileaks, we just have a dump of data, the contents of which are unknown and the ramifications unconsidered. That is more than just unethical. That is treasonous.

The Meaning of Wikileaks

Wikileaks does it again, publishing material that was meant to be classified and protected. People have called it treasonous and recommended legal action. Others have suggested a cloak-and-dagger approach to punish the guilty. President Obama has called for agencies to review their procedures for handling sensitive material. The general consensus among those in Government and among those private citizens who oppose the action of Wikileaks is that we must stop the leaks somehow.

My opinion is that we can try sticking our finger in the cracked dike, but that will not stop all the leaks. What we need to realize is that it is a new world; it is an open world. In a flash, from anywhere in the world, I can publish a paragragh or a terabyte and make it instantly visible to the rest of the connected world. Iran and China have tried to block the more offensive addresses on the internet, but willful people longing to be free will find a way around the barriers.

Federal agencies should secure their secrets and protect the people mentioned within the secrets. However, I think the larger lesson is that we can no longer sustain large, secretive agencies. Overtime, the large federal agency will become irrelevant. The nature of the internet is to collaborate with total abandon. The rules of a nation-state are simply a hindrance to what will inevitably dominate the earth. We do not want more trade barriers or more wars; we want to be free to collaborate and compete globally.

As Thomas Friedman pointed out, there was a time when global collaboration and competition was driven only by nations. Eventually, the vehicle for global collaboration and competition was driven by the multinational corporation. Once the internet approached ubiquity, we found ourselves able to compete and collaborate globally as individuals. Some guy in a jungle on a remote continent can affect the thinking of a whole group of American suburbanites with one tweet. A talented wicker-weaver in the middle of nowhere can setup a global storefront and become a multinational corporation all by herself with little expertise or effort.

Unfortunately for some people, this is actually just controlled chaos. You can't herd cats, and you can't keep secrets easily. Now that we are all individuals playing by our own rules, we are are going to reject the rules around of others. Governments have an important role to play here to make sure that the wild west is kept on a level playing field--in other words, to protect us from the most selfish and greedy violators.

I am not defending or supporting Wikileaks here. They don't appear to be considering the ethical impact of their disclosures. As an individual, I wouldn't want my secrets revealed to the world. For instance, my SSN is a powerful number that needs to remain secret. My medical history may appear benign to my doctor, but in the hands of some people it may be enough to keep me from the job I deserve--therefore we keep it secret. I certainly don't want anyone to know what my spouse and I argue about, nor do I want to hear about your arguments. Some secrets are important.

What I am supporting is the inevitable. We can't stop the world from becoming more open. We don't want to. With more people working on a problem, the solutions become more creative and more efficient. Diseases like cancer may not be cured without openness, for example. We just need to realize that it is a different planet in 2010 than it was just 20 years ago. In 1990, if I knew a major secret I would have to go through the bureaucracy of a major publisher and it would takes weeks to get revealed if it ever was. Now I can expose it globally, for free, from the comfort of anywhere on the planet, all by myself or in collaboration with any one of the millions of individuals who would like to help me.

The war in Iraq has demonstrated that the old way of fighting wars will no longer work. The enemy will dress like a civilian, live with civilians, and not be seen when he detonates the IED. If you are dressed like a Marine and driving down the same road you always do in an unarmored Humvee, you will not have the chance to defend yourself when you are attacked. Fireteam formations and raw aggression are useless against an insurgency. The military is adapting to the new rules. Now our diplomatic and intelligence agencies will have adjust to their new rules too. One of those rules will be: support individualism and reduce or eliminate inefficient bureaucracies.

A New Favorite Blog

I have a new favorite blog, thanks to the excesses of TSA. Johnny Edge's blog is a rambling list of Libertarian-leaning opinions focusing on the economic effects of idiocy. At least, that's my take on it. I never would have seen this blog if TSA hadn't demanded to touch Johnny's junk. I followed a link on twitter to his post, and have been fuming ever sense.

Here the gist of it: if TSA demands to touch your genitals and you refuse, then they can fine you $10,000 dollars and bring a civil suit against you. I am not a Constitutional scholar so excuse my ignorance, but doesn't that run against the idea of the Fourth Amendment? That is one step beyond illegal search and seizure, into the realm of tyranny.

Here's a funny TSA story: I was cleaning out my laptop bag and found a small bottle of alcohol-based (i.e. flammable) hand sanitizer. This is supposed to be taken out of your bag and put in the gray bucket, but I had it at the bottom of my laptop bag for two months now, and have flown almost every week during that time. San Francisco , Reagan International, Dulles, Midway, Tampa, and Kansas City airports all have failed to detect my concealed flammable item numerous times, and that's even with a few bag checks. I am sure you have heard similar stories of missed knives, liquids, and other crap.

This morning, as I boarded my flight in Kansas City I attempted to bring a scanner through. Right now, printer toner is being singled out because a terrorist allegedly tried to ship a bomb from Southwest Asia in a toner cartridge. That logically means that every American carrying a printer is part of the same profile (note: sarcasm). My scanner doesn't print, and there is no place to put a toner cartridge, but that didn't stop our crack TSA team from delibberating for several minutes over the offensive item.

Then the supervisor asks me what size toner cartridge is in this thing. I am an engineer and am certified to work on laser printers, but I confess I do not know my toner sizes. Unfortunately, they are not sold that way. I simply stated that it was a scanner, not a printer, and didn't have a toner cartridge. Here's where I get mad: They let me take the scanner at that point, never opening it to check for a toner cartridge and never using their fancy wipes on it. I hope no one tells the terrorists that TSA will just take your word for it when you say that it's not what they think it is.

National Opt-Out day is coming up on the heaviest travel day of the year. If just 10% of the travelers participate, I know for sure that there will be delays nationwide. I saw it with my own eyes just a few months ago. There is a group called Honor Flights that sends veterans on a trip to thank them for their service. A few months back, they booked a flight out of Kansas City heading to Washington DC, and were full of WWII and Korean War Vets. Whether they were wheelchair-bound due to combat or age, I don't know. What I do know is that they couldn't just roll through the metal detectors. Each one had to be hand-screened (groped and humiliated) before they could board their flight.

We're talking about 30 or 40 veterans, each one taking several minutes to fondle. The plane was delayed for an hour, and the next plane scheduled for that gate had to be diverted to another gate. The ramifications of one delayed flight can be pretty bad once it hits two or three other airports and is combined with weather and maintenance delays on other planes.

Besides that, if a man is willing to lay his life on the line for his country in combat, we can give him the benefit of the doubt and leave his junk un-fondled.

The War After Armageddon; Plus a Word: Obstreperous

I just finished reading The War After Armageddon by Ralph Peters and have to recommend it. This is a book written by a retired Army officer who spent enough time researching the Marine Corps to make the language authentic. The title grabbed me first. Armageddon is supposed to be the last war ever, so I was instantly drawn to the question "What else is left to fight over after Armageddon?" I was in the mood for a fast, entertaining read and I usually do well with a war drama. This book fit the bill for me perfectly.

The author knew more than just military terminology and structures. It was apparent to me that he knew the secret languages of Army staff officers and Marine grunts. He understood the pride that motivates every Marine, the values that cause an NCO to maintain an inhuman discipline despite adversity.

Ralph Peters understands more than just how to talk like a professional soldier and Marine; he understands what motivates two sides of an extreme. While his book is a prophetic warning against religious extremism, Peters was able to authentically write the thoughts and speech of Fundamentalist Muslims and Christians. I don't know much about the Koran, but I know that he often made authentic references to scripture that even extreme Christians will appreciate.

This is a dystopian novel about a United States that has swung far to the Christian Right at war against an Islam united under one Caliph. In the same tradition of 1984, Farenheit 451 and Brave New World, Peters uses an unlikely scenario to demonstrate the dangers if we allowed certain ideas to grow out of control.

The book also demonstrates the very real threat of nuclear weapons held by people who are not deterred common rational ideas such as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Growing up in the 1980's, we lived under the constant threat of nuclear annihilation from the Soviet Union but were pretty sure that neither our own military nor the Soviet military would ever launch their weapons because neither side could truly win. My kids are growing up under different assumptions: that there aren't ICBM rockets being trained on American targets anymore. What we try not to think about is that if a religious fanatic is willing to strap TNT to themself and detonate it in a public place, why wouldn't they be willing to detonate a thermo-nuclear weapon if they are given the chance. While the Soviet Union refrained from attacking us because they did not want to live in a post-Nuclear world, it is not apparent to us that the terrorists who threaten the United States understand or even care about their future on this Earth. They are willing to die for their ideas and firmly believe that the afterlife will be far greater than this current life.

Ralph Peters has an impressive resume as a military analyst and strategist, who understands the systems and issues at play globally. That not only contributed to the authenticity and texture of the story, it added another important issue to be considered as part of the dystopian thesis: a dependence on electronic systems at the expense of fundamental military skills may expose our military in a future battle. The battlefield Peters describes is heavily dependent on electronic systems for communication and navigation, but the enemy has several weapons and techniques available that render a fully armed unit with a full compliment of physically-fit men unable to move forward, seek out, and destroy their enemy. Today, electronic systems prevent "friendly fire" incidents, deliver real-time pictures of the battlefield, and many other functions that were unimaginable just a few years ago. However, this is a fragile toolset that could be taken away by a capable enemy in the future. If we depend on GPS and never learn how to triangulate our position, determine an azimuth, and navigate over terrain using a map and compass, we may find ourselves completely lost and hopelessly defenceless in a war. The technologies exist, all we need is a determined enemy.

I learned a new word while reading The War After Armageddon: Obstreperous. It was used to describe an old man being detained in a crowd, but I couldn't tell from the context exactly what the word meant. According to dictionary.com it means either to be unruly and resisting restraint or to be boisterous and clamorous. That's a good word to stick in your back pocket and pull out to make a sentence more interesting later.

Patriot or Progressive?

Are you a Patriot or a Progressive? Can you be both?

All too often lately, I am seeing intellectual and political dissonance among my sphere of influence, but I seem to be the only one aware of it. I hear conservative friends complaining about welfare, people receiving money without being required to earn it and how it reduces competition while increasing reliance on Government. Uh-huh, the same people who gave us TARP, Airline bailouts, deregulation, subsidies, innumerable tax cuts and loopholes for corporations, etcetera.

I heard an Obama conspiracy-theorist rail on about ACORN and how it was a corrupt money machine. This was in defense of BP, whose Political Action Committee (PAC) is continuously fighting against the interest of Americans who enjoy tourist economies, clean and safe seafood, and beautiful shorelines.

My right-wing friends are consistently surprised that, as a veteran Marine I can be proud of my service and our history, but against the war in Iraq. Um, why would I support a war that is making my nation broke, making our former Vice-President and other war profiteers rich, killed thousands of Americans in unarmored vehicles, and has never found the smoking gun that we were assured was everywhere. (Well, the people closest to the situation including U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Scott Witter were 90-95% sure that WMDs were eliminated, but what would he know. He only spent 7 years working on the problem.)

Some people hear me talk about holding corporations responsible and punishing those which threaten the greater good, and they assume that I am a Socialist or worst. They hear me praise companies that make environmental and social goals as important as profits, and they assume that I am a Communist. In fact, I am neither. I am an MBA, with a hard-won degree from Baker University. I spent several years and over $20,000 studying business, profitability, and the fundamentals of Capitalism-in-action. I love making money, I own stock and real estate, and do not intend to hand my assets over to anybody without a fight.

As an MBA with extensive experience in Corporate America, I am here to tell you that Corporations do not exist to improve people's lives. They exist to make money for a non-human legal entity. The legal entity (the corporation) must prosper at all costs. If that means that rivers are polluted, people are laid off, entire towns are destroyed, and innocent people are stripped of their possessions, then so be it. You know all those movies where machines become intelligent enough to enslave their human creators? That is exactly where we are at with the corporation.

The only incentive for a corporation to act responsibly is to avoid Government fines and avoid bad publicity. Legally, the only real incentive to a corporation is when they are profitable. If they take an action that is responsible to a stakeholder but unprofitable, they can be sued by their shareholders for a breach of fiduciary duty. That needs to change, and B Corporations go a long way towards that end. What is really needed is constituent demand for a change in Capitalism: we need to demand responsible Capitalism where people receive the priority, the environment is cared for and protected in the interest of sustainability, employees partner with employers for mutual gain, and the world is left in better shape than it was found by each corporation, each person, each generation.

Word of the Day: Obbligatists

You know those boxes that appear on web pages during registration that ask you to type the work you see, and it is usually a non-sense word displayed with background noise and distorted letters? The one I filled out today asked me to type the word "obbligatists" which sounded like it might be a cool word to stick in my back pocket. Dictionary.com had never heard of it, and suggested "abblactate" instead, which means to wean. Not helpful.

A quick Google (the verb and the noun) helped me observe the word in context. Not as exciting or useful as I expected, obbligatists are apparently artists to play the oboe. If I ever find the oipportunioty to smoothly inject this word in conversation, it will probably be a depressing moment. Not that there is anything wrong with oboes or obbligatists, it just isn't a fit with my self-image. ;)

Word and Quote of the Day: Palliate

Palliate means to excuse, alleviate, or otherwise diminish the severity of something. You may improve a person's life by palliating their suffering. On the other hand, if you palliate their shortcomings you may be enabling their poor behavior. I think Samuel Johnson's quote below is a great example:

“Friends are often chosen for similitude of manners, and therefore each palliate the other's failings because they are his own.” -Samuel Johnson (source: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/friends_are_often_chosen_for_similitude_of/149442.html)

Palliate comes from the latin word for cloak, which is pallium. This is interesting to me because it is a neuroanatomical term. In the brain, the pallium is the evolutionary precursor to the cerebrum. In all animals with a brain, the pallium clokes the brain and provides the superior, most complex functions. In humans, the pallium evolved in the cerebrum and provided us with a place for spatial memory, language, and other functions.

Check this out, a blog that uses cartoons to expand your vocabulary:

Guest Writing: 5 Productivity Tips

I was just published again at ChangeForge.com, writing about my 5 tips for boosting your productivity. Leave a comment on their blog with your favorite tip! http://www.changeforge.com/2009/02/28/gitterdun/

Why I Use Twitter

Twitter is the most important and popular trend on the internet right now. It is such a simple service that many people are skeptical of its usefulness. On the other hand, millions of people worldwide are finding new uses for Twitter everyday. I was once a skeptic, but I have found a use for twitter and would like to share it with you.

In a nutshell, Twitter is a service for broadcasting a message of 140 characters or less. This message can include text, emoticons, links, and Twitter commands. If you use Facebook or LinkedIn, then you have already been introduced to this concept. Twitter is similar to a status update on other social network websites. You can use Twitter as an alternative status update; I use an application that automatically transfers my Twitter status to my Facebook profile.

If you just yawned, give me a second. That is not the end of twitter, that is the beginning. The fact is, few people in the Twitter world care what your status is. What they want from you is useful information in 140 characters or less. Do you have something to say? Do you have an agenda? We want to hear it. We have chosen to follow you, now preach away.

What would you say? If you believe in a certain ideal or brand, you can send out brief messages about your cause. You can send out links to news and blog articles that you think should be read. You can send links to pictures that support your cause. This is your shot to write headlines, reach out, and be heard globally. Better yet, your message is broadcast in real-time at the speed of light. People will be reading your message as soon as you are done typing it.

Going Viral Have you heard the term "going viral" as it relates to the internet? Think of it this way: You have just discovered a fascinating piece of information that you know is of interest to many people. There are many ways to transmit this information, and Twitter may become the media of choice in the near future. All you have to do is capsulize your message in 140 characters and hit enter. Everyone following you will instantly receive the message. Some of them will like the message so much that they will "retweet" the message to their followers. Some of those followers will "retweet". The "Six Degrees of Separation" applies here: if the message is interesting, it will spread like wildfire.

Search My next post will drill deeper into how I use Twitter, but I want to mention here that Twitter is an important tool to add to your research toolbox. Searching Twitter will add an important new dimension to your research: The dimension of real-time. If you need timely information, I doubt you can beat Twitter for finding video, blogs, and news articles since they are sent out over Twitter immediately after they're posted. Additionally, the culture of Twitter ensures that you will find obscure and unique resources that a search in Lexis-Nexis or ABI Inform/Global would never turn up, and would be buried too deep in Google.

Look for my next post, where I explain exactly how I use Twitter.

I Found a Use for Twitter

Over the last year, I have been seeing references to something called "Twitter" in discussions related to technology, internet trends, and other "geek topics" which I follow. Suddenly, I started hearing Twitter dropped in non-geek conversations. Twitter began making its way into the news, and onto the Blackberries of some unlikely people. (Lance Armstrong, Barack Obama, George Stephanopolis, etc)

I kept my distance at first and only glanceowd at Twitter references occasionally. I just didn't see any use for Twitter in my life, and I thought it was a lame fad. I expected it to burn itself out quickly, and I could get back to FaceBook and LinkedIn.

I can now see that Twitter is not going to burn itself out; it is snowballing itself into a YouTube-like freight train. Some of the most popular and intelligent people are using Twitter regularly. Innovative developers are building new applications for Twitter everyday. A group of venture capitalists recently threw $35 million at Twitter, even though it still lacks a profitable business plan. Read that again: $35 million invested in a service that currently is unable to make money.

Several weeks ago, I finally dangled a toe in Twitter. It still seemed like a blackhole, but I kept at it. I was looking for the hook, and the hook found me: Twitter is what you make it. The service is so simple and easy that if you just look for a way to make it useful, you will create the usefulness.

A religious figure once said, "Knock and the door shall be opened, seek and ye shall find." If you play with Twitter long enough, you will create the door that you want to knock on. You will answer your own prayers. Twitter has so many potential applications that you are guaranteed to find a use for it.

In my next post, I will explain how I use it. For now, just realize that for whatever question you may ask, Twitter is the answer. Twitter will eventually be a network service that we take for granted like GoogleMaps or YouTube. It will not, however, go away for lack of usefulness.

A Brave, New World

I just got an email from the President of the United States. The most powerful man on the planet sent me an email to announce a new initiative, broaden my understanding, and encourage my commitment. It's not the first time he has contacted me. We're connected on LinkedIn, he emailed me throughout the campaign, and continues to send occasional emails about what he is doing. His wife and his staff have sent a few emails too. He even sent me a text message to reveal his choice of running mate, prior to making a public announcement.

I try not to get a big head about it. I mean, I know I am not the only American who receives emails from the President, and we still have not met face-to-face. But he does solicit my feedback. I think he is truly interested in my opinion, approval, and support.

Yeah, Obama has no idea who I am, I know. In fact, it would make me nervous if he did know who I was. What I am excited about is the fact that the President of the United States has embraced social media. He has provided an avenue for dialogue that is unprecedented. Government will never be the same, and neither will the governed.

Love him or not, Obama is giving you access. You can still link to him on Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn. He still carries a Blackberry. Obama is leveraging the cutting edge of the internet, and finding new uses everyday.

Love him or hate him, you should pay attention to Obama's use of social media. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. What will be our reaction over time as Obama's administration finds new ways to communicate with us? This is even more important for the candidates in the future, for every office.

The president elected in 2012 may find that their real cost is in time spent online, rather than in dollars spent on TV and Radio commercials. In fact, the future candidates may need to demonstrate more savvy in social media than they do in fundraising. Campaign costs that cost less may dampen the voice of the interest groups who pay the most. A whole new paradigm of power may emerge.

The email I received today is for Recovery.gov which is a website dedicated to providing transparency and accountability with the money that congress approved for economic recovery. The intent is that any citizen may go to this website and be assured that our money is being invested in our future. Part of economic recovery is our own psychological perception. With Recovery.gov, we may have a quicker recovery due to the confidence of the American people.

Will this become the norm? Will we eventually take for granted having a government which communicates directly and immediately? Will we learn to demand the accountability and transparency that Recovery.gov is introducing? Will this change how our congress spends money?

The True Cost of Layoffs

In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit now that I am unemployed due to a layoff, and have also been laid off in the past. Am I bitter? No, but I would have handled it differently. This post examines the benefits and pitfalls of a layoff from the perspective of symbiotic economics.

First, what do I mean by symbiotic economics? I mean that we are all connected economically and that our economic actions have effects on each other. When I spend a dollar at a retail outlet, you will likely receive a benefit as an employee of that company, a shareholder, a vendor, or a member of the community that receives the sales tax. Alternatively, if I destroy value in the economy through theft, dishonesty, tax increases, or otherwise, you will pay higher prices, higher taxes, or miss out on potential opportunities.

I laid out the tenets of my philosophy of symbiotic economics here.

Starting with the paradigm of symbiotic economics, let us examine the ramifications of layoffs. As a shareholder, you may view all layoffs as good for your bottom line, but I would argue that is not always the case. There will be times when layoffs are necessary to protect the value that your firm possesses. If your market does not allow for growth and there is no way to keep your employees engaged productively, then a layoff is probably the best option.

However, there are times when a layoff is used to cut costs and appease investors. On the balance sheet, a layoff is an attractive thing. It allows a company to reduce losses reported in a quarter by offsetting them with a cut in operating expenses. It all comes down to a ratio: the amount of money spent compared to the amount of money earned.

However, this ratio hides many important costs that are all being paid across the globe today. When one firm cuts payroll and another firm hires, then the result is basically a wash. Today, as in many times past, we see too many firms cutting and not enough hiring. Unemployed people do not spend money. Also, growing unemployment makes employed people nervous, curtailing their spending.

If you accept the fact that our economy is symbiotic, then you can predict that reducing spending in retail will reduce the revenue that the wholesalers and vendors receive. Transportation receives less revenue. More employees are laid off, salaries are frozen or reduced, stock prices and mutual funds fall short, and we find ourselves in a viscious circle. Basically, as we see in today's headlines, if everyone cuts headcount at the same time we actually ensure that our next quarter will suffer.

There is another cost that is overlooked. You layoff 10% today, and next year you find that you need some of those employees back. Now you have to spend the money to recruit, evaluate, hire, equip, and train the workforce that you already possessed one year ago. Did you really save money by eliminating their salary? Many HR professionals claim that it costs 150% of salary to replace an employee. It could be higher than that depending on the employee.

There is no way to know what an employee would have learned, created, or innovated during a year. There is also no way to know how much damage that employee can cause by taking your knowledge out the door. I know that elitist executives do not admit the value that their employees possess, and that is shameful. A lot of money is wasted on training and developing human capital, only to see that investment return value for someone else.

The intelligent executive is aware that the best asset that he can invest in with little risk of depreciation walks out the door every day. Investing in your employees can pay tremendous dividends. Plant and equipment alone cannot create wealth without the introduction of the right people. Cash, credit, energy, and brand are all powerless to create market value, but the right people can take advantage of such resources to create value, even in the face of economic adversity.

Recently, a contact of mine started a job on a Monday. On Friday of that first week, the company announced a 5% pay cut in response to economic forces. That person complained to me, the unemployed guy who would have accepted a 10% pay cut rather than a layoff. After scolding this person into a sense of gratitude, I pondered the situation from an executive perspective.

If I had been in my former CEO's shoes, what would have been the best decision to make? He runs an S Corporation, meaning that he has only a few private shareholders to answer to and wields greater power over his company than the CEO of a publicly traded company. He could have decided to accept a loss for the quarter without fear of lawsuits for fiscal irresponsibility. The CEO could have decided to cut costs and salary temporarily, with reasonable expectations that his company would grow again in the near future. The third choice was to cut a certain percentage of salary out of the operating expenses, which he did.

By ignoring the balance sheet and accepting the loss, the CEO would be acting irresponsibly. As a shareholder, I would be disappointed (to say the least) if my investment was not protected and money was wasted. Wasting cash in this quarter could have a detrimental effect on the firm's ability to pay expenses next quarter, putting the firm in grave danger. When the firm is in danger, then the employees, shareholders, vendors, customers, and community are also threatened. That is to say, there are many stakeholders who have an interest in the profitability of a firm besides the shareholders. As an employee, investor, client, or vendor, I want this company to maintain profitability for my own selfish and symbiotic reasons.

My former CEO chose to lay off 4 % of his workforce. Most of these people were good/great employees with unlimited potential. Many of us also possessed proprietary information about the firm's products, methods, and clients. We were 4% of the current workforce, but percentage of the firm's future growth did we represent? We'll never know.

The firm's market is in a current recession due to outside factors, and we all assume that once the global economy turns around, the firm's market will begin to grow again. At that point, they will need to staff up. I have already been told that I will be on a shortlist of employees called first. They already know my work ethic and abilities, and I have already worked through the period of training and connecting. I loved working for that employer and would return today if they called. However, I expect to be in another rewarding position when they finally call and will regrettably turn them down (unless they offer a lucrative salary increase.)

I know for a fact that my layoff represents an opportunity cost for the firm. I learn something new everyday, and will be far more valuable next year than I am this year. I am innovative, passionate, and entrepreneurial. My future includes great potential that they could have harnessed for their own benefit, but will now only read about or compete against. I am sure that the same can be said for most of the other 4%.

If they cannot rehire me and the other 4%, then they will incur the additional expense of recruiting, the cost of training them, and suffer through time it takes to bring someone onboard and get them productive (6 months or longer in the technical world.) They would have been better off if they could have kept us around somehow. That way, when the market rebounds they would simply need to plug us in and reap the benefits.

The company I left spends money on keeping their employees happy. They buy premium coffee, pay for free coke, offer fantastic benefits, and pay above average salary. What if they had cut salary and benefits/perks before cutting headcount? Could they have cut enough to save the quarter and offset future rehiring costs?

When you layoff a group, the people remaining realize suddenly that they are expendable. They realize that they may be next, despite valiant efforts to prove their value. They update their resumes, send out feelers, and surf job websites. They lose any altruistic ideas about helping the company, and begin to serve their own interests more.

Would the same effect take hold under a reduction of pay and perks? I think not. I know for a fact that in the culture I left, the CEO would have been lauded for his efforts to keep the team together. He is already respected by his employees as a generous man, and there is a lot of gratitude in the company for his efforts. The culture was similar to an extended family, and the layoffs are a very emotional topic. I think it is completely reasonable to assume that amidst any grumbling, there would be a lot of employees who felt grateful to remain employed.

Personally, I would have been grateful. We all knew that sales were down and cash was tight, so losing the free coke would have been expected. A 5 or 10% paycut would have been understandable. I could have contributed to another area of the company, and not only added value to the company but a gained valuable set of learning experiences.

My fear is that by laying off workers to save the share price, we ensure reduced revenue for our firm and our symbiotic neighbors for the next quarter. Only the forward-thinking, innovative, and opportunistic leaders will save us from this downward spiral.

When those leaders turn this situation around for us, it will take longer to recover due to the additional expense incurred of hiring and training. If we were innovative and forward-thinking, we would have discovered enough opportunities to keep these employees fulfilled and productive during bad times. We could then respond to economic growth with a strategic and natural hiring process, rather than a hurried and wasteful one.

We would respond to a growing market with employees who had endured a downturn with us and grown more valuable and more loyal. We could respond with a team who is already an expert on our product, procedures, resources, and client-base, and chomping at the bit to conquer the market.

There is a time for layoffs, to be sure. However, I am sure that it is an abused accounting trick which is destroying more value and preventing more revenue than is realized. It takes fear, backward-thinking, and herd-mentality to execute a layoff. It takes an innovative, resourceful, proactive, and visionary leader to avoid a layoff and strengthen his or her business.

We can't set sail until we raise anchor and embrace the potential adventure on the horizon.

Web 2.0 and the President of the United States

Like him or hate him, you have to be at least mildly curious about the President posting on YouTube and other web 2.0 mediums. The idea that a message from the most powerful office on the planet could "go viral" and be seen by millions within minutes of recording, without the expense of live TV, is going to be huge. The President can post a video in forums that allow commenting, and generate discussion among billions of people about his video.

If you trust Obama, then you can be excited that he will be able to get his message out and counter any criticism far more effectively. If you do not trust Obama, then there may be something to fear. Someone who is good at manipulating the masses now has a method of doing so on a grander scale and perhaps more thoroughly.

The ultimate question: will this new method of communication allow a manipulator to dupe the masses, or will this lead to greater transparency and make it harder to "spin" the message? What would ahve happened if either of the Bushes used this medium, or Reagan, or Clinton? Consider how Iran/Contra, Monica Lewinsky, The Bay of Pigs/Cuban Missile Crisis, and the signing of the Declaration of Independence could have been managed with access to Web 2.0!

Looking forward to your thoughts!

ChangeForge: Control the Airwaves

ChangeForge is a nationally recognized blog that normally has high standards for their content. Today, they have lowered those standards a little and posted a piece written by yours truly. Please give it a look and leave a comment on their blog for me! http://www.changeforge.com/2009/02/05/control-the-airwaves/

Innovative Thinking

We had an interesting discussion in my class tonight for “Innovative Business Thinking.” The discussion turned to whether people can learn to be creative and innovative thinkers, or if some people just have “it” and some don’t. Our instructor’s point was that in his work as an executive consultant and coach, he had seen people who were normally stoic and “un-innovative” surprise people with a creative burst. .

One person who had no artistic experience suddenly took up a paint brush and created an impressive work of art. Another person was straight-laced all year round, but at Halloween became very expressive and regularly won awards for his Halloween costumes. .

The point our instructor made is that some people may have a larger measure of creativity, and some people may be naturally innovative, but much of it has to do with our comfort level. He said that we tend to fall on the creative or conformist side depending on where we find safety. .

If we could never feel safe as a conformist, and find that our weirdness leads to better poetry or music, then we will tend to feel safer as an innovative person. On the other hand, if our creative thinking never led to a feeling of safety, we would tend to flee to conformity. .

The implication is that the enemy of innovation is fear. If people are afraid of the consequences of innovative thinking, then they will avoid it. Many of us have seen figures of authority squash good ideas because the innovativeness threatened their empire. We have also seen people stick their neck out with a crazy idea and get laughed at, ensuring that they would never voice their thoughts again. .

Eventually, this kind of despotism will scare people into policing their own innovative thoughts. Out of fear, we will proactively prevent creative thinking and make sure that our thoughts conform to the perceived standard. .

If your team needs a new idea, then give them freedom. Allow failure, encourage crazy ideas, and forget about measuring productivity for a second. We fail to plan and fail to brainstorm because we fear it will waste valuable time. .

There are two possible perceptions. Perhaps your lose two hours that you could have spent making a few thousand dollars. On the other hand, you may invest two hours leading to the million dollar idea. .

Every time you “sacrifice” productivity for creative thinking and brainstorming sessions, you will be building up your team’s innovative abilities. You will raise their natural ability to think creatively, and you will raise the odds of hitting on the big ideas.

New Blog

I am really interested in Social Entrepreneurship, and I have begun to develop that interest into expertise. I plan to track my progress, sound out ideas, attract mentors and partners, and edify curious readers with a new blog: http://charitystartup.blogspot.com/ Please stop by and say hi, make it a favorite on technorati, and add the link to your blog if you would like to help me. I will gladly return all favors with interest!

Letter to Kate DiCamillo

Dear Ms. DiCamillo,

Thank you for your books. I have been reading them to my kids, and I couldn't have chosen a better author's work. We started with The Tale of Desperauex and followed it up with Because of Winn Dixie. Last night, we finished The Miraculous Adventure of Edward Tulane. We will soon be looking for your other works, and eagerly await a new book.

I loved Despereaux. It was a story that any age could appreciate, and I appreciated the way you introduced a few rare words and explained their meaning with both a definition and then an example in the story. You are not only making my kids smarter, you are making me smarter as well. Thank you.

A few days later, I was reading (alone) about Da Vinci, and the author described Da Vinci's dark/light contrasts as "Chiaroscuro". I found elsewhere that chiaroscuro can be used to produce depth and dimensions in light. To transpose those concepts from art to your story made so much more sense, and I have to tell you how impressed I am by the layers of your story. I am sure that if we reread the book again we will be pleasantly surprised with details and ideas that we missed before.

We went to the movies to see The Tale of Despereaux, and I was sorry to see how they changed your story. The kids were disappointed, too. I understand the need for small changes to translate a story from book to film, but I think they unnecessarily changed the most valuable aspects of your story to "dumb it down" for the movie-goer.

Winn Dixie was a great read, and the underlying values that can be learned are exactly what I want my kids to learn. Thank you!

It is rare for me to cry. Every once in a while, a movie can get to me. I can only think of one book that made me cry before reading about Edward Tulane. That other book was a biography of Carl Sagan, and I cried when he had to say good-bye to his kids before he died prematurely. Your book made me cry twice. I cried about Sarah Jean, and then I cried as Abilene and Edward meet again. Actually, I almost lost it while reading the Coda. My kids had never seen me cry, and they didn't quite understand it, but I think it was a good experience for them. Now they know I'm not as tough as I pretend to be.

More importantly, the lesson of Edward Tulane is of the most important lessons in life (top three lessons, for sure.) It is also the most difficult to put into words, and oftentimes our actions are not enough to teach this lesson. Unfortunately, many people must learn this lesson the hard, just like Edward.

The antique doll had a great many stories to tell, didn't she? With that much time on earth and that many cracks in her china, she must have a treasure trove to pull from when she needs to remind herself that she has been loved, that she has loved, and that life can be really good if your let it.

I can't help but wonder where Bryce went. I wonder what lesson Bryce can teach us? When he is forty years old, is a successful and generous man (a Jean Valjean) or a miserable and bitter drunk reliving his father's life?

Thank you again, Kate DiCamillo. They tell me that reading to my children will pay untold dividends. I am sure that those dividends are multiplied when I am reading your books to them. May your muse continue to inspire you with great tales, great values, and great wordsmithing.

Happiness

Of course, I want to teach my kids everything I know: especially the knowledge I gained the hard way. But what if you could only teach them one thing? [Don't focus on why you can only teach them one thing, just humor the exercise and isolate the most important thing you know.

I found this aphorism from Michel de Montaigne that captures the one thing I think my offspring need to know:

The man who is happy is not he who is believed to be so but he who believes he is so. (Geary's Guide to the World's Greatest Aphorisms by James Geary, page 128.)

If I had known this principle as a younger man, I could have wasted less time and focused more on lasting happiness. The quick-fix happiness I sought in booze, girls, games, food, TV, and many other trivial pursuits did not return anything over time.

Imagine your happiness is measurable. Your happiness starts at zero, and you have a beer to push it up to a "1". After six beers, are you at a happiness level of "6"? Maybe, but there is a law of diminishing returns that applies here. At some point, you have one too many beers. The hangover itself will sap your happiness level, and that is in addition to any errors of judgement you may have committed while intoxicated. No matter what, you always lose the happiness that each beer brought. Beer/Food/Drugs/etc do not leave a residual happiness, they wear off.

Reset your happiness meter and lets try another exaple. Starting at "0" you turn on TV and find a new episode of your favorite TV show. Happiness level soars to a "10" while the show is on, drops to a "5" immediately after, and then registers a zero once it has left your short-term memory. If you were supposed to be doing something else instead of watching TV at that time, then the drop off will be steeper and deeper. TV does not produce a residual happiness.

Now a better way, in my opinion: Do something for a relationship that you don't feel like doing. Give a back rub, cook something that you don't like but that person does, listen to a boring story enthusiastically, or let them control the TV remote tonight. The happiness meter starts at zero, plunges into negative numbers for a brief time, and then slowly climbs to about a "2". Two years later, you recall a time when you did this selfless act and find that it still provides a residual level "2" happiness. If you can amass an impressive history of selfless acts, you will notice two things. First, they add up to a higher level of residual happiness (which means they cause your happiness to sit at a constant level "10" or higher, even in the darkest of times. Second, the object of your selfless acts will probably reciprocate, which both spikes your happiness and raises the residual happiness level.

My young kids can't really learn it yet. They have a lot of living to do before they know how true this aphorism is. Therefore, the best way for me to teach them now is by my example. I hope they see me working on my happiness, and actively choosing happiness. I hope that they intuitively choose happiness, regardless of what their friends say or what conventional wisdom has decided. I hope that they see the difference between short-term happiness and long-term happiness.

2009 may be a really hard year. If it is, I think I am ready to be happy anyway. I am hoping that everyone is surprised by how well 2009 treats us, and that happiness comes easily. If not, I plan to keep investing in those long-term happiness builders that I find with my kids, wife, extended family, charity, and self-improvement.

I hope your 2009 is filled happiness! Thanks for reading my blog.

The Missing Link

Pardon my absence. I know it has been a long time. It has been an eventful time for me. I have been working like a dog, interviewing for a new employer (to include creating and delivering a presentation in front of my potential peers.) I have been working on my MBA, and both instructors had high demands and higher standards. All along, I have been unable to actually form opinions on the books I have read or ideas that I have processed. Something was missing. I thought of this blog often, but I did not want to write here while I still felt adrift.

Now I think I’ve got it. I have that missing link that will allow me to begin tieing together the loose ends of my thoughts.

First, the dilemma: how can we keep the best parts of capitalism (freedom, motivation, competition, market efficiency, etc) while correcting the worst parts (poverty, lay-offs, oppression, pollution, exploitation, unnecessary stress, etc…) Of course, Socialism, Communism, Isolationism, and various Theocracies address some of these points, but they always wipe out the most important and beautiful aspects of capitalism. I have yet to see a successfully implemented system that eliminates oppression.

The biggest problem I see with capitalism is that there is not a logical limit defined. Once you begin a capitalist venture, you can never arrive at a point and say “I have acquired enough, and now we can just coast.” The whole point of capitalism is to continue to grow indefinitely. A new company can grow their market share with innovative products and marketing. Once commercial can cause market share (and the holy grail of capitalism, profits) to jump in significant amounts. However, every market has a limited amount. Eventually, you can no longer make a large leap of profits by growing you market, because there isn’t enough undecided customers in the market to grab.

This would be a time to rest on your laurels and say, “We did it. We maximized our market share. We can just do what we do best and enjoy the ride.” However, the nature of Capitalism insists that you do something to continue to grow something, and ultimately increase your profits. If you do not, then you will either be sued by your investors or gobbled up by competitor. To stand still in Capitalism is to be run over.

Most companies punish people in order to grow profits, eventually. The easiest way to show growth in a stagnant market is to layoff employees. When you show a significant loss of salary and benefits on your financial statements, investors see growth. Unfortunately, you are laying off human being who have debts, families, and feelings. When someone gives a large portion of their life and immense effort to a company, and their reward is a pink slip, that experience can be dark and disgusting. I know from experience.

We like to demonize CEO’s during layoffs, and criticize them for making millions wile laying people off who make $40,000. It has been said that if a CEO would just forgo a few million for one year, he could save the jobs of hundreds, maybe thousands of employees. However, it is not completely a CEO’s fault. It is the nature of the system. If the CEO reaches the point where a layoff is necessary to fix the financial statement and he chooses to save those jobs out of kindness and a sense of responsibility, he is legally liable. He will immediately be sued, fired, and disgraced for not making the decision that capitalism demands: grow the profits and damn the labor.

If you cannot grow your current market and entering a new market is too expensive, then you must cut costs. Capitalism demands it. We must ship out factories overseas. We must layoff huge numbers, and then hire some of them back next quarter. We must force people to do the work of two employees, with less time and tools available. We must take away the free coffee and increase the health insurance premiums while cutting bonuses, overtime, and promotions. If you don’t like it, there’s the door.

There are two business authors who offer a new perspective on the problem and its solution. In both cases, the authors point out the folly of focusing on costs and instead demonstrate means of increasing productivity. In other words, work smarter rather than meaner.

The first author is Dr. Eliyahu Goldratt. His book The Goal is a parable for the business world, and lays out an argument for his Theory of Constraints. The parable describes a plant manager whose career is on the line. While his company wants to cut back, he slowly discovers a methodology to improve the productivity of his plant without cutting costs or adding expenses. The Theory of Constraints is the key: finding the parts of a business process that add expense, and then solving the problem using strategy, timing, or reordering.

The second author is Dr. Jac Fitz-Enz. His work The ROI of Human Capital: Measuring the Economic Value of Employee Performance points out that if we view our labor as having value just as our plant & equipment, cash and equivalents, and other assets have value, and if we look to appreciate those assets through investment and maintenance, then we will have more fulfilled employees. To paraphrase Dr. Fitz-Enz, no amount of compensation can restore the soul of a life spent in mindless toil…Fulfilling work is a reward for the individual and the enterprise…Providing fulfilling work will develop and retain the most productive workers and allow the firm to enjoy the most loyal customers.”

I don’t have it all figured out yet, I just have a piece of the puzzle that enables me to complete some nagging thoughts and take a new perspective on the problem. Capitalism can be saved and improved not by cutting costs, but my improving productivity and investing in people.

I will leave you with a final thought from Dr. Fitz-Enz that I found enlightening. He draws on work from Nobel-prize winning economist Theodore Schultz when he points out that in the industrial age, we moved materials through our business processes to create a marketable product. Now, in the information Age, we do not move materials. We move information which tells us when and how to move the materials. Perfect productivity can be viewed as a circle. When you gather the factors of productivity, you begin to close the circle by learning what data is needed, when, where, in what form, and to whom. The circle is completed when we transform data into information, and eventually into intelligence.