Category: Uncategorized

Already this week I've been involved in two meetings that had a similar outcome – they required a proposal or strategy to be written on a business issue: telework take up, and building governance. Simultaneously I have been assigned some PhD learners by the university where I teach. They are wrestling with how to write a decent proposal that will take them to the point on their PhD journey.

In thinking about how to guide the PhD students I pulled out a paper written a couple of years ago by a faculty member I have worked with – Dr John Latham. He wrote a paper Building Bridges Between Researchers and Practitioners: A Collaborative Approach to Research in Performance Excellence Which describes a collaborative approach initiated by the Monfort Institute at the University of Northern Colorado to engage high-level practitioners of performance excellence and academic researchers to a) identify the external and internal dilemmas facing practitioners in high-performing organizations; b) develop a purposeful research agenda that addresses both the needs and interests of practitioners and researchers; and c) develop a concept of operations to address the research agenda.

What I found useful about the piece is that in it he identifies criteria that if met would result in quality research. But the criteria are equally applicable to business proposals. Organizational practitioners identified 10 criteria for quality research:

1. Content-New or profound information and best practices versus incremental knowledge in a narrow topic.
2. Readability-New knowledge presented in a language that they can understand that is fully deployable to all employees in the organization.
3. Utility-Actionable information that will help practitioners close gaps in performance, exceed customer expectations, and help sustain the organization in turbulent times.
4. Transferability-New knowledge needs to be transferable across the organization and ideally across industry sectors. The corollary to this requirement in research is the concept of generalizability.
5. Credibility-The depth of scholarship, including analysis and supporting data, is sufficient to inspire confidence and implementation of the new knowledge (Baldridge, Floyd, and Markoczy 2004). Part of the credibility is transparency on sponsorship and funding sources.
6. Timely-New knowledge and information needs to be accessible in time to address real-world problems and challenges and ideally in time to create a competitive advantage.
7. Access-Easy access to new knowledge and information available in multiple media and formats.
8. Benefits-There should be a clear connection between the new knowledge and information and organization results and overall success.
9. Involvement-Practitioners should be involved throughout the research process. As the practitioners put it, "Don't ask for our problems and data and then toss the research findings over the wall." The corollary to this in organizational change is the notion that resistance to change decreases as the involvement of the key stakeholders increases (Beckhard and Harris 1987).
10. Dissemination-Present new knowledge and information at public forums such as the annual NIST Quest for Excellence and make the new knowledge available to the public.

Not only did the practitioners identify a comprehensive list of what success is, they also succinctly described what success is not. According to the practitioners success is "not academic arcane language in some obscure journal."

Academic researchers identified three key factors for success:

1. Access to data-Access to good data and cooperation from participating organizations.
2. Dissemination-Successful dissemination of new knowledge via multiple channels including high quality academic journal articles, top practitioner journals, conferences, and workshops.
3. Interesting-Broaden the interest in the research topic with graduate students and academic colleagues both within and outside the particular discipline. The requirement for the research to be "interesting" is consistent with the definition of research proposed by Baldridge, Floyd, and Markoczy (2004, 1065) "interesting based on the extent to which it challenges assumptions or extends knowledge…."

Latham notes that:

The combined key success factors identified by the practitioners and academic researchers are consistent with the notion that research has a dual purpose of application to practice and advancing theory.

I encourage readers interested in organizational research (academic and practitioner) to read the full article.

Last week was curious in that I stumbled across all sorts of stuff that will be useful in my work with clients. But what I noticed was that the stumbling was entirely random. How would I know, for example, that the BlackBerry polling system that I wrote about was available unless I happened to be sitting in that particular session where it was being used.

How do people get to hear about stuff that is potentially useful? How do they squirrel it away for the time when it might be? I read somewhere (where???) about a pen that when you write in one language speaks in another. OK so I am going to Shanghai next week a pen that does that would be very useful now I come to think about it. How do I find out where I read about it?

Well, in this case, it wasn't too difficult as I remembered reading it in a particular room in a house I was visiting at the time. A quick call to my host and I got the information. It was James Fallows, writing in The Atlantic about the LiveScribe pen It has many features:

"For instance: a translator that lets you write out "One coffee, please" and have the results read out in Mandarin, Spanish, etc. A calculator that lets you write out a math problem and click on it for the answer. And what I think of as a notebook orchestra: you sketch a crude grid representing eight keys on a piano and it becomes a music synthesizer, letting you tap out tunes and hear them "played" by piano, steel drums, or other instruments."

I took at look at the LiveScribe website. It has apps for the pen that translate, but not into Mandarin which is what I want. But I have an ordinary paper phrasebook so maybe a translating pen is not what I want to add to my inventory of two BlackBerries (home and work), two laptops (ditto), one i-pad (work experiment), one Bose Headset, one webcam device (because it's not integral to either laptop), one i-pod (before I got the i-pad), one Kindle (also before I got the i-pad), and one headset for when my laptop is a softphone.

However, I've emailed LiveScribe to see if the Mandarin app is hidden somewhere else on the site, and I'm mulling over whether a talking/recording pen would make all the difference to my life.

But how would I have known about the talking pen unless I happened to chance across The Atlantic? I'm curious because I had a longish discussion in an organization design workshop I was facilitating about how do organizations know what trends are out there that they need to be cognizant about and be flexible and adaptable enough to meet? Or can an organization be designed to be adaptable enough to meet anything? Is that what we mean by 'sustainable'?

Someone suggested the notion of organizational 'scouts' – a different take on 'futurology' which is somehow more purposeful in its searching. Scouts would just be looking out for potentially interesting, useful, or otherwise valuable information from random sources that the scouts just happened upon. So I looked up 'organizational scouts' and got a lovely selection of information related to the Boy and Girl Scouts of America. Clearly the notion of an 'organizational scout' is a new one more closely aligned to the definition of scout as "someone who can find paths through unexplored territory" but in this case the first taks is to look for the unexplored territory.

Pursuing the notion of organizational scout as a real job I looked at an email that I'd just received. "My boss has asked me to write a job description for the … role with a view to establish how much time will be required for each task in the job description and then establish how many people we will need in this role.

Have you come across a formula of some sort that can size a job with a view of how many people will be required to do it?"

If you fitted the words 'organizational scout' in front of the word 'role' would that work to find someone to fit the role? I don't think so. The whole notion of an organizational scout is about innovation, making random connections, and so on. Maybe it's time not only to revisit organizational roles but also organizational processes like job sizing. How else will organizations be able to handle random information that any scouts they have bring back because they think it is worth a second look?

There's an fun video clip on leaders and followers that made the audience I was watching it with laugh a lot. It's called Leadership Lessons from the Dancing Guy by Derek Sivers.

The transcript begins: "If you've learned a lot about leadership and making a movement, then let's watch a movement happen, start to finish, in under 3 minutes, and dissect some lessons"

The summary of the 3 minutes of the dancing guy reads:

"It started with the shirtless guy, and he'll get all the credit, but you saw what really happened:
It was the first follower that transformed a lone nut into a leader.

There is no movement without the first follower.

We're told we all need to be leaders, but that would be really ineffective. The best way to make a movement, if you really care, is to courageously follow and show others how to follow.

When you find a lone nut doing something great, have the guts to be the first person to stand up and join in."

So then I wondered who the lone nuts are and what makes the difference between the lone nut who is a lone nut and doesn't want followers, and the lone nutters who people do follow and mayhem results – plenty of examples of that. Does it boil down to judiciously choosing the lone nut to follow?

Alternatively one can decide to be the lone nut and hope someone follows. And that's not so easy in organizational life.

In fact, not two hours after the video was shown the work groups presenting back their requirements to get their projects onto the starting blocks all had at the top of the list "Senior leadership support/buy in/engagement". Not a sign of anyone going to attempt anything without that – no lone nutters in this organization. Or any who are around are not nutty enough to risk losing their jobs by starting a movement (or project) without a leader to follow first.

This led me to ask myself which organizational leaders already in positions of power are going to identify themselves as the nutter willing to support a potentially risky project? Also many leaders already are championing/supporting/buying into/engaging with all sorts of projects, initiatives, and normal day to day work. Do they have the time, energy, and interest to be picking up an additional burden?

So the video left me wondering:

1. How do you choose the 'right' lone nutter to follow?

2. If you don't want to be the lone nutter driving your project how do you find a leader willing to be one for you?

3. What are the penalties and rewards for being a lone nutter in your organization? (Or for not being one – depending on the organization)

Comments welcome.

Yesterday I was at day one of a two-day off- site with around 200 people participating in a form of Future Search conference.Future Search is a planning meeting that "helps people transform their capability for action very quickly." In this case we were looking at four knotty problems to be tackled with three outcomes

• A depicted vision, strategic roadmap and high-level project plan with established deadlines for each project.
• A thrust for immediate implementation of project plans
• A healthier team, networks, and alignment

First came three whole group sessions giving information from survey data gathered in relation to the four problems, an outline of the approach to the event, and a visioning session (lots of pictures, glue, raffia, feathers, party glitters,etc) that was introduced by an entertaining clip from 'Project Runway', Episode 11 where designers:

meet at a store called Party Glitters where they select all of the materials for their next outfit. Tim [Gunn] says that this unconventional challenge will push the boundaries of their abilities to innovate. He also warns them that the judges don't like materials that correspond to fabric, so they should step away from the tablecloths. With $100 and 30 minutes to shop, the designers are set loose.

These sorts of 'visioning' sessions can be tricky to pull off. Some people hate them and don't want to get involved in playing with paper, lego, origami, eggs and string, or whatever. Others dive right in and enjoy every moment of adding bells and balloons to their visions of what they will achieve in the next year. In this case we had both groups of people in the room but it worked well as the people who didn't want to participate in constructing the artwork talked to each other – often meeting face to face people they'd emailed or spoken to over the phone – and were delighted to meet in person.

During these input session two new (to me) pieces of software were introduced. First a very effective BlackBerry (other Smartphone) polling system from Poll Everywhere where people can text their response to poll questions and see an instant poll update on PowerPoint as people vote. Second a web based presentation software Prezi described as "insanely great" with zoom in and out features etc.

Then came the knotty problem tackling people chose which of the four problems they wanted to tackle and were led (or rather not led) through the process by subject matter experts (SME) who'd been briefed with the following:

"The goal of the breakout track strategy activities is to "pull" information from participants rather than "push" information out to them. Most conferences "push" information. We have all been to the dreadful 100+ slides death by PowerPoint presentations. Too many slide presentations in business, unfortunately, are "push" experience, with presenters hurrying through dense content and the audience falling asleep. A "pull" in a meeting context is something that happens that supports people moving in the direction they are going naturally. It gives people permission to build upon each other's ideas and collectively own the final solution. "Pull" creates participation. As a subject matter expert you need to facilitate the "pull" of information. People feel pulled by:

• Open Questions
• Simple Images
• Moving experts to the background
• Blank paper and blank spaces on displays
• Hand drawn charts
• Lots of open ended questions
• Uncertainty
• Flexibility in the agenda"

SMEs were each given a very helpful and detailed guide on how to work with the groups with three parts to each timed section of the session. As follows:

The session element e.g. Split into subgroups

The purpose and tactical process description e.g. Sub-divide a large track group of ~35 to smaller groups of ~11. Once everyone is gathered in breakout room, split off into 3 subgroups. Randomness is key. Have the track group count off by 3. All the 1's create a group, the 2's another and the 3's another.

Facilitation guidance and content guidance e.g. The goal is to mix skills and provide people an opportunity to build off each other's skills especially if they don't usually have an opportunity to work with each other. Once groups are formed, reinforce the fact that the "pitch PPT deck" is only a starting tool and not a template/form. Teams are encouraged to innovate, adopt and reformat as necessary to convey their message in a creative manner. They can add/delete/reformat slides if so desired.

So far so good: the next task is to consolidate the work and presenting each problem with proposed approach and schedule for addressing back to the whole group. If this all works the next challenge is to make sure the problems are actually addressed by committing resources to them. If that happens the off-site will have been a success. But if, back in the workplace, the day to day grind overwhelms the excitement of visioning then the glitter, the snazzy software, the good intentions, and the goodwill, may be seen as having been for naught whether or not there have been other beneficial but not registered consequences.

The autumn 2010 issue of the RSA Journal has got two articles in it about social networking which make for useful and interesting reading as I get to grips with questions about how people establish and maintain social contacts and a sense of work community if they are working predominantly away from an office base and not seeing colleagues face to face.

The article "Nudge plus Networks" notes that "We have made great strides in developing our scientific knowledge about behavioural economics and network effects over the past couple of decades." And goes on to ask "But how far has this actually shaped our approach to public policy?" This question can usefully be asked about organizational policy. We are learning a lot about social networks and how work gets done outside the lines. (See Leading Outside the Lines) but not yet applying what we know about social network effects to career development, ways of working, or management of diffuse teams.

As the article writer points out

"This is despite a rapidly growing body of research telling us more about their considerable potential to complicate, disrupt and deliver policy intentions. Meanwhile, new technologies, global communications and challenges such as climate change suggest that network effects are becoming ever more important.

Some – such as peer influence – are likely to be relatively direct, obvious and familiar to us. Likewise, most of us are aware that the way in which people affect us varies according to context: the people who sway our choice of pension are unlikely to be the same as those whose behaviour encourages us to binge drink. The policymaker's challenge is to translate this commonsense understanding of the power of networks into workable interventions and to be able to factor in much more complex effects."

This article led me to wonder how we can develop innovative organisational policies based around social network effects that nudge people further in the direction of teleworking – one of the objectives of the organization I am currently working with.

A second article in the same Journal, titled Human Resources suggests that "Traditional methods of inspiring community involvement collapse in the face of tight schedules and reluctance to participate in enforced social activity." Many employees when asked why they resist the idea of teleworking say that the fear it is a career limiter – 'out of sight, out of mind'. They feel if they are not physically visible they will get passed over.

This raises the challenge of helping employees develop on-line visibility, credibility, and obvious high performance when they are working 'alone' i.e. not surrounded by physically present co-workers. In other words despite having work schedules and performance targets to meet they must have the capability to develop the social contact and community involvement essential to demonstrating rounded work performance.

However building community and team involvement on-line is not straightforward. As the author points out

"We rarely form true, lasting friendships or communities by trying to 'network' more. We do so from repeated interactions with the parent in the centre, the worker in the office, the believer in the church, the stylist at the salon, the student in the lecture or the patron at the gym – provided that those organisations, unwittingly or otherwise, make it easy for us to form friendships."

Teleworking does not make it inherently easy for workers to form friendships – note that all the examples in the quote relate to face to face contact. Thus I'm thinking that teleworking management must include methods and approaches of encouraging people to form communities of involvement as they would if they were face to face.

If teleworking management cannot do this we fact the prospect that no teleworker will be able to confidently and positively respond to the Gallup Q12 employee satisfaction statement "I have a best friend at work", which would not only reduce our satisfaction scores, but lead us to run the risk of losing staff who felt isolated.

So two articles and two related lines of enquiry for me to pursue as I help develop the teleworking strategy – how can social networking effects drive usefully teleworking policy and effective teleworking practice?

One of last week's meetings I was involved in had the effect of highlighting the culture clashes which occur when old and new ways of doing things seem oppositional. Two of these in particular highlighted this, and left me wondering how to manage these in real time – away from the safe theory of BATNA (best alternative to negotiated agreement) or other structured ways of handling and mediating disputes and conflicts.

The two meetings were very different. The first involved me (new to organization) and long-server (21 years) in one room talking on the phone with another new to organization person about the teleworking and how to develop a strategy around teleworking. There were a number of differences in our perspectives with the two newcomers taking a very different stance from the long server. This was expressed at one level in very different language use, the newcomers talking about 'taking responsibility', 'owning their work', and 'choosing their work arrangements', while the long server talked about 'signed contracts with supervisors', 'reprimands for non-compliance', and 'getting manager approvals'.

In the second meeting which was much larger there were essentially three groups of people – two different organizations but with one of the organizations being represented by old and new guard. The purpose of this meeting was to develop a strategy around space use. The particular discussion point was occupancy requirements – what are the space needs of the proposed tenants in the building? This time it was less language and more approach that highlighted the differences between old and new members of the organization, with the second organization siding with the new comers. Not an easy discussion.

The argument hinged on the question of "should you ask people what space needs they have?" The old guard was very definite that this was an imperative. The new guard took the view that if you ask people what they need they'll tell you that they need what they've currently got plus some.

Since the space won't be available for use for a few years to the newcomers asking what they need seemed a flawed approach. Their argument was that work styles and available technologies are changing rapidly so let's project out what the working world might look like in five years and ask occupants to imagine themselves in that environment and then ask for space requirements.

In any event, the organizational strategy is to reduce space use and drive mobile working in all its forms. Thus a third approach – also favored by the new guard but not the old guard who think it 'won't happen' is to simply tell current occupants that they'll have three-quarters less space than they currently have and it will be shared. And in this scenario offer to work with them to organize their work and work arrangements differently to accommodate this space reduction.

The long servers saw some merits in 'futuring' but felt it would take too much time and people wouldn't be able to cope with the idea that they would not get the amount of space that they currently have. Additionally they have always done space planning in the way they want to do it and see little reason to change their own approach to this particular task. The new employees understand that there are some important aspects of the space that need to be planned now because they are part of the building construction, but see no need to plan any of the other space which, it has already been decided, should be wholly flexible.

So I'm now wondering how to handle this situation in a way that the new guard is not steam rollering the old guard, and the old guard is not ploughing ahead in the traditional way on the assumption that the new guard will disappear in due course and all talk of space sharing, tele commuting, doing things differently will sink without trace (vindicating the approach of asking for current space requirements).

Four possibilities seem plausible:

• Open a mediated discussion on what are at base two different perspectives, aiming to understand each other's and reach some mutual understanding and agreement. (Rational approach)

• Accept the differences and aim to achieve out a way that is workable to all, accepting the different perspectives. (Pragmatic approach)

• "Prove" that work is changing, other organizations are reducing space, we're not in the vanguard but laggards in this. (Evidence based approach)

• Continue to fight for the 'right' way of approaching the task of space planning and wait for a victor to emerge. (Steamroller approach)

I'm reminded of Machiavelli's words:

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise that the prince is endangered along with them.

Yesterday I was at a roundtable in NY hosted by DEGW that describes itself as "a strategic business consultancy," that is to say they "make complex issues simple. Our people help clients to capitalize on a vital dynamic; the relationship between people and the design of physical place to enhance organisational performance. "

The topic was "Preparing People for the New Workspace". As the organizers said: "in implementing a workplace strategy, preparing a new workplace for people is half the challenge. The other half, or maybe more than half (!), is preparing people for the new workplace. "

Bank of America, Microsoft, HP, and GSK all fielded a speaker to talk about their methods of implementing new programs. All four were either promoting different ways of working (like mobility), implementing new technologies or moving people into different types of space. The programs they were talking about had "achieved 'status quo' status in their organizations and are being implemented on an industrial level."

HP's, Chris Hood who leads Hewlett Packard efforts to design integrated workplace solutions together in support of the shifting workplace paradigm, was adamant that 'change management programs' don't work. He was forceful on the point that pilots, trials, and small experiments don't give you any experience of what operating a program on an 'industrial scale' would turn out like. The HP effort is focused on "designing to make sure performance is efficient." As he said "The greenest building you build is the one you don't build. If you can continue to downsize the amount you operate in, that's the best thing you can do for the environment. We put a lot of emphasis on that."

Microsoft on the other hand has a heavily engineered, lockstepped, change management program to prepare their people to move into any new workplace. It has a number of components including staff and manager training for working differently, helping people navigate the 'change curve', and monitoring performance as they do so. They have a whole methodology and toolkit to support this.

Gita Katbamna Head of Change Management, Worldwide Real Estate, GSK (GlaxoSmithkline) also has a full on change management program but not at all in the same way as Microsoft. Theirs is not 'programatic' but rather adaptive and flexible to local conditions and cultures within an overall framework. She talked about the value in have deep and broad stakeholder engagement in any effort – without which, in her view, attempts to change would founder.

Wendy Waite, Bank of America, presented a very slick outline of the Bank's 'My Work' program. This is less of an attempt at performance improvement related to space usage and more to do with retention and productivity of staff. You can look at a short video on the program that's on the public website. The Bank provides several incentives to their 'associates' to join the program including $1000 to buy equipment to set up, coaching for employees and managers in working in this new way, and ongoing training as the technologies and skills for mobile working change.

Far from making this complex issue simple the roundtable served to highlight that mobile working, new designs of collaborative office space, new technologies, and new employee/employer expectations make this complex issue very complex. There is not a best way to approach it and no simple answers. The speakers also left a lot of questions unanswered – although they are all making valiant attempts to answer them in their organizations.

The unanswered questions included: How do you measure knowledge worker productivity? How do you determine what the business value of the space is and monitoring adding value to this? How do you handle manager reluctance to believe that a worker not at his/her desk in the office is not working? How do you help employees navigate career progression if they are not 'visible' in the office? How do you foster any cultural change that is required to engender the sense of neighborhood and community required for collaborative yet remote from eah other working?

I did pick up a number of ideas and thoughts to work with:

1. Decouple space use from management style. (You can't know people are working even if they are physically present in the office).
2. Provide incentives to give up space
3. Map the impacts of space reduction on work performance and space use
4. Provide 'space use' training to managers and staff
5. Have a clear and communicable business driver for any space and work change effort
6. Be aware and supportive of different workstyles and preference i.e. don't try to mandate a specific one size approach

And, as always, meeting people working in the same field and meeting similar challenges was a useful and fun experience.

Today, I'm sitting in NY from a hotel room in Times Square. Walking around the city yesterday which I haven't been to for a while I was struck by the fact that some of bicycle parking was roofed – why is that rare. There are a lot more cyclists, and the foot traffic is as much as Oxford Street in London.

At a meeting I went to – the topic was teleworking – we had a discussion on the 'business case' for it here in the NY office. Unlike other offices the people I was talking with didn't think the saving on carbon emissions was a selling point. Here, in Manhattan, people use mass transit to get into the office, and where they part outside in one of the boroughs in order to pick up the mass transit the boroughs are against the idea of teleworking because they'd lost parking fees, etc.

Not only that, the additional argument was that people like coming into Manhattan to go to the shops, meet up with friends in other offices, and enjoy city life. All a very different story from other regional offices I've visited where there is no mass transit, and the commute is long.

One of these has embraced teleworking in a novel way. They are working from home using their commute time to walk, and collecting 'points' for each minute walked. Teams are competing with each other for most time walked. Alongside this they are logging their carbon emissions saved and giving the credits to a non-profit.

So it seems that introducing teleworking into different styles of urban, suburban, city, or country living requires different protocols and approaches. But there is a common thread – the search for community and sociability.

Thus it was interesting to read in strategy+business, today that Charles Landry, consultant and author of

"encyclopedic books, such as The Art of City-Making (Earthscan Publications, 2006), The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators (2nd ed., Earthscan Publications, 2008), and The Intercultural City: Planning for Diversity Advantage (with Phil Wood; Earthscan Publications, 2008), …. offer powerful insights about the role place can play in attracting, retaining, developing, and inspiring world-class people in today's fast-changing global business environment. The highly original and often spellbinding lectures that Landry delivers in venues ranging from Bali to Abu Dhabi to Bilbao provide a crash course for business and civic leaders seeking to create a regional advantage."

The article cites a 2008 report by CEOs for Cities saying that

"In the past, the attractions of working for the right company often trumped the desire to live in a great place. No longer: A landmark study by the Chicago-based CEOs for Cities released in 2008 found that 64 percent of highly mobile global knowledge workers said they were more likely to choose a job because of where an organization was located than because of the organization itself."

Mulling over that notion in relation to teleworking and how to set it up (to save real estate not commute time – but that isn't something that an individual employee would be that concerned about). I found a relevant blog on the CEOs for Cities site. Here Carol argues that 'people need people' and links to a fascinating Washington Post report Digitial Nomads Choose Their Tribes.

"Clad in shorts, T-shirts and sandals, these nomads work "wherever they find a wireless Web connection to reach their colleagues via instant messaging, Twitter, Facebook, e-mail and occasionally by voice on their iPhones or Skype." It is the natural evolution in teleworking. Now that wireless is widespread, workers are fleeing the isolation of home to work where they please — "especially around other people, even total strangers."

These themes lead me to think that, if community, tribalness, and social interaction are critical components of work performance then setting up teleworking, and the IT infrastructure, so it mirrors and mimics the 'tribes' and 'communities' that people are looking for in a way that works needs careful thought. I know it can be done because one of the regions I am working with has a pilot project going that is doing just that, and it's working very well.

Researching further the sociability aspects of teleworking, and its IT ramifications for organizations is now on my to do list for further work as we design to massively extend teleworking in the organization.

The office move that I've written about a few times is now imminent. Two weeks to go.
This is where the many weeks and months of exhortation to think about packing, reminders that everyone only gets two crates, lists of things which can or can't be taken and weekly change management one hour preparation sessions, not to mention email updates, FAQ site, town halls, management emails, etc, etc, all seem to have fallen on deaf ears – even though people appeared to be attentive, participating and involved.

Suddenly people seem to be waking up to the fact that orange plastic crates beginning to decorate the place are not early signs of Halloween but receptacles for their items. They seem totally baffled by the now reality that their allotted two crates do not hold 10 years of documents, acres of fluffy toys from the tops of their computers, endless commemorative mugs, plaques, and other memorabilia, forests of potted plants, and their personal desktop toaster.

So the move co-ordinators are getting what is called in management jargon 'push-back'. We seem to be spending hours of time not filling our own two crates but answering move questions that have already been answered many times, and the answers are there on the FAQ website as well: "What color are the lockers?" "Can I take my personal coat stand?" "Why do we have to share printers?"

I am not sure where the failure of communication has occurred but it seems a standard thing to happen in this kind of large scale change in spite of what seemed communication over-kill.. Only when the change is right there do people believe it is going to happen. In fact some people still don't think they will be moving in two weeks banking on a last minute intervention that will stay the whole process.

These reactions sent me to my bookshelf to re-read William Bridges book Managing Transitions. Unfortunately I couldn't find it – only his book Job Shift – I hope that isn't telling me something. But I did refind John Fisher's Process of Transition graphic. Looking at it I felt that people had gone from Denial to Depression in a quick movement, with some heading off towards Hostility. I'm hoping that with the draw of coupons, goody bags, management attention, not to mention moving to a totally new space, fully outfitted with state of the art everything, the trend will start upwards towards "this can work and be good".

In any event I will attend the Real Estate Executive Board's event on November 4 called Headquarter Relocation Strategy Playbook. "This teleconference lays out a road map on the best way to tackle a headquarter relocation. Filled with case studies, actionable tools, and time-saving templates, this playbook should be your first stop when creating your own internal strategy. "

It may be too late for us to do anything now but it'll all be grist for the mill next time around.

Yesterday I was driving a 300 mile trip and listening to stuff. On the way down I listened to Chesil Beach, a novel by Ian McEwan. Florence, one of the characters achieves her life's dream of being a highly regarded musician. The other Edward, does not achieve his dream to write a series of history books. He life sort of fades away and sadly, he recognizes that he has lost his dream. The story is of choices made and paths not taken.

The thread of achieving dreams was continued on the way back. On the second part of the drive I listened to my second audio book. It was Dan Rather's narraration of 'The American Dream: Stories from the Heart of our Nation' – an incredible panorama of people whose stories he told – all in relation to achieving the American Dream. Most involved massive amounts of work, difficult trade-offs, bags of endurance, and fleeting glimpses of the Dream as they reached for it. And many did achieve their dream and got to the work-life balance that accompanied it but not easily or without struggles en route.

On the first half of the drive back I listened to NPR's interview with Andrew Sullivan, author of the blog Daily Dish It's an alarming tale of obsessive blogging.

"Right now I'm writing about 250 to 300 posts a week," Sullivan tells NPR's Guy Raz. "I can barely remember what I wrote yesterday, let alone 10 years ago."
That's the pace necessary to keep up with the massive traffic, material and discussion Sullivan moves on his blog, The Daily Dish. The site is visited by a million people each month, and at some points – in the case of his coverage of last summer's Iranian election – more than a million people a day.
….
The massive traffic and information Sullivan faces every day takes a toll. "It is physically and psychically so exhausting," he says.

He blogs all weekend, all day, every 20 minutes.

"Not only that, I feel a duty to actually try and get things right," Sullivan says.

… He takes one two-week vacation every year, to Cape Cod, to get off the grid. "Sometimes I just think – if only I could take a year to just read or be quiet," he says.

The threads in these three listenings center around making work-life balance choices. All the characters I came across in my 300 mile round trip were working to achieve something meaningful for them and it's pretty hard to do. However much workplace legislation aims to help people with it, legislation can't account for personality, individual motivation, and the drive to meet expectations. (One's own or others).

Designing a well-lived life takes fortitude, sacrifice, humanity, and devotion. The four words I adopted several years ago as a life guide. They're inscribed on the base of the statue of Edith Cavell in Trafalgar Square. A new book has just come out about her life. It marks the 95th anniversary of her execution for helping allied soldiers flee German-occupied Belgium. Again, a testament to someone who worked to achieve her personal dream. In this case of being a nurse who did her duty.