I.T. Erudio

Author: Les

  • “Leadership”, “Teaching”, and “Education”

    Just some random thoughts – Starting off with a famous quote attributed to Albert Einstein –

    If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough

    Albert Einstein

    Leadership

    The Einstein quote came to mind for a “2 drink story” reason that I will not relate here.

    I’ve been a “student of leadership” going back to my days playing “high school sports.” Athletics can become a “leadership classroom” – with “wins/losses” providing feedback – and obvious “leadership” lessons involved in “team performance”.

    If a team is going to be “successful” then the “coach” needs to tailor their “coaching” to the level of the athletes. e.g. Coaching a group of 10 year old athletes will obviously be different than coaching a group of 20 year old athletes.

    SO in “leadership education” they might call this “situational leadership.” In coaching this is the old “you need to master the basic skills first” concept.

    You need to master crawling before you learn to walk. You need to master walking before you can run. Then riding a bike might take care of itself when/if you are ready – assuming you have “learned how to learn.”

    Teaching

    The task facing the coach/teacher/leader becomes helping the athletes/students/employees “master” the required skills.

    The thought on my mind is that how much the coach “knows” isn’t as important as how much they can help the athlete learn.

    “Playing” a sport requires different skills than “coaching” a sport. Just because someone was a great athlete does NOT mean they can teach those skills to others. Just because someone wasn’t a great athlete doesn’t mean they won’t be a great coach.

    (… examples abound of both “great athletes” becoming great coaches, “great athletes” becoming “meh” coaches, as well as “average athletes” becoming great coaches – but that isn’t important at the moment)

    Of course having great athletes can make an average coach look like a great coach – but that also isn’t my point today.

    I’ve watched a lot of “video lectures” given by highly qualified instructors. Occasionally I run into an instructor/presenter that the only thing I get from their presentation is that THEY appear to know a lot – i.e. they didn’t “teach me” anything.

    e.g. one instructor seemed to be reading from the manual – I’m sure in their head they were “transferring information” but the lessons were unwatchable. IF I want to read the manual – I can find the manual and read it. What I want from an instructor is examples illustrating the material NOT just a recitation of the facts.

    Again, a presenter/teacher bombarding the audience with the breadth and width of their knowledge might be satisfying to the presenter’s ego – but not much else.

    I’m a an of “storytelling” as an instructional tool – but that means “tell relevant stories that illustrate a point” NOT “vent to a captive audience.”

    Education

    Tailoring your message to the audience is probably “presenting 101.” It could also be “coaching 101” and “teaching 101.”

    “Education” then becomes the end product of coaching/teaching/leadership and is ALWAYS an individualized process.

    The worst coach/teacher might still have the occasional championship athlete/high achieving student. My experience has been that the “bad” coach/teacher tends to blame the athletes/students when things go wrong but takes all the credit if something goes right.

    MEANWHILE – the “good” coaches/teachers are tailoring their instruction to the level of their athletes/students and recognize that, while getting an education is always an “individual process”, the “process of education” is a “group effort.”

    Even if you go to the library and get a book on a subject – someone had to write the book for you to learn the material.

    Learning to Teach

    Those “bad” coaches/teachers PROBABLY don’t really understand their sport/subject – which is part of what Mr Einstein’s quote points out.

    I have had “not so good” teachers tell me a subject is “easy” and that the class needs to memorize the textbook. Yes, the subject might be “easy” to some students – but not ALL of the students – and rote memorization as a means of mass instruction isn’t a particularly effective use of time.

    I have also had excellent teachers tell me THEY learn something each time they teach a class. They don’t try to impress with their “vast knowledge.” They will try teach the students what is “important” (some memorization might be required but not as the major form of instruction). These instructors tend to be realistic about how much can be “taught” and emphasize the individual effort required to “learn” anything.

    “You will get out of it what you put into it” is imprinted in my mind for some reason. This has morphed into my personal philosophy that “grades in a class tend to be an indication of effort and interest NOT intelligence.” Not everyone can get an “A” in every class, but if they put forth the effort everyone can “pass” the class.

    ANYWAY – If someone teaches for 5 years and then looks back at their first year and DOESN’T see improvement in both teaching skills and mastery of the subject – well, they have 1 year of experience 5 times NOT “5 years” experience.

  • random troubleshooting thoughts

    I use a free service called https://letsencrypt.org/ for my “personal” sites ssl/tls certs. The automated cert install usually sets up automatic renewal at 3 month intervals. I’m honestly not sure – mostly because it has “just worked” for my minimal usage.

    THEN – I had an issue with my “classical music streaming” example site (now https://radio.clancameron.us/).

    I’ve been “testing” the setup of streaming from 1 server to another server – and again, it has MOSTLY been error free. There is 20ish hours of music on a playlist – and the playlist loops – it seems to work fine 95% of the time with no effort on my part.

    BUT the music stops playing on a regular basis – my suspicion is that the “sending” machine freezes up for some reason. Rebooting and restarting the stream seems has fixed the issue.

    Since I’m using a “non enterprise” solution – my guess is that there is a small bug/memory leak in the code that isn’t a factor 99.99% of the time. Since this application has always been temporary – I can’t complain too much 😉

    HOWEVER – I ran into a problem with the “receiving” machine giving me a “certificate expired” type error and not playing the stream through the web browser as intended.

    Yes, the cert did seem to have expired – but then when I manually renewed it the problem persisted. The stream would play when I accessed it directly (i.e. the “sending” and “receiving” parts seem to be working fine). BUT then accessing it through the web page results in the cert expired error.

    My next guess was that the cert was being cached somewhere along the line – cleared browser/machine/network caches and tried multiple machines. No luck.

    SO then I just combined the “send/receive” on the same machine and and it works as expected. Of course this meant creating a new certificate for the new site – so the original problem is, well, still a problem but not worth the time to troubleshoot …

  • experience, time in service, and understanding

    Another of my quixotic projects is making a video production of reading Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essays – which I’m sure would appeal to maybe a handful of folks worldwide.

    BUT considering my track record in “estimating market potential” something that I think has zero potential would probably perform better than the ideas that I think have a HUGE potential.

    Anyway – good ol’ Mr Emerson pointed out that –

    “The man who knows how will always have a job. The man who knows why will always be his boss.”

    -Ralph Waldo Emerson

    Of course a “good boss” will make sure that the folks doing the “how” have an understanding of the “why” – but that isn’t the point.

    On my mind this morning is that the difference between knowing “how” to do something, actually doing something, AND understanding “why” something is done.

    story time

    In “modern America” my guess is that the “average American” has no idea what actually happens when they flip on a light switch.

    Of course everyone understands that you flip a switch, turn a knob, push a button – and “electricity” causes the light to come on. I’m NOT saying that the “average” American is uneducated or unintelligent – I’m just saying that the average American (probably) has no idea “why” the light comes on.

    Ok, this isn’t meant to be an insult or a negative comment about “education in America” – just pointing out that the “modern electrical grid” involves a lot of parts. Truly understanding the “why” of electricity takes some effort.

    experience vs “time in service”

    Again, in “modern America” being an “electrician” requires specific training – e.g. here in Ohio, Google tells me that schools offer “electrician training” programs ranging from 9 months to 2 years.

    After graduation our aspiring electrician probably has a good understanding of “how” to “work with the electrical grid” – and can perform work “up to code.”

    BUT why is the “code” the “standard” – i.e. the “National Electrical Code ®” wasn’t handed down from “on high” but is (as its website tell me) the “benchmark for safe electrical design, installation, and inspection to protect people and property from electrical hazards”

    While our young electrician understands the “how” of his job, they probably don’t understand the “why” of EVERYTHING in the codes.

    Again, I’m not trying to insult electricians – just pointing out that somethings won’t become “obvious” until you have some experience doing the job.

    SO what is “obvious” to that wise old electrician that has been doing the job for 20 years PROBABLY isn’t going to be (as) “obvious” to the electrician with 1 year of experience.

    Of course it is POSSIBLE (and probable) that SOME long time professionals will never progress in the understanding of their profession past the bare minimum. (A small percentage will be (probably) be incompetent but true incompetence isn’t this issue here.)

    Yes, this falls into the “insult” category – e.g. it is possible to be in a position for 5 years, and not learn anything. SO that would be “5 years “time in service” but functionally “1 year of experience 5 times” NOT “5 years of experience.”

    Just showing up for work everyday doesn’t mean you are going to automatically improve.

    teaching and understanding

    There are a couple verses in the “Old Testament” that come to mind (emphasis obviously mine):

    9 Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons; 10 specially the day that thou stoodest before the Lord thy God in Horeb, when the Lord said unto me, Gather me the people together, and I will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear me all the days that they shall live upon the earth, and that they may teach their children.

    Deuteronomy 4:9-10 (AKJV)

    Notice that the command for parents to teach their children is meant to benefit BOTH the parents AND the children. The “secular” thought is that “to teach is to learn twice.”

    Of course there are always “effective teachers” and “not as effective teachers.” Albert Einstein liked to point out that:

    “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”

    Albert Einstein

    SO to teach requires understanding and the act of teaching can/should increase understanding – both for the student AND the teacher.

    I’ve been “teaching” in a formal “classroom” sense for almost 10 years. Looking back at those early classes – I definitely learned more than (some) of my students.

    I had been working “in the field” for 15 years, had numerous industry certifications, and a Masters degree – so MY learning was mostly about the “why” – but there were still areas within the field that I didn’t REALLY understand.

    Ok, the students didn’t know enough to notice that I didn’t know enough – but you get the idea.

    This is the old “no one knows everything” sort of idea – at the time I simply didn’t know that I didn’t know 😉

    ANYWAY – just kinda random thoughts – one more quote that I would have attributed to Mark Twain (he said something similar – but probably not this exact quote) – Harry Truman liked the quote, so did John Wooden – and Earl Weaver used it as the title of his autobiography:

    It’s What You Learn After You Know It All That Counts

  • statistics vs analytics, sports in general and bowling in particular

    what a title – first the youtube video demo/pitch for the “bowling analytics” product …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JKbL4_UEwc&t=1385s

    statistics vs analytics

    Yes, there is a difference between “statistics” and “analytics” – maybe not a BIG difference but there is a difference.

    “Statistics” is about collecting and interpreting “masses of numerical data.” “Analytics” is about logical analysis – probably using “statistics”.

    Yeah, kinda slim difference – the point being that there is a difference between “having the numbers” and “correctly interpreting the numbers.”

    “Data analysis” becomes an exercise in asking questions and testing answers – which might have been how a high level “statistician” described their job 100 years ago – i.e. I’m not dogmatic about the difference between “statistics” and “analytics”, just establishing that there are connotations involved.

    Analytics and Sports

    Analytics as a distinct field has gained popularity in recent years. In broad strokes the fields of “data science”, “artificial intelligence”, and “machine learning” all mean “analytics.”

    For a while the term “data mining” was popular – back when the tools to manage “large data sets” first became available.

    I don’t want to disparage the terms/job titles – the problem is that “having more data” and having “analysis to support decisions” does not automatically mean “better leadership.”

    It simply isn’t possible to ever have “all of the information” but it is very easy to convince “management types” that they have “data” supporting their pet belief.

    e.g. I always like to point out that there are “trends” in baby name popularity (example site here) – but making any sort of conclusion from that data is probably specious.

    What does this have to do with “sports” – well, “analytics” and sports “management” have developed side by side.

    Baseball’s word for the concept of “baseball specific data analysis” dates back to 1982 – about the time that “personal computers” where starting to become affordable and usable by “normal” folks.

    My round about point today is that most “analytics” fall into the “descriptive” category by design/definition.

    e.g. if you are managing a ‘sportball’ team and have the opportunity to select players from a group of prospects – how do you decide which players to pick?

    Well, in 2022 the team is probably going to have a lot of ‘sportball’ statistics for each player – but do those statistics automatically mean a player is a “good pick’ or a “bad pick”? Obviously not – but that is a different subject.

    The team decision process will (probably) include testing players physical abilities and watching the players work out – but neither of those 100% equates to “playing the game against other skilled opponents.”

    That player with great statistics might have been playing against a lower level of competition. That player that has average “physical ability test scores” might be a future Hall of Famer because of “hidden attributes”

    i.e. you can measure how fast an athlete can run, and how high they can jump – but you can’t measure how much they enjoy playing the game.

    MEANWHILE back at the ranch

    Now imagine that you are an athlete and you want to improve your ‘sportball’ performance. How do you decide what to work on?

    Well, the answer to that question is obviously going to be very sport AND athlete specific.

    However, your ‘sportball’ statistics are almost certainly not going to help you make decisions on how/what you should be trying to develop – i.e. those statistics will be a reflection of how well you have prepared, but do not directly tell you how to prepare.

    Bowling

    Full disclosure – I am NOT a competitive bowler. I have participated/coached other sports – but I’m a “casual bowler.” i.e. if I have misinterpreted the sport, please let me know 😉

    Now imagine that someone has decided that they want to improve their “bowling average” – how should they approach the problem?

    • Step 1 would be to establish a baseline from which improvements can be measured.
    • Step 2 would be to determine what you need to “work on” to improve your scores from Step 1.
    • Step 3 would be to establish a session of “practices” to work on the items from Step 2.
    • Step 4 would be to re-test the items from Step 1 and adjust steps 2 and 3 accordingly.

    Sure, I just described the entire field of “management” and/or “coaching” – but how well a manager/coach helps athletes through the above (generic) process will be directly reflected in wins/losses in competition.

    Remember that the old axiom that “practice makes perfect” is a little misleading:

    Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect.

    -Vince Lombardi

    Back to bowling – bowling every week might be fun, but won’t automatically mean “better performance.”

    Keeping track of your game scores might be interesting, but also won’t automatically mean “better scores.”

    I’m told that the three factors for the “amateur bowler” to work on are:

    1. first ball pin average
    2. single pin spare %
    3. multipin spare %

    In a “normal” game there are 10 pins possible each frame. The bowler gets two balls to knock down all 10.

    If your “first ball pin average” is 10, then you are a perfect bowler –and knock all the pins down every frame with your first ball.

    To be honest I haven’t seen any real data on “first ball pin averages” – it probably exists in much the same manner that “modern baseball statistics” can be derived from old “box scores” – but I’m told that a first pin average around 9 is the goal.

    If you consistently average 9 pins on your first throw – then you have a consistent “strike” delivery.

    Which then means that IF you consistently knock down 9 pins – you will have to pickup “single pin spares” on a regular basis.

    Then “multipin spares” are going to be an exercise in statistics/time and fate. Obviously if you average 9 pins on your first ball, the number of “multipin spare” opportunities should be relatively small.

    SO those are the data points being tracked with my “bowling analytics” application.

  • geeks, nerds, and reboots

    memes

    Merriam-Webster tells me that the word “meme” dates all the way back to 1976 (coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene) with the meaning of “unit of cultural transmission.”

    Apparently the “-eme” suffix “indicates a distinctive unit of language structure.” Dr Dawkins combined the Greek root “mim-” (meaning “mime” or “mimic”) with “-eme” to create “meme.”

    Then this interweb thing hit full stride and minimally edited images with captions with (maybe) humorous intent became a “meme.”

    Humor is always subjective, and with brevity (still) being the soul of wit – most “memes” work on a form of “revelatory” humor. The humor comes in “discovering” the connection between the original image, and then the edited/altered image.

    We aren’t dealing in high level moral reasoning or intense logic – just “Picture A”, “Picture B”, brain makes connection – grin/groan and then move on. By definition “memes” are short/trivial.

    Which makes commenting on “memes” even more trivial. Recently on “social media platform” I made an off the cuff comment about a meme that amounted to (in my head) “A=B”, “B=C”, “A+B+C<D.”

    Now, I readily admit that my comment was not logical – but from a certain perspective “true” – if not directly provable from the supplied evidence. It was a trivial response meant to be humorous – not a “grand unifying theory of everything.”

    … and of course I (apparently) offended someone to the point that they commented on my comment – accusing me of “not understanding the meme.”

    Notice the “apparently” qualifier – it is POSSIBLE that they were trying to be funny. My first reaction was to explain by comment (because obviously no one would intentionally be mean or rude on the interweb – i.e. the commenter on my comment must have simply misunderstood my comment 😉 ) – BUT that would have been a fourth-level of trivialness …

    HOWEVER the incident got me thinking …

    geeks and nerds

    Another doctor gets credit for creating the term “nerd” (Dr Suess – If I Ran the Zoo, 1950). It didn’t take on the modern meaning implying “enthusiasm or expertise” about a subject until later years. The term “dork” came about in the 1960’s (… probably as a variation on “dick” – and quickly moving on …) – meaning “odd, socially awkward, unstylish person.”

    “Geek” as a carnival performer biting the heads of chickens/snakes, eating weird things, and generally “grossing out” the audience goes back to 1912. Combined with another term it becomes synonymous with “nerd” – e.g. “computer geek” and “computer nerd.”

    random thought: if you remember Harry Anderson – or have seen re-runs of Night Court – his standup act consisted of “magic” and some “carnival geek” bits, he didn’t bite the heads of any live animals though (which would have gotten him in trouble – even in the 1980’s). Of course youtube has some video that I won’t link to – search for “Harry Anderson geek” if curious …


    I think a nerd is a person who uses the telephone to talk to other people about telephones. And a computer nerd therefore is somebody who uses a computer in order to use a computer.

    Douglas Adams

    ANYWAY – to extend the Douglas Adams quote – a “nerd” might think that arguing about a meme is a good use of their time …

    Which brings up the difference between “geeks” and “nerds” – I have (occasionally) used Sheldon and Leonard from the Big Bang Theory to illustrate the difference – with Sheldon being the “geek” and Leonard the “nerd”. Both of their lives revolve around technology/intellectual pursuits but they “feel” differently about that fact – i.e. Sheldon embraces the concept and is happily eccentric (“geek”) while Leonard feels self-conscious and awkward (“nerd”).

    SO when I call myself a “computer geek” it is meant as a positive descriptive statement 😉 – yes, I am aware that the terms aren’t AS negative as they once were, I’m just pointing out that my life has ended up revolving around “computers” (using them/repairing them) and it doesn’t bother me …

    Though I suppose “not being able to use a computer” in 2022 is in the same category that “not able to ride a horse” or “can’t shoot a rifle” would have been a couple hundred years ago … in a time when being “adorkable” is an accepted concept – calling yourself a “geek” or “nerd” isn’t as bad as it used to be — umm, in any case when I say “geek” I’ve never bitten the head off anything (alive or dead), I did perfect biting into and tearing off a part of an aluminum can back in high school – but that is another story …

    reboots

    While I did NOT comment on the comment about my comment – I did use the criticism of my comment as an opportunity for self-examination.

    Background material: The meme in question revolved around “movie franchise reboots.” (again, trivial trivialness)

    In 2022 when we talk about “movie franchise reboots” the first thing that is required is a “movie franchise.”

    e.g. very obviously “Star Trek” got a JJ Abrams reboot. Those “Star Wars” movies were “sequels” not “reboots” but the less said about JJ Abrams and that franchise the better

    the big “super hero” franchises have also obviously been rebooted –

    • Batman in the 1990’s played itself out – then we got the “Batman reboot” trilogy directed by Christopher Nolan,
    • Superman in the 1970’s/80’s didn’t get a movie franchise reboot until after Christopher Reeves died
    • Spider-Man BECAME a movie franchise in the 2000’s, then got a reboot in 2012, and another in 2016/2017

    SO the issue becomes counting the reboots – i.e. Batman in the 1990’s (well, “Batman” was released in 1989) had a four movie run with three different actors as Batman. I’m not a fan of those movies – so I admit my negative bias – but they did get progressively worse …

    Oh, and if we are counting “reboots” do you count Batman (1966) with Adam West? Probably not – it exists as a completely separate entity – but if you want to count it I won’t argue – the relevant point is that just “changing actors” doesn’t equal a “reboot” – restarting/retelling the story from a set point makes a “reboot.”

    However, counting Superman “reboots” is just a matter of counting actor changes – e.g. Christopher Reed made 4 Superman movies (which also got progressively worse) – “Superman Returns” (2006) isn’t a terrible movie – but it exists in its own little space because it stomped all over the Lois Lane/Superman relationship – then we have the Henry Cavill movies that were central to DC comics attempt at a “cinematic universe.”

    We can also determine “reboots” by counting actors with Spider-Man. Of course the Spider-Man franchise very much illustrates that the purpose of the “movie industry” is to make money – not tell inspiring stories, raise awareness, or educate the masses – make money. If an actor becomes a liability – they can be replaced – it doesn’t matter if you setup another movie or not 😉

    There are other not so recent franchises – “Tarzan” was a franchise, maybe we are stretching to call Wyatt Earp a franchise, how about Sherlock Holmes?

    The Wyatt Earp/OK corral story is an example of a “recurring story/theme” that isn’t a franchise. Consider that “McDonald’s” is a franchise but “hamburger joint” is not …

    Then we have the James Bond franchise.

    The problem with the “Bond franchise” is that we have multiple “actor changes” and multiple “reboots.” i.e. Assuming we don’t count Peter Seller’s 1967 “Casino Royale” there have been 6 “James Bond” actors. Each actor change wasn’t a “reboot” but just because they kept making sequels doesn’t mean they had continuity.

    The “Sean Connery” movies tell a longform story of sorts – with Blofeld as the leader of Spectre. The “James Bond” novels were very much products of the post WWII/Cold War environment – but the USSR was never directly the villain in any of the movies, the role of villain was usually Spectre in some form.

    The easy part: The “Daniel Craig” Bond movies were very obviously a reboot of the Blofeld/Spectre storyline.

    The problem is all of those movies between “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” (1969) and “Casino Royale” (2006).

    “Diamonds are Forever” (1971) was intended to finish the story started in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” – i.e. Bond gets married (and retires?), then Blofeld kills Bond’s wife as they leave the wedding – then bad guys drive away – Bond holds his dead wife while saying “We have all the time in the world.” – roll credits.

    (fwiw: Except for the obviously depressing ending “On her Majesty’s Secret Service” is actually one of the better Bond movies)

    Then George Lazenby (who had replaced Sean Connery as Bond) asked for more money than the studio was willing to pay – and they brought back Sean Connery for a much more light hearted/cartoonish Bond in “Diamonds are Forever.” (did I mention the profit making motive?)

    Of course “Diamonds are Forever” starts out with Bond hunting down and killing Blofeld – but that is really the only reference we get to the previous movie – SO reboot? this particular movie maybe, maybe not – but it did signify a “formula change” if nothing else.

    Any attempt at “long form storytelling” was abandoned in preference for a much more “cartoony” James Bond. MOST of the “Roger Moore” Bond movies have a tongue-in cheek feeling to them.

    The “70’s Bond movies” became progressively more cartoonish – relying more on gadgets, girls, violence than storytelling (e.g. two of the movies “The Spy Who Loved Me” and “Moonraker” are basically the same plot). There are a few references to Bond having been married but nothing that would be recognized as “character development” or continuity – it could be argued that each movie did a “soft reboot” to the time after “Diamonds are Forever”, but simply saying that the “continuity” was that there was no “continuity” is more accurate.

    Then we got the “80’s Bond” – “For Your Eyes Only” intentionally backed off the gadgets and promiscuity – Bond visits his wife’s grave and Blofeld makes a (comic) appearance in the “Bond intro action sequence” – so I would call this one a “soft reboot” but not a complete relaunch.

    The same goes for Timothy Dalton’s Bond movies – not a full blown restart, but a continuation of the “upgrading” process – still no memorable continuity between movies – (he only did two Bond movies).

    Pierce Brosnan as Bond in “GoldenEye” (1995) qualifies as another actor change and “soft reboot” – Bond is promiscuous and self-destructive but it is supposed to be as a reaction to his job, not because being promiscuous and self-destructive is cool – but we were back to the tongue in cheek – gadget fueled Bond (two words: “invisible car”).

    The Daniel Craig Bond movies certainly fit ANY definition of a reboot. “No Time to Die” (2021) was the last Bond movie for Mr Craig – but what direction the “franchise” is going is all just speculation at the moment …

    ANYWAY – comparing 27 Bond movies over 58ish years to the modern “Super hero” reboots – was the gist of my trivial answer to a trivial meme (which only took 1,700+ words to explain 😉 )

  • radio.iterudio.com – now radio.clancameron.us

    … this was kind of a “web design” exercise/proof of concept

    functionally this is a “web radio” front end – there is an “on/off” button that toggles playing the stream

    I’m told that the Safari web browser might have issues playing the stream – so this is kind of a “beta test” request

    the music is all “public domain” – the pictures of paintings are examples of the “Hudson River School” movement from the mid-19th century – i.e. they aren’t related to the music, just some files I had available

    I’m always quick to point out that I am NOT a graphical designer – e.g. as I was cobbling the front end together it occurred to me that having the “on/off” toggle at the top (and bigger) might be a better option

    SO if you could take a look honest feedback would be appreciated – MOSTLY I’m curious if it works – the pictures should rotate through 10 images, “current song” info should update, there should be music, is the on/off toggle obvious enough …

    https://radio.clancameron.us/

  • leadership is communication, “winning”

    I wrote a long post that either needs editing or deletion – but at least it served as “pre writing” for this post.

    status quo

    If you want to be precise the “status quo” is simply the “current situation.” Which technically means that whatever is happening at the moment is the “status quo.” Usually the term implies the “normal” and ESTABLISHED state of affairs.

    “Organizational behavior 101” is that “organizations” of any size tend to work to maintain the “status quo.” This “active desire to maintain the status quo” might be called “culture” or “tradition.”

    Whatever we call it – changing the “status quo” will take conscious effort. First it has to be recognized, and then the process of change can begin.

    In a larger organization there will be written/documented procedures that formally maintain “situation normal.” In a smaller organization there are (probably) fewer “rules” but a “status quo” has been established. Then in a “startup” organization the “status quo” has to be created.

    Of course a “startup” is rarely actually starting from scratch – the folks starting the company are bringing all of their previous experience (positive and negative). e.g. If you have heard the saying “you’ll find it the same wherever you go” – that is sorta the same idea …

    change

    Also true is that “change” happens – whether we want it or not. If an organization fails to adapt to change – then EVENTUALLY it will cease to exist.

    Which means that the “status quo” of “long term successful” organizations incorporates responding to change.

    The term “learning organization” was popular a few years back. The phrase might be a meaningless management buzzword in 2021. Back in the early 1990’s the “learning organization” was probably focused on implementing relatively new technology (i.e. that “interweb” thing the kids are using). In 2021 the “learning organization” should be focused on being an “effective communication” organization …

    communication

    If you are in a “leadership” position then you are always “communicating.” The only question is “how” and “what” you are communicating.

    Communication styles can differ greatly based on individual leader preferences. HOWEVER – one of the biggest mistakes a leader can make is to “assume” that “employees” understand “leadership’s” reasoning/expectations.

    This is particularly important when a leader is trying to change company culture. In a “change” situation it is probably impossible for a leader to overcommunicate – i.e. “change” will still happen if leaders “under communicate” BUT the change will almost certainly NOT be the desired change.

    The concept of “leader intent” comes to mind – i.e. leaders should communicate the “why” as well as the “what” behind their directives. If the desire if to cut waste and be cost effective – then expressing the desire to find ways to cut waste and encourage cost effectiveness will (probably) more accurately meet “leadership’s intent” than ordering people to count sheets of paper and track paper clip usage …

    Sports ball

    The same rules apply to sports teams. Of course it is much more common for “sports philosophy” to be used in the “business” world than the other way around.

    Teams/leagues are simply organizations that have agreed to compete based on a specific set of rules/standards. The big difference being that telling “who won” and “who lost” is much easier with a scoreboard.

    Obviously with “professional sports” the only metric that matters is “winning contests.” Professional coaches and athletes are paid to win. There are no “moral victories” in pro sports.

    Of course that doesn’t mean that “losing professional sports franchise” is actually “losing money”/unprofitable OR that “championship sports franchise” is actually “making money”/profitable. But that is a much different subject.

    Winning

    “Winning” always implies a competition of some kind. In “sports ball” the rules of competition are clearly defined. e.g. You can take a look at the NFL rulebook or download the MLB rules

    But is “winning the only thing?” Or is “just win baby” a functioning philosophy? How about “if you ain’t first, you’re last?”

    If you ain’t first, you’re last

    Reese Bobby

    Well, with all due respect to Vince Lombardi and Al Davis – both of their quotes have been taken a little out of context – as is true for a lot of “motivational quotes.”

    The quote from Talladega Nights humorously illustrates the “out of context” nature of most “win at all costs” quotes.

    Vince Lombardi was also quoted as saying that he wanted his players to place “professional football” third on their “life priority” lists – with God and family being in the first two spots.

    I never heard Al Davis try to explain his “just win baby” quote – beyond being a condemnation of other teams “player conduct” policies. In context he was asking for the same sort of commitment as Mr Lombardi. Mr Davis described that commitment as a “commitment to excellence” – which has also become a management buzzword in its own right (feel free to google the term).

    Meanwhile a lot of well-meaning coaches/managers have misinterpreted the “search for high performance” as a requirement for monastic dedication.

    As always the unexamined life is not worth living – but my point today is that in “non professional sports”/the real world there is ample room for “moral victories.”

    From a practical standpoint – being focused on the end product at the expense of the process that generates that product is counterproductive.

    Yeah, that is not very quotable – the idea is simply that if you take care of the small things along the way, the end result will take care of itself.

    From a sports ball perspective – that is why Vince Lombardi started each season showing the team a football and saying “Gentlemen, this is a football.” Mr Lombardi also pointed out that “Football is a game of blocking and tackling, block and tackle better than the other team and you will win.” First master the fundamentals, and then winning will follow.

    There is a famous story of John Wooden (UCLA’s 10x NCAA basketball championship coach) starting each season by teaching players how to put on their socks. Mr Wooden would explain that if a player put their socks on wrong, then the sock would “bunch-up” and the player would get a blister. If the player got a blister they couldn’t practice/play. So spending time at the beginning of each season to teach new players (and remind returning players) how to put on their socks was worthwhile.

    A stitch in time — something, something …

    Continuous improvement

    Saying that the focus should be on “continuous improvement” implies that the “learning organization” infrastructure is in place.

    If you are coaching “non professional sports” then the primary focus should be on “learning to prepare” much more than “winning.” The entire point of “non professional sports” should be as part of the “educational” process NOT as a developmental program for the next higher level of competition.

    I’m not saying that a “pro coach” can’t have a positive impact on player’s lives/character – I’m just pointing out that the primary focus of “pro sports” is NOT “character development.”

    “Big time” college football and basketball are both money making machines – but obviously tend to be “coach centered.” The most successful coaches tend to be very good at recruiting talented players to come to their school.

    Which means that there also tends to be a huge difference in “player talent level” between the “Big time” college athletic programs and everyone else.

    Meanwhile in “professional sports” ALL of the players are “professionals” – as obvious as that sounds, the difference in “physical ability” between the “elite” players and the “average” players is minimal.

    SO what distinguishes the “elite” pro players from the “average” players? Preparation.

    Of course “avoiding injuries” becomes a part of the story for any longtime successful player – and “offseason preparation” becomes part of the “avoiding injuries” story.

    But time and fate will always play their part 😉

    oh yeah, one more thing

    All of which means a high school wrestler could go winless and have a “successful” season – assuming that they improved over the course of the season.

    A high school football team could be “successful” but lose more games than they win – that 4 win 6 loss team might be setting the stage for future success.

    Successful companies and “sports ball programs” will pass along a culture of continuous improvement and positive change management – the profits in stakeholder pockets or wins on the field of competition will follow a focus on fundamentals and individual development.

    thank you very much and I hope we passed to audition

  • “great resignation”, part-time employees, engagement

    I think I have commented on my love of “buzzwords” enough – that we can just jump into the “great resignation”/reshuffle/reprioritization/recognition/whatever …

    SO a significant number of people are choosing NOT to go back to jobs they obviously found “unsatisfying.” Trying to come up with a single reason “why” is pointless – because there (probably) is no SINGLE reason.

    Sure, if you sell management seminars to “upper management” then packaging some buzzword tripe that reinforces what upper management has already been doing will get you some paychecks. Then the reality is that it is buzzword trip seminars targeted at “upper management” that created the environment for the “great whatever” to transpire.

    To be honest the “gig economy” has been coming for awhile. If you look at the history of humanity the aberration is the “hourly wage”/weekly schedule NOT the “gig economy.”

    For MOST of human existence the major form of “employment” was subsistence farming. The industrial revolution moved folks off of farms into factories – and also created “management” as a job category.

    Henry Ford and the assembly line is always a great example of how UNPOPULAR “factory work” tends to be with “sentient beings.”

    Higher wages cut down on turnover and the “$5 day” may have kickstarted the “middle class” – at the cost of “job satisfaction” and “purpose.”

    part-time good/part-time bad

    Of course if you are trying to build a company on “gig workers” or think that it is possible to grow/build a culture with only “part-time” employees – you are chasing an illusion.

    There was a study done way back when – it was probably the 1980’s – I remember reading the book in the 1990’s that summarized the “secret management miracle technique” that they “discovered.”

    I’m sure some actual research would find the study – but since I ain’t doin’ any real research today – the short form: “major university” did a study of “global companies” and “discovered” that the employees that were emotionally involved in their work were MUCH more productive than the employees that were NOT emotionally involved in their work.

    yup, hopefully that is blindingly obvious. The (wrong) takeaway is that “pay” isn’t a major motivation to increase performance. Salary/pay/total compensation is like oxygen – if you have plenty then getting “more” is not a high priority, but if you don’t have enough, it is EXTREMELY important.

    The same with “job security” – you either have it or you don’t – but threatening employees job security will just motivate employees to find a better company to work with.

    The beatings will continue until moral improves

    Remember the key to “employee productivity” is “emotional engagement.” SO you could have highly engaged part-time employees just like you can have “disengaged” full-time employees.

    Communication

    How do you build “engagement?” Well, you gotta communicate in some form.

    The WORST thing “management” can do is “no communication” – this is the old “mushroom treatment”, “keep ’em in the dark and feed them excrement.” Of course if YOU hate your job and want to make sure that everyone reporting to you hates THEIR job – then the “mushroom treatment” is the tool for the job.

    If you fancy yourself a “leader” and are focused on things like “growth” and “long term success” – then regular communication is required.

    20/70/10

    One of Jack Welch’s tactics when he was running G.E. meshes neatly with the “employee engagement” theory.

    No, I don’t think Mr Welch was heavily influenced by the study in question. Mr Welch was influenced by years of ACTUAL employee performance data.

    The percentages the “engagement theory” folks came up with don’t really matter – maybe it was the top 10% of employees were much more engaged than the other 90% AND that top 10% was also more productive than the entire other 90%.

    If memory serves the bottom 90% are also two distinct groups – maybe it was 70% “not emotionally engaged” (i.e. “emotionally neutral” – but still of some value to the organization) and the bottom 20% were “actively disengaged” (i.e. “hostile” – these folks were actively working against the organization)

    SO Mr Welch recognized that the top 20% of G.E. employees were the “high performers” – i.e. these are the folks getting big raises and promotions. The 70% were still good workers and had the potential to become top 20%-ers – so they received smaller raises and training, then the bottom 10% were “eased out” of the organization.

    Hidden in plain site with the 20/70/10 concept is that the organization is tracking employee performance and giving regular feedback. Most companies seem to find ways to avoid giving regular “employee feedback” – for any number of convenient reasons.

    Obviously when Jack Welch was running G.E. they didn’t have a labor shortage or any issues with hiring new employees. If you are a smaller company then “easing out” the bottom 10% probably isn’t practical – but keeping someone around that is actively hostile to “company goals” is always a bad idea. How you deal with that problem employee as a small company will obviously be different than how a “large multinational conglomerate” deals with the problem (and if that “problem employee” is also a family member – well, that is another issue).

    ownership/recognition

    “Emotional engagement” is just another way of saying “ownership” – i.e. do employees feel a sense of responsibility/obligation for the performance of the company? are employees “invested” in the goals/purpose of the organization? if they are “obligated” and “invested” then they are “engaged.”

    Of course that sense of engagement can be destroyed by mistreating employees – sentient beings are NOT going to willfully work for an organization that treats them like disposable cogs in a machine for a sustained period of time.

    No, that doesn’t mean you coddle employees – it means you communicate honestly with them. No, you are not fooling anyone with the “mushroom treatment” – if you aren’t communicating people will still talk, and most likely that “internal gossip” will be negative.

    How you choose to reward employees is part of company culture – some folks are motivated by “employee of the X” type awards, some aren’t (my opinion: unless they come with a cash bonus – keep your useless award).

    IF you want employees to act like owners – you might want to consider actually making them owners. btw: The reason “CEO” compensation has outstripped “regular employee” compensation is simply because CEO’s tend to get stock options.

    Personally the CEO making a LOT more than “generic employee” doesn’t bother me in the least.

    IF the CEO is acting in the best interest of the organization, providing real leadership, and a positive company culture – then it (probably) isn’t possible to pay them “too much.”

    HOWEVER – if the CEO is using the organization as their personal piggybank, and creating a negative company culture – then it (probably) isn’t possible to dismiss them “too soon.”

    Company culture

    Dan Ariely has written some books on “behavioral economics” (“Predictably Irrational” is the one I read a few years ago).

    Mr Ariely comes to mind because the conclusion of one of his experiments was that “social obligations” tended to produce higher returns than “financial compensation” – I think he had people do a monotonous task and the ones that felt a “social obligation” did the task longer than the ones that were compensated/paid.

    Connecting the dots = employees that are “engaged” have a sense of “ownership” that includes a “social obligation” beyond monetary compensation. (but remember “total compensation” is like oxygen …)

    I’m sure we could easily find (a large number of) people that “work” harder as “volunteers” for non-profit organizations than they do for their “paycheck job” – e.g. in the former they are “engaged” in the latter they aren’t.

    Of course “creation” is always harder than “destruction” – i.e. “creating a positive company culture” requires concerted effort – if it was easy then you wouldn’t see (functionally) the same management books written/released every year …

  • buzzword bingo, pedantic-ism, and the internet

    just ranting

    One of the identifying characteristics of “expert knowledge” is understanding how everything “fits” together. True “mastery” of any field with a substantial “body of knowledge” takes time and effort. Which means there are always more people that “know enough to be dangerous” than there are “real experts.”

    Which is really just recognition of the human condition – i.e. if we had unlimited time and energy then there would be a lot more “true experts” in every field.

    There is a diminishing return on “additional knowledge” after a certain point. e.g. Does anyone really need to understand how IBM designed Token Ring networks? Well, it might be useful for historic reasons and theoretical discussion – but I’ll go out on a limb and say it isn’t worth the effort to become an “expert” on Token Ring – and if you are studying “networking” becoming an expert on Token Ring is not worth the time.

    There are also a lot of subjects where a slightly “incorrect” understanding is part of the learning process. e.g. Remember that high school chemistry class where you learned about electrons orbiting the nucleus at various discrete “energy levels” like tiny moons orbiting a planet? Then remember that college chemistry class where they told you that isn’t the way it actually is – but don’t worry about it, everyone learns it that way.

    (random thought – just because we can’t be sure where something is, doesn’t mean it can be in two spots at the same time – just like that cat in a box – it isn’t half alive and half dead, it is one or the other, we just can’t know which one – and moving on …)

    buzzwords vs jargon vs actual understanding

    Dilbert’s “pointy haired boss” is routinely held up for ridicule for “buzzword spouting” – which – in the most negative sense of the concept – implies that the person using “buzzwords” about “subject” has a very minimal understanding of the “subject.”

    Of course the “Dilbert principle” was/is that the competent people in a company are too valuable at their current job – and so cannot be promoted to “management”. Which implies that all managers are incompetent by default/design. It was a joke. It is funny. The reality is that “management” is a different skillset – but the joke is still funny 😉

    The next step up are the folks that can use the industry “jargon” correctly. Which simply illustrates that “education” is a process. In “ordinary speech” we all recognize and understand more words than we actively use – the same concept applies to acquiring and using the specific vocabulary/”jargon” of a new field of study (whatever that field happens to be).

    However if you stay at the “jargon speaking” level you have not achieved the goal of “actual understanding” and “applied knowledge.” Yes, a lot of real research has gone into describing different “levels”/stages in the process – which isn’t particularly useful. The concept that there ARE stages is much more important than the definition of specific points in the process.

    pedants

    No one want a teacher/instructor that is a “pedant” – you know, that teacher that know a LOT about a subject and thinks that it is their job to display just how much they know — imagine the high school teacher that insists or correcting EVERYONES grammar ALL THE TIME.

    There is an old joke that claims that the answer to EVERY accounting question is “it depends.” I’m fond of applying that concept to any field where “expert knowledge” is possible – i.e. the answer to EVERY question is “it depends.”

    (… oh, and pedants will talk endlessly about how much they know – but tend to have problems applying that knowledge in the real world. Being “pedantic” is boring/bad/counter productive – and ’nuff said)

    Of course if you are the expert being asked the question, what you get paid for is understanding the factors that it “depends on.” If you actually understand the factors AND can explain it to someone that isn’t an expert – then you are a rara avis.

    In “I.T.” you usually have three choices – e.g. “fast”, “cheap” (as in “low cost”/inexpensive), “good”/(as in durable/well built/”it is heavy? then it is expensive”) – but you only get to choose two. e.g “fast and cheap” isn’t going to be “good”, “fast and good” isn’t going to be “inexpensive.”

    Is “Cheap and good” possible? – well, in I.T. that probably implies using open source technologies and taking the time to train developers on the system – so an understanding of “total cost of ownership” probably shoots down a lot of “cheap and good” proposals – but it might be the only option if the budget is “we have no budget” – i.e. the proposal might APPEAR “low cost” when the cost is just being pushed onto another area — but that isn’t important at the moment.

    internet, aye?

    There is an episode of the Simpsons where Homer starts a “dot com” company called Compu Glogal Hyper Meganet – in classic Simpsons fashion they catch the cultural zeitgeist – I’ll have to re-watch the episode later – the point for mentioning it is that Homer obviously knew nothing about “technology” in general.

    Homer’s “business plan” was something like saying “aye” after every word he didn’t understand – which made him appear like he knew what he was talking about (at the end of the episode Bill Gates “buys him out” even though he isn’t sure what the company does – 1998 was when Microsoft was in full “antitrust defense by means of raised middle finger” – so, yes it was funny)

    (random thought: Microsoft is facing the same sort of accusations with their “OneDrive” product as they did with “Internet Explorer” – there are some important differences – but my guess is THIS lawsuit gets settled out of court 😉 )

    ANYWAY – anytime a new technology comes along, things need to settle down before you can really get past the “buzzword” phase. (“buzzword, aye?”) – so, while trying not to be pedantic, an overview of the weather on the internet in 2021 …

    virtualization/cloud/fog/edge/IoT

    Some (hopefully painless) definitions:

    first – what is the “internet” – the Merriam-Webster definition is nice, slightly more accurate might be to say that the internet is the “Merriam-Webster def” plus “that speaks TCP/IP.” i.e. the underlying “language” of the internet is something called TCP/IP

    This collection of worldwide TCP/IP connected networks is “the internet” – think of this network as “roads”

    Now “the internet” has been around for a while – but it didn’t become easy to use until Tim Berners Lee came up with the idea for a “world wide web” circa 1989.

    While rapidly approaching pedantic levels – this means there is a difference between the “internet” and the “world wide web.” If the internet is the roads, then the web is traffic on those roads.

    It is “true” to say that the underlying internet hasn’t really changed since the 1980’s – but maybe a little misleading.

    Saying that we have the “same internet” today is a little like saying we have the same interstate highway system today as we did when Henry Ford invented the Model-T. A lot of $$ has gone into upgrading the “internet” infrastructure since the 1980’s – just like countless $$ have gone into building “infrastructure” for modern automobiles …

    Picking up speed – Marc Andreessen gets credit for writing the first “modern” web browser in the early 1990s. Which kinda makes “web browsers” the “vehicles” running on the “web”

    Britannica via Google tells me that the first use of the term “cyberspace” goes back to 1982 – for convenience we will refer to the “internet/www/browser” as “cyberspace” – I’m not a fan of the term, but it is convenient.

    Now imagine that you had a wonderful idea for a service existing in “cyberspace” – back in the mid-1990’s maybe that was like Americans heading west in the mid 19th century. If you wanted to go west in 1850, there were people already there, but you would probably have to clear off land and build your own house, provide basic needs for yourself etc.

    The cyberspace equivalent in 1995 was that you had to buy your own computers and connect them to the internet. This was the time when sites like “Yahoo!” and/or “eBay” kind of ruled cyberspace. You can probably find a lot of stories of teenagers starting websites – that attracted a lot of traffic, and then sold them off for big $$ without too much effort. The point being that there weren’t a lot of barriers/rules on the web – but you had to do it yourself.

    e.g. A couple of nice young men (both named “Sean”) met in a thing called “IRC” and started a little file sharing project called Napster in 1999 – which is a great story, but also illustrates that there is “other traffic” on the internet besides the “web” (i.e. Napster connected users with each other – they didn’t actually host files for sharing)

    Napster did some cool stuff on the technical side – but had a business model that was functionally based on copyright infringement at some level (no they were not evil masterminds – they were young men that liked music and computers).

    ANYWAY – the point being that the Napster guys had to buy computers/configure the computers/and connect them to the internet …

    Startup stories aside – the next big leap forward was a concept called “virtualization”. The short version is that hardware processing power grew much faster than “software processing” required – SO 1 physical machine would be extremely underutilized and inefficient – then “cool tech advancements” happened and we could “host” multiple “servers” on 1 physical machine.

    Extending the “journey west” analogy – virtualization allowed for “multi-tenant occupation” – at this point the roads were safe to travel/dependable/you didn’t HAVE to do everything yourself. When you got to your destination you could stay at the local bed and breakfast while you looked for a place to stay permanent (or move on).

    … The story so far: we went from slow connections between big time-sharing computers in the 1970’s to fast connections between small personal computers in the 1990’s to “you need a computer to get on the web” and the “web infrastructure” consists mostly of virtualized machines in the early 2000s …

    Google happened in there somewhere, which was a huge leap forward in real access to information on the web – another great story, just not important for my story today 😉

    they were an online bookstore once …

    Next stop 2006. Jeff Bezos and Amazon.com are (probably) one of the greatest business success stories in recorded history. They had a LONG time where they emphasized “growth” over profit – e.g. when you see comic strips from the 1990’s about folks investing in “new economy” companies that had never earned a profit, Amazon is the success story.

    (fwiw: of course there were also a LOT of companies that found out that the “new economy” still requires you to make a profit at some point – the dot.com boom and bust/”bubble” has been the subject of many books – so moving on …)

    Of course in the mid-2000’s Amazon was still primarily a “retail shopping site.” The problem facing ANY “retail” establishment is meeting customer service/sales with employee staffing/scheduling.

    If you happen to be a “shopping website” then your way of dealing with “increased customer traffic” is to implement fault/tolerance and load balancing techniques – the goal is “fast customer transactions” which equals “available computing resources” but could also mean “inefficient/expensive.”

    Real world restaurant example: I’m told that the best estimate for how busy any restaurant will be on any given day is to look at how busy they were last year on the same date (adjusting for weekends and holidays). SO if a restaurant expects to be very busy on certain days – they can schedule more staff for those days. If they don’t expect to be busy, then they will schedule fewer employees.

    Makes sense? Cool. The point is that Amazon had the same problem – they had the data on “expected customer volume” and had gone about the process of coming up with a system that would allow for automatic adjustment of computing resources based on variable workloads.

    I imagine the original goal might have been to save money by optimizing the workloads – but then someone pointed out that if they designed it correctly then they could “rent out” the service to other companies/individuals.

    Back to our “westward expansion” analogy – maybe this would be the creation of the first “hotel chains.” The real story of “big hotel chains” probably follows along with the westward expansion of the railroad – i.e. the railroads needed depots, and those depots became natural “access” points for travelers – so towns grew up around the depots and inns/”hotels” developed as part of the town – all of which is speculation on my part – but you get the idea

    The point being that in 2006 the “cloud” came into being. To be clear the “cloud” isn’t just renting out a virtual machine in someone else’s data center – the distinct part of “cloud services” is the idea of “variable costs for variable workloads.”

    Think of the electrical grid – if you use more electricity then you pay for what you use, if you use less electricity then your electrical expenses go down.

    The “cloud” is the same idea – if you need more resources because you are hosting an eSports tournament – then you can use more resources – build out/up – and then when the tournament is over scale back down.

    Or if you are researching ‘whatever’ and need to “process” a lot of data – before the cloud you might have had to invest in building your own “super computer” which would run for a couple weeks and then be looking for something to do. Now you can utilize one of the “public cloud” offerings and get your data ‘processed’ at a much lower cost (and probably faster – so again, you are getting “fast” and “inexpensive” but you are using “virtual”/on demand/cloud resources).

    If you are interested in the space exploration business – an example from NASA –

    Fog/Edge/IoT?

    The next problem becomes efficiently collecting data while also controlling cost. Remember with the “cloud” you pay for what you use. Saying that you have “options” for your public/private cloud infrastructure is an understatement.

    However, we are back to the old “it depends” answer when we get into concepts like “Fog computing” and the “Internet of things”

    What is the “Internet of Things” well NIST has an opinion – if you read the definition and say “that is nice but a little vague” – well, what is the IoT? It depends on what you are trying to do.

    The problem is that the how of “data collection” is obviously dependent of the data being collected. So the term becomes so broad that it is essentially meaningless.

    Maybe “Fog” computing is doing fast and cheap processing of small amounts of data captured by IoT devices – as opposed to having the data go all the way out to “the cloud” – we are probably talking about “computing on a stick” type devices that plug into the LAN.

    Meanwhile “Edge computing” is one for the salespeople – e.g. it is some combination of cloud/fog/IoT – at this point it reminds me of the “Corinthian Leather” Ricardo Montalban was talking about in car commercials way back when 😉

    Ok, I’m done – I feel better

    SO if you are teaching an online class of substantial length – an entire class only about IoT might be a little pointless. You can talk about various data collecting sensors and chips/whatever – but simply “collecting” data isn’t the point, you need to DO SOMETHING with the data afterwards.

    Of course I can always be wrong – my REAL point is that IoT is a buzzword that gets misused on a regular basis. If we are veering off off into marketing and you want to call the class “IoT electric boogaloo” because it increases enrollment – and then talk about the entire cloud/fog/IoT framework – that would probably be worthwhile.

    it only took 2400+ words to get that out of my system 😉

  • leadership, generals, and politicians

    I developed an interest in “leadership” from an early age. The mundane reasons for this interest aren’t important. It is even possible that “leaders” are/were a pre-requirement for the whole “human civilization” thing – i.e. we are all “leaders” in one form or another if we are “involved with other people.” SO an interest in “leadership” is also natural.

    There are certainly a lot of books written every year that claim to teach the “secrets” of leadership. There is (probably) something useful in all of these “leadership” books BUT there is no “secret leadership formula” that works all of the time for every situation. However, there are “principles of leadership.”

    As a “first concept” I’ll point out Amos 3:3 – “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” The point being that if “two people” becomes our smallest unit of “civilization” then “leadership” is happening in some form.

    This micro-civilization “leadership” probably consists of discussions between the two people on what to do, where to go, when to do whatever. It is unlikely that they will naturally agree on everything, if they can’t resolve those disagreements (one way or another) then they won’t be “together” anymore and they will go separate ways.

    leadership

    Of course we run into the problem that there are different flavors of “leadership” because there are different types of “power.”

    Another “first concept” is that “yelling” is not leadership. Yelling is just yelling – and while it might be a tool occasionally used by a leader – “constant yelling” is an obvious sign of BAD leadership to the point that it might just be “bullying behavior”/coercion and NOT “leadership” at all

    i.e. “coercive” leadership ends up being self-destructive to the organization because it drives good people away and you end up with a group of “followers” waiting to be told what to do whatever.

    e.g. when a two year old throws a temper tantrum – no one mistakes it for “leadership.” Same concept applies if someone in a position of power throws a temper tantrum 😉

    (but there is a difference between “getting angry” and “temper tantrum” – if the situation arises then “anger” might be appropriate but never to the point where self-control is lost)

    Generals

    In English the word “general” refers to a common characteristic of a group. It doesn’t appear as a noun until the middle of the 16th century – so eventually we get the idea of the “person at the top of the chain of command” being a “General officer”

    Whatever you want to call it – in “old days long ago” – the General was on the field fighting/leading the troops.

    Alexander

    If we give “Alexander the Great” the title of “general” – then he is the classic example of “leading by personal charisma/bravery/ability.” He was the “first over the wall” type of general – that led by inspiring his armies with a “vision of conquest.”

    The problem becomes that ultimately Alexander the Great was a failure. Oh, he conquered a lot of land and left his name on cities, but again, in the long run he failed at leading his troops. After fighting for 10+ years Alexander wanted to keep going, while his tired troops wanted to go home. Alexander would die on the trip home, and his empire would be spit between his generals.

    SO why did Alexander the Great (eventually) fail as a leader? Well, he was leading for HIS glory. Sure the fact that he – and his generals – were able to keep his army together for 10 years and conquer most of the “known world” rightfully earns him a place in history, BUT at an “organizational leadership” level he was a failure.

    Cincinnatus

    Arguably the best type of leader is in the position because they are the “right person” at the “right time” NOT because they have spent their lifetime pursuing personal advancement/glory.

    The concept becomes “servant leadership” – which became a “management buzzword” in the 20th century, but is found throughout history.

    Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus comes to mind – you know, the (implied) down on his luck “citizen farmer” of Ancient Rome when it was still a “new republic” (500ish BC) – twice given supreme power (and the offer of being made “dictator for life”) he also gave up that power as soon as possible.

    Also illustrated by the story of Cincinnatus is the “burden or command” IF a leader is truly trying to “do what is right for the people.”

    Of course Cincinnatus’ example was much more often ignored that honored by later Roman leaders – which eventually led to the end of the “republic” and the birth of “empire” – but that sounds like the plot for a series of movies 😉

    HOWEVER – Cincinnatus still serves as an example of great leadership. Yes, he had problems with his sons, but that is another story …

    Moses

    According to “tradition” Moses was a general in the Egyptian army. The first 40 years of Moses’ life are not described (except that he was raised as the son of the Daughter of Pharaoh) – then he kills a man in Exodus 2:12 and goes on the run to the land of Midian.

    There is a lot of potential “reading into the story” here. I suppose Cecil B DeMille’s 1956 version is plausible – the love story between Moses and Nefretiri feels like the “Hollywood movie” addition, and of course Charlton Heston as Moses is a simplification (Aaron probably did most of the “talking”).

    ANYWAY – the point is that (after 40 years of tending sheep in Midian) Moses didn’t WANT the job of leading the tribes of Israel out of Egypt – which is what made him perfect for the job.

    Feel free to do your own study of Exodus – for my point today, Moses became a “servant leader” after 40 years of tending sheep. The mission wasn’t about him, it was about, well, “the mission.”

    Just for fun – I’ll point at Numbers 12:3 and also mention that the first five books of the “Old Testament” are often referred to as the “Books of Moses” but that doesn’t mean Moses “wrote” them – i.e. it isn’t Moses calling himself “humble” but probably Joshua …

    Politicians

    From a practical standpoint – both Cincinnatus and Moses were facing “leadership situations” that involved a lot of responsibility but NOT a lot of “real privilege.” As they approached the job it was as a responsibility/burden not as a “privilege.”

    Old Cincinnatus simply resigned rather than try to rule. Moses didn’t have that option 😉 – so we get the story of the “people” blaming him for everything wrong and rebelling against his leadership multiple times (and as the leader Moses was also held to a higher standard – but that is another story).

    In the last 25 years of the 20th century the “management buzzwords” tried to differentiate between “managers” and “leaders.” Which is always a little unfair – but the idea is that “managers” are somehow not “leaders” if all they do is pass along information/follow orders.

    In practice “good management” is “leadership.” However, if an individual is blindly following orders (with no concept of “intent of the command”) then that probably isn’t “leadership.”

    Sure, saying “corporate says to do it this way” is probably the actual answer for a lot of “brand management” type of issues – which is also probably why being “middle management” can be frustrating.

    I’m fond of saying that a major function of “senior leaders” is developing “junior leaders” – so the “leadership malfunction” might be further up the chain of command if “front line managers” are floundering.

    With that said – “politicians” tend to be despised because they are in positions of power and routinely take credit for anything good that happens and then try to blame someone else for anything bad that happens.

    If an individual rises above the ranks of “smarmy politicians” and actually displays “leadership” then history might consider them a “statesmen” – but the wanna be “Alexanders” always outnumber the “Cincinnati” (btw: the plural of “Cincinnatus” is “Cincinnati” which is how that nice little city in southwestern Ohio got its name) and of course a “Moses” requires divine intervention 😉

    Management Books

    “Books on leadership/management” tend to fall into two categories: the better ones are “memoirs/biography” while the “not so good” are self-congratulatory/”aren’t I wonderful” books published for a quick buck.

    I’ve read a lot of these books over the years – and the “actionable advice” usually boils down to some form of the “golden rule” (“do unto others as you would have them do to you”) or the categorical imperative.

    Personally I like this quote from a Hopalong Cassidy movie:

    You can’t go to far wrong looking out for the other guy.

    Hopalong Cassidy

    George Washington summed up “good manners” as (something like) “always keep the comfort of other people in mind.” SO “good leadership” equals “good manners” equals “lead the way you would like to be led”

    Of course the problem becomes that you can never make EVERYONE happy – e.g. displaying “good manners” is obviously going to be easier than “leadership” of a large group of individuals. BUT trying to “lead” from a position of bitterness/spite/coercion will never work in the “long term.”

    If you are trying to provoke a revolt – then “ignoring the concerns of the masses” and trying to coerce compliance to unpopular policies will probably work …

    e.g. “most adults” can understand not getting everything they want immediately – but they want to feel “heard” and “valued.” …