Think logically!

Some while ago, I reflected upon mantras and sayings, which often more or less accurately represent people's schools of thought. Not quite as severe, yet annoying at times, are platitudes. They tend to be not so deeply burned into our minds as mantras, but nevertheless sometimes their shortsightedness is striking.

One of the platitudes which made it to the olymp of particularly stupid platitudes is: Think logically!
What I find surprising about this statement is NOT that typically it is plainly wrong in the strictest meaning of the word logically. What I find surprising instead is that it reveals an extremely widespread misconception about how knowledge is obtained and applied. Let me elaborate.

While this statement has merit in certain situations (e.g., in a course on, guess what, logic), most frequently it is simply misused. A few examples:

• When boiling noodles, do you put the salt into the water before it starts boiling or afterwards? Think logically!
• How do you hang that picture? Think logically!
• How do you calculate the area of a circle? Think logically!

Again, what I find irritating here is NOT the misusage of the word "logical" in the strictest meaning of the word. More than not, what the speaker really means is: "Apply your knowledge about the principles of our world onto that particular matter.". But even then, this statement does not make sense at all!

Most likely, asking that respective question about doing something does not only show a lack of understanding of the matter per se, but also about which questions to ask in order to come up with a solution.

Someone who already knows how to boil noodles might ask back further on: Think logically, how do water and salt react with each other (in chemical terms)? How will you level the picture after you hung it? Just look at that circle, how many square-units does it consist of?

All of these questions make perfect sense - in hindsight. Just as like the correct questions that lead to the ultimate answer to the initial question could be: What is the seeding point of noodles? Which material is picture made of? What is the square root of 2?

Obviously, none of these questions make sense in the context at hand. Yet, there is no way the initially asking person can possible know this; otherwise he would not ask at all!
Learning something is not only about the respective application, but also learning which questions to ask during application. 

Telling somebody to "think logically" gives him the impression of failing to realize something obvious. But the contrary is true - telling somebody to "think logically" reveals failure to realize how you yourself obtained that knowledge! 

Think logically! Remove that platitude out of your dictionary - your kids, classmates and colleagues will thank you for your nonviolent communication.

The Power Of Eating Alone - In Silence

Many people make big mental efforts during the morning shower. Not only do they make their daily schedule, but they also mentally prepare for meetings and make important decisions.
This doesn't come as a surprise, because for many people, the morning shower is one of the rare moments when they are truly with themselves and simply let their thoughts flow.

Afterwards, for the annoying morning commute, you either sleep (which, apart from drawing certain conclusions while dreaming, cannot quite be considered a very active activity) or you are exposed to some form of stimulation. Stupid morning shows on radio; plug in your headphones and your favorite band, on full volume of course; or if you are really motivated, read a book. That way or the other, you are not with yourself and your thoughts - and won't be during the whole day anymore.

Thus, let me ask you something: When was the last time you ate alone, at home and in true silence? That means no radio. No TV show. No computer. And of course, also not texting, reading, whatsoever at your ubiquitious pocket-computer.

Obviously, it is great to go for lunch with your family, have a barbecue with your friends, or a candlelight-dinner with your significant other. There are even books which recommend to never eat alone. Obviously, there is much to gain from such talks and events.

In fact, there was also a time I totally avoided eating alone. When I served national service at the Red Cross, I didn't feel very good mentally. In such moments, eating alone was quite counter-productive, because it triggered even more depressing and negative thoughts - I do totally recommend seeking for company in such occasions, and even the TV might make good company at times.

Most of the time, however, your subconscious is your biggest, unique treasure. You just need to open a door, instead of trying to constantly kill it with audio and video stimulations, in order to "let it out".

A perfect way of doing so is eating alone - in silence! Sounds ridiculous and / or boring? Give it a try, it comes for free and won't hurt!

A Typical Day ... In The Life Of An IT Project Leader

When talking with friends and relatives, a question that I'm asked quite frequently is "... and what exactly do you do at your job?". Answering that somebody decided to give my current job the title "IT project leader" wouldn't help too much.
First, because the majority of people don't work in IT and consequently don't have a clear picture about daily business.
Second, because I've come to realize that even within the IT industry there is a huge variety of possible "project leader" responsibilities and tasks.
And third, as you might know, job titles don't mean too much anyways.

Thus, I've decided to describe what a typical day in my current job looks like.

Background

Some background information first: I'm currently working on a project in a Bosnian-Herzegovinian administration. The project is funded by the European Union and the main goal is to bring the country closer to EU standards in the field of VAT and customs legislation and procedures, and with regard to the IT systems used. I'm in charge of the IT part of that project.

So, my small team and I normally start working at 8.30. We are not particularly strict on the working hours, however we do not allow flexitime nor tele-working. I'm strongly convinced that there is no replacement for sitting next to each other and discussing face-to-face.

Mondays ...

On Mondays, we get the week started with a short review of the previous week's achievements, problems encountered, and questions arisen. We also discuss this week's main tasks, technical questions and make key decisions together.
Among other reasons, I think this is an important team building measure, helps to develop common knowledge, and represents a platform to encourage team members to share what they are proud of and improve their communication skills.
Apart from that, we call for a meeting spontaneously at need or simply discuss informally with each other anytime.

Source: actupinc.com

Daily Business

On other days, I might have meetings with representatives of the local administration. We talk about their exact requirements for certain IT programs we are about to develop, testing and training for these programs, knowledge transfer to local employees, hardware issues and administrative stuff.
Unfortunately, my local language skills are still far from sufficient to discuss important matters, so half of the time is lost in translation.

Depending on which stage we are in one of our sub-projects, I would typically spend some time on planning activities then. Which additional information do we need to make the next steps? Whom do I get this information from? Which technology should we use for that project? What should that program look like? How busy are my colleagues at the moment, and which of these planning or pre-development tasks should I delegate to them? Which sub-tasks should be done for that project, how are they related, and until when should they be done? On which hardware infrastructure will we install that system, and whom do we need for that? When are the meeting rooms for testing available, and whom should we invite to it?

A scrum board, similar to the one used by us. Source: nicoulaj.github.com

As we are that small a team, I do some programming too. Sometimes, that comes as a nice alternation to all these meetings and planning stuff, which are not always particularly amusing. Furthermore, it helps me to better understand what's going on beneath the surface of our programs.

Every now and then, I grab a chair and sit with members of my team directly to check their progress or problems encountered. Even though I try to avoid micro-managing as much as possible and sit with them only when they call me, I sometimes take the freedom and check spontaneously when I feel that circumstances demand it. For example, when we agreed that a certain user interface form should be provided within two days, and I haven't heard anything from him for four days.
Again, I want to give them the possibility to show what they are proud of, and establish and maintain trust between each other. In case somebody is stuck somewhere, I like to ask such basic questions until they have broken the problem to such small chunks that the solution comes inevitably to them (that is, I take the role of a rubber duck).

Since I'm responsible for the products that we deliver, I also test the software before any of our clients sees it. This is the moment when all the various parts that my colleagues worked on are connected, and potential design or usability issues show. Sometimes I have to turn colleagues down on their proposals, because they would not be do-able in reasonable time, or would not make sense to the final users, even though they might be nice from a technicians point of view.
Part of my job prior to delivering a product is to write guidelines and handbooks for the users. Not very entertaining, but necessary.

Challenges

However, there are also some challenges that are out of our control. For example, sometimes expectations from the EU and the beneficiary are not quite in line with each other; we act as an intermediary between them and have to find some solution.

A huge obstacle for progress in Bosnia-Herzegovina as a whole is politics. No government for quite a while, no key-decisions made, budgetary problems, ... These impediments have a negative impact on our work, too, because by the end of the day, whatever we do and provide is subject to legal boundaries.

Personally, I strongly believe in all my colleagues' intrinsic motivation, and do everything I can to remove all potential barriers, in order to enable them to do their best job.

Working Environment

Our working environment is a little bit suboptimal. Our chairs might have been acceptable some 15 years ago, but are definitely not any more now; in our office, there is no real window to the outside world, and for weeks we have been suffering in the heat, because the one and only guy who would know how to fix the air condition is on vacation.

Well, at least our office is not in the basement. Source: notesondigital.com

Once a quarter, I meet with representatives of the European Delegation and assistance directors of the local administration to discuss the overall progress of our project and obstacles encountered. Quality of and participation at these meetings varies.

Fridays ...

By the end of the week, I have to provide a report for the European Delegation in Sarajevo, which monitors the progress of our project against certain performance indicators.

Conclusion

For the non IT guys among you, I hope that I managed to create a rough picture of my work. For the IT guys, I hope that I made you smile at least once or twice when recognizing certain things from your workaday life ;-).

Generally speaking, it seems to me that most people (including me) have no clue what most other people are actually doing in their job. Some "typical days" I already found on the web include:

• A cashier at a car wash in Chicago
• A Personal Support Worker (PSW) in Ontario
• A marine biologist in Brazil

Still, more "typical days" would be totally interesting - so why not share yours in the comments below?

Theory X vs. Theory Y, or How to Motivate Children

"How can I motivate others?", is pretty frequently asked a question (Google hit count: 27.4m).

I guess what contributes to this question's importance is that it is really quite helpful, in several phases and situations in life. Be it your colleagues at work, be it your team-mates in the local football club after a not-so-promising first-half, or be it your or other's children or students who you want to learn something (say, because you recently turned a teacher) - it always comes down to motivation.

Probably the most popular theory about motivation is Maslow's hierarchy of needs, essentially stating that only once some basic needs are fulfilled, a human can seek for the ones on the next level. Heavily influenced by Maslow's famous paper from 1943, psychologists and managers alike started investigating the implications for managers, and how they can contribute to employee motivation.

Therefore, the MIT professor Douglas McGregor came up with his model of a contrasting Theory X and Theory Y, both of them about different points of view about what motivates employees.

Basically, Theory X builds on the assumption that employees in principle are lazy and unwilling to work. Consequently, their extrinsic motivation needs to be addressed. They will only work because of the outlook of their next check, otherwise lay down their tools and do nothing.
Unfortunately, it was found that an environment in which this theory is followed is far from allowing long-term happiness and an absolute killer for creativity. That approach was, and is still, used by all the real Michael Scotts (The Office US) and Strombergs out there. It is particularly prevalent in government organizations and huge enterprises.

On the contrary, Theory Y assumes that people do have the will to engage in something useful, inspiring, challenging ... something where they can fulfill their intrinsic needs. Thus, the main task for managers is to provide a framework in which it is possible for their employees to develop themselves and contribute something useful.
How different an idea is that? Employees and colleagues are no longer some kind of machines which just need to be fed, but something more, much more exciting and looking for something far beyond!
Even though that theory was develop in the 60's already, I find it astonishing how seldom it is still known, and even less being used.

However, I cannot stop wondering do which extend Theory Y applies at all.
I tend to accept what I understand from Theory Y, that people and employees are strongly self-motivated and that the major concern of management should be to remove all barriers of self-motivation. In the end, everybody is looking for fulfillment.

Apparently not so in Bosnia, though. My impression is that people are taking their job just as a means of monthly income, and nothing more. That impression was also confirmed by several of them when I raised that question in some discussions. It was also confirmed that it is true for people in many other eastern, former-communist countries where the major attitude towards work was just to be present and let the time pass by.

I pointed that out to Jurgen Appelo, author of the bestseller Management 3.0, who also wrote about that topic and replied that (text quoted with permission) ...

I believe that the same intrinsic desires (competence, status, power, freedom,
etc.) apply to all people in all cultures (with small differences).
However, some people don't seek to satisfy such desires in their jobs. That
doesn't mean that they don't want to.
It's just that they never learned that it's possible. Some people have never
experienced a fantastic job.
So yes, I believe Theory Y is better than Theory X.
However, if people don't take the trouble of finding a fantastic job, then
Theory X still applies to them. :)

As much as I'm inclined to accept that point of view, I find it rather depressing. Probably the country has more urgent issues that need to be solved first. However, I do sense quite a potential here, and I think that once people would start adopting a more positive attitude, some things might just start running easier and smoother.

So, how does that connect to children?

Well, I think both Theory X and Y might be applied to their way of developing and learning as well. Again, I remember from my school time that by most teachers Theory X was followed. Students don't want to learn, they are lazy, and the only way of getting them on the right path is by threatening them with bad marks.

As I heard recently, though, there are also other models like democratic education or Waldorf education, both of which assuming that children love to learn and grow, as long as their environment allows them to do so.

I was very surprised to find that, right around the corner where I lived for several years in Vienna, such an institution is found as well. One of my recent Couchsurfing visitors works as a teacher in a basic democratic school in Germany. Being asked about children whom her job is most challenging with, she replied without any hesitation: "Those that are not used to this approach. Those whose parents tell them they trust and empower them, but don't really live this by example".

Sometimes, lessons learned from the work with and from children are the most valuable ones. I think this is such a case.

Naturally, employees will not start growing and inventing like crazy once they are empowered to do by a modern, Theory Y manager, after being tortured by Theory X ones for several years. This change takes time, but it is definitely worth it. Your company and your colleagues will know to value it.

You Misunderstood Me!

“An order that can be misunderstood will be misunderstood.”

  - Napoleon Bonaparte

Do yourself a favour and completely remove "You misunderstood me" from your dictionary. Whenever you are still tempted to use it, say "I'm sorry, maybe I expressed myself a little bit confusing, and what I actually meant was ...". (At least remove it from your active vocabulary; for 'backward compatibility', as we nerds like to say, it's o.k. to keep it in your passive vocabulary.)

If you bought the above core message already, no need to continue reading, we're done for today. There is not much more to come, since I'm really fundamentally and unconditionally convinced about the above said and the essentials are in that small change in mindset. However, if you are interested ...

As indicated above and some of you might know already, I'm currently working in IT, an industry not particularly well known for the outstanding social skills of it's representatives. Even though you should take series like The IT Crowd and Big Bang Theory with a grain of salt, a huge portion of funny insights into reality can't be denied. Talking about nerds, even though misunderstandings are something completely normal and can happen whenever humans communicate with each other, I sense that the combination of rather low social skills and a big of self-esteem due to great wisdom in their domain are an extremely fruity ground for misunderstandings.

However, I'm really convinced that raising at least a little awareness about the principles of communication would simplify and improve so many things, both at work and in private life.

The sender-message-channel-receiver model from David Berlo dates back to the 1960's, and many of the recent findings in the field of communication can be attributed to Schulz von Thun (mainly known for his Four sides model, which goes beyond the scope of this post).

According to Wikipedia, communication 

...is usually described along a few major dimensions: Message (what type of things are communicated), source / emisor / sender / encoder (by whom), form (in which form), channel (through which medium), destination / receiver / target / decoder (to whom), and Receiver.

Since the target 'decodes' the message, this is actually the only part of the entire transmission of information that really matters. It simply does not matter what the sender had originally said, if it was not clear and precise enough. I think that's also what the little Frenchman from the quote at the beginning wanted to tell us. It does not matter what one says, as long as there is any possibility for it to be misunderstood! (Apart from that, am I the only one wondering about the similarity to Murphy's law?)

Consequently, it is your obligation as sender (i.e., the one saying something) to make sure your message can be understood as well. Trust me and develop trust into the people around you, they generally are willing and doing their best to understand you. If they did not, it's your fault (and if you misunderstand this, it's mine). If you are not certain what your communication partner understood, just ask her to repeat in her own words.

"So I did not misunderstand you either, just YOU said something confusing!"

Now as you are enlightened and you are correctly accepting your responsibility as sender, you might be tempted to completely refuse all responsibility as a receiver. After all, that's the bottom line of what I described above, right?

As so often, the story goes on ... and another issue enters the stage: respect. As you are enlightened now and your colleagues probably are not, I suggest being generous and taking all the blame on your side ("Sorry, I think I misunderstood you, could you please explain it again?"). That's not a sign of weakness, but a sign of strength and willingness to successful communication.

I know it takes a while to adopt that approach, but once you are into it, it will just feel natural. Once you are aware of hit, you might feel like hit by a lightning whenever you hear somebody saying the evil "you misunder...".

Just that we understand each other, how about some Dilbert?