Hi folks,

Last time we talked about Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and how its impact underscores the power of brevity.

No, that was the Emancipation Proclamation.  I mean… moving on.

Anyhow, why is the Gettysburg Address famous?  There has been plenty of elegant presidential prose throughout history, so what makes these 272 words extraordinary and what did they accomplish?  Well, start with this:  Is the birthday of the United States July 4, 1776 or September 17, 1787?

Yeah, it seems like a stupid question because everybody says July 4, 1776 – the day the Declaration of Independence was signed.  But eleven years later, on September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed, so why not that date?  Because during the civil war, southerners argued that the Constitution’s allowance for slavery meant the practice was a-okay.  So Lincoln eloquently told them to get bent:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

In two short lines, Lincoln asserts that the Declaration of Independence – with its strong assertions of freedom and equality – is the foundation of the country, not the flawed implementation of those principles in the Constitution.  And he declares that the war is about whether a nation founded in such principles can survive.  To further drive home his point, he ends with:

that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Reaffirming that the war is no longer simply a struggle for union, but one for establishing the freedom promised by the founding document of the country, the Declaration of Independence.

It matters because the Gettysburg Address elevated the consciousness of the people beyond the “how” of the country – the laws proscribed in the Constitution – and refocused them on the “why” – the principles embodied in the Declaration.  Whether slavery was legal per the Constitution was irrelevant – it violated the principles and natural law outlined in the Declaration.  The “why” takes precedence over the “how”.

We all need periodic Gettysburg Address moments in our lives.  It’s far too easy to lose sight of why we do what we do.  Why am I developing a new process?  Why am I so deeply invested in this document?  Why am I sacrificing so much to chase that promotion?  If we take some quiet moments to revisit the underlying why – our objectives, our goals, our principles – we may find that those “hows” really don’t matter all that much.

As I prepare for my transition to a new agency, my influence at my current agency is quickly waning.  And while I hope I’ve had a positive impact, I also hope that all my work quickly disappears, replaced by newer, better, and more relevant products.  Our world moves quickly and no organization, including the government, can afford to stand still and watch it pass.  I can’t predict what will be needed to adapt to tomorrow’s world, but I hope you’ll take time to pause and ask “why” – why are we doing this? – and see if your “hows” really are the right thing to do.

If I somehow encouraged my colleagues to ask themselves “why” more often, I’m satisfied with my legacy.

Rex

Hi folks,

Seven score and 14 years ago, Lincoln needed a good speech.

Eh, wrong president and speech, but also awesome.

Anyhow, it was November 19, 1863 – four months after the battle of Gettysburg – and Lincoln had been invited to dedicate the battlefield as a national cemetery. He wasn’t billed as the keynote speaker that day, but he accepted the invitation and, with 272 words and two minutes, delivered one of the most powerful speeches in American history.

Entire books have been written about the speech, but there are two lessons I personally pull from it.

The first is the value of brevity. The headliner that day, Edward Everett spoke for over two hours. And while his oration was apparently well received, it has been fully eclipsed by Lincoln’s succinct and powerful speech. Everett later wrote Lincoln “I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near to the central idea of the occasion, in two hours, as you did in two minutes.” The lesson? Impact doesn’t require length. Choose your words carefully, maintain focus, and keep things short.

And in that spirit of brevity, I’ll save the second lesson for the next bomb.

Old Abe is clearly not referring to knowledge bombs.

Rex

Hi folks,

I recently finished reading Destiny of the Republic, an awesome book which covers the life and tragic premature death of President Garfield.  To tell the story of Garfield’s assassination, the author includes several secondary characters who were significant at the time, including then-Vice President Chester A. Arthur

Yeah, nobody remembers poor ol’ Chet.  Here’s the 10k foot summary:

• Quintessential New York gilded age gentleman who apparently owned 80 pairs of Brooks Brothers pants
• Empty suit of a politician, a creation of the Republican New York political machine, and puppet of political boss Roscoe Conkling
• Was assigned as VP for Garfield largely because nobody could envision the young, robust Garfield dying and leaving the Presidency to Arthur
• Abhorred his ascendency to the office of President so much that he wept out of fear upon the shooting of President Garfield
• Crusher of graft, destroyer of the spoils system, and champion of civil service reform

Wait, what?  That last one doesn’t seem to fit.  How did this weak, proxy of a politician suddenly pull a 180 and upend the corrupt spoils system of 19th century US politics?  Through inspiration found in a series of letters written by a bedridden thirty-one year old woman named Julia Sand.

Exactly.

In her time, Julia was not a famous or important person.  She held no office, had no following, had no favors to barter.  Yet she nearly single-handedly transformed a weak-willed, lackey of a politician into a driven man of character, determined to leave a lasting, positive legacy on the country he led.  Her unsolicited correspondence with Arthur inspired him to rise up and become the leader nobody thought him capable of – including Arthur himself!  The result was a reformed civil service that eschewed political influence and instead rewarded competence and expertise.

Right?

The pyramidal shape of most organizations means many of us know the feeling of obscurity, working outside of the spotlight and occupying a hidden corner of an org chart, away from the center of official power and influence.  But that didn’t stop Julia Sand and it shouldn’t stop us.  We all have the power to affect change, whether it’s in the official capacity of our position, by influencing others, or simply through setting an example of excellence.

Change is hard, and leading change can be a lonely proposition.  It can an inspiration to our leaders simply to know there’s somebody out there, supporting them and cheering them on – and we all have the power to be that inspiration. Regardless of where we sit, we can all channel our inner Julia Sand and help drive change through inspirational support.

Rex

Hi folks,

I know I’ve mentioned in the past that parts of my academic career were less than stellar.

In an effort to make up for lost time, I’m reading a number of classic novels. Right now, I’m tackling Herman Melville’s Moby Dick. Which is awesome, though if I’m going to reach my goal of one classic novel a month, maybe I should have chosen The Old Man and the Sea for my nautical book.

Either way, Melville packs his novel full of amazing imagery, not only slowly building an epic story, but also detailing numerous vignettes that help illustrate the daily life of a whaling crew in the 1800s. One that resonated with me was when the narrator of the story was trying to fall asleep on a cold night. He had no fire, but wrapped himself in a blanket with only his nose poking out, exposed to the cold night air. Melville said:

“To enjoy bodily warmth, some small part of you must be cold, for there is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast. Nothing exists in itself. If you flatter yourself that you are all over comfortable, and have been so a long time, then you cannot be said to be comfortable any more. For this reason a sleeping apartment should never be furnished with a fire, which is one of the luxurious discomforts of the rich. For the height of this sort of deliciousness is to have nothing but the blanket between you and your snugness and the cold of the outer air. Then there you lie like the one warm spark in the heart of an arctic crystal.”

This is basically how I feel about my bed after any camping trip. The mattress that I hate 350+ days out of the year is suddenly a slice of heaven after a night or two in a tent. Or maybe I’m just doing the whole camping thing wrong.

The concept that comfort doesn’t exist without discomfort extends beyond the physical realm, too. At work, a little bit of struggle goes a long way. We need the discomfort of a struggle to learn, to grow, and to simply appreciate what’s in front of us. Sometimes that struggle manifests in the form of a new task that stretches our normal capabilities, sometimes it’s a demanding individual who refuses to accept your perspective, and sometimes it’s jumping into an entirely new position.

Regardless of the form, the struggle is essential. Without it – as individuals and as organizations – we become stagnant, complacent, and blind to the everyday conditions that make our life as comfortable as it is. A warm house never feels as cozy as when you first step inside from the winter wind. And, conversely, staying inside the warm house will never prepare you for the challenge of the winter storm.

Growth is crucial for any individual or organization, and growth doesn’t occur without pushing past existing boundaries. But even those of us who aren’t interested in growth need an occasional struggle to appreciate the comfort of their current state. So whether you’re seeking growth or seeking comfort, find a way to struggle.

Rex

Hi folks,

I’ve been itching to go watch the Black Panther movie, but with a small baby in the house, it’s been hard to carve out enough time.

I’ve read some of the reviews, and they’re almost universally glowing from both critics and fans alike. But other movies sometimes generate divided opinions – critics vs fans, critics vs critics, etc… Which made me curious about how critics do their job.

It turns out that the foundations of theater/film/art critics were established a few hundred years ago by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Aside from having an awesome name, Goethe was one of the world’s last true renaissance men, making a lasting impact in literature, science, politics, and more. One of his many contributions was through his love of theater, and his proposal that a critique of a play should answer the following three questions in order:

1. What is the playwright trying to do?
2. How well has he or she done it?
3. Was it worth doing?

The order was important to Goethe. He wanted critics to avoid rushing to personal judgement – “I didn’t like it, so this wasn’t worth doing” – and instead try to understand the perspective of the artist first, forcing them into relatively objective analysis.

Um, maybe.

Either way, I like the approach. But on the production side, we need to rearrange the order. When we’re talking about new security initiatives, it becomes something like:

1. What are we trying to do? – What’s the idea? What ends or change are we trying to accomplish?
2. Is this worth doing? – Is there a compelling need for us to undertake this new effort? What benefit does this bring to our stakeholders?
3. How well can we do it? – Do we have the necessary resources? How can we measure our success? What is our stakeholder’s perspective?

As with Goethe’s original list, the order is important. Before we undertake any new initiative, we should have very solid answers to the questions “what are we trying to do” and “is it worth doing?”. All too often we get excited by a new idea and skip over the second question, failing to truly assess if it’s an idea worth pursuing. It’s easy to be blinded by the excitement of a new idea and the default position most of us have – that of course our ideas are worthwhile! But that’s not always the case.

And that’s not the end of our analysis. Once we objectively conclude that something is worth doing, we need to determine if we can actually do it. Do we have the right resources? Is the timing right? Are we the right people to do this?

If we pause and really examine the re-ordered Goethe questions, we’ll likely find that some of our ideas, while novel and interesting, aren’t likely to affect the change we want and, thus, aren’t worth doing. Or maybe they’re incredibly awesome, but we simply don’t have the necessary resources. And if we abandon those ideas early on, we can reallocate our resources to initiatives that are more likely to have a positive impact and we’re more likely to successfully complete, making us all the more effective.

That’s right, Dorothy. Goethe would have liked your thinking.

Rex

Hi folks,

The other day I met some fellow parents at my kid’s school and we did the usual introductions. Of course, about 10 seconds into the conversation, I had forgotten their names, which made follow-ups for a playdate awkward.

That happens to me all the time, and it drives me crazy. Nothing says “I value you as a person and would like to develop a relationship” quite like “uh, sorry, what’s your name again?” I know it’s a common problem, though, and not one limited to people. Organizations forget, too.

In 1885, Prussian psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus published his hypothesis of the forgetting curve which basically states that the more time that passes after an event, the less we’re able to remember about the event. A few years ago, a former colleague of mine from Mandiant, Grady Summers, applied this theory to cyber compromises, asserting that the organizational support for improvements to cybersecurity are greatest immediately following a compromise, and that such support dwindles over time. So if you’re trying to improve the security of your organization, you need to move fast and take advantage of the quickly closing window of opportunity.

This isn’t limited to compromises, of course. It could be a shift in the regulatory industry, an audit finding, or any other event that grabs the attention of decision makers and compels them to support change. But regardless of the impetus, the forgetting curve remains, and the window of opportunity is only open for a limited time.

So what’s the solution? Well, according to Ebbinghaus, overlearning is the way to go – practicing a skill past the point of initial mastery. Of course, when we’re talking about the opportunity that comes from unwanted events…

Yeah, I agree. In my mind, there are two practical approaches First, you want to move fast to implement desired changes post-event. That generally means being prepared with a list of desired changes prior to an event so you’re not caught flat footed

Second, find a way to keep the lessons learned fresh. Ideally, we’d again follow Ebbinghaus and his spaced repetition approach, but we don’t need to suffer the effects of the negative event ourselves. We can also leverage compromises or negative events in other organizations to help remind ourselves about why we’re going through all this effort to improve our security. You can flatten out that forgetting curve with quick, concise debriefs of other public compromises as they happen. They should highlight similar impacts as those your organization felt as well as the corresponding efforts you’re taking to make sure your organization doesn’t suffer from the same fate. While your support will likely still diminish over time, it won’t drop off nearly as quickly.

By being prepared and sharing regular, active reminders of why people should support your efforts, you should be able to capitalize on a bad event and make good things happen.

Now, if I could only remember where I put my keys…

Rex

Hi folks,

We’ve had a string of bad weather recently, so my kids and I have been spending a bit of time indoors.

True, but either way, my daughter and I recently engaged in several intense rounds of Battleship. After some cautionary looks from my wife that seemed to say “don’t be a jerk – stop trying so hard to win against an eight-year-old child”, I kicked back, abandoned my density-based hunting algorithm, and let my mind wander.

One of the interesting things about Battleship is that the board pieces have no offensive power. So while it may seem like your aircraft carrier or battleship should be your most powerful pieces, they’re actually your most vulnerable because their large size makes them easier to detect. The smallest piece – the destroyer – only takes up two squares and is often the last piece to be found by an opponent.

We face similar situations at work as well. The larger our work product, the bigger the target.

Much of our work product manifests as program documentation. In our collaborative environment, we give others the chance to comment on new process and program documents that we’re preparing for release. And as a result, we’ve all felt the pain of seemingly endless review cycles and torrents of barely relevant comments.

We often bring this pain upon ourselves. To make our documents as thorough as possible, we include tons of detail and address all related topics. But instead of a tight, concise document that addresses the core issue, we’re left with a sprawling tome encompassing all things security. That’s a big target for stakeholders who want their voice to be heard through their comments.

We’ve talked in the past about using straightforward language. And while that helps, we also need to pursue shorter, smaller documents. The leaner our documents, the more limited and relevant the feedback we receive, and the faster we’re able to make fixes and move on. There’s lots of advice online about writing concisely, but most of it focuses on the sentence or paragraph level. That’s important, but so is the choice of topics to include. The more topics, the more content, and the bigger the target. The more narrow the scope, the more concise the document, and the smaller the target. Hemingway liked this approach.

Rex

Hi folks,

It’s now 2018, and with the change in calendars come all sorts of new year’s resolutions.

According to one set of data, only 9.2% of people felt they were successful in achieving their resolution last year. Which isn’t all that surprising, given that people in general stink at setting goals. There’s all sorts of advice on how to set a good goal – make them SMART, create an action plan. And while such approaches can help, we’re all susceptible to external forces thwarting our success. Even those at the top of an organization are more dependent upon luck than skill for their success. One 2015 study of CEOs says more than 70% of their impact on a company can be attributed to chance, and another 2014 study shows that most dismissals of CEOs are due to external industry or market factors.

If the leaders of an organization are so dependent on luck, what hope is there for the rest of us to guide our own future? An answer ironically comes from one of the most accomplished individuals in American history – Thomas Jefferson.

How can Thomas Jefferson – an amazingly gifted and accomplished man born to power and wealth – tell us anything about how to deal with the frustrations of external forces? After all, his resume includes governor of Virginia, secretary of state, vice president, and president of the United States! Did he ever fail? Well, yes and tragically, but that’s not the point. The point is to look at how he wanted to be remembered after death:

By his own decree, the only accomplishments on his tombstone are the creative endeavors he pursued and accomplished, not the lofty titles and positions that he knew were not accomplishments of his own making. He prioritized what he did, not what he was.

There’s wisdom in his choice. External factors may occasionally frustrate us, but the objectives most out of our control are often the ones that matter least. The most meaningful accomplishments can be the ones for which we are most directly responsible – ones where we can claim “I made the world a better place” rather than “I was something.” And that’s an opportunity each of us has every day, both in and out of work.

So while we all do our annual dance of making resolutions (and developing annual performance plans), we have the chance to prioritize the meaningful. Those of us in the public sector have already committed ourselves to a positive impact that serves the greater good and outlives all of us. Let’s make that commitment shine through in all our resolutions.

Jefferson would be proud.

Rex