Nisar Keshvani

Maybe You’re the Reason Your Job Is Boring
4:20 PM Thursday January 7, 2010

http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/cramm/2010/01/three-reasons-why-you-should-f.html?cm_mmc=npv-_-MANAGEMENT_TIP-_-FEB_2010-_-MTOD0222&referral=00203

If you are finding your job a little boring, you aren’t alone. There are many who feel trapped in their current jobs since the economy has removed a few of the seats in the corporate game of musical chairs. But I challenge you to see that it’s actually you, not the job, that’s boring. First, see if you recognize any of these hard truths:

You’re on autopilot.
When bored, our brains shift into autopilot. This isn’t a good thing for you or your company. Unfortunately, shifting into autopilot is what our brains do best. Our past experiences create the neural pathways upon which our survival depends. The brain interprets current reality and responds to similar situations using behaviors that have served us well in the past. These shortcuts help us save time, but can also sap our interest.
Your energy level is less than impressive.
When we are bored, our energy level dissipates and we lose the focus and purpose so necessary to excel at the job at hand. Our brains no longer work for us and actually start working against us.

You’ve become a conformist.
It’s not unusual for leaders to start sleeping on the job once they hit year three or four. At this point, they have molded the organization in their own image. They know their people, processes, and technology aren’t perfect, but have adjusted to their imperfections and lose sight of the opportunities for improvement. Every day brings the same set of problems and the same responses. From a performance perspective, the sharp “blacks” and “whites” so obvious on Day 1 become indistinguishable shades of gray. “I can’t believe what’s going on here!” slowly but surely becomes “I can’t believe how tired I am!”

So what’s the solution?
Wake yourself up by renewing your leadership agenda.Re-engage by mentally firing yourself and spending the next few weeks acting as if you just joined the company. This entails assessing the current situation anew with the help of key stakeholders. Make it a disciplined process.

This isn’t as easy as it sounds. Although you are bored, you are also extremely busy. Your only choice is to extract yourself from day-to-day operations while you redefine your organization’s future. It’s time to delegate or defer and make sure that the “First 90 Days” activities take priority in your calendar. Activities such as clarifying strengths and opportunities, confirming the mandate for change, and determining how to better allocate existing resources.

This approach is uncomfortable and definitely not boring. Take heart that your organization can operate just fine (for a while) without you and it’s far better to fire yourself mentally today rather than wait for your organization to do so — for real.

‘Rob me’ site reveals empty homes
By Zoe Kleinman
Technology reporter, BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/8521598.stm

A website called PleaseRobMe claims to reveal the location of empty homes based on what people post online.

The Dutch developers told BBC News the site was designed to prove a point about the dangers of sharing precise location information on the internet.

The site scrutinises players of online game Foursquare, which is based on a person’s location in the real world.

PleaseRobMe extracts information from players who have chosen to post their whereabouts automatically onto Twitter.

“It started with me and a friend looking at our Twitter feeds and seeing more and more Foursquare posts,” said Boy Van Amstel, one of PleaseRobMe’s developers.

“People were checking in at their house, or their girlfriend’s or friend’s house, and sharing the address – I don’t think they were aware of how much they were sharing.”

Mr Van Amstel, Frank Groeneveld and Barry Borsboom realised that not only were people sharing detailed location information about themselves and their friends, they were also by default broadcasting when they were away from their own home.

Simple search

The website took just four hours to create.

“It’s basically a Twitter search – nothing new,” said Mr Van Amstel. “Anyone who can do HTML and Javascript can do this. You could almost laugh at how easy it is.”

He said that the site would remain live but stressed it was not created to encourage crime.

“The website is not a tool for burglary,” he said. “The point we’re getting at is that not long ago it was questionable to share your full name on the internet. We’ve gone past that point by 1,000 miles.”

Mr Van Amstel added that in practice it would be “very difficult” to use the information on the website to carry out a burglary.

Charity Crimestoppers advises people to think carefully about the information they choose to share on the internet.

“We urge users of Twitter, Facebook or other social networks to stop and think before posting personal details online that could leave them vulnerable to crimes including burglary and identity theft,” said a spokesperson.

“Details posted online are available for the world to see; you wouldn’t hang a sign on your door saying you’re out, so why would you post it online?”

Published: 2010/02/18 10:39:06 GMT

© BBC MMX

3:53 PM Wednesday January 6, 2010
by Mark W. Johnson

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/01/have_you_already_killed_your_n.html?cm_mmc=npv-_-MANAGEMENT_TIP-_-FEB_2010-_-MTOD0218&referral=00203

As we close the books on 2009 and, with the Federal Reserve, look to 2010 with “guarded optimism,” I’ll bet no one is adding to their New Year’s list the resolution: “Ignore growth opportunities.” And yet, odds are that someone in your company has already thought up its next great growth opportunity. And suggested it at some point. And gotten no response.

If I’ve learned anything from my years helping companies come up with breakthrough innovations, I’ve learned that. Remarkably often, the high-growth potential innovations our teams help our clients identify were there all along.

It’s not hard to think of companies that have failed to capitalize on their own great ideas. Xerox, inventor of the mouse, the laser printer, and the graphical user interface, comes immediately to many minds. Perhaps less well-known is the fact that it was a Kodak engineer who invented the first digital camera — in 1975.

At first glance, Kodak’s case looks especially easy to explain.Steve Sasson, the engineer in question, probably sealed his fate from the start by referring to his invention as “filmless photography” when he demonstrated it to senior management. Why would a company that makes its profits from selling film ever entertain the idea of a filmless camera? Management’s reaction — “that’s cute, but don’t tell anyone about it” — was nothing if not predictable.

But the forces at work at Kodak are really the same ones operating in the less-obvious case of Xerox — and in your company as well.

Every successful company is successful because it’s fulfilling some important job customers really need done better than another other company does in a way that turns a profit — that is, it’s delivering real value to customers while creating real value for itself and its shareholders.

That’s not easy. (If it were, the five-year failure rate for new ventures would be something far south of the 50% it consistently is.) It requires a company to conceive and hone an effective business model — to deliver a potent customer value proposition according to a viable profit formula through an efficient and effective combination of resources and processes. Start-ups struggle to do that; incumbents spend years perfecting their winning formulas.

To bring to market something radically different — like filmless photography — usually requires a radically different way to turn a profit than your company is currently engaged in, one that will likely call for different processes, different resources, and — most problematic — different overhead allocations and margin requirements. Why go to all that trouble for something that has a 50/50 chance of failure?

Because start-ups don’t have your legacy systems, they’re not saddled with your overhead costs, and they don’t need to stick to your margin requirements. Even more important, they’re not spending a minute of their time thinking about how to convince customers to buy more of your products or services. They’re spending all of their comparatively miniscule energies thinking of ways to capitalize on new opportunities by satisfying customers’ unmet needs.

There’s no good reason why incumbents can’t devote a similarly minuscule amount of energy doing so as well. Because the question is not whether to stick with your current offerings or bet on a new, high-risk one. The question is how much time will you have before someone else comes up with the same innovations your bright, clever staffers have thought of — and what will happen to your customer base when they do?

To its credit, Kodak recognized that it couldn’t ignore filmless photography forever and in the 1990s invested substantial sums and eventually successfully brought out the carefully differentiated EasyShare camera and printer combination. Kodak may have had the luxury of sitting on its revolutionary idea for decades, but how many companies today are willing to take that risk? Is yours?

Mark W. Johnson is chairman of Innosight, a strategic innovation consulting and investing company with offices in Massachusetts, Singapore, and India, which he cofounded with Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen. Mark’s forthcoming book is Seizing the White Space: Business Model Innovation for Growth and Renewal.