Search Results

I once heard a tale of a man who split himself in two. The one part never changed at all; The other grew and grew. The changeless part was always true, The growing part was always new, And I wondered, when the tale was through, Which part was me, and which was you. from Children of the Mind by Orson Scott Card (1951-) Read this poem. Write down one insight from it. Read it a second time. You'll find another. Read it a third time - and there's a good chance you'll find another insight. This is why I find OSC so fascinating and talented. One day, I'll write a blog post about Orson Scott Card (Wikipedia, official site), IMO one of the most talented authors I've ever had the opportunity to read. He manages to mix theology, xenology, politics, science fiction, physics, geography, and many more fields of knowledge into thought-provoking and hope-inspiring tales. You can simply read his books (well, I took the audio route and listened to them) and enjoy them - but you owe it to yourself to at least try and notice all of his insights and observations about soooo many topics. OSC become known when one of his books - Ender's Game - became a feature film - but should you choose to try out on of his books, I'd recommend opting for the Shadow series, starting with the first one - Ender's Shadow. Check it out. I strongly believe it is worth your time.

פרשנות: אין לא יכול - יש לא רוצה. פופולרי במיוחד בצבא הישראלי. פרשנות מקובלת: אם אתה לא מצליח לעשות משהו, סימן שאתה לא רוצה. למשל: ״המפקד, אני לא יכול לרוץ יותר״ - ״אין לא יכול! יש לא רוצה!!!״ למשל: ״אני לא יכול לקום ב-5 בבוקר כדי לרוץ״ - ״אין לא יכול - יש לא רוצה. אם באמת היה חשוב לך, היית קם/קמה. אם היית צריך להגיע לטיסה, היית מצליח/ה לקום, נכון?״ אבל. לפעמים, אני רוצה - ולא יכול - כי יש משהו שאני רוצה יותר. ולא ניתן לממש ברגע נתון את שתי הרצונות. למשל: ״אני יכול לקום ב-5 בבוקר לרוץ. אבל - אני צריך היום לנהוג 3 שעות, ואם אקום ב-5, לא אוכל לנהוג. אז אני לא אקום ב-5״. אז מה הרווחתי מצורה ההצגה הזו? הרי, בשני המקרים, לא קמנו ב-5 לרוץ? אין לא יכול - יש לא יכול עכשיו. אבל אחר-כך, אני יכול, ואעשה. כי... זה מציף את ההבנה ש*היום* אני לא יכול לקום ב-5 לרוץ. כי אני צריך לנהוג אחר כך. אבל מחר, ומחרתיים, ובכל יום אחר - אני יכול לקום ב-5 לרוץ. ואם, אגלה שכל יום אני אומר ״אני לא יכול לקום ב-5 לרוץ כי... <הכניסו סיבה מתאימה כאן>״ - אז כנראה שאני באמת לא רוצה לקום ב-5 לרוץ. כנראה, שכל דבר אחר יותר חשוב לי. אם לא יכול עכשיו, ולא יכול אחר כך, ולא יכול אף פעם - אז לא רוצה...

One of the Golden rules of presentations - "The Rule of Three", sometimes referred to as "Good Things Come in Threes" - is so commonly used, that it is often abused. The "rule of three" is great when you want to tie three ideas together. But as have been seen time and again, if you want to hammer in some idea - to align everyone behind a joint goal or target - the rule of three can be counter-productive, possibly even harmful. If you tell your team "These are the top-3 most important items we need to work on" - then even if one is so much more important than the other two, it will be lost. And if you have more than "top-3" - maybe even "top-7" (number 7 is rumored to be the number of items the human mind can comfortably juggle without losing orientation) - then the team will not know what is most important. Because you really can have only one most-important thing to do. So know what's most important, and repeat it (and repeat it and repeat it) until everyone knows what's most important... PS> After you know how to achieve and are full committed to the one most important thing, you can start discussing the others...

I had an opportunity to hear Ferran Soriano (CEO of Manchester City FC) talking about techniques for managing soccer team, and the relevant implications to the general business world. During the talk he quoted(*): We can do anything - but we can't do everything. The above suggests that you won't be able to do everything at the same time - which makes a lot of sense. Even when you have everything required - the skills, the time, the resources - all the basics, you'll need to make priorities, and focus - and realize that many times achieving one goal will come at the expense of another. No free meals. No shortcuts. So we can't do everything. At the same time, this quote claims we can do anything... But can we do anything? So many self-help and coaching sources try to "sell us" on the idea that we can achieve anything to which we set our minds, if only we'll work hard enough. As my words hint, and at the risk of shocking the reader, I'd like to say I don't believe that. You can't achieve anything "to which you set your mind". Achieving goals is dependent not only on our hopes and wishes. You can't magically "summon" success and achievements. Having said that, I do believe there is a level of control we do have on achieving our goals - or on failing to achieve them. (* In another post, I write about the one trait all successful people have in common. This is the other side of the coin. *) Think of this quote: “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't — you're right.” (attributed to) Henry Ford (1863-1947) It correctly implies that one of the most limiting factors on your abilities - are your beliefs. As my previous post suggests - you must try - and try again - and again - and again... and not be discouraged by failure. But - before doing so - you must believe in yourself. You must believe you can. And think you can. And act accordingly. Believing in your ability to achieve is a pre-requisite to achieving. Because if you think you can't - if don't actively wholeheartedly think you can - then you're probably right... (*) The origin of this quote is probably/possibly attributed to David Allen (1945-) (Wikipedia, official site)

A great quote on diversification by Mary Meeker: One of the things I have learned about effective decision making is that the best decisions are often made by diverse groups of people. Saying or hearing these words is magic... ‘That’s really interesting, I had never thought of it that way before. Thank you.’ (This is part of her 2015 annual Internet Trends report. Worthwhile read - but the quote above wins IMO.) Beyond cultivating an environment of sharing and spreading knowledge, these words spread and cultivate and environment of respect, plurism and accepting. Don't see a downside. Go for it. Go with it.

(Originally published in Hebrew) A post about a relevant insight from the golden calf to the workplace. (* For those who want, a brief reminder about the golden calf story at the end of the post) The story of the Golden Calf is truly unbelievable. It contains an incomprehensible element. On first thought, the incomprehensible is that the people of Israel, who just over a month ago experienced the supreme spiritual status - an almost unmediated connection with God - are deteriorating into a state of worshipping the golden calf. But even more incomprehensible is the fact that Aharon HaCohen acquiesces in the people's request to an alternate mediator, and begins a process that ends with idolatry of the calf. How? How does the brother of the leader Moshe, the supreme religious leader, reaches the point where he is actively collaborating with a wild mob to create a golden calf, idolatry in practice? So far the question. (The commentators offer many options for this. Contact me if you want some of the replies.) And the answer I want to suggest is, the based on the flattering article in tractate Avot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 12: "Hillel would say: Be of the disciples of Aharon, loving peace, pursuing peace, loving the public and drawing them closer to Torah." The attributes of Aharon HaCohen - the love of peace, the pursuit of peace, the ability to belittle himself, to do whatever is necessary for people to live with each other and love one another - this is what has caused him - even where peace was not a solution - to choose peace. Aharon chose (in terms of our times) to "postpone the end" - to delay the friction, hoping that in the meantime Moshe would arrive or that they would not be able to collect gold, or that the people would sober up. In fact, in this case, for the people of Israel, whom he loved so much, Aharon should have fled from peace to controversy, and to criticize and rebuke the people of Israel, risking unpleasantness - and perhaps even loss of life. Indeed peace is a value, and striving for peace is important. But sometimes, the desire for peace hides from us the fact that a healthy dispute will solve the problem faster and healthier, and lay the foundation for better relations later on. And sometimes at the workplace, the right option is to argue. Out of respect. Out of appreciation. But to argue. And fight. And rebuke. And say what you think. And out of the real controversy, a healthy peace will emerge. [Written following a conversation with a colleague, about the value and importance of peace - and about the danger of pursuing peace - in healthy and proper working relationships. Any connection to politics is solely the responsibility of the reader.] (*) Moses - the leader of the People of Israel - ascends Mount Sinai to receive the Tablets of the Covenant. The people of Israel expect his return at a specific time - but Moses does not come at the time when they expect him. The people of Israel lose their patience, and even though it's been barely forty days since the revelation at Sinai - a direct revelation of God to his people - they demand that Aharon finds a replacement for Moses - someone else to be the go-between the people and the Lord. Aharon HaCohen begins with a process that ends with the production of the golden calf and the people of Israel dancing around the calf... From here the story deteriorates ... (the full story can be read in the source in Exodus, chapter 32)

פוסט על תובנה רלבנטית מעגל הזהב למקום העבודה. (* למי שרוצה, תזכורת קצרה על סיפור עגל הזהב בקצה הפוסט) הסיפור של עגל הזהב לא יעלה על הדעת. הוא מכיל אלמנט בלתי-נתפס. במחשבה ראשונה, הבלתי-נתפס הוא שעם ישראל, שלפני מעט יותר מחודש חווה את המעמד הרוחני העליון, קשר כמעט בלתי אמצעי עם האל - מתדרדר למצב של עבודה לעגל. אבל עוד יותר בלתי נתפסת היא העובדה שאהרן הכהן נעתר לבקשת העם למתווך חלופי, ומתחיל תהליך שמסתיים בעבודה זרה לעגל. איך? איך אחיו של המנהיג משה, המנהיג הדתי העליון, מגיע למצב שהוא זה שבאופן פעיל משתף פעולה עם אספסוף פרוע ליצירת עגל זהב, עבודה זרה בפועל? עד כאן השאלה. (המפרשים מציעים אפשרויות רבות לכך. צרו קשר אם תרצו כמה אפשרויות לתשובה.) והתשובה שאני רוצה להציע היא, המאמר המחמיא במסכת אבות, פרק א׳, משנה י״ב: ״הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם, אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה״. התכונה של אהרן הכהן, של אהבת השלום, של רדיפת השלום, של היכולת למעט את עצמו, של לעשות מה שצריך כדי שאנשים יחיו זה עם זה ויאהבו זה את זה, גרמה לכך שגם במקום שהשלום לא היווה פיתרון, אהרון הכהן, אוהב השלום האולטמטיבי - בחר בשלום. אהרון בחר (במונחים של זמנינו) ״לדחות את הקץ״ - לעכב את החיכוך, מתוך תקווה שבינתיים משה יגיע, או שלא יצליחו לאסוף זהב, או שהעם יתפכח - ואז ״הבעיה תיעלם״. כשבעצם, במקרה הזה, לטובת עם ישראל, אותו אהב כל כך, היה צריך אהרן לברוח מהשלום אל המחלוקת, ולבקר ולהוכיח את העם, להסתכן בחוסר נעימות - ואולי אפילו אובדן חיים. כי השלום הוא ערך, והחתירה לשלום היא חשובה. אבל, לפעמים, השאיפה לשלום מסתירה מאיתנו את העובדה שמחלוקת בריאה תפתור את הבעיה מהר יותר ובריא יותר, ותניח תשתית ליחסים טובים יותר בהמשך. ולפעמים בעבודה, הנכון הוא לריב. מתוך כבוד. מתוך הערכה. אבל לריב. ולהגיד מה חושבים. ומתוך המחלוקת האמיתית, יצמח השלום הבריא. [נכתב בעקבות שיחה עם חבר לעבודה, על ערך וחשיבות השלום - ועל הסכנה של רדיפת שלום - ב יחסי עבודה בריאים ותקינים . כל קשר לפוליטיקה הוא על אחריות הקורא בלבד] (*) משה רבינו עולה להר סיני לקבל את לוחות הברית עם ישראל מצפה לשובו - אבל משה לא מגיע בזמן שעם ישראל מצפים. עם ישראל מאבד את הסבלנות, ולמרות שעברו בקושי ארבעים יום ממעמד הר-סיני, התגלות ישירה של האל לעמו, מבקש מאהרן הכהן ממלא-מקום - מחליף למשה רבינו -לקישור בין העם לבין האל. אהרן הכהן מתחיל בתהליך שסופו בייצור עגל הזהב ועם ישראל רוקד סביב העגל. מכאן הסיפור מתדרדר... (ניתן לקרוא את הסיפור במקור בספר שמות, פרק ל״ב )

Make an Impact! Be Replaceable... As holidays come-and-go, we tend to do some soul-searching, trying to realize what we're doing good - and what we could be doing better. We tend to think highly of ourselves. That's fine. To some extent, even natural. We believe we are doing a good job (as an employee, as a manager, as a parent, as a student, as a child, as a spouse - you got the point...) That's ok. We think nothing needs improving. That's wrong. In almost every domain, we can do a better job. We can - and should - improve. That was easy... So assuming we know we need to improve, what more should we be considering? I'd like to propose the question is Are we Making a Difference? Let me explain. The old idiom says "No one is irreplaceable". Well, it's simple. Ask yourself this. If you left your position right now (e.g. at work) - would someone else fill your position? Would you be replaced? And if you answer "No", then you know you're not making an impact. Because, if you would be making an impact, you would be missed. And if you'd be missed, you'd be replaced... And if you're not replaced, then you're not missed. And if you're not missed, you're not making an impact. Make an Impact! Be Replaceable... #culture #philosophy #workplace #workplaceetiqette

Managers doing nothing? Employees working too hard? Warren Buffet??? This post manages to irritate me every time I read it. Took me a while to decide if to post it. Decided it's provoked me enough. So now maybe it'll provoke you? Would love to hear your thoughts... Note to Reader: This is written in a somewhat-provocative manner. The style is intend to provoke thought - not to frustrate or anger. If it impacts you in any way other than the intended way, I pre-apologize. It may have been Warren Buffet(***), the American business magnate, who listed the following two secret rules to workplace success. Meaning, assuming you're doing your honest best - and doing it well - in delivering what you were hired to do, based on the skills for which you were hired, what is it that differentiates between two equally-performing employees, making one of them of higher-value than the other - making one of them more successful in the hierarchical structure? Well, could it have been Mr. Buffet said the rule-of-thumbs are(***): If you are a manager, then you should be working as little as possible... and letting your employees work as much as possible. If I have a manager, then I should be doing as much as possible to make my manager's life as easy as possible. Now, this may sound exaggerated - even outrageous, but let's try to understand: * If you are a manager, your team is hopefully working as hard as it can on achieving the team's goals (deadlines, deliveries, production - whatever). As a manager, you are hopefully working very hard - super hard - on inspiring the team, balancing the tasks, letting the team execute, getting out of the way, delivering what they need when they need it - and clearing the path for the team. That means you should be working as little as possible on the Team's goals. Instead, give them the space they need in order to succeed. And that's it. Working as little as possible [on the team goals. Stay out of their way. And of course work as hard as possible on your chores]. * And if I have a manager, then - as team-member - my main concern should be about delivering what my manager needs - before they ask a second time, supporting the assigned tasks and making them happen. My manager should not have to ask for things twice. Should not be chasing me down and following up on execution of team goals. Beyond doing whatever it is I need to be doing, which appears in my job description, I should be working hard to make my manager's life as easy as possible. (And for those of us that are managers and have managers... tough luck. You have to do both. And do them extremely well.) Good Luck! Be'Hatzlacha! (***) It could have. But on the other hand, there's no indication he (or anyone else, for that matter) said what's written here. If someone has to take the blame, I'll take it. Sorry if I click-baited you. #workplaceetiqette #quote #life #philosophy

(פורסם במקור באנגלית, תורגם לעברית בסיוע גוגל טרנסלייט עם שיפוצים קלים... הנוסח באנגלית קריא יותר.) (לפעמים משתמש בלשון זכר, אך מיועד לנשים וגברים כאחת...) האם כדאי ללמוד בבית ספר יוקרתי? האם עדיפה התמחות במשרד יוקרתי? ואם התשובה היא "כן" - למה? כאשר חיפשתי תשובה, מצאתי שרוב התשובות (פרט לאלה שפורסמו על ידי המוסדות עצמם) מצביעות על רשת הבוגרים המדהימה של המוסדות היוקרתיים (וממילא יכולת הרישות מהם יהנו המצטרפים למוסד) , ומתמקדים פחות באיכות ההדרכה / החינוך שמציע המקום (לא שהתעלמו מהנקודות האילו - אבל הן היו פחות מודגשות ממה שניתן לצפות). אני רוצה להציע תשובה חלופית. משיחות עם בוגרי מוסדות יוקרתיים (או מתמחים במשרדים יוקרתיים), ומהתבוננות בהם ביומיום (באופן מזדמן, לא באופן שיטתי/מדעי) - אני מרגיש שהערך הגבוה ביותר שמציעים כאילו מוסדות הוא שיפור-עצמי. מכיוון שלמקומות היוקרתיים האלו יש מוניטין עליו הם חייבים לשמור, הם עובדים קשה לעשות זאת - ואחת השיטות שהם משתמשים בה יותר - היא לגרום לך לעבוד קשה - ולאחר מכן לעבוד קשה יותר - ולאחר מכן לעבוד קשה יותר... ואולי זה הערך האמיתי של המקומות האלה - הדחף להוכיח שהוא טוב יותר, גורם למוסד לגרום לך לעבוד קשה במיוחד - ולכן מלמד אותך לעבוד קשה במיוחד. כדי להניע את עצמך לשבור גבולות שלא היית צריך לפני כן, ואולי אפילו לא חשבת שאתה יכול. אחרי שאתה לומד שאתה יכול לעבוד קשה יותר ממה שחשבת, אתה (בתקווה) לומד לעשות זאת שוב ושוב - ולומד להאמין שאתה ״יכול לעשות את זה״ - לא משנה מה "זה". ואתה לומד לעשות דברים מהר יותר, טוב יותר באמצעות פחות משאבים. ואתה מתעלה על עצמך שוב ושוב. וסולל את הדרך שלך להשיג יותר ויותר. כי בכדי להצטיין, אתה חייב להתעלות על עצמך.

TL;DR; את הדברים שלא נוח לנו לעשות, אי אפשר לעשות רק כשנוח לנו. זה שקר נפוץ שאנחנו נוהגים לשקר לעצמנו... The things we're uncomfortable doing, we can't do only when we're comfortable. That's leads to the biggest lie we lie to ourselves - "I'll do it when the time is right". A little longer read: Sometimes, we need to move outside our comfort zone. We realize that we're locked into certain behavior patterns which we find undesirable, and in order to unlock these undesirable patterns, we need do certain things we are uncomfortable doing. Trivial Example 1: we realize that we don't workout enough, and that in order to break this pattern, we must start attending workouts at a Gym. (But now is not the time to join the gym, because...) Trivial Example 2: we realize that out meal patterns are unhealthy, and that in order lead a healthier life, we should (for example) stop eating rice. (But now is not the time to stop eating rice, because...) But, there's something in the way. No is not the optimal time. I'm before a vacation. I'm after a vacation. I'm starting a new job. I'm in between jobs. The excuse list is endless. We can't wait till the time is right. You want to make a change? You need move outside your comfort zone. And the best time - the right time - is NOW! Good luck!

As professionals (or aspiring professionals) try to "unleash" or develop a skill, we see them seeking for Mentors or Coaches. I've been asked a number of times what's the difference between a Mentor and a Coach? Well, here're my two cents. (* Not to belittle the detailed difference found here...) A Mentor is someone who is (or was) what you want-to-be. You want to be a great designer? She is a great designer. And you want to "grow" to be like her. She's been there. She's done that. And now she'll share her knowledge and experience top help you overcome the obstacles you're facing to get there. The Coach is someone who will help you uncover and unleash the talent you have within. Think Basketball coach - a great basketball coach may have been a less-than-mediocre Basketball player. But they know and excel in having you make the most of your potential. Go ahead and help people. Be it as a Coach, be it as a Mentor. Just help. (* Not to belittle the detailed difference found here...)