bradyrafuse.com

one team

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 08:47:52 +0100

I recently read a most extraordinary article about a young man called Kevin Hart. I used to work with a Kevin Hart at Level 3, but I am pretty certain it’s not the same guy. Anyway, the other Kevin Hart wanted to play Division One college football. And through a most tortured route ended up holding a press conference where he chose to play D-1 football at the University of California. Except there was a bit of an issue:

“What began as teenage insecurity ended up morphing into one of the tallest tales in college football history. One calendar year ago, Kevin Hart, a no-name offensive lineman from Fernley, Nev., staged a farcical news conference, fibbing through his teeth and announcing he'd be playing football for UC Berkeley -- even though Cal didn't recruit him, eyeball him or talk to him.

But the most curious part, and the reason the anniversary resonates, is how hundreds of people in that packed high school gym bought in. The mercurial head coach who emceed the event … the proud offensive line coach who groomed him as a player … the hardworking father and mother who trusted him … the retired grandfather who rarely missed a practice … the teachers who were close to flunking him … the buddies on his MySpace page. They all stood up to roar and clap. To every one of them, it was a seminal moment. Someone from the dusty town of Fernley, going D-I? Not in their wildest dreams.

But, yes, in Kevin Hart's dreams. And never discount someone's dream.”

Anyway, by the by. It is a great read, and eventually quite heartwarming. There is a nice video on the site too. And, of course, you can read it on Instapaper. But that wasn’t what I wanted to write about. Something else really struck a chord.

Towards the end of the article it talks about Kevin’s next move. And a coach, Tom Simi. And the coach spoke to his team as they came together on their first day:

“[...] he called the team together and asked everyone to name his hometown area code. There were a bunch of 702s (Las Vegas) and 843s (South Carolina), but then the coach asked,
"What's the area code here?"
"530," the group said.
"So, guess what, we're all 530 now," Simi said.”

There is a great book called “Five Frogs on a Log: A CEO’s guide to Accelerating the Transition in Mergers, Acquisitions and Gut Wrenching Change.” The five frogs on a log reference is this: Five frogs are sitting on a log. Four decide to jump off. How many are left? The answer is five. Because deciding and doing are not the same thing. Anyway, they talk about the culture of organizations after a merger. They use little stories to bring their concepts to life.

“In the Galápagos Islands, there lives a species of waterfowl called a booby. Some boobies have red feet, and some have blue feet.”

So, some naturalists wondered what happened if you crossed them. Would they have one red, and one blue, foot? Or purple feet? So the encourage red footed and blue footed boobies to mate. And once they began to hatch, one after the other, two red or two blue. Not purple. Or mauve.

“It’s was Mother Nature’s way of saying there is no such thing as a merger of equals.

Business cultures also tend to be red or blue. Yet many executives in the midst of mergers and acquisitions confuse cultural harmony with cultural homogeneity. Believing they can successfully blend the best of two organizations, they attempt to create a purple-footed booby.”

At one level, they sound like contradictory stories. But they just aren’t. They are the same. And they are spot on right.

My tuppence worth.

desert island discs

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 05:12:26 +0100

Desert Island Discs is a national institution. “Guests are invited to imagine themselves cast away on a desert island, and to choose eight pieces of music, originally gramophone records, to take with them; discussion of their choices permits a review of their life. [..] At the end of the programme they choose the one piece they regard most highly. They are then asked which book they would take with them; they are automatically given the Complete Works of Shakespeare and either the Bible or another appropriate religious or philosophical work. Guests also choose one luxury, which must be inanimate and of no use in escaping the island or allowing communication from outside.”

But it’s always been awkward to listen to. But now they podcast it. Kirsty Young has become a great host. Jolly posh, but then cheeky too. Last week’s was the best I have ever listened to. The wonderful wonderful Kathy Burke presented her (fantastic) eight discs:

1. Bad Romance, Lady Gaga
2. Gangsters, The Specials
3. Love Will Tear Us Apart, Joy Division
4. Pretty Vacant, Sex Pistols
5. Ride a White Swan, T Rex
6. Fly me to the Moon, Frank Sinatra
7. Clint Eastwood, Gorillaz
8. Get Ur Freak on, Missy Elliott

Each has a great story attached. It’s funny and sad and just a tremendous show. It’s probably gone from the BBC iPlayer now, but you can subscribe to the podcast in iTunes, and the actual podcast is below. But given how long my mobileme takes to bring up a picture, that might be a little slow. But, try anyway. Enjoy. It’s really worth it. And her luxury item is the best one ever.

(Note: I am sure my friend @poohugh tweeted about it too. But I can’t find it. Someone did!)

fitz

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 05:00:24 +0100

Coach Fitz’s Management Theory By MICHAEL LEWIS
Published: March 28, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/28/magazine/28COACH.html

Michael Lewis’s article on his high school coach is an incredibly enlightening one. It’s enlightening from a leadership perspective, but it’s enlightening as a parent too. The backstory is that some old pupils are trying to raise some money for their alma-mater, and wish to name the new facility after Coach Fitz. But, Coach Fitz’s star is on the wane. The new Headmaster is struggling. His customers, the parents now, don’t like Fitz. They don’t like that he doesn’t give their kid enough game time. He is too hard on them.

Lewis talks about the time in eight grade when Fitz had taken Sean Tuohy out of the game and replaced him on the mound with... Michael Lewis. And yes, that Sean Tuohy. The Sean Tuohy who “That year he would lead our basketball team to a 32-0 record; a few years later, he'd lead our high school to a pair of Louisiana state championships; and a few years after that, he'd take Ole Miss to its first-ever Southeastern Conference basketball title. He would set the S.E.C.'s record for career assists (he still holds it) and get himself drafted by the New Jersey Nets -- not bad for a skinny six-foot white kid in a game yet to establish a three-point line. Sean Tuohy had fight enough in him for three.” The Sean Tuohy, who along with his family, took Michael Oher in off the streets and he in turn became an NFL football player, as described in the The Blindside, written by, er, Michael Lewis.

Anyway, Lewis describes coming into that game:

“And now he was standing on the pitcher’s mound, erupting with a Vesuvian fury, waiting for me to arrive. When I did, he handed me the ball and said, in effect, Put it where the sun don’t shine. I looked at their players, hugging and mugging and dancing and jeering. No, they did not appear to suspect that I was going to put it anywhere unpleasant. Then Fitz leaned down, put his hand on my shoulder and, thrusting his face right up to mine, became as calm as the eye of a storm. It was just him and me now; we were in this together. I have no idea where the man’s intention ended and his instincts took over, but the effect of his performance was to say, There’s no one I’d rather have out here in this life-or-death situation. And I believed him!

As the other team continued to erupt with joy, Fitz glanced at the runner on third base, a reedy fellow with an aspiring mustache, and said, ”Pick him off.” Then he walked off and left me all alone.

If Zeus had landed on the pitcher’s mound and issued the command, it would have had no greater effect. The chances of picking a man off third base are never good, and even worse in a close game, when everyone’s paying attention. But this was Fitz talking, and I can still recall, 30 years later, the sensation he created in me. I didn’t have words for it then, but I do now: I am about to show the world, and myself, what I can do.

[...]

The kid with the fuzz on his upper lip bounced crazily off third base, oblivious to the fact that he represented a new solution to an adolescent life crisis. I flipped the ball to the third baseman, and it was in his glove before the kid knew what happened. The kid just flopped around in the dirt as the third baseman applied the tag. I struck out the next guy, and we won the game. Afterward, Coach Fitz called us together for a brief sermon. Hot with rage at the coach with the rule book — the ballpark still felt as if it were about to explode — he told us all that there was a quality no one within five miles of this place even knew about, called ”guts,” which we all embodied. He threw me the game ball and said he’d never in all his life seen such courage on the pitcher’s mound.”

So, Lewis went on the trail of dissatisfied parents

“The closest to a direct complaint that I could tease from the parents I spoke with came from a father of one of the team’s better players. ”You know about what Fitz did to Peyton Manning, don’t you?” he said. Manning, now the quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts and most valuable player of the N.F.L. last season, played basketball and baseball at Newman for Fitz. Fitz, the story went, had benched Manning for skipping basketball practice, and Manning challenged him. They’d had words, maybe even come to blows, and Manning left the basketball team. And while he continued to play baseball for Fitz, their relationship was widely taken as proof, by those who sought it, that Fitz was out of control. ”You ought to read Peyton’s book,” the disgruntled father says. ”It’s all in there.”

[...]

Of course you should never trust a memoir. And so I called Peyton Manning, to make sure of his feelings. He might be one of the highest-paid players in pro football, but on the subject of Fitz, he has no sense of the value of his time. ”As far as the respect and admiration I feel for the man,” Manning said, ”I couldn’t put it into words. Just incredibly strong. Unlike some coaches — for whom it’s all about winning and losing — Coach Fitz was trying to make men out of people. I think he prepares you for life. And if you want my opinion, the people who are screwing up high-school sports are the parents. The parents who want their son to be the next Michael Jordan. Or the parent who beats up the coach or gets into a fight in the stands. Here’s a coach who is so intense. Yet he’s never laid a hand on anybody.”

Fitz was hard:

”Ninety percent was not an A. One hundred percent was an A. Ninety percent was an F.”

But he was fair. And he taught his kids something more than winning.

“When we arrived, Fitz gave another of his sermons. They were always a little different, but they never strayed far from a general theme: What It Means to Be a Man. What it meant to be a man was that you struggled against your natural instinct to run away from adversity. You battled. ”You go to war with me, and I’ll go to war with you,” he loved to say. ”Jump on my back.”

We ceased, at least for a moment, to fear failure. We became, almost, a little proud.

[...]

We listened to the man because he had something to tell us, and us alone. Not how to play baseball, though he did that better than anyone. Not how to win, though winning was wonderful. Not even how to sacrifice. He was teaching us something far more important: how to cope with the two greatest enemies of a well-lived life, fear and failure. To make the lesson stick, he made sure we encountered enough of both. I never could have explained at the time what he had done for me, but I felt it in my bones all the same. When I came home one day during my senior year and found the letter saying that, somewhat improbably, I had been admitted to Princeton University, I ran right back to school to tell Coach Fitz.”

It is a wonderful article. I have seen so many competitive parents who don’t let their kids get their arms around learning to cope with fear and failure. It’s a wonderful article and I commend it to you very highly indeed.

how much do you really care?

Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:20:41 +0100

I have just been to Singapore. For I think the sixth time in eighteen months. Or maybe seventh. Singapore Airlines are really nice to me anyway.

But, on reflection, they always have been. I have spoken about my deep affection for BA here before. Or, more, how important my relationship with BA is. In a space of fourteen days I will have been to Boston, Singapore, Geneva and Amsterdam. These relationships are important to me. And BA are great at addressing the issues I have with them. Except Singapore Airlines. I explain that my loyalty to BA is deep and unswerving. But, to Singapore, Singapore Airlines are better, more convenient and cheaper. More flights, bigger seats, better service. And really cheaper. Like 30-43% cheaper. They have four seats where BA have eight. Bigger screens, wider choice. Just better. Better in a way that there just isn't a choice. I spoke to a senior BA person about that. They said "If you like that Asian style of service.." Didn't understand it then. Don't understand it now. I like the way they do business.

Singapore is one of the most spectacularly wonderful places you could ever imagine. I cannot begin to explain it. It is just a wonderful place to be. I have thought about how to say that many times. When I checked out of my hotel yesterday, I saw some surveys that they had sitting on the desk. I suspect that if I were to identify the one truly definable skill I have learnt in the last 20 years it would be the ability to read upside down. I am pretty sure that whatever business you do, you try, in some way, to measure 'customer satisfaction.' The hotel I stayed in was a new hotel. One that I would imagine will be way out of my price range once things settle down. On the desk they had a number of surveys. I snapped one as above. And you get to realise how seriously people take customer satisfaction when they check that your hostess smiled and made eye contact. This wasn’t checking into the hotel. This was checking into the restaurant. They wanted to know whether you had been led to your table at a comfortable pace. That is pretty amazing to my eye.

It is a wonderful place. And they take customer service so seriously. When someone does smile and establish eye contact with you, you smile back. And you feel good about the experience, the establishment, yourself.

Just that.

Instapaper

Fri, 13 Aug 2010 04:59:28 +0100

I wrote a blog about the best magazine articles ever last week. I mentioned in passing the application Instapaper. I have reflected that I undersold this app so much that I wanted to just mention it again.

Instapaper works thus. You install a bookmarklet called ‘read later.’ This is incredibly simple. I just have it as a button on my chrome bookmarks bar. Then, when I am on any page on the internet, I can press ‘read later.’ Then, on my iPhone, iPad, your android machine, or iTouch you press the sync button, and hey presto! you have synced the pages that you decided to read later. Which, is fine. And I knew it was fine but I didn’t really think about it until Kevin Kelly’s best magazine articles post. Because I hadn’t really thought about how to use yet another great app. But, I really wanted to read some of those articles, and organizing them and figuring how and when was frankly a bit too complex. But, I read Kevin Kelly’s review of Instapaper, and I then realised how to read those articles. And then I also knew there were some Malcolm Gladwell New Yorker articles I wanted to catch up on, which I clicked read later on gladwell.com. And then I subscribed to longform’s RSS feed and I get four or so recommendations a day on great articles through history. And I press one button to read later. And one to sync my iPad. And then there is give me something to read.

So, all of the sudden, you have access to gazillion’s of great magazine articles from over the years and you have them quickly, simply and cleanly on your mobile device. If you’re bookmarking an article yourself, make sure you put it in print view or it will just bookmark the first page.

It’s fantastic. If you like reading magazine articles, I am telling you, you need this app.

predictions

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:16:50 +0100

No pomp, no ceremony. No frilly updates. No predicting the impact of Jack Rodwell and Jack Wilshere. No, nothing. Just the table. My Premiership prediction for 2010/11:

1. Arsenal
2. Manchester United
3. Chelsea
4. Manchester City
5. Liverpool
6. Tottenham Hotspur
7. Everton
8. Stoke City
9. Birmingham City
10. Sunderland
11. Blackburn Rovers
12. Aston Villa
13. Fulham
14. West Ham United
15. Newcastle United
16. Bolton Wanderers
17. Wolverhampton Wanderers
18. West Bromwich Albion
19. Wigan Athletic
20. Blackpool

Just one man’s rose tinted view.

say hello, wave goodbye

Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:42:37 +0100

So, Google Wave waved goodbye. I tried to use it. I even bookmarked tabbed it. I even wrote to the team and said it could be a great collaboration.

I only ever had two waves. They were both people asking had i figured out what is was and how to use it. Both times I just sent back the very NSFW Pulp Fiction wave.

Buzz was a disaster too. The only things I got on that before I turned it off was Twitter feeds that I already got. On Twitter.

I have thought about Google and their various unsuccessful forays into the social media world and always came up short. You can't say that they are just a search company because they have been very successful with other developments: Android and Chrome spring to mind. But social? It's been a nightmare. With everything.

So, a few weeks I posted a quite quite brilliant article on my posterous about this. I have thought about and read this article over and over. It’s written by Adam Rifkin. And I really think that he has something. I don't even remember how I arrived at it. But it's brilliant and brilliantly written and here it is. Over.

Pandas and Lobsters: Why Google Cannot Build Social Applications...

After researching what pandas do all day, I was struck by how panda-like we are when we use the Internet.

Roaming a massive world wide web of forests, most of our time is spent searching for delicious bamboo and consuming it. 40 times a day we'll poop something out -- an email, a text message, a status update, maybe even a blog post -- and then go back to searching-and-consuming.

For a decade, Google has trained us to optimize our pandic selves:

The kind of application that Google knows how to make well are the kind that embody a panda's "eats, shoots, and leaves" model of Internet behavior. Pandas spend every waking hour foraging -- aka searching -- and consuming. The most successful Google applications serve such a utilitarian mandate, too: they encourage users to search for something, consume, and move onto the next thing. Get in, do your business, get out. Do a Google search, slurp down information, move on. Pull up Google maps or Gmail or Google news, do something, leave. Where Google does not excel is in making applications that are by their nature for lingering and luxuriating -- the so-called social applications.

What's the main difference between successful Google applications (search, maps, news, email) and a successful social applications? With Google applications we return to the app to do something specific and then go on to something else, whereas great social applications are designed to lure us back and make us never want to leave.

Consider this example: Google Answers focused on answers and failed; Yahoo! Answers focused on social and succeeded. The primary purpose of a social application is connecting with others, seeing what they're up to, and maybe even having some small, fun interactions that though not utilitarian are entertaining and help us connect with our own humanity.Google apps are for working and getting things done; social apps are for interacting and having fun.

Put another way, Google designing social apps is like Microsoft designing iPod packaging.

Now, consider the Four Horsemen of Hotness in 2010: Facebook, Quora, Foursquare, and Twitter. Think deeply about why none of these four could have been developed inside Google.

Facebook is a lobster trap and your friends are the bait. On social networks we are all lobsters, and lobsters just wanna have fun. Every time a friend shares a status, a link, a like, a comment, or a photo, Facebook has more bait to lure me back. Facebook is literally filled with master baiters: Whenever I return to Facebook I am barraged with information about many friends, to encourage me to stick around and click around. Every time I react with a like or comment, or put a piece of content in, I'm serving as Facebook bait myself. Facebook keeps our friends as hostages, so although we can check out of Hotel Facebook any time we like, we can never leave. So we linger. And we lurk. And we luxuriate. The illogical extreme of content-as-bait are the Facebook games where the content is virtual bullshit. Social apps are lobster traps; Google apps do not bait users with their friends.

Quora is restaurant that serves huge quantities of bacn and toast. Quora is a dozen people running dozens of experiments in how to optimally use bacn to get people to return to Quora, and how to use toast to keep them there. Bacn is email you want but not right now, and Quora has 40 flavors of it that you can order. Quora's main use of Bacn is to sizzle with something delicious (a new answer to a question you follow, a new Facebook friend has been caught in the Quora lobster trap, etc.) to entice you to come back to Quora. Then, once you're there, the toast starts popping. Quora shifts the content to things you care about and hides things you don't care about in real-time, and subtly pops up notifications while you're playing, to entice you to keep sticking around and clicking around. Some toast is so subtle it doesn't even look like a pop-up notification -- it just looks like a link embedded in the page with some breadcrumbs that appear in real-time to take you to some place on Quora it knows you'll find irresistible. For every user's action, bacn's and toast's fly out to others in search of reactions. (Aside: if I were Twitter, I would be worried. Real-time user interfaces are more addictive than pseudo-real-time interfaces; what if Quora took all of its technology and decided to use it to build a better Twitter?) Social apps are action-reaction interaction loops; Google apps are designed just for action.

Foursquare exists in a dozen dimensions. That statement is ridiculous on its surface; after all, even String Theory has only 11 dimensions. (Technically, it's 10 dimensions, because they start numbering at zero.) Whatever higher-than-the-highest reality Foursquare thinks it's building, one thing is clear: this company is more about chemistry than physics. Foursquare has studied the works of David A. Kessler, who studied hyper-palatable foods that had various combinations of salts, fats, and sugars that stimulate the diner's brain to crave more, rather than satisfy their hunger. The more a person uses Foursquare, the more a person wants to use Foursquare: the points are salts, the badges are fats, and sweet sweet mayorships are sugars that we fight over like we're Sneetches. Ok, so Foursquare's leadership thinks they're only 10% of the way there -- I guess they have 11 other combinations of salts, fats, and sugars to perfect so that all we do all day, every day, is check into Foursquare. Social apps offer a steady diet of junk food to keep us addicted; Google apps offer mostly bamboo.

Twitter is a giant blue ball machine. Even the New York Times says not enough people understand what the heck Twitter is, for them to be willing to use the word tweet in polite company. But that doesn't stop lots of people from using Twitter. Perhaps they are enamored by a word that sounds ornithological in nature. I tried to explain it to my brother like this: tweets are little blue balls, and they get bounced around by a giant machine so others can enjoy them. Those people can react by copying the balls (retweets), swinging at the balls (at-replies), or beaning the originator in the head (direct messages). There are also lots ofwhales on Twitter -- celebrity whales to attract us, and fail whales to repel us. As opposed to Facebook, which hates whales because whales distract the lobsters from the traps. At this point, my brother gives me a blank stare and says he's going back to Facebook. Which goes to show that a social app doesn't need lobster traps, bacn and toast, or 12 dimensions to be successful; it just needs balls. Social apps are whimsical and fun; Google apps are whittled and functional.

So why can't Google build social apps? Because Google's core values ("be useful", "do good by users") reject the very notion of lobster traps, bacn and toast, a dozen dimensions of junk food, and giant blue ball machines. Understanding those concepts is not easy. It takes lots of practice, and lots of patience, and lots of learning.

2010's leadership of Facebook, Foursquare, and Twitter struggled for YEARS learning from FriendFeed, Dodgeball, and Odeo, respectively. The main mythical man month mega mantra -- "build one to throw away" -- isn't just a clever way to gracefully fail on the first iteration; it's the way we learn. I believe those collective experiences have given them the humility to know that most things don't work; the confidence to know that simplicity is more important than features; and the stamina to see their visions through the good, the bad, and the ugly that accompany startups.

Does Google have the patience to launch social apps that aren't widely used so they can learn from them? Not Lively.

Does Google have the ability to launch social apps that aren't utilitarian? Repeat after me: "A Buzz is a high-frequency Wave." And neither pandas nor lobsters know what those are, other than wacky experiments gone awry.

Has Google's culture-of-facts ever learned from Orkut? Good question for the triumvirate. A humbler panda than me once tweeted:

So, to summarize: Google is responsible for Orkut, Wave, and Buzz. Ex-Googlers are responsible for Facebook, Foursquare, and Twitter. Discuss.

Ok, I'll discuss. I have three main points:

Google cannot hire a Head of Social because no individual can change Google's DNA of building applications for pandas, not lobsters. Googlers who wanted to develop great social applications had to leave Google to do so.

Google cannot buy Twitter or LinkedIn or Quora (or all three!) because Google's culture has no respect for successful social applications. YouTube's office is still far from the Google campus to avoid the toxic attitude described by a former Orkut employee, "[Google has] an environment that viewed social networking as a frivolous form of entertainment rather than a real utility, and I'm pretty sure this viewpoint was shared all the way up the chain of command to the founders."

Google cannot focus group its way to successful social applications. Henry Ford opined,"If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
And three reasons why Google should be concerned:

Facebook serves 3 billion LIKE buttons a day, serves one-sixth of all U.S. ads, has more traffic than Google or the next 99 sites combined, has 100 million mobile users and five times as many web users, and when it launches a Facebook search engine, it will be the second biggest search engine in the world right out of the gate.

Twitter's search engine is bigger than Bing and Yahoo combined. Not only is Twitter doing 800 million searches a day, but apparently they're the fastest growing search engine in the U.S.

Bing actually seems to have a better relationship with Facebook and Twitter, and in addition, Bing has gone out of its way to partner with Amazon as well as Apple and itssoon-to-be-100-million iPhone OS devices.

So... Now would be a good time for a bold move from Google. YouTube is the only social application Google has ever bought that was and remains #1 in its category. What can we learn from that?

Google FAILED going head-to-head against YouTube. Buying YouTube in retrospect was a great idea, and keeping YouTube separate from Google HQ was a great idea.

Google FAILED in acquiring and integrating other social products. Blogger, Picasa, JotSpot, Dodgeball, Jaiku. None are their category leaders now. Some are dead. Why?

Google FAILED to create Google Contacts that are easy to edit and integrated with Facebook and Twitter. Why then should we believe Google can do something simple, entertaining, and interesting with Google Profiles?

Google is filled with adrenaline now that Facebook and Twitter are juggernauts in social advertising and searching. Google is ready to fight, but social applications are about loving not fighting. Google is from Mars, and social applications are from Venus. Anyone know someone who can build a rocket ship so Google can ride to the world of social applications?

My advice for Google's Trinity is to put on your thinking caps about social apps. Think really carefully about what you need, and why. Look to the glorious words of jwz:

"Social software" is about making it easy for people to do other things that make them happy: meeting, communicating, and hooking up.

And for all us lobsters, I just have one thing to say: "Yeah, you're all gonna be okay."

passion

Mon, 9 Aug 2010 05:45:40 +0100

I was talking with Herr Nickl the other day about what characteristic we most look for and admire in someone with whom we work. This is obviously no small task. Sharing your values, operational excellence, leadership and all those things I have written about over the years on here obviously spring to mind.

But it wasn’t a checklist per se. It was just a chat. But I think the thing we both resolved on as something we just love to see is someone who is passionate about their business. Who really loves what they do. It inspires them, motivates them. Their passion is infectious. To customers, to their colleagues. They have a spring in their step and don’t look like they are carrying the worries of the world on their shoulders.

Whether you’re selling a coffee or a huge network, that passion just always shows through.

the giving pledge

Fri, 6 Aug 2010 05:34:35 +0100

I don’t know if I had missed this, but it’s a pretty amazing story. Basically Warren Buffett along with Bill and Melinda Gates decided to encourage some of the wealthiest people in America to pledge to ‘give away’ at least 50% of their wealth. By ‘give away’ I mean donate for philanthropic purposes. Mr Buffett had already announced sometime ago that he was giving more 99% of his wealth either during his lifetime or when he leaves this mortal coil.

“The Giving Pledge is an effort to invite the wealthiest individuals and families in America to commit to giving the majority of their wealth to the philanthropic causes and charitable organizations of their choice either during their lifetime or after their death.

Each person who chooses to pledge will make this statement publicly, along with a letter explaining their decision to pledge. At an annual event, those who take the pledge will come together to share ideas and learn from each other.

The Pledge is a moral commitment to give, not a legal contract. It does not involve pooling money or supporting a particular set of causes or organizations.

While the Giving Pledge is specifically focused on billionaires, the idea takes its inspiration from efforts in the past and at present that encourage and recognize givers of all financial means and backgrounds. We are inspired by the example set by millions of Americans who give generously (and often at great personal sacrifice) to make the world a better place.”

I encourage you to visit The Giving Pledge site. The various pledge letters are really worth reading. Larry Ellison is interesting. I suspect that even Mrs Ellison herself, the fourth BTW, would accept that Larry isn’t exactly the easiest guy to warm to. His charitable donations have even courted controversy in the past. But here is his pledge:

‘To whom it may concern,

Many years ago, I put virtually all of my assets into a trust with the intent of giving away at least 95% of my wealth to charitable causes. I have already given hundreds of millions of dollars to medical research and education, and I will give billions more over time. Until now, I have done this giving quietly – because I have long believed that charitable giving is a personal and private matter. So why am I going public now? Warren Buffett personally asked me to write this letter because he said I would be “setting an example” and “influencing others” to give. I hope he’s right.

Larry Ellison’

The FT said

“Almost as interesting as the list of those who signed the pledge was those who chose not to”

I really disagree with that. It’s mean spirited and just totally misses the point. I encourage you to visit the site and read some of the pledge letters. I think you’ll feel better about your fellow man.

the best magazine articles ever

Thu, 5 Aug 2010 05:22:28 +0100

So, if you wanted a vat into which you could submerge and maybe take a five-ish year timeout, then Kevin Kelly at Cool Tools has that vat. The Best Magazine Articles Ever:

“The following are suggestions for the best magazine articles (in English) ever. Stars denote how many times a correspondent has suggested it. Submitter comments are in italics.”

To this list I contribute five more, in no particular order:

Dr. Nicholas and Mr. Hyde by Bethany McLean Vanity Fair, November 2008

“Henry Nicholas isn’t just another tech-boom billionaire charged with backdating stock options. All the drive, arrogance, and aggression he poured into building microchip-maker Broadcom—one of the major success stories of the Internet Age—morphed into an increasing obsession with sex and drugs, according to federal prosecutors. The author investigates the allegations about Nicholas’s out-of-control world: the parade of prostitutes, the spiking of clients’ drinks with Ecstasy, and the secret lair he built underneath the Orange County mansion he shared with his wife and kids.”

Do You Have the Will to Lead? by Polly Labarre Fast Company, February 2000

“Philosopher Peter Koestenbaum poses the truly big questions: How do we act when risks seem overwhelming? What does it mean to be a successful human being?”

Jihad vs. McWorld by Benjamin Barber The Atlantic, March 1992

“The two axial principles of our age—tribalism and globalism—clash at every point except one: they may both be threatening to democracy.”

Coach Fitz’s Management Theory by Michael Lewis, New York Times, March 2004

Morphed into a book(as did Benjamin Barber’s article BTW) Coach: Lessons on the Game of Life, described thus:

"There are teachers with a rare ability to enter a child's mind; it's as if their ability to get there at all gives them the right to stay forever." There was a turning point in Michael Lewis's life, in a baseball game when he was fourteen years old. The irascible and often terrifying Coach Fitz put the ball in his hand at a crucial point in the game and managed to convey such confident trust in Lewis's ability that the boy had no choice but to live up to it. "I didn't have words for it then, but I do now: I am about to show the world, and myself, what I can do." The coach's message was not simply about winning but about self-respect, sacrifice, courage and endurance. Thirty years later, Lewis still finds himself trying to measure up to what Coach Fitz expected of him.

True Colors by Malcolm Gladwell, The New Yorker, March 1999

Hair dye and the hidden history of postwar America.

So, there you go. Why not add to list, or comment here and I will do it. And if you want to read them and have an iPad, Instapaper is your way to go.