hypergogue

1 – Aesthetics and Dimensions: a companion robot’s height and aesthetics must be designed such we are happy to have them as a member of the family.

I like this.

Sidebar question for all authors: why would I buy the book after I've seen this? This already makes perfect sense to me - there are bits I agree with and bits I disagree with and reading the book is unlikely to change any of that. Unless it's chock full of 'sticky' stuff, I'll likely get little out of it.

Like this. Click through to have a look at their Venn analysis of the importance of segmentation (which I'm not even sure I understand in this context) - it made me snicker.

Most of us will recognize the phenomena: actually sitting down to write out a response to something makes you see it in a new way, often with greater complexity. And that of course is the crucial flipside to the decline of long-form reading in the digital age: the increase in short-form writing. If we are slightly less able to focus because of the distractions of electric text, I suspect it is more than made up for by the fact that we are much more likely to write out our responses to what we do read.

I don't know about the rest of you, but this one's certainly true for me.

I have been thinking about The Shallows a lot, though. One of the things it's made me realise is how little fiction I'm reading these days. Do people like Gladwell, Shirky and, yes, Carr fulfill a sort of semi-fictional role with their tub-thumping dilettantism?

I can always tell when I've written something a bit silly because I get a warning sign of pleasure. Seriously, I have no idea what 'tub-thumping dilettantism' even means. So much for the 'crucial flipside'.

I can picture this going down well...

Works for me, mostly.

I'm not sure I'm that bothered about 'measurable goals', apart from my personal ability to refind materials and get involved in conversations with strangers.

Hello!

After Action Review poster - making it human and engaging. And perhaps avoiding the dreaded rabbit ears of forced irony?

A true theory of meritocracy would acknowledge that we all have multiple talents and motivations; and that we all can learn and improve in most of the roles in which we are placed — though how much and how fast will vary from person to person.

It would recognize that we live and work in a dynamic and uncertain world. For optimum efficiency, motivation, and well-being, we should be constantly reviewing the fit we have with our positions and making adjustments.

And it would recognize that it's increasingly effective for organizations to adopt more of a lattice than a pyramid structure — flat with broad opportunities for reward.

While I was reading this it suddenly struck me:
In every job I've ever had, it's been much easier to get a promotion than it has been to move sideways (or even downwards).

This is insane, surely?

The organisation that cracks this one will be the 'employee engagement' benchmark.

Luckily the "fix" for these kinds of programs is really quite simple: Require that participants come to the program with a specific business challenge (either individually or as a team); build time into the program to create a plan for addressing that challenge based on the content that is presented; and then insist that managers execute against these plans after the program. Firms such as GE, Honeywell, Siemens, and many others have used this approach for years with great success — and have documented many millions of dollars of benefits. In essence they have transformed their leadership development activities from a "cost center" to a "profit center" — which makes them much more difficult to dismiss when budgets get tight.

Saved for refinding.

Training done just-in-case usually fails. Training done just-in-time succeeds more often and is more effective.

Is training done 'just-in-time' still 'training' or some kind of facilitation or collaboration exercise. It is if that's what rocks participants' boats and it isn't if they start with the rabbit ears of forced irony.