Where is Your Other Sock???

The tactical objective is clear: get into the car and out of the driveway by 750am. It supports the overall strategic objective of arriving on time to the mission objective: camp. But there in the middle of the living room stands the child, wearing only one sock, his shirt far too big, his hair a shock-and-awe mass of unkempt curls, his hands turning a Matchbox car while he studies it intently. It is now 745am.

“Child,” I said, “where is your other sock and why are you not entirely dressed to leave?”




“I don’t know.”

“Child,” I said, “the socks were together. Put down the car and go back to where you started.”

We did not achieve our tactical objective that day.

It occurred to me, as I watched Child put on his other sock, that his ability to achieve our strategic goal of getting out of the house was limited by his inability to make several decisions in a row without supervision. He is 7. He has a good excuse.

However, I am finding that adults are suffering from the same problem when it comes to achieving strategic goals like electing a government official. In order to vote on legislation for example, one has to understand the entire contents of a bill. The ACA, at over 900 pages, was an epic of poorly, hastily written policy AND no one was going to read it.

But what if we gave people an algorithm to follow: a flow chart of what to look for while researching their vote? What if we required congress to present the information in a more consumable way so that the average layperson could assimilate it and ALSO have enough time to decide what they preferred.

In the project management world, we ask the stakeholders how and at what frequency they prefer to receive their communications. What if we, as the country’s stakeholders, demanded that congress limit their legislation to a single decision and then publish the votes on those decisions?

If the end goal is to elect an official we feel would be best-suited or the job, we have to remove our emotional, intractable ideologies and actually look at our candidate’s work history. We’d do that if we hired any employee. Why not do that for our elected officials?

The average human makes decisions based on no more than 5 or 6 factors. Highly emotional people may make a decision based on a single factor. Lately, it seems like the entire country is standing in the living room wearing one sock because there are far too many other distractions to get through the 5 or 6 tactical steps that facilitate the strategic objective: electing a good leader.

“Child,” I said, “what are the steps we must take to get out of the house by 750am?”

“Dress, eat, brush teeth, get our lunch box, go to car,” he answered.

“And you got lost at ‘dress?'”






“I don’t know.”

And there you have the average American voter, knowing the objective, but not how to reach it.

Frankenstein Lives

“What causes you pain,” I ask my user. His aspect changes. First he looks a bit surprised, but then a very predictable thing happens. His body language, tone of voice and facial expression shows frustration. He’s been given permission; he commences unloading with considerable emotion, about what hinders his work.

“Well, um…I have to enter the same information on every invoice for clients. You know, um, shipping address…it takes too much time. I should just be able to pick the location and then all that stuff fills in. I do dozens of these a day. It would save me so much time.”

“Great example,” I say, “tell me more.” With each answer, his mood improves, his brow unfurls. He’s been heard.

It’s a fairly simple question, but it results in myriad answers, easily organized into only a few recurring categories: just like stories that fall into into one of the seven major plots. The users address process deficiencies; they identify, often in whispers and furtive glances, who they believe are ineffective managers; they even admit, on rare occasions, that they themselves are the problem, citing poor training, or in some cases, no training at all, which when fully analyzed, still points to a problem with their employers.

The most valuable project management skill is identifying and refining requirements, which are often gleaned from users whose expertise is process-based work. These users are constantly evaluated and compensated based on some form of tangible output, such as the number of pallets shipped or the number of orders fulfilled in a given period.

This seems like a simple process, doesn’t it? One would think that it culminates in a task list, which can then be completed step by step, which would in turn culminate in perfect conditions at the end.

However, anyone with any work experience agrees that no process improvement, big or small, is that simple. All the data gleaned from interviews must be catalogued and categorized, then the emotional responses must be analyzed for root cause and organized objectively as to their true impact to the company and the user. In conjunction with a team of subject matter experts, the project manager presents solutions to the project sponsors. I cannot count, for I long ago lost track, the number of times that the solution is education. In order for a user to be more effective, he or she must understand intimately, end to end, where lies all of the potential failure points, and more importantly, how to mitigate or avoid them. This is the nature of process dynamics.

Having honed this skill over many years, I have peripherally become good at analyzing political arguments. I “hear” what people are really saying, on both sides, and as they talk, I am forming potential solutions to the problems they are discussing. Keeping my personal feelings out of the debate is essential to what I do. I have often found that people do not “hear” reasonable solutions unless those solutions fall within their emotionally accepted range of possibilities. Emotional responses ALWAYS lead to “bandaids.” They want a fix now that they cannot understand will cause them bigger problems, later.

Designing information systems for humans is a unique parallel to solving societal problems. A user who cannot complete his or her tasks often has the same visceral response as those trying to solve a social issue. They become focused on how the problem affects their immediate existence. They make decisions based on the fear of losing their jobs. They are not concerned with root cause; they want an immediate solution, which is how bandaid after bandaid becomes the monsters that are poorly written solutions. Those same bandaids satisfy management in the immediate, because their key performance indicators stay within range in the short term. Sadly, legislation is a canon of bandaids that rarely, actually solves a problem, but it makes the public happy until they’ve forgotten about the original issue.

It is useless to have “feelings” about a problem. Long-term solutions require that root cause is identified and accepted without the chaos that accompanies fear and loss. Effective, feasible, long-term solutions are most often the result of small, measurable course-corrections. A well-placed ripple can become a tidal wave of change.

I am grateful that my friends and acquaintances are a bell curve of political viewpoints (minus the pesky, lunatic extremes at both ends, which I attribute to my limited tolerance for stupidity). The ONE thing I’ve experienced consistently is that when we have open and honest discussions (about anything), and listen without prejudice to opposing opinion, we find common ground. In the end, we all tend to want the same things. The arguments, the intractability, is in the how.

I understand that it is difficult to remove emotion from an argument, especially one as intimate as politics, but bickering based on how we feel about a problem is the intellectual equivalent of throwing cow manure at one another: everyone ends up angry and reeking. Is this really what we want to teach our children? Listening, maturity and reason are the prerequisites for effective and lasting change. If you, an adult, are not willing to hear opposing views and try to understand them, how can we expect our children to become good, informed decision makers? How can we expect that we ourselves can make informed, lasting decisions if all we ever do is talk into a mirror?

Lately, I’ve read too many op eds, posts and comments and seen far too many videos of people who cannot seem to assimilate that they are not informed, that they do not have a clear understanding of the “big picture,” that they’re unexposed, “small town” perception does not translate to a world view. They are busy with their heads buried firmly in the mountains of detritus shoveled out by the media, and then perpetuated by the even less informed. Most are too lazy to seek the truth for themselves. They simply accept whatever trash supports their personal agendas. We claim to be improving as humans, in better health and with greater capacity for complex thought. Yet, we’ve allowed an insidious anti-intellectualism to infect society. We  tolerate views that are virtually irreconcilable without our hard-won freedoms, so that we can say we are the welcoming, the magnanimous. We continue to create more problems than we can possibly solve because we cannot seem to operate outside the confines of our personal circuses and those we trust to implement effective solutions are not keeping their collectives eyes on the prize.

In order to move forward, we have to accept that the human race mimics exactly the animal kingdom. There are predators and there are prey.  We are an intellectual food chain of personalities. For society to operate, we have to minimize the impact of the predators and protect and empower the prey. Predators will always manifest destruction because that is their psychosis. This applies to every aspect of human existence, from the stewardship of our environment to the protection of both our loved ones and our rights.

The question is, how do we identify and eliminate predatory behavior without restricting the rights of the rest of the human race? What is creating new crops of predators? We have to ask ourselves hard questions, some of which make us very uncomfortable. Are we manufacturing predators as products of our behaviors? Have we, as a society, as a race, created the monsters we now want to contain? Are we collectively Dr. Frankenstein?