Posts tagged safe
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.
that I have not been
Apr 25th
“’pray for nothing, say every night in bed, I have been a king, I have been a slave, nor is there anything, fool, rascal, knave, that I have not been, yet upon my breast a myriad of hearts have lain.” Mohini Chatterjee by Yeats
If I had not known that Yeats was enamored with mysticism and reincarnation I … well … would have ended up writing what I am going to write.
My first thought?
It has to do with living life however the cards are dealt … and regardless of whether you are a fool or an intellect … you will find someone ‘upon your breast will lay’ <that means you will have love & loves>.
I like that.
Doesn’t matter who you are and what you do … there will always be someone for you.
Oh.
And beyond having someone love you <assuming you allow it and you stop worrying about whether you are good enough> … there is a really big thought in there that there are lives within lives … and I imagine another way of saying that is … you can live several lives within one lifetime.
That’s what I think when I read this.
That’s a lot but I think it is a lot of good stuff.
Yeats wrote a lot about his belief that the soul of man is eternal. And that existence is cycles within cycles. I may not buy that whole “eternal” thing but I do believe that Life is cycles within cycles. It really only has one true beginning and end … but multiple starts and stops … and detours and exits … and … well … you get it. Cycles within cycles.
With that in mind I wanted to end this post with the conclusion of the poem used in the beginning … “men dance on deathless feet.”
Birth-hour and death-hour meet,
Or, as great sages say,
Men dance on deathless feet.
Now that is awesome.
You are either living or dying.
But your footsteps on Life will never die.
Oh.
One last thought <regarding this quote>.
If you truly believe that you live many lives within one life … well … then isn’t it worth setting aside desire and ambition as secondary to whatever type of life you want to lead?
Let me leave you with that thought.
turn your back on what you know
Apr 20th
“To truly learn turn your back on what you know … leave it all behind. 
To truly know the world you must immerse yourself in what is not your knowledge.” – Tibetan thought
Oh my.
Immerse yourself in what is not your knowledge.
That may be one of the most difficult things in the world to do.
It is natural to gravitate to what is most comfortable … that which you know and that which is the easiest for you to do.
I imagine many of us do this just as part of every day life and tell ourselves we are still learning as we bump into others who do something different and watch from afar.
But that is having one foot in what you know and maybe dipping a toe into what you don’t.
That isn’t truly ‘learning.’
At some point in order to truly learn you must … well … leave it all behind.
And that is difficult. Really difficult.
I know I cheat. How? I use young people. I try and place the situation in their hands, step back and listen. And I don’t judge <or eliminate possibilities>. It is my way of ‘immersing in what is not your knowledge.’ In their inexperience <within my own experience> they share a world of experiences in which I have no knowledge.
Oh.
I may think I do. But I don’t. It is a difficult thing for most of us to do … turn your back on what you know.
But I find it easier as long as I keep this other Tibetan thought in mind:
“Is being an investigator the opposite of being an artist? Maybe it is just that some mysteries require an artist not an investigator. That an artist has different ways to get to the truth.” – Tibetan thought
The path to truth is not just one path. Sure. I may know one ‘truth.’ But in knowing that I know … well … one thing. And I am sure many people are fine with the knowledge of one truth. And I do not begrudge them of that. For one truth is, at its core, a truth. And I believe everyone needs some truth in their life.
Does knowing more than one truth make someone better? Yikes. I don’t believe I could be a good judge of that. Because knowing multiple truths can be confusing … and in confusion someone just may not end up in a better place. I guess I would suggest that if multiple truths put you on more solid ground than go for it.
But the real point to this is that someone without YOUR knowledge is more likely to teach you something completely new than someone who shares your knowledge.
And, ultimately, if you are trying to understand the world, or simply solve a problem, to truly learn the answer … you may have to turn your back on everything you know.
judgment
Mar 28th
“Statistics are no substitute for judgment.” - Henry Clay
I was tempted to call this “when statistics get in the way of a good decision.”
Let me get this out of the way upfront. I like numbers. I have an Economics undergraduate and accounting accounted for several of my good grades in college. And I like that if you weave your way through numbers they can tell you things that can inspire the ‘real’ thought. And I like the fact that numbers can sway an “I think” based opinion to a “here is what I know” based opinion.
Anyway. I purposefully used Henry Clay (so think maybe 1800 as to date of the quote) so that some contemporary statistical gwonk doesn’t come out of the woodwork saying something along the lines of “statistics have only evolved in the last 20 years” or something crazy like that. “We have never had better data to make decisions from than today!” is a statement that was as true in 1800 as it is in 2012 and as it was in 100 BC.
This is an eternal issue.
People have looked at statistics since the time good ole Adam started calculating how many apples fell out of the tree to figure out how often he was gonna get laid.
Henry Clay just had the luck to be quoted on it.
So before I begin my rant let me say, yes, I get decision-making is a cognitive process … where the outcome is a choice between alternatives. And that numbers can play a role.
I also get that people have different preferences as to how to approach decision making and that there will always be a varying degree between thinking and feeling and numbers and experiential.
And I do believe all decisions, at least the worthwhile ones, have to incorporate some sense of logical decision-making. Logic in that we seek to exclude <or marginalize> emotions <as well as personal biases> and try to use only rational methods <perhaps even mathematical/statistical tools> with the intent to isolate what is typically called the decision utility.
I get all that.
Oh.
And by the way … I hope no one tries to dump the whole “left brain/right brain” mumbo jumbo on me because science has already proven that is an urban myth (yeah … I will write something on that). There is no right brain left brain.
There is no “numbers are facts” crap.
Yeah. On that last one ….
“Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything.” – Gregg Easterbrook
Numbers don’t lie.
But they also don’t tell you what to do. In saying that let me suggest why I believe this statistical ‘torturing numbers’ issue has been an issue for eternity.
The thought.
Many people who don’t want to make decision … okay … maybe they just get nervous with accountability … use statistics to make the decision … not inform a decision.
Why?
Well. There are boatloads of reasons but suffice it to say that without using numbers … you are getting paid (or at least judged) not just on decision-making skills but on your judgment skills. That means accountability is solely on you (the person).
Think about that. But also think about this (as you get judged). The following is an explanation on decision making using statistics:
Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Statistical Decision Theory
I’d like to start today’s lecture with a reminder about something I said a long time ago when we finished our survey of population viability analysis. Population viability analysis is best seen not as a way of garnering precise predictions about the fate of a population but as a way of ensuring that all relevant life-history variables have been considered, that they have been considered efficiently, and that we have a reasonable sense of the trajectory that the population is likely to follow if current trends continue. It provides a way of structuring our thinking about the problem. That’s precisely the way I think we should regard the approach to decision making that I’m about to describe. One of the most difficult tasks facing conservation biologists, as I have emphasized repeatedly, is that decisions must often, perhaps usually, be made in the face of woefully inadequate data.
(ba bla blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa)
So.
From that incredibly dry mind numbing analysis of statistical decision theory they dropped this little bombshell in toward the end of the ‘how to use statistics’:
There is the recognition from statistics that there are two types of errors we can make in evaluating an hypothesis:
- We may say that something is happening when it isn’t (Type I), or
- We may say that something isn’t happening when it is (Type II).
Say what?
The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed. – Robert Heinlein
(I wish I had written this in response to the statistical theory thingamajig)
Ok. What that means (to those of you solely dependent upon statistics). You may use the statistics to prove something is or isn’t happening … and it may not be happening or it is happening <anyone now wonder why statisticians are avoided?>.
Anyway. I will back off the ‘accountability through numbers folk’ for a second.
Trying to give statistical-using people the benefit of the doubt … let’s think that maybe when you are stressed out, frankly, any option seems pretty good … especially one which seems factual (numbers seem more factual to people … despite the fact that one you start combining them they become less factual).
I imagine it is like someone dying of thirst and drinking from whatever looks like the safest pool.
Uh oh. But some pools are poisoned.
And, unfortunately bout this stress theory of mine, when the adrenaline from the stress wears out, you realized that the statistics you leaned on for the decision YOU made were all bullshit (or someone points out they were bullshit when you actually invest some energy trying to explain them later).
And you are screwed.
Because of statistics (although people will inevitably try the “but the numbers told us what to do”).
Ok.
Here is the good news (relatively speaking). You can do something about the stress decision making leaning on numbers thing.
Most people, given enough experience, become aware that stress can do a number on your decision-making skills. How do I know? Well. Of course someone has done a study on it.
Scientists have some statistical based thinking about exactly how stress screws up your ability to make decisions.
According to ScienceDaily, psychologists Mara Mather and Nichole R. Lighthall (who completed a review of the literature on stress and decisions) they found that, even though you’d think being stressed would turn people into pessimists and therefore more careful … stress actually makes us focus too much on the upside of our decisions.
Says Mather, “Stress seems to help people learn from positive feedback and impairs their learning from negative feedback.”
Uh oh.
That sucks (maybe you cannot do something about the bad stress decision making thing). Nuts.
I guess my point in bringing up the study is that maybe under stress it is easier to grab on to statistics to make a decision <all the while thinking positive thoughts> and therefore avoided the judgment call on your own.
Uh oh (again).
Look.
I was wrong. You can do something about this judgment thing.
Judgment isn’t easy … but at some point you are accountable … or you should be … and hiding behind statistics just won’t hack it.
As Yoda would say “the answers are within you.”
The key to making a smart decision is giving yourself the time to gather all the information you need <and, yes, that can include statistics> and move forward with whatever proactive thinking method approach you have some confidence in … and make a decision.
A daunting decision doesn’t have to put you in an analysis paralysis death grip.
Use a logical decision-making method to help you evaluate your choices and pull the trigger.
And make a decision.
And not let statistics make the decision for you.
Here is the net on statistics: It helps us formalize and categorize our thinking to make sure that we have considered all relevant possibilities.
Quantitative analysis should be viewed as explorations of possibilities … not hard predictions.
I believe being able to use numbers, and statistics, to explore possibilities is truly a skill <or an art>.
Not everyone can do it. Ok. Well. That’s not true. Anyone can do it … it’s just that not everyone can do it well.
Knowing what to do with the numbers is an art.
In fact, just to circle back to the main topic of this post, let’s call it … well … judgment.
Yeah. Judging numbers. Weighing the importance of one number versus another as well as learning which numbers are unimportant.
And there are even fewer people who have mastered that art.
But. That doesn’t mean everyone should get bogged down in statistics and numbers because if you do, yup, you can torture any decision you want out of numbers.
And, frankly, you are lying to yourself if you believe that is a decision. That is simply being a coward (in the decision making world).
You have deferred decision to ‘numbers.’ And inevitably you are deferring accountability.
Sound harsh?
As harsh as this?
“I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.” - David Ogilvy
Harsh.
Sound like truth?
Yup.
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.
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.
