Posts tagged brand

what is management?

“Responsibility for one’s impacts is the oldest principle of the law” – Peter Drucker (New Realities, 1989, p. 87)

To me, in today’s business, manager management training is woefully lacking. Training simply equals “results” <with an additional emphasis on doing it while being politically correct and appropriately sensitive – to avoid litigation>.

And, no, I don’t believe this is a generational ‘thing.’

In other words I hear a lot of people suggest this upcoming generation of managers always needs to be told exactly what to do and what expectations are …well … in general I don’t agree. But even if I did those people are being told “results.”

It is the easiest (laziest) way to outline expectations.

To be fair to the lazy guidance organizations (or enterprises as Drucker calls them) … the enterprise also focuses on “results.” That ultimately translates into the fact you can be the biggest jerk manager in the world, the most anti social manager, one who exhibits gobs of poor management (team leadership skills) … but if you generate the enterprise  holy grail <results> … well…then you are an “effective manager.”

And the fallback statement is almost always “not everyone is going to like you” as justification to answer the question of whether that person is ‘good manager material’ as everyone immediately points to ‘results achieved.’

Ok.

It’s bullshit.

And I know its bullshit.

And when your television and internet is lost for 4 days, and even though you may not be a heavy tv viewer, you end up having time to think and do things. So I ended up pulling a book off the shelf I haven’t read in a while. Peter Drucker’s “the new realities” from 1989. I have another post coming up inspired from the rereading but Drucker does a great job of simply outlining “what is management.”. And I have to tell you that a lot of us managers would do well to reread this book. And reread all early Drucker while you are at it. Oh. And company owners should too (by the way …they are also Management in case they have forgotten).

As P. Druddy <as Drucker was called by his closest friends> said:

Management has to be accountable for performance. But how is performance defined? How is it to be measured? How should it be enforced? And to whom should management be accountable? Management needs to face the fact they represent power and power has to be accountable … and it has to be legitimate <he means to a greater social good>. Management has to face up to the fact that they matter <in a societal responsibility way>.

What is management?

Is it a bag of techniques and tricks? A bundle of analytical tools like those taught n business schools? There are important as a thermometer and anatomy is important to a physician. But the evolution and history of management, its successes as well as its problems, teach that management is above all else a very few essential principles:

-          Management is about human beings. The task is to make people capable of join performance, to make their strengths effective and their weaknesses irrelevant. We depend upon management for our livelihoods. And our ability to contribute to society also depends on management of the organizations in which we work as it does on our own skills, dedication and effort.

-          Because management deals with the integration of people in a common venture it is deeply embedded in culture. What managers do in Germany, United Kingdom, United states, Japan or Brazil is exactly the same. How they do it may be quite different. This one of the basic challenges managers face is to find and identify those parts of their own tradition, history and culture that can be used as management building blocks. Every enterprise requires commitment to common goals and shared values. Without such commitment there is no enterprise, there is only a mob. The enterprise must have simple clear and unifying objectives. The mission of the organization has to be clear enough and big enough to provide common vision. The goals that embody it have to be clear, public and constantly reaffirmed. Management’s first job is to think through, set, and exemplify those objectives, values and goals.

-          Management must enable the enterprise and each of its members to grow and develop as needs and opportunities change. Every enterprise is a learning and teaching institution.  Training and development must be built into it on all levels – training and development that never stop.

-          Every enterprise is composed of people with different skills and knowledge doing many different toes of work. It must be built on communication and on individual responsibility   All members need to think through what they aim to accomplish and make sure their associates know and understand that aim. All have to think through what they owe others and make sure that others understand. All have to think through what they need from others and make sure that others know what is expected of them.

-          Neither the quantity of output not the ‘bottom line’ is by itself an adequate measure of the performance of management and enterprise. Market standing (brand & reputation), innovation, production, development of people, quality, financial results are all crucial to an organizations performance and to its survival. Just as a human being needs a diversity of measures to assess his or her health and performance an organization needs a diversity of measures to assess its health and performance.

-          Finally, the single most important thing to remember about any enterprise is that results exist only on the outside. The result f a business is a satisfied customer. The result of a healthy organization is a contribution to society. The result of a hospital is a healthy patient. The result of a school is a student who has learned something and puts it into practice at some later date. Inside an enterprise there are only costs.

Some thoughts <from me>.

While there are some gems I may come back to at some point … like “without such a commitment you only have a mob” and “make their strengths effective and their weaknesses irrelevant” … here are my rant-like thoughts:   

•            “individual responsibility.” Hmmmmmmmmmmmm it seems like we abuse this in today’s business world.  We want to “empower employees” and expect them to assume “proactive individual responsibility” and yet we are not fulfilling some of Drucker’s other principles. Where is our responsibility to them? Where is the training? Where is the development? It seems to me that responsibility goes both ways <and, no, it is not just a paycheck from management side> and to ask one without offering the other is a medieval serf mentality.

•             Organization ‘health’ …. When is the last time you heard this discussed in in anything other than financials (or some derivative of financials)? I cannot remember the last time anyone discussed culture and/or people’s true happiness as a measure of organization health … well … at least until maybe ‘we have hit the numbers.’

That said. “Management is about human beings.” Ok. Nowhere in that sentence do I see “numbers,” “results” or “profitability”. Am I foolish enough to believe that those three things aren’t important? Nope <I am foolish in other ways>.  But his point is subtle. Maybe too subtle. If you manage the human beings well, effectively and they are happy, those three little words he excluded from that sentence will happen. THAT is why the sentence reads “management is about human beings.”

And.

I love the last thought.

The truly important problems managers face do not come from technology or politics; they do not originate outside of management and enterprise. Think about that …

“They are problems caused by the very success of the management itself.”

Drucker is actually suggesting that success breeds problems. How about that? What a great point. A point  I am relatively sure that today’s managers do not think of. Today it seems like success breeds “process everyone should follow.”

Anyway.

Ignore my comments if you would like.

But don’t ignore Drucker’s comments.

life on a new scale

I have always recognized that sometimes advertising is tough to evaluate because of cultural differences. and possibly because I just finished an international project I am even more aware than usual.

Local culture, or even regional culture, has a variety of visual and non visual cues & quirks that if you are not from that area take a little while to shift your attitude from “wtf?” to “oh … the people here like this.”

Oh.

Note to USA folk. Unfortunately the world of culture <and anything else for that matter> does not revolve around us and what we do and say and wear. Our antics & quirks are … well … often our antics & quirks. Fortunately other regions have their own antics & quirks that they need to deal with.

Ok. All that said. When you go to the international communications level you have to pay attention to the nuances <because anyone going global will obviously be smart enough to avoid the real quirks>.

Korean Air is the reason I decided to write about this today. Korean Air has a global advertising campaign <supposedly to elevate the brand to a whole new level> called “For life on a whole new scale.”

I have seen the magazine advertising in The Economist and the television ads on CNNinternational <and BBC>.

Every time I see it I stop and pay attention because in some ways I like the imagery and in other ways it seems like something someone <in US or Britain> would have done maybe 20 or 30 years ago. But, beyond that, there is something that nags at me.

I am sure it is appropriate for and/or logical to Koreans, but it seems slightly dated <in imagery as well as how it depicts women> to me.

Korean Air (for asia): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Zn_WE-VJgg&feature=relmfu

Korean Air: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAOVSaldLiA

By the way … I don’t think it’s bad (note: their last campaign was bad … really bad).

Old campaign

The idea behind this campaign is really really good.

And I absolutely love the final image of someone sitting in an airplane window (the image at beginning of post).  Yet. It is a nuance … but I am not sure the woman they put in the window was right.

Anyway.

I just feel like it could have been done in a slightly different way and still depicted Korean culturally <which is important to the airlines> and yet been a little more global in its feel (outside of Asia).

But.

That’s me.

Regardless. It is a great airlines. And the idea behind the campaign is a really really good idea. But even great ideas need some subtle nuances incorporated into the execution to insure it is seen as equally good wherever it is shown. Something is slightly off in the execution of this idea.

catching culture

Ok.

The holy grail of advertising and marketing is to capture culture and performance at the exact right moment.

Just catch culture and you are cool <but no one buys your shit>.

Just catch performance and you aren’t cool enough <or “badge worthy” enough> to hit sales critical mass.

Performance is easy … although many companies seem to forget that they have something functionally important to offer people.

Culture is not easy. Catching it, at the appropriate time, is part luck <because we consumers are not only often illogical we are also inconsistent and incredibly fickle with short interest in fad> and is part smart planning & assessment.

And while capturing culture & performance, while smart, is difficult and elusive it is even more challenging to execute (in a relevant non-stupid way).

All that said.

Adidas is actually doing a great job at the moment catching culture without sacrificing performance.

Nike used to … but have lost their way (different post).

But Adidas.

Doing a great job. Captured almost perfectly in the new Adidas tv spot using Katy Perry’s song (and a good choice of a song) … and the running shoe ad is featuring Katy Perry.

Huh? Didn’t I say they hadn’t sacrificed performance?  Yup.

In general Katy is wacky … but in a good way (and I will write another post just about her & her music because she needs to be taken more seriously in my eyes).

Anyway.

While she is wacky … and brings her wackiness to an Adidas commercial … she does it in tandem with superior global athletes. Therefore Adidas becomes culturally relevant without losing its performance delivery.

The television execution is called “Everybody Runs.” Watching the longer one minute version you see a variety of running … Beckham killing it, Derrick Rose warming up, Messi being Messi and Katy the casual runner  who looks like she’s having a good time … oh … and the costumed San Francisco Marathon (where there is someone dressed as a robot).

Adidas Global Brands guy Erich Stamminger says the campaign “brings together the diversity of the brand under one strong roof. From the court to the catwalk, the stadium to the street, we are giving an authentic statement with credibility that only Adidas has.”

I actually believe they pulled it off. They are authentic ‘fashion’ and yet authentic ‘performance’.

Adidas “all in” 2012 Commercial with Derrick Rose, Messi, Beckham and Katy Perry

-          :30 second version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3XwVMs-rmA

-          :60 second version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjMgUanz6h0

I thought I would also add in a very well done culturally relevant Adidas women’s advertisement which also has Katy in it but she isn’t really featured.

Personally … I wish more larger companies would do marketing that showcases women only.

All adidas (women): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIsvor0ID_U&feature=relmfu

Bonus.

I have a folder with ideas for companies if I ever meet them.

And, of course, I have quotes and music selections waiting to be used (when appropriate).

While a marketing idea is … well … a marketing idea … words or music can bring an idea to life in ways that actually breakthrough enough in the morass of messaging we absorb everyday …

Anyway. Adidas.

Personally I believe the opening to this very random song would be perfect for where the brand is today and what they are trying to do (which is to create a world view Adidas style):

It would be a hauntingly strong message and ad:

New world in my view king britt:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3t0V2XB9DU

Adidas … even if you don’t use my idea <which you can use for free> … well done.

life formulas

Life is not as simple as it seems.  Or maybe it isn’t as complicated as it seems.

Shit.

Maybe its both … at exactly the same time.

I cannot remember where I found all these awesome “life formulas” but I love the way they take complex life things and simplify them into basic equations (note: I apologize to the creator for not being able to source).

And in their incredibly obvious simplicity there is a nuanced complexity that makes you think about the truth they contain.

The first one I ever saw was the truth equation.

Truth. What I think happened divided by what really happened.

Brilliant.

It got to the core truth behind … well … truth. And it makes you wonder a little why there isn’t a class somewhere in maybe high school where they teach you stuff like this. Or at least make you think like this. It may seem silly at first glance but it is a really interesting exercise.

And back to truth?

What you think divided by what really happened.

By dividing it can equal, diminish what you think or actually be bigger by such a margin it actually marginalizes what you originally thought.

Awesome.

And when I see Life defined by formulas like this I begin to think about what makes 100%.

Well.

It actually made me begin by thinking about “giving 110%.” Which is actually kind of silly when you think about it.  Is it really possible to actually give more than 100%? <no>

And what the hell is more than 100%? (unless you are bionic you cannot answer that)

I do know as I think about this 110% thing it makes some want to bring one of these formulas along with me to a meeting and if someone suggests you to give over 100% (that infamous 110%) maybe I would force them to show us how to do just that mathematically.

When someone does say that … aren’t they really saying “give me 100% <because I know you are juggling things and I need you to focus on this>.”

So why can’t we just tell the truth and say “c’mon … its not extra effort … its just focus. Focus 100% on this.”  <albeit it doesn’t sound as inspiring or leader like or gung ho-ish … yeah … I just typed ‘ho-ish’>.

Anyway.

From there I actually began thinking about the whole 100% we are supposed to give in life.

100% is tricky. Is it defined by effort, focus, the best of our abilities or the best we can do <at that time>?

Whew. Now THERE are some choices for ya.

Life is a constant juggling game <or a balancing act>. There’s always balancing that needs to be done.  And there are always tradeoffs.

Ah.

But.

I think there is a difference between juggling and balancing.

Juggling is all about keeping track of a bunch of things … all up in the air.

Balancing is all about … well … balancing … evening things out.

It seems to me that is one is more controlled chaos-like <juggling> … and the other is a more prioritizing of actions <balancing>.

Wow. Makes me think of whether I am a juggler or a balancer. And that makes my head hurt.

Regardless.

Aw. Anyway <quit babbling Bruce>.

There is a simplicity that these formulas give us in thinking about life.

Disappointment being expectation divided by reality.

-          Which suggests it is our own inability to manage our expectations that create a sense of disappointment. Makes you think a little, huh?

Shock being expectation minus expectation.

-          The unequivocalness <that isn’t really a word> of this is brilliant.

Modern art being the belief you could do it plus the fact you didn’t.

-          The formula nicely builds, instead of divides or subtracts, to heighten the value

The slight cynicism built into diamonds being forever … balanced by whether you are a jewel thief (awesome)

Oh.

And obligation.

This one is fabulous.

Starts with do. Just the action itself. Add on “the right thing” so value increases by doing the right thing … and then plus or minus the amount of guilt.

Very very nice.

I actually see a great class session for young people somewhere in this life formula idea. The ability to simplify the challenges, the decisions, the actions in life into equations. It is a nice way to be able to point out some complex critical thinking in life.

In the end, while it may seem silly, I think it is a good and interesting exercise.

Particularly if you are juggling, or balancing, a bunch of crap and making so many judgment calls your head seem like it is going to explode … these simple formulas, in a really weird way, provide perspective.

Maybe you have an obligation to give this a shot if you feel overwhelmed with life.

Because maybe, in their simplicity, maybe you find more balance.

And that … I am pretty sure in my pea like brain … is a good thing.

advertising beer

“his piñatas fight back.” – the most interesting man in the world

Cinco de Mayo brings out the beer advertising and my annual rant about beer advertising. And how bland it is … not bad … just bland.

Bland. I continue to think once a year all the beer company marketing people sit around a massive table (probably all drinking some fancy schmancy sparkling water because they are too high falutin to actually drink beer) and look at a reel of available ads and decide to divvy up the most blandly innocuous <and possibly mildly amusing if it’s not silly or immature humor>  among each other.

Note: specific execution doesn’t matter because they can just insert any beer bottle/can in any of them and it would work <note completed>.

Ok.

The dog fetching beer commercial? Nice (and funny) but Alex from Stroh’s in mid 80’s was the first, and best, beer fetching dog <and multiple dogs have followed in Alex’s paw steps>: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upZ6EbaHigE

Then Budweiser wastes an awesome mashup song of Cult “she sells sanctuary” and FloRida with a pedantic  ‘people having fun’ video <and having a Bud of course>. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ku0IOv78Yg

Ok. Some exceptions.

I have already written about Heineken.

And Coors.  Well. How about … Coors is close. It seems like they are really clear on who they are (character and tone) and Sam Elliot’s voice over is a perfect choice but I feel like they could add some “grit” to their character. It may be bland but at least it is a reflection of what Coors is … well … at their core.

And, of course, dos equis (visit my post http://brucemctague.com/stay-thirsty-my-friends if you want a more complete review).

They are the current standard bearer for ‘what could be’ in the good advertising category.

Now. I am not sure anyone drinks the crap but everyone knows and loves the advertising campaign. The new cinco de mayo radio execution is priceless.

Absolutely frickin’ priceless.

You have to believe at some point the writing will become so absurd that the campaign loses its charm but somehow some way they keep the level of the writing very very high.

This year’s cinco de mayo?

The line for his cinco de may party starts on ocho de February.

His guacamole inspired the term ‘holy guacamole.’

He has 3 black books just for women named Juanita.

His 10 gallon hat holds approximately 13 gallons.

His refried beans are fried once.

His piñatas fight back.

Old cinco de mayo radio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqjFpDF3NhU

Older cinco de mayo radio:

It is said the sun comes up later on the 6th of May, in case his Cinco parties run long.
The Mayans prophecized his birth.
Even lucha libres remove their masks in his presence.
He once taught a German Shepard to bark in Spanish.
He serves sizzling fajita platters barehanded.
Bulls flat-out refuse to fight him.

I admit. I cannot figure out how the beer industry <at least in America> consistently showcases bland insipid work.

But thanks to Dos Equis we have some hope for better.

finagle’s Law

Well. I imagine I am way behind the rest of the cool people <who already know what finagle’s law is> but I just discovered it. Maybe because I had always known it as Murphy’s Law.

The generalized or `folk’ version of Murphy’s Law, fully named “Finagle’s Law of Dynamic Negatives” and usually rendered “Anything that can go wrong, will” (source: Urban Dictionary)

Finagle’s Law comes from science fiction author Larry Niven who, in several stories, depicted a frontier culture which celebrated a religion <or a running joke> which involved the worship of the dread god Finagle … and his mad prophet Murphy <hence the source of ‘murphy’s law’>.

Ok. About Finagles ´Law <before I get to the point of this little writeup>. It is an amazingly cool extraordinary mixture of cruel logic … as well as somewhat scarily indicative of everyday life. Just in case you didn’t know here is Finagle’s logic:

-          What we have is not what we need.

-          What we want is not what we need.

-          What we need is impossible to get.

-          You can get hold of this information for a much higher price then you are prepared to pay.

Ok. Here is the coolest thought. One of my favorite blogs, 50topmodels, actually wondered if Finagle´s Law got it all wrong and reexamined it as … Yhprum´s Law (Yhprum is Murphy backwards).

They actually analyzed it under the theory that ‘everything that can work, will work’ quoting Richard Zeckhauser <Harvard> “sometimes systems that should not work, work nevertheless.“

Ok. It is that last thought that made me sit up and think and decide to write.

Why?

Well. “Systems that should not work …do.” How often do people design perfect systems in the workplace, under the guise of ‘this is the way its done’ and, ultimately, it is just another inefficient process & system? Or maybe it is easy to do so everyone just does things going through the motions? Or the perfect system is <gasp> measured on its efficiency and therefore everyone simply tries to ‘hit the measurement numbers”?

On the other hand.

Someone else builds a system and has everyone working within this system that has those ‘people who designed perfect systems’ scratching their heads and saying that will never work … and, uh oh, it does work.

Yhprum´s Law. Huh? Well. Organizations are living organisms.

And just as placebos can work (lets call that the power of the mind) … a system that should not work … well … does. Why?

Because whether things work or not is often up to the people. And people are inconsistent in that they consistently do unexpectedly great things. In addition sometimes mistakes become stepping stones to blinding success. Oh. And the systems that shouldn’t work gain significant improvements thru some trial & error while the perfect systems remain … well … stagnant – never improving. Maybe it is that last thought that is so controversial in my thinking.

Perfection is often a thief. It steals fresh thinking.

Business, in general, like life, is messy. Sure. We seek perfection. It is kind of like the holy grail of ‘job well done.’

Here is the funny thing about attaining perfection.

Realistically we should be seeking to immediately change, rather than replicate, if we actually stumble upon it. ‘Doing it right’ is simply a level. And attaining levels of ‘perfection’ is good but also breeds an aspect of complacency or rote. And unless you are putting together a car, or a bomb <as an example>, in my mind we should always be aware the process is a means to an end.

Another sad thing about perfection. Nothing is ever really perfect. So when we put the label on something we are already in a bad place. As noted in alternative phrases for Finagle’s Law … let’s maybe call it “not quite the right thing.” It seems to me that systems & process reside most often closest to that phrase. And to a perfectionist that is bad and to others it is just not quite the right thing.

Ok. As for systems that shouldn’t work? the imperfect systems? The power of the mind suggest that everything that can work will work … sometimes better than others.

Oh.

And if you have that attitude .. an attitude to, rather than finding the flaws, instead focusing on the mistakes made … in my mind you end up seeking to better the system.

Ok. Moving on.

There is another aspect to Murphy’s Law … “If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it.”

Now. If you think about that from a logic perspective …  this suggests <for example> that if someone plugs in a toaster backwards and it fries itself, the problem isn’t just that some idiot plugged it in backward, but that it was able to be plugged in backwards in the first place.

In other words … the flaw isn’t in the person … but rather the design. And people just make mistakes <and are not flawed>.

If you believe that … then maybe when mistakes are made we shouldn’t be blaming people but rather seeking to design a better system. Not ‘perfect’ systems but systems with the minimum opportunity for flaws. Call it constant improvement.

If you don’t believe that then you end up simply assuming people will make mistakes, some big … some small … some stupid <or some derivative of stupid> … some smart <yeah … you can still do something really smart and make a mistake>. As I stated earlier … systems are a means to an end therefore using Finagle’s Law everyone should be focusing more on the people aspect. And not in a “you suck” perspective but rather a deeper understanding for why  and how mistakes are made.

Mistakes are part of life.

I actually believe more managers should have the chart above in their offices and when mistakes are made identify which aspect the mistake characterizes. It may make us better managers and it may make for better systems (and certainly better managers of people).

Anyway.

The true Finagle’s Law is much more twisted than “anything that can go wrong will go wrong.” The Law also allows for things going well. It’s like as if the universe is merely lulling you into a false sense of security before proceeding to screw you. It also allows for things that can’t go wrong … going wrong <and within Finagle’s Law this counts as Gone Horribly Right.>

Regardless.To end this I wanted to share some last thoughts on Finagle’s Law. The law owes its existence more or less entirely to the Rule of Drama, and is especially common in Crapsack Worlds where things that do go wrong tend to go wrong in the worst possible way.

Finagle’s Law also suggests that Life has a pretty warped sense of humor in that it is obsessed with making your life as difficult and humiliating as possible.

On a slightly serious note … I imagine the potential for danger in everyday Life, within the Law, can do one of two things:

- make you scared to do anything

- make you assume that you cannot ever do anything right

I could write gobs about both of those but instead I am hoping that what I have written about Finagle’s Law suggests that successfully navigating Life takes some flexibility. If perfection is your thing … well … Finagle will be your constant companion and friend.

Take Life with a grain of salt. Things go wrong. Even when they aren’t supposed to. And things go right. Even when they aren’t supposed to.

Last. And just so you are fully aware of ‘the Law’ here are optional expressions of Finagle’s Law <so you recognize them>:

-          A Simple Plan

-          Butterfly of Doom

-          Consolation Backfire

-          Cosmic Plaything

-          Disaster Dominoes

-          Destructive Saviour

-          Deus Angst Machina when taken Up to Eleven

-          Everything Trying to Kill You in videogames

-          Failsafe Failure

-          Failure Is the Only Option

-          The Fun in Funeral

-          Gave Up Too Soon

-          Law of Disproportionate Response

-          Inverse Law of Utility and Lethality

-          It Got Worse

-          Magnum Opus Dissonance

-          Mistimed Revival

-          Murphy’s Bed

-          Murphy’s Bullet

-          My Car Hates Me

-          Not Quite The Right Thing

-          Out with a Bang

-          Phlebotinum Breakdown

-          Ashes to Crashes

-          Doomed New Clothes

-          Watch the Paint Job

-          The Precious, Precious Car

-          Random Number God

-          Retirony

-          Springtime for Hitler

-          Tempting Fate

-          Unspoken Plan Guarantee

-          Useless Superpowers

-          What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

-          You Can’t Thwart Stage One

-          Your Princess is in Another Castle

Anyway.

Finagle’s Law. Murphy’s Law. Or. My favorite? “Not quite the right thing.” Life is perfectly imperfect. You can either accept it or end up in a loony bin some day.

the flaw in creativity collaboration

Ok.

This is not a popular point of view these days.

I am a firm believer, that in the creativity business, collaboration isn’t good.

Well. “isn’t good” is like saying “never” or “it always sucks” or something like that.

Let’s just say creativity isn’t about collaboration.

And I found a quote that says it perfectly:

“Art is I; science is we.” – Claude Bernard

I didn’t know who good ole Claude was until I found this quote … he was a man of science … in fact .. among many other accomplishments, he was one of the first to suggest the use of blind experiments to ensure the objectivity of scientific observations.

Anyway.

He says it best.

Art, and true creativity, is really an ‘I’ business. Ideas generated from an individual.  Where creativity is sparked within.  Look. Others can stoke the fire but an individual has to provide the spark. There you go … an original idea originates from an individual,

And let me dig myself into a deeper hole … in addition … by including others the original idea is rarely sharpened but rather dulled.

Ok. Science on the other hand is about We.

A confluence of factors & minds each sharpening that type of idea.

Ok.

He also said:

“The living body, though it has need of the surrounding environment, is nevertheless relatively independent of it. This independence which the organism has of its external environment, derives from the fact that in the living being, the tissues are in fact withdrawn from direct external influences and are protected by a veritable internal environment which is constituted.”

Once again.

A science thought … but a good life thought.

And a nice thought to complete the thought on creativity and collaboration.

Original creativity in thinking is relatively independent from the external environment. In the end an individual can absorb, can discuss, can incorporate as much of the ‘external environment’ that is necessary to feed creativity … but the idea resides within the individual.

That’s it.

That’s my thought.

I fail, you fail, we all fail. Here is our tale.

So.

I wanted to write something on failure and started … stopped … started again … stopped.

Well. I don’t know why but it was hard for some reason.

Harshly? I failed.

I failed at something I wanted to do. But. If creating a blog has taught me one thing <if that is at least one criteria of failing> that I fail constantly.

Little failures? Sure.

But a failure nonetheless.

Oh. And if you are not careful little failures are like dying a death of a thousand cuts.

Regardless.

That REALLY got me thinking about several things … the word failure (and how little it seems to be used these days) and failing itself & lessons and all that crap.

So I went hunting.

Hunting for some inspiration for the right words to say about failing and failure.

My first hunt.

Choose the Right Word by Hayakawa (almost my bible of word descriptions).

It didn’t fail me here.

“Failing” fell under Flaw <wow … I could write an entire book over that little insight>.

Flaw has a variety of aspects … blemish, defect, failing, fault, foible, imperfection, mar, shortcoming.

Regardless.

Failure is a reflection of a flaw.

An imperfection (which seems okay).

A defect (which seems not okay).

Is failure a reflection of a defective product <product being … well … us … a human … a person>?

That seems harsh. Ok.  Maybe extreme.

But.

In terms of “truth to oneself” think about this … ‘imperfection’ points more often to a lack that may be a matter of opinion (Hayakawa).

Well. THAT certainly makes it easier to say “I am imperfect … I have failed.” Because, well, it is on a basis of opinion (and everyone has opinions).

Failure, on the other and, suggests a more severe shortcoming that has more severe consequences.

How ‘bout that?

There is some tough love.

The word failure is tough love.

A severe shortcoming.

And if you have a shortcoming … well … there are consequences. In fact … more severe consequences.

And maybe in this politically correct world we want to soften up things a little … and we don’t ‘fail’ but rather we made a mistake or took a step on the path to success or whatever.

Maybe it is better to just say we failed at something.

I don’t know.

But I do believe we should be better at admitting failure. I believe it should be more acceptable to say “you failed” <without it being construed in a negative way>.

I do believe we should be better at understanding we have failings … and they have consequences.

Now. Notice. Hayakawa never, anywhere, attached “negative” or “bad” adjectives to consequences. He simply points out that failures suggest shortcomings leading to consequences.

And that, my friends, is a Life truth … and more people <in my eyes> should just step up to the plate and accept that truth without all the suggestions that they keep you from being a successful or ‘whole’ person.

We fail. And maybe it is because of some shortcoming and absolutely I am assuming that shortcoming will create at least one dead end in your life (toward some success).  But it doesn’t mean that it keeps you from some other path to success.

It does not mean you are a failure. It just may mean you have failed, and you may fail consistently, if you pursue that path.

Ok.

Next.

And when I went hunting I found a blog focused solely on failure. And it wasn’t bad or negative or even totally depressing.

Now. It certainly wasn’t uplifting by any stretch of the imagination but it was kind of an interesting glimpse into what I assume was a normal every day woman kind of getting a grip on life.

And this blog is her way of doing it … by embracing failure (she actually has a post called “why have a blog about failure?”:  http://soyoufailed.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/why-have-a-blog-about-failure/)

As she says in her ‘about me’ section:

Who am I?

- I am female

- I’m in my mid 30′s

- I live in the Bay Area, California

- My day job is as a User Experience Designer (my 24 hour/day job is “failure” :)    )

- I am a mother of 2 beautiful boys

- My “other” interests besides failure are photography, learning to play the guitar, and user experience design.

I loved it.

“my other interests beyond failure …” Nice perspective.

The site has glimpses of insight <albeit I wonder if writing nonstop about failure is completely healthy>. And while absolutely focused on failure, which I equate to a songwriter trying to write every song about a falling star <or God>, there are truly some nice perspectives on failing.

And all written from an everyday perspective.

Anyway.

About a failure <she says as one of 5 things> …

5. You learned something.
And that’s what life is all about. Learning something. In failing you probably learned something about yourself, about someone else, about a situation, about how to do something better next time. Failing is so valuable. Don’t focus on the failure. Focus on what you got from that failure.

So go ahead, fail on!

(nice closing line by the way)

Life is about learning.

Life is about failure.

I imagine the corollary thought would be “how boring would life be if we never failed?” there is such a stigma attached to failure … and the word itself. In fact, to be politically correct, I probably shouldn’t use the word failure.

It would be “trial & error” (what a bunch of bullhockey).

Look.

We fail.

And it’s okay to fail.

And it’s even okay to fail on some of the really Big things in life. Not that you try to … just that … well … we do.

It is called Life.

- Marriages fall apart even when you don’t really want them to.

- You try to win a game but you don’t.

- You try and lose those 10 pounds and you don’t.

- You try and be the best friend you can but miss when a good friend needs you.

Some are big things. Some are small things.

But all ‘things’ examples of failing at something.

And, once again, that’s okay. It’s cool.

You aren’t a failure just because you failed.

And that is a big, no HUGE, distinction.

You aren’t a failure … unless … you don’t pay attention to #5 (you learned something). You just failed.

Because, in fact, some failures are just part of life.

Maybe these are “failings” rather than failures but … well … whatever. Semantics.

I guess my point here is don’t aim to fail <as if any of us actually would, huh?> but recognize you do fail. And accept it IS failing.

Lastly.

Here is a great example of how failure … well … happens. And we (who are perfect of course) looking at failure happening right before our eyes … need to be very very <very> careful in our judgement with regard to failings and failure.

Let me give you a really big example … a really good one … which was part of this whole ‘failure’ blog:

… my crisis started. I had reached a point where I just could not figure out what to do. I was crying and weeping and just could not calm myself down. I got to the point when I had to ask myself, “What will make you sane and get you through this moment? What will keep you from killing yourself right now?” And to me, and it is a different thing for everybody, smoking had always been the thing that I turned to when I got to such a low point. It was what got me to calm down and take a moment and just be present. For some it could be a stiff drink, a dozen donuts, or a shopping spree. For me it was smoking. So I did it. I failed my abstinence. I went to the closest Walgreens, bought a pack, and smoked a cigarette.

And I admit, I  failed even more and bought two more packs to get me through lower lows these past few months. I gave myself a break. I thought, it is better to have a crutch to get through these horrible days, than to be perfect and not have a crutch and go crazy. I took it easy on myself, I “failed” myself. Or more like I let myself have what I needed. I think at some point in our lives, when we need to, we should give in to ourselves. In our darkest times, we need to stop and think about what we need to get us through it. If you need to spend $1000 on clothing to save yourself, do it.

But know when it is time to stop. Know when the break needs to be over. Know when the fail needs to stop. For me that break is over now. I need to stop smoking now, before it becomes a full blown addiction again. Before it spirals out of control. Now it is becoming less helpful and is on the brink of being harmful. And so, while it is still easy to stop, I have stopped. I no longer need my crutch. It has done its job. It has gotten me through my darkest times.

I hope that for you, when you are going through a tough time, that you are able to stop and think about what crutch you need to get you through, and that you let yourself have that and let yourself fail. But I also hope that at some point, when you are healed, you are able to gracefully lay the crutch down.

Big thought in there.

“In our darkest times, we need to stop and think about what we need to get us through it. If you need to spend $1000 on clothing to save yourself, do it.

But know when it is time to stop. Know when the break needs to be over. Know when the fail needs to stop.”

Failing always needs context.

No. It doesn’t need excuses … just context.

I wrote about this kind of thing over a year ago … I stated there and then I was wrong … wrong in a way that this blogger said it best.

Here is what I said: http://brucemctague.com/doubt-part-3-crushed-between-internal-and-external-doubt

(the key words from that post)

Do what it takes to keep it alive. Keep your sense of I and don’t lose it.

Whatever it takes.

Let me repeat.

Whatever it takes.

In the past I have judged people who have leaned on religion. Leaned on prescription drugs. Leaned on self help books. Leaned on betterment programs.

Well. I have been a fool.

And ignorant.

A stupid ignorant fool.

For whatever path one chooses to maintain their flame is the right path. And a good path. And a path well taken.

You do whatever it takes to keep the flame alive and don’t get crushed by doubt. That’s it. Bottom line.

I didn’t know better words at that time but in my head I saw some things as “failings”, or failure, in people and was making my own judgments on their actions.

Look.

We have rules. We have guidelines. We have distinctions between what is right and wrong. And if we don’t meet them we ‘fail.’

Yes. All of that is true.

Yet.

In dark times … you have to do whatever you have to do to cross that dark bridge.

Whatever. Even if it means ‘failing’ in some form or fashion. Even if it means that it LOOKS like failure in someone else’s eyes.

The blogger is right.

It is okay to fail.

Failing does not make you a failure.

By the way …. Here is the site:

I fail, you fail, we all fail. Here is our tale.

http://soyoufailed.wordpress.com/