The Change Delta

The change delta comes from Getting Things Done When You Are Not in Charge.  I like that delta is the symbol for change, so that makes it easy to remember. 

Any successful attempt at change requires a deep understanding of both what is and what might be.  Interested parties consists of those who want to hinder the process as much as those who want to help. 

At the center is you -- which might be a foreign way of thinking about it. You have a key role to play.  Perhaps the key role.  That's for you to decide.

You might have feet-on-the-ground deep knowledge.  Or, you might be an impartial outside observer.  You frequently hear people use both positions to argue that they can drive the change or help.  Either way, your understanding of these three points is unique.

All this assumes your interest in change lies deeper than merely complaining about the current state of things or dreaming wistfully about possibly futures.

*The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People*

This is an old book that everyone knows.  I was drawn to it by the title.  Effectiveness continues to be a top priority.  Habits indicates hard work, no shortcuts; I'm a believer in practice making perfect.  Highly, as opposed to Super or Awesomely, is understated and again indicates realistic goals.

Also, the title is much better than How to Win Friends and Influence People.  Apparently, we've learned to be slightly less obvious in our ambitions.

I particularly liked the section on being more proactive.  I mentioned in an earlier post that he has the best definition of proactive, one that actually means something.  I don't know if he coined "proactive" or "win-win", but he might have been the one to popularize them.  Now, those words have been so overused that they barely resonate.

Covey also has a strong smell of authenticity.  You really get the sense that he lives what he's preaching, that he would be living that way even if he knew he couldn't package it up and sell it, and gives the whole thing credence.

This book is particularly good for someone who is in a funk, or maybe between jobs, and needs some direction.  He offers practical ways to implement what he's saying, though I found the "private" / personal changes to be more interesting than the "public" / interpersonal one, perhaps because the interpersonal ones have been re-done and re-stated so many times since then.

What is enthusiasm worth?

Consider Dan Quayle.  The former vice-president said many ridiculous things that made him seem foolish.

Contributing greatly to the perception of Quayle's incompetence was his tendency to make public statements which were either self-contradictory ("The holocaust was an obscene period in our nation's history.… No, not our nation's, but in World War II. I mean, we all lived in this century. I didn't live in this century, but in this century's history."), impossible ("I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future") or confused and inappropriate, as when he addressed the United Negro College Fund, whose slogan is "A mind is a terrible thing to waste," and said, "You take the UNCF model that what a waste it is to lose one's mind or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."

In his run for the presidency in 2000, he limped in the back of the pack because "his campaign was hampered by the legacy of his vice-presidency." 

Consider Sarah Palin.  Her crazy comments during the 2008 campaign piled up cars in a traffic accident.  Her legendarily bad interview with Katy Couric required its own Wikipedia page.

Yet, Sarah is still going strong.  She unofficially reigns as the leader of a dynamic, headline-making political movement. 

And the only real difference I can see between Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin is that Palin is Quayle with spunk.  She's got undeniable enthusiasm.  Her overabundant enthusiasm may be one reason for some people not to like her, but it generates far more good will.

You definitely get the feeling she's going to be around for a long time, regardless of how many mistakes or enemies she makes.  Like her or not, you have to admire her willingness to stay in the line of fire, probably knowing that she is outgunned in every way except her personal enthusiasm.

What would happen if you brought more enthusiasm to your work?  Maybe you'll make mistakes, but you'll likely rebound more quickly from them and go higher.  Maybe some people will be annoyed by you, but you'll likely find more people wanting to be part of what you're doing.  Maybe you'll make more enemies, but more people will seek you out.

Perhaps you're not a people person like Sarah -- lots of introverted programmers, after all.  Maybe you can be enthusiastic about your programming language, or your willingness to constantly refactor, or your openness to helping out when someone else is struggling, or your efforts to make the team more unified.

Enthusiasm doesn't come from emotional bubbliness.  It ultimately comes from conviction: believing in what you do and your own team.  If you can't be excited about that, then something is seriously wrong. 

Think about an important aspect of your job.  How can you make it even better?  How can you convince others?  How can help your team do it more effectively and/or efficiently?