A potentially incendiary post about pumpkin spice

The pumpkin spice craze of a few years ago has faded into pumpkin spice fatigue and loathing, and I’m begging everyone to make sure your ire is placed fairly.

“Pumpkin spice” is a gross combination of fake pumpkin flavor and chemically-reproduced spice flavors, and it makes things that shouldn’t taste like pumpkin pie taste artificial like almost pumpkin pie. This is what you should hate.

What you should not hate is the spice traditionally used to season pumpkin pie and sold mixed together as Pumpkin Pie Spice: cinnamon, ginger, nutmeg, and allspice. This spice combination makes everything taste like the good things about autumn: a chill in the air, wearing sweaters, beautifully-colored leaves, running outside in comfort, and football season.

Note that you can put Pumpkin Pie Spice in things not containing pumpkin. I made a recipe for spiced cookies using cinnamon, ginger, nutmeg, and allspice, and they’re warm and autumnal and delicious.  You should try them (or get your kids to make them for you, because they’re easy). Also delightful: bake a sweet potato in the oven, then split open and put on a little butter and a few shakes of Pumpkin Pie Spice.

Real, actual cinnamon, ginger, nutmeg, and allspice have never done anything bad to you.

You also should not outright hate pumpkin the fruit. Of course you don’t have to like it or want to eat it, because you’re an adult and you don’t have to like or want to eat anything. You’re the boss of you. But in its actual real pumpkin form there’s nothing to hate or resent about it because it’s just a fruit. You can say, “No, thank you” and wait for apple. Or you can eat it and enjoy its squash-like sweetness and creaminess.

If you do like pumpkin, one way to love it is to put some canned pumpkin in the blender with a little milk (cow or coconut), some powdered ginger, vanilla extract, sweetener, and ice cubes.

How did we go so far off the rails with this “pumpkin spice” thing if it all just started with an innocent fruit and four luscious spices? Well, capitalism, basically. The fact that actual pumpkin spiced with Pumpkin Pie Spices also tastes good with coffee left an opening for the military industrial complex to mess with us by fabricating artificial pumpkin flavor to put into coffee.

Blech. Come on, now.

If you want something that gives you the same warm, autumnal serotonin hit as pumpkin spice coffee but without that gross taste that makes you have to scrape your tongue off the roof of your mouth, there are a couple of options:

1. Put Pumpkin Pie Spice in with your coffee grounds when you brew coffee. You’ll get the deliciousness of the spices, without the grossness of the fake pumpkin flavor.

2. Make my Pumpkin Spice Latte Coffee Cake.  This is one of my favorite recipes I’ve ever concocted–it’s a moist and delicious coffeecake with real pumpkin, with a thin layer of coffee cheesecake on top.

3. Drink a cup of coffee while eating a piece of pumpkin pie.

This shouldn’t be traumatic.

tl;dr version: Just say yes to cinnamon/ginger/nutmeg/allspice with or without actual pumpkin. Just say no to artificial pumpkin and artificial spices.

Dear Jeff Bezos, I can solve your problem for you. Love, Magda

I’m not going to rehash the whole thing, but I am going to say that nothing in the original NYT article about how management happens is a surprise to anyone who knows anyone who knows anyone who’s worked for Amazon.

The way to have a well-functioning organization is to create an environment in which workers can trust their managers and managers can trust their people.

If you create an actively hostile workplace in which no one can trust even basic declarative statements, your company is not going to get the best work out of people. And your product is going to suck. Ask Microsoft. Or ask Ford, and then look at how they turned it around by requiring trust.

It’s not complicated to create an environment of trust in an organization. It is a process, but a fulfillment company should be all over process. 

Call me. I can teach you all RISWS and the larger theoretical framework behind RISWS, and within 18 months you’ll be someplace people stay because they love it so much.



Agile methodology, parenting, and managing people: some thoughts

This is going to be another one of those “everything’s connected” posts that people either love or hate, so enter at your own risk.

I think ALL THE TIME about how to free up people to do their best work and get into the flow state. It’s basically my whole parenting method: Facilitate and support my kids in experiencing a lot of things and then creating and maintaining their own boundaries so they can do what brings meaning to them. And it’s what I think good management should be, too: Facilitate and support your people in developing their strengths and maintaining boundaries so they can do what brings meaning to them.

And I think a lot of the time about processes and systems. I am a problem solver even when I try to turn off my brain, and the way I solve problems is by looking for the moving parts. You can’t tell what’s a moving part if all you have is chaos. You have to have a system or process in place so that you know what are the set pieces and what are the variables. Then, at the next level of problem solving, you look at all the data of the variables and recognize patterns, and then the anomaly is where you start looking for a solution to your problem. So the more processes and systems I’m familiar with, the better.

Which is all a long way to explain why I was research agile software development methodology. I don’t write software, but I’ve worked for software companies and am familiar with the constructs of traditional software development, and I wanted to find out how agile is different. So I popped on over to agilemethodology.org and started reading. And then I felt one of those classic “OMG, you like peanut butter?? I like peanut butter, too!” moments of recognition.

Let’s roll back a little to talk about my process of developing the RISWS method of managing people, that gives managers a continual data stream of information on their employees so they can help them develop their strengths and remove barriers to engagement and productivity. I came from the basic assumption that it makes more sense to take the people you have and help them do their best and keep them engaged than it does to focus rigidly on roles and try to force people into them at all costs. And a lot of that is changing mindsets so that people are allowed to trust each other and focus on working together instead of on defending territory and roles. RISWS is a process that you follow to deal with the individualities of people and with the individualities of their problems and competencies. It’s a cycle that creates continual progress and continuous improvement and trust-building.

So when I started reading about how agile development uses the Scrum project management structure to get continual data and create an improvement cycle, I thought these two methods (Scrum and RISWS)  were really similar at the core, although radically different in the actual process. Both are focused on working in the middle of the process and making constant improvements. Both realize that a long process without feedback can lead to disaster. Both prioritize new information and decisionmaking that celebrates information instead of assumptions.

Agile is “iterative and incremental,” which is what managing people using RISWS is, too. No manager has to be perfect. Anyone promoted into a manager role can learn. Teams and their leaders learn together and improve together. Honest feedback–and then acting on that feedback!– is crucial.

And both of these methods seem a lot like parenting preschoolers. You can wait for your kid to do something wrong (and preschoolers are always doing something wrong) and then punish them for it once it goes too far. Or you can keep a consistent eye out and set up regular processes, so as soon as things start to deviate you can step in to offer guidance and correction (in the “let me help you make it better” meaning of correction, not the hot saucing meaning of correction) so the child gets help succeeding until they can do it on their own. Agile and RISWS are the same thing: watch carefully, help, don’t penalize.

The other thing I think is really similar about relationship-focused parenting, agile, and RISWS is that they’re threats to traditional power structures because they focus on people and relationships and they trust people and relationships instead of trusting rules and penalizing people. So even though they make so much more sense than the more traditional, control-based, oppositional methods of parenting, product development, and managing people, they can be tough to institute because they require that the people in power take their hands off the wheel and trust these relationship-based processes.

Trust people. It’s a timeless but still-threatening concept. In a lot of areas.