The Easy Answer

The easy answer, the acceptable answer, the answer everyone knows and agrees upon—is wrong.

It’s almost always wrong.  It’s almost guaranteed to be wrong.  Because if the answer to the problem is so well known, so easily grasped, why does it still persist?  Most intractable problems, the ones that we blame on politics or differences of opinion, are problems only because most of us are so sure of the answer.  

This particularly hit home a few years ago, when I was sitting in a lecture-style conference room listening to a presentation on technology and money.  The speaker was a high-ranking government official who was speaking with some passion about the issue of fraud—$60 billion of it.

At least, we had been told it was fraud.  Like everyone else in that room, I had heard politicians on both sides of the aisle beat the drum decrying the $60 billion of Medicare funds that—every single year, without fail—seem to be tossed away without much care: given to those bent on defrauding the government, or mailed out in checks to people who had already died, or were already sitting behind bars.

The easy answer to the problem was technology.  If we just shared our information better, between hospitals and prisons, between Medicare and law enforcement—if we digitized our records and used big data analytics, we could stop fraud in its tracks.  We could return that $60 billion to those who needed it most.  It was as simple as flipping a switch.  Except, if it was that simple, why hadn’t it been done already?  $60 billion mailed out to dead people?  I don’t think enough people in the U.S. die every year to even scratch the surface of that number.  The speaker I was listening to was skeptical, too—so he set out to investigate.  

It turned out that dead people, prison, and fraud were just a small portion of that $60 billion.  So what was it?  How were there $60 billion in improper payments?  To help us understand, he walked us through a typical scenario:  

Imagine a man is at home, taking some boxes off a shelf when he falls to the floor in pain.  His family rush him to the hospital.  Everyone suspects it’s a heart attack, but the doctor’s not so sure.  He runs a number of tests, but the tests aren’t conclusive.  The doctor and family make a determination on the spot: the man will stay overnight, just to make sure that everything’s okay.  The stay is billed to Medicare and the man recovers.      

Now, flash forward a week.  An examiner at the Medicare office is reviewing the payment from an objective standpoint.  It turns out that the symptoms and circumstances didn’t quite warrant an overnight stay according to Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations.  The doctor’s choice was in error, and so the examiner adds the payment to the stack of other improper payments—$60 billion tall.  

Well.  That’s not an error you can fix with faster computers.  It’s a subjective judgement from a doctor.  To fix it, you might have to actually step in between doctor and patient before they decide on the overnight stay.  It wouldn’t be the first time, because that’s exactly what many private insurance companies do.  They pre-certify, sending the auditor in before the decision is made.  While the family is gathered in the waiting room, behind the scenes, someone is validating whether a procedure or hospital stay is necessary.  The result: private insurance companies have far fewer errors and improper payments.  

This was all news to me, but the speaker didn’t leave it there.  Going the way of the insurance companies might not solve the issue, either—that was the easy answer.  Instead, the speaker called for a kind of analytics that could lead us in the right direction, one that linked policy changes to error reduction.  It was strikingly simple: just assemble a list of policy proposals to deal with the situation, and then determine how each idea might drive down the error rate.  This model would present options for policymakers, a kind of equation for them to balance.  For example, if you could drive down costs five percent, would it be worth delaying medical coverage?  Was it worth complicating logistics?  Was it worth adding paperwork to save $3 billion?  “What’s the right equilibrium in terms of pain points we’re willing to live with and the error rate we’re willing to live with as a trade-off?”  He asked.  “That’s the kind of analytics that we need to elevate the debate.”  

Debates in Washington could use a little elevating.  Not because everyone seems to be talking past each other, but because everyone seems to agree on their own version of the same easy answer.  And easy answers are rarely the right ones.  Yesterday, we awoke to the news that President Obama had fired the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.  Pundits across the spectrum praised the decision, since firing someone is an easy answer to any crisis.  But no crisis is so easy to overcome.  Nobody knows that better than Danny Werfel, the speaker I heard discuss Medicare’s $60 billion problem back in 2011.  He understood the problem with easy answers back then and he probably understands the problem now.  Which is why it was so fine to see the newspaper headlines this morning announcing Danny Werfel as the new Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.  Let the solving begin.

 

The Future of Political Reporting

This past weekend, President Obama joked about his own communications team replacing the White House press corps.  He wasn’t far from the truth...

"President Barack Obama is a master at limiting, shaping and manipulating media coverage of himself and his White House...One authentically new technique pioneered by the Obama White House is extensive government creation of content (photos of the president, videos of White House officials, blog posts written by Obama aides), which can then be instantly released to the masses through social media..." - Jim VandeHei & Mike Allen, POLITICO 
"Recently, though, I found a new favorite source for political news -- these guys are great. I think everybody here should check it out, they tell it like it is. It's called whitehouse.gov. (Laughter.) I cannot get enough of it." -Barack Obama, White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner

Why is there a White House press corps?  The last time the New York Times was granted an interview with Obama was in 2010.  But it’s not just the New York Times.  The president hasn’t sat down with reporters from The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, or POLITICO in years.  If people can get their White House news from WhiteHouse.gov, what’s the point of having political reporters at all?  

The common answer is that political reporters are there to ask hard questions of people in power.  To speak truth to power.  But asking hard questions doesn’t get you very far if you don’t get any answers.  Speaking truth to power is difficult to do when you’re not even granted an interview.  Politicians have always been afraid of being asked difficult questions.  That fear, however, was always counterbalanced by the politician’s need to reach an audience, first through newspaper, then radio and finally TV.  With each technological leap, the media seemed to grow in power.  

On television, skipping over or dodging a difficult question could become the headline of the day, no matter how well the other questions were answered.  Reporters had their own reputations and personalities, and were often more adept on camera.  They had large audiences and were trusted and respected.  Increasingly, their reputation wasn’t merely built on having a politician as a guest, but on having the gall to go after that politician, to attack with the most difficult questions they could find.  To trap the politician in a mis-statement or half-truth, to prove their own mettle as independent lions of the press, that proud and defiant fourth branch of government.  

The internet and social media has finally swung the pendulum in the other direction.  Politicians can now reach citizens directly—there’s no need of a mediator of any kind.  No need to sit down and submit to the scrutiny of the camera or the intense interrogation of the press.  With one tweet or Pinterest post, one well-crafted blog or video, a politician can say exactly what needs to be said and nothing more.  So who needs the reporters?  

Even today, it’s all too easy for reporters to be painted as mere mediators—copyists who copy down the events of the day and deliver headlines to citizens.  Like the U.S. Postal Service, they were carriers of information.  And, just as email and Facebook means that we don’t need our mailmen as much anymore, the White House might assume that we don’t need our political press anymore.

For a lot of functions, we don’t need press at all.  With technology, we can have more direct access to the information in our world.  An app that tracks flight information will provide better minute-by-minute data than a lone reporter stationed at the airport.  A direct feed into Google Maps will provide live traffic data for the exact route ahead of us better than any traffic reporter could.  So shouldn’t we assume that with government releasing direct information to citizens, there’s no need for the political reporter?  After all, when I can see a map of how the stimulus dollars are being spent in my neighborhood, why should I wait for a reporter to highlight two or three projects taking place halfway across the country?  

These are all good questions, and some of them may be answered better by WhiteHouse.gov or Google than the New York Times—but political reporters are unique from other reporters.  Because government isn’t just some random event or arcane data point that needs reporting-on, like a hurricane or a volcano erupting—even though it can sometimes feel that way.  No, government—at least our democratic government—is a dialogue.  It’s an active conversation between we the people and our elected representatives.  How do we communicate our interests to public officials?  How do we know if they’re representing those interests?  How do we keep them focused on what matters?  The answer is: the press.  

The press is not just there to relay information from the government, it’s there to represent the interests of the people to the government, to serve as our proxies, our watchdogs—to stand face to face with power and ask: “WTF?  Please explain.”  It's easy to forget that the press represents we the people just as much as those we elect.  

Does the White House think that it can have this direct conversation with the public on Twitter?  That those on Facebook will serve that vital role in the dialogue?  Maybe the White House genuinely believes this, and that's why Obama has answered questions on Reddit and through Google+.  Maybe in some utopian world this works, but I'm not sure it does in this one.  And the reason why is the same reason that we elect representatives in the first place: because we’re busy.  

A true democracy wouldn't work because we’re busy.  There are just too many issues to understand and vote on; that’s why we’re not just a democracy, we’re a republic.  We elect representatives to mind these issues for us, to understand their complications and make choices based on our best interest.  

For this very same reason, a true dialogue between government and citizens won't work, especially in a government—and a world—as complicated as ours.  There are simply too many issues and moving pieces to follow; that's why we need a true and substantive press.  That’s the “job to be done” that we hire our press for—a whole staff dedicated to getting to the bottom of government, to keeping their eye on it 24/7.  We trust our reporters to understand the process, to find the relevant information, to frame the right questions, and to demand true answers—not sound-bites or polished photos.  Not 1,200 page PDF documents, but 1,200 word summaries that get to the heart of the issue.  That's what a real 4th branch is all about.

But today, we're in a transition period.  That old idea and purpose of media—acting as a medium—has fallen away; it's no longer relevant.  The press is understandably uneasy with this truth.  But rather than try to fight the march of time, the political press should embrace it.  They should recognize that their true purpose was never to relay information, but to serve the interests of readers and citizens by asking the right questions and understanding the complicated workings of our government.  

Embracing this means discarding a lot of what they think their job is: forget about printing photos of skeet-shooting and golf outings, or asking questions about the First Lady's dress or taking the opportunity for a photo-opp.  Let the President's handlers handle those questions, let them feature the photos of Pete Souza on WH.gov.  We'll see that stuff anyway, whether it's on CNN or Twitter.  Forget that mess, and instead, dig into the meaty issues and serve us by getting the story at all costs.  If the press did this, if it suddenly declined trips to golf outings and instead stayed behind in DC, to coordinate coverage and corroborate hand-fed information, they would go a long way in demonstrating that though the world has changed—their importance hasn't.

It won't be easy; the press will have to adjust its tactics.  Hard-hitting questions don't work if you can't get the interview in the first place.  Reporters may have to tone down their adversarial mindset, recognizing that the power of broadcast as a medium is waning.  Instead, they must lure politicians with only one thing: a sincere interest in understanding the situation and engaging in a meaningful dialogue.  Reporters and politicians are in fact two sides of the same coin—they are both representatives of we the people, so rather than competing for our affections, how about collaborating in our interest?  

Politicians must feel comfortable enough to speak freely without fear that their honest answers are taken out of context and played as gaffes.  There's a reason why they are weary of speaking freely.  In this new world, the press will need to cap its manic glee at every flub, or it risks securing a scripted, access-free future for us all.  At the same time, politicians will need to recognize that any true and substantive exchange with citizens—any actual trust—must be won by an open dialogue, not an orchestrated communications campaign.

The first step, though, is to recognize the reality.  This is an existential crisis for the political press.  Obama's team isn't to blame for these developments; they may have accelerated the arrival of this new paradigm, but it was bound to happen at some point.  In the end, this could be a healthy opportunity to refocus political reporting on substance, or it could be the first stirrings of a superficial, more cloistered political era.

No matter what happens, the occupants of this White House—and the one after it, and the one after that—are going to keep using whatever tools they have to reach citizens directly.  That's a given.  But what isn't a given is how the press reacts.  The future is in their hands.  It's up to them whether they want to hold fast to an outworn access strategy that is no longer relevant, or whether they are prepared to change the way they view their role and to truly embrace their responsibility to the citizens they serve. 

I'm hopeful someone will get it right.

 

The Responsibility to be Bold

What can we learn about decision-making from the Supreme Court?

Discovery is expensive.  To gather a team and procure a boat and set sail across the seas.  To hack through the jungles of the Amazon, swatting flies and taking samples of plant leaves.  To return and synthesize the enzymes of those leaves, testing them against a host of maladies and hoping—just hoping—that one out of a hundred, one out of a thousand, even—is effective at treating a disease.  It’s an expensive and time-consuming proposition, so it makes sense that once you actually do discover something—a plant that treats breast cancer, for example—you’d want to protect your right to turn all of that work into some measure of success and profit.  Surely you can patent the drug, maybe even the method of treatment and delivery, but can you patent the plant leaf itself?  

That’s the question justices at the Supreme Court have been mulling over this month in a trial on gene patents that’s expected to define the future of the medical industry.  Are genes “a product of nature” or a “human-made invention”?  According to current law, companies can and do patent genes, meaning that any researcher who wants to explore this aspect of the human condition must first pay a price to the discoverer of that gene.  This makes basic research expensive for general scientists, retarding other discoveries—but as one Justice asked: “Why would a company incur massive investment if it cannot patent?”  

It’s a complex issue, with broad-reaching effects on the future of science, medicine, business, and basic health—just the kind of issue that the Supreme Court was designed to decide.  The problem, though, is that it doesn’t seem to want to decide.  The New York Times headline says it all: “Justices Seem Wary of Bold Action in Gene Patent Case.”  As a result, the court could very well make a narrow ruling, one that applies to this specific case, rather than to the industry as a whole.  It’s not an uncommon tactic for the court to take.  Just a few weeks ago, similar headlines swirled around the court’s gay marriage cases, with some observers noting that the court looked like it might lean towards a narrow ruling that applied only to California.  What can we make of this wariness for bold decisions?  

If they have this unprecedented power to affect change, to shape the future, to actually be heard in the debate—why would they shudder from boldness?  After all, isn’t boldness not only the special privilege, but the special responsibility of the court?  To get to the answer, it’s worth looking at how the court comes to its decisions:  

Courts represent some of the oldest decision-making bodies in society, and the way that they operate is very distinctive: researching issues, gathering multiple perspectives, listening to competing arguments, debating amongst themselves, and then finally voting and explaining their particular reasoning.  It’s a process of discovery—just like the scientific method; only instead of discovering scientific truths, it’s aimed at discovering legal truths, moral truths and ultimately, personal truths.  A process for discovering what they think about an issue.  In a recent interview, Justice O’Connor noted just how unique the court was as a government branch—not because of the wisdom of its decisions, but because of the honesty: every decision it makes has an explanation that says ‘here’s what we were thinking on this.”  The President isn’t required to explain the step-by-step reasoning of every decision, nor is Congress.  Nor, for that matter, are most executives, or journalists, or individuals.  

It makes you wonder what the world would look like if everyone did.  Show me your thirty page ruling on why you decided to go to college.  Or why you decided to buy a new car.  Or why you decided to go out on your bike this Saturday instead of meeting up with friends.  Show me your ruling on getting married.  So many decisions don’t lend themselves to 30 pages of meticulous reasoning, or 30 hours of reading briefing books and months of discussion and debate.  But that doesn’t mean that many decisions wouldn’t benefit from this level of scrutiny.  How much better might our choices be, and how much more comfortable would we be with them?  

It’s easy to scoff at the thought: who would want to look at life through such cold, calculating eyes, reducing matters of passion and preference—matters often of the heart—to this academic exercise?  Except a quick look at any courtroom will show that the process is anything but cold and passionless.  Though rulings strive for fairness, they are far from the ideal of objectivity we call for in “fair-and-balanced” reporting.  A judgement by its very nature is unbalanced, it’s a decision, a choice—and often a binary one: guilty or not guilty, plaintiff or defendant, right or wrong.  Just because you write down the factors that influenced your decision doesn’t mean those factors are cold and passionless—or even that they would make sense to someone else.  What matters is that they make sense to you.  

It’s not an easy process.  If you applied it to every decision, you might be frozen in indecision.  Burdened by the complications of competing arguments, you’d have trouble even getting out the door in the morning.  Last month, when Sandra Day O’Connor said that all of the justices have lunch together, Jon Stewart joked about what it must be like trying to get everyone to decide on take-out: Italian or Chinese food, pizza or egg rolls?  It’s clear that the court’s decision-making process isn’t designed for these kinds of everyday choices—instead, it’s built for the bold decisions, like gene patents and gay marriage.  But there’s an inherent problem here, too:  

The process is too good.  It’s so thorough, so adept at uncovering complications and competing interests and factors, that it brings to attention the fact that every issue is unique.  Every question is its own equation.  And few—if any—should be decided by broadly-defined, boldly-declared blanket principles.  This is the fundamental paradox of the Supreme Court.  Their job is to make bold decisions.  But their process for discovering issues is so good it calls into question the wisdom of bold decisions.  This sucks for the court, but it’s a useful revelation for the rest of us.  

It suggests that every decision has so many complicating factors that we should—at the least—list them out, understand where they came from, engage competing perspectives and try to build a working model for how they interact.  It also suggests that broad principles like: “I never like to wake up early on Sundays” or “I’m never going to purchase a foreign car” or “I will always vote Democrat” probably won’t serve every occasion well.  In fact, they may actually blind us to more meaningful choices.  

Broad principles are useful in organizing our values, but we shouldn’t confuse them with the values themselves: they’re really just shortcuts that take the place of actual thinking.  Oh, which color car do I want?  Well, red is my favorite color so I’ll buy a red car on principle.  Should we get married?  Well, I always liked blondes, so yes, let’s tie the knot.  Should I go out on the boat today?  Well, I enjoy thunderstorms, so why not?  Broad principles poorly applied have led to plenty of poor choices, from used cars to divorces to Coast Guard rescues—and the more broad principles you have, the more likely you are to apply them in the making of poor choices.  But having too few broad principles isn’t good either.  It can paralyze you, leading you down a road of endless research and discovery, unable to take decisive action.  

So what’s the proper balance?  Something in between the Court’s 30 page decisions and our 30 second ones—between carefully considering every choice and following the familiar path of precedence.  After all, discovery is expensive and time-consuming, whether you’re hacking through the jungles of the Amazon or Amazon.com.  How, then, should the court rule?  Like the rest of us, it has to be bold and considered...but not all the time.  Yes or no, plaintiff or defendant, guilty or not guilty—these decisions are secondary.  Ultimately, the most important question is: is this one of those times?

 

Game Change

As we approach the new year, one topic of innovation seems particularly relevant: personal innovation. We know what business innovation is, and technological innovation, and innovation in the sciences—but what’s personal innovation?  

A few months ago, I awoke extra early one morning and jumped in the car.  I flicked on the headlights, turned up the heat and squinted at the controls.  It was an unusual morning.  The sky was still dark and the air was crisp.  And most of the cars in the parking lot were still dormant, cold dew in the grass.  It was a perilous morning: I was driving into the heart of D.C. and I didn’t know the top news of the day.  I might as well have been driving with a mask over my eyes.  

I’m a resident of the Washington, D.C. area and Mike Allen’s POLITICO Playbook, his morning email compendium of the top news, is a daily ritual, but this morning I was out the door before the email was distributed.  I tried to manage the streets as best I could, and reminded myself why I was doing this: because the day before, Mike Allen had invited his readers to an event being hosted by POLITICO and featuring a panel discussion on the new HBO film “Game Change.”  Like most events in D.C., it started early—around 7:00 a.m., catering to those who had to be back at the office by 9.  

I arrived just as the first colors began to fade up, turning blacks to greys and greys to white.  I parked the car and crossed the street, siphoning through the cool catacombs of the empty Newseum on Pennsylvania Avenue and taking my seat in the cozy theater just a few rows back from the front.  After a few minutes, as more and more people filled the room, I caught glimpses of the famous writers and director and political stars who had produced the film.  Everyone was in dark black and greys, with dark shadows under grey eyes, grasping coffee and wiping their noses from the cold.  And then I noticed a bright face in that crowd, moving quickly from group to group. 

He was middling in height and unassuming in character, but before I had time to orient myself he had come to my seat with a smile, arm extended: "Hi, I'm Mike Allen.  Thank you for coming."  And he shook my hand.  Then he moved on to the next person.  And the next, and the next.  He continued on, climbing the steps and moving up and down the rows.  Shaking every person's hand and thanking them—personally—for joining in the event.  And it was a fun event: eye-opening, as the film too was eye opening—but the most memorable part of that morning wasn’t the film or the darkened drive, it was the privilege to share in the energy and the enthusiasm of Mike Allen.  You wonder how someone gets ahead in the world?  Is it a great idea or brilliant execution?  Shake their hand and you'll see that their eyes are sincere. 

Too often, we celebrate those who innovate in terms of process and in terms of product, but seldom do we celebrate those who innovate in terms of personal excellence.  We may laud and appreciate such people, but we don't give them enough credit for the hard work they do to produce something unique: integrity and respect.  In journalism, integrity is often talked about, but seldom quantified.  Instead, we measure journalism in the number of readers, or the number of links, or the number of exclusives or even the number of words.  We like to measure it in the kinds of interviews a reporter can snag, and the clever headlines they can write.  Integrity and respect, though, is what we are really looking for.  Someone who respects our point of view and our intelligence, as well as the point of view and intelligence of those being written about.  We are looking for a writer who—above all—respects themselves and their own responsibilities.  Mike Allen meets all of these criteria, and that, above everything else, is what makes Playbook so successful.  And so rare.  

In the areas of business we have best practices, and we champion ideas like continuous innovation.  We talk about how the best companies have a commitment to trying to create better products—and yet rarely do we apply this same thinking to our own lives and our own conduct.  Rarely do we apply it to our personal character.  Instead, we excuse our own conduct.  We are what we are, we say—this is our personality, this is how we act, and other people can just deal with it.  We accept ourselves as a static commodity.  But no business, no idea is static; the world is changing faster than ever.  How, though, can we assume that our good ideas will change the world if we ourselves don't believe in our own power to change and improve?  

Business best practices are about setting performance goals and trying to meet them. About reviewing what worked and what didn't, about continuous improvement.  Being better.  And yet, when it comes to personal decisions, we scoff at the notion.  Who decides what’s better, we ask defensively.  Well, it's quite simple: just as Apple built a phone that they wanted to use, just as F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote the book that he wanted to read, so should we become the person that we ourselves would want to know, that we would want to talk to and work with and be around. 

Just as in business innovation, these ideas are simple; the hard part is execution.  You have to be committed to it.  You have to be committed to being great.  In personal matters, though, this presents some challenges.  To declare yourself great opens you up to a great deal of criticism.  You’ll be accused of being arrogant and self-aggrandizing.  And you’ll doubt yourself: are you really so much better than everyone else?  Are you really so great?  

No.  But you’re committed to greatness.  That means always asking what it means to be a great friend, a great son, a great employee, a great boyfriend or girlfriend, a great husband or wife, a great father or mother.  In today's world it is easier than ever to stand out from the crowd just by showing a little bit of respect: If the phone rings while you're talking to someone, don't answer it.  If a text arrives while you’re writing an email, don’t read it.  Give people the attention that you deserve or want.  Create the environment you wish you worked in.  Take out the trash even when the last person failed to do so; let the car into your lane even though you yourself were just cut off; hold the door open for someone, even if they’re a few steps behind.  Do the hard thing, the great thing, and do not be angry.  

But you might wonder: why do I have to be the person who works harder, why do I have to be the person who shuts off all of the lights at the end of the day, and why can't I complain or just take it easy like everyone else?  But ask yourself, do great companies take it easy like everyone else?  Do great people take it easy like everyone else?  No, they're the ones who refuse the easy path.   To achieve higher goals, you need to have higher standards and higher expectations.  Why do you have to act different?  Because you're not like everyone else.  You are different.  You're great.  

Steve Jobs liked to quote Picasso: Great artists steal.  And he was right.  Great companies are wise about stealing the best from their peers.  Jobs stole the simplicity of the Cuisinart food processor in designing the original Mac.  Sam Walton stole the everyday low price from J.C. Penney.  The founders stole the ideals of the old world in drafting the U.S. Constitution.  And so you should recognize the best examples you know, and extend, modify and repurpose them as your own.  Some people are good at staying in touch; observe how they do it.  Some people are good at comforting friends; see how they achieve it.  Some are good at listening, others at telling great stories; some are good at balancing schedules or teaching their kids to show respect or teaching their dog to stay out of the kitchen.  Learn from the best you know and adopt it.  Adapt it.  And at the same time, learn from the worst.  Rather than grow angry at friends or strangers, as an investor might grow angry at a misguided company, try to figure out what went wrong and learn from their mistakes.  It’s easy, and yet so rarely approached with the seriousness and dedication we devote to the same exact practices and principles in our professional lives.  

Great companies have great energy. Do not be tired.  Do not complain.  Do not make excuses for yourself because it's late at night or you skipped lunch or you didn't get enough sleep or you have too much to do or you need to teach some other person a lesson.  I promise you, the only thing you can teach another person by being inconsiderate is how inconsiderate you are.  Instead, go out of your way for others in the same way a great company goes out of its way for its customers.  Oh, you dropped your $400 iPod Touch and shattered the screen?  We understand; here’s a replacement.  No charge.  Oh, we miscalculated the MPG rating on your new car?  Here’s a credit card to make up the difference in your fuel bill forever into the future.  Plus 15% for your trouble.  Going out of your way will lead to new places, new opportunity and adventure.  

Be generous with your time and attention and ideas.  How many hands did President Obama have to shake to become President?  How many jaded tech journalists did Steve Jobs have to charm?  Everyone, no matter who they are, is worth your time and attention and can teach you something about the world and what it means to be better.  And when you do have a conversation, have a real one.  Always try to understand what matters most to other people—because we are more connected in our passionate interests than our shared experience.  In these moments, always look for the new.  Remember that there is no new value in repeating your own thoughts, because you already know your own thoughts.  That's a waste of time and time is valuable. Instead, try to understand others and what they have done and think.  If they are a musician, try to see music as they see it.  If an architect, try to see buildings as they see them.  If an entymologist, try to see bugs as they see them.  Don’t talk about yourself; listen as a good company listens to it's customers and understands the rhythm of their lives. 

Once, on a bus ride from one of the NASA launchpads at Cape Canaveral, my uncle found himself sitting next to another scientist.  My uncle was in charge of exploration at NASA at the time, and they began to talk excitedly about the future of space, digging into the details of rocket propulsion and the science and economics of spaceflight.  It was a long bus-ride and a great conversation.  When they finally arrived back at base, my uncle apologized, because he hadn’t introduced himself.  “Hi, I’m Craig,” my uncle said.  “Jim Cameron,” the scientist answered.  For an hour they had talked about something that mattered to each of them, and it never came up that Jim Cameron was the writer and director of Titanic and Terminator.  Because it didn’t matter to the discussion.  Because each of them, instead, was interested in learning something new.  

This means eliminating blind spots.  The corner store was blind to the Sears Roebuck catalog.  Horse hands were blind to Henry Ford’s car.  The telecom industry was blind to the iPhone.  We all have blind spots, areas of our understanding that aren’t filled in yet.  Blank spaces on the map, even in the places we think we know the best.  Have you ever seen the roof of your office building?  Have you ever walked your usual path in the opposite direction?  Have you ever seen what the other offices on the other floors of your building look like?  Or the store room at the back of your local Starbucks?  Or the ladies room if you're a guy, the men's room if you're a girl?  Have you ever looked up at the trees when riding your bike, or looked down at the ants outside your window and watched for twenty minutes to see where they were going, or where they had started?  In this world of information we expect knowledge to arrive by digital means—but so much of the world and of our lives isn't digital.  Some of our biggest blind spots are in this non-digital world. Don't miss it.  

And so in this new year, 2013, go out and discover.  You don't have to be a scientist or a journalist or a blogger to ask questions.  And you don't have to be a company to be committed to excellence. Don't be content to circumscribe yourself to what's already been written. Don't leave it to others to find out for you, to ask or to answer.  And don't doubt yourself. This may not be your conversation, or topic of expertise, or even your business, but it is your life. And being great is about more than being kind or being good—it's about being active.  What have you done?  What are you going to do today?  Do something new.  Be better.