2020 targets for carbon reduction are pie in the sky. What is the 2010 target?

The Green Party is pushing for split carbon emission reduction for 2020 - broadly 40% for industry and 20% for livestock emissions. OK - so you have to set these long-term goals but without short-term ones they are meaningless. At the risk of being completely cynical about this I can see a situation in about 2015 where the politicians will say that they can’t reach that target. Why? Limited-overs cricket provides the answer.

Students of limited over cricket games know that the team chasing a total has to complete a target run rate. For example in a 20 over game if you’re chasing 120 then you have to score 6 runs an over to win. The problem is that for every over in which you score below the rate, the rate goes up - and then if you don’t reach that new rate from then on it goes up again and keeps climbing each time you don’t meet or exceed the required run rate.

Starting from next year - ten years to get a 40% reduction is a “required run rate” of 4% per year. Don’t really get started for another couple of years and it’s gone to 5% per year - a 25% increase in the rate. The problem is that when you’re behind the rate it’s tough to accelerate just to make the required rate for the next year.

In cricket you can score a maximum of 36 runs an over (excluding wdes, no balls etc) - once your required run rate exceeds 36, you lose - you just can’t get there. What is the maximum greenhouse emission reduction rate we can achieve in a year? Does anyone know this? Has it been worked out? Why do we need to know? Because that’s the rate we have stay below - otherwise we can’t make it.

The tough question is - in what year will there be at least a 1% reduction in greenhouse emissions? If it’s any later than 2012 we have almost no chance of getting to a 40% reduction by 2020.

Is micro-blogging service twitter a wombat? Some love it, some hate it and somewhere in between it can be useful if used properly - and it can be a (sort of?) amusement for those so disposed. Not sure where you are in relation to twitter? Check yourself out against “The 5 Stages Of Twitter Acceptance“.

The dangers of “always on technology” have been variously analysed and documented and commented on - the addition of twitter and “always on” twitter clients (the desktop applications that display “tweets” in real time) is potentially just one more distraction.

You’re welcome to follow “nowombats” on twitter - don’t expect a flurry of “tweets” as we will try (not always successfully) to limit our tweeting to the useful. It comes down to managing the “signal to noise ratio“.

Twitter and meetings? Not during - but if you’ve just finished a productive Action Meeting feeling great and want to tell the world, why not?

A recent study by Robert Half (a recruitment company) reported that for New Zealand respondents the main reason meetings were considered a waste of time was “participants lose focus and discuss anything they want, rather than the issue the meeting was called for”.

Meetings lose focus for a number of reasons - but the core reason is that the standard meeting process is not designed to maintain focus. The agenda purports to maintain focus but in fact does the opposite and the job of maintaining focus falls to the chairperson. And, the common “solution” to the problem is touted as better, stronger chairpersonship. 

It’s so much easier if the meeting process you use provides a structure for maintainng focus. You don’t need a  particularly “good” or “natural” or “strong” chairperson because the process does so much of the work.

Many of the meeting training courses that are offered train people in how to work with or overcome a flawed and failing standard meeting process. It’s so much easier to use a better process and then the rest takes care of itself.

Why does the Action Meetings process work? Because each point of failure in a meeting was analysed back to its root causes and contributing factors and interventions designed to prevent each potential failure.

How does the Action Meetings process address “loss of focus”?

• clearly define meeting purpose and overall outcome ahead of the meeting
• assess whether a meeting is the best process to use to achieve the overall outcome
• ensure that only the relevant people attend the meeting
• allow people to leave at the start of the meeting if they feel they are unable to contribute
• develop the “agenda” as a set of outcomes
• the “outcome agenda” is generally a much more detailed list of smaller items - easier to focus on each smaller item
• clearly separate out compliance, operations and strategic matters into different meeting sections
• explicitly agree with participants they will stick to the agreed outcomes
• review and agree the outcomes as one of the first meeting steps
• deliver ownership of the meeting to the participants not the chairperson
• allow participants to remove any of their own distractions at the start of the meeting

These are the findings of a recent Workplace Survey by global recruitment specialists Robert Half  from 207 New Zealand respondents in finance, accounting and HR.

The main reason is that meetings lose focus and participants talk about anything they like rather than the issue for which the meeting was called. Other countries reported higher ratios of “waste of time” and different reasons including our usual favourites:

• unclear/uncommunicated reason in first place
• too many people
• wrong people
• lack of preparation.

So once again we have evidence that meetings are a problem - but few seem to want to address the problem with a proven solution.

Of course you do. It’s the ones you attend that are the problem.

It’s similar to the problem that all the bad drivers are in other cars.

So when we talk about meetings being WOMBATS - we’re talking about their meetings not yours.

Perhaps you could refer them to the Action Meetings website then you won’t have to suffer any more.

“Thank you for calling Dell Corporation. We are closed for the day. Please call back during office hours. Once gain thank you for calling Dell Corporation.”

This was at 9:39am today, Friday, after calling their 0800 number.

What are the office hours? They’re not telling (and yes, I did try to find them on their website). Perhaps we share same “office hours” as Australia - don’t know.

I emailed the New Zealand Stock Exchange (NZX) with a usability suggestion for their website.

The automatic reply:

The message you sent to info@nzx.com has been received, NZX Information staff will review your message and will endeavour to reply to you within 10 business days. If your inquiry is urgent, please phone +64 4 472 7599.

Ten business days for an email response in the internet age - may as well just ask people to call the number and don’t offer the email address.

Jacob Oram of the New Zealand cricket team, the Black Caps, seems to think so given by  what he was reported as saying in an article about the erstwhile coach John Bracewell.

He said there was nothing worse than the captain, vice-captain and a few senior players hogging a meeting.

What do meeting hoggers convey? They convey the message that they are more important than you and that their contribution is more important than yours. The result of this tends to go two ways:

• resistance from you the “lesser” being, which creates antipathy, contradiction and argument that is based around evening up the power - and has precious little to do with dealing with the valuable content or reaching a productive outcome
• withdrawal, resignation and cynicism about a process (a meeting is a process) that doesn’t include them. The hoggers are left to their own devices and can witter on to the rest of the meeting who may be physically present but whose minds and spirits have already left the building.

Interesting to hear this come from a player in a team sport. The Action Meetings approach to meetings treats meetings as a team event - the team works together to resolve a set of outcomes. The structure and process of an Action Meeting minimises hogging and maximises participation from all of the people at the meeting - no resignation, cynicism and withdrawal just satisfying, productive outcomes.

When, exactly does a meeting end?

Is it when everybody has left the meeting room? When you leave the room? Or, is it when the time allocated has been exceeded?

In some cases and with some people this is when they’ve lost interest in the proceedings and they tune out and think of other things.

My experience is that it typically ends when the attendees leave and return to their desks or proceed to the next meeting.

Anyone out there got any ideas they’d like to add?

Post a comment, let’s see what comes out of this!

A “wasted” vote under MMP will effectively get allocated to parties that have crossed the threshold - parties that hold policies opposite to the party of the wasted vote.

One of the features of the flawed MMP system is the so-called “wasted” vote. This is a party vote for a party that fails to cross the threshold (i.e. get 5% of the party vote or at least one electorate).

As I posted before, “MMP: too complicated and not consistent” the Elections website has this to say:

A party vote cast for a party that does not cross threshold has no impact on the number of seats other parties will receive. In this sense it has the same impact as a non-vote - exactly none - except that the voter’s electorate vote will have helped decide that particular contest.

The crucial part is “no impact on the number of seats other parties will receive” - while this is literally true, the effect is quite different. What actually happens is that the wasted vote gets distributed amongst the parties that have crossed the threshold. The impact of this is that part of a wasted vote is very likely going to go to a party that has a very different or even the opposite view on policy to the party that fails to cross the threshold.

Let’s take a real example. You’re a strong believer in the right to deliver a loving smack to your child for reproof and so you decide you’ll vote for the Kiwi party. The party will fail to cross the threshold and so your vote will not affect the proportion of allocation of party seats - your vote will be allocated according to the percentages of the other votes. What does this mean? On current polling, about 9% of that wasted vote will go to the Greens and 33% will go to Labour - both parties that hold the opposite view on the right to smack. Similarly, on current polling 46% of a vote for the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party will go to the National Party - who aren’t about to legalise let alone decriminalise cannabis in the near future. Yet again MMP fails to deliver into Parliament a result that is in accord with the voter’s intentions.

Kiwi Party followers may feel that they have stood up for their beliefs by voting for the party - and they will be “sending a message” - but it will be at the cost of true representation in the House.

Up to about 5% of the votes in the election on Saturday 8th November will be “wasted” votes. One person in twenty’s vote will be partially allocated to parties they vehemently oppose - they vote for these small parties because they want to send a strong message. Bad news for these voters is that with MMP they help to entrench in seats the very parties they oppose. A voting system that can give part of your vote to a party with opposite policy is a WOMBAT.

Under MMP, how certain can we be that the make-up of the House actually reflects voters’ intentions?