Gerard Boucher

Category: Thoughts

  • Why we should welcome debate when working in teams

    Conventional wisdom says working in teams sucks. It doesn’t have to. Recent team experiences have taught me that teamwork can be quite beneficial – for the betterment of individual team members and their organization. The problem is that most teams and their leadership ignore what should be essential ground rules for all teams.

    Following these simple ground rules when working in teams allows you to have a healthy and productive debate, while avoiding tense, damaging relationships, and hindering the success of the team’s mission or project.

    Deal with conflict – in the open.

    Nothing hurts the short and long-term successes of teamwork like hidden, simmering conflict. I find it’s best to bring conflict out into the open, put it on the table, and try to resolve it with input from all team members. Hidden conflict leads to mistrust, and withholding of multiple opinions. It’s toxic.

    You must avoid groupthink.

    The easy way out, groupthink kills individual, innovative ideas in favor of what everyone is comfortable with. Being that teamwork should bring out new, creative ideas, groupthink must be avoided at all costs.

    Building trust

    Team members should trust each other – completely. Only then will they be able to tune out the rest of the world and focus on what’s important: the team’s mission and project. Trust helps team members work together calmly, while enjoying their team experience. Imagine that.

    Lead by example

    One of the most essential ground rules: as team leader, you must set a good example. That means a focused, results-oriented team environment. Produce exceptional work, and expect it from others. Team members will follow your lead.

    Learn from conflict

    See conflict as a learning experience. Learn from your mistakes – or those of other team members. Most importantly, don’t repeat mistakes which initially led to conflict. Conflict is inevitable, and cannot always be avoided. The best thing to do is avoid a repeat of the same old tension.

    Don’t get personal – ever

    Avoid holding a grudge against other team members. It will just make your life miserable – and put your team’s mission into jeopardy. Refer to Rule #1 -bring conflict into the open. Look at conflict through a team and project-oriented lens. Instead of worrying about one person, figure out ways to fix a given problem.

     

  • A new approach to combating email overload in 2013

    I recently did some research on how much time was wasted going through our emails every day. Turns out that email is, in fact, suspect to us losing upwards of 8 hours of otherwise productive time per month. That’s a problem – not least because over time, we are embracing and consuming more data, and consequentially, more email. We have to start finding solutions to our email overload somewhere.

    Enter 2013. A new year, and a new opportunity to adopt a manageable email strategy for the foreseeable future. I believe, like many, that the email overload challenges we face today are complex problems resulting from a decade of rapid increase in information access. As a greater amount of “interesting and engaging” content becomes available, we seize the opportunity to read and archive all of it, often at a cost to our overall daily productivity. There will need to be broader solutions to the problem that will only be solved by advances in artificial intelligence and software. In the meantime, I’ve begun taking some common sense steps to reduce email overload and increase my overall productivity.

    Deleting unnecessary emails

    Taking the most obvious step towards reducing email overload, I began deleting any emails that weren’t considered necessary for the growth and survival of my business and professional brand. These included daily digests from websites, non-critical notification emails, and recommended content emails, among others.

    Some notes: critical notification emails should remain – they’re important. Don’t worry about missing out on useful content from your favorite websites – instead of relying on an email digest, bookmark the site and browse it periodically for content. Recommended content is great, but you feel obligated to view it immediately – that distracts you.

    Pass the relevancy test: are old emails still important?

    I had emails in my inbox from last November. Emails sent then by brands, advertising or otherwise, should immediately be deleted – they’re no longer relevant, and distracting. Daily digests, newsletters, and recommended content emails that are more than a month old are irrelevant, too. I deleted, and watched in awe, as dozens of unnecessary emails that once seemed urgent disappeared from my inbox.

    Old conversations – are they necessary?

    As I browsed through my inbox, I came across a handful of conversations between my team and people or companies we no longer communicated with. That list included clients, prospects, vendors, and acquaintances of the past. It made perfect sense to delete most of those emails, as they were no longer relevant to the big picture: growing my business or professional brand. Worried that you won’t be able to reach them in the future? Don’t be – if there’s anything important to be said, they’ll reach out to you first. Instead, relax and enjoy the fact that your overcrowded inbox continues to shrink in size.

    Of course, there were some older emails that deserved to be part of my inbox – receipts, login/user information, and vital correspondence that affects the client-agency relationship are all important emails that shouldn’t be deleted. But you’ll find that the vast majority of older emails are no longer necessary.

    Important conversations that got ignored

    It happens to everyone – sometimes, important conversations that should have been answered fell through the cracks and went ignored. Have they been sitting in your inbox for six months collecting dust? Time to delete them, as they’re not considered so important anymore.

    Don’t spend hours beating yourself up over a missed opportunity for a timely response. Regularly practicing the email management tips highlighting throughout this blog post will decrease the chances that important emails are ignored in the future.

    You don’t have to keep all correspondence

    I had email correspondence between clients, vendors, friends, and others from almost three years ago in my inbox. It’s time to delete non-necessary correspondence, and make room in your inbox. As a general rule, if emails were exchanged more than a year ago, it’s okay to delete the correspondence. Some exceptions include important legal and compliance correspondence, or information that is critical to the client-agency relationship.

  • Mandatory Insurance for Gun Owners? The Gun Control Debate Roundup: Dec. 28, 2012 Edition

    It’s December 28th, the last Friday of 2012, and a cold chill has descended upon American politics once more. President Obama met with Congressional leaders in a last-ditch attempt to reach a deal averting the fiscal cliff. But do they truly want to avert the cliff before the new year? Jim O’Neill at Goldman Sachs says nope. There was late word that the Senate passed a $60 billion Hurricane Sandy relief bill; the House vowed to ignore it. And work continued on a comprehensive farm bill for 2013 and beyond.

    With all those headlines, it’s easy to forget that the debate to regulate and restrict the sale of firearms has arguably moved front-and-center following the tragic shooting at Newtown, Connecticut. So, how’s that going everyone?

    Reinstating the Assault Weapons Ban

    Dianne Feinstein vowed to bring a bill reinstating the assault weapons ban to the Senate floor at the beginning of the next Congress on January 3rd.

    The Economics of Gun Control

    Brad Plumer of the Washington Post weighed in on the “economics of gun control.” Shorthand: are there societal or social costs imposed by gun owners on the rest of society? What about imposing taxes on gun sales?

    Mandatory Insurance for Gun Owners?

    The Atlantic, among others, mused about requiring first-time or “risky” gun owners to purchase insurance. Surely, a $50,000 premium on owning an assault weapon might deter the sale?

    NRA gun plan a ‘dumbass idea’

    Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter thinks the NRA’s plan for armed guards in every American school is a “dumbass idea.”

    On assault weapons

    It’s clear that assault weapons are a bad idea. Civilians don’t need them. Hunters don’t need them. Many gun owners don’t see them as necessary. Should they be banned? Maybe. I think such a ban should be decided on a state-by-state basis, as is the standard now. Renewing the federal assault weapons ban would only serve to stoke partisan tensions in Washington – and across the country – even further.

    Furthermore, a federal assault weapons ban alone wouldn’t come close to solving the problems of recurring gun massacres. Rather, politicians and policymakers should focus on restricting access to individual components of the gun ownership process. They can start with banning the sale of high-capacity (10+ rounds) magazine/ammo clips. That sends a strong message that violence cannot and will not be tolerated, while protecting the Second Amendment.

    Secondly, lawmakers should move to close the gun show loophole. You cannot walk away with any firearm without any waiting period for any reason. It’s irresponsible and absurd. They should also require background checks on every firearm purchase to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands. There’s nothing wrong with being careful.

    I certainly think there needs to be a broader discussion about violence in the media and violent culture. But there also must be a substantial discussion on the state of mental health services throughout the Republic. Everyone should have adequate to mental health services. It’s clear that we’re falling short on mental health access. Only certain healthcare plans cover these services. (Of course, you actually need healthcare to access these services – but that’s another debate)

    No matter what approach lawmakers choose to take, it’s clear the American people want to see some action taken. There cannot simply be a discussion, followed by kicking the can down the road. We’ve reached a crossroads and can and should pass common-sense solutions that Democrats and Republicans alike can support. That shouldn’t be controversial.

  • A Fiscal Cliff Deal That Works for All

    A Fiscal Cliff Deal That Works for All

    us-congress-capitol-hill
    Can they get anything done?

    I’m a registered Democrat who favors pragmatic candidates. I look for policymakers who are interesting in making the US a better for all, and put common sense before politics. Many people keep asking me why it’s so hard for Democrats and Republicans to come to an agreement on averting the fiscal cliff by the new year. Here are my thoughts.

    Why the stalemate?

    The fiscal cliff wasn’t created by accident. It was a deliberate effort by lawmakers to achieve meaningful deficit reduction before January 1, 2013. Until now, the Washington D.C. political class has eluded any deal on the deficit. Now it’s crunch time – with both parties stuck in D.C. until they come to some kind of agreement to avert the fiscal cliff.

    Both parties have their sticking points surrounding any agreement. Republicans wish to avoid raising taxes on anyone, and want serious entitlement (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) reform to reign in health care and benefit costs over the long term. Democrats, conversely, want the Bush-era tax cuts to expire on those making more than $250,000 per year, while preserving benefits for elderly and the poor.

    In the past, both sides have indicated they’re willing to compromise on core issues. The framework for a deal is beginning to take shape. John Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, is willing to raise taxes on those making more than $1 million annually, and would raise the debt ceiling for up to two years. President Obama has indicated he’s serious about including entitlement reform in any deal, and would change the measure of inflation for entitlements. He’s also agreed to make permanent the Bush-era tax cuts for those with incomes up to $450,000.

    At first glance, it sounds like a deal is close to being made. So, what’s the problem? Republicans continue to balk at the potential tax increases – even only on high-income taxpayers. Additionally, they say not enough is being done on entitlement reform. Democrats, meanwhile, feel uneasy about Obama’s proposal to change the measure of inflation on entitlements, or engage in any type of entitlement reform that potentially limits health benefits.

    As a result, Obama and Boehener are at a stalemate. Make a deal now, and each risks alienating key members of his party. Democrats are not certain to agree and vote for a deal which reduces entitlement benefits for the elderly and poor. And Republicans may refuse to support and vote for an agreement that raises taxes. What are the leaders to do?

    What can we do?

    First and foremost, President Obama must continue encouraging the American public to call their elected representatives in Congress every single day until a fiscal cliff deal is reached. The public needs to reaffirm the consensus that legislators MUST govern from the political center or risk being thrown out of office during the 2014 election cycle. This consensus empowers legislators to take risky political moves that believe them strategically over the next two to four years.

    Then, I believe the formula for breaking the stalemate is relatively simple – for both parties. First, Republicans should agree to make permanent the Bush-era tax cuts for everyone making under $500,000 per year. The tax cuts must expire for everyone above that threshold. They must also agree to take Social Security reform off the table and pass a resolution pledging to achieve that reform separately, later this year.

    Democrats, on the other hand, must accept that changes need to be made to Medicare and Medicaid. The focus should be on costs and eligibility. Further means-testing must be incorporated depending on income. The medicare eligibility age must be allowed to rise to 67. They must pledge to put these entitlement programs on the road to long-term solvency and rein-in costs.

    Together – by meeting in the center – lawmakers on both sides of the aisle can achieve meaningful and lasting deficit reduction. More importantly, they can restore the strategic imperative of governing from the center. A bitterly-divided government, in which lawmakers play only the role of politician, and play only to their own base, is one that cannot function over the long-term.

    Finally, they’ll set a precedent for responsible government that lives within its means while still taking care of those in need. That’s something everyone – the political left, right, and center – can be thankful for.