=====

“Statistics are no substitute for judgment.”

Henry Clay

====

ah. “When statistics get in the way of a good decision.” Let me get this out of the way upfront. I like numbers. I have an Economics undergraduate and accounting and statistics  accounted for several of my <of the few> good grades in college.

I like that if you weave your way through numbers they can tell you things that can inspire the ‘real’ thought.

I like the fact that numbers can sway an “I think” based opinion to a “here is what I know” based opinion.

That said. I purposefully used Henry Clay (so think maybe 1800 as to date of the quote) so that some contemporary statistical wonk doesn’t come out of the woodwork saying something along the lines of “statistics have only evolved in the last 20 years” or something crazy like that. “We have never had better data to make decisions from than today!” <with the exclamation mark> is a statement that was as true in 1800 as it is in 2000’s and as it was in 100 BC.

This is an eternal issue.

People have looked at statistics since the time good ole Adam started calculating how many apples fell out of the tree to figure out how often he was gonna get laid. Henry Clay just had the luck to be quoted on it.

So before I begin my rant let me say, yes, I get decision-making is a cognitive process where the outcome is a choice between alternatives. And that numbers can play a role. I also get that people have different preferences as to how to approach decision making and that there will always be a varying degree between thinking and feeling and numbers and experiential. And I do believe all decisions, at least the worthwhile ones, have to incorporate some sense of logical decision-making. Logic in that we seek to exclude <or marginalize> emotions <as well as personal biases> and try to use only rational methods <perhaps even mathematical/statistical tools> with the intent to isolate what is typically called the decision utility.

I get all that.

Oh. And, by the way, I hope no one tries to dump the whole your view is driven by whether you are “left brain/right brain” mumbo jumbo on me because science has already proven that is an urban myth. There is no right brain left brain.

And. There is no “numbers are facts” crap.

Yeah. On that last one.

==========

“Torture numbers, and they’ll confess to anything.”

Gregg Easterbrook

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

Sure. Numbers don’t lie. But they also don’t tell you what to do.

Now, in saying that, let me suggest why I believe this statistical ‘torturing numbers’ issue has been an issue for eternity.

The thought: many people don’t want to make decisions. Okay. Maybe people just get nervous with accountability and use statistics to make the decision; not inform a decision.

Why? There are boatloads of reasons, but suffice it to say that without using numbers you are getting paid (or at least judged) not just on decision-making skills, but on your judgment skills. That means accountability is solely on you (the person).

Think about that. But also think about this (as you get judged). The following is an explanation on decision making using statistics:

Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Statistical Decision Theory

I’d like to start today’s lecture with a reminder about something I said a long time ago when we finished our survey of population viability analysis. Population viability analysis is best seen not as a way of garnering precise predictions about the fate of a population but as a way of ensuring that all relevant life-history variables have been considered, that they have been considered efficiently, and that we have a reasonable sense of the trajectory that the population is likely to follow if current trends continue. It provides a way of structuring our thinking about the problem. That’s precisely the way I think we should regard the approach to decision making that I’m about to describe.

One of the most difficult tasks facing conservation biologists, as I have emphasized repeatedly, is that decisions must often, perhaps usually, be made in the face of woefully inadequate data.

<ba bla blaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa>

So. From that incredibly dry mind numbing analysis of statistical decision theory they dropped this little bombshell in toward the end of the ‘how to use statistics’:

There is the recognition from statistics that there are two types of errors we can make in evaluating an hypothesis:

–          We may say that something is happening when it isn’t (Type I), or

–          We may say that something isn’t happening when it is (Type II).

Say what?

=====

“The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed.”

Robert Heinlein

(I wish I had written this in response to the statistical theory thingamajig)

Ok. What that means (to those of you solely dependent upon statistics). You may use the statistics to prove something is or isn’t happening and it may not be happening or it is happening <anyone now wonder why statisticians are avoided?>.

Anyway. I will back off the ‘accountability through numbers folk’ for a second. Trying to give statistical-using people the benefit of the doubt, let’s think that maybe when you are stressed out, frankly, any option seems pretty good — especially one which seems factual (numbers seem more factual to people despite the fact that once you start combining them they become less factual). I imagine it is like someone dying of thirst and drinking from whatever looks like the safest pool.

Uh oh. But some pools are poisoned.

And, unfortunately about this stress theory of mine, when the adrenaline from the stress wears out, you realized that the statistics you leaned on for the decision YOU made — were all bullshit (or someone points out they were bullshit when you actually invest some energy trying to explain them later).

And you are screwed. Screwed because of statistics (although people will inevitably try the “but the numbers told us what to do”).

Ok. Here is the good news (relatively speaking). You can do something about the stress decision making leaning on numbers thing.

Most people, given enough experience, become aware that stress can do a number on your decision-making skills.

How do I know? Well. Of course someone has done a study on it. Scientists have some statistical based thinking about exactly how stress screws up your ability to make decisions. According to ScienceDaily, psychologists Mara Mather and Nichole R. Lighthall (who completed a review of the literature on stress and decisions) they found that, even though you’d think being stressed would turn people into pessimists and therefore more careful, stress actually makes us focus too much on the upside of our decisions. Says Mather, “Stress seems to help people learn from positive feedback and impairs their learning from negative feedback.”

Uh oh. That sucks <maybe you cannot do something about the bad stress decision making thing>.

Nuts.

I guess my point in bringing up the study is that maybe under stress it is easier to grab on to statistics to make a decision <all the while thinking positive thoughts> and therefore avoided the judgment call on your own.

Uh oh (again).

Look. I was wrong. You can do something about this judgment thing. Judgment isn’t easy, but at some point you are accountable <or you should be> and hiding behind statistics just won’t hack it.

As Yoda would say “the answers are within you.” The key to making a smart decision is giving yourself the time to gather all the information you need <and, yes, that can include statistics> and move forward with whatever proactive thinking method approach you have some confidence in and make a decision.

A daunting decision doesn’t have to put you in an analysis paralysis death grip.

Use a logical decision-making method to help you evaluate your choices and pull the trigger.

And make a decision.

And not let statistics make the decision for you.

Here is the net on statistics: It helps us formalize and categorize our thinking to make sure that we have considered all relevant possibilities.

Quantitative analysis should be viewed as explorations of possibilities; not hard predictions.

I believe being able to use numbers, and statistics, to explore possibilities is truly a skill <or an art>.

Not everyone can do it. Ok. Well. That’s not true. Anyone can do it, it’s just that not everyone can do it well.

Knowing what to do with the numbers is an art.

In fact, just to circle back to the main topic of this post, let’s call it, well, judgment.

Yeah. Judging numbers. This means learning how to weigh the importance of one number versus another as well as learning which numbers are unimportant. To be honest, not many people have mastered that art.

But. That doesn’t mean everyone should get bogged down in statistics and numbers because if you do, yup, you can torture any decision you want out of numbers.

And, frankly, you are lying to yourself if you believe that is a decision. That is simply being a coward (in the decision making world). You have deferred decision to ‘numbers.’ And inevitably you are deferring accountability.

Sound harsh?

As harsh as this?

“I notice increasing reluctance on the part of marketing executives to use judgment; they are coming to rely too much on research, and they use it as a drunkard uses a lamp post for support, rather than for illumination.”

David Ogilvy

Harsh.

Sound like truth? Yup. Suffice it to say everyone should use numbers and statistics to inform decisions, but, inevitably, all good decisions demand some level of judgement. Ponder.

“I am a strong person. But every once in a while I would like someone to hold my hand and tell me things are going to be OK. “

Unknown

——–

Well. We so often talk about ‘strong people’ as being these pillars of granite, solid and seamless in moments of need or challenge, unflinching in the face of whatever it is they face. But more often strength is not a solid piece of granite. Shit. Many times its not even anything solid. It may be a shield or a shell or it may be that the person has the ability to put a strong hand forward and stop what needs to be stopped. But in all these cases strength is neither a complete solid wall nor does it not have some weakness or maybe some fragile aspects in which to balance everything. 

———

“It is one thing to be brave in front of others, perhaps for fear of being branded a coward and becoming diminished in their eyes, but another entirely to be brave when there is nobody to witness your courage.

The latter is an elemental bravery, a strength of spirit and character.”

John Connolly

———-

Oddly strength is, well, a paradox <or in some sense a contradiction>. It is about setting unequivocal limits and yet having no limits. It’s about adapting, yet unwavering.

So. Let me discuss this limit thing for a moment.

Emotionally strong people do not really need constant action and excitement or even a crisis to define themselves and their lives. This suggests they naturally just put some limits on things. This is not to suggest that they don’t enjoy excitement in their lives, but they aren’t ‘doing’ junkies. This means their ‘strength’ is usually defined by some self awareness. Awareness with regard to some character type things <which are embodied in actions and behavior decisions>.

Let’s call these our ‘limits’:

–           just don’t do some things

Suffice it to say we all do things that we don’t enjoy doing, but we should never do things that we don’t want to do. There is a nuance in that, but an important nuance. The strong self aware understand that nuance and almost always manage to figure out what they need to do — not at the expense of ‘what they don’t want to do.’ This translates into that when it comes to character defining decisions there is always a line. The line isn’t about what you enjoy doing or what you like or dislike … it is about … well … character. And being able to live with yourself and look in the mirror.

–        saying “no”

Suffice it to say … if you can’t say “no,” you will get taken advantage of. I will not suggest you won’t be taken seriously, but I will suggest that if you cannot say no you will forever live on the slippery slope of credibility and trust.

Saying “no” reminds people that they cannot control you. Only you control you.

–             it’s really about plateaus … not limits

Face it. There are only plateaus, and they are not meant for you to stay there, but only resting places for someplace beyond. Please note I did not say ‘someplace higher.’

“Up” is overrated.

It is more important to move anywhere <mentally, physically, career, Life> than it is to move ‘upwards.’ I’ve always believed in pushing yourself further and taking on new challenges. I believe this because I tend to believe there is no such thing as that infamous trite cliché ‘being the best you can be.’ “Best” is a relevant thing … at least to the moment. Maybe it is better said that ‘best’ is contextual.

There is always room for growth and change and new possibilities of being the best you can be.

Anyway.

Strength is tricky. It is partially inbred as an attitude, but it is also forged thru the furnace of Life.

—–

“Sometimes you don’t realise your own strength until you come face to face with your greatest weakness”

Susan Gale

——-

And maybe that is why strength is never solid. Because strength is often about weakness. The chinks in your armor define your strength … uhm … not your theoretically solid seamless armor.

Which leads me to my final thoughts.

Strength is nothing more than doing what it takes — with character. In order to be strong we will inevitably embrace some different variations of our self. This naturally happens as we encounter knew things and new ‘weaknesses’ we never knew we had. Within those variations are some aspects of solidness, but other aspects are adaptable and resilient in their ability to morph to the situation.

And, in the end, I imagine strength in a person can be defined one way:

———

“I endure.”

E. Lockhart 

————

Ponder.

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

“It is always important to know when something has reached its end.  Closing circles, shutting doors, finishing chapters, it doesn’t matter what we call it; what matters is to leave in the past those moments in life that are over.”

Paulo Coelho

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

“When you start to suck, stop.”

Kristen Hersh

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

So. This is mostly about business <although, I imagine, some aspects bleed into Life>.

In business we create false endings all the time. And I mean ALL the time. Milestones, quarterly objectives, standards, etc. We do this not just because people have a tendency to work better aiming at something but also because we suck at knowing when something has naturally reached its end.

Now. I have written about stopping, or closing down, when you start sucking and how difficult that is.

Back in 2012 I said “sucking is like quicksand.  The harder you work to stop sucking the further you get sucked down into suckedness.”   A fun idea to write about, but that is different than recognizing an ‘end.’ That is simply not recognizing you have given all you can and it is all downhill from there <diminishing returns>. I have written about ‘periods’, the stop punctuation, and the art of knowing when to stop. A fun idea to write about but that is different than recognizing an ‘end’ … that is simply about not recognizing when you should shut up.

This post is about knowing, and I mean really knowing. when something has reached its end. Knowing that it is time to close, close up … and move on.

Uhm. This is hard. Really hard.

And, speaking for myself and how I think philosophically, I know I make it even harder. I once wrote about running through the end of project, I called it “riding to the buzzer.” Riding through things you are working on makes it a little more difficult to recognize whether you ran through a milestone or through its natural end. I say that because here is where a natural end truly becomes sneaky. 99% of the time it doesn’t appear as some brick wall or solid stop.

Sure. ‘The end’ most likely does have a stop sign around if you pay attention. More often than not any sign there is, is most likely covered up by some overgrown bushes which have never been trimmed. It seems a little strange because one would think we business people would be better at seeing ends and when to close up on something and move on. I mean, what the hell, business is strewn with milestones, objectives, deadlines and a slew of ‘people created’ ending points. Yet, most business people suck at the really important ability to know when something has reached its end.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to a company <uhm … companies actually do have life spans>.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to employee initiatives <once in place we have a nasty habit of thinking it should be an ongoing ‘organizational culture tool’ which enables consistent behavior>.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to existing products & services <what happens when there is actually something better to be offered?>.

We are not particularly good at it with regard to sales objectives <what happens when our stated audience is … uh oh … sated?>.

In fact. What we are particularly good at is getting whatever it is that we want done into a “doing” mode and then developing a whole slew of ways to nudge it down the road. I imagine if I stick with that metaphor I could suggest we suck at not seeing any stop signs because we are too focused on nudging and tweaking the engine and replacing shoes so people can keep walking down that road. But ‘being over’?

Whew. We hold on way beyond the sell date. Everyone does <me included>. It is natural.

=========== 

Letting go. Everyone talks about it like it’s the easiest thing. Unfurl your fingers one by one until your hand is open. But my hand has been clenched into a fist for three years now; it’s frozen shut.

All of me is frozen shut. And about to shut down completely.

Gayle Forman 

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

It is natural because of the dreaded “what’s next?”

Yeah. In order to acknowledge an end, to close up shop and move on, you have to know what’s next. And not only that … you kind of have to already have a plan in place or at least a road to bus everyone over to where they can get off and start walking. Maybe that is where we business folk suck the most. It’s not that we don’t know when to stop we just don’t know how to start again. Start anew.

About the only time we are actually good at it is within a ‘forced end.’ As in … we have no choice.

As I typed that I thought about, well, a different kind of business — the business of having a band and the arrival of the Foo Fighters after the death of Kurt Cobain:

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

“There were people that really resented me for starting this band. ‘How dare you start another band?’   They asked me ‘Why did you decide to carry on and make music that sounds like Nirvana?’ and I said well, wait a minute – like, loud rock guitars, and melodies, and cymbals crashing and big-ass drums?

‘Cause that’s what I do. What do you want me to do? Make a reggae record?”

Dave Grohl

<Foo Fighters>

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

When viewing the music industry and bands and individual artist you can find a lot of examples of forced ‘doing what needs to be done and moving on’ as well as ‘well, it is time to move on’ type endings <we business people should think about that a little>. When forced, talented business people do what needs to be done.

Unfortunately most of business doesn’t really create this kind of ‘forced decision.’ Most times we simply try and squeeze whatever we can out of whatever we have. And we squeeze until there is nothing left <way beyond the ‘end’>.

Ok. What to do. This is solvable and relatively easy in the scheme of things.

It is a version of ‘planned obsoletion’ <which I have always been a HUGE fan of in business>, but your senior management team needs to sit down on occasion and not do ‘blue sky thinking’, but hunker down like a military plan of action and say “we won this ground and what ground do we attack next.” This includes an attitude which says we will aggressively pursue that plan <so it is not just a plan but a plan of action>.

Far too often we look at the ground we have won and seek to consolidate it and, well, consolidate it. Squeeze and squeeze and squeeze. And, on occasion, we fool ourselves into thinking we are truly exploring ‘what’s next’ by saying ‘let’s take that hill just outside of the area we currently occupy.’ We make it sound like some massive effort that will refresh us. Instead we are investing significant resources on a less than significant objective. I am certainly not suggesting that incrementalism does not have a role in business strategy but rather we far too often use incrementalism to ignore the stop sign we just walked past. I am not a big SWOT analysis guy nor am I a big ‘white space’ business guy. I am more a pragmatic “this is who I am and this is what I am good at and I don’t care who I may compete against or what they may be currently doing I believe ‘these x’ people will like what I have to offer and I am going to go get it” business guy.

In a growth situation <which, by the way, I tend to believe any healthy organization should always be in> you should be seeking to grow. To expand. To think of ‘saturation’ as a swear word. To always be thinking about how to shake-the-etch-a-sketch so that stagnancy <in sales, attitude, behavior, thinking> never sets in.

To be clear. Sure. I believe you should always talk with your innovations/new product pipeline people because they may have some new widget up their sleeve you can go and expand your business with but, more often, you will be successful by looking at what you have now and finding new ground to attack with that. I have found your new widgets just have a tendency to cement the ground you have already won more often than not. Keeping with the military analogy I often tell businesses to think of their business modeling with an ‘occupation force’ team with a separate “attacking army” team mindset. Especially if you are in a growing category you almost have to have a “win this ground and move on” attitude or you can get stuck in a grind-it-out business war.

Regardless. It is important to know when something has reached an end. If only because it permits us business folk to close it off, leave it behind, not invest more energy squeezing something that has really ended <even though we do not want to admit it> and move on to the next chapter of our business life.

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

“Do not fear to lose what needs to be lost.”

Sue Monk Kidd

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

“Better to write for yourself and have no public, than to write for the public and have no self.”

Cyril Connolly

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

So.

If you write, your biggest desire is to be read.

If you write, your biggest fear is to be read.

You want to write things that matter, but to do so you have to not only take a distinct stand but you also have to inject some of your own distinctness. While you feel best when you put things down on paper that meet that criteria, it is this that which leads to your biggest fear — it will be read. Because that is judgement time.

Writing is wandering the ragged diagonal between duty and desire.

Regardless.

I guess in some way we, who write, want people to be pleased, and to pay attention. You wouldn’t be human to not want this in some form or fashion.

That said. Primarily, maybe what is most important is, as long as you write for yourself and can be pleased by what you write and say you have spoken your mind, well, you are ahead of the game.

Secondarily, if at some point you entertain someone else and happen to stumble across the truth to share and someone sees it, well, consider yourself lucky — it was a good day.

I’ve written over 2500 pieces. I’d be lying if I didn’t say not every day was a good day. That said. The good days are really really good. And that’s why you write.

 ================

“To every rule there is an exception—and an idiot ready to demonstrate it. “

Vera Nazarian

==

“Any fool can make a rule. And any fool will mind it.”

Henry David Thoreau

==

Everyone, and I mean everyone, is tempted to break a rule or two. This includes even a normal <or quasi sensible> person. As I noted in my ‘pirate post’ the sane people in business get frustrated with not getting shit done and is tempted to become a pirate <raise the black flag> and kill <hopefully not literally> conformity, the status quo and those things that may dull the edges in business <and life>.

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

H.L. Mencken

For today let’s call the well intended rule breakers <not the amoral actors> rebels. All businesses need a rebel or two.  Why? Rules encourage compromise and rebels hate compromising.

Rebels cannot.  It is about winning on their terms or losing on their terms – ‘terms’ most typically defined in a simple “do what is right’ mentality.

To be clear.

I am not suggesting cheating.

I am not suggesting lying.

I am not suggesting anything nefarious.

I am simply suggesting that some rules may need to be sacrificed, or adjusted, in order to do what is right. And sometimes it is a truth that there is a better, if not actually best, way of doing something. That said. This is where businesses run into some problems.

Business is a contradiction with regard to rules.

Business loves construct and process and best practices and ‘how people should do things’ and loves defining “how this company plays by the rules” <literally outlining rules> and, yet, they want people to think freely for themselves. Business actually thrives on people who don’t simply follow rules like a sheep, but rather look at rules with a discerning eye of ‘stupid or smart.’

Ah. Smart.

Smart people don’t encourage breaking rules. Smart people encourage breaking stupid rules.

Smart people don’t break rules for the sake of breaking rules. Smart people assess rules and break them when appropriate.

Look.

Being a rebel is tough mainly because there are some wacky rule definitions scattered throughout businesses. I do believe you can encourage individualism <rebellion> in some other way than ‘the world is full of rules. Be the exception.’ No. I KNOW you can encourage individualism and ‘smart behavior choice even in the face of rules.’

Valuing some sense of order thru rules, and personal accountability toward rules, is kind of what makes civilization run. Same with business. Smart rule breakers respect rules because they do offer order, but recognize stupid rules as order for order sake.

Look <part 1>.

Some rules are good. And rules intended to keep people safe <even if it is a stupid rule> and a business from running into a ditch is good. Telling a person that it is good to break the rules, no matter how seemingly small or stupid, is a bad lesson. Rebels need a discerning eye.

Look <part 2>.

Beyond society, in business I know breaking stupid rules is sometimes necessary to get things done. Excellent effective leadership actually seems to come with an unwritten responsibility to cut through rules that act as barriers to achieving what needs to be done <for the overall betterment of the organization>. I could argue that truly great leaders get where they are because they can do exactly that, legally of course, when the rules tell us otherwise.

Some people call this cutting through the red tape. I call it the ability to weave your way thru the organizational bullshit and get shit done. I can guarantee that if you look throughout any successful organization you will always find some ‘smart’ rule breakers who work diligently to overcome or circumvent the rules, regulations, and policies that unintentionally hinder progress and make it difficult to accomplish shit that needs to be done.

Anyway.

Business isn’t always a Dilbert scene and business SHOULDN’T always translate into some simplistic perspective. In organizations there is certainly individual responsibility, in behavior & decision making, but there is also a relationship with the greater good & greater organism. A person may actually be one of those professional ‘break stupid rules smartly’ people, but ‘managing’ people takes a different skill.

Uh oh.

I think I just suggested two sets of behavior rules.

Anyway.

Here is what I know about the art of breaking stupid rules: independence.

Independence in terms of viewing rules smartly, independent thinking, independent accountability and, well, a dependence upon others to independently agree that this is one of those situations in which there is a stupid rule creating an obstacle to doing the right thing.

I would suggest that great business leaders who embrace independence as an organizational concept are often like the great frigate captains of the old British navy <who were kind of like rebels within a larger organization>. They showcased an ability to effectively participate in the larger organizational activities when required and an ability to be effective taking off on independent campaigns.

I would say that if you do want Independence, well, you do have to be smart about it. Once again:

Smart people don’t encourage breaking rules. Smart people encourage breaking stupid rules. Smart people don’t break rules for the sake of breaking rules. Smart people assess rules and break them when appropriate

One last thing on the ‘smart’ aspect.

This is not intuition or instincts. This is rational, logically driven behavior. Intuition means different things to different people, but suffice it to say it is a horrible way to consistently manage a business & make business decisions. Intuition reflects biased views <usually based on personal experience>. Balancing logic & experience & speed & instincts is an incredibly tricky balancing act, but that balance is often the formula for success if you want to break a stupid rule with independent thinking.

All that said.

99% of the time rules are in place for a reason. Someone thought it made sense and offered some value. I say that to remind all the rebels out there you need to “step in” to a rule, understand it, untangle the stupid part, identify what guidelines are meaningful and then envision not only what you need to do <in breaking the stupid rule>, but also envision the consequences.

Hey. I didn’t say it is easy being a rebel. Rules, even stupid ones, should take some work before you break them. The best rebels do the work to insure breaking a rule offers real value <in other words, breaking this rule was valuable disobedience to the construct>. Ponder.

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

“I lived according to the prevailing myth.  Everyone lives by myths.

Prettied up they are called truths … basic truths, natural truths, self-evident truths. What I knew or thought a year ago is beside the point. The problem is today. Even if the past was a lie, what am I supposed to replace it with? Another lie? All that’s necessary is to pull the old one out and put a new one in like a circuit board?  

Inspector O

=====

“The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed.”

Robert Heinlein

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

“The way we got out of the caves and into modern civilisation is through the process of understanding and thinking. Those things were not done by gut instinct.  Being an expert does not mean that you are someone with a vested interest in something; it means you spend your life studying something.

You’re not necessarily right – but you’re more likely to be right than someone who’s not spent their life studying it.”

Brian Cox

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

“… if no one knows anything then why can’t I know something?”

Bruce McTague

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

Well. Increasingly we are hearing more and more people publicly questioning the expertise & knowledge of experts. It has come to a point where significant public figures have even stated things like “we have had enough of the experts.”

Uhm. When this occurs, and enough people actually believe it, well .. geez … if no one knows anything than why the hell can’t I know something becomes the overarching perception <if not attitude>.

You know where this belief has always existed? The corner of the neighborhood bar. I am sure we have all experienced it. Sitting around with friends, maybe at the corner of the bar, bitching about the world and talking about what we would do to fix it. At that table … and at that time, well, we can solve everything that the experts, the leaders, the grand decision makers seem to struggle solving.

Most of the time, if we are honest with ourselves, we dumb it down to some simplistic surface conclusion which sometimes is partially right. Often we apply a ‘common sense’ filter which, if we are honest with ourselves about this too, does not really reflect the complexity of reality. If we are honest with ourselves <once again>, more often than not we are wrong. Now. Its not that we aren’t smart. It just may be we are a little intellectually lazy.

Ok. That was harsh. Try this. Maybe we just don’t know enough or have enough experience. Maybe it is because we have not spent a lifetime studying it or we assume our personal professional or whatever experience is indicative of the knowledge necessary to be ‘right.’ And maybe we rely a little too much on what I have called “fortune cookie wisdom” <quasi-intellectual soundbite wisdom>.

But … whew … in the moment … in the discussion and debate and obvious common sense, we could run the world, the country and the biggest business venture out there. It is a fun moment. And we feel smart and even more importantly we feel as if we could do whatever it is as well as the person who is doing it. For a moment, just a moment, we look around at all the Harvard MBAs and all the policy experts and all the high falutin’ experts and we are as good and as smart as they are.

Sigh.

But we are not. It may seem like it. But we are not. Yet, at every bar, at every table, every Steve, Sarah, Sue and Sam thinks that they are.

That is the sad truth.

I actually believe this belief is driven by a version of the 80/20 rule. Assuming you are fairly worldly, fairly well informed and fairly enlightened, you probably get 80% of it right. And, boy, that 80% feels good. It may even feel “right enough.” But, in general, its just, well, 80% right. In general, just 80% on the important stuff just is not good enough. That is the difference between an amateur and a professional or an expert. That 20%. Some would argue it is simply the nuance, but in most of the larger more grand problems and issues we face it is that 20% that makes something go incredibly right or incredibly wrong.

And, uhm, I hate to tell everyone … but … most of us are not capable of that 20%.

That said. Realistically the last time everyone possessed the same skills in a society to participate within a leadership role at 100% equal was maybe several million years ago when all of us humans ran around as hunter/gatherers. Once we evolved into larger social groupings, and inevitably created cities and population clusters where some people had to make decisions for the greater good of the whole some people naturally evolved into governors and governing <leadership> and the expertise needed to assume those responsibilities. And while we can bitch & moan about the ineptness of leadership, in general, leaders lead and others follow. Yet, we everyday schmucks get confused and believe we would be smarter, if not as smart, as people in the positions of leadership.

Part of the problem is the problems themselves. Most problems contain contradictions and truly are complex with lots of moving parts. Heck. Everything is complex, not just the problems.

** note: that last point contributes to corner of the bar wisdom. solutions, or good past decisions, tend to look simple in hindsight and we ignore the complex interconnections which begets the result we are pointing to <while at the corner of the bar>

For example. As we discuss country issues we discuss natural contradictions within a complex world <both domestic & international is important> as well as the fact the American people often embrace contradictory goals <just wander through any PewResearch report to confirm that thought>.

What do I mean? Well. For example. While any citizen of any country wants to be ‘great’ – defining ‘great’ is a complex puzzle. At the corner of the bar more often than not we ignore the contradictory challenges with more simplistic solutions for what would be great <under the guise of common sense actions or ‘seems to make sense on the surface’ attitudes>. Sometimes this ‘common sense’ assumes ‘oh, everyone would agree with that’ when, in reality, the majority of people would debate it <that is actually complexity in a nutshell>.

I would like to note the exceptional corner of the bar pontificators position themselves incredibly well to exploit such contradictory opinions. For example. “Make America Great Again” is a simplistic slogan that embraces some aspects of patriotism or nationalism pride and is broad enough that any individual can define ‘great’ from their own perspective including both a harsh insular ‘past driven’ edge to a much grander ‘future possibilities’ thought.

That said. At the corner of the bar we more often than not rule our thoughts based on passion <fear, individualism, frustration & anger> supported by reason. The experts reverse the equation ignoring passionate response <fear, individualism, anger> and basing ideas & solutions on solid reasoning and rational thought <and things called “principles” & laws>. I will not spend any time on laws, but, while we at the corner of the bar sometimes shake our heads wondering what common sense <or lack thereof> created some laws we accept they are laws because in some way we all know it creates a construct of ethics.

But let’s be honest. The neighborhood bar is in … well … the neighborhood. It is where we kibbitz over non neighborhood things.

In general it is healthy semi-intellectual debate which makes us feel intellectually good.

In general we take a fairly ridiculously narrow view of how the world works.

Anyway.

The experts who have been talking about this stuff. For today’s discussion I am going to lean on two relatively short, but broader insightful reads – Huntington’s “clash of civilizations’ written in 1993 for Foreign Affairs magazine and then Foreign Affairs magazine’s reprise of the article in 2013 with a number of short “here is what I think” articles.

Rereading the well written thoughts makes you not only realize that the intellectual of those of us at the corner of the bar may not be at the level of stupid, but that there are a shitload of really smart people discussing these topics not at the bar.

Basically, most of us struggle with globalization and nationalism. It’s not that we do not want either or reject one over the other it is that we struggle to see, feel and understand the balance. One expert called this uneasiness we feel ‘casual collapse.’ It is the seemingly ongoing blurring of many beliefs, rituals, formal requirements and laws that define specific societies and us.   And we feel a little helpless in stopping this ‘casual collapse’ because of that darn thing called ‘the internet’ <the cross-cultural sharing of information and knowledge> all compounded by all those darn people shouting nonsense on that darn thing called ‘the internet.’

Now. All this is happening without causing any particular larger collapse of anything. It is just a casual collapse of things as they used to be. And it is happening despite any government edicts or programs designed to slow the change <collapse> or older generations tied to some past cultural aspects efforts. It is an inevitable collapse driven by the fact as everyone becomes more knowledgeable about ‘what is happening and what people are thinking’ half way around the world they begin questioning the status quo conventional thinking where they are. It becomes a blending of local cultural thinking and a more global perspective.

And the whole issue is exacerbated by a faster additional natural progression created by the urbanization of emerging countries.

Why does this change anything? There’s an obvious link between the broad spread of more liberal attitudes and increasing urbanization globally <in 1980 Africa 28% lived in cities – today its 40+% – 40+ million people>. As new urbanites find themselves further distanced from traditional social and familial structures, and are exposed to a wider range of alternative goods, services, lifestyles, opinions and experiences, their tolerance to alternative thinking and behavior grows – as does their interest & attitudes. The web simply accelerates what would have been happening naturally.

I am certainly not suggesting this will happen overnight. As trendwatching suggests “compared to much trend thinking, casual collapse moves at a glacial pace.” Basically, whether we like it or not, globalization has forced the world to be at odds with itself. We are not a world of countries and states living in solitude, but rather one in which we overlap linked, and delinked, by varying degrees of history, culture, religion, language, location and institutions.

This causes a natural reaction against a sense of uniformity. We naturally chafe at the thought of “being the same as everyone else” <while still viewing aspects we like & want>. And therein lies the greater conflict – while economic life takes place on a global platform human identity remains national & local.

Yeah.

The identification of local <and nationalism> will always continue and will always create the same angst we feel at the corner of the bar as we watch the zillion TV’s typically sitting in the bar suggesting globalization is infringing upon our corner of the bar.

Even global economic growth infringes upon our national identification.

What do I mean? Economics depends on education and communication which leads directly to conflicts over language and comparisons over education levels. All the while … a global economic view encourages everyone to believe the world is their oyster – anyone can aspire to any economic position. The reality is that everyone does not have an equal likelihood of upward economic mobility <locally, nationally or globally> and not simply because individuals have different innate capabilities <but that is a different post>.

At the corner of the bar we need not worry nor address the balance we focus on what we need and what we want – not necessarily the greater good.

And then there is the scary factor we local experts face over a beer.

Terrorism.

There is clearly a relationship between globalization and violence. Unfortunately, this stage of globalization <its current stage of maturity> doesn’t necessarily spread peace & understanding. Instead it tends to foster conflicts and resentments <global media makes it possible for the most deprived or oppressed to compare their fate with that of the free and well-off as well as showing one nation what another nation is achieving>. In today’s world globalization tends to provoke revolt and dissatisfaction.

All that said. The one thing we common everyday schmucks can certainly do at the corner of the bar is to analyze the present, embrace some of the past, but we cannot predict the future.

The future is yet to be written by a world that is anything but simple. It is a world where society is often uneven, always complex and often local societies overlap with a global society all the while burdened by public institutions seemingly incapable of navigating local and international needs. This often leads us to simply divide the issue into a solvable part versus unite the complexity into one seemingly unsolvable issue <because it is easier to solve a part rather than a complex whole when you are at the corner of the bar>.

And that is where most of us at the corner of the bar truly fall short. Enriching people, minds, bodies and spirit, is the ultimate objective of any problem & issue and the most difficult task in the world.

It is a complex task.

It requires the best of everyone, the best of civilizations and the best of leadership & thinking all not emphasizing the differences, but reinforcing the common objective.

A country, a culture, a civilization … is a messy creature.

A country can be kind & generous as well as cruel & coldblooded as they pick their way through the natural chaotic world.

Me, and American, believes the United States clearly has the capacity to influence which future is most likely. However, for anyone to predict the future confidently would be naive <or outright lying>. But globalization is not a simplistic concept. But nationalism is not a simplistic concept. Being a president, or any leader of a significant organization, is not a simplistic concept.

Inevitably leading is not just about hope or promising something better, it is a pragmatic pushing of  opportunity to the people who need it the most and want it the most <thereby maximizing what opportunities do exist>. And opportunities abound … in fact … there may actually be more opportunity in the world than problems <but you would never know it by listening to conversations at the corner of the bar … or on TV>.

Look. In a world where I have no idea how my mobile phone or the internet work <or my car, television, or microwave, or … whatever> and, yet, they consistently work, everything seems so unknowable that amateurish expert wisdom actually seems … well … attainable.

In other words. If no one knows anything then why can’t I know something?

C’mon, let’s be honest, corner of the bar discussions typically devolve into the simplistic and our solutions skate on the superficial surface of reality. We should not, and cannot, devolve into a world where there are no experts or believe that experts don’t know more than we do.

Simply being an expert doesn’t mean ‘perfection’ – not making mistakes or being wrong <because that would predicate they could actually tell the future>. But let’s be honest, we want people smarter than us – the people sitting at the corner of the bar – making the really important decisions.

Well.

I certainly do.

---

originally posted July 2016

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

“Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well.”

—-

Robert Louis Stevenson

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

Whew. This quote is often used and used with such a tone and inflection that does more damage than good. What I mean is that in discussing Life with someone, particularly in reference to their Life <business or personal>, if you are not careful how you use these words it can either:

<a> come across as condescending,

<b> come across as blatant ignorance as to someone’s situation, i.e., it is often used toward people in low income, low education geography as ‘inspirational words of wisdom, or even

<c> come across as flippant tripe.

Regardless.

I imagine it is a Life truth that pretty much anyone can play a good hand <or at minimum be less likely to screw it up>. Unfortunately, pretty much no one ever <or rarely> gets dealt a perfect hand. Almost everyone gets dealt some bad cards and some people just get dealt shitty hand after shitty hand. What I will say is that the institutional systems are clearly not equitable and simply working hard and playing an incredibly poor hand you are dealt well does not guarantee success, but, you gotta play the hand you are dealt.

That said. Suffice it to say playing a poor hand sucks.

But just because you are in a situation you don’t want to be in, well, in Life you really can’t fold. You need to work with what you have.  Sometimes you, if you are really good, you can take a poor hand and play it out much better than someone with a much better hand.  You are just more clever or smart or thoughtful & industrious.

Anyway.

Rather than discussing Life in general I want to use this quote to talk about business. Because, frankly, business is very rarely a matter of holding good cards, but rather of playing a poor hand well. If you are worth even half a shit in business you can play a good hand <and, in fact, you learn to not waste a good hand>, but if you are worth even half a shit in business you also know you very <very> rarely get a good hand.

Pretty much every hand you get dealt is flawed in some way and, in fact, often it is a poor hand.

Almost every successful person I know has been dealt some bad cards in their business lifetime. Sometimes some really bad cards. Cards you simply want to toss off to the side in disgust. But you don’t toss them. You keep them in your hand and think about what the fuck you can do with them. These people figure out how to take those cards and use them to put together a victory. They don’t give up when others thought their hand was unwinnable. They found ways to use those cards for the benefit and growth of the business.

They owned the hand and figured out how to win. By the way, that is business in a nutshell.

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

“We are all dealt a hand and we have to decide how to play it.”

Voltaire

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

We all go through things in our business life that we don’t always like.

Things that we have no control over.

Things that others have in place that we have to deal with <and can’t change>.

Things that put us in a place and position we can’t change.

All that said.

You can’t fold.

We have to play the hand that we were dealt. You have to choose progress over waiting for ‘the perfect hand’ <which – sorry to say – does not exist> or even waiting around for a better hand to be dealt.

I am writing this because while I have found many business people use great cards to increase the chance to win the hand I have also seen that it doesn’t really guarantee them a victory.

In fact <part 1>, more often than not, having a less than desirable hand doesn’t mean you automatically lose. There are other factors that go into winning <or finding some success>.

In fact <part 2>, I would suggest that more often than not, a less than desirable hand wins.

The best business people know you don’t get to trade cards with anyone else or pay extra to upgrade your hand so they work the hand they have as well as it can be played.

Look.

Each of us is dealt a hand when we come into work every day. I say that because it is important to remember most of the circumstances around you are out of your control, you don’t decide what circumstances you walk into every day and it does no good to complain about them or expect that they will determine your success.

That said.

<1> Many people think that a great hand, good circumstances, will guarantee their success <and increase the likelihood of happiness>.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

<2> Others will use their less than desirable circumstances as a crutch for why they don’t succeed. They take a look at the hand they were dealt and fold immediately.

They are foolish.

The hand you were dealt cannot be changed, but the way you play it can.

When you go through shit as we all do we all also have the choice how that ‘hand you were dealt’ is played … and inevitably you will do what you believe is best.

Or the best of the worst choices.

Or making the worst best.

Regardless.

You are simply doing what you think it right. And you know what?

In retrospect, if you line up all the choices you made, it will be difficult to see how some of the choices in the left hand column are right … if some of the ones in the right hand column are right. Why? Because you played the cards you had <which were imperfect in the first place>.

But you don’t get to do it over. Part of growing up in business is simply learning to live with regrets and choices made. In an odd way business is a little different than Life in this whole ‘play the cards you have been dealt’ thing.

You will actually find that business is made up of mostly bad choices. Or maybe better said … making the best of the less than best choices. All you really try and do is to keep your balance between them.

In addition … you will actually find that in business, versus Life, is every hand … even if it is bad … even really bad … still has the potential to be a winning hand. And because it is business … as we view the hands we are dealt … I imagine we seek some learning from the past. In other words … you will want to look at some past hands and examine how others have played them.

<note 1: often we do this to some absurd levels>

<note 2: this is sometimes called “procrastination” or “avoiding making the decision”>

Well.

Don’t waste your time.

Fundamental business human behavior doesn’t change over time. You can explore the functional and/or ethical choices <because people inevitably do get affected by how you play your hand> made by others in the past … and we often want to super-examine those made in the most extreme circumstances … but I cannot envision they were any more or less capable to deal with the situations than we are. You can go backwards and judge their decisions and you can be criticize … or applaud … their decisions.

But inevitably the questions lurking behind all that you examine is … what if it had been you? What would you have done in their shoes in that moment?

That’s it. Not their learning, but rather what you would do with those cards in that circumstance. And you know what? I do not need to go backwards in time to figure out what I would do now. Frankly, I will not be any more comfortable knowing that I am doing something that someone else did in the past or something different than someone else did in the past, I have to seek comfort in my decision and my choice.

In the end.

In business … in life … you play the cards you are dealt the best you can. No excuses.You just play ‘em.

And you know what? You will get deal another hand and you play that one the best you can. And maybe that is what this quote tries to tell us.

The last hand doesn’t affect the current cards you hold in hand. And it shouldn’t affect the way you play the next hand. And you certainly don’t get judged by how you played the last hand in the cards you are dealt. People may look at you differently but the cards make no judgment.

They simply get dealt. And you play ‘em.

In the end.

As stated earlier, in business you are more likely than not simply making the best of bad, or less than optimal, choices, therefore, business is pretty much all about playing poor hands well. Ponder that.

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

<

p style=”text-align: center;”>Originally posted in 2012

=====

“Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

Albert Einstein

—————

Well. Who would have thought the guy who figured out e=mcsquared would actually say something so simple even someone who doesn’t have a physics PhD can understand it.

I am gonna dumb this down even more.

People in business who manage by milestones and aren’t satisfied unless they have “milestones” to measure and  lean in on “how do we make people accountable” drive me crazy.

Why?

Because they are always seeking something to count.

And what is worse?  That is where they stop.

They stop there because if they can’t count it, it doesn’t count.

Drives.

Me.

Fucking.

Nuts.

Look. Setting clear objectives and maybe some goals is always useful. But not to inspire work. It should be done to guide workers toward something. That said. The entire thought of “because you cannot count something that it doesn’t count” is … well … absurd.

It is absurd because the best people I have ever worked with, or even just glanced off of, had an intangible that made everyone around them be better. Yeah. Often they ‘hit’ numbers but they were also the ones most likely to hit numbers you never even imagined if you didn’t give them a frickin’ number to ‘hit.’  And maybe that is my point. The space between hitting a designated number and a realized number is uncountable upfront. Yeah.  I don’t know how you count that. I can’t even count the intangibles that go into creating a predictive uncountable number.

And trying to figure out how to make an intangible tangible just so you can figure out a way to measure or count it seems to be an incredible waste of time and effort. Let me explain just so you don’t think I am being silly. In most businesses if you leave people alone and let them create business and they generate some number bigger than what was expected <or forecasted> some numbnut will come along and analyze every aspect of what happened and who did what so that they can ‘count it’ into their next forecast. Its absurd.

(but that is something you can count on)

Numbers, in and of themselves, are not accountable. They are simply a reflection of some “cause” <and ’cause’ can be accountable>. More likely numbers are a refection of that wacky thing called “people working together.”

Numbers, in and of themselves, are less facts and more reflections of a mosaic from which you need to build facts. Even more importantly numbers are more a reflection of the intangible aspect of

What you can also count on is Albert was smarter than he looked.

Uh oh. Your company has slid down the slippery slope of brilliant irrelevance. Your business is in trouble.

This sucks because in the not too distant past you were standing at the top of the mountain looking down on everyone — head in the clouds blinded by bright success. Unfortunately, being at the top is heady business and companies easily, and often, step a little too far. Actually, you probably stepped nowhere, but instead the edge of the mountain eroded under your feet because you were looking up too much <or at the gobs of money you were making> and … oops … you just slid down the slope.

Here’s the good news. You have a chance. Albeit it is a small chance. But you do have a chance to get the hell off the slope and resurrect that frickin’ mountain you were standing on before. It’s a small chance because a whole bunch of things need to be done and need to be done right AND need to go right … but it can be done.

Some branding expert once wrote about this topic and cranked out the eight P’s <purpose, promise, people, product, place, price, promotion and performance> as “the way” to resurrect your company.

Uhm.

First. There is no ‘the way.’

Second. It’s a nice trick using all that assonance <all the P stuff>, but before anything else would happen I imagine most people would tell him to ‘piss off’ <that may be the 8^th P> rather than try and do all those things.

Third. Resurrection is hard. It is pushing that boulder back up the mountain.

So while many things need to go right I would say success in business resurrection resides in doing a few things well, with focus, and lots of resilience and determination. Of course, I am not as smart as that branding expert … so you may want to take these thoughts with a grain of salt: 

–          Refocus.

This is about focusing the entire organization. This can be resetting, it can be redefining, or it can simply be realizing that you have lost your focus. Personally, I am never quite on board with the people who say you need to redefine because that assumes you had a crappy definition in the first place which seems unlikely if you actually made it to the top (or close). More likely this is simply refocusing on what got you to the mountain top in the first place.
Refocusing the organization begins with clearly defining the brand and business vision and goals. I know where I mostly get aggravated with ‘rebranding experts’ is that they always seem to suggest a company needs something ‘new’  or recreate or, well, they seem focused on something new and glittery.

Here is a business truth. Brands and companies win not on glitter, but on the grind. And the grind is, well, not glittery. I say that because while you are grinding away and making gobs of money there will always be a bunch of people showing you shiny glittery objects suggesting now that you have had some success in the grind, you should be more, well, fabulous. They whisper “you are better than a ‘grind brand and company.’” Within that tempting glittery ‘I want to be fabulous’ gauntlet many a good company grinding away has been lured away from its focus. In fact. I would suggest the more success <or ongoing failure> a company has the easier it is to lose ‘grind focus‘. It is only when you aren’t entirely resoundingly successful or resoundingly a failure that you keep your nose to the grindstone. I imagine my point is that focus, in and of itself, isn’t glittery. To get off the slippery slope of irrelevance you often need to shed the glitter and refind the grindstone. And, yes, I purposefully chose this metaphor on my first point to reemphasize … this is work. This is hard.

And there is not a lot of glitter in refocusing <and resurrection> a business.

–          Relevance
This is about refinding the company’s true relevance. Because first & foremost the company has to have the perception <internally and externally> it is better at something. That almost sounds silly to point out, but if a company is in a resurrection crisis mode 99% of the time that ‘lack of focus’ that got them here has led to what I refer to as ‘fragmented relevance.’ What I mean is that success often breeds ‘following additional sales’ rather than ‘leading to additional sales.’ Let me explain. At some point things were going well and it became really really easy to begin to make niche or small business exceptions under the guise of ‘the customer wants it’ and it gave some signs of incremental sales <maybe not profit>. Your balance sheet is becoming strewn with these little exceptions which inflate your revenue and sales, but you aren’t making shit for profit from them. You are doing a lot but not getting a lot of return out of what you are doing.

This leads back to relevance. A company fools themselves into believing they are offering something relevant because they are responding to a customer, but it isn’t better or distinct, you are simply attempting to meet a customer need/desire.

In branding words you are flooding your brand with indistinct commodity like features. While each little thing looks … well, little, when viewed as a whole it becomes confusing to the outside world. What are you really good at? What is your best product? All that kind of stuff. You’ve lost perception relevance in people’s minds.

Ah. You have simply slipped down the slippery slope of irrelevance.

Many times a company will have to shed product/service offerings to resurrect. Uh oh. I told you this was difficult. If it helps, think of these things as little rocks weighing you down pulling you further down the slope <as well as making it an increased burden as you try and pull your company back up the slope>. Make sure that ‘better’ <the promise you are offering to anyone who wants to be associated with you> is relevant — to them, not to you.

** note: assessing what you need to shed can be very easy, shedding is often very difficult. I often ask businesses “how far would you go to survive” and “be prepared to abandon everything it does to survive.”

This means defining where you want the brand to be and then deciding how to get there.

This means making sure you are selling people ONLY the things that make you better. This sometimes means moving one foot forward to follow your customer as they have also become older and yet keep one foot solidly in a growing customer base.

Does this mean the company has to mean everything to everyone? Absolutely not. It is just all about remaining relevant to enough people so that you have a meaningful place in the world of business. 

–          Align 

This is always the tricky part. Whatever you have decided the focus is, you need to align everyone internally <without diminishing autonomy> and you need to reinforce this externally <consistent attitude & behavior>. A company has to be mercilessly disciplined and yet maintain the flexibility to accommodate the true fact that ‘a great plan never lives beyond first contact with the enemy.’ I imagine using the P methodology could help because this is what the five of the P’s are all about: people, product, place, price and promotion.

People.

You have to be disciplined on the focus anchor of the business pendulum. The pendulum will swing. You just want to insure that everyone’s pendulum is swinging off the same axis. There has to be employee commitment and confidence. In fact, in resurrection mode, they need to be ‘reinspired.’ This is very difficult during resurrection because you have most likely decreased the number of offerings <which implies they will have less to satisfy the customer with> and you may have laid some people off.

The organization has to believe that there is a <planned> future, the future will happen and that they can help.

Next. The products and services are the tangible evidence of the focus and relevance.

A company’s ONLY chance of resurrection is to be ruthless in assessing their product portfolio. Absolutely frickin’ ruthless. I will outline in price how I would go about figuring this out.

The next P is ‘place.’ Personally I think this is a forced P. This is about the experience or however and whenever and wherever a potential customer interacts and has an experience with your product portfolio and people.  Some people call this the face of the brand.

I don’t really care what you call it. The experience must be consistent everywhere. No ifs, ands or buts.

Ah. Then there is price. Whew. Resurrection almost always falls apart here. I almost always suggest a company do an audit of all their sales and define two main things:

–          How many sales did you make at full price <no customer discounts or exceptions or whatever>

–          How many sales did you make with an acceptable profit.

I almost always begin here because not enough companies do this. In addition it shines a spotlight on where they make money and how they make money.

I am not opposed to discounting <because there are some psychological aspects of selling it appeals to>, but I am opposed to not having an everyday price perception. Too often customer research will come back and say something like “well, that isn’t their real price.”

That’s bad.

People need to know your price or at least your pricing strategy. A good place to always start <part one> is simply decrease an emphasis on discounting.  An overemphasis on deals and discounts builds deal loyalty rather real loyalty <note: discounting is scary to eliminate>.

A good place to start <part 2> is clearly define your pricing strategy. Despite what you may believe. a company does not have to be low price every day.

Yes. Building value perceptions is really difficult. But you know what? So is resurrecting your company. Resurrection doesn’t even get off the ground if you screw up your pricing <value proposition>. As hard as it is to accept, resurrection is really not about sales, it is about value perceptions <sales will follow>.

Chew on that one for a while.

Promotion <or how and what you communicate>. Theme, slogan, visuals, sounds, it doesn’t matter.

Too often someone comes dancing in from the outside suggesting that “how exciting … you are rebranding! … we need to build some excitement!! … some flash & sizzle!!!” <and, yes, the number of exclamation points increase as the conversation continues>. To use Tolkien: “not all that glitters is gold.” Go back to my first point, companies and brands win by grinding. All communications, first and foremost, must be reflective of ‘the alignment grind.’ A consistent reflection of that promise. Disconnected messages and tactics destroy alignment, destroy inspiration internally, and destroy brands externally.

Ok.

Here is your bottom line on business resurrection. You want to, and have to, produce the right results, but you need to do it the right way.

Resurrection is relentlessly unforgiving.

Truth — you are honestly already on your way to death if you need to be resurrected. It drives me a little crazy that more companies don’t take on a ‘do this or die’ attitude in resurrection mode. Of course they are nervous <if not scared> so they inevitably discuss easing changes and gradually shifting … its crazy.

Resurrection is about shaking the etch a sketch or you slide down to the bottom of the slippery slope of irrelevance and die.

=======

Originally published November 2013

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

“Incrementalism is how we slide into participation by imperceptible degrees so that there is never the sense of a frontier being crossed.” 

—-

Jonathan Glover 

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

“Progress lies not in enhancing what is, but in advancing toward what will be.”

—-

Kahlil Gibran 

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

Well. Incrementalism is a virus. And once you catch it is a sonuvabitch to cure.

I, personally, believe the entire business world, including new business incubators, has this virus. Incrementalism has seeped its way not only into mainstream business but also mainstream ‘innovation’ pipelines.

Yeah. Innovations too.

I dare any of you to walk the halls of your local business incubation center and find a real, “break the etch-a-sketch” idea in there. If you are lucky, you will find one. The majority of innovation ideas these days, incubators as well as established companies, is all about incrementally leveraging from something existing.

Sure. They may claim its “unique” and “a whole new way of doing things”, but the majority of the time, lets say 98% of the time, it is a derivative of something that exists. That is how far the incrementalism virus has reached into the business world.

But this post today isn’t about innovation. This is about how incrementalism just makes us sad. It makes us sad because if you embrace incrementalism that means you have given up on, well, something that is not incremental. You have given up on being able to do something big and risky and game changing. And, worst, you’ve given up on making any substantial decisions <because incrementalism is simply an excuse for not making a clear cut decision>.

Now.

You may not believe you have given it up because we, in the business world, actually cleverly use incrementalism to convince ourselves we are actually achieving big changes.

….. incrementalism dance ………

We do the dance of ‘small steps to achieve big change’ which is kind of some odd waltz in which we make the same moves over and over again and point to change as “we improved how we dance” <but we are still in the same place dancing with the same person dancing to the same music>.

To be clear.

Even I, someone who loves change and “shaking the etch-a-sketch” in business, have been sucked into the black hole of incrementalism.

We do an incredibly good job of convincing ourselves that big change is hard, shit, that any change is hard and almost impossible to do because ‘it is difficult to do’ (note: which is mostly a bullshit thought). Given that, we do an incredibly good job of convincing ourselves that the only way to effectively successfully implement change is through smaller thoughtful steps. All leading to … we do an incredibly good job of convincing ourselves of all that, in fact, so much so that’s all we do.

Look.

Big change is possible. You just need to be smart, thoughtful and choose the ‘big’ wisely and with open eyes. But nowadays we view ‘big’ as some place we need to work our way towards and not just something we do. Unfortunately, as soon as we step onto the incrementalism slippery slope it, more often than not, causes everyone to slide, unintentionally, into unchanging behavior <or microscopic change increments>. This means everyone does small thing after small thing which make everyone feel like they are changing and that shit is changing … uhm … all the while the world itself is changing faster.

This means in our incrementalism we are moving forward and, yet, falling behind. It’s like walking on a moving sidewalk in the wrong direction.

Maybe the worst part?

We do not even see the backwards effect of our supposed forward movement. This happens mostly because most of us suck at not only changing, but perceiving change. We easily lose sight of any change as we focus on the incremental activity we have wholly embraced as ‘progress’ <because we say in our minds: “big change is impossible and this is the way to do it!”>.

The other very real danger of incrementalism is that while you have your head down focused on the incremental task at hand not only may the rest of the world be moving faster than you – it may even turn. So you will keep plugging away plodding down your incrementalism path and all the while the rest of the world is now trundling away in a completely different direction.

By the way. In business this is bad.

Anyway.

I will absolutely admit that most of the business world absolutely recognizes the importance of seeking to continuously reinvent and innovation, yet, sadly mostly we are actually just going through the motions. The motions may look incredibly sensible but they really aren’t achieving any change of any significance.

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

the term Incrementalism is also used as a synonym for Gradualism. Incrementalism is a method of working by adding to a project using many small incremental changes instead of a few (extensively planned) large jumps.

Logical incrementalism implies that the steps in the process are sensible.

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

I fully admit that convincing people that change is not hard <and overcoming ‘it pays to be sensible’> is hard. And I fully admit that the “big version” of this is even harder AND I admit that any non-incremental change is even more risky <which makes overcoming “it pays to be sensible” even harder>.

But that isn’t my point.

My point is that it seems like we have convinced ourselves in the business world that change is ALWAYS best achieved gradually and incrementally. We should always find the easy small steps and do them.

So what <you may be asking>?

This means we begin measuring the success of the business not by any real change, but rather defining our usefulness and worthiness by measuring it in increments versus the past. Incrementalism more often than not doesn’t get measured by how much closer to the ‘big change’ you are but rather by how far you have gone from what you were.

Uhm.

That is nuts. And while it is nuts that is almost exactly how over 90% of business conduct business <and their change>. Worse? This incremental behavior decision making actually bleeds into incremental decision making in general. Everyone starts believing that a bold decision just isnt worth it when you know everyone feels comfortable with an incremental decision.

Look.

While I always advocate timely good big change, I certainly would advocate embracing incrementalism on occasion. Business change is, and as always been, about choice. You look around and choose where incrementalism may be most effective and where ‘big change’ is actually needed. In other words, for doing smart change you do both within your business.

** note: this is exactly the same for strategy – deterministic & emergent. Emergent is simply another word for ‘unplanned for opportunity’ or opportunistic and typically is an opportunity for a non-incremental result.

Yeah.

I can do both at the same time. This has two benefits:

• Organization: all businesses need to be reinvented in some way. I cannot remember one business I have seen or been involved in that hadn’t established some routine that didn’t need to be changed significantly. Incrementalism steadies the organization by not destroying something, but rather fine tuning it. Conversely when you can tie big change to the organization situationally it energizes the organization that it is being smart <to not change everything>, but bold <in that it is willing to make selective smart big changes>. Showing both is the best of both worlds.
• The employee/individual: incrementalism is a virus almost like mononucleosis. It encourages employees to almost sleepwalk through the day. When you inject big change and encourage everyone to believe it can be done and develop a plan to show it can be done and activate people to start getting it done, individual employees are reminded that there IS something more than either the status quo or ‘incremental and gradual change’ <which they were struggling to discern from the everyday grind anyway>.

In the end. My concern.

My concern is that our love of incrementalism is killing meaningful change. Its killing meaningful decisions. Its killing believing meaningful (bigger) things can actually happen.

I don’t want to kill incrementalism, but I certainly want to breathe new life into “big” and meaningful.

Just know this about incrementalism: the problem is that incrementalism is seductively sleepy. It’s the Prozac of business strategy. All I can really suggest is that every business should stop taking Prozac on occasion and watch how the pulse of the company picks up. They may find that Life off of Prozac just isn’t that bad. More importantly, they may find they can shrug off the sadness of incrementalism and have a happier organization. And that is a good thing in business.