In the annals of military misconduct, are the stories of numerous military personnel and civilian personnel who purloined certain military materiel for their own purposes. Such theft is cause for severe punishment in some circumstances. Sometimes it is cause for military retribution including dishonorable discharges, prison time, and so forth. Sometimes it is somewhat humorous. Other times it is both humorous and tragic.

Having a local military installation nearby, we periodically hear news of misconduct such as military and civilian personnel selling equipment or stealing equipment for their own use. I learned the story of one soldier who was smart enough to figure out how to steal a rocket motor from an installation.

He was not smart enough to calculate the physics of its use. He perceived that he would be able to make his automobile perform some feats of speed otherwise unattainable if he were to mount a bracket under his automobile to use the motor of a small rocket.

Again, he was bright enough to design a bracket to hold the rocket. He was not trained well enough to know how to calculate the physics of specific impulse, thrust, and the burning time of the rocket.

He figured out how to mount and ignite the rocket and set about on his project. The military officer who described the scene told me that the path of the car proceeded down a paved road. Clearly the rocket motor burned very powerfully and exceeded the speed that the driver of the car could negotiate. By the end of the ride, the car had left with the tires skidded to shreds along a large extent of the path, the tires burning up. Meanwhile, the brakes on the vehicle had been completely burned up. The vehicle eventually became airborne. The car had achieved such speed that it had been launched off the road destroying the car, the driver, and the future of an errant soldier.

People are fascinated with the concept of super powers. Connecting a rocket to an automobile is hardly a super power. Yet the management and handling of that power is terrifying. True, cartoons show all kinds of clap-trap and humorous concoctions of devices. However, those are cartoons. The actual equipment is very real, is governed by very real laws of physics, and is not handled except on principles of engineering appropriate for the task. Why people long for super powers when they are so incapable of handling the limited power already available to them is beyond me. Clearly, we do not understand all consequences that would result if we had the power to change many of our mundane circumstances.

In business, creative, energetic people like many inventors are often very dynamic. I always advise them that they will destroy their companies if they do not harness or “bracket” that energy. However, unbridled administrative control has strangled much innovation and many companies. Likewise unbridled creativity has driven companies to destruction like our test torpedo. Creativity and administration are both required, working in harmony and balance.

If you have ever had occasion to service a common, household, washing machine, you have seen a comparatively small electric motor that drives the mechanical motion of the tub and agitator. On an advanced torpedo, we were working with a motor of similar but security-classified design, and security-classified performance. Suffice it to say that a motor about the size of a washing machine electric motor was turning out the kind of horsepower automotive engines produce. Meanwhile, an electric battery was designed to literally consume itself during the tactical operation time designed for this torpedo.

The premise of the advanced torpedo was a helicopter launch. The chopper, from the deck of a ship, could navigate through air much faster than a ship through water. With appropriate sonar and other gear, shipboard and airborne target detection equipment would identify a threat water craft, such as a submarine. A helicopter would be launched to pursue. Eventually the helicopter would drop an advanced torpedo into the ocean in the vicinity of the targeted threat.

The torpedo would do a short loop as it scanned, acquiring the target, and would then race toward the target at an unprecedented speed to deliver a “shaped charge” warhead into the hull. This was not the technology of “Run Silent, Run Deep.” Here the ship was no longer a gun; the submarine was no longer an aiming platform for precision aiming of the torpedo. In this case, the torpedo was a “fire-and-forget” self-guiding, seeker and destroyer.

On one occasion a test motor was installed in a test fixture, a tank in a laboratory at the facility developing the motor and power system. However, someone had not secured the bracketing hardware. Again, this was no toy. This was a full-sized, tactically capable, motor section for a very powerful and fast torpedo. When the test device (torpedo motor section) was initiated, it came to life in a spectacular way, shooting forward through the tank instead of churning water past its stationary test-fixture position.

Freed from its brackets, it actually traveled with tremendous speed and power. The torpedo engine section and power module together raced to the end of the tank and plowed right through the barrier, launching through the wall at the end of the laboratory.

Much like the checks and balances we talk about in government and other organizations, a tremendous amount of power, unleashed, can do a lot of destruction. Whether kept in check by one’s own personal values and administrative limits, or by those of others, power must be harnessed to be useful. Unharnessed , it is typically useless and destructive.

Howard was an irascible, demanding, aggravating, brilliant, out-of-control, technical leader in the fleet ballistic missile side of our business. Everyone acknowledged that Howard was very difficult to work with. Howard demanded of himself and others to look beyond the obvious of what had been done in the past to achieve better results from our technical engineering designs of military equipment. Fragile egos need not apply. I do not condone Howard’s techniques. However, everyone acknowledged that Howard was brilliant.

I recall being a comparatively younger engineer and reporting to Howard on the hydrodynamics of a towed array-sonar system. At first I was taken aback by his blunt, confrontational style of conversation. Nevertheless, I realized that I was the expert on the topic he was inquiring into. Accordingly, I responded to his questions, and came back at him with justifications for my approach. Howard immediately became content with that aspect of the project, realizing that it was on solid technical ground. His technical concerns had already been addressed in the performance factors analyzed.

I have realized since that facts are facts. One cannot avoid them. Often they are in the past or otherwise unchangeable. As patent attorneys, we deal with a broad range of inventors and technologists. We also work with a curious set of non-technical judges, attorneys, and others. Still, facts are facts. Facts are not as easily proved to people who are not trained in the laws of physics. However, once they see facts clearly, most people, probably even the overwhelming majority, want to deal with them rationally and abide by the truth.

Industrial and business managers report a young workforce demanding rewards and kudos as an entitlement before they perform. You may remember the movie “Run Silent, Run Deep” starring Clark Gable and Burt Lancaster. In this story one sees many details of what is required to aim a submarine in order to launch a torpedo. The basic premise is a captain and first officer interacting with one another as the captain sets demands that seem almost impossible for the crew to meet. The crew must learn to dive in record time and align the boat in order to launch torpedoes.

One can see that the entire boat is itself like a very large gun, with the torpedo as the projectile. The crew must identify a target, position the boat, and load and launch the projectile (torpedo) as efficiently and effectively as possible. The unreasoning precision and speed required by the captain are at first considered overly demanding by the crew.

However, over time they come to realize that their lives are in the balance. That speed, in combination with that precision is required to survive as they approach their mission in the “Bongo Straits”, a shipping lane where allied ships are meeting inordinate attacks.

Ultimately the submarine crew finds out the nature of their enemy, and it is not what they supposed. The speed and precision of their drills are not a whit in excess of the actual needs. Many survive, but not unscathed.

A sense of entitlement leads to failure and destruction. Reality will not be throttled back when we whine about unfairness. Nature is absolute. Physics yields the same result every time for the same conditions. Even human nature has a degree of predictability. Nothing and no one can guarantee entitlements. Perhaps only a fool or a charlatan relies on them or promises them.

Dr. Betty Edwards used to travel to present workshops of about a week duration from her position at UCLA. Dr. Edwards using drawing as a way to encourage people to engage the creative resources of their brains. She taught as a central element of learning to observe and record what one actually sees, not what one believes, demands, or symbolizes from the observed. This is an excellent management approach, seeing reality first, and evaluating it later. I would recommend that one retreat directly to her book “Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain” rather than my experience only. It became clear to me that Dr. Edwards taught us to draw, but more importantly to observe. The actual intense detail work of observing in order to draw, as well as the drawing itself required such concentration, as to bore the logical brain out of control. As I recall, we learned three ways to encourage the logical portion of our brain (which tends to be linear, logical, limited, and language oriented).

First, one can bore it into ceding control. Second, one can relax it by exposure to relaxing activities such as camping, backpacking, hiking, boating or other activities. Three, one may engage in some collateral, creative activities such as music, painting, or the like. These collateral activities although directed to music, art, painting, drawings, or the like are also intense, consuming and actually boring in their own right.

Thus the logical side of the brain that insists on order, simplicity (yes simplicity!) and such accoutrements to survive, cedes control to the creative side of the brain which can then handle the nearly infinite levels of complexity and frustration.

It is also important to load the brain with problem. I have found that gathering up information, studying the laws, rules, principles, and other governing parameters, as well as applying the same to solve the issues at hand is a very important, albeit frustrating, exercise.

Thereafter, engaging in any exercise that will foster the creative portion of the brain taking control of the problem will result in a successful transition in the mind. Solutions often do not come quickly. Many times, solutions to complex problems come weeks later. I have found it not uncommon to be almost finished with writing a patent when my mind comes up with several new and clever approaches. The mind creates these out of its background thinking. They usually are elegant, innovative, and utterly superior to what I was thinking before.

It is my observation that the creative portion of our brains can handle, tolerate, and thrive in nearly infinite levels of complexity. By contrast, the logical portion of the brain passes judgment on creative solutions, and pronounces them simple enough to execute, self-consistent, and within the capabilities of the linear, limited, logical brain to fulfill. Thus, elegant solutions do not appear to originate in logic, but to originate in creativity. Upon analysis, they are deemed elegant by the linear, limited, left side of the brain.

A professional is not a mindless drudge yet, the world (e.g., consumer public) is so accustomed to the plentiful and inexpensive results of assembly-line manufacturing processes of industry that it is often unaware of how business actually gets done. Many of the decisions in business and industry require considerable insight and development.

Most of the tasks of business are not an automatic turning of a crank to output a predictable, almost immutable result as an output from a hopper full of standard inputs. Rather, priorities must be established, influences of various factors must be considered, outcomes must be evaluated and analyzed, data must be accumulated and reduced, and judgment must be exercised.

Producing parts by the millions from a stamping machine is reasonable in mass production. Some things are more routine than others. Nevertheless, in your life and its legal consequences, even determining an appropriate solution is a decision that cannot be bypassed. Even if execution were a standard task, determining what standard tasks should be executed is still another decision entirely.

The idea persists among some that a lawyer’s opinion is like a box of generic cornflakes on a shelf, wrapped in a label. The box can effortlessly be taken from the shelf and delivered across a counter. Such an attitude is utter nonsense. As well an individual might go to an engineer and ask for a blueprint, any blueprint off a shelf, and proceed to build any building to that blueprint. What if that blueprint is a fast food restaurant, and one needs a business high rise tower? What if that blueprint is a sewage treatment plant and one needs a restaurant?

One reason licensed professionals exist as doctors, attorneys, CPA’s, engineers, and the like is because they have learned to use a set of tools to gather ambiguous information, evaluate it, and establish probabilities of risk and reward. Their solutions will obtain results within a certain probability. Engineers may be the most fortunate in predicting their results with the most accuracy. Nevertheless, doctors have historical probabilities they can rely on for outcomes. CPA’s likewise understand the probabilities and the absolutes within their profession. Attorneys, often times have “black letter” law to rely upon. In other aspects, they have only probabilities with associated risks and rewards. Those must be navigated by a client, according to their appetite for risk and reward.

In summary, well established, predictable, routine tasks having a known output can provide many consumer products at inexpensive prices. That is not the model for unique, unpredictable, uncertain situations. A first step toward accurately assessing risk and reward is to see facts, and to see those facts clearly.

Spouses, congressmen, lawyers, ex-spouses, and car dealers share a common place in public attitudes. Everyone has known plenty of bad ones. Most people have one of their own that they choose to deal with, and typically respect. Why?

For one thing, we can typically tolerate that which we understand. We appreciate those who seem to understand us. Moreover, we typically respect that which we understand well. Also, we appreciate that person who assists or benefits us in our time of stress. Negative feelings from being under that stress, and the turmoil involved, create an unpleasant memory and feeling. However, the “go to guy” who has consistently delivered solutions is someone we value and still want to deal with.

So the solution is not to criticize all persons of a particular class, in general. It is to find the person that will hear us out and accommodate our concerns. That one becomes our attorney, our congressmen, our spouse, our car dealer. By the same token, that listening ear and understanding voice should never be taken for granted.

Employee reviews are often hated by the managers who give them and the employees who receive them. I do not believe in employee reviews. Moreover, they often appear to be a colossal waste of time and other resources. Better form is to kindly offer on-the-spot correction, privately but at or near the occurrence of a problem, and move on.

Employee reviews, from extended observations, appear to be a travesty, a tragedy, and a painful experience for all concerned. Typically, personnel reviews are ignored during most of the year. Suddenly, as a time for review comes near, a flurry of activity may occur to collect information and prepare for an employee review.

I have observed employee reviews taking two very drastically different and equally useless turns. In the first case, if a manager is thinking all year long of the year-end employee reviews, then he or she may develop an attitude of creating a “Pearl Harbor” file on each of the people in the organization. Thus, he or she must keep a dossier on each employee, tracking all of the good and bad they do. Of course, the bad will predominate, because it will easily gain management attention first. Thus, management develops a poison attitude of spying on the troops. This is absolutely unacceptable thinking.

By contrast, good work often results in a smooth project, having no crisis to draw attention. Who complains about good work? In this second case, if one does not spend all year thinking about the annual review, whether the annual review comes in June or December, then incidents tend to only be accumulated just before review time. Accordingly, observations of activities, actions, decisions, and errors just prior to the time of review are collected. With the reality of our limitations of memory, those observations and their significance are blown completely out of proportion. Forgotten or dwarfed is the performance during the remainder of the year. Thus, advice, counsel, evaluations, and the like may be highly distorted toward recent, minor incidents not productive issues.

I have, however, learned about a company that provides employee evaluation software surfaces at ninedecisions.com. Their system is universal, provides 360 degree feedback throughout an organization, puts management and employees on the same footing, and takes so little time that it can be exercised one or several times a year. Outside a tool such as theirs, I cannot recommend in good conscience that any other organization conduct anything like conventional employee reviews.

A successful manager I knew during my years in industry said to ask “why?” at least five times. As he put it, one needed to ask “why” in response to any complaint, suggestion, or plan in order to ferret out the needs and justification. Many people are not focused on communication, nor on deep thought as to why they are doing what they are doing. By asking “Why?” a manager begins to peel the onion as to the origins of both problems and solutions. Upon obtaining one explanation, he would ask “Why?” again. This uncovers some of the basis for the issues underlying the initial exposition of the problem.

Asking “Why?” again in response to each level of explanation eventually will uncover more of the organizational, resource, personnel, customer, and physical realities driving processes and their solutions. Asking “Why?” teaches the questioning manager much about his organization. It also develops in the person reporting a depth of understanding and a depth of communication with management.

Try it. Don’t go with the superficial answer. Understand its underpinnings until you have arrived at bedrock.

Never bring the boss a problem. Bring a solution. Years ago I worked on a crew stacking hay in the meadows of Wyoming’s cattle country. I recall a particular problem that occurred. The problem was within the purview and promises of the owner and foreman of the ranch where we were contracted to put up the hay. I suggested to my boss that we should go back to the management or ownership of the ranch and request that they correct the improper condition and circumstance as agreed. My boss replied “He didn’t hire us to bring him problems. He hired us to solve them.” Accordingly, we did whatever it took to solve the problem, even though it improperly cost us and delayed us. The owner of the ranch had his problem solved. He was happy to pay for the overall solution as contracted. He never new about the problem his foreman had caused.

In industry I found the same situation time and again. I found it best to go to management requesting only authorization to proceed with my plan. When I could present to management a plan of what to do, explain what problems that action was going to solve, and then request permission, authorization, or the resources to implement the plan, I had an easy sale to make. If one keeps showing up with problems, asking management what to do, it cuts in half the value delivered by the worker. One is expected to engage the brain as well as the brawn in bringing to pass the objectives of any organization.

keep looking »

Recently Written

• Rocketman and Super Powers
• Balancing Power and Control
• Facts are Facts
• Run Silent, Run Deep–Superior Performance Trumps Entitlement
• Creativity Is Not Just For “le Artiste.”
• Get Value By Knowing How Business, Lawyers, and Industry Actually Operate
• Shakespeare said, “First, We Kill All the Lawyers,” But Did He Forget Congressmen and Others?
• Why Waste Time, Turmoil and Good Will on Personnel Reviews?
• Ask “Why?” Five Times If You Expect to Solve Problems and Make Good Decisions
• A Problem Solving Approach for Everyone in Business or Industry

Categories

• Announcements
• Business
• Litigation
• News
• Patents
• Trademarks
• Uncategorized
• Valuing Intellectual Property

Archives

• October 2008
• September 2008
• August 2008
• July 2008
• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007

Blogroll

Admin

• Register
• Login
• Wordpress
• XHTML

Search