Friends, Guides, Coaches, and Mentors

The “conscious competence” model for learning is fairly well known. If not explicitly, than at least implicitly. Most people can recognize when someone is operating at a level of unconscious incompetence even if they can’t quite put their finger on why it is such a person makes the decisions they do. Recognizing when we ourselves are at the level of unconscious incompetence is a bit more problematic.

A robust suite of cognitive biases that normally help us navigate an increasingly complex world seem to conspire against us and keep us in the dark about our own shortcomings and weaknesses. Confirmation bias, selective perception, the observer bias, the availability heuristic, the Ostrich effect, the spotlight effect and many others all help us zero in on the shiny objects that confirm and support our existing memories and beliefs. Each of these tissue-thin cognitive biases layer up to form a dense curtain, perhaps even an impenetrable wall, between the feedback the world is sending and our ability to receive the information.

There is a direct relationship between the density of the barrier and the amount of energy needed to drive the feedback through the barrier. People who are introspective as well as receptive to external feedback generally do quite well when seeking to improve their competencies. For those with a dense barrier it may require an intense experience to deliver the message that there are things about themselves that need to change. For some a poorly received business presentation may be enough to send them on their way to finding out how to do better next time. For others it may take being passed over for a promotion. Still others may not get the message until they’ve been fired from their job.

However it happens, if you’ve received the message that there are some changes you’d like to make in your life and it’s time to do the work, an important question to ask yourself is “Am I searching for something or am I lost?”

If you are searching for something, the answer may be found in a conversation over coffee with a friend or peer who has demonstrated they know what you want to know. It maybe that what you’re looking for – improve your presentation skills, for example – requires a deeper dive into a set of skills and it makes sense to find a guide to help you. Perhaps this involves taking a class or hiring a tutor.

If you are lost you’ll want to find someone with a much deeper set of skills, experience, and wisdom. A first time promotion into a management position is a frequent event that either exposes someone’s unconscious incompetence (i.e. the Peter Principle) or challenges someone to double their efforts at acquiring the skills to successfully manage people. Finding a coach or a mentor is the better approach to developing the necessary competencies for success when the stakes are higher and the consequences when failing are greater.

A couple of examples may help.

When I was first learning to program PCs I read many programming books cover to cover. It was a new world for me and I had very little sense of the terrain or what I was really interested in doing. So I studied everything. Over time I became more selective of the books I bought or read. Eventually, I stopped buying books altogether because there was often just a single chapter of interest. Today, I can’t remember the last time I picked up a software development book. This was a progression from being lost at the start – when I needed coaches and mentors in the form of books and experienced software developers – to needing simple guidance from articles and peers and eventually to needing little more than a hint or two toward the end of my software development career.

A more recent example is an emergent need to learn photography – something I don’t particular enjoy. Yet for pragmatic reasons, it’s become worth my time to learn how to take a particular kind of photograph. I need a coach or a mentor because this is entirely new territory for me. So I hired a professional photographer with an established reputation for taking this type of photograph I’m interesting in. My photography coach is teaching me what I need to know. (He is teaching me how to fish, in other words, rather then me paying him for a fish every time I need one.)

Unlike the experience of learning how to program – where I really didn’t know what I wanted to do – my goal with photography is very specific. The difference has a significant influence on who I choose for guides and mentors. For software development, I sought out everyone and anyone who knew more than I. For photography, I sought a very specific set of skills. I didn’t want to sit through hours of classes learning how to take pictures of barn owls 1,000 meters away in the dark. I didn’t want to suffer through a droning lecture on the history of camera shutters. Except in a very roundabout way, none of this serves my goal for learning how to use a camera for a very specific purpose.

Depending on what type of learner you are, working with a mentor who really, really knows their craft about a specific subject you want to learn can be immensely more satisfying and enjoyable. Also, less expensive and time consuming. If it expands into something more, than great. With this approach you will have the opportunity to discover a greater interest without a lot of upfront investment in time and money.

Time Out!

In Estimating Effort – An Explicitly Implicit Approach I stated that time cannot be one of the attributes the team uses to describe what they mean by “effort.” The importance of this warrants the need for a deeper dive into the rationale behind this rule and how excluding time can lead to better predictability for team performance.

The primary objective for coaching teams to think about effort independent of time constraints is so that they can improve their skills for thinking about the actual work involved. Certainly they will spend time completing the work. But the simple passage of time won’t get the work done. Someone has to actually DO something. That something is the effort.

For example, maybe someone on the team says the product backlog item requires a lot of documentation. It isn’t complex and there aren’t any dependencies, it’s just going to take a lot of time – 7 days, maybe. So they want to give that PBI an effort value of 5 or 8 (or 5 or 8 story points, if that’s what you’re using) because it’s going to take a lot of time.

Remember, the purpose of these criteria is to generate a conversation around what the actual effort is. The criteria are just a set of guideposts that help the team hold a meaningful conversation about the effort.  So when someone on a team insists that they estimate using time, I ask them “What are you doing as the time you’ve estimated is passing? Are you just sitting there, watching the seconds tick away?” Of course they aren’t just sitting there. I’m asking the questions to elicit a comment about the actual work they are doing. Maybe they answer with something a little less vague, like “typing words.” That’s good. “What’s the difference between typing those words in a word processor and typing code in Vim?”

Continuing down this line of inquiry usually leads to the realization that typing documentation has many similar traits to coding. It can be complex. It may have dependencies.  It may require research for accuracy and it certainly will need a lot of debugging (professional writers call this “editing.”) Coders typically don’t like writing documentation. To them it’s just about the tedium of banging something out that’s not as fun as code. Sussing out the effort like this will lead to better acceptance criteria and definition of done associated with the PBI.

The downside of time estimates is that they hide all manner of sins and rabbit holes. The planning fallacy, precision bias, availability heuristic, and survivorship bias are just a few of the mental obstacles guaranteed to reduce the accuracy of time estimates. Or you may have to deal with a team member who wants to estimate using time because they know full well it offers the opportunity to hide slow work. (Gamers gotta game.) When teams have run the gauntlet of effort criteria, they are more likely to end up with a better picture of how much work they are being asked to do when time is excluded from the conversation. Effort criteria force the team to be more explicit about the activities they are engaged with as the clock ticks.

The investment in identifying time-independent effort criteria yields further benefits in the retrospective. Was the team unable to complete a PBI in the sprint? Was all the work finished two days early? Have a look at the effort criteria and ask which of them were a factor in making the PBIs a bigger or smaller effort than initially estimated. This is how teams learn and improve their skill at estimating. The better they are at estimating the more predictable their productivity.

OK, so let’s say you have a team doing a great job of determining the effort needed to complete a PBI and they do so without including time. No doubt, management will be unimpressed. They want time estimates. Good news! We can give them time estimates…in two week increments.

With the team focused on figuring out time independent effort values for every PBI in the backlog and an ongoing experience of how much effort they can reliably complete in two week increments, product owners can provide a reasonable forecast for when the release or project will be complete. The team focuses on accurate time independent effort estimates. The scrum master and product owner worry about the performance metrics and time projections.

It’s surprising how hard of a sell this can be for teams. They are hard wired to think in terms of time because that’s what traditional project management has hounded them for since before coding was a thing. I tell teams, “With Agile and scrum, you no longer have to worry about time. That’s the product owner’s job. But you do have to develop very good skills at estimating effort.” It’s common for them to have a hard time adjusting to the new paradigm.

Goals, Mission, and Purpose

When I was much younger I had an obsession with defining and achieving goals. I’d codified my approach into an unpublished workbook titled “The Goal Mapping Process.” There was nothing particularly unique about this process. All it really accomplished was laying out a method for breaking goals down into achievable tasks and then reassembling them in to the larger goal. It was very tactical and it worked. At least it did for me and perhaps that’s why I never published it. Working out the method within a frame of something that others might see forced a level of rigor that I might not have otherwise applied. In the end, it was just another way of getting things done.

Later in life the realization that completing goals had an element of dissatisfaction came into focus. Achieving goals, even big goals, wasn’t enough. The question of “What next?” frequently presented a blank slate. Figuring out how to achieve the goal kept me busy, but there was rarely any thought about what was after the goal. Or more importantly, what the underlying purpose of the goal was in the first place. What I learned was that a goal in and of itself, while often necessary, wasn’t as important to my overall satisfaction with life than the purpose or mission behind the goal. Goals are destinations. Mission and purpose are journeys.

This realization is perhaps twenty five or more years old. It turns out, defining goals and breaking them down into their tactical pieces is relatively easy. Defining an underlying purpose that makes identifying the associated goals is harder. After twenty five years I believe I have worked out a purpose and mission that has been fairly stable for the past five years.

My mission and purpose was influenced by the story of a woman named Janet. She died in 2005 at the age of 51. For ten years preceding her death she had been fighting breast cancer. For most of that time, her diagnosis was “terminal.” The battle statistics are staggering: 55 chemotherapy treatments, many of them high dose; 33 radiation treatments; 4 major surgeries; and uncounted doctor’s appointments. This and so much more is what it took to stretch a two year survival prognosis into ten.

I know Janet’s story because I was with her for every one of her chemotherapy treatments, the recovery after, and for each of her surgeries.

I know Janet’s story because she died in my arms.

I know Janet’s story because she was my wife.

I taught her how to search for and read research articles using Usenet and the nascent World Wide Web. While I was working two jobs Janet was searching these and many other resources for anything that might suggest viable treatment options. This effort is worthy of it’s own post, but does not factor so prominently in my purpose and mission. What does is something we experienced during this process of research.

Due to our heightened interest, news stories that claimed to have some angle on a “cure for cancer” caught our attention. Whenever we heard such news bites, we’d eagerly take note and then work to chase down the details. Invariably, they would end in disappointment. The news had hyper-inflated the claims of the researchers, often to the chagrin of the researchers themselves. We learned to tune out these news stories (eventually, the news altogether.)

I can recall many times during Janet’s cancer battle when I thought of these researchers. Indeed, of all the people working to solve the cancer conundrum. While Janet slept, I’d watch the milliliters slowly drip from the IV bag during the hours it would take for her chemotherapy treatments to run their course. I’d imagine dedicated individuals working long hours to solve chemical problem or design devices that would eventually replace the barbaric “suicide/salvage” strategy of contemporary chemotherapy. These were often moments of despair and feelings of extreme isolation. We were on the dark side of the moon, hoping for signals that would show the way across the cancer cure threshold and bring us home.

In the end, they never came and Janet lost the battle.

I’ve haven’t stopped thinking about the people who work to find a cure. Fifteen years later I find myself on the sunny side of Earth and in a position to help those working to solve the cancer conundrum. And I have to say, it isn’t how I imagined it would be.

There are certainly those who work long hours with a dedication that is both inspiring and humbling. But for the most part, there are people doing what people do – complaining, fighting for turf, lashing out over imagined offenses, scratching for more pay, finding ways to game the system, sinking to the lowest expected level of effort, defensive and afraid to correct bad behavior, perpetuating bad habits, blissfully unaware of cognitive biases that adversely affect their work, unaware yet aggressively protective their own limitations. It’s a lengthy list.

It is, as they say, a target rich environment for applying Agile principles and practices. The room for improvement pretty much matches the amount of space between here and the dark side of the moon.

One of the primary motivation devices in this environment are the success stories. And as well it should be. They are VERY moving and it’s impossible for me to see and hear the success stories of someone making it across the cancer cure threshold and not shed tears. For myself, there are also many untold stories which are similarly motivating and bring me to tears. These are the stories of those who did not make it across the cancer cure threshold but fought, like Janet, with everything they had while hoping a cure would be found before they lost the battle. The stories of the people who were fortunate to have been cured are examples of what we are trying to achieve. The stories of people who were not so fortunate are examples of why we need to find the most effective way possible for working together.

This is my purpose and my mission: Build teams that are communicating clearly and effectively, teams that understand both the value and limitations of diversity and inclusion, teams that are capable of uniting on well-reasoned goals, teams composed of compassionate individuals who are tirelessly seeking to understand themselves within the wider context and the longer view. Today, Agile principles and practices offer the greatest promise for fulfilling this purpose and achieving this mission. When something more effective emerges, I shall adapt accordingly.

Here’s to moving into 2020 with mind and eyes wide open.

Root Causes

The sage business guru Willie Sutton might answer the question “Why must we work so hard at digging to finding the causes to our problems?” by observing “Because that’s where the roots are.”
Digging to find root causes is hard work. They’re are rarely obvious and there’s never just one. Occasionally, you might get lucky and trip over an obvious root cause (obvious once you’ve tripped over it.) Most often, it’ll require some unknown amount of exploration and experimentation.

Even so, I’ve watch as people work very hard to avoid the hard work needed to find root causes or fail to acknowledge them even when they are wrapped around their ankles. It’s an odd form of bikeshedding whereby the seemingly obvious major issues are ignored in favor of issues that are much easier to identify, explain, or understand.

One thing is certain, you’ll know you’ve found a root cause when one of two things happen: You implement a change meant to correct the issue and a whole lot of other things get fixed as a result or there is noisy and aggressive resistance to change.

Poor morale, for example, is often a presenting symptom mistaken for a root cause. The inexperienced (or lazy) will throw fixes at poor morale like money, happy hours, or other trinkets. These work in the very short term and have their place in a manager’s toolbox, but eventually more money becomes the new low pay and more alcohol has it’s own very steep downside.

Morale is best understood as a signal for measuring the health of the underlying system. Poor morale is a signal that a whole lot of things are going wrong and that they’ve been going wrong for an extended period of time. By leveraging a system dynamics approach, it’s relatively easy to make some educated guesses about where the root causes may be. That’s the easy part.

The hard work lies with figuring out what interventions to implement and determining how to measure whether or not the changes are having the desired effect. A positive shift in morale would certainly be one of the indicators. But since it is a lagging indicator on the scale of months, it would be important to include several other measures that are more closely associated with the selected interventions.

There are other systemic symptoms that are relatively easy to identify and track. Workforce turnover, rework, and delays in delivery of high dependency work products are just a couple of examples. Each of these would suggest a different approach needed to resolve the underlying issues and restore balance to the system dynamics behind a team or organization’s performance.

Broken Windows and Broken Scrum

Recently, I was in a conversation with a scrum master that was of the opinion that correcting teams on all the small details of practicing scrum was the best way to develop them into a high performing team. For example, if someone is a minute late to stand-up, call them out. Or the daily stand-up must not deviate from the “Yesterday, today, and in the way” script regardless how well the team is communicating.

I can see the merits of developing discipline. However, this approach reminds me of the Broken Windows Theory of crime reduction. Without explanation or coaching that includes the rational for practicing scrum in such a way, there is a real possibility for negative unintended consequences.

  • The Broken Windows theory was meant to be applied to situations in need of a reduction of crime. To apply this approach to scrum practices is to imply that any deviation from the scrum framework is criminal.
  • Similar to how the Broken Windows theory resulted in the emergence of “zero tolerance” laws, applying such an approach to scrum teams and strictly enforcing how they may or may not follow the scrum framework is likely to result in a lot of command-and-control zero tolerance behaviors. The guides will become rules and, in turn, inflexible laws.

The approach I’ve found to be more effective is to hunt down the root causes to issues, for which being late to stand-ups or poor communication during stand-ups are a symptom. It’s more like being a big game hunger. Seek out the root of the problem, solve that problem, and it’s likely many of the lesser issues will resolve themselves.

Estimating Effort – An Explicitly Implicit Approach

It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future.Unknown

Sage advice.

So why bother estimating the amount of work needed to complete a product backlog item? After all, since estimates are about the future the probability is high that they will be wrong. Actually, they may very well be guaranteed to be wrong. It’s just that some of the guesses happened to match what the effort ended up to be and just look like they were “right.”

I’ve written in the past expressing my thoughts about estimating the effort needed to complete product backlog items, particularly with respect to story points. I believe working to find a relative gauge to how well teams are estimating work is important. Without them, cognitive biases such as the optimism bias and planning fallacy can significantly distort a project delivery timeline. However, the phrase “story point” is burdened with a lot of baggage. It has been abused and misused such that invoking the phrase often causes more harm than good.

I’ve been experimenting recently with a different approach to estimating effort. The method I’ll describe in this post got a bit of a boost after listening to a recent interview with Psychologist and Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman. In this interview, Kahneman describes an experience he had while serving in the Israeli army some sixty years ago. He was assigned the job of setting up an interview process that would determine how well a recruit would do as a combat soldier. For this process, he selected six traits and instructed the interviewers to ask questions designed to evaluate each trait independently and score them. The interviewers were not happy with this approach. As a compromise, Kahneman instructed the interviewers, when they were finished asking about the six traits, to close their eyes and just jot down a number they felt matched how good a soldier the recruit might be. What he discovered:

When we validated the results of the interview, it was a big improvement on what had gone on before. But the other surprise was that the final intuitive judgments added, it was good. It was as good as the average of the six traits, and not the same. It added information, so actually we ended up with a score that was half determined by the specific ratings, and the intuition got half the weight. That, by the way, stayed in the Israeli army for well over 50 years.Daniel Kahneman

This intuitive evaluation made by the interviewers is similar to what Agile methods ask of development teams when determining a value for “story points.” T-shirt sizes, planning poker, dot voting, affinity mapping and many similar techniques are all designed to elicit an intuitive sense of the effort involved. If there is a dependency between team members, than a dialog follows to understand what that discrepancy is all about. This continues until there is alignment on what the team believes the effort to be. When it works, it works well.

So on to the details of the approach I’ve been experimenting with. (It doesn’t have a name yet.) The result of this approach is a number I call the “effort value.” The word “value” is a reference to the actual elementary mathematics value being derived. Much like the answer to the question “What value results from adding 2 and 2?” Answer: 4. The word “value” also suggests an intrinsic worth, something beyond a hard number. My theory is that this will help teams think beyond the mere number and think also about the value they are delivering to stakeholders. The word “point” correlates to a hard number and lacks any association to intrinsic worth or value.

Changing the words introduces a simple and small shift that nonetheless has a significant impact. With the change, teams are more open to considering a different approach to determining estimates.

So how is the effort value derived?

I begin by having the team define 4-5 characteristics or attributes that, to them, describe what they mean by “effort.” It is important for the team to define these attributes. By doing so, they own the definition and it becomes much harder for them to dismiss the attributes as “someone else’s” and thereby object to their use in deriving an effort value. These attributes can be anything that is meaningful to the team. Examples:

  • Complexity – Is the work straightforward (e.g. code a bubble sort function) or does it involve interrelated systems (e.g. code a predictive inventory control algorithm)?
  • Dependencies – How dependent is the product backlog item on other backlog items or other teams?
  • Familiarity – Is this work very similar to work the team has done in the past or something quite new?
  • Information – Is the detail in the product backlog item complete? Are the acceptance criteria and definition of done clear?
  • Technical Debt Risk – Does the PBI require any refactoring of related code? Is any technical debt being incurred with the PBI?
  • Design Stability – Is there a lot of discovery and exploration needed to complete the PBI?
  • Confidence for Completing PBI within the Sprint – This category may roll up several categories.

The team can define any attribute they wish. However, there are a few criteria to consider:

  • Keep the list limited to 4-6 attributes. More than that risks turning the derivation of an effort value into the equivalent of a product backlog item navel-gazing exercise.
  • Time cannot be one of the attributes.
  • The attributes should be reasonable. Assessing a product backlog item’s effort value by evaluating it’s “aura” or the current position of the stars are generally not useful attributes. On the other hand, I’ve listened to arguments against evaluating estimates in terms of “complexity” as being similarly useless. I see the point of those arguments, but my view is that the attributes must first and foremost be meaningful to the entire team. In the end, it’s an educated guess and arguments about the definition of terms like “complexity” are counterproductive to the overall intent of deriving an effort value.

Each of these attributes is then given a scale, the same scale for each attribute – 1 to 10, 1 to 15 – whatever the team feels is most appropriate. The team then goes through each of these attributes and evaluates the product backlog item attribute on the scale. The low number on the scale represents very little impact. If dependency, for example, is one of the attributes then a 1 might mean that the product backlog item is entirely self-contained. A 10 might represent a case where the product backlog item is dependent on several other product backlog items or perhaps the output from other teams.

When this is done, ask the team where on the modified Fibonacci scale they think this particular product backlog item’s effort value should be. If they’re struggling you can do the math: find the average for all the attributes and match that number in the modified Fibonacci scale. If the average is a decimal, for example 3.1, match the value to the next highest modified Fibonacci scale number. In this case the value would be 5. Then ask the team if they feel that number it’s a good representation of the effort value for the product backlog item.

This may seem like a lot of unnecessary gyrations, but for technical people it’s a simple process they can understand. The bonus is a number they can calculate. The number isn’t what’s important here. What’s important is the conversation that happens around the attributes and what the team feels about the number that results from the conversation. This exercise is meant to develop their intuitive muscles for considering multiple aspects and dimensions behind the “effort” needed for them to get the work done.

Use this process enough times and eventually calculating the average can be dropped from the process. Continue using this process and eventually calculating the numbers for the individual attributes can be dropped from the process. I don’t know if it’s a good idea to drop the use of the attributes for generating the needed conversation around the effort needed, but it will certainly be valuable to reconsider the list of attributes from time to time so as to fine tune the list to match what the team feels is important.

With this approach I’m turning the estimation process on its head (or back on its feet, if Kahneman is right.) Rather than seek the intuitive response first (e.g. t-shirt size) and elicit details later if there is a mismatch between team members, this method seeks to better prime and develop the team’s intuition about the effort value by having them explicitly consider a list of self-selected attributes (or traits) for effort first and then include an intuitive evaluation for effort.

Don’t try to form an intuition quickly, which was what we normally do. Focus on the separate points, and then when you have the whole profile, then you can have an intuition and it’s going to be better. Because people form intuitions too quickly, and the rapid intuitions are not particularly good. If you delay intuition until you have more information, it’s going to be better.Daniel Kahneman

Coder’s Lullaby

[Sung to the tune of Woody Guthrie‘s Hobo’s Lullaby.]

Go to sleep you weary coder.
Let the output scroll on by.
Hear the cooling fans a hummin’.
That’s the coder’s lullaby.

Do not think about the deadlines.
Let the deadlines come and go.
Tonight you’ve got a nice warm cubie.
Safe from all the deadline woe.

Go to sleep you weary coder.
Let the output scroll on by.
Hear the cooling fans a hummin’.
That’s the coder’s lullaby.

I know the bosses cause you trouble.
They cause trouble everywhere
When you die and go to heaven,
You’ll find there are no bosses there.

Go to sleep you weary coder.
Let the output scroll on by.
Hear the cooling fans a hummin’.
That’s the coder’s lullaby.

Assessing and Tracking Team Performance – Part 9: Design Changes and Scope

Changes in design can either be tightly or loosely coupled to changes in scope. In general, you can’t change one without changing the other. This is how I think of design and scope. Others think of them differently.

Few people intentionally change the scope of a project. Design changes, however, are usually intentional and frequent. They are also usually small relative to the overall project design so their effect on scope and progress can go unnoticed.

Nonetheless, small design changes are additive. Accumulate enough of them and it becomes apparent that scope has been affected. Few people recognize what has happened until it’s too late. A successive string of “little UI tweaks,” a “simple” addition to handle another file format that turned out to be not-so-simple to implement, a feature request slipped in by a senior executive to please a super important client – changes like this incrementally and adversely impact the delivery team’s performance.

Scope changes primarily impact the amount of Work to Do (Figure 1). Of course, Scope changes impact other parts of the system, too. The extent depends on the size of the Scope change and how management responds to the change in Scope. Do they push out the Deadline? Do they Hire Talent?

Figure 1 (click to enlarge)

The effect of Design Changes on the system are more immediate and significant. Progress slows down while the system works to understand and respond to the Design Changes. As with Scope, the effect will depend on the extent of the Design Changes introduced into the system. The amount of Work to Do will increase. The development team will need to switch focus to study the changes (Task Switching. ) If other teams are dependent on completion of prior work or are waiting for the new changes, Overlap and Concurrence will increase. To incorporate the changes mid-project, there will likely be Technical Debt incurred in order to keep the project on schedule. And if the design impacts work already completed or in progress, there will be an increase in the amount of Rework to Do for the areas impacted by the Design Changes.

Perhaps the most important secondary consequence of uncontrolled design changes is the effect on morale. Development teams love a good challenge and solving problems. But this only has a positive effect on morale if the goal posts don’t change much. If the end is perpetually just over the next hill, morale begins to suffer. This hit to morale usually happens much quicker than most managers realize.

It is better to push off non-critical design changes to a future release. This very act often serves as a clear demonstration to development teams that management is actively working to control scope and can have a positive effect on the team’s morale, even if they are under a heavy workload.

 

Responsibility and Improvement

Feral chickens on the Hawaiian Island of Kaua’i are ubiquitous. And they can be aggressive, particularly when they are roaming around common outdoor eating areas.

While the vast majority of visitors to the island honor the signs that say “Don’t Feed the Chickens,” all it takes is a couple of noob’s to put the operant conditioning in motion and keep it going with each new planeload of first-time and unaware visitors.

I watched the consequences of this play out during a recent trip to the island. I was enjoying a cup of coffee and a blueberry scone at The Spot in Princeville. (Side Bar: GO HERE! The food and coffee is FANTASTIC!) A young couple, obviously new to the island, collected their breakfast order at the service window, selected a table, and then went back to the service window to get utensils, napkins, and whatever else. Left unattended for less than 5 seconds, the chickens were on the table and a sizeable rooster had made off with a croissant.

I can only describe the woman’s response as upset and indignant. She promptly returned to the service window and asked – expectantly – for a replacement. To which The Spot employee directed her attention to the sign above the service windows that said, “DO NOT LEAVE FOOD UNATTENDED. Chickens are aggressive and will attack your food if not guarded. WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CHICKENS AND CANNOT REPLACE DAMAGED FOOD FOR YOU.”

There are two (at least) lessons to be learned from this. One by the patron and one by the owner of The Spot.

First, the patron. Five bucks (or whatever a croissant costs on Kaui’i) is a very cheap price to pay for a valuable lesson about not just the chickens on Kaua’i, but the very fact that the Rules of Life from wherever your point of origin was have changed. I’ve camped on this island many time over the years and if you are not mindful of the dangers and keep the fact you are not in Kansas any more foremost in your mind, it’s easy to get into trouble. It’s a stunningly beautiful part of the planet with many hidden dangers. Slip and fall on a muddy trail, for example, can be deadly. Lack of awareness of the rip tides and undertows at the beaches can be equally deadly.

So stay alert. Be aware. Read every sign you see. Study what the locals do. Ask questions. And do a little research before traveling to Hawai’i.

For the owner of the Spot, I have this suggestion: The chicken warning sign is written in black marker on brown paper. It’s also placed high in the service window where patrons collect their order. If there is a line out the door, it typically bends away from the service window. Patrons don’t come to the service windows until their name is called. When they do, their natural line of sight is down, looking at the super scrumptious food. It is certain their attention will be drawn away from the warning sign about the chickens (#1 in the picture below) as they focus on gathering their food (#2 in the picture below.)

Fine to keep the sign in the service window, but lower it so there’s a better chance the patrons will see it. Also, put it on white paper. Even better, put a duplicate sign on the inside of the shop viewable from where customers are paying for their food. While they are standing in line waiting to place their order and reading the menu on the wall for the 12th time they are more likely to read the chicken warning sign. Maybe include a cartoon image of a rooster running off with a croissant.

This won’t “fix” the problems the unaware types bring with them onto the island, but I suspect it will cut down on the number of self-entitled noob’s demanding compensation for their lack of awareness. I’d like for The Spot to do everything they can to succeed, which means controlling costs and satisfying customers. I’d also like for the noob’s to gain some self-awareness and take that back home with them.

Win-win.

(I dropped a note to the owners of The Spot with these suggestions. They replied that they liked them and plan to implement these simple changes. If you’re in the area, send me a note, maybe with a picture, as to whether or not the sign has changed. If so, ask if the changes made any difference! Always good to know the results of any experiment.)