more history -- how's we get here?

In the previous post I suggested what the Buyers need and want in a wise real estate decision. Their agent, (i.e. fiduciary) uses a rich array of skills and information derived from a variety of resources with utmost care in their best interests to assist with that wise decision.

We're interested in changes in this relationship over time and with the quantum leap in technology. Yep, another history lesson to create a baseline for comparison. MLS systems started as mimeographed (remember that ink smell on a hot day—OMG!) sheets distributed to geographically localized groups of brokers covering properties for sale. Often the brokers already knew the properties were on the market and they certainly knew the areas well. As I mentioned, brokers and agents tended to put in lots of office time. There were no cell phones, no Internet, if you wanted to know about real estate, the office was the place. The amount of data on these early MLS forms was minimal. No pictures were needed because it was expected that agents would go tour the properties and even before that a drive-by was a few minutes away. Anyone in the business for long probably knew the house already, who built it, who owned it before, etc, etc. After tour most agent would meet back at the office and discuss the new listings--good points, not so good, neighborhood issues with drainage, etc.
Agents often kept their own listing notes and the office usually had an up book with all the listings in the MLS. It wasn't uncommon for agents to add comments to the up book--tips for showing, barking dogs, don't let cat out, etc.

When Buyers made arrangements to see property, the agent would often go to the office and chat with the other agents there (and MOST of the agents were there on a regular basis) to refresh recollections about the houses to be shown and the key features of each.

You'll note that MLS information played a relatively minor roll in this process. It was more of an initial notification of the availability of a property and the associated offer of compensation.

The Buyers initial exposure to the houses they were shown was often the showing itself. Sometimes they saw a list of properties or a briefdata form for the houses to be shown. Most firms had photos of their listings up in the office or in a window to attract floor traffic.

The initial process of learning about the properties, analyzing them and showing them to Buyers was predominantly personal and involved little of the technology so prevalent today.

Some of you are probably thinking "how in the world did agents ever survive those dark ages?" AND the Buyers--no Internet research, no print outs, no graphs, no street views, how did they every choose a house?

The choices were based on the personal knowledge of the agent and the personal experience of the Buyers in seeing the houses and judging the resonance each house generated with that sweet balance of emotional, practical and financial factors.
That's sorta what happens today, but it's a little more complicated thanks to technology.

Next post--enter technology, too much information (TMI) and virtual reality (that isn't always virtual).

a few steps along the path

Mother's health took a turn, so was barely in office yesterday. At the end of the previous blog I posed questions about the nature of the real estate industry and the answers are still emerging from swirling billows of fog or smoke or cosmic debris.

Before we wander down this path a bit, winding between sales and fiduciary duty, let me disclaim any special qualifications as a legal scholar. I've been called a scholar on several occasions, but never a legal one--not sure how I'd take that if it did happen--LOL.

Let's start with where the money originates--the BUYER. What's the Buyer want? Most want to choose the Right house (or other property) from among those available for purchase. "Right" being variably defined as satisfying some sweet balance of emotional feelings, practical aspects, projected future value, anticipated maintenance expenses, etc etc. Moreover the Buyer desires to pay a fair price, maybe even a bargain price, with the least possible trouble (risk and liability). In general terms, those are the Buyers wants and needs. To meet them Buyers typically engage the services of an Agent, who serves in the capacity of a fiduciary, who employs utmost care in applying knowledge, experience, analysis to define the Buyer's wants and needs, then uses a host of special skills to meet the best interests of the Buyer in the resulting property selection and transaction. An attorney once offered this analogy at a seminar--a fiduciary is like a super clone- like you, only possessing additional skills and knowledge that are applied to achieving your best interests.

Interestingly, each Buyer has different wants and needs in terms of property characteristics and in terms of the degree of assistance they desire from a fiduciary. You might notice that this description of what the Buyer wants probably hasn't changed a huge amount over the years.

That's a quick look at the actual fiduciary/entrustor portion of the real estate ecosystem, a complex hyperspace formed of overlapping components that combine to form the real estate industry.

Next we'll look at how the fiduciary achieves the Buyer's individual wants and needs and consider changes to that process attributable to shifting technology.

Select the right club for a sand trap?

Open source API and MLS Systems.
As you've probably come to understand, I'm not a fan of “one size fits all” solutions. Custom, personalized solutions can be achieved with today's technology and when they're not achieved it represents a choice NOT to pursue excellence. It's important to realize that excellence is defined, not by the provider of the service, but the recipient. The real estate industry, from small offices to state and national trade organizations, suffers chronic episodes of delusional narcissism in which they seemingly discover, yet again, just how excellent they are. These usually end when the public yells loudly from a distant ridge "hey, we're over here, remember us!".

From the MLS vendors perspective, excellence is often defined as anything that's just a little bit better than the competition's. This brings to mind the story of the two men (or women, if you prefer) who were out hiking and spied a grizzly bear, a very hungry grizzly bear. One said to the other—I'm scared! I don't see how we can outrun that grizzly! The other hiker calmly replied, I really feel no fear, because I know that I can outrun you and that's all it's gonna take. In a real estate context the punch line doesn't ring true, because the public is up on the ridge watching the proceedings and hoping for something far more creative and fulfilling than a short foot race followed by a brief predator/prey interaction.

For most of the history of MLS systems the front end portion of the application was what it was. You liked it or not. With the rise of Wikinomics and increasing use of open source architecture the possibility exists for front end applications to blossom into a rich diversity of forms. Using a sports analogy, you wouldn't play golf with just one club, so why should you perform MLS searches with just one front end application. Some systems do have quick search capabilities, but there are a wide diversity of different types of searches for different Buyers, different types of properties, different statuses, different analyses etc. There's also the issue of having applications designed for Buyers or Sellers to use on the public portal of the MLS database. Some people are techie geeks and some can barely turn a computer on, why the same front end?

So, where might these alternative front end applications come from? MLS vendors are busy keeping one (small) step ahead of their competition, but third party developers could write them with ease, IF there was a profit motive. Large franchises or even multi office independents could hire a programmer and produce the latest and greatest--only available through them. There are obstacles. Most vendor front ends are not open source code-proprietary stuff abounds.

One scenario would have an Ap Store (sound like iPhone??) associated with the MLS Home Page. Users could pay a licence fee to use an alternative Ap or Aps. A counter on the Ap store web page could show statistics regarding the usage of each Ap, ie what's hot and what's not.

That would create an incentive to improve the Ap (new versions) and build variations on popular themes. This sounds a lot like the Apple iPhone model—but there's a huge problem—you need customer base to make the profit incentive work. Shortly after introduction iPhone aps had 2 million potential consumers. Most MLS systems, even the biggest, have a 100,000-200,000 user base.

Interestingly CalREDD has an open API, and uses Adobe Flex, for which there are MANY programmers. One of the advantages touted early on in calREDD's development was the capability to work with many browsers and to allow development of alternative front end applications. So far, the prospect of achieving a customer base sufficient to attract third party developers is a faint glimmer.

Been working on a major question regarding the purpose of MLS Systems, the real estate industry (and life itself?)the past couple days. I tend to get philosophical around the holidays, and near my birthday (62nd today).

Here's the question and I'll dive into the implications in the next post.

Is the real estate industry a SALES industry or a SERVICE industry.

This MEGA question should have come up earlier, but it's one that few really want to confront. Is the real estate industry defined and measured by numbers of SALES or is it a SERVICE industry intent on achieving and delivering a quality of service to principals consistent with “fiduciary duty” (whatever that means--more on that later too). The performance metrics, advertising banners and public opinion polls lean toward a SALES definition. The law clearly leans in the direction of service and fiduciary duty. Can it possibly be both?

More to the point of this series of blogs--what does that mean to MLS systems, other real estate data services and their design--if anything at all?

Right brain MLS

Picking up from last post, here are some ideas regarding how MLS applications (and IDX search engines) might nudge the decision process over toward the right brain—where the final decision is usually made anyhow.

1 Reduce the proliferation of data fields that are rarely used. Wouldn't it be interesting to see data field labels sized according to frequency of use—like the “searches” column on a website? There would be MANY fields displayed in the minimum type size and just a few done LARGE. Some would argue, why not have LOTS of data in a really big container--there are costs. Input time, memory space, processing speed and finally, if it's just sitting there, what's the benefit. Some MLS applications feature quick search pages with few fields and additional criteria pages if someone want some special feature, but the fact remains the vast majority of fields rarely are used. In the final decision, how often is information within an alphanumeric field a pivotal element? Very rarely.

2 MLS system should move away from a "one size fits all" format. The individual MLS data file for a 2 bedroom, 1 bath mid century bungalow should not be identical to that of a 5000 sqft oceanfront estate. It's just silly. There needn't be required parameters for simple vs expanded. Agents would soon figure out where the best exposure resided. Putting a 1000sqft beater rental in the expanded estate form format would draw negative attention and no listing broker wants that. In the final analysis agents are trying to get optimal consideration for their listings--the listing shown at their very best to attract a showing. That should take precedence over "one size fits all".

3 Devise a more organic approach to comparison and evaluation of individual properties. There should be a subjective “WOW” factor—current comparisons are all based on metrics. Most decisions aren't based on metrics, meaning MLS systems don't allow comparisons in the way people actually perform them. Ultimately, people make the decisions—the comparison process should be framed accordingly.

4 MLS photos technology is still locked in the 80s. Early MLS system (pre-online) allowed one photo per listing. Many system now allow unlimited photos, BUT there is no information attached to the photos except the listing number. Photos can be tagged with a variety of information, making the photos the core of the system. Most people I talk with agree that would be very cool, but suggest agents could never get up to speed on the additional effort involved to tag photos. That sort of "least common denominator" thinking is holding back a revolution in real estate data display and decision making. Much of the technology is already available in the photo album application arena. Drag and drop, labels, tabs, tags. It could be done pretty quickly---but the existing MLS firms are making a huge amount of money from the present MLS products. Even totally new MLS systems like calREDD are evolutionary, not revolutionary. Starting with a blank page potentially allowed the creation of very best system current technology is capable of, but the choice was made to do less--curious strategic thinking.

With information attached as tags to the photos you could do the following search: houses between 2000-3000sqft in Coolville with 3 car garages and half acre to 2 acre parcels--so far this is conventional search--but we want to return kitchen photos of the houses that match the search criteria. Those photos (and there might be several) would have tags identifying appliances, flooring, cabinet info, etc. Then we could compare living rooms of the same set of houses, or views, or master baths, of back yards. That's closer to what people do when they actually see the house in person. Technology is there now. Some MLS vendor are interested in photo tags, but the buy-in from agents is a concern. They'd need to take better pictures and attache the tags. I bet they could do it!

5 Integrate off site info better to allow the setting of the house to play a role in the early filtering process. The off site information should offer some idea of what it would be like to live in the house, drive to work, walk to school, go shopping, etc. The technology is there with street views, overlays, flyover mapping tools. MLS systems haven't done the mash-ups.

When you think about it, those MLS books from 25 years ago look all too much like the one page report formats of today. We're basically using electronic versions (albeit with more data fields) of forms dating back decades. It's time to bring MLS systems up to present technology. The RPR initiative from NAR and LPS seems likely to be another example of the old school approach, only on a huge scale. It's big, but the data structure remains disconnected with the psychology of the decision process.

I'll return to this topic with more detail in a later post. Next up: API and alternative front ends.

Further down the lane

Yes, I missed a day--90 year old mother under hospice care got food poisoning--kept me busy in non blogging mode yesterday. I did do some writing that will take up two blogs. It's therapeutic to sit with a pen and paper sometimes. Seems more organic ( a word you'll see again shortly).

Here are some thoughts.

Major question: Is the home buying decision process characterized by a shift in the proportion of analytical vs intuitive weighting along a timeline beginning with first interest and ending with the purchase?

MLS alphanumeric data may come into play early in the process when that's all the information there is. It's difficult to use intuition on some numbers or pictures that don't usually offer any real insight into the “emotional feel” of the house.

What does the MLS data accomplish—or IDX data for that matter? It acts to coarsely filter the listings – mostly for agents and mostly because they often don't have a intimate familiarity with the actual houses to produce an expectation of any Buyer's feelings about them.

Do the Buyers understand this role of the MLS? Most Buyers probably assume more of the MLS than it can deliver. Despite burgeoning trends, the agent's role isn't really to provide technical support for the MLS system or IDX site. The agent still has an obligation to supply a human perspective on what is ultimately a human process. Experience with the subtle nuances that shape present appeal and influence future marketability lies outside MLS data.

I don't think anyone would imagine a day anytime soon when they would choose their house solely on Internet data, but I think Buyers preload the decision process with data that may not be heavily weighted in the final decision. Most Buyers should defer forming opinions until they see the houses in person, as well as the setting neighborhood, etc. They should be warned not to do too much filtering based on data alone. The trade organizations and brokers are promoting the idea that Buyers can get down to just a very few houses without ever getting into a car to go see them. That's good for Gross Closed Commissions, but might not produce the most satisfying decisions. "Looks good on paper" is a phrase coined long before the Internet, but it has relevance in the cyberworld. You live in a house in the real world, not as an avatar in an Internet experience.

Putting time in online has its benefits—if expectations are realistic. Buyers can certainly learn about the houses in an area by looking at online info. Can you determine the “feel”? Probably not. You might be able to rule out some houses---let's say you don't want to do major remodeling and you want a certain ambiance—some houses are just not going to work. Then there are fuzzy areas though. How likely is it that such filtering might miss houses that should be in the final short list.

I sketched a timeline graphic that should appear somewhere. Horizontal time axis and distance above and below axis shows the proportions of analytical vs intuitive share of the decision making process. It's a funny shape—sorta a meandering stream. The interesting thing is that Technology has shifted the stream—and maybe not along a good channel.

One of the dangers of looking online is that it might encourage and sustain preconceived notions about what houses might emerge in the final list. MLS/IDX data probably plays a big role in the generation of preconceived ideas. In the old low/no tech world of 25 years ago—people just starting out in a new town probably had very little idea of what they would find. That's not necessarily a bad thing—particularly if the Realtors back then really knew the inventory and the personal aspects of the final decision.

Technology has loaded the early part of the search process with LOTS of data—most of it without much use to Buyers or Agents. It would be possible to develop MLS systems that better represented real houses, but no one thus far has embarked on that journey—some are thinking about it. There could be a more organic MLS system or data display application. Tradition dies hard though and quite a few major companies are making a very nice profit with the systems now in use.

On the ominous heretical side there is a possibility that current technology may actually encourage Buyers to make less than optimal decisions skewed by analytical reasoning supported by the questionable belief that technology trumps intuition.

Cynical creature that I am, I realize that there's a multi billion dollar industry based on real estate technology that didn't exist 25 years ago. I sometimes wonder if there is a significant benefit for the Buyer or is the Buyer just paying for it all?

Choosing a house is, after all, just decision making—it's a left brain/right brain thing and MLS systems are all about the left brain. How could MLS systems be designed to pull a little more right brain thinking into the process? Next Blog!

history lesson

After the last post I sense it's time for a brief history lesson. I've shared this story with seminars and lots of folks I've talked with--both in and out of the business. If you've heard it skip to the next post.

I started in real estate in 1985 in Los Osos, CA. I had just spent 20 years at Arizona State collecting 3 degrees in zoology (evolutionary ecology), learning how to learn and accumulating a huge amount of useless information.

In those days most people in real estate actually went to the office and put in a day working at real estate. They made cold calls, toured new listings and talked about real estate. They did that 5 days a week, sorta 9 to 5. It was like--a job.
On the weekends a couple of agents were "on the floor" and several others were sitting open houses--it was common for agents doing neither to go see other office's open houses if they hadn't seen the listing yet.

They did that because MLS information was pretty sparse. A book with smudgy print showing maybe 20 data fields and one photo that was barely recognizable in most cases. Books were published weekly, but alternated between a BIG BOOK and a SUPPLEMENT. In between there was word of mouth, phone calls and flyer delivery. No faxes, computers were rare (I had a Mac 512K enhanced with external drive and was on the cutting edge--OMG!) and copy machines were--well, challenging.

I learned a huge amount of real estate in my first few months by hanging out at the office and listening to some crusty old school brokers who had started in the 60's.
Interestingly, state and national trade organizations were not a part of daily real estate life. Everyone joined the organizations (it was required by franchise regs for us) and we used the CAR 2 page deposit receipt as a foundation for contracts that mostly came out of Blue Book boilerplate. Trade organization news was not often a topic of conversation.

We talked a lot about houses--pricing, how they showed, how they were built, reaction from clients, etc. In the absence of MLS technology, the only way agents gained knowledge was by seeing the houses and talking to others who had seen them. MLS data was good for pricing, address and bed/bath count--that was about it.

Here's the point (thanks for being patient). If a Buyer walked into a real estate office in 1985 the odds that the agent on the floor had been inside all the houses for sale and had discussed them with other agents were MUCH higher than they would be today. Today, the agent on the floor would probably pull MLS data from the computer almost instantly--but probably would not have been inside a majority of the houses. Now the modern MLS systems have lots of data, but alpha numeric data and photos that are generally poor in quality carry little of the subtle nuance content that tips the buying decision (at least for most Buyers).

Has the quality of service to the Buyer experienced progress in the last 20+ years? Not in a manner proportionate to the technological change. Selecting a place to live remains a primal, personal process, unique to each Buyer. Technology has journeyed down a different path with some help from unexpected sources (how to you spell "profit motive").

3 years ago I gave a seminar entitled "Back to the Future". The idea came at a Christmas season open house where I started talking to a long time friend and broker who had been in the business even longer than I had. We agreed that the years hadn't been all that kind to us, or perhaps, to the Buyers.

History lesson over--incidentally I became manager of that Los Osos office barely 5 months after I started--because I had an opportunity (with some help from my OCD) to soak up decades of real estate experience by immersing myself in the office culture.
Agents starting out today have a huge challenge--just to find a veteran agent, much less to get them to share the myriad of little tips that are the secret ingredient in excellence.

Next we'll look at the gap between technology and decisions.

customization of experience

Honest, I'm going to REALLY get a full post together soon, but not today. A little more groundwork on the Buyer's perspective of the real estate purchase process and the industry that surrounds it (that's a nice way to put it--some would say "smothers it"). Buyers are all different--DUH! Different experience, different expectations, different aspirations, different tastes and different perceptions of the same house, location, neighborhood or city. Decision making--as in the psychology thereof, also involves a multivariate array of factors that constantly shift among analytical, emotional, practical and financial, plus many more.

So what we're up against is a one size fits all set of forms, MLS data, training background, etc. and a group of Buyers that can range from an actuarial to a psychic.
I have never met an actuarial who was also a psychic--although it is possible. There's probably a TV show pitch in there somewhere--LOL.

Given that environment, how does an indiviual Buyer receive a customized subset of the information and insight necessary to reach a wise decision, AND not just a wise decision for an "average Buyer", but a wise decision for THAT INDIVIDUAL BUYER?

Ta da! A real estate agent who understand the process, the resources and the Buyer has the ability to customize the experience on a unique journey to a wise decision marked by a purchase of the RIGHT house from among those available that recieved consideration.

I'll get deeper into the journey in later posts, but as we proceed, ask yourself if the present "one size fits all" standards assist or hinder the agent in delivering that kind of customized service that may be a key ingredient of excellence.

near miss

Ok, I almost missed a day--this will be quick--rushing about most of day. Some interesting posts past couple days--Vendor Alley, 1000Watt, etc. The common thread in several posts relates to excellence--and differentiation. Not easy to define or perhaps even to find in this odd business. Who determines where excellence begins and "one size fits all" standards of practice end?

The trade organizations have certainly created one size fits all STANDARDS--forms, risk management benchmarks, ethics etc. etc. But none are descriptive of excellence or can be used in differentiation--there are 180,000 members of CAR--give or take a few. Same forms, same Code of Ethics, same legal updates and they're all good for the industry--as a bare minimum, but you can't build a brand on them--not a real brand.

The question remains WHO creates the yardstick and does that yardstick have a correlation to the standards.

What if the Buyers and Sellers create the yardstick? They make the choices and receive the service. I'm going to look at the industry from the perspective of Buyers and Sellers---no, I'm going to look at it from the Buyer's perspective. We all grew up in this business being chanted to about LISTINGS are GOLD. Listings control the industry. If you're any good you'll be a listing agent--yada, yada yada. In the new age of technology and what sometimes passes for transparency NOTHING important happens until a Buyer makes a decision that a particular property is the RIGHT property among all those available that received considered. That BUYER pays for everything--SUVs to houses to computers--pays for it all. Sounds important, huh?

What are those Buyers thinking when the wild urge to purchase real estate slips into their mundane existence. All sorts of things--and each Buyer is different. Oops! That may not be a good match for "one size fits all".

More tomorrow.

Behind the headlines

Quick comment on the LA Times story (12.16) re the increase in home prices and activity. Nice headlines, but does it mean a recovery is on the way or even already beginning?

Not likely. I was chair of regional MLS for 5 terms and spent considerable time attempting to convince the press that statistics must be carefully considered before conclusions are drawn. In this case--a rise in prices means that those houses actually closing escrow have a higher average price than those selling in the previous month. Does that mean values have gone up 1.8%---NOPE! It doesn't really mean anything about the real estate values as a whole--just a slice in a long continuum. Same with numbers of sales. More is better than less, but in terms of recovery we really need to know whether the sales that are occurring are representative of the Mainstream Real Estate Market or clustered in the REO, Short Sale, Desperate Seller, First time home buyers with tax breaks categories.

Here's my take on where we are and what may be a rude awakening in Q2 of 2010.

At any time there is a pool of prospective buyers and another pool representing the inventory of homes available for sale. Buyers move into the pool when they actively commence a search (hopefully after getting qualified with a lender). They move out of the pool when they quit searching or buy a house.

The pool of buyers is small and getting smaller. Anyone who bought in the past 2+years isn't likely to be buying again FOR A LONG TIME--unless they won the lottery. No equity build up makes trading up a bit tough. So those buyers are out of the pool for several years. Because of persistently difficult underwriting, many potential buyers aren't able to qualify and won't be able to until lenders loosen up. Lenders are now passing up some relatively low risk loans because they can make money pursuing other activities (mostly on Wall St). Net result is that new buyers entering the pool are a trickle.

The number of houses available for sale will continue to be augmented by a steady flow of short sales, REOs and people who just need their equity and can't get it with no real ability to achieve secondary financing. What's a HELOC??

So we have a shrinking pool of buyers and a growing pool of available houses. That alone is reason to be skeptical regarding a real estate recovery.

Consider this though---the activity with REOs, short sales, desperate sellers, etc. has little to do with the real estate core activity typical of a healthy real estate market--it's really off on another path. It's a stretch of faith to assume that this alternate path will eventually roll up an on ramp in 2010 to smoothly merge with the Mainstream Real Estate Market (which is a pretty empty freeway at present).

In Q2 the public may finally see that the headlines aren't describing progress toward a healthy real estate market, but progress along a separate path that is largely decoupled from the road to a real estate recovery. The psychological impact of that discovery could be pretty interesting for us all.

Christmas carols, etc

The caroling show unfolded this AM. My back held up--amps and speakers always seem to catch my back on a bad day--did OK.

Singers were great this year. I hit most of the notes and my voice was bigger than ever (not always a good thing). Good spirit and holiday feel, despite the "that was the year we'd like to forget" effect. These casual entertainment adventures are fun--learn a lot about people during the rehearsals and show. Like who is game and can focus on creating an experience for others rather than worrying about themselves.

That's a lot of what's wrong with the process of real estate. Too much self absorbed preoccupation with risk management, the metrics of GCC (gross closed commissions), PPP (per person productivity) etc. What kind of experience is the Buyer having on the journey to find RIGHT house out of all those available? Oh, yeah, that--well, not so much.

The Right Buyer and Right House concept is the foundation of an entirely different way of looking at the business that I'll be further exploring in future blogs. There are WAY more seminars on risk management these days than there are on how to best assist Buyers in making wise decisions about their purchase--ie what is the Right house and why?

That Right House concept involves the psychology of decision making--both for the agent and the Buyer. And you know what? If the Buyer finds the Right house and pays a fair price while having realistic expectation fully met, most of the risk management issues vanish. If the industry spent as much time delving into helping the Buyer find the Right house as they do wading through the insane paperwork jungle the trade organizations and attorneys have created (that probably very few signatories actually understand)eveyone would benefit (except the trade organizations and the attorneys--LOL).

Tired (got up at 5:45AM to set up sound). More tomorrow. Sing a carol or two--mp3 players ROCK!!!

quick monday post

Just a quick post--busy day--missed FedEx, but made webinar. They're almost always better than I anticipate, but just not that exciting. Connection is pretty minimal and you never know who all is in on it--seldom discussed. Just your area or all over the state or nation?

Back to leadership of organizations and the apparent disconnect that arises when membership relinquishes control or even influence over their future to selected (and that takes in a lot of territory) individuals who are SUPPOSEDLY better or at least more willing to make wise decisions on behalf of the group.

One of the key difficulties in today's world is the assumption that people with the political skill to reach leadership roles necessarily have the other skills to facilitate making wise decisions. In a technical world full (over full?) of information, how many political types actually have the time and inclination to accomplish the research needed to arrive at an optimal decision?

Some would argue that research isn't needed because the decision will be based on gut feelings and politics anyway. Political acumen is the silver bullet of organizational dynamics?

I think back to my endless hours in committee meetings and can recall a very few times with the committee I was chairing had a new idea. VERY FEW TIMES! I would typically announce that fact and suggest that a brass plaque be placed at the head table announcing that fact to subsequent meetings--without fear of running out of space, but offering a faint glimmer of hope that it could happen again---someday.

How many great scientific breakthroughs were attributable to committees? Inventions, theories, concepts, revelations--not many. And yet organizations run much of human existence--with very mixed results.

Without a greater sense of engagement from the members of the organizations there's not really any point of considering alternatives. The Internet offers a potential catalyst, but the potential hasn't quite lived up to the promise so far.

Off to Caroling Rehearsal---multi-tasking again---need to cut back on that--LOL

Tomorrow--tip toe into the psychology of decision making--why we do the crazy things we do. What were we thinking? (we weren't)

more organizational dynamics rant

Why is there a ponderous intertia with most organizations? Because the "consumers" of the services provided by most organizations aren't engaged in the process. The organization does what the members don't want to do individually. Or so the members think.

In reality the narcissim kicks in and the leadership feathers their nest while making soothing cooing sounds to the chicks. To ascend into the leadership circle it's essential to be true blue to the organizational culture and pass acid tests of faithfulness to the sanctity of the organization, and the existing leadership. Certainly no one who has new ideas or even entertains the possibility that things might be done a little differently will ever move up into that exalted circle.

So what happens if change occurs outside the bastions of the organizational boundaries? There is a big world outside and there are countless connections between any organization and diverse extrinsic factors. Ideally the leadership recognizes such change and responds--or even anticipates change before it happens or even better creates the change leading to improved service to the members and others affected secondarily (like the public--LOL).

Creeping, seductive narcissim gracefully draws a heavy curtain usually obscuring shifting fortunes in the real world. It's much more satisfying for leadership to focus on matters totally familiar and under complete control--ie dealing with the other leaders who think like you and would never rock the boat.

Is there a solution to this pervasive patter that is threatening our institutions, commerce, environment and society? Not so far, but there is more hope now than in the past. That's the next blog topic.

Slipping back into the blog

Some months have gone by since I furtively blogged--movie script I'm writing is even cooler than I thought, but not writing itself. I've been busy with real estate business and doing well financially for the year. That hardly matters with all the other stuff going on. Mother has hospice and hospice partners now. My 14 year old Ragdoll cat, Yeti, is in poor health and I've come face to face with some revelations triggered by the Santa Barbara Half Marathon on Nov 7.

I did well (for me) in the race. Ran 2:23:11, approx 21 minutes faster than my only other half. Ran with Team in Training--great group of people making a real difference for Leukemia and Lymphoma society. In the course of training and during the race I came to see more clearly than before that I am a "game day player". My obsessive compulsive side allows me to crank out the hour workout 7 days a week, but I don't run aggressively and don't make progress. Training with others and racing brings me to an entirely different level--like I'm someone else with heightened abilities. In training runs I do 10 minute miles. On my own I do 12 minute miles.

So what? Even though advancing maturity is upon me (social security is near) I need to create MORE "game day" opportunities in my life (beyond foot races). I'm content to keep a low profile, but I don't do my best there. That said, I don't savor getting back into organizational politics. Things there are worse than ever, thanks in part to the incredible venality evidenced in nearly every type of organization--including our non-functional governments (CA and US).

That's one of the things I like about endurance racing--no politics. You run, the chip on your shoe records the time. That's IT! No ass kissing, cocktail schmoozing, power brokering, smoke filled rooms or nothin. You run, you get a time--the real time--no adjustments for who you know or what you might do for them. Clean, simple and when you finish, you're really finished. If life was only that simple!

Without getting in too deep on this first post back, here's a thought about organizations that bodes ill for the future of humankind and the planet. Job One for any organization is to sustain itself and its leadership. There's a sobering organizational nacissism that permeates human existence and retards change. What's best for the members of the organization or the focus of the organization or the planet is always less important than the perpetuation of the organization and its leaders. Politicians NEVER stop running for office. Long term effects aren't considered--the next election is as far as most think. Because of this trait, orgainizations are not generally receptive to alternative viewpoints, new ideas, revolutionary concepts and such. They distrust anyone espousing that sort of thing, because they MAY represent at THREAT to the organizations continues existence and the power position of the leaders--who in all fairness may have invested decades into their ascent to power. They are loath to see it slide away.

Next time (better be quicker than 6 months--LOL) more organizational dynamics, some ecology and psychology.