The New Yeoman

Thoughts on Making a Living

Page 4 of 6

Deep Work and Self Education

In his new book, Deep Work, author Cal Newport goes in to detail about why the ability to focus on work that requires deep thought and multiple levels of inquiry has become a competitive edge. No doubt, this type of work has always been relatively rare. However, it is more so these days due to the much discussed proliferation of technologies that nip at your attention like a pack of hyenas trying to pick off the weak in the wildebeest herd. Sadly, in our world, the attention-hyenas have grown fat and don’t even have to give chase. We sit in our chairs and wait for them every morning.

I think Newport’s thesis is correct. The ability, not the time, is actually what is missing. Lots of people say that they just don’t have the time to set aside and think deeply on things that are important to them. However, I don’t need to quote specifics –about the billions who use social media all day long or the people who respond to emails in seconds like it is some lab experiment to grab pellets when the bell rings– to make the point that we are not using the time wisely. (yes, I see the irony in this article… get back to work 😉

Because we have been doing this now for one or two decades, many of us have lost our ability to do the deep work even when we have the time. Stare at a blank document or project plan for twenty minutes, meet the first obstacle, and freeze. Send an email to Fred to see if he got that new data. Text Mary for an update on how the meeting went. Read our “professional” newsfeed for the fourth time this morning, etc. We are all talking about talking about talking. We’re just doing it on new and different platforms.

The ability to think deeply and present new ideas on how to tackle problems is now the rarest of things. I often see this in the board room. The conversation flies around, but nothing is tackled in depth. No one brings deep critical thinking to the table. Every one just brings the latest data, report or presentation. None of it sticks to the walls and becomes deep conversation.

I agree with Newport on career development too. If a person wants to make themselves valuable to themselves or to an organization, they need to develop the ability to go into a quiet room, think deeply on an issue, and come out with either a new option on the issue or deep analysis of which known options are better and actionable. Either output is far more valuable than anyone else is likely to bring to the table.

When one ties this ability with the other rarity of the modern world which is the ability to self-educate, a person will have a formidable set of skills. In fact, I’ll go further. Teaching yourself to A) work deeply and B) self educate is the whole education that most should be seeking. If one develops the discipline and skill to work deeply on any topic and develops the skills to educate themselves with the near-universal amount of knowledge available today, there is no need to predict what comes next. One with these two capabilities doesn’t care. They can analyze any market, make deeply considered choices, and educate themselves to tackle what they choose. If they are wrong, they can start again. They are not one-trick ponies. In other words, strive to be adaptable, not prescient.

Finally, I think this is New Yeoman territory too. Any trade is susceptable to improvement in these skills. Don’t waste time in the truck on Facebook before the next customer call. Read the trade journal and come up with new ideas for your customer. Consider how your invoices and receipts may help you convert more sales. Develop that nagging idea you’ve had for a new specialized tool. Think deeply, turn it into digestable chunks of work and take action.

Slavery

Charles Bukowski via Brain Pickings,
In a letter to a friend that encouraged him to pursue his art, “You know my old saying,”

“Slavery was never abolished, it was only extended to include all the colors.”

IMHO, it is not just artists that this applies to. It applies to everyone who would rather work for themselves rather than toil for someone else for a wage that erodes in one form or another over time. It is certainly right for many, but I truly believe that a lot more people are employed than should be. A size-able chunk of the employed workforce owe it to themselves to become self-employed and do greater (or just happier) things to put food on the table.

In another letter via Jay Dougherty, Bukowski writes,

“I have one of two choices–stay in the postoffice and go crazy…or stay out here and play at writer and starve. I have decided to starve.”

That was Bukowski at age 49. It took him a long time to stop working for someone else and start doing what he was meant to do. It is never too late.

Another Reason to Choose Your University Carefully

Clear and spectacular answers to questions about which university to attend are hard to find. However, a recent study published in Contemporary Economic Policy by academics Eric R. Eide, Michael J. Hilmer, and Mark H. Showalter has done just that when speaking about financial returns on STEM degrees. In an article in The Wall Street Journal they state,

What we found startled us. For STEM-related majors, average earnings don’t vary much among the college categories. For example, we find no statistically significant differences in average earnings for science majors between selective schools and either midtier or less-selective schools. Likewise, there’s no significant earnings difference between engineering graduates from selective and less-selective colleges, and only a marginally significant difference between selective and midtier colleges.

This is huge for two reasons:

  1. If a person is going to major in a STEM discipline, his local state school may be just as good as Stanford or Harvard, if financial return is the most important issue to them. So, unless the person is killing it in school, has a perfect SAT, and/or is a recognized genius (and in that case, they are probably going heavily subsidized anyway), why should they spend the price differential between Vanderbilt and the University of Tennessee?
  2. It is a great way to get a kid to wake up if they are looking to do a humanities or business degree at a less than stellar institution. If they are not doing very well in those disciplines and cannot get into and elite school, then the financial math is hard to justify.

This is really good information for those about to spend or borrow an enormous amount of money to go to an elite school to study a STEM discipline. Expect the push-back from the elite universities to be fierce and quick.

College Alternatives Are Gaining Acceptance

When CNBC starts taking non-college education seriously and discussing the options with its largely upper middle class readership, you know an idea is gaining traction.

Significantly, the biggest con mentioned is stigma over getting a trade qualification. It is a sad, but true, state of affairs. However, it is also a stigma in not finding a job and holding a large debt burden from going to university when one would have been better suited to a trade.

The New Yeoman’s advice is follow your interests. Get an education in that field, but it does not have to involve a university education and the ridiculous cost served up at many universities. As a great mentor said to me once, “There is always room for another good anything.”

Why Do We Have Increasing Income Inequality?

It is an issue that is all over the news, Increasing Income Inequality or I3. (I just made that I3 up). Normally, it is expressed in terms of the top 1% own 136% of everything or some other statistic like one CEO makes more than the rest of the world combined. It is obviously an issue that so many feel hard done to, but the prescription normally involves a “living wage” or caps on what some can earn or taxing income above certain amounts at confiscatory levels. That’s just pie-fighting. I wish we had more pie makers, especially those who really love to make and eat pie.

Political viewpoints normally determine where one stands on these issues. The Right want free enterprise, but the Left want social justice. However, I would like to frame this issue more in the New Yeoman point of view. What if you got social justice through free enterprise? Who from the Right would want to discourage self-employment? Who on the Left would want to discourage the individual to stand for themselves?

Unfortunately, some would. The corporatists (modern day mercantilists) and the government-firsters are in agreement here. Keep ’em under the thumb, so they are easier to manage. “You don’t have a W-2 slip? What are you a weirdo? Are you evading taxes? No, you cannot get a loan.” (There’s a great book on this topic entitled “The Future and Its Enemies” by Virginia Postrel)

What we have is far too many people who have listened to the decades of “good” advice to “get a good job.” In simple economics, the supply exceeds the demand. What happens when the employee demand exceeds the supply? All other things being the same, wages will go up and I3 will reverse. I can hear the howls of indignation already! “Koch stooge! Hippie! Unfettered Capitalist!” But hear me out.

Yes, I know everyone is not cut out to be self-employed, but that is not what I am talking about. All that is needed is for the most capable to become self-employed. The number needed to hit the exit from employed life would need to be relatively few. The meme of “The War for Talent” should be an indicator that it is a pretty fine balance already and wouldn’t take much to upset it. Remove a few of the best qualified and voila you have a labor shortage. Both in number and productivity. This can be seen in the hi tech fields already. Many coders have taken the leap to self-employment. That shortage means that the ones who are still happy to be employed reap higher wages and benefits too.

Roughly speaking, all other things being the same, each 1 million employees that became self-employed would drop the current unemployment rate by approximately ⅔ of a percentage point. [Source: USA’s BLS statistics for December 2015.] And that is from a employed work force of nearly 150 million. Surely, we have 1 or 2 million people who would prefer to run their own shop rather than work for Mr. Blatherhard?

The problem is that we as a society have reduced the respect we give to the self-employed. To own one’s business of any type should be held in high regard by everyone. It means that, compared to employees, one has taken more risk and shown more willingness to make it on their own. Yes, I know “no one makes it on their own,” but that is true of everyone, so for those that do become self-employed, still, they are different. And it is not only good for them; it is good for those that do remain employees.

So, how do we get a few million of the employees to remove themselves from the “employed” force? First, we need to set it as a goal for people by holding those who do so in high regard. Parents, teachers, counselors,  I’m looking at you. The employed world you knew is not the one your children are entering. They need more than, “get into the best school you can” and then, “get a job at a blue-chip company.” Second, the thing that stops many is the idea of the bureaucratic hassle of setting up a business, so we should make creating a business so easy that anyone could do it in under an hour. Surely, that should be a goal of government, no?

That’s it. Something that is socially respected and easy to set-up. It is New Kind of Science in its simplicity, but I believe those are the ideas that work best over large populations and time, because they are clear and repeatable. All that is left is excitement and hard work.

Let the New Yeomen take over from there!

 

General Mattis on Professional Reading

I’m not sure how I missed this conversation about an email sent by General James Mattis, Retired, USMC in 2003 to his subordinates, but I did. The money paragraph:

Thanks to my reading, I have never been caught flat-footed by any situation, never at a loss for
how any problem has been addressed (successfully or unsuccessfully) before. It doesn’t give
me all the answers, but it lights what is often a dark path ahead.

I think this is very important and it applies to other professions as well. The military professional obviously has more to lose from an ignorant (in the “not knowing” sense) leader. However, an artisan, electrician, or designer or any other New Yeoman has much to lose as well by not keeping up to date with their profession. Just as importantly, knowing the history of the trade or profession shows professional competence, both inside the trade and to one’s customers.

The emergence of this email apparently created a stir amongst the academics who study war (full disclosure; I am an academic historian as well as a business owner), but they tend to ignore the fact that Mattis was writing to another practitioner about other practitioners. [Ahem. Pardon me while I shoot this guy whilst you get your dataset and independent variable situated.] I think independent business owners are much the same, they are running businesses and know how to filter on the run. The fact that one read  and / or recommended something does not mean that all of its ideas and premises were accepted without reservation.

As Mark Twain said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” Any New Yeoman that wants to succeed on his own must develop a sense of their industry’s past and have a view on its future. Not only does it make the New Yeoman more confident and resilient, but it is a more satisfying life that helps one feel that they are not just being tossed about on the ocean. With professional reading, you give yourself a compass, a rudder, oars, and the knowledge of how to make a mast and a sail.

Let’s face it. No one in this rat race has time to read, but the best of their respective trades or professions make time to read.

 

Formal Versus Informal Job Market

Michael Ellsberg makes some excellent points about the “Formal” versus the “Informal” job market and the cost of each. One requires an enormous amount of money and the other requires you take responsibility for yourself.

The informal job market comprises all jobs that are not filled through someone responding to a job advertisement.

In this article on Tim Ferriss’ website (Highly Recommended and his podcasts too), Ellsberg explains how to go about tackling the informal job market and how to make one’s way in the world without following the herd, especially when following the herd will cost you a fortune and still land you in a crappy formal job market. The key for this and all other types of advice is to understand that it rests with you to do the work. The reason that  university, then applications, then job at a big corporation is so alluring to many is that it requires so little thinking and so little real effort. Does it take a lot of time and manual effort to perfect your resume, network your LinkedIn profile, and upload applications to what Keva Dine calls Deep Space Mining? Sure, but it is largely senseless and mind numbing work.

What Ellsberg so clearly lays out is how to decide what it is you want to do, how to develop your skills, how to display your skills, and how to sell your skills. Readers of this blog will recognize some of this from the Seth Godin post a week or so ago.

Well worth a read.

Udacity’s Nanodegree Plus is a Game Changer

A guaranteed job or your money back? What’s to lose for a young person? Take a gap year. Travel and study for your Nanodegree at the same time. Come back to a job. If it doesn’t turn into a job, get your money back ($299 per month), and  join the rest of the drones going to “the best school they can get into.” I’m sure that you’ll really impress that academic-wannabe admissions officer… As long as you and/or your parents cough up $25-$50K a year.

Even if you complete the Udacity course and decide that that type of work is not for you, you have a valuable skill that will help you in university and your future career. For parents, you also get a good look into Junior’s work habits. If your child cannot work through the Nanodegree, what are the chances of them doing well, and finishing university? It is certainly not definitive, but it might it be a good sign, that they will attend 2 years of university, flunk out, and tote $35K worth of un-dischargeable debt around for the next 30 years of their adult life.

Turbo-charging with Customer Service

Cross posted on LinkedIn.

In my first and second posts, I wrote about how to know if one’s organization is belching noxious customer service fumes and how to clean up the worst of them. In this post, I’ll discuss how to use those remaining, hard-to-clean-up emissions to drive your organization forward. This will not only improve one’s customer service, but has the very real potential to improve products and operations to the point where customers quit antagonizing the organization over poor customer service, but actually promote one’s products to their network.

I had the good fortune to be employed by Amazon.com in its early days (1999-2001) as a logistics manager, a project manager, a technical facilities manager, and finally as its Head of English Customer Services (CS) in Europe (three of those all at the same time with three separate bosses… ahh, the life of a start-up). To my good fortune as a consultant, I have been contacted by many companies that say they want to be the “Amazon of X.” Normally, what they mean is that they want to be as ubiquitous and forward-looking as Amazon in customer services and operations in their chosen field. Unfortunately, many of the people I speak to really don’t want to do the hard work to become the Amazon of their field. They are looking for shortcuts and tricks of the trade. Amazon.com is the king of “real CS” in taking CS problems to organizational fixes. The best way to fix the problem is to fix the source of the problem which, by the way, often fixes more than the evident CS problem. In my ongoing analogy, Amazon uses its exhaust as a turbo-charger. (It also uses the forward momentum that these actions create as a super-charger too, but that is for another post)

Turbocharging means fixing the underlying problem and not just providing a palliative to the customer for that particular situation. Providing a palliative (installing a catalytic converter in my previous post) may be required when you first find out about a problem. However, if pain relief is all one is providing and leaving the pain-causing situation in place unaddressed, the problem will continue to occur. That normally results in the following; customers appreciate the palliative (or not), but grow to expect that kind of pay-off as part of the deal. However, they still post on social media their problems and your palliatives. You may gain a reputation for fair-play, but that is also the new expectation. Eventually, and I have been in more of these meetings than I care to recount, the company will eventually focus on the high cost of CS relative to Revenue. This leads to the all-too-predictable responses of never-ending phone-trees, poorly designed self-help pages, and other cost-per-contact “fixes.” They bury the problem in a maze of confusing and misdirected KPIs that mask the problem. These frustrating technologies and processes inevitably slow sales, new and repeat, and are a veritable breeding ground for customer antagonists.

When I enter these situations, I often see the frustration on executives’ faces when their CS team is telling them that they are meeting all of their KPIs, but the Net Promoter Score (NPS) is falling, along with sales. Other departments are pointing to how bad CS is in dealing with customers. The CS team is doing their best with a limited budget and tool-set. They aren’t lying. They are measuringsomething. They may even be making headway in cleaning up the exhaust. Multiple meetings to address the issues result in a ton of actions for the contact center. New KPIs are proposed. However, the underlying problems never seem to get resolved. Where to begin?

Here is my take. To start, the organization’s product director, program director, and operations director need to be at the solution meeting. The focus needs to be on the reasons for customer contact, including customer search terms on the self-help pages. Convert the organization’s language to customer language. Look at the top 10 reasons one-by-one and determine, with the responsible people in the room, what actions would improve the customers’ situation. Then, quantify the total cost to the organization in time, effort, and lost sales. Yes, in simple cost terms, a problem may cost you $2.43 X 936 contacts a week, but what about lost sales from customer abandonment and countering social media meltdowns? What about improved reviews and recommendations? Once the key problems are identified, quantified, and total costs calculated, do the same with the proposed fixes. What would be the total cost to fix the problem, technically and/or operationally? Finally, make the CS projects report through the normal program management channels. Give them the visibility they deserve.

At this point, I often hear howls of protest from the also-busy product, program and operational teams. “But, we have our own problems and budgets!” That is why the leaders of each need to be in the room. CS is not the product and operations, but it is a good indicator of their health. All cards need to be on the table and organizational decisions on time and resources need to be made. This gets to the nub of my analogy. If the organization is spewing noxious exhaust, fixing the muffler is a start, but it cannot be the end point. If the CS total cost does not compete favorably with an honest assessment of other projects against the organization’s strategy, so be it. If they are competitive, they go on the list like everything else. Trust me, this outcome will happen sooner or later, through one means or another, many of them unpleasant. The question is whether one makesit happen or it happens to one.

Finally, there is often another, unspoken, problem. The CS leader, either by organizational design or professional experience/development, is not the equivalent of the operations head, the product head, or the program management head (especially in technical organizations). This is deadly. Ironically, this often comes about due to the CEO or COO making a junior CS Manager report directly to them as a way of showing that CS is important to the CEO/COO. Often, the CS manager is in meetings with Director level appointments and simply does not have the knowledge or courage to be a forceful advocate for his department or, more importantly, the customer. I’m not saying promote them to make it even. If they are too inexperienced, that will make things worse, not better. I’ve also seen some pretty savvy CS Managers hold their own in a room of senior directors. Each organization is different, but in one way or another, the CS head needs to hold his own. As an executive, if your CS head is not senior enough, either in rank or actions, get him a competent boss who is. If the CS lead has the title/authority and experience, but is not holding his own, get yourself a new one.

There are many specific techniques that fill in the gaps of what I discussed, but it is certainly the core infrastructure of what I have done many times. Good luck with your own turbo-charging.

Conventional Wisdom is only Conventional

“Get into the best school you can” is the conventional wisdom given to many university bound students. In what I thought would have been parental common sense, but obviously is not, Jillian Berman lays out the decision making that should go into choosing a university.

When parents and children talk about applying for colleges, they consider all sorts of factors: the school’s prestige, the location, even the food in the dormitories.

But often there’s one thing that never is on the agenda: How are we going to pay for this?

Even people who over-buy on cars and homes normally know what the monthly repayments will be and how much of their take-home pay it will constitute.

In my mind, a parent who does not have this discussion, including the alternatives to university, is committing parental gross negligence. And for high school guidance counselors who negligently parrot the university administrators’ marketing lines and platitudes from the 1980s; fire them.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2024 The New Yeoman

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑