[Because] change in organizations typically involves shifts in the way people work, these may introduce feelings of inadequacy and dislocation that potentially challenge people’s identities as competent workers (Ezzamel, Willmott & Frank, 2001; Kondo, 1990). Organizational changes may also reduce or replace meanings and practices that are central to people’s positive view of themselves, such as when they are no longer allowed to engage in activities or use artifacts that had signaled their prestige or prowess to others (Pettigrew, 1985). Furthermore, employees may consider new tasks and new approaches as affording them with less autonomy, responsibility, or standing in the organization than their previous ways of working (Cox, 1997), and they may interpret this as an overall loss of status and thus as a threat to their professional identify. da Cunha, J. V., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2008). Performing catharsis: The use of online discussion forums in organizational change. Information and Organization, 18(2), 132-156. Page 133.

The trouble with talking about government budgets, even ones as small as a city or local school district, is that big numbers rapidly lose meaning to people. It’s more visceral to talk about a dozen people (or dollars or “things”) than to discuss a million of then. Big numbers are hard to visualize.

Take dictionaries for example. Without peeking, is 10,000 words a good dictionary? What about 20,000? How many words are there in a typical collegiate dictionary? Take a guess before looking at the answer.

You’ve heard the politicians say it (and it’s true): “A million here, a million there and pretty soon we’re talking real money.” One of the ways I try to make the number a bit more “real” is to estimate how many people could be employed at a particular job for that amount. Try it. How many professional workers (between $50,000–60,000 annual salary) can be employed in government jobs for $1M? (My answer.)

John Gruber linked to a blog called Information is Beautiful, highlighting an impressive infographic comparing budget numbers in the billions. (The same link that starts this post. Once there, click the graphic to see how the data was sourced, along with viewer comments.) Go see it!

How would government change if budget committees published these numbers visually instead of numerically?

It’s an interesting list. Some words are used in science (chromosome, gamete, mitosis, quasar), some in history/politics (antebellum, gerrymander, laissez faire, oligarchy). Others are useful to understand modern society (notarize, plagiarize). Interestingly, there are a significant number of words that may be used to insult your less-enlightened friends. (churlish, feckless, supercilious, unctuous).

Do high school graduates know these words? Probably not.

The same group has similar books for high school freshmen, college graduates, and those of us who, despite formal education, still struggle with the English language.

No, I’m not getting paid to advertise these books. I just thought the lists were worth sharing.

UPDATE: KSL radio ran a news segment (13 June) on this topic, and quoted yours truly. An audio version is also available.

The following comes with the hopefully unnecessary caveat that the opinions stated here are my own, and may not be representative of any group or government body I may be affiliated with.

The nature of groups

It is the nature of groups to villainize some amorphous group or ideal and simultaneously deify their own position. Groups gain validity and cohesion by identifying enemies. [1] It’s one of the central themes of Orwell’s 1984 that an irreconcilable conflict is essential to influencing group behavior.

In the Slashdot community, condemnation Microsoft is almost expected, as is praise of Apple or Linux. At sporting events, fans form an unofficial group. At first the “enemy” is the opposing team. This focus can shift quickly to a particular person such as a dirty player, or referee. At first, the shouts of disdain come from a single source, and left unchecked, spread to an increasing number of fans. [2]

Whether it’s technologists’ rants against Microsoft, a sports fan blaming the referee, or the increasing partisianship in national politics, groupthink is a potent force if there is an identifiable enemy.

Validation

There is something personally validating about being part of a group. It’s encouraging to know others think as we do. We feel more important when we identify with a group.

As a result of self-indentifying with groups, defensive behavior is common. An attack on our group is somehow personal. Left unchecked, the group’s arguments stray from logic and principles and become overly broad, emotional, and fallacious as members rationalize and defend their association. (I think we can all point fingers at someone else who has skipped the first step and jumped straight to unfounded vitriol.)

Applicability

How does this apply to the voucher debate? If you’ve made it this far, it’s a fair bet you have the intellectual perspicacity to figure it out on your own. I’ll highlight a few points anyway.

I’ve said before that most of the PCE radio ads offend me, particularly the ones they were running at the beginning of the year. The ads offended for several reasons: the ads depicted overly broad generalizations poorly disguised as metaphors while simultaneously vilifying public education. It’s okay to lobby for more choices (I might even agree with you!), but if you try to tell me a parent has no options in the public system, you lose credibility.

The Utah Taxpayers Association has done a good bit of research into the fiscal impact of voucher programs, and regularly cites well-known authorities like the Friedman Foundation and the Cato Institute. Their recent post crossed the line from factual advocacy to the emotional groupthink behavior I described above. The post smacks a bit of ad hominem. In other words, I hear them making the following argument in their post: this other group (but not us) will behave poorly, so clearly we’re right, and their wrong.

The UTA post also lumps together moderates and extremists. They predict a series of actions if the referendum fails. They miss two key points: a) the farther down the list one goes, I suspect the number of people supporting the action decreasing, until only those on the wings are left, and b) the list applies to both sides of the issue.

To be fair, voucher opponents like Utahns For Public Schools have (more subtly) inserted their own variation of ad hominem, believing that perhaps discrediting the source cripples the argument. You’ve heard the rationale: The voucher movement is being funded primarily by out-of-state interests (as part of a national experiment/conspiracy), ergo, vouchers aren’t good for Utah.

What to do?

We live a country where reasonable people have disagreed since before its founding. Even our bicameral national congress is a form of compromise. If we recognize the dangers (and inherence) of group mentality, it is easier to keep discussion useful and productive.

• As customers, we search for someone to blame, but only because we want a problem fixed. The person who caused the problem may not be the one to fix it. When working with customers, take ownership; connect the customer to the solution.
• Uncorrected little mistakes can become big mistakes. Responsibility lies with those who made the little mistakes at the beginning.
• Don’t try to hide mistakes. Take responsibility—)but more than that, take ownership of finding a solution.
• Capitulating early won’t provide the emotional win, but in real terms it may be cheaper than arguing. Even if we don’t consider intangibles like a positive brand image, word-of-mouth, repeat customers, or opportunity costs, our time and our employees’ time is valuable. Understand the cost of covering mistakes.
• Empathize, don’t patronize. We do this by taking ownership, sharing information and providing options.

You can see the recurring theme: take ownership.

I had problem with a major telecom when I last moved. (The other major telecom had caused me some significant trouble, so I switched.) I still had no service one week after it was to have been hooked up. It took eight hours on the phone (much of it on hold) over the course of more than fourteen calls to about five different customer service lines (all with horrible phone trees) before was I finally connected to a manager that promised he would personally make sure it was fixed. I was pessimistic, but willing to trust him. I wanted to trust him. He couldn’t, of course, fix it over the phone, but he did promise to call me back. (Which he did after it was fixed that evening.)

The simple act of someone taking ownership was enough to ease my frustration. I finally felt as if someone cared (empathy), he promised to call me back (information), and he followed through (trust). Why did it take so long to find someone willing to do that?

If you ever have to deal with customers, or manage people who do, head on over and read the whole thing.

Before you ask, yes, I know he’s using a knock-off of my design. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And, he asked politely.

I like to be open with what I’ve learned, particularly regarding web standards and Internet usability. It’s one of my strengths, though I don’t pretend to be near the level of Jakob Nielsen or Jeffrey Zeldman, giants in their respective fields before I even knew what the Internet was. I have friends call me regularly asking questions about programming. I have friends that I call regularly asking questions about programming. Without this network of professionals, none of us would be as successful as we are now.

My middle child turned three last week. Sandwiched between his brothers, he has little that can be accurately identified as “his.” As he was opening his presents, we would ask, “What is it?” Each time he would reply, “It’s mine!” He seemed more exited about being able to possess something his brothers weren’t entitled to (”Give that back, it’s not yours!”) than he was about what the toys actually were.

Are we like that with our knowledge/skills/training/whatever? I’ve said it before: I’ve learned more about programming outside the classroom than I ever did while jumping through hoops for my computer science degree. The willingness of others to publish free tutorials, answer questions, or just sit and brainstorm has been essential. I attribute most of my skill with databases to a co-worker at my first computer job, who first walked me through the basics of (normalized) database design. That 20-minute impromptu lesson was the cornerstone of many future projects and formal training. If it wasn’t for his mentoring, my career would likely not have followed the same path. I’m in his debt.

I’ve put together a short list of reasons I feel rewarded for sharing:

• Teaching is learning. The best way to learn something is to share it with someone else.
• Trust. A willingness to share what you’ve learned engenders a feeling of trust. I’ve received several business offers, based primarily on past interactions where I was “abundant.”
• Abundance. When you are willing to share, others are more willing to share with you. Pardon the buzzwords, but the synergy of an abundant social network holds extraordinary value.

I’ve worried about giving away business ideas, or helping someone else enter the same market space, but every time I take a step back I find sharing was the best decision. To paraphrase a wise teacher, “In order to become great, we must help others be great.”

I picked up Head First Design Patterns last month, more to see the application of her learning theory than for the content of the book. Had I not been intrigued by her blog, I likely would have never even looked twice at it—although somewhat relevant to my work, it’s not an area that I felt I had time to study.

I love the book. Not only is it providing a good breadth of software design knowledge, but I’ve learned more about learning theory than I had hoped. I believe Kathy’s method of instructing has helped me plant the material more firmly in my mind. I can recall it better than I otherwise might, and I could explain most of it to someone else (although not as deftly as the author).

Calling it “learning theory” connotes a narrow field; it’s much broader than one might first expect. The principles apply to business presentations, marketing, and, well, every type of communication where we expect some sort of knowledge transfer. (As an aside, see a related article at Presentational Zen for a comparison of presentations by Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Apple’s Steve Jobs.)

At the beginning of the Design Patterns is a brief section on some of the teaching tools the book employs. One of biggest differences with the “Head First” books (that is, the most visually obvious difference) is the prolific use of pictures incorporated with text. Not just pictures with a caption, but words in the block of space we visually associate with the picture. It’s something you almost have to see to understand. (Pun only mildly intended.)

More than computer books, what I really want to see out of Kathy is a “Head First” book devoted entirely to learning theory.

Thanks, Kathy, not only for your breath of fresh air on computer texts, but for sharing your insights on teaching and learning. I know I am better for it.