How big a change does Haiti truly need?

Unless you've been living under a rock, or have no interest in international politics, you are probably aware that Haiti is preparing to have an election this year. There hasn't been such an international buzz around Haitian elections since the first democratic election that brought Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power in 1990. This year, the buzz is all around Wyclef Jean, the hip hop star-cum-president hopeful.

Judging by the media hype, you would think that Wyclef is the only artist looking to be elected in November. Actually,  another charismatic singer has thron his hat in the race: Michel "Sweet Micky" Martelly, also know as Prezidan (president, in Haitian creole).

Clef is getting all the press, but honestly, if both of them were to be on the ballot, I wouldn't be so quick to say that he is a shoe-in. In fact, if there were only two candidates, Clef and Sweet Micky, it would probably be a very close race. And you know that whoever wins, it's going to be some party. With the headache to go along with it...

I can't comment on either man's political acumen, nor can I say that either of them is better equipped to become president. The problem in Haiti is that anyone who touches the presidency becomes corrupt. Everyone. It happened to Aristide, many people say it happened to Préval, the current president. Let's not mention the litany of army generals in the '90s. The Duvaliers before that, Magloire, and so on. The position is poisoned. In order to fix this, I think something very different has to happen, and that may be where Clef has an advantage.

He's been around the world, has been educated in the US, and is an accomplished businessman. That should help him bring new eyes and a new vision of what Haiti can and should be as a country, the first Black-led independent country. La perle des Antilles, the Carribean Pearl.

Clef has charisma, he can make things move. He loves his country and can probably propose a vision that is much more optimistic than a politician could. Because, let's face it: in order for Haiti to get out of this mess, the people need a dream. They need hope, they need something to look up to, something drive for. Maybe it's education for all. Maybe it's rebuilding a new city, where everyone will have safe housing. Maybe it's a job for everyone who is willing and able to work. Maybe it's food on the table three times a day, every day. Maybe it's knowing that all your babies will reach adulthood, that they won't die of malnutrition or water poisoning or some other ailment brought on by poverty and famine. There has to be something more than waking up and barely being able to survive.

What Clef doesn't have, yet, is a team. If he were to be elected, I could see him as the leader. I could see him as the one pointing the way. I don't see him as the president, though. I don't see him as the one to make the difficult decisions about monetary policy, foreign affairs, and so on. He will need a solid team to whom he can say "This is what I want our country to look like. Tell me how we're going to do it." He has to be surrounded by people who will say "Let me find a way" not "We can't do that." Can he create that team? If so, does he have enough humility to stand back and say "OK, you know this better than I do. Explain to me how it works, do your thing, and I'll talk to the people."

Which could be another issue: Clef's French and Creole are not quite there yet. I won't say his Creole is "mawon" but will the people look past the accent if, indeed, he is able to lead the country efficiently? I don't know.

Can Clef draw enough money and machinery to clean up the rubble that is Port-au-Prince in order to let it rise from its ashes?

Can he do it in five years, which is all he is allowed to have under the current constitution?

Can he clean up his image quickly enough and make people forget about all the allegations surrounding his Yele Haiti foundation?

Is he ready? Is he able? We all know he's willing and that may be half the battle. He'll have to go through a lot of muckraking and mudslinging just to reach the vote. And it won't stop there, he'll probably still be attacked after the vote, if he wins. Will he be able to withstand it?

For most of these questions, I don't know.

How about the other singer, Sweet Micky? Can he make a decent president?  I don't know. I know he's charismatic, I know he can work a crowd, I've seen him do it. Unfortunately, the only images I have of Martelly is of a man so drunk on stage that he can barely stand straight, uttering a constant stream of profanity-laced ramblings. From what I hear, he has always been rather cozy with the richer and shadier individuals in power. To me, that doesn't bode well for his presidency.

As I mentioned in an interview after the earthquake, Haiti isn't lacking a president. What it's lacking is a leader. Préval was an awful leader during the earthquake. He was largely unseen, and unheard. He should have been on the radio, on TV, every day, to let the people know what was happening, what he was doing to clear this mess, and how he was planning on pulling the country out of yet another catastrophe.

There needs to be a severe change of direction in the country. But not so abrupt that it causes it to go past the tipping point and fall.

When Social Media Shines

I heard the news as I was driving home last night: a major earthquake in Haiti had brought the country to its knees. I still have family there, and from the news reports I knew that the earthquake had hit close to where they lived.

So I went for the immediate, old-timer's reflex: I called my aunt on the phone. She confirmed what the news stations said: it is almost impossible t get a line and she hasn't heard from anybody.

When I finally reached home, I went straight for my Twitter and Facebook accounts and there, I managed to get information that would have been impossible to get any other way.

I began with Twitter in order to figure out what was happening, and to see if anyone in my network had any information on the situation. It was all very chaotic; a good place to get a global overview of things but nothing like what I really wanted to know: is my family all right?

Facebook is a whole different story, though. On Twitter, I'm willing to connect with pretty much anybody. But on Facebook, I triage. If I don't know you personally or if I don't recognize your picture, you don't get on my list. So the people in my Facebook are a much more tightly knit group of individuals than in any other network (LinkedIn, Twitter, etc.).

Through my Facebook friends, real information started trickling in: one aunt and uncle were OK but had lost their home; two other aunts and my grandmother were fine, just rattled a bit; another uncle and aunt, who live in an area that was severely affected by the quake were also OK but their hous had suffered. By 1 AM, I had heard all of the important news I needed to know: my family was all right, and I could go to sleep (somewhat) peacefully. Everything else could wait until the next day.

I'll admit that I'm not normally a big user of any of the social media platforms. The only one I strive to use regularly is Twitter (more on that later). However, after going through yesterday's ordeal, I have new respect for these tools: there was no other way I could have gotten as much information from as many different sources. Trying to do this by the phone, or even by email, would have been impossible. With the social media tools, one status update from a friend gave more information than I could get by making 20 different phone calls.

Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and other social media sites can become a huge time-sucking black hole if ou aren't careful. As a solo entrepreneur, I have to watch out for that, which is the reason I tend to limit my time on these platforms. I use them a few minutes per day, late in the evening, which ensures I don't spend five hours.

In a time of crisis, though, there isn't any better tool.

What about Twitter? Well, I use an automated system (SocialOomph.com) to schedule tweets on various topics during the week. I do so in a semi-disciplined manner. Every Sunday night, I sit down and write enough "Laurent's Gems" to fill the week, and then I schedule them. I have found that by doing so, once again, I save a lot of time and it forces me to write something coherent at least once a week.

In all of the earthquake turmoil, I forgot to turn it off temporarily, so after a string of "Where's My Family" updates, here comes another one that tells you to consider working in a smaller company if you are dissatisfied with your job.

Yeah, I know, awkward.

Twitter: Friend or Foe?

“Social media sites are all the rage today,” says Laurent Duperval, president of Duperval Consulting. “We are still in a learning process, trying to figure out how to use these tools as efficaciously as possible. It is similar to what we went through with email and the Internet.”

Read more here: Twitter: Friend Or Foe?

Focus on Job Descriptions, Not Job Titles

Read more here: http://tinyurl.com/nlf4l6

11 Little-Known Ways to Advance Your Career

"Most people hate any form of public speaking but it is one of the most potent publicity and marketing vehicles available to you..."

Read more:

11 Little-Known Ways to Advance Your Career

Do you speak like Oscar LOSERS?

Every year I watch the Academy Awards to hear the acceptance speeches. And what amazes (and saddens me) every year, is how often the winners act like losers. Many of the winners are people who act for a living, or have been actors in past lives. Furthermore, many of them won earlier this year in other award ceremonies. You can NOT tell me that it hasn't given them the adequate preparation time to give a decent speech.

Now, I have never won a big award like this, so I can imagine that the adrenaline level is extremely high and it probably affects the delivery in unforeseen manners. Still, there are some things that just make some winners seem like LOSERS:

• Lists and more lists: Some people come on the stage and all they do is read a list of names, without giving much more importance to one or another, adding no personal commentary. This, to me, is similar to someone delivering a presentation and reading the PowerPoint slides during the entire speech. I understand the importance of thanking as many people as possible. However, there needs to be something more than a list of credits. Just a tad of a personal touch.
• Outpouring of nothing: this is supposed to be a joyous occasion. Some award recipients look like they have been condemned to eternal suffering. No smile, no excitement, nothing. I see many people do that when they stand in front of an audience. An otherwise entertaining and outgoing woman becomes an utter bore. A strong, confident man becomes a meek weakling. All because they may be trying too hard to control their emotions. Yes, you need to keep some emotions in check, but you need not thwart them completely.
  
• Surprise, surprise: this year, I didn't hear anyone say: "I wasn't expecting this," nor did I hear "I don't know what to say." So kudos for that. Unless something is absolutely, completely unexpected (one chance out of five is not completely unexpected), there is no reason for these types of comments. You don't apologize for being unprepared.
  
• Errring and Uhmming your way though: one "uhm," "ahh," or "err" doesn't kill a speech. But 20 in 45  seconds? Puh-leez! Ok, so maybe I'm exaggerating a bit, yet some bad speeches are made considerably worse by the constant hesitation of the winner. It is a habit that is quite annoying, and even Barack Obama suffers from it (just watch any interview where his speech is unprepared). Getting rid of those annoyances will greatly enhance any speech.
  
• Respecting time: there are rules and some people feel their moment in the limelight is more important. I say, if they give you 45 seconds, aim for 35 seconds. It helps you focus your message and, for the audience at home, it makes the show more watchable. Is 45 seconds insufficient for such an important moment? Fine, give them 60, but whatever the amount of time available, award recipients need to respect it. If the people want more time to speak, then they will need to give out fewer awards on air. Always respect the time given for your speech.
  
• Saying thank you: this is one thing that everyone does. They show appreciation for the recognition they receive. My belief is that most speeches should end on the words "Thank you" or something to that effect. Of course, sometimes you don't want to end on "Thank you" because it does not fit the final bang you are looking to deliver. However, I disagree with the school of thought that says "You never thank the audience. They should thank you for sharing your wisdom." Hardly. The audience took time out of their lives to listen. Saying thank you is just good form. In no way does it diminish you, or your speech.

You may never be in a situation where thousands of eyes are fixed upon you while millions are watching on television. Yet, you may need to give a speech in front of colleagues, or toast the bride at a wedding, or maybe you will receive an "outstanding service to the company" award. If that ever happens, will you pull it off, or will you end up like a LOSERS?

Obama: a speech for the times, maybe someday for the ages

As I watched the inauguration ceremony for Barack Obama, I was in awe of the entire operation. It felt more like a rock concert than an inauguration. The crowd of thousands chanting “Obama! Obama!” waiting to see its hero. Anticipation was palpable. All around the world, people watching, eagerly waiting to hear the first words of the 44^th president of the United States of America.

Anyone expecting a rah-rah-rah speech must have been sorely disappointed. This was a down-to-earth, accountability- and responsibility-filled speech. Barack Obama pulled no punches and delivered a rousing, but difficult speech. He did not shy away from the fact that times are difficult and the American people have a lot of work to do, in order to get out of the current mess.

Rating his performance, I would give it a 9.5 on content and 8.5 on delivery.

Delivery

Obama's delivery was nearly flawless. There were a couple of hesitations, but nothing major. Martin Luther King stumbled slightly also in his “I Have A Dream” speech.

Obama spoke in a deep, soothing voice. He did not move much, he did not rush the speech, he was poised. His tone was conversational. He was at ease and he put his listeners at ease.

His delivery, sing-song at times, reminded me of Martin Luther King as he spoke to a throng of supporters on the Washington DC steps.

So why 8.5, for such a great speaker? Maybe because my expectations were so high. However, there were two elements from his delivery that perturbed me. One was purely mechanical, the other was emotional.

Mechanically: I HATE that teleprompter! He looks like a Bobble Head when he's constantly switching from the left to the right. Furthermore, he does it multiple times in the same sentence. It is hugely annoying. I never recommend that people write out their speech and read it during delivery, but at times I wondered if that wouldn't have been better for him.

He never looked at the camera nor did he look at the crowd. The only time he tried to make contact with his audience was when he thanked George Bush for his service to the nation. At that moment, he briefly turned away from his text but returned to it immediately after.

I am not sure why Obama so heavily relies on his text to deliver his speeches. Is it because he cannot remember it all? Is it a crutch he uses? Or is it the equivalent of PowerPoint in business presentations: a necessary tool that everyone feels the need to use?

He needs to ditch the teleprompter completely, or find a better way to use it because it affects his effectiveness.

Emotionally, I was constantly expecting the Big Explosion. Something outstanding, a defining moment in the speech. There were a few, somehow, they didn't stand out from the rest of the speech. Obama did not put more emphasis on one part of the speech, than another. All of it seemed to be of equal importance. Yet, in most great speeches, there is an emotional nugget that is carried on for generations:

• We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

• Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.

• I do not know that woman... oops, no, that's a different speech!

While there are many good moments in the speech (as we will see in the content), he did not use any of the tools that make a speech memorable: alliteration, repetition, the rule of three, just to name a few. That made the speech less appealing emotionally: it's the Moment that really defined the speech.

Content

What was so good about the content? At what is considered a defining moment in America, Obama's words were timeless and deeply rooted in the nation's history. He named no names, he named no nations. His words could be spoken again, almost verbatim, at another time, and they would still have the same power. Words such as:

• “In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. ”

• “Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.”

• “To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West — know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.”

• “Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.”

When analyzing the words, you can see that the speech was inspired by some of the greatest American speakers. One line stuck out for me, one that could have been uttered by John F Kennedy: “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.”

His speech contained beautiful imagery: “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

That image is also an excellent example of the inclusive language used by Obama. He has promised to bring people back together, and his words are tailored to that effect:

“To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.”

Obama shows that he definitely understands American history, that he knows where the nation needs to be headed, and that he will get it there albeit with the help of friends and “former foes” alike. He shows that he expects hard work, sacrifice, ambition and creativity from everyone, including himself.

His speech needed to get that message across clearly and simply.

It delivered.

Obama's speech: lessons for all speakers

Many preparation and delivery lessons can be gleaned from studying Obama's inaugural speech. Here are just a few:

• It's OK to be nervous. When Obama first appeared on screen, you could tell from his pursed lips that this wasn't a walk in the park for him. As others before him spoke, he clenched his jaw and often closed his eyes. These are typical behaviours of someone who is a bit nervous before speaking. It took him a while to shake those jitters but they seemed to have disappeared by the time he delivered his speech.
  
• Writing is important. You cannot come up with phrases like “To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.” You can't. This has to be written, rehearsed, and re-written. If you are aiming to deliver a powerful speech, think of writing it out.
• You can make mistakes. On a couple of occasions, Obama had a slight hesitation in the speech. Notice that he did not apologize, he did not become flustered, he did not lose his composure. He just kept on going. His biggest blunder, though, occurred before the speech when he messed up the words during his swearing in (to his defence, the chief judge messed up first). What did he do? He smiled and kept on going. He will be picked on a bit by the comedians, but that's it.
• Converse with the audience. There was not a lot of fanfare during his delivery. He did not jump up and down to make a point. He remained poised and calm throughout, as if speaking to more than one million people in his backyard. That helped make it more effective.
• Don't lie. Obama pulled no punches. To summarize his speech: times are hard, we made errors in the past and everyone is paying for it today. Everyone has some responsibility for the current mess and everyone is going to work together to fix it. This was not your typical rosy, rar-rah-rah, "You can do it!" speech. It was somber and set the tone for what's to come. It won't be fun, but it's got to be done. A great speech will set the tone for the changes to come, but if you lie to the audience it will come back to bite you.

Obama's speech may have longer-lasting impacts on oratory style, but that's for another discussion.

RCMP leadership

An interesting article this morning about the leadership at the RCMP in Quebec. While I have yet to see the full report, some interesting information emanates from this article:

• All of the information emanates from the employees. It seems like the researchers did a form of 360-degree evaluation, where they asked all sorts of questions to the employees, in order to get a real portrait of their life at work.
• Competition for promotion gets in the way of real work. I was asked recently if competition in the workplace was a good idea or not. I think most of the time it is, but there are instances where it is not. For example, if it gets in the way of corporate objectives. Another is if there are limited resources available and too many people are competing for the same resource. With the RCMP, it seems to be the case on both these counts.

  Without knowing how things work internally, it looks like the criteria for success are incorrect. They seem to be pointing to personal victories instead of victories that benefit the whole of the organization. Hence the complaints that "careerism" is favoured.

• Lack of training for senior officials. This one, unfortunately, is rampant. It isn't something that is specific to the RCMP. Too many senior executives do not have, nor take, the time to properly develop and update their people skills. They often lift their nose at the concept, thinking that the bottom line is the most important part of the business, and that people should just understand this and follow along. Men, especially, are guilty of this.

  What they often fail to realize is that the human aspect of a business is often its most important and costly. Just take a look at what is happening at the Detroit Big Three. Our skills with people are constantly put to the test and what used to work, may not work as well today. In the case of the RCMP, it seems that conflict management does not work properly at all, since there is no crackdown on dubious behaviours.
  

• Image polishing at all costs. According to its employees, the RCMP seems more interested in the image it projects than what is really affecting its operations. Managing one's image is fine, but at some point in time, you can no longer tame such a beast. Madoff tried it and failed. Satyam tried and failed. Now the RCMP seems to be failing also. At some point, to re-establish an image, you have to eliminate the previous one. Trying to hide issues at all costs, especially in a government agency, can only bring about charges of lack of transparency.

  I don't advocate full disclosure at all levels. However, given the choice between addressing a serious issue that can portray an unflattering image in the media, and sweeping an issue under the rug in the hope that it will disappear, I recommend the former.

• Management doesn't listen and doesn't have a clue. Once again, that is not limited to the RCMP. It is amazing how often I will speak to the employees of a client who tell me of all sorts of issues that they see in the company, yet when I speak to the senior executives, they tend to dismiss it as "employees who are never happy." While there is some of that, when the same issues get reported over and over again, by multiple employees of varying responsibility levels, it's time to listen and act.

In another article, the RCMP made a list of resolutions for 2009. Many of them had to do with operations and infrastructure. But if they want to keep on "getting their man", let's they don't forget the human side.

Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark?

In December I participated in a fun interview:

Entrepreneur.com: Who Is The Better Entrepreneur: Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark?

Not all of my answers appeared so here are the other answers I provided, but that were not published:

Who would you rather work for?

WayneCorp. I'm not big on munitions. Wayne Enterprises has a social focus which I prefer. I'd rather find different, useful ways to help my fellow man/woman rather than focus on more innovative ways of destroying him/her.

Who had a better strategy for building up his company?

You got me. I need to study their histories better.

However, it's important to know that Wayne Enterprises was already a gigantic operation when Bruce Wayne inherited it. I think that Stark Enterprises was still iin growth mode, though I'm not sure.

The skills needed to manage a mature, centuries-old company are somewhat different than a constantly growing, relatively young company.

And some other comments:

• Bruce Wayne has one trusted advisor (Alfred) who he listens to periodically. He is willing to admit that he may be wrong and will try to correct the course before disaster strikes. He does more planning than reacting. Tony Stark, on the other hand, trusts himself to make all the right decisions all the time. He will head right into disaster and figure out a way to get out of his mess. Somehow, he always does, but it would be much less of a hassle for him and for his entourage if he took more time to plan ahead. Executives need trusted advisors, and need to listen to them even if they don't agree.
• Both are highly innovative and resourceful which is essential in a world of rapid change. They both have the ability to act under constant pressure (usually) without a complete breakdown.
• Both have demons they are constantly battling with (depression, substance abuse, womanizing, etc.) Fortunately for them, the wear and tear on their psyches and bodies are strictly limited to the written page. For any executive, any form of abuse needs to be dealt with and eliminated as much as possible. Executives have a responsibility toward their company, employees and other stakeholders. Substance abuse affects mood and judgment which are critical to effectiveness. Therapy, for both of them, is essential. Many high-powered individuals may not seek help because they feel they are constantly in control and therapy is a sign of weakness. It is actually the opposite: it takes a strong person to admit they need help and cannot do it alone.

Surviving your first performance review, last part

A few tips for those who received a negative review:

Surviving your first performance review (part 5): Thriving after a negative review

Voluntary layoffs? Think real hard first

To piggy back on my earlier post on the subject, asking people to voluntarily leave their current job, in order to cut costs, can backfire:

The Globe and Mail: Voluntary layoffs seen backfiring

The problem with such an approach is that employers see employees as only a number on the balance sheet. And if they can set that number low enough to have a high number on the bottom line, they think they have won. Wrong on so many counts!

When laying off employees, you do much more than reduce your expenses:

• You affect morale, especially if you do it over and over again. Cut once, cut deep.

• You affect productivity, especially if you announce layoffs weeks ahead of the actual cut. By the time you actually make the cut, you may have more than expected because people will tend to focus on the expected bad news, prepare their resumes, and so on. When your focus is not on your job (for whatever reason), performance will almost always suffer;

• With voluntary layoffs, you run the risk of losing even more if your best people decide that they want to leave. Your performance will automatically be reduced, because that star performer leaves not only with his her salary (a win on your balance sheet) but also with the accompanying results (a loss that will outweigh the win on the balance sheet).

Voluntary layoffs may seem like a good plan, that humanizes the layoff process, but you need to think of the company in the long term. Sometimes, saving money can cost much more than you expect.

Performance reviews part II

Part two of the article on surviving your first performance review:

Surviving your first performance review (part 2): What they expect

Layoffs, hospitals and budgets

With rounds after rounds of layoffs expected in the coming months, this is a timely piece:

The Art of Laying People Off

I especially like Guy's #10: don't let people self-select themselves, because you will lose your best people.

In Quebec, the government did that a few years ago in the health sector. Nurses and doctors were offered early retirement and many of them jumped at the chance. On top of that, they limited the number of admissions in medical faculties. Net result? Today there is a severe shortage of medical staff, at a time where needs are constantly increasing. It will take another 7 years before things get back to normal.

The reasons for doing so were for budget-balancing purposes, which is highly laudable, but I think the government officials failed to look at the big picture. They failed to take into account that many in the health-care sector were fed up with the system and were only looking for a way out. They failed to see that needs for medical personnel would increase, not decrease over time. They failed to adequately project the effects of limiting the number of health-care professionals trained by the system.

How bad is it? There is a large shortfall of family doctors in Quebec, partly because of the decisions made in the '90s and partly because of the bad rap general practitioners (GPs) receive in medical schools. I was recently discussing this with a specialist, and as he explained it to me, most professors in medical universities are specialists. Hence, they will vow for their profession and will encourage students to follow in their footsteps. Few GPs teach in university, so there is no emotional appeal to incite students to become family doctors. In fact, according to an article in today's Journal de Montréal, in 2008 300 new GPs were added to the workforce, while there was a need for 346. The race is not lost, but it's going to be difficult to win.

The lesson, for any business, is that you should not let your best people go, just to save money. In the long run, the costs can greatly outweigh any savings you make on the balance sheet.

Your first performance review is approaching?

What should entry-level empoyees expect from their first performance review? See some answers (including mine) here:

Entry Level Careers Examiner: Surviving your first performance review (part 1): What to expect

McCain vs Obama

Tonight was the second of three U.S. presidential debates, in a town hall format. So basically, they are responding to questions, either from the Internet, or from people present at the session. I'm not sure what the rules are, but it seems like they had as much time as they wanted to answer the original question but were allowed only one minute to "discuss" the question.

The moderator was Tom Brokaw, the NBC News anchor, who also acted as timekeeper.

The Good

Obama showed confidence. Once he started talking on issues that he felt comfortable with, he stuttered less and was more assertive in his statements. At one point, Obama even said “During my first term,” signalling that he fully expects to win and to be re-elected.

McCain tried, not always successfully, to inject a little humour in the debate. Yes, this is a serious situation but a little humour is often welcome.

Both candidates got up, got close to the people asking questions and looked them in the eyes when answering. They didn't just sit in their seats and force people to strain their necks to view them as they answered. There were a couple of instances, though, where I found that McCain walked in too closely to the crowd. Yet, after looking closely, it looks like it was a trick of the camera. At the beginning, McCain spent too much time speaking to the person who asked the question and not enough time addressing the audience as a whole. As the debate progressed, he improved that aspect.

Both were gracious enough at the beginning, acknowledging that each had done some good things, and even agreeing on a few issues. As time went by, though, the cordiality slowly went by the wayside.

Obama seemed more at ease than McCain. His movements were more fluid and he was better able to connect with the audience. In fact, I saw more nodding of the heads and smiles in the background when Obama spoke than when McCain spoke, a testament to Obama's greater effectiveness. McCain did not seem as comfortable. Of course, part of it is due to the injuries he suffered in Vietnam. However, it's questionable whether people will look past that when they look at him.

The last question of the evening was an opportunity for both candidates to show a little vulnerability. McCain took it and admitted he didn't know the future. OK, a bit banal, but still he admitted to it. Obama didn't. Yes, he said that his wife Michelle has a list of things he doesn't know, but Obama himself did not admit it. That only adds to his image of being arrogant and over-confident.

The Bad

Not enough stories. A lot of the themes tonight were very emotional for many American people. Yet both candidates failed to deliver compelling stories to illustrate those issues. Obama came close when replying to the "Obama Doctrine" question. In his answer, he posed questions directly to the American people, asking them to give a moral answer. But most of the examples were reduced to attacking the opposing party.

Obama stuttered at crucial times in his answers. They gave the impression that he was either lying, making it up on the spot, or he wasn't convinced about what he was saying.

McCain used the term “my friend” and “my friends” too often. It can be endearing, but as with any colloquialism, when overused it loses its effectiveness and becomes annoying.

McCain, at one point, forgot to use his microphone while answering. Normally, that would only be funny. However, that can be seen as a “brain fart” which is not a good thing for him.

When asked whether medical coverage is a right, a privilege, or a responsibility, McCain said responsibility. I am sure many people who have trouble paying medical bills felt insulted or stunned by that answer. That could play against him during this campaign. Especially since Obama stated it was a right.

The Ugly

Where was the timer? If you have ever been to a Toastmasters meeting, you know that one of the important functions in a meeting is the timekeeper. The timekeeper is the one that reigns in the people who think that their time is more valuable than other people's time. He or she uses (surprise, surprise!) red, yellow, green lights to tell people when to stop talking. And they are punished when they go overtime.

During the discussion period, Obama and McCain paid no mind to the time, and received a small warning from Brokaw. In effect, they were allowed to ignore the rules as they pleased.

McCain was dismissive and disrespectful twice in the debate: when he called Obama “that one” and when he assumed that one person had never heard about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That's a slight on McCain, and one that is not very presidential.

Final word

Overall, it was an interesting debate, as much in its form as in the content. I would have preferred more interaction between the candidates and a bit more dialogue so they could challenge each other more effectively.

The debate itself was closely fought. Obama wins it though, because he came off as more polished, more confident, and he better connected with his audience.

Recent quotes on other sites

I was quoted in Infoworld on angry IT workers:

Staff reductions following the dot-com crash have stripped many IT staffs to the bone, forcing those that remain to double or triple their workloads. The piling on of work can demoralize the people charged with keeping the business going, says Laurent Duperval.

Read more here:Angry IT workers: A ticking time bomb?

I also was quoted on CareerBuilder.com on being the bad guy at work, and the effects:

"Employees want to be treated with respect and they want to feel valuable," Duperval cautions. If your type of bad guy is disrespectful and humiliating, then don't expect to receive much appreciation in return.

Read more here: Does It Pay To Be the Bad Guy at Work?

And if you are considering using an OS in a consumer device, think Linux:

Technology News: Mobile Tech: Linux Where You'd Least Expect It

High price of gas fuels debate over telecommuting

With gas prices hovering around $4 a gallon, who wouldn't want to join the growing number of U.S. employees whose route to work is just a few short strides from the bedroom to a home-based office? You can read more here:

High price of gas fuels debate over telecommuting