Within the context of a company, a job title has little or no value. Traditionally, job titles separated management and line workers. This is, fundamentally, a relic of the Spartan military that has influenced most of Western organizations for well over 2500 years. Certainly large companies still need this division to some extent, but titles become less important as teams become more cross-functional and roles become less siloed (which I hope is happening after the last 30-years of learning in management). Within small companies, titles rarely represent the roles being fulfilled by individuals. Therefore, internal to the company job titles are fairly ineffective communication devices.

Communication outside of the company can be broken into to sub-categories. First, there is communication by individuals representing the company. A job title is supposed to infer some information about how much power the individual holds. For instance, talking to a Director, VP or C-level person is more likely to result in decisions than a Supervisor or Manager. Of course, this isn’t really true any longer. How many salespeople go by titles of “Account Director,” “Business Consultant,” or “Senior Relations Director?” These are not Directors or Consultants. Sales is important, but this common tactic is a weak attempt to deceive potential clients into assuming they are more important. It feels good when a “Director” took time to call you personally… never mind there are 40 “Directors” making cold calls on that floor. The result is a complete dilution of the supposed value of job titles, which means no valuable information can be reliably inferred from any job title.

Lastly, there is external communication when attempting to fill a position. The job title is usually the first thing a potential applicant will see. This is primarily what job hunters are searching by and looking for. By using these amped up and inappropriate titles, the value of the job title is lost again. While looking looking at postings for “Experience Designers,” I have found job descriptions for front-end developers, third-teir help desk, project managers, records managers, etc. I thought “Experience Designer” was both specific and fairly well defined. Apparently I was wrong. This is occasionally caused by HR processes that don’t have people familiar with the job describe the job. Nobody in HR will ever accurately describe the requirements of an engineer (and nobody has “25 years of experience in VB). These false job titles are also encouraged by management fat, poor hiring practices (which lead to distrustful environments), plain old hubris, and archaic salary bands tied to titles. In short, the potential value of a job title in job postings is seriously hampered.

So, job titles are supposed convey information about the power, responsibility and role of the individual or position. However, thanks to deceptive practices (and yes, I’m looking at you sales and HR), job titles are confused at best and typically convey no consistent information. So, what’s in a name? In this case, absolutely nothing.

Job titles should be more flexible and represent a snapshot of the person’s role. Job titles are, as I think I’ve described, confused. So, rather than attempting to fix job titles to be descriptive, I suggest companies abandon the current assumption that job titles need to be descriptive both internally and externally. The external communication is a lost cause, but internal information is still possible. Simply use clever role descriptions. In fact, I think companies should use the job title as part of the indoctrination process. After an individual performs on a team for so long, or reaches some initial milestone goal, a title is bestowed by the team. A sort of “coming of age” concept to reinforce participation, acceptence, contribution and accountability. For instance, somebody coming onto the team to perform the role of an “Interaction Designer” might be given the title “Design Samurai” after completing a full design cycle with the team.  ”Code Ninjas” could attain different belts as they improve their skills and contributions to the team.  This, if done properly, can improve the espirit de corps of the group.  This also separates, to some extent, the title from the specifics of the position (management vs. line worker, senior vs. junior, etc.) facilitating better communication up and down the chain of command. Lastly, the inventive titles will force external parties to actually question the role rather than making poor assumptions about the position, ultimately leading to better communication (although it might annoy some Baby Boomers).

I know Google and a few select Silicon Valley companies have, to some extent, adopted this philosophy. I’d like to see more companies take it forward and reinvent the way we process job titles in a world where one person might fulfill several roles within a cross-functional / matrix team.

Theater 11 or theater 12?

Here’s a great example. I was walking into a theater about a week ago and saw this brilliant signage.

At first glance I couldn’t believe I was reading that correctly. In the space of two or three minutes, there were several comments made by people walking into the theater. Ok, I’m not counting the people I was with, because they are big geeks like me and notice these things.

I glanced at a couple theaters on the way out and the numbers are supposed to be read down, which makes the signage much more useful. All they have to do is put a vertical line between the numbers to help the eye differentiate between them.  In the case of theater 11 and theater 12, the numbers read correctly top-down or left-right. Perhaps an edge case, but pretty important for at least several hundred patrons every day.

Despite my focus on software usability, we a bombarded with bad design everyday. Wouldn’t it be great if people spent just a little more time thinking things through the rest of us could get through the day with a little less frustration? Nobody is perfect, but how many people signed off on this? The architect, the contractor, the person applying the signs, the investor(s), the manager(s), the rest of the staff, etc. etc. etc. Remember, if one person complains about something, there are probably 50 others that noticed it and just didn’t say anything.

What bad designs have you been victim to today?

Today reminds me of Brazil.  I realize most people have never heard of this movie.  It’s a surreal dystopian view of the future from the mind of Terry Gilliam.  One of my favorite movies, it takes a bureaucratic approach to 1984… on acid.  In fact, the entire movie follows the mishaps based on a single character error on a single form.  A suspected terrorist Tuttle becomes a poor Buttle.  Buttle plays by the rules and is still incarcerated, convicted and executed because of this mistake, which the machinery of society quickly sweeps under the rug.  After all, the Ministry of Information doesn’t make mistakes.

I’ve spent the last several days working through some interesting problems for a client.  The application in question is focused on organization charts, so I’ve reviewed several larger organization charts as part of my research.  Let’s just say, it doesn’t inspire confidence in corporate America.

Can anybody answer my simple question – why don’t planes fall from the sky?

This is a problem that has come up many times in the last few years. In fact, there are a couple social networks I’ve worked on that discussed rating-style solutions.  I, ultimately, agree with the article that this is a problem of accountability, but I don’t know if something like rating really solves it.  After all, we don’t really go around rating people in the real-world.  We might internally denote good or bad experiences, but I doubt many people have given me a solid one to five star rating (not counting the occasional employer of course).

Perhaps, the underlying problem is in the technology itself. We simply don’t internalize text the way we do other forms of communication. We’re not wired that way biologically.  Text is a somewhat dehumanizing medium, which leads to a perception of no accountability. Rating systems might work as a stopgap measure, but probably won’t create a lasting solution (after all, people will game any system given the opportunity).  Crowd sourcing does have limitations, because crowds have a tendency of turning into mobs.

I suspect this is a growing pain of social media (or even the Internet as a whole). Consider the rapid increase in available printing presses during the mid-18th century. The pamphlets and propaganda published by our founding fathers wouldn’t exactly pass muster today. They frequently “trolled” one another via call and response on their respective papers (go back and read some if you have time, it’s quite entertaining when they break down to name calling). The only difference is there was a week or more lag between call and response. Even up through the early 20th century, news papers were the premier form of mass communication and left much to be desired (take Hurst of example, modifying news to sell product is hardly new). Hurst famously said, “Give me the pictures, I’ll give you the war.”  Today, responses occur within seconds and the negative feedback loop becomes an almost self-sustaining torrent of hate (and then somebody calls you Hitler).

My point is this, it took us the better part of 150 years to develop some form of decorum within the modern paper medium – and that’s debatable.

What if our technology outpaced our social development too much? I’m just thinking out loud here, but these solutions presume that people are generally polite and respectful. However, that might be a construct of physical interaction… a throw back to our biological need to avoid pissing off the alpha male , being the weakling left behind or getting injured by a predator. Those are survival instincts I can get behind.  Text, whether on the Internet or in print, removes you quite a bit from the consumer of the information. Without the gates inherent to print (cost and risk of using limited resources to print and distribute something), perhaps we just begin to realize how twisted people really are. Ayn Rand would be proud (although I’m more of a John Stewart Mills fan… never cared for Rand much).

Perhaps we just need to learn a new decorum of respect in an age when publishing is freely available to anyone. It took more than 150 years for news paper reporters and press owners to learn some respect (and they occasionally forget it still today). We don’t have that kind of time to figure this one out though. Once society begins to internalize social media and the Internet as an extension of yourself, things like trolling will be limited to people that actually behave this way (e.g., frat brothers). I don’t think simple ratings will a) create an accurate enough picture of the interactions or b) effectively minimize trolling in the first place.

Omaha.com is one of the few sites that consistently degrades the experience with each “upgrade”

Let’s just ignore the poor content for a moment and focus on the design (text included, but not specific content).  I don’t know who the “designer” was (and I’m using that term loosely here), but I do know that he needs to look for a different line of work (or at least learn how to do his chosen line of work a bit).

For the sake of convention in this post, I’m going to call our designer friend Tim the Designer or Tim for short (if, by some strange coincidence, the designer’s name actually is Tim, I apologize; if the designer happens to be a woman, I apologize… to women everywhere for such a poor representation of work).

Header

This might be the worst header I’ve seen since 1997.  It is way to thick.  There are about 170px of wasted space (light blue with gratuitous ads) before we get to the real header.  I understand Tim the Designer (or more accurately, his boss the Paper) needs to have ads displayed to support the Paper… after all, with the Paper’s lack of quality control I wouldn’t expect people to actually pay for it.  However, it’s important to temper those ads with some reasonableness.  Cracked has better ad placement, and they aren’t exactly the typical aspiration of “legitimate” news sites.

Examining the header of Omaha.com

I’m not sure why the navigation is so small on an overly thick gray bevel.  I  don’t know why Tim the Designer chose a serif font for the navigation either.  At this size and weight serifs make letters look smudged and difficult to read.  Why do  designers like Tim insist on making important navigation all CAPS?  Don’t they realize people read by recognizing word shapes?  The high and low points within a word help define those shapes and make it easier to read.  This is typography 101 stuff, Tim (do you think Tim knows a big word like typography?).  Maybe I’ll send a copy of Helvetica to Tim.  It might help get him on the right track (different line of work?).

Where are the tabs?  It looks like Tim tried to create a tab metaphor, but then forgot to actually include the tabs.  This leaves us users oblivious to our current location within the site.  No big deal when we’re on the homepage like the above example, but it is pretty confusing once we dive into a section or article.

This is a site supposedly interested in content, yet I have to look for the search mechanism.  There was a great survey done just a few months ago about search location patterns.  Thanks Tim, you’ve completely destroyed that UI pattern we’ve all grown accustomed to.  Why?  Does Tim bother to ask questions like, “why?”

Secondary navigation

But why stop there?  Tim certainly didn’t.  We’ve also been given secondary navigation that drops out of the primary navigation on roll-over.  Tim, there’s a nifty concept in UXD (or HCI or whatever you want to call it) called discover-ability.  Those primary navigation links don’t even really look like links; they certainly don’t look like additional options are available.  On top of poor discover-ability, those navigation links have elusively small target areas (putting your cursor above the text won’t activate the link or secondary navigation, but below the text will).  Just in case we were wondering what we just moused over, Tim has included large duplicate copy of what we just moused over.  I especially like how mousing over the correct area of primary navigation tells me what section (metro/region in this case) my current article belongs in *dripping with venomous sarcasm*.  Thanks for helping, Tim.  Why does this site make me feel as though I’m being treated like a tw0-year-old?

More secondary navigation?

Left navigation bar

So Tim created second form of secondary navigation… sorta.  The really bright blue thing along the left side (that breaks into the main navigation bar implying a strong relationship) is one form of secondary navigation.  Well, it’s more of a weak attempt to create quick connections to areas of interest.  A very weak attempt.  As we dive into articles and actually attempt to find content (gods forbid anybody wants content from a news site), the role and importance of that blue bar becomes increasingly strained.  In fact,  this makes it apparent Tim the Designer started with the homepage rather than the content page.  Apparently, Tim doesn’t think much of promoting content on the Paper’s news site (I realize the Paper is probably equally guilty of this poor product vision, but Tim’s job is to help keep the Paper on track… clearly, we can’t count on news papers to know anything about new  fads like the Internet).

I especially like how the links separated by bars (e.g., Today | Activities, etc.) only have a single space of separation.  That makes it easy to read and click to navigate the  small links (at least I think they’re links… they don’t look any different than the text, so I can’t be certain!).  Some of the links become slightly brighter when you mouse-over them (and I do mean slightly).  Some actually bother to add an underlying, which at least makes those links easy to identify.  In fact, there are at least five or six different ways links are treated throughout the page.

The calendar is bloody confusing.  It’s the 15th, but it shows me the rest of the week (so we can presumably see the future).  When I click on the 19th, I get a list of events for the 19th.  Okay, I can see a use-case for this one (congratulations Tim).  Unfortunately, despite being on a page all about the upcoming events on the 19th, my calendar still has the 15th subtly highlighted.  The calendar only shows me a week into the future, so I must not think much of yesterday’s news.  Sorry Tim, looks like you’ve failed again.

I’ll have another installment to continue describing how badly Omaha.com and Tim the Designer have failed.

"Severally" search on Twitter

Severally: One at a time; apart from others

Severely: Strict in judgment, discipline, or government; strongly critical or condemnatory

I understand that severally is a word usually limited to the lawyers (or liars as my law prof, Ken Berke, used to say), but doesn’t this still seem a bit egregious?

I searched Twitter and a few other sites to find good examples of severally used correctly.  With the exception of texts written by professionals, I haven’t found many.  I went back more than a week and every instance of severally should have been severely, which is even slightly shorter!  One would assume people Twitting about should pay close attention to wasted characters.

Or how about something a bit simpler.  Something that I would expect the average third-grader to understand (but suspect wouldn’t nonetheless).

Guest: one who is a recipient of hospitality at the home or table of another

Guess: to predict (a result or an event) without sufficient information

The funny part is guess should be easier to type.  So, either people typically mispronounce these words, don’t know how to type or had really bad English teachers.  Now, it’s most likely a combination of all of those things, but I don’t think I’m asking too much here.

Insure: to provide or arrange insurance for

Ensure: to make sure or certain

Perhaps a subtle difference, but this one annoys me for some reason.  Some dictionaries have added a third or fourth definition to insure that mirrors ensure.  Perhaps I’ve spent a few too many years reading finance and economics books; however, these two words seem very distinctly different to me.  I believe Frank Knight’s definitions of risk and uncertainty probably influenced me here.  Knight defined risk as anything one could calculate and purchase insurance against.  Uncertainty, however, cannot be calculated or insured.  An entrepreneur accepts uncertainty (and is rewarded for it when successful) while purchasing insurance to cover risks.  The entrepreneur has the difficult task of ensuring his investors the project has a good likelihood of success.  It might be anal, but there is an important difference when you attempt to be specific.

They’re: contraction for “they are” (note how it includes both pronoun and verb, so it’s built in an action.. like it’s)

There: at or in that place

Their: used as a modifier before a noun

Okay, these three are a bit of a pet peeve of mine.  Even if you’re typing a quick message on a Blackberry or iPhone, you should be able to take the time to differentiate between a noun + verb, noun and modifier.  These are completely different words!

The list goes on and on.  I could probably write a short novel describing the pains of passive tense alone (thanks Ken).  As Vampire Weekend put it, who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?  I’d just like people to think about their content contributions a little bit more than seem to.*  Semantics might be a dull subject, but it is necessary to effectively communicate… and what’s the point of creating content if it doesn’t communicate?  A strong understanding of the nuances of language improve your ability to communicate and succeed in life.

Ultimately, I’m lazy.  I use big words occasionally, because they articulate my thoughts more accurately, and that means I can use fewer words.  In other words, sesquipedalian people improve efficacy and efficiency by developing concise communication.

That being said, always speak to the level of your audience (after all, communication requires comprehension to be valuable).  Don’t go around using words like sesquipedalian, unless you’re confident your audience either a) knows what it means, b) would like to learn a new word or c) is holding a dictionary.  Otherwise, stick to your audience and focus the communication.  I might get a bit long winded, but I try to be precise (one of the bad habits I picked up tying to communicate with lawyers and engineers).

* Yes, you can end a sentence with a preposition in English.  Your second-grade teacher didn’t know what she was talking about.  The rule, as I understand it, comes from Latin; however, English has a Germanic root, not Romantic.  If you don’t believe me, consider which of these sounds more natural.

• Who are you going out with?
• With whom are you going out?

Once upon a time (I was about 11 or 12 at the time), I was invited to a mentorship program. We were supposed to pick a profession. The organization then found a mentor in that profession to offer advice on what the profession is really about, how to go about getting into it, etc. The organizers didn’t really know what to say when I told them I wanted to be a magician. They suggested that wasn’t a profession. Well, I had to ask what profession people like Teller, David Copperfield, Siegfried and Roy (it was the early ”90s at the time) and Harry Blackstone used when filling out their taxes.

Now, it just so happens I grew up in Fort Wayne, IN… which happens to be the home of Dick Stoner. For those of you not familiar with the niche world of magic, Dick Stoner is a fairly well known name. He did a bunch of corporate retreats and such, but also developed small chain of the best magic stores in the Midwest (the flagship store is in downtown Fort Wayne).

Eventually, the organizers contacted Dick and asked if he’d be interested in mentoring a student (me). At first he was hesitant (after all, most 12-year-olds probably make pretty bad apprentices). But after hearing he didn’t have a profession, he decided to mentor me (partly out of spite I suspect). This is when I started to learn everything needed in business.

First, let’s cover the basics of what magic teaches. Penn does an excellent job of defining and, with the help of Teller, demonstrating the seven basic principles of magic. On a side note, Teller has one of the coolest houses ever built.

Seven Principles of Magic

1. Palm: To hold an object in an apparently empty hand
2. Ditch: To secretly dispose of an unneeded object
3. Steal: To secretly obtain a needed object (the opposite of ditch)
4. Load: To secretly move the object to where it”s needed
5. Simulation: To give the impression that something that hasn’t happened has
6. Misdirection: To lead attention away from a secret move
7. Switch: To secretly exchange one object for another

I would like to append one more vital ingredient that magic requires, but isn’t magic specific – style. Anybody that has had a chance to see Penn & Teller should recognize their distinct and spectacular presentation style. In fact, every great magician I’ve ever seen or read about has a distinct style of presentation from Houdini and Blackstone to Teller and Blaine (I don’t particularly care for Blaine, but he has found a degree of commercial success). Stoner helped me understand the importance of presentation more than anything else. Even the simplest slight of hand can be impressive with the right presentation.

I’m not suggesting that one should be deceptive. In fact, I’d argue magic is anything but deceptive. The entire audience knows that it is an illusion. The audience is attempting to out think the illusion. The performer, on the other hand, is explicitly telling the audience “this isn’t real,” before convincing the audience that it looks real. It’s a bit like the movie The Usual Suspects, which starts by showing you what happened and then spends 90 minutes convincing you that you didn’t see the first few minutes. These principles simply help you (the entrepreneur or intrapreneur) present your case in the best possible light.

Now I present my modified principles in light of their benefits to business and entrepreneurism.

Eight Principles of Entrepreneurism

1. Palm: Don’t overload people with too much information. If you’re speaking to a layperson or group, don’t use jargon or get into technical details. If you”re working with engineers, don’t bother reviewing marketing details. You might need to have a grasp on all of the moving parts, but people actually moving the parts usually don’t need that much detail. Make sure everybody understands the big picture (what you”re building) and how their part fits. Then, focus on their particular piece. That’s what is important to them after all. Engineers don’t care about market surveys and marketers don’t know the first thing about IC architecture. Now, I believe in transparency as well. So, if an engineer specifically asks about the marketing plans, I’m more than happy to spend two hours explaining the marketing plan and how it relates to engineering. However, it’s rare people want too much detail outside of their specialty, because it takes lots of time and generally isn’t too valuable (beyond simple academic curiosity). Learn when to palm information that isn’t pertinent.
2. Ditch: Know when an idea or component no longer has potential positive benefit to the firm or society. It’s important to constantly remind yourself that each milestone represents a go / no-go decision point. All of the thought and energy previously expended become sunk costs (to be fair, you might be able to recover some value on a similar or related project, but I generally find it’s better to assume nothing can be salvaged when making the decision). Learn when to ditch a failed course of action.
3. Steal: Steal has some pretty negative connotations in business. Rather, consider this more of a legitimate acquisition. Always keep your eyes on the evolution of the markets. Attempt to understand what is going on and how it interrelates. Use this knowledge to place yourself in the room discussing the next big idea in your area. This is hardly an easy task, but if you genuinely contribute value to the conversation, all you need to do is know where an when to show up. Ultimately, learn to identify worthy ideas.
4. Load: Once you”re in the room discussing the next big idea, be sure to load it with lots of smart people with different opinions. A wise man once suggested that we “always strive to be the dumbest person in the room.” Lincoln went on to create a “team of rivals” that succeeded where most would have failed. This will lead to more robust ideas and improved likelihood of success. Given the degree of risk and uncertainty inherent in entrepreneurism (and I’m referring to Schumpeter’s high entrepreneur for the economists reading), anything that can improve the chance of success is hugely beneficial. Learn to load your teams with smart rivals.
5. Simulation: Don”t be afraid to use props when they make sense. People generally have trouble accurately imagining something that doesn’t exist yet. It’s almost impossible for an untrained eye to understand what a house will be like when looking at blueprints; what using an application will be like looking at wireframes or screenshots; what a device will feel like looking at a CAD rendering. Building mockups, proofs of concept and prototypes helps those untrained eyes grok the endgame. Engineers might understand widget blueprints, but the investors that support building widgets and marketers  selling widgets probably won’t. This is one way to alleviate the problems with transferring tacit or mostly tacit knowledge. These tactics also help find problems with an idea before investing substantial resources. Learn to simulate key experiences for stakeholders.
6. Misdirection: I’m a bit hesitant to leave this on the list, but it is important. First, allow me to again emphasize that I am not suggesting you deceive anybody. That being said, sometimes it helps to apply responsible blinders to keep people focussed. One of my former professors, Mel Fugate, once said, “a manager’s primary purpose is to take all of the blame and give all of the credit.” To accomplish this task, a good manager misdirects his/her managers. A good manager convinces everybody outside of their direct reports that the mistakes made were entirely the manager’s fault. Successes, on the other hand, are attributed to a great team. Although subtle, this encourages subordinates to go above and beyond if necessary while superiors recognize an accountable and well respected manager. Learn to strategically misdirect superiors to support subordinates.
7. Switch: Even before I started studying magic, I spent quite a bit of time reading about space and its exploration. Now, believe it or not, this was before the Internet as we know it existed, so I wrote snail-mail letters to every NASA facility asking for more information, pictures etc. There are several boxes worth still sitting in a closet at my parent’s house, I’m certain. Now, whether you’re doing a magic show or sending a probe to Titan (a Saturn moon that might be able to support microbial life), it’s pretty important to have a Plan B… and C and D and E. There should always be a way, even if only loosely considered, to switch a risk into a solution. I learned ways to overcome hecklers, people trying to ruin tricks, obnoxious audience members, etc. At one point, I had several hundred jokes memorized to help turn those problems into opportunities in the middle of the show (which is just part of my style). A few years ago I got into my car and drove till I found a job… of course, I had several solid phone interviews already under my belt. About 1200 miles and 36 hours later I had two job offers in hand and willing to bid up my compensation. I wish I could simply say I’m that good, but I’m not. I had Plan Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta and Echo. Luckily Alpha worked out that time, but I had friends with couches and additional interviews lined up in a half-dozen cities around the country. Learn to think on your feet and switch out potential risks for potential solutions quickly.
8. Style: Everybody should have a presentation style. A loose code that defines your approach to managing problems. I tend to be laid back and casual. I prefer to use humor to deflate a situation and logic to solve the problem (think geeky humor followed by Spock-like problem-solving). I also enjoy a good debate, so if you have a question or idea, be prepared for a lengthy set of questions and suggestions. I present that by wearing red Chuck Taylor’s (favorite footwear of the tenth Doctor, David Tennant), jeans and a simple dress shirt (probably worn a few more times than recommended). That”s my style. It has evolved over the years, but there are common themes for at least the last 10-15 years. And, much to my dismay, most people around town recognize that style… although they probably don’t know why I wear red shoes. This helps a) people remember who I am and b) help my reputation precede me. I’ve been introduced to people who recognize my shoes and then associate some previous conversation or person to me before we even begin to talk. Now, assuming you have a good reputation to spread around, that helps meetings go more smoothly and more quickly. Furthermore, people quickly get a good idea of how I operate. If they’re comfortable with my style, it’s much easier to do business with me. It doesn’t matter if we met in the boardroom or the bar, you’ll have a pretty good idea of what I am. This, of course, also helps me be more memorable when presenting an idea or discussing a potential deal. Learn to develop, espouse and consistently apply your style.

Despite several degrees in business and a few years of experience, my most valuable lessons in business and entrepreneurism hearken back to magic. I use these principles every day and encourage both superiors and subordinates to consider the valuable lessons magic offers. By the way, your card is the Three of Clubs.