Cyber vs Robot: Commentary on Wilson’s Robocolypse

Daniel H. Wilson’s Robopocolypse and Robogenesis, inspired by today’s world of robotics, are on the bestseller list and rightly so. In Makr’s Shadow may be a third such novel worth more than a look.

I’m glad to see a fellow writer who has a similar interest. He is a roboticist, while I am a psychologist.

Our aim is as similar as our approach. We both use an apocalyptic vision to show society at its worst and at its best.  To some literary publishing houses, the subject of robots is passe. Naturally, I disagree. I think it is a subject which time is now. I wrote an article on that recently.

Wilson and I have a similar vision in that our own creations “robots” or, in my case, “cyberts” could be the death of us; however, that said, these human generated or conceived creatures are something special and we can learn from our experience with them.

In Makr’s Shadow is the story of humans relying on technology to make problem-solving decisions that could result in our planet’s annihilation. I say that smiling, knowing full well, Wilson is the more established writer and has the creds to sell his books easier than I can sell mine. I heard his interview on National Public Radio, and I’d love to meet and chat with him. In my defense, In Makr’s Shadow is my debut novel and it needs some attention.

Why Cyber or cyberts and not robots? Semantics. I don’t think so.

Cyberts as I have described them in In Makr’s Shadow are sentient by connection to cyberserver; pure robots exist for mundane taskings–including street cleaning. Cyberts exist in such numbers as to be considered another race, the Cyber, more powerful in every way than their Bio counterparts.

The difference is significant. The cyberts are task- specific mobile extensions of the server, an evolving artificial intelligence called Makr. Robots are tools to aid Bios and perform perfunctory maintenance tasks, nothing more.

In spite of their inferior status, they are still connected and can bring superior “robots” with a connection or cyberts. Some cyberts perform tasks that require intellectual or combat and weapon skills to protect Makr, while others simply maintain the infrastructure of the planet.

In Makr’s Shadow, humanity had reached the end of its patience in trying to save their world from self-destruction–the problems, an “apocalypse” that they themselves caused. World leaders ultimately turned the operation of the planet to the combined intelligence of all the computers in the world, forming an evolving artificial intelligence, Makr.

There’s only one problem. Makr won’t give it back, and tries to create a whole new world populated by Cyber. To do that, he must annihilate the human race.

In Wilson’s Robogenesis, the remnants of society are picking up the pieces, while In Makr’s Shadow, most of society, 90 percent are imprisoned by illusion. Of the remaining ten percent that are not held prisoner, only one percent is actually fighting the cyberts. Interestingly enough, the survival of the human race at stake. Here, though, one man, who has the ability to see through illusions, manages to escape his imprisonment; he is different in a way that changes the world forever. It can never be the same.

“In Makr’s Shadow reads like an Isaac Asimov and Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. novel combining, action, suspense and fun. Thought-provoking. Exciting. Shaw’s characters are dynamic and real. They are as flawed as all of humanity with fears, anger, regret and arrogance, yet heroes emerge from the strangest places. All that seems lost, is not lost.”

Goodreads has good things to say as well.

The biggest difference between Wilson and my novel is probably price and availability.

In Makr’s Shadow is available wherever e-books are sold for $2.99. I’m offering it for free to anyone who is willing to open a dialogue with me or write a review. We’ve all tried to read some horrible e-books, but I don’t believe this is one of those. I believe in this novel’s surprising message and I’m sure you’ll find it entertaining along with way.

At the risk of losing sales of In Makr’s Shadow, I can’t help but recommend Danial H. Wilson’s robotic fiction; they sound as terrific as my own. He said, smiling. By the way, if you are interested in Wilson’s books, here is a sample from this cool site, Science Friday.

I have posted my samples In Makr’s Shadow (previously published as Harry’s Reality) on this website and will continue to do so. I am also working on a new novel called The Jaguar, so you may find clips for that as well.

Styles and approaches vary with every novelist. I hope you like mine. If you decide to take me up on my free offer, leave me a comment. Thanks.

Acting for Non-Actors

Is acting a valuable skill to non-actors? I think so, and to prove it just look at my website. Look to those who have the training, education and experience in theatre and do something else for a living. Is a salesman a better salesman who knows how to work an audience? A manager who can read his workers? A leader who exudes charisma and his or her people will follow gladly. Yes, there is value in teaching non-actors acting.

Professionals like attorneys and doctors need help with communicating. A writer may know how to write, but to sell his or her books, needs to know how to present a message in a dynamic way. This is what theatre does best. Who would deny the courtroom is a theatre? A lawyer must present a deposition, a statement or argument to the jury, and communicate it in such a way as to have credibility. Celeste Walker, a fine actress, director and theatre professor teaches attorneys acting.

Actor, director, and educator Celeste Walker is a consummate professional who brings over 25 years of experience to all the facets of her multifarious career. Comfortable and adroit at working with both young acting students and seasoned professionals, she is adept at bringing all she has learned to the task of discovering exactly what the individual student most needs to learn, and teaching it, not as dry academic discourse, but as a living, dynamic practice.

This is, of course, just one example. There are actors (and those similarly gifted in other areas of theatre) who apply their craft by teaching non-actors about what is applicable.

I admire those who have been able to ply their craft in ways that make them happy. I am finally able to do that myself, but I still have a mortgage to pay so I keep my government job; I even burden my family and my health doing what I can to contribute and participate in my theatre passion. There are so many talented individuals and so few opportunities that those in theatre must employ themselves in other ways to feed families and live the American dream.

There is a need for those theatre skills we have. Because of the stark reality, I even fought being a professional actor or director for a number of reasons, mostly financial insecurity. What can an actor, director or writer do who does not “work” in theatre do? I have to stick to the fields I mentioned because those are my particular areas, but there are many other specialties in theatre that can applied in other ways. For brevity’s sake, I’ll stick to what I know and my own experiences.

If you look at my website, you can see where I have focused on teaching business executives, teachers, trainers and other professionals how to work with an audience, how to move on a stage, and how to make training come alive for an audience. My focus: know your audience, know your subject, and know yourself. While I may not be the one who coaches actors (because I didn’t learn from the prestigious schools or study the many approaches in detail), I have found a niche that suits my background and talents. I take advantage of my “day” jobs that have been in related areas of communication like public affairs, public speaking, outreach, teaching, training, and customer service all of which I can pull from my acting repertoire of information and experiences and apply them. Can I “perform?” I can. Can I teach or train? Why not?

I am hoping to make enough money with my approach, and be happier than I’ve been in years because I can finally make the connections work together. My day job becomes my passion, albeit a bit modified, but life isn’t perfect. Who knows? Change and opportunity may be around the corner. In fact, I know it, but it’s not in stone so I don’t want to give it away.

I’m sure I covered this topic before in some way, but there is always that question looming from actors who are unsure of their commitment, and others who see the value in the acting lessons to be learned to take on life’s other jobs and pleasures. I am all of the above as I know many of my friends are. We love the theatre or we wouldn’t do it for free sometimes. Oh, we like it when we get paid for it, and it’s necessary when the “real” day job goes away.

The reality is that of the many talented people a few actually make a great living at acting. It is a job that depends on location, location, location, and opportunity as well as talent.  Being in the right place at the right time, being willing to do what it takes to have an opportunity, i.e., wait on tables, do any menial job you can quit at any time to take a part, or do something related that satisfies the urge. I found myself the master of avoiding the scarier aspects of not having security. Maybe it comes from an insecure childhood, not having a stable environment to fall back on, not having parents who could bail me out of economic disaster.

I couldn’t believe it even when I was “discovered” doing community theatre and offered a real job in professional theatre; I took the job, but gave it up in favor a more secure related job in radio. Later, I continued acting professionally in commercials and in plays when I could. For security’s sake, I still applied my communication skills in radio and in television–until I discovered those safer opportunities at my level didn’t pay well either–and finally the military and the federal government.

Today, I write, act and direct. Sometimes I get paid for it. This is one passion. My other passion is teaching others how good communication in the hands of anyone is a powerful tool. For this, I will be paid the most because it is business. This is pragmatic. Art, it seems, comes cheap–unless your name and the right connections can make it big business; that is the reality.

There are aspects of acting that are talked about in many other fields. An actor can sometimes make it more interesting by giving it a different perspective. It is my goal to prove that. This column, Acting Smarts, is one way of expressing my passion. I have another blog that talks about Training and Development. Please check it out. My hook: I am an actor, who has experience in the trenches of training and management, and I have acting insights in how to make your “Mission Impossible, An Affair to Remember.”

Catching Up with Some Personal Notes

An old headshot of mine, California-style from the eighties.

Before anyone gets any ideas, I have to tell you I like most music done well. I even like some Country, but wife, Amy, and son, Aidan, are the real fans. We all like Sugarland’s Jennifer Nettles. I still remember days going to classical concerts, even opera, and jazz clubs in days of old. I listen to 90.9 (National Public Radio), 92.5 (Country) and occasionally 98.1 (Oldies, but not too old), but mostly I listen to NPR. I was actually fascinated by a recent discussion and samples of Cajun music.

After being a DJ throughout college and listening all day long to top 40 whatever, you tend to drift to something else in your spare time. I went through an R&B stage, and knew enough about the music in telephone interview to be offered a job as a DJ at an all-Black radio station in Kansas City. The in-person interview was a hoot. The Station Manager couldn’t help laughing and called in his staff to meet Jack Shaw. Felt a little like Buddy Holly when he played at the Apollo, not knowing his audience. The Station Manager and I agreed I could definitely DJ, but personal appearances might be difficult–certainly unusual, but mutally decided it was a no-go. I probably could have made all kinds of discrimination complaints, but eveyone was so nice and respectful even though jaws dropped when I announced I was hoping to be the new afternoon DJ. (The interview was really more a meet-the-boss-before-you-start sort of thing.) I left smiling and I hope they were, too.

Here I am as “Candy” in a recent version OF MICE AND MEN in New Jersey.

As concerts go, I’m not the fan of raucus large crowds, which you tend to get at popular music concerts, although I do like to watch people.  I don’t get the rush some people get when their “star” walks on stage, or the “happy feet,” or feel like bumpin’ and swaying when the music starts. Guess I’m just not made that way. Probably would hurt my back, but I try to be respectful and at least I abandon my seat and stand there because it’s the only way to see what I paid to see. No offense to anyone that it thrills–just not my thing.

I like baseball, too, but I don’t like to go to the games like I used to–mostly because of all the people, the hassle of parking, and over-priced food.  Used to be a huge fan when I worked in radio and played the games on the weekends and was treated with free media passes for the Kansas City Royals, but today I find myself just too busy. But I do enjoy film and reading, more introverted stuff, I guess. I don’t hold it against you if sports is your thing; just don’t hold it against me that it’s not mine. Not now. I wrestled and ran track in High School, albeit not to stardom. I played some tennis in college for fun, not competition. I like the Olympics and seeing folks achieve personal bests. Maybe, that’s why following the big team sports aren’t my hobby. Maybe being a bit small made me only eligible for the sports I played, and disinterested in those in which I felt “discriminated” on the basis of size.

I still haven’t figured out if theatre audiences are mostly there in serious theatre to be intellectually stimulated or just be entertained. But there are always enigmas; I guess this is one for me.

I believe we should all go with our strengths, not dwell on our weakness in all things–including theatre. I’m officially a senior now, having lived more that half a century. I’ve worked to survive rather than love what I did for work, but now I want the passion to drive me. I find most things interesting for awhile. Theatre, public speaking, interpersonal communication, training and development, and psychology have hung in there, and are so incredibly linked to my life. I am faced with some incredibly hard decisions if I have to change what it is I do in my life because all things are important. I no longer am the Performance Examiner for the Wilmington Examiner; that decision came easy since I didn’t live there but was trying to localize stories, which is easy to do with peformance in general. Frankly, it was taking too much time I wanted to devote to family, and pursuing my efforts to embrace a new career in coaching business and nonprofit professionals in the art of public speaking as well as pursue my theatre blog and columnist role with STAGE Magazine.

On a slightly different note, I have started to make in-roads with potential gigs, partners, and even adjunct teaching. I still act occasionally and I hope to be moving back into directing shortly–one of my favorite projects in the offing.

If I Am An Actor, Why Am I Here?

“I y’am what I y’am, what I y’am.”

Now, I am an actor, a speaker, and a trainer–as well as a writer.  When I act, I act. When I speak, I speak. When I train, that’s different, too.   As I said earlier in my previous blog, acting is more than “being someone else” or “a scripted performance.”   Keep in mind that there is a huge difference between those actors on film and those on stage–so don’t give me the unprepared actors’ speeches at the Academy awards routine.

Here’s something to think about: I use acting coaching methods to help speakers and trainers to better know how to interact with their audience. Why?

While some people believe actors need a script to act, the best do not.  Just between us, there is a lot more to acting than some people think. Some actors can make it look so natural.  Actors do interact with their audience and they damn well better be aware how they are affecting them. Actors need to be sincere and real in their delivery as well; if they are not, believe me, they will get told by me as a performance critic that they are not doing their jobs.  So, it goes for anyone who is communicating with an audience.  Trainer and public speaker come to mind.

There were some great comments and, unfortunately, some not so well-informed ones made in response to the LinkedIn question on actors and speaker differences that prompted the blog above.  The very fact I come from an acting background and use “Acting Smarts” as the title of my company and blog may make some “business professionals” think I teach only acting. I teach communication. I don’t make a speaker become someone else to deliver a message; I help that person use who they are–the best of who they are–to present his or her message.  The ability to act only makes me more comfortable at connecting with my audience in a personal way.  We, actors, often reach deep inside and are willing to share those truths.  But the same can be said of many people and many professions, yes?  It just happens to work for me and entertain as well.

By the way, my background includes a masters in social psychology as well as an interdisciplinary dual masters in English and Speech/Drama with an emphasis in performance criticism.  As for practical application, I have 30 years in government and the military as a spokesperson, trainer and writer.  Actors are not only actors, speakers not only speakers, and trainers not only trainers, but a polygamous marriage and more; each are communicators in his or her own rights, and the best of us do whatever it takes and learn whatever we can to get the job done.

This makes me think of a great follow-up:  What makes a great trainer?  What is the difference between a public speaker and a trainer?  A speech or training session? Next time.  I invite your comments and questions.  And, if you are looking for someone to communicate to an audience any of these things, please let me know.

Trainer, Speaker or Actor? Why Not Acting in Business? In Training?

“Now, you’ve gone and done it,” I said to my LinkedIn colleagues of actors, trainers, speakers and assorted other related professionals. Someone had asked the question on my LinkedIn group:  In your opinion what is the difference between an actor and an speaker?  At first I was offended because many of the comments addressing the question showed a real lack of knowledge of what acting is all about, and for what communicating is about, for that matter. And, some of these people actually get paid to speak or train.

Acting, and any professional will tell you this, is not just about pretending to be someone else; it is not just a scripted performance, but an interactive experience with the audience–the same we hope for in training or public speaking. Sometimes I get the urge to do a show because for the moment I think just saying the words from a script would be easier.  Then, I remember how complicated good communication really is.  As trainers and professional communicators (that includes actors), we know better than to memorize scripts, except for a part of them. See my blog on memorizing.

It may seem like I’m going off topic, but I think the combination of acting and public speaking principles actually makes for a pretty good trainer. Actors are not only actors, and speakers not only speakers; I’d bet the best of both professions, are not singular in their thinking about what works and learn from all areas what gets the job done.  Granted, not all that an actor knows or should know to be a good actor is applicable in all circumstances; the same can be said of a good trainer or a good speaker.

I may have mixed up my education, but each of those parts help with the whole.  The English and theater departments appreciated that I could bring a psychological perspective to literature, drama, and performance.  The psychology department loved that I could communicate behavior.

And, to that, I say to all of you:   Bring all your knowledge and skills to bear on your performance–be it as a trainer or speaker or actor.  It’s all good.

Don’t Assume ANYTHING in Training Workshops

Do prepare your speakers with all the information you can about the conference, including theme, size and organizational expectations for the conference or meeting.  Don’t let speakers assume it’s business as usual.  Sometimes, those of us who speak or train need reminders that we shouldn’t assume too much either.

I recently had the pleasure of speaking at a conference, and I was the one who did the assuming.  I have no excuse.  It was a last minute affair and I admit the occasion was most important for me as a visibility opportunity.  As speaker who talks about communicating and a trainer, it seemed a no-brainer.  No insult intended for the organization.  I caught myself assuming way too much.  Normally, I present on subjects including presenting, on training, on getting an audience to listen, on the “how-tos” and “why-fors” of communication in general so I should have known better.

As anyone–trainer, seminar leader, facilitator should expect when invited to present at a workshop or conference, there are some basic logistical details to begin with and then more details, those about your audience, for example, once you know.  This was a group I thought I knew.  As a trainer, I was sure I could handle any situation that might arise from not having a microphone or projector or screen, but what I had not counted on were audience expectations in how I would present that material.  This particular workshop was for coaches, trainers and training developers, sales managers, etc–so pretty much communicators themselves.  While it seemed to me I was to be speaking on the topic of the workshop–communicating credibility, which I did, I hadn’t thought I’d be expected to “walk the walk” of the trainer to demonstrate my own credibility by using icebreakers, activities and discussion.  Apparently, my slide show didn’t reflect the latest trend in slide preparation and my talk, although engaging, was not what was expected…from me anyway.

While all the other speakers and presenters who were speaking on similar topics at the conference took the standard route of interactive speech and presentation as I did, I was expected to use all the training tools in my arsenal instead of just talk.  Had I known the expectation ahead of time, that I would be viewed as the speaker/trainer extraordinaire by audience, I could have given the audience more of what it expected.  Granted, it was my fault, but now I will remind myself and others that, when it comes to training and planning training, there is always something we can’t know unless we ask.

Actors Teaching Attorneys – Courtroom Drama

What does an actor have to teach an attorney? Acting, improvisation, communicating, moving on stage. Sounds like an acting class. Don’t be surprised. It is.

Most of us would agree a lawyer’s education is mostly about the law; but the practical application of law requires research, practice, experience and some knowledge of speech and acting skills that may not taught in depth in most law schools–just few classes on courtroom procedure, some mock trials, etc.

So, how does a litigator gain those communication skills that help him win over a judge and jury, how does an attorney present depositions to court, help a witness remain credible, even though he or she may be scared to death of being on the courtroom stage. Believe it or not, he hires an actor. Often that actor may be partnered with an attorney or someone with a similar background.

However, here, in the Delaware Valley, I discovered an equity actor and educator, Celeste Walker at http://celestewalker.com who teaches a course she developed called Courtroom Drama, which almost sounds like a theatre genre, but in reality her course is designed to loosen up attorneys and prepare them for the practical uses of confident and effective communication in the courtroom. She uses theatre exercises, warm-ups, improvisation and other methods leading up to storytelling. After all, in a courtroom, it is all about storytelling.

“It’s also about audience,” Walker says. “An attorney can’t talk to a jury if he or she isn’t aware of who makes up that jury. He has to win that jury’s trust and he’s not going to do that if he talks down to them or can’t look them in the eye while he is talking to them.” It’s all about good communication. Yet, another job for an actor–besides acting.

An aside. I was surprised to learn that Celeste had actually performed a scene from The Verdict with Paul Newman in 1994 while she was in graduate school.  Newman’s much acclaimed film, The Verdict, came out in the ’80s.  Celeste holds a Master of Fine Arts Degree in Acting from The Actor’s Studio Drama School at the New School University in New York.

Speakers as Performers — Moving on Stage

Public speaking is certainly coming into vogue as a performing art.  Comedians, motivational speakers and others who inspire their audiences certainly give performances on stage.   Some would argue everything that takes place on stage is all theatre.  We may disagree with that notion, but that’s for another article. So, who are their critics and coaches if they aren’t other comedians and public speakers?  The same people who are involved in the performing arts:  actors, dancers, and singers.  Acting, singing, and dancing do have at least one thing in common when it comes to performance.  They are all performed on a stage to an audience and involve movement.

Many of the people in the business of motivating or providing inspiring speeches or presentations for corporate and business leadership may think more in terms of planning movements and gestures.  Not done well, it comes off artificial.  We know that actors and dancers must move with purpose on stage; singers move to show emotion, too, even if that movement doesn’t include dancing to the music.  It is the same for comedians or professional speakers.

Strategies or plans to move around the stage can lack the fluid motion of natural movement.  If you are speaking to an audience, and you don’t have to be a traditionally thought of performer, keep in mind the way you interact with your audience is based on your passion, your audience and subject matter.   Look at general areas of the stage as points to reach your audience (all of your audience) on as many levels as you can; that means you may come down to them to get closer, or keep your distance by being upstage to take in the whole room.  You may have to move to a side of the stage if you’re on a thrust stage.  Imagine doing a speech in the round.   It’s possible.

You should be led by those in your audience who seem to beckon for your attention.  You’ll see it; you’ll feel it.  Be careful not to wander the stage; it is distracting from the audience when your focus should be on them.  In fact, if you want to make a strong point three steps forward will alert the audience you are about to say something important.  When making an important point, center stage is your strongest area on the stage, but you don’t want to live there.

Just as a theatrical director looks at the stage to see the areas of strongest impact for the room for the audience and sets the stage for the scene, so should you.  You may own the stage, but you are there to interact and communicate with an audience.  Try not to leave anyone out.   Now, Arthur in the musical CAMELOT moves to a specific point on the stage to punctuate a point.  That’s a strategy.  However, play it for fun or it won’t be effective.  Want to make your audiences feel you really know what you’re doing, even without visual aids; find an appropriate moment to go right to them. You’ll enjoy it and so will they.

It All Comes Down to the Whos…

It almost goes without saying that effective communication is an essential part of establishing our professional credibility. Like a tree falling in the woods a thousand miles away that no one hears, if your audience numbering one or a thousand doesn’t “hear” your message the result is the same. Nothing happens. You’re credible in your mind only.

“If I follow the script,” you think, “everything should fall in place.” But it doesn’t. “Why? How can I fix it?” You say it is an established program proven to work. You said all the right things. It should work.

Ever say something you regretted because you didn’t consider your audience? Everyone has had those embarrassing moments. The difference between us and the animals is our big brains and our mouths (often big) that can form words and sentences to communicate ideas—not just immediate needs or express emotions, and yet sometimes we speak on automatic to get the job done. So, we are “embarrassed” by not seeing the “who” we are talking to until it is too late.

We are so in the habit of going about our business that we forget we are the drivers here; our bosses tell us what to do and we do it. What if our boss just said this thing needs to be accomplished, how would we respond? It happens. We make a plan. So, why not plan how to communicate that plan, or any plan, or any instruction, or any sales pitch, in the same way. Look at the factors involved. What is my purpose, who am I talking to, how do I say what I need to say? Understanding what I want to say seems easy at first, but that may depend on the “who.”

Knowing your audience is really your first step to establishing credibility. Sure, you could just list your credentials, but that’s not enough. Your credentials just got their attention. They need the interview with you, the face-to-face, or at least the phone call before allowing you any real credibility. You know the face-to-face communication is better. Why? Because seeing a person’s eyes and physical reactions helps you see he means what he says. Most of us trust what we can actually see. However, there is more to that.

• Some people don’t trust alone what they see, they want to see the evidence, the numbers.
• Some people want you to lead them, and someone to tell them what they need know.
• Some want to draw the same conclusion you have only after you have given them the raw data.

These people are not being difficult, but they have different ways of processing information that you are trying to transmit to them. To establish communication you have acknowledge the differences and present them information on their terms.

The fact that the act is so basic is why we often forget to do it, but it is necessary unless you like to hear yourself talk.

Analyzing your audience will help you gain cooperation, and cooperation, is necessary for communication to happen. Remember the tree falling in the woods?

• Who are they? How many will be there?
• What is their knowledge of the subject?
• What is their age, sex, educational background?
• Why are they there? Who asked them to be there?
• Where will I stand? Can they all see and hear me?
• What are their needs? What are your needs as the communicator?
• What specific needs do you need to address?
• What do they expect to learn or hear from you?

Awareness of these factors and dealing with them make the difference between being perceived as adequate, competent, or exceptional, as one of the pack or as a leader. There are, of course, other components affecting communication and establishing credibility, some of them psychological, such as use of personal space, use of a person’s name so they “understand” you are talking to them, etc., that will help us make the best impression or have the most forceful appearance (if that will help our case). Did you know to stand or sit next to someone is more powerful than if you sit across from them? Knowing the “who” makes the case for all of the above.

Most of us would agree that an effective manager needs to employ good communication skills, motivation and employee care in order for the workforce to maintain productivity. We know that leaders are people who can “express themselves fully,” according to Warren Bennis, an authority often touted in leadership training. “They also know what they want, why they want it, and how to communicate what they want to others in order to gain their cooperation and support,” he says.

Someone is hearing a tree falling in the woods.

What Critical Trait Does a Manager Need to Survive the Business List in this Economy?

In today’s economic downturn, government leaders and managers have a not-so-unique challenge of “doing more with less.” In a recent conversation with colleagues, an interesting idea came up about treating government operations as a business. What would we do differently if it was our money, our private business? The government looks at factors such as cost effectiveness, so it is a good fit.

We are a business that collects money. And, we are affected like any business by the economy. If we are treating our operations as a business, how do we survive the negative impact? Where is the magic bullet–if there is one? Perhaps, the answer lies with management. The question: what critical trait does a government manager need to survive in this economic climate? The question would be no different than when asked of a business manager and my opinion the same.

As a communicator, I am always talking about how important communication is in our line of work, but here I believe it is only one part. Most of us would agree that an effective manager needs to employ good communication skills, motivation and employee care in order for the workforce to maintain productivity. We know that leaders are people who can “express themselves fully,” according to Warren Bennis, an authority often touted in leadership training. “They also know what they want, why they want it, and how to communicate what they want to others in order to gain their cooperation and support,” he says. Great leaders must be able to communicate a compelling vision and make it happen.

These leaders may be the most effective communicators, but they can fail in achieving their goals if they lack one essential ingredient. To survive in our operational “business” in this economy, leaders and managers, in addition to having good communication skills, need creativity, new ideas, and a “refuse to lose” mentality: optimism. They need more than just a positive outlook; they need “intelligent optimism,” which is simply optimism paired with reality-based strategies.

This “intelligent optimism,” is the most critical trait a manager needs to survive in the “business world” of today.

Managers who exhibit “intelligent optimism” admit:

• negative forces exist but choose to focus on the positive,
• focus on what the office can control and ignore what it cannot,
• avoid adopting a “victim” mentality,
• focus on the tools that are available, not what is lacking,
• spread optimism,
• not letting the negative conversations get in the way of the vision, and
• continuing to grow that vision despite the economic outlook—looking at ways to do more, thinking differently, seeking opportunities, and overcoming barriers the office itself may have erected.

By acknowledging that economic problems exist, a manager shows his or her understanding of the realities of the marketplace, work environment, and, in our case, our client base and public perception. They choose to move forward with creativity, commitment, and positive thoughts. Negative thought never achieves anything but negative results. Even maintaining the status quo can be just as dangerous, only the end may be slower and more painful.

Optimism, applied intelligently, gives the manager the key, and an opportunity to succeed.