Rants and Observations
older experienced people and transformational hires
Jul 28th
So. In the past months I received two things that didn’t seem related but in my warped mind they did:
1. Ralph Cutcher (a nice really smart guy) talked in his newsletter about helping companies hire more transformational people. Here is what he said:
- Transformational Players –During the last year, most of our assignments have been for what I would term “transformational players”. Sounds like an impossible search assignment right? Not really. What these searches represent is an expectation of change and new possibilities, principally tied to establishing new capability, a new leadership approach or new business creation. And they are always entwined with an expectation for revenue lift. Our view may be skewed somewhat by the nature of how our practice has evolved, but I also see this when I talk with connections in every corner of the marketing and advertising world. A great replacement is not really considered a high value staffing move. More often than not these transformational player moves are accomplished by trading out another role(s) to fund this move, making an incremental FTE add or moving a star player into a transformational role. The result over time will be a version of the GE model… every year trade out the bottom 10% of your performers. In this updated model, every person is intricately tied to a higher value role with a constant re-evaluation of the roles and how they fit in. This future view will put a premium on a person’s ability to influence and activate the organization regardless of their current role.
2. I was forwarded an email suggesting about only 4% of employees in advertising (say marketing) agencies are over 50 … so where is the knowledge and experience coming from (and the editorial suggests how can agencies developing communications to boomers do so without boomers guiding the relevance)? Here is the quote from EngageBoomers:
- The PEW Center released a study at the end of last year suggesting that the current generation gap is the largest in the almost 50-year history of the study. Even larger than during the Vietnam war era. Today, an astounding 79% of Americans believe that there is a generation gap in the ways young and old think and believe. And then there’s this … The average age of an advertising agency creative person is 28. The average age of a media planner is 24. And less than 4% of advertising agency personnel in America is over the age of 50. I know why all the ads look and sound the way they do. I know why none of them talk to the 50+ audience. A friend of mine offered up this paraphrased quote from the Greek philosopher Xenophanes: “If horses had gods, they would look like horses.” Thirty-five year old creative people are always going to create messages that look like them, sound like them and act like them. Why? Because they’re 35.
Okay.
I have to tell you.
I think the market place needs more 50 year old+ employees than ever before (and I am gonna tell you why).
Now. I am not suggesting all 50+ people are the same. And this generalization may be translatable to other age groups but let me suggest there are three groups:
- Over 50 and all they know and believe in is what they were taught when they were in their 20’s.
- Over 50 and they have all the knowledge they need to be on their own and like being on their own (I call these builders)
- Over 50 and have accumulated iterative learning over the years and have a unique combination of old and new (and like renovating)
(note: I wrote a post about Builders versus Renovators if you want to check it out)
The first group is lost in the past.
They will struggle because their thinking and ideas and even their vocabulary can be out of date. They will suck at transformation or renovation. Their hope is finding someone who needs to work on their internal construct of how to get shit done because … well … they know how to get shit done within a system. But mostly these are the people when we were young we thought were ‘out-of-touch’ from the real world (or chuckled to ourselves because they would throw out up to date buzzwords acting like they knew what was going on).
The second group has accumulated enough knowledge and expertise and confidence where mentally they have flipped from ‘working for someone’ to ‘working for myself.’
They have recognized their ability to build. And they like building (which is different than transforming). They would suck at transforming because they want to run the place and not simply be an enabler for the organization to shift. (Ralph also talks about this within his newsletter as “fear of flying” and learning about yourself). They could possibly be out of touch or they could be leading edge entrepreneurs. But it doesn’t matter because they are now going forward as their own boss.
And then there is the third group. They are renovators (Ralph calls them Transformation people).
Companies should be fighting over these people.
They are old but not old. They are experienced but still learning. They have a solid thinking construct but flexible in application. They may have their quirks (because I believe all of us older people start feeling more comfortable in our own skin and therefore are a little less worried about ‘fitting in’) but also tend to be more interested in the result than worrying about step by step how they get there. They can actually make the current buzzword understandable by using past functional learnings to explain them. They clearly have one foot in the past (history & knowledge) and one foot in the future (restless & learning). Great at transforming. Great at bridging generation gaps.
So.
When I say “fighting for these people” I don’t mean to suggest that companies should be stockpiling these people at the expense of young energetic fresh thinkers and doers. I am simply suggesting that companies need a good tier of these boomer types to transform themselves when, frankly, a lot of companies need to be ‘transforming.’ (and my definition of transformation is leveraging from solid good older characteristics an injecting some new characteristics).
I am also not going to suggest there should be a direct correlation between % of boomers in population and % of boomers in the makeup of business organizations.
That would seem kind of silly to me.
You don’t need a shitload of these people because they are catalysts (and I think if you have too many catalysts in a room it creates either a black hole or an implosion … I cannot remember which).
But the numbers are pretty compelling that organizations should seek that third group of over 50ers (let’s be nice and call them boomers … hey … I am one … well … officially I think I am a Joneser).
In 2009 The PEW Center released a study outlining the current generation gap is the largest in the almost 50 year history of the study.
Today, an astounding 79% of Americans believe that there is a generation gap in the ways young and old think and believe. 
Truly the only way to bridge that gap within an organization and eliminate generational divisiveness is to have boomers who can effectively communicate with and motivate all age groups.
Look. Just to make a point for all organizations.
I don’t know that I buy the dire extent of the issue the editorial in Media Post suggests with regard to boomers in advertising/communications agencies (The average age of an advertising agency creative person is 28. The average age of a media planner is 24. And less than 4% of advertising agency personnel in America is over the age of 50).
To the facts just stated I frankly say “so what.”
I don’t believe only women have to work on female driven communications, African Americans on African American focused communications or clowns to work on circus communications.
Talented communicators can create links with anyone they desire to communicate with.
This leads me back to the importance of that third group of boomers with the talent I outline.
That group will tend to be generalists.
They will have such a varied experience background that their value will be exponential in that they know how to transfer learnings to different situations. 
They will know how to take company vision (or ‘dream”) and give younger people purpose. And they will be flexible enough to do it in a variety of ways.
Organizations today should be absolutely climbing over each other to find those people.
Why?
Because no 25 or 30 year old can have that ability (that I guarantee).
Why?
Because there is no possible way they would have had time to accumulate the experience and learnings to be fully (they could be partially at that point) capable of what a good third group Boomer type can offer an organization.
But hey. I am biased. I am selling my own age group.
But.
I will also say.
This is one of the few topics I feel pretty confident that I am right on.
national program to support Childhood Curiosity
Jul 27th
So I saw a TV commercial encouraging maintaining arts/music in schools curriculum the other day. I didn’t pay much attention to the details and I am not really a government program gwonk (whatever that is) but I assume someone in their infinite wisdom is cutting money supporting these things in schools.
Well, in general, I would say I would jump on this soapbox.
But.
I won’t because of ignorance with regard to the choice. Huh? If I support this, does funding get cut from some other children’s education program? As I stated I am not a policy gwonk so I don’t really know how these things work.
But.
Here is what I do know.
Every child is born curious.
And every child has an unopened box of curiosity which has a key to open it.
And I do know every child needs a different key to open it.
For me it was words. Words in songs. Words in books. Whatever. I listened to the radio music incessantly and read every Nancy Drew and Hardy Boy book I could get my hands on. Somewhere in elementary school a teacher read us Tolkien’s The Hobbit during reading hour. (I couldn’t wait to be able to read it on my own.)
For others I assume it’s something else.
The stars and planets and space.
Playing an instrument.
Understanding what makes things run and go.
How do things live.
Why is the grass green and the sky blue.
Crap like that.
Frankly I don’t care about any individual program (music, math, social studies, chemistry, etc.).
What I care about is giving children a box of keys and let them figure out what opens their curiosity box. And then making sure that curiosity never grows hungry. That it can be fed for as long as they want to keep eating. Curiosity will never have an obesity issue .. there should be an all-you-can-eat buffet 24-7 for kids.
Is that realistic? Once again, frankly, I don’t care.
This is me being unreasonable. Having music fight for money from sciences who is trying to make sure they have money from machine shop/woodworking is kinda nuts. You are choosing among the children (literally and figuratively).
So while I am okay with a TV commercial fighting for something like music in schools I am not okay that money has to be spent on the fight (versus actually using the money for feeding kid’s curiosity).
This is not “no child left behind” (although I guess if I did some research I could be really sure about that statement).
In fact, I read somewhere that inadvertently the ‘no child left behind’ program kind of created the arts cutback situation because funds had to be diverted to sciences & math to insure the program met its goals (I don’t think anyone planned it to work that way).
Heck. President Obama announced a $250 million initiative to train math and science teachers and help meet his goal of pushing America’s students from the middle to the top of the pack in those subjects in the next decade. Obama said the $250 million in public and private investments for his “Educate to Innovate” campaign will help train more than 100,000 teachers and prepare more than 10,000 new educators in the next five years. I am all for that also. Just not at the expense of other curriculum options students could select.
Why do we have to choose one over the other? (I guess that is where I get stuck on this issue)
So. What would I do? (being the unreasonable guy I am)
Use that 250 million to train Curiosity Fulfillment teachers. Create a Curiosity Fund and go get stuff in front of kids. And keep shoving it at them until they find something they gravitate to. The only reason (in my opinion) kids “give up” in school is because they just don’t find anything relevant to them. I am NOT suggesting we should ignore a well rounded education (they do need to know 2 and 2 is 4 and stuff like that) but give them a “hook.” Something to hold on to. Something that inspires them to want to know more.
There you go – a National Childhood Curiosity Program. Educating to feed Curiosity.
shakespeare and self esteem
Jul 27th
“Be true to thineself.”
Shakespeare
I used this quote in maybe one of my first 5 posts but since my friend Jen referenced it with regard to self esteem I thought I would bring it back and refresh it slightly with the whole self esteem discussion in mind (as well as my recent rant on advertising agency differentiation).
Let’s talk business first.
I use this quote in every branding exercise I have ever done. I believe branding, personal or companywise, doesn’t start with the ‘customer’ but in understanding yourself. And in understanding yourself … have the kahones to be true to thineself regardless of the repercussions.
Branding experts spend so much time focusing on the customer and doing whatever you have to do to be liked by consumers that they lose sight of what a brand really is at its core – thineself.
I would imagine at its core this thought is about a company’s self esteem.
I guess if all you want to do is make money and be a prostitute, or a chameleon, and be whatever the consumer wants and do whatever the consumer wants in search of the almighty dollar then you should go ahead. But while I would probably lose the consulting gig I would then suggest ‘be comfortable being a legal prostitute.’ And, oh, (no offense to any prostitutes) expect that no matter how big your wallet gets you will have the same self esteem as a prostitute. By the way. I am not the first to suggest this (at least in the advertising industry). The original founder of The Martin Agency in Richmond said something very similar (I have the exact quite in a box somewhere). But. Those ad guys are mad men anyway.
When I do any strategy gigs and I use this quote I typically suggest it’s like building a great circle of friends. Your circle of friends is stronger if there is some mutual respect and you truly enjoy each other’s company (flaws and all). Now. That doesn’t mean everyone will be your friend. Some people may like you but not be a friend. And some people will just have no interest in being your friend. But in the end your company, your product/service, your brand is better off if it is ‘true to thineself.’
Okay.
Personal (and this whole self esteem thing).
Heck, I believe it may be one of the most important lessons a person can learn in their personal life (and one of the most difficult lessons to actually implement I may add). I don’t have a lot to add from what I say to business owners (above).
Similar to businesses getting caught in the barrage of consumer influence on company image an individual is faced with a similar situation (without money involved).
As Jen told me:
“realize sometimes people just get bogged down, and the external factors are definitely loud/pervasive, but still annoying to see/listen to people play “victim” or blame their upbringing/society/partner/etc on their unhappiness or their unwillingness to climb out of the pit.”
I cannot disagree.
Shakespseare was a smart dude. I don’t think he lacked for self esteem (although I would imagine he had the typical creative artist insecurities lying below a healthy façade of strong self esteem). But self esteem is a tricky thing.
It is made even trickier by the fact we are always growing as a person. We are always gathering external information and assessing ourselves. Part of self esteem is understanding what is good and should be respected about yourself and another part of self esteem is partially understanding how to change and evolve and improve.
And that is self esteem’s trickiest challenge.
Be stagnant and you aren’t improving. External factors will remind you of that. Constantly.
So change and those wily external factors have a habit of understanding that your foundation is shifting and starts seeking cracks in the foundation to weasel its way into.
My first post on “be true to thineself’ may have been too flippant.
Truth in itself is very difficult; add ‘thineself’ and difficulty increase exponentially. Negative self esteem issues are a “pit.” That is true. And I am with Jen on this one … no one should be willing to accept living in this pit if you have a choice. And everyone has a choice when it comes to self esteem.
Ah.
But nothing good in life is easy.
That is an unndebatable truth.
a rant on ad agencies differentiation: part 1 the missed opportunities
Jul 25th
So. I have managed advertising agencies, I have been business development director at agencies and I have talked with so many business owners about advertising agencies as well as search consultants (kind of like executive search people for businesses looking for agencies) that I think I have seen pretty much every angle any agency has ever taken to differentiate themselves.
And I think any sane person who stuck their head into this padded room advertising agencies live in would suggest the occupants exhibit some relatively insane behavior patterns on occasion.
Look. No matter how you slice it my friend Luke Sullivan said it best “it’s all about the work.” An agency both has the work and can do the work or they don’t and they can’t (but are trying to convince everyone they do and can).
We in the agency business hate admitting it’s “the work” because then it makes us sound like a manufacturing plant cranking out widgets. Well. Tough nooogies (I love typing that). Agencies are what they produce. Simple as that.
Do they produce ideas (so they can claim they are ‘thinking agencies’)? No.
Those are consulting firms (who typically in my harsh point of view have absolutely no value to the world because they shirk the responsibility of the actual ‘doing the work’ once they have the insight/idea).
Anyway.
Advertising agencies produce “tangible creativity” based on an idea.
Doesn’t mean you should be any dumber because you shamelessly state it’s the work (cause if you don’t have the insight or the idea you ain’t gonna produce ‘the work’ anyway).
A person I admire said “well, our work sells shit.” That works for me too.
Does it mean they do crappy work?
Nope. Just that if you come to them and they develop work for you it will … well .. work.
Anyway.
Differentiation.
So most agencies that can do the work fall into three categories.
- Ones known for a charismatic talented personality. Jeff Goodby. Roy Spence. Alex Bogusky. Stan Richards. And going back in time … David Ogilvy, Mary Wells, Bill Bernbach. Let’s call them “zen masters.” Kind of the Phil Jackson’s of the advertising industry. These are at the top but there are a slew of well known charismatic personalities that can raise the level of an agency that can and does the work to a place in the marketplace where they are differentiated. Oh. And charismatic takes on all shapes and sizes. You may not know the people I stated above but one is reserved and taciturn and brilliant, one is bombastic and pulpit worthy and one is casually brilliantly articulate and one is formal and disciplined and concise. There ain’t no formula here folks for charismatic talented personalities. Other than the fact people like to listen to them and follow them.
- Ones who are known as an agency that does ‘this kind of work.’ So the agency isn’t driven by a charismatic personality but most probably by a distinct culture or attitude that has consistently generated a distinctive look & feel of “work” that has worked and they have become known for something. Cliff Freeman agency probably the easiest one to point out here.
- Ones in between but wanting to be one of the above two (oh. Most agencies are here).
This third group is a morass of all size agencies ebbing and flowing as several are always on the cusp of moving into one of the two categories above and some slip in and some never make it and fall back into the pack. All always seeking that ‘differentiation’ that makes them get considered. And group three is doubly difficult to compete in because this is also the group where agencies who don’t really do ‘the work’ (because they cannot … because … well …. they suck) reside and wander around trying to look like agencies that can do the work and confuse the whole kitandkaboodle (another word I like to type).
Oh. Before I get to the differentiation thing.
So why can’t some really good agencies get up into one of those two categories?
Well. I am going to generalize but try these on for size:
- Charismatic personality. Agencies are typically hotbeds of egos and politics. Elevating one person above the rest is a gauntlet that even the most charismatic person has to be slightly lucky to get there. It is certainly the easiest way for an agency to get in the game but most agencies waste this opportunity through politics and egos. Or. They simply choose the wrong horse to ride to the top. What do I mean by that? Well. An owner of an agency may feel they are the anointed ‘charismatic one’ because it is their name above the door. When in reality they are simply the one who has the cahones to own an agency and manage an effective agency and hire great people so it becomes a great agency. The owner is the wrong horse in this case.
- Agencies that are known for their work. This is a complex group. Couple things fall in here. If you don’t have the account how do you get known for the work? (that is the issue but I will suggest an answer in part 2 in differentiation). Or even worse is the battle between making money and doing work. All agencies have clients in their stable where they don’t do work that completely sucks but it isn’t “all about the work” and it pays a lot of bills. Maintaining that balance is really really difficult. Combine that fact with the fact that most agencies in this group chase anything hoping it is ‘the one.’
Please note that almost everything I have written in this section translates into “the agency is not in control of their destiny.” That is until they get ‘the client’ and even then you are having to prove it wasn’t a onetime fluke but sustainable. Even Crispin, who began in group three, shifted into group 2 (about the work) and ultimately now resides in group one (Alex Boguskyland) was only able to achieve this over a period of time. It takes some consistency to move from group three to two. The one thing that doesn’t take time is a charismatic personality. If you got one ride that horse until it breaks a leg and you have to shoot it.
Ok. Back to the work and differentiation.
First.
I believe most agencies confuse differentiation and being distinct. Agencies known for their work aren’t really different. They just have a point of distinction. For whatever their work is known for.
Second.
So. In the attempt to break out of the morass in group three agencies go to incredible heights of zaniness to break out. The most typical and tried & true is the “proprietary process.”
whew. Okay. Unless some agency has a magic cube they throw their work into that they shake up and then pull out the magical “work that works” no one has a proprietary process.
Sure. They may be some differences. But they are nuances. Pretty much everyone does a derivative of everyone else.
Why wouldn’t you? The best processes are smart and well done and copied.
Anyway. Process differentiation is part 2 of this rant.
Part 1 simply suggests differentiation is simpler than ad agencies tend to make it. Doesn’t mean it is easy. Just means it is simpler if they would allow it to be so.
a rant on ad agencies differentiation: part 2 the so-called proprietary process
Jul 25th
A noted in part 1 I believe the core of any advertising agency differentiation is “it’s about the work.”
But.
Often the agency that is not instantly ‘knowable’ by its work immediately drops down into “our proprietary process” mode (which suggests .. “We can do as good a shit as those Crispin/JWT
/GSDM/whomever folk because we have a nifty whizbang process).
Why does everybody go to process? Easy.
As it is ‘all about the work’ here is how it goes:
Is the work smart, insightful, educational, entertaining and effective? No (drop out. Process won’t save you. You don’t belong here in the discussion) Yes. Move on.
Ok. Do you do it consistently? No (you are in trouble. Particularly if you say something like ‘we can but our clients don’t let us.’). Yes. Move on.
Ok. Do you have some formula that guarantees that consistent work? No. we don’t have a process. Its sheer luck of the draw. (okay. Here is why you need a process).
The typical answer here ? ‘Well, yes and no. we don’t have a formula but we do have a consistent process we like to work within that increases the likelihood of success. But, no, there are no guarantees. But our process is pretty good. And we are pretty good. And you are gonna fire our ass if we aren’t successful so we are highly motivated to get it right.”
Ok. But if you are consistent why won’t you guarantee it?
(without getting into compensation discussions)
‘Well, a process is simply a means to an end. It helps uncover true insights and ideas but it only informs us to develop the creative thinking it doesn’t develop the actual creative ideas. “(although it can on occasion but you never tell anyone that).
So. That is your argument for having a non proprietary solid process. But hanging your hat on your process to differentiate is nuts. It’s your work.
But.
Day in and day out scan advertising agency websites and sit through dozens of credentials presentations and if you have enough coffee to stay awake (which is actually not that tough because most are pretty entertaining and everyone likes to look at ‘the work’ …. Oh … the work?!? … ok … moving on) you will have to endure everyone talking about their process. Their proprietary magic cube that generates the work.
Here is what you want to show. Okay. And I want to be clear. In this simple process chart there are boundaries but freedom. The lack of detail doesn’t mean that there is not discipline but the freedom is in the simplicity:
A simple “you & I discuss, we take information, we start thinking, we make sure time & costs meet you expectations, we do whatever voodoo we do on that particular assignment that generates work, we show you work.”
But. Simplicity seems too chaotic. So we decide to show detail:
And then we invest ¾ of a meeting talking about process in the presentation because we either:
(a) feel like we have to discuss each detail point or (b) the audience is so confused they have to ask a zillion questions to figure out what the hell you are showing.
But.
This is the truth. This is really the process chart that reflects a simple truth:
But telling the truth is not good. Because no one wants to trust chaos.
Unfortunately advertising agencies are part chaos (because that is the characteristic of creative thinking) but we pony up a proprietary process to prove consistency and logic and a sense of comfort. Regardless (and this is where I repeat myself) it all ends up with the work. Process is a means to an end.
Here is the real issue. (I think I am going to say something smart here so pay attention)
People confuse process and disciplined thinking.
You look at that last chart (which IS truly what happens in a creative process) and you think chaos. Well. Not really. Let’s call it organized chaos. Or maybe even better said “disciplined chaos.”
First.
I dare you to talk with any creative thinker. Any creative thinker. It need not be an adverting agency person. It could be a scientist seeking a cure for cancer. A NASA engineer seeking a way to build a space ship to leave our galaxy. A product development person seeking an innovative product to meet an unmet need.
Discovery is messy.
Doesn’t mean they aren’t disciplined and have a “way” to attack it.
It is not a process. Or a strict methodology. Because in the end discovery is often about the unexpected or the unintended.
So. What do I mean?
You can attain an awesome unintended result despite a focused articulate smart objective/strategy “aim.”
So if the result doesn’t match the initial objective do you throw the result away?
Gosh.
That means penicillin never happened.
Email never happened (the military discovered it).
That means the atom is ignored.
That means America was never discovered.
People don’t like to hear it but it is exactly the same in advertising and communications.
Discovery is messy.
(sorry about that)
And having a proprietary process may sound good and make you feel good what matters is if your messy discovery creates good ‘output.’
I guess what I am saying is if you are an ad agency and you are investing a lot of emotional and intellectual energy into outlining and developing a whizbang process than I would suggest you are wasting good energy.
But.
With that said.
Say you have your process and you want to differentiate yourself.
Well.
Get to ‘the work.’
Anyway.
Here is my last thought.
Controlling your destiny and differentiation (or being distinct).
You have a whizbang process that looks an awful like everyone else’s but has a nifty name but you have a limited work portfolio. And you want more clients. Bigger clients. But the new potential clients don’t feel comfortable because you just don’t have the ‘work proof’ to get you over the hump.
If I were an agency owner or business development director and I had a budget I would build a soup to nuts beta case study. High risk. High return.
Pick a company any company. Doesn’t matter (although I would imagine if they are really high on your wish list you may as well put ‘em in there). Run them through your process. Get the insight or idea or whatever your process is supposed to generate. Do the work (yes. That is clearly speculative work.) Test it. Show that it “works.” Go back and rework it of it doesn’t work. Get something that works.
There is your proof.
In fact, your process worked so frickin’ well you didn’t even have to have the client there. And when you talk to a client? “Imagine how much better the work would be if a client were involved to provide us with the ‘x’ factor.”
Bundle enough of these and you have test proofed your process, proven you can do the work. Show work that works.
Do large agencies have to do this? Nope. When I was at J Walter Thompson I had so much shit in my bag I could pull out there weren’t enough minutes in a meeting to be able to show examples.
Do agencies who want to get out of group three have to do things like this? Yup.
That is the price of getting out of group three (if you want to get out … because you can make a fine living in group three if you are comfortable there).
There you go.
My rant on advertising agency differentiation parts one and two.
Interestingly I would imagine that while I focused on the advertising industry this applies to many industries where there are massive amounts of commodity like service providers dwelling in some nondescript morass of non differentiated excellence.
So maybe this can apply to you as well.
Hopefully my rants benefit someone other than just my own conscience.
If not? My conscience is at peace.
the riches of Purging: Purged Living Part 2
Jul 24th
So you now have purged and are living “small space living.”
The functional benefits are really obvious – financial savings, less upkeep, etc. and they become obvious very quickly (which helps overcome some of the emotional shock of turning around and seeing your entire living space).
A good friend of mine suggested simplifying is all about a decision to live simply versus simply live. And it could be. That is a big big thought.
But big thoughts usually take a while to incubate in our pea like brains (well … at least mine for sure).
So. Possibly after a period of time it smacks you in the back of the head as such.
But in the beginning it may sometimes just be simply that it is … well … simpler.
Less choices. Less maintenance. Less expense.
So it means you have more of other things … one of which is time.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh … but there’s the rub.
We Americans rarely accept “free time” as a gift to relax but rather we fill it up with other things. Therefore this “smaller space frees up time” slips through the cracks in the consciousness pretty quickly. (but I bring it up with the hope you try and remember it as a positive).
Shifting to living simply is also a neat opportunity to give life a “fresh start.”
And I imagine I never really thought about the outcome of the purging as having a variety of paths until my mother and I went through it at the same time. My mother and I going through it at exactly the same time showed us two paths:
- I simply consolidated my stuff and took the best of the best and created a space where I love everything that I have.
- My mother took a core favorite group of pieces and items, basically built her bedroom and kitchen with the comfortable stuff from her past things and then started from scratch in the living room (reupholstered comfortable chairs, bought new couch, used two of my paintings she liked, bought new lamps, etc). So she created a new look in her main living space.
So once you get through the purging gauntlet you do have a smaller space, a simpler life and, frankly, a space you have difficulty finding fault with.
While there are fewer things to fondle or juggle you have more to be happy with. It may sound odd but you don’t doubt any purchase you look at around you. Nothing seems like “wasted investment.”
And no matter how rich or material oriented you are there is a lot of satisfaction in “dollars invested well.” and smaller space living focuses you n this each and every day.
Smaller space living ain’t bad. That’s the net of it.
Lastly. The odd conversations.
Inevitably the people you know knew you as a “larger living space person.” So. You find yourself in many conversations explaining your smaller space living arrangement.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh .. the harsh edge of perception versus reality. Another friend of mine when talking about our health issues in the United States stated it is because we Americans associate value with quantity (quantity of food in that case). It is similar with living space particularly if you are dealing with people who have seen you in ‘large space.’
You had quantity of space – you were happy.
You no longer have quantity of space – you cannot be happy.
It’s weird. You spend a lot of time trying to explain to people something you have already gone through (the pain of the purge .. which you don’t particularly want to relive but are constantly forced to) to explain you are happy in smaller space living.
Sure.
You rattle off all the functional reasons (smaller bills, less time cleaning, less chores) but people associate that with “you have less money and you had to do that.”
Well.
They may be right. But more likely they are wrong.
Sometimes you reach a point where doing something right for you just doesn’t seem right to others.
Okay sure. Maybe at some point after we get through this depression (oops. recession.) people will accept smaller space living decisions as something like “living life simpler” choices but for now?
Be prepared if you elect to do this.
Remember these three things:
- Purging sucks.
- Simpler life doesn’t suck.
- Explaining it sucks.
Hopefully over time #2 carries more weight in your life than 1 and 3 combined.
As I did all of this myself within the past year I am not positive I have reached the balance yet.
But I hope. And I am fairly sure it is a good place.
simple complicated. complicated simple.
Jul 23rd
Making the simple complicated is commonplace.
But.
Making the complicated simple is not commonplace.
That.
Is.
For.
Frickin’.
Sure.
In fact. I have almost started believing that they are teaching “how to complicate things” in schools these days.
And even worse? (and this is really nutty)
Say for example you really have been able to articulate something simply AND it is actually so awesomely simple it is brilliant.
You are feeling pretty good with yourself about right now. You were clear, concise and brilliant in simplicity.
(here comes the nutty part)
No one believes its right.
Yup. No shit.
“It cannot be right. That’s too simple. WE MUST BE MISSING SOMETHING.”
(I capitalized it not because when it is said someone is shouting but, rather when you hear it, it sounds like someone shouting in your head and there is a buzzing sound in your ears like a grenade went off beside your head)
You want to look around and calmly say:
“You are correct. Brilliant insight in fact. What’s missing is all the COMPLICATED SHIT YOU WANT TO COMPLICATE THIS WITH.”
(note: on occasion you may actually shout this but on the off chance you don’t you will want to shout it)
Somewhere in the past it became uncool to do something simple.
And since that time (and I would shoot the bastard if I could find him who did it) it seems like we have gained momentum surrounding this concept and not is it uncool to do something simple the majority of people cannot even recognize a simple solution.
Simplicity has gone the way of the Dodo (extinct).
On occasion someone stands up and says “hey, I am not sure Dodos are extinct, I am pretty sure I saw one in that conference room.”
Everyone laughs. “Dodos are extinct.”
“Well, I have seen a picture of one and I am pretty sure it was one.”
Needless to say you either become extinct in the company if you stay the course or worse they throw you into the loony zoo with all the other Dodo sightings.
So.
Here’s the deal.
If you are one of the rare birds who can see simple things as they are (simple), don’t get frustrated. And every time you watch something simple become more complicated just take note and put that thought in a little box for another day.
Because one day you are going to be in a position to tell people what to do. I guarantee it.
How can I guarantee it?
Because you are one of the rare birds who can see the simple within the complex.
It won’t matter how many of these discussions you lose in early years.
Oh, and you really aren’t an extinct bird. Just so rare no one recognizes you.
You will lead one day.
Then you pull out your box and start doing simple things and kicking some ass (just don’t tell anyone you are a Dodo … probably not a good idea … let them think you are extinct).
Fun aside.
Lack of simplicity in the business world is probably the biggest issue in business these days. And it is overlooked as everyone focuses on ‘building brands’ and bottom lines and organizational alignment and whatever the business buzzword du jour is.
Shove ‘em off to the side.
The biggest issue facing American businesses today is over complicating simple things.
It’s that simple.
(and no one will believe me)
difficult gets done immediately
Jul 22nd
“The difficult we do immediately. The impossible take a little longer.”
US Army
While this quote is attributable to the Army my sense is this is the attitude of all of the services.
Walt Disney said “it’s kind of fun to do the impossible.”
I guess what I like about all of them is the inherent belief that nothing is impossible.
Or maybe better said is “before you accept the impossible treat everything like it is possible”.
Too many times I have heard “impossible” thrown out so flippantly as a stop sign for people who don’t want to go the extra mile.
I guess I have also found that rarely are things 100 percent impossible.
Something can always be done.
I admit.
When I hear “that’s impossible” I typically perk up a little and go “really, impossible you say” and my brain starts going into overdrive thinking of the possibilities of what is … well … possible.
I don’t think I am that different than a lot of people.
Virgil got it right:
“They are able because they think they are able.”
I do believe that as soon as you start thinking you are able to do something it becomes a little irrelevant if someone else has put the infamous ‘impossible’ label on it.
Thinking you are able to enables you to do.
Sure.
Some things really are impossible.
A 4 second 100 yard dash. Looking good in a lime green polyester suit. Seeing if you have no sight.
But.
That doesn’t mean you can’t finish faster than you may have.
Or find a situation where someone won’t laugh as much when you wear the suit.
Or seeing things from a different perspective.
Maybe what i am suggesting is rarely is impossible absolute.
It has degrees of possible within the impossible.
And what I know for a fact is that our military understands this 100%.
Every organization could learn a lesson from them.
Given the impossible task they ignore “impossible” and focus on addressing the possible no matter how difficult it is and when that is done someone is already prepared to say:
“well, we have gone this far, what the heck, those impossible things we looked at before, damn, they look a little more possible now that we are here.”
And that is the only reason the impossible takes a little longer.
Think about it the next time someone says something is impossible.
They are gonna look awful silly when you make the impossible possible at some point.
cloning self image
Jul 20th
“Why are you trying so hard to fit in, when you’re born to stand out.”
- oliver james
So. I love this quote from a variety of perspectives.
But. Today I am going to use it to discuss self esteem. Especially a woman’s self esteem (I have an entire post on this coming up on the heels of my Unhealthy Eating posts).
Anyway.
Self esteem. It comes from the inside out. In its truest sense that means a woman is not dependent upon anyone else to make her feel good about herself. She feels fine just the way she is aware of strengths and abilities and is comfortable unequivocally sharing them with others (or let’s say unequivocally enough that it doesn’t affect pursuing relationship or having positive relationships).
Sure.
She is also aware of areas needing work and flaws. But is comfortable knowing no one can be perfect. So there is a basic understanding, and inner belief, that we all have our strengths and weaknesses and she has the self esteem to be independent (not dependent).
All you have to do is work in marketing for even a short time and you realize that self esteem is a core identity issue (and Maslow has an entire hierarchical chart reflecting this which I have probably used a half dozen times in presentations).
Maslow notes self esteem is essential to personal validation and the ability to experience happiness. But. Self esteem resides within.
So. A healthy self esteem is important on a number of levels.
But here is the deal.
Self esteem is attacked or stunted from the outside.
So. A woman with low self esteem does not feel good about herself mainly because she has absorbed negative messages about women from one, or a combination, of these – society, what culture communicates around her, relationships (parents and/or companions).
Let me cut to the chase.
Society seems to doom every woman to eventual failure (unless she is made of Teflon or looks like Angeline Jolie).
Magazines, from teens on, pound away on one message – focus all efforts on appearance.
Oh. And not just “appearance” but rather “approved appearance.”
It seems many girls are encouraged by their tweens to stop enjoyable fun activities they may have enjoyed up to that point and focus their energy in pursuit of social acceptance (or they go the exact opposite direction seeking to file themselves under “outcast”).
And how crazy does it become? Well. They become rabbits eating leaves without salad dressing, jog in hurricanes, and dance like nuts to disco and sweat in designer outfits and swear they love every minute of it.
Oh. And TV. Never ending cosmetic surgery ads encouraging women to “repair” flaws in pursuit of appearance perfection (or the somewhat dubious “approved appearance”).
Yet despite all efforts women find it difficult to feel like they are good enough.
Geez. How can they? Magazine models are airbrushed to perfection as well as so thin I am not sure it is physically possible to have bones. All the beautiful movie stars are whipped into perfect shape by 8 hour workouts and personal trainers and surgery is used as if it’s like brushing teeth in the morning to create a fairly unattainable ideal.
Let me note right now. This womens’ poor self esteem issue just steams me. I know all women do not have it but far far too many do.
And this is nuts. Absolutely nuts. And I am gonna swing into a guy’s perspective on this.
This is a huge generalization but the buck stops here. With guys (men).
Since when have men followed what society tells us to do? We need to find our inner rebel and take this on (either that or just get our heads out of our asses). It is kind of up to us to solve this issue. At least for the women around us that we actually care about.
Not magazines. Not TV.
Sure. They drive me nuts but, hey … I would start with American Idol or Bridezillas before I attacked women’s magazines and cosmetic ads.
Why us men?
- We are there and can make an impact.
- Because it matters.
This is not from me. This is from someone who has PhD’s out the wazzoo talking about self esteem:
“Because they don’t have the self-esteem to know that there is someone amazing out there for them.”
Or.
“They just don’t accept that someone really does not only accept them for who they are but could even possibly love them – as is.”
And they beat themselves up. And they compromise. And they find abusive companions. And they feed this self esteem machine running 24/7 inside of them and a lot of really smart, beautiful and amazing women get destroyed by this – and it is a slow destruction taking little bite after little bite from the inside out.
And I get steamed.
And the crazy thing? (and this is really crazy).
Society has us all so screwed up in our thinking that even the women who you wouldn’t even hesitate to put into the ‘beautiful’ category have self esteem issues.
See Audrey Hepburn quote:
Look. In my Unhealthy Eating diatribe I state my belief. Healthy comes in all shapes and sizes.
Well. Here’s is the corollary or postulate or frickin’ theorem if you want it – Beautiful comes in all shapes and sizes.
And I don’t want to hear this crap about “she has a great personality” or “beauty is within.”
Everyone has someone who finds them beautiful, as is, out there in this world.
If you haven’t found that person keep looking.
On that issue?
Do. Not. Compromise.
(deep breath here)
I would imagine I wrote this because I just finished my unhealthy eating posts and portions of this self esteem appearance issue keeps rattling around in discussions people are having over obesity versus unhealthy and eating.
And the discussions are taking place among women I value … respect … and frankly cannot understand how we (society) put them in a place where they would even question “oh, someone could never see me that way.”
Drives. Me. frickin’. Nuts.
So.
Bottom line. The quote.
The beautiful women I know are beautiful because they don’t fit into some magazine outlined appearance or whatever. They don’t meet the “approved appearance” criteria (but I also probably could count on one hand women who do).
They are beautiful because they are individuals. The package. The imperfections make them perfect. They should be encouraged to stand out not wear themselves out trying to fit in.
And, because I am a guy, I can say this.
I think more guys should step up to the plate and be more positive with women.
Especially if you care.
Nowhere in ‘caring’ do I see any derivative of “diminish.”
So guys if you want a clone, go get one. But for the women who want to stand out and maybe not fit exactly into society sameness standards please don’t try and make them into clones.
Let them find someone who loves them as is.
interviewing part 5 (I think)
Jul 19th
I haven’t written about interviewing for quite some time mostly because I haven’t had anything new to add (my earlier observations in interviewing and the process remain unchanged).
However. In the past week or so it seems like I have been helping a number of people in the interview process and helping them find jobs which has made me think about my own sporadic ventures into exploring a select few opportunities and experiences. So if I combine their frustrations and my discussions here is the thought:
Let’s call this one “perfect for the job (or the opportunity)”.
So.
How often do you hear of an opportunity or see a job and say ‘I am perfect for that”?
And you just may be.
And I keep talking with people who are frustrated when an interviewer or potential employer just doesn’t see it.
The fall back cry of dismay is “how can I get my resume/information seen? They mustn’t have seen it because if they did I would have received the callback/call/offer!”
I usually take a minute to gather myself here before sharing some thoughts (and let them see some steam).
Well. The odds are they did see it. In fact the odds are they saw it for all its merits and if you were that perfect you probably made “the stack” (the ones who actually get a second look).
nuance differences
But. Perfection is in nuances.
What do I mean?
Well. You really truly may be perfect for the opportunity.
And the rest of the zillion finalist candidates they are reviewing are just really good matches for the opportunity.
Unfortunately the difference is in nuances. And, yes, I mean nuances NOT ‘clear distinction’ as the issue. Mostly because I tend to believe most of us are getting pretty good at stepping up our “job search game” in a competitive job marketplace and have the ‘how do I make myself look distinct’ pretty down pat.
This goes back to the fact that the only thing truly unique is your personality. You may have distinct qualifications but rarely are they unique qualifications when lined up with other finalists.
Look. I have been in a zillion (ok. an exaggeration … many) advertising agency new business finals. And I cannot tell you how many times we were “perfect” for the opportunity (I can also put a handful up where we were just a really good match but not perfect). And I also cannot tell you how many times we were NOT selected despite being perfect.
Yes. We were perfect for the opportunity.
But in the eyes of the potential employer (client) pretty much everyone of the finalists was “a very very good match” and it comes down to nuances.
Frustrating?
You bet.
But what do you do?
The employer didn’t make a choice that was really wrong (other than the fact it wasn’t you). So arguing or trying to go back and discuss is wasted effort. How do you debate nuances? (answer: you can’t).
I warn some of the people I talk with about the frustration of ‘nuances’ and how it can lead to incredibly bad interviews and discussions by landing in what I chuckling refer to as “the entanglement of nuances.”
entanglement of nuances
This is where discussions get bogged down as you find yourself in “Butland.”
They say something and you say “but.” over and over again.
In your head you can make yourself feel good that you are overcoming objections one by one and “but by but” you are building your case.
Well. No.
You are now entangled in nuances.
And like a garden hose or fishing line once entangled you may as well either throw it away, get ready to throw something out of frustration or simply cut out the knot and start anew.
Anyway. Even the best, the ‘geniuses’, would struggle to define the nuances in an interview (as I noted in my example in my recent ‘underneath greatness’ post):
- Could you imagine good ole Al sitting there in his rumpled suit and the interviewer asks official question number 4 “please tell me what you think you are good at?” And Al reaches up and tries to smooth down that crazy hair of his, hesitates, and says “well, I have no particular talent, I am merely extremely inquisitive.”
(cut to interviewer making note to self “cut interview short. Not ambitious enough. Cannot identify any talent. Waste of time interviewing.”)
Hey. Albert’s resume probably looked awesome (c’mon. how many people have “Nobel Prize” listed in awards).
He was a finalist for sure. And Al even made a great attempt at explaining the nuance that could possibly explain the subtle difference between him and the genius behind door number 4 relatively well.
But.
Nuances sometimes cannot be described … only seen by another. And if they don’t see it you cannot describe it. Oh. Warning. Even if they see it they may not be able to “see it.” (huh?)
Well, look at this: 
All incredibly fine guitars. Some incredibly small differences. Some may suggest the purchase decision is in the “nuances.”
Anyway.
I would imagine the point here is to be careful to recognize that while you may be highly qualified for an opportunity the odds of you being absolutely perfect for the opportunity lie within ‘nuances.’
And while I certainly am not suggesting people shouldn’t attempt to highlight the nuances I am suggesting that they are called nuances for a reason. They are, well, nuances.
And sometimes the people you are speaking with will recognize them as important but as likely as not they will hear and toss them into the “well, this person is just as qualified as the last so let’s move on.” And, in addition, constantly focusing on nuances may be more harmful than advantageous.
That’s it.
I have been talking to people a lot about this lately and thought it was worth throwing into the interviewing series discussion.
