Enlightened Conflict

Tag Archives: unfocused leaders

instinct

April 6th, 2013

 

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

 

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

Ok.

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

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

The point?

Knowledge and experience can only take you so far.

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

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

Ah.

Special character.

Instinct is one of those things people hate.

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

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

That means …

Collaboration? Well. Nope.

Consensus? Geez. Nope.

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

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

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

It is … well … just what it is.

Sure.

It can be cultivated.

And it can even be honed.

But I do not believe it can be taught.

Well. Let me take that back and try this.

Good instincts cannot be taught.

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

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

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

 

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

 

That said.

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

And while frustrating … it also feels right.

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

That is instinct.

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

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

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

They have a humble confidence … and sometimes are even slightly insecure <I imagine because their strength is in the intangible>.

 

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

 

And they are rarely emotional in decision making.

instinct good or badNow.

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

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

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

That is misery.

Regardless.

Instinct is a natural aptitude.

Kind of like a knack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

answering the help wanted ads for data decipherer

March 12th, 2013

Help Wanted!- Data, data everywhere—and not enough people to decipher it – WSJ headline 3/11data decipherers

 

51% of surveyed IT professionals currently involved in big-data projects cited ‘lack of expertise to connect the dots’ as a reason projects fail in their organization. No other factor was more commonly cited. – infochimps, inc.

 

Well.

This post is either going to show I am incredibly naïve or incredibly smart or incredibly stupid <and clueless>.

Look.

Everyone in business is drowning in data these days.

But here is a newsflash … we were always drowning in data … albeit different data … but I am willing to bet a shitload of money that anyone with any business experience will agree that we had so much data crossing our desks <in the good ole days> that you could build your own great pyramid of paper if you so desired.

As I scratch my head over the flurry of farcical diatribes around “big data” I can’t help but be reminded of the poem “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”:

 

“water, water everywhere, nary a drop to drink.”

<Bruce translation: despite the depths and vast expanse of the ocean it can’t begin to quench our thirst>

 

We might say the same thing about how technology has enhanced the volume of data these days.

The volume of data is almost unfathomably vast.

And because of that we see thousands of articles on how to sift through the data for business advantages.

Well.

This is crazy talk. Mostly because it seems like everyone is mesmerized by the quantity of data available.

Anyone with any business chops will quickly point out that anyone, throughout the history of business, has always had a quantity of data available.

And we almost always had too much quantity <more than they could ever use>.

The access to quantity has never been an issue.

Now.

data analysis statslogocroppedThey will also point out that part of knowing your business shit is setting up efficient/effective data gathering … so you capture the most important <and not invest gobs of energy on stuff you will never use, cannot use, do not really want to use or is just plain useless> data.

Now.

They will also point that data analysis has three components:

-          Assessing the data available <with gobs available which gobs are most meaningful>

-          Setting up a system to use the useful data <consistently trapping & tracking the useful stuff consistently saves time and effort>

-          Analyzing the data <connecting the dots … instead of just showing numbers>

Now.

They will also point out that the third step in the process is often best done by someone who has no clue how the data is gathered … or even needs to know exactly what data was not gathered <although they may at some point suggest gathering something that someone up the ladder had decided was unimportant> … but they know how to connect dots.

Now.

I will now point out we in business have been doing this for years.

Sure. More and different data may be available today but the schematic looks the same.

 

Business management has always faced an obstacle when it comes to reaping the benefits of big data because they always need someone who can tell them what it all means.

But it seems that because there are so many new ways to gather and track data there is a heightened awareness, and desire, to actually use all this data stuff … with the same good intentions that business had in the past … gain a competitive edge … or at least to keep up with the competition.

Oh.

And here is what any business person with chops will also tell you … relying on data alone isn’t enough. This is a game of both head and gut.data connecting-dots-stevejobs

When you rely too heavily on data, you can become too reactive, too myopic in your thinking and miss out on what the numbers can never tell you … the why’s and the what’s and the <inconceivable to number crunchers> impractical inconsistent sometimes illogical human mind & behavior. Data cannot tell you what to do.

<Big> data can lead to small sharp insights and beget great decisions and action.

But.

Here is a business truth <that most executives do not want to hear these days> … data, of any size <double venti, regular venti, grande, etc.> has no value in and of itself.

The true value of data is found in context.

Look.

You absolutely need a team with technical people to gather & mine the data … but they need to be working together with an experienced analytical person who knows how to ‘connect dots.’ This type of person knows how to observe information, interpret information and place it in context with non-number/data stuff and explain it.

And, no, that person may not be a data gwonk.

They are just good at connecting dots.

And they are good at not being blinded by the newest  & nearest data point.

 

“Gut feel is great for everyday problems. But, it often leads us astray when we’re presented with complex streams of information. We can be blinded by the newest and nearest data point and miss the big picture.” – Nate Silver statistician & author

 

I don’t agree with Nate … well … he did caveat it with “can” and “often” … so maybe I will give him a break.

Gut feel … intuition … ability to “feel” the numbers in context … is essential in order to use the data.

I do believe in what IBM calls “augmenting intuition.” And that means … well … what it says. Augment … ‘in addition to’ … add in as part of your decision criteria.

No amount of numbers <and data of any kind> can eliminate all decision risk. Nor can any amount of numbers <and data of any kind> insure you make the best decision.

Here is my last “Truth” of this post … data & analytics can make you equally smart & stupid.

People make smart decisions using data all the time.

People make stupid decisions using data all the time.

The only thing consistent is people.

And here is where the article kind of truly went a little nutso.

data connectdotsIncreasing training & skill set on ‘connecting dots’ <I assume this is “analyzing the data” in academia> to increase the amount of decipherers available to businesses.

This is where it all falls apart for me.

Because doing what they suggest basically means that data drives good decisions. Data all by itself. No intuition … no feel … no gut from experience … that maybe data can make a decision for you … and they are wrong.

I become scared because I almost feel like this is a deeper dive into that business hellhole I call “responsibility free decision making” with the intent to do the “safest behavior to increase return <or increase advantage>”.

This is using data to make all the decisions <and they even use it to hire a person which is also kind of nuts>.

This is dancing on the head of a pin business management.

And it doesn’t teach people how to think.

It doesn’t utilize skills of existing people <who aren’t steeped in ‘Big Data” but are also not intimidated nor blinded by the newest & nearest data point> who are very good at connecting dots.

And, worse, it guarantees a next business generation of “big Data decipherers” … or people who use data decision making skills and have honed no intuition skills at all.

Am I suggesting “gut management” alone? Of course not. I never have. I never will.

In the 80’s we scoured computer printouts with ‘crosstabs’ and supermarket SAMI and Nielsen reports which contained reams of data point we had to make sense of.

In the 2000’s we are scouring computer printouts <assuming you print out> which contain reams of data points we have to make sense of. And you did it then, as it should be done now, as part of a team to insure you didn’t get dazzled by some shiny data point.

This stuff drives me a little nuts because we all think the newest and nearest data point <oops … innovation> means that the world has turned on its head.

It hasn’t.

Some skills are just … well … good business skills. Adaptable to pretty much any new widget or innovation that mankind can create.

I know how to connect dots. I have no clue how to build systems to gather these dots. And you know what? I am not sure I have ever known.

And I am not unique. There are hundreds if not thousands of Me’s out there.

The skill?
Making Big Data nice small simple learnings/conclusions. Ok. Making any data available into nice small simple learnings.

2013. 1913. 1813.

The skill has always been relevant … and thinking that ‘data decipherer’ is some new skill is crazy.

temporary advantage

January 9th, 2013

“Every advantage is temporary.” ― Katerina Stoykova Klemer

And.

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

So.

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

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

Businesses are always seeking an advantage.

And they should.

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

And ultimately that becomes their downfall.

Couple of thoughts.

First thought.

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

In fact gobs of money is spent against this objective.

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

Now.  Let me tell you a business truth.

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

Here is the other business truth.

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

Frankly? It is all wasted energy <mostly>.

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

Sound crazy? Maybe.

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

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

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

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

Next.

Second thought.

Sustainable advantage.

Sustainable advantage is really rare.

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

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

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

Damn. Wrong window at the wrong time.

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

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

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

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

Life.

Yup. I will discuss Life and temporary advantages.

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

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

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

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

Therefore thank god for kids (youth in general).

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

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

Just be competitive.

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

Two things about that ‘glimmer of the advantage.’

First.

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

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

Second.

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

No glimmer? No hope?  That worries me.

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

I am fairly sure I couldn’t.

I struggle to see how anyone could.

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s it.

That’s my point.

those darn Mayans

December 6th, 2012

Well.

Given the absurd discussion going on about the Mayan calendar predicting the end of the world I thought I would use it as an excuse to share some business thoughts.

Oh.

Some background <on the whole Mayan, end of the world, 5000 year calendar, etc.>

If you have not been paying attention … just turn to DoomPreppers on some random cable tv station and watch the doomsayers on that show ‘doom-prep’ for December 21, 2012.

And several films and documentaries have promoted this idea that the ancient Mayan calendar predicts that doomsday is on December 21, 2012. I know. It is kind of crazy.

But even better?

The Guatemalan Culture Ministry is hosting an event in Guatemala City — which as many as 90,000 people are expected to attend — just in case the world actually does end and tour groups are promoting doomsday-themed getaways <huh? … so are there refunds if the world does not actually end?>.

Oh.

Just in case you have nothing to do then <and cannot get to Guatemala> there are also a couple of college football bowl games on those days … one which is really crappy so maybe the world will end and we will not have to watch the end of the “Beef O’Brady’s Bowl” <Ball State and Central Florida>.

Anyway.

All this crap about the 21st. It happens to be the last day on a 5000 year Mayan calendar …. and therefore many say the Mayans predicted the world would end on that date <of course we cannot go back and ask any of them to be sure>.

<note: many others would say something crazy like “they created a 5000 year calendar and this just may be the last day they actually invested energy trying to plan for.”>

But.

Here is the truly crazy thing <the business thoughts are about to be shared>.

In a business world where we struggle to make 5 year plans, let alone stick to our daily plan, we are giving the Mayans shit for only developing a 5,000 year plan.

Geez.

We should be standing up and applauding these guys for thinking that far ahead. Instead we panic over why don’t they have a longer plan? Why is their plan incomplete? Couldn’t they foresee the problems this would create ?!? <5000 years later> Why haven’t they updated their plan? Why doesn’t someone else update the plan? Did they actually think through their plan and maybe they made a rounding error?

Holy cow.

Trust me.

If they were still around they would have updated the stupid calendar.

Me? I think the guys who developed the longer term calendar were allowed a cacao break and began partying like it was 2012 and never got back to work.

Regardless.

The Mayan calendar reminds me of two business things:

-          Long term plans

-          False deadlines

Long term plans.

Business today has a love/hate relationship with long term plans. We love the idea of having a path to follow and steps to take and a horizon to gaze at <albeit most of that horizon gazing is actually a bunch of people meeting quarterly debating whether the cloud are nimbus or cumulus and what that means to the long term plan>. We hate not thinking short term. We want to be able to adapt and the ‘long term plan’ is like wearing shackles on an inmate who sees an opportunity to run free.

Suffice it to say, in my opinion, don’t waste the energy … on the long term plan nor loving or hating them.

Shit. We are bitching about a 5000 year calendar and what it means now that it is on its last date. That is our current business culture. No one is sitting back going “man … that was an awesome 5000 year run.”  Instead everyone is saying “why didn’t they make it a 5500 year calendar?!?”

In business .. long term plans are shit.

Now.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have a vision. And a thought of where you want to go … and maybe some guardrails to be sure you don’t go all willy-nilly <that is a technical term for sheer chaos> … but investing a lot of energy, like the amount of energy it would take to develop a 5000 year plan, is nuts. While you are doing all that planning someone else is doing.

Oh.

And I hate to break the news to you … by the time you have finished your detailed long term plan it has become obsolete <at least one aspect of it> as soon as it is done. It begins to die a death of a thousand cuts/exceptions … but it is a good death. It is a healthy death … called “smart adapting.”

We should dream of developing a successful 5000 year plan of action. But the reality in today’s business world is we struggle to develop a 5 day plan of action without wanting to change it.

Today’s business world would have driven the Mayans crazy.

False deadlines.

The 5000 year mark is not a deadline for the world … it was simply the ending of a time cycle in Mayan thinking. Today’s business seems to confuse cycles and deadlines all the time.

A cycle is a continuous flow of shit getting done where an end is a beginning and the beginnings mark an ending. By the way … that is called <in a high falutin’ business consultant thinking> “an effective business process.”

A deadline is … well … when something is done. Finished. No more. Put the file in the filing cabinet.

Here is the problem.

Business leaders like to see ‘completed checks’ next to long lists of things to show that shit is getting done. Therefore it creates a culture of false deadlines.

Huh? Yup. In order to show progress I need to show completion. Say what? Isn’t progress moving forward and not stopping? Silly me.

Companies are strewn with false deadlines. And here is the even crazier thing … employees and middle management isn’t stupid. In fact most are pretty smart. They know they are false deadlines but if they don’t show them <and meet them somehow> they become ‘ex-employees.”

Crazy.

The Mayans didn’t really believe in deadlines … they kind of treated each day as a unique entity. In my eyes? The Mayans would have had the fashizzle of a company.

Ok.

Let me close with some shit about the Mayan calendar and how present day Mayans think it is a bunch of bullhockey <my term not theirs>.

Okay.

Here is the even stupider aspect of this doomsday discussion.

Apparently <as we freak out> … we don’t even show the right frickin’ calendar!

Yup. Most stories regularly detail the Maya calendars although displaying the Aztec Stone of the Sun.

And the real present-day Mayans are pissed <because most are young and do not want to die yet … but they also aren’t Aztec so you gotta understand>>.

Looking at the reality of ancient Mesoamerica I guess it could become easy to be confused by two distinct cultures that lived 500 years apart <but … we ARE talking about the end of the world … so little details become big important things … don’t you think?>.

“There’s a lot of conflation between these two cultures. It would almost be like comparing England at the time of the War of the Roses to the Romans or the Romans to the Greeks in the age of Pericles. They are vastly different periods, separated by considerable distances. The societies had many shared features but they were organized in very different ways.” – Stephen Houston (a “Mayanist” – I did not make that up – at Brown University>

In addition … Guatemala’s Mayan people accused the government and tour groups of perpetuating the myth that their calendar foresees the imminent end of the world for monetary gain.

“We are speaking out against deceit, lies and twisting of the truth, and turning us into folklore-for-profit. They are not telling the truth about time cycles,” charged Felipe Gomez, leader of the Maya alliance Oxlaljuj Ajpop.

Maya leader Gomez urged the Tourism Institute to rethink the doomsday celebration, which he criticized as a “show” that was disrespectful to Mayan culture.

Here is some fact to insure you don’t plan for the end of the world <at least for now>.

Experts say that for the Maya, all that ends in 2012 is one of their calendar cycles, not the world.

The Classic Maya had almost no tradition of cataclysmic endings. For them, 2012 is just a year when several of their calendars reset, like 2000 for modern calendars. Taube, who is helping interpret the paintings around Xultun, says the 2012 hysteria totally misses the point. It’s not that Maya were tracking the apocalypse but that they saw significance in every new day. With multiple calendars, ancient Mesoamericans had a different combination of dates for every day, each combination having a special significance. Almost as if every day was a holiday.

Lastly <about their calendar>:

“It’s a much more lush view of time … every day is going to have multiple, multiple inputs. It’s going to have multiple shadings of possible meaning. In a way, it’s a richly rewarding way to go through time. You are not just ticking off a day in your calendar. Each day is just percolating with all of these different meanings and recollections and hopes.”

Well.

There would be an interesting business management thought. I cannot see any cautious business leader ever accepting it … but, wow, what a company that would be <I would love to work there>.

Regardless. How ‘bout them Maya business leaders. Great thought.

rangers and business

November 19th, 2012

So.

I almost called this “when someone that’s in the right” as I thought about what the Texas Rangers <not the baseball team> could teach us about business.

“No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that’s in the right and keeps on a’comin’.” – Captain Bill McDonald Texas Ranger in the 1800’s

Some initial thoughts for business people:

-          More people should keep coming when they are in the right … and not give in.

-          More people should keep coming when they are in the right.

-          Being in the right, and being sure you are right, is difficult … in fact it may be easier to know what is wrong.

-          Right is often just a belief, not facts or statistics, and sometimes that is all you have.

Regardless of what I write from here on out … it will all be balanced by this fact.

Being in the right is about making choices.

It is not about being smarter … or knowing more than some else … or more sure … or a litany of other semi-arrogant aspects.

Sure. Of course you have to believe yourself, and in yourself … particularly when other people tell you your right is … well … wrong … but the foundation of ‘being in the right’ is, and will always be,  you knowing in your heart <stomach, soul> what makes you … well … you . Your gestalt … what makes you the way you are in business <which I hope is an extension of your everyday life but this is about business>.

But … it is about making a choice.

When you believe you are in the right … it is in those times you have a choice to make. You can choose to believe what ‘they’ say or you can choose to disagree and stick to your guns.

But, remember, you always have a choice.

Ok.

-          Being right and keep on coming.

I happen to agree with Captain McDonald. No business person in the wrong can stand up against someone in the right … who doesn’t quit. I know that sounds naïve in today’s’ world of consensus and compromise and conservative decision making … but I truly believe this.

But it is hard. Really really difficult. Wrong wins a lot in business these days. Wrong is relentless, and sneaky and smart.

And that is why, similar to the size of the Texas Rangers, this is a relatively small band of people who are willing to go out into the business desert, all by themselves, just with their guns to fight the enemy. It takes a special person. It takes a resilient person. And it takes more than a couple holsters of character. I imagine I believe there are more of them out there than those who actually signed up … it is just that they are not encouraged to sign up <because today’s business environment doesn’t often seem to encourage the right to keep on a’comin’>.

Regardless.

All I really care about is that business today needs people who won’t even think of giving up. The benefits of those who are in the right and keep coming are evident so I won’t list them. However … I do recognize that this type of character and personality <to keep ‘a comin’> can pose some problems. In a work environment/organization the potential problems are rampant.

Ok. Here is where being the right people separate themselves into ‘non problem versus ‘problem’ employees. First, of course, this person gets intrinsic points in business for their high degree of certainty about what they believe <the more strongly you know you’re right … the more certain it is you are right in others eyes>.

However …  being sure you’re right and being right are two different things.

And confusing these two is bad.

What I mean by this is that intensity of belief isn’t the same thing as Truth. In fact, intensity of belief doesn’t end up implying anything but exactly that … a belief. Yup. If you believe something strongly, all it means is that you believe that something strongly … not that it is true. Nor can you assume that intensity of belief intrinsically translates into that others will believe it strongly too.

The error of thinking that intensity of belief means anything at all outside of itself isn’t something we should be encouraging. This error causes major cracks in teamwork and organizational efficiency.

All that matters is the intensity of the truth, i.e., what is the right thing to do <the action>.

Anyway … being in the right takes a strong person … think about this example of one of those in the right keep who kept ‘a comin’ and assumed the risk.

Southwest Airlines co-founder Herb Kelleher was willing to risk his career for four years (and his own money) while he fought in the courtrooms to get Southwest Airlines on the ground. Though airlines and Dallas based airlines fought Southwest in the courtrooms Kelleher was willing to risk everything to “fight the good fight.” Why? Because he believed so strongly in the vision, what he felt was right, that nothing else mattered.

‘Nothing else mattered.’

Strong thought.

Hey. This topic ain’t easy.

And with all that I just said … let’s go to …

-          Sometimes compromising is the worst thing you can do.

Notice I began with ‘sometimes’ but let me begin with ‘the worst thing you can do.’

Yeah. I just finished writing about the dangers of sticking to your guns … but now I will shift to compromising.

Compromise is always a dangerous game. Especially if you are compromising ‘in the right’ and ‘in the wrong’ things. there is no balamce in that equation. In the world of weights & measures something odd actually happens to ‘right’ … wrong things actually weigh more, have significantly more mass … so if you try and compromise and balance the ‘right’ side of the scale is always lower <that is bad>. And, yet, despite the weight & the mass … when you actually do the right thing is has a larger impact.

Yup. I guarantee it.

Being the right is weightless but a heavy burden to carry. Being in the right has no significant size yet makes a large imprint. Being in the right is a funny thing that way.

It is easily destroyed by compromise because of its smallness in its ego and image.

Well. I will go back to the Texas Rangers to help me out on this one … with minimal support and no communication from higher authority, they lived and often died by the motto, ‘Order first, then law will follow.”

They had no compromise in their actions. Keep order based on what is right. The law will follow the right actions.

Which leads me to ‘defining the law’ of what is right.

-          Being sure what is right.

Oddly I will begin the topic of being sure you are in the right with … well … adaptability … and not uncompromising consistency.

I find the people most often really, and truly, in the right are the people who are constantly revising their knowledge and understanding of situations … and reconsidering a problem they ,and everyone else> thought had already been solved. They seem to always be open to new points of view and new information and new ideas and accepting seeming contradictions … they are always challenging their own way of thinking.

This doesn’t mean these people do not have a well formed point of view.

But I do tend to find that they sometimes consider their point of view as temporary.

The corollary? The people who are most often ‘in the wrong’ are obsessed with data/knowledge that only supports one point of view.

This adaptability typically translates into an ability to determine what just doesn’t matter.

Because they realize that is where “right’ can be waylaid most often.

Most time is spent wasting time on things that just don’t matter. If you can cut out the work and thinking that just doesn’t matter … being in the right means being focused on what really matters …. And in business that typically translates into a level of peak productivity.

In the end … being in the right depends on each situation and needs some adaptability to stay the course. Sure. There is overriding ‘law’ … but order is defined by the situation <and sometimes solely defined by ‘the wrong’>. Yup. In fact sometimes the “Law” is most easily identified by knowing what is wrong … and putting wrong to order <and Law will follow>. Those in the right seem most often to attack wrong rather than make it right.

And that leads me to the last topic on this … the one that makes the Texas Rangers in business so special.

-          Being ‘in the right’ sometimes intangible.

Now. Let’s be clear.

Feeling right about something doesn’t make it … well … right. But sometimes that is as close as “right” becomes.

And that is tough in today’s business environment where people want ‘proof’ as a way to absolve themselves of responsibility <that is the cynical aspect> or need some comfort in statistics/data in order to quantify their decision <this recognizes a pragmatic aspect>.

Order can be kept in a variety of ways and stay within the law. The adaptability of actions, in a world where everyone wants best practices or ‘solid every day process’, is a talent beset with challenges within the office. It is an intangible belief, and understanding, in what to do … which makes it sometimes very difficult to explain.

And I ended on this thought because it circles back to the original quote … ‘keep a’ comin’. Being in the right means you have no quit, not an ounce of it, in you. if you are in the right you just gotta keep on keepin’ on.

More businesses need people like this.

Those who are good at being right about the right things to do … and the character to stick it out and keep coming.

Okay.

My last thought for business people.

“The rangers are what they are because their enemies have been what they were. The rangers had t be superior to survive. Their enemies were pretty good … so they had to be better.” -  walter webb

I refuse to quote ‘good to great’ but I will say two things …

-          Good enough is the enemy of great good

-          Those who are ‘in the right’ are typically really really good because their enemies, those in the wrong, are pretty good at doing what they do best <be in the wrong>.

logan’s answering machine

November 11th, 2012

“a long time ago, we used to be friends . . .” – Dandy Warhols <Veronica Mars theme song>

Ok … while this is about Logan’s cell answering messages <and teen Life lessons> … Logan was a great character in Veronica Mars. And Veronica Mars was a great show. I am relatively sure Kristen Bell <who was Veronica Mars> is a good actress … but her Veronica character was the PERFECT role for her. Really smart, in-your-face quick witted soundbite driven communicator, strong but sensitive … all the while balancing being a teen, a girl and a sense of maturity.

And while the show’s various mysteries and crimes were fairly well plotted <some stories were a little far out there> it was some great quick dialogue writing and some unbelievable soundbite moments that makes the show really work. For me? I struggle to remember long monologues <except maybe West Wing> but I constantly remember the short back & forth smart dialogue.

Anyway.

Veronica was not the only great character … there was Logan. A counterpart in quips.

High school Vice Principal: Mr. Echolls, may I have a word?

Logan: Anthropomorphic. It’s all yours, big guy.

The show was filled with little moments like this.

But.

Logan’s cell phone answering message. One of the really fun aspects of the show was how this  tortured rich kid <Logan Echolls> used different quotations in a tongue in cheek way on his cell’s answering machine that he likes to call “inspirational messages.” They were delightful in that they were delivered in a slightly sarcastic tone but also as true insight into how he felt <or what he … or any typical teen … was dealing with>. You were never really sure he was pulling your leg or trying to share a helpful thought. The writers treated it as an intermittent  running gag. It was awesome … funny … a little wacky … and always relevant to the situation. It was real wisdom but dropped into the real life situations Logan seemed to constantly find himself in. And, frankly, as good TV shows do … they parallel our own Life situations on occasion.

Here are a few <and remember that he is quoting as a high school junior or senior guy>:

“The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.” -Eleanor Roosevelt

-          Teens are in an odd, uncomfortable position in that almost their entire life is ahead of them … all their dreams remain on the horizon … and yet they are crossing into adulthood where reality has a nasty habit of forcing you to better assess your dreams maybe before you would like to. High school is a great place for dream building. And at exactly the same time … Life, in general, is a tough place for those who have dreams. This is where I really feel like teachers are in a very tough position in today’s society. Their real job is almost equally balanced between pragmatic teaching and hope building. They balance the possible and the impossible in almost every kid’s head. And, yet, parents are constantly pounding them on “why are you filling my kid’s head with all that nonsense … he doesn’t need to be dreaming … he needs to be thinking about doing.”  Teachers are getting squeezed. And teens are getting confused.

Look. High school kids clearly understand reality. They know they will need a job. They know they need to be ‘good at something.’ And they know they need to do some  things to insure they are prepared. We adults are smoking the wacky weed, or taking too many of those  calming pills, if we do not believe that. We also are foolish if we do not understand that any Life transition moment <any … even as an adult> is challenging … and a little scary … as you leap from one spot to another. It drives me crazy that adults forget that shit.

Anyway. What makes Logan and Veronica Mars kind of special is that Logan knows all of this … and is going into adulthood kicking & screaming … while Veronica <who he loves> cannot wait to be an adult. The lesson to us adults? They both have dreams. And Veronica is no more valuable, better or exemplary than Logan because of this. People find their own timing with regard to knowing what they are going to do in Life.

“Adversity is the diamond dust with which heaven polishes its jewels.” -Thomas Carlyle

-          We adults have a habit of scoffing <I just wanted to type that word> at what teens believe is ‘adversity’ in their lives and say things like “wait until you get into the real world” or “wait until you have the responsibilities of a family.” We are silly to do so. Adversity is relative. And, to a teen, adversity is often uncomfortably out of their control <because it more often at the mercy of their parents’ lives>.

So while there are some things they can control … there is a lot that is out of their control.  And that is a maddening type of adversity. I surely don’t like it as an adult … and as a teen, when you still have all your dreams in front of you, it is also a little scary <and a LOT aggravating>.  You know … the truth is that the significant majority of the time teens are doing the best that they can. Life and adversity is grinding away at them and they all pretty much believe <at that time in their life> that there really is a diamond somewhere inside them.

I wish more adults would remember that more often <and I wish more adults told teens there is a diamond in there>.

“To love and win is the best thing. To love and lose: the next best.” -William Thackeray

-          Of course, as a teen, this is said sarcastically. Oh, and painfully at exactly the same time. Your first love is always that … the first. Trying to convince yourself that ‘losing a love is the next best’ is a losing battle. Almost everyone learns the truth of this quote at some point in their lives … but … the first is always the first.

This is one of those thoughts that sounds awesome theoretically but is a painful reflection of Life trial & error. I think this thought is even more powerful because it is being said by a teen guy … okay … a tough guy teen. Being a teen boy is a tricky balance. Lots of balancing in fact. As you wander from boy to young man there are some toughness, ‘manly man’ expectations involved … and emotions are an interior thing at a time where much of high school life is an exterior thing. The brilliance of Veronica Mars?  Logan gets to maintain his exterior tough guy and decided to share the interior emotion via this faceless piece of third party technology … the cell phone answering machine.

We should remember that even the toughest appearing kids need some outlet for their interior thoughts. We can either give it to them … or they will find it for themselves.

“Life’s tragedy is that we get old too soon and wise too late.” -Ben Franklin

-          When I heard Logan say this I almost laughed out loud. Teens collect experience moments at an amazing pace. And it is still not fast enough. While we old folk always joke that ‘kids always think they know everything’ … we are wrong. Very very wrong. They don’t. And they certainly don’t think that.

They are just doing the best they can with what they have. Sure. They may bluff through some moments <which is mostly a “I don’t want to look stupid” action rather than a real belief they know everything>. Sure. They wished they knew more and had more experience and were ‘wiser’ … but I don’t know one teen who didn’t wish he/she had some more knowledge. That doesn’t mean they believe all older folk know more than they do <would you as you look around at how some of us old folk actually act?> but they certainly recognize that they have a shitload more to learn. And they certainly wish they knew what they really needed to know to deal with some of the crap they have to deal with. We old folk need to remember that Life’s trial & error gauntlet, particularly at that age, ain’t fun.

Anyway.

And the last dose of wisdom, inspiration thought for the day, Logan will share with you today:

“If you dig deep enough, you’re going to find that everyone’s a sinner.” – Logan Echolls

This is a pretty thoughtful thought. Sin covers a lot … envy, greed, lust, etc.

and the real thought behind this is the true fact … no one is innocent … the only question is … how will you bear the guilt? Yeah. This thought is not really about ‘sinning’ or being a sinner but rather acceptance.

We all have flaws. We all make mistakes. We all have done some thing we are not proud of. The real question alll of us face is not whether we have sinned in some way or not but rather how we accept that which was done. In the show Logan was extremely flawed <as kids trying to figure things out typically are> but at his core he was a good ‘man in the making’ …

If you dig deep enough inside, you will find everyone is basically the same … we all have hopes & dreams & good intentions … and insecurities intertwined throughout. And we all work our way though our high school years hacking our way through all of them. And we do <and think> some stupid things at that time in our lives. Heck. Life bombards you with so many different challenges from so many different directions all at a time when you are trying to define your own character and establish whatever version of self esteem you will carry with you moving forward … it would be exceptional if you made no mistakes.  If you dig deep enough into your memory banks for that time in life … we all have sinned in some way.

Give kids a break. Of all the times in a Life I cannot think of another when insecurities are as tangled up with good intentions … and ‘sin’ behavior. And we should give them a break because of what I typed earlier … ‘how will you bear the guilt.’ As a teen shapes themselves into young adults I tend to believe we would like them to use as little guilt as possible as they shape themselves for the future.

Anyway.

Veronica Mars is a smart show. And Logan is an added bonus. Maybe just as sharp as Veronica with a similar slightly cynical view of life. The combination of the two makes for an introspective look at the teen/young adult mind <in a pretty entertaining show>.

And the inspirational messages are a nice <sarcastic> reminder of the stuff teens deal with.

what American business leaders should learn from election

November 7th, 2012

With political correctness in mind I will open this post with the fact I am an old white guy.

So.

What should business leaders learn from the election?

-          Old white guys are becoming less relevant.

In some places exit polls showed that almost 65% of older white people did not vote for the president … and yet he won the majority of the vote in those places.

Whoops. I thought old white guys drove the decisions in America.

Canvas the top leadership of American businesses and you will see gobs of old white guys sitting around their old white guy crystal ball pontificating and discussing how to make more money.

And they do not represent who they will make their money from.

That should be a very scary thought for old white guy leaders <assuming they even look beyond the financial statements and stock prices>.

The business world has not become globally flat … it has just become multicultural and gender equal. We old white guys may not like it but we sure as hell better learn to accept it.

Here is the really <really> hard part.

What we say versus what we actually think … and think subconsciously … and how it affects what we actually do.

I will bet you as much money as you want to bet that if  we sat down with all the old white guy leaders they will say all the right things and will appear open to inclusiveness … and they will, for the most part, not be truthful <and not even recognize it>.

A personal example.

I like to believe I am inclusive and fairly liberal when it comes to this topic. And then I took part in a diversity program as part of a management leadership team and I almost cried at my naiveté. I didn’t know what I didn’t know. I couldn’t. No matter how hard I tried to think like a woman or an African American or a Latino … I didn’t have the cultural aspects embedded from childhood & heritage. I always did, and always will, have a white guy perspective. Did I make what would be considered ‘massive inappropriate decisions’? Nope. But, frankly, the nuanced errors in thinking seemed more painful to me.

My point? Old white guys are old white guys. They know what they know … and don’t know what they don’t know. They may try. And they may try with the best intentions relentlessly. But in the end? They are old white guys making decisions impacting a whole bunch of non old white guys.

-          Inclusion versus outreach.

As a generalization … old white guy leaders don’t understand how to be relevant. Sure. They try … and may even have good intentions.

However, they typically think in terms of outreach rather than inclusion. Huh?

Five old white guys start reaching out to women, African American, Latino, Asian, etc. and invite them to be included in the thinking. They do research which reaches out to ‘better understand the shifting dynamics of the user population.’ And then the five old white guys interpret the data/information/input from invited participants … and make all-encompassing decisions. Outreach participants inform decisions but really do not make the decisions.

Inclusion means they don’t have to reach out and invite … someone is part of the leadership team … with an equal voice is already at the table.

Oops. That must mean … yup … there are only 4 or, gasp, 3 old white guys at the leadership table.

Let me add to this thought.

This is not about adding someone to the leadership team and then have them go out and tell “their people” why the decisions the leadership team are right for them. This is about adding someone to the team so ‘their people’ have a voice and it actually informs the decision and is part of the decision.

Okay.

-          Money. And how it is spent.

Never has $6 billion dollars been spent with so little impact made. Think about it. $6 billion advertising dollars were spent … maybe $700 million in the ‘battleground states’ alone … and the status quo was attained.

God it pained me to share those huge numbers. Just painful.

First <and I have stated this before> … who is fired? If that is my business, my CMO is toast. Heck. I would fire myself if I was the CMO.

Second. So what won the election? Grassroots. On the ground real people with a passion and belief communicating to others.

I am not suggesting television advertising is useless. It has a role. But if you want to protect your market share … and you want people to “get out and buy” once in a while nothing beats a solid grassroots infrastructure.

Let me be clear <because someone is going to abuse that thought>.

You cannot activate a grassroots infrastructure the way it was done for this election 24/7-365 days of the year (even in a leap year). Think about building it, keeping it passionate and motivated and informed 365 days of the year … and then only activating it when <a> it is important to do so or <b> on a planned, maybe twice a year, basis.

Look. I am television advertising advocate <as well as an old white guy> because there is no other way you can reach so many people so quickly with a visual/entertaining/educating message.

None <there is no debate on this from a numbers standpoint>.

But business people abuse even that information because they use that as an excuse to not make the big investment necessary to build the grassroots and maintain it.

And, yes, it is a huge investment to build a grassroots infrastructure.

And, yes, it is one of those huge investment decisions that old white guys mumble about in big high falutin’ meetings and bring in squads of young people talking enthusiastically about grassroots … and then they table it for another day <sadly … and embarrassingly … I have been a participant in several of those discussions>.

A grassroots program is a capital expenditure. It is a machine, a building or a manufacturing plant.

It is just like America’s highway infrastructure. If you don’t suck it up at some point and build it you will never be able to control the mobility of your buyers. Oh. Those buyers? Let me be clear about ‘mobility of buyers.’ The mobility of your everyday working class buyers who get around in 10 year old non-BMW/Lexus vehicles with a heater that doesn’t always work as well as it should all the time.

Old white guys think in terms of building planes and air routes … and they should be thinking paving dirt roads and temperamental cars.

That’s it.

Actually there was a lot more to learn from the election but these were the things I thought of last night as I watched number after number float across the screen.

I know a whole bunch of old white guys are pissed off Romney didn’t win … so I thought I would give them something else, and someone else, to be pissed at.

But hopefully business people pay a little more attention to the real learning.

Open, open … and open again

November 4th, 2012

Ok.

I have two pet peeves … or things that aggravate me, in business meetings.

(1)    Selling beyond the close.

(2)    Having multiple people say the same thing.

Selling beyond the close is going to be another post.

Because that really only aggravates me when it is an experienced person who does it.  Less experienced have to find the “feeling” associated with agreement and then have the strength, and fortitude, to keep their mouth shut <to leave unsaid words … well … left unsaid> because the idea had been agreed upon. And that just takes practice.

This is about “the repeat.”

It may be the single most aggravating common mistake business people do in meetings.

I bring it up because I just experienced it. <again>

In the opening of the meeting someone else came crashing in and … well … re-opened the meeting … oh … and then someone else steps in to reopen.

Yup. That would officially be three opens to the same meeting.

Three opens differentiated mostly by the sound of the voices … and maybe a word here or there.

I used the opening as an example mostly because it sets the tone for the rest of the meeting and I started scribbling notes for this post right then and there <yeah … even I started tuning out … and I had a role>.

So.

You would think experienced business people would not do this, but experienced people are actually the worst offenders <probably because they have the most bloated egos>.

Let’s think about this … because this repeating can occur in a variety of ways in a business meeting.

The most popular is three people answering a question … when the first answer was just fine (or 90% right which is just as good as fine).

This one is just frickin’ crazy.

It is crazy for 2 reasons <okay … there are more but I will stick with the two most common sense business craziness aspects>:

-          Multiple answering is acting like this is the one and only opportunity to answer the question. It looks like three dogs slobbering over a bowl of human food thinking they need to eat it fast before the bowl is completely empty because they will never ever get any food ever again <dogs have no sense of time>.

It is crazy because if it is important enough it will come up again.

Oh. And isn’t there something at the end of a meeting called “questions”? <silly me for pointing that out>

-          Multiple answering implies the business people on the opposite side of the table are stupid. Okay. It just implies that they are not smart enough to ask a clarification question if they actually need clarification. Oh. But here is the crazy part. You will never frickin’ know if they had needed clarification because you just bludgeoned them with three different clubs of words.

But I guess the open, open, open practice is the worst.

Or maybe it just feels the worst.

Because it is delaying the actual meeting.  And it is people just talking. And most of the words are saying the same thing (in different words).

And. It. Is. Painful.

And it shows lack of confidence (from the presenting group).

And it shows lack of understanding (in that if you are patient and the point you want to make is THAT important it can be discussed later).

And it shows lack of meeting dynamics understanding.

The only example I can come up with would be if you went to a symphony and they opened with a song. And at the end of the opening one of the band members said: ‘Let’s play that again <because I think we could do it better>’.

And then at the end of that opening … another band member said “ok, let’s do it once more” <because I think we could do it better>.

Oh.  And think of that example just as I explained it … but it is decided to do so … without telling the other band members you were going to do it.

Yeah.

You would kinda be tempted to shove a violin where the sun don’t shine on that person wouldn’t ya? <yes>

Now.

Because this is so aggravating and is so prevalent I know I have been part of several fairly creative techniques to halt things before it can even happen.

Just some tricks of the trade <but even they don’t work all the time>. I will begin with the infamous “one person could never answer a question correctly so several people will addend the initial answer.”

First.

Of course you tell everyone “just one answer to every question.” Get it out on the table. Even the worst offenders will take a reflective moment and ponder. They may not heed the advice in the heat of the battle but at least you have set the groundwork. Please note … 99% of the time this never works.

-          Designate a question answerer. Most companies have one or two people who are just … well … better than other people at answering questions. Just have all questions answered by this person. Now. This person doesn’t actually answer all the questions … but they redirect to the appropriate person.

“Sue knows the most about that … Sue … what do you think?” is the easy redirect.

The power of this solution is that all questions are being handled by your best question answerer. Depending on the type and length of the meeting it is very very effective … but puts a very heavy burden on that person. The only tip I really have on this option is that even though that person may be your best answerer, if you ask him/her to do this … do not ask them to close the meeting. They will have invested too much energy and thought to be the most effective in closing.

-          Designate a question follow-upper. This is most typically the person who you have decided to close the meeting because they also tend to be the ones who have listened the best, assimilated the data <who said what and asked what> and crafted a bunch of words that doesn’t sound like gobbledygook <a technical business term>. This person follows behind answers to questions and either adds a brief point or asks for permission to move on <it can be done like this … “if that answers the question we can go to …”>.

Trust me. It sounds smooth if you have the right person do it.

-          Coach everyone to end their answer with something like “did that answer your question? If not, someone else may have something to add.” It is a preemptive strike against your ‘repeat’ offenders on your side of the table … in addition it shows patience, care for your audience, desire to listen <and respond> and a sincere desire to insure something is covered well before you move on.

<by the way … this one is extremely difficult to have a broad group of question answerers actually do … but it is also probably the most effective meeting tactic of the bunch>

And directly to the rant topic of ‘open, open, open.’

-          Stick to the plan & the script.

Look. Most meetings using a full team have been discussed, discussed again, and most likely rehearsed. You have made some decisions. You have a plan. Stick to it.

Most likely you have made one of two decisions for the opening.

The first is ‘I am going to have my best opener and have that person set the tone’ or, the second option, ‘I am going to have the most relevant person open the meeting and have them set the functional groundwork’ <which isn’t exactly ‘tone’ as it is more functional>.

And because you have made that decision, either one, you have also made a conscious decision on two additional things for sure … who follows the opening … and who will close the meeting <the rest of the speakers are really all about delivering the information>.

The second talker will always know the risks of what happens if opener doesn’t have their “A” game that day. And will move in and do whatever it is their script suggests.

Oh. On that thought … people who step in and ‘re-open’ for some reason always seem to be clueless on the affect they have on the second speaker <which constantly amazes me in its lack of awareness>. Not only does a ‘second opening’ undermine the opening statements but also immediately suggests to the audience that the second planned speaker wouldn’t be smart enough, and aware enough, to know what to do.

Anyway. You have also selected the closer because … well … they know how to close a meeting. A good closer knows if you stumbled out of the gates or not, if you have picked up momentum or not as well as what was covered and what wasn’t. You picked that person because that is what they do. And if you stick with the script that closer will pick up whatever pieces which are important enough to be picked up as well as assimilate what has been shared and discussed.

Frankly, going off script can make the best closers in the world become the non-best closers in the world. Why? Mostly because it scatters even more random pieces out to be assessed and juggled.

Lastly on sticking to the script … not all openings go as well as planned … and some go better than planned … in either case it does a meeting no good to slow down.

You keep on keepin’ on.

Because meetings, just as in Life, if you are not going forward you are going backwards.

Oh. Someone is probably going to suggest all these guidelines and boundaries make for a rigid cold meeting. Well. I have three things to say with regard to that:

  1. No. <or … “nuts to that.”>

    Meeting & the Business World

  2. It sometimes seems like people put a higher priority when designing & discussing meetings on “casual” and likeable and a whole bunch of loosey-goosey nebulous feel good stuff versus information delivery. In meetings … pretty much any meeting … the number one priority, far and away from any other, is delivering relevant information. Worry, and focus, on that. The better, and more relaxed, you are on delivering the information the more casual/likeable/nebulous good you will look.
  3. Adaptability. The ability to adapt to a situation is the pinnacle of meeting effectiveness. But notice I used ‘pinnacle.’ I did because it is difficult … which is kind of funny for me to write because despite that ‘truth’ … I cannot remember the last time in discussing a meeting where it was almost discussed as a “well of course we will adapt if we need to.” Look. I love adaptability. That characteristic in a meeting is powerful. I also recognize it is very difficult. I only suggest being open to adapting if you have one of two things <there may be others but these are the easiest>:

-          a cohesive team with a track record together. Anything other than an experienced team is fraught with peril. And, no, you cannot bend this rule if you say “we have a senior experienced team.” Nope. No can do. Even the best of the best ,as individuals, need to play together as a team for a while, and particularly in pressure situations, before you actually become a cohesive team. So just being senior and experienced doesn’t meet these criteria.

<note: I cannot tell you how many times companies make the ‘this is a senior team’ mistake … and make it again and again>.

-          At least two senior great ‘listener/responder’ team members. If you have 2 co-captains who seem like they are two sides of the same coin you can sometimes pull this off. Of course the presentation/discussion has to be built to accommodate adapting <typically this means other people on the team have to have ‘pods’ of information to share and understand they can avoid the transition responsibilities> but a good team can pull this off if you have ‘the two.’ One? No can do.

To finish up …

Meetings, using a team, is all about choreography … in delivering information <not in delivering a show>. However I will use a show metaphor on why “opening, opening, opening” is not only aggravating but never good. In the performance arts even the best make mistakes. The audience groans. The rest of the cast visibly tightens up. But the best of the best pick themselves up and move forward like nothing bad ever happened. The audience doesn’t forget … but they relax … and recognize the best don’t dwell but move on. And the rest of the cast? Hmmmmmmmm … they typically not only relax but they also typically pick up their game ever so slightly because their best of the best decided to show them that mistakes does not mean failure.

It never fails to amaze me how often senior business people just completely miss the boat on this relatively simple thing.

the art of being unreasonable

October 1st, 2012

I typically dislike business books <but this post will be about one I liked> mostly because I believe their authors are indulging in narcissism at our (buyers) expense.

Oh. Let’s add on that within their narcissism they dumb down (see: simplify in a silly soundite way) the conclusion of ‘attaining success within complex business reasoning’ into one word snippet nonsense. Oh. Lets add another thing … they also tend to ignore (in their attempt to share learnings for anyone to implement) the fact that most business success, in general, typically has a layer of idiosyncrasy that begs the ultimate question – can it really be copied? (Answer: no).

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.”

Smart man.

He should have been a business man instead of trying to save the world.

However 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.

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.

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 concept really 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.

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. And 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.

Enlightened Conflict