Empathy in Negotiation?

I’m reading “Getting More” by Stuart Diamond…again.  I don’t typically read books twice, but there is usable content in this book that it is hard not to.  It’s a book about negotiation, but feels like more than that. It’s also about how we get things done together. According to Diamond, what gets in the way of working together are differing mental pictures. You can come to a negotiation, but if you don’t try to see the situation the way the other party sees it, you’ll have a hard time reaching an agreement.

Photo Credit: Sharon Sinclair

Diamond recommends ‘role reversal’ practice as a way to gain knowledge about those with whom you are trying to negotiate. It’s just another way of saying, “Put yourself in the other person’s shoes.” I’ve known some folks to bristle when you tell them to do this, but it is an invaluable exercise. I find it most interesting, oddly enough, when it comes to negotiating agreements with my kids. I try to make sure I understand their position and then see if I can repeat it back to them to make sure they know that I know where they are coming from.

Diamond argues that if you don’t show that you understand the other party’s position, the other party will get stuck in a loop and won’t come out of it. Do this early, he says. If I say, “[Son], it sounds like you’re frustrated that you’re not able to the same things as your friends. You’re worried that you won’t be able to talk to them about the same things that they’re talking about,” and I can get him to say, “That’s right” then I know I’m getting somewhere. It may take a few tries, though, because you may not understand at all the reason for his position. But that’s the point.

You really can’t help them meet their goals unless you understand their goals. Traditionally, negotiation has been about you reaching your goals at the expense of the other party. This may work once or twice, but over time you’ll find that you’re not able to make deals any more, argues Diamond. Also, you’ll suffer from a loss of credibility.

What I enjoy most about the concepts in “Getting More” is that they are counter-intuitive. Who knew that you would need so much empathy in order to engage in a successful negotiation? It’s almost like, if you want to negotiate with someone, you need to provide them a service. That service is listening. There is considerable value gifting the other party with the acknowledgement that they’re being heard. If you don’t provide that service, you’re going to get less because they’ll be crippled by an unmet need. Help them reach that goal and you’ll both get more!

Eliminating the Inefficiency of Work-in-Progress in Cybersecurity

Some time ago I read “The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement” by Eliyahu M. Goldratt. My big takeaway: Work-in-Progress or WIP items slow production. As the theory goes, you can be swimming in “efficiencies”, but if you’re stumbling over excess work-in-progress inventory or you’ve ignored a bottleneck, you’re nowhere near your potential.

This is clear enough in manufacturing. But these concepts can be applied elsewhere.

Photo Credit: Kristin & Adam

Demands on IT departments are growing exponentially. As technological advances accelerate, IT professionals are required to keep up. This isn’t one area, but in several areas at once. IT pros are pursuing cutting edge analytics and at the same time pushing traditional on-prem infrastructure to the cloud; while also balancing an undercurrent of spurious applications and solutions. Not just balancing, but seeking to meet an expectation of “subject matter expert” level knowledge/expertise with each new IT initiative.

This drives inefficiencies into IT. I’ll focus on cybersecurity within IT since I’m a cybersecurity analyst.

In order to win, security teams need a system for how they arrive at priorities. Priorities reduce work-in-progress items; they also minimize bottlenecks. IT departments tend to develop rockstars who don’t do all the work, but significant amounts of work pass through them. When many projects are going on at once, rockstars become “constraints”. (See “The Phoenix Project” by Gene Kim and Kevin Behr.)  The other constraint is tools-in-progress. The tendency is to push for breadth over depth. More tools, less expertise in each tool.

When tools are viewed as 80-90% of the solution, the requirement of analysts’ time is easily overlooked. When it comes to cybersecurity, organizations can easily end up with a myriad of tools. Each of these tools becomes a work-in-progress or tool-in-progress item. Tools can add value, but if there are too many, they can actually lower the aggregate value of a team. The way to overcome this is through a highly effective system of prioritization. Knowing what to prioritize takes time. But for each tool, there if there is a sharp focus, chances creating value go up considerably.

Challenge teams to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Dare to set some things aside in order to arrive at critical priorities. Zero in on these priorities. They may change over time. This isn’t an issue. But if they’re changing too frequently, you’ll get stuck with a stifling inventory of work-in-progress items. Make a best-effort attempt to document this and quantify it so it doesn’t keep happening.

With a clean set of priorities and a careful reduction of WIP items, all things are possible! 

Machine Learning and Human Self-awareness

With all the talk around machine learning, it causes us to reflect how humans learn. What are the parallels between humans and machines? What can machine learning teach us about our experiences and the actions we take based on our experiences?

ML is a way to provide meaningful experiences to machines. 

Photo Credit: Alan Levine

We convey information to silicone based entities in a language they understand, “When this happens, this other thing tends to happen.” Or, getting slightly more complicated, “When these four things happen, with some of those things being more significant than others, this other thing has a very big chance of happening.”

What makes machine learning different from run-of-the-mill statistics is that we tend to care less about the process or even the veracity of the data. The outcome is all that matters. If a machine is able to experience enough scenarios and outcomes, there is a fairly good chance it can provide us with a prediction. 

If machines learn by experiencing data, there is theoretically no limit to what they can learn. Data is the limit. A machine needs enough of the right kind of data for its predictions or insights to be meaningful. 

Humans learn through experience as well, but the sheer number of datapoints processed through their five senses is astronomical. Think of going for a walk. Every forward leg movement is a vicious, light-speed cycle of inputs and their resulting outputs. Not only are we learning as well walk, but we’re taking into account years of walking/learning experiences. We have multiple models going on at once.

There isn’t a single action humans take that isn’t informed by nearly infinite numbers of data points. Human decisions are the result of a form of ‘supervised learning’. We act, experience, and choose to act again based on an aggregation of results or outcomes. And to add to the permutations of parallelism, we’re impacted by external models (other humans).

What are the experiences and training we’re providing each other? How does abuse impact a person expectations of outcomes? How does this impact the actions they take in the future? How does poverty impact the ‘supervised learning’ that humans experience? When a person lands in jail, how did they get there? What models are society using to put them there? When someone does something to contribute positively to society, how do we create responses that affirm these actions and stimulate more of them?

The more we explore machine learning, the more we’ll learn about ourselves. My hope is that this will provide us with a level of enlightenment and self-awareness that we’ve not seen before.

Picking the right words to describe cloud assets is kind of important

The work of any given IT department is remarkably broad. And within each functional team, vocabularies around technology can be quite unique. This is fine when different groups don’t have to work together much, but when they get together to solve problems, one great challenge has to do with making sure specific IT terms mean the same thing to everyone.

And if that isn’t challenging enough, take traditional IT terms and then figure out how they all translate into the ‘cloud’. I’ll give an example. Take the distinction between IaaS and PaaS. The way this is often described is that with PaaS you don’t have to worry about patching an operating system. With IaaS, this is the customers’ responsibility, not the cloud service provider’s. But the scope of cloud is much bigger than the VM example. And not understanding this can have serious ramifications.

Let’s say you go out into cloud console for your tenant. (This would be the place where you log in to spin up a virtual machine, for example.) Whether you like it or not, the very moment you spin up a VM in the cloud you’ve created the beginnings of a network topology. Not knowing this can cost you dearly later.

Cloud infrastructure is not just VM’s. There’s a whole world of storage, networking and compute services, too, which we often overlook as being IaaS. Why does this matter? Because knowing and understanding this is also the beginning of securing it. Consider where each of these pieces live in a traditional on-prem model, and what controls are in place to protect the confidentiality, integrity and accessibility of these assets. That same diligence has to be transferred to the cloud. For example, protecting your firewall configurations is not unlike protecting your security group configs on a subnet or VM instance.

Also, how do you track changes to these assets? Whatever diligence you apply in traditional IT models, this same diligence is required in the cloud. This includes reviewing and validating configurations on these virtual assets. Think about what would happen if any one of these virtual assets, like a subnet or a whole virtual network were to be deleted. Where would you be and what controls do you have in place to keep this from happening? And in the unfortunate case that it does happen, how would you know how it happened and who did it?

Because it is so much easier to set up infrastructure in the cloud, it is also that much easier to abuse said infrastructure either intentionally or unintentionally. Getting everyone on the same page around the vocabulary for cloud infrastructure is the beginning of fully understanding how to secure this environment. Let’s decide on our critical cloud vocabulary and make sure we all share the same deep understanding of the words we use to describe this environment.

Cybersecurity Risk and a Cadence of Communication

Risk is everywhere. What’s the probability that something bad will happen? And when it does happen, how bad will it be? For folks who work in security these are questions we ask every day, all day.

But it doesn’t stop there. After we get done asking these questions, we have to artfully communicate our approximations to decision makers. Sometimes this works. Mostly it doesn’t.

Part of the challenge is that our calculation of risk involves technology and gobs of technical know-how; the kind of in-the-weeds technical know-how that most business folks don’t find particularly useful. So there’s a translation process. As we translate, the meat of our risk evaluations can get lost. And decision makers don’t have time to get up to speed.

So herein lies the challenge. The business makes risk decisions, like, all the time, but since technological or security risk is hard to understand, they aren’t always arriving at their decision destination with the right knowledge. It a reasonable enough to suggest that they can be informed enough to make the right decisions?

I’d say it is. But we can’t have the presumption that a single email or a short briefing will suffice. It order to make communication around risk work, there should be a cadence of communication. It should not be the first time that a decision-maker is hearing about a given risk. Security pros can help decision makers build up a baseline of risk seen in a given environment so that when a risk report does surface, it actually means something. Without regular context for these types of reports, they’re just empty words. It security they may mean something, but that’s as far as the meaning goes.

How can you develop a cadence of communication within your organization?

How can you be a consultant in your own organzation?

We’ve all seen it, especially folks who work in IT, or any area where things are changing faster than they ever have been. We hire consultants to bring value, and they often do, but often not as much as we expect them to.

Just like anyone in our departments, these folks have their specialties and they don’t know everything about everything. The resulting gaps in knowledge can create painful obstacles on the way toward successful project completion. These are the “we don’t know what we don’t know” gaps. Knowledge gaps are challenging, but they also present huge opportunities.

Identifying knowledge gaps and diving into them head first is critical. You don’t know what you don’t know until you start asking yourself what you don’t know. I know, sounds dumb, but that’s where you have to start. If there is no one in your organization who can answer your questions or who can bring value to a high-demand subject area, then it’s time to start diving, digging, reading, watching, learning, asking, etc. This can mean reading books, experimenting with technology, and generally getting out of your comfort zone.

Sure, it’s a lot of work, but if you’re not doing this work, you’re not bringing value to yourself or your organization. As you start to dig, you’re bringing value to yourself because there are few things more rewarding than learning, and then sharing what you’ve learned. You’re bringing value to organization because they don’t know what they don’t know.

I get it, this process isn’t for everyone. All I’m saying is that the knowledge gap problem is solvable. No training budget? Okay, well, there is seriously more information online than you seriously digest in a billion lifetimes. Don’t know how to cull through that information? Well, you won’t know how until you start pushing yourself to sort it out. And the thing with learning is that once you learn something, it’s hard to feel like you’ve made any progress because now you know it and it doesn’t seem like a big deal. So don’t forget to take stock of the things you’re learning. You know more today than you did yesterday!

Also, a big part of learning is sharing what you’ve learned, even if it is nearly immediately after you’ve learned it. It’s like when you share knowledge, the knowledge you share finds a home in your brain.

The more you teach and share, the more you become a consultant in your own organization. You don’t know everything, but neither do your consultants!

Premortem Now!

Apparently, one of the greatest learning experiences a chess player can have occurs once a game is lost. It’s called a postmortem analysis. And it’s hard, miserable work because a player is sitting there with a pile of negative emotions and they have to think through the reasons why they lost…one hateful move at a time. Why is this so important? Because our mistakes have the potential to teach us far more than our successes.

From this concept comes the notion of a “premortem”. Which is about getting the benefits of a project’s postmortem analysis well before said project has the chance to fail.

Let’s say your organization in on the verge of a very large project. You’re heading into some significant technological changes which will impact people and processes that have been in place for a very long time. There are so many unknowns that it makes people’s heads spin. How do you make sure groupthink doesn’t prevent critical issues from being resolved ahead of time?

In a word: premortem. Key stakeholders sit around a table and pretend as if the project failed. It went down in flames. The budget was busted. None of the deployments went as planned. Significant damage done and nothing to show for it. At this point you might do a pretend ‘blame game’. Who is to blame for the fact that this project did not succeed?

Which team didn’t do their part? Who didn’t communicate risk the way they were supposed to? What assumptions were made? Or what perceptions did the various teams have of the project? How could we let this happen? Didn’t anyone see those issues coming?

Pretending that a project went the way of Hades is a great way to invite honest discussion without relying on someone to play the role of naysayer. Let’s face it, no one wants to be accused of being overly negative. “Are you on board with this project are not?” A premortem analysis requires that everyone discuss the death of the project and “what went wrong” not whether it will go wrong . This prevents pitting the “positive people” against the “negative people”.

Even the thought of doing a premortem analysis can cause some folks to feel anxious. Why is this? Is it because it is a lot easier to keep moving than to stop and ask critical questions? Sometimes critical questions lead to uncovering critical issues. Will asking critical questions lead to more work? Will this make an already tight timeline even tighter? No one wants more stress so it’s best to just keep….on…going. Or is it?

I’d like to offer that the time to do a premortem analysis is now. Take a moment amidst planning and discussion meetings to pretend that the project never made it off the ground. Work out all the reasons it failed. Because we can all learn mightily mistakes. And what could be better than learning from mistakes before they happen?

“Sapiens” and Economic Value

To some extent, Economics is the study of how people produce more (both variation and volume) when they work together. Most of the time people have a place in the world’s economy when they provide value, which is measured by money and credit…mostly.

The book “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind” by Yuval Noah Harari has me thinking differently about economics. Harari takes us into critical transitions in human history; like the years just before and after the invention of “credit”. According to Harari, “credit” is anchored in the belief that the future will be better than the past. For most of human history, people assumed the reverse. The future was no match for the glory of the past.

Once credit took hold, however, both for good and ill, it allowed for a greater and more frequent transfer of value. Humanity could start to build a future together. And value could begin to be sought out in all corners of the globe. Trade and credit meant that we could do more together. And the more humans worked together to produce what they needed (or wanted) the more the economy grew. With all the benefits of economic growth, humans also witnessed exploitation and abuse of this system. Individuals and institutions figured out how to steal value from others who weren’t in a position to know better or defend themselves.

Unfortunately, trading on stolen value still happens today. But in the greater scheme of things, I find myself wondering about how we’re going to manage value and economic growth in the future. We’re moving from exploiting people to simply eliminating them from the equation all together. If people are not providing direct value to the global economy, will they be able to participate? Will there be huge swaths of people who can’t take advantage of all the value being created because they won’t have anything to offer in exchange for it?

Think of the countries or societies that are generating value and those that aren’t. Countries that don’t generate value fall victim to crime and exploitation. The further they get from full participation in the global economy, the further they get from the benefits of modern society. Disproportionately they end up on the downside of the world’s value systems.

As a result, with no value accessible to them, citizens in these countries migrate toward countries where value is accessible; where they have a chance of participating and producing value of their own. These value destinations, however, have responded by restricting their borders. Also, they attempt to control the flow of value by forcing their hand in trade deals. But these kinds of restrictions are antithetical to what actually makes a global economy work in the first place. We generate value when we work together.

Sure, there’s competition, but ultimately the real wins happen when we engage countries and societies who have been left out. And we all win when we help them generate value. The more overall participation we get, the better we’ll all be. Both because we’ll benefit from what these countries have to offer and because they won’t become feeders for crime and violence.

‘The Cloud’ is Still New

It feels like folks have been talking about ‘the cloud’ forever. But levels of cloud utilization in the form of IaaS, PaaS, etc. have really only ramped up significantly in the last couple years. The tendency is to think that there are ‘cloud’ people who were just born knowing ‘cloud’ and that the chasm between ‘cloud’ and ‘on-prem’ is so great that the ‘on-prem’ folks simply won’t understand this new realm.

Fact is, ‘the cloud’ is still new. And no one is born knowing anything, especially not best-practices around cloud utilization, security, and architecture. Herein lies both risk and opportunity. If we can all just put down our pretensions around cloud know-how and get busy learning, we might actually be able to build, configure and secure our cloud environments in a way that delivers consistent, beautiful results.

But the first step is remind ourselves about how new all of this is, and how revolutionary it is. Organizational leaders, instead of saying, “Hey what do you know about cloud? Oh, you don’t know anything? Okay, bye.” Need to say, “Hey let’s get learning! See what you can find out about the cloud that will help us meet our goals.” Because the reality is, most of us don’t know everything there is to know about the cloud. It is still new! And it is going to still be new for a long time!

If leaders don’t charge their teams with learning, these same leaders will have their business strategies singularly handled by vendors — well meaning as they may be. And the best solutions and the most remarkable features of ‘the cloud’ will never arrive. Innovation happens with a sense of ownership and dedication. This is less likely to happen when innovative work is attempted by 3rd parties who have ample room to over promise and under deliver.

The cloud is still new! Let’s respect that fact and don’t presume that the best solutions live elsewhere. Bring your teams into this new world and get ready to be blown away. Give them a chance to learn and innovate; don’t write them off. Sometimes the best innovations are right under our noses, but we can see them because we’re blinded by the glare of shinny, well-marketed solutions that can be low on substance.

Security Hygiene is Boring and Critical

This has been said many times before by people many times more credentialed than me. There are sexy vulnerabilities out there that take considerable expertise to understand. Then there are vulnerabilities or configurations that are the equivalent of leaving your car door unlocked.

The calculation so often made goes like this: “it hasn’t happened before”, or “I’ll only be gone for a few minutes”.

Oddly, many who have an incredibly honed financial sense about them and who understand that ‘past performance does not equal equal future results’, have great difficulty extending this concept elsewhere. But nowhere is it more applicable than in security. Past performance does not equal future results! (Or you may have been hacked in the past and you don’t know it.)

The oversight that causes an organization to get hacked in the first place is likely something simple. Are you missing two-factor authentication? Are you still using a default login? Is your password “Spring2019” and do you use it everywhere? These are security concerns that don’t take heaps of expertise to understand; they are boring and critical.

Attackers don’t want to work hard to steal data or install ransomware, so they’re likely to look for simple vulnerabilities or poorly configured networks in order to get the job done. Don’t sweat the small stuff, sweat the simple stuff.