Critical Thinking Cafe

Is Reality TV a Creative Solution or a Desperate Effort?

They're called docusoaps--those tough-guy shows that make TV stars out of lumberjacks, king crab fishermen, LA dockworkers, tow truck drivers, and a guy that tries jobs you don't even know--or want to know exist. In an effort to leap beyond mundane reality television and capture the pursued young-male audience, networks are ramping up their menu of evening fare that blends personal interest with action, drama, the unknown, and a light dose of humor.

Does this new spectrum of entertainment reflect genuine creativity or a desperate attempt to capture an illusive--and lucrative audience?

At one level, testosterone TV is innocent enough. Watching Bear Grylls face another wild frontier or holding your nose while Mike Rowe dives into a sewer or an equally gross setting provides a nice break from the mental pressure of working all day in a knowledge economy. But it's worth asking if can-he-make-it, bet-he-won't TV goes too far when surviving a chilly night in the wilderness is superseded by getting your head smacked during a cagefight.

According to the creators of this new genre of programs, the possibilities are far from tapped. Low costs and wide demographic appeal make this kind of programming an attractive albeit potentially short-lived way to gain ratings. Crime scene cleaners, extreme janitors, and pest-killers may soon be on a station near you.

But some networks are going beyond tough guy against the elements to tough guy against tougher guy with shows like The Ultimate Fighter, Iron Ring, and World Extreme Cagefighting. Is eating road-kill the in the same world as hand-to-hand combat that is begins to look more like the Colosseum of Rome than a boxing match?

The back side of creativity can often be the law of diminishing returns. Driving a truck over a frozen Canadian lake is cool for a while. Watching COPs break up another domestic dispute holds an element of suspense for a limited amount of time. But TV that's designed to stimulate adrenaline always has to up the ante in order to keep an audience engaged.

Is reality TV for the young male audience a zero sum game? Can you keep an audience engaged--and buying without going over the top? We'll see. . . 

Why Businesses (and People) Fail

I'm convinced no one gets up in the morning and asks, "How can I totally mess up my life today?" I'm also pretty sure that few people (there may be some exceptions) enter a business venture with the hope and expectation the company will fail and their investment will be lost.

I just completed presenting a telephone seminar where we talked about how people can more effectively link their strategies with their decisions. My research sent me looking for the reasons businesses fail. There are several lists on the web for your review. As I looked over some of them, I found similarities that prompted me to conclude that businesses (and people) fail because of some combination of the following:

1. Limited resources (Talent, money, time, etc.)
2. Mismatched abilities ("I'm good at X, I ought to be able to do Y as well.")
3. Inadequate planning (A business plan? Who needs a business plan?)
4. Insufficient marketing/sales (Brilliant idea/concept, but who's going to sell it for you?)

At a personal level, the same list looks like this:

1. Inadequate internal strength to withstand external pressure
2. Not doing what you're wired to do
3. A career path that is dictated by circumstances
4. The inability to tell your story and communicate your value to an organization

At the heart of both scenarios is a failure to make the connection between a dream/strategy and behavior/daily decisions. Results at any level are determined by the decisions people make about how they allocate the resources at their disposal. Strategy defines direction; decisions determine results.

A mission statement tells who you want to be and where you want to go--as a company or as a person. But corporate culture and personal effectiveness are determined by how people act--what they do each day. Your business or your life is where it is today because of your choices, not your circumstances. Every reason for failure listed earlier is the result of one or more decisions someone made that resulted in an outcome.

If you don't like the direction of your business or your life look at your strategy. But more than that--look at your choices, the decisions you're making every day about how you pursue and accomplish that strategy. Failure is often the result of never clearly understanding the full price of success. 

Video Game Addiction and Finding Root Cause

An article on MSNBC.com this week raised the question--again about whether or not video games are addictive. If you take anecdotal evidence as fact--the question is worth considering--

• A guy in South Korea plays Star Craft until he dies.
• The couple in Reno neglects their kids in favor of playing a popular game.
• The American Medical Association considers adding video addiction to its list of compulsive disorders.

If you polled most teenagers--or adults who enjoy playing with friends in a virtual world or competing on Guitar Hero with people half way around the globe, most would disagree with labeling their choice of entertainment as an addiction. Their position isn't unlike someone who has an occasional glass of wine feeling it unfair to be defined an alcoholic. But anyone who has crossed that line from enjoyment to compulsion to addition will tell you pastimes become passions faster than one can ever imagine and the journey back is far more difficult than the one they followed into a behavior they can no longer stop or even control.

But getting to the the key issue--the root cause of any behavior begins by recognizing that the behavior is usually only a symptom. A recovering alcoholic will tell you drinking isn't the problem--why he drinks is the problem. An anorexic's binging and purging isn't about food--it's about the issues she hopes she can throw up and get out of her life with her latest feast of fast food and milkshakes.

So wherever the debate about video game addition may progress, psychologists, parents, players, and frustrated observers need to look beyond the behavior and start exploring what's distinct and different about people that can make a trip into a virtual world and return in a reasonable time compared to those who find a virtual reality far more appealing than the one they live in each day. Frustrated parents are wise to ask themselves what about their home makes their kids want to spend multiple hours a day in another reality where they disengage from their parents.

Whenever an action becomes a compulsion, the action is not longer the issue--the reason behind the behavior becomes the priority. Limiting a compulsion doesn't resolve it any more than turning up your radio resolves that noise in the engine of your car.

If video addiction is a genuine disorder we won't find the answer to the problem in the code that drives the game or the controllers that people clutch in their hands. Here, as with most problems--the root cause may be far from the problem that catches our attention.

The Solution Becomes the Problem--Again

Great body. Nasty-looking teeth.

According to a health report in the April 7, 2008 issue of USA Today, a growing number of teens may face that problem if they don't take some radical steps to stop the destruction of those teeth their parent's spent thousands of dollars straightening. The report states that the high acid content of some fruit juices, energy drinks, and sodas is doing a number on the enamel of a significant number of adolescents. A fit and healthy teenage athlete may be slowly destroying his teeth by consuming large volumes of citrus juices and power drinks.

Again the solution to one problem can become the cause of another if both the problem and its remedy are not approached in the context of the entire system--in this case, the system of how the body works and what it means to be healthy. While discouraging a kid from always having a soda can in his hand is a good start, shifting his attention to other acid-laden drinks may cut down on the sugar intake, but not reduce the extent of the acid bath a child's teeth get each day. Carbonic acid, citric acid, and phosphoric acid also appear in some power beverages and juices.

When implementing a solution, effective critical thinkers give attention to asking, "What could go wrong?" The erosion of the teeth of otherwise healthy teens reminds us that when we ask what could go wrong--we need to look at the entire system or our brilliant solution may hold within it the seeds of another dilemma.

Don't Settle for Disappointment When You can Have a Problem

I've heard--and agree that the gap between expectation and reality is called disappointment. In the world of critical thinking if that gap is about something important to you and the gap is big enough to matter then it's also a problem. The challenge in some situations is knowing when you should settle for disappointment or accept the situation as a problem you want to try to solve.

Forty years ago today a sniper took the life of a man who refused to let discrimination and bigotry remain a lingering disappointment--he embraced the civil rights of all Americans as a problem that needed a solution. A problem he wanted to solve. While in many ways and in many places, that problem is still painfully alive 40 years later, Martin Luther King's enduring efforts to address the deep issues--the root causes of inequality and injustice give us a model of persistent endurance and relentless determination that other problem solving initiatives should follow.

Today is a good opportunity for you to look in your world and ask yourself, "What disappointment am I accepting that needs more than a sigh--it needs a solution?"

Don't settle for disappointment when you can have a problem--a problem that's dying for a solution.

Red Light Runners and a Revenue Shortfall

If you've driven much in the Dallas, Texas metroplex you've discovered that not only is driving a competitive sport, it becomes a "winner take all" game when a traffic light turns red. Many drivers in Dallas consider a traffic light's progression from green to amber to red akin to the appearance of a white flag at a NASCAR race--the final reminder that the race is almost over so you need to get to the finish line as fast as you can. The profusion of "red light runners" in North Texas has promoted Dallas and several surrounding cities to install cameras that give red light violators a nice publicity photo--and a citation.

The use of intersection cameras in the City of Dallas has worked so well that earlier this week City Manager Mary Suhm announced that revenue from the cameras will fall short of expectations by over $4 million during this fiscal year. About a quarter of the cameras aren't generating enough revenue to pay their own operating costs. This city's effort to prevent a problem has worked so well that some intersections have seen a 50 percent or more reduction in red light running violations. Great news for drivers. Bad news for a City Manager trying to balance a budget.

And so the debate begins--and the hard questions surface. Do cities install red light cameras to promote public safety or to generate much-needed revenue? If a camera helps solve a safety hazard, how does a city resolve the new problem this applauded solution creates? If cameras deter racing through intersections so well that citation revenues plummet--should you shut off the cameras, or find another way to make up the cash-flow shortfall?

The situation reminds me of the well-told story about comedian Jack Benny who was once accosted with the demand, "Your money or your life." Benny didn't respond so the mugger said it again. Benny's long silence was followed by the same demand a third time. "I'm thinking, I'm thinking," Benny replied.

The most innovative and effective solution can still create significant problems if you don't adequately and comprehensively anticipate the problems the new solution will generate. According to The Dallas Morning News, the city of Lubbock, TX voted to shut down their cameras partially due to an increase in the number of rear-end collisions after the cameras were installed.

Dallas discovered that cameras can significantly reduce the perilous situations created by red light runners. But any city that installs the cameras in the hope of bolstering the city budget needs to plan for the problem of declining citation revenue if the program works.

Problems rarely occur in isolation. Every cause can be an effect and every effect can be a cause. A public safety solution probably isn't the right answer for a city revenue problem. Cutting a program because it works hardly seems like the right way to reward success.

The next time you propose a solution to a problem take the time to evaluate how that solution will impact the rest of your organization. Great solutions can often create annoying new problems.

Conviction, Compromise, and a Candidate's Electability

It appears that there is an invisible line in the world of political campaigning when the concern shifts from a candidate's likability, position on the issues, and experience to a more fundamental question of whether or not a candidate is electable. The February 26, 2008 issue of USA Today reports that presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama is now considered to be more electable than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. (Good news for one senator, bad news for the other.) Primary elections in Ohio and Texas will help clear up that issue, but for now, it is an intriguing point of discussion.

My concern here isn't over whether Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee , Paul, or Nader (is that everyone?) should be the next President of the United States. My interest is in how people make decisions as evidenced by the collaboration (or collision) between principle and expediency during a presidential campaign. Call it a power compromise that leads to a critical point of choice--the moment when party is favored over preference, when people begin saying "I may not like everything about my candidate, but I like more about him/her than I like about the other party's candidate."

According to USA Today, the Democrats think Obama can beat McCain and the Republicans think McCain can beat Clinton. Late-to-the-party Ralph Nader hopes he can beat them all. When a contest becomes intense, strategy can easily become as important as substance. In a tight playoff game, the coach cares less about giving everyone a chance to play and gives more attention to what it takes to get a goal.

What would legendary coach Vince Lombardi say to this political blocking and tackling? Perhaps he'd say

• If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score?
• Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser.
• We didn't lose the game; we just ran out of time.

Both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton hope they have enough time left to influence the decisions of thousand of people during the next week--to convince people that causes matter before conviction is asked to support a strategy over a person. Lombardi would tell us that's the moment when wining is no longer everything--it's the only thing.

The Decision of Indecision

There are thousands of people sitting in offices and cubicles today ready to act on corporate strategic plans, willing to invest time and energy in challenging new initiatives, wanting to "go for it" in an effort achieve aggressive goals but they're engaged instead in far less productive pursuits because they're waiting for someone in their organizations to make a decision.

In many organizations the process required to get a decision from a manager or executive is long, daunting, discouraging, often frustrating, and consequently--extremely expensive in lost time and underutilized resources. High stakes decisions should be approached with facts about the situation, clearly defined criteria, well-researched alternatives, and a process that balances risk and uncertainty, emotion and reason, deliberation and action.

But in many companies, even after the research is complete and the options have been carefully weighed fear, uncertainty, a need to control, and an overwhelming desire to protect oneself from the consequences of a decision stall and derail many well-intentioned plans and desperately needed changes. Unfortunately, many leaders fail to realize what psychologist William James noted over fifty years ago--"When you have to make a choice and don't make it, that in itself is a decision." James also believed that, "There is no more miserable human being than one in whom nothing is habitual but indecision."

Leading others through complex and frequently changing situations requires deliberation and diligence in choosing a course. Wise leaders understand that delaying a decision is a decision. They recognize that protracted indecision is a choice--it's choosing to do nothing.

What in your life, your company, your world could improve--today, if someone would just make a decision? If that decision is in your realm of responsibility, when will be the right time to decide?

Theodore Roosevelt offered this counsel to leaders: "In a moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing to do. The worst thing you can do is nothing."

Sir Edmund Hillary's Path to the Top

In honor of beekeeper turned pioneer adventurer Sir Edmund Hillary, today's blog is an excerpt from Joe Jordan's forthcoming book Wireframe: Creating the Structure for Enduring Success. Used by permission.

As the sun rose over cities and towns across England the morning of June 3, 1953, two stories captured the attention of the citizens of Britain. The dominating news that day told about two dramatic achievements, two individuals reaching the pinnacle of their lives, two events that many believed would restore hope, opportunity, even a sense of destiny to a country that had struggled to reshape its vision and regain its energy following World War II.

One story captured the breathtaking pageantry, storybook wonder, and edge-of-your-chair excitement of the June 2 coronation of Queen Elizabeth II. Only 27 years old, Elizabeth's ascension to the throne was broadcast by radio around the world, and at the Queen's request, beamed to thousands of people by television. Although she had prepared for this day since she was age ten, Elizabeth's ultimate right to the throne was because of her name, her birthright, and life's timing--the death of her father, King George VI.

As the citizens of London lined up to honor their new Queen, news of another event passed through the crowds. This ascent had taken place on May 29, half-way around the globe. The second story didn't involve dukes, duchesses, princesses, and kings. The players on this remote stage were a rangy New Zealander named Edmund Hillary and a Tibetan Sherpa named Tenzing Norgay. As the people held their breath at the coronation of a new Queen, Hillary and Norgay caught their breath after scaling the last forty feet of the world's tallest mountain. Standing at the 29,028 foot summit of Mt. Everest, these two mountaineers likely felt as much exhaustion as exuberance.

Your journey through life's challenges is probably a lot more like Edmund's trek up Everest than Elizabeth's path to the throne. For most people, success isn't about rights we have because of a name; accomplishment is about opportunities we embrace because of God's providence and our effort. Sir Edmund Hillary expressed it clearly when he said, "You don't have to be a fantastic hero to do certain things. . . You can be just an ordinary chap, sufficiently motivated to reach challenging goals."

If you're breathing, you have problems--situations where what you expected and what you've achieved aren't in line. The concepts and tools of effective critical thinking are wielded more successfully when they are used by someone who is motivated, energized, and committed to results. Hillary's path to achievement wasn't easy--but it was absolutely exhilarating.

Four Problem Solving Land Mines

Since most problems involve people it makes sense that the same things that kill relationships can also block our efforts to solve problems.

The December 2007 issue of the Harvard Business Review carries an insightful interview with psychologist John M. Gottman, executive director of the Relationship Research Institute. Gottman has invested the past 35 years in studying how people develop, build, and even destroy good relationships so his observations are worth consideration. (I don't know this guy so please don't interpret this as my endorsement of his work.)

Dr. Gottman identifies what he considers to be the four best predictors of "break-up or continued misery" in a relationship - criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling, and contempt (Harvard Business Review, December 2007, page 50). As I read this list, its application to business is clear and I couldn't miss its direct connection to the human dimensions of problem solving.

When a team of people comes together in an effort to solve a problem, Gottman's "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" often show up as well. Before efforts are invested in trying to solve the problem people feel a need to criticize and assign blame. That precipitates an expected round of defensiveness from those to whom the problem is now attached. When we're attacked, our natural instinct is to protect ourselves, so stonewalling begins as people move into their battle positions. All of this inevitably leads to an undercurrent of contempt between the accusers, the accused, and the innocents that wonder why they every agreed to come to this meeting.

An extreme scenario? Yes. But it underscores the reality that if you don't recognize and address the relational dimensions during any problem solving endeavor, your efforts to attack the problem can easily degrade into attacks on the people involved--creating another problem with lingering effects. Gottman's research involving 900 arguments discovered that "The vast majority of conflicts are about the way people in the relationship fight" (page 48).