I read the news”paper” most mornings, in quotes because it’s an on-line replica of the paper version that doesn’t require tree-felling, wood pulping, and ink-smearing.

In it I read an article about what Facebook is doing to combat the extensive disinformation it helps disseminate. Mostly, its plans sound a lot like trying to extinguish a forest fire with spit.

But not being one to criticize someone’s solution to a problem without having a better idea, I asked myself what my better idea was. Happily, I have one.

I have the solution. Not a solution. Not a partial solution. Not something that might make a positive impact but not much of one.

I have the solution! And because you’re a loyal KJR subscriber I’m going to share it with you. Not only that, I’m going to invite you to share it with everyone you know.

Bob’s Big Idea:

-> Read news and opinions in newspapers. Socialize on social media.<-

If every voting-age American would follow this simple guideline it would, in one masterstroke, neuter all actors, both foreign and domestic, who are trying to pollute our political dialog with their repulsive, fabricated, preposterous, divisive falsehoods.

Well sure, you might be thinking to yourself. Bob is a well-known liberal, so of course he’s going to recommend sources with a leftwing bias.

I’m not. Read the Wall Street Journal if you want to avoid the leftwing slant on things, and that’s assuming the print media as a whole has an actual leftwing bias — a debate I’ll leave to those who research and tabulate such matters.

How about cable news? That’s a gray zone, for three reasons.

Reason #1: No matter how much or how little that’s truly newsworthy is taking place, cable news has to stretch or cram it into its 24-hour news cycle.

Reason #2: Because cable news is such a visual medium, dramatic visuals crowd out the mundane, even when the mundane shows what’s typical.

Reason #3: Shouting heads are cheap. Reporting is expensive. A face on a screen making noises, even a well-compensated face, doesn’t cost very much. Inviting a second or third face in to offer their commentary is still economical programming.

Sending a reporter and camera crew to where news is happening costs a whole lot more … and that’s also in comparison to what it costs a newspaper to send a reporter there.

So on cable news, economics favors shouted inanities over reliable information.

All of which goes to demonstrate just how pitifully the newspaper industry has responded over the past 25 years to the threat to its existence that is the Internet.

Newspapers could have pooled their resources to provide local and national classified advertising. Instead, they gave up the field to Craigslist, Monster.com, Autozone.com, and so many other list services that would have had to compete with newspapers if only newspapers had decided to compete.

And that’s the revenue side of the industry. How about content?

Imagine newspaper companies thought in terms of competing for news consumers’ business. What might they do?

I’d think they’d advertise, offering engaging accounts of how they ensure the content they publish is both newsworthy and reliable … the steps they go through and the principles they adhere to before committing content to printing plates.

If they were even more bold they’d contrast their process to the vetting that precedes posting on social media. They’d portray, perhaps, a bunch of Russians laughing as they clink their vodka-filled glasses and click their mice, or perhaps a few deranged individuals with poor personal hygiene, popping pills and screaming into microphones as they click.

The fact of the matter is that most newspapers do adhere to a code of ethics, do have processes and principles in place to keep misrepresentations out, and issue corrections when their preventive measures fail.

Social media sources are the polar opposite.

What does this have to do with KJR’s mission of providing practical advice people in business can make use of as soon as they finish reading?

There is, unsurprisingly, a business parallel.

Just about every business function is, for those outside it, an arcane, needlessly complex, expensive waste of corporate resources. Few decision-makers outside IT understand why it’s so hard; likewise CIOs looking at Marketing, Chief Marketing Officers looking at Accounting …

Every business decision-maker and influencer benefits by understanding why what other parts of the business do is so hard. If the CEO doesn’t insist on this sort of information exchange, the rest of the executive leadership team should take the initiative.

The alternative? Look at how well social media works as a source of enlightenment.

# # #

Like this idea? Know anyone in the newspaper business? Please don’t hesitate to share this with them. Who knows — maybe someone will pay attention.

How is Covid-19 like a strategic change initiative?

If you guessed it’s because both are potentially but unpredictably lethal, sorry, no. Unlike COVID-19, change initiative lethality is quite predictable.

The right answer: Fatigue sets in.

It’s dueling clichés: It isn’t the destination that matters, it’s the journey vs This isn’t a sprint — it’s a marathon.

Having only run marathons vicariously I can’t speak for those who do. But for those called on to run one involuntarily: Put me into this situation and I’d say screw the journey. In maybe three blocks fatigue would set in, and all I’d care about is the destination.

Eight months into the pandemic, those who aren’t suffering from mask-and-social-distancing fatigue either don’t wear masks and distance themselves socially, or belong to the Hermits, Recluses, and Anchorites Club.

The rest of us are involuntary marathoners, grudgingly trudging toward our at-last-a-vaccine-that-works destination.

On a more prosaic front, which is to say we’ve arrived at this week’s subject, I’ve been involved, directly or as a consultant, in several strategic, multi-year transformation programs. I’ve helped them progress from broad-but-vague intentions, through rigorous strategy-to-action planning, to the complexities of executing multiple, parallel, interconnected multi-project initiatives.

A constant: After a while the exhilaration that comes from early successes fades and change-fatigue sets in.

If you read Bare Bones Project Management (thank you!) you probably recall the project enthusiasm curve — the sequence of emotional states project teams typically experience over the life of a project: The downslope of Unenlightened Optimism, Dawning Pessimism, and the Pit of Maximum Despair; the recovery period of Enlightened Optimism; the speed bump of Pre-completion Doldrums.

Followed by, we hope, Success.

Project managers go through the same stages as their teams, only they aren’t afforded the luxury of going through them visibly. They help themselves through the tough parts so they can help their teams get through them too.

When the subject is large-scale strategic change, though, the fatigue is both broader and deeper than with project-level change. It’s broader because with strategic change typically comes reorganizations, restructurings, and staff reductions that change the how-to-succeed rules for just about everyone.

It’s deeper because strategic change fatigue can hit an organization’s executives even harder than it hits staff-level employees. When executives enter the Pit of Maximum Despair, here are some of the symptoms:

Tactical independence: “The strategy might pay off years from now. We should be looking for opportunities that will pay off tomorrow — low-hanging fruit, to coin a phrase — even if they won’t do much to move the strategy forward,” one might say.

Many tactically independent efforts really are good ideas the company really should pursue. The problem comes from failing to reserve a portion of the company’s capital and operating budgets to pursue them.

As a general rule, companies should split their budgets into thirds — one third to pay for the strategy, the second to pay for non-strategic opportunities, and the last to, if you’ll forgive the self-indulgence, keep the joint running.

Silo-oriented planning: Silo-oriented planning takes tactical independence to the next level. Where tactical independence might lead to change efforts anywhere in the company, silo-oriented planning results in investments in my part of the company. That’s what I’m accountable for. Gimme.

How to prevent, or at a minimum reduce silo thinking? We’ve covered this topic extensively in KJR. Here’s a partial list from the archives: https://issurvivor.com/?s=silo.

A too-brief summary: Managers exhibit silo thinking when structural factors like the budgeting process and bonus program encourage it.

Defection: Whether the stress of making change happen becomes too excessive, the requirement of collaborating with peers someone neither likes or trusts starts to have too much impact on the old sphygmomanometer, or the longer hours (okay, the hours aren’t longer but there are more of them) needed for executives to get both their day jobs and change responsibilities done means redefining “personal life” to mean “my job and nothing but my job” … whatever the face-value reasons, executives start to bail out and join the competition.

Or, worse, executives who championed the change put an exaggerated account of their roles in making it happen, and of how much progress has been made on their resumes, then bail out before the whole thing falls apart.

If you’re one of the executives responsible for leading your company through a major change, be alert for the signs of change fatigue, both among your peers and within yourself. Dealing with it so it doesn’t derail the program is your job.

If you’re anyone else in the business, be alert to the same symptoms. If you spot them make plans to survive the experience.

Your first responsibility is, after all, to yourself.