Required Reading for Dinosaurs

Hey, T-Rex! Over here! I have a few things I’d like you to read. Set up a lounge chair next to the primordial pool. Grab a pitcher of iced tea. Make yourself comfortable. Just a few hours of your time.

Whether you’re ready or not, it’s time to evolve. Your industry depends on it. Your future depends on it. These ideas will help you make progress and avoid the tar pit.

Drucker

Peter F. Drucker predicted in “The Coming of the New Organization” printed in the Harvard Business Review (January-February 1988) that the typical large business of this decade will be flatter – have fewer levels of management – and have no more than a third of the managers. I see you shiver at the idea, T-Rex. What will you do without all of those people between the CEO and the “front-line” workers? Where will the management’s status come from? How will workers be motivated to do better if there’s no place to go? Who will make sure things get done?

As business changes, particularly in the West, our work world is evolving from production oriented to information based. Information based organizations require more specialists and knowledge workers. Whereas, in the past, knowledge was held by the people at the top of the organization and the workers just did what they were told, today most of the knowledge is with the workers who tend to direct themselves and require much less supervision or assistance. Many layers of management are no longer necessary, create redundancies, and impede communication. According to Drucker, these managers “…neither make decisions nor lead.”

I think that’s a very important statement. These middle managers “…neither make decisions nor lead.” They merely pass information from higher levels of management to those below them and then from the bottom back up again.

Information in the current “command-and-control” version of organizational management is used for control. Managing this or that. In the information based organization, information must be extracted from data and that requires specialists. Lots of them. In Ducker’s vision, corporations will work much more like an orchestra: a conductor at the head and musicians, all specialists, working together and following the conductor’s lead. The conductor could be the CEO but is more likely to be a department or division head; the department will be a training ground and a “home base” for specialists. Specialists will, instead, work in cross-functional task forces or groups, usually led by a member of the group instead of a manager.

In order to make this successful, everyone has to be working from the same “score” or set of instructions. Everyone needs to hear the same clearly stated, common objectives. The leaders provide this direction. All members of the team in Drucker’s organization have responsibility for sharing information and requesting the information they need. While we often concentrate on what we need to tell others (reporting on activities or what we discovered), knowledge workers must consider what information we need to make our contributions.

To help you out T-Rex, Drucker lists four requirements to help you create a successful, information-based organization without the thick layer of middle managers:

1. Develop rewards, recognition, and career opportunities for specialists. As a knowledge worker myself, I can’t tell you how important this is. I enjoy what I do, but in order for me to make more money, to secure more benefits, and to gain public recognition for my contributions (which is much more important than many people will admit), I have to be promoted to a managerial role. That most probably means abandoning what I enjoy doing most and, quite frankly, what I do best; for that, both the organization and I lose. And, if you fail to recognize my contribution? Well, T-Rex, you’ll eventually lose me and the investment you made in me over the years.
2. Create a unified vision. If you look closely at many organizations, they have conflicting visions originating from different business units and control groups. A unified message is necessary to ensure everyone is on the same track and to avoid struggles within task forces over the ultimate goals.
3. Devise the management structure for an organization of tasks forces. These should be self-governing units that foster pride and professionalism. To motivate and inspire specialists, the organization might consider rotating them periodically into new specialties (if that’s reasonable for the industry).
4. Ensure the supply, preparation, and testing of top management people. I know what you’re thinking, T-Rex. “If I don’t have middle managers, who do I groom for senior level positions?” First, in the current world, I know you’re taking a lot of senior managers from outside of the organization. You can’t fool me. You’re not just fishing in your own pond. But, just in case you’re being straight with me, Drucker suggests that these people can come from leaders who emerge in the task forces, the small pool of managers remaining in the organization, managers from smaller organizations, and business schools (who will need to refocus their curriculum based on the changing organizational structure).

Buzzanell

You’re going to love this one, too, T-Rex. Patrice M. Buzzanell writes in “Gaining a Voice: Feminist Organizational Communication Theorizing,” published in Management Communication Quarterly  (May 1994 – Volume 7, Number 4), about a feminist approach to organizational management. First, you need to recognize and accept that the modern business organization is established on a patriarchal philosophy of hierarchy and competition. It’s a male dominated world where stereotypically male behavior is rewarded – unless it’s displayed by a woman – and stereotypically female behavior is criticized or dismissed as ineffectual.

While there is no one feminist approach, there are some common values. First, feminism promotes cooperation over competition. Competition fosters distrust, lower self-esteem, neglect of personal relationships, and health problems. Competitive organizations promote exclusion, particularly of women through negative myths about professional women. In these organizations, it is often unclear how one advances; the “rules and routes” are rarely divulged. The reliance on extrinsic rewards (e.g., money and promotions) inhibits development encouraged by curiosity, reliance on individual competence, and learning.

The cooperative, feminist environment values commitment, relationships, and interdependence. Consensus processes are used to negotiate decisions; the processes have minimal rules, create little, if any, differentiation between members, and motivate based on the value of the results in terms of positive feelings, satisfaction of human needs, etc., instead of advancement up the corporate ladder. The organization recognizes the “human” side of women’s contributions to the workplace, such as conflict resolution, providing encouragement, and acting as a sounding board, as valuable and even essential to the organization. And it values a work-life balance.

Second, feminism promotes integrative thinking over linear, cause-effect thinking. Linear thinking assumes that there is one best way of doing things. It ignores possible alternatives. Diversity must be managed instead of explored. “Effective” managers embodied traditionally masculine traits such as independence, rationality, self-confidence, and easy decision-making. However, women who exhibit these traits are often criticized. Integrative thinking emphasizes the possibility of alternative, viewpoints, approaches and outcomes. It also looks for dependency on input from others.

Finally, feminism promotes connectedness over autonomy. Stereotypical male goals are recognition as individuals through action, work, and status and exclusion of emotion from the concepts of truth and fairness. The feminist approach values nurturing and relationships.

Kim and Mauborgne

W. Chan Kim and Renée Mauborgne, in “Blue Ocean Strategy,” published in the Harvard Business Review (October 2004), suggest that successful organizations are the ones who create new markets, not join and out-compete existing markets. That does not necessarily mean you have to come up with a brand new product, T-Rex. But it does mean offering a different value proposition to the customer. For example, Kim and Mauborgne cite Ford’s introduction of the Model-T as a “blue ocean” strategy. Ford did not invent the car. But they did make the car affordable to the masses. Before the Model-T, cars were custom made by teams of workers who took weeks to build one car. Ford developed the process and parts that alllowed a group of workers to build a car in less than a week.

“Red ocean” strategies involve competing in existing markets and focus on beating the competition. They attempt to exploit existing demand and typically sacrifice value for low-cost or vice versa. Red ocean organizations align their systems and activities with choosing between differentiation and low cost. They are deemed “red” because of the blood from the battle or competition discoloring the ocean water.

“Blue ocean” strategies create uncontested markets, making competition irrelevant. They create and capture new demand; newcomers or imitators don’t fare as well because the innovators captured the market first. These organizations don’t sacrifice value for low-cost or vice versa. Blue ocean organizations align their activities to pursue both differentiation and low cost. They are deemed “blue” because the water is clear since there’s no battle and resulting blood.

Innovation, T-Rex, is part of the recipe for success.

Taylor

James R. Taylor, in “The Other Side of Rationality: Socially Distributed Cognition” published in the Management Communication Quarterly (November 1999, Volume 13, Number 2), suggests that there are two types of organizational knowledge: practical and discursive. Discursive knowledge is knowledge that an individual can convey in explicit language. It’s the kind of stuff you write in instructions or reports. Practical knowledge is the information you know but take for granted. You don’t normally include it in instructions. For instance, if you tell someone to complete a form, you normally don’t include instructions such as the need to pick up the pencil, what side of the pencil (the lead or the eraser) to apply to the paper, etc. For organizational information, the practical information is probably more sophisticated than that but it does include information that the worker takes for granted.

James reminds us that (1) most human accomplishments are the results of collaborative efforts and (2) “thinking and acting are two sides of a single coin” (what we know influences what we do and we learn from what we do). Individuals bring to a work group their individual knowledge which contributes to the collective knowledge, both practical and discursive. No one individual knows the whole of what the group knows together, mostly because of the practical knowledge that is “hidden” because it’s undisclosed and assumed.

To know what the whole group knows collectively would require someone to give it a voice, by documenting it. Even though these elements are not disclosed, they are essential to the organization. To successfully document what the organization knows, there must be four elements: “Community”, “Opinion”, “Representation”, and “Voice of Society.” “Community” is the people who make up the organization. “Opinion” is each individual’s discursive interpretation of the organization’s cumulative practical and discursive knowledge. “Representation” is the reformulation of “Opinion” as he or she understands it by a manager or other person authorized to speak on behalf of the organization. “Voice of Society” is the person or persons who express what the organization knows AND has the authority to do so. This is usually senior management. In order for the system to work, the Voice of Society must communicate the Representation TO the Community and the Community must validate it as true based on what they know. And, if more than one Voice of Society expresses Representations that differ, confusion and debate will follow.

To summarize for you, T-Rex, more is accomplished by combining resources with diverse knowledge (like the task forces in Drucker’s model and the collaborative work in Buzzanell’s). And, senior management must communicate the interpretation of what the organization knows or is setting out to do and have the recognized moral authority (through both appointment and validation of the message by the employees based on their experience and knowledge) to do so.

Weick

Karl E. Weick, in “The Collapse of Sensemaking in Organizations: The Mann Gulch Disaster” published in the Administrative Science Quarterly (1983, Volume 38), applies the disintegration of the team structure of a group of firefighters battling a wildfire in the 1940s to similar problems within other teams and organizations.

The story and evaluation is fascinating and much too long to summarize here. (The link above provides the entire article.)  In short, Weick spells out what it takes to destroy a team or organization:

Thrust people into unfamiliar roles, leave some key roles unfilled, make the task more ambiguous, discredit the role system, and make all of these changes in a context in which small events can combine into something monstrous. Faced with similar conditions, organizations that seem much sturdier can also come crashing down much like Icarus who overreached his competence as he flew toward the sun and also perished because of fire.

In order to make an organization more resilient, Weick suggests the organization must provide for the following in all levels, management and workers:

1. Improvisation and bricolage (the ability to create order out of chaos): Individuals and groups should be trained to improve and solve problems with the tools (including knowledge) that are available to them. Creativity needs to be encouraged; creativity under pressure is learned through practice so that it becomes natural to think of alternative solutions.
2. Virtual role systems: Group members need to understand the roles of others in their group so they can visualize and recreate those roles in their minds. This information can help guide individuals in their own actions. And individuals need to continually assess the situation and look for the potential dangers or pitfalls and exits. “Never get into anything without making sure you have a way out.”
3. The attitude of wisdom: The more we learn about something, the more questions and uncertainties arise. We discover that it’s more complex than we thought. Wisdom is knowing that you are knowledgeable about something but don’t know everything. Having too much confidence in your knowledge can stifle learning and creativity. Not having enough confidence can be paralyzing and prevent progress.
4. Respectful interaction: This requires trust – respecting reports from others; one must be willing to base beliefs and actions on those reports. One must report information honestly; others must be able to trust one’s observations so they can come to valid beliefs. And one must have self-respect and respect one’s own perceptions and beliefs; those perceptions and beliefs should be integrated with reports from others without deprecating them or one’s own. This includes “vertical” interactions as well as “lateral.”

Evolving

Okay.  There you are, T-Rex.  The forumla for success.  There are some common ideas in the articles summarized above:

1. Collaboration
2. Lack of or short hierarchy
3. Open, respectful communication
4. Sharing of knowledge
5. Innovation

These ideas, implemented with honesty and commitment, should help an organization survive in the information economy.

So, T-Rex, how about trading in that pyramid you acquired along the way…you know, the one with the sound-proof rooms, glass ceilings, and secret passageways…the one with the droves of workers at the bottom level and layer upon layer of management up to the point…for a low-rise, energy efficient structure with an open floor plan, windows that let in sunshine and fresh air, and easily marked stairways and elevators to move up and down freely and easily?

Survey Says…

Surveys and the resulting statistics have always fascinated me. I loved my probability and statistics class in high school. My part-time job as a telephone market research interviewer in my senior year of high school introduced me to survey design including the concept of closed ended and open ended questions. We learned to prompt (“any other reasons you like this product?”) and probe (“how does it ‘work well’?”).

While my college education included classes in statistics and social research, I never took it any further…until this past October when I administered my very own survey.

Tell Me What You Think

I’ve been thinking about this for a few years now. My class in Communication Theory and Social Research prompted me to take the plunge. It was exciting to finally go through with it.

For the past 18 years, I’ve been involved in (some years, like this year, consumed by) running a fund raising event for a local animal shelter. We call it a “Bucket Auction” but it’s also known as a “Chinese Auction”, “Tricky Tray”, or “Penny Auction.” The event does reasonably well but we’ve hit a plateau in how much we raise. Even with gradual increases in admission and charging for previously free refreshments, there’s been no real increase in the proceeds.

Overall, it’s an impressive event. There are hundreds of prizes and we regularly attract participants from over an hour from the event venue. But, I’ve wondered if we what our participants think. Is there something we can do better? What do they think we do well already?

So, I developed a very short survey to assess how people feel. All of the information appeared on the front and back of a 4 by 6 index card. To encourage people to participate, we offered a drawing for a $25 gift card. The following images are the front and back of the card that was inserted in each participant’s program.

Front of Survey Card
(Click on image to enlarge.)

Back of Survey Card

(Click on image to enlarge.)

I attempted to assess the following:

• How the participant found out about the event. This will help us in the future to focus our efforts on the most effective way to promote the event.
• Whether or not the participant knew about the event website/blog and Facebook site. These were new efforts this year to create some excitement about the event.
• What participants thought of the prices charged for admission, different ticket levels, and refreshments. I used a Likert-type scale to determine if the prices were too low, just right, or too high. (Remember, I had limited space.)
• Whether or not they intend to return next year.
• The most and least popular prizes. (A quick visual survey gave me some indication but it’s always good to ask.)
• What improvements participants would like to see in the prize selection.

Of course, we also took the opportunity to get names and addresses to add the individuals to our mailing (paper and electronic) lists.

Our Exit Polls Show…

Based on a count of the cards compared to the tickets sold at the door, nearly 100% of participants submitted a card. However, not everyone responded to the questions. Some just wrote their names and put the cards in the box. Unfortunately, I’ve not had time to evaluate the results. (Manually inputting over 250 cards of information is quite time consuming.) This is on my list as a winter break project. But I can discuss a few issues.

A cursory review of the results (flipping through the cards) shows that we are generally on-track with these participants. They think the prices are reasonable. A few people made suggestions for improvements, but not a lot.

What’s Going On?

So, why aren’t we making more money, even after raising prices, if nearly everyone is happy? Well, this year there is the big “E” word – the ECONOMY. It could be that people have their limits when they walk in the door and they stick with them.

Another observation from the event itself is the perceived socio-economic status of our participants. I did not request income or other demographic information in the questionnaire but general appearances would have me belief that most of the participants are from lower-middle class households.

What would be interesting is to survey people who did not attend, particularly those with more disposable income. Why don’t they attend? Is it the venue – a high school cafeteria with hard benches attached to the tables? Is it the quality or value of the prizes? Is it a perception of the event as “lower class” or not socially acceptable? How can we get the bigger spenders to come out? Will that cause us to lose our “regulars”?

So What Does That Mean?

When you hear or read about reports from surveys, there are often words or phrases they throw around that typically don’t mean much to most people. The three most common are standard deviation, margin of error, and statistically significant.

The standard deviation is the average distance of set of scores is from the “mean” or average. When the standard deviation is a smaller number, most of the scores are close to the average. There’s very little diversity or variability in the responses. When the standard deviation is a larger number, the scores are fairly well spread out. This represents more diversity or variability in the responses.

Because surveys generally do not include 100% of a population being studied, researchers usually attempt to acquire results from a representative sample of the population. Researchers seek to achieve results within a 95% confidence interval – they can be 95% confident that the sample represents the entire population. The margin of error tells us how much variance from the resulting percentage we can expect in the total population. So, if the margin of error is 3 points and our result is 45, that means the result in the total population is between 42 and 48. The larger the standard deviation, the wider the range of possible scores.

Results are statistically significant if there is less than 5% chance that the results occurred randomly.

So, stayed tuned for the results from my survey. Let’s hope with we have statistically significant results with small margins of error and standard deviations.

Grapevine or Lifeline?

A few weeks ago, I attended a book signing by one of my favorite authors, Rita Mae Brown. She spent over an hour before the signing entertaining and informing us with her ideas about life and, particularly, non-human animals. Her new book, Animal Magnetism, is a memoir of her life with animals.

In comparing us with our non-human kin, Ms. Brown addressed the issue of language and why humans are the only species with a very sophisticated verbal communication system. Her theory is that language developed as a survival mechanism. Verbalization improved our efforts in cooperative hunting. Those noises evolved into words to provide more precise instructions, feedback, and alerts. She suggests it was language that made us so successful as a species.

This piqued my interest because I was learning about Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach’s Media System Dependency (MSD) theory. Her theory was, in part, influenced by Tamotsu Shibutani's theory that rumor is, as Ralph L. Rosnow and Eric K. Foster summarized it, “…a collective, problem-solving interaction that is sustained by a combination of anxiety, uncertainty, and credulity.” Our desire is to resolve ambiguities, especially about our well-being. To do this, we turn to our information sources. The media, in its many forms, can often provide us with the information we need to understand what is going on and clear up ambiguities. In many ways, we can be dependent on it.

This all hit me at a very personal level. You see, I work for a large (global…maybe even intergalactic) financial services company. Our organization has been in a state of turmoil for at least four years. The mortgage and American auto industry collapses have turned our world upside down. Thousands laid off, as many as three helpings of TARP funds, and what seem to be daily changes in management and structure have left those of us lucky enough to have jobs nauseous from the ride, dazed, and confused. How does this relate to MSD? Communication networks.

Feeding Our Heads

Ball-Rokeach’s theory looks at the nature of society, human motivation, power, the media system, and the relationships between individuals, interpersonal networks, the media, and the nature of the power of the media. Society is an organism comprised of interdependent parts. That organism is understood by the relationship between those parts. Our organization - the company for which I work - is also an organism comprised of different levels of employees from clerks to executives, various departments, and networks of employees that may cross departments and positions on the corporate ladder. The media in our organization is comprised of corporate communications, human resources, senior management, and other groups who disseminate official communications.

According to MSD, motivation is part of human nature; humans strive to survive and grow. This includes achieving understanding (social and self), orientation (interaction and action), and play goals (social and solitary). In our corporate world, our survival is equated to whether or not we continue to be employed. For most of us, the job is a necessity to survive in the rest of the world: money to pay for food, clothing, shelter, heat, medical care. It’s needed to ensure our basic needs of sustenance. But we also have less tangible needs that, still, are important to us like understanding where we are positioned in the structure (like a wolf in the pack or a chimpanzee in the tribe) and what our role is in the group. Work also provides some level of social interaction and satisfaction. Or, at least one hopes it does since we spend so much time there.

Information is a source of power as it is needed to attain goals such as survival and maintaining social structure. In modern society, media is an important generator and purveyor of information. No where is that true more than in an organization. While job specific information or knowledge does not endow one with power, detailed knowledge of what is happening within and to the company usually does. Not only does it give one the tools to make decisions on what one should be doing and where one should be situated at any given time, it also gives one the information to know when to fight and when to flee.

Media relies on organizations and other social structures for information and an audience in order to gain influence. It derives its power by maintaining control over information resources that individuals, groups, and society as a whole need to achieve their goals. It’s true that in an organization the greatest powers are the ability of management to hire and fire and, of course, the paycheck. But it also controls its employees by the dissemination or suppression of information.

While the media may be powerful, individuals do not always rely on the media for information. Instead, they may refer to other individuals in their interpersonal network (peers, family, experts such as doctors) or community groups (such as schools, social activist groups). In the work world, it's the networks are comprised primarily of co-workers and, to a lesser degree, other industry contacts.  Much of this depends on the individual’s goals, the credibility of the sources of information, and the availability of media sources, among other variables. And it’s that “availability of media sources” that, in my world, has been problematic.

Trying to Find Our Way in the Dark

The most recent example that impacted me directly was a departmental restructuring. Months ago, we were told that several departments with similar responsibilities would be merged into one. News would be forthcoming. Until then, it was business as usual. Months passed with only intermittent information.  Information on the plans was very vague.  Changes occurred around us without explanation.

Meanwhile, rumors of our parent company declaring bankruptcy or eliminating the business units we supported resurfaced over and over again. Management’s advice: keep your head down and do your best work.  Ignore the rumors.

Artificial Lighting

What management failed to recognize was that our human nature is to see the lack of information as a threat to our survival and growth. So, what did employees do? We sought out information to resolve our ambiguities. Some relied on updates from on-line financial news sites like http://www.bloomberg.com/. Others obtained information from people outside of the organization. But, for most of us, it was the daily, sometimes hourly, conversations with one another. Sharing e-mails that hinted at who was going to be in charge. Reporting on meetings where someone “slipped” and revealed information that was not intended for public disclosure. Monitoring the comings and goings of certain managers between sites. Speculating on who might end up where. And what, if any, positions would be eliminated.

While some of the discussions may have created unnecessary anxiety, it made us feel slightly more empowered to have just a little more information than we did from our own sources. The discussions also helped us prepare for the worse and to consider our alternatives should we lose our jobs or find ourselves in situations that would make us unhappy.

A Little Bit of Sunlight

So, what finally happened? Well, they did eventually announce the restructuring of our department. We now feel more empowered because at least we have the information – now correct information – we need to make good decisions about our own futures.  Knowledge is, afterall, power.

The status of the organization as a whole and the business units we support is still unknown. Recent announcements of offices closing or reducing staff along with comments from our new CEO have not been encouraging.  Bloomberg will continue to see lots of hits from our servers for the foreseeable future.

That Was My Intention

They say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I intended many months ago to maintain a regular presence here. You see what happened with that!

Intentions are interesting. It’s hard to know if they will ever lead to actions. Often times, they just sit there, waiting to be used. You might intend to thank someone for a kindness or exercise every day or read the newest best seller. But those intentions don’t mean a lot unless you act on them.

Can you tell if someone is likely to act on their intentions? According to Martin Fishbein and Icek Aizen you might not be able to tell by just looking at someone but it’s likely you can tell by their attitudes and beliefs. Fishbein and Aizen’s Theory of Planned Behavior, or TpB, states that human action is guided by three considerations: behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control beliefs.

Naughty or Nice

Can TpB predict “naughty or nice” behavior prior to Christmas? Let’s take a look at the three predictors:

• Behavioral beliefs involve the likely outcomes of behavior and the evaluations of these outcomes. A child may believe that if he is good, he’ll get lots of toys from Santa; if he’s bad, he’ll get nothing or coal. (However, if the child’s a natural artist, a lump of coal might provide hours of fun. Find that mark!)
• Normative beliefs involve beliefs about what others expect and how motivated the individual is to comply with those expectations. A child might ask himself when presented with an opportunity to torment his little sister without his parents catching him “What will Santa think if he sees me? He’ll probably be angry.” Whether or not he leaves his sister alone will depend a lot on how much fun he thinks he might actually have making her miserable compared to how much he thinks he might lose in Christmas loot. Which motivates him more? The immediate fun or the toys at risk?
• Control beliefs involve the presence (perceived or actual) of factors that may facilitate or impede the individual’s performance of the behavior and the perceived power of these factors. How much control does the child have over his behavior or over what his parents might have told Santa? Can he really convince Santa to bring him what he wants if he’s good? Or does Santa leave good gifts on a whim and leave underwear more often than not?

Typically, if the child really believes he’ll get more toys by being good, that Santa is really swayed by good behavior and that it’s better to have toys than to make his little sister cry, and that he has the power to convince Santa to bring him the toys he wants (despite his parent’s possible objections), the more likely he is intend to be “nice” instead of “naughty” and to actually follow through on those intentions.

Attitude Adjustments

Intervention to change attitudes and behavior can be directed to any of the determinants: attitudes, subjective norms, or perceptions of behavioral control. For the child waiting for Christmas, we would want to target determinants that indicate the need for significant change. If attitudes toward the behavior are positive, then attempts to improve attitudes will have little effect. If the child believes he’ll get the same amount of presents whether he’s naughty or nice, we’d want to try to change that perception.

Then we can attack the strength of the belief or the scale the values of the beliefs. In this case, we’d need to turn the belief completely around to attack the strength. Or, we can introduce new beliefs. This might mean introducing the idea that the dog is Santa’s spy so, even if his parents aren’t around, the dog could thwart his efforts to secure lots of Christmas goodies.

The most important factor, though, is that the individual must be capable on carrying out the desired behaviors. For some children, this is a matter of self-control. And there are those who have little or none. They are fighting a losing battle over “naughty” versus “nice.”

Reading Minds

So, how do you determine intentions and likelihood of action? Aizen recommends a questionnaire that measures how often the subject participates in the behavior as well as predictor variables including intention, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control. The responses to the questions are ratings along a bi-polar scale, usually of seven rankings with terms like “strongly agree…strongly disagree”, “harmful…beneficial”, "unpleasant…enjoyable", and “extremely likely…..extremely unlikely”. Belief composites can be compiled from the data and can be used to predict behavior.

While it’s unlikely we’ll get the child to fill out or even understand the questionnaire, we can use this method to evaluate to evaluate likely behavior for any number of things from adoption of technology to use of condoms to making commitments to pets. Understanding motivation to act can point us in the right direction to influence either changes in attitudes (and, we hope, behavior) or introduce new beliefs.

Now, if we can just figure out how to more effectively promote “nice” over “naughty.”

It's Been HOW Long?

Five months sure flies by fast. My intentions were good. I did not want to contribute yet another lonely, orphaned blog to the blogesphere. At the very least, I wanted to wrap it up nicely - provide some closure - instead of stopping abruptly.

Honestly, I've yearned to get back to this since my last post. I drafted so many entries in my mind. What happened? Life. Life got in the way. Further explanation would just bore (or compromise national security).

What kept me on track before were class assignments. Without them, I was left to my own devices...which don't work very well under some - ahem, sorry, most - circumstances! But there is still so much to talk about:

• The changes to my e-portfolio web banner and the site overall.
• What I've learned about how writing and technology has impacted the way we think.
• That "gimp" is more than trim on upholstered furniture!
• How to be "heard" in the literal sense on the web via podcasts.
• Techniques for modifying photos.
• Cyborgs, "post human" humans, and video games.

So, no promises or commitments here for longevity or regularity. We'll take it a day (or, more realistically, a week) at a time and hope things work out. But I do promise to not walk away forever without saying "adieu".