I'm reading the very interesting Dethroning the King: The Hostile Takeover of Anheuser-Bush, an American Icon, and one of the fascinating aspects of the story is that leadership at Anheuser had always assumed their company was immune from takeover. Some combination of being too big, too storied, too iconic and too "American" gave the company a sense of immunity that left them flat-footed an unable to react when giant international competitor InBev came knocking in 2008 with a hostile takeover bid that was eventually successful.

As we approach a New Year, it seems worthwhile to examine some of these long-held assumptions that your company may harbor, and see if they are really as grounded in reality as you may assume. In Anheuser Busch's case, while the Busch family retaining management of the company and treated it very much as a family operation, they owned a very small slice of outstanding stock, making them completely unable to overrule or strongly influence a takeover bid.

While considering every possible nightmare scenario is counterproductive, being aware of the assumptions that underlie major decisions and planning accordingly can be far more effective than a last-minute scramble. Illustrative in Anheuser's case was that as soon as the InBev threat was confirmed, obvious cost-cutting and streamlining efforts that had been ignored for years were attacked with great zeal, but it was too little, too late. Completing some of these activities several years earlier may have made the shareholder less receptive to a merger, or freed cash that could be used to battle it out more effectively.

My life seems constantly plagued by devices requiring an update. Occasionally this process is seamless, with a device pleasantly notifying me that it has already downloaded an update and is ready to install. Other times, a device like my Apple iPod will one day decide to stop working until it can "phone home" and download some update or another, a process that takes nearly an hour once various backups and downloads are done.

One of the worst offenders is a laptop that one of my clients requires I use due to supposed "security reasons." This laptop happily works away around the world, but when I make a trip to the corporate headquarters and plug it in, I can basically write off doing anything useful with the machine. All manner of icons appear near the clock, each flashing, pulsing or wiggling as it communicates with the "mother ship."

Being in Europe, I'll occasionally receive email demands from a machine an ocean away demanding an update of some sort, and invariably that machine will no longer operate after I warily click the "yes" button, presumably requiring some physical massaging that must wait weeks until I return home.

With even one of my wristwatches requiring occasional software updates, the oven, refrigerator and coffee machine can't be far behind. I'll update you when that finally happens!

Creating a false sense of urgency can be an effective way to get a group of people moving, but it is very much subject to the "Boy who cried wolf rule," and will only work once or twice before the person claiming urgency is summarily ignored. Furthermore, most teams cannot constantly operate in crisis mode and will soon ignore pleas for more action. In the best case, the team simply ignores calls for urgency and continues along at a good pace, in the worst case, team members rapidly burn out and cease productive efforts altogether.

In case you missed them, my regular column on CBS' Tech Republic contained the following articles in the month of November:

Why "the cloud" doesn't matter
Three technologies I'd like to see in 2011
How to market your internal IT department

Project Managment: Death by Deliverables

Signed copies of Breakthough IT: Supercharging Organizational Value Through Technology are now available on the Prevoyance Group website! Until 31 December use promotional code WINTER2010 for 20% off any purchase!

I spent most of this year as what the US press euphemistically calls an "undocumented worker." These are the people that come into the country without the appropriate visas and paperwork, perform a job and generally go back home or send the majority of their money home. According to the press, they are responsible for all manner of nefarious deeds, from driving without insurance to taking advantage of the medical system. The news in other countries indicates a similar suspicion of these people, with an anti-immigration party elected in "progressive" Sweden and busloads of Gypsies deported from France.

While I did not sneak across any borders in the dead of night to perform manual labor, I always had a sneaking suspicion I was working without the correct visas and permits. Despite having access to far more resources than the average immigrant, I eventually gave up when the third French official I visited chided me for having the incorrect type of visa, after I had spent the previous six months changing my visa type at the insistence of various other authorities.

In Italy I no longer had the benefit of basic command of the language, and felt the bewilderment most immigrants must feel as they navigate a new country. While I certainly do not expect a country to cater to an outsider's language needs, and I rarely encountered hostility in Italy, I could see how a long-term visitor could only feel further alienated by "English only" movements that occasionally gain traction in the US.

I came to Europe to work and to experience a different culture and lifestyle with my family in the level of detail that one can't get spending a week or two on holiday, and feel I accomplished that. I also leave with far more respect and understanding of those who leave their country seeking work, many doing so for more dire reasons than my own. While it is easy to shake one's head at the stories of immigrants "stealing" jobs and services, the truth seems far more basic, and something that I hope my own country learns to deal with in a more constructive manner.