Transportation and the national interest

On several interesting articles on transportation, with the usual rambling commentary.

First, “Two worlds — miles apart — exist on Delta flights” from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution.  The gist:

On long international flights, some well-heeled passengers are willing to pay upward of $8,000 for a ticket that includes the creature comforts in business class: Those heading overseas in Delta’s BusinessElite seats may dine on pan-fried halibut with spicy tartar sauce, smashed fingerling potatoes, asparagus and wine pairings. On board may be free movies and HBO, a seat that reclines into a flat bed with a comforter and pillow from Westin Hotels and a luxury amenity kit. Upon arrival back in Atlanta, there’s a chance of getting picked up at the gate in a Porsche.

Continue reading

Safety in spirals

“The safety of the enterprise lay in its novelty.”  Confederate Col John Singleton Mosby, commenting on his successful nabbing (NY Times) of Union Gen Edwin Stoughton well behind Union lines. A nifty example of a special operation.

Of course, the safety of the enterprise also lay in Mosby’s ability to do the daring deed and get his rear end out of Dodge before the enormous blue army all round him noticed his presence. Which required generating a continuous stream of quick-witted novelty. Where does all this novelty come from? Continue reading

Modern times

Every now and then, some new technology just strikes you as cool, like the original iPod or those super thin soft drink cans.

Here’s the box that my new pair of Mizuno Wave Rider 15 running shoes came in.

mizuno box

A good box for a fine pair of shoes. Sturdy. Rugged. Solid. What you’re seeing here is the complete box, with double-thick sides and lid with a double thick front, all cut from a single piece of cardboard. No fasteners — staples, for example — tape, or adhesives. Just snapped together so precisely that I kept expecting to find at least a couple of glued edges, like what you see if you take a cereal box apart. Nothing. Thirty seconds after I started to unfold it, it was ready for recycling.

It was only a dozen years ago that this level of precision was reserved for things like milling parts for advanced jet fighters.

Anybody know whether the original folding of the box was done manually or also by automated equipment?

What makes Finland’s education system so good?

A couple of things that I can think of:

  1. They want it to be good, so they stress education as a profession.
  2. Their system is based on trust.

The trust is earned because the system works — Finland ranks at or near the top in all categories of the OECD’s PISA survey and has on every PISA since 2000. And yet,

  • There is no competition from private schools because there are no private schools
  • There is national testing, but it is more of a sampling, minimal by American standards; there are virtually no standardized tests
  • There is no great overall goal of “excellence.” Rather the guiding principle is equality of opportunity for all Finnish students.

Continue reading

Desperate measures

Perhaps 2,500 years ago, the Tao Te Ching observed that if you don’t trust people, you make them untrustworthy. You will get burned every now and again, but even then, the vast majority of the organization will see that you have their best interests at heart and that the violators were only looking out for themselves (and deserved what they got — see previous post).

Marissa Mayer’s (CEO of Yahoo) recent edict cancelling a long-standing policy allowing telecommuting headlined the message “We don’t trust you!” The immediate downside is that those who were not abusing the system will feel betrayed, and it’s safe to assume that these were among the company’s best performers. Ms. Mayer should expect many of these to leave and be prepared for resentment on the part of the others. In other words, there will be damage to the trust that still remains at Yahoo.

Here’s the key point: You can’t compare the situation at Yahoo with with successful organizations, such as Ms. Mayer’s previous employer, Google. A recent article in the New York Times noted that:

It should probably be obvious at this juncture, but Google doesn’t require employees to work from the office. It doesn’t even keep track of who’s there. The notion seems to have never occurred to anyone. “I don’t think we’ve ever had a policy on that,” [Google spokesman Jordan] Newman said, but “we do expect employees to figure out a work schedule with their team and manager. It’s not a free-for-all.”

But Google is an effective and successful powerhouse (10 times Yahoo’s revenue, and roughly 30 times its EPS) that by all reports already has a high degree of trust. So Ms. Mayer’s first task is to rebuild a basic level of mutual trust, Einheit, and strange as it seems, forcing people back into the office may be a way to do it.  As noted in the last post, Boyd suggested that you build Einheit by putting people into situations where “each individual can observe and orient himself simultaneously to the others and to the variety of changing situations.” This sort of implies an advantage to being together during the rebuilding phase.

If she can get the trust engine going again, lots of options become available, and then you can start comparing Yahoo to Google. Until then, don’t forget the old saying about desperate times.

Destroying Einheit

The German word Einheit would literally translate as “one-ness” or “unity,” but Boyd (who did not speak German) often used the phrase “mutual trust.” In his framework, it also has the connotations of “cohesion,” “similar implicit orientation,” and even such awkward phrases as “overall mind-time-space scheme.” As you can see, it’s a powerful concept, and we often say that without Einheit, don’t worry about the rest of this framework because you won’t be able to use it anyway.

Building Einheit is a process:

Expose individuals, with different skills and abilities, against a variety of situations—whereby each individual can observe and orient himself simultaneously to the others and to the variety of changing situations. Why ? In such an environment, a harmony, or focus and direction, in operations is created by the bonds of implicit communications and trust that evolve as a consequence of the similar mental images or impressions each individual creates and commits to memory by repeatedly sharing the same variety of experiences in the same ways. (Organic Design, 18)

Difficult to build, but not difficult at all to destroy. One easy way is to not take action when people openly violate the underlying moral code, whether it be implicit or explicit. You can turn this into a weapon by employing propaganda and rumor to accuse people within the target organization of such violations and mocking the organization for not taking action.

With all that in mind, read the article “When trolls come out from under their bridges, it’s bad news for scientific discourse,” in Science News.

When you do take action, especially if your troll is a top performer as measured by the numbers, keep one primary consideration in mind: The other members of the organization must see your action as fair and deserved. So you probably want to start with a gentle reminder and a suggestion for an apology. Another thing to consider: Are you a troll? How do you know? One final thought: How many trolls do you have? If the answer is “lots,” then being a troll is the company style, hardly a violation of the moral code, and you’d look (and be) stupid taking action against an individual.

 

This just in — military force not that useful any more

The BBC ran a feature yesterday morning with the provocative title: Spent force: Are Wars still winnable? Their answer:

As America’s decade of conflict draws to an end it’s a time for reflection about the utility of force; can modern warfare within societies ever bring the tidy outcomes that policymakers strive for? It’s a question that should have been asked in Iraq and Afghanistan; and it is as relevant in Mali and across much of sub-saharan Africa today. There may be no more decisive battles like Gettysburg.

I know you’re shocked unless, by chance, you read General Sir Rupert Smith’s The Utility of Force (2005), which opened with:

War, as most cognitively known to most noncombatants, war as battle in a field between men and machinery, war as a massive deciding event in a dispute in international affairs: such war no longer exists.

Continue reading

Telecommuting – a phony issue

Jay Greene has an interesting article on Cnet.com today: “Does telecommuting really reduce employee performance? Academic research suggests that working more than one day a week away from the office, for jobs that require a lot of collaboration with colleagues, can cut into performance.”

As you can tell from the title, it appears to support Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer’s decision to terminate telecommuting.  A couple of points, though. Mayer’s decision was justified on the grounds that most telecommuters were “goofing off,” not, for example, logging on to VPN. And second, if you read down through the article, you find that what the research really says is that telecommuting requires an appropriate organizational climate.

In particular, successful telecommuting requires a high degree of Einheit — mutual trust. For one thing, all members of the organization must be rewarded, and believe that they will be rewarded, on their contributions to achieving the organization’s goals and objectives, not on their ability to suck up to the boss at work. Want to make a bet on the situation at Yahoo?

As the article concludes:

In the end, companies that do well with remote workers are the ones that are most willing to take the chance that it will work and support employees when they are toiling away at home.

“There’s no question that technology makes it possible,” Christensen said. “But the culture has to support it.”

My guess is that Boyd’s “blitzkrieg climate” (Fingerspitzengefühl, etc.) will work nicely. As anyone who has ever tried to implement lean/maneuver warfare knows, however, it requires strong leadership.

On the other hand, if you know what you’re doing and get the climate going, the vast majority of people will choose to work from where they can best accomplish their missions.

Isn’t our new CEO so smart?

Too bad all her execs are blithering idiots:

After spending months frustrated at how empty Yahoo parking lots were, [Yahoo CEO Marissa] Mayer consulted Yahoo’s VPN logs to see if remote employees were checking in enough. Mayer discovered they were not — and her decision was made.
Business Insider, 3/2/2013

Think about that. This has been going on for how long? Years? And none of the Yahoo executives noticed it before? Empty parking lots? Work not getting done? Objectives not getting met?

Perhaps Ms. Mayer decided she needed a dramatic move to get her more fundamental changes going. If so, good on her. One thing for sure: She has deeper problems than whether employees work from home. The expression “long knives” springs to mind.

Desperate times

call for desperate measures. Actually, desperate times — and which times aren’t, even though the participants may not realize them as such — call for new options, or as Boyd said, the ability to shift from one pattern of actions and ideas to another.

Great example of this in the Marine Corps Gazette, “F–35B Needs a Plan B,” http://mca-marines.org/gazette/article/f–35b-needs-plan-b

Back in 2010, when the then-commandant proclaimed that there was no plan B to the F-35B, you knew that the Corps was setting itself up for a fall. Interesting for a service espousing the doctrine of maneuver warfare, with its emphasis on multiple thrusts. Well, now, what with the rises in costs of the program and impending cuts in the DoD budget, guess what? However, the Corps still has original thinkers, and whether you agree with the major on this particular option or not, the fact that he has written and the Gazette has published this article is a very good sign. The comments are well worth reading, particularly the replies to “Major Cannon, I certainly hope the monitors at HQMC get a whiff of this nonsense and you are never selected for Lieutenant Colonel.”

My first job at Lockheed, back in the early 1980s, was to find something new to broaden the company’s dependence on airlifters (C-130s and C-5Bs). The need we found was close air support and close-in interdiction, and for the low end of that mission, our proposal wasn’t too terribly different from Maj. Cannon’s proposal. Our favored platform, though, was a small, twin-engined jet to replace the A-10. The USSR was still around and so tank killing was a primary mission.