Enlightened Conflict

instinct

April 6th, 2013

“Ideas pull the trigger, but instinct loads the gun.” – Don Marquis

This quote is taken from Marquis’ “The Almost Perfect State” which was written in 1927 as a series of sharp criticisms of the Progressive Era.

Ok.

I imagine a lot of people read this quote and wonder if the quote would work better … “ideas load the gun, but instinct pulls the trigger.”

But I believe that misses Don’s point <albeit I have not spoken with him on this topic … he died in 1937>.

The point?

Knowledge and experience can only take you so far.

It is the difference between being solely analytical and incorporating the intangible <the instinctual>.

What he is suggesting is that all the bright big ideas in the world don’t mean shit if they cannot be brought into being without a person who can originate the intellectual movement of action. This person requires a special character.

Ah.

Special character.

Instinct is one of those things people hate.

Because it is not tangible … and it always assumes some level of risk.

It is research of one <which scares the shit out of people these days>.

That means …

Collaboration? Well. Nope.

Consensus? Geez. Nope.

Extrapolation through the hypotenuse of multiple data points discussed ad nausea and plotted on some nifty white board? Sounds like fun … but … nope.

Instinct is gut … albeit typically great instincts have been honed by experience and knowledge.

But in the end … it is not tangible nor proven.

It is … well … just what it is.

Sure.

It can be cultivated.

And it can even be honed.

But I do not believe it can be taught.

Well. Let me take that back and try this.

Good instincts cannot be taught.

Good instinct is first and foremost an internal aptitude. We all have instincts … but some just have gooder instincts. Beyond that natural foundation it is probably a combination of experience and knowledge and ultimately a mindset.

I say a mindset because instinct is a feeling and not anything visible or tangible. You sense what to do and where to go and what to say.

And it often isn’t because your instincts are proven good … but just rather that you know what feels wrong.

“Every time I’ve done something that doesn’t feel right, it’s ended up not being right.” – Mario M. Cuomo

That said.

I know one of the most frustrating things I have heard in business decision meetings is “I am not sure what the right thing to do is … but … what we are discussing doing sounds wrong.”

And while frustrating … it also feels right.

We sometimes get so rushed to make a decision we grab one … anyone will do. And, yet, it feels wrong … okay … maybe not wrong … just not right.

That is instinct.

Not only knowing the path to success … but also recognizing paths to failure & disappointment <before you even take one step on that path>.

It is a true joy to be near someone with good, if not great, instincts.

They seem to be in an effective zone and not in a comfort zone. What I mean is that they have a habit of disregarding distractions … discerning the important from the unimportant … and have a focus. That focus may not be the destination <it can be> but oftentimes their instincts are reflective of the journey to the destination.

They have a humble confidence … and sometimes are even slightly insecure .

“Trust instinct to the end, even though you can give no reason.” ― Ralph Waldo Emerson

And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

Now.

Conversely, it is absolutely miserable to be near someone who has crappy instincts <but thinks they have good instincts>.

It is not only miserable because you end up going down lots of fruitless paths and waste a lot of energy but also because instincts are intangible.

There are no numbers or research or facts that can counter instincts and intuition. Therefore someone in a leadership position who has crappy instincts is unmovable. They are literally an elephant in the room.

That is misery.

Regardless.

Instinct is a natural aptitude.

Kind of like a knack.

An innate tendency or response to act in ways that, at its most base description, is essential to development, preservation or survival.

As Hayakawa suggests … instinct implies innate disposition rather than having a talent. It is not a gift, nor a talent or even an aptitude. It is more an inborn intangible. It could be called a ‘Knack’ but that has almost always been associated with social rather than intellectual causes & situations.

It is tough in today’s world for people with good instincts.

While intellectual in its strength it is not proven with any reason.

In an over thinking, over analyzing, over safe world .. ‘without reason’ doesn’t often gain a place at the table.

Instinctual decision making often requires having people follow with some blind faith. And in a world of consensus and collaboration … well … that ain’t happening much these days.

answering the help wanted ads for data decipherer

March 12th, 2013

Help Wanted!- Data, data everywhere—and not enough people to decipher it – WSJ headline 3/11

51% of surveyed IT professionals currently involved in big-data projects cited ‘lack of expertise to connect the dots’ as a reason projects fail in their organization. No other factor was more commonly cited. – infochimps, inc.

Well.

This post is either going to show I am incredibly naïve or incredibly smart or incredibly stupid <and clueless>.

Look.

Everyone in business is drowning in data these days.

But here is a newsflash … we were always drowning in data … albeit different data … but I am willing to bet a shitload of money that anyone with any business experience will agree that we had so much data crossing our desks <in the good ole days> that you could build your own great pyramid of paper if you so desired.

As I scratch my head over the flurry of farcical diatribes around “big data” I can’t help but be reminded of the poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”:

“water, water everywhere, nary a drop to drink.”

We might say the same thing about how technology has enhanced the volume of data these days.

The volume of data is almost unfathomably vast.

And because of that we see thousands of articles on how to sift through the data for business advantages.

Well.

This is crazy talk. Mostly because it seems like everyone is mesmerized by the quantity of data available.

Anyone with any business chops will quickly point out that anyone, throughout the history of business, has always had a quantity of data available.

And we almost always had too much quantity <more than they could ever use>.

The access to quantity has never been an issue.

Now.

They will also point out that part of knowing your business shit is setting up efficient/effective data gathering … so you capture the most important <and not invest gobs of energy on stuff you will never use, cannot use, do not really want to use or is just plain useless> data.

Now.

They will also point that data analysis has three components:

- Assessing the data available <with gobs available which gobs are most meaningful>

- Setting up a system to use the useful data <consistently trapping & tracking the useful stuff consistently saves time and effort>

- Analyzing the data <connecting the dots … instead of just showing numbers>

Now.

They will also point out that the third step in the process is often best done by someone who has no clue how the data is gathered … or even needs to know exactly what data was not gathered <although they may at some point suggest gathering something that someone up the ladder had decided was unimportant> … but they know how to connect dots.

Now.

I will now point out we in business have been doing this for years.

Sure. More and different data may be available today but the schematic looks the same.

Business management has always faced an obstacle when it comes to reaping the benefits of big data because they always need someone who can tell them what it all means.

But it seems that because there are so many new ways to gather and track data there is a heightened awareness, and desire, to actually use all this data stuff … with the same good intentions that business had in the past … gain a competitive edge … or at least to keep up with the competition.

Oh.

And here is what any business person with chops will also tell you … relying on data alone isn’t enough. This is a game of both head and gut.

When you rely too heavily on data, you can become too reactive, too myopic in your thinking and miss out on what the numbers can never tell you … the why’s and the what’s and the <inconceivable to number crunchers> impractical inconsistent sometimes illogical human mind & behavior. Data cannot tell you what to do.

<Big> data can lead to small sharp insights and beget great decisions and action.

But.

Here is a business truth <that most executives do not want to hear these days> … data, of any size <double venti, regular venti, grande, etc.> has no value in and of itself.

The true value of data is found in context.

Look.

You absolutely need a team with technical people to gather & mine the data … but they need to be working together with an experienced analytical person who knows how to ‘connect dots.’ This type of person knows how to observe information, interpret information and place it in context with non-number/data stuff and explain it.

And, no, that person may not be a data gwonk.

They are just good at connecting dots.

And they are good at not being blinded by the newest & nearest data point.

“Gut feel is great for everyday problems. But, it often leads us astray when we’re presented with complex streams of information. We can be blinded by the newest and nearest data point and miss the big picture.” – Nate Silver statistician & author

I don’t agree with Nate … well … he did caveat it with “can” and “often” … so maybe I will give him a break.

Gut feel … intuition … ability to “feel” the numbers in context … is essential in order to use the data.

I do believe in what IBM calls “augmenting intuition.” And that means … well … what it says. Augment … ‘in addition to’ … add in as part of your decision criteria.

No amount of numbers <and data of any kind> can eliminate all decision risk. Nor can any amount of numbers <and data of any kind> insure you make the best decision.

Here is my last “Truth” of this post … data & analytics can make you equally smart & stupid.

People make smart decisions using data all the time.

People make stupid decisions using data all the time.

The only thing consistent is people.

And here is where the article kind of truly went a little nutso.

Increasing training & skill set on ‘connecting dots’ to increase the amount of decipherers available to businesses.

This is where it all falls apart for me.

Because doing what they suggest basically means that data drives good decisions. Data all by itself. No intuition … no feel … no gut from experience … that maybe data can make a decision for you … and they are wrong.

I become scared because I almost feel like this is a deeper dive into that business hellhole I call “responsibility free decision making” with the intent to do the “safest behavior to increase return <or increase advantage>”.

This is using data to make all the decisions <and they even use it to hire a person which is also kind of nuts>.

This is dancing on the head of a pin business management.

And it doesn’t teach people how to think.

It doesn’t utilize skills of existing people <who aren’t steeped in ‘Big Data” but are also not intimidated nor blinded by the newest & nearest data point> who are very good at connecting dots.

And, worse, it guarantees a next business generation of “big Data decipherers” … or people who use data decision making skills and have honed no intuition skills at all.

Am I suggesting “gut management” alone? Of course not. I never have. I never will.

In the 80’s we scoured computer printouts with ‘crosstabs’ and supermarket SAMI and Nielsen reports which contained reams of data point we had to make sense of.

In the 2000’s we are scouring computer printouts <assuming you print out> which contain reams of data points we have to make sense of. And you did it then, as it should be done now, as part of a team to insure you didn’t get dazzled by some shiny data point.

This stuff drives me a little nuts because we all think the newest and nearest data point <oops … innovation> means that the world has turned on its head.

It hasn’t.

Some skills are just … well … good business skills. Adaptable to pretty much any new widget or innovation that mankind can create.

I know how to connect dots. I have no clue how to build systems to gather these dots. And you know what? I am not sure I have ever known.

And I am not unique. There are hundreds if not thousands of Me’s out there.

The skill?
Making Big Data nice small simple learnings/conclusions. Ok. Making any data available into nice small simple learnings.

2013. 1913. 1813.

The skill has always been relevant … and thinking that ‘data decipherer’ is some new skill is crazy.

leaf without a tree

March 4th, 2013

So.

Studying history, and using what you have learned, is a tricky challenge. Often we study history, and the past, so that we can “not make the same mistakes.” Well. The attempt is one of valor <and good intentions> but most actions using historical learning are misused <as they are misguided>.

“If you don’t know history, you don’t know anything. You’re a leaf that doesn’t know it’s part of a tree.” – Michael Crichton

—-

“History is not, of course, a cookbook offering pretested recipes. It teaches by analogy, not by maxims.” - Henry Kissinger

—–

Henry <or Hank to his friends> also said …

“The study of history offers no manual of instructions that can be applied automatically: history teaches by analogy, shedding light on likely consequences of comparable situations. But each generation must determine for itself which circumstances are in fact comparable.”

Now.

Studying history is always good <that is a Bruce postulate>.

How you use what you learned studying history is always a challenge <that is a Life truth and an ongoing Life debate>.

Too often people want to use historical “learning” as a literal guide for what to do now <or in the future>.

You cannot.

Sorry.

But you can’t.

I do not care if we are talking about business, life or economics.

You cannot .

Hank, discussing Foreign Policy, actually walks us through a nice way to think about this.

Intellectuals analyze systems & situations while statesmen build them.

And therein lays a vast difference between the analyst and the statesman. The analyst can choose what problem he wishes to study whereas the statesman’s problems are imposed upon him. The analyst can allot whatever time is necessary to come to a clear conclusion while the overwhelming challenge of a statesman is time. The analysts runs no, or little, risk. If the conclusions prove wrong he can rewrite and reanalyze. The statesman is permitted only one guess and his mistakes are irretrievable.

Sure. Typically the future is simply a version of the past. But what makes it challenging is that what appear to be superficial changes, that sometimes make it easily recognizable, are the things that transform situations into unrecognizable changed situations. In addition … we tend to ignore the ‘collection of people’ variable .

In the end? We wonder what happened <and why we didn’t learn from history>.

Well.

As Kissinger states … history teaches by analogy, not identity.

Unfortunately this means that the lessons of history are never automatic.

That they can be apprehended only by a standard which admits the significance of a range of experience, that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

Now.

I do believe no significant decisions are possible without at least an awareness of the historical context.

For everything exists in time more than they do in a moment in time. What I mean by that is an explanation of ‘context.’ You may not be able to completely replicate the exact time, place, situation and experiences of any & all affecting what you are studying <or even replicate a majority of those variables> however you can gain a sense of choices that were available and choices made. This is contextual learning.

Because people forget that what they are studying is a given moment which is simply a situation where it is not only a reflection of a collection of individuals <and their experiences> but that situation also achieves a unique identity through the consciousness of a common history <those individuals are studying that particular moment colored by,or driven, by perceptions of beliefs of that time>.

The only possibility of learning is studying history within the collective memory.

It is not often that we actually learn something from the past. And it is even rarer that we draw the correct conclusions from it.

Why?

The lessons of history <and Life experiences also> are contingent.

That means they teach the consequences of certain actions … but they cannot force a recognition of comparable situations.

Well.

That is a BIG thought right there.

One that many of us should think about more often.

Let me translate <for my own pea like brain>.

History is contingent upon a series of factors … and to make it exponentially more difficult … contingent upon a continuum <horizontally> as well as simultaneously <vertically>.

Yikes.

That means exactly replicating the situation in which you are ‘learning from’ is … well … pretty much impossible.

The variations and variables almost seem limitless <try pointing that out in your next business meeting when someone says “what did we learn from past experience”>.

And … well … gosh … doesn’t that kind of make you rethink every business book you have ever read?

Regardless.

History is just that … history. A series of factors & variables all aligned for one moment in time <vertically & horizontally>.

Therefore … change is not only the constant but it also possibly represents the only legitimate path to progress.

I say that to suggest that change may actually freedom from the past.

And to suggest that history, when one decides to live it and not learn from it, can cage you.

I know.

Learning to break free from the history that holds no value <or decreases value> is difficult. It is easier to simply use it as a handbook of ‘what to do.’

If we truly seek to learn <and teach> we cannot be subjugated to history.

If we truly seek to be better than what we already are … we cannot do simply as history ‘dictates.’

But all we really feel most comfortable with is remaking things in the image of historical learning.

Well.

I guess that means to remake things better we have to be … oops … uncomfortable.

I believe what I just wrote will make a boatload of people very uncomfortable <assuming anyone understands what I wrote>. Why? Well. This kind of thinking can drive you crazy … particularly if you want to simply study and create conclusions <rather than hypotheses>.

So. The how do most people, and businesses, get around this type of thinking?

They suggest that they have isolated the most important variables … and can draw a correlation to the current situation … draw some conclusive conclusions … and isolate the best plan of action.

Well. They are nuts <if not crackpots or liars>. I do not doubt 99% of the intent of these people but they are still wrong. History provides context not analogy. Now people <in general> do not like that. It makes them feel uncomfortable. They want to know unequivocally that they will not be ‘making the mistakes of the past.’ Sorry. Can’t happen. You may be able to reduce the odds but cannot unequivocally guarantee it. Oops. Big trouble in the working world if you say shit like that.

But it is Truth. Truth in a business world. Truth in Life.

Another truth? <and something that most people will also feel uncomfortable with>

Studying history will make the in-the-moment decision better. I did not say “using history to make the decision” but rather “people who have studied history will better be able to CREATE a unique decision in the moment.” Yup. I used the dreaded ‘unique’ word. Most decisions are discreet <unique to the moment>. That makes people feel very very <very> uncomfortable.

Regardless. It is a Life truth.

In the end?

“Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old; seek what they sought.” – Basho

Well.

That is a nice uncomfortable thought to end on.

pressure doesn’t gain time

February 13th, 2013

Ok.

I almost called this “our obsession with time.”

And because of this obsession … procrastinators, who have always been crucified, are being verbally harpooned day in and day out in books, businesses and everyday life as “time wasters” <which is metaphorically making those people as bad as smokers, litterers and communists or, in general, inferior flawed people>.

Yup.

In my eyes procrastinators have a tough life these days.

Employers are getting better at squeezing any ‘time wasting.’

And peer pressure makes any time wasting become the equivalent of having a post-it note super glued to your forehead with lazy/inefficient/nonproductive/etc. <choose one or all> on it <or just a poor employee>.

Even compensation is becoming more short term.

Almost 60% of Americans are paid hourly.

And even if management isn’t tracking hours, paying people by the hour, demanding meeting effectiveness by the minute or utilizing time efficiency models to squeeze every productive minute out of you … you are putting pressure on yourself with to-do lists, calendar updates, scheduled sex events with your partner and “family time” <limited to maximize 15 minute increments to insure you get everything done you need to get done>.

We are so obsessed with time and maximizing it … all of it … each and every minute … and we are being pressured <by others or by ourselves> to do so all the with the intent to ‘gain time.’

Anyway.

We are constantly seeking to maximize moments under the guise of ‘not procrastinating’ or in harsher words … not wasting … our time.

Maslow suggested we should seek, and encounter, “peak moments of clarity.”

Some bonehead called Eckhart Tolle <who is considered a very smart bonehead in some circles> wrote an entire book expounding on living a life in the ‘now’ (Power of Now) which was slightly absurd.

A company I worked at, JWT, even wrote a trend white paper called “Time is the new Currency” <in the early 2000’s I believe>.

This is crazy.

First of all obsessing over anything, let alone time, is not and never will be … healthy.

And secondly it will never increase efficiency, nor effectiveness, when all time is said and done.

Thirdly, pressure, especially on an ongoing basis, is never a good ingredient in the formula for happiness.

All that said.

I would like to reference an obscure article which can be found in the Academy of Management Journal <Brian Gunia & 3 co-authors of Johns Hopkins> and a book “Wait: the art and science of delay” <Frank Partnoy>.

Let me begin with one of my favorite topics – doing the right thing <ethically>.

I found it really interesting that in a series of experiments slowing down actually makes us more ethical . When confronted with a clear choice between right and wrong, people are 5 times more likely to do the right thing if they have time to think about it rather than if they are forced to make a snap decision. In addition they studied businesses and suggest organizations with a ‘fast pulse’ <like banks> are more likely to suffer from ethical problems than those who move more slowly.

Say what?

Yup.

Time pressure enhances the odds someone will make a less ethical, less right, decision.

Beyond that … the books and research suggest that delaying decisions <not yielding to time pressure> actually enhances the quality of the decision.

Sure. There is a ROI on time and delay and decision making … I imagine if I were smart enough I could draw out a decision utility graph with time and quality of decisions but I am not only not smart enough but I cannot draw.

Suffice it to say these relatively smart guys say that in their published papers.

Look.

Maybe because of the business I am in I get asked a lot about family time (or diminishing of family time) and not having enough time to <fill in the blank> or managing time.

Beyond the fact I have either seen or have done so much research on how people actually USE their time … I have found that we invest so much time trying to manage time … or worry about how to alleviate the pressure time seems to put on us … we actually waste a shitload of time <which actually creates a doom loop of pressure to use and maximize time>.

There is so much discussion and pressure on what to do with time I see diminishing results.

The pressure to maximize time is actually leading to minimizing time (go figure)

So.

I remind people that we all have the same amount of time … which usually draws some evil looks … but its true … it’s what you elect to do with it and, maybe more importantly, your approach toward time.

I tend to believe we forget, or undervalue, the fact that it is less important to do things first then to do things right.

And I have someone on my side … Warren Buffett … who has said … “lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style.”

Me?

I worry that our obsession with time <speed> has a negative effect in business and at home <basically … in our lives>.

The secret to an effective brain is a combination of fast and slow <and there is research to support this>.

Procrastinators get a bad rap … yet this is exactly what they do.

A fact.

If you leave something to the last minute you only have a minute to do it.

Sounds obvious but it is a truth.

Procrastinators are actually the ultimate non procrastinators.

They utilize their time the most effectively.

The research shows that procrastinators actually use the time while putting things on hold thinking and evaluating and assessing different shit. Some relevant shit and some non relevant shit … but it all goes into our mental gourds … rattles around … and when the time comes when the decision/action trigger needs to get pulled … the majority of the time the action is a well rounded ‘right’ decision.

And if that just isn’t you?

Think about this … I found this thought from a mother … or maybe call her a ‘home manager’ instead.

“When you don’t know what to do next, just do the thing in front of you.”

Ok.

If you can live with that kind of thinking I actually believe that not only alleviates pressure <because you just say ‘screw it … I am just doing something’> and you are actually ‘doing’ inseatd of planning or thinking or worrying.

Ok <part 2>.

But I admit it certainly helps if you have more of an idea of what’s the most important thing to do next.

Because these days it seems like too many of us respond to the tyranny of the urgent.

One of the characteristics of an adult who has their shit together is the ability to recognize the difference between the important and the urgent. And, ultimately, refuse to be tyrannized by the urgent … refuse to manage by crisis … refuse to waste time under the pressure to not use time wisely.

Sure. Easier said than done.

Who hasn’t struggled to start something ‘important’ but can’t seem to find the time because of an exploding diaper, an urgent business email, the ringing telephone, or whatever the crisis du jour may be in your own little world?

But as time managers we must recognize the difference … and disregard not only the pressure of others … but the pressure of the moment.

We cannot operate solely in response to the pressure of urgency for long … or we will go nuts.

Well.

Time is not about pressure … it is simply about choices <which I fully recognize creates a different type of pressure>.

And choosing what is most important.

When we’ve made deliberate decisions about what’s important certain choices become a no-brainer.

You’re at peace with the choices you make, because they align with your priorities, and they just make sense.

Regardless.

If time is about choices … and under pressure we tend to make poorer choices … it kind of seems like that equals something to the effect that pressure loses time.

Go figure.

But I was never good at math.

rabbits

February 9th, 2013

“… not even the best magician in the world can produce a rabbit out of a hat if there is not already a rabbit in the hat.” - Boris Lermontov

Ok.

I admit. I often get a little crazy when I hear “well, you pulled that one out of your ass” <this generation’s version of pulling a rabbit out of a hat>.

Well. I apologize. Only 99%+ of the time I go crazy. I account for the less than 1% of the time to sheer dumb luck.

When someone makes a surprisingly good in the moment decision … or uncovers a relatively surprisingly insightful idea … in most cases the fact they are surprising people does not mean they just made it up out of the ether.

What I mean is that pulling a rabbit out of a hat <or out of your ass> implies you created something from nothing.

Here is a Life truth … even a business truth … so maybe let’s just call it Truth.

You cannot create something from nothing.

Sure.

Sometimes the connections between what was and what ends up being are blurry <if not even visible and sometimes appears to come out of the proverbial ether> but everyone needs to have a solid base of knowledge before making the connections <thinking or tangible things> to create something. That knowledge can be within <your own pea like brain and its experiences and thoughts> … or without <tapping into other people or things>.

Anyway.

Here is the full quote reference.

Livy Montagne: “You’re a magician, Boris. To have produced all this in three weeks, and from nothing.”

Lermontov: “… not even the best magician in the world can produce a rabbit out of a hat if there is not already a rabbit in the hat.”

Again.

You can’t create something from nothing … you can only create something from something else <or something elses>.

Another Truth?

Wrap your head around this.

Ideas exist … and don’t exist <simultaneously>.

Yup. Physicists have found something <particles and things that move around that we cannot see> can simultaneously exist and not exist.

In other words, some things are capable of existing in several different states.

Any physicist can correct me but I believe it is the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics which suggests particles are allowed to travel along all paths and exist in all possible states simultaneously.

What changes uncertainty? The simple act of measurement. Measurement, or the simple recognition of what actually is, instantly forces it into just one path or state and it is no longer uncertain.

I believe it is called something like ”collapse of the wave function’” in physics.

Yeah.

It is the same in thinking, doing or whatever.

Random knowledge collapses upon itself until it creates something. The ‘nothing’ is just a bunch of somethings yet to be consolidated.

I have been to far too many ‘brainstorming’ or ‘creative thinking’ or even ‘the power of visualization’ workshops … so many that my brain cannot storm and I cannot think straight let alone creatively and I cannot visualize shit. Every time I walk out I grab my copy of James Webb Young’s “Technique for Producing Ideas” <published in 1937 and still relevant today> and flip thru the pages to remind myself that ideation is all about cramming bits & pieces of ideas & information & thoughts into your head until you can either assimilate it into a ‘rabbit’ or you interact with someone else and inspire them to create a ‘rabbit.’

So. With that. Two thoughts.

Accumulate knowledge: the more you learn the more you can pull out of your ass <consistently>.

Practice: the more you use what you have learned the easier it is to pull something out of you ass.

Sorry. There is no such thing as divine inspiration.

There is no such thing as pulling rabbits out of hats <unless there is already a rabbit there>.

We all have a gazillion thoughts, observations, and information <parts, pieces or whole> bouncing around in our heads … either in our subconscious or conscious mind. There are a myriad of possibilities existing with regard to possible outcomes.

The nothing is all these pieces and parts not assembled.

The something is when assembly is achieved.

Now.

Not everyone is good at “assembling” or even implementing from the nothings floating around in their heads but that is a different post for a different day.

If you feed your mind you will end up with a boatload of rabbits in your hat.

But, please, something from nothing?

Not even a magician can do that.

temporary advantage

January 9th, 2013

“Every advantage is temporary.” ― Katerina Stoykova Klemer

And.

“… the only true advantage is knowledge.” – <someone I cannot find at the moment>

So.

This thought of temporary advantage, and knowledge, is easy for business but it is also relevant to Life.

Let me begin with business <because, frankly, it is easier>.

Businesses are always seeking an advantage.

And they should.

I imagine the point I am going to make <in the end> is that most businesses don’t consider ‘advantage’ as temporary. When it actually happens … they treat it as sustainable and want to ride it all the way into the sunset <or as far as the horse will carry them toward it>.

And ultimately that becomes their downfall.

Couple of thoughts.

First thought.

Most often all energy is invested in developing a distinct product, or service, or some tangible advantage.

In fact gobs of money is spent against this objective.

Definition of gobs? Lots of money & time & intellectual energy. And this typically leads to some type of patent <if you are smart> or, at minimum, something different enough you feel it is … well … different <you may actually convince yourself after eating a pound of M&Ms in focus groups and multiple cocktails staring at your navel that it is “unique”>.

Now. Let me tell you a business truth.

Product advantages are actually fairly easy to attain. In fact … they are a dime a dozen. Yup. Sorry about that.

Here is the other business truth.

The majority of product advantages are indiscernible to anyone but the one who developed it. I call it ‘dancing on the head of a pin’ differentiation.

Frankly? It is all wasted energy <mostly>.

Personally I prefer to aim for a competitive parity product that has enough meaningful benefits that it can compete over time <in other words … it is a sustainable product> … and use knowledge to be an advantage.

Sound crazy? Maybe.

Sound painful to say to management? Yes. Trust me … I have the scars to prove how painful.

But if you can keep your head out of your egotistical ass you actually have a chance to see this idea through to a very profitable, sustainable profitable, conclusion.

This translates into the ability to keep the product competitive but limit the amount of investment you have to invest to update/improve/trash & reinvent.

And use knowledge to sustain advantage because knowledge is a changing environment … never stagnant.

Next.

Second thought.

Sustainable advantage.

Sustainable advantage is really rare.

Extremely rare <unless you define ‘sustainable’ as ‘we did it for a week’>.

And, frankly, many businesses are actually too slow to take advantage of their … well … advantage. The window of advantage does not stay open long.

Businesses work to gain it <the ever elusive ‘advantage’>. They get it. They build plans to take advantage of the advantage. They go and do … and … well … their advantage is not only as advantageous as it used to look … but in many cases it is no longer even the advantage that you thought it was. The window is closed. Oh. Maybe worse? To your dismay you look around the room and another frickin’ window is open.

Damn. Wrong window at the wrong time.

That’s my quick acerbic soundbite for businesses on temporary advantage.

Personally I believe many businesses mismanage ‘advantage.’ Mismanage through incorrect attitude and in incorrect behavior.

Not only do they typically think incorrectly they also implement too slowly … and ultimately they do not know when to ‘abandon ship.’.

Regardless … now that every business person wants to send me a scathing personal email I will move on to the next topic.

Life.

Yup. I will discuss Life and temporary advantages.

We all know Life is challenging. And that is so mainly because it is always changing.

Just when you think you have at least one thing figured out Life moves the thing <hence the term “life sucks” was created>.

To even have a chance to be competitive with Life you have to continuously gain knowledge and adapt. There is no formula for gaining knowledge … sometimes you read something, meet someone or see something that changes your knowledge.

That is self stimulated gathering of knowledge … and it takes some fortitude and self desire to do so.

Therefore thank god for kids (youth in general).

They are a natural incentive to stimulate knowledge growth to maintain advantage. I worry about people like me, who does not have children, as well as those who ignore the knowledge, and stimulus to learn, young people offer. I guess my point is that we should use kids as a knowledge stimulant <rather than ignore them or subjugate them to our past tense type knowledge>.

I thank god I am a reader. It permits me to at least maintain a competitive place in a restless world. Notice I didn’t say competitive advantage.

Just be competitive.

I say that because I fully understand I will never find a competitive advantage against life. Well. Maybe I get a glimmer of an advantage on occasion. But it is fleeting. I keep a constant eye on the fact you gain knowledge to try and keep up. And every once in a while you get really lucky and dash ahead for a second or two.

Two things about that ‘glimmer of the advantage.’

First.

Some silly people delude themselves into believing they have a competitive advantage in life. And, yes, they are delusional. People like this don’t seem to understand that Life is like a river constantly flowing. They quit paddling to rejoice in their ‘advantage’ and … oops … all the crap in life not only feverishly paddles by to get ahead <and lay some traps> but some of Life’s crap may actually slow down and do their best to smack you around a little <because a moving target is harder to hit so when you stop paddling you are easier prey>.

These people confuse ‘glimmer’ with ‘this is my new home.’ That is why they are delusional … because normal people could never get confused by those two things.

Second.

I worry about the people who never even gain one glimpse of the advantage. Because a glimpse gives hope you can win … at least on occasion in life.

No glimmer? No hope? That worries me.

How can anyone, even the strongest of the strongest, keep going on without hope for something better?

I am fairly sure I couldn’t.

I struggle to see how anyone could.

Anyway.

I now envision someone cranking up an email with a thought on “hey, hold on a second, you seem to be suggesting becoming a chameleon … and don’t you always talk about being true to yourself at all times?!?” <please notice I used a rare exclamation point just for emphasis>

Despite the fact I will give that someone cranking up an email major points because that means someone actually has read some of my drivel in the past … I will quickly go to this quote:

“Adaptability is not imitation. It means power of resistance and assimilation.” – Mahatma Gandhi

And then I would answer this way … in business and in life … the core is the core.

That core is the “me inside” and that is the sustainable competitive product. And by product I mean a product being a manufactured product or simply you <or me>. Anyway. That competitive core probably doesn’t have any advantage … it is simply able to go on day after day, year after year and … well … continue to ‘be’ … to exist. It <you & I> compete in Life <or with Life> because of a good steady core.

Adaptability through knowledge leverages your core … and means possible temporary advantage.

That’s it.

That’s my point.

360, 6 or 1 … plus more numbers

January 8th, 2013

Well.

Marketing has always had an uncomfortable relationship with numbers. Mostly because … well … marketing has an identity problem. It is an art … but wants to be a science. Here is a marketing truth <that no one wants to tell you … and certainly doesn’t want to tell a client/business>.

90% of great marketing is gut <by the way … I made up the 90% and it may be hyperbole but it makes my point>.

Marketing has used numbers to sell marketing ideas, prove marketing ideas and … yes … have even used numbers to describe marketing theories.

360 degree marketing.

6 degrees of separation marketing.

1 to 1 marketing.

Frankly … the only number that matters is results … but numbers people <owners, managers, high falutin’ tie wearing people> like to match up numbers with numbers. They assume that the numbers will show them the way for proven success. That numbers will lead them down the yellow brick road to ‘process’ so they can implement it over and over again <and eliminate marketing/advertising staff as unnecessary overhead because the numbers showed the way … and will continue to show the way>.

So what did marketing people do simply out of survival instinct?

Developed numbers for their marketing theory and ideas <brilliant tactic>.

But, here’s the deal, the numbers attached to the theory sound really good … but they are bullshit.

Well. They may actually make some theoretical sense but it all kind of doesn’t matter because no matter how you torture the numbers to prove what you did was smart <or right> most of the good marketing ones out there are using their gut to tell them what to do. Why? Because each situation is different. And even slight differences are kind of big when they get out in the big wide world of consumerism. the good ones are adapting and changing all the time. What worked yesterday may only partially work tomorrow. Partial replication is the theme of success.

Why do I say that? Well. Because I just had to discuss 360degree marketing.

This is the idea of being everywhere to capture someone’s attention whenever they may be interested. Yeah. That idea. Well. I always thought anybody who talked about it was wack.

Yeah.

Nutso.

To me it is kind of like saying you can protect against every issue that may arise <note: it is a wack idea because you cannot protect against every potential issue>.

Following everyone, all your consumers <who are individuals by the way> everywhere they go and whispering in their ear whenever you actually find them is not only aggravating but also expensive. It is also an easy widget for lazy <or hack> marketing people to pull out of their snappy bag as a solution to ‘build an integrated marketing plan to build sales.’

Anyway.

I am writing about the fallacy of 360degree marketing, or touchpoint marketing, or “being everywhere” marketing. Because it is a crazy inefficient idea.

Oh. And a huge waste of money.

All I care about is being at the right place at the right time.

Sure. There are a lot of right places … but there are righter places.

And sure there are right times … but there are righter times.

Uh oh. People will want to use numbers to pick the ‘rightest of righter’ answers. C’mon. I have sat through dozens upon dozens of presentations from every conceivable media tactic provider you could imagine … and surprise surprise … their numbers always show them to be the rightest of the righter solutions.

And you know what? I could go back with my own team and wrestle all the numbers to the ground and place which stated the case <my gut> I wanted to present.

Oh.

And the whole social technology discussion has brought 360degrees to absurd galactic size levels

<Q: can you have more than 360degrees? A: only on the worldwide web where anything is possible.>

At least in their caution companies are not getting completely sucked into the galactic black hole of social technology.

About 72% of companies use something <social media>.

Maybe 40%+ utilize social networking or blogs.

Look.

I like social technology … geez … without it you wouldn’t be reading my drivel.

But when social technology <which seems to change every minute> gets thrown into a 360degree philosophy … mentally a company puts themselves into a position where they run the risk of doing everything badly … or a lot of somethings but nothing well.

So.

All that said I will throw out two additional numbers.

6 & 1.

Six degrees of separation. While 6degrees of separation is kind of an urban myth it has at its roots a really viable marketing theory. In fact scientists have discovered that within nature there is this blueprint <which unfortunately we never get to see and review before we go out onto the world> that provides a structure for how we connect with other people.

Yup.

Everyone, okay, some people with degrees of separation, are always connected. Even loners <like me>.

So while it may not actually be 6degrees … and may be 5 or 8 or 10 … suffice it to say it is significantly smaller than 360.

A lot smaller.

But still significant.

Bill Bernbach said way back in the dark ages <the 1950’s> that word of mouth is the best advertising of all. I guess we could suggest that word of mouth has taken some steroids with technology … but I hesitate to say that because the truth is that if you actually think about it … because of the vastness of social technology … you can say the smartest most brilliant most insightful so world changing thing in the world … and no one notices.

It is speaking but no one hearing.

That is the risk you run.

A marketing truth? Build it <or say it> and they will not come.

They may stumble upon you but word of mouth … even in a social technology world … is tricky. The best you can hope for is to say something genuine … say it well … say it in a relevant way … and maybe someone else will say it again for you <p.s. – that is ‘word of mouth’>.

Anyway. This whole 6degrees of separation.

Well. I am not sure I buy the 6 but I buy the idea. Mostly because on the internet social has become more popular than porn. Go figure. There are more people who want to actually think, or read ideas, than look at naked people doing things that no one would ever imagine doing in their own home.

Regardless.

I don’t like 360degrees. I don’t even like 6degrees.

This leads me to 1.

I like 1.

One action.

I would be incredibly good with 360degrees of action. Even 6degrees for god’s sake. But let’s just focus on 1.

Making one person do one thing.

Making one person feel good enough about you to say something to someone <or someones> else.

Making one person actually buy your shit.

And you know what? I am willing to bet that “1” looks an awful like some other ones. Or close. That means if you aim at your good “one” I am willing to bet that is it kinda gonna be your sweet spot <where “1′s” huddle together to keep warm … or away from the freaks on the fringe – which is somewhere outside of the “100′s” I believe>.

Sound simplistic? You bet.

Sound smart? Maybe <yes>.

Sound like common sense <and less expensive>? You bet.

Look.

I admit … I do go a little crazy when I read social media <and word of mouth> experts talking about “building in content that has a high share value built in” so that your 6 degrees expands.

Why do I go crazy? It sounds so fucking contrived I just cannot believe it can end up genuine.

And … you know what actually spreads?

Genuine.

Genuine joy. Genuine disgust. Genuine sarcasm. Genuine love. Genuine humor.

You get it. Only one word is consistent <genuine if you missed the point>.

There is no master “understanding” or formula or expertise that some high falutin’ expert can come in and “set you straight” on … stick with this. Genuine. It is simple. Not flashy. But really really likeable <and extremely likeable because it does not have any numbers attached to it>.

Hey.

And the best thing about this non number genuine marketing thing?

Being genuine <versus manufactured> is actually timeless. I do not care what new technology gets created <which … by the way … happens on a monthly basis> or what number marketing theory gets created … being genuine will translate when you move to the ‘whatever s hot’ marketing idea/widget of the week.

Oh.

Also.

Please note that what is ‘hot’ today is gonna be irrelevant tomorrow.

Okay. That was a generalization. Try this instead. 90% of what is “must have” or “hot” or even “necessary” in social technology will be “ho hum have” or “past cool” or “not a necessary” tomorrow. Save your breath and energy. You will get it wrong at least 90% of the time <sorry … had to use a number>.

So focus on content so at least you say the right thing even if it is in the wrong place.

By the way … that lack of consistency in technology <which is actually a good thing because it is improving> is a bad thing for organizations trying new things in the marketing world.

Most organizations <businesses> put an extremely <extraordinarily> high value on consistency … and results of course. Therefore when technology changes you have a double whammy … (1) you get results but you want to change to a better technology or new way of marketing whatever it you are marketing <uh oh … “stay the course!” management says> or (2) you don’t have results and you feel new technology/a new idea will help <uh oh … you are on the bleeding edge>.

I envision in my own wacky brain that this is exactly what marketing people went through when television started entering into people’s homes. It is next to impossible to build in some ‘constants’ to maintain as the universe changes so quickly. And investing a boatload of time devlopeing numbers to prove your success <on somewhat outdated/antiquated thinking as soon as it is done> is a boatload of wasted energy.

Here is the deal.

This is trial and error.

Even on established stuff.

Yeah.

New is … well … new for gods sake.

So what does the internal marketing people do to keep management off their backs when they are asked ‘Can someone explain what they did?’

Well. They can try. They will create nifty graphs with numbers always going upwards tied to the tactics they would love to do again <mostly because their gut tells them it is working>. And they may even use hyperbole to sell it in <big mistake because next year there is gonna be a new technology> just so you get excited.

Uh oh.

But next year there may be something else better to do. Something ‘righter.’

But maybe, at worst, what we did wasn’t as effective as we thought.

Who cares.

It is a moving target. Good marketing is always slightly disruptive.

And good marketing people make their own organization people feel a little uncomfortable. Because for good marketing people it is always about change.

Regardless … it is a sticky gauntlet one runs with new marketing ideas when explaining them internally <and even at conventions when you are presenting how smart you are>.

But, in the end, you always need to remember they will inevitably remember words you used last year this year <so hyperbole and ‘absolutes’ tend to backfire long term>.

In today’s business world it is much much easier to lose what you tried … than invest in building out. Especially if the benefits don’t ‘increase.’

Marketers are always in this trap <need for showing increased benefits> but with a new technology <or anything that is constantly changing> that is an evil trap. Quantifying what you are doing is easy … and hard. Much of the quantifiable value resides internally <within the organization>. Which is invaluable … until you get to management who doesn’t want you to talk about that … they want “fill the funnel” stuff.

This gets increasingly difficult when someone wants to talk about all that social stuff … because it doesn’t work that way … it is called social for a reason … it is … well … social.

And social <the technology or widget> has difficulty discerning some random potential consumer being social and an internal employee being social.

Okay.

But back to 360.

I came back to it after all the garbage I just wrote because all of that garbage should show that 360degrees is ludicrous. Maybe even stupid. And not just for social but for anything. Social technology is simply a microcosm for everything else we do. Maybe on steroids … but a microcosm.

Well.

Let me take that back.

Because I will go back to Martin Luther … five centuries ago … October 31 1517 … this was the beginning of social technology. He posted his thoughts on religion and they went viral. Yup. Go figure. 1517. Social before there was ‘social media.’ No internet. Just ’95 theses’ posted on a church door.

Talk about steroids? He created an entire new religion.

The point? It isn’t the technology … it is the message.

We get so caught up on the tools and in the numbers … and what really matters is the quality <what is meaningful and relevant> in the messaging.

Let me say that again … what matters is what you say.

Oh.

And let me add brevity. In 1517 the fact Martin Luther delivered 95 thoughts in a pamphlet <versus a book> was a brilliant marketing maneuver. The pamphlet was not only a quick read but easy to … oh my … hold on to your marketing hats … ‘pass along.’ <whoa>

Anyway.

You have to wonder if Martin had MediaSift and Gnip, which evaluates massive amounts of data at the same time <at maybe 30k a month>, and provided insights whether Lutherism would have ever happened <which makes you, correspondingly.

I also wonder if Martin would have ignored the data <as most people do anyway>.

I imagine good ole Martin Luther went with his gut.

Sure.

There are evaluation tools which can help.

MediaSift & Gnip are two. I also like Scout and I love NetBase but they’re just tools <albeit tools where you get numbers and nifty graphs>.

And going to back to why I wrote this … 360degrees is stupid.

The real point would be to suggest 1percent is what matters. Focus on the 1′s. Say something genuine. Say something you mean <and is relevant>. And say it to someone well … and … well … they will tell others.

All those ‘others’ will do the 360 or 180 or even 90 <insert any number you want here> if you want.

The degrees are irrelevant.

And while I am a numbers person myself … I tend to believe one good gut is more valuable than a zillion numbers showing what works versus what doesn’t work.

But then again … I am selling a dream for 99cents.

those darn Mayans

December 6th, 2012

Well.

Given the absurd discussion going on about the Mayan calendar predicting the end of the world I thought I would use it as an excuse to share some business thoughts.

Oh.

Some background <on the whole Mayan, end of the world, 5000 year calendar, etc.>

If you have not been paying attention … just turn to DoomPreppers on some random cable tv station and watch the doomsayers on that show ‘doom-prep’ for December 21, 2012.

And several films and documentaries have promoted this idea that the ancient Mayan calendar predicts that doomsday is on December 21, 2012. I know. It is kind of crazy.

But even better?

The Guatemalan Culture Ministry is hosting an event in Guatemala City — which as many as 90,000 people are expected to attend — just in case the world actually does end and tour groups are promoting doomsday-themed getaways <huh? … so are there refunds if the world does not actually end?>.

Oh.

Just in case you have nothing to do then <and cannot get to Guatemala> there are also a couple of college football bowl games on those days … one which is really crappy so maybe the world will end and we will not have to watch the end of the “Beef O’Brady’s Bowl” <Ball State and Central Florida>.

Anyway.

All this crap about the 21^st. It happens to be the last day on a 5000 year Mayan calendar …. and therefore many say the Mayans predicted the world would end on that date <of course we cannot go back and ask any of them to be sure>.

<note: many others would say something crazy like “they created a 5000 year calendar and this just may be the last day they actually invested energy trying to plan for.”>

But.

Here is the truly crazy thing <the business thoughts are about to be shared>.

In a business world where we struggle to make 5 year plans, let alone stick to our daily plan, we are giving the Mayans shit for only developing a 5,000 year plan.

Geez.

We should be standing up and applauding these guys for thinking that far ahead. Instead we panic over why don’t they have a longer plan? Why is their plan incomplete? Couldn’t they foresee the problems this would create ?!? <5000 years later> Why haven’t they updated their plan? Why doesn’t someone else update the plan? Did they actually think through their plan and maybe they made a rounding error?

Holy cow.

Trust me.

If they were still around they would have updated the stupid calendar.

Me? I think the guys who developed the longer term calendar were allowed a cacao break and began partying like it was 2012 and never got back to work.

Regardless.

The Mayan calendar reminds me of two business things:

- Long term plans

- False deadlines

Long term plans.

Business today has a love/hate relationship with long term plans. We love the idea of having a path to follow and steps to take and a horizon to gaze at <albeit most of that horizon gazing is actually a bunch of people meeting quarterly debating whether the cloud are nimbus or cumulus and what that means to the long term plan>. We hate not thinking short term. We want to be able to adapt and the ‘long term plan’ is like wearing shackles on an inmate who sees an opportunity to run free.

Suffice it to say, in my opinion, don’t waste the energy … on the long term plan nor loving or hating them.

Shit. We are bitching about a 5000 year calendar and what it means now that it is on its last date. That is our current business culture. No one is sitting back going “man … that was an awesome 5000 year run.” Instead everyone is saying “why didn’t they make it a 5500 year calendar?!?”

In business .. long term plans are shit.

Now.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have a vision. And a thought of where you want to go … and maybe some guardrails to be sure you don’t go all willy-nilly <that is a technical term for sheer chaos> … but investing a lot of energy, like the amount of energy it would take to develop a 5000 year plan, is nuts. While you are doing all that planning someone else is doing.

Oh.

And I hate to break the news to you … by the time you have finished your detailed long term plan it has become obsolete <at least one aspect of it> as soon as it is done. It begins to die a death of a thousand cuts/exceptions … but it is a good death. It is a healthy death … called “smart adapting.”

We should dream of developing a successful 5000 year plan of action. But the reality in today’s business world is we struggle to develop a 5 day plan of action without wanting to change it.

Today’s business world would have driven the Mayans crazy.

False deadlines.

The 5000 year mark is not a deadline for the world … it was simply the ending of a time cycle in Mayan thinking. Today’s business seems to confuse cycles and deadlines all the time.

A cycle is a continuous flow of shit getting done where an end is a beginning and the beginnings mark an ending. By the way … that is called <in a high falutin’ business consultant thinking> “an effective business process.”

A deadline is … well … when something is done. Finished. No more. Put the file in the filing cabinet.

Here is the problem.

Business leaders like to see ‘completed checks’ next to long lists of things to show that shit is getting done. Therefore it creates a culture of false deadlines.

Huh? Yup. In order to show progress I need to show completion. Say what? Isn’t progress moving forward and not stopping? Silly me.

Companies are strewn with false deadlines. And here is the even crazier thing … employees and middle management isn’t stupid. In fact most are pretty smart. They know they are false deadlines but if they don’t show them <and meet them somehow> they become ‘ex-employees.”

Crazy.

The Mayans didn’t really believe in deadlines … they kind of treated each day as a unique entity. In my eyes? The Mayans would have had the fashizzle of a company.

Ok.

Let me close with some shit about the Mayan calendar and how present day Mayans think it is a bunch of bullhockey <my term not theirs>.

Okay.

Here is the even stupider aspect of this doomsday discussion.

Apparently <as we freak out> … we don’t even show the right frickin’ calendar!

Yup. Most stories regularly detail the Maya calendars although displaying the Aztec Stone of the Sun.

And the real present-day Mayans are pissed <because most are young and do not want to die yet … but they also aren’t Aztec so you gotta understand>>.

Looking at the reality of ancient Mesoamerica I guess it could become easy to be confused by two distinct cultures that lived 500 years apart <but … we ARE talking about the end of the world … so little details become big important things … don’t you think?>.

“There’s a lot of conflation between these two cultures. It would almost be like comparing England at the time of the War of the Roses to the Romans or the Romans to the Greeks in the age of Pericles. They are vastly different periods, separated by considerable distances. The societies had many shared features but they were organized in very different ways.” – Stephen Houston (a “Mayanist” – I did not make that up – at Brown University>

In addition … Guatemala’s Mayan people accused the government and tour groups of perpetuating the myth that their calendar foresees the imminent end of the world for monetary gain.

“We are speaking out against deceit, lies and twisting of the truth, and turning us into folklore-for-profit. They are not telling the truth about time cycles,” charged Felipe Gomez, leader of the Maya alliance Oxlaljuj Ajpop.

Maya leader Gomez urged the Tourism Institute to rethink the doomsday celebration, which he criticized as a “show” that was disrespectful to Mayan culture.

Here is some fact to insure you don’t plan for the end of the world <at least for now>.

Experts say that for the Maya, all that ends in 2012 is one of their calendar cycles, not the world.

The Classic Maya had almost no tradition of cataclysmic endings. For them, 2012 is just a year when several of their calendars reset, like 2000 for modern calendars. Taube, who is helping interpret the paintings around Xultun, says the 2012 hysteria totally misses the point. It’s not that Maya were tracking the apocalypse but that they saw significance in every new day. With multiple calendars, ancient Mesoamericans had a different combination of dates for every day, each combination having a special significance. Almost as if every day was a holiday.

Lastly <about their calendar>:

“It’s a much more lush view of time … every day is going to have multiple, multiple inputs. It’s going to have multiple shadings of possible meaning. In a way, it’s a richly rewarding way to go through time. You are not just ticking off a day in your calendar. Each day is just percolating with all of these different meanings and recollections and hopes.”

Well.

There would be an interesting business management thought. I cannot see any cautious business leader ever accepting it … but, wow, what a company that would be .

Regardless. How ‘bout them Maya business leaders. Great thought.

rangers and business

November 19th, 2012

So.

I almost called this “when someone that’s in the right” as I thought about what the Texas Rangers <not the baseball team> could teach us about business.

“No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that’s in the right and keeps on a’comin’.” – Captain Bill McDonald Texas Ranger in the 1800’s

Some initial thoughts for business people:

- More people should keep coming when they are in the right … and not give in.

- More people should keep coming when they are in the right.

- Being in the right, and being sure you are right, is difficult … in fact it may be easier to know what is wrong.

- Right is often just a belief, not facts or statistics, and sometimes that is all you have.

Regardless of what I write from here on out … it will all be balanced by this fact.

Being in the right is about making choices.

It is not about being smarter … or knowing more than some else … or more sure … or a litany of other semi-arrogant aspects.

Sure. Of course you have to believe yourself, and in yourself … particularly when other people tell you your right is … well … wrong … but the foundation of ‘being in the right’ is, and will always be, you knowing in your heart <stomach, soul> what makes you … well … you . Your gestalt … what makes you the way you are in business <which I hope is an extension of your everyday life but this is about business>.

But … it is about making a choice.

When you believe you are in the right … it is in those times you have a choice to make. You can choose to believe what ‘they’ say or you can choose to disagree and stick to your guns.

But, remember, you always have a choice.

Ok.

- Being right and keep on coming.

I happen to agree with Captain McDonald. No business person in the wrong can stand up against someone in the right … who doesn’t quit. I know that sounds naïve in today’s’ world of consensus and compromise and conservative decision making … but I truly believe this.

But it is hard. Really really difficult. Wrong wins a lot in business these days. Wrong is relentless, and sneaky and smart.

And that is why, similar to the size of the Texas Rangers, this is a relatively small band of people who are willing to go out into the business desert, all by themselves, just with their guns to fight the enemy. It takes a special person. It takes a resilient person. And it takes more than a couple holsters of character. I imagine I believe there are more of them out there than those who actually signed up … it is just that they are not encouraged to sign up <because today’s business environment doesn’t often seem to encourage the right to keep on a’comin’>.

Regardless.

All I really care about is that business today needs people who won’t even think of giving up. The benefits of those who are in the right and keep coming are evident so I won’t list them. However … I do recognize that this type of character and personality <to keep ‘a comin’> can pose some problems. In a work environment/organization the potential problems are rampant.

Ok. Here is where being the right people separate themselves into ‘non problem versus ‘problem’ employees. First, of course, this person gets intrinsic points in business for their high degree of certainty about what they believe <the more strongly you know you’re right … the more certain it is you are right in others eyes>.

However … being sure you’re right and being right are two different things.

And confusing these two is bad.

What I mean by this is that intensity of belief isn’t the same thing as Truth. In fact, intensity of belief doesn’t end up implying anything but exactly that … a belief. Yup. If you believe something strongly, all it means is that you believe that something strongly … not that it is true. Nor can you assume that intensity of belief intrinsically translates into that others will believe it strongly too.

The error of thinking that intensity of belief means anything at all outside of itself isn’t something we should be encouraging. This error causes major cracks in teamwork and organizational efficiency.

All that matters is the intensity of the truth, i.e., what is the right thing to do <the action>.

Anyway … being in the right takes a strong person … think about this example of one of those in the right keep who kept ‘a comin’ and assumed the risk.

Southwest Airlines co-founder Herb Kelleher was willing to risk his career for four years (and his own money) while he fought in the courtrooms to get Southwest Airlines on the ground. Though airlines and Dallas based airlines fought Southwest in the courtrooms Kelleher was willing to risk everything to “fight the good fight.” Why? Because he believed so strongly in the vision, what he felt was right, that nothing else mattered.

‘Nothing else mattered.’

Strong thought.

Hey. This topic ain’t easy.

And with all that I just said … let’s go to …

- Sometimes compromising is the worst thing you can do.

Notice I began with ‘sometimes’ but let me begin with ‘the worst thing you can do.’

Yeah. I just finished writing about the dangers of sticking to your guns … but now I will shift to compromising.

Compromise is always a dangerous game. Especially if you are compromising ‘in the right’ and ‘in the wrong’ things. there is no balamce in that equation. In the world of weights & measures something odd actually happens to ‘right’ … wrong things actually weigh more, have significantly more mass … so if you try and compromise and balance the ‘right’ side of the scale is always lower <that is bad>. And, yet, despite the weight & the mass … when you actually do the right thing is has a larger impact.

Yup. I guarantee it.

Being the right is weightless but a heavy burden to carry. Being in the right has no significant size yet makes a large imprint. Being in the right is a funny thing that way.

It is easily destroyed by compromise because of its smallness in its ego and image.

Well. I will go back to the Texas Rangers to help me out on this one … with minimal support and no communication from higher authority, they lived and often died by the motto, ‘Order first, then law will follow.”

They had no compromise in their actions. Keep order based on what is right. The law will follow the right actions.

Which leads me to ‘defining the law’ of what is right.

- Being sure what is right.

Oddly I will begin the topic of being sure you are in the right with … well … adaptability … and not uncompromising consistency.

I find the people most often really, and truly, in the right are the people who are constantly revising their knowledge and understanding of situations … and reconsidering a problem they ,and everyone else> thought had already been solved. They seem to always be open to new points of view and new information and new ideas and accepting seeming contradictions … they are always challenging their own way of thinking.

This doesn’t mean these people do not have a well formed point of view.

But I do tend to find that they sometimes consider their point of view as temporary.

The corollary? The people who are most often ‘in the wrong’ are obsessed with data/knowledge that only supports one point of view.

This adaptability typically translates into an ability to determine what just doesn’t matter.

Because they realize that is where “right’ can be waylaid most often.

Most time is spent wasting time on things that just don’t matter. If you can cut out the work and thinking that just doesn’t matter … being in the right means being focused on what really matters …. And in business that typically translates into a level of peak productivity.

In the end … being in the right depends on each situation and needs some adaptability to stay the course. Sure. There is overriding ‘law’ … but order is defined by the situation <and sometimes solely defined by ‘the wrong’>. Yup. In fact sometimes the “Law” is most easily identified by knowing what is wrong … and putting wrong to order <and Law will follow>. Those in the right seem most often to attack wrong rather than make it right.

And that leads me to the last topic on this … the one that makes the Texas Rangers in business so special.

- Being ‘in the right’ sometimes intangible.

Now. Let’s be clear.

Feeling right about something doesn’t make it … well … right. But sometimes that is as close as “right” becomes.

And that is tough in today’s business environment where people want ‘proof’ as a way to absolve themselves of responsibility <that is the cynical aspect> or need some comfort in statistics/data in order to quantify their decision <this recognizes a pragmatic aspect>.

Order can be kept in a variety of ways and stay within the law. The adaptability of actions, in a world where everyone wants best practices or ‘solid every day process’, is a talent beset with challenges within the office. It is an intangible belief, and understanding, in what to do … which makes it sometimes very difficult to explain.

And I ended on this thought because it circles back to the original quote … ‘keep a’ comin’. Being in the right means you have no quit, not an ounce of it, in you. if you are in the right you just gotta keep on keepin’ on.

More businesses need people like this.

Those who are good at being right about the right things to do … and the character to stick it out and keep coming.

Okay.

My last thought for business people.

“The rangers are what they are because their enemies have been what they were. The rangers had t be superior to survive. Their enemies were pretty good … so they had to be better.” - walter webb

I refuse to quote ‘good to great’ but I will say two things …

- Good enough is the enemy of great good

- Those who are ‘in the right’ are typically really really good because their enemies, those in the wrong, are pretty good at doing what they do best <be in the wrong>.

Open, open … and open again

November 4th, 2012

Ok.

I have two pet peeves … or things that aggravate me, in business meetings.

(1) Selling beyond the close.

(2) Having multiple people say the same thing.

Selling beyond the close is going to be another post.

Because that really only aggravates me when it is an experienced person who does it. Less experienced have to find the “feeling” associated with agreement and then have the strength, and fortitude, to keep their mouth shut <to leave unsaid words … well … left unsaid> because the idea had been agreed upon. And that just takes practice.

This is about “the repeat.”

It may be the single most aggravating common mistake business people do in meetings.

I bring it up because I just experienced it. <again>

In the opening of the meeting someone else came crashing in and … well … re-opened the meeting … oh … and then someone else steps in to reopen.

Yup. That would officially be three opens to the same meeting.

Three opens differentiated mostly by the sound of the voices … and maybe a word here or there.

I used the opening as an example mostly because it sets the tone for the rest of the meeting and I started scribbling notes for this post right then and there <yeah … even I started tuning out … and I had a role>.

So.

You would think experienced business people would not do this, but experienced people are actually the worst offenders <probably because they have the most bloated egos>.

Let’s think about this … because this repeating can occur in a variety of ways in a business meeting.

The most popular is three people answering a question … when the first answer was just fine (or 90% right which is just as good as fine).

This one is just frickin’ crazy.

It is crazy for 2 reasons <okay … there are more but I will stick with the two most common sense business craziness aspects>:

- Multiple answering is acting like this is the one and only opportunity to answer the question. It looks like three dogs slobbering over a bowl of human food thinking they need to eat it fast before the bowl is completely empty because they will never ever get any food ever again <dogs have no sense of time>.

It is crazy because if it is important enough it will come up again.

Oh. And isn’t there something at the end of a meeting called “questions”? <silly me for pointing that out>

- Multiple answering implies the business people on the opposite side of the table are stupid. Okay. It just implies that they are not smart enough to ask a clarification question if they actually need clarification. Oh. But here is the crazy part. You will never frickin’ know if they had needed clarification because you just bludgeoned them with three different clubs of words.

But I guess the open, open, open practice is the worst.

Or maybe it just feels the worst.

Because it is delaying the actual meeting. And it is people just talking. And most of the words are saying the same thing (in different words).

And. It. Is. Painful.

And it shows lack of confidence (from the presenting group).

And it shows lack of understanding (in that if you are patient and the point you want to make is THAT important it can be discussed later).

And it shows lack of meeting dynamics understanding.

The only example I can come up with would be if you went to a symphony and they opened with a song. And at the end of the opening one of the band members said: ‘Let’s play that again <because I think we could do it better>’.

And then at the end of that opening … another band member said “ok, let’s do it once more” <because I think we could do it better>.

Oh. And think of that example just as I explained it … but it is decided to do so … without telling the other band members you were going to do it.

Yeah.

You would kinda be tempted to shove a violin where the sun don’t shine on that person wouldn’t ya? <yes>

Now.

Because this is so aggravating and is so prevalent I know I have been part of several fairly creative techniques to halt things before it can even happen.

Just some tricks of the trade <but even they don’t work all the time>. I will begin with the infamous “one person could never answer a question correctly so several people will addend the initial answer.”

First.

Of course you tell everyone “just one answer to every question.” Get it out on the table. Even the worst offenders will take a reflective moment and ponder. They may not heed the advice in the heat of the battle but at least you have set the groundwork. Please note … 99% of the time this never works.

- Designate a question answerer. Most companies have one or two people who are just … well … better than other people at answering questions. Just have all questions answered by this person. Now. This person doesn’t actually answer all the questions … but they redirect to the appropriate person.

“Sue knows the most about that … Sue … what do you think?” is the easy redirect.

The power of this solution is that all questions are being handled by your best question answerer. Depending on the type and length of the meeting it is very very effective … but puts a very heavy burden on that person. The only tip I really have on this option is that even though that person may be your best answerer, if you ask him/her to do this … do not ask them to close the meeting. They will have invested too much energy and thought to be the most effective in closing.

- Designate a question follow-upper. This is most typically the person who you have decided to close the meeting because they also tend to be the ones who have listened the best, assimilated the data <who said what and asked what> and crafted a bunch of words that doesn’t sound like gobbledygook <a technical business term>. This person follows behind answers to questions and either adds a brief point or asks for permission to move on <it can be done like this … “if that answers the question we can go to …”>.

Trust me. It sounds smooth if you have the right person do it.

- Coach everyone to end their answer with something like “did that answer your question? If not, someone else may have something to add.” It is a preemptive strike against your ‘repeat’ offenders on your side of the table … in addition it shows patience, care for your audience, desire to listen <and respond> and a sincere desire to insure something is covered well before you move on.

And directly to the rant topic of ‘open, open, open.’

- Stick to the plan & the script.

Look. Most meetings using a full team have been discussed, discussed again, and most likely rehearsed. You have made some decisions. You have a plan. Stick to it.

Most likely you have made one of two decisions for the opening.

The first is ‘I am going to have my best opener and have that person set the tone’ or, the second option, ‘I am going to have the most relevant person open the meeting and have them set the functional groundwork’ <which isn’t exactly ‘tone’ as it is more functional>.

And because you have made that decision, either one, you have also made a conscious decision on two additional things for sure … who follows the opening … and who will close the meeting <the rest of the speakers are really all about delivering the information>.

The second talker will always know the risks of what happens if opener doesn’t have their “A” game that day. And will move in and do whatever it is their script suggests.

Oh. On that thought … people who step in and ‘re-open’ for some reason always seem to be clueless on the affect they have on the second speaker <which constantly amazes me in its lack of awareness>. Not only does a ‘second opening’ undermine the opening statements but also immediately suggests to the audience that the second planned speaker wouldn’t be smart enough, and aware enough, to know what to do.

Anyway. You have also selected the closer because … well … they know how to close a meeting. A good closer knows if you stumbled out of the gates or not, if you have picked up momentum or not as well as what was covered and what wasn’t. You picked that person because that is what they do. And if you stick with the script that closer will pick up whatever pieces which are important enough to be picked up as well as assimilate what has been shared and discussed.

Frankly, going off script can make the best closers in the world become the non-best closers in the world. Why? Mostly because it scatters even more random pieces out to be assessed and juggled.

Lastly on sticking to the script … not all openings go as well as planned … and some go better than planned … in either case it does a meeting no good to slow down.

You keep on keepin’ on.

Because meetings, just as in Life, if you are not going forward you are going backwards.

Oh. Someone is probably going to suggest all these guidelines and boundaries make for a rigid cold meeting. Well. I have three things to say with regard to that:

No. <or … “nuts to that.”>
Meeting & the Business World
It sometimes seems like people put a higher priority when designing & discussing meetings on “casual” and likeable and a whole bunch of loosey-goosey nebulous feel good stuff versus information delivery. In meetings … pretty much any meeting … the number one priority, far and away from any other, is delivering relevant information. Worry, and focus, on that. The better, and more relaxed, you are on delivering the information the more casual/likeable/nebulous good you will look.
Adaptability. The ability to adapt to a situation is the pinnacle of meeting effectiveness. But notice I used ‘pinnacle.’ I did because it is difficult … which is kind of funny for me to write because despite that ‘truth’ … I cannot remember the last time in discussing a meeting where it was almost discussed as a “well of course we will adapt if we need to.” Look. I love adaptability. That characteristic in a meeting is powerful. I also recognize it is very difficult. I only suggest being open to adapting if you have one of two things <there may be others but these are the easiest>:

- a cohesive team with a track record together. Anything other than an experienced team is fraught with peril. And, no, you cannot bend this rule if you say “we have a senior experienced team.” Nope. No can do. Even the best of the best ,as individuals, need to play together as a team for a while, and particularly in pressure situations, before you actually become a cohesive team. So just being senior and experienced doesn’t meet these criteria.

<note: I cannot tell you how many times companies make the ‘this is a senior team’ mistake … and make it again and again>.

- At least two senior great ‘listener/responder’ team members. If you have 2 co-captains who seem like they are two sides of the same coin you can sometimes pull this off. Of course the presentation/discussion has to be built to accommodate adapting <typically this means other people on the team have to have ‘pods’ of information to share and understand they can avoid the transition responsibilities> but a good team can pull this off if you have ‘the two.’ One? No can do.

To finish up …

Meetings, using a team, is all about choreography … in delivering information <not in delivering a show>. However I will use a show metaphor on why “opening, opening, opening” is not only aggravating but never good. In the performance arts even the best make mistakes. The audience groans. The rest of the cast visibly tightens up. But the best of the best pick themselves up and move forward like nothing bad ever happened. The audience doesn’t forget … but they relax … and recognize the best don’t dwell but move on. And the rest of the cast? Hmmmmmmmm … they typically not only relax but they also typically pick up their game ever so slightly because their best of the best decided to show them that mistakes does not mean failure.

It never fails to amaze me how often senior business people just completely miss the boat on this relatively simple thing.