Enlightened Conflict

angry strategizing

August 11th, 2016

if you are not angry you are not paying attention




“It’s time we stop worrying, and get angry you know?

But not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds.”




Tupac Shakur




This is hardly worth fighting for

But it’s the little petty shit that I can’t ignore

When my fist hits your face and your face hits the floor


It’ll be a long time coming

But you got the message now

‘Cause I was never going

You’re the one that’s going down


One of us is going down

I’m not running,

It’s a little different now

‘Cause one of us is going

One of us is going down



Sick Puppies

<You’re Going Down>





The Olympics is reminding us of a topic which is not discussed often enough in business … angry competition. I call it angry strategizing.

angry strategy yell think business





The Olympics has reminded me about competing angry.


While the Olympics are supposed to be about the love of competition and a better world through sports competition … it is actually about determining the best in the world. And that, my friends, is not about love it is about the rage of competition.

And while I will surely give a nod to respect shown to other great competitors and the aftermath camaraderie that can only be had among the best in the world who have competed the hardest and recognize greatness around them at the Olympics, and how they do so even in loss, I must point out that the Olympic best carry a certain rage into their competitiveness.


It may not be the traditional version of anger but it is most certainly a version of anger.


And it drives them to compete with the intent to beat the shit out of whomever they are competing against and be the best they can be so they can actually be the best.


I say all that because I don’t believe enough business people strategize with some anger. Anger that … well … there are some stupid ideas out there …


some stupid opinions


some stupid attitudes


competitors say and do stupid things


and certainly there is a stupid acceptance of mediocrity.


I know that I have sat in a meeting room with some business partners and looked around at the competition and what they were doing and saying and … angry sign window republicanwell … got angry.


And got angry enough t want and do something about it.



Being angry in business. and, no, I am not talking about being some anger management candidate but I mean planning angry … developing a strategy thinking with some anger about the status quo … maybe even having some anger toward conventional thinking and certainly some anger against whomever you are competing <but you can still respect the ones who deserve the respect while doing so> is effective and leads to effective business strategy to create real distinction in the marketplace.


To be clear.


Anger, to me, is much more useful than disdain.


Disdain breeds some arrogance and certainly diminishes the capabilities of the competition as you think about competing against them. In your scoffing at them it suggests that it is … is … well … just not worth even thinking about.


Anger, on the other hand, suggests you are facing what is straight on … in its face … and taking it head on. Anger guides you not toward some flimsy white space but directly into the fray …  directly toward the space you want in a market <whether it is already occupied or not> and take it.


Or, as Admiral Nelson once said, “you can do no wrong by putting yourself as close to the enemy as possible.”



And you know what?


In business strategy that is smart.


So that is why I call this the angry business strategy.


Certainly … there is only one real way to win … and that is without cheating.

Anger almost forces you to not only recognize that there is no virtue to be found in taking a shortcut <although shortcuts never really exist anyway> … but that there is no long cut or shortcut but rather simply getting up and going … and competing to win.


I am sure someone will point out that it may simply be you look around and get aggravated by what you see and decide to do something about it.


But I think if you have the team, and you have the product or service and you actually have the means to make your mark in the business world … then … well … it is okay if you look around at the competition and the competitive business world and get a little pissed … not just aggravated.


You get a little angry …

This is stupid … there is a better way.


This is crazy … I have a better product.


This is nuts … I can’t believe people believe that shit.


Your anger puts an edge on what you decide to say and do.


Far too often we sit around and have pot after pot of strong coffee and have intellectual discussions on how to smartly effectively compete. We worry through some fairly random details, talk about being the best and then go ahead and be anything but the best.


So … you know what?


If you are better and have a better offering and are truly worth a shit and want people to know you are worth a shit … well then … there is no real intellectual challenge.


You get on with getting on.


You just get competitively angry and stand in the middle of the field and say “here I am, and I am not going down.”


strategy think anger angry business ideas filterI am not suggesting being stupid about competing.


Nor am I suggesting bludgeoning the industry and competitors with some dull edged hammer.


But I am suggesting the anger puts some attitude into your strategy and tactics.


It puts a sharper edge into your sense of competitive purpose.


And here is what I know.


If it isn’t blind anger but rather competitive anger … you won’t tiptoe into your messaging and go to market strategy. You will stride in with some swagger, some confidence and clearly some strong purposeful messaging.


I think … no … I know more businesses would do better to attack their business meeting angry business strategystrategy with some anger.


Get a little pissed about perceptions, attitudes and mediocrity.


Get pissed that people are accepting less than the best and less than real truth.


Get pissed at yourself if you are in a position where you don’t believe enough in yourself and your offering to be able to get pissed.




I do believe more businesses should strategize with some anger.

As Tupac said … not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds.

not even an opportunity to say no

June 14th, 2016


no means no rape change my mind

Let me tell you why I believe, in the Stanford sexual assault <rape> case … the one where a young man sexually assaulted an unconscious woman, the punishment deserves to be the harshest …


“she never even had the opportunity to say no.”



I saw someone had written “but where do we draw the line and stop worrying about being politically correct every second of the day and see that rape on campuses aren’t always because people are rapists.”


Oh my. What bullshit. Bullshit logic absolving someone of personal responsibility for … well … assault.


I have two words for everyone … assault & unconscious. That is the bottom line on judgement.


And while I am sure well meaning people will reflect positively on the young man’s overall character … the truth in Life is that some moments matter more than others with regard to character and morality. There are some moments in which we get judged at our worst. Is the moment truly a reflection of everything only act if you get a yes no means nowho this young man is? Of course not. And, yet, the action, the behavior, the assault, carries a responsibility for which he must carry as a burden for the rest of his life … and the punishment should reflect that responsibility burden.



I don’t speak with young men often about consensual sex but I have a pretty simple piece of advice:



  • “No” means no.


  • “I am not sure” means no.


  • “Maybe” … means no.



  • Only “Yes” means yes.


That said.


The young lady who was raped … never even had the opportunity to say no. She was so drunk, passed out, she never had the opportunity to say no.


From a guy’s perspective this action then turns out to the worst version of rape that could happen <as if there were actually degrees of worstness when it comes to rape … there is not>.


His actions are indefensible.


His punishment should be harsh.


It is quite possible I am looking at this wrong … but in my mind … while nonconsensual sex is inexcusable … I cannot even find the moral <or immoral> category you would put sex with someone who can neither consent or not consent.


This doesn’t even fall in any way into a ‘miscommunication’ or ‘misunderstanding’ zone … this is simply “I am going to take what may be one of the most valuable things you can give someone because I want it and it doesn’t matter what you may think.”i said no means no rape


I wrote about rape maybe in 2013. I called it a life formula that didn’t add up to me.


The number of women who admit to having been raped versus the number of men who have said they have raped.



I tend to believe we all know of someone who has been raped.




I tend to believe very few of us know someone who has admitted to rape.


This means that either a few guys have been very busy being assholes or there are a bunch of guys who are avoiding the truth <I tend to believe it is the latter>.


Rape is solveable. The punishment should be so harsh that a guy seriously considers his actions. Basically he should be wondering if his dick will fall off if he commits rape.



I am not writing this to judge anyone.


I am commenting on the Stanford rape case and suggesting that guys should judge themselves more harshly and with a higher sense of responsibility <and their parents should do so also>.


And it is quite possible I am dancing on the head of the moral equivalence pin.


I am fairly sure understanding “no means no” is a simple enough idea.


I am fairly sure understanding if someone says that do not want to have sex, they do not want to have sex.


I am fairly sure understanding if someone says they aren’t sure having sex is a good idea, they do not want to have sex.


I am fairly sure understanding if someone says … well … nothing, they are silent, they do not want to have sex.


I am fairly sure you should know that you should stop trying to have sex with a person who says they do not want to have sex.


I am absolutely positive that a young woman, who did not even have being drunk is not consent no mean no rapethe opportunity to say ‘no’ had something taken from her that will be with her for the rest of her Life.


An irresponsible young man took it from her. He took something without asking, without ever hearing a yes or a no, with silence as his guide … something that she can ever regain.


Assessing the cost is impossible.


I do not know the punishment he deserves. Jail feels not harsh enough.  But the cost will never equal what he took. And he should feel that cost, whatever it is, for the rest of his life.


I get angry when I think about this case. Shit. I get angry when I think of rape in general. And I got even angrier when a father suggested “should my son be punished this harshly for a 20 minute mistake.”




The concept, the fucking stupid mental gymnastics it takes, to find the equivalence of “20 minutes of stupidity” to “a lifetime of something that can never be regained” is absurd.


I am not suggesting we should make this young man an example.


I believe we should make all rapists an example. Make the punishment so harsh that sex carries the inevitable responsibility it should carry.


I tend to believe the fact we are even having the discussion about what I believe rape is rapeis an incredible misalignment of punishment not fitting the crime suggests we, societally & culturally, have a bigger issue we need to address.

It seems to me that we all need a strong lesson in the fact that there is little, if no, ‘moral culpability’ with regard to rape.


Sexual assault is sexual assault.


Rape is rape.

our strategy: try things and follow what works

May 2nd, 2016

dilbert on nimble strategy business adapt


“Sustained success is largely a matter of focusing regularly on the right things and making a lot of uncelebrated little improvements every day.”


Theodore Levitt




People don’t want quarter-inch drills.

They want quarter inch holes.”


Theodore Levitt




“The essence of strategy is choosing what not to do.”


Michael Porter







As I was picking my way through an old Economist <May 2015> magazine on a wow excited astonish noplane flight I came across an article where The Boston Consulting Group <a smart business consulting firm most known for its “stars, cash cows, dogs & question mark” business matrix> had published something suggesting that a single overarching business strategy, in today’s business world, is a recipe for failure.




That made me sit up a little. That is something I have believed … well … ever since I was experienced enough to understand what I was learning in the business strategy world.


That is also something, my belief, which sometimes made my business career slightly miserable. Because this thought is not the norm, nor the most acceptable, in the typical management office in business <then & now>.


Let’s be clear.

This whole business strategy discussion is important … really important.  Strategy makes or breaks a business. In fact … strategy is more important than great leadership and perseverance and hard work and even luck <although all those things are quite helpful>.


Strategy is always challenging. More often than not you have some business vision and hunker down with some strategy to attain it.


It is during the hunkering down period that some challenges start raising their heads.


There will always be characteristics of a good solid strategy that imbue an organization with confidence that it is a guide towards what is needed to succeed. And, yet, there are some other characteristics of this elusive, but probably well thought out strategy, which do not necessarily burst with confidence but rather they represent the greyish areas of the strategy. These are actually the parts of the strategy which are built to adapt and morph into something solid when the time & place occurs.


That said.


All that grayish stuff does not imbue confidence.


Inevitably most companies pursue a variety of diverse thoughts and will end up expect actual wow ughchoosing maybe not a completely new strategy but certainly pursue somewhat different paths.


Those ‘different paths’ is actually all about trying things, following the good ones and eliminating the bad ones. well … that can sure sound a lot like chaos.


It surely could be … if it were not closely attached to self-interest <and not survival>. Trying strategies on like a new suit for a formal occasion is about reforming and adapting skipping nimbly from one strategy to another to assume your place in the context of the situation.


And it can also take on some characteristics f chaos if you do not shed some things, strategies included, as you adapt.


As I noted in something I wrote in June 2014 that as an organization naturally grows in fits & starts it will certainly … uhm … no … absolutely … gather up some bad characteristics. Well. Ok. Maybe some characteristics which are like barnacles on the ship.


They slow you down.


Eliminating those barnacles is hard. And the hard truth in is they must go if the business wants to be successful.


Old less than effective strategies are included I this barnacle discussion.


They must go as the organization adapts if you accept the multi strategy thinking.


The whole adapting and adding and discarding discussion is easy when talking about tactics. Businesses do it all the time and pat themselves on the back for ‘being nimble and adapting to the market needs.’


They ignore the fact that tactics are simply window dressing and that these changes are simply a new paint job on a slowly sinking ship.


While it may sound too simplistic to suggest businesses would be better off thinking of strategies as easy to change as tactics … it may actually be some sound advice. Well. Sound advice for non-amateurs. Advice like that taken in hand by someone who didn’t really understand strategy and vision would most likely be a disaster.





In my heart of hearts I have always balked at one overarching unchanging business strategy. It made no sense to me <okay … it made sense I just didn’t think it was particularly effective in an ever changing business environment>. I just never was smart enough to articulate why what I believed made more sense.


While I loved that part of business, strategic positioning businesses in the marketplace, I often found myself being forced to apply square peg strategy solutions into what I saw as businesses’ ever evolving round, trapezoid, hexagonal, triangular and, yes, sometimes, square strategy opportunity holes. I often felt like I was being asked to place a stripped screw into a nail hole.


I wanted a tighter fit.


I always wanted to switch and blend and, as we often suggest a business is unique & distinct, I always felt a business deserved a distinct strategy and not one we simply pulled off the shelf.


Frankly, one overarching strategy in today’s fast moving & amazing competitive diverse business environment is a formula for eventual obsoletion. The marketplace naturally cycles and it seems slightly outdated thinking to believe if your organization doesn’t cycle it can ride out the marketplace cycle successfully.


And obsoletion can happen even if the business is well run, running well and providing a high level of service and satisfaction. Because as I noted in one of my ‘creative destruction’ articles there is always some scrappy entrepreneurial business out there thinking about how to rewrite the rules of doing business in that category and industry.


strategy aim adapt stephen boye


I am not suggesting you have to create your own strategy <although I am a fan of a hybrid strategy> but you can certainly select one of the commonly accepted strategies from a menu and switch back & forth as the situation dictates.


This means you can use accepted strategy platforms but by constantly adapting the strategy a business can avoid the undesirable situation of:



<a>deciding to having to leap into the unknown and stop leading and instead emulating the businesses infringing upon an industry they used to know so well … or,


<b> simply exist as an ever limiting cash cow, or a business solely relying on operations, in other words … destined to becoming a marginal player in a new world.



By the way.

This is not about disruption <which has become an overused and ill-used word> but rather managing a business to take advantage of a diverse range of opportunities which inevitably arise in any industry and category.



This may sound slightly chaotic and certainly difficult to manage and keep everything, and everyone, in line.


I do not believe it is chaotic but I do know 100% for sure, it is difficult to do.

But as someone smarter than I has said in the past … “nothing worth doing is easy.”


But it is worth doing.

I have always felt, sometimes balking at what I was being taught, that strategic change is almost a must for long term survival. I say ‘almost’ because if you are big enough, strong enough and savvy enough … like a huge nose tackle in football … you can bull your way through almost anything in your way <for awhile .. until your legs get tired or you get triple teamed>.



Leaders, businesses who do lead, may suggest that this strategy shifting thing is not for them..crazy ivan business strategy adapt


But part of leading is recognizing not only that someone is chasing you but that they may be getting a little close to you … and you should pull a ‘crazy Ivan.’


I always called this shaking the etch a sketch.

This is not disruption per se … this is more like simply changing the context, the game and the rules. Make the others adapt.





The how. How to do this.


strategy think adapt braid focus businessThe article in The Economist whined a little bit about how the authors of the Boston Consulting Group didn’t share ‘ways to implement so that managers didn’t go crazy or astray.’


Most likely because they didn’t have to.

Most good businesses do not stray from their core competence and skill. Functionally what they do well. And they combine this with an attitudinal/character compass.


Note I say “good businesses.’

Because I will also note, as I have in the past, for some reason defining these two things is oddly more difficult than one would think. And agreement even if you define it? Yikes. Even tougher.


In the end.


I would suggest pursuing an inconsistent consistent strategy shift is very much like simply pursing self-interest <not survival interest>.


The distinction I make here is that survival suggests ‘do anything to survive’ and this more often than not can lead you down some paths that permit you to survive short term but long term can put you in some untenable position.


Self interest suggests more ego-ism centered therefore naturally imbibes aspects of self-vision, character and embodiment of who and what you are.


This self interest permits you to navigate the natural tension in business of maintaining a stable business model that produces consistent results and the embracing of some reinvention. I say this because a healthy self, a person, navigates this same tension in Life therefore if you view business as … well … not just a business seeking to survive & thrive but rather a personal self-interest modality you can embrace both the rewarding stability and the rewarding reinvention.


I will note many of the high falutin’ books on strategy avoid this topic.

Their core premise is staying the course to maximize return and simplify overarching decision making.

And, I admit, the path I am recommending is a rockier road <but far more interesting>.



Some aspects of strategy, such as pricing the value proposition, portfolio mix, messaging, etc. can be revised relatively quickly and some of these things can change as often as you want. but other elements, such as infrastructure capabilities or existing customer profiles cannot be adapted as quickly.




Maybe about a dozen years ago or so in my attempt to address this I developed inner truth brand position - Copya philosophy based on staking out a business compass based on something I called “the inner truth.”  <see image to the right>.


I believed if a business could understand and embrace their inner truth than day to day business could have some flexibility & autonomy. In some cases I would even suggest strategy could adapt … as long as they stayed true to their inner truth.


The concept of strategic agility and flexibility is extremely appealing. It is challenging but has a tendency to combine what almost every business desires — the nimbleness of the start-up/entrepreneurial years and the solid consistency knowledge gained from experience offers.


What I do know … and feel slightly vindicated that the Boston consulting group has finally jumped on the ‘adaptable strategy train’ … is that the combination of a solid consistent vision core being enabled by an adapting semi-autonomous strategic construct around it creates a higher likelihood of success in the marketplace.


Our strategy.


Be smart. Be thoughtful. Try things. Follow those that work. Adapt. Never lose sight of the core no matter what you explore.

Enlightened Conflict