Posts tagged people confuse process and disciplined thinking
what is management?
May 21st
“Responsibility for one’s impacts is the oldest principle of the law” – Peter Drucker (New Realities, 1989, p. 87)
To me, in today’s business, manager management training is woefully lacking. Training simply equals “results” <with an additional emphasis on doing it while being politically correct and appropriately sensitive – to avoid litigation>.
And, no, I don’t believe this is a generational ‘thing.’
In other words I hear a lot of people suggest this upcoming generation of managers always needs to be told exactly what to do and what expectations are …well … in general I don’t agree. But even if I did those people are being told “results.”
It is the easiest (laziest) way to outline expectations.
To be fair to the lazy guidance organizations (or enterprises as Drucker calls them) … the enterprise also focuses on “results.” That ultimately translates into the fact you can be the biggest jerk manager in the world, the most anti social manager, one who exhibits gobs of poor management (team leadership skills) … but if you generate the enterprise holy grail <results> … well…then you are an “effective manager.”
And the fallback statement is almost always “not everyone is going to like you” as justification to answer the question of whether that person is ‘good manager material’ as everyone immediately points to ‘results achieved.’
Ok.
It’s bullshit.
And I know its bullshit.
And when your television and internet is lost for 4 days, and even though you may not be a heavy tv viewer, you end up having time to think and do things. So I ended up pulling a book off the shelf I haven’t read in a while. Peter Drucker’s “the new realities” from 1989. I have another post coming up inspired from the rereading but Drucker does a great job of simply outlining “what is management.”. And I have to tell you that a lot of us managers would do well to reread this book. And reread all early Drucker while you are at it. Oh. And company owners should too (by the way …they are also Management in case they have forgotten).
As P. Druddy <as Drucker was called by his closest friends> said:
Management has to be accountable for performance. But how is performance defined? How is it to be measured? How should it be enforced? And to whom should management be accountable? Management needs to face the fact they represent power and power has to be accountable … and it has to be legitimate <he means to a greater social good>. Management has to face up to the fact that they matter <in a societal responsibility way>.
What is management?
Is it a bag of techniques and tricks? A bundle of analytical tools like those taught n business schools? There are important as a thermometer and anatomy is important to a physician. But the evolution and history of management, its successes as well as its problems, teach that management is above all else a very few essential principles:
- Management is about human beings. The task is to make people capable of join performance, to make their strengths effective and their weaknesses irrelevant. We depend upon management for our livelihoods. And our ability to contribute to society also depends on management of the organizations in which we work as it does on our own skills, dedication and effort.
- Because management deals with the integration of people in a common venture it is deeply embedded in culture. What managers do in Germany, United Kingdom, United states, Japan or Brazil is exactly the same. How they do it may be quite different. This one of the basic challenges managers face is to find and identify those parts of their own tradition, history and culture that can be used as management building blocks. Every enterprise requires commitment to common goals and shared values. Without such commitment there is no enterprise, there is only a mob. The enterprise must have simple clear and unifying objectives. The mission of the organization has to be clear enough and big enough to provide common vision. The goals that embody it have to be clear, public and constantly reaffirmed. Management’s first job is to think through, set, and exemplify those objectives, values and goals.
- Management must enable the enterprise and each of its members to grow and develop as needs and opportunities change. Every enterprise is a learning and teaching institution. Training and development must be built into it on all levels – training and development that never stop. 
- Every enterprise is composed of people with different skills and knowledge doing many different toes of work. It must be built on communication and on individual responsibility All members need to think through what they aim to accomplish and make sure their associates know and understand that aim. All have to think through what they owe others and make sure that others understand. All have to think through what they need from others and make sure that others know what is expected of them.
- Neither the quantity of output not the ‘bottom line’ is by itself an adequate measure of the performance of management and enterprise. Market standing (brand & reputation), innovation, production, development of people, quality, financial results are all crucial to an organizations performance and to its survival. Just as a human being needs a diversity of measures to assess his or her health and performance an organization needs a diversity of measures to assess its health and performance.
- Finally, the single most important thing to remember about any enterprise is that results exist only on the outside. The result f a business is a satisfied customer. The result of a healthy organization is a contribution to society. The result of a hospital is a healthy patient. The result of a school is a student who has learned something and puts it into practice at some later date. Inside an enterprise there are only costs.
Some thoughts <from me>.
While there are some gems I may come back to at some point … like “without such a commitment you only have a mob” and “make their strengths effective and their weaknesses irrelevant” … here are my rant-like thoughts:
• “individual responsibility.” Hmmmmmmmmmmmm it seems like we abuse this in today’s business world. We want to “empower employees” and expect them to assume “proactive individual responsibility” and yet we are not fulfilling some of Drucker’s other principles. Where is our responsibility to them? Where is the training? Where is the development? It seems to me that responsibility goes both ways <and, no, it is not just a paycheck from management side> and to ask one without offering the other is a medieval serf mentality.
• Organization ‘health’ …. When is the last time you heard this discussed in in anything other than financials (or some derivative of financials)? I cannot remember the last time anyone discussed culture and/or people’s true happiness as a measure of organization health … well … at least until maybe ‘we have hit the numbers.’
That said. “Management is about human beings.” Ok. Nowhere in that sentence do I see “numbers,” “results” or “profitability”. Am I foolish enough to believe that those three things aren’t important? Nope <I am foolish in other ways>. But his point is subtle. Maybe too subtle. If you manage the human beings well, effectively and they are happy, those three little words he excluded from that sentence will happen. THAT is why the sentence reads “management is about human beings.”
And.
I love the last thought.
The truly important problems managers face do not come from technology or politics; they do not originate outside of management and enterprise. Think about that …
“They are problems caused by the very success of the management itself.”
Drucker is actually suggesting that success breeds problems. How about that? What a great point. A point I am relatively sure that today’s managers do not think of. Today it seems like success breeds “process everyone should follow.”
Anyway.
Ignore my comments if you would like.
But don’t ignore Drucker’s comments.
life formulas
May 9th
Life is not as simple as it seems. Or maybe it isn’t as complicated as it seems.
Shit.
Maybe its both … at exactly the same time.
I cannot remember where I found all these awesome “life formulas” but I love the way they take complex life things and simplify them into basic equations (note: I apologize to the creator for not being able to source).
And in their incredibly obvious simplicity there is a nuanced complexity that makes you think about the truth they contain.
The first one I ever saw was the truth equation.
Truth. What I think happened divided by what really happened.
Brilliant.
It got to the core truth behind … well … truth. And it makes you wonder a little why there isn’t a class somewhere in maybe high school where they teach you stuff like this. Or at least make you think like this. It may seem silly at first glance but it is a really interesting exercise.
And back to truth?
What you think divided by what really happened.
By dividing it can equal, diminish what you think or actually be bigger by such a margin it actually marginalizes what you originally thought.
Awesome.
And when I see Life defined by formulas like this I begin to think about what makes 100%.
Well.
It actually made me begin by thinking about “giving 110%.” Which is actually kind of silly when you think about it. Is it really possible to actually give more than 100%? <no>
And what the hell is more than 100%? (unless you are bionic you cannot answer that)
I do know as I think about this 110% thing it makes some want to bring one of these formulas along with me to a meeting and if someone suggests you to give over 100% (that infamous 110%) maybe I would force them to show us how to do just that mathematically.
When someone does say that … aren’t they really saying “give me 100% <because I know you are juggling things and I need you to focus on this>.”
So why can’t we just tell the truth and say “c’mon … its not extra effort … its just focus. Focus 100% on this.” <albeit it doesn’t sound as inspiring or leader like or gung ho-ish … yeah … I just typed ‘ho-ish’>.
Anyway.
From there I actually began thinking about the whole 100% we are supposed to give in life.
100% is tricky. Is it defined by effort, focus, the best of our abilities or the best we can do <at that time>?
Whew. Now THERE are some choices for ya.
Life is a constant juggling game <or a balancing act>. There’s always balancing that needs to be done. And there are always tradeoffs.
Ah.
But.
I think there is a difference between juggling and balancing.
Juggling is all about keeping track of a bunch of things … all up in the air.
Balancing is all about … well … balancing … evening things out.
It seems to me that is one is more controlled chaos-like <juggling> … and the other is a more prioritizing of actions <balancing>.
Wow. Makes me think of whether I am a juggler or a balancer. And that makes my head hurt.
Regardless.
Aw. Anyway <quit babbling Bruce>.
There is a simplicity that these formulas give us in thinking about life.
Disappointment being expectation divided by reality.
- Which suggests it is our own inability to manage our expectations that create a sense of disappointment. Makes you think a little, huh?
Shock being expectation minus expectation.
- The unequivocalness <that isn’t really a word> of this is brilliant.
Modern art being the belief you could do it plus the fact you didn’t.
- The formula nicely builds, instead of divides or subtracts, to heighten the value
The slight cynicism built into diamonds being forever … balanced by whether you are a jewel thief (awesome)
Oh.
And obligation.
This one is fabulous.
Starts with do. Just the action itself. Add on “the right thing” so value increases by doing the right thing … and then plus or minus the amount of guilt.
Very very nice.
I actually see a great class session for young people somewhere in this life formula idea. The ability to simplify the challenges, the decisions, the actions in life into equations. It is a nice way to be able to point out some complex critical thinking in life.
In the end, while it may seem silly, I think it is a good and interesting exercise.
Particularly if you are juggling, or balancing, a bunch of crap and making so many judgment calls your head seem like it is going to explode … these simple formulas, in a really weird way, provide perspective.
Maybe you have an obligation to give this a shot if you feel overwhelmed with life.
Because maybe, in their simplicity, maybe you find more balance.
And that … I am pretty sure in my pea like brain … is a good thing.
finagle’s Law
Apr 30th
Well. I imagine I am way behind the rest of the cool people <who already know what finagle’s law is> but I just discovered it. Maybe because I had always known it as Murphy’s Law.
The generalized or `folk’ version of Murphy’s Law, fully named “Finagle’s Law of Dynamic Negatives” and usually rendered “Anything that can go wrong, will” (source: Urban Dictionary)
Finagle’s Law comes from science fiction author Larry Niven who, in several stories, depicted a frontier culture which celebrated a religion <or a running joke> which involved the worship of the dread god Finagle … and his mad prophet Murphy <hence the source of ‘murphy’s law’>.
Ok. About Finagles ´Law <before I get to the point of this little writeup>. It is an amazingly cool extraordinary mixture of cruel logic … as well as somewhat scarily indicative of everyday life. Just in case you didn’t know here is Finagle’s logic:
- What we have is not what we need.
- What we want is not what we need.
- What we need is impossible to get.
- You can get hold of this information for a much higher price then you are prepared to pay.
Ok. Here is the coolest thought. One of my favorite blogs, 50topmodels, actually wondered if Finagle´s Law got it all wrong and reexamined it as … Yhprum´s Law (Yhprum is Murphy backwards).
They actually analyzed it under the theory that ‘everything that can work, will work’ quoting Richard Zeckhauser <Harvard> “sometimes systems that should not work, work nevertheless.“
Ok. It is that last thought that made me sit up and think and decide to write.
Why?
Well. “Systems that should not work …do.” How often do people design perfect systems in the workplace, under the guise of ‘this is the way its done’ and, ultimately, it is just another inefficient process & system? Or maybe it is easy to do so everyone just does things going through the motions? Or the perfect system is <gasp> measured on its efficiency and therefore everyone simply tries to ‘hit the measurement numbers”?
On the other hand.
Someone else builds a system and has everyone working within this system that has those ‘people who designed perfect systems’ scratching their heads and saying that will never work … and, uh oh, it does work.
Yhprum´s Law. Huh? Well. Organizations are living organisms.
And just as placebos can work (lets call that the power of the mind) … a system that should not work … well … does. Why?
Because whether things work or not is often up to the people. And people are inconsistent in that they consistently do unexpectedly great things. In addition sometimes mistakes become stepping stones to blinding success. Oh. And the systems that shouldn’t work gain significant improvements thru some trial & error while the perfect systems remain … well … stagnant – never improving. Maybe it is that last thought that is so controversial in my thinking.
Perfection is often a thief. It steals fresh thinking.
Business, in general, like life, is messy. Sure. We seek perfection. It is kind of like the holy grail of ‘job well done.’
Here is the funny thing about attaining perfection.
Realistically we should be seeking to immediately change, rather than replicate, if we actually stumble upon it. ‘Doing it right’ is simply a level. And attaining levels of ‘perfection’ is good but also breeds an aspect of complacency or rote. And unless you are putting together a car, or a bomb <as an example>, in my mind we should always be aware the process is a means to an end.
Another sad thing about perfection. Nothing is ever really perfect. So when we put the label on something we are already in a bad place. As noted in alternative phrases for Finagle’s Law … let’s maybe call it “not quite the right thing.” It seems to me that systems & process reside most often closest to that phrase. And to a perfectionist that is bad and to others it is just not quite the right thing.
Ok. As for systems that shouldn’t work? the imperfect systems? The power of the mind suggest that everything that can work will work … sometimes better than others.
Oh.
And if you have that attitude .. an attitude to, rather than finding the flaws, instead focusing on the mistakes made … in my mind you end up seeking to better the system.
Ok. Moving on.
There is another aspect to Murphy’s Law … “If there are two or more ways to do something, and one of those ways can result in a catastrophe, then someone will do it.”
Now. If you think about that from a logic perspective … this suggests <for example> that if someone plugs in a toaster backwards and it fries itself, the problem isn’t just that some idiot plugged it in backward, but that it was able to be plugged in backwards in the first place.
In other words … the flaw isn’t in the person … but rather the design. And people just make mistakes <and are not flawed>.
If you believe that … then maybe when mistakes are made we shouldn’t be blaming people but rather seeking to design a better system. Not ‘perfect’ systems but systems with the minimum opportunity for flaws. Call it constant improvement.
If you don’t believe that then you end up simply assuming people will make mistakes, some big … some small … some stupid <or some derivative of stupid> … some smart <yeah … you can still do something really smart and make a mistake>. As I stated earlier … systems are a means to an end therefore using Finagle’s Law everyone should be focusing more on the people aspect. And not in a “you suck” perspective but rather a deeper understanding for why and how mistakes are made.
Mistakes are part of life.
I actually believe more managers should have the chart above in their offices and when mistakes are made identify which aspect the mistake characterizes. It may make us better managers and it may make for better systems (and certainly better managers of people).
Anyway.
The true Finagle’s Law is much more twisted than “anything that can go wrong will go wrong.” The Law also allows for things going well. It’s like as if the universe is merely lulling you into a false sense of security before proceeding to screw you. It also allows for things that can’t go wrong … going wrong <and within Finagle’s Law this counts as Gone Horribly Right.>
Regardless.To end this I wanted to share some last thoughts on Finagle’s Law. The law owes its existence more or less entirely to the Rule of Drama, and is especially common in Crapsack Worlds where things that do go wrong tend to go wrong in the worst possible way.
Finagle’s Law also suggests that Life has a pretty warped sense of humor in that it is obsessed with making your life as difficult and humiliating as possible.
On a slightly serious note … I imagine the potential for danger in everyday Life, within the Law, can do one of two things:
- make you scared to do anything
- make you assume that you cannot ever do anything right
I could write gobs about both of those but instead I am hoping that what I have written about Finagle’s Law suggests that successfully navigating Life takes some flexibility. If perfection is your thing … well … Finagle will be your constant companion and friend.
Take Life with a grain of salt. Things go wrong. Even when they aren’t supposed to. And things go right. Even when they aren’t supposed to.
Last. And just so you are fully aware of ‘the Law’ here are optional expressions of Finagle’s Law <so you recognize them>:
- A Simple Plan
- Butterfly of Doom
- Consolation Backfire
- Cosmic Plaything
- Disaster Dominoes
- Destructive Saviour
- Deus Angst Machina when taken Up to Eleven
- Everything Trying to Kill You in videogames
- Failsafe Failure
- Failure Is the Only Option
- The Fun in Funeral
- Gave Up Too Soon
- Law of Disproportionate Response
- Inverse Law of Utility and Lethality
- It Got Worse
- Magnum Opus Dissonance
- Mistimed Revival
- Murphy’s Bed
- Murphy’s Bullet
- My Car Hates Me
- Not Quite The Right Thing
- Out with a Bang
- Phlebotinum Breakdown
- Ashes to Crashes
- Doomed New Clothes
- Watch the Paint Job
- The Precious, Precious Car
- Random Number God
- Retirony
- Springtime for Hitler
- Tempting Fate
- Unspoken Plan Guarantee
- Useless Superpowers
- What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
- You Can’t Thwart Stage One
- Your Princess is in Another Castle
Anyway.
Finagle’s Law. Murphy’s Law. Or. My favorite? “Not quite the right thing.” Life is perfectly imperfect. You can either accept it or end up in a loony bin some day.
the flaw in creativity collaboration
Apr 26th
Ok.
This is not a popular point of view these days.
I am a firm believer, that in the creativity business, collaboration isn’t good.
Well. “isn’t good” is like saying “never” or “it always sucks” or something like that.
Let’s just say creativity isn’t about collaboration.
And I found a quote that says it perfectly:
“Art is I; science is we.” – Claude Bernard
I didn’t know who good ole Claude was until I found this quote … he was a man of science … in fact .. among many other accomplishments, he was one of the first to suggest the use of blind experiments to ensure the objectivity of scientific observations.
Anyway.
He says it best.
Art, and true creativity, is really an ‘I’ business. Ideas generated from an individual. Where creativity is sparked within. Look. Others can stoke the fire but an individual has to provide the spark. There you go … an original idea originates from an individual,
And let me dig myself into a deeper hole … in addition … by including others the original idea is rarely sharpened but rather dulled.
Ok. Science on the other hand is about We.
A confluence of factors & minds each sharpening that type of idea.
Ok.
He also said:
“The living body, though it has need of the surrounding environment, is nevertheless relatively independent of it. This independence which the organism has of its external environment, derives from the fact that in the living being, the tissues are in fact withdrawn from direct external influences and are protected by a veritable internal environment which is constituted.”
Once again.
A science thought … but a good life thought.
And a nice thought to complete the thought on creativity and collaboration.
Original creativity in thinking is relatively independent from the external environment. In the end an individual can absorb, can discuss, can incorporate as much of the ‘external environment’ that is necessary to feed creativity … but the idea resides within the individual.
That’s it.
That’s my thought.
wasted or not
Feb 20th
Well.
Who would have thought Whitney Houston dying would make me write 2 posts? (not me)
And, while I’m not weeping over her death, I certainly respect her talent and how good she was at her craft.
But. What I do weep over is the fact it seems like when someone like Whitney Houston dies people start blathering about her addictions and shortcomings … and inevitably you see the comment “what a waste.”
Or.
“A sad waste of a great talent with a once in a lifetime voice.”
Well.
Was her life a waste? Really? C’mon.
The woman had more brilliant moments to take with her to her grave then most of us will ever dream of in a lifetime (so the whole “wasted” thing kind of aggravates me).
And as I noted when she passed away … why should we judge her based on her flaws (as if we don’t have any) and by our expectations … but rather by her legacy as a singer?
I admit.
It drives me a little crazy when people start questioning what her legacy will be … for a singer admired for her amazing vocals, but who also battled drug and alcohol addictions that generated tabloid fodder of her health, marriage issues and finances?
Surprisingly (to me) one of the best Whitney articles was written by a Pravda writer (and one who typically almost makes me scream & throw things with his often skewed slightly absurd opinions): http://english.pravda.ru/society/showbiz/13-02-2012/120486-whitney_houston-0/
In addition. 
I was also slightly surprised, among the spectacle someone calls her funeral, that Kevin Costner stepped up to the plate with a really nice articulation of what I imagine all these famous, talented, people face … insecurities of “am I good enough.” And the day to day neverending subtle, and sometimes not so subtle in today’s world, are you god enough questioning. It has to take its toll.
That is no excuse for how Whitney handled it (the well publicized flaws) nor how anyone handles it. But. In the end. We can only hope all the baggage that people are focusing on evaporates and what’s left behind will be is a focus on a spectacular career of work and music.
There was also a nice tribute from Lenny Kravitz as he was performing the night after she passed away.
Intro. To Push by Lenny Kravitz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQaTUg1JSw8
(side note: Craig Ross is the guitar player you always see by Lenny’s side – not only is he an incredible guitar player, and showman, he write/co writes the music. Are you Gonna Go my Way was his repetitive riff and the solo. Same thing for Is There any Love in Your Heart and My Love. He, and Lenny, is awesome in concert if you ever have the opportunity to see them).
Ok. Back to Whitney.
Separating the legacy from the lurid isn’t easy. “I’d like to say her incredible voice will trump all in how she’s remembered,” says Yahoo music’s Chris Willman. “Unfortunately, with a lot of entertainers who come to tragic ends, it becomes hard to appreciate their art or how it was intended, without thinking of the tragedy of their lives.”
Anyway.
I wish two things.
First is that people celebrate her life & talent and not focus on tragedy we may associate with her life. oh. And the spectacle ends.
Second.
Mainly because I cannot believe I wrote two things about Whitney Houston.
Because she was just one. And every day approximately 151,650 people die in the world.
It boggles my mind the amount of loss experienced every single day. Its not just the 151+ thousand but the ripples of people affected by each loss.
Maybe part of Whitney’s legacy is that it should remind us all of someone’s loss somewhere that happens every day.
That number I gave you makes one wonder just how many stories are not covered and discussed. Yet, each is maybe just as important as Whitney’s.
I guess maybe when one really special voice like this leaves us it should make us all think of the imperfection perfection of life.
And remember each and every one imperfect soul not as imperfect … but as perfect in their own way. And that there are another 151649 stories not being told that day.
when down is up
Feb 13th
Ok.
Some times I believe economists and marketing people take the same voodoo math classes (assuming they actually take math). What do mean? Somehow through voodoo math they can both show everyone that down is up. No shit. Really. Down isn’t down … it is really up (if only my bank balance could implement that math). 
Examples.
Unemployment is down this month (but its still up versus a year ago).
Sales are down (but it’s up versus the rest of the category).
WTF.
So let me stick with business.
Let’s be clear.
When is down, well, up?
(Answer to that question)
NEVER.
Down is down.
Down is bad.
Down is never the objective.
If i hear one more time “… well Mr. Giraffeney, it’s a tough economy right now. The category is trending downward at 11%, but we are only down 5%. So we are doing well in a tough category. In fact … <insert pregnant pause here> … we are actually up when you look it that way.”
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …
(Mr. Giraffeney after a minute or so) “So our sales are down … but not really down? I love it!”
What a load of bullshit.
To me negative is down.
And bad (because it isn’t up).
To be fair it is easy to talk your way into the down but not really down rabbit hole of economic unreality (in fact … I say hanging my head sheepishly … I have done it myself years ago).
It is extremely easy to justify ‘down but not down’ by saying if people aren’t spending, it must be ok that they are not spending with us. And that if times are tight than that must be the reason they don’t value our brand as much (or any brand).
Anyway.
It may be easy to fall into this double speak but it is bullshit.
Here is something to chew on.
Business is out there. People are buying stuff. and there are plenty of people buying stuff.
Yeah. Even today.
Plenty of companies are gaining market share and there are a boatload of profitable companies (flush with cash by the way). And there are a lot of companies with increased sales.
We have an extremely robustly sized eceonomy out there my friends.
I say all this because it can be easy to justify doing what you are doing a variety of ways … and saying down isn’t really down is a way a lot of people do so.
Stop. Just stop.
Up is attainable.
You may just have to be a little smarter to get it.
“Smarter” almost always resides in appealing to consumer needs without losing sight of the fact you have to make money … profit. You cannot (and should not) discount your way to success. That path is a very slippery slope not only from consumer attitudes perspective (defining how they value you) but it is also puts a massive strain on profitability (which impacts the organization like a bad ripple effect).
You have to be smart and insightful with how you talk with people you want to buy your stuff. Maybe you need to seek a new role, or a differently defined role, that is more vital and easier for consumers to rationalize. And, god forbid, tell the truth & have something worth paying for.
Here is a fact.
People will spend against need – real or perceived.
They also search for value, but that doesn’t mean people will not spend premiums for quality. Or spend more money for a perceived need (which is actually a “want” instead if I was going to be technical with myself).
Look at SUVs, Starbucks, Apple and Whole Foods markets.
All doing quite well thank you very much.
This is simply finding growth under pressure.
Persistent sales stagnation is most likely a reflection of how people perceive needing what you have to offer more likely than it is “the economy.”
(sorry to burst anyone’s excuse bubble with that).
Businesses need to face the fact that the economy’s growth is going to be minimal at best …with the risk of another sharp downturn very real … and quit whining and go out and find a way to grow.
Businesses must not stop their quest for growth even in ‘bad times’ nor should they stop their quest under the guise that ‘well we were down .. but not really.’
Here is one thing I can promise you about growth companies.
In every case, there are a group of people (and I mean both business side people and advertising/marketing agency people) behind that company & brand that see things not just as they are, but as they could be.
And then they go out and get it.
No excuses.
So.
I guess I wrote this to warn people about people who stand up and say “we had a good year … we are not down as much as everyone else or the category.”
Down is never up.
And, by the way, up is attainable.
Even today.
facts and creation
Jan 23rd
“Without the hard little bits of marble which are called ‘facts’ or ‘data’ one cannot compose a mosaic; what matters, however, are not so much the individual bits, but the successive patterns into which you arrange them, then break them up and rearrange them.” - The Act of Creation
I find it tragic to watch bright, energetic youth become lethargic and uninspired in the workplace.
Yes. Tragic. Because it is such a waste of not only mindpower but, well, will power. And it is also tragic to the work company because lethargy does not lead to ideas/ideation/creative thinking.
To me? The real problem lies with the older folk (in manager positions) who seem to lack a comprehensive relevant view of learning. Or maybe better said … they have an archaic way of viewing the way it should be done.
There are a lot of leaders (management whatever you want to call them) who appear to be guilty of classifying learning as being a difficult and frustrating experience.
This is in combination with the fact they also tend to have odd views on ‘how to make it fun.’ Oh. And to complete that thought … they have a belief that they have to ‘make it fun’ because learning is difficult/frustrating. Therefore it is a flawed belief system.
Look.
Creative thinking and innovation does not arise out of a vacuum but must be supported by a culture that encourages people to experiment. To experiment with facts, with ideas and products. With the hard little bits of marble as it were.
Original thinking and new ideas has to be nurtured and rearranged in successive patterns … not destroyed and scattered.
We can all encourage creativity by helping young people learn to assess the bits of marble and take intellectual risks in their work & ideation. Does this have to be “made” fun? Nope. And it is, frankly, silly to think it has to be.
Instead this is like providing a spark to combustible matter. I am not suggesting it should be painful but rather fun is slightly less relevant than providing the inspiration to learn and become engaged.
Ultimately I don’t believe management should teach people how to create ideas.
The goal should be to prepare young people to be competent and original in their thinking.
Do that and they will create mosaics like you have never seen before.
Oh.
And in successive patterns.
(by the way … that is a good thing)
hope, low prices & marketing (part 1)
Aug 22nd
ok.
Working in the marketing business I often find myself in some heated debates about whether advertising & marketing is “selling” (or it is often stated “oh, so you are in sales”).
Here is the answer.
It’s not sales. It may not even be selling (in the traditional sense).
Sure.
Ultimately marketing & advertising wants to “sell stuff” but the craft of communications itself is not about selling.
Or convincing.
Or persuading (in some weird and creepy way) someone to do something they don’t want to really do.
Is it about “persuading” in the sense I want someone to “choose me!” to be on their wallet team? Sure.
Is it about persuading someone through some trickery to buy or do something that is bad for them? Nope.
Because in the end It is really about attitudes (creating or aligning to a ‘truth’ – a real truth not a made up one) and behavior (understanding why someone does something they do and inserting a choice into their existing behavior … and sometimes modifying that behavior if you can truly offer something better for them as an alternative).
So marketing & advertising is really about informing so someone can make a choice – whatever is the best choice for them.
Therefore. Marketing & advertising is not in the selling business.
It is in the choice business.
And while choices have dollars & cents attached to them and features & benefits and all that truly functional crap … a person’s final choice preference is never any of those things.
A choice may be made based on them (that truly functional crap) but typically it is only made that way for lack of an alternative.
And that is why communicating “choice” is an art. Because communicating choice is about education and emotion and, well, hope.
Because the bottom line is that people want to make the choice that gives them the most hope.
Now.
That may sound hopelessly lofty but its not. In fact it is what marketing & advertsing & frankly just about any consumer business is all about.
We are in the hope business.
Hope of something (it doesn’t have to be some big audacious hope … sometimes it can just simply be some small glimmer of hope in an otherwise hopeless day).
Yes.
This is truth (and some businesses may cry & weep & gnash their teeth … I just wanted to type gnash).
People don’t really want cheaper prices.
People don’t really want better technology.
People don’t really want faster answers.
People don’t really want more time.
People don’t cooler features or more flashing widgets.
People even don’t really want more money at the end of the month.
None of that really matters to customers.
They want hope.
They want to know that they are going to be ok.
And they want to know that it can get better for themselves.
In a world where natural disasters wipe away lives in a second and leaders make decisions that take billions of dollars from hard working saving & investing people the only thing people can truly hold onto is a belief of something better.
Yet.
In our ROI-driven marketing world we not only seem content to pretend that a “faster, cheaper, better” is what people want but we also relentlessly pursue ineffective marketing communicatiosn initiatives expounding upon a litany of usefless features and functional doo-dads.
And we are wrong. Dead wrong.
People want hope.
In a lot of ways ‘the people’ are no different than you & I (because oddly enough we are people also).
They want to be listened to.
They don’t want to be lied to.
They don’t want you to talk over them.
They want you to validate their concerns.
They want their questions answered.
They don’t want you to ignore them.
They want you to inspire them.
They don’t want a sales pitch.
They don’t want you to be annoying.
They don’t want to hear about you.
They do want a distraction from real life.
They don’t want to be pressured.
They want to know that you have problems too.
They want a consistent partner.
They don’t want you to fake it.
They want truth in answers (the first time & every time).
They don’t want you to tell them what they want to hear.
They want to feel like you care.
They want you to hear what they aren’t saying.
And most importantly …
They want more than what they have (not materialistically but “happinesswise”)
They want more than what they expect (not just functionally but in life)
They want something better (not just functionally but in life)
They want optimism (based on truth not blarney).
So.
Enough of that.
People want hope.
(that is the common denominator in all the things I just typed)
And if you aren’t providing that in your marketing you … will …. not … be … successful.
Sure.
You can buy some sales and a “consumer relationship” with lowest prices & coupons and cool features and some functional widgetry but those people aren’t buying “you” they are buying the ‘feature of the day.”
In my words? You have bought a date not a relationship.
And you have missed an opportunity to be a hero. Instead you are a salesman.
You have missed an opportunity to have offered,and given, hope.
C’mon. be honest with yourself as you read this.
Think of all the times that were hoping that someone really cared about how bad you hurt inside. Or recognized the pain.
So ii guess if you really feel like you have to ‘sell’ … then sell hope.
Because as Hugh Macleod drew in his cartoon at the beginning of this post … if you can sell hope you can get someone to buy anything.
hope & marketing (part 2)
Aug 22nd
Ok. I had so much to write about in “hope, low process and selling” that I took this part and thinking and put it in its own lil post.
Here we go.
Fact.
Communicating choices with the intent to persuade someone to “choose me” is an inexact science.
In fact.
It is not a science at all (despite what ROI driven purchasing people suggest and desire).
Yes.
There is a discipline to crafting communications (c’mon … given the amount of time people have done things there is certainly a list of ‘trial & error’ learnings to use as benchmarks).
But.
Advertising iconic hero Bill Bernbach said: “I warn you against believing that advertising is a science. Artistry is what counts. The business is filled with great technicians, and unfortunately they talk the best game … but there’s one little problem. Advertising happens to be an art, not a science.”
And this dude, and his agency DDB, created some good shit (and still does).
So.
So, because being in the choice communication business (and selling hope) isn’t a science, the truth is (another fact) the more research conducted to “strengthen” choice communications (i.e., marketing & advertising) the more functional the communication has to be judged on … because that is the only thing research can quantitatively measure.
Emotion, or something you just feel in your gut, cannot be measured.
(note: there are some wacky research tools out there that attempt to do so but regardless of their best efforts no one I know can use ‘brain wave’ or ‘twitch muscle’ research to truly tell you what your gut tells you)
And (as noted in the previous ‘hope’ post) functional doesn’t win in the long run. Emotion or some higher order value wins.
Bottom line?
Two things lead to mediocrity and conformity in communications: research and rational benefits.
Interestingly this thought goes way beyond communications and advertising. It runs true in just about any transaction-based relationship (i.e., shopping).
Another fact.
Shopping isn’t simply a transaction. Shopping is an experience.
And I don’t necessarily mean experience in the “walking around and looking and touching” perspective. One expert said it best:
“We dream of shopping for beauty, truth and perfection, and if we do not shop for a perfect society, at least we shop for a perfect self.”
Yes. Correct. And, yes, again.
We shop and we make choices as an extension of ourselves – of who we are and what we want to be. That, at its most psychological Maslow-like level, is the pursuit for a perfect self.
Sound like a bunch of mumbo jumbo? Maybe sounds like it but it ain’t.
We talk transactions but we behave emotionally.
(how often has your head say “he is all wrong for me” and then you go ahead and let your heart tell you what to do?)
Anyway.
The same expert also suggested that she believes “the noblest aspect of shopping is finding a community, a discovery that usually happens at a place like a farmer’s market or a neighborhood store, where interaction among customers is fostered. Rallying for these public spaces rather than buying things, she argues, should be what we use shopping to achieve.”
Poetic words.
Maybe even sounds a little too lofty.
But its not. Because if you ignore the thought behind the words you simply fall back into the functional/rational zone of sameness (and then, I guess, it does become a science).
If it helps … simplistically she is suggesting creating spaces so that “birds of a feather can flock together” and be happy amongst others.
So why is all this important?
Well. If I want someone to ‘choose me’ I have to understand the challenges.
Understanding motivation for behavior is one thing (and a very very important thing).
Understanding HOW to communicate is another.
Bill Bernbach again: “Eighty-five percent of all ads don’t even get looked at. Think of it! You and I are the most extravagant people in the world. Who else is spending billions of dollars and getting absolutely nothing in return? We were worried about whether or not the American public loves us. They don’t even hate us. They just ignore us.”
So even if I am in the ‘selling hope’ business I have to deliver the message in a memorable, interesting and artful way if I want whatever I am marketing to be chosen.
Notice I used art in there.
Because, once again, it is not a science.
I cannot simply say “hey, look over here, I am selling some hope-on-a-rope.”
I gotta be creative and offer up some communication that stirs someone emotionally and lets them arrive at the benefit all by themselves. That is a powerful communications when that happens.
And there absolutely can be some discipline in the approach but the ultimate output is art.
A maddening art. I often call it the “glorious mistakes when we blunder into an incredible way to say what we want to say.”
Why a ‘glorious mistake’?
Well.
Often the most insightful communication is partly flawed. Likeable. Believable.
And I ended on believable because while communications is art … truth is just that – truth. No grey. Just truth. And that is ultimately what makes things believable.
Bob Levenson (hired by Bill Bernbach) may have said it best when he responded to a Time magazine contest in the 1960′s. Ad agencies were invited to create an advertisement in the public interest. He wrote a manifesto for the ad industry (see below). It conveys the honesty that the advertising/marketing profession is founded upon. And still should uphold as the beacon for everything every marketer (at any level) should do in the communications business.
Bottom line?
Share truth.
Sell hope.
And enjoy, share, and DO THIS OR DIE.
zone of mediocrity
Jul 21st
“Some people are born mediocre, some people achieve mediocrity, and some people have mediocrity thrust upon them.”
Joseph Heller
“We must overcome the notion that we must be regular…it robs you of the chance to be extraordinary and leads you to the mediocre.”
Uta Hagen
Ok. One of the things that consistently amazes me in the business world is mediocrity.
Or maybe better said …“comfort in mediocrity.”
And I am exponentially amazed because if you were to interview 100 different business leaders about their organization and company vision nowhere within that entire interview would you hear “we seek mediocrity.” In fact I can almost guarantee there will be words like extraordinary, innovative, new and bla … bla … bla.
Mediocrity is a stellar example that you cannot believe what people say. That what people say and what they do are often two completely different things.
It makes you wonder a little that if everyone’s attitude is so expansive why is their actual behavior so minimal/restrictive?
One writer suggested the reason is ‘vainglory.’
“Vainglory,” an anachronistic term meaning an unjustified and excessive pride in one’s own achievements or abilities is one of the primary forces animating and shaping contemporary culture.
Yeah. I buy that theory. Probably because I have seen it run rampant among successful entrepreneurs who now run their own companies. Well. Let me qualify that by saying they may represent the biggest ‘vainglory’ offenders (because large companies get mired in mediocrity too).
Ok.
To be fair (to those mired in mediocrity) it is possible the true effect of the recession in the business world is the creation of being safe versus smart risk taking.
But I am not sure it’s the recession’s fault.
Regardless. Companies beware.
The truth is that death resides in the zone of mediocrity (in a recession or not in a recession).
Interestingly I think companies do beware. It’s the leaders who are failing the companies.
So. Leaders beware.
Be fearful of mediocrity. And be fearful of playing it safe.
At the root of mediocrity?
Try this on for size. Criticism seems to have replaced oppositional debate as a form of business acumen.
Inherent in criticism is diminishing without enhancement. Oppositional debate is contrarianism with the intent to enhance.
And, frankly, I don’t have too much to offer here on why that is happening. If it were a generation thing I may have an idea but the people criticizing (leaders) typically grew up in an oppositional debate business world. So I am not sure what is breeding this.
But. Regardless. It’s happening.
And leaders are consistently permitting their organizations to get sucked into the world of mediocrity regardless of the criticism/debate thing I brought up.
To me the worst is when a company with all the potential to succeed gets sucked into the zone mediocrity. It is frustrating to see. And painful to watch as they continue in a doom loop of mediocrity. Or maybe call it unfulfilled potential.
I can even identify some key characteristics of a company mired in mediocrity.
1. High churn of leader low-senior people (the ones who ache to not be mediocre and seek to take the calculated risks to break out).
They get frustrated. And they leave for greener grass when frustrated.
2. Low churn of low-senior people with middle age kids.
Oh. They will bitch. Make some noises. But they know if they feed the mediocre machine (and get a small win here or there) they will never get fired. So they don’t take the day to day risks it often takes to rise above the zone of mediocrity. They learn to live within it.
3. High churn of young people. Especially the good ones.
The ones who have some ambition or maybe not a lot of ambition but want to learn stuff. They max out fast in the zone and hit a level of dissatisfaction quickly. These really hurt because this group dials up the company culture of miserableness in a sneaky way. They aren’t really grumbling. It’s worse than grumbling. They simply ask questions among themselves. The “why” question. Why are we this way? Why aren’t we growing? Why wasn’t that idea discussed instead of the one that was. Why, why, why and why again. They sense that something is off kilter but they don’t know the answer. They just keep asking the question.
And when all of that has swirled around long enough. When the repitition of mediocrity is solidly in place. After some time all groups and all employees and all people will get lulled into a sense of helplessness.
They start believing they cannot fight ‘the man’ (it can be identified specifically as the leader or simply the organization as a whole) and so they lose sight, or the desire to actually sight, for a something better than mediocrity because of complacency.
In the end.
Being in the zone of mediocrity in the workplace is odd. A little strange. Something feels off, some in-office rhythm is missing, something is off kilter, off balance, out of place.
Its something you cannot really quite put a finger on.
And with all that it becomes … it becomes easy to get sucked into the zone of mediocrity.
So what can you do? (other than bitch & moan & be mediocre).
If you are a leader? Lead. (but most people aren’t in leader positions).
If you are the rest of the world?
Well. I cannot guarantee this will get you out of the zone all the time but you will feel better about yourself and more fulfilled as a person (and possibly be better armed to battle mediocrity).
Never stop learning.
The corollary to this is ‘never stop challenging the norm.’
And at this idea’s foundation is something called commitment. Never stop learning takes commitment. Because in the zone of mediocrity life is much much easier if you go with the flow and accept ‘that is the way it is done.’ Be committed to never stop learning. From anyone. From any place. At any time.
Next.
Develop a passion for something.
There is nothing like passion to create day-to-day energy. This is much much bigger than ‘overcoming fear of failure’ or learning from mistakes or any kind of crap like that. This is about positively moving toward some unseen objective – fueled by an internal passion. The best example I found was about Thomas Edison.
It stated: Passion inspired Thomas Edison to develop the lightbulb. He failed more than 10,000 times. When he was asked what kept him going after so many failures, he said that he had not failed at all. What he had done was to find 10,000 ways that did not work.
Now. I will talk about resiliency next … but for now? That is passion. Find something to rally around. It’s easier to fight the good fight if you care.
Next.
No quit.
This is possibly better defined as “character resiliency.” This has nothing to do with trying and doing and day in and day out grinding it out. This is bigger picture stuff. This is about not giving up on what you dream or imagine. Mediocrity of almost all things in life takes a boatload of resiliency to face and defeat. I threw in character but at its core this is resiliency. Mediocrity is relentless and patient and sneaky. You cannot quit, ever, in your battle against mediocrity.
Ok.
So. What happens if you don’t attempt the three things I suggest (or anything to get out of the mediocrity zone)?
Well. If you don’t do this (and reside in the hellish zone of mediocrity) I have one word for you.
Regret.
Regrets are almost always about missed opportunities – failing to take the risks that could have led to a more fulfilling outcome.
Mediocrity is numbingly subtle.
Company leaders have to believe they are called to something bold and amazing. Even if it is simply engineering the best toilet. I read somewhere three keys to fighting your way out of this mediocrity malaise:
- 1. I believe we each hold within us a vast reservoir of courage.
- 2. I believe in doing something every day that scares the shit out of me.
- 3. I believe in burning my ships and declaring myself all in.
Love it.
Leaders should have it up on their wall.
Breaking out of mediocrity means being courageous, scared shitless sometimes and being “all in” when making a decision.
Ok.
But before anyone thinks this is some wacky uncomfortable hi-risk leadership point of view. Let me say it takes all those things as well as some blending. Yeah. A blend.
Blending risk and safety is the key to success. Too much of either is just not good stewardship. Foolish risk taking is as bad as mediocrity. Somewhere in the middle is the zone of success.
Ok.
I am coming to the close on this topic.
Mediocrity is a simple thing to identify (if you are honest with yourself).
Mediocrity is driven by inertia.
So, saying that, mediocrity ends up actually being a choice (it doesn’t come naturally).
I will try and end this by explaining the zone of mediocrity and that choice I just mentioned by using Yeats:
“Turning and turning in the widening gyre/ The falcon cannot hear the falconer.” 
(note: gyre – a vortex, a circular or spiral motion, especially in ocean currents)
Yeats suggests that at any moment forces are raveling and unraveling, forming and disintegrating in polarity (or, as one writer explained, “gyres” superimposed on each other with the apex or narrowest point of one at the center of the other’s base).
Therefore moments of opportunity occur when time shifts from the outer to the inner gyre – somewhere within the constantly raveling & unraveling.
Leaders are always a focal point for a company’s constantly spinning gyre of ambition and desires. So that leader has to recognize the possibilities inherent in change and the accompanying risks. No change, or progress, occurs in the face of all this raveling & unraveling only through the choice to be mediocre – and not make change (or worse … not take advantage of the forming opportunities).
Their excuse for mediocrity? (if there is an excuse at all).
Mediocrity occurs because the problem is that unraveling/raveling is rarely neat and the leader risks losing what is most important – the center. Or as Yeats suggests:
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”
And there in lies the true foundation of the zone of mediocrity.
Those in leadership positions of power and authority who foresee the possibility of ‘things falling part’ remain frozen in models that no longer function, or adapt, in a new environment. They fear losing what is at the center (which is certainly the closest to their soul & well being).
So they refuse to embrace change and instead embrace mediocrity.
And in that, my friends, we end up in the infamous zone of mediocrity.
Do what you can to avoid it.
Do what you can to break out of it.
Do what you can to find leaders who seek to stay out of it.
