The Power of Pull by Hagel, Brown and Davidson

Imagine if someone took all of your vague and random notions about today's global connectivity and communications capabilities, and how they work to your advantage while at the same time challenging you to keep up, and gave you a vocabulary to speak coherently about it. That's essentially what The Power of Pull does. It explains why job hunting today is so much more complicated now than it was a decade ago, but also why you're able to broaden your job search geographically and otherwise without much physical effort. It explains your friend's success in the business of message board technology, and your other friend's success at promoting games like WoW and Starcraft II.

The phenomenon began all around me over a decade ago, and everyone I know, myself included, has been living it ever since. We just never formed it into a theory, with a special vocabulary. Well, now we have it. It's "push" (old institutional infrastructure) versus "pull" (flexible networks allowing individuals to find, create and share in ways and magnitudes never before envisioned). And tapping into the "knowledge flows" on the "edge," which penetrate the "core" more quickly than ever due to people that use "pull" to advantage.

The intro and first chapter of the book are slightly difficult to wade through because the jargon is new, even if the concepts are not. I had to mentally build a dictionary as I went along. But after the first chapter, I was rolling along easily.

The underlying message throughout is that change and innovation is happening at an exponentially more rapid rate that even a decade ago. Like most people, I'm resistant to change, but The Power of Pull inspires me to be excited about this rapid progress and how I can be a productive participant in it by teaching, or at least starting to teach, how harnessing "pull" is key to succeeding in today's and tomorrow's world.

The first stage of their method is termed "access," something we're all familiar with, even if we don't use it in the targeted, strategic manner suggested in the book. Using networks and putting out feelers, whether through technological means or not, to identify people useful to you to make a greater impact than you could alone or in a closed community (i.e., a company or firm). They include examples such as the tweeting campaign during the recent Iran elections that gave voice to Green protesters, and the community of big wave surfers that share videos of their latest innovative techniques online.

The second stage of their method, "attract," I think is more difficult for most of us. I find the hardest part of attracting is giving enough, providing enough value, to those I'd like to, and potentially can, attract, so as to maintain the relationship long enough to create value. The book warns that the successful use of pull requires that there is mutual benefit to be had, and that otherwise the connections you make are not bound to last.

The last stage, "achieve," is where the method starts to fall apart for me. Maybe this should not have been a "stage" so much as a goal of accessing and attracting. The book at this point begins to rehash the age old endeavor to maximize individual performance, in part by marrying your passion with your profession. It's not entirely clear how this stage naturally follows the first two.

While the concept of "pull" can be superimposed on a wide range of applications, the authors' prescribed methods of accessing, attracting and achieving, and the diagrams littered throughout the book (essentially a single diagram with slight revisions) has limited applicability. Business leaders (i.e., executives, principals, division heads) are the target audience, business leaders are their prime examples of successful case studies (with a few exceptions), and although the authors make a small effort to broaden the application of their theory, business leaders are ultimately the ones that will benefit most from implementing the strategies suggested by this book.

The last few chapters of the book are little more than a strung-together list of platitudes, such as "what is, is only a precursor of what could be" and "For the first time ever, we have the real opportunity to become who we are, and more importantly, who we were meant to be." Really? As with many books of this genre - how-to management, leadership, self-improvement - the conclusion is a bit of a let down.

However, despite a disappointing, and somewhat painful to read, ending, I still think the examples discussed in the first half of the book were interesting and helpful.

Troublesome Young Men by Lynne Olson

Did you know that Winston Churchill's political ambition, along with that of other members of the British parliament in the 1920s and 1930s, nearly cost the allies all of Europe in World War II (WWII)? Did you know that despite Churchill's ambitions to become prime minister one day, he sacrificed his personal moral views against appeasing Hitler, voting against the rebellion that ultimately made him prime minister, because he was afraid to lose his political standing? Did you know that the British parliament was dominated by gutless appeasers? Did you know that their leader, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, was the ultimate gutless appeaser and gave up the only independent democratic country in Eastern Europe at the time, Czechoslovakia, to Hitler for an unrealistic chance at avoiding war with him? Did you know that Britain was woefully and deliberately unprepared to engage in WWII, ensuring their failure to make good on their empty promise to defend Poland against a German invasion?

I learned none of this in my high school history textbooks, but according to Lynne Olson's account of the happenings in Britain's parliament in the years leading up to WWII, these are all truths. The history books I read were all U.S.-centric, focusing more on D-Day and the plight of the Jews. The details about Britain's and France's failed negotiations with Hitler prior to his occupation of Czechoslovakia and Poland, and the numerous bluffs they could have called that would have stopped Hitler in his tracks, were glossed over, and all we knew was that Churchill, one of Britain's great orators, was named prime minister at the war's outset and successfully led Britain through the war, which are also true.

If, like me, you have a fascination with British history (which the success of movies like Braveheart and Elizabeth, not to mention the numerous movies and TV series about Henry VIII, indicate is true of many Americans), then you'll love reading Olson's accounts of the rebellion that put Churchill in power, the nature of the government toppled by this rebellion, and her mini-biographies of the rebellion's cast of characters. It will shock and frustrate you to learn how long it took for Britain and the world to wake up to the horror that was Hitler, and how many lives were lost because of the cowardice and political ambitions of the world's leaders, but at least we all know that the story ends well on the whole.

Peet's vs. Philz

Before I delve into my comparison of Peet's versus Philz, let me first disclaim any presumption the reader may have that I am one of those multiple cups-a-day coffee drinkers. I'm a lightweight. I really can't drink more than one average to large mug per day, my average being closer to one every 2-3 days. I usually order the small size at the coffee shop, and when I brew at home, I usually have one large mug. I've tried making more at home, but I just don't enjoy it past the first large mug. And I easily go weeks, even months (i.e., when studying for the California bar exam), without it.

Oh, but I do love the taste of good coffee. Indeed, I argue I may be even more impartial because I don't drink it out of habit or addiction, but purely out of taste enjoyment. I prefer brewed coffee and Italian caffe to American espresso drinks; and I love coffee in all it's forms - the first cup in the early morning, the afternoon pick-me-up, after dinner with and without dessert, and so on (just not all in one day). I also like a variety of flavors, from the sweet, nutty flavors to the dark, round, freshly bitter ones.

The first time I drank Peet's Major Dickason's was a revelation. Up until that point I had been an indiscriminate coffee drinker - I enjoyed Starbucks lattes, IHOP, General Foods International coffees all pretty much the same. Somehow that day, however, I knew I loved the taste of that bean, remembered its name and began to compare all subsequent coffee that I drank to it.

Quite frankly, the Peet's versus Philz list is not useful in determining which one is better. As with most coffee drinking (not all, since there is such a thing as bad coffee), it's a matter of taste and preference. Here are the pros (+) and cons (-):

Peet's:
+they know how to brew, and they brew it strong
+/-they leave it to you to custom-corrupt your cup however you want (cream, milk, sugar, honey, simple syrup, cinnamon, chocolate powder, etc.)
+Major Dickason's is a much better flagship blend than Tesora (Philz flagship) IMO
+great decaf options
+offers espresso and other drinks as well
-less choice on any given visit, since they only brew one flavor per day (or two if you count the decaf flavor) unless you buy multiple types of beans and brew it yourself (could be a + for those indecisive types, but generally in my book, less choice is a -)
-less choice in bean flavors overall, at least as far as I've tried, not in terms of number, but in range of flavor

Philz:
+they custom brew for you any of the bean flavors they sell by the cup, and will even mix multiple flavors in one cup
+their bean varieties cover a broader spectrum of taste, including light, sweet, nutty flavors
+they offer both a written description of their more popular flavors, as well as servers knowledgeable about their flavors, to help you decide on which flavor(s) to choose
+/-although you can determine weak, medium or strong for both the cream and the sugar, they do the mixing - it goes along with their high level of service, but also takes away from the control you otherwise have at Peet's to add whatever type of sweetener or creamer
+great decaf options
-no espresso or other specialty drink offerings

My favorite flavors from Peet's are Major Dickason's and Decaf Mocha Java. My favorite flavors from Philz are Tantalizing Turkish, Jacob's Wonderbar, and Decaf Ethiopian.

The bottom line is that there is no bottom line. Peet's and Philz each provide a uniquely different experience, and to love one does not preclude one from loving the other as well.

ad hoc at home #9: chocolate chip cookies

In his cookbook, Mr. Keller hails chocolate chip cookies as his favorite cookie in the world. I don't recall seeing chocolate chip cookies at Bouchon Bakery, nor ever having them in any form at French Laundry or Bouchon, so I didn't know expect.

As far as I can tell, his cookies are not that much different from other recipes I've seen. The main difference is that he requires that you buy good bars of chocolate, in a combination of semi-sweet and bittersweet, and chop them into "chip-sized pieces," and not surprisingly given his sensitivity to aesthetics, shake in a fine-mesh basket strainer to "remove any chocolate 'dust' (small fragments)." The other variation is his relatively high brown (1 cup packed) to granulated (3/4 cup) sugar ratio.

These two factors create a flat, relatively chewy cookie, with chocolate striations. Maybe Keller is more precise in cutting his chocolate than I am, sifts out more of that chocolate dust than I did, and forms more perfect balls with his dough before baking, but I always imagined his cookies, especially his favorite cookie, to look better than this:

It isn't the prettiest cookie I've ever made, but it did the trick taste-wise. The cookies were a big hit at my summer party, so much so that my mom wants me to make some for her to bring back to LA to share with family!

I made them again a few weeks later for a friend's housewarming party, and had more success making it look as good as it tasted ... at least with a few specimens.

ad hoc at home #7 and #8: duck

I don't think I'm alone in finding duck an intimidating poultry to cook at home, although really for no good reason. I blame the markets, for not carrying more duck meat, and then charging an arm and a leg for it. This means that if you are to try it, you mustn't go wrong, or else you'll have wasted quite an expensive piece of meat. This is where Thomas Keller comes in. His cookbook ad hoc at home has proven so far that I can't go wrong with his recipes.

Before shopping, I studied the recipes for both the duck confit and the pan-roasted duck breasts. I noticed two things: first, the duck confit required lots of duck fat, and second, the pan-roasted duck breasts produce lots of duck fat that is then discarded. Ding! went the light bulb in my head. I'll make the duck breast first, strain and save the fat, and then use it in my duck confit. Since duck fat keeps and duck confit is a two-day process (in fact, it can be stored for even longer), I didn't have to worry about being all duck'd out. It was a brilliant plan.

First, the duck breast recipe. It introduced me to the concept of cooking almost entirely skin-side down, something I've since executed on salmon (per America's Test Kitchen recipe) and chicken thighs (Jacques Pepin recipe) as well, for a perfectly crisp skin. Every instruction in the book is helpful and accurate, down to the removal of the "small white tendon that runs through each tenderloin" of your duck breast and setting "a metal bowl or other container near the stove" for use later. Don't question it, just do it, and everything will turn out right.

As with so many of his recipes, the cooling rack is key. Nearly everything is better after having been cooled on a rack.

The duck breasts came out beautifully.

I served it on a bed of simply sauteed green cabbage, sort of a la Keller's recipe, using, what else, duck fat, but without all of the trimmings (no red cabbage or pistachios).


Now for the duck confit. Keller's recipe makes 8 duck legs, and after trying to do it for 2 duck legs only, I can see why. Duck fat isn't easy to come by for most of us, and it's a bit of a waste of the duck fat if you're not lining at least the entire bottom of your Dutch oven with duck. It would be less of a problem if I had a smaller Dutch oven, but for the size I had, I probably could have fit 4-6 duck legs in one layer.

My thoughts on the duck fat: You can always buy it directly from a good butcher, but why pay separately when you already have to pay for a good amount of it when you buy your breasts and legs. From the duck breast, I had rendered off maybe one-third of the fat called for by the recipe for the duck confit. The recipe also calls for trimming and discarding the excess skin and fat from the duck legs, so I rendered that off, too, yielding almost the same amount as I already had from the duck breasts. In total, I had enough fat to immerse about 2/3 of the duck legs in the fat, but not all of it, as prescribed. Here's where my cooking sense and willingness to edit came in handy. I felt it was enough, and guess what? It was enough.

The duck went into the oven before I went to bed, and came out of the oven in the morning, about 8 hours later. Keller says 8-10 hours, but I opted for 8 since I only had 2 legs. It came out just a little more "meltingly tender" than I think he is aiming for, since one of the legs did fall apart a little when I sauteed them later. I think 8 hours would have been perfect for 4-6 legs. It was delicious, nonetheless.

Even though duck confit is meant to be salty, and I for one love salt, I would heed his warning about over-salting. It came out a bit on the salty side, which I was able to balance out with tomatoes and roasted potatoes, but had I indulged my penchant for salt by adding just a little more than the recipe prescribes, which I often do, I could have easily ruined these beautiful duck legs.

ad hoc at home #6: shortbread cookies

Pure joy can be created from 4 simple ingredients: butter, sugar, vanilla and flour.

Who knew?

If you've ever eaten at French Laundry, you've walked away with some of those light golden buttery crumbly cookies cut into perfect little rectangles. Well, with a stand mixer and some parchment paper, it's easier than pie to make (I know the saying is easy as pie, but pie is not this easy to make).

The ingredients: 1.75 sticks (or 14 tbs) unsalted butter; 0.5 cup granulated sugar + extra to sprinkle over cookies; 1 tsp vanilla paste or extract; 2 cups AP flour.

The dough: Using the paddle mixer, mix butter and sugar on low to combine, and then beat at medium speed for ~3 minutes until creamy. Add vanilla, and then on add flour on lowest speed. Once all the flour is in, beat on medium until dough begins to cling to the paddle and no longer looks dry, but before it forms a solid mass. Transfer dough to a board and bring it together with your hands. Form the dough into a roughly rectangle shape, wrap it in plastic and refrigerate it for at least 30 minutes, and up to several days.

Forming the cookie: Roll the refrigerated dough between two pieces of parchment paper until it's 0.25-inches thin. Set aside the top parchment, and cut the dough into 2-inch squares. Cover again with the top parchment and refrigerate again for ~15 minutes until cookies are firm enough to remove from the parchment.

Baking: Position oven racks in lower and upper thirds of the oven, and preheat oven to 350 degrees. Remove top sheet of parchment, and arrange cookies 1-inch apart on two cookie sheets lined with parchment paper or Silpats. Sprinkle cookies with sugar, and bake for 11-12 minutes, until their edges are just starting to turn golden brown. Allow cookies to cool a few minutes on the baking sheet before transferring onto a rack to cool completely.
After making the cookies a few times, I decided to take the cookie one step farther: dipped in chocolate.

Technically, to create a shiny, hard chocolate coating for the cookies, you have to "temper" it. Well, tempering technically requires bringing chocolate to a certain temperature, then cooling to a certain temperature, etc., and I don't cook with thermometers, not yet anyway. So I looked for shortcuts, and this is what I came up with:

For a single batch of cookies, you just need 5-6 ounces of good quality semisweet chocolate (you can use bittersweet chocolate, too, but for me, it wasn't sweet enough to stand up to the cookie's flavor). I chopped the chocolate into large pieces, and transferred approximately 2/3 of it to a medium-sized glass bowl. The glass bowl went over a small pot of simmering water. I added a teaspoon of shortening (I read somewhere that shortening added to melting chocolate stabilizes the end product and lends a sheen, although I haven't yet tested what happens if you don't add it), and stirred the chocolate around slowly until melted. I then added the rest of the chocolate, which I think achieves the cooling part of the tempering process, and continued stirring until it was all melted.

Then I removed the bowl of chocolate, and started dipping. I placed the dipped cookies on parchment paper to cool.

This yields enough melted chocolate to allow easy dipping in a bowl, but this means you have plenty to spare. You could theoretically use even less chocolate, but then the chocolate coats the bowl and will be quite shallow making it difficult to dip the cookie.

Allow the chocolate dipped cookies to cool in the refrigerator until the chocolate hardens, which I found takes at least 45 minutes.

Needless to say, these chocolate-dipped versions were very well received.

ad hoc at home #1 revisited: buttermilk fried chicken

Since I was too stressed and eager to eat the first time to take any pictures of the finished product, I made the buttermilk fried chicken again. Since this is probably the quintessential ad hoc recipe, this time I invited the friends that gifted me the cookbook to try it and compare it with the fried chicken they had the week before at TK's ad hoc restaurant. This time, I was much more relaxed, and Mark was around to snap a few more pictures of the process and the finished product.

We were much less messy this time.
And now that we were more aware of the actual cooking time (2-3 minutes more than indicated in the cookbook per batch), our timing was much better. And since we were working in batches - first the thighs, then drumsticks, then breasts, and finally wings - we kept the first batches in a warm oven until the guests arrived.
And voila! Beautiful fried chicken.
Before frying, Mark and I prepared a couple of side dishes.
He made mashed potatoes. I made coleslaw.
The colors were gorgeous on the plate.

ad hoc at home #5: beef stroganoff

As I indicated in my last post, the ad hoc at home braised beef short ribs are a precursor to two other recipes in the cookbook, and the second time I made them, I made extra to use a second day in one of these other recipes. I chose to make the Beef Stroganoff. And it was rich, well-balanced, full of beef and mushroom flavor, and totally yummy despite (1) the fact that I used store-bought pappardelle instead of making my own, (2) I used a hand blender (instead of an actual blender or fine-mesh strainer, can't remember which he called for) so my mushroom cream sauce still had small bits of mushroom, which is totally fine by me, and (3) it turned out looking like this:


Believe you me the pictures do not do it justice. I knew that the mushroom flavor would be the key to this dish, but boy did I underestimate it's power. The rich, beefy goodness of the short ribs combined with the deep, creamy, mushroom flavors rendered my three-day process (day 1: beef stock, day 2: braised short ribs, day 3: beef stroganoff) totally worth it. Needless to say, after hours of cooking, Mark and I devoured it.