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.

This comes back to a couple recurring conversations I’ve been having about our education system. I certainly think our education system in the States has, for the most part, failed us. I don’t expect everybody to be a super genius, but I do expect a base level of competency that simply doesn’t exist. A big part of that seems to stem from an inability to discern the difference between information and propaganda.

It is true that advertising has very little effect on the younger generation (kids just coming out of high school and younger). At least they aren’t effected by traditional advertising much. There is peer-based advertising, but I digress. People today don’t seem to understand the difference between a valid and rational documentary and one-sided propaganda posing as a documentary. Or news program. Or reality (as opposed to reality TV). I propose this problem is exacerbated in the schools, but I don’t know of evidence supporting that hypothesis.

Of course, that’s an important statement unto itself. I recognize, more or less, the limitations of my own knowledge. However, I try to apply a litmus test against any new knowledge to determine if it’s reasonable. Granted, I was the kid in class that corrected the teacher or book when an error occurred. The students I’ve seen the last few years don’t even consider a text book could be wrong. Hint: every text book ever written has errors.

I don’t have any solution right now, but I wonder if there are ways to encourage exploration and skepticism into the UXD at a fundamental level. There are some amazing UIs for children to explore ideas, gamers to access advanced tools from limited controllers, and professionals to accomplish complex tasks with few keystrokes. I’m going to try drafting up some concepts over the next few weeks and explore the question here (and perhaps another blog or two). Can design encourage appropriate skepticism?

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?

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.

Perhaps not as clever following René Magritte’s The Treachery of Images, yet still valid (I would have said that back in 1928, except I wasn’t invited to the French exhibition and webpages weren’t in common use yet… and my parents hadn’t been born).  Consider René’s point for a moment.  The image of a pipe cannot be smoked; therefore, it is not a pipe.  Surrealism has always fascinated me as a topic of philosophical discussion (which, I confess, might have been encouraged by my favorite college pastime – screwing with inebriated philosophy majors).  Regardless, the topic seems to have some weight in the world of user experience design (UXD).  But first, allow me to expand on my initial observation.

The Treachery of Images - 1928-1929

How do you define a webpage?  Is it the rendered output of the browser?  The content contained on the page?  The underlying code such as HTML, CSS, javascript, Flash and such?  The underlying ones and zeros representing ASCII and various compressed media files that store and transfer that code?  Is it the local copy stored temporarily for the browser?  The copy on my server (and if so, which one)?

As you can see, the whole concept of what we call a “webpage” gets pretty convoluted when you try to nail it down.  We all (or at least I hope all of you) understand implicitly what a webpage is.  But the definition seems to be a bit elusive.  Now, I’m pretty confident several of those proposed definitions could suffice, but none of them would really be complete.  That’s why, no matter how you define it, I can refute your definition and say “this is not a webpage.”

What’s the point of all this babbling about semantics?  How does it relate to something real (as opposed to surreal)?  I’m getting to that.  Don’t worry, you’re not the first person to suggest I over think things occasionally, so bear with me.

The activity of thinking this through forces you (or at least me) to think of things from a mindset that I wouldn’t normally consider.  As a practitioner of UXD, I consider a website the culmination of technologies and content delivered to your browser when a super special URI is accessed.  As an entrepreneur, a website is little more than one delivery vehicle for a potentially valuable solution to some problem a given group of people have.  As a businessman, a website is a potential asset created and maintained by the firm to increase revenue, decrease costs or maintain existing clients (assuming new clients will increase revenue).

Here’s the problem – These are all valid, yet juxtaposed, concepts.  Each of those definitions are valid for a website, but reconciling them is nearly impossible.  This is what UX designers deal with on a regular basis (perhaps it’s just me, but I’ll assume that at least some designers are like me).  The act of design is frequently an attempt to reconcile inherently incongruous juxtapositions (i.e., surreal).

Good design sometimes requires us to look past temporarily incongruous juxtapositions, so long as they cancel out in the end.

Frequently, to design a good experience, the designer must put himself or herself into a mental position that hasn’t been (or can’t ever be) directly experienced.  For instance, when I was working on Plum Keeper, I had to consider the experience from the primary user group’s perspective, which is pretty typical.  Unfortunately for me, the primary user group are mothers of small children with moderate computer skills. Being a single male (yes women of the Interweb I’m a single geek, how original) with no children (last I checked), the whole young mother thing is a bit unlikely to ever happen and certainly hasn’t occurred yet.  Furthermore, I’m hardly a computer guru, but I’ve been around the block a few times (I started on a C64 and have been online since the early 90s… good ol’ BBS’s).  I know plenty of mothers who I interviewed for the project, but as much as I sympathize with their situations I can never truly empathize.  This is where understanding (or at least pretending to understand) surrealism can help in reality.  The same skills used to digest those incongruous juxtapositions of surrealism will help feel out alternative design possibilities (e.g., me mothering a couple young kids).  I think the design Kyrie Robinson (who has the unfair advantage of being a mother of young children) and I came up with will work out pretty well, but only time will tell.

It reminds me of electrical engineering.  For those of you that haven’t studied the topic, it can get a bit confused.  Imaginary numbers supposedly simplify the algebra (if you insist on calling that mess simplified), but they have to cancel out in the end (seeing as we live in the non-imaginary world).  Now, when dealing with trivial cases, this seems obvious and is pretty easy to do.  My class was a bit different.  Hard doesn’t begin to explain it, but I’ll tell the story of my migraines and C+ worthy 17% another day.

So here’s the grand wisdom (or at least a good idea) that I’ve garnered from surrealism, which I use in product design:  Good design sometimes requires us to look past temporarily incongruous juxtapositions, so long as they cancel out in the end.  Although I might not be able to empathize with a mother of young children, I can attempt to sympathize.  In doing so (if I do my job well), I create an experience that will effectively solve a problem for those mothers.  The imaginary number of my design efforts (me as a mother) cancels out (real mothers like it too).