Lets Take Back Our Negative World

This is a photo by Jamie Street on Unsplash.com that I think really speaks to all the beauty we have in our world that doesn't always get the attention it deserves.

This is a photo by Jamie Street on Unsplash.com that I think really speaks to all the beauty we have in our world that doesn't always get the attention it deserves.

I know this post is a bit of a departure from what I normally write about. I read a lot of news, granted it is mostly tech and space related news, but I read a lot of news none the less. The news of late has been even more depressing and frightening than normal and this got me thinking...maybe there is something we can do about it.

Bad things have been happening for as long as the news has been reported and bad things will continue to happen in the future. But are things really as bad as they seem? Reading the news headlines and the posts and memes in your social media accounts may not be the most accurate way to make that determination. There is a primitive response in our human brains to negativity, it attracts our attention. I'm sure it has something to do with when our ancestors had to worry about being eaten by a saber-tooth tiger and our brains had to make us pay more attention to any kind of threat to survive. The media has known about this phenomenon for a long time, which why we have the saying "If it bleeds it leads." If there are two breaking news stories competing for the front page of a news site and one of them is a positive story and the other controversial, you can bet the controversial story will be chosen for the top spot. It's the one that will draw our attention, lead to the most outrage and result in more social media shares and hence even more clicks. And we all know that clicks = $$$.

So want can we do? The reality of the situation is that that all of us are in control of this. The only reason these negative news stories are so popular is because we make them that way. And then when we read these negative stories we are compelled to either share them or comment on them or share related negative information and spread it even further. As a society, the more of these kind of negative messages we circulate the more negative our perspectives on society becomes. It becomes really scary when you start thinking about how these negative perspectives are then spread out into the physical world. Do you think someone who just spent an hour reading negative comments about police violence is going to react differently when pulled over by a cop later that day than someone who has just read a positive story about good cops in our community? It's called cognitive bias and I wrote a rather lengthy piece about it last year about it. My cognitive bias article was focused on the tech industry but it extends to everything. The point in all of this is that we all need to take a step back and mix some actual reality in with the "news" we are being hand-fed. The more negativity we put out there the more negative actions we will get as a result. For every bad action by a police officer there are literally thousands of purely heroic actions, but we don't always hear about those. So what can we do to help turn this around?

  1. Turn the negativity around. If there is a negative news story out there that gets your attention then try to find a positive way to react to that story. Stop re-posting all the click-bait news stories out there and write a sentence or two about it in your own words instead.
  2. Spread the positive. It's impossible to stay clear of negativity and we should try to do so, but make a point to share the positive as well. I challenge each and every one of you to try and share a positive news story or comment for every negative news story or comment you post. It's an election season and I have friends on all political sides. So much of the stories that are shared are negative stories about the "other" person. How about sharing some positive stories about what your candidate has done lately instead of bashing the other person. You are a lot more likely to turn around someone else's point of view if you point out the positive with respect to your position rather than pointing out the negative side of their position. The same goes for non-political issues as well.
  3. Take 30 seconds to do a quick fact check before posting something. There are so many fake news sites and incorrect news stories out there that I end up coming across more fake stories than real ones anymore. Do a quick internet search of the major people and topics in the news story and then check some fact-checking sites like Snopes before re-posting something.

I used to do a weekly post here on this blog called the Vincent Award. I stopped writing these articles because it got harder and harder to find positive news stories. I really enjoyed searching for stories to highlight in this weekly segment, but it got so time consuming to sort through all the negative click-bait stories to find the good ones that I just couldn't spare the time anymore. Maybe if we all start sharing more positive things like I suggest above we will see the media follow our lead and start doing more regular positive stories as well. Remember, the media will publish more of the type of stories we choose to read so choose and share wisely.

Reducing Cognitive Bias in the Tech Industry

I read an article last year in USA Today about comments that Jesse Jackson made concerning the tech industry's lack of diversity:

"There's no talent shortage. There's an opportunity shortage," he said, calling Silicon Valley "far worse" than many others such as car makers that have been pressured by unions. He said tech behemoths have largely escaped scrutiny by a public dazzled with their cutting-edge gadgets. - USA Today

My immediate reaction to Jesse Jackson's comments were to simply refute them. If you look at it from strictly a numbers standpoint, the percentages of minorities getting a technology related degree are no where near the percentages that these minorities are present in the overall population. So of course there is going to be a lack of diversity in the technology industry. I was so tempted to write a blog post about how wrong this perspective was, but I didn't. Then I read something that changed my mind...

I am slowly finishing up a Masters Degree in Systems Engineering (I say slowly only because doing so while working "full+" time is rather challenging). The class I took last semester, Decision and Risk Analysis, part of our required reading is the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. Blink is a book that, in a way, is the opposite of decision and risk analysis. Blink looks at how quality decisions can be made literally in the blink of an eye and the author covers this from the perspective that our brain can quickly process information (even going as far as showing how the human brain is more powerful than today's super computers at some tasks). One of the topics covered in the book is that of "cognitive bias." Rather than go into a lengthy definition of cognitive bias I will give you a lengthy example of how how one industry found a way to eliminate this bias.

In Blink, Malcolm Gladwell tells the story of Abbie Conant, a trombone player who was auditioning for the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra in the summer of 1980. The auditions were being held behind a screen so the judges could not tell who was auditioning. This was done because it was known that the son of one of the existing members of the orchestra was auditioning. In order to ensure impartiality, the concept of a "blind" audition where the person would play their instrument from behind a screen was established. Abbie made a crucial error in her audition and as soon as the audition was over she was already leaving...knowing that there was no way after that mistake that she would be selected. The judges were "blown away" by the power and skill behind her audition. They heard the mistake, but they also heard everything else that went on during that audition. Luckily they called upon her to step in front of the judges before she left the building. When she went out to meet the judges they were shocked that she was female. The name that was used for audition (Herr Abbie Conant) accidentally masked her gender and at that time it was extremely rare to have female musicians in the orchestra much less one that could play the trombone with so much power. Needless to say, she got the job. However, she ended up having to fight legal battles over being hired then fight again later on for her place within the orchestra and what she was paid. Not long after this happened, musicians began organizing themselves and fighting for equality and fair auditions. This eventually led to the common use of screened or "blind" auditions and it forever changed the landscape of orchestras.

The key aspect of cognitive bias is that it takes places within our brain without us being aware. Instead of paying attention to the sound, power and emotion behind the music being played, our brain's cognitive bias has already passed a certain amount of judgement on that musician based on a split second of initial input. In the case of Abbie Conant, the cognitive bias would have pushed the judges to notice her as female and instantly corrupted the judgement of the audio portion of the audition (had it not been performed behind a screen). This initial snap judgement would have made it more difficult for the judges to have noticed the power behind her performance and would have highlighted the mistake she made during the performance. In fact, Abbie had enough experience with traditional auditions that she was 100% sure that the mistake she made ruined any chance she had of being selected. However, the screened audition eliminated the visual cognitive bias and enabled the judges to focus purely on the audio portion of the audition. That crucial mistake made during the audition turned out not to be so crucial after all when taken properly into perspective with the rest of her audio performance.

So what does all of this have to do with the tech industry? The USA today article said this about Jackson's stance on minorities in the tech industry:

"The government has a role to play" in ensuring that women and minorities are fairly represented in the tech workforce - USA Today

I couldn't disagree more with this idea that the government has a "role to play" in this. Did the government step in to enforce a "screened audition" policy on orchestras? No, they didn't have to. The musicians banded together once they realized there was a way to fight against this cognitive bias that benefited both the quality of the orchestra and musicians fighting for a more unbiased way to have their abilities evaluated. I have a hard time believing that anyone wants to be on a losing team. The tech industry isn't actively skewing their hiring practices to exclude minorities (they wouldn't want to because much of their customer base is made up of minorities), but they may be doing so without realizing it.

I think the reason we see such a discrepancy in the number of minorities in tech compared to the general population is two-fold:

  1. The number of minorities getting a formal education in tech related fields is also disproportionate to the number of minorities in the overall population
  2. Cognitive bias is playing a substantial role in the hiring and promotion of minorities in the tech industry

Item 1 above is easily proven when you look at university enrollment data, so I totally disagree with Jessie Jackson's statement that "there's no talent shortage", but I agree that there is an "opportunity shortage". However, if you open up opportunities for minorities then I think the talent shortage will take care of itself. In other words, if you open up opportunities for minorities (or at least take down the barriers) then they will start coming over to the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math) areas of education. So how do we fix the opportunity shortage?

Just like in the story of the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra I believe there is an example that can be set within the tech industry that will forever change the landscape of minorities in tech going forward. There is one company in the tech industry that has already crossed technology with the liberal arts and infused that into their "corporate DNA"...Apple. What better company to take a lesson learned from the classical music world and apply it to technology? But how?

Cognitive biases are subtle yet extremely powerful. Aggressive measures must be used to eliminate or significantly reduce cognitive biases. In the case of the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra, all visual cognitive biases were eliminated by using a screen in front of the performer. In order to see a similar uptick in the hiring and promotion of minorities in the tech industry as to what was been seen with women being hired into orchestras, the tech industry must adopt an analog to the "screened auditions." I'm not suggesting that the entire interview/promotion process be "blind", but I certainly think aspects of it should be. You can't take all bias out of hiring and promotion, but you can at the very least give the decision maker an unbiased performance-based assessment of each candidate and ensure that the performance measurements weigh-in on the decision just as much as the interview process. One way to do this would be for a separate portion of the HR department to sanitize the resumes and applications for a given position before the evaluations begin. The initial screening would then be done without names, nationalities, genders, affiliations, schools attend, region in which you live, etc...anything that could potentially bias the person involved with the initial screening. Base that first round of evaluations purely on past performance and current capability. It can even be taken one step further. Once the field has been narrowed down to those candidates that are going to be interviewed, have the 1st interview be done virtually. In other words, have the candidates come into your facility for the interview but have the candidate and the person conducting the interview in separate rooms (they never see each other). The questions and the conversation will all be done via computer chat session. That way there is no way for cognitive bias to enter into the equation during that first interview. At some point you are going to have to sit in the same room face to face in order to make the final determination. However, if you remove as much of the cognitive bias as possible up front you are assured to be left with only the most qualified people to interview in the final round. You could even setup the entire process so all the previous steps have a score and a weight to the score such that the final face to face interview can only hold so much weight in the final decision. A similar approach should also be considered when selecting for promotions. This would require some kind of outside group to be used since most likely the HR department would know internal candidates that are applying for promotion and being cognitive bias along with that knowledge.

What I have suggeted above is no easy task. In order for something like this to work you must have a very well defined scoring and weighting system and you absolutely MUST know what qualities and capabilites you are looking for when going into the process, otherwise you risk hiring someone who is not well suited for the job. You can never completely eliminate bias from a decision when a human is involved. The main strength we bring to a decision like this (intuition) can also lead to our greatest weakness (bias). Acknoledging that bias and then doing your best to eliminate it is going to be a win for everyone involved. Employers will be hiring the best of the best (not just what they incorrectly percieved as the best) and minorities won't have to fight so hard against these biases. Even the extremem measures I suggest above won't change things overnight. Opportunities for minorities need to come before the qualified minorites will apply. Nobody wants to struggle through school for years only to find they don't have a shot at a job. But little by little as opportunities are shown to exist the minorities in turn will choose to enter into the educational areas with these opportunites.

Just like with the example of Abbie Conant and the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra, I think it is going to take a very high profile company like Apple to adopt some kind of aggresive means to minimize cognitive biases in the hiring and promotion of employees in order for this change to take hold. Apple is a company that is both bold enough to do this and is in a position to gain the most from it. Apple products are purchased by an extremely wide variety of people, which means Apple needs an equally wide variety of employees that understand that segment of Apple's customer base. I don't know enough about Apple's hiring and promotional tactics today. Maybe they are already doing some of this now. But wouldn't it be great if they could help lead a cognitive bias revolution in the tech industry similar to what occured in the music performance industry after what happened with Abbie Conant and the Munich Philharmonic Orchestra? Leading a change like that would leave a mark on the tech industry that would be more impactful and longer lasting than the iPod, iPhone and iPad combined.

Astronaut Selection

I wish I was writing this post to say I have been selected as an Astronaut Candidate (or ASCAN as they are called), but I’m afraid that’s (most likely) not the case. No, instead I am writing a much more useful post...why NOT being selected doesn’t matter. I’m not just saying this because I wasn’t selected, I’m saying that it doesn’t matter because that is how I have chosen to approach my attempt at becoming an astronaut. The reason I am sharing this approach is because I think it’s a philosophy that is useful in many other applications and not just for those aiming to become an astronaut.

First of all, how do I know I haven’t been selected? I don’t. The official timeline for the current round of selections is below:

Nov 15 2011:           Announcement of selection opportunity

Jan 27 2012:            Announcement closes (applications are due)

May-Sept 2012:       Applicants reviewed to determine Highly Qualified applicants. Highly Qualified applicant’s supervisors and references are contacted by mail and civilian Highly Qualified applicants are sent an FAA medical exam request by mail

Aug-Nov 2012: Highly Qualified applicants reviewed to determine interviewees

Go here to see the rest of the selection timeline...

To my knowledge, my supervisor and my references have not been contacted and I know that many of the other applicant’s references have been contacted and other applicants have received the request to obtain an FAA physical examination. According to the schedule and according to a person that works as part of the astronaut selection team the first round of down-selecting won’t be complete until October...so there is still a chance. I’m not giving up by any means, but more than likely I didn’t make the cut this time around...and if I didn’t I’ll keep on trying! This round of astronaut candidate selection had the 2nd largest number of applicants in the history of NASA astronaut selections...6300 applicants! If you want to learn more about how the selection process works and what happens to the candidates after selection all way up until their first flight visit the NASA astronaut website.

So why am I, someone whose favorite movie (Gattaca) has a character that is willing to:

  • Purchase someone else’s identity
  • Have surgery on his own legs in order to match the height of his new identity’s profile
  • Memorize orbital mechanics books
  • Risk his life (imminent heart failure due to a possible flaw in his heart) by competing against his brother in swimming contests and performing routine physical examinations as part of his employment as an astronaut

not willing to go to similar extremes on his quest to become an astronaut. The truth is, I am willing to go to extremes if they will help...but many of them don’t. I’ve had the privilege to both work with and meet many astronauts over the years and they all give me the same advice on how to maximize my chances of becoming an astronaut. Listen up, because this advice applies to life in general and not just the lofty pursuit of reaching for the stars! The advice is simple, work hard to become an expert at something you love. Be the best at SOMETHING. That’s it. That’s the secret recipe for becoming an astronaut. The competition is incredibly tough, so those that are selected are almost always without fail an expert of some kind in their particular field. It’s not so much that it’s a requirement to be some kind of an expert, but more so that the type of person that is able to achieve the title of “expert” is also the kind of person that is able to excel at flying into the unforgiving environment of space, making life and death decisions under pressure, and conducting extremely complicated tasks with crew mates who don’t speak your native language.

So I made myself a promise back before I even graduated with my undergraduate degree...I was not going to pursue advanced degrees and make career choices that looked good on paper just for the sake of increasing my odds at being selected as an astronaut. Instead I was going to go out and do things I am passionate about to the absolute best of my ability and ENJOY the journey. No destination is worth sacrificing everything in order to arrive, because if you arrive at your ultimate destination a mentally exhausted or unhappy person you don’t get to enjoy your “achievement.” One of the most important qualifications of an astronaut is being a well rounded person and you can’t achieve that unless your life in is balance. So my advice to everyone (advice that I personally live by) is to “save nothing for the swim back.” Pour everything you have into something you love and don’t look back!

Would love to hear what you all think about this advice! Is it sound? Also, if you have any questions about the process of applying to become an astronaut I would be more than happy to share what I know...contact me via my contact page or on Twitter!

Steve Jobs Leadership Lessons

I attended a Harvard Business Review webinar today featuring Walter Isaacson, the author of the Steve Jobs biography. Mr. Isaacson's talk centered on the leadership style of Steve Jobs and the lessons that can be taken away from both the failures and successes of Steve Jobs. Mr. Isaacson covered many different topics during the talk, but three of them really stuck out in my mind.

The first take away for me was that Steve did not read or take stock in leadership books, rather he loved to read about the entire history of an individual. Why? Because leadership is not a one size fits all solution. The entire person's history, belief system and personal flaws all need to be taken into account when looking at how they lead. Does this mean that leadership books have no value? Of course not, but it does stress the importance of what Paul Harvey would call "the rest of the story."

The next thing that caught my attention was a discussion about how Steve would spend a typical day. Steve was brutal about the way he whittled his day down to just a few key things he would focus on. If Steve wasn't "into" something that day, you were NOT going to get his attention tuned to that topic or activity. Steve was also well known for discouraging the use of PowerPoint slides in a meeting. Not because he had something against the format (or the company behind it...ok maybe he did), but because he believed if you truly knew what you were talking about you didn't need slides. This also came out in the way Steve would plan (or not plan) regular meetings. While at Pixar Steve specifically crafted the layout of the main building to facilitate "serendipitous" meetings. You know, those really productive run-ins you have in the hallway with a co-worker that results in more productivity in those short 5-minutes than the entire rest of your day. This concept was also applied to the regular weekly meetings that were held, which were done so without an agenda. With an open agenda the meeting could be used to address the hot topic of that moment rather than the topic thought most important days ago when the agenda was created. My day at work today is proof positive that these tactics work. I spent most of my day out of my office talking with people across the organization. Not only did I accomplish everything I set out to do but I also gained information I didn't know I needed. That one piece of intel I unintentionally gained may be the difference between success and failure for me on this task and I wouldn't have obtained it if I hadn't allowed a conversation to naturally stray off topic. Maybe this is proof that spontaneity can be planned, or at least strategically encouraged.

The final lesson I took away from today's webinar was what Walter Isaacson deemed the most important thing he learned by writing about Steve, and that is the importance of passion. Steve learned an important lesson as kid from his father while painting a fence, which was that the beauty of the back of the fence was just as important as the front. Even though nobody would ever see the back of that fence, Steve and his Dad would know what it looked like. If you take that much pride in your work (even the invisible parts) that pride will show through on the parts that everyone can see. This plays into something I have always tried to live by...if something is worth doing then it is worth doing well.

So in true Steve Jobs fashion I have just "one more thing." Steve coined the phrase "stay hungry, stay foolish," which essentially means have the courage to be willing to fail. This ties back to my previous post about not saving anything for the swim back.

The audio from the Steve Job Leadership Lessons Webinar can be found here

Why "1WaySwim"?

"1WaySwim" is a reference to my favorite movie Gattaca. Spoiler alert...if you haven't seen the movie stop reading now! A running theme in the movie is a contest that the two brothers in the movie do as a way to prove which of the brothers in the stronger swimmer. The challenge...both brothers jump into the ocean and start swimming out away from shore. The first person to give up and turn back to shore is the loser. The oldest brother Anton is by far more athletic and can out-perform his younger brother Vincent any day of the week, so Vincent is always the one turning back first and returning to shore. However, in one of the final scenes of the movie Vincent challenges his older brother Anton to one last swimming contest and wins! At the point Anton realizes that his younger weaker brother is out-swimming him he yells ahead and asks his brother how he is doing this. Vincent replies, "You want to know how I did it? This is how I did it, Anton: I never saved anything for the swim back." At this point Anton is scared of failing and scared he might not have the strength to swim all the way back to shore so he gives up. That fear gripped him so hard his body failed him on the return swim and he began to drown. Vincent had to save Anton.

So what does this have to do with me? I don't believe in doing anything half way. If you are going to put forth the effort to do something....do it right and give it everything you have. Don't hold anything in reserve for the swim back! Vincent realized that his will to win was enough to beat his brother who was a much stronger swimmer because Vincent was willing to pour his heart and soul into that swim. In the end it wasn't Anton's strength that failed him, rather it was his fear of failure. We can't be afraid to fail. Failure is only truly a failure when it keeps you from trying again. We all need to learn to harness some of that intensity and focus that Vincent put into that swim and apply it to our everyday lives.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.