…………………… Jessica Nagy ………….

—

“Character is that which reveals moral purpose, exposing the class of things a man chooses or avoids.”

=

Aristotle

—

Ok. Let me be clear upfront – I believe 90+% of Personal Branding is bullshit. Despite the fact I am a relatively unhireable 50something my resume & credentials are pretty popular with executive search companies <I assume it is because they like to have some fairly robust experienced people on file to round out their library, but never really find them a job>.

Regardless. This means I get a relatively constant flow of emails from executive search companies highlighting insightful podcasts, seminars, luncheons, meet & greets, advice columns and ‘positive thinking’ <“you are awesome and can dominate the world”> messages.

I received one several weeks ago that made me laugh out loud. I laughed mostly because, as noted upfront, I think the whole ‘personal branding’ thing is a bunch of bullshit. I also couldn’t believe they would have a luncheon, with relatively senior people who you would assume already know their shit, to discuss ‘dare to build your personal brand.’

Here is the invite <received without the picture I added>:

—

THE INVITE:

‘Xxx’ is facilitating a networking meeting on Thursday, October 16, 2014 (7:30 AM – 9:30 AM):

cool Club
main Road
big city

–

Platinum Members ($25.00)
Guest ($25.00)
Continental Breakfast Included

–

Topic: DARE TO BE YOUR OWN BRAND!

Speaker: some personal branding guru <I assume>

Personal branding has become a widely popular topic. People from all walks of life are taking the idea more seriously.  What about you? Do you want to make the most of what you have to offer and become more of what you visualize yourself to be?  Are you asking, “What’s the right strategy for me?” and “How do I go about putting a personal brand strategy to work that will bring me greater success?”

Dare To Be Your Own Brand demands that you get clear on what makes you unique and how you want to be viewed by others. Then you have to leverage it with an unwavering commitment in everything you do and be willing to step out of your comfort zone, focus on a clear path for personal brand elevation and stay the course.

–

Please come prepared to:

• Introduce yourself within 60 seconds
• Ask individuals/group for introductions to your targeted companies
• Share information you have to offer others in their job search
• Exchange business cards

——

Look. I fully understand that in today’s business world simply having some skill won’t save you. I imagine only having some “texture” will save you <what your skill is wrapped in>. If all you offer is competence, someone can get it for cheaper from somewhere. Byy texture I mean you will have to create some connection between the work you have actually done and, well, you. To be clear, this “you” isn’t about daring to create a personal brand. It is about figuring out what a great company called DDBNeedham calls ‘personal narrative’ <or a ‘brand narrative>.

Now. Narrative sounds boring. And not edgy. Not true.

It is only boring if you build your personal narrative upon something you do not and cannot control because that has no texture.

That is simply surface information.

So. I say this having seen a shitload of companies that have rich narratives.

What do I mean? Think your typical great stories …“hero/conflict/resolution’ type outline with regard to their narratives. They can do this because companies have people, obstacles, trials, competition and situations in which someone wins or loses. This also means they talk about the character of the organization, about virtues and attributes and all the things necessary to navigate their narrative <and be heroic in some form or fashion>.

Oddly … I have seen a shitload of people who also have incredibly rich narratives … and yet they never share them in an interview or on a resume or anything to do with gaining a position. For some reason most people inevitably decide to not tell a story. They decide to not have a narrative instead they elect to create some ‘personal brand’ instead or they end up gussying up a resume with facts and figures and dates and titles and schools and accomplishments — everything but a narrative.

It seems weird to me that companies invest so much energy in a narrative and people don’t.

It seems weird to me that people don’t talk about personal journeys or character traits.

And it seems weird to me we choose to instead talking about ‘building a personal brand.’ And in building this personal brand (using tried & true branding acumen) we seek to come up with some ‘unique selling proposition’ <USP> for ourselves. This is great for ‘selling’ and selling ourselves.

But. We end up having no texture. We end up having no character. We end up having limited personality <only to the extent type font and layout permit it to happen>.

What’s up with that?

We know there are a lot of talented passionate people doing similar things as we do. Yet we seem to desire either tricks <personal brand> or fooling ourselves into believing our accomplishments are some remarkable unattainable-by-others type feats in order to try and stand out in an insanely crowded market with insanely good people.

This is crazy.

We actually end up sacrificing the one true thing that differentiates ourselves. Yes. Ourselves. Our character. Our narrative.

Look.

You are not a brand.

You are not a Facebook profile.

You are not a list of accomplishments.

You are not a list of job titles.

You are not a list of companies who deemed to hire you in the past.

You are not a list of companies that have deemed to fire you in the past.

You are a person. A person with a personal <and one would assume unique> narrative.

So skip the whole personal branding thing and focus on creating a narrative that makes you interesting.

By the way. The personal narrative you create is not some convoluted narrative that fries the brain wrangling with it … and not so simple it is … well … too simple. Hack away the unnecessary. Hack away the boring shit. Hack away the hyperbole.

Just create an interesting narrative. Simplistically this permits you two basic paths to choose from:

  1. A niche. A specialty skill.

Someone with a special skill in a narrow niche will always beat the pompous boring generalists who are good at everything <a lot of things> but not particularly great at one thing. The more specific you can be the better it will be.

2. Style. Panache.

Stand out by style <but do not sacrifice substance in doing so>. Use your personality and create some distinctness through style. It’s tricky … but you want to have a distinctive style that people link to you … and, hopefully, want to hire you for.

By the way <part 1> whatever the style it has to push to some edge. People don’t share boring shit. They only talk about things distinct <which inevitably is something that resides on the edge>.

By the way <part 2> I consciously did not suggest ‘edgy.’ Edgy implies something disruptive … and while I personally like disruptive … it is not for everyone. Simply seek a distinct style. And clarity is always more achievable on some edge. But it does not have to be edgy.

Anyway.

The whole personal branding or ‘create your own brand’ drives me nuts. And it actually scares me a little that well regarded executive search companies actually hold seminars to those who you would deem worthy of a higher salary <therefore having some credible career experience> to ‘dare to be your own brand.’

Now. I completely understand why this personal brand shit has become so discussed. It can be depressing to think about solely being measured by the actual work you do.

What do I mean? Well.

Based on my experience here is how compensation works these days:

===

do shit work … receive no pay.

do good work …  receive shit pay.

do excellent work …  receive good pay.

do remarkable, insightful, make everyone sit up and pay attention type work …  receive excellent pay.

===

Yes. I made this up.

Yes. It is also kind of reflects reality.

Well … this means we are constantly trying to make the case we did something remarkable <or are someone remarkable>. And what does that mean? I assume it means “dare to create your own personal brand!!!” and make sure while creating it … you create something remarkable.

Bullshit.

If you are an executive going to some executive search company seminar on ‘creating a brand’, you are screwed. The last thing you need to be thinking is personal brand, you should be wondering why you are going to something like that in the first place <trust me … you will see your ‘brand’ is the least of your issues>.

If you are an executive <or anyone worth a shit> you should aim high and be ridiculously persistent with your aspirations.

You should be following the same advice I actually give businesses.

Don’t be afraid to pursue revolutionary ideas and don’t hesitate simply there are ‘unbeatable’ competitors.’

Don’t be afraid to go after competition.

Don’t be afraid to go after what you want <and think you deserve>.

You do not need a personal brand to do that.

=============== 

“In general, people are not drawn to perfection in others. People are drawn to shared interests, shared problems, and an individual’s life energy. Humans connect with humans.

Hiding one’s humanity and trying to project an image of perfection makes a person vague, slippery, lifeless, and uninteresting.”

—

Robert Glover

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

“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

—–

Saul D. Alinsky

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

So. The question today is: Is there anything marketing people can learn from a revolutionary?

I thought about this after fishing around for some new ways to talk about leading a business <I get bored with using the same words and thoughts over and over again> and I came across the Saul Alinsky quote ( the second one I used upfront).

It resonated with me because I cannot tell you how many times I have sat in some company “forward thinking strategy” meeting discussing how we would expand the business … stretching not only beyond the existing functional strength of the business but also stepping beyond the existing expertise of the employees <note: I can actually tell you ‘too many times’>. Expanding thoughts are usually cloaked in the infamous “oh, if we can do this, we can certainly do this” statement … or the even more dangerous “we have always figured it out” mantra.

To be clear … progress is always tricky. And leading progress almost even trickier. But, if you want it to be less trickier, ‘feeling secure’ is almost always a great step toward increasing the odds of success.

Now.

You can secure this ‘secure feeling’ in a number of ways – some reality based and some emotionally charged ways. And that is where Saul Alinsky comes back into the leadership discussion. He wrote a book called Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals in 1971.   He wrote it as a guide to community organization <uniting “Have-Nots”, in order for them to gain social, political, legal, and economic power>. What I loved about the Rules, beyond the rules themselves, was that Alinsky believed, when organized and directed well, the community can determine & achieve its purpose & goal. That thought, to me, is exactly the attitude a leader attempts to create <supporting a vision offered by the leader> within an organization.

What I loved about the Rules is the rules themselves are actually signposts for how to have a company compete in the marketplace.

That said.

Let me share the rules and some brief thoughts with the rules. The Rules:

—

• “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

Far too often … despite the fact 99% of businesses unequivocally state “our difference is our people” … a business forgets to actually build their power off of flesh & blood.

Money comes and goes.

Machines and infrastructure does what it does.

But people, flesh & blood, is the true power. It pays, as a leader, to never forget that. Empowering people is the most powerful engine you can ever build.

• “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

Every business I have been involved with has had an expertise. Uhm. The difficulty is that far too many leaders & managers wish the organization had a different expertise or they aspire to some other expertise.

I, personally, love the thought of isolating a company expertise, consolidating the inside expertise and using it like a battering ram in terms of progress. People love doing things well and being appreciated for the expertise they have <and not diminished by suggesting they should have another expertise>. Too many businesses make excuses for what they don’t have, or do, and not love what they do have & do.

• “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

When I saw this one I almost chuckled. It is so good, so solidly strategically right … and I would guess 95% of businesses never think this way. Oh. They may be happy  identifying a “this is what we are better at than they are” and competing with that in their hip pocket … but I struggle to think of any business I have ever been involved with who has sat down and said “let’s go outside their expertise <and consciously accepting they have an expertise.”

Crushing a competitor is always fun but ignoring an opportunity to outflank them is stupid.

• “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

Ok. Here is why I loved this one. I loved it because bullshit & hollow rhetoric and promises/claims are strewn throughout the business world. I can guarantee, with 95% certainty, I could pick up any business’s vision & strategy & ‘rules of the road’ binder and find a significant amount of hollow bullshit. What would happen if I consciously attacked one of my competitor’s hollow shit? Make them live up to their own book of rules?

I am chuckling. You would crush them.

You would crush them in two ways:

• External perceptions: everyone knows almost all businesses make hollow promises but get aggravated when it becomes too obvious that the promise really is hollow.
• Internal perceptions: almost every employee simply accepts that some of the company rhetoric is bullshit but they accept it because it doesn’t really affect them. But if the hollow rhetoric becomes obvious AND a pain in the ass … discontent grows. Bitching at the water cooler increases.

This is an awesome competitive leadership thought.

• “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

I admit. Ridiculing your competition is fraught with peril. However … having some swagger and vocalizing your swagger is … well … infuriating to some competition. It puts pressure on them. Ridiculing, specifically, what a competitor believes is their most potent weapon will … well … infuriate them.

Pick your path wisely but there is absolutely nothing wrong with swagger, infuriating your competition and putting some pressure on them.

• “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

Far too often some strategic guru envisions some tactic that will be smashingly successful and then attempt to imbue some excitement within the people who will actually do it. Imbuing excitement is like trying to convince me I will love Brussels Sprouts the next time I eat them <I hate Brussels Sprouts>. Excitement comes from within someone not thru “imbuing” or external encouragement. I think the best strategic thinkers find tactics that people enjoy AND can be smashingly successful. Unfortunately this is harder than you would think. But nothing really good is easy.

• “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

Amen. A lesson we forget every day <and should not>.

• “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

Tactical adaptation is possibly one of the most underrated strategic decisions a business can make. While we talk a good game on this in today’s ‘digital world’ the truth is that most of us chase numbers more than we think about outflanking and expertise advantages. That is kind of the bane of the ‘big data’ world.

Numbers are good in judging things but, in the end, people & behavior are not numbers and no matter how good a tactic may appear in a number it can always be replaced.

• “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

I am not an empty threat guy, however, ‘power is what the competition thinks you have.’ My point here is not to make shit up and offer empty threats but rather the more you can make a competitor think, and worry, about the wrongs things the better off you are. Stoke their imagination. Make them have high falutin’ meetings pondering “what if” scenarios.

I wouldn’t do this to replace any of the other rules … but in combination? Whew. This is good stuff.

• “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.” It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

Sometimes in today’s business world we treat tactics like spaghetti we throw against the wall and hope something sticks. I am not suggesting a business should invest gobs of energy developing operations to maintain constant pressure in INDIVIDUAL tactics but I am suggesting that strategic tactics tend to coalesce and operations can be developed to support them. Agility is the big buzzword these days but it shouldn’t come at the expense of having a ground game which constantly grinds against the competition.

I imagine the real point here is hollow tactics may generate some numbers for you but they don’t really make any dent into the competition <which, inevitably, is the key to leading an industry>.

• “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

I love this thought because, let’s be honest, we have become a mamby pamby business world. What I mean by that is at the first glimpse of any significant negativity we tend to retreat or retrench. Pushing through a negative is not standard operating procedure in a business today. Shit. Using a perceived vulnerability as a strength is almost non existent.

Let me be clear on this one.

If you do Rule #5 well, you will infuriate your competition. An infuriated competitor reacts <usually with some desire to inflict some negative pain> — they will violently react. If you stay the course, maintain your expertise, well … you can push through and own a positive.

More businesses need to remember this.

• “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

I call this “consolidating a win.”

I cannot tell you how many times <but far too many> I have seen a business “lose after winning.” It is maddening, depressing & demoralizing … and completely avoidable. Far too many businesses chase the success assuming they will be able to take a breath and take advantage of the success in a relatively timely fashion.

This is where ideas die.

In the take-a-breath moment.

This happens for a bunch of well-intended reasons … the most likely one is everyone invests their energy on the attack and a successful attack rather than diverting any energy & time to “what do we do when we are successful” other than maybe a framework of ‘what will happen.’ Unfortunately … frameworks do not consolidate.

The solution to this is so obvious I scratch my head as to why more businesses do not do it. Businesses always have two basic levels … the outside structure and the inside structure. The outside is the face of the organization and most typically is the one that pushes through and creates the ‘wins.’ The inside operations gets shit done … I have always had an ‘inside operations team’ well briefed and ready to go and insert them into the breach as soon as the win has occurred and have the ‘fresh team’ consolidate.

I could write an entire ‘consolidation strategy’ piece but suffice it to say your business gains value in a number of dimensions by doing it this way.

The larger point with this Rule is ‘don’t lose a win by not having a plan for when you win.’

• “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Well. Let me share the thought that first hit me on this … “a brand is a promise delivered in the store everyday” <this was The Limited’s phrase>. The point is that a business doesn’t exist if it doesn’t deliver upon what it promises.

That said … this is an important rule. As in a REALLY important rule that I bet 99% of companies do not even think about let alone adhere to. Most businesses target another competitor’s users & customers and go about trying to steal them <persuade them to switch>.

Well.

What about instead we attacked the company, the support network … the “promise” as it were … and make the people who actually deliver the promise start doubting, or start feeling less than secure, or just “less good about their brand & promise”? If we did this, we create a gap, isolate as it were, between what the customer thought they wanted and what they perceive they are getting or would get.

I love this rule. I admit I had never thought about it this way before … but from here on out it is part of my leadership toolkit.

———

Okay.

Those are some good rules for business.

But you know what?

It all comes back to the first Rule and my first quote.

Flesh & blood is the real power in any business and people are drawn to shared interests, shared problems, and an individual’s life energy. Humans connect with humans.

Honestly … I don’t think most leaders ignore the fact the people in their organizations are important, but I think we don’t elevate them to ‘flesh & blood is the power’ status.

And that is where the Rules come in.

Inherent to each rule, and the success therein, resides with the flesh & blood.

That is the most pragmatic of the pragmatic reminders for radicals leading a business.

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

“She wasn’t doing a thing that I could see, except standing there, leaning on the balcony railing, holding the universe together.”

–

J.D. Salinger

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

Well.

This is about business. In today’s world if it doesn’t appear like you are doing something … then … well … damn it … you aren’t doing something <even if you may actually be holding the universe together>.

You have to be doing something that can be seen.

You have to because if you don’t everyone is convinced you are doing nothing. I call this issue … being challenged by the ‘outcome mentality.’ What I mean by that is efficiency driven outcome, or output, is everything. Do more with less is an insidious mantra because this not only suggests ‘more output’ matters but ‘less thinking, more doing’ is the path to more outcome.

That said. So what if your output is … well … holding the universe together.

C’mon. That’s a metaphor.

I’m not truly suggesting the actual universe, but let me talk about business. Sometimes you run across that leader or sometimes a manager or even a young employee <with some potential> who holds the business or the organization together. They appear to you in a variety of forms. They can be a rebel in that they are rebellious to the status quo every inch of the way toward their version of outputs. Some just effectively juggle the efficiency/effective balance. Others learn to weave a strong thread of thinking time into what they do, unseen, and produce a more effective outcome efficiently. That said. Sometimes when you look you cannot see what they are actually doing. They may be often seen doing nothing but standing there leaning on the balcony rail.

Uh oh. In today’s business world that person is screwed.

Look. I’m not suggesting you want people who do nothing, but sometimes people who look like they are doing nothing are actually doing a lot of something. And sometimes it is difficult to measure these people up against ‘outcome focused generators.’

What I mean by that is I have had people in my teams where during review time I have had to stack employees “top-to-bottom” and justify their salary, job status, existence within the organization, whatever review line item you want to call it … based on ‘what have they done.’

Tangible outcome crap.

And, well, sometimes your most valuable employee doesn’t look so hot based on sheer tangible outcome. It is only when you build in intangibles that they rise above the tangible outputters <not sure that is a word>.

Ok.

Any experienced business person reading this will be shaking their head going … “whew … been there” because you have a clear visual of a scrunched up face across the table from you saying things like “well … can’t we get them to do more? … I am struggling to see the comparable value to <insert some ‘outputter name’ here>.” You want to reach across the table and wring their neck shouting “they are frickin’ holding the universe together for god’s sake.”

Holding the universe together is a talent. It is a unique talent to make those around you better and more efficient, more effective and, well, happier <or maybe just more realistically positive in that they lift productivity – quality & quantity>. And sometimes that talent is embodied by ‘not doing anything but standing there.’

I have run across several business people who had the incredible ability to ‘hold the universe together.’ And I have had the incredibly ludicrous experience of having to encourage them to waste time to ‘tangibilize’ <once again … not sure that is a word> what they are doing so people can ‘see’ their value. As a manager, or leader, I imagine one of your responsibilities is to protect these valuable unique people from the challenges of the typical business world view and foster their abilities and opportunities.

Let’s be clear. This has some unique challenges because it has always been that an ‘outputter’ has never understood this type of person or value. Never have and never will. That’s okay … because organizations, just as in Life, need a variety of personalities and talents to be successful.

However. I do get a little concerned that the business world pendulum has swung so far over to efficiency & outcome & output that those who ‘hold the universe together’ is becoming a dying breed. Maybe I am less concerned for the immediate but over time. Because the young people with this talent and ability simply cannot protect themselves from an output world without help. And if all we do in business is to promote outputters … well … enough said. You get it.

I am sure throughout my career I have missed people who ‘could hold the universe together.’ And I rue those mistakes. I take solace in that I have recognized others and tried to herd them through the business gauntlet of ‘all that matters is results <or output>’. All I can say is that while as a leader you take pride in every employee you have the ones who have the ability to hold the universe together hold a special place in your ‘list of things done’ <or list of things ‘I didn’t screw up as a manager’>.

I imagine that is a reminder that in the end, as in the end of your business career or Life, the intangible often  measures up more so than the tangible in reviewing ‘what I have done.’

I imagine this is all a reminder to all of us there are people all around us ‘holding the universe together’ in ways we just don’t see — but we benefit.

So before you judge someone for ‘not doing’ take a closer look just to be sure they aren’t holding the universe together.

===========

“We tend to hold ourself accountable for things we never did.  Hearts we never broke. People we didn’t hurt.  Souls we didn’t crush. “

—

coral-vellichor

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

All these years I’ve been looking at the wrong side.

—

(via madelinemharris)

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

Ok. Accountability, or responsibility, is always a good business topic. And, yes, I am a big personal responsibility person. But in business, within an organization, responsibility tends to be more shared responsibility than simple personal responsibility. I thought about this during a discussion on Distributed Leadership/Holocracy/etc type business models. These discussions tend to revolve around flat, flatter & flattened operating models. The point being everyone agrees there has to be some leadership roles and, yet, not be hierarchy or command/control.

Anyway. To be clear. I believe there is a strong relationship between shared responsibility and personal responsibility. The stronger the shared responsibility attitude & behavior within leadership & mentors & role models the stronger the development of personal responsibility muscle occurs in everyday schmucks like me. Conversely, if you are surrounded with lack of shared responsibility examples <or even those who espouse ‘selectively chosen shared responsibility’> the value of personal responsibility diminishes to an individual, therefore, they see less value in exhibiting personal responsibility.

We don’t talk about this relationship enough. Far too often we flippantly suggest “people should take responsibility for their actions.”

Well … no shit Sherlock. But if your role models or leaders are constantly passing the buck when the shit hits the fan to save their own bacon <and image> then what the hell … why would you not do the same?

Yeah. Sure. Everyone has to pull their weight and do their job and do what they say they are going to do … but very very rarely does an individual perform in a vacuum in a business.

This happens more so even in management. It drives me a little nuts when I hear some leaders discuss “delegating.”

Somehow delegating equals “absolved of responsibility.”

This is stupid irresponsible thinking.

My belief that it is stupid thinking is rooted in some common sesne I am fairly sure the US Military says:

 

You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility.

In other words … you can give others the power to do things … you can delegate … but, no matter what happens … if something goes wrong … the final responsibility always lies with the one who has delegated authority. Sticking with the military as my guidance … this means if your business has an initiative that has gone SNAFU <“Situation Normal: All Fucked Up”> the blame … and the ultimate responsibility for the mistakes <fuck ups> falls … uhm … up.

The leader assumes responsibility. This is shared responsibility. In other words … this is leadership.

Once you become a business leader past a mom & pop management style business you have to face the concept of shared responsibility <and some embrace it and some reject it>.

Despite the fact you have delegated authority that ‘authority’ does not represent a discrete event and period in time. You bear the responsibility for the cascade of events, decisions and actions leading up to the ‘authority giving’ which means everything you have done up until that point provides the context for the delegating … yeah … you own the arena in which you have placed the delegatee.

But this gets exponentially worse <if you are thinking about becoming a business leader>. You actually also share responsibility for the consequences — intended and unintended. This is different than delegating authority <although it relates to it> and owning responsibility for the action … this goes beyond to the actual ripples from the decisions & actions.

Now. Some leaders have a nasty habit of assuming responsibility for the decision and the effect of the decision — within a finite period of time. The weakest leaders try and tie “that was out of my control” or “I wasn’t there for that” as soon as they can to a decision they make. The strongest leaders worry less about any carnage that has been left behind, but rather start worrying about any carnage the decisions & actions could possibly create for the future.

The truth is that business leaders should take a moment and remember the wise words of an American Indian. Red Cloud, an Oglala Lakota leader who led his people against the U.S. Army and later as his people transitioned from life on the plains to the reservation, stressed that when Indian people made a decision, it should be done with the welfare of the next seven generations in mind.

In a short term world where most business leaders are trying to make quarterly goals and just try and keep their job … thinking with the welfare of the next 7 generations seems … well … impossible. I imagine the real point is that most good business leaders assume some responsibility for the generations to come.  Some people may call this ‘long term strategy’ and some others will call it ‘keeping your eye on the horizon’ or even ‘having a vision’, well, I am no Harvard Business guru and all that high falutin’ stuff seems unnecessary. To me it is much more simple. You make decisions accepting the burden of responsibility for what will come and may arise from your decision.

You share the responsibility for what will, or may, come. And if you do that? Damn. You will do good and be good. And if you do not do that? Damn. You may get a shitload of attention and applause in the moment and a shitload of attention and anger in the future.

Why do I say that?

Because if you don’t really believe in shared responsibility and flit from one decision to the next in a transactional “responsible only to the moment” way you will end up rushing from issue to issue, reacting without a plan or a strategy or <worse> no care of longer term affect, creating carnage yet to be seen <because that type of leader tends to seek only the cheers in the moment>.

Just to point it out … with no plan that means anything can happen and a leader can justify anything. Because with no plan to measure a decision against anything can look right … and unpredictable can be touted as ‘flexible to the situation.’

All of this fits a short term leader in a short term world.

The people are few and far between these days who weigh their responses and assess long term affects. In today’s world it almost seems a race to be the first to judge or comment on a decision or action and far too many leaders actually manage to the public race to comment rather than the longer term assessment.

This is scary stuff for anyone to do but a business leader? Dangerous.

Even the best short term decision makers, if forced into a gauntlet of short term decisions, will struggle to insure at the end of the gauntlet they have kept walking northwards as they had been looking down the entire time. More often than not North will not be the direction you are facing nor will you have actually moved any closer to the North star.

I am not suggesting this longer term shared responsibility attitude is easy. In fact .. it is really really hard. In fact … it almost means you have to embrace a little “impossible” into what you actually make possible.

Huh?

In general I have always liked logical thinking <no matter how random the logic may be> but I always love it when someone combines some unexpected logic. Generally speaking the best unexpected logic actually comes from those who do the impossible … thinking of the impossible and seeing possibilities — the impossible being “knowing for sure what will happen in the future.” They make the spectacular leaps/chances, accepting responsibility and sharing responsibility, so that business can make the needed changes or just do the semi-risky things that keep a good business doing good things <things that may push against the borders of the status quo>.

Yeah.

Spectacular errors can only happen if you take spectacular chances. I am not fond of irresponsible risk taking and decision-making, but I am fond of doing ‘the right thing’ even when it may appear to be going against the stream. Sometimes that means a spectacular success, sometimes a spectacular error. But always something spectacular. And, I will tell you, what more could you want to say about your life as a leader but that you have done something spectacular? Especially if that ‘spectacular’ actually happens a generation later which permits you to sit back and say “I did the impossible … I viewed the future well.’

Anyway.

Shared responsibility is the burden of any good leader. They tend to be the leaders who understand they cannot really be sure what is going to happen to them over time, they weigh the risks to the best of their ability and let the chips fall as they may. I tend to believe their attitude is one of “you don’t want to act more fearfully than you have to.”

Good leaders have a tendency to hold themselves accountable for anything, everything and everyone … in varying degrees depending on the anything, everything and everyone. And, maybe most importantly, I tend to believe they understand that there is a relationship between shared responsibility and personal responsibility. And, practically speaking, you will never be viewed as a true leader if you do not.

Well.

You know what? To end this thing today let me offer two other words, typically associated with responsibility, obligation and duty.

Obligation refers general to something you are compelled to do by regulation, law, promise or morality. I think good leaders feel obligated to assume shared responsibility.

Duty, more so than obligation, springs from an internal moral or ethical impulse rather than from external demands.

I think good leaders feel a duty, not just obligation, to assume shared responsibility. Shared responsibility … not only do I believe we should discuss it more often <because it will foster better value in personal responsibility> but I also believe we should be demanding it of our leaders more often.

“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, and Rosser Reeves, who simplified <dumbed it down> for the rest of the world to grasp in a usable form  by developing what he, and the 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 <or even the most dumbed down> whereby we lose the nuance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

“We are tossed about by external causes in many ways, and like waves driven by contrary winds, we waver and are unconscious of the issue and our fate.’

We think we are most ourselves when we are most passioate, whereas it is then we are most passive, caught in some ancestral torrent of impulse or feeling, and swept on to a precipitate reaction which meets only part of the situation because without thought only part of a situation can be perceived.”

―

Will Durant

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

“Trust yourself. Create the kind of self that you will be happy to live with all your life.

Make the most of yourself by fanning the tiny, inner sparks of possibility into flames of achievement.”

—-

Golda Meir

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

So.

This is about leadership & leading with an idea.

It would be an understatement to say that the number of ways a leader can lead are so numerous it would most likely take a book to explain them all <and people have certainly tried>. Trying to simplistically suggest “this is the way to lead” is simplistic tripe.

It would be an understatement to say that the number of ways a leader can articulate an idea for people to rally around and follow are so numerous it would most likely take a book to explain them all <and people have certainly tried>. Trying to simplistically suggest “this is the way to share ideas in a meaningful way” is  simplistic tripe.

That said. Today I will talk about leaders and ideas and articulating ideas. Let’s call it “the business idea” leadership challenge. For those of us who have had the fortune, or misfortune, of walking the halls of management in business we have all crossed paths with all the scary tactics and rhetoric associated with leaders who cannot articulate an idea if they actually tried <and most do try>. These are the leaders who do not really have the ability to articulate an idea well enough for the idea to gain traction and be implemented.

……………….. the idea ………………….

I sometimes believe what makes a good leader is the ability to articulate an idea so that <a> people can grasp it, <b> people can envision it as “something” tangible enough to want to hold it and <c> people can attach some emotional connection to it <ranging from ‘I believe’ to ‘passion’>. But many leaders just struggle with idea articulation and use a variety of tricks to present an idea in a way that encourages people to … well … believe in the idea.