Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Hairzilla

On Sunday, a friend from earlier adventures at Frying Pan, Inc. phones to catch up.

Apparently, Hairzilla is at large again. Imagine, if you will, Howard Stern...
...mincing determinedly across the carpet tiles in kitten heels and pearls.

She's livid. She's not going to sign off your change request analysis, and she's going to tell you precisely why. Not ONLY did you DARE to use Tahoma 12 Point instead of Tahoma 11 Point, she'd also like you to replace all occurrences of the word "advisor" with "adviser." And while you're at it, why are you using hyperlinks to make things easier for others to read, when she only ever prints out the documents on paper? Moron.

The next day, she's back, flustered, twitching, and stuttering. This time, she demands to know why you put in a data mapping and business rules into the requirements.

Why yes, you say, you are a business analyst. Employed to translate business needs into a description for technical implementation. If the system should not display rows with zero amounts, perhaps, you say, you should let the offshore developers know this.

Hairzilla shakes her frizz sadly and wonders how you manage to survive with such a deteriorated mental capacity. This is not your remit. You are NOT to be writing documents telling offshore which pieces of data go where on the screens. You are NOT to be revealing to offshore the origins or meanings of the information to be presented.

Instead of taking it like a good analyst should, you ask: How, then, will the developers get it right?

She spins on her Pradas and calmly explains: You do little draw-y thingys of screens. Offshore will produce them in any order they like, with any behavior they happen to like at the time, and put them into production whenever they like. If the users happen to notice things they weren't expecting, they can write bug reports. Then offshore will be told to fix it.

If the users cancel their subscriptions because of it, even better! Fewer bug reports!

As she stomps off, wafting Britney Body Spray in her wake, your thoughts turn, slowly, to a Monster of a different kind.

Monday, June 26, 2006

Did I Ever Tell You How Funny You Are?

I came home this evening and did the gardening equivalent of kicking a hole in the wall: I deadheaded my five magnificent daisy shrubs down to about 5 twigs each. I'd post a picture, but I'm far too ashamed.

Why did I do it? It suddenly dawned on me, on the way home, that I'm attempting to do the work of three people and getting the sum total of zero recognition or help for it. And if I want to fix the situation, I have to turn into an arrogant piece of turd and announce to the world my wonderful achievements. I live next to an arrogant piece of turd. I don't want to turn into one.

The other possibility is, I am not doing the work of three people, and I am just horribly misguided as to my capabilities - e.g. I'm completely and utterly fruit loops. Again, not an inspiring thought.

I am taking the advice of my dearest next of kin. I will not continue to post about the demon that compelled me to do a #1 buzz on my beloved plants.

Instead, I will post something that, In Spite Of It All, still made me laugh at the end of a very horrible day. It's David's reply to my math problem, which he could not post as a comment due to the jpeg content. Marvel at his pimpin' Photoshop skills:

A complex problem indeed…

Taking the original equation:
If you move the parentheses up and stick them on the end of the line thing then it looks a bit like a boat (please note use of plus sign as an outboard motor).

As idiots constantly attain positions for which they are utterly unsuitable, they are no doubt put in charge of the motor.

However, as idiots are the densest objects on display, their position at the back of the boat causes massive instability and, in accordance with laws of mechanics and naval architecture, the boat tips.

This ends in inevitable tragedy. The presence of idiots causes all compensation, talented people, retention and productivity to be sacrificed. The project sinks without a trace, all souls lost.

NOTE: Idiots somehow manage to survive in a small air pocket at the bottom of the ocean, from where they are later rescued after many adventures. I saw a (recently remade) documentary on it once.

So the answer is: something to do with jumping ship, or maybe rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.

Friday, June 23, 2006

Some More Really Bad Math*

Given the following assumptions:
  1. As average total compensation a increases linearly, the number of talented people y increases proportionally (The You Get What You Pay For Theorem);
  2. As the number of idiots i increases, the rate of hiring more idiots p increases exponentially (The Law of Critically Stupid Mass);
  3. As average total compensation a increases linearly, the rate of retention u increases exponentially and tends to infinity (The Fur Lined Rut Axiom);
  4. Productivity q is directly proportional to the number of talented people y and inversely proportional to the number of idiots i (The Law of No Free Lunch).
Find the value of i which maximizes the following equation, an expression of corporate value:
You must show all your work. No credit will be given for incomplete answers.

*A mathematician of medium stature has gladly endorsed this problem as "Terrible."

Thursday, June 22, 2006

My Cubicle

Well, thousands of blogs around the world have probably posted it, but I feel a moral obligation to introduce this song, a parody of James Blunt's "You're Beautiful", to anyone who may not have heard it before:

My Cubicle (click the link to play)

My job is stupid,
My day’s a bore,
Inside this office,
From 8 to 4.

Nothing ever happens,
My life is pretty bland,
Pretending that I am working,
Pray I don’t get canned.

My cubicle, my cubicle,
It’s 1 of 62,
It’s my small space,
In a crowded place,
Just a six by six board booth,
And I hate it, that’s the truth.

When I give a sigh,
As the boss walks by,
No one ever talks to me,
Or looks me in the eye,
And I really should work,
But instead I just sit here,
And surf the internet.

And my cubicle, my cubicle,
It doesn’t have a view,
It’s my small space,
In a crowded place,
I sit inside there too,
And sometimes I sit here nude.

8 to 4? Must've been a Brit who wrote this.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Did I Ever Tell You How Crappy You Are?

Like I said, it's silly season. I'm only this mean for fun -- the subject is totally fictional! No manager could possibly deserve this... Right? Thanks, David, for the indirect inspiration...

Though I am quite young
And small for my size
I met an old manager in the Valley of Lies
And he taught me a lesson I will never forget
At least, well, I haven’t forgotten it yet.

He sat in a swivelly leathery chair
And I wish I could say to his smug smirking face:

When you think things are bad,
When run out of people to use and abuse,
When you start to get mad…
Bashing people's heads till they're bruised…

There’s no point being happy,
You’re really quite crappy!
Most people are much less…
Oh ever so much less…
Oh always much-much less
Less crappy than you!

We’re glad you don’t work on the space shuttle Thribb
Your drool would jam gears if you weren’t wearing a bib.

It’s a free market world. All the people who’re in it
Are trying to be productive every hour and minute.
You oughtn’t be here, you useless old snot,
You can’t manage bupkus and you can’t code a jot!

Let’s assume for a moment,
You worked in old Redmond
And had to show talent
Or face being shunned!

Or perhaps,
Just for instance,
You breathed Valley air
And day in day out
You had to show flair!

You wouldn’t survive, you sniveling toad,
Your intellect’s non-existent and now it’s plateaued!
You may never get it together, I’m sure
You may never know how to find any cure
For morale that sinks into steaming manure.
Yes, papi, you’re crappy and not a la mode
Yet management powers you have been bestowed!

Thank goodness for all of the places you’re not!
Thank goodness one firm is containing the rot,
Preventing the spread of your pure disgrace,
And keeping you rightly in corporate space.

BUT

Your suit’s pretty snappy,
Don’t worry! Don’t stew!
They may not discover
They might not uncover
All those hundreds of thousands less crappy than you!

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Innovation Extermination, or How To Kill An Idea In 250 Words or Less

Scott Berkun's blog post on stopping innovation brought back some of my fondest memories from last year. As I recall, this episode is mostly what drove me to start writing the blog in the first place.

After using the most recent incarnations of Visual Studio over the last few years, I have been completely convinced that a docking and pinning interface is a highly suitable interface for anyone -- not just of the coding ilk -- who has to work in a fast-paced, information rich, and asynchronous activity environment. If the kind of work that you do requires you to synthesize several disparate pieces of information at once at pretty much the drop of a hat, and in a different order or combination every time, then by Jove, your interface should keep pace.

On the trading floor it was an easy sell. "Trader Ergonomics" I called it. And lo, the Traders Smiled. IT rejoiced that there was something that didn't cause the traders to go purple in the face.

Then, I recently came across an eerily similar kind of user work pattern, which required the same interface flexibility. These folks had dual monitors, on which they wanted to place non-modal information in different orders at different times. They wanted extreme flexibility because their processes evolved so quickly and unpredictably, and because individuals in the department each had their own styles of approaching the same problem. They wanted every piece of data at their fingertips.

And the beauty of it all was that the release manager intended to implement SOA (service oriented architecture) which would bring together the relevant (but heretofore scattered) data through a yet-to-be-illustrated modular portal concept.

The conversations went something like this:

Me: Check it out, docking and pinning -- a portal interface, but so much more flexible!
Release Manager: Brilliant! Let's demo to the users!

RM: Docking and pinning -- all new, all your data together, and super flexible!
Users: Wow, cool! It does just what we need!

Me: Let's go, let's develop this thing!
Lazy Asian Fonz: It's so hard. I can't figure out how it works.
Me: Look, I'm not even a developer and I made it work on the prototype.
LAF: I gotta go talk to the chicks.

Me: C'mon, let's develop this thing!
Darth Hut: Users are so stupid. Do you know how much more support this is gonna cause?
Me: No, because these people are not stupid, and it's what they need.
DH: Like I care.
Me: But developers have been using it for years!
DH: Developers are not stupid like users are.

Development Manager: What's up, guys?
LAF: We hate docking and pinning.
DM: What's docking and pinning?
LAF: It's some new thing that keeps me from talking to chicks.
DH: Yeah, and this analyst pushing it is so annoying.
DM: OK, I hate docking and pinning too.

DM: I heard you're being really annoying.
Me: Huh?
DM: Stop it with this docking and pinning thing.
Me: But it fits the new architecture and the users' needs so well!
DM: Stop being defensive and argumentative. This is going on your performance record.

Cue flatline noise.*

* Months later, RM and his merry band of architects resuscitate docking and pinning in the SOA proof of concept. Users still love it. But the pitchforks and torches are already appearing over the horizon of the development village.

Monday, June 19, 2006

How Lucky I Am

I received a package in the post today from David. I couldn't tell whether it was more of an anthrax bomb or a get-well gift: Dr. Seuss's Did I Ever Tell You How Lucky You Are? It is a parable of a young child down at his heels being told, by a man sitting on a cactus, that there are far more people who suffer to a far greater degree. So the boy should be happy.

To David, I reply:

If I was simply satisfied knowing how lucky I was, I would lead a life of complacency. The arguments you deploy on me are somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, you say that I should right the wrongs of the world by running for office, or leading some rebellious movement; on the other hand, you lecture me about being extraordinarily lucky.

Which is it to be?

If, indeed, I am so fortunate, I should want for nothing, have nothing to complain about. There is nothing to do. Nothing needs fixing, except perhaps my world view.

If, on the contrary, I should lead a rebellion, you accept that there is something wrong that I see and experience. Perhaps I am not so lucky after all.

If I didn't respect you so much, I might be tempted to make a footwear analogy.
But I shall refrain.

Instead, I shall say this, to attempt to put this whole matter behind us.

I do consider myself obscenely lucky. I was born to parents who gave me strong values and a love of learning; I married the best friend in the entire time-space continuum; I have family and friends like you who give me a reason to laugh and live.

But precisely because of that, I refuse to absolve myself of effort, or forgive ill-will or injustice when it's in my (cubicle) backyard, instead of just skipping along in life and making daisy chains. I hope you understand.

Thank you for the book, and above all, thank you for coming on this journey with me. You are part prickly, part tax-and-spend, part revolutionary, part comedian, and all heart. I am lucky to have a commenter who is the embodiment of the Socratic method. Keep throwing those tomatoes.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

The Bells! The Bells!

Philip Su's recent post about The Broken Windows Theory tartly illustrated the root of problems plaguing the Vista project, making it a darn fine read for a Saturday afternoon. For me, however, the post rang so many bells in my head that I am now nearly deaf.

Whilst we do not have a cast the size of the chariot race scene in Ben Hur, meaningful parallels abound:

"The code is too complicated": I'm not a developer anymore, but our mission was to replace a spreadsheet that had become burdensome due to its highly recursive nature. Not, as some who fancy themselves geniuses may think, because it approached the complexity of the Black-Scholes formula.

Look, we're not trying to find ways to price and structure exotic tranches of derivatives here. We're trying to find a simple fair distribution. So why has it taken about a year and 20 developers to code this? Even in my days on the trading floor, it took no more than a team of 5 to knock up a reasonably complex pricing engine.

I half wonder whether fancy-pants design patterns are getting in the way. Again, I'm not a developer anymore, but the code seems to be a mini army of different objects - models, views, controllers, subclassed controls, not to mention the server side object classes. Does it make us look cooler? Or does it create a freakish spiderweb that serves to artificially bloat the pipeline so that we can justify the existence of 20 developers, none of which get to do any meaningful work?

On the other hand, the business analysis constipation doesn't help either. Egomaniacal little minds struggle with understanding the most basic of details. They also mistakenly believe that tenure creates extra super brain cells which aid in their efforts to illustrate the problem for others. When somebody does come along who "gets it," they are branded Wicked Mutant Devil Spawn.

In this particular part of the project, it's not that the subject is too complicated. It's too complicated for them. And that is why productivity and quality have fallen and can't get up.

"The process has gone thermonuclear": I hinted at this problem in an earlier post, The Dough Boy. And I can hardly put it better than Philip Su does:
Imagine each little email you send asking someone else to fill out a spreadsheet, comment on a report, sign off on a decision -- is a little neutron shooting about in space. Your innocent-seeming little neutron now causes your heretofore mostly-harmless neighbors to release neutrons of their own. Now imagine there are 9000 of you, all jammed into a tight little space called Redmond. It's Windows Gone Thermonuclear, a phenomenon by which process engenders further process, eventually becoming a self-sustaining buzz of fervent destructive activity.
"Communicate!" we are told, "Collaborate!" It all sounds so deliciously modern until one realizes the exact consequences of having to poll 50 people to change one pixel. Life becomes an endless stream of meetings, emails, progress reports, phone conversations, and discussions about work. Heaven forbid anyone actually tries to get any of that work done. That's just plain selfish and uncooperative!

Add on top of that the quorum of half-wits on management. Welcome to process Groundhog Day, where everything has to be explained at least 10 times (in every meeting, email, progress report, phone conversation, and discussion) before any of them understand the first idea what we're supposed to be doing. If they had any less power, it would be possible to ignore them. As it is, we monkeys must dance for our dinner.

"A culture of belittlement and aggression": I can't say that this culture exists within the company as a whole. I'm told by my longer-tenure colleagues that there are a significant number of humaner pools of existence outside of the project I'm on.

But I don't have enough appendages on my body to count the number of times I've heard management act like Veruca Salt, screaming and kicking and trying to squeeze a square project into a round schedule.

They say that they want things done right, and that they will give all the time in the world to do it.

I normally like to count to ten. Right at about five, when when they encounter a molecule of difficulty, they start screaming blue murder and start giving arbitrary deadlines several weeks too short to get any job done right.

Or (I love this one) they pick a date for delivery without having done any analysis or planning and tell the users. When the results of the analysis come in and the delivery cannot happen as scheduled, they whistle and try to look very small. Oh no! The users have spotted them! Instead of trying to explain to the users that they have no intellectual powers whatsoever, they decide to use brute force to pass the pain of their stupidity onto the users.

Fortunately, because we don't work for true paying customers, IT management can amputate 25% of the deliverables to "make" the delivery date. Phew.

And don't even mention lack of trust, threatening behavior ("If I hear that you have talked to any other managers about joining their teams, I will be very angry"), and dishonesty. The predominant emotion in the ranks is fear. Although this may have been the preferred method for getting slave ships to their destinations faster, I can't help but feel that 21st century software development requires a new paradigm.

"Too many cooks in the kitchen": I could go on about too many people on the project overall, but there is a fine point to be made about too many managers and micromanagement. We have "only" 4 managers, but flash-mobbing of Larry, Moe, Curly, and Shemp at each new release point causes an endless amount of direction change.

Go Agile! No, go Waterfall! No, go RUP! Put this person on! No, take them off -- put this one on instead: she can't reason her way out of a paper bag, but she's got nice legs!

While the rest of us are reeling and puking by the side of the road, management attempts to rectify the situation by giving us "direction." Which means giving micro-managerial edicts on what color the UI should be, how many users we should allow on the system at once, and what version of screen print software we can and can't use.

I thank my lucky stars every day for management. Otherwise I wouldn't know how to pick my nose properly.

"Windows Vista is the largest concerted software project in human history": Our project is now officially the largest one in our company's history. For over 20 years, all projects large and small were done by an IT department no bigger than this one project alone. Historical accounts praise the "get it done" cameraderie of those days.

"Are Vista-scale projects essentially uncontrollable by nature?": What? I can't hear you! Those darn bells....

Thursday, June 15, 2006

The World's Smallest Violin

OK, so I will admit that yesterday's post On Working Life was a squeensy bit melodramatic. David ticked me off good and proper this morning.

However, that doesn't mean I'm taking the thrashing just like that. I'm going down swinging. Here's my reply:

Firstly, I did not intend to suggest that I regretted or resented my education simply because it did not result in instant fame and fortune. I did not attend the school I did merely to obtain fame and fortune either. I went there to learn, and to learn how to learn. In that respect, I am forever grateful. I owe far too much to my time at university -- gaining greater analytical maturity, being part of a different culture, finding the best group of friends ever -- to be superficial about it.

However, my academic life prior to university put me in a rat race even before the corporate one. Attending an Ivy League was to be my Golden Ticket; in fact, I was accepted to Harvard. I one-upped that by going somewhere even more special. All efforts were focused on getting to university, like it would somehow be the magic bullet for my life.

Turns out, it's not the magic bullet. Especially here, where I am convinced most people still think Oxford is in London.

There is a difference between intrinsic value and economic value. The intrinsic value of my education -- regardless of institution (and may I remind you, David, that you attended an equally prestigious university in England) -- is matchless. Economic value, on the other hand, is an entirely different matter.

One only seems to attain maximal economic value when the education is combined with personal ambition, effort, and/or character. In fact, one could argue very well based on plenty of evidence that education may be altogether unnecessary! This is an incredibly hard lesson to learn for someone who has a high degree of ambition but lacks the correct character and is sodding lazy. The fall to hard ground has taken some time, and the pain signals reached my brain later than expected.

Of course, some could care less about economic value. I envy them for their laissez-faire approach to life. I wish I could be that way too, but a gnawing fear of poverty got hard-wired into me sometime early in life. My angst is not aimed at my university education, it is aimed at a disappointing revelation about myself: that I just haven't got what it takes to completely remove my fear of being penniless. I am a corporate slave; the income that I earn, respectable as it is, only exists by the grace of people who judge me to be worthy. I am a piece of friggin' meat.

To remove the fear entirely would mean becoming the butcher, but that takes something else I haven't got or figured out yet. You are right, life is what one makes it. I don't think I've got the right set of tools for me -- at least right now. Won't you grant me that reality? Is it whinging just because I am facing up to facts? Is it whinging because it makes me feel slightly sad?

I really do believe this.

Secondly, I feel compelled to clarify my frustration at being one of the Grey Masses working in just another corporation in just another outcrop of suburbia. After years of navel-staring, I have boiled it down to one basic desire: meritocracy. Do good work, get good work. Add value, get value. Work hard, get respect and loyalty.

This is far less about money than you imagine it to be. Let's take money out of the equation. Isn't every person who slogs their guts out and displays creativity, dedication, and care in their work entitled to job satisfaction, respect, and loyalty? Well, here's breaking news: the odds of finding that in most of corporate life are slim to none.

Ways to find greater pools of meritocracy, as far as I have been able to determine: climb up or get out.

My inability to be a Machiavellian Yes Man has ruled me out of the former; my lack of unique brilliance and death-/poverty-defying chutzpah have temporarily locked me out of the latter.

If the free market worked as it should in the space below upper management, I would be perfectly happy to be a cog. I just cannot believe that those who squander millions of dollars, treat fellow human beings like chattel, and who bask in doing as little work as possible get rewarded in equal or greater measure than those with purer goals and more capable minds. Over and over again, I see this pattern perpetuated.

Yes, the broken system burns me up. But my own shortcomings don't help matters much.

Of course, that's not to say I don't have perspective. I feel incredibly blessed every day for my home life. I am busting a gut at work to do my part in fighting pervasive negativity and nastiness. I am still trying to build my own magic bullet.

But I'm not here to compromise. I'm not here to be some namby-pamby apologist. I'm here to tell some (thinly disguised) truths that should make all of us feel uncomfortable about the way many companies work. Along the way, I will tell some truths about me that make me feel uncomfortable. And in many respects, this telling is the beginning of the launching you speak of. I would never feel prepared to change the world if I didn't understand the source of my discomfort.

Now let me ask you a question: Why do you so readily suggest a life swap when you left behind a career so equally full of advantage and promise? I'm guessing that if you look in the mirror, you may see a little green potato staring right back at you.

It's awfully hot down here in the fryer, isn't it?

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

The Mowers That Be

"And the mower and the trimmer shall lie down together and every man shall have his own beer and Cheetos and the lawn shall be afraid."

On Working Life

[Note: Since it's silly season (i.e. there's nothing insanely ludicrous happening at work), I've pulled this particularly depressing piece out of archive. It's something I wrote after deciding to leave a sabbatical I had hoped would change my life. It did, actually -- by bringing me on this horrific journey through corporate purgatory. Kind of like an optimism amputation. You can barely tell now, but I limp when I hope for anything too good.]

Yesterday, I woke up and discovered I was in the real world. You know, the one where it takes money to make money. The one where instant fame isn’t guaranteed just because I got a degree from a reasonably old and famous university in the heart of England. The one where I’m just one of a few billion people on this earth, and the odds of my doing anything particularly extraordinary are just about as big as my personal proportional representation of humankind. Yes, yesterday was the day I decided that I should go back to work in the corporate world.

That must have also been the day that I officially became old. Youth affords the idealistic, “I Can Do Anything” dreams, as well as the laughably wasted energy that goes into pursuing those dreams. Not that I’ve abandoned the megalomaniacal dreams, mind you. They’re just tucked away until I can fund them somewhat properly, without having to starve and suffer and calculate to the last penny how much it will take to replace a pair of threadbare socks.

Is it so wrong to be just another Joe? Aside from all the shame that flows out of my pores as a result of being raised to be a President of the United States, what exactly is wrong with following a well-trodden path – for just a few years? Perhaps it is the fact that I am walking in such a measured manner back to the black hole from which I escaped almost exactly one year ago. It is the voluntary admission of failure, for now, to display any modicum of prodigy. Besides which, a fear of complacency – the silent, pervasive plague of the middle classes – mutters in my head that I’ll never again escape. And I won’t even know it when Mediocrity has finally consumed my soul.

Life will just spit me out, a small pile of desiccated gray bones, at the end of my days. I’ll only retain faint memories of kicking and screaming, and attribute them to the bad Chateau Lafite ’70.

Hook me up to my yoke; I’m ready to start plowing until I die.

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

A Dream Within A Dream

Sometimes, when I have nothing better to do, or perhaps when I've gone without lunch and I get a bit hyperglycemic, I start pondering the essence of reality. Is my entire working life merely a dream brought on by some bad cheese?*

Lately, however, it's become a bit more Daliesque than usual. Instead of my days being filled with headless bloodsucking chicken managers (the fangs near the backsides, where the heads disappeared) and girlie-man BSAs who cry at the first sign of someone doing better work than them, life has been relatively calm. The circus has left town temporarily, and I'm feeling at once glad and curiously empty.

A dream, perhaps, within the nightmare. Perky Pet Analyst has turned out, as I suspected, to be an uber-capable pragmatist and refreshingly candid; Analysis Manager and I have been able to have frank conversations about my grievances with *gasp* humor; and I have now been roped in to help a truly top crew of geeks to do some rapid prototyping.

My mentor, the technical services manager, has also set up a blog so I can pilot the use of the medium for better communication in the team.

A blog within a blog... Spooky.

*The definition of bad cheese is a contentious subject; whilst some argue that any form of fermented dairy is an abhorrence of nature, another view suggests that any cheese with colouring approximating highlighter fluid and/or extruded from aerosol canisters should be banned from the face of the globe. This is merely a semantic matter: the latter is not cheese, but in fact "Cheez."

Sunday, June 11, 2006

Emergency


David's creative juices have run dry! I fear a proportionate decrease in heckling content, followed by trembling, cold sweats, and finally a conversion to conservative politics.

Somebody dial 999!

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Livin' the Hype: I've Been Web 2.0ed

This morning, out of pure boredom, I succumbed to the rounded corners, large clean fonts, and pastel colors that is Web 2.0. This blog is now officially ON FIRE.

No, not because my readership can now be counted in whole numbers, but because I re-fed my feeds into FeedBurner. So, my imaginary friends, if any of you found my content compelling enough to subscribe to, perhaps you might like to redirect your feed to:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/DudeWheresMyZone


That way, months later I can continue weeping angst-filled tears into my Das Keyboard, knowing that you really are still as real as Oompah Loompahs.

Friday, June 09, 2006

Splashes of Red on a Field of Grey

[Note: This piece was written a few months ago. It's not funny, and probably not particularly clear either. That's why it has found a home here with the other substandard by-products of my mind.]

This is an essay mostly about hope. In my personal experience of the corporate environment, and from the stories I’ve heard seasoned colleagues tell, I’ve been led to believe that corporations are what they are: unmovable monoliths that cannot be shaken. One either has to develop personal strategies in order to climb up the ladder, or melt into the background in order to remain relatively unmolested. Neither approach focuses on why any of us go to work every day – to take pride in being part of something worthwhile. It’s all about getting in and out as quickly and painlessly as possible whilst still getting paid at the end of the day. There is a certain resignation to the unchangeable nature of corporate life, leading to the belief that change is either unnecessary or bad, or both.

Much of this, it seems, has to do with the styles of leadership predominant in corporate environments today. Process and cost-focused techniques have rendered workers and products as mere numbers. Management activity mostly consists of busywork compiling spreadsheets, project plans, and PowerPoints, into which these numbers feed and are presented. The passive and repeated application of process and calculation attempts to show micro-level victories. Some would have us believe this adds up to an entire body of success, and equally that those responsible are also successful leaders.

These matrices of numbers, however, are a house of cards – one new requirement causes a daisy chain of paperwork explosions. Hence, the entire approach vilifies changes: “How can one shoot a moving target?” is an oft-heard complaint. So while movement is kept to a forcible minimum, and deadlines and targets are met, gaping macro-level deficiencies crop up: wasted resources in terms of money and human effort, mediocre quality products, loss of market share, lack of passion amongst employees. The figures, whilst nominally positive, mask a story of companies so large they survive despite themselves.

The deadlines and targets never come close to measuring true business achievement. What is the real productivity, efficiency, and satisfaction of a group of people? How high-quality are the products? What is the rate of innovation and improvement? Is the organisation fulfilling its true potential in the marketplace? Can genuine success continue throughout the life of the organisation?

Startups and smaller companies grapple with these entrepreneurial questions on a daily basis. It seems that the struggle for survival during the early stages of a business requires an enormous concentration on exactly these topics, and far less concentration on project plans and Gantt charts. Those who successfully answer the questions are rewarded with product triumphs and robust recognition in the market.

I have hardly ever heard the same questions being asked at larger companies, however. Those who ask such questions in a corporate setting are branded rebels, radicals who dangerously rock the boat. They threaten the status quo, the mirror-smooth surface of stability, with their challenges. They are the troublemakers, the wearers of the dreaded scarlet letter.

Perhaps, though, these so-called pariahs of the corporate field are in fact the true leaders of the future. I propose that their bothersome habits do not destabilize an organisation, but instead can strengthen and invigorate it, re-introducing a sense of purpose and helping to fulfill untapped potential in people and in business operations. In this regard, the degree to which they are considered successful will be based upon their proactive, long-lasting contributions to the success of the organisations to which they belong.

The case rests on three core concepts:
  1. There is a clear distinction between management and leadership;
  2. The distinction can be made based on entrepreneurial versus anti-entrepreneurial ideas and perspectives;
  3. That entrepreneurial leaders help perpetuate an organisation’s ability to thrive in tomorrow’s business environment, no matter what its size, whilst fostering growth of more leaders like themselves.
The exploration of these three concepts is less of a call to arms from a thoroughly experienced commander. It is more of an observation from the trenches and a deeply (perhaps naively) held hope that in the near term, the leaders with small-company sense will help more people find innovation, energy, and pride in the larger workplace.

Less Management, More Leadership
These days, many use the terms “management” and “leadership” interchangeably. This is a source of increasing frustration to me, as it bestows automatic value upon management. Management these days appears to be more of a station which can often be reached (if we are honest with our observations) regardless of actual qualities. On the other hand, leadership is a quality which carries no regard to station. Leaders are those who have the ability to inspire, influence, and provide keen insight.

Making this distinction is incredibly important in arguing a case for more dynamic leadership because it demonstrates how diluted the perception of leadership has become.

Whilst the management role centres upon the maintenance of structure and process, leadership understands that this more powerful role is merely a means to forging ahead with significant areas of a company. Often management, especially in corporations, concerns itself with keeping things running. This is most evident in mantras of “On-time delivery” and “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Whilst not a particularly detrimental thing in and of itself, this does not necessarily demonstrate leadership; it demonstrates supervision. Until the numbers go negative or an alarm bell sounds, management is allowed to continue and is seen as essentially faultless.

Management also conjures up images of a limited number of elite, who work to dictate the future of those beneath them. Even companies who claim to have a relatively flat organisation only mean that they have fewer numbers of managers, and hence a more elite group. Greater numbers in management necessarily water down the proportionate amount of prestige afforded by being a manager. Hence, competition is fierce to attain the status, and afterwards to retain it.

Leadership, to me, implies the opposite of stasis – it is about keeping things not just ticking over, but moving forward. The management role is no more than a practical arena in which to do this. Leadership is also a quality which is not constrained or weakened by greater numbers – it is in many respects a synergistic attribute which (minus egos) contributes to true collaboration and a more consistent sense of purpose at all levels of an organisation.

The trouble has become that discussion on leadership has taken a back seat to a concentration on management. Books and conferences abound on management techniques; incredible amounts of resources are spent pursuing book learning of best practices. Not nearly as much effort is invested in finding independent, synthesized thought and application of techniques.

In other words, companies obsessively collect the tools, but lack the people to choose the best amongst them or to use those tools to best effect. The word leadership is reserved for those at the very top, as if it is the only place where leadership is required or valued.

It is my firm belief that increasing the amount of leadership in proportion to the amount of management would go a significant way towards taking established organisations out of a holding pattern. The question then becomes, what perspectives should define modern leadership in a corporate environment? This is discussed in greater detail below.

The Lifelong Fight for Survival: Entrepreneurial Values
Throughout the world, humans are obsessed with staying young, fit, and agile. Why, then, are companies in such a hurry to mature? Perhaps it is because many believe that businesses are not organisms as such and suffer far lower mortality rates once they reach a critical mass. Stability and stature may be less exciting, but confer a certain sense of immortality upon businesses.

On the contrary, the modern business environment gives no guarantees for critical mass. Having worked in the credit default arena in recent times, I have witnessed the financial markets brutally assess even the most well-established global corporations for their risk of failure. Large companies trip and fall upon overconfidence in their own indestructibility.

In a recent New Scientist article on living longer, scientists argued that an essential part of staving off aging was keeping one’s body in survival mode. Eating less and keeping one’s heart racing through physical activity was shown to prolong a youthful body. In today’s business environment, this could very well apply to companies as well. While fighting for survival is considered the bane of the entrepreneur, it could in fact be an activity that promotes a company’s ability to remain competitive at all stages of its life.

If this is the case, who better to guide mature companies through the uncertain future than those who demonstrate leadership in its purest form? Traditional management quails at the thought of instability – often denying the relevance of looming reality – while by definition leaders take a more active stance.

Most appropriately suited to the task of fighting for survival are those leaders who understand and embrace newness and uncertainty – the entrepreneurs. By entrepreneurs, I don’t necessarily mean those who have started their own companies. Instead, I am referring to risk-takers and risk-enablers who embrace entrepreneurial values, often borne out of the drive to stay afloat. These leaders, as I have seen them, fall into three broad classifications: Inventors, Agitators, and Guardians.

The Inventors, by bringing new ideas and badly needed products to the table, keep an organisation at the forefront of its industry. While perceived wisdom dictates that invention is purely for the newest of companies, I have seen this type of leadership bring concrete value to established organisations. Two managers I worked with at one company began their careers by single-handedly developing a key system for a group of traders. Their innovation and drive resulted in the creation of software that created significant efficiencies for the business, but more importantly, became ingrained into their leadership styles. As they managed larger teams, they recognized and encouraged alternative solutions to new business problems, instead of trying to just make do with existing solutions. Through their own efforts and the efforts of those they led, they added millions of dollars to the company’s bottom line. Ultimately, Inventors like them are the leaders who make it possible for corporations to recognise and capitalise upon fresh opportunities in the marketplace.

Somewhat related are the Agitators, who lead by demanding honest introspection and change, where necessary. Their harsh assessments of inefficiencies and their intolerance for mediocrity, particularly useful for keeping young companies from floundering in their early stages, inject adrenaline straight into the bloodstream of any group resting on its laurels. Nothing escapes their unfiltered eyes, and they demand improvements – or effect the change themselves. Unfortunately, this brand of leadership appears to be particularly difficult to pursue in the face of companies clinging to traditional status-quo management. However, in large enough numbers, or at the right levels of management, I have witnessed Agitators bringing about significant changes to whole departments. Their hallmarks are the introduction of radical advances in efficiency, productivity, and creativity among the groups they command – whether or not these groups asked for it.

Guardians are more thoughtful watchdogs, who keep startups focused on fundamentals such as processes and financials. By protecting the fine balance between the culture of a group and the need for the right amount of structure, Guardians provide what little management is necessary for a team to thrive. One of the project managers I have the most respect for aims not to personally innovate, but to remove roadblocks for her analysts and to keep their workflow fine-tuned enough to respond to external business pressures and individual work styles. She reins in unnecessary diversions of resource to keep costs under control, even when there is no direct reason to do so.

These approaches are by no means mutually exclusive; indeed, almost all of the entrepreneurial leaders I have known combine aspects of each type to bold effect. What clearly unifies the entrepreneurial leadership style is the acceptance of change as a way of life, welcoming and accounting for it. The metrics for these leaders falls away from the superficiality of numbers, PowerPoints, personal glory, and deadlines. Instead, their measures of success focus on highly-regarded products produced by a highly-regarded, constantly sparking team.

Unfortunately, many of these entrepreneurial leaders are also unified by their consistent rejection in the corporate workplace. Inventors are subject to accusations of concentrating on “non-core” functions, as well as professional jealousy from glory-hunters. Agitators become vilified for their insistence that improvements could be made, hounded out because they are not team players. And Guardians fail to be recognised for their ability to nurture growth through limited application of management – they are accused of not going far enough.

Entrepreneurial leaders, in their fight against the status quo, are often foiled in their attempts to introduce youthful dynamism into entrenched business structures. This is because, for the moment, they are outnumbered by those with anti-entrepreneurial values, e.g. the management-centric.

Corporations, like physical objects, suffer from the law of momentum: a body at rest tends to remain at rest. Companies at rest appear to attract those who value administration above change. An emphasis on pseudo-action through spoon-fed methodologies (much like “Coloring by Numbers”) naturally rejects those who strive to achieve more than what is currently thought possible. Environments where survival is believed to be a given – and where numbers are not yet negative – are, I have found, excessively hostile to any suggestion that things could be better. This leaves companies vulnerable to corruption and loss of direction.

In a vacuum of entrepreneurial leadership, a company that began life incubated can quickly turn fully cooked, instead of advancing and becoming itself an incubator. In tomorrow’s fierce marketplace, the leadership provided by those who believe that businesses should remain hungry should in fact be welcomed, since that could very well be exactly what keeps companies strongest.

Viral Leadership
Again, I return to my thread of hope. As much as I have observed entrepreneurial leaders being subdued in a corporate climate, I have also observed Inventors, Agitators, and Guardians engendering fierce loyalty from those who they encourage and protect. This kind of loyalty is something that could never, in a million years, rise from bog-standard management.

Contrary to popular opinion, I do not subscribe to the theory that leadership can be created, through any amount of accreditation or scientific application of formulae. Leadership is born from inspiration by other leaders, enriched by a feeling that one is empowered to change the way things are. In this respect, entrepreneurial leadership has a particular quality that many entrepreneurial ideas are said to have: it is viral.

An oft-heard complaint is that management in large corporations have under-developed succession strategies. It is hardly surprising that this is the case, given the propensity to simply maintain and account in higher-level roles. However, the “contagious” nature of entrepreneurial leaders solves succession problems organically by producing a clutch of home-grown future leaders for every one.

Indeed, the two Inventors mentioned previously have left in their wake a number of leaders in several companies who now head up projects themselves or independently pursue cutting-edge analysis. Quite apart from seeing this as an indirect consequence of their leadership style, they consider that one of the goals of leadership is to make themselves effectively redundant by catalyzing their own love for innovation and change.

Business Life in Color
Although the stagnant nature of large businesses currently retards the growth of startup thinking, I strongly believe that it is possible – even necessary – for such thinking to catch fire. When it does, entrepreneurs will breathe vitality into stale and outdated operations. Even operations that are not necessarily stale or outdated will benefit. Such is the nature of progress – it has no upper bound.

History amply demonstrates that beneficial advances in many arenas – science, art, politics, technology – have on countless occasions been driven by an opportune combination of necessity and revolution. At the forefront of progress are those imbued with leadership qualities which appear on the surface to cause irritation and concern. In essence, however, they are the seeds of the pearls.

The fresh ideas and perspectives that entrepreneurial leaders inherently carry may cause high levels of dissonance in today’s corporate world, but hold the keys to tomorrow’s successes. Instead of a business world divided between quirky young businesses and staid corporations, entrepreneurial leadership could well fuel a second Renaissance in large organisations. I eagerly anticipate such a time, when these splashes of red on the grey corporate field will no longer stand alone as badges of shame or blood lost in battle, but will spread and connect in their true purpose: vibrant beacons welcoming a tumultuous and challenging future.

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Betting On Colleagues

Phil Factor's adventure in betting on colleagues had me grinning insanely today for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, the situation whereby the Peter Principle results in the creation of a mean-spirited authoritarian made me think of some playground fight talk. "My autocrat could kick your autocrat's butt!" Did your autocrat ban employees from taking vacation in December and force them to be available on Christmas Day, primarily because of his piss-poor planning? I invite anyone to top that (except, perhaps game industry folks). Bring it on!

Secondly, I would be intrigued to run a pool on my colleagues in the same manner - except instead of promotions, the best game in town is betting on who will find a better existence outside the team. Any escape counts: another team, another company, permanent disability, even death. I fear, however, that with PUEM's pathological greediness, he would try to rig the books by betting on himself and then running into the path of an oncoming bus.

I couldn't possibly live with those consequences. The incremental loss of psycho content for the blog would sadden me greatly.

Monday, June 05, 2006

Dedicated Follower of Agile

Lately, Puffed Up Ego of the Month's antics have become less ulcer-inducing and more amusing. No, this perception is not drug-assisted.

I would like to dedicate this song to him. Many apologies to The Kinks.

They seek him here, they seek him there,
His shirts are plaid, and always square.
He will shake or break you when he says that he's the best,
Cause he's a dedicated follower of agile.

And when he does his little rounds
Round all the cube farms in this town,
Eagerly believing he knows meth-o-dology,
Cause he's a dedicated follower of agile.

Oh yes he is (oh yes he is), oh yes he is (oh yes he is)!
He thinks he is a coder but he isn't,
And when the coders tell him how to really write the spec,
He feels a dedicated follower of agile.

Oh yes he is (oh yes he is), oh yes he is (oh yes he is)!
There's one thing that he loves and that's to iterate;
One week he drafts documents, the next week he rewrites,
Cause he's a dedicated follower of agile.

They seek him here, they seek him there,
When specs aren't clear, he is nowhere.
All the while the dev team really has to carry on,
Each one a dedicated follower of agile.

Oh yes he is (oh yes he is), oh yes he is (oh yes he is)!
His world is built round shrines to his own greatness,
This egocentric individual always is the best
Cause he's a dedicated follower of agile!

Oh yes he is (oh yes he is), oh yes he is (oh yes he is)!
He slams the other dev teams that do waterfall,
In matters of the code he is as fickle as can be,
Cause he's a dedicated follower of agile.
He's a dedicated follower of agile.
He's a dedicated follower of agile.

Duped


This morning, I was tricked into reading an article from The Guardian due to its cunning disguise as a jpeg attachment.

I was wondering where that sulfurous liberal pong was coming from...

Still, it was a fine piece of prose which did, as David (who else?) suggested, reverberate a few themes from some recent posts.

Now excuse me while I finish scrubbing out my inbox with bleach.*

*That's not to say I wouldn't scrub out my inbox if I received any other kind of partisan propaganda. Don't even get me started on the latest Republican antics.

Friday, June 02, 2006

Friday Randomness

There once was a project named Peaches
The members of which were all leeches
Their code wasn't grand
So Peaches got canned --
A lesson that sucking does teach us

Thursday, June 01, 2006

Life, the Universe, and Comments

For a change, I thought I might post a comment conversation I've been having with my one lone commenter, David, in case you haven't dived into the comments from The Ravin'. David is a man of true substance, some of which is snack food. Thankfully, none of that substance is potato-based. Except perhaps vodka.

david said...

Loving the blog, Little Green Potato, with its refreshingly bitter taste. Are all green potatoes bitter? I guess they are.

My only problem is: can it be true? This is not to question your honesty or integrity, or the veracity of what you write, but is an exclamation of my dismay and shock!

Can things really be that bad? Can the incidents that you describe happen in a modern American company? If so, a number of my heartfelt beliefs come to nought (or naught, not sure which) (or nougat, as the spell checker helpfully suggests).

The first is the shocking revelation that free market economics has failed. I thought the US worked on a nicely Darwinian approach. If you don't make money, you die. Usually because they don't let you have access to health care without a certified insurance policy. But that's true for businesses too, right? Even Enron scale cock/cover-ups (that actually looks obscene when you type it) eventually fall to pieces. How much more so a project that will justify it's existence in its 2889th year?

If not, the go-getting corporations of Stateside operate to protect their helpless employees from the refining fires of the free market, insulating them in cocoons of mediocrity while economic wars rage beyond the climate-controlled windows.

Which leads to tearfully questioning my second belief: whither the American Dream? I thought I could work my way up from nowhere to head my own company, becoming a leading light for business ethics and a shining example to my employees. Instead the road seems to take me into a cul-de-sac where my neighbours are at best moderately skilled but narcissistic and at worst act like a pig scratching its privates (to quote). How hard do you have to work to get out of there?

So, what are you going to disown – the free market or the American Dream?

Which brings me to my last point. For a small root vegetable, you obviously have the skills and the inclination to rise above and rule Pet Analysts, Himbos and Puffed Up Egos Of The Month. I have no doubt they'll thank you for it, deep in their hearts, after they've finished bitching behind your back, possibly online, anonymously. You were born to change the world! That's too melodramatic. You were educated to change the world!

Basically, your year that starts in corporate turpitude must end with you becoming a senator. Or president, I don't mind which. Then I'll believe in the market and the Dream again. Because you'll tell me to.

little green potato said...

David,

Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you. I've been busy growing sprouts down here in my dark hole.

As to whether this is all true, let's just say this: the material in here is what one might call fiction based heavily in truth. Any likenesses to persons living or dead is strictly coincidental. As an author, I expect you to understand that disclaimer better than any.

Yes, free market economics has failed. But it depends on how you approach the problem. Most economists would say that there are inefficiencies inherent in the free market system; no market is ever perfectly efficient, due to lack of information, gaming, etc. So what you see here is an illustration of a particularly large eddy in the flowing river of the free market. It does also seem to me, as you so rightly mention, that inefficiencies get punished at a much higher level than the one we're looking at here.

Equally, I am deeply disappointed in the lack of accountability and the viscosity of information in this microcosm. Is it endemic in Corporate America? I'm afraid so. Still, certain places out there do operate much more leanly and in accordance with true market principles - hire the best, fire the worst, keep moving, and keep innovating.

Unfortunately, they appear to be fewer in number. And they are generally smaller, younger operations.

I should also like to make another point; corporate IT, in my opinion, seems to be the one of the most inefficient segments of a corporation in general. There is no competitive atmosphere to encourage better products. The front-line, core business that we support seems much more tightly operated. The attempt at horizontal diversification, particularly into software, creates a command economy parasite on a free market core competency.

Now, to make a correlation between the difficulties of the corporate environment and the death of the American Dream seems to me slightly more tenuous. I have to remind myself every day that although my despair overwhelms me at times, I am more than able to support a quite comfortable lifestyle with this infuriatingly pointless water-treading.

And looking all around me, people of varying backgrounds are able to do the same. I would say it's much easier to achieve the American Dream than ever, soul-sapping though it may be.

The American Dream guarantees a wide-screen TV and two cars in the garage, not eternal happiness and financial freedom at an early age. Perhaps this is a much more simplistic and materialistic definition than you might have perceived. And perhaps that is where the gulf between us appears, as far as debating whether the Dream is still alive.

As for being the first under-developed tuber in government, I have recently come to the conclusion that government is just the rotten upper management of a country. You have to wager your soul to play the game, then when you've won, you either forget why you played or you realize you are one small, particularly squishy nugget in some very old, hard cogs.

I may have been educated to change the world, but unfortunately, that doesn't mean the likes of us are best equipped to survive. At this point in my life, I leave my fate to chance. Maybe I'll change my mind when I come up with a better solution.

david said...

Dear Potato (if I may be so informal)

Thank you for taking the time from chitting to reply. I’m glad to hear that any resemblance to people living or dead is purely coincidental. When the ill-informed whingeing English bleeding heart liberal is featured I’ll know not to take offence :-)

What can I say? Once again you’ve held up a mirror to my ignorance. In a country where I’m told that anyone can become President (efficiently demonstrated by the last few candidates) I thought that the Dream was about going all the way, rocket propelling yourself with free market fuel to the very top.

You’re right, of course, that that was never the point. Heading west and grabbing your mine/homestead/future retail and leisure development site was about doing enough work to achieve the lifestyle you wanted. And comfort and security should not be undervalued, I guess.

Still, I can’t help feeling that if necessity was the mother of invention then consumerism is the sugar daddy of banality. It keeps us satisfied with toys and trinkets, but to get them we have to do lots of things we’d prefer not to and find pretty boring.

In other words, chuck that widescreen TV through the triple-glazed window and marvel at the feelings of freedom and release as you watch it bounce off the SUV’s roof and embed itself in the manicured lawn. Hell, you can always return it to the shop claiming it was faulty (although we know who’ll be watching then…) Invention will be reborn, and who knows what kind of high achiever she’ll grow up into?

Of course, I write all this while sitting on my ever expanding, Cheesecake Factory fed backside. I’m not even gainfully employed! Because if you change the world then I won’t have to bother, but can tell everyone about my friend who proved me right. That’s what I’m really after…

I still want my green card, though. And it’ll be a lot easier to get when you’re President.

little green potato said...

David,

The pressure of your expectations may just turn me to mash.

Your suggestion that I could change the world is based on an assumption that the world wants to be changed. I have no such hopes.

You assume that there are a mass of people out there longing to break free from their banality, to live meaningful lives full of economic and personal satisfaction.

Sadly, it seems that the populace (in the Western world at least) are happy not to know the meaning of the word 'introspection' much less practice it. Life, to them, is an 876,000 hour movie that isn't great but the only thing showing.

Occasionally, some of these folks stop the reel to babble incoherently about who should be president, prime minister or such nonsense, but eventually they all go back to sleep.

Show me that there are more like you out there, and that might improve my outlook. Green cards don't come easy, my friend.

david said...

Solanum tuberosum,

I'm not sure if that's a demolishment of my argument or a blatant attempt to raise campaign funds! If it's the latter, my cheque's in the post.

There are countless losts souls like me, all looking for a leader. Just look at the hits on your blog! Then look at the number of people who don't vote in any Western democracy you care to choose. You'll see a spooky correlation.

So where are the billions like me to look for guidance? Not to management in the workplace, you've blogged that one out of the water. To politicians? They're the projectionists of the 876,000 hour movie, and then you have to pay for popcorn on top.

There's only one true organ of free speech, as you've found out, and that's the Web.

You see, hide it as you might, I can read between the lines of this blog. And those lines (between the other lines) are crying "revolution!"

As Abraham Lincoln, who I'm confidently informed was a politician or something, once said:

"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts."

And what is this blog if not real facts? Or, at least, "fiction based heavily in truth" as you stated earlier. That's probably what Lincoln wanted to say, but it wouldn't have made such a pithy quotation.

The chips are down, potato. Are you half-baked or hard boiled?

little green potato said...

David,

Last time I checked, the number of people bothered enough to look at my profile totalled 32. That's not even enough to get my own religion entry on the census (Tuberanity) much less start a revolution.

The only thing 32 people can overthrow is a significantly sized piece of furniture.

I'll strike a deal with you - once my profile views number over 1,000,000 then I will consider running for office.

I expect you'll be waiting a very long time.


More blogs about technology.
Technorati Blog Finder