11:17 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

What Does Walmart Know?

Last week I visited Walmart’s annual sustainable packaging conference in
Bentonville, Arkansas. I learned that
the first such meeting took place in a conference room in Walmart’s
headquarters just three years ago and 50 people attended. The 2008 version
needed a massive convention center and was bursting at the seams with
suppliers, shippers, and buyers of eco-friendly packaging. You can see where
this trend is going.

So what does Walmart know that the rest of the world may still be trying
to understand? CEO Lee Scott reportedly told his employees and suppliers alike
to reduce wasteful, non-recyclable packaging, because Walmart was paying for
waste twice - - once when the package came in the door, and once when they paid
someone to haul it away from the back of the stores. Walmart saw the
opportunity to benefit the environment and their bottom line at the same time.

But how does the world’s largest retailer cut the waste from so many
products? They computerized a scorecard, evaluating packaging on a variety of
sustainability metrics that flow all the way back down the supply chain.
Vendors get a score for the packaging of each item and are then automatically
directed to suppliers of products that are more sustainable any time the packaging
comes up short.

Walmart took a simple problem - - but a massive one - - and created a
clever, self-perpetuating solution. Bottom line? Less waste, more recyclable
content (that Walmart now separates and recycles at a profit), better
economics, better environment.

Who says you can’t judge a book, or any other product, by its cover?!

07:39 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Jenna Bush Makes Parents Look Good

I was watching Larry King last week and happened to catch the segment with guests Laura and Jenna Bush. They were there promoting their new children’s book, Read All About It. I haven’t really followed the Bush children. Except for the news stories over the years when they were doing their teenage acting out, there really hasn’t been much coverage. It’s restricted and that is as it should be.

So I was surprised at how disarmingly charming Jenna Bush was. She wasn’t smooth or slick. She didn’t even seem media-trained (and that’s something I know a lot about) though she certainly does have a good mentor in her mother in that regard. A giveaway was that during the interview, her eyes frequently darted to the goings on about the studio, while her head remained pointed toward Larry King. Yet, when it was her turn to speak she seemed comfortable. She was clearly passionate about her topic – the book is about a boy who hates to read – and her career. Following in her mother’s footsteps, Bush is a teacher. She was (mostly) poised and even initially used the honorific, “Sir,” when addressing Larry King.

That led me to thinking: what does this communicate, not only about this young woman, but also about her parents? To raise a child in this day and age is a huge challenge. To do it with the constant media scrutiny and klieg light glare that are continuously trained on the White House, seems nearly impossible. Yet, all the children that I have observed growing up in such challenging circumstances have turned out well. Lest anyone feel sorry for her, however, Ms. Bush was sure to note how extraordinarily advantaged she is.

Despite how I may feel about the job the President is doing, he has done well in this one, very important area. Of course, it seems safe to assume Mrs. Bush has done most of the heavy lifting. Still, there is a father in the house and it does say something quite positive about him. It's something he can use right about now.

Jenna Bush reflects well on her parents. While it would be crass to label the raising of a successful child as just another tool in the toolkit, you take these kinds of “compliments” where you can get them.

Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates LLC • High-Stakes Communications • Greenwich, CT

08:43 pm | 1 recommendation | Be the first to comment

Invitation to a Party

Many of my colleagues recently attended the Web2.0Expo in San Francisco. From over 2K miles away I followed those twittering the fine details, longing for a way to easily get to the West Coast. This expo captivated my attention because the world live web, by its very nature, invites each of us to learn.

Watching party2.0 unfold from afar reminded me of work on invitation leadership from William Purkey, Betty Siegel and John Novak who identify four ways people attend to life.

No Party People

Some people go through life telling anyone who listens, "There is no party." At work they say things like, "I know how this will play out. Why bother?" At home they nod in agreement to the awfulizing spewed on around-the-clock newsTV. They brighten a room when they leave it. Their words and actions intentionally disinvite others, implying people are irresponsible and incapable, while demeaning, diminishing, and devalueing the human spirit. In a live web world, they are static pages without even a contact_us link.

Parties Not For Me

A second group of people mope, "There is a party, but I can tell I'm not invited." While often hard on themselves, they are frequently harder on others: obsessed with policies and unaware of people's feelings, disorganized, boring, and busy. At work they spend more time on us than them. At home the neighborhood Jones' are eternally out of reach. In tech-terms, they're frenetic mailinglists you didn't sign on to receive.

Not Going to the Party

A third group announces, "There's a party, I'm invited, and I'm not going." They think, "I'm not good enough. I'm not smart enough. I'm not interesting enough to go the party." Although it may seem counterintuitive, I know several charismatic leaders (and parents) who can only unintentionally invite others. Underneath their confident demeanors, they're uncertain and afraid because when whatever accounts for their success fails them, they don't know how to proceed. If they were software they'd be promising fantastical upgrade flops.

Party Time

The fourth group of people know, "There's a party and I'm invited, and I'm going. I may not be good enough but I might, I may not be with-it enough but I might, I may not be smart enough, but I might." People who intentionally invite themselves and others risk going to life's party. They are the ones who show up time and again; persistent, imaginative, resourceful, and courageous even when the going get tough. They are firm, flexible, and friendly, deliberately choosing fairness over equality and mindfully working toward the big picture rather than swatting at this moment's gnats. At home they are raising adults, not children. At work they appreciate relationships and value divergent perspective. Think social networks at their best.

Leading and learning in this evolving world requires us to personally invite ourselves, personality invite others, professionally invite ourselves, and professionally invite others. We do that through optimism, respect, trust, care, and intentionality.

From this will emerge a fifth group: those who see, "There's a party I can't attend physically, yet people will participate with me as if I were these." Let the cognitive surplus party commence.

----------

Marcia Conner >> www.marciaconner.com

08:36 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

The Leading Edge - Election '08 - The Best Man for the Job is a Woman

I love flip-flopping as I look at the Presidential campaign through the lens of emotional intelligence. Maybe I should run for office.

Here goes my current iteration.

Obama is a charmer, not a fighter. Clinton is a fighter, not a charmer. Clinton is a bulldog and it’s beginning to “feel” like Obama is slinging a lot of bull.

Given how uphill a battle it seems to get anything accomplished, I can see the advantage of a bulldog over someone with charm, but possibly not much else.

Truth be told, the reason President Bush may have beaten Gore and Kerry, is that compared to both, he was the bulldog to their complainer and whiner personae. Ironically, President Bush’s bulldog personality may even be preferable to either Obama’s or Clinton’s. The problem with Bush was his flawed vision (or perhaps his gamble that didn’t pay off) and then even more flawed execution of that vision. If Bush had a better vision and was more effective in implementing it, he in fact has the better personality for the job.

Darn, this personality stuff is such a distraction.

I think what Americans need, want and ache for is something that none of the candidates have and if they had, most Americans would fight.

What we need is a candidate with a noble vision so powerful and compelling that we will put aside our more pressing personal needs to throw ourselves behind it.

Fighting for individual freedom was the vision that gave birth to this country, freedom from slavery caused the Civil War, making the world safe for democracy led to WW I, overthrowing evil led to WW II.

None of the candidates seems to have a transformational vision that can be that rising tide that lifts all Americans. Instead, they seem hopelessly locked in transactional myopia where the focus seems more about getting elected than on taking America to a place of world prominence and eminence.

01:34 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

The Leading Edge - Post PA Primary Debrief - Looking for Leverage in All the Wrong Places

It’s not what you can do (Obama) or what you will do (Clinton),
it’s what you’ve already done
that has made a positive, lasting and measurable difference
that earns you leverage.

I
was trying to figure out my mixed feelings after the Pennsylvania
primary and where my ambivalence towards Obama and Clinton comes from.

I
think it derives from the dissonance that both candidates trigger in
me. Dissonance occurs when what you see and hear doesn't match what you
feel or "What are you going to do FOR me?"/"What are you going to do TO me?"

I see and hear what both Obama and Clinton are saying, and I think the mixed feelings I have towards each are as follows:

Obama = Can do but hasn't done yet
Clinton = Been there, done what?

Obama
lacks the track record and experience. Clinton has the experience, but
lacks the track record of being effective in making a positive, lasting
and measurable difference.

So I guess it comes down to the Devil
you don't know (Obama) vs. the Devil you do (Clinton, and for that
matter McCain) which makes for a devilish decision come election time.

01:41 pm | 1 recommendation | 2 comments

Welcome Back, Comma.

I have noticed that the lowly comma is making a return to written communication. I have missed it terribly over the past several years and so it is good to see it back.

I had always wondered why it got lost. In asking friends and colleagues about it, people would almost brag about not using them, saying they cluttered things up or were old-fashioned. I would disagree vociferously, taking the position that commas make reading easier.

The decline of the comma is due in large part to the absence of teaching of grammar and punctuation during the past 20 years (at least). My kids do not know the parts of speech – what an adverb or prepositional phrase is, not to mention a subordinate clause. And they have attended very good schools. I can clearly remember that by 5th grade, we 10-year-olds could diagram a sentence. (What is that, you ask? See here for an explanation.) Diagramming was a great way to learn to make sense of the complexities and logic of written language.

Another reason is the lowering of standards of written communication due to the reliance on email, IM, and text.

Anyway, in honor of its return and as a way to encourage the Fast Company community to keep the comma coming, following are some of my favorite rules for comma usage:

1. To separate components in a series: “John wanted salad, chicken, and macaroni for dinner.” Note that I even included a comma before “and.” It has become optional but is actually useful if I were to say instead of “macaroni,” “macaroni and cheese.”
2. In sentences beginning with because or although: “Because it was raining, Brad brought an umbrella.” “Although it was raining, Brad decided not to bring an umbrella.”
3. Sentences starting with prepositional or adverb phrases: “When she tried to open the door (adverb phrase), she couldn’t.” “Before you leave (prepositional phrase), turn off the lights.”
4. To avoid confusion: “Outside, the light was brighter than he expected.”

There is one more reason to be hopeful about the comeback of the comma: The SAT now tests grammar to some extent. They call it the “writing test,” but it’s really copy-editing with lots of questions about grammar, punctuation, and placement. And we all know that when the tests test, the schools teach.

By the way, I’m no grammar expert; I just like it when writing is easy to read and digest. Or maybe I’m just an old-fashioned girl.

Ruth Sherman • Ruth Sherman Associates LLC • High-Stakes Communications • Greenwich, CT

07:25 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

EXCLUSIVE: Video of RZA Announcing Wuchess.com

Never say Adisa Banjoko didn't hook you up!

Wuchess is history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pphl9CFwHMY

NBC 11 coverage of HHCF:  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH8kBM2YDS8

 www.wuchess.com

-Adisa Banjoko

01:01 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Work/Life: TurboTax - crunching words as important as crunching numbers

Last post I detailed my 24-hour worryfest over a TurboTax glitch.

It turned out no more sinister than a doh! from deep in the bowels Intuit HQ.

The TurboTax damage control unit are all over me now.

Someone saw my mayday on FastCompany and hit DEFCON 10.

The "Turbo Tax Customer Care Specialist Supervisor", Jodie, jumped on my
advertised offer to phone or email me in Australia and
come to my rescue.

Jodie is the Customer Evangelist (CE) you have when you don't have a customer evangelist.

She's eager to help but naturally, speaks from the stance of we,
Intuit, and you, the customer. No crime in that, but no CE points just
yet.

I'd saved them a lot of angst, she said. After a cue from me ("I would
LOVE you to upgrade my Quicken 2004"), she asked what Intuit could do
for me. I'm no freebie hound, but noted the opportunity for CE points:
Offer reparations first, and let the customer refuse.

It was pretty simple - I need my tax done.

It so happens Intuit offer a service called Personal Pro, the
flagship product in their fleet of tax preparation services. It involves a
human being, hopefully with a CPA sticker, processing your return at the other end, for a
hundred or so bucks.

So I'm going to test drive Personal Pro from a customer point of view, and see how a big, successful corp handles an untrained monkey pushing a button and saying "what
does this one do?"

This is less about being a free ad for Intuit, and more about what makes for a great online customer experience.

TurboTax's online presence is attractive and well written – it hooked me:

http://turbotax.intuit.com/personal-taxes/online/personal-pro/

And here's the rub: I can't say the same for their offline communications.

I received a
couple of emails from another part of their damage control unit which
bore little relevance to my experience. This is like a large
company not having a decent note recording system – you've just
finished telling them your life story and the next time you call they say 'que?'

So Copy-Right It!

Here's the email, with suggested CE-style tweaking in []'s.

Dear Lynette Chiang, [Why not just "Dear Lynette"?]

[Thank you for letting us know about a possible TurboTax problem. We tried calling you but weren't able to track you down.]

[I see you've tried to use our Extension Express program. You'll
find the instructions at this link: www.Turbotax.com/Support. Just type
in "6004" to display the article 'Extension Express: Apply for an
Extension of Time.' We've tried to explain how this works as best we
can - please let us know if we can make clearer.]

Your willingness to help Intuit improve by taking the time to provide
suggestions and feedback is greatly appreciated. Below you will find a
link to a survey asking you about my performance on today's contact, as
well as any additional comments you may have in regards to the TurboTax
product. Your help will allow us to understand where we can improve .
So we can continue with our promise to provide our customers with the
best support available, please take a few minutes to complete the
survey. Please accept our sincere gratitude for any feedback you choose
to provide.

https://survey.turbotax.intuit.com/TTSurvey/Survey.aspx?s=fb81963f73484fc1b79f5b14d470cbd9&ForceNew=true

[Why isn't this a more digestible URL?]

[One more thing. There's a link to a brief survey below. Can you spare
a moment to fill it in? It will help make TurboTax a better and
smoother experience for all of us. If you need to contact me at any
time, go to this link: www.turbotax.com/feedback]

Please note:
If you are in further need of Service or Support please visit us here:
http://support.turbotax.intuit.com.


[The sign-off is important – leave people feeling heard and confident. A full name inspires that trust.

Call me on (866) 373-7829, Monday to Friday, 8am to 5pm Pacific
Standard Time. I, or someone I've briefed, will be here to help you.

Thank you for trusting us with your tax return.

Anthony Conran
Your TurboTax Customer Care Specialist

PS: Don't hit 'reply' on this message, it's a notice for you only -
call us instead. If you need more help, visit Service and Support here:
http://support.turbotax.intuit.com.
]

Thus, "damage control" English = English as a first, or very proficient second language.
To borrow an advertising dictum: say it straight, then say it great.
Words can mean the difference between 1 "unsubscribe" or 1000; between
being forgiven and being sued.

Former Saatchi & Saatchi copywriter the Galfromdownunder says, a picture may paint a thousand words, but a dozen great words can save you.

09:28 pm | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

The Leading Edge - Deja Pu - Obama, Clinton and O.J. Simpson

        "This
Presidential campaign is starting to be a circus," my friend proclaimed to me.

            Talk about
flashbacks.  I immediately thought of the
O.J. Simpson criminal trial in which I served as an advisor to the
prosecution.  I remember what started out
as the chance to showcase to the world how justice could be served by the
sequential and orderly presentation of indisputable evidence turned by mid-trial
into anything but that.  Somewhere along
the way justice and rationality got lost in the daily salvos that Marcia Clark
et al and Johnnie Cochran and friends launched at each other.  Just when it looked like one side was on the
ropes, they bounced back in a way that made you think, "Well maybe what they just
said was possible."

            Back and
forth and then back and forth again.  By
the time the trial was over, you just wanted it to be over.  Despite the ordeal of watching it, Los Angeles and much of the country, if not
the world, stood transfixed reading newspapers and starting at televisions like people rubbernecking at
the side of multi-vehicle car crash.  You
wanted to look away, but couldn't. By the end, justice had long been replaced
by just wondering who was going to win and who was going to lose.

            Fast
forward to Election 2008.  Hillary Clinton
as the annoying, aggravating, unrelenting, "nails on a chalkboard" and oblivious-to-her-substance-obliterating-style Marcia Clark.  Barack
Obama as the mellifluous, velvet toned, easy to listen to but occasionally gaff laden and factually (or at
least experience) insubstantial Johnnie Cochran. 

            Are we
witnessing or at least experiencing a similar phenomena?  If so, what was the lesson that O.J. taught
us and the one the current campaign is trying to teach us?  I would posit it is that when you are in thrall
to your emotions, you need to resist with all your strength throwing logic and
common sense under the bus, where they become casualties.

            To carry
the analogy one step further, what is at risk in Election 2008? What
corresponds to the desire for justice, following Rodney King, that was in short
supply in 1994-97 that fell completely through the cracks? The answer is
leadership.  As we head towards November,
2008 there is a widespread perception that America is either being misled or
at the very least is lacking leadership. 
If one of the measures of effective leadership is how committed
the
followers are and you match that against the current approval of
President Bush (72 % disapproval for 4/2-4/6/08), you get a sense of
just how much
leadership is wanting.

            Clark
and Cochran may have been as much victims and extensions as they were causes of the
public's emotional state of mind during the mid- 1990's. And perhaps it's just as likely
that Clinton and Obama are extensions or an expression of the current American
psyche.  Whatever the truth, the American psyche is every day
looking to leadership to solve the problems of a war without end, the
upside down economy, health care reform, education to enable America to
compete globally, etc. and unfortunately for which there are no
simple, easy answers (something that the public doesn't take too
kindly).

            If
hindsight is 20:20 and the lesson from the Simpson trial was to keep our eye on
the prize of justice and to forcibly push aside anything that would detract
from it, the lesson for Obama, Clinton and
McCain is to keep their eye on the leadership that this country sorely
needs and is desperate for.

            The
foundation of that leadership rest on three key abilities. First, the ability
to see and articulate a clear, compelling and convincing vision that all of
this country will want to be a part of. 
Second, the ability to identify and recruit the talent to turn that
vision into a reality. Third, the ability to engage that talent so they will do
it.

            The
greatest problem for all three candidates is the lack of that front end
vision.  In its place is an opportunity
for each of them to reach the pinnacle of their political careers.  But an opportunity for each of them
professionally does not a vision for all of us to embrace make.  In the 1930's we had the New Deal; in the
1940's we had defeating he evil Nazis; in the 1950's it was living the American
dream after the war and being safe through the Cold War; in the 1960's it was
putting a man on the moon and after that it becomes a little iffy and to this
day, that lack of vision is something we all ache for.  After 9/11 the reaction to retaliate and
defend our country against terrorism was temporarily a shared vision, but the
war has continued without a clear end in sight or even a clear notion that Iraq was the
enemy we should be fighting.

            I don't
know what that vision would be, I just know that our next President needs to
know.  

(c) 2008 Mark Goulston