I’ve been looking over reports from CES (the Consumer Electronics Show) for a few days now (as I do every year at this time), and as always there are some interesting devices that have emerged. But the comments and criticisms all mirror the same sentiments, no matter what the device: this won’t fit my needs, won’t fit in my living room, won’t work for me, so it’s crap and not worth producing. As George Harrison wrote, “I me my.” This isn’t a particularly new phenomenon of course, but it’s becoming increasingly prevalent in becoming a basis for financial decisions that can make or break adoption of technology that may in fact be critical for our advancement. If investors and the public can’t see the ‘everyone use,’ then our lack of imagining the possibilities of application of a technology and/or not caring about technology that is not specifically useful to us as-is becomes a deterrent to progress.

Take, for instance, Apple’s upcoming ‘MacBook Tablet.’ Rumors and speculation have been flying around about the device for months now (as is the case every year in January, but people seem to have a collective amnesia about this. It’s clockwork, but every year the same cycles of rumors, reveals, and rhetoric emerge). This time, however, the conversation isn’t as much about what features it will have as it is about ‘do I personally want/need a tablet?’ and not about ‘there is a market for a device like this, even if it’s not for me.’ Apple used to be allowed to make systems for a (more or less) niche market, and that was a good thing – but with the successes of the iPod and the iPhone, now they are under constant scrutiny whenever they make anything that is not for the entirety of the masses. We need a tech company that’s allowed to go down the rabbit holes, and increasingly the ‘big tech’ companies are too fearful to do that kind of R&D anymore.

And it’s incredibly hard –and stupid– to keep creating one-size-fits-all electronics. I’m a full-fledged gadget lover, but CES makes my head spin… so much of what’s shown from there seems to be attempting to appeal to too broad of a customer base (after all, everyone is a ‘consumer’), and that’s just not going to get us to the next stage of technology. We need more specialized tech, less ‘everyone should find something to do with it’ devices. The great thing about the iPhone (or iPod Touch) is that it is a platform that can be easily customized to turn into specialty devices; hopefully the tablet can too. ‘Specialized tech’ does not mean ‘a device that only does one thing’ like 3D TVs and eBook readers; specialized tech means we start to build solutions for specific usage, for function and efficiency – within the consumer and small business space. Big business, healthcare, government, military – there are a lot of verticals that have their own needs and evolve their technology accordingly. But the rest of us are stuck in this odd ‘everyone needs a log’ limbo where the technology has migrated from making our lives easier to making us frustrated & overwhelmed trying to make sense of it all. We’ve shifted from proprietary, closed, singular-function devices to these great big swiss-army-knife solutions, but we swung 180 degrees when we needed to only go 90. And worst of all, we care less and less about what we ’should’ do and just try and build what we ‘can’ make. A TV with an integrated printer? That’s a solution looking for a problem. A combination light bulb/wireless speaker? Well, that has some practical use for a certain market, and that’s the kind of innovation we need more of.

My fear is that big companies will keep the status quo – copying each other, buying out perceived threats, and trying to become the biggest fish in the pond – and they’ll stop innovating. In the meantime, investors will become less interested in niche devices/applications and only want to find ‘the next Google’ or ‘the next facebook,’ stuff that they think has mass appeal. Somewhere in that mix, brilliant ideas are falling flat from the lack of funding. The problems that technology solves will have to be big enough to get attention, and in the meantime, the people working in their garages, making the little gizmos that could very well have made someone’s life better and simpler (maybe not yours), will just be lost in the twitter streams and blog posts about crappy headphones and remotes.

So, even with infinite possibilities of the future, we tend to shelter our visions of it within comfortable, safe, and predictable paradigms. Science fiction isn’t as much about fear and the vast unknown anymore; it’s about cool, it’s about gadgets and explosions and one-liners. It’s gone from Rod Serling to Michael Bay; from drama to melodrama. Science fiction does not equal effects and chases; it can be more than just old war/western movies set in space (or a blue-tinged Earth). And this is what Doctor Who sometimes gets wrong, but sometimes gets really right. Like so much sci-fi these days, it was given a reboot treatment to ‘freshen’ it up, to try to shake the stigma of its previous low-budget visuals and attract a new audience. This is a show that’s supposed to be fun, light, and not preachy about the Doom that Will Occur if You Don’t Change Your Ways Now, yet that doesn’t mean it can’t have engaging stories and elements of suspense, mystery, fear, and wonder. While I barely remember anything of the older episodes I used to watch as a kid, I was very excited about the new series, as it is a concept that can, rather literally, do just about anything – go anywhere, at any time – and, best of all, it does so from the viewpoint of a tourist, with ordinary people along for the ride. It’s a show you can enjoy if you don’t care about the Science part of sci-fi, yet isn’t as stupid in this department as some other shows are. But in a way, its strengths are also its weaknesses; different writers and an open invitation to take the character any place and/or time can lead to some amazing stories, but it’s inconsistent. While The Twilight Zone had an open slate in terms of characters, Doctor Who is really about one central man. And like so much modern fare, it does tend to resort to chases and explosions and effects at times, cheapening it a bit. Don’t get me wrong; I love explosions and effects most of the time, but episodes like Midnight and Blink really prove you can do a show like Doctor Who without it all revolving around How Cool the Planet Looks.

So, suffice to say I’ve been a fan of the new show – not all episodes are strong or even good, but there are so many gems in there it makes the whole series brilliant. And while Christopher Eccleston was fun and a great Doctor in his own right, David Tennant has raised the bar so high that his departure really feels more like the end of the show than the end of his turn; it’s almost more of an era ending than the new year was. I’m afraid for the new season; I keep having nightmares of blue filters and lens flares and Matt Smith becoming Emo Doctor. Maybe part of that is that it’s hard to swallow being ten years older than a 900+year-old man; at least I’m only 3 months and 3 days older than David Tennant. Maybe part of that is cynicism about committees trying to make the show ‘cooler’ and hoping to get the Twilight audience/dollars. Whatever it is, I’ll hold off on the new Doctor for a bit and let all of the stages of loss pass first. So hello, 2010, and goodbye Doctor. It was a fun run, but I’m hoping that there’ll be something out there this year without a bunch of lens flares and sparkles and blue filters, and I’m not yet convinced that it’ll be you.

(*I think we’ve seen what would happen if aliens really did land today; videos would be on YouTube, a bunch of people would write blogs about how the videos are fake, a bunch of other people would write blogs talking about how much they love the aliens & how they totally relate to them cos they’re, like, so misunderstood and Team Aliens 4evr! <3!)

1. Refuse to listen – this is probably the easiest mistake to avoid, yet it seems to be the most common. Somehow many leaders tend to make this blunder frequently as well (although it can be argued that if you don’t know how to listen, then you’re not really a leader at all; just an opinionated blowhard). Sometimes the lack of listening stems from an inability to respect differences of opinion (or others in general), but it can also happen when community input has a poor signal-to-noise ratio. A community is not an isolated voice, so there should be mechanisms in place to manage information properly and filter feedback so that it can be heard. Genuinely productive input (as opposed to complaining or insults) should always be encouraged and acted upon, even if that action is just telling the community why something can’t be done. The model should be to reward constructive comments – positive reinforcement – rather than constantly directing the energy at the squeaky wheels.

2. Lack ability to delegate – the beautiful thing about a community is its diversity, yet sometimes communities forget to take advantage of that fact & find all of the different talents, skills, and abilities within their ranks. While the group hive-mind is the glue that forms the community, each of its members are also distinct individuals with distinct abilities who should be encouraged to utilize those talents for the group. Community leaders need to be brutally honest with themselves and their communities about where their weaknesses are and what they need help with – and let the community members assist them. This outreach should involve everyone, not just the people with obvious skills; you never know who knows someone who knows someone.

3. Not do any research – whatever you’re doing, someone else has an idea that can inspire you, or is doing something you should replicate rather than reinvent. There is always something to learn from others. Forget this at you own peril, and be prepared to waste a lot of time & energy on stuff that gets you nowhere yet keeps you from the important stuff. And even worse, after you’ve expended all of that energy, be prepared for someone to point out to you that someone else is already doing that, and/or is doing it better.

4. Lose sight of the goal – why are you in the community to begin with? Everyone should keep in mind their common objective and goal, and not lose sight of it. When it becomes more about power plays and arguments and less about fun, learning, and/or sharing a common bond, what’s the point? I suppose if the community is supposed to be centered upon bickering and one-upsmanship (i.e., politics) then that might be an exception.

5. Don’t prioritize & chunk tasks – a community isn’t built in one day, nor does it evolve in one. Figure out what the objectives are (growth, awareness, sales, connections, networking, camaraderie, team building, etc.) and come up with short, mid, and long-range goals to meet those objectives. Part of delegation is chunking activities to ensure that the priority tasks are divided by timeframes as well as by importance. Make sure the entire community is aware of the mid and long-term plans too, so that they don’t keep wasting time complaining or (re-)developing agendas versus focusing on where their attention is best directed right now. Having priorities gives people momentum and something to work towards so that Things Get Done. And never have a meeting of any kind without an agenda.

6. Not getting passionate members on board – I’ve seen several companies outsource the hiring of their community managers and other key forward-facing positions, leaving the process to the whims of keyword-scanning software and people who can’t differentiate someone throwing around buzzwords from someone who really knows their stuff and – better still – who cares. Communities are not all the same, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach to hiring champions for your industry; what may create success in one community will be disastrous in another. Try to reach out to the community first to find talent from within; sometimes a person’s resumé may not be the best indication of what they can do (because their hobbies and extracurricular activities may not be covered), so ask specific, targeted questions about their skills instead of asking for resumés.

7. Output to social media w/no mechanism for input – this somewhat ties in with ‘refuse to listen,’ but more specifically you can’t just push information and expect to grow a community around that. One-way communication is appropriate at times – news and press releases are fine candidates for RSS feeds – but other tools like Twitter, facebook, FriendFeed, etc. are meant for dialogs, so that you receive information as well as distribute it. There is no one right or wrong way to use any tools (no matter what anyone tries to tell you or sell you), but there’s little point in using a tool if you’re going to treat it just like an RSS feed. Figure out a way to take advantage of every tool that you use (and its unique capabilities).

8. Not acknowledge or alienate the sub-groups – Every community has its central theme; a specific type of interest or common bond, but within that big-picture umbrella lies various components. You might think of ‘geeks’ as a community, for example, but in reality there are so many different types of geeks that one lump-sum category doesn’t fit them all. Broad communities cannot work without acknowledging, embracing, and utilizing their sub-components. If a group’s focus is too broad, there will be too much disagreement to be functional. Each sub-group should have a voice and distinction within the larger community, so that the community is united rather than fractioned. That doesn’t mean that every sub-group has to get along with the others or agree with the rest (that’s probably not possible); it just means don’t forget #4. Dissenting members should be encouraged to develop a new group, perhaps as a sub-group, so that they have a place where their differences can be embraced, not belittled. Mutiny indicates a need to evaluate the group; look at its root cause to see if changes could be made to improve the situation, or if a new sub-group is the best solution.

9. Trying to be too democratic or too inflexible – leadership by committee only works when there are clearly identified processes and procedures, and when each committee member is focused on a unique area of expertise that is respected by the rest of the community. This almost never happens. Similarly, trying to rule with an iron fist will prove to be just as unsuccessful, unless your community is focused on tirelessly debating ‘who died and made you God.’ A respected dictatorship – where leaders are chosen by the high-ranked community members (voting globally rarely works, as a more popular person may not ultimately be the most qualified skills-wise), where input is valued and encouraged by leadership but ultimately they make the final decisions, where everyone has concrete tasks that map to the group’s goals – is the best approach. Communities should only vote on matters where the vote would have an impact and be carried out (i.e., if the group can’t change a meeting time, there’s no point in voting on a different meeting time).

10. Letting the vocal bullies lead – bossing people around is one of the surest ways to alienate them as a community. There will always be some people within the community that really enjoy the sound of their own voice and are oblivious as to how disrespectful it is to everyone else’s time for them to talk endlessly about pointless minutia or their personal agenda. These people will be dismissive to others, will be patronizing – anything to remain vocal so that they can seem to be in charge and get attention. The fact is, the ‘take charge’ members are usually not the best leaders; they’re usually bulls smashing everything to get their way, and lack the diplomacy, vision, and tact required to truly be effective as a leader. These people will either use a lot of ‘we’ language (‘we all feel this way’ – when they haven’t really asked nor listened to anyone else) or try to make every idea seem like their own (‘I decided to reformat the newsletter’). But ultimately, their goal – no matter how they phrase it – is to get what they want and be seen as the (solo) hero, not to compromise for the community or, horror, incorporate the ideas of others (bullies often see this as ‘generosity,’ as if letting the lesser mortals and the community at large have their needs met is a sacrifice). The best way to combat this is to ensure that they’re always questioned on how their input specifically maps to the needs and objectives of the community. Always have those clearly defined. At that point, it’ll be easier to steer them towards focusing on what’s best for the group, not just what’s convenient for them. If they still can’t work as part of the solution, then they’re part of the problem, and ultimately will be less obstructive if given a sub-task (away from people) to direct their energies on. (The distinction between mutiny instigators and the bully is that one is a chronic complainer who gripes more than they take action, while the bully will step on everyone’s toes taking action without anyone wanting them to and without being asked, thinking that it ’shows initiative’ rather than impulsiveness and a lack of consideration). Having some sort of recognition program in place (rewarding milestones and assigned contributions, not rogue behavior) is also a good idea, so that people who crave attention can get a pat on the back without needing to act out.

11. Thinking people will create a community around a crap product/service – it all really comes down to how good your community’s ‘thing’ is; it’s harder to rally around a crappy idea or product than it is to put up with community shortcomings for a great cause. The more time you spend improving the genre/idea/product/focus of the group, the better the community will be as as result. The more enthused people are, the more dynamic and interesting the community can be as a result – if it’s allowed to be. Organic, genuine communities thrive more than attempts at contrived ones. Always allow some latitude for letting your group grow naturally; the focus should always be on quality, not quantity. If you build it, they will – well, you get the idea.

There is the über-identity – which is essentially a brand-as-person model (think Dear Abby, where a group of people pretend to be a singular entity). But Internet anonymity allows a person to try on as many identities as they want to without any consequences, so the many-to-one identity is far more rare than the multiple-identity individual. Of course, creating an identity is also sometimes done out of fear; but there is a huge difference between the fear of genuine repercussions (death) versus wanting to avoid responsibility for your actions or to figure out ‘who you really are.’ But does that mean that it’s becoming increasingly impossible for us to understand ourselves and all of our pieces as well? And are all of these fractions causing us to be more dissatisfied with who we are, as we can focus on the microcosms of negative aspects more easily than looking at the big picture?

And would this be surprising? We’ve been telling people to be unhappy and dissatisfied with who they are for decades now. We’ve told them that who they are is merely a by-product of what they do, what they’ve achieved, and what they own (unless they’re female, in which case it’s also what they look like). Everyone has both masculine and feminine traits, but we get caught up in gender-based negativity. Identities used to focus on what we were told were ideals, but now people have shifted away from creating identities of who they want to be into who they think will get the most attention. They place less importance on their identity being happy and fulfilled through self-belief and focus on external acceptance, appreciation, and support. Yet it’s hard to figure out cause and effect; are we dissatisfied because of who we think we are, or because of who we think we should be? What needs more validation – our internal view of our identity, or how others see us? And when others define us, is that who we really are?

Not much has changed in some aspects, but much has changed in others.

Those that are jealous of what I have don’t understand the effort it took for me to get it and/or to keep it. I’ve constantly been surrounded by opportunists that genuinely can’t believe that anyone ever deserves success or has had to suffer greatly to achieve it; they have a sense of entitlement to ‘luck’ and a resentment of anyone who ever seems to have been fortunate enough to be successful. Talent doesn’t usually make success in and of itself; which is unfortunate, but it’s reality. Desire doesn’t make success either. Hell, even hard work is no guarantee. But resentment does usually create failure.

And what constitutes itself as success varies greatly from person to person. I’ve always found it surreal when people say I’m in any way/shape/form successful, because I don’t have/haven’t achieved any of the things that matter to me. But yes, I have achieved lots of superficial things, and I am grateful for them – and the key word there is ‘achieved,’ as in ‘worked hard and sacrificed much for.’ If you ever want to piss me off, tell me I’m lucky. Tell me I don’t get it, that I don’t understand because it’s easy for me. Tell me you wish you had/were [some bullshit thing that I have]. I wasted a lot of time at one point of my life trying to convince people that I was this Awesome Person that they should envy, because I hoped that maybe I’d buy into it and stop hating myself. Yes, there are things that come naturally to me, and I shouldn’t have to apologize for that. But most of it is hard – not just the I-had-a-horrible-tragic-life hard (though that certainly holds up under scrutiny), but the having-what-you-want-means-willingness-time-and-effort hard. There will always be people that will tell you that your dreams – or you – don’t matter, and there will always be people that try to knock you down. But there will also always be those who dismiss what you do achieve (when you overcome the naysaying) and will feel like they can take a piece out of your success because, well, you have it. Some people think that there is an easy track to success and happiness, and as long as they’re allowed to leech off of others who mistake their attention for genuine interest, I guess there is – for them. They see achievements and success as something to take or that falls into your lap, not something that is earned. To me, things that are worth having are worth working/fighting for and investing time and energy into; anything that comes instantly has no real value or substance or meaning. And I’d rather have something that matters than something simple or easy.

I still struggle with my own bitterness and jealousy; not because I don’t appreciate things, nor because I think that others don’t deserve happiness, nor because I expect things should be easy/convenient – but because I have had so many chances and opportunities taken from me by people who were petty and resentful of me, and that hurts. Because every time I got pushed down someone was there to kick me while I was on the ground. Because I’ve had to constantly hear everyone tell me that I need to change, that this-or-that is wrong with me, and that I’m not accepted as myself. Because it is harder when you can’t relate to anyone else and have to make your own path. I see the version of me that didn’t have to deal with the bullshit, that had someone on her side, and I’m jealous of her – but not of anyone else. It’s hard not to wish that things had been different, or that someone would have believed in me the way I believed in myself. I have to wear a lot of masks just to get by, and pretend that I’m someone or something I’m not every day. But I am talented, smart, and kick-ass, and find that I let that speak for itself a lot more now than when I felt like I had to overcompensate for being different (or, more accurately, for being myself). Those [external] things don’t define me as much as they used to; looking inward versus focusing outward tends to reduce jealousy a lot. I also know that when I see what I have overcome – what I’ve done despite the challenges – that I have a lot less to fear now. I do have a lot to be grateful for, and do have goals and dreams to aspire to. I do feel like I have accomplished a lot, and that I have a lot yet to achieve. And I know I have the ability to achieve success – my definition of it – even if no one else thinks so; and I’m comfortable with that. Who knows, maybe I could even achieve happiness when I can finally see how green my own grass is.

Now we’re seeing the same thing happen in the ’social media’ space. How many fucking Twitterers Twittering about Twitter can there be? You’re an expert and guru at social media because a bunch of other self-proclaimed social media bottom-feeders follow you? Or just because you’re self-absorbed enough to go on blathering day after day hour after hour in 140 characters without giving a shit about anybody else? Social media doesn’t have to be profound, but it also doesn’t have to be incestuous. I love using social media to keep in touch with my friends; I enjoy sharing information (about myself or about tech and other topics). But it’s a two-way dialog and I’m using the tools as tools, not as the purpose for the tool.

[ad#ad-2forcontent]