“If you’re nervous, it means you give a damn.”

=

thatkindofwoman tumblr

—

Ok. I almost called this ‘giving a damn’ , but, this is about the relationship between nervousness and giving a shit about something. Here is the basic equation <logic flow>:

==

–      Giving a damn means you are thinking about something <because you can’t give a damn about something you aren’t thinking about>.

—

–      Thinking is good <especially if it is on something you give a damn about>.

–

–      Being nervous CAN be good <but pretty much all of us get nervous when we give a damn about something>.

==

Bottom line on being nervous and nervousness.

All are aspects of giving a shit.

All of which are also aspects of worrying.

Yup. Worrying.

Worrying about being good enough or ‘having enough’ or just ‘doing as well as I can.’

Ok. Here is a Life truth <beyond the fact everyone gets nervous>. Despite what you may think about yourself … and despite the fact you worry, the truth is, more often than not, you do a lot of ‘right’ <right things, right decisions and right thoughts>.

Despite that Life truth we do a lot of navel-gazing <and worrying> when it comes to thinking and ‘having enough’ when it matters.

Oh. About that ‘what matters’ and when we get nervous about having enough thought.

To me it often feels like we’re having too many conversations about things that don’t matter and not enough about things that do. This translates into getting nervous, if not even investing energy, towards a lot of things that just do not matter.

We have gobs of incredibly smart, resourceful, creative thinking people in today’s world and, frankly, I wish we would spend more of our precious attention, energy, and ideation skills solving meaningful things that mattered.

In addition. I also wish more people accepted they had ‘enough’ to deal with all the shit that matters. This also means we just need to accept that being nervous is just part of the gig.

Anyway. Let me share two aspects of nervous and giving a shit.

First.

Nervousness is just a reflection of the fact you recognize that there is something to lose when you care.

Now. This isn’t ‘caring about losing’, but more about ‘losing if I care.’ Some people have this equation out of whack in that they simply believe losing any time is bad. It is out of whack because, simplistically, we care about some things more than others. The winning or losing isn’t, and shouldn’t be, tied to the outcome but rather the ‘level of caring.’

==

“The more you care, the more you have to lose.”

Harry Potter

==

In my mind your nervousness should be used more often as a platform for discussion or thinking or even level of caring. But, please, … please … don’t make nervousness based on some fear of doing the ‘wrong things.’

Just figure out what you care about, and, accept the fact that if you care that the outcome matters more, and, accept that if it matters more you will be nervous.

<this equation is quite effective in deductive thinking about yourself and things about yourself>

Second.

Nervousness and anger. Beyond being tied to caring or level of caring … nervousness is absolutely tied to anger.

===

“My anger at the world coils inside of me. It’s a directionless seething, there’s no name or face to aim at.”

The Sky So Heavy by Claire Zorn

==

Nervousness always has a direction.

That is why I get aggravated when someone says ‘I just don’t know why I’m nervous.’

Well. Being nervous always contains an aspect of some … well … anger. You get angry that a world demands so much of you and you get nervous that you cannot <or may not> meet what the world demands.

This doesn’t mean that you are not capable nor does it mean that in some form or fashion you do not enjoy rising to the occasion. What it means is that you get a little angry just being put in the position <that makes you nervous>. Just think of it this way … your anger coils inside you and comes out externally as nervousness.

But … you know what? Some anger is quite productive.

Some anger motivates you to action and stepping up rather than stepping back <or not stepping at all>. But this also means that some anger translates into being nervous.

Anyway.

I am fairly sure everyone gets nervous about things <in general>. But I am absolutely positive everyone gets nervous about the things that matter to them.

I imagine I wrote this because people just don’t like being nervous.

They don’t like the feeling.

And my fear is that maybe in avoiding being nervous … maybe they avoid things that matter.

Look.

Accept the burden of nervousness.

You have to.

If you don’t, then most of the things you do will … well … not matter. Suffice it to say that Life is too short to not do things that matter so, go ahead, be nervous.

===========

“No one is innocent … Life is more about how you bear the guilt.”

–

Silette <a fictional book character>

================

Well.

This quote. I admit. It gave me pause when I saw it in a book I was reading. I stopped and reread it.

No one is innocent.

That means everyone carries some burden of ‘not innocent’. This seems relevant as more and more people in today’s society appear to investing a lot of energy suggesting they are guilty of little, if not anything.

Well. That is kind of bullshit. No one is innocent. We are all guilty of small, medium and even some large things.

Therefore. It within that last sentence of the opening quote in which resides the larger Life thought.

Your life can be defined by how you bear that guilt.

It is the larger Life thought because “defined by” is actually “choices”. All the choices we make everyday in the little and the small as well as in how we judge ourselves, and our actions, and other’s actions. So we make all of these choices, one by one, dozens & hundreds over time, all the while accumulating some, well, ‘non-innocence.’ From that point on it becomes how we define it:

Do you ignore it?

Do you make excuses?

Do you deny it?

Do you worry about it?

Do you keep it secret?

Do you use it to motivate?

These are questions that reside within each of us <whether we elect to admit that they exist or not>.

These are the questions that define how people bear the guilt.

Oh.

The one that is probably most important?

Do you even recognize you are not innocent?

Whew. Yeah. That is why I wrote this quote down.

I think in today’s world where we seem to rush to blame people and judge them guilty of something <often justly> we tend to push our own lack of innocence, in whatever degree it may exist, into some dusty corner of our mind. But I also believe there is an even more dangerous thing many people do … and that is justifying their own past behavior & actions as ‘not so bad’ … which is basically assuming … well … innocence.

What that means is, I imagine, there are many more people who don’t even know they are ‘not innocent’ of something than there are those who bear the guilt. I imagine this because, well, bearing some guilt is a burden. A burden not just as a weight but it also can bear some emotional erosion aspects if you are not careful.

While those who bear the guilt can sometimes be eaten away from the inside as they think about it I would suggest there are many more minds being eroded by the unseen, unrecognized & unaccepted shadow of guilt which dogs each step one takes.

This comes to Life in a variety of ways.

It erodes in a way that when shit happens to them <because the guilt actually affects their behavior in some seemingly small ways> they scratch their head and wonder why.

Some of these people think fate is against them.

Many of these people think Life isn’t fair.

Many of these people never look at themselves, or to themselves, as the issue … just everything else.

Many of these people just look at others as ones who should be guilty <“I never did anything that bad”>.

And all of that is sad to me. Mostly because their burden of guilt is most likely something manageable if they would only take the time to face it — face the guilt and eliminate that weightless, but diminishing, shadow following them and choose to carry it instead.

Look.

We all have guilt for something. None of us are innocent. The something could be big or it could be very small. But that is the funny thing about ‘not innocent’ … its size doesn’t matter.

Normal laws of space & weight do not apply to ‘not innocent’. A sliver of ‘not innocent’ can bear the same weight as a mountain of ‘not innocent’.

We should all take a moment, every day in fact, and remind ourselves, especially before we jump to judging others, that if you ignore the degrees & dimensions of the guilty … none of us are innocent.

But, most importantly, once you accept no one is innocent <self included> what truly matters is how one chooses to bear that weight.

================

Originally posted December 2012

================

“But today’s society is characterized by achievement orientation, and consequently it adores people who are successful and happy and, in particular, it adores the young.

It virtually ignores the value of all those who are otherwise, and in so doing blurs the decisive difference between being valuable in the sense of dignity and being valuable in the sense of usefulness.”

―

Viktor E. Frankl

=============

“The world has changed so much.

You’re either doing really well and everyone expects you should leave to take what they perceive to be a better job – or you’re not doing well and you should get fired.

The job is a good fit.  You do a quality job, be successful, you have good times and great times – the overwhelming feeling in our country is you can’t do that. That’s not possible.

You either need to be climbing or you need to get fired.”

——

Ben Jacobson <the basketball head coach of Northern Iowa Panthers>

================

(originally written in 2015)

So.

I am all for outcomes.

I am also all for ‘valiant attempts’ and I certainly believe trying is significantly more important than not trying … but … at some point … you gotta have some results.

That said. The pendulum in society has swung all the way over to achievement matters. In fact we are in a society where the Value of a person seems to be either driven solely by their outcomes/results or weighted so heavily by the outcomes/results that the effort portion, how hard & how you ‘play the game’, has minuscule value.

That’s bad. Bad for society. Bad for Life lessons. Bad for business. Just bad. It is bad because that means many people will ignore the price they will pay to achieve the outcome because the outcome, in and of itself, will contain all the value.

Yeah. Think about that. Taken to an extreme that would mean the attempt has zero value and trying & failing has zero, if not negative, value.

Ok. That is bad.

======

“But he did not understand the price.  Mortals never do.

They only see the prize, their heart’s desire, their dream … but the price of getting what you want, is getting what you once wanted.”

Neil Gaiman

=====

This thought becomes even worse , for society, because it also suggests “what are we willing to do to get what we want” is a zero sum game. What do I mean? Well. You are willing to do anything it takes to get what you want <the achievement>. The hell with rules … they are for people who don’t value achievement enough.

“The hell with guardrails and guidelines! They are for people who are scared to do what it takes.” This attitude cleverly steals away freedom of choice in that it suggests the only choice is the one that ensures achievement. This attitude strips choices of anything truly worthwhile like dignity and respect and humanity because all of those things are not criteria for what is the ultimate value – the result or outcome.

I say all this because by recognizing the enemy, by recognizing the issue or the problem, I can choose to face it. I would suggest that everything can be taken from you but one thing — the freedom to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances and to choose one’s own way in doing things. I would suggest that between any beginning and any end, or outcome; let’s just say that there is a space. And in that space is our power to choose what to do, how to do it and maybe even how to respond to whatever shit happens in that space.

I would argue within that space lies our growth and our freedom and, well, our value. And I believe more of our value is derived from that space than any outcome or number of achievements we will ever make.

I would argue that while achievement actually had three components <a> the initial step into the attempt itself, <b> the ‘space’ or whatever takes place in-between the step that begins and the final step that represents an acceptance that an outcome has occurred and <c> the result itself … it is the wretched hollow in between that defines not only the outcome but who and what we are as a person.

Now. To be clear. All three phases deserve personal credit.

Deciding to make the attempt, to take the step and try, is commendable.

Doing your best during the attempt is commendable.

And an outcome, failure or success, if you have done the best you can do … is commendable.

I am simply saying, should you follow through on all components, that it is the ‘space in between’ that ultimately creates the value.

Regardless. I would argue that we need to remind society of this and businesses for sure. And while this societal attitude may be doing is darndest to blur the decisive difference between being valuable in the sense of dignity and being valuable in the sense of usefulness I tend to believe the rising younger generation of workers, doers and thinkers are sensing the value in “the space”.

I tend to believe that the rising younger generation not only senses, but seeks; you can maintain dignity and achieve usefulness in terms of outcomes. We older folk shouldn’t suffocate this attitude and rather breathe Life into that belief <and empower it so that they can maybe create a generation of business better than the one we created>.

Look.

Results do matter. Achieving an outcome is important. And ‘winning’ is always preferable to ‘losing.’ But none of these things should ever come at the expense of dignity, respect and honor.

Achieving with dignity.

Winning with respect.

An honorable outcome.

That should be the definition of an outcome generation … not just ‘achieve, win, outcome above all.’

<insert a sigh here>

I have been trying to avoid using Trump as an example of shit that I write about, but on this topic it is difficult to not do so.

Trump embodies value solely found in outcome <or win>.

Trump embodies the wretchedness of ‘soulless competition.’

Trump embodies winning is all that matters <at the expense of everything else>.

I say that because if society is challenged in its current ‘achievement is all that matters’ focus we will now have as our main role model the epitome of ‘achievement is all that matters.’ For anyone who believes that how you win matters, like I, this is going to be a day in/day out battle for the soul of society.

Everyone deserves to win.

Everyone should have the opportunity to win.

Everyone should experience ‘win.’

But. Everyone needs to remember that the value of ‘the win’ is not in the win itself but rather in the space that exists between that first step and the actual outcome.

In the end.

The pendulum in society has certainly swing way over to achievement orientation and not with any real benefit (that I can discern) with regard to increased, or even enhanced, outcomes & results. In fact. It seems like in our enthusiasm for results we have stripped the meaning out of any results we have actually achieved. To me, that seems like hollow achievement which then translates into a hollowing of society on a grander scale. Yes. This is leading to a grander narrative around Purpose & meaningfulness but it would behoove us to have a tough discussion over achievements & how we have an unhealthy fixation on achievements in society.

===========

“The advantage of the incomprehensible is that it never loses its freshness.”

—

Paul Valéry

==========

“The moment you decide an event is impossible and therefore stop directing your attention to it is the moment when it will take place.”

–

General Petro Grigorenko

========

“This may be the most important proposition revealed by history: ‘At the time, no one knew what was coming.”

―

Haruki Murakami

=================

Well.

I have had several discussions about the future in one day and it continuously surprises me on how confident people are with regard to what will, or will not, happen. I find it slightly incomprehensible until I remember that the incomprehensible, in all its forms, has a certain allure.

The incomprehensible has a certain freshness of inevitable believability that some people are addicted to <and blind to the possibility it will never happen>.

Uh oh.

The incomprehensible has a certain inevitable un-believability that some people are married to (and blind to the possibility it could actually occur>.

The incomprehensible appeals to both those convinced it will never happen and to those who are convince it will happen.

Now. That said. We attack the incomprehensible in a variety of ways trying to comprehend it.

Research/experimenting: https://explorable.com/design-of-experiment

Innovation methodology: stage gating as an example https://www.stage-gate.com/resources_stage-gate_full.php

Pick your “assessing likelihood of incomprehensible” methodology but, well, 90% of new businesses fail, over 60% of new products fail and The Law of Unintended Consequences guarantees the unforeseen is almost more likely to happen than the foreseen. Even all that knowledge doesn’t slow us down one bit with our love/hate relationship with the unknown – the incomprehensible. We love the thought of finding something that seemed incomprehensible. We love that ‘holy shit’ feeling.

Here is the weird thing. All that said we plan our days to the minute, plan projects and tasks in excruciating detail and ‘plan out’ to eliminate any risk and uncertainty and incomprehensible we can feasibly plan out.

I would point out that all this really does is foster the timeless tradition of second guessing and seeking blame as soon as the incomprehensible occurs.

Regardless.

The incomprehensible always remains fresh because, as a Life truth, it consistently confirms to us that at no time no one knew what was coming.

Yup.

You can be pessimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

You can be optimistic <and be proven right … or wrong>.

But, in general, before being proven anything you are guessing. Sure. You can make an educated guess, and the odds may be higher or lower based on what you decide to do, but someone is lying if they say “I knew it was going to end up that way” … or “we should have seen that coming.”

That’s bullshit. We do not know. We often guess <sometimes well, sometimes not so well> under the guise of planning. Maybe worse is we often guess under the guise of ‘scrutinizing history.’

Uh oh. A fact.

‘History teaches by analogy, not identity.’

<Hank Kissinger … Hank to me>

People tend to mistake a study of history, or a historical moment, for proof of what is to come and, in fact, it sure does look like a frickin’ smart thing to do when going backwards in time and connecting dots <even when the connection is tenuous at best>. But, just a reminder about what Hank said: History teaches by analogy, not identity. This means that the lessons of history are never automatic or formulas for the future. The truth is that they can be apprehended only by admitting the significance of a range of multidimensional factors <unique context matters> and that the answers we obtain will never be better than the questions we pose.

————————–

“From this, one can make a deduction which is quite certainly the ultimate truth of jigsaw puzzles: despite appearances, puzzling is not a solitary game: every move the puzzler makes, the puzzlemaker has made before; every piece the puzzler picks up, and picks up again, and studies and strokes, every combination he tries, and tries a second time, every blunder and every insight, each hope and each discouragement have all been designed, calculated, and decided by the other.”

―

Georges Perec, Life A User’s Manual

=======

Like it or not situations exist in time more than in space. At any given moment a moment is but a collection of individuals & things bringing to bear all their collective experiences & things. Reassembling that multi-dimension of ‘collective’ is nigh impossible. What this means is that when viewing past incomprehensible, trying to make it comprehensible, you will find it is contingent to a unique set of factors.

===============

“For the lessons of historical experience, as of personal experience, are contingent.

They teach the consequences of certain actions, but they cannot force recognition of comparable situations.

Henry Kissinger

==============

Uhm. Cannot force recognition of comparable situations.  This is why I scratch my head when soe people are so sure on the future. If the incomprehensible is continegnt upon a nieq e set of factors than you would have to eb able to loking tnt some crystal ball which unravels what will BE unique (that is impossible isn’t it?) to see what the future configuarn of contingent factors.

That’s nuts. No one can do that.

In the end.

I believe all of us would probably like to have a better sense of how to plan for the future and to better understand the best and proper actions to take to maximize the future in some form or fashion.

Therefore we do the best we can, most often that means examining the past to assess actions affecting the future, trying to understand consequences for our decisions yet to be made. The intent is good and true.

However. We should never confuse honest intent with ‘what is right.’

We simply hear the echoes of footsteps but never meet their owners until they actually enter our lives. And, frankly, you cannot control all that ‘are coming by and by into our lives.’ At each point in time no one knew what was coming, therefore, no one can truly know what is coming. I imagine it is helpful for us to remind ourselves on occasion that just when we are absolutely positively 100% sure that something is impossible or incomprehensible — it occurs.

Here is the thing about the incomprehensible. We don’t know what we don’t know AND we don’t know half of what we really do know. It is difficult to accept the fact that today, in the moment, in the middle of change, no one … let me repeat … NO ONE has the right answer. We are simply asking the right questions at the moment and doing our best to adapt as we learn.

Change is about adapting.

Sure. Having a vision is good and there are multiple ways to reach the ‘end game. But, in the end, change is change and the incomprehensible is the incomprehensible. Plus. If we knew exactly what the change was and what was needed and what was truly incomprehensible & what wasn’t, well, we would be really smart sonuvabitches, wouldn’t we ?

=================

Prouver que j’ai raison serait accorder que je puis avoir tort. -Pierre Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais

“Proving that I am right would be admitting that I could be wrong.”

“The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.”

=

Arie de Geus – Dutch business strategist <and assumed pot smoker because he is dutch>

———–

“You do not merely want to be considered the best of the best. You want to be the only ones who do what you do.”

–

Jerry Garcia

Grateful Dead lead singer <and assumed pot smoker because he was the lead singer of the Grateful Dead>

——–

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

Unique.

Unique makes my bullshitometer go off. Now. I assume there actually have to be some unique products out there in this wide world of ours because over 500,000 patents are filed every year in the good ole USofA. That said. I admit that I have not run across a whole shitload of these unique products/services in my career even though I have met my foir share of patent owners.

Yes. Having this unique conversation with a patent owner excruciatingly painful. They keep saying “I have a patent therefore it is unique” and you keep saying “yes, sure, and the unique benefit to the buyer is ???” and you often find that this conversation is a deadly doom loop with no conclusion but frustration.

I imagine the real point is that everyone wants to be the best at whatever it is they elect to do the best. Everyone would like to be the only ones who do what you do <assuming what you do is actually of some value to people>. Everyone wants their business to be ‘unique’ in some form or fashion. And, if you try hard enough, I imagine every business can be ‘unique’ at something. I also imagine if you try hard enough you can learn to dance on the head of a pin.

Regardless, the point of me writing this is that I believe somewhere along the way something got lost.

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

Excellent idea. Dumbed a great idea down for anyone and everyone to use. Unfortunately it has all gone wrong since then.

The concept was unique “proposition” not “unique” <all by itself>. Their point was  … well … just that simple … proposing to people some kind of proposition that was meaningful and seemingly unique <at minimum creating a perception of uniqueness>.

Please note the nuance. You need not actually be unique in actuality but rather you simply needed to be able to tell people you were unique in some form or fashion. The concept implied how you told your proposition was as important as the product-service proposition itself. The brilliance in the concept is that it recognizes most products and services are not truly unique, however, that didn’t mean you could explain your product-service in a way that wasn’t unique (from a selling perspective).

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe the problem is that somewhere along the way marketing, advertising, brand people forgot the nuanced selling proposition concept and simply focused on some (mostly) unattainable facet – unique. And therein lies the bigger problem. Identifying the false unique. Because it is inherent nature (at least in the business world) to find what you seek. If I am told I must find something unique than, dammit, I am sure gonna find something unique … even if I have to quasi make it up.

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

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

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

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

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

The harming of a Profession.

It is the other side of the table that is what I find harmful and actually quite disappointing. It is the groups of professionals who agree to the white lie, maybe facilitate or encourage the white lie <delusions> or, at the worst, are oblivious to the white lie. There are far too many marketing & advertising professionals out there in the business world today who are abusing or are simply oblivious to the reality of unique <the reality thereof as well as the nuance of positioning in a unique way>.  As professionals we should be able to discern between a real uniqueness and a created <perception> uniqueness and should be able to assist a company in understanding it.

Not enough marketing/advertising/branding professionals do. Regardless of that last mini-rant the best example I have seen in my career of a company who understands this nuance between USP and Unique is Proctor and Gamble.

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

But that is simply a vision and focus. They have the smarts enough so that in lieu of actually having one, i.e.,  they fully recognize when they don’t have one, they are masters at being distinct, i.e., “I may not be truly unique but there will be no doubt what benefit I provide and the value to it.” And truth be told … that last description, being distinct, is almost unique in itself in today’s garbled & complex for the sake of being complex marketing world.  P&G wins simply thru focus and clarity (being distinct) … sometimes thru a real uniqueness and sometimes thru creating a perceived uniqueness.

Smart company those P&G folk.

Now, conversely, oddly enough, the worst at this whole uniqueness thing is maybe Apple. Yeah. Apple. They are solely focused on “unique features” (not benefits). By the way … that is bad as a long term strategy.

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

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

Ok. Back to unique.

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

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

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

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

On that last thought, positioning <using words to create a perception of uniqueness> is valuable and an opportunity. It is not ‘lying’ to the public to create sales. In fact I would argue it is smart and a reflection of your only true competitive advantage … the ability to learn faster than your competition.

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

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

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

–          unique is rare and often fleeting

However, adaptable ‘best’ and adaptable ‘uniqueness’ is neither fleeting nor useless and if sustained will maintain market leadership <although it is extremely difficult to sustain>. And the key to those is to be to be the only fastest learner in your category. Easy? No.  But, remember, business is often not lived best gently.

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

=================

“It didn’t work,” said the King. “The cloak of invisibility didn’t work.”
“Yes, it did,” said the Royal Wizard.
“No, it didn’t,” said the King. “I kept bumping into things, the same as ever.”
“The cloak is supposed to make you invisible,” said the Royal Wizard. “It is not supposed to keep you from bumping into things.”
“All I know is, I kept bumping into things,” said the King.”

—

James Thurber

============

So.

While this is about business in general it certainly taps into entrepreneurs & entrepreneurial attitudes and what happens once a business transitions from startup to ‘gravitas.’

Unreasonableness is very often a matter of perspective. In addition. being unreasonable is often not being some innovative disruptor but rather someone who prioritizes progress over, well, everything else.

Regardless. My favorite unreasonable example on this has to do with successful entrepreneurs. Unreasonable is status quo for becoming successful, yet, once successful, the people around the entrepreneur owner will most likely see the unreasonable as  unreasonably risky (this creates some tension). In this situation the biggest issue is often the entrepreneur is comfortable doing things which may appear to have never done before, but once a business is up and running the team tends to seek things that have been done in the past <or “proven practices & things” from the past> to develop action plans.  In this situation I am usually the jerk who says “most business success, in general, typically has a layer of idiosyncrasy <and context> that begs the ultimate question – can it really be copied?”

(I usually answer my own question: no)

Look. Here is a thought <to be applied with business book learning before you run off implementing everything you read> … as Henry Kissinger pointed out when discussing learning from history … “if you are seeking examples and exact  parallelisms by studying history you will be disappointed. The study of history is the study of analogies.” However, all that said, I actually found an interesting business book. There is a relatively short book called ‘The Art of being Unreasonable” from a guy named Eli Broad.

I liked it for 4 reasons.

1. It was pretty short – I love it.

2. He suggests that rather than be a pioneer it is often better to be second with a new idea. – I love it.

3. He suggests that the best diversification may not be into an industry related to your own. – I love it.

4. The premise of the entire book is that the world has always been shaped by unreasonable people <ultimately they are the ones who force change>. – I love it.

The book did get me thinking and some thoughts which relate to the art of being unreasonable.

Business people often confuse safe with smart.

Safe may not be smart … because it is … well … just safe. Typically safe means less return <combined with less risk of course>. In fact it often translates into less return than the initial idea because it is … well … simply an extension of what is <smaller increments of growth>.

That (in simplistic terms) doesn’t mean bad return but rather diminishing return. Because it is, well, safe <okay … you get the point about safe>. Safe is hedging your bets. It is a sound strategy depending on what you would like to achieve. And it is a reasonable thing to do.

The book’s point is that isn’t what an entrepreneur <or business builders in general> is all about – being reasonable. They simply get convinced to do so by those around after their initial unreasonable-driven success (or sometimes they simply fear losing that has been gained).

Here is a silly thought. Maybe an unreasonable thought.

Entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs. To ask them to be anything other than what they are is fraught with peril.

As Broad points out there is a safe path (extension into a related industry) or a comfortable path (one that is an extension of him). By the way I love the distinction between safe and comfortable in this sense because to some people <me could be included here> safe can make some leaders uncomfortable, conversely, some leaders are quite comfortable with risk.

Now. I am not as smart as Eli.

But I have coached several businesses in a similar fashion. It makes them uncomfortable (the leader group) and excites the one (the leader). I often find myself negotiating between the desires of the organization formed behind the success of the leader/entrepreneur … and the entrepreneur themself.

It is an odd experience.

I would say in my experience that the entrepreneur gets dragged down into the dismal depths of the “reasonable” decision making organization. The main argument is businesses inherently desire to protect their success once they have shifted beyond the intial building. Now. I also admit I often walk away shaking my head in disappointment as the one who “built” defers to those who “protect” an investment under the guise of a “mature business people.”

What many business people don’t recognize is that building & protecting are different skills. Or, actually, they probably do but inevitably decisions need to be made that become a battle between comfortable and uncomfortable … and the seemingly reasonable and the unreasonable.

Last thought.I am not suggesting the unreasonable is always the path to walk because sometimes the unreasonable is really unreasonable <undoable, impractical, insane>.

However, there is an art to being unreasonable. An art that can lead to stunning success if it is fostered properly and encouraged <even if it is uncomfortable>.

The point?

Never totally disregard the unreasonable option & idea. It may not feel safe nor may it feel comfortable, but it may actually be one or both when viewed correctly.

===

“It’s the people who no one imagines anything of, who do the things that no one imagines.”

–

The Imitation Game

==================

“The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.”

—-

Arie de Geus – Dutch business strategist

====

Well.

One of my business pet peeves is our unhealthy pursuit of unique. Far too often in our relentless charge toward unique we reach a dubious destination, if not a completely false ‘original’ stance. This heinous business tradition almost always begins when some consultant comes in and forces you to sit down and answer the infamous question “so what makes you unique?”

Oh … how I get tired of this unique or ‘how are you different?’ discussion. If you have been there, you have seen these conversations go round and round dancing on the head of a pin.

After this dizzying absurd discussion invariably you land on:

• one meaningless thing <meaningless to the majority of the world if not the majority of your own employees>, or
• a laundry list that the consultant writes on a board and says “okay, great day, you need to figure out which of these is most important to you.”

Note to self:

“gee. thanks. what makes you think we can resolve that 48 hours from now, if we cannot now?”

What a bunch of wasted energy. I say do not waste your time hunting some dubious unique but instead zero in on what I believe is the key –  distinctness.

Am I suggesting avoiding true product or service differentiation? Heck no. Go for it.

I am simply arguing that it is next to impossible in today’s environment to have a sustainable ‘unique.’ If people were honest they would agree that most ‘uniques’ in today’s world are short term <t best> and not sustainable <note: some people use lots of money to make short term look big>.

In service categories sustainable “uniqueness” is, well, pretty much impossible. Unique customer service experience? Pretty much impossible to sustain <and stay sane>. Thinking customer first or “we care” is certainly not unique nor different. That characteristic may represent something the company cares a lot about but most companies to one degree or another feature that characteristic.

In the end that means we are often talking about small degrees of separation which makes it difficult to discern the difference <or originality> to the majority. And the amount of energy we expend trying to justify and explain that this incredibly small difference translates into a significantly larger benefit … just isn’t worth the return on that investment <because that small degree of separation is lost to a competitor responder or thru consumer confusion on internet>.

Now.

What is sustainable? Character and personality. That is certainly distinct.

Could it end up looking close to someone else? Maybe <but I would argue 90% of the time the other guy will blink and do something that will make people question their character>. But brand personality/character differentiation topic is another writing of mine.

Today is just a rant on uniqueness.

My go-to books when I am thinking about things are good ole Ralph Waldo Emerson & Montaigne Essays. I had to pull Montaigne off the shelf as I thought about originality & business’s unhealthy relationship with “unique.”

==================

“I have gathered a posy of other men’s flowers, and nothing but the thread that binds them is mine own.”

Montaigne

===============

Of all social philosophers he seemed to delve into the difference between style & substance. His originality can actually be found in some fairly relentless honesty. A lesson in and of itself to any business seeking unique or ‘original’ claims.

——————–

We are all framed of flaps and patches, and of so shapeless and diverse a contexture, that every piece and every moment playeth his part.

——————-

“Que sais-je?” “What do I know?” was what Montaigne consistently said … kind of a “what the hell do I really know?” Which brings me back to uniqueness … or … let’s call it the illusion of uniqueness.

It seems like every person, and every business, is born with some innate insane focus on what I would consider a fairly nebulous concept of ‘original.’ I speak with a lot of business owners. And I can often discern the best of the best of them just by listening and waiting to see if they use this one word <or the words surrounding this one word>:

Unique.

And when they do … well … I get a shiver down my back. Ok. I assume there actually has to be some unique products out there in this wide world of ours because over 500,000 patents are filed every year in the good ole USofA. Of course having this conversation with a patent owner is excruciatingly painful … they keep saying “I have a patent therefore it is unique” and you keep saying “yes, sure, and the unique benefit to the buyer is ???” you often find that this conversation is a deadly doom loop with no conclusion but frustration.

I imagine the real point is that everyone wants to be the best at whatever it is they elect to do the best. Everyone would like to be the only ones who do what you do <assuming what you do is actually of some value to people>. Everyone wants their business to be ‘unique’ in some form or fashion.

And, if you try hard enough, I imagine every business can be ‘unique’ at something. But I also imagine if you try hard enough you can learn to dance on the head of a pin.

==============

“There lurks, perhaps, in every human heart a desire of distinction, which inclines every man first to hope, and then to believe, that Nature has given him something peculiar to himself.”

Samuel Johnson

=============

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

Excellent idea. Dumbed it down for anyone and everyone to use. Unfortunately it has all gone wrong since then.

The concept was “unique proposition” not “unique” <all by itself>.  Their point was just that simple – proposing to people some kind of proposition that was meaningful and seemingly unique <at minimum creating a perception of uniqueness>.  Ah. Please note the nuance.

You need not actually be unique in actuality but rather you simply needed to be able to tell people you were unique in some form or fashion.  The concept implied how you told your proposition was as important as the product-service proposition itself. The brilliance in the concept is that it recognizes most products and services are not truly unique but that didn’t mean you could explain your product-service in a way that wasn’t unique <from a selling perspective>.

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

• a lack of desire to use someone else’s idea, even if it is a great idea, and
• the belief, the theory, we should be simplifying even the simplified <or even the most dumbed down> whereby we lose the nuance

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

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

The point?

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

I believe the problem is that somewhere along the way marketing, advertising, brand people forgot the nuanced selling proposition concept and simply focused on some <mostly> unattainable facet – unique. And therein lies the bigger problem. Identifying the false unique.

Because it is our inherent nature <at least in the business world> to find what you seek. If I am told I must find something unique than, dammit, I am sure gonna find something unique … even if I have to quasi make it up. However, fooling yourself does not mean fooling others <although it is a common trap> in fact consumers/buyers are rarely fooled … and if they are … just once.

Look.

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

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

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

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

And, yes, positioning <using words to create a perception of uniqueness> is valuable and an opportunity.

It is not ‘lying’ to the public to create sales. In fact … I would argue it is smart and a reflection of your only true competitive advantage — the ability to learn faster than your competition.

Why? Uniqueness is NEVER alone. Standing beside it … hugging it closely is someone called “Benefit.”

They are inextricably attached as companions for life. And as you learn more about what the buyer of your product really wants <that Benefit the person> your ‘uniqueness’ may actually change … radically or nominally … it doesn’t matter. It may change to meet the needs & wants of the buyer.

Let me close with this thought:

• being the best, or the only one to do something, is irrelevant if it has no value or benefit to others
• unique is rare and often fleeting

However.

• adaptable ‘best’ and adaptable ‘uniqueness’ is neither fleeting nor useless >the key to those is to be to be the only fastest learner in your category>.

Heck. If you do that you may actually not only have a unique selling proposition but a unique product/service to offer. It will certainly maintain some distinctness <if not relevance in the marketplace>.

Regardless. Whenever unique or original comes up I try and convince every business to stop talking about that and, if they were smart, they would be mart about focusing on themselves … who they were and who they wanted to be.

Tough to do because it doesn’t exactly match up with the standard “this is how you are supposed to do it” management guides.

Anyway.

Maybe this is the most important point.

There are a lot, a shitload, of crazy smart business people out there. But there are not a lot of crazy smart business people willing to do something crazy like ignore the business books “plan to success” blueprints.

Here is where I put my money.

The few and crazy.

Those crazy enough to not invest energy in ‘unique seeking’ or ‘false originality’ but rather let distinction and originality simply evolve from who they are, what they think and their vision of what they think they should be.

Those crazy enough to not obsessively pursue ‘out of the box’ recognizing that the true enemy of innovation is getting ‘stuck’ in the structure but not the structure <the box)> itself.

Those crazy enough to know that structure is what enables the kind of insightful innovation that is (a) disruptive of status quo & (b) insures some traction to leverage from & (c) IS your distinction if you arrange the shit in your box properly & color your box properly.

That may all sound crazy but in a world where the majority of businesses, and new ideas, fail maybe this isn’t a crazy a thought as it sounds. Be distinct. I promise you if you focus on being distinct simply by default you will be unique from 99% of everyone out there.

===============

“A single dream is more powerful than a thousand realities.”

——

J.R.R. Tolkien

=====================

Well.

This is part 2 of the outcome generation … and that means I plan on discussing what we have wrought by focusing so much on outcome in business. I would suggest there is actually a slightly unexpected outcome of having become an outcome focused generation.

What do I mean?

Surprise, surprise, surprise … the young people come in every day to work thinking it is all about outcome.

Results, baby, results.

Fun?

Say what!

Passion?

WTF.

Outcome?

You bet.

In fact … business says “give me results when you come in … or get out.”

Some research.

Just to make everyone feel better … there is a real reason young people do this <actually all of us have this mental feature>.

Now.

To be clear … this mental feature is no excuse … and outcome gets driven by an out of whack business barometer of what is important <kind of> … but there is a reason.

It is called ‘adaptive ignorance.’

This adaptive ignorance is there for a reason — we celebrate it as “concentration” and welcome its way of easing our cognitive overload by allowing us to conserve our precious mental resources only for the stimuli of immediate and vital importance, and to dismiss or entirely miss all else.

“Attention is an intentional, unapologetic discriminator. It asks what is relevant right now, and gears us up to notice only that.”

But while this might make us more efficient in our goal-oriented day-to-day, it also makes us inhabit a largely unlived — and unremembered — life, day in and day out.

This adaptive ignorance is a mental tool we adopt to concentrate, and avoid extraneous overload stimuli, so we can pay attention to … well … results.

Outcome.

This adaptive ignorance also suggests a generation more and more constrained by a couple of things:

–          Productivity/outcome <just getting shit done or out of the way or solved>

–          The ways we learn to see the world.

In addition … as we adapt our thinking to concentrate on what we believe is most important <at the exclusion of other things> we create something researchers call ‘search images.’ These are things all of us employ when we need to narrow our attention in a goal-oriented task. Unfortunately … this is only helpful or even possible if we know what to look for. In business this comes to life in bar graphs that get higher & higher as they move to the right or highlighted milestones written on big boards and crap like that. They narrow our attention <at the exclusion of other things>.

======================

“More is missed by not looking than not knowing.”

Thomas Mccrae

===============

Regardless.

This version of adaptive ignorance within the younger generation, this thing we older folk have created, has had an additional unexpected outcome. We seem to have a higher dissatisfaction, or even lack of respect, of the younger generation than even past generations have had.

In fact … I would argue this is so because we self absorbed older generation spend so much time thinking how worthless the younger generation is we don’t stop and think about why this may be so.

Well.

Think about this:

–          Why is it that so many of us older folk are stepping back and thinking about doing something that we call ‘matters’ now?

–          Why do we have bank accounts, houses, good educations, nice cars and cool clothes … and still seem to want more?

Well.

I call it the burden of the “empty outcome” syndrome. That is the disease of the older generation work force.

What do I mean?

We have spent years and years in business everyday cranking out results.

Numbers … numbers … numbers.

More … more … more.

If you didn’t?

You weren’t successful.

What did we teach our kids?

Results, results, results.

Win <at any cost>.

Get good grades <not what did you learn>.

They watched us come in and out of the house … working gobs of hours … noticing that we were not really sure we liked what we were doing but always seeking to accumulate results <things, outcomes, etc.>.

 ====================

“There are two ways to get enough. One is to continue to accumulate more and more. The other is to desire less.”

G.K. Chesterton

=====================

But.

Here is the deal. The real truth.

What I believe many of us older folk are just understanding … it really ain’t about outcome <as we have defined it to date>.

There is more to life than ‘outcome.’

And, well, we feel empty now that we know this after having worked for years and gobs of hours solely focused on outcome <hence the ‘empty outcome syndrome’>.

What is the empty part?

In 1949, Harry F Harlow, Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin, outlined something called “intrinsic motivation” … or the joy of the task itself. Research reflects that for most complex tasks intrinsic motivation is a much more powerful drive than any external motivator.

And a key part of this motivator is purpose.

Daniel Pink has stated … “The most highly motivated people, not to mention those who are most productive and satisfied, hitch their drives to a cause larger than themselves.”

Research bears this out. In other words, outcome … or even economic incentives alone … do not cause individuals to perform complex tasks better <but intrinsic motivation will>.

In the end.

While an older generation rue careers of outcome … staring in our business  mirrors seeing only careers of empty outcome … we are at the same time extremely uncomfortable with a younger generation who doesn’t think but rather is results-oriented <and, yes, they can be very different and siloed>.

We have wrought this.

We can undo this.

Now that is an outcome I can embrace.

Let’s destroy the obsessive focus on outcomes & create a business world focused on substantive intrinsic motivations.

Well.

I have written a number of things about consultants and offering solutions and process <whenever you say ‘process’  say it like you have taken 6 Quaaludes … reeeeaaaaalllllyyyyyy sssslllllloooooooowww>.

Solutions always sound slow.

But here’s the deal.

Success almost always resides in ‘Solution speed’.

What I mean by that is the idea of how quickly a good solution can be developed to a challenge/problem/challenge/situation.

Some boneheads call it retail marketing or retail speed but the reality is it is just coming up the right (or a very close to being right if not the rightest) solution fast.

Let’s call it solution speed <and it is underrated and often over complicated>.

The tricky part <before I dig myself into too deep a hole> to this concept is that it cannot be a fast shitty solution. It has to be a good/great/awesome/awesomer solution done with speed.

Why did I add that?

Well.

First.

Just because someone comes up with something fast doesn’t mean it’s good. Just as with anything … you need to assess it fairly <without assessing too slowly … think in a “festina lente” way>.

Second.

In the heads of young <or less experienced> people offering good solutions with speed is challenging <if not a truly rare ability>.

Good smart young people can certainly offer solution speed. It’s just that it’s not particularly the ‘rightest’ solution with the speed because they just don’t have the background knowledge to cluster enough of the right information to offer the best solution.

Anyway.

Solution speed is an equation: The right pieces of the puzzle + puzzle assembly speed = solution speed.

Because of that equation I know I have always hired people smarter than I.

Hey.

Teams need thinkers and doers to be successful but if your team can develop an awesome solution speedier than anyone else it gives your team (who had to be relatively smart in the first place to get that type of solution) some cushion time to figure out how to “do it” <assuming you don’t have a spectacular doer on hand which is always a bonus on a team>.

So.

While smart young people can’t necessarily offer the best speedy solution … smart young people do something really well.

They assemble relevant insightful facts fast.

In fact … they can be essential to the speed side of the equation.

Oh.

Because not all facts are created equal. Playing with fact puzzle pieces that you end up throwing away because they don’t fit slows you down (that means slower solution speed just in case you missed the topic of this post). Now. As noted earlier young people mostly don’t have enough experience (yet) to do two things:

• Know all the factoids necessary to find the solution, and

• Assimilate the factoids to build the solution puzzle.

On those two things that’s where the senior more experienced person comes in.

And this is where the best solution speed occurs.

That more experienced person <if they are worth half a shit> already has some puzzle pieces on hand <stored in their pea-like brain> for whatever challenge being addressed. All that senior person is really doing is seeking the additional pieces necessary to finish the puzzle. The faster they receive them (and recognize them) the faster the solution can be developed.

Sure.

This puts a lot of pressure on the senior more experienced person (within a solution speed construct … in a solution slow process they aren’t pressured that much).

But that’s why they should get paid the big bucks. For time is money <on all sides of the equation>.

This senior person is usually expensive hourly but less hours is less out of pocket.

The faster the solution arrives the sooner everyone else gets started <time efficiency on that side>.

All that said.

Far too often … solution speed is underrated.

Or maybe better said it’s misunderstood.

Most business people think if the solution appears too fast something has been overlooked or under-thought.And when I say ‘most’ I would feel comfortable suggesting maybe 90% of business people.

Now.

I am sure that is true some of the time.

But I am also sure that the 80/20 <if not a 90/10> rule applies most of the time.

You spend 20% of the time gaining 80% of the awesome solution and then the remaining 80% of the time developing the 10% that may make it awesome<and the other 10% you come up with isn’t worth crap>. I mention that because the other thing a business person worth half a shit knows is that 80% awesome is a “go.”

There you go.

Ponder the idea of solution speed. And don’t slow it down if you find it.

====

“I am not afraid of my truth anymore and I will not omit pieces of me to make you comfortable.”

—

Alex Elle

===

So.

Being yourself is a tricky topic. In business, Life & deciding what you want t do.

I know <I know>.

Seems like “being yourself” should be simple. Like … ‘breathing’ type simple.

But it’s not. It’s not because there is a constant struggle between an internal part <’who am I’ type shit> and external <figuring out how ‘who am I’ should actually act in public>.

For example … one of my favorite young writers, Jamie, describes herself this way:

================

I’m a writer, pretty much by process of elimination. I am also a professional aspirationalist.

That’s not a word, but I’ve made it into one, since there was nothing that could quite describe me because I didn’t want to say I’m a “professional dreamer” because that sounds like some hippie shit.

I have aspirations, like, lots of them. If you’d like me to create a TV show, get in touch with me. How about publishing my memoir? Get in touch. If you are from The Ellen Show, I will, of course, accept your interview and would be delighted to dance it out with my girl, so long as she doesn’t prank me by making me eat cilantro. In fact, I want no cilantro in anything.

<Jamie Varon>

================

Professional aspirationalist … not ‘professional dreamer’ nor ‘professional pragmatist.’

Ok.

Professional aspirationalist is just awesome.

If I could ever vote for a new term that would be it. It’s fucking awesome. It captures the essence of restlessness & hope & striving & unlearning & … well … all the things I believe are good and healthy with a person seeking to be better tomorrow than they are today.

What I truly love about it is that she came up with a term to capture her “self.” I love it because being yourself … and even recognizing who ‘yourself’ is … is hard. And when I say hard … think even harder than maybe becoming a Navy Seal type hard.

……….. self …….. an entanglement of nuances ………….

It is incredibly hard because the truth is that ‘my truth’ , more often than not, is most likely an evolving tangled web of characteristics which, as it evolves, simply becomes more tangled <rather than untangled>.