One's Origins

Hi, and no, the title of this post is not a typo but rather an admission that I had not completed my thought in my most recent post.
On January 20, I shared my thoughts on an article in the Economist that discussed the upward swing in happiness post-middle age.  I found this article so fascinating that I was eager to share it along with my reflections as a result of reading it.  In my haste, I realized I omitted something that spoke more to me than any other part.  In this post, I want to share my reflections from that part here.  Below is an excerpt taken from comments made by Laura Carstensen, professor of psychology at Stanford University.
“ ‘But older people know what matters most.’ For instance, she says ‘young people will go to cocktail parties because they might meet somebody who will be useful to them in the future, even though nobody I know likes going to cocktail parties.’ ”
This gave me pause. The implication of this is the idea that people see other people as a utility to them.  I am not naïve. I know this happens and it happens very often.  And I do not assess it as good or bad, it just is.  Yet I was taken aback in the realization that my default setting is not to see people as utility for me, but rather myself as utility for others.
Before I get labeled a martyr wanna-be, let me explain this.  I believe my upbringing has much to do with this.  My father’s attitude toward his work (primarily in the service of others) was always to deliver the best of yourself to the mission at hand.  He once said to me, “When you’re in the service business, you give service.” This is more profound to me than what lies on the surface.  I believe that we all are in service to one another.  I believe the ‘pay it forward’ approach yields remarkable dividends – always has and always will.  My mother, for her part, always demonstrated an approach to meeting new people as simply a joy in its own right.  She never thought or spoke in terms of a person’s use or utility.  For her, human beings are merely a gift to one another for sharing the joys and experiences of life.
The impact on me is the innate inability to see other people as merely tools to advance my own agendas.  This might explain why many of my past pursuits of grandeur (as defined by others) have found themselves on the wrong side of successful.  I figured that I would have to “use” people to get there and I simply was not brought up to think this way.  As I said earlier, this is neither good no bad – it just is – and that’s ok.
In the book “Get Rid of The Performance Review” by Samuel A. Culbert, the author speaks to the relationship of boss-subordinate as one where the boss takes more ownership of his/her responsibilities to the development of the subordinate.  This entails the boss being in service to the subordinate to help them grow in their careers.  Indeed, as I strongly believe that a struggling student could be reflective of teacher or education system that needs evaluation, so too might the struggling employee be a reflection of a manger who, more likely than we are prepared to admit, lacks the faculties to develop the subordinate.  As support for this supposition, who among us is not familiar with the experience (perhaps first hand) of an employee who receives a negative evaluation from one manager, is transferred to another manager, and then shines?
My overall take-away is that so long as all parties commit to reciprocity or an equitable give and take, regardless of position, so many breakdowns can be avoided.
Thanks for reading. Have a Great Day!
Matt G.

This blog is my reflection upon reading an article in the December 18, 2010 Economist magazine.  I give full credit to the Economist and the author(s) and I am not in any position to reap material gain through this post’s publication.  My intent is solely to share the reflections I had as a result of reading the article along with the my beliefs on how we might learn from what is discussed.

Last month, the Economist magazine had a wonderful article about the onset of happiness and a greater sense of well-being as we age.  The article shares a good deal of supporting evidence that suggests that once we reach mid-life (about mid-forties or so), there is an uptick on our over-all sense of well-being following a decline in the couple of decades leading up to that point.  Some regions in the world are going so far as to even define a metric for a collective level of happiness.
This phenomenon has many dimensions and each has its own share of theories as to their existence.  Of all that is presented in the article, I have two favorites.  First there is the belief that as we age we are better equipped to seek happiness from within.  As mortality becomes less and less distant, living in the moment becomes slightly easier if not even more natural.  This is supported by observation and/or study where such patterns exist in regions where life experiences are vastly different; United States and Zimbabwe for example. Also, even when externalities such as money, employment status and children are controlled, this mid-life U-bend, as the article refers to it, is still present. As a result, older people tend to deal with conflict more constructively, manage their emotions better and are less prone to anger and are less likely to pass judgment on people who say negative things about them.  It seems to me that we seem to finally realize that happiness truly is an inside job.
Second, and here is where I have greater pause, there is this notion of a dichotomy between acceptance and ambition – a rise in the former ostensibly yields to a fall in the latter.  As we age and become more aware of our strengths and weakness, we become more accepting of what we will not accomplish despite all our grand ambitions of yesteryear.  I celebrate acceptance. Yet I personally am challenged by the idea that we become less ambitious.  Perhaps, given a greater understanding of self and our own limitations, our ambitions become more congruent with our natural abilities.
There is an old adage that suggests that youth is wasted on the young.  Perhaps there is some truth to this.  It is also said that experience is the best teacher. I have long held that in most circumstances experience is the only teacher.  Nothing teaches us like having made mistakes.  I do believe that wisdom is only begotten through challenging experiences.  The process of aging brings with it the ability and mindset to live more harmoniously amongst one another.  Isn’t that what civilization is all about?

Philadelphia Phillies fans are by now well aware of the city’s early Christmas present – Cliff Lee is back in a Phillies uniform.
I listened to a segment about this on the local news radio station the day after it became official. After listening to his decision-making process, I believe he is an athlete many other athletes could look up to.
Cliff Lee will be paid $120 M over a 5 year period. He was also courted by the New York Yankees for what I inferred from the news story was a greater sum of money. Mr. Lee’s remarks were along the lines of, “well, I wanted to assess the community where my family would live and the money from Philadelphia is plenty for a nice life for my family. At some point you have to realize that enough is enough…”.  He further went on to say that his criteria included being on a team that he thought had the best chance of winning a championship.
I think it is beautiful that we have an athlete in town who recognizes value in other parts of the offer than money alone.  Nowhere in any of this were there negative sentiments towards living in the New York area.  He simply recognized he had a preference and included that into his decision-making process.
I emphatically admire him for this and I look forward to the start of the 2011 season.
Welcome Home Cliff!

I recently had a conversation with a colleague who shared with me his observations pertaining to my conversational style.  As a result of the exchange, I have made a huge leap forward towards greater self-awareness, and for that I am forever grateful.  Below, I share with you both the experience and the learning.
As a backdrop, one of the early classes in my Executive MBA program was titled Powerful Conversations, the tenets of which revolved around an exploratory approach to conversation along with the pursuit of clarity. It is the clarity piece that I shall focus on here.
I have witnessed conversations between two people where something was said and it was apparent to me that the two were not exactly on the same page.  In these instances, I would speak up and point to my perceived misunderstanding between them, thus avoiding potential outcomes that could be disappointing at best.
I tend to be equally pro-active in preventing similar breakdowns in conversations where I am a key participant.  I search for clarity when I converse with people.  I am never comfortable with the later conversation that contains the phrase (or something like it), “…oh, I thought you meant…”.  Rather, I much prefer the preemptive conversation (or something like it), “…ok, you said….,  I understand that to mean ….”.  Moreover, I sometimes repeat myself in conversation on key points when I seek to provide clarity as well.  Until this recent conversation with my colleague, I had not been as aware of the effect this ostensible act of splitting hairs might have on those with whom I interact.  From my perspective, my persistence on clarity is only proportional to my perception of either the consequences if it is later learned that there was a misunderstanding, or the magnitude of ambiguity in what is being said.  For me, pursing clarity is how I show that I am involved in the conversation.
What I have come to realize is that the unintended consequences of my search for clarity is the appearance of criticism.  Rather than guarding myself and the person with whom I am conversing against the undesired outcomes begotten of misunderstanding, I might, more than I realize, come across as being critical of the way someone said something or the words they chose.  For example, I might ask someone to explain what they intended by the words they are using. I then might explain what I interpret – or what could be interpreted – by what they said.  In other instances when I am conveying information, I might repeat myself if I do not get some sort of indication, be it verbal or non-verbal, that what I said was received in the manner with which I intended.  In the first example, I now realize that it might seem that I am being unduly critical of how the person is speaking.  In the second, I realize that I might seem to not trust the other person’s ability to either follow along or be engaged with me in the conversation.  Nothing could be further from the truth than these two misconceptions of my intent, which is and always has been, to avoid ambiguity and show that I am fully in the conversation – two causes I had long thought to be noble.
And here lies the epiphany for me.  We all have varying levels of comfort with ambiguity. I tend to have very little. Others have more. So when I seek clarity, I now understand why others think I am being critical.
I do not intend to acquiesce my quest for clarity.  My new commitment to conversation going forward is to be more aware of the fact that we all balance clarity and ambiguity differently.  And, my development step is to learn new techniques for assuring the clarity I desire while not appearing to be critical.
Thank you for reading. Have a great day!
Matt G.

On November 6, 2009, I purchased a block of shares in Caterpillar (NYSE: CAT) for $57.83 per share.  Simultaneously, I sold the equivalent number of call options with a strike price of $65 and an expiration date of January 21, 2011.  The price I received for each call was $6.89.  As the option I was selling was out of the money to the tune of over $7, I thought this to be a nice price to receive.  So, I basically paid out-of-pocket $50.94 per share for Caterpillar stock selling for nearly $58/share.
Now, those familiar with call options know I was capping my maximum upside. And with this trade, I had room for the the stock to decline by 12% before I realized any loss.  Based on what I had read and what I learned form the research of others, I felt this unlikely.
Caterpillar has vacillated from low to mid 50s up to close to $70 for most of the first three quarters of 2010. In September, sitting at about $65 it began an upward march to the mid 80s.  At the end of November I learn my shorted call options were in fact called so I was obligated to sell my shares at the contracted price of $65 even though the market price was $84.69.  Sounds like a bum deal for me, huh?  Maybe, maybe not.
If I simply bought the shares in November ’09 with out selling the options and sold on November 24, 2010 at $84.69, my return would have been about 46%. NICE!!!  – But wait, no investor with common sense goes into a position anticipating that kind of a return.  If they do they are not an investor, but rather a speculator.  Not my game folks.  In my situation I settled for a measly 29.7% return – which is not too shabby. (Dividends helped too.)  AND, I gave myself a nice cushion allowing for a 12% decline in share price over the same time period before I would lose one nickel.
I am not a professional investor, nor do I claim to possess any exceptional insight into the equities market.  I do however, take a more active role in my investments than many people. For me, this trade was a textbook illustration of how call option writing can produce terrific gains and provide downside insurance.
Thanks for reading. Have a great day!
Matt G.

In early November I placed an order for a sports related article of clothing from a retailer based in the San Francisco area.  The item was $99 and shipping was $6 for a total of $105.  I had a $75 gift certificate which would bring my total to $30.
I received the item along with the invoice indicating $105 paid with no mention of the gift certificate being applied. I called to confirm that it was applied.  The person I spoke with could not confirm one way or the other if it had been applied and agreed with me that it might not have been so he credited my charge card $75.
Last week I received the credit card bill and realized that they had indeed only charged me $30 initially than also issued the $75 credit based on the conversation to which I just referred.   (I am not sure why I did not just check the credit card activity on-line when all this was going on.)
Today, I called them to reconcile and return the $75 back that is due them.  Once I explained everything that happened, the response I received was (after a brief pause), “Well, I guess Merry Christmas!”. Apparently, I am the beneficiary of goodwill as it might have been more trouble than it was worth to try to figure out how to show the returned $75 in their systems.
Whether or not they accepted the $75 back does not change my view that this was the right thing to do.  And, I still can’t help but wonder if I should have just written this in a note and mailed them a check.  I will sleep well knowing I made the attempt to do the right thing nonetheless.  The high road paid off – it always does.
Thanks for reading. Have a great day!
Matt G.

For some time, there has been the notion that a more effective way to achieve buy-in from those impacted by an initiative is to allow them to participate in the development of the initiative.  Mounting research continues to give evidence to this idea.  Moreover, the findings also show that the degree to which the constituents’ ideas are ultimately incorporated into the final solution – in whole or in part – has much less impact on acceptance than merely allowing for the opportunity for those impacted by the outcome to voice their concerns and share their ideas.  Interestingly, every example I have been exposed to, there has never been one instance where at least some of the ideas or thoughts of the constituent body did not wind up in the end solution in some way.  (The short lesson here is valuable contributions come from all corners.  The art is to create the space to allow for these ideas to be forthcoming.)
In what I describe above is primarily thought of in the context of process formulation occurring from above and the underlings, in a corporate environment for example, being expected to fall in line/agreement/compliance, etc.
What I am witnessing in my current assignment – and I have witnessed in the past but was less aware of it – is that the impact of acceptance and buy-in works in the other direction as well.  I am presently involved in working with a non-US based pharmaceutical company in developing analytical decision-making methodologies on which they can rely to determine how to best allocate resources in keeping in line with corporate objectives.
I digress in sharing that as a career consultant, I am all too familiar with the adages around  the money spent on consultants to produce a report that no one ever uses and many might even object to – even those that hired the consultants.   The metaphorical 300 page doorstop comes to mind.
However, what I am witnessing is a greater degree of acceptance from those in higher ranks when two things are in place. First, they have to recognize the value in the effort. Second, and no less important, is that they too must be drawn into the development process.  To better describe what I am pointing to, I recently heard comments about a report produced by a consultancy that was perceived by the client as extremely underwhelming.  In this case, the consultants came in, interviewed some key people, left to put together their findings and suggestions then submitted their work product (along with the invoice of course).  While this is certainly a simplified version of the process, it underscores the lack of on ongoing engagement between client and consultant.
My more recent experiences demonstrated to me the power of upward involvement in solution acceptance.  The small consultancy with which I am contracted has, in my opinion, put this very idea into practice.  True story, we were in an information gathering session with the CEO and a few of his direct reports with a slide on the screen that was nothing more than boxes with terms and phrases that they provided.  There was nothing fancy or even symmetrical about it whatsoever.  At one point, the CEO with one arm across his chest and the other in support of his chin as if in deep thought says, “I like this slide – it’s a working slide”.  It is this kind of upward inclusion that I truly feel provides much greater chance for acceptance and implementation of the the final work product.  It is certain to be more valuable than a doorstop. And I am also certain that we will come in far under 300 pages. (Who actually reads those huge reports anyway?)
In closing, I wish to clarify that I assume no credit in the creation or appearance of such a success.  I am only grateful to have the remarkable opportunity to be a part of this process and share with you the lesson I learned from it.
Thanks for reading and have a great day!
Matt G.

There are countless articles and videos posted describing the overt differences between AT&T’s and Verizon’s approach to offering 3G access on the iPad when away from a WiFi hotspot.  This blog post focuses on the difference from the perspective of the customer experience.  The price plans for data, which while not identical, are comparable in my opinion and not a big differentiator. Also, the price points for each of the 16, 32, and 64 GB models are the same.
First, AT&T’s 3G capabilities are built into the unit and the payment model is prepaid.  That means you only pay for the months that you want to access their 3G network.  In months that you do not want 3G access, you pay nothing. There are no consequences for not using it for consecutive months nor are there fees associated with turning it back on after months of non-use.
Next, we have Verizon.  They offer iPad internet access through their network via a separate MiFi device (included in the bundled package) which is essentially a mobile hotspot.  This separate unit is about half the size of a deck of cards and receives data from Verizon’s network and provides access for up to five computers (one of them is ostensibly your iPad, but it doesn’t have to be).  This is a plus for the Verizon approach since AT&T’s 3G access is available only to the iPad with which it is integrated.
The “rub”, as I see it, is that while not bound by a contract with Verizon, you do sign up for a month to month arrangement similar to when your phone comes off contract after the obligatory one or two years.  You still pay your bill monthly for the number/service remaining active and in use (even if you don’t use it).  You can stop the MiFi sevice whenever you want. But, you will either be charged a suspension fee (barely less than the fee you pay to be active) or if you opt to not pay at all because you anticipate not using the service for a couple months you will incur a reactivation charge when you want to begin the service again.  In short, think of it as a no-contract month-to-month phone.
Additionally,  with the AT&T model, turning the service on for the months you want it is all controlled by the user right on the iPad.  If you do opt to stop Verizon’s service for months of anticipated non-need, and then start it up again, you have to call them on the phone.  It basically becomes less hassle to just pay Verizon every month even if you don’t use it.  This might come as a surprise to some people contemplating the two options as it did for me.
This is the biggest difference I see between the two approaches. AT&T’s 3G model is a pure pre-pay.  Pay for the months you plan to use their network , don’t pay when you don’t. Verizon’s model puts you on a plan that requires you to pay every month whether you use it or not, though you are not locked into a one or two year contract.  The up side is that you can use Verizon’s MiFi unit for up to five computers. (Oh, and Verizon’s network does not work in Europe.)
I hope this is helpful for some people in providing a better picture of the “customer experience” between the two options.  None of this was found in anything I read in trying to educate myself on the differences before deciding on a purchase.  I learned this after actually making purchases of both. (Thank goodness for return policies that aren’t too punishing.)
That all said, this experience has led me to proclaim myself a poster child for Barry Schwartz’s research behind his book The Paradox of Choice. Dr.  Schwartz’s thesis argues that too much choice is near toxic for consumers’ psyche and mental health.  This topic alone warrants a discussion all its own.  If so inclined, CLICK HERE to view Dr. Schwartz’s presentation on TED.
In closing, this entire dilemma completely goes away if you opt for WiFi only model and thus eliminating the need to make a decision on 3G platform.  If you’re wondering, I still haven’t decided on which is more appealing to me.  But wait, the next generation iPad will yet again have new bells and whistles. Oh, the agony of choice….
Thanks for reading.  Have a great day!
Matt

Since its debut in 2007, 22 million iPhones on the AT&T network have been sold. If the anticipated release of the iPhone from Verizon comes to fruition in early 2011 as most expect, between 8 and 9 million units are expected to be sold according to Fortune Magazine.
The reason this is being hailed as the Second Coming is mostly due to the pounding AT&T took when their network was brought to  its knees when the iPhone was first launched.  Ironically, those that complained the most (the heaviest iPhone users) were part of the problem. Before you shout at me, I realize AT&T could have been better prepared.  Nonetheless, I believe it’s naive to think that Verizon’s network won’t experience strain when the iPhone becomes available through them based on the expect volume.  Verizon networks already support the Droid and according to Fortune Magazine, the average Droid user consumes more data than the average iPhone user. (There are, however, vastly fewer Droid users than iPhone users according to Fortune.)
My point is that I don’t believe that Verizon iPhone users are going to be absolutely void of similar network issues in the beginning.  I might be wrong, but if the betting tables were open, I’d sit this one out.  Once we get some equilibrium, I expect coverage and network issues will evolve into a non-differentiator between the two carriers.
CLICK HERE for the Fortune Magazine article to learn more on the evolution of the relationship between Apple and Verizon
Thanks for reading. Have a great day!
Matt
(Disclosure: Author has iPhone 4 on AT&T network and has been an AT&T customer for over ten years.)

This may be bit of a profound if not an outrageous suggestion in the title in this blog post.  The notion is the phenomena known as servant leadership.  I first heard of this several years ago at a previous employer.  Part of the review process for mangers was the idea of “leaders who serve”.  While I certainly agreed with the concept, I did not fully appreciate how much ahead-of-the-times this thinking was.  Nowadays, servant leadership is becoming used more and more.  In short, it espouses the necessity for leaders and others in a position over groups or organizations have an obligation to support those that report to them.  Without this support, the team or organization will in most cases not realize long term sustainable success.  This post presents two very real examples from my experiences of how it works.
I completed the Executive MBA program at Villanova University from August 2005 through May 2007.  Of the many things I learned (and I learned a lot!) much of it was not listed anywhere in the program literature or curriculum. Nor would it be found in any of the syllabi.  This blog post focuses on one particular phenomenon that I plan to put into practice as often as possible.  As a backdrop, I will highlight that this program provided much opportunity for team based assignments. To support this, each class is grouped into ‘learning cells’ of between four and seven students.  I digress in saying that I believe this team structure is in line with our social make-up as gregarious creatures.  I also feel it better represents real life experiences both in and outside the business environment.
During our first module (otherwise thought of as a semester) we had an Economics course. The final assignment was not a pencil and paper exam (thank goodness). Rather, each group was tasked with presenting the class and professor a demonstration supporting what had been learned during the module.  Our learning cell decided to do a skit based on the hit TV show, American Idol.  I won’t go into great detail other than we basically had two people volunteer to lend their vocal talent (I use the word ‘talent’ quite loosely here) and the other three in our group served as the panel complete with our own Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul, and Ryan Seacrest.  Incidentally, if you’re wondering I was one of the performers and I’ll stop there…
The outcome of this presentation was a spectacular success by two notable measures. First, we were one of the few – and perhaps the first group – to receive a standing ovation (for creativity and guts rather than for the singing I am certain).  Second, the professor said he would email each group’s grades to each respective group member along with his thoughts and/or a brief explanation.  The members of our learning cell received the following in a short email, “Grade A – No explanation necessary”.
During our fifth and last module (the composition of the learning cells were shuffled a bit) we were assigned a similar team task for a Business Ethics course.  We were to provide a presentation demonstrating our learning from the course.  Our learning cell chose to perform a skit modeled after the dramatic courtroom scene in the movie A Few Good Men with Tom Cruise, Demi Moore and Jack Nicholson.  Again, we had another resounding success with high accolades from all three professors who sat in observation of the presentations.
I, along with all the learning cells with which I participated (and I highly suspect about everyone else in the class) had many other success experiences in the program.  For me, the two I described above were among the most notable. The shared attribute of both of them was that there was never any one single person in charge as we might commonly think of what it means to be “in charge”.  We had of course, as with all team assignments, elected one person to be the “in charge” person of record.  The distinction here is that this role was merely a formality.  We all approached the tasks as equals and the so-called “in charge” person was just as much a servant to the benefit of the group as were all other team members.  If anyone outside the group were to observe us in action as we prepared for the delivery of these presentations, they would likely have had no idea who was “in-charge”.
It is so meaningful for me to share these experiential observations with you as I deeply believe that maintaining perspective is so important when each of us is given the role of being “in charge”.  The importance of the “in charge” person to the success of the team is no more or less than that of the other team members.  “In Charge” should more aptly be thought of as “In Service”.
Thanks for reading. Have a great day!
Matt