Central Perk

joi, 18 august 2016

Seth's Blog : Bureaucracy, success and the status quo

Bureaucracy, success and the status quo

Every organization or project that succeeds begins to erect a bureaucracy around that success, because keeping success from going away is a basic need.

When you show up offering change, understand that the status quo isn't the enemy of the bureaucracy, it is their entire reason for being.

At some point, successful organizations stay successful by fighting off their instinct to support the bureaucracy. But far more often, people associate the bureaucracy with the organization's success, as though they are one in the same, and work overtime to protect it from anything that feels threatening.

• Email to a friend •

miercuri, 17 august 2016

Important Social Blade Security Notice

Important Security Notice

We put the security and privacy of our users at the forefront of everything we do, which is why we're sad to inform you that our website was recently the victim of a security breach.

What happened

Due to a vulnerability in our 3rd party forum software, attackers were able to obtain a partial database dump that included user email addresses, IP addresses, and encrypted password information.

What we're doing

Upon learning about the incident, we immediately patched the security issue by making the conscious decision to remove our forum entirely.

In the interest of precaution, we're requiring each user to reset their password. You can do so using the link below.

Reset your password now →

If you used to same password anywhere else, we highly recommend you change your password on those sites as well.

Moving forward

We're committed to maintaining a safe and secure website, and we hope you'll continue to bestow your trust in us. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please feel free to open a support ticket.

Regards,

The Social Blade Team

Unsubscribe | Support Ticket | View web version

Seth's Blog : Function (and the dysfunctional organization)

Function (and the dysfunctional organization)

Here's how you end up with a bully in a position of authority at an organization:

Someone points out that the bully is a real problem. And the boss says, "I know he's a bully, but he's really productive and we can't afford to replace him."

And here's how you end up with a naysayer, or a toxic co-worker:

Someone points out that people are afraid to work with this person. And the boss says, "I know, but we really need her expertise."

And, person by person, trait by trait, we build a broken organization because we believe that function trumps cooperation, inspiration and care.

Until it doesn't, and then, all we've got left is a mess.

The negative people who do nothing functional are an easy decision. It's the little compromises around people who seem to add value that corrupt what we seek to create.

Build a team of people who work together, who care and who learn and you'll end up with the organization you deserve. Build the opposite and you also get what you deserve.

Function is never an excuse for a dysfunctional organization, because we get the organization we compromise for.

• Email to a friend •

marți, 16 august 2016

Seth's Blog : Don't argue about belief, argue about arguments

Don't argue about belief, argue about arguments

The essence of a belief is that we own it, regardless of what's happening around us. If you can be easily swayed by data, then it's not much of a belief.

On the other hand, the key to making a rational argument is that your assertions must be falsifiable.

"I believe A because of B and C." If someone can show you that "C" isn't actually true, then it's not okay to persist in arguing "A".

The statement, "All swans are white" is falsifiable, because if I can find even one black swan, we're done.

On the other hand, "The martians are about to take over our city with 2,000 flying saucers," is not, because there's nothing I can do or demonstrate that would satisfy the person who might respond, "well, they're just very well hidden, and they're waiting us out."

If belief in "A" is important to someone's story, people usually pile up a large number of arguments that are either not testable, or matters of opinion and taste. There's nothing wrong with believing "A", but it's counterproductive to engage with someone in a discussion about whether you're right or not. It's a belief, or an opinion, both of which are fine things to have, but it's not a logical conclusion or a coherent argument, because those require asserting something we can actually test.

The key question is, "is there something I can prove or demonstrate that would make you stop believing in 'A'?" If the honest answer is 'no', then we're not having an argument, are we?

Before we waste a lot of time arguing about something that appears to be a rational, logical conclusion, let's be sure we are both having the same sort of discussion.

• Email to a friend •

joi, 18 august 2016

Seth's Blog : Bureaucracy, success and the status quo

Bureaucracy, success and the status quo

More Recent Articles

miercuri, 17 august 2016

Important Social Blade Security Notice