Posts tagged business
what is management?
May 21st
“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.
even Sweden is embarrassed
May 18th
This is about advertising. Well. I am actually hard pressed to call this advertising.
Although I can clearly call it embarrassing <to those in the marketing profession>.
There are times I wonder who the heck actually thinks something is good enough to share with the general public.
And who actually approves it to be seen.
This may turn out to be in my top ten worst television commercials I have ever seen:
Swedish diet :60: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9kndMkXC5Q
And, yes, I imagine even Sweden is embarrassed.
It is commercials like this that give the advertising profession a very very (very) bad reputation.
The good news?
The Swedish diet is clinically proven to work (in a clinical test of 25 people).
Personally? I would just move to Sweden.
catching culture
May 18th
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.
cell phones and 8 year olds
May 14th
“Adults — digital natives or not — can’t imagine what a childhood mediated by mobile, social technology that didn’t exist 10 years ago is actually like.” – Senior editor The Atlantic magazine
I admit.
Technology has created a significant new challenge to parenting. I struggle to think of anything since the printing press that would affect parenting as much as technology <smartphones, cell phones, i-pads, etc.> is doing.
Television was different (it’s not portable).
Cars was different (cannot drive until 16).
Anyway.
3rd grade children are, on average, eight years old.
20% of 3rd grade boys and 18% of 3rd grade girls already have a cell phone <2011 Massachusetts study of elementary, middle, and high school students>.
By the time children reach 5th grade, 39% of the kids have cell phones.
More than 83% of the students have a cellular device by middle school.
I have mixed feelings.
And frankly its not because of kids having access to this technology at too young an age … its more because of the quote I began with … we <older folk> cannot imagine a childhood mediated by technology.
And because we cannot imagine it … we have a propensity to limit it.
We all focus on ‘my kid is attached to their cell phone’ or ‘all they do is text’ or <fill in the blank>.
Is that wrong?
Geez. Parts of it doesn’t sound wrong and yet parts of it does sound wrong … because they are already living in a world I struggle to even imagine.
And <to increase the challenge> I cannot even come close to imagining what their adult world will look like.
Part of me thinks it is silly to restrict their usage of something that is already integral to today’s world.
Another part of me understands that we adults <including teachers and the overall education system> are not set up to manage their usage (unless we use guidelines from our own youth … which seems unbelievably silly).
Regardless.
I have another post where I will note the increasing % of children below the age of 5 using computers <there are even kindergartens that have this now> to learn.
I have had multiple debates with other TED participants with regard to the ultimate effect on cognitive learning <I am on technology’s side and I am in a minority>.
It is a whole new world.
And while we older folk may try and keep up with the technology we run the risk of not keeping up with our children’s’ world.
No. I don’t have an answer.
Yes. I do believe we adults need to come up with an entirely new set of ‘rules’ that will make us feel incredibly uncomfortable in dealing with our children.
Here is what I do know.
It will not be long before that 83% having cellular devices will be at the 3rd grade level.
It will not be long before over 80% of ALL children (any age … including less than 5) will have access to the internet.
We either need to accept it and do something to take advantage of it or we run the risk of creating the largest generational gap <and ensuing friction> since maybe age of the printing press.
Oh.
One day after I published the first version of this post I received the new Economist and had to add the following letter to the editor to my post:
SIR – Your special report <the third industrial revolution> is a warning bell for America’s outdated education system. Digital technology surrounds every facet of our lives. But when children walk into school they are usually told to give up the tools that power this new digital revolution and travel back in time to the days of Henry Ford’s factories. Indeed, classrooms in 2012 would seem normal to students in 1912: a teacher at the front, a board behind her to write on, two dozen children lined in rows who come and go as the proverbial steam whistle lets them know their shift is over.
We left that world a long time ago, and the customised and innovative tools of digital learning are long overdue in our education system. The disruptive nature of the digital revolution may bring more prosperity than either of its predecessors, but if the West cannot change its 19th-century model of education we will cede this wealth to others.
ADAM PESHEK
American Legislative Exchange Council
Washington, DC
True, so true. We need to leave a world behind and need to make the changes that will make us feel uncomfortable … but needed.
augmented reality
May 14th
Augmented reality is … well … a reality.
Augmented Reality: engineers are pulling graphics out of your television screen or computer display and integrating them into real-world environments. This new technology, called augmented reality, blurs the line between what’s real and what’s computer-generated by enhancing what we see, hear, feel and smell.
On the spectrum between virtual reality, which creates immersive, computer-generated environments, and the real world, augmented reality is closer to the real world. Augmented reality adds graphics, sounds, haptic feedback and smell to the natural world as it exists.
Ok.
And I will be the first to admit, as a quasi-marketing person, marketing is already making a hash of it <abusing it, misusing it, etc. it>.
Regardless. I see lots of possibilities with augmented reality mostly in that it provides an opportunity to add dimension to whatever story someone is telling.
The story could be a children’s story.
It could be a ‘product’ story. It could be a presentation story. It can enhance ANY story.
With that in mind the following link takes you to an incredibly appropriate use of augmented reality to enhance a story. Please don’t be fooled that it is so good just because it has to do with magic … the idea can add magic to any presentation and/or story.
Imagine any presenter, doesn’t have to be a CEO, presenting with this type of presentation.
Imagine a marketing message being given this way.
Imagine a class being taught this way.
Here you go (this is awesome):
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/marco_tempest_a_magical_tale_with_augmented_reality.html
Hope you enjoyed.
And hope you recognize that augmented reality technology is here … now.
ordinary extraordinary sports fans
May 13th
Ok.
Creating good espn television commercials is sort of an easy task in the scheme of things <in the world of creating good advertising>. It’s not like having to explain how my detergent is somehow better then another detergent <that is 25cents less and claims to do the same thing>.
Anyway. As long as you stay away from the trite sports analogies there is so much material to work from it is difficult to actually create something really bad.
Therefore the standard of measurement is high. All espn commercials are pretty likeable … it is the laughable/cryable/re-wartchable ads … in combination with its ability to reach beyond the simple sports fan <because a bunch of the ads are almost like inside jokes> that become the ones worth mentioning.
On tv is one of the one worth mentioning.
The Michael Jordan execution. It is not just funny but also relatable. It is brilliant in its simplicity. It is brilliant in the idea. It is brilliant in its everydayness. And it is brilliantly done.
It would have been tempting to overproduce this idea but someone truly understood the strength of the idea was … well … the ordinary. The ordinary guy stuck in every day life … dealing with the extraordinary expectation heights of sports fame.
This is for every person out there who has the same name as a famous person.
ESPN Michael Jordan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxBBN3ZnYeU
One last bonus.
Choosing the best ESPN commercial is like choosing a favorite among your own children. That said. Here is my top 1 called Believe. Beyond the fact they used a really interesting production technique which permitted them to do a shitload of stuff … this execution is brilliant because everyone, ALL sports fans, could relate. In addition the nuances in the execution … the gnome falling over at the end … the grandmother jumping out of the wheelchair … are all priceless. Frickin’ priceless.
Believe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcD9r4RBCoo&feature=related
I wish I could find the only other espn commercial I still talk about even though it appeared sometime in the 90’s. It was a sportscenter NHL ad “ever wonder what goes on in an NHL locker room between periods..?” and the camera shows a team of hockey players making balloon animals … and one player showing the rest and saying “what do you guys think about this one?” Awesome. So absurd it was awesome.
life formulas
May 9th
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
May 4th
“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
Apr 30th
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
Apr 26th
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.
