Traffic, housing choices, and commitment

A couple of weeks ago I posted about an interactive map/tool for the San Francisco area that was developed (at least in part), to help people understand the decisions and tradeoffs related to their choices and opportunities for work and housing. Simply put, the tool helps you assess the costs and commuting times and options associated with Living in Location 'A' and working in Location 'B'. Some of these dynamics and tradeoffs are changing of course, but still for many jobs, the requirement for employees to be physically present in an office or other work location is a fact of life, and will remain so probably forever.

Decisions about where to work and where to live are never easy matters, but for some fortunate folks like C-suite executives or National Basketball Association head coaches, (yes, another sports reference), the decisions are a bit easier, as their comparatively more lucrative compensation packages provide more options and flexibility in terms of housing choices. Let's face it, there are not too many neighborhoods that an average CEO or NBA coach would feel were out of reach.

That is what I was thinking about this morning when I read a piece from the online Orange County (Ca.) Register about new Los Angeles Lakers Head Coach Mike Brown, and his decision to buy a home in a neighborhood called Anaheim Hills.  Only having been an occasional visitor to Southern California, that headline did not really resonate with me, but digging in to the piece reveals a bit more about the potential consequences and ramifications of Brown's decision:

According to Google Maps, (Brown's new home) that’ll be 45 minutes to practice without traffic (but an hour and 20 minutes with traffic) and 43 minutes to Staples without traffic (but an hour and 40 minutes with traffic.)

Brown is sacrificing proximity to his Lakers work to be close to Santa Ana’s Mater Dei High (emphasis mine). That’s where son Elijah will play basketball and son Cameron will play football

Everyone, even the occasional visitor to the LA area like myself, knows or at least is subconsciously aware of LA traffic, and the way in which it effects work and family life in that area. For new Lakers Head Coach Brown, who has a contract paying him (according to reports), $18.25M over four years, to elect to live in an area that will almost certainly present pretty significant challenges and stress simply getting to work has raised at least a few questions amongst supporters and media that cover the team.

Could it be that Brown, recently fired as the head coach of the Cleveland Cavaliers despite being named the league's Coach of the Year the prior season, is well aware of the total lack of job security that comes with being an NBA coach, and thusly elected to choose housing that was more in line with his non-work or family life? NBA coaches are notoriously known as incessant workaholics, and the league is rife with tales of coaches sleeping in their offices, missing important family events, and generally devoting themselves to the sport and their teams. I am not saying that is the right or intelligent approach, but it just has been that way for a long time.

Perhaps Brown represents a shift from that old-fashioned and unhealthy kind of approach to life as an NBA head coach, and by choosing to live closer to the center of his family life he is signaling that he sees that balance or fit between the two as being just as important as success on the court. If so, that is to be commended I think.

But I do wonder if the Lakers organization sees it the same way, and if they are looking at their new $18M coach who potenitally will be frequently stuck on the freeway, navigating LA's notorious traffic jams to try and get to the game or to practice, when it seems at least from the outside looking in that he had lots of other options.

What do you think? Should the Lakers or any organization care or get involved on the personal choices their leaders make about these kinds of things?

How far away from the Arena is too far?

Disconnect (but rendered in nice colors)

I sort of think the infographic craze is starting to get a bit played out and certainly a bit overused. But once in a while I catch an infographic, (or in this case two infographics), that whether it is the compelling design or simply the starkness of the data being described I think are worth sharing. 

Both the below infographics are from the GOOD.is site, and when taken together, they paint a picture of a significant disconnect between the education and demonstrated achievement that today's employers demand, and the stark reality of trends in demographics and experiences in a changing and increasingly diverse population. Take a quick look at the two charts and think about the data for a minute.

Chart 1 - Educating the Workforce of the Future (click image to see in full-size)

Money point : We need to produce significantly more workers with either Bachelor's or at least Associate's or Trade School credentials to meet the expected demand for these skills.

Source : GOOD.is

Chart 2 - The Opportunity Gap (click image to see in full-size)

Money point : The faster growing segments of our population also have the worst prospects to attain the advanced degrees and certifications that we know the workplace will increasingly demand.

Source : GOOD.is

There's an obvious disconnect here between what kinds of education and experiences the future worplace will require, and the ability of the complex combination of primary schools, colleges, trade schools, labor unions, communities, government, and really all of us to provide. It can be argued that on a micro-level that employers can and should relax some of these often artifical educational requirements, and that these kinds of barriers really don't do a great job at helping organizations obtain superior talent. I even took on the subject here once. 

But even if some employers take steps to expand their thinking around degree requirements there is no doubt that overall, the gap or disconnect in education and skills will persist, and possibly drive even more work, opportunity, and income to other parts of the world that are adapting more rapidly to these changes that we are here in the US. 

I certainly don't have a simple answer to address these kinds of systemic, structural issues, but I do think that talking about them more is a needed initial step.

What do you think? What can we do to better prepare for these shifts?

Hat tip to Bryon Abramowitz whose presentation on these topics at the Aquire Structure 2011 conference put the bug in my ear to start thinking about this topic.

Is it your turn to shut up? There's an app for that...

A couple of months ago I joined my friend Kris Dunn the HR Capitalist, and Mike Carden the CEO of Human Resources technology vendor Sonar6 for a webcast titled 'Please Shut Up: The Idiot Proof Coaching Tool for Managers'. The presentation was about some simple, yet powerful strategies managers could use to become more effective as performance coaches.  You can still access the replay here. And you should give it a listen. The audience feedback was phenomenal, save for the one person that complained that perhaps the three of us were a bit 'too jocular'.

As you may be able to tell from the Sonar6 webcast presentation title, shutting up was a big part of the coaching tool that we talked about - the main point was that all too often managers tend to dominate these kinds of performance discussions, prattling on and on about what the employee needs to do to become more effective, to stop acting like an idiot, and to finally come around and see the bosses way of doing things.

As those of you with kids understand, this kind of browbeating, 'dominate the conversation' approach really begins to lose effectiveness on them at around age 11 or 12. Maybe sooner.

So maybe you buy in to the notion that whether you are in performance coaching conversations with employees, or interviewing candidates for open positions, that shutting your trap just a little more often would be a good strategy. Or maybe you are trying to convince hiring managers or recruiters on your team that 'actually letting the candidate talk' might be the best way to help make some of those tricky cultural fit judgments, then be cheerful, as is the case for almost everything these days - there's an app for that.

The Talk-O-Meter is an iPhone app that uses voice recognition and biofeedback to calculate, in real time, which person in a conversation is doing most of the talking. Simply fire up the app, set the iPhone on the table in between the participants, do a quick voice level and tone calibration, and from there the Talk-O-Meter monitors the conversation in 1, 3, or 5-minute intervals. At the end of each interval, the app displays a bar split into two colors, representing the ratio of who spent the most time jawboning.

Face it, almost all of us like the sound of our own voices. It can be really hard to warm up to the notion that the other person might actually have something important, interesting, and relevant to add to our own little daily soliloquies. I get that.

But a simple little tool like the Talk-O-Meter might be just the thing you need to get a bit of self-awareness going, and may even help you see just how much you are dominating the proceedings, be it a performance review/coaching session or an interview.

Or when faced with your next meeting with Mr. or Ms. Knows it All and isn't afraid to make sure you know that they know it all, just do a quick, and sly Talk-O-Meter drop on them and show them the error of their ways.

What do you think - would this kind of an application be a useful coaching tool?

The Wisdom of Crowds?

Although not a Broadway fan, (I think the last Broadway show I actually saw was 'Showboat', you know the 'Ol Man River one), I am a big comics fan, and such have been casually following the saga of the 'Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark' show, a Broadway musical adaptation of Marvel Comics most famous hero.

You may have heard something about this show, even if you are not a Broadway fan - the backstory is quite interesting. It's filled with mega-stars from U2 (Bono and The Edge), writing the music, a series of mishaps and injuries to several actors during preview performances, middling to scathing reviews from audiences and critics, and finally a major re-architecting of the show and the replacement of the show's original director Julie Taymor.

Ms. Taymor's ouster as the director and leader of the production not only says as much about her creative vision, (or lack thereof I suppose), as it does about the role and influence that audiences have over the creative process and results of that process, and how these audience voices are amplified in the social media age.

Last week Ms. Taymor offered a couple of very interesting observations about the show and her dismissal, and I think these insights might also have more broad implications for leaders and creatives of all stripes. 

First - on the immediate feedback loop of social media:

"It's a new time," she said. "Twitter and Facebook and blogging just trump you. It's incredibly difficult to be under a shot-glass and a microscope like that. When you’re trying to break new ground, the immediate answers that audiences give are never going to be good.”

Second - on succumbing to the pressure of social feedback:

"There's always something people don't like. It’s very scary if people are going more towards that, to have audiences tell you how to make a show. Shakespeare would have been appalled."

Getting past the notion that Ms. Taymor sort of compared a musical about a comic book hero to Shakespeare, I think she does make some important points, or at least raises some good questions. It has never been easier for fans, customers, citizens, employees, candidates - any engaged group of people to gather and wield significant influence over organizations, institutions, and leaders. We have seen this play out time and time again in the corporate world, particularly in the areas of branding and logo re-design.

But, as Ms. Taymor suggests, is that always a good thing? As a leader, or anyone that is involved in creation of products, services, processes, art, literature, whatever - when is staying true to your vision and version of the truth and what you believe in more important than bending to the will of the crowd? Sure, Taymor's 'Spider-Man' may have been a bad show, but is it at all possible that the more accessible, simpler version that now exists is artistically at least, inferior to her creation and vision?

Shakespeare probably did not run 'Romeo and Juliet' by a focus group and he certainly did not monitor the buzz on Twitter.

The question today is do we always have to listen to all the shouting online?

Or can we believe in our creativity, decision making, and direction despite some heat on the backchannel?

Why You're Wrong about LeBron James

Subtitled : I am not sure I completely believe what I am about to argue in the post either, but someone had to take an opposite position.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The facts of the case are these:

1. Last summer two-time league MVP, consensus best player in the NBA, and one of the best all-around players in league history LeBron James, a free agent no longer under contract with his team of seven seasons the Cleveland Cavaliers, elected to sign a contract to play for the Miami Heat. The 'decision' by James to join the Heat was panned not so much for the actual business and competition factors, but rather for the manner in which it was announced - a one-hour TV special on ESPN, that in combination with the backlash against James from the jilted Cleveland community, ended up backfiring on James, portraying him as an out-of-touch, arrogant, self-important and egocentric person.  

2. James, (and his new teammates Heat stars Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh), compounded the PR disaster spawned by 'The Decision', with an over-the-top, flashy, introduction event in Miami, where James and the others (in uniform), pranced around a smoke-filled stage and opined about winning not just one NBA title, but 'six, seven, eight... ' titles. I am paraphrasing a bit, but you get the idea.

3. The Heat concluded an up and down season, (it was painful at times to watch these three star players attempt to co-exist on the court, when each was accustomed to being 'the man'), with a 58-24 record, good for first place in the NBA's Southeast Division, and the third-best overall record in the league.

4. Entering the NBA playoffs the Heat then defeated in succession the Atlanta Hawks; their nemesis, the Boston Celtics; and the league's top regular season team the Chicago Bulls. Each series was decided 4 games to 1, making the Heat an impressive 12-3 in the first three playoff rounds.

5. In the NBA finals, the Heat were defeated by the Dallas Mavericks, a veteran team playing at the top of their form, 4 games to 2. James was harshly criticized for poor play in the series, particularly in the 4th quarters of Games 4, 5, and 6 (all Dallas victories). James lack of production in these situations served in stark contrast to Dallas leader Dirk Nowitzki, who consistently made big plays and shots to lead Dallas to the title.

6. Immediately following the Game 6 loss, James further damaged his already shaky reputation by implying that people hoping he and the Heat would lose would 'got to wake up tomorrow and have the same life that they had before.' While James would also have to wake up and continue his life, strongly implying that his life, with his millions of dollars, mansions, private jets etc. was somehow superior to yours, mine, and pretty much everyone else's.

These are the basic facts of the case, my apologies for going on so long about them prior to mounting my apologist defense for King James.

If you are like my friends and fellow bloggers Kris Dunn at the HR Capitalist, or John Hollon at TLNT.com, you have taken LeBron to task for arrogance, lack of humility, inability to win or lose gracefully, and over-confidence. While Kris and John and the hundreds of other writers that have participated in the LeBron dogpile have their points, I'll offer three (hope I can come up with three), reasons why they and you are wrong (or at least a little hypocritical) about LeBron.

1. History 

LeBron is most often compared, unfavorably, to Michael Jordan, the greatest player in NBA history. Jordan won six titles with the Bulls, the first one in his seventh season in the league. This was on a team with another all-time Top 50 player in Scottie Pippen and the greatest coach of all time, Phil Jackson. LeBron just completed his 8th season in the league falling just two games short of winning his first title. And since he started his NBA career at a younger age, LeBron is only 26, while Jordan was 28 when he claimed his first title.

Sure, maybe we take shots at LeBron because he compares unfavorably to Jordan, but lets not forget Jordan was a a transcendent, once in 50 years or so player. Everyone compares unfavorably to Jordan. No matter what line of business you are in, be in basketball, software development, or running a company, chances are you won't hold up well either when compared to the legends of your field. 

2. We like to selectively remember

LeBron left Cleveland, and several million dollars in salary on the table, to play for Miami in a situation that he (rightly) assessed as providing a better opportunity to win the title. In sports, fans usually take to task players that are perceived as being only in it for the money. Now LeBron likely earns so much from off the court endeavors that the few million he walked away from in Cleveland did not play into his decision rationale all that much, but it still sets him apart from probably 90% of professional athletes whose primary objective is to wrest every last dollar from their team. LeBron gets bashed for taking proactive steps in his career management to attempt to improve his chances to win and we kill him.

Remember that Cleveland team that LeBron single-handedly dragged to the finals in 2007? That was the worst team I have ever seen that actually made the finals. LeBron was not going to win in Cleveland. But he played out his contract, did not whine to the press and try to force his way out via a trade, and exercised his right to choose the team that best fit his goals and career aspirations. The same process any of us would do. And that over the top 'Decision' TV show? We usually fail to mention that show raised over $2M for the Boys and Girls Clubs, one of James' favorite charities. Finally our friend Michael Jordan, who we like to compare LeBron with since we know LeBron can't measure up, let's also not forget how he quit his team to pursue an irrational dream of playing major league baseball, only to come back a year later.

3. You're only angry because LeBron didn't win

Much of the heat LeBron is getting is not so much because he and the rest of the Heat bragged, strutted, and pranced around before they had won anything, but because in fact they did not win. We give lots of slack to arrogant winners, not so much to arrogant losers. We look back with reverence about the famous Larry Bird three point contest story, where Bird famously derided his competition prior to the event by telling them they 'were all playing for second place', and then proceeded to win the contest. We can either take shots at arrogance or take shots at talking too much and not backing it up, but it seems a bit hypocritical to have it both ways. In business and in sports, we want our leaders to be confident, to project strength and resolve, we need to have someone to follow into the competition.  Do you really want a person leading your team or your company that doesn't predict victory? If all LeBron ever said was 'We will take one game at a time' and 'We have to continue to work hard', the media would kill him for being a drone or a cliche-spewing dullard..

4. (Hey, I actually thought of another reason) - There are bad guys everywhere.

LeBron is an easy target, in fact he has placed the target right on his back. But the fact that the target is there doesn't mean we need to take shots at it. But professional sports is full of guys of questionable character, that have had run-ins with the law, and a demonstrated history of bad behavior. In fact some of those kinds of guys play for the Dallas team that everyone adopted as some kind of rag-tag, Hoosiers-like plucky band of underdogs, (who were led by Dirk Nowitzki and his $17.2M salary). If you don't believe me, just Google 'Jason Kidd domestic violence' or 'Deshawn Stephenson arrested'. Sure blast LeBron for being arrogant or out-of-touch, but let's not give guys who have done much, much worse things a pass while we are at it.

Well there it is, my 1400-word defense of LBJ. While I am sure I have not convinced most of you, especially the Cleveland fans, I hope that I made you pause just a bit to think about LeBron in a wider context. Let me have it in the comments...

Have a great weekend!