Enlightened Conflict

murphy’s laws of war (& business)

May 15th, 2013

Well.

This post is partially silly and partially truth.

And maybe that summarizes all of Murphy’s laws in general. What makes them fun to read is that they almost always seem to contain a <maddening> grain of truth.

I was cleaning out a folder and came across a shortened <there is a website that has almost 100 Murphy’s laws of war> list of Murphy’s Laws of war.

And, no, Murphy is no Sun Tzu <The Art of War>. Oh. But just to say this while it is on my mind … every business person should, at minimum, read The Art of War but it doesn’t hurt to have a copy of the little easy to read pamphlet in your working space. Its good <business> stuff.

Anyway.

Let me share Murphy’s version of war theory before I wax poetically on how relevant they are to business.

Murphy’s Laws of War:

- Professionals are predictable. It is the amateurs that are dangerous.

- Never draw fire … it irritates everyone around you.

- Friendly fire … isn’t.

- Never forget your weapon was made by the lowest bidder.

- The enemy invariably attacks on 2 occasions:

When they are ready
When you are not

- If the enemy is within range … so are you.

- Mines are equal opportunity weapons

- When the pin is pulled Mr. Grenade is not our friend

- When in doubt, empty your magazine.

- Don’t ever be first, don’t ever be last, and don’t ever volunteer.

- If it’s stupid but it works, it isn’t stupid.

Well.

On every single point I was drawing a correlation to business.

Professionals are predictable. Professionals can be bad … good … lazy … but predictable. And consistent. Why? Because they actually do know their shit. They may get lazy, or play politics or even get bullied by someone louder … but they really do know their shit. Amateurs? Well. Simply … they don’t know their shit. Sure. They may get lucky on occasion as well as they may instinctually be okay <on occasion> but they are extremely unpredictable. Even worse? If an amateur has an early success they stretch that to ‘I am now a professional’ and become dangerous. Amateurs are valuable to have around because (a) they can see things differently so you can work the wheat from the chaff and (b) someday they will be professionals. But on their own? They are dangerous.

Never draw fire … because it does irritate people around you. There is an art & a science to actually raising the objection … drawing out a complaint or criticism. It also contains risk. People do not like risk. Especially if they are not controlling it. If you draw the fire … be prepared to take the bullet(s). If you are not ready to do so? You will irritate the people around you even more.

Ah. Friendly fire. Let’s call it constructive criticism or what could be <and is often called> ‘healthy debate.’ Well. It may be healthy but it sure doesn’t feel good or healthy. I guess this also falls under the ‘if it hurts it must be good for you’ philosophy. By the way? That is a stupid philosophy. Work is difficult enough without offering up the supposed friendly fire to your co-workers.

Your weapon is made by the lowest bidder. Oh so true. In today’s business world, despite the fact everyone says ‘quality is number one’ they don’t really mean it. Ok. Maybe they mean it sometimes. And ‘sometimes’ means … well … there will always be an aspect where someone decided to go ‘lowest bidder.’ What do I mean? I have a project with 25 aspects. I decide to go lowest cost on 15 aspects so I can go high quality on the other 10. Murphy’s Law? Somewhere within the 15 going on the cheap will haunt you. I say all that <bringing it back to business> because while you may decide to put your ass on the line because you feel confident ‘we did it the right way’ … just know that somewhere within all that ‘right way’ a component was given to the lowest bidder.

The enemy attacking. I laughed when I read this. Why are people in business always scrambling to address competition? Well. It’s because they are always surprised when it happens. And it’s crazy. More time is wasted (a) preparing yourself for an attack that will never come when you want it to and (b) flailing in response to an attack. The point? You control what you can control. Your own company and business. Ignore an attack if it has acceptable losses and attack when you are ready.

If they are in range … you are in range. To me this is the disillusionment of believing you have an advantage. Advantages are so fleeting if you blink you can miss it <and get your ass blown off>. The moment you have an advantage … trust me … someone is already moving into either (a) the space you just left to get you from the rear or (b) into the same space you are moving into to attack all on their own. Never assume you have an advantage. Never assume if you perceive you have an advantage that it will last. Well. Never assume you are out of range.

Mines are equal opportunity weapons. Pointing out problems doesn’t mean you are absolved from (a) blame, (b) becoming part of the problem or even (c) getting your ass blown up. Notice how people are often hesitant to complain or point out some flaws? It isn’t because they don’t see them or recognize that they shouldn’t be solved … it’s because they also recognize that they could get hurt themselves. Oh. That’s why having a minesweeper employee is priceless. Pay her/him anything they want if they are good at it.

The grenade one. Well. That is a silly one. Kind of. Why kind of? Everyone makes mistakes … in life and in work. Mistakes, like it or not, are like grenades. Once a mistake is made … the pin is pulled. It may be on a 5 second timer, 5 hour timer … even a 5 year timer … but it is a grenade and it is on a timer. Too many times I see people trapped by their own mistakes. And, frankly, they get their ass blown off simply because they held on to the grenade. I know the metaphor is silly … but you get it. In business <for sure> and in Life <most of the time> mistakes have to be shared. By sharing you not only potentially save your own ass … you most likely decrease collateral damage. Simplistically … Mr. Grenade is not your friend.

When in doubt, empty your magazine. Whew. If I had seen this earlier I would have put it up as a sign in my office. Inside an office there is so much discussion on strategy of what to do and what to say and ‘showing all your cards’ and when … and it is such wasted energy. If you have the bullets use them. Trust me. If you use them all and still get killed it’s because you didn’t have enough or you didn’t shoot straight enough … you didn’t get killed because you should have held one or two back. Plus. There is a fairly well-known fact that magazines <business bullets> are manufactured in quantities. You can always grab another magazine if you get the opportunity. Say what? No more magazines or bullets! Oh well. Just means someone was smarter than you and had more bullets. Holding one or two back ain’t gonna help here either. Use it if you got it.

Don’t be first, last or volunteer. This one is tricky. But I will give a personal opinion on this … I prefer, in business, to be a quick follower. I know that may sound strange <because leading implies being first and I like leading> but I have always tended to believe the ‘first’ <in general> were simply the most hasty. The most impatient. The ones most scared to not be first. In their desire to be first they just didn’t have all their proverbial shit together. In fact … my dream business scenario is actually to see 2 hasty ‘firsts’ coming out of the blocks duking it out and bludgeoning each other. Whew. Did I just say I liked being the 3^rd out of the blocks? Well. Yeah. If it could play out that way. Being last? Nope. Too late. But a quick follower? Absolutely.

If it’s stupid and works it isn’t stupid. In the business world … too often when things go right and someone perceives it happened out of sheer luck or ‘stupidity gone right’ … it gets ignored. It gets ignored as (a) non replicable and (b) don’t want to replicate <because it was stupid>. You want to know what’s stupid? Ignoring something that worked. I am certainly not suggesting that the ends always justify the means but I am suggesting that working is working. Somehow, someway … it worked. Therefore somewhere within what happened something was not stupid.

Please note that it is mostly the arrogant know it all senior managers who overlook the ‘stupid but worked.’ They “know better.” They “know the right way to do it.” Aw … baloney. They are being stupid.

Well.

That was fun <for me>.

Oddly <in my pea like brain> I thought of writing this using Murphy when I saw this list in some magazine from the J.Crew CEO on business. Maybe because some of the things he suggests would make great Murphy’s Laws at some point.

In addition? I happen to agree with him on his list. Here are his thoughts … the ones I really liked.

Creativity Tips From J.Crew CEO Mickey Drexler

- “Every business could be creative.”

I talk to so many people about the lack of creativity in companies in America. Part of creativity is contrarianism. Creativity battles common wisdom. Because if there’s common wisdom, there’s an opportunity. In my own experience, whatever was a good idea was a bad idea to most people.

- “Companies are in the Stone Ages organizationally.”

You can tell by the offices. “I’m going to see the king!” The king is on the top floor and there are 17 people in front of the king’s office. There are layers of bureaucracy. It shouldn’t be like that.

- “Most companies should have a rule about how big they get.”

Not necessarily assigning a billion-dollar value or a 10 billion-dollar value, but companies that become too ubiquitous go one way.

- “America’s companies are built to destroy creativity.”

If you become the head of a big company today, you’re not the youngest person in the world. You have a contract. You get a jet. You have a huge overpaid salary. You get bonuses. Do you think that CEO is going to screw around with fast, creative change? No. And the board of directors–the last thing they want is someone who’s going to change things. Steve Jobs–he would bet the company, he wouldn’t care. But there are very few people who run companies that way.

- “You have to keep moving forward.”

Everything has a trend to it; I don’t care if it’s appliances or engines. I always ask: What has a company done in the past five years that somebody’s noticed?

- “You cannot copy high quality.”

It takes a long time to get a reputation for quality. There are people in our industry, they’re basically copiers. Look at the cars on the streets. They all look alike. But if you put quality into a product, then have it validated, you have huge credibility. It takes time to earn that.

- “Simplicity is very difficult to achieve.”

Try to ask someone to make a really good roast chicken.

—–

Good stuff.

Smart guy this Mickey. Maybe he should meet Murphy and create some laws.

instinct

April 6th, 2013

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

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

Ok.

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

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

The point?

Knowledge and experience can only take you so far.

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

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

Ah.

Special character.

Instinct is one of those things people hate.

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

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

That means …

Collaboration? Well. Nope.

Consensus? Geez. Nope.

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

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

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

It is … well … just what it is.

Sure.

It can be cultivated.

And it can even be honed.

But I do not believe it can be taught.

Well. Let me take that back and try this.

Good instincts cannot be taught.

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

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

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

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

That said.

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

And while frustrating … it also feels right.

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

That is instinct.

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

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

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

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

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

And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

Now.

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

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

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

That is misery.

Regardless.

Instinct is a natural aptitude.

Kind of like a knack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

the ‘Secret’ ain’t really a secret

March 9th, 2013

Forewarning. If you like The Secret … and live by The Secret … it will be no secret at the end of this rant that I do not believe the secret is a secret at all. So read on at your own peril.

“To create the life of your dreams, the time has come for you to love You. Focus on Your joy. Do all the things that make You feel good. Love You, inside and out. Everything will change in your life, when you change the inside of you. Allow the Universe to give you every good thing you deserve, by being a magnet to them all. To be a magnet for every single thing you deserve, you must be a magnet of love.” ― Rhonda Byrne

“Success or failure depends more upon attitude than upon capacity successful men act as though they have accomplished or are enjoying something. Soon it becomes a reality. Act, look, feel successful, conduct yourself accordingly, and you will be amazed at the positive results.” – William James

Oh boy.

I am going to discuss <rant about> The Secret by Rhonda Byrne.

It really isn’t anything more than a reformulation of William James or even Norman Vincent Peale’s ‘The Power of Positive Thinking.’

Bottom line. The book to me? Tripe. Useless drivel.

Look.

If you want to do something good … well … go ahead and do it.

If you need a self-motivation “I am happy and love life” speech to yourself in the morning … then do it.

But.

Suggesting simply choosing happiness leads to success, well, that is flawed logic. And the whole “magnet for good”? … oh my. We could only all wish it were so easy.

Now.

While I can’t buy this tripe I do love the idea.

But.

C’mon. If it was really this easy wouldn’t we all have everything we truly wanted? <because that’s all we would think about … and I actually guess all of us have actually wanted to do only the things we want to do … and the things that would make us happy>.

Anyway.

The challenge with challenging a book like this is that it actually leverages from a simple Life premise … … that our thoughts <and ultimately – actions> are usually a reflection of our beliefs and attitudes. And if we want to change our reality then we have to change these beliefs and attitudes that shape our thoughts.

But it becomes easier to challenge when it actually suggests that there is a scientific premise <which is actually a made up premise> … that the ‘Universal Law of Attraction’ is a Law in which if you focus on something enough it is not only drawn to you but actually expands.

This made up law says ‘The Law of Attraction states that you will attract to yourself those experiences that match your beliefs: These beliefs then create your EXPERIENCE of reality. So focus on what you DO want, rather than on what you don’t want.’

Therefore <scientifically> you will not only get what you want … but you also get to live a Life only doing what makes you happy.

First. There is no Law of Attraction. Not even a postulate or a theorem. Just a made up law <maybe that is it’s secret?>.

Second. You do not always get what you want. Anything. Experiences included. But I can reverse the logic and guarantee all the things you actually do, and like to do, you actually wanted to do. Reality looked at backwards will always appear closer in the “I wanted to do” mirror. And as for ‘attraction’? What a bunch of bullhockey.

The Secret is a power of intention/power of positive thinking a get what you want formula <also like Tony Robbin>.

Here is the deal.

It will “work” for some based on mathematical probability alone <if enough people think “hard” enough to ‘attract’ whatever they are seeking to attract … a few will>.

And, of course, these few are the ones quoted in the book.

I wish it was actually that simple.

The Secret neglects to inform you, but suffice it to say, it is not “attraction” but rather this is more about discipline and focus and effort.

But.

If the happiness ‘secret’ keeps your eye on your own proverbial ball … then do it.

But to suggest it is a science let alone a law with proof <because you can de-isolate specific incidents and make the argument that they are exceptions to the rule> really does make the Secret untenable if not simply a criticism of our intelligence.

It is certainly sneaky. It uses smart quotes <albeit out of context> and the book takes advantage of the fact we all ask ourselves these questions <all of us do, or have done, at some point>. Things like:

Do you ever wonder how other people do it?

How do some people find the courage to follow their dreams?

What makes happy successful people different <or what is their commonality>?

Well. Sorry. The truth is there is nothing special about the majority of them.

The difference between a person who has an idea and a person who acts on that idea is one step … albeit a big step.

That step often comes down to knowing you are not alone and finding the courage within yourself. Dreaming big certainly encourages you to take that first step.

And to succeed, or find happiness, you do have to be willing to take at least some step. After that? Well. You gotta work hard. I <or anyone> can envision anything … but it ain’t just gonna be given to me.

Whenever I see a quote like “Every day when I wake up I realize I have a choice. I can be happy or unhappy. So what do I do? I’m not dumb. I choose to be happy” I kind of want to puke. Having a positive attitude, or making the best of the situation, is always good … but Life is meant to be a roller coaster ride <even if you hate roller coasters> and there will be highs & lows. You slug it out with the lows and enjoy the highs. No secret.

Now. I certainly do believe in committing to ‘show up’ in Life every day … but this quote? What a bunch of crap <or tripe>.

So.

I had drafted a brilliant <in my eyes> diatribe on how books like The Secret are worse for humanity than even the most misguided government but I found someone who did it for me <and even more smartly than I was going to do it>.

I apologize that I cannot provide the author because when I cut & pasted I neglected to capture that information but suffice it to say I need to credit someone other than me for these well crafted words:

I think a book like this, which makes some really big claims, should, roughly, do the following:

1) Present it’s premise clearly

2) Since it’s a self-help book explain clearly what you need to do

3) Provide compelling evidence that it’s ideas work

4) Be credible.

The book does a decent job of explaining its premise, which is that everything in your life is the result of the law of attraction.

I quote, “the law of attraction says like attracts like, so when you think a thought, you are also attracting like thoughts to you.” In other words, think good thoughts and good things will come to you and if you think bad thoughts then bad things come to you.

I’ve simplified this a bit but not a whole lot as the concept isn’t rocket science.

Now, does this book explain clearly what you need to do? Actually, for a self-help book it does a very poor job of this. How do you control your thoughts? What kinds of practices and thinking produce the best results? The author and contributors basically tell you a bunch of stories about how “so and so did something and you can too by changing your thinking”.

And that’s it for the “how to” part of the book. There isn’t any.

Now, if I wanted to prove something worked from a scientific perspective it would seem to be easy to test this stuff out. You take two groups of people, teach one the secret, let the other go on with their lives and see what happens. In theory those that know the Secret would be happier and more successful than the control group. It might not be perfect but it’d be a whole lot better than what we get in this book. But, of course, you’d have to have an actual methodology to test.

Instead the authors cite numerous anecdotes of how the Secret worked. One person’s cancer went away. Another individual walks after a brutal accident. Still another finds romance. That’s all fine and perhaps it’s evidence but it’s not proof. How many people who were injured like the “Miracle Man” never walked again despite the best attitude and trying the approach perfectly?

The problem with anecdotes is that it’s easy to start with a result, work backward and assume the conclusion.

It’s also very easy with anecdotes to only present the ones that make your case and ignore those that don’t (when someone dies of cancer while practicing the secret for instance). It’s just not good enough to use anecdotes for large claims like those made in this book.

The following quote struck a nerve.

“People hold that for awhile, and they’re really a champion at it. They say, `I’m fired up, I saw this program and I’m going to change my life.’ And yet the results aren’t showing. Beneath the surface it’s just about ready to break through but the person will look just at the surface results and say, `This stuff doesn’t work.’ And you know what? The universe says, “your wish is my command.”

I thought it was interesting that the universe instantly manifest failure but isn’t quite so fast with success. In fact, a cynical individual might conclude that what they are really saying is, “when this program works it’s because the secret always works, but, on the off chance it doesn’t work, well, that’s your fault.” An even more cynical person might think, “gosh, I wonder what would help a person who failed? Maybe, a seminar with Bob Proctor would be just the thing to get them over the top?”

Lastly, is the Secret credible? On the one hand, I think a lot can be said for the idea that if you change your thinking you’d change your life.

In many ways that seems obvious to me.

On the other hand, if the secret actually was true, especially at the scope claimed by the book it would mean that everything that’s happened is the result of your thinking. So, when a child dies of pneumonia, well, it’s because they brought pneumonia into their lives. Michael J. Fox, not only did you bring Parkinson’s into your life but change your thinking and it will go away. Obviously these things aren’t true and they obliterate, in my opinion, any credibility in the book.

Not only does the book go too far but most (I’d argue nearly all) of the contributors aren’t credible. On a topic of this scope: the ability to 100% change your life and the world in an incredible fashion, does anyone really think you couldn’t find psychologists, top flight scientists, therapists and thousands of mainstream individuals to support it, if it worked? Wouldn’t there be tons of research instead of anecdotes? Instead we get a Feng Shui Master, a chiropractor, motivational speakers (err trainers), a metaphysicist, etc. combined with a half dozen anecdotal stories. So the most powerful like changing idea ever and you get it from the crew in this book presented in this fashion? I don’t think so!

If this idea really worked, at anything other than giving material to self-help speakers and generating repeat students, it just wouldn’t be found here. The book wouldn’t even have to be written because we’d all already know it and be practicing it. Remember, this is not a new idea, it’s been around for a very long time, and it’s been the topic of literally thousands of seminars and hundreds of books.

Catchy review title? Thought so. Robert Cialdini, renowned psychology researcher and author of Influence: The Power of Persuasion (perhaps the best book ever written on the subject) identifies six basic rules employed by politicians, advertisers and scam artists alike to persuade others. Each of them are employed quite adeptly by Rhonda Byrne in this book.

Cialdini’s first principle is SCARCITY; people want what’s expensive, exclusive, or otherwise attainable. Byrne’s mastery of this principle is clearly shown by the very name of the book: The Secret. We all learned this the first week of kindergarten as we felt the jealousy of watching two classmates, hands cupped over ears, sharing a secret out of earshot.

This message is reinforced throughout the book and its advertising campaign which pitches “The Secret” (whatever it actually is) as jealousy-guarded information hoarded by the happy, wealthy and successful. Whenever someone tries convincing you of something, whether it’s a way to make enormous sums of money, to lose weight, etc – be wary of when it’s pitched as “the knowledge THEY don’t want you to have.” Think about it – everything from the “secrets that Wall Street doesn’t want you to know” to “uncovered – celebrities’ secrets to staying young” are phrased not simply to pique your interest but to make you jealous. Appeals to our emotion are far more powerful than appeals to reason, and Byrne demonstrates mastery of this principle throughout “The Secret.”

Cialdini’s second principle is LIKING. We like those who like us, and in turn, we do business with them. Positive thinking and emotional intelligence has been linked to strong interpersonal relationships, academic and professional success, and good health, but there is a fine line when positive thinking crosses over to unjustified exuberance. Instead of simply noting the substantial benefits of positive thinking (a well-accepted principle which wouldn’t sell books), Byrne crosses the line so blatantly that anyone with a modicum of modesty would find it blasphemous.

AUTHORITY is another Cialdini principle, also in play in “The Secret” in quite subtle ways. Another technique which differentiates this book from just another book of positive thinking is the heavy use of quasiscientific language, which gives the impression that the “law of attraction” is (or will become) an accepted scientific principle, just like the law of gravity or the law of attraction of oppositely-charged particles in chemistry. Many people are both intimidated and confused by the authority of science, a fact exploited by manipulators ranging from Byrne to peddlers of magic weight-loss pills.

Since no respected physicist would ever publish a paper on the universality of the “law of attraction,” Byrne indirectly seeks experts in other ways. She attributes the success of people ranging from Einstein to Beethoven to adherence of “The Secret,” thereby manufacturing experts. After all, if Einstein and Shakespeare mastered “The Secret,” who are YOU to question it?

The last two Cialdini principles are CONSISTENCY and SOCIAL PROOF. The success of this book should leave little doubt it will be followed by more (and more expensive) forms of media peddling “The Secret.” The audio recordings, weekend seminars, advertising tie-ins, and other follow-up products certain to follow will exploit these two principles. Once people commit themselves to believing happiness will come from “The Secret,” they will attribute future successes, whether a promotion or a great new relationship, to adherence to it. Conversely, setbacks will be even more powerfully in committing people to “The Secret,” as people will attribute their failures to not living up to “The Secret” (and buying more of Byrne’s books). Consistency dictates it will be less painful to buy more books and immerse one’s self further into “The Secret” than to accept the whole premise is a quite ridiculous; while not as pernicious as a domineering cult, “The Secret” promises to charge you handsomely for a positive outlook on life.

Byrne’s book is problematic on many levels.

On its face, it’s a manipulative marketing tool meant to flatter, confuse and deceive. It’s also pseudoscience at its best, the last thing we need to encourage in an increasingly technological world which requires healthy skepticism and critical thought. Most damaging, though, is how the book perverts reality by encouraging people to equate a positive outlook on life with a childish, idiotic narcissism. Ayn Rand must be rolling in her grave hearing about the modern manifestation of her objectivist movement reduced to the intellectual equivalent of canned pork.

In conclusion, I’m not opposed to the idea on a small scale but this book just goes way too far and I’m left with the feeling that all that’s really going on is a bunch of people trying to get their name out and get you to pay for their seminars.

——–

So.

All that said.

Here is my point.

Do what you need to do to keep moving forward in life.

Have dreams.

Seek to be happy.

Seek success.

However you may define all the things I just listed.

They are all good aspects of “Life survival.” And are all good objectives.

And if this book helps you to focus on these things, well, then use it.

But.

The book is not a formula nor is it the bible/Koran guide to Life success or Life happiness.

It is simply a useful tool for some people.

Nor does simply envisioning success, or happiness, guarantee success or happiness. Someone in discussing this book suggested I was debating chicken or egg first. Nope. I break the egg by noting everyone who gains happiness <or 99.9%> will absolutely say they envisioned the happiness … but I can almost guarantee everyone who has not achieved happiness <or 99.9% of them> will absolutely say they have envisioned happiness. Someone doesn’t envision any better than someone else. Sometimes you may have more drive or you may work harder or you may even simply have more talent … or maybe the happiness is tied to something to unrealistic. I do not care which you choose. This logic kills the chicken and the egg.

Books like this drive me a little crazy in that they suggest they are ‘the key’ … because if Life were that simple well … Life would be simple.

I have a secret for you.

Life ain’t that simple.

Anyway. Because the book uses a lot of quotes I will end on a quote of my own from Arthur Rubenstein:

” Most people , in my opinion, have an unrealistic approach toward happiness because they invariably use the fatal conjunction “if” as a condition. You hear them say: ‘I would be happy if I were rich’, or … ‘if this girl loved me’ … or ‘if I had talent’ … or their most popular … ‘if I had good health.’ They often attain their goal, but they discover new ‘ifs.’As for myself, I love Life for better or for worse, unconditionally.”

Good pianist.

Smart man.

Great advice <no secret>.

Love Life unconditionally … and you will be happy.

imagination defined

January 18th, 2013

So.

I struggle to find a more important attribute in a happy & healthy person than a good imagination.

Yeah.

Maybe more important than good nutrition.

Maybe I am naïve but I tend to believe a happy mind tends to guide one to a healthier body & lifestyle. And imagination feeds a happy mind .

Simplistic? Sure. But you gotta start somewhere.

And I also believe all those people who starve themselves or become fitness nuts or feed themselves to attain some absurd body proportions should skip the ‘meal plans’ and ‘counting whatever you want to count’ and ‘tracking plans’ and begin with what is going on in the mind <but I imagine that is a different post>.

Regardless.

Imagination is a powerful thing to create a healthy mind <let me just focus on that aspect>. I found some guy named Murray Hunter who must feel the same way I do because he invested a shitload of energy analyzing imagination and different types of imagination and the components of a good imagination. In fact Murray defines different imaginations <which I will outline later in the post>.

I think it is helpful to state a reminder that imagination is thinking.

Sound obvious? Maybe. But I tend to believe we don’t … well … often think this way about imagination … or maybe not enough. I tend to believe imagination has some abstract reputation that makes it elusive to the many. It sometimes becomes a characteristic of a select few rather than an aspect of all of us. In fact … I believe we herd the idea of a ‘good imagination’ into fewer and fewer people the older we get. For some reason we attribute imagination to tangible output and create imagination scorecards for people therefore leading to people who have high scores versus people who have low scores <people with good imaginations versus bad, or no, imagination>. And … well … that is kind of crazy. Mainly because that means we have evaluated an intangible <imagination> with the tangible <results>.

To me? That is nuts.

We all have imagination.

We all portray imaginative thinking.

We all may use imagination differently.

Imaginative thinking provides the ability to travel a variety of roads as we move toward some point on the horizon <in a tangible sense that would be called strategies & objectives>. By the way … that thought is relevant to Life as well as business.

Imagination simply provides us with the ability to be more divergent, or random, than logical thought. In addition imagination permits us to move more freely across different fields of thought and constructs of organized ‘attitudes & beliefs’ while logical thinking is more orientated to a narrowly focused path.

Now. Good ole Murray suggested that imagination is probably more important than knowledge <as knowledge without application is useless>. I don’t agree with that. Mostly because I do not believe you can have imagination, or at least a productive imagination, without some knowledge. Or maybe better said … more knowledge leads to more imagination. But. Rather than invest a lot of energy debating that knowledge/imagination conundrum … I will simply suggest this is the infamous chicken or egg discussion. It is simultaneous and circular. You cannot have one without the other.

Anyway.

Most of the following words are his and I apologize to him if, as I edited his words <to shape my own thoughts>, I have changed his intent in anyway.

Suffice it to say that imagination has multiple dimensions <too many if you actually buy everything Murray is trying to sell us>. But I do believe it is helpful to analyze the different aspects of the imagination rather than simply suggest someone is ‘using their imagination’ or ‘has a good imagination’ because … well … as with most things in life … not all imagination is created equal.

So. If the topic is not only of interest to you but also important to you then understanding some of the aspects may assist in how you approach enhancing a healthy productive imagination. Here is how Murray breaks it all down <note – I am including all his categories but I do believe he dances on the head of a pin on some aspects>:

- Effectuative imagination.

Let’s call this random imagination. Effectuative combines information together to synergize new concepts and ideas. The ideas tend to be ‘visionary’ and are often incomplete. This type of imagination needs to be enhanced, modified, and/or elaborated upon as more information from the environment comes to attention and is reflected upon.

Effectuative imagination can be either guided or triggered by random thoughts, usually stimulated by what a person experiences within the framework of their past experience. These people may also be maddening because they incubate <pondering a specific problem> by leaving the problem alone … the occasional attention lets the mind wander possibilities … or nothing … and randomly imagines a solution.

Effectuative imagination is extremely flexible and allows for continuous change. This is an important ingredient in entrepreneurial planning, strategy development, particularly in opportunity construction, development, and assembling all the necessary resources required to exploit any opportunity.

I would suggest we hate and love these people and their imaginations. In our process driven world we want to give a deadline and specific objective and milestones … and these people go to the beat of their own drum.

Here is an even crazier thought. Everyone can do this. Crazy, huh? If you buy into the randomness then some people will portray this random imagination weekly … and some once a decade. The really sad part? The once in a decade person is screwed in today’s world. If they do not deliver today they get put in a ‘non-imagination box’ and we ignore them.

Too bad <for the rest of us>. Because, frankly. an effectuative imaginative idea is an effectuative imaginative idea. One is not any better or worse than another. Quality is an independent variable where each is discrete in its value. These people, to me, are builders. Often they are building something that has never been built before <these people are often miserable because they see shit other people do not see … and, as we know, most people are resistant to the truly ‘new’>.

- Intellectual imagination.

Intellectual is utilized when considering and developing hypotheses from different pieces of information or pondering over various issues of meaning say in the areas of philosophy, management, or politics, etc. Intellectual imagination originates from a definite idea or plan and thus is guided imagination as it has a distinct purpose which in the end must be articulated after a period of painstaking and sometimes meticulous endeavor. Murray used Charles Darwin as a prime example. Intellectual imagination <the ability to imagine that which seemed semi-unimaginable> developed his hypothesis leading to The Origin of Species which took almost two decades to gestate and complete. Darwin collected information, analyzed it, evaluated and criticized the findings, and then reorganized all the information into new knowledge in the form of a hypothesis . Intellectual imagination is a very conscious process.

Personally I put this in the ‘renovation’ category. These people use their imagination to take that which is, break it apart and ultimately imagine it all in a new configuration. These people are less miserable than the miserable Effectuative people mostly because at least their imaginations are using mostly existing pieces to suggest change and new.

- Imaginative fantasy.

Fantasy creates and develops stories, pictures, poems, stage-plays, and the building of the esoteric. This form of imagination may be based upon the inspiration of some fact or semi-autobiographical experiences, extrapolated or analogized into new persona and events that conform to or stretch the realms of reality into some magical alternative option. Imaginative fantasy may be very tangible in its construct … very structural <people in real world settings, past, present, or future … or with real people in mythical settings>. Fantasy may totally disregard the rules of society, science and nature, or extrapolate them into a created future. Fantasy can also be based upon human emotions, distorted historical facts, historical times and political issues, take a theme and fantasize it, encapsulate dark fantasy, or evoke urban legend. Imaginative fantasy can be a mixture of guided and unguided imagination and appears to be important to artists, writers, dancers, and musicians, etc.

These people are extremely happy people … but this imagination lives in an alternative world <which means they may not fit in with the rest of mainstream very easily>. This imagination seamlessly eases its way into the world because most people clearly identify it as ‘not change’ but rather ‘not real.’ We love these people because on occasion in their ‘non-real’ imagination they figure out a way to articulate something real in our own lives. We rarely judge them on everything they do and say but rather on those magical moments when they reach inside us and show us something about the way we think or feel.

- Empathy Imagination

Empathy tied to Imagination is an interesting category. It suggests a capacity to connect to others and feel what they are feeling. Empathy imagination helps someone put themselves in someone else’s shoes. Let someone know emotionally what others are experiencing from their frame and reference. Empathy allows our mind ‘to detach itself from one’s self’ and see the world from someone else’s feelings, emotions, pain, and reasoning. Empathy links us to the larger community and thus important to human survival in enabling us to understand what is required to socially coexist with others.

Interestingly, this type of imagination, besides being extremely important in Life, can be an important characteristic in Business. It enables one to think about how competition thinks and reacts and what they would do. I guess branding can also be considered a result of empathy as marketers try and capture connections with potential customers by appealing to their emotions, self identity and aspirations.

- Strategic imagination

While Murray didn’t suggest this … I will … this type of imagination to me is very specific. Strategic is concerned about vision of ‘what could be’, the ability to recognize and evaluate opportunities by turning them into mental scenarios, seeing the benefits, identifying the types and quantities of resources required for taking particular actions, and the ability to weigh up all the issues in a strategic manner. This type of ‘imagining what could be’ helps a person focus upon the types of opportunities suited to them <their personal motivations being the main driver>.

I tend to believe that strategic imagination translates into what we everyday schmucks would call “wise people” <not wise asses>.

- Emotional Imagination

I call this “imagining how I may feel” imagination. This is concerned with manifesting emotional dispositions and extending them into emotional scenarios. Without any imagination, emotion would not be able to emerge from our psych and manifest as feelings, moods, and dispositions. Fear requires the imagination of what is fearful, hate requires imagination about what is repulsive, and worry requires the imaginative generation of scenarios that make one anxious. Through emotional imagination, beliefs are developed through giving weight to imaginative scenarios that generate further sets of higher order emotions. Emotional imagination operates at the unconscious and semi-unconscious level. Emotional imagination a very powerful type of imagination and can easily dominate the thinking processes.

By the way … I tend to believe people who have a vivid emotional imagination are typically emotional wrecks. These are the people who constantly swing between envisioning what would make them happy and living through ‘what if’ misery . These people are almost the exact opposite of what Eckhart Tolle would call “living in the now.” They live in the ‘what if.’ Me? I would shoot myself. What a waste of a good imagination.

- Dreams.

I was surprised Murray threw dreams into Imagination but I included it because I included everything else he dreamed up <sorry for that>. He suggests that dreams are an unconscious form of imagination made up of images, ideas, emotions, and sensations … just that this imagination occurs while you sleep rather than when you are awake. An interesting thought. Dreams show that every concept in our mind has its own psychic associations and that ideas we deal with in everyday life are by no means as precise as we think. Our experiences imprint our memory passing into the subconscious where the factual characteristics can be reacquired or be revised at some point. Regardless … we are not in control of our dreams … this is completely unfettered imagination <an interesting idea in its own right>.

I will admit that I mostly left this in my post because I have a pen & paper next to my own bed. I am not sure I would call what I do when I sleep as “dreaming” but I certainly think. And it helps if I wake up to write down what I thought <before the ‘brilliance’ slips away>. I hesitate to call this ‘dreaming’ because I think of words, business & ideas … not unicorns, angels and stepping through rings of fire to save some damsel in distress. Regardless … this is an interesting aspect I am glad good ole Murray thought about.

- Memory reconstruction.

This type of imagination is the process of retrieving our memory of people, objects, and events. Our memory is made up of prior knowledge consisting of a mix of truth and belief, influenced by emotion. Recurring memory therefore carries attitudes, values, and identity as most of our memory is within the “I” or “me” paradigm. Memory is also reconstructed to fit into our current view of the world, so is very selective.

If you are truly interested in this delineation please do not hesitate to pick up Clotaire Rapaille’s The Culture Code. You will be interested because this type of imagination has to be consciously redirected because Clotaire does a fabulous job in suggesting some of the memory imprints we have are solidly imprinted in our subconscious … therefore dictating a thought platform from which our imagination leverages from. An interesting paradox if you believe imagination is a blank slate.

Done.

Whew.

this has turned out to be a bear of a post to write & edit … which is a shame because it is on a topic I truly enjoy … imagination and knowledge.

In the end I wanted to break down imagination into these somewhat absurd delineations to make a point. Knowledge <and curiosity I imagine> have almost always been discussed in infinite terms. While, oddly, imagination has been discussed as finite <as in some people do not have it>.

The relationship between knowledge and imagination is inextricably tied. And both are expanding geometrically. Murray suggested somewhere in something he wrote that this exponential growth is devaluing knowledge <but not imagination>. I disagree. Adamantly disagree.

I believe the value of knowledge, in particular, is increasing exponentially … because the game of Life has raised its competitive bar. Therefore people need to be able to use all their tools, imagination included, to be more competitive with Life <not other people>. Developing capabilities to investigate and assimilate information and inventing new ways of looking at it is becoming increasingly important. Honestly that thought is at the core of Enlightened Conflict. It is the next step from encouraging curiosity <and actually acting upon your curiosity>.

To end this whole post & thought.

Seeking knowledge and using your imagination is certainly something internally driven. However … to fully prosper it needs to be nurtured … given the space and environment to be successful.

That will not happen until everyone … well … at least the everyones who can crush the potential … recognize everyone has a vivid imagination when given the opportunity. And maybe that is why I went into such excruciating detail on differentiating imagination. Maybe somewhere in the excruciating detail some anal retentive manager/leader will latch on to a reason to give someone a chance to use their imagination.

temporary advantage

January 9th, 2013

“Every advantage is temporary.” ― Katerina Stoykova Klemer

And.

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

So.

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

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

Businesses are always seeking an advantage.

And they should.

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

And ultimately that becomes their downfall.

Couple of thoughts.

First thought.

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

In fact gobs of money is spent against this objective.

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

Now. Let me tell you a business truth.

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

Here is the other business truth.

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

Frankly? It is all wasted energy <mostly>.

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

Sound crazy? Maybe.

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

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

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

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

Next.

Second thought.

Sustainable advantage.

Sustainable advantage is really rare.

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

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

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

Damn. Wrong window at the wrong time.

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

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

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

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

Life.

Yup. I will discuss Life and temporary advantages.

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

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

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

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

Therefore thank god for kids (youth in general).

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

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

Just be competitive.

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

Two things about that ‘glimmer of the advantage.’

First.

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

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

Second.

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

No glimmer? No hope? That worries me.

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

I am fairly sure I couldn’t.

I struggle to see how anyone could.

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s it.

That’s my point.

les murs ont des oreilles

December 19th, 2012

les murs ont des oreilles

translation: “Who can say who is listening?”

This is a french version of ‘the walls have ears.’

I know that I always told my groups in business if they talked badly about clients … the clients would ‘hear’ <even without being within miles of the conversation>

Hearing is often not a physical thing … it is simply knowing.

It is a feeling.

Here is a truth <albeit a harsh truth>. It is silly to believe you can say something out loud and not believe that it echoes through the ether in a way that someone can feel the ripples of the words.

Well,

Not really silly.

Just stupid.

Or maybe just ignorant.

I fully understand we all say mean things sometimes. And sometimes we actually mean them. And sometimes they are uttered out of spite or some senseless random emotional trigger … in other words … semi-meaningless.

But.

Here is the deal <that Life neglected to put in its handbook for you>.

Senseless or meaningful … it is heard.

Always.

And it amazes me when someone is surprised that something they said came circling back.

The words you hear?

But it was a secret.

But I just told one person.

But I didn’t really mean it.

But.

But again.

You are a butthead.

I don’t go for the bullshit of “if you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say it all” because we wouldn’t be human if we actually did that.

Say what you mean.

Say what you feel.

Say it … and know it will be heard.

No one is eavesdropping but Life.

No one has betrayed you by sharing a secret.

No one has listened when they shouldn’t have.

Life is always listening.

And Life will always share what it knows.

In the end … who can say who is listening?

Life.

And, by the way, Life is a gossip. But it will not tell you shit about its own secrets … and yet it will not hesitate one second to share everyone else’s secrets.

The quicker you learn that the better off you will be.

no mas

November 28th, 2012

“No mas, no mas …no more box.” – Roberto Duran 1980

So.

This is about winning … and deciding how important … ‘how you win’ is to you … versus ‘the win’ itself.

Well.

The quote. Nothing much was happening in the eighth round of the Roberto Duran – Sugar Ray Leonard boxing match on November 25^th in 1980 when Roberto Duran turned away from Sugar Ray Leonard and waved a glove at the referee in a signal he wanted to stop.

Interestingly … Leonard, only aware that the current champ wasn’t defending himself, hit Duran … and Duran did not respond.

“No mas, no mas,” Roberto told the referee.

“No more box.”

And he walked to his corner,

Now.

As a boxer Roberto Duran was known as the most dedicated, intense warrior in the ring. His nickname was Hands of Stone <Manos de Piedra>. He was the lightweight champ and had lost only one decision in 72 bouts <or something close to that>.

It was said that he never thought he could ever lose.

And, yet, he walked away … and in the win/loss column he lost.

But.

Here is the deal.

“No mas” didn’t mean ‘I quit.’ It just meant ‘fuck this.’

It was purely a comment made in disgust.

Yup.

Duran wasn’t hurt … he was just disgusted.

Once Duran realized Leonard wouldn’t play ‘quien es mas macho’ he just walked away.

Winning … if he couldn’t fight the way he thought a fight should be fought … well … it just wasn’t a fight to him.

Was he right or wrong? In his head … right.

In may other people’s heads? Wrong decision … it made him a quitter in their eyes.

But this is all about winning the way you want to win.

His way of fighting? …

“Getting hit motivates me. It makes me punish the guy more. A fighter takes a punch, hits back with three punches.”- Roberto Duran

Duran was the champ. He probably was smart enough to figure out a way to win the way Sugar Ray was fighting the fight <which wasn’t fighting it was avoiding> but that wasn’t the win he wanted. He wanted to know who the best fighter was. He wanted to be hit and see if he could take it. He wanted to see if Sugar Ray could take his best hits. When Sugar Ray decided he wasn’t going to allow that to happen Duran just said … not only do I not want to play this game but I don’t want to win this way … “no mas.”

Now.

To us <because most of us are not world class boxers> we will all at some point have to make this same type of decision … in sports, in Life, in relationships, in business. We all have to decide how important how we win is to us.

Look. How you win, or play the game, is a very personal decision.

It really ends up being your choice with regard to your attitude <which ultimately influences your own behavior … even when that behavior is within a group or business organization>.

Oh. And when it isn’t your choice how to play <i.e., someone else is dictating how you play> … and you really do not want to play that way … well … there is trouble <in River City my friends>.

Ok.

Please note I am going to make some generalizations soon to make some points and I fully understand there are degrees within each generalization.

Regardless. Let’s say there are three types of wins and winners:

- A ‘whatever it takes to win’ win

- An intellectual win

- An ability win

And while this is probably relevant to Life, in general, as well as sports <obviously> and personal … I am going to discuss this idea in a business environment.

Why?

Because I tend to believe this is one of the most difficult attitude & behavior decisions someone has to make in business.

Organizations ask, and demand, many things of you … and you have to reconcile all of it with your own attitude … and inevitably your actions <behavior>. As a junior person this is very difficult to manage but my suggestion is that you get things set <with the best knowledge you have> in your own head … and then look to the leaders behavior. Watch the senior people and how they treat going after a win, the process in win decision making and then how they define & evaluate the win. Make sure it matches up with what you have decided attitudinally. If you do not, you run the risk of being constantly put in positions where you do not like what you are not only being asked to do … but what you are doing.

Senior people have no excuses. No if, ands or buts. How they win defines them as a business person. All I can say to them is … well … accept it <whichever type you are>. I know what I like in my head but that doesn’t make it the only right. The only point I have to really make to leaders is that once you accept how you go after a win … then begin recruiting people who think as you do. If you do not then you will be forcing your attitudes & behavior upon others who probably do not want to, let alone like to, do it that way. And I can also promise you when it comes to evaluation time , as a leader, you will be continuously disappointed in their performance.

Anyway.

The three wins <my perspective> and how they are different aspects of ‘adept, adapt & adopt.”

A whatever it takes to win.

I actually refer to this as an empty win.

This is typically the type of win done by someone who says afterwards … “all that matters is the result” … or … “it’s not the journey it is the destination” … or “winning is everything.”

It is empty because the person runs a very large risk that how you actually got to the win is ignored and everything gets measured <in their personal character measurement> on a scorecard.

I admit. I don’t like these types of wins.

But there is a personality type out there, and some very successful people, who take pride in how many checks are in the win column and could care less how they got to them. To these people … all wins are quality wins because … well … it is a win.

Typically really competitive people fall into this group.

I call this “adept” winning. You compete because you are adept at reading what it takes to win … and doing it.

This person isn’t adapting because they understand winning is about lining up the necessary variables … each time. So they aren’t adapting but rather simply building each time to win.

And they aren’t adopting anything because while some things can be reused it is mostly one time usage winning.

These types of winners are very difficult to replicate through training. and these types of winners have to be very careful in how far they will go to win. They have bigger boundaries of accepted behavior because of the adept attitude … and because of that they can stray to the boundary margins of character.

But it is the win numbers in this group that is most satisfying. Out of all three groups I have listed this one probably will chalk up the most quantity of wins in the end.

An intellectual win.

You truly outsmart someone. You outthink or tear apart the challenge in such an innovative way that your competition can just look afterwards and say … “wow … that was smart.”

This is as good as a physical <ability> win … but unfortunately many people do not evaluate it that way. In fact many of the intellectual winners kind of wish they had some other tangible contribution because thinking is … well … intangible.

This type of winning is ‘adapt & adopt” winning. You compete by adapting your thinking to the situation and adopting new ideas/thinking.

These types of winners I tend to believe are just born this way. Yes. Some aspects can be trained but these types of winners just seem to have an innate ability to see things … assess what matters versus what doesn’t matter … and assimilate the “what matters” information into either unique, or refreshingly different, ideas and thoughts.

This is a very satisfying win because you out thought someone.

An ability win.

This is ‘mano y mano.’ You bring your best and I will bring my best and let the best win.

Here is the deal.

Sometimes your best isn’t the better. And you lose. Oh. But what a loss.

This one is near & dear to my heart.

And I admit that I got really really lucky early in my career in that I was encouraged to go for this kind of ‘no frills’ winning and use losses to make my best better … so that each consecutive ‘game’ I was able to stay true to what I was good at … and it got better and better. Maybe it was partially I was stubborn on my definition of best or maybe I figured out what I was good at <even if it wasn’t the best of the best … just good while still being my personal best> early on and figured that if this was what I was good at … well … then I would only rise as high as my ‘best’ would take me.

This type of continuous winning is “adopt & adapt” winning. You compete … learn … adopt some new skills <skill level or new skill> and then adapt within your existing skill set to the next challenge. This means your muscle group gets stronger and stronger <albeit it is just one muscle group>.

This type of win is extremely satisfying. I also envision this group has the lowest actual total wins. They are the highest quality wins just not a shitload of them.

Well.

That is, of course, unless you are as good a fighter as Roberto Duran.

And that is the real differentiator in quality wins … how good you really are.

And I guess that is going to be my point having used one of the best boxers of all time.

He was one of the best.

“Manos de Piedra”, is true, Hands of Stone. Every punch, and I’m not exaggerating, every punch that he hit me with, from the body to the head, felt like bricks, stone, rocks”. – Sugar Ray Leonard

And not all of us are of that level of ‘best.’ In fact … not many people are.

So you have to figure what is most important to you in the win. The numbers? The intellectual win? The ability win? And embrace that is what makes you … well … you … in the business world.

And know when to say “no mas.”

Know when to say ‘fuck this.’

Look.

Do I give Sugar Ray credit for figuring out how to win by avoiding the Hands of Stone?

Sure.

Would I have done it that way?

Nope <and I probably would have lost>.

Do I give Duran credit for just saying ‘no mas’ after 8 frustrating rounds?

Yup.

He was the champ. He cared more about how he won the championship than the championship itself.

Now that, my friends, is a lesson that many of us should take to heart in business.

Figure out what you want … and how you want to do it … and find your place in the business world doing it.

dream big … because …

November 16th, 2012

I have said this before … it seems like today’s world is tough on dreamers.

It is hard to be a dreamer and it seems to be easier and easier to blindly move down a beaten path <getting beaten up by Life>.

We need to remind ourselves on occasion that it is okay to dream … and dream big.

And that relentlessly pursuing a dream can be inspiring … not discouraging.

Now. Being a big dreamer doesn’t mean that you walk around with your head in the clouds. It means that you have a purpose … a big purpose that makes your life bigger and fulfills some promise within you.

Of course … as usual … the key is to find a balance. Think ground and clouds. Pragmatic with no limits. A contradiction? Sure. But big dreams are a contradiction. As a practical relatively pragmatic human race we would never have them … unless some of them defied the odds and actually came true. Some really do happen.

Which reminds me <to remind everyone> that big dreams are things … not intangibles. They are not ‘becoming rich’ or ‘being a star’ … they are achieving greatness with an idea or a thought. Anyway. And while there should be a balance … there should be some big dream in all of us for a lot of reasons:

- Sense of Self.

Big dreams have a nice habit of increasing the size of your sense of self. You have to be careful it doesn’t become bigger than yourself and consume you … but big dreams remind you that you can make a big impact in some form or fashion. Maybe not today … but a hope of sometime. Big dreams can not only create some interesting self-purpose in life but it also reminds you that anyone, even you, is capable of the extraordinary. Even if it is just in thought.

Be daring, be different, be impractical, be anything that will assert integrity of purpose & imaginative vision against the play-it-safers, the creatures of the commonplace, the slaves of the ordinary. - Sir Cecil Beaton

Maybe that is the biggest part of this ‘sense of self’ thought … it is likely the biggest reason why you wouldn’t want to settle on small dreams … does anyone really want to be a slave of the ordinary?

- Possibilities.

When you dream big things you will find new roads you may want to explore along the way. It is an adventure and sometimes extremely unpredictable and never ordinary. This is because big dreams can push limits of possibility <or what is possible> because it keeps the impossible in life in sight <if you can actually see something like impossible>. It all happens because big dreams are … well … not quantifiable. If they can be <in your head> I would suggest it is not really a dream but an objective or goal. A dream has to be so big it is just an idea … something difficult to put a number on it or a specific GPS coordinate. it is always somewhere on the horizon. And in reaching toward it the possibilities of new roads not taken <and never envisioned nor on any map as a matter of fact> increase significantly.

- Achieving stuff.

Yeah. You may not actually get the big one <the big dream> … but typically if you dream big, you increase the odds you actually achieve something … and it also increases the odds you actually achieve something relatively great in the scheme of things. You may even end up achieving more than you ever thought you could <even if it isn’t the big dream you began with>.

Big dreams are the reasons why the world changes … and becomes better. And I say ‘world’ as in if you define it in business … or in life.

It’s the reason why there have been so many inventions, new ‘out of the box’ ideas, creations or whatevers. As a business guy I love this following quote for the business big dreamers:

“New business concepts are always, always the product of lucky foresight. That’s right – the essential insight doesn’t come out of any dirigiste planning process; it comes form some cocktail of happenstance, desire, curiosity, ambition and need. But at the end of the day, there has to be a degree of foresight — a sense of where new riches lie. So radical innovation is always one part fortuity and one part clearheaded vision.”― Gary Hamel, Leading the Revolution

New concepts inevitably come from one part clearheaded big dreaming.

Same with new ideas. Same with anything really new … and really big. Oh. And along the way a lot of good little stuff happens too.

- Your legacy <and big dreams>

Big dreams give you the opportunity to truly leave your mark on the world in several ways.

You achieve it.

You don’t achieve it <but achieve other shit along the way>.

You don’t achieve it <and it is left for someone else to achieve>.

The first.

The achieving one is obvious. It is satisfying and certainly something at the end of the road you will probably look back on with some satisfaction. I will mention though that most big dreamers update their dreams if they actually attain the original.

You never really actually stop dreaming big <but do not tell anyone that>.

The second.

You don’t achieve it but along the road you have veered off on a variety of paths you encountered and did some good shit along the way. Your legacy is strewn with stuff you have left behind. I call this a ‘no regret’ life. You don’t really regret the missed ‘big dream’ cause you lived life doing stuff.

The third.

Oh. And not achieving the big dream … whew … what does happen to big dreams when a dreamer dies?

Here is the good news.

A big dream never really dies. Only dreamers do. Someone else grabs it as their own. I think most big dreamers recognize his and are okay with it. Big dreams aren’t really meant to be owned by anyone in particular except Life. They can be achieved by someone <if they are lucky enough to figure out how to do it> but big dreams are visionary.

Some big dreams cannot be fulfilled within a single lifetime. But they are so inspiring that future generations <or someone in that generation> will strive to achieve it.

And last.

Inspiring that future?

Well. Maybe, that in itself is why people should dream big.

conscience & psychopaths & cynicism … or naiveté

November 5th, 2012

Dysfunctional Management at the Bar

So.

This is actually about business organizations and how the sometimes “less competent” <sometimes dysfunctional> people get promoted into leadership roles … oh … and how a group of well educated people, a large group by the way, maintained in an unequivocal stance that there were a bunch of psychopaths rising to leadership positions <and are ‘the dysfunctional>. That relatively large group of people are TED members.

On a side note … I recognize that you always have to be careful when discussing “how do such idiots <incompetents> get promoted?” to weed out the envious, the blind and the ignorant.

But in the end … it is true there are a shitload of “less competent” people, and certainly some quite dysfunctional people, who get promoted into some very important roles in business organizations.

Notice I didn’t say ‘incompetent’ but rather ‘less competent.’ I did so because when really putting organizations under a microscope the real issue is not the surprisingly less than competent people who get promoted but rather the truly competent who are dwelling somewhere in the depths of the organization who have NOT been promoted.

This all began for me within a very disturbing discussion among some TED members. I was being faced with an overriding belief that “psychopaths” <or sometimes called ‘predators’> were increasingly becoming this generation’s business leaders. Leaders driven by greed, lack of values and ego doing whatever it takes to maneuver their way to leadership.

Well. I didn’t agree … but I was in a minority.

And until I read a post/discussion comment <from a Dr. Gupta> I had begun thinking I was either naïve, working on a different planet, oblivious to the greed and lack of values surrounding me … or actually one of the psychopaths and was so good at hiding it from others I was hiding it from myself <now … there is an interesting thought to ponder as I look in the mirror>.

Let me posit two things to outline my disagreement:

- It is most often not any predator trait but rather an ability, and desire, to manipulate, or manage, the system that gets a ‘less competent’ person into a leadership role.

- Organizations play a significant role in how their employees decide how to behave to attain ambition/self-objectives even if it means a ‘bending’ of traditional ‘what is right’ conscience.

Anyway.

- Why I believe it is not a predator/psychopathic trait:

I have met and worked with dozens of leaders and I can maybe think of one as having such a poor moral compass that I would place them in the true predator/psychopathic category. Afterwards I knew that one situation couldn’t be solved but I did know one thing … that company would ultimately fail. Not that day but that type of personality inevitably creates a larger dysfunctional company that just cannot compete (in the end). Just as an organism metaphor can be used … the organism dies because it has a bacterium that can’t be cured. I imagine my real point here is that is a natural evolution of companies, i.e., the truly sick die all on their own.

Regardless.

About dysfunctional/less competent people in leadership roles. Let’s be honest … the true psychopaths are few.

Maybe I just have been lucky in the organizations and leaders I have met but while all leaders want to make a profit I haven’t seen boundless moral-less greed. In fact, when interviewed most leaders have a huge desire to increase the wealth of the “head, heart and wallet” of their employees.

All aspects of employee benefit.

But practically speaking most leaders would admit “managing the balance sheet is much easier than the people management.” The typical quote you hear …

“I am more rewarded by the people but I don’t believe I am as good at it (or it is just too difficult).”

So, what happens? As good managers do … they delegate.

They delegate to someone (or someones) who they perceive, or believe, is better at maximizing the heads and hearts portion.

<by the way … if you want to work on corporate dynamics for this aspect that is the gatekeeper to find>.

Is there a way to weed out the dysfunctional? Or, at minimum, identify the harmful incompetent?

Sure. I know I have suggested to HR departments, or the keepers of the culture and staff, that no organism/organization is flawless (unless it is made up of robots, maybe has less than 5 employees or is somewhere in corporate utopia, i.e., a different planet). Therefore their job isn’t to eliminate all the bacteria just be sure you have systems set up to identify the bacteria that could kill the organism.

There are varieties of methods.

I would suggest pattern tracking over time (because even good employees are infamous for doing something bad, or questionable, to get to where they want to go and exhibiting different /better/behavior once there). In other words … one time behavior is completely different than ongoing patterned behavior.

Pattern tracking actually is effective because no matter how sneaky or talented at hiding predator/psychopathic-like behavior that employee does give clues which when tracked uncover the underlying flaw.

Obviously this falls apart once someone shifts companies but you gotta start somewhere.

But. The truth is that most less competent leaders didn’t elevate because of any ‘lack of conscience/predator’ trait but more likely because they knew how to manipulate, or manage, the system. Sure. There can be some less-than-desirable characteristics exhibited when managing the system but the majority of the time it is all about taking advantage of other’s mistakes and taking advantage of the opportunities.

- Why I believe it can be driven by an organization:

Ok. How can an organization contribute to encouraging a thread of predator behavior?

Before I get specifically to that point let me share the premise behind the thought.

Research has shown us several things.

- All people are born with a conscience <or a sense of right or wrong>

- And even true psychopaths have a conscience <they just do not act upon it>

“In the end, we found that six- and ten-month-old infants overwhelmingly preferred the helpful individual to the hindering individual. This wasn’t a subtle statistical trend; just about all the babies reached for the good guy.” – Professor Bloom

So.

In my mind the research and information is clear. Children are born knowing inherently what is moral and ethical … and that over time as they experience the real world their natural born tendencies are shifted into whatever spot their experiences put them in.

I purposefully wrote it that way.

This isn’t “children are born good and the world is evil.”

We now have intriguing scientific evidence pointing to that inherent human faculty.

- At the age of six months babies can barely sit up – let along take their first tottering steps, crawl or talk. But, according to psychologists, they have already developed a sense of moral code – and can tell the difference between good and evil.

An astonishing series of experiments is challenging the views of many psychologists and social scientists that human beings are born as ‘blank slates’ – and that our morality is shaped by our parents and experiences. Instead, they suggest that the difference between good and bad may be hardwired into the brain at birth.

In one experiment involving puppets, babies aged six months old showed a strong preference to ‘good’ helpful characters – and rejected unhelpful, ‘naughty’ ones. In another, they even acted as judge and jury. When asked to take away treats from a ‘naughty’ puppet, some babies went further – and dished out their own punishment with a smack on its head.

Professor Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University in Connecticut, whose department has studied morality in babies for years, said: ‘A growing body of evidence suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. “With the help of well designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bones.”

This is simply the fact children have a relatively blank experience slate on which the first words are not necessarily ‘self interest’ but rather ‘interest in feeling good’ … which can be a social or individual thing.

now. I know that is all about children but let me use it moving into the discussion on ‘psychopaths in the workplace’ (surrounding the discussion on why so many crappy people end up in management positions) and adults entering into the workplace.

So.

Most people understand social contracts intuitively. They don’t have to reason them out. Ordinary people are also similarly attuned to questions of risk.

Interestingly psychopaths typically exhibit similar levels of intelligence to the norm. Nor does their lack of guilt and shame seem to spring from a deficient grasp of right or wrong.

Ask a psychopath what he is supposed to do in a particular situation and he/she can usually give you what non psychopaths would regard as the correct answer. <by the way … this is all pulled from research>

So what goes wrong?

It is just that he/she does not seem bound to act upon that knowledge. They understand the rules of social contracts … just do not believe they are defined by the rules.

<please remember that last thought because I will use it again … but this time within a business organization framework>

This is the life of a true psychopath:

- “Imagine – if you can – not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern of the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken. And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools. Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless. You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience that they seldom even guess at your condition.” – Martha Stout Ph.D.

In other words, a psychopath is completely free of internal restraints with an unhampered liberty to do just as you please with no pangs of conscience. You can do anything at all, and still your strange advantage over the majority of people, who are kept in line by their consciences, will most likely remain undiscovered.

Many mental health professionals refer to the condition of little or no conscience as “anti-social personality disorder,” a non-correctable disfigurement of character that is now thought to be present in about 4 percent of the population – that is to say, one in twenty-five people. This condition of missing conscience is called by other names, too, most often “sociopathy,” or the somewhat more familiar term psychopathy. Guiltlessness was in fact the first personality disorder to be recognized by psychiatry, and terms that have been used at times over the past century include manie sans délire, psychopathic inferiority, moral insanity, and moral imbecility.

All that said … do I personally believe a true psychopath can rise to any significant leadership role in any viable company? Nope.

Do I believe an organization can unburden some of the typical ‘conscience’ restraints a normal person has? Yes.

You bet.

Absolutely.

Remember what I said before about psychopaths … ‘They understand the rules of social contracts … just do not believe they are defined by the rules.’

Similar to a child, an employee entering an organization has the ability to discern right from wrong which tells me that we not only believe there is a difference but that our natural inclination would be to do right <versus wrong>.

Are there people born who do not have consciences? Whew. I doubt it. Or they are few and far between. As a corollary … do I believe there are people who enter a business organization who do no have a conscience? once again … I doubt it.

So what happens? Most likely the organization, through its rewards & promoting behavior, create a new conscience framework in which it so dulls their conscience senses that they no longer believe in the traditional ‘right versus wrong’ behavior <or guides their senses in a different direction> and thus, those who elect to follow the new framework, appear to have no consciences <or have a more expanded view of what is conscientiously acceptable>.

Let me be clear. The employee understands the traditional rules of social contracts but the organization has defined a different set of rules they believe they can play by.

So.

If you believe that then, in general, the really competent people who don’t get promoted have decided, in some form or fashion, to maintain their sense of ‘right versus wrong’ framework. They just decide to not play by the different set of rules.

And, let’s be clear, I am not suggesting they are better people because of this decision but rather each person makes their own decision. And each should feel comfortable with their decision because both are playing by the rules.

I have never begrudged the ‘less competent’ rising to a leadership role as long as they didn’t exhibit the nasty predator-like characteristics. Because if they didn’t, than they just managed the system better than others did.

Last thought.

Maybe we should think of businesses as microcosms of Life itself.

There is something called the concept of Natural Law .

The concept of Natural Law implies that human beings inherently know what is ‘good from evil’ and what is ‘right from wrong’ <our conscience compass>. It refers to our belief that inherent in nature itself is a moral law that has validity everywhere for everybody, regardless of race and culture. Human beings can use our reason to discern that natural moral law so as to derive binding rules of moral behavior which we make into our everyday positive law.

I believe that when a new employee enters an organization they begin with Natural Law embedded.

Any changes to the natural law are created by experience within the organization itself.

Think about it.

Because you almost have to believe that … or you have to believe that a disproportionate percentage of the true Pyschopath population <like all of the 4% they represent> end up in business instead of hanging out in strip clubs & low income housing.

Maybe I am naive.

But I think I would rather believe even the ‘less competent’ leaders have a conscience and a sense of ‘right versus wrong’ than believe a bunch of psychopaths have run amok in leadership within organizations.

the only sustainable competitive advantage

September 25th, 2012

“The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.” Arie de Geus – Dutch business strategist <and assumed pot smoker because he is dutch>

“You do not merely want to be considered the best of the best. You want to be the only ones who do what you do.” – Jerry Garcia – Grateful Dead lead singer <and assumed pot smoker because he was the lead singer of the Grateful Dead>

I speak with a lot of business owners. And I can often discern the best of the best with one word <or the words surrounding this one word>.

Unique.

I assume there actually have to be some unique products out there in this wide world of ours because over 500,000 patents are filed every year in the good ole USofA. I admit that I have not run across a whole shitload of these unique products/services in my career although I have met many patent owners. Which means that having this unique conversation with a patent owner excruciatingly painful … they keep saying “I have a patent therefore it is unique” and you keep saying “yes, sure, and the unique benefit to the buyer is ???” you often find that this conversation is a deadly doom loop with no conclusion but frustration.

I imagine the real point is that everyone wants to be the best at whatever it is they elect to do the best.

Everyone would like to be the only ones who do what you do <assuming what you do is actually of some value to people>.

Everyone wants their business to be ‘unique’ in some form or fashion.

And, if you try hard enough, I imagine every business can be ‘unique’ at something.

But I also imagine if you try hard enough you can learn to dance on the head of a pin.

Regardless, the point of me writing this is that I believe somewhere along the way something got lost. What do I mean? Well. Since the beginning of time (in marketingese) the concept of unique has been important but I believe it was Ted Bates who simplified <dumbed it down> for the rest of the world to grasp in a usable form by developing what he, and his advertising agency, called the USP <the unique selling proposition>.

Excellent idea. Dumbed it down for anyone and everyone to use.

Unfortunately it has all gone wrong since then.

The concept was unique “proposition” not “unique” <all by itself>.

Their point was … well … just that simple … proposing to people some kind of proposition that was meaningful and seemingly unique <at minimum creating a perception of uniqueness>.

Ah. Please note the nuance. You need not actually be unique in actuality but rather you simply needed to be able to tell people you were unique in some form or fashion.

The concept implied how you told your proposition was as important as the product-service proposition itself. The brilliance in the concept is that it recognizes most products and services are not truly unique but that didn’t mean you could explain your product-service in a way that wasn’t unique (from a selling perspective).

And here is where it all went awry … in our world of:

(a) a lack of desire to use someone else’s idea, even if it is a great idea, and

(b) the belief, the theory, we should be simplifying even the simplified <or even the most dumbed down> whereby we lose the nuance

ultimately … the ‘experts’ started focusing solely on the ‘unique.’

I envision the conversation went something along these lines … “okay, let me simplify this because it is pretty simply … what makes you unique? Answer that and we can get started.”

Well. Here is the deal. A unique selling proposition is rarely a simple process or outcome. And discerning what is truly meaningfully unique is rarely simple.

The point? There is a big difference between “what is your unique selling proposition?” and “what makes you unique?” Both can be valuable discussions but they are not the same discussions.

I believe the problem is that somewhere along the way marketing, advertising, brand people forgot the nuanced selling proposition concept and simply focused on some (mostly) unattainable facet – unique.

And therein lies the bigger problem.

Identifying the false unique. Because it is inherent nature <at least in the business world> to find what you seek. If I am told I must find something unique than, dammit, I am sure gonna find something unique … even if I have to quasi make it up.

However, fooling yourself does not mean fooling others (although it is a common trap) in fact consumers/buyers are rarely fooled … and if they are … just once.

Therefore ‘unique’ is one of my trap, or test, words in a business discussion. It forces some brutal honesty into a discussion which can set the platform for the type of business relationship you will have.

Be forewarned <part 1> … many providers of products and/or services misconstrue what is unique. Service or ‘my people’ are not unique. Well. They are to your company but they aren’t in any discernible way to the outside world. Generalizing … those are features of your company … of any company for that matter … therefore to be truly unique it would have to translate into some discernible benefit <by ‘discernible’ I mean recognizable to the human eye or the average bear>.

Be forewarned <part 2> … many providers of products and/or services lie to themselves in this discussion but in my experience it is mostly ‘white lie’ in that they are truly seeking a real distinctness. To be fair, I also admit that I like it when a company has some vision of grandeur <even if it is slightly delusional>. I find far too many companies do not aim high enough.

In the end, the company’s attitude on ‘unique’ may be slightly aggravating in a discussion but it is mostly harmless.

It is the other side of the table that is what I find harmful and actually quite disappointing. It is the groups of professionals who agree to the white lie, maybe facilitate or encourage the white lie <delusions> or, at the worst, are oblivious to the white lie.

There are far too many marketing & advertising professionals out there in the business world today who are abusing or are simply oblivious to the reality of unique <the reality thereof as well as the nuance of positioning in a unique way>. As professionals we should be able to discern between a real uniqueness and a created <perception> uniqueness and should be able to assist a company in understanding it.

Not enough marketing/advertising/branding professionals do.

Regardless of that last mini-rant the best example I have seen in my career of a company who understands this nuance between USP and Unique is Proctor and Gamble.

For good or bad (like them or dislike them) they constantly, relentlessly, seek a unique formula, unique product, unique benefit or simply a unique product – thru innovation.

But that is simply a vision and focus.

They have the smarts enough so that in lieu of actually having one, i.e., they fully recognize when they don’t have one, they are masters at being distinct, i.e., “I may not be truly unique but there will be no doubt what benefit I provide and the value to it.”

And truth be told … that last description, being distinct, is almost unique in itself in today’s garbled & complex for the sake of being complex marketing world. P&G wins simply thru focus and clarity (being distinct) … sometimes thru a real uniqueness and sometimes thru creating a perceived uniqueness.

Smart company those P&G folk.

Now, conversely, oddly enough, the worst at this whole uniqueness thing is maybe Apple. Yeah. Apple.

They are solely focused on “unique features” (not benefits).

By the way … that is bad as a long term strategy.

Albeit they are an engineering company and not a marketing one, which explains the focus, but making yourself unique thru features means that your sole vision is to <and forever> constantly make your own features obsolete. Because the moment you don’t make yourself obsolete you are no longer ‘unique’ but rather a commodity.

It is a fine line and a dangerously tenuous line.

Personally I believe Apple is doomed for eventual failure (albeit if there was ever an industry that could exist on features it would be technology) because all they care about is developing features and marketing the features. But, hey, that’s me.

Ok. Back to unique.

I fully understand everyone wants to be the best at something <which is their uniqueness>.

I fully understand that there are truly some widgets with some meaningful describable benefits that are unique.

I fully understand that what most people are construing as ‘unique’ these days is meaningless drivel. At its worst it is simply mental masturbation.

And I fully understand that there are also a lot of missed opportunities for good meaningful “unique selling propositions’ floating out there in the business universe simply because many people just don’t have it on their radar as a meaningful objective.

And, yes, positioning <using words to create a perception of uniqueness> is valuable and an opportunity. It is not ‘lying’ to the public to create sales.

In fact … I would argue it is smart and a reflection of your only true competitive advantage … the ability to learn faster than your competition.

Why? Uniqueness is NEVER alone. Standing beside it … hugging it closely is someone called “Benefit.” They are inextricably attached as companions for life. And as you learn more about what the buyer of your product really wants <that Benefit person> your ‘uniqueness’ may actually change … radically or nominally … it doesn’t matter. It may change to meet the needs & wants of the buyer.

Let me close by combining Jerry’s thought and Arie’s thought … and, no, I am not going to suggest you have to smoke pot in order to think your way through all of this …

- being the best, or the only one to do something, is irrelevant if it has no value or benefit to others

- unique is rare and often fleeting

However, adaptable ‘best’ and adaptable ‘uniqueness’ is neither fleeting nor useless and if sustained will maintain market leadership <although it is extremely difficult to sustain>. And the key to those is to be to be the only fastest learner in your category.

Easy? No. But, remember, business is often not lived best gently.

Heck. If you do focus on being the only fastest learner in your category you may actually not only have a unique selling proposition but a unique product/service to offer.