​Several days ago while driving up a slight rise, the sun at my back illuminated a scarecrow in the front yard of a house off to the right.  It startled me.  The figure looked real.
 
It brought home the purpose of the scarecrow – get the dang birds out of your yard, farm, crops, vegetables, flowers, whatever.  The shirt, pants, hat and straw stuffing should look real so that nasty birds are scared.  They see the fake man and go to themselves, “Whoa, better fly out of here real quick and find some other pasture to devastate.”
 
This, of course, doesn’t happen.  The scarecrow never moves.  It stays in the same position with a silly expression on its face, and the crows keep munching away on your green beans, laughing silently about the humans and their feeble attempt to manipulate the minds of the feathered creatures.
 
Us humans think we are smart – that putting some fake replica of ourselves will intimidate the winged crop nemesis.  But we are not smart, because the scarecrow doesn’t resemble us.  It doesn’t move.  The birds know this.
 
So they grow accustomed to its solitary nature, recognizing the corncob pipe in its mouth doesn’t blow smoke and the hand never flicks a match to give it a light.  The wind may occasionally blow the scrarecrow’s clothing, causing a gentle sway, and the birds may flock away during this interlude.  But this is not part of a typical day.
 
Why do we presume scarecrows perform their intended function?  How can we improve on this model?
 
As I drove my car past the house that day, it occurred to the inventor inside my body that a moving scarecrow is the logical evolution from its current stationary status.  Someone needs to develop a system that easily moves the scarecrow across a field or yard to intimidate the dastardly avian beasts.
 
Here are some thoughts:  The scarecrow not only must physically move through space, but it must also shift its other body parts to give the illusion that it is alive.  Technology is available to address these issues.

First, how to get the scarecrow moving:  I suggest one of two approaches.  The farmer can lay a zip wire above his field on a rotating basis, and string the scarecrow up and install a timed device that gets him zipping around to startle the birds.  The timer could be set for momentary pauses and on a staggered speed, so it would go faster or slower during various periods, much like a real human.  Have it stay put for awhile, then suddenly move.  And so on.
 
Another moving approach would be to find some way to program a Segway and put the scarecrow on one, then let it race around the farm.  That could be funny as well as productive, as the scarecrow navigated corn rows, wheat fields, soybeans or apple trees.  Using a Segway would be more logistically difficult to implement, but certainly holds some value.
 
After solving the movement problem, the final step is to insert technology inside the scarecrow (to be operated by wireless remote device) that allows its arms, head, legs, hands and feet to create motion.  Like the movement issue in general, being able to send signals that occasionally cause these body parts to shift would baffle the birds and push them to attack elsewhere, like the neighboring farm.
 
We’re smarter than birds, aren’t we?  Now’s the time to prove it by inventing and implementing the moveable scarecrow system.
 
If we can operate drones, we can create the moveable scarecrow.  Let’s get on it.  J

​It’s astounding how frequently we flip through decisions.  If you don’t, you paralyze yourself.
 
So much information hits us in so many different ways, that you must make instantaneous judgments.  Otherwise, you are overwhelmed.
 
A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine showed me a new web site he finds amusing.  He whipped through a couple of videos, found the one he wanted to access, and clicked it on.  It took him a few seconds.  He knew where he wanted to go, and eliminated the flotsam quickly.  We got to watch the video in seconds.
 
Speed seems so valuable in today’s world.  That’s a driving factor in why we rip through information, scanning and either discarding or keeping.
 
We make many judgments this way.  For example, we decide whether we like a person within seven seconds of meeting the individual, according to social research.  That’s not to say you won’t revise your opinion at some point, but the amazing part of that finding is that somehow we assimilate body language, smiles (or frowns), handshakes, clothing, and everything else that oozes out of a person during an initial meeting, and decide, “Hmmm, he seems hip.”  Or, “What a whack job.”  Or, “He’s an idiot.”
 
Then we file it away.  If we’re smart, we remain open and get to know people better, but I wouldn’t bet on too many people doing that.
 
Years ago, I remember meeting a woman when we lived in Nebraska.  She immediately came across as loud, pushy, abrasive and obnoxious.  I was taken aback by her forwardness.
 
I had to see her occasionally for business reasons, and slowly got to know her better.  Those initial qualities were perceived very differently the longer I became familiar with her full personality.  She was funny, smart, and caring.  But the first impressions took awhile to fade into the background, and make room for our friendship to grow.  Funny how that works.
 
Snap judgments like that happen all the time.  I’ve made two good friends recently.  In both cases, almost immediately upon meeting them, I liked them.  It was a feeling.  There is no rational explanation for it.  They came across as open, had a willingness to laugh and connected with me in conversation.
 
Think of the frown. When you meet someone, if he frowns, you are pushed away – it makes you not want to be around that person because you perceive him as unfriendly, unhappy, angry.  Who wants to hang out with someone like that?  “Oh, hey, Jody, it’s great to see you getting angry and verbally assaulting people.  Let’s be friends.”  I think not.
 
But your mind takes you down that path based on your impressions.  When you see the frown, you imply that the person will have other qualities that go along with the scowl.  That puts you off.  Most of us don’t openly embrace someone who displays that body language.

Social media apps live off this “flip decision” mindset.  Dating apps, from what I’ve read, have a flip/scan, yes/no decision apparatus. You look and decide whether someone fits your profile in seconds.

Think about how silly that is.  The photo or profile is only a snapshot, so you barely have a sense of that individual.  You aren’t even seeing him or her face-to-face.  Yet you make a decision.  “Don’t want to date her.”  Weird.
 
Maybe we should give each other a bit more time before we say yes or no.  Sure, use your initial judgment as a guidepost, but stay open, listen, ask some questions, pay attention.  If we did that, we’d all increase our friend quotients.

​Leadership tip of the day:  Keep your in-box empty.  That’s courtesy of a good friend and professional colleague who runs a highly successful business, responds to your emails or phone calls quickly and communicates openly and consistently with his employees and customers.
 
The question arose recently about how he stays on top of things.  When you call him, he answers the calls (WHOA).  When you email or text him, the response is typically quick, but at a minimum he gets back to you within a day.  He hasn’t created a specific system to do this. Instead, he cleans out his email and voice mail in-boxes, which allows him to stay up-to-speed on more critical issues.
 
Is this easy?  No.  It takes a commitment to get to those communications regularly and repeatedly.  You can’t let information pile up or it will bury you.  He knows this, and uses it as a motivator.
 
Before electronic communication devices took over, we used to have paper in-boxes for memos, reports and mail.  As a journalist, one of my daily jobs was to thumb through everything, decide what was worthwhile and what wasn’t.  You made quick editorial decisions on what to keep or toss, and your ability to do this well heavily determined your success in being able to manage your workload.
 
I related a story to my friend about how fortunate we were back in the late-1980s and early-1990s to have a backup reporter handle our beats for us when we went on vacation.  That person covered our stories and submitted them to our editor.  When you returned recharged from vacation, your in-box was empty.  That kept you refreshed for at least a week, daydreaming about your days camping, biking, sitting on the beach, playing golf, or body surfing in the ocean.
 
Imagine feeling that way today.  It’s hard to.
 
Instead, many people don’t take vacations, or if they do, they spend time catching up on emails or other electronic messages so they aren’t overwhelmed when they return to the office.  That’s bad.  You don’t get away from the headaches of your day-to-day work life, you don’t relax, and your mind doesn’t disconnect to help creative ideas to surface.
 
You return tense.  You feel stuck in the same rut.
 
In the shorter run, a system to keep your in-box cleaned up is a good solution for helping to run a business productively, and keep your brain clicking.
 
How can you keep your in-box minimized?  Here are some tips:
 

• Delete items you won’t need in the future.
• Read the subject lines and first paragraph (if necessary) quickly, and make your decision about how worthwhile any follow-up is.
• Don’t dally.
• Trust your instincts.

 
Keeping your in-box empty is a success marker.  It means you are on top of critical issues.  It improves your mental health (and that of your employees, and by extension, your customers).  It frees you up for other tasks, which are typically face-to-face communications and of more importance to your bottom line.
 
Making this part of your day-to-day personal operations will drive more than your bottom line.  It will also free up your concentration.

That means you focus more on other tasks, and do a better job because you have the time to appropriately deal with issues that require more time.  It also means that, egads, you have time to build fun into the workplace.
If you get that in-box cleared, you can play around a bit, chat with people, invent a game to engage your employees.  You may find that’s the best part of staying ahead of the in-box.

​It’s become very clear by the latter stages of 2015 that if you want someone to respond directly to you in some form of typed message, you better not ask more than one question.  This applies to texts, emails, Facebook, LinkedIn, or any other place where you input the written word to be displayed on a screen.

If you ask more than one question, forget about a response.  I don’t know why this happens, though it does seem to be tied to our incessant need to tap, communication distractions and disruptions and an inability to read a lengthy paragraph without skipping ahead.

This happens frequently in situations where I send a business email to a colleague, though it is also apparent in personal communications.  You think the process is simple:  You and your teammate are discussing an issue.  You bat it around.  Perhaps you head off on a tangent.  Then, after bantering back and forth, you need to get a decision from the other person or just plain information.

So, you ask:  “Let me know when and where you want to set up the meeting, Mark.”  Notice, there are two questions in that short sentence, and that could be my problem for writing it that way, and not their problem for not reading the entire verbiage.  It could be clearer, for example, if it was written, “Let me know what day you want to set up the meeting.  Also, please remember to give me a time.”

This is no guarantee that you will get a response to both questions, but there is probably a better probability you will.  If you left the message as one sentence in the earlier format, I would almost bet Jordan Spieth’s golf winnings this year that you will only get sent an answer to EITHER the “when” of the meeting or the “where.” You won’t get information on both.

Which means you then send a follow-up email:  “I still need to know where you want us to meet, Mark.  Oh, and BTW, should I bring donuts?”  This is silly because with the second question added, you’ll be guaranteed that you’ll find out whether to bring donuts or where you’ll meet, so don’t mess Mark up with the extra question.  Our brains today don’t seem to accommodate the extra demands placed on it by direct, easy-to-digest questions.

This becomes really funny when it happens repeatedly.  You assume at work that people are there to support your efforts, that everyone wants to do a good job and is paying attention.  It’s those last two words were we go astray.

People are not focused.  What goes in one eye goes out the other.  We glance.  We gloss over things.  We miss words.  We don’t finish reading an entire transmission.

There are so many reasons we mess up responding to questions, that you could probably spend a day writing down all the ways we forget to answer.  Then again, if you sent out a communication on this subject and included more than one question, you’d only get one answered anyway.

Only ask one question per electronic medium.  On the text, email, Facebook, whatever, ask, wait for your response, then follow up with the next question.  You have to hope and pray the person will get around to reading your second communication.

If you’re still stymied, remember that thing called a phone (even though it’s really better called a data transmission center)?  Use it.  Pick it up.  Punch in the numbers.  Speak.  Listen.  Resolve.  Plan.  Deliver.  Hopefully, someone picks up on the other end when it rings.