Category Archives: Reality checks

May 5, 2014 · 9:54 am

The Problem With Business Voyeurism

There is a lot of talk about spying these days which to me is a form of voyeurism.

Tech Espionage

(Photo credit: mirkuz)

Of course it has nothing to do with sex (well, who knows what the NSA is watching…) and a lot to do with privacy and engagement. Whether you take it in either the “spying” or “voyeurism” context, it’s basically watching something from the outside while the person or persons being watched have no clue.

You can argue that reality shows are a form of voyeurism.  After all, the shows are meant to be a window into the private lives of interesting people.  They’ve evolved from games like “Survivor” into documentaries or video diaries into staged shows that aren’t much different from scripted series.  At least with scripted shows they don’t pretend to be “real.”

What does this have to do with business?  A lot.  I think many people treat their businesses much as voyeurs treat their subjects.  They’re watching but they’re not involved.  Everyone observes, of course.  If you’re managing people, watching is a lot of what you need to be doing.  The difference is how you engage in that activity.  Never engaging with your team turns that observation into nothing more than spying.  Let’s call it “business voyeurism.” You’re there but you’re not.

You can’t be a “peeping Tom” about business.  Sneaking little looks into business activities while feigning indifference is silly.  Your team or your boss will pick up that you’re emotionally removed and if you’re not engaged how can you hope to motivate others?  Working relationships are partnerships.  Voyeurism is anything but that.

Stop peeping.  Get engaged.  You’ll be better and so will your team.  Voyeurism is a crime.  It’s a crime of a different sort when applied to business.  You agree?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Reality checks, Thinking Aloud

Tagged as , , ,

April 29, 2014 · 9:10 am

Crossroads

This TunesDay, let’s start with a question. Who wrote “Crossroads?”

Robert Johnson

If your immediate answer was “Eric Clapton” or even “Cream,” you fail. If you know your music, you know it was Robert Johnson, a legendary bluesman who died at the ripe old age of 27 (along with Brian Jones, Alan Wilson, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison – quite a club).  This is the original:

It was recorded by Cream (along with one of the greatest rock guitar solos in history) live in March of 1968, some 32 years after Johnson.  It’s been recorded many times since by many people including The Doors, Rush, The Allmans, and Phish.  Most of them followed Cream’s interpretation – their version of history.  Their version became our version and that’s the business point made by the song.

You probably have had the experience in your work life of having someone get the credit for another’s hard work.  Sometimes, as in the case of Crossroads, the person getting the credit (Clapton) took a great idea (Johnson’s) and made it better.  The problem with that is it’s rare that the person getting the credit did much of anything other than to present the idea as their own.  In some cases, this version of the big lie gets that person promoted or hired into a job for which they’re totally unqualified while the originator gets barely a nod.  You can count on them having received the blame, however, had things not worked out very well.

I’m hardly ever surprised any more when I read a piece in the press and realize it’s just a regurgitated press release.  That’s fine – I even do it to a certain extent here on the screed.  I try, however, to state it as a quote and I always link to the original.  I like to think I make the press release better by providing context and interpretation.  I certainly don’t take credit for the original research if that’s what’s in the release.

There is nothing wrong with taking a good idea and making it great – just as Amazon, eBay, or Apple.  Clapton always gave credit to Robert Johnson.  It just disturbs me when I see how often I hear reports of someone getting credit for ideas I know first-hand were developed by others.  It would be nice if the reporters would do a little digging and not regurgitate everything they’re given.  What do you think?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Music, Reality checks, Thinking Aloud

Tagged as , , , , ,

April 14, 2014 · 8:38 am

Why Facts Matter

I read a disturbing, though unsurprising report this morning. It’s from the Union of Concerned Scientists and has to do with climate change. Since this is a business blog we won’t get into the politics of that issue. I will, however, use my bully pulpit to remind you that unlike many of the challenges we face, money or power won’t buy you a different planet on which to live so you won’t have to deal with Earth’s climate.

Back to business.  The report looked at the three main cable news channels and the scientific accuracy of the statements they made with respect to climate change.  This is important since CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC are the most widely watched cable news networks in the United States, and their coverage of climate change is an important source of information for the public and for policy makers. Thirty-eight percent of American
adults watch cable news and cable news coverage of climate science often reflects and reinforces people’s perceptions of the science, as the report states.  What did they find?

Using specified criteria, we determined whether the individual segments identified dealt with climate science and whether the portrayal of climate science was consistent with the best available scientific evidence at the time of broadcast.  Of the CNN segments that mentioned climate science, 70 percent were entirely accurate, while 30 percent included misleading portrayals of the science.  Of the Fox segments that mentioned climate science, 28 percent were entirely accurate, while 72 percent included misleading portrayals of the science. Of MSNBC segments that mentioned climate science, 92 percent were entirely accurate, while 8 percent included misleading portrayals of the science.

My point here isn’t to promote to bash one network over another.  If you’re making business (or other) decisions based on what you hear from a particular source, you might be missing quite a bit of information.  Even worse, as this study shows, you may have quite a bit of wrong or misleading information.  If the most accurate network got a bunch of critical information right only 92% of the time, how accurate can your facts be if they come from any single source?

Facts matter.  Just because a news organization (or a bright consultant) tells you something doesn’t make it factually accurate.  When a few independent sources do so, you’re probably on solid ground.  That’s the place we need to find.  Are you coming with me?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Helpful Hints, Huh?, Reality checks

Tagged as , , , , , ,