Why We Love and Hate Meetings

Did you ever notice how many consultants have back problems? I do, from too much time in miserable seats on airplane, working on my computers at home, or sitting in boring meetings at clients' offices.

Because of my back problems, I can't bend over easily, which means I can't do an effective job of cutting my toenails. So, when I need to trim my toenails, I visit a salon for a pedicure. While having my toes clipped, I read the available magazines, such as Brides, Modern Bride, and Elegant Bride.

Bridal magazines are incredibly popular, with 135 different ones in print last time I checked. Topics include Beach Weddings, Bridal Parties, Destination Weddings, Accessories, Cakes, Ceremonies, Decorations, Dresses, Etiquette, Favors, Flowers, Gifts, Invitations, Planners, Receptions, Traditions, Trends, and many others.

Looking at all these magazines, I asked myself, "Who reads this stuff?" Well, obviously, guys don't usually read it, because nothing in the magazines evokes any emotional response—in guys. For many women, it's a different story.

From writing fiction, I've learned that emotion sells writing. My Plotbusters critique group constantly tells me that my stories don't sufficiently describe or evoke strong emotions. I didn't understand their comments, because the rest of my reader network didn't agree with them. What was the difference?

My Plotbusters colleagues are all multi-published writers, but generally not techies like the rest of my reader network. Evidently, non-techies don't fully appreciate my fiction. They say, "It's not emotional enough." Why? Because mostly the stories do not involve conflict, random violence, death, bad sex, unrequited love, and so forth.

What they do involve is smart people trying to solve problems, step by step. To me, that's not boring at all, but, indeed, extremely emotional. Tremendously exciting—which perhaps defines me as a nerd.

Which brings me back to meetings—why they bore me and cause back problems.

When I walk a client's corridors, I frequently meet people on their way to meetings. Although these same people have told me that meetings are boring, they often seem excited when they're on their way to one. Why?

Over the years, here's what I figured out. Most of my clients' people are techies—nerds like me. They find the meetings boring when they don't seem to be trying to solve problems, step by step.

At the same time, what these meetings are doing is playing out an emotional drama—conflict, blaming, flirting, one-upsmanship, random outbursts, anger, and so forth. For these happy people heading for meetings, it's those the soap-opera aspects of meetings are the most exciting parts of their jobs.

To the techies, the interest in these soap-operas is a distant second to the interest in a well-conducted problem-solving session. On the other hand, all this drama—the stuff we contemptuously call "politics"—seems to be the bread and butter of the non-techies. Indeed, these people are often upset if I show them how to conduct well-run meetings, because I've taken all the joy out of their lives.

Maybe I should bring them Brides Magazine to read in the time they save. Or perhaps Hot Rod Magazine for the guys.

Oh, and BTW, if you like to read stories of smart people trying to solve problems and be happy, take a look at my eStore.

Reader Feedback: Sample Pages

If you want to have a successful business, you have to pay attention to customer feedback. In the case of eMarketing, that feedback can be fast and focused. Using Google Analytics, I discovered my eStore was attracting 50 or more readers a day, but most these potential customers were not buying books.

Following some astute reader feedback, I've now made sample pages available for each of the novels in my eStore:

Mistress of Molecules

First Stringers: or eyes that do not see

The Freshman Murders

The Hands of God

This way, my readers will not be buying a pig in a poke. We'll see if it works.

eNovel Store: First Month Report and Lesson

It's been about a month since I opened my eNovel store. After a snappy first two weeks, activity slowed to zero, and I thought nobody would ever buy another novel of mine, let alone put me over the tipping point where the novels would take off like Harry Potter.

I learned that worrying over day-to-day or week-to-week sales is a futile wasted of time. After one dry week, sales picked up again. If they stay at this level, I'll earn a small but welcome addition for my charities each year.

Will I be satisfied? I don't know, but at least I won't worry day-to-day. I've learned my lesson.

It's a worthwhile lesson for consultants in all phases of their business. By its nature, independent consulting is a highly variable business. As I wrote in The Secrets of Consulting, there are, theoretically, three states a consultant's business can be in: A: too much business; B: not enough business; and C:just the right amount of business. But no individual is ever in state C.

So stop worrying and do something about it. Me, I'm asking everyone I know to take a look at my book store.

eNovels for Nerds

I've decided it's past time for me to join the electronic age.

Five years ago, I gave myself the assignment of spending five years learning to write the kind of fiction that would further my life's goal:

helping smart people be happy

I have achieved my goal, and have now completed ten novels, one of which has been published as The Aremac Project. All of the novels are written about smart people and their struggles to be happy. They're intended to make the learnings from my other books and my workshops come to life in a new medium. So far, they seem to be working that way.

I've achieved something else besides my original goal: I have learned more than I wanted to know about the fiction publishing business.

Most of all, I've learned how hard and slow it the business is, and how difficult it is to break into. For example, one of my fellow writers just sent me statistics on his responses to queries about his crime thriller: 93% of the editors simply did not bother to reply, even with a short email. My own success rate (at just receiving a reply, even in an enclosed, stamped, self-addressed envelope) has only slightly better.

From the editors' point of view, there are good reasons for this rude-looking behavior: they are simply swamped with manuscripts and queries from would-be authors. And, even when they do reply, and even when they do accept the manuscript for publication (a much lower percentage still), they usually require years to get the novel in print. And, once it's in print, chances are it won't stay in print for more than a year or so.

I've decided I'm too old to put all my chips in that game. I'll still seek print publication by some publishers, while at the same time, I'm publishing some of my novels in eBook format (pdf) sold through my website for the value price of $4.99 apiece. I invite you to visit the site and try one of them. (I always give a money-back guarantee on all my work.)

I would love to have your feedback on the store itself, as well as the form and content of the novels. If this approach is well-received, I'll put some more of my novels up there.

So, visit http://www.geraldmweinberg.com/Site/eBOOKS.html and take a look. As time goes by, I'll report here on the outcome of this experiment.

My Favorite Bug

Michael Hunter asked me to write something for his blog about "my favorite bug." At first I thought it was a silly assignment, but, as usual, once I sat down to write, I learned a few things. I don't know when (or if) it will appear on his blog, so I'm putting it here because I think it's too good not to share. (If you think I lack humility, consider the subject: how stupid I can be.)

My First Commercial Program

My favorite bug is also my first bug. It's my favorite because it started me on the road to learning the most important things about programming and testing.

It was the first commercial program I had ever written--a pipeline network analyzer for municipal water systems. (note 1) Essentially, it solved systems of non-linear algebraic equations, by iteration.

It passed all my prepared tests (test first, back in 1956), so we brought in civil engineers with data from a city near San Francisco (not San Jose, which barely existed back then). We set up and started to run the first set of data. Then we waited while the IBM 650 ground away. Thirty minutes--surpassing my largest test case. One hour--surpassing my wildest imagination. Two hours--making me suspect the program was in a closed loop.

I got up from the table where we'd been checking the input data. I was about to stop the machine and find out where the program had gone wrong, but before I reached the machine, it began to punch cards. (We had no on-line printing in those days.) The cards contained the solution, exactly according to spec.

So, what was the bug?

There was nothing wrong with the computation, but the design of the human interface was bad, bad, bad. I had not estimated the performance characteristics as the number of equations grew. I had not accounted for human patience (or impatience) and tolerance (or intolerance) for uncertainty. The case that "looped" was the smallest of our cases. The largest would have run something like twenty hours.

I fixed the bug by having the program punch out a "progress card" after every complete iteration. The card contained a set of numbers that characterized the convergence so far. From the sequence of cards, we could observe the rate of convergence and decide if we wanted the program to continue. If we wanted to stop, we could set a switch on the console and force the program to punch out the full set of values so far--in the input format, so we could resume later, if we wished. (Having no breakpoint in a program that could run twenty hours was another design bug.)

Learnings

After than experience, I've never failed to consider

a. the relationship between a program and its user

b. the potential performance characteristics of the program

c. the possibility that an error might occur (hardware or software or human) that could cost us thousands of dollars of wasted computer and human time.

d. that I ought to be more humble about my programming skills. Before that, I had never made an error in one of perhaps ten small programs I had written, and I thought I was pretty terrific. This humiliating experience made me appreciative of a good testing process (We didn't have "testers" in those days. We didn't even have "programmers." My title was "Applied Science Representative."

This was the beginning of a long career of learning about programmers, programming, and testing. Many of those learnings are captured in my book, Perfect Software and Other Illusions About Testing (note 2)

Well, it wasn't my last bug, but it was first, and my best.

Notes

(note 1) Weinberg, Gerald M., and Lyle N. Hoag. "Pipeline Network Analysis by Electronic Digital Computer." Journal of the American Water Works Association 49, no. 5 (1957).

(note 2) Perfect Software (And Other Illusions About Testing)
http://www.dorsethouse.com/savings.html#perf

Three Lessons from a Thirty-Year Bug

Reader Michael Bolton writes:

I'm reading General Principles of Systems Design, and enjoying it. I'm confused by something, and I think it's because of an error in the text.

On page 106, there's a matrix that is intended to describe the bathtubs illustrated in Figure 5.1 and diagrammed in figure 5.2. My interpretation is that the last row of the matrix should read

0 0 1 1 0

The text suggests

0 1 1 1 0

I interpret this as meaning that bathtub 1 could supply water directly to K, the sink; but neither Figure 5.1 nor 5.2 suggest that. Am I misunderstanding, or is there an error?

My response

It's an error in the text, previously unreported.

Seems as though it's been sitting there for 30 years and tens of thousands of readers.

Moral Number One:

Several morals, but to me, the most important one is about testability. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 are in the previous chapter, and difficult to look at while you're looking at the matrix. This makes testing quite difficult. I should have repeated one of the figures so it appeared on the same page as the matrix.

Moral Number Two:

In writing, as in software development, there's no such thing as perfection. (For more on this subject, see my book, Perfect Software, and other illusions about testing.) Just because nobody's found a bug for 29 years doesn't mean one won't turn up in year 30. If you start believing in perfection, you may be in for a nasty shock.

Moral Number Three

: It would have been easy to blame my readers for being careless, inattentive, or just plain dumb not to have detected and reported this bug (which actually appears twice). If I did that, however, I would have shielded myself from learning the first moral, which puts the responsibility squarely on me. If you don't take responsibility for your mistakes, learning doesn't happen.

Slow Learning is Better than No Learning

So, that's three lessons in thirty years. I'm a pretty slow learner, but at least three is better than zero. So, I'm going to be proud of myself for learning at all.

A Life-Changing Experience for You

In one month, Esther, Johanna, and I will be starting our next Problem Solving Leadership (PSL) workshop here in Albuquerque. Thus, the timing was just right for several new blog posts about people's experience in PSL.

First to appear was David Barnholdt's blog entry about what happened for him at the most recent PSL, in Sweden. (Read David's post.)

Then, today, Selena Delesie's post about her reactions two years after her PSL experience here in New Mexico. (Read Selena's post.)

And then David followed up with a post about an extremely successful exercise he designed for his own courses, based on his learnings in PSL. (Read about David's exercise.)

So, why am I suggesting you visit these blogs? Nothing to hide: I'm trying to convince you to come participate in PSL in March. I know times are hard for many of us, but hard times are just the times we most need life-changing experiences like Selena and David and many others have had.

You can find out more about PSL at Esther's website, and contact Esther Derby or me or Johanna Rothman

Also, if you know of any other blogs about PSL experiences, let me know, and I'll add them to this post. I'll do almost anything to encourage people to join us in the March PSL.

Added on 27 February 2009
Henrik Kniberg was in the Sweden PSL class and wrote another blog entry building on David's experiential exercise.

Problem Solving Leadership Workshop

We're giving the next offering of the famous Problem Solving Leadership (PSL) on March 22-27, 2009 Albuquerque, NM led by me, Esther Derby, and Johanna Rothman

The workshop's purpose is to learn and practice a consultant's most valuable asset: the ability to think and act creatively. We have designed this workshop to be practical and applicable to the modern workplace. Your problems and concerns provide a frame of reference for all
the workshop activities.

What you will learn
. to be a leader while being a member of a team
. to focus your thinking while in chaos
. to make change a productive, creative event
. to build truly effective teams
. to design projects people really want to work on
. to observe exactly what is happening
. to use tools of effective communication
. to handle conflict in problem solving groups

The workshop provides five and a half days of intensive focus on developing your unique consulting style and abilities.

If you would like more information about in this unique workshop experience, send email to
jr@jrothman.com and/or take a look at http://www.estherderby.com/workshops/ProblemSolvingLeadership.htm

Estimating (continued)

Back on April 17, 2006, I posted an entry called "Estimating Projects: A History of Failure." I try to make entries that are not ephemeral, so I'm happy to see that people are still commenting on this one almost three years later. I'm suggesting here that you go back on the blog and read the latest comment, from "Will."

Will has many wise things to say about how to do, and not do, estimating. Will, if you're writing a book on project management, give us the title, publisher, and estimated date we can expect to see it.

Take a look, and if you have comments, add them here.

Testability and Reproducibility

Doug Szabo has asked me two interesting questions, and we thought we would share my answers.

Doug: Can you point me to some guiding literature that explains how to make code testable?

Explanation: I noticed at least one mention in Perfect Software: and Other Illusions about Testing of making code testable. I have seen that language in a couple of other software testing books, including Software Testing Techniques. I have even been told by more than one developer that they needed to "make the code more testable" before they wanted me to start testing. Since the developers who told me this didn't have the faintest clue what testing was about, I really don't know what they intended to do with their code. Apparently, neither did they - I eventually asked, "what do you need to do to make it more testable?", to which they replied that they didn't know. I was and still am confounded by the lack of explanation for what it is that makes code testable. I understand when code is very difficult to test, like when you have a "horrible loop" (Software Testing Techniques), or when multithreaded code is not first tested in single thread contexts, but I don't understand what needs to be done to code to make it testable. Are we talking about instrumenting the code with Debug statements, assert statements, or some symbol that a test tool can detect?
Jerry: I share your dismay at the lack of publications about how to make code testable. There are many, many little techniques (like initialization on entry, not exit; eliminating as many special cases as possible; and general simplification for a reader), but they're not as important as three things:

1. All code should be open code that anyone in the project can read and critique.

2. All code must be reviewed in a technical review (see my The Handbook of Walthroughs, Inspections, and Technical Reviews)--in which at one professional tester is present and fully participating.

3. Same as 2, except for design reviews and requirements reviews).

If you do these thing, the organization will quickly learn how to make code testable.

But, yes, someone should write the book and start with these three things.

Q2: Do you have some strategies for triaging bugs that do not reproduce consistently?

Explanation: I was a developer before my current role of tester. Hey. Don't roll your eyes at me. I was an engineer (a real one, with a professional license and all that hoopla) before I became a developer. So I already knew the value of testing, even if I didn't know what software testing really was. Well, as an engineer it was crucial that tests be designed such that the results would be reproducible, and measurable against a control. When I got into software development, I tried to stick to the engineering principle with respect to testing. Unfortunately, as I worked on larger software projects, particularly those where my code talked to other processes, and also where I had multiple threads running, I found that bugs were starting to occur where steps to reproduce did not consistently reproduce the bug. Oh oh. I knew that meant there was something wrong, I just didn't have something that I could run under a debugger and know where to set a breakpoint. As a developer, it seemed like there were always enough reproducible bugs that I had lots of excuses to avoid trying to solve those that might not reproduce. Now, as a tester, I am empathetic to developers and have a self-imposed guideline to make an entry of any non-reproducible issue, but at the same time I don't assign it to the pool of issues to fix until a set of steps to consistently reproduce is found. What I got out of Perfect Software is that perhaps I should be passing the tough to reproduce issues over to the pool to fix, but then what would you recommend for a triage approach, to convince stakeholders to take those issues as seriously as the ones that do consistently reproduce?


Jerry: Great question, Doug.

First answer. Try changing "not reproducible" to "I am unable to reproduce."

Then parse the second category into sub-categories like:

a. I saw this one, but was never able to make it happen again.

b. I see this when I run with this setup, but sometimes I don't.

c. This is the same anomaly I see under several setups, but not all the time.

d. Under X setup, this happens sometimes and not other times. There may be something different from one X to the other, but I' not seeing it.

In each case, you are unable to pinpoint the fault underlying the failure. There may be several faults producing the same failure, or different failures appearing from the same underlying fault. Since you don't really know the frequency of this failure, the way I use to triage the failure is to apply the question: "What would it cost us every time this failure appears in the field?"

If that number is high, then get a team working on the bug. If it's low, let the bug rest while (perhaps) new data accumulates or the bug disappears mysteriously as other changes are made to the code.

How We Used to Do Unit Testing

Reader Charles sends a question I've frequently had when consulting with testing organizations who are weary of having code thrown at them "over the wall."

Charles

From your experience in software, what are some good practices you have found for what is now known as "Unit Test?"

I have mine, I want to see if we have similar experiences.

I also have a motive, I get the opportunity to write our "Unit Test Procedure", so I want to capture "Good Practices" that developers can use.

Ack!--Unit Test Procedure!!! I wish we could have names like, "Menu of Good Unit Test Practices, Choose One or More that Make Sense for your Unit, or Use and Add a New Practice to the Menu of Good Practices (Include Provenance or Example)."

Jerry

Honor Unit Testing

1. Well, that's probably number one, the name and prestige you give to the process. If you belittle it, you will have poor results. If you reward it ... finish the sentence. I don't recall if we even had a name for it in the early days. It was just assumed that any pro would do a damn good job of this activity, not to be embarrassed by unit bugs found in integration test or system test--or god help us, in production.

Build Small and Simple

2. The next most important thing is to design to build in testable pieces. Small as possible, but no smaller. Cleanly structured, with no testing traps like hidden memory that might make the code not really reentrant.

Be Completely Open

3. Next is complete openness, getting as many eyes on it as you could get, but certainly not just one pair.

Test First

4. Today what we did is called Test Before Code, or perhaps Test Before Design. Ideally, we sketched out a set of test cases before putting pencil to coding pad. (We didn't have terminals or PCs in those early days.) These were punched into cards and put in the permanent test case library.

Take Advantage of Individual Skills and Help Each Other

5. After that, I recall things breaking down into tactics favored by each individual. Generally, we unit tested each other's code, and anyone having trouble could and did call on anyone else to help out.

Don't Green Dot

I think if people did these things today, we'd be in a lot less trouble. I know because there are people who do these things today, and they tend to stay out of trouble. On the other hand, people who just throw code at a compile and say "it's unit tested" as soon as they see a green dot, tend to be in trouble all the time.

Comments welcome!

What is an Alcoholic?

A commenter describes his drinking habits and says they don't interfere with work. He wants to know how I define "alcoholic"?

I think he and I agree that the question turns on how your drinking affects your work, short term and long term. Since everybody's physiology is unique, I don't think the definition can depend on how much someone drinks. What would put me in the hospital (I have a severe reaction to alcohol), might just be a thirst-quencher for someone else.

One problem with this approach is that alcohol definitely tends to take the edge off one's judgment. I have dealt with a number of worker/drinkers who believe their work is not affected by their drinking--but the reason I was asked to speak with them is that their work effectiveness has been dropping noticeably, according to their managers.

I see lots of moral judging about alcohol consumption, which in turn leads to a lot of defensiveness on the part of those who enjoy drinking. For me, I don't care if your work is affected by alcohol, M&Ms, or listening to too much opera. If something is affecting your work, then that's an issue for your manager and possibly your co-workers.

If it's affecting your health (long or short term), that's your business, and perhaps the business of your family. Of course, if it's affecting your driving, then it's my business as long as we're sharing a road. I won't accept rides from people who have been drinking--or who might be otherwise impaired.

In short, I'm concerned about your alcohol habits only insofar as they affect me. It's an individual judgment, not a stereotype--but it's definitely a sterotype for lots of people, something alcoholics have to live with in today's society.

The Sense of Smell

I've been in less than tip-top condition lately, so you haven't seen any posts here for a long time. I just don't have the wherewithal to compose new stuff that's not whiney, so I think I'll start posting some really worthwhile stuff when it comes in from my correspondents (with their permission, of course).

The following is from Jim Batterson, who is currently teaching classes in China. Here's his words:

---------------------------------------------

I thought of a story and a half and I wanted to share it with someone, and you (Jerry) came to mind.

Let's begin with a simple experiment that I remember from a psychology class years ago. I guy thinks he is one of eight test subjects in an experiment. They all sit on a panel and he is number seven. The exercise is simple. They are shown two lines and asked to say which line is longer, A or B. B is clearly longer, but the lines are at different angles and such. One through six all say A is longer and our poor subject goes along with the crowd and agrees with them. Not clear whether he is appeasing or whether he doubts his own judgement or what. This repeats many times. Of course, one through six are shills planted by the experimenter.


Scenario two: same as the first except number two gives the right answer. All the support our guy needs to give the right answer every time.


So there I was in New Jersey sitting around a table for a project meeting. I was only tangentially on the project. I maintained the system that was being partially replaced, and had written an extract program that fed data to the system under development. When I sent them a test file they were supposed to run it through their edits and the rest of the system and I got some feedback at the end, but I really wasn't getting anything meaningful back.


Nevertheless, they went around the room and everyone seemed to be reporting that all systems were go, ready to fly in about a month. They'd been working on it for over a year. I, too, had done everything I was supposed to do and could have reported the same, but the manager detected a bit of hesitation in my voice (not very subtle) and asked me what I thought. She was a pretty sharp woman. I wasn't sure what to say, because I really was hardly involved in the project at all.


I told her that I had been on a lot of projects before, which she already knew. I didn't have any facts or data or even examples to point to, but "this project doesn't smell like a project that is a month away from going live."


I think that her senses, too, were telling her the same thing, but she needed another voice to confirm her suspicions. My sense of smell was all the confirmation she needed to drop the delivery date and push things back three months. She was still off by a month, but the system went live five months later.

Jim

Jerry Weinberg's New Website

At long last, my new website design is up and running(?). Same url, http://www.geraldmweinberg.com, but some of the links to individual pages may no longer be valid because of the new design. Many thanks to Pati Nagle for design advice.

I welcome feedback on any aspect of the site. New material and links will be added incrementally.

The Consultant's Money-Back Guarantee

On LinkIn, recently there was a question about what a client had to do to hire a consultant who wouldn't rip them off, just taking money for no measurable result. In my response to the question, I wrote:

I make this easy for my clients by two principles of my consulting business:

1. At the end of every consulting visit, I ask them to evaluate the worth of my contribution. If it's not worth more than they paid me, we either adjust what I'm doing or we terminate the relationship.

2. If they don't feel what I've done is worth what they've paid, they can have their money back, no questions asked. I make sure they know this up front--though I've never had to give back their money.

If a consultant doesn't give you both these things, don't hire them.

Why Give Their Money Back?

Pradeep Soundararajan wrote, in response:

While anything that any human does is a heuristic, why should a consultant want to give back the money for the client not happy with what the consultant influenced?

For instance, I go in as a Consultant to solve a problem. At the end I help the client understand that there is more investment he ought to do in order to ship the product. The client feels unhappy because he hired me thinking that I would help him ship the product with existing budget.

Maybe what I did is what other good consultants might have done, so should I return his money back because he feels disappointed?

Why? Because it's your job to satisfy the client. That's what they pay you for. If you buy a laptop from Apple or Dell or HP and when you try to use it, it doesn't work, don't you expect to get your money back? If you don't, would you ever buy a computer from Apple or Dell or HP again? So, one reason to offer a money-back guarantee is to develop future business with that client.

Another reason is to keep that client from spreading bad news about you to 16 other potential clients. (That's what people do when they feel they were cheated by a vendor. When they feel they got a good value, they tend to tell only three other people.)

The Steering Wheel and Brakes

For my consulting assignments, this guarantee acts like a combination of steering wheel and brakes. It guarantees that the client and I will pause periodically and see if we're going in the right direction. If we're not, we can use the steering wheel to change course, or in extreme cases, just apply the brakes and end the assignment.

Would you drive a car without a steering wheel and brakes? Then why would you want to take on a consulting assignment without them?

I guess maybe you wouldn't want them if all you wanted was a runaway car, one that somehow kept paying you as it careened away toward a fatal crash. If cash flow is the only reason someone is in the consulting business, I hope they hit that wall as soon as possible. People like that give my profession a bad name, and thereby hurt a great many ethical and effective consultants.

Don't get me wrong. I think money is a fine reason for being a consultant, but not if it's the only reason. I want to get paid for my work, but only if I'm actually helping people. I don't want to be a fraud.

What Is Value?

But perhaps the most important reason to offer this guarantee is to force them, and you, to think about what value means to each of you.

Pradeep goes on to say: I think such traps have to be cleared before a Consultant gets in by asking questions like, "What value means to you?" and "Can you think of things that you'd be disappointed to know at the end of this assignment?" and "Do you have insight about any kind of information that could cause you nightmares?"

Well, yes, of course you want to clear this up before you go in, but that's not always possible. People often don't know in advance what they want. They only know when they see it. Many of my clients ask for one thing when I come in, but through my consulting learn that they really wanted something else that was more valuable.

To take an extreme case, at one client, the man who invited me in to help with strategic planning learned that his alcoholism was tearing his own organization apart, and what he needed to do was fire himself and go into treatment. That wasn't what he asked for at the beginning of the assignment, but by the end, he knew that this result was far, far more valuable. I asked him if he wanted his money back (he was part owner of the company) and he said no. In fact, he wanted to pay me more--but I refused. I did my job (helping his company improve), and I earned my pay. That was enough for me.

What If Every Consultant Did This?

Pradeep then says:

Not every consultant would want to return back the money and that could be a good marketing stint or building credibility or a distinguishing factor but if every consultant does that ( which is not an easy thing ) then it might end up causing confusion of whom to pick.

Pradeep is right. It's not an easy thing. In fact, it's so unlikely that it's not worth worrying about.

But, if a lot of consultants used these principles, maybe there wouldn't be so many derogatory jokes about our profession of consulting.

Intelligence Isn't Enough

Pradeep then concludes:

An intelligent client picks an intelligent consultant and that's a heuristic, too.

Well, yes, that's certainly a heuristic, and a necessary one. But not by any means a sufficient one. Intelligence without ethics is like a biological weapon in the hands of a terrorist. Very powerful, to be sure, but you'd much rather not have it on your premises.

How Can You Recognize Alcoholism in a Service Provider?

Jeff wrote: "Do you have a specific test for that [alcoholism in service providers]? Many of the alcoholics I've known hid their problem well, at least for some period of time."

Good question, and one I couldn't answer at the time. After being placed in jeopardy with the government as a result of Provider's actions, I began to study the problem with great interest. Here are some signs I now recognize that I didn't pay attention to at the time:

Late for Appointments and Missing Deadlines

This one I definitely noticed, but didn't recognize the possible significance. I just told myself that Provider was a person who was "habitually late." Like many of the other signs, lateness could be attributed to many things besides alcoholism, so I let it pass without comment.

Depression and Mood Fluctuations

Again, I noticed this, but didn't appreciate the possible significance. I believe I thought, "Well, such providers aren't the most sparkling of personalities." Actually, my next provider proved even that assumption wrong. She's terrific.

Mistakes

Everybody makes mistakes, and I tend to be pretty generous in allowing for them. Some of Provider's mistakes were hidden, and that was my fault for not having a reasonable feedback mechanism. But I had noticed a rather higher level of mistakes than I'd like to see in a provider, and I just let it pass.

Personal Problems as Excuses for Mistakes and Lateness

Provider was never short of excuses for mistakes and lateness. Health, problems at home, "the dog ate my calendar"--he was very creative.

Choosing Lunch Dates in Drinking Places

I didn't have lunch with Accountant very often (taking lunch alone may be another sign), but looking back, I realize that he always insisted on restaurants that had a bar.

Showing Up Intoxicated

I never noticed this with Provider, but in subsequent years, I've noticed it with other service people. Whether they're alcoholics or not, this is unacceptable. For example, someone operating a power lawnmower when drinking is a risk to his life and limb--and to my entire business if he sues me for cutting off his foot while working for me.

Health Problems

Anybody can have health problems--I'm a prime example. But someone who is consistently coming down with one misery after another might be showing symptoms typical of alcoholics. Same is true for frequent injuries and accidents. But, of course, they might just be a natural klutz.

Speaking affectionately about Drinking

I should have recognized this one, for my mother was an alcoholic. She often spoke lovingly about her Southern Comfort. Provider's drink of choice was different, but he seemed to have the same love affair. Affairs, really. He loved 'em all.

Signs, not Proof

None of these signs prove that someone is an alcoholic. They could be signs of other things--other addictions or something quite innocent. But my job is not to prove some provider is an alcoholic, which can be incredibly difficult. Alcoholics are experts at denial, rationalization, dreaming up excuses, blaming others, manipulating you, or hooking into your caretaker needs. Besides, their alcoholism is none of your business.

Your Responsibility

What is your business is your business. You hire a provider to do a particular service. If they don't do that service well enough, it's your responsibility to replace them, not to make excuses for them. And especially not to fix them. Set performance criteria. Communicate those criteria. Observe performance relative to those criteria, and take action when performance doesn't measure up. Why it doesn't measure up is not your job.

I didn't do those things with Provider, so I got snagged into his drinking problem. It was his problem, but it was my responsibility to protect myself. I now do a better job of fulfilling my responsibilities as a business owner. Overall, I've protected myself not just from alcoholism, but from other problems that are not my problems.

But She's My Friend

Does this sound heartless and cold? Maybe you're good friends with your service provider? Can you treat your friends like this?

To take just one example, I had a copy editor who had trouble getting to work in a timely manner. We have flexible working hours, but I couldn't depend on her for any schedule. Turns out, she was not an alcoholic, but was depressed over her mother's death three years earlier. She tended to sleep 12 or 14 hours a day. After causing me to miss an important mailing deadline one afternoon, she said, "Oh, if you need me and I'm not here, you can just call me and wake me up."

Not my job. Not as her client. I replaced her with an editor who could wake herself up.

Then, as a friend, not a client, I helped the copy editor find a really good therapist. Just as I helped Provider fulfill his AA twelve steps. It turns out, if you want to help people with such personal problems, it's easier if you're not hiring them to do a job.

Services for a Small Consulting Business

I haven't blogged for almost two months. I've been too busy. Busy is usually good for a consulting business, but not this time. A month or so ago, I parked by our UPS store and headed inside to pick up our mail. At least I thought I was picking up mail until I saw the sign on the door: CLOSED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.

Closed? All my mail was inside, and there was no other information. A kindly old gentleman must have seen the befuddled expression on my face and came out of the golf store to inform me that the New Mexico tax people had come that morning and sealed up the UPS store for non-payment of taxes.

I will spare you the pain we experienced as a result of this failure of one of our service providers–mail delayed two months or more, or lost; literally hundreds of change-of-address notices sent, checks from clients that we couldn't get our hands on; dunning notices from vendors whose bills we hadn't received; and who knows how many mails lost forever. I want to tell you about the benefits, instead–lemonade from lemons.

The principal benefit from this potential disaster was making us stop and review all the vendors we counted on.

Communication

- We use the mail drop because the US Postal Service does not deliver mail to our house or office. Moreover, they do not hold the quantity of mail we accumulate when we are working out of town for a couple of weeks. We also use them as our fax station so we don't have to bother with a fax machine in our office. Same for copy machines.

- Same for wrapping and mailing. When I had my own publishing company, we had a mail room with two full time employees. When business got so good I was about to hire a third, I decided that managing them was a drag on my consulting time, so we sold the publishing business.

- After careful analysis, we chose a new mail drop–another UPS store–which seemed to be on a much more solid financial basis, and about the same distance from our house. (Going there has introduced us to some new restaurants in the locality, which is a second benefit.)

- We also use voice mail. I do so obviously because I'm often away from the office, but even more because I won't allow myself to be interrupted by any idiot with a quarter. If a call is important, I'll get it eventually on the voice mail. For many years, I had an administrative assistant to answer my phone and perform other services, but an employee creates a fixed cost that is not easily reduced. And, it's a person to manager. I don't get paid for being a manager, but only for being a consultant.

Computers

- Some of my techie consultant friends maintain their own servers and other networking equipment. They also host their own websites. These activities are so much for for us nerds, they can be a trap. For a few dollars a month, I can have full-time professionals doing those things for me. What I care about is their reliability, so I don't have to spend time looking over their shoulders.

- Curiously, I do my own bookkeeping. I used to hire a bookkeeper, but I found I was spending as much time preparing papers for him as I needed to handle the paperwork from end-to-end myself. More than that, with someone else handling the books, I found I was losing track of the way my consulting business was actually running. Follow the money if you want to understand your own organization.

Taxes, Legalities, Insurance, Banking

- On the other hand, I would never try to do my own taxes. Bookkeeping hasn't changed much since I was in high school, and what changes there have been have made things easier (with computers). But keeping up with the tax code, that's another matter entirely. I figure my accountant saves me thousands of dollars every tax season. If she didn't, I'd be looking for a new accountant. She's been my accountant now for more than twenty years–ever since I fired my previous accountant for failing to file my tax returns for the several years he was in an alcoholic fog. Now, I don't hire service people who have drinking problems.

- I retain several attorneys, not on retainers, but on an as-needed basis. When someone plagiarizes my writing, I need an intellectual property specialist, but that happens only about once every ten years (so far). When I buy or sell a building, I need a different kind of attorney, as I do when someone accuses me of trespassing when I'm hiking on a trail in the National Forest. In the past, I had one general counsel for all my legal needs, but it's really impossible to find one attorney who is expert in all areas. In general, though, I keep my attorney needs to a minimum. For instance, all my client contracts are simple letters based on mutual trust (except we always put dollar amounts in writing.

- Insurance, to me, is just another form of legal matter. I use an agent I trust, and I don't look for the cheapest policies. What I want is real insurance–policies that protect me from catastrophic financial loss, not policies that pay me $100 when someone dents my car.

- I do use a bank, rather than keeping my money in a mattress. Actually, I use two banks, so my eggs are in separate baskets. Every so often, one of the banks starts doing "creative banking," so I switch to another one. Since I have two, I can switch painlessly without interrupting my business. Banks today are pretty much a commodity business. If they hassle me, or have poor security, or lack convenience, I simply switch.

Physical Services

- Janitorial work, we farm out, too. We're rather neat, but every two weeks we have a professional crew in to do the big cleaning. But I clean up after the new puppy.

- Nobody can really farm out security, though we do have an alarm company. Our major physical security is our crew of trained German Shepherd Dogs roaming our fenced property. People don't generally bother us, even to waste our time trying to sell us magazine subscriptions or contributions to their one true church. Computer security, I take care of myself. No need to go into details here, but the fewer people who know how you secure your computers and data, the better off you are.

Editorial Services

- Finally, as writing is a huge part of our business, we retain professional editorial help on an as-needed basis. Part of that is using old-fashioned publishers, who still value the work of real editors, and who turn around manuscripts promptly as promised.

Our Philosophy

So perhaps you can see our philosophy, which may be useful for other small consulting firms:

- Fundamentally, our billing rate is far higher than any of the services we use, so it doesn't pay to perform these services ourselves. Better to spend our time earning money.

- But flexibility is important, too, because there are dry spells where there's no paid work at hand. In the past, that situation was much more common,d so we always structured our work so we could take over most services if cost-cutting was the word of the day. In the end, though, you can't make a living by cutting costs.

- Since our time is so valuable, we shed a service if it requires too much involvement of our own. We like to hire small businesses where we know the owners and can count on them to resolve problems quickly. They understand our situation as a small business. And, they don't run in the second or third string on us, the way some of the larger firms do. We know the people who work for us, and we deal with them as individuals, the way we like to be dealt with ourselves.

Where Does the Magic Come From?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Clarke's Third Law

In my career, I have at times run a successful project, built a high-performing team, or conducted a stunning class. Each time, though, I knew that my technology seemed like magic even to me, because I didn't really know how I did it. I do like to succeed, so perhaps I should be content with success alone. But I always worry:

"If it's indistinguishable from magic,
how do I know it won't go away next time?"

The Double Bind

When I worry, I'm reluctant to change anything, no matter how small, for fear that the magic will flee. I feel trapped between the fear of losing the magic by change and the fear of losing the magic by failing to change - a classic example of the trap known as a "double bind" (damned if you do, damned if you don't).

Double binds often result in paralysis or ritualized behavior. For example, I'm often called upon to improve meetings, but then find it difficult to persuade my clients to change anything about the meeting. "If we move to another room, it might not be as good as this one." "If we don't invite Jack to the next meeting, we might need something he knows." "If we change the order of the agenda, we might not get through on time." "If we vote in a different way, we might make a poor decision." "We must order our donuts from Sally's Bakery or we won't have a successful meeting."

The "Magic" of PSL

I'd find this behavior even more frustrating if I hadn't experienced the same double bind myself–for example, when faculty considers some potential improvements to our Problem Solving Leadership workshop (PSL). Over the years, lots of people have experienced what they call "the magic of PSL," and we're proud of that. But each time we consider a change, someone raises the fear that the change might make the magic disappear. Fortunately, each time we do this, someone is able to prove that the magic is not tied to the factor under consideration.

For instance, we've worried about changing the hotel or city where PSL is held. We do attempt to find magical sites, but then we remember that many PSLs have transformed mundane hotels in mundane cities into magical sites. This proves to us that the magic can't be in the site, and frees us from that double bind.

Or, we've worried about changing the faculty who teach PSL. We certainly don't choose faculty members at random, but every faculty member has led many, many magical PSLs. So the magic can't be in any particular faculty members.

Or, we've worried about the combination of faculty members. We don't choose our co-training teams at random, either, but all combinations experience magic. So the magic can't be in the faculty combination.

Again, we've worried about the materials we use. We certainly don't choose materials at random, but we do change materials from class to class, and each class deviates from the "standard" materials in a variety of ways. Indeed, there is no single item of material that's in common between the very first PSL (back in 1974) and the most recent one. So the magic can't be in particular materials, either.

Breaking the Bind

The same approach can be used to break other double binds - by finding a counter-example to match each objection:

- "If we move to another room, it might not be as good as this one." "Ah, but remember when they were painting this room and we met downstairs? We had a good meeting then."

- "If we don't use Microsoft Project, this project might fail." "Could be, but we did project X with other tracking software, and we did a fine job."

- "If we change to a new version of the operating system, we might have crashes." "True. But we had a few crashes the last time we upgraded, and though it was some trouble, we dealt with them."

- "If I clean up that code, the system might fail." "That could happen, but the previous three times we cleaned up some code, we caught all the failures in our technical reviews and regression testing. So let's do it, but let's be careful."

The Effective Use of Failure

What can you do if you don't have a counter-example and can't create one in a safe way? In that case, it helps if you can demystify the magic and understand its underlying structure. To do this, you need examples where the magic didn't happen. In social engineering, as in all engineering, failures teach you more than successes.

For instance, the PSL faculty became more aware of the source of PSL magic by observing a few times that the magic didn't "work." Usually, people come to PSL voluntarily–but not always. Once in a while, someone is forced to come to PSL to be "fixed," but people who have been labeled as "broken" may resent the whole experience, and may not feel much PSL magic at all.

From these rare failures of PSL magic, we have identified one key component of the magic of PSL:

People are there because they have chosen to be there.

Curiously, the same component works in creating magical meetings, magical projects, and magical teams. When people are given a choice, they are the magic. Or, more precisely, they create the magic.

When people choose to attend a workshop, to participate in a project, or to join a team, they plunge themselves fully into the experience, rather than simply going through the motions. Consultants can thus have a "magic" advantage over employees: They always know that they've chosen this assignment, so they can always throw themselves into it without reservation. Employees can have this choice, too, but they often forget–just as some consultants forget when they feel forced to take an assignment out of economic necessity.

Keep this in mind the next time you choose an assignment. If you feel forced, you won't do your magical best. You won't have access to the magic that lives inside of yourself.

Do You Want to Experience the Magic of PSL?

Esther Derby, Johanna Rothman, and I will be leading another PSL (Problem Solving Leadership) March 16-21, 2008, in Albuquerque, NM.

PSL is experiential training for learning and practicing a leader's most valuable asset: the ability to think and act creatively. PSL is the gold standard for leadership training, and I'm thrilled to be teaching again with Esther and Johanna.

See <http://www.jrothman.com/syllabus/PSL.html> for the syllabus. If you're interested, please send Esther an email, [Esther Derby <derby@estherderby.com>]. We'd love to have you help us create some more magic.

My Career, An Interview

Magnus Ljadas has just published an interview with me on the Citerus (Sweden) website (www.citerus.se).

I've been interviewed many times over the years, but Magnus is the best interviewer I can remember. I hope it's as fun and informative for you to read as it was for me to write.

http://www.citerus.se/kunskap/pnehm/pnehmartiklar/interviewwithjerryweinberg.5.484cc23b1165f30e75680002483.html

Or you can use tiny url = <http://tinyurl.com/2tro4f>

Developing Emotionally, Part 3

William Responds to Melissa:

Melissa, my secret is this: I have learned to really enjoy interaction on the emotional level. Perhaps "being emotional" was an innate need, but before and during high school I only had 2 close friends (ever), and I was very controlled–I didn't let anything out (if I could help it). Then I had a life-changing experience: I went to a summer program for high-ability science students, and the program director wanted to develop our little personalities as well as our big brains! So he included a simulation–we were stranded (in groups of 8) on a desert island, and had to solve all sorts of problems, which grew more and more personal. I was lucky enough to land in a very supportive group where we related to each other on a very personal and emotional level...and I was hooked! I realized that personal interaction needed to be a part of my life.

This experience really was life changing. For example, it resulted in my changing my college goal to a small liberal arts college instead of the US Naval Academy. And it resulted in my adding a second major to my academic program, Psychology as well as Computer Science. But the experience itself was relatively simple: 16 4-hour sessions over a period of 8 weeks.

Since that time, I have participated in a number of self-development groups, of all flavors. I have worked to develop my consulting skills and my counseling skills (quite related!). And this stuff is learnable: it just requires practice. Perhaps I had an innate ability for empathy–I get it from my mother! But when I was in college, I participated in a basic training session for drug counselors (lay people, not professionals), and the model they used involved practicing empathy. For several hours a day. That's what got me started in that direction. And believe it or not, practicing this stuff really can help to improve your ability to detect and "process" signals that other people are sending out. At least, that has been my experience.

Today, I really enjoy relating to people as people. I find it most satisfying when I am in a situation where it is "permissible" to relate on an emotional level. (I admire Jerry W., who seems to be able to establish this permission in almost any situation!)

So, I guess my secret was participating in a number of self- development exercises in "safe" situations, where I could take more and more risks and learn to enjoy being more open. I have done this at various times over the past years, and even PSL counts in this direction, because it shows you your emotional limits and helps you to realize what you might need to work on.

Like I said, I don't know if this helps, but it is my story...

Forest Responds to William's Story:

I am so grateful that you shared this story with everyone. It was wonderful to read, and allowed me to feel a number of things that I had recently closed off again.

I identify with how you are most comfortable when you can relate emotionally in a situation. I used to struggle more than I do now in balancing my desire to relate emotionally, with what those around me were comfortable with–or, perhaps it is what I perceived the situation to allow. In the 'professional' world, I have perceived that emotions are frowned upon, and that people are to keep them out of the office. My inclination is to balance emotion with the rest, but I tended to lock them up in many situations.

At my first AYE conference, I learned that the emotional aspect is necessary to connect with people. And notably, that it was okay. During that experience I allowed myself to be more open in connecting with people and to be myself emotionally. I prefer to operate in an environment like that, so I give myself permission to create environments in my life where I am able to (work included). I feel like my true self when I am able to, almost like the mask comes off. I have found the AYE and PSL communities to be extremely supportive and safe in this realm. Which is why I keep going back... I can be myself, and I can recharge my energy to continue to be myself in my day-to-day life.

And William Replies to Forest:

Thanks very much for the affirmative feedback. It is music to my ears, balsam for my soul, etc.! [The writers among you are cringing at the cliches, I'm sure... :-) ]

Theoretically, the workplace is devoid of emoitions. But in real life, that's never the case. And in fact, emotions often have a much higher effect on productivity than almost anything else. I really enjoyed my 5-year stint as an internal consultant, because one big part of consulting skills is being aware of your own emotions and (trying to) understand what is triggering them. It is almost always something in the current situation. Identifying that cause can often lead to a breakthrough in consulting. My favorite book about this is "Flawless Consulting" by Peter Block, which has a prominent place on my bookshelf, right near "The Psychology of Computer Programming." And acting as a consultant, you (often) have permission to name or surface those underlying emotions in one way or another. In fact, sometimes that is your #1 job.

Many management trainings also concentrate on identifying your emotional reactions and using those in the workplace. It is often more OK to be yourself than we realize. In fact, sometimes openness is what is needed to break a "logjam". But I agree, for many people this is very unexpected, and it is a risk to be the first to try it.

Perhaps you can give yourself permission to establish yourself as a "whole person" in your new job, able to relate to your new colleagues and employees as a real and open person. I must admit, I am not currently doing that in my job! So I don't claim it's easy. But perhaps it can be done. (Then again, on the other hand, I just recently read an article from a German psychologist that claimed that being open and authentic is career suicide, and that the guys who get ahead are the ones who manipulate the best! In my cynical moments, I believe this might be true, but I prefer to ignore it...)

Jerry Comments

If this is what "getting ahead" requires, I would question whether it's really "ahead" at all. You might make more money, and have more authority to order people around (which they'll ignore as best they can), but you're really falling back. And, for a consultant, "ahead" and "up" are not synonyms anyway.

In any case, whatever direction you want to travel, studying your emotional system and practicing to improve your understanding of it—those are keys for most consultants to improve their effectiveness. The emotional system is your priority analyzer. Without it, you don't know what's important. And with it, if you don't know how to understand it, you'll act like a robot who doesn't understand the difference between the important and the trivial.