20 Nov 2001 note: I wrote this flippant response on a whim about a year after I was interviewed, not giving the result much thought other than to amuse myself. Well as happens on the internet, Bernie Daina wrote me, having stumbled upon it in a search for something else... and after re-viewing what I wrote, I realized I was quite rude in my responses, and really, had ignored the real purpose (and original audience...) of the interview.

So I hereby publically apologize to Dr. Daina (and have done so personally as well).

I've left the text stand as-is, even though if I were to do this again I would not be intentionally rude, or insult Dr. Daina's skills or goals, as it seems dishonest to remove it, or indulge in cleaning up my mess, since one of the worst features of the worldwideweb is it's lack of continuity and history (a Stalinist tendency to "disappear" mistakes). (If my breaches of etiquette were more serious I might do otherwise.)

So this web page itself adds to the profiling, and shows some of my bad features too, so now you can say you know me a just a little bit better.

This psychological profile was done by a corporate/industrial psychologist hired by BEST.COM (actually, their investors) to make sure the managerial staff wasn't about to go postal (I guess). It took place a month or so after they acquired my internet service provider business, TLGNet, Inc. TLGnet was amongst the hardest things I've ever done. It consumed my heart, soul and body for three years. To say I was less than enthusiastic about continuing burning my brain in ISP-land is an understatement, but I was trying my best to sound enthusiastic. I was pretty much running on empty at the time of this interview, so it certainly skewed my responses. Keep this in mind as you read this.

The shrink, Bernard L. Daina, was a very interesting guy, very sharp. Needless to say, the hour he spent with me in October, 1996 was hardly enough to write this much, seen below on the left with my commentary on the right, never mind the idea that this profile is in any way complete. But I suppose it's more revealing, in spite of any inaccuracies or missing vast chunks of my damaged psyche, than nothing at all.

Name: Tom Jennings
Position: VP of Engineering
by Bernard L. Daina, Ph.D

1. He has a very superior intelligence1. He is a complex matrix thinker who can solve problems in parallel in his sphere of expertise. He moves quickly into linear-reductionist problem-solving when the material he confronts absorbs his interests2. He can, in fact, operate in a somewhat reactive and stimulus-bound fashion, straying into peripheral areas that have a seductive value for him3. He can therefore use assistance in concentrating on the relevant business or technological dimensions of a problem as opposed to those which are most aesthetically pleasing to him4. He is meticuluous in his work habits but must occasionally rely on others to inject judgement concerning the practicality of his ingenuity5. His quick mind and active imagination frequently outstrip his capacity to articulate what he perceives in a step-wise fashion that others can grasp quickly and apply to existing priorities6.	1. We all love flattery! 2. In fact this is my best skill; I work hard at thinking in parallel and taking into account goals and implementation details while staying focused on a tactical problem. Not that I always succeed or anything. My worst feature is that I can "stall" trying to close the loop on faulty data, or faulty assumptions on my part. 3. A nice way of saying he thinks I'm easily distracted by side issues. I try to examine whole-picture, and this tends to initially include things that may or may not be "side issues" -- after examination. 4. NOW WAIT A MINUTE! I don't often go off on tangents merely 'aesthetically pleasing', at least, not for very long. And I certainly don't get lost. 5. I don't understand how consulting others about is a bad thing. But I am organized, and keep a neat physical workspace. 6. Yes, this is definitely true. I often understand a thing or system very quickly, and then take a long time to be able to express it, verbally or otherwise. It is very frustrating to me. Once the thing has soaked in, I can usually describe it succinctly and clearly. I make a bad trivia-game player.
2. He is a highly inquisitive and expressive person1. He prides himself on his identity and talents as a pathfinder and innovative "techie"2. He is basically an upbeat and idealistic man whose productive thrust is powered by a longstanding impulse towards freedom of self-expression3. Although he enjoys the attention his flamboyance brings, he is far more concerned with devising solutions to problems that capture his attention than he is with promoting himself4. He finds the creative process satisfying in and of itself but is usually not content to initiate ideas; he derives satisfaction from bringing his creative ideas to fruition and will rely liberally on others to do so5.	1. Blah, blah, blah. 2. I'm not even sure what he means here. Someone else will have to clue me in. 3. Yo, straight-up. 4. "Flamboyance?" This, from a man who probably wears ties on his day off. Well I think most of the world is too afraid to do what they feel, even if it might be a mistake later. (As Mykel Board once said, "Even though I change my mind all the time, I'm always right!") It is completely true that I am bad at self-promotion, oh so important today. The egoism of it bothers me, which is partly why I've never done it; the other part is I like to move forward, and not dwell on the past. But it also means I've gotten kinda isolated, which is stupid. And some of the things I've been involved in have actual subtleties worth remembering. 5. This is true. I believe that ideas without follow-through are as useless as aimless activity. Idea::result with strategic value is the goal.
3. His social skills are quite good1. He is a straightforward, accommodating man who projects a high level of energy and enthusiasm that galvanizes others and quickly draws them into his perspective. Although his social demeanor is unconventional and highly idiosyncratic, he can interact productively with a wide range of people, stimulating them to break down assumptions and think inventively2. He persuades and influences others primarily on the basis of his technical expertise and enthusiasm3.	1. I should form a cult or something. Hey, we did that! HOMOCORE was essentially social engineering, and reasonably explicitly so; and it followed on the heels of my FidoNet experience, mucking about with existing social constructs (eg. facilitating conversation and creating culture). But I digress. 2. I'll take his word for it; I don't feel myself to be outlandish socially, though I came from a large, loud family and tend to express with energy that makes some people uncomfortable. Sorry. Tough. Also, I try to accept people for what they claim to be. 3. Once I've made an idea 'whole' in my head, I can generally get it across quite well. I'm not so sucessful when an idea or understanding isn't yet complete; then I can babble like a fool. Luckily for me, I'm really hard to embarrass.
4. His insight into his own moods, motives, and behavior is about average1. He has developed as a person and as a professional in a tactical and opportunistic fashion, repudiating external definitions and the controls or limitations they imply2. Although his path is unconventional, it is not entirely unpredictable3. He has strong needs for self-definition and when provided with the necessary infrastructure and support to stay directed he will almost invariably exceed expectations4.	1. He's being kind, I have to admit. 2. Exactly true; for reasons I won't go into here, I didn't view myself as having options when I was young; college was not an option. Plus I was a too-smart, queer kid in a horrible, oppressive town. My path zig-zags when considering only industry/technology; but only a gentle meander of the path with heart. 3 Ibid; not sure if he saw this or is just being generous. 4. Huh? Who else would you let define you?! On the second part, keep in mind I was interviewed right after the sale of TLGnet to Best Communications; I was coming off the hardest thing I ever did, and I was less than fully enthusiastic about taking on what was essentially someone else's project; "been there done that" plus plain old burn-out. And he conveniently overlooks the tiny detail that I took a casual, hobbyist $350.00/mo. shared 'net connection into $125,000.00/mo. regional ISP -- building my/our own infrastructure and support, thank you.
5. His insights into others is in need of some development. He is a psychologically-minded person but one who often leaps vigorously into a situation before examining the social nuances, motives, or objectives that govern an interaction1. He is somewhat naive, forgiving, and vulnerable to being disappointed by others whom he accepts at face value2. He can use the help of more shrewd and calculating managerial colleagues to structure business relationships toward optimal and predictable outcomes3.	1. This is true; I don't always determine peoples' motives and goals before joining in an existing 'situation'. Not that I can't, but if it's something I know about or care about I sometimes leap first. Enthusiasm overrides sensibility. I guess this is naiveity, huh. 2. I think he mis-read me here. Yes, I take people at face value, initially; nothing else seems fair. "All men are created equal" -- it says nothing about them staying that way. It's a far thing from being gullible. Aren't you disappointed when people turn out to be not as interesting or functional as you hoped? 3. Most of my experience is technical, little enough of it business (though I've been self-employed, contracting, software sales, TLGnet, that sort of thing, since 1986). I did payroll, hiring/firing, contract negotiation, technical negotiation... hmm, on second thought, he's wrong. Though again, this interview was after three years of brain-burning work, so I wasn't so enthusiastic about Best's projects. (No fault of Best's).
6. His skills and identity as a technical leader and as an individual contributor are far better developed than his managerial profile. Indeed, his interests and ambitions do appear to lie well outide the realm of management1. Although he can relate pragmatically to the challenges of building an enterprise and participate in business-development activities, he requires boundary setting to keep his energy focused and aligned with colleague's objectives2.	1. Oh what the hell does he know! I was a very good manager, for a small tightly-knit office. I don't micro-manage, I trust, work with lesser-skilled just fine, take suggestions from the young and the uppity, hire and fire OK. So maybe in a big office with a lot of office drones I might be less good. But I bet I could adapt pretty damn fast. And hire more interesting people, too. As I was writing this (Dec 1999) I realized that at that time I had not fully assimilated my TLGnet experience. In fact, I enjoyed having employees (I knew this back then) though in 1996 I was probably still parroting my old, unquestioned 'I don't want to be management' line. Things change, even the impossible. 2. Presumably he was picking up on my disinterest post-TLGnet; otherwise this is crap. I'm far better at whole-picture than anything else. The reason for TLGnet's success was I could worry about migrating a batch of customers onto a new router at the same time as strategically designing and costing that router (and it's encompassing system). He ignores the fact of TLGnet.
CONCLUSION
Tom Jennings is a great talent. Like many great talents, he requires considerable tolerance and indulgence of his individuality in order to remain bound and productive in a conventional business environment1. He can make a significant contribution to X's reach by expanding it in X. However, he should be coupled with a more conventional business colleague in order to drive the X opportunity forward predictably. Moreover, providing that Tom does not self-select to isolate himself from the core executive team, he can also play an ongoing role in evaluating new technologies, participating in partnering discussions, and occasionally helping the company's engineers to brainstorm solutions to daily problems2.	1. Hello? "Conventional?" Does this guy work in a bank? I admit I am definitely better at the ramp up hard stuff than the long, slow cruise across the ocean, but really... 2. Well by this point I'm slightly annoyed (can you tell). In my mind this man has an odd sort of agenda or assumption about how things "should" work. In his defense, I have to admit I was probably not a model of enthusiasm for my new employer's business; plus he simply wasn't in a spot to understand what I and the other TLGnetters had done.
October 2, 1996.

---

WPS HOME