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

“Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.”

Oscar Wilde

===========

“Consistency is the refuge of small minds”

Orson Welle

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

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson

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

I have to disagree with Ralphie <which is what I believe his mother called him>. Consistency and <some> predictability gets a bad rap. In other words … consistency is neither foolish nor refuge of solely small minds. Nor is it a hobgoblin of anything <let alone little minds>.

<I am pleased to be able to use the inestimable, and not oft-used, hobgoblin word>

Please note. I write this as a person who abhors being too predictable in personal life and in business. I like going left just because the directions say go right just to see what those who tell you to go right are missing.

But. Here is an uncomfortable truth <at least to me>. Most of us like some consistency in our lives. Aw heck … I will admit it … most of us like a lot <as in shitload> of consistency in our lives.

Oh. And by lives I mean Life as well as in business.

Despite the fact we so often speak of ‘throw caution to the wind’ or that we like to be unpredictable or we like to be spontaneous or ‘be random’, we really don’t.

Yes. We say it, but, rarely do it.

We like consistency and some predictability to provide a solid backbone to our lives. And as a manager of employees you absolutely cherish some consistent behavior day in and day out.

Now, to be fair to Welles & Emerson, when is consistency a refuge of small minds?

Well. I refer to this as “small living.” It is consistent just for comfort sake. It is actually lazy living but made worse because it is living under the guise of something else — lack of any risk. Hence the reason I call it ‘small living.’ This type of consistency keeps you from exploring the bigness Life has to offer those willing to discover what is beyond consistency & predictability boundaries.

Here is what I think about that. That type of thinking, in most countries and languages, inevitably leads to a ornière, rodera, keréknyom,   kiima  <rut> or être en rut, in een sleur, essere in un solco, olla kiima <be in a rut>.

Rut … as in ‘an elongated hole.’

Oh my. So being too consistent or predictable is living in a hole? Yup.

Here is a reminder about holes. They typically:

<a> have slippery slopes leading down to the bottom,

<b> it is really really difficult to stop sliding down a slippery slope once on it,

<c> you need someone to pull you out of the hole once you are in it <or you stay in it>.

Just as spontaneity is imagined to be better than it actually is <because the other word for ‘spontaneity’ is ‘surprise’ and, despite surprise’s incredible reputation, the truth is that most surprises are bad> predictability can become tantalizingly too attractive. Geez. So I have just said predictability is tantalizingly attractive … as well as consistency … and, uh oh, even spontaneity. That certainly explains why Life can be so confusing at times. All things different but tantalizingly attractive <insert a big fat ‘Yikes’ here>.

Now. Explaining life is a shitload easier than actually living it and doing what needs to be done to maximize it.

Let me explain how difficult it can be. Life best lived walks a razor thin balance of several things:

<please note … this is not research but rather Bruce quasi-vapid thinking>

–          Consistent/predicted behavior <a planned list driven life>.

–          Planned spontaneity <think vacations or scheduled parties or outings>.

–          Random spontaneity <shit that just happens>.

And I would suggest <using my research brain knowledge> that this razor thin balance is maybe an 80%-15%-5% <with a +/- 2.5% margin of error> Life mix.

Yup. Me, the lover of not being too predictable … accepts the fact that having the majority of Life be familiar and consistent and predictable as, this pains me to admit, good. Because with some people, using my margin of error. less than 2.5% of your entire Life can actually consist of any true spontaneity and you could be one of the happiest non-hobgoblins on the face of the earth.

Oh. Please note that I believe “planned spontaneity’ is possibly the biggest oxymoron of this generation.We are so obsessed with time and ‘maximizing each available moment’ for fear of ‘wasting anything’ that we actually plan our free time.

This kind of seems nuts to me.

I sometimes believe that in our objective driven world focused on predictability <including measuring success on how well we were able to predict our outcome, including happiness — which seems slightly ludicrous> that we have lost sight of the fact Life is often meant to be lived to ‘do’ & to discover and that the discovery is the measurement not the supposed end value of that discovery.

Do I value the road which was rocky, overgrown and comes to an aggravating dead end as more valuable than the one which was scenic, smooth and ends with a beautiful view?

Whew. I don’t know. I would hope that I don’t measure them against each other, but rather accept the discovery as the success. Oh. That is where predictability rears its ugly head.

Predictability and consistency is often measured in today’s time obsessed world as not only the process & the routine, but also in the result. And maybe that is where I do begin to edge into consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds. I would be foolish to suggest we don’t all aim for more positive results than negative ones because we do. Why? Simply because we all want to be happy.

But if you live your life solely focused on ‘only doing what will make me happy’ <or has the highest probability of happiness> based on predictable behavior I would suggest you have committed to not only a fairly boring path you still will not be 100% successful in reaching your intended objective.

In business? It sounds frustratingly non innovative <and a sure path down the slippery slope of mediocrity>.

And maybe that is the point.

Too much consistency and predictability only insures a life of happy <possibly content> mediocrity.

Maybe some people are content with mediocrity, but I would suggest that Life isn’t really meant to be mediocre. It is meant to be spectacularly exciting and disappointing. Maybe not all the time <any one of us would eventually get sick if 24 hours a day we rode the world’s largest rollercoaster>, but certainly we deserve to see how high we can go and how low we can get out of.

Why? Because all of that stuff defines our character <plus, who the hell wants their epitaph to be “he was consistent & predictable”?>.

I imagine all I am suggesting is that Life isn’t meant to be little. Too much consistency and predictability simply insures you have made your Life as little as it can be. I am not suggesting you have to go hog-wild and ‘live every moment like it is your last’ <which, in general, I tend to believe is fairly crappy advice> but rather … maybe it is challenging yourself to live on that razor thin balance of consistency, planned spontaneity and true spontaneity.

Look. I know this isn’t easy … and I also understand that there is a huge spectrum of living life possibilities between dangerous freedom and slavery to predictability. I know I personally swing back & forth between the two <which could make anyone’s head a little dizzy on occasion>.

But maybe it is simpler to go ahead and call this type of attitude & behavior as ‘restless consistency.’ Maybe we should aspire to live Life that way … and each of us define our restlessness however we would like, but maintain some restlessness.

I can guarantee only one thing:  it will not all go well.

Okay.

I can guarantee two things: it will not all go well but what does go well will most likely go really well.

Well. Maybe I can predict one more thing. Your Life will be bigger. Your business will be bigger.

==========

“On s’engage et puis … on voit.”

“First engage in a serious battle and then see what happens.”

———-

Napoleon

======

“Understanding why was more interesting than understanding who.

The story of why things are the way they are is heartbreakingly beautiful.”

———

Keegan Allen

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

“The fire which enlightens is the fire which consumes.”

—-

Henri-Frederic Amiel

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

Well.

I almost called this “existing answers versus new answers.”  If you think about it, curiosity is a multidimensional “thing.”  I do know Curiosity is possibly the most important characteristic of anyone who is good at what they do <in Life & in business>. But “good” comes in a variety of shapes & sizes and sometimes those shapes & sizes are crafted by one thing: “do we care more about the question or the answers?”

What I mean by that is finding truth, or the best answers, is very rarely a linear process. Therefore the question & answer sequencing to that truth is not linear. Oops. I tend to believe most people use question & answer in a “that begets that” way.

I would argue that is a reflection of believing the answer is more important than the question. And when you do that all that means is if you get the first question right <and a shitload of us do not> the truth is arrived at like in a sequence of dominos. That’s not the way logic works <although we like to discuss logic that way>.

Discovering creative outcomes & ideas <i.e., answers to questions> typically comes down to attempting to maintain perspective and looking at things differently <which typically doesn’t translate into ‘methodically’>.

I would note here that “mental models” are not “mental methods.”

Models are not just ways of thinking about things but, as a generalization, you think with a curiosity in an inevitable change in thinking. This all gets embodied in a process of information, education, dialogue, and ultimately, the insights generated from the process which will drive the choices.

Which leads me to ‘asking questions’ <because the only way you can gain insights is by actually asking questions>.

I don’t know why but it seems like there is a growing fear to ask questions these days  –especially by leaders. I have a number of theories why it’s happening but let’s just accept it is happening. I say that because not asking questions leads to, well, worry <or the verb: ‘worrying’>.

In the short term, absent of question/answer work,, worrying makes your brain feel a little better — at least you’re doing something about your problems. The mind is only happy when it’s working. So it worries <useless energy> or it asks questions. Even the latter is tricky because neuroscience suggests you will be happier even if you don’t find an answer.  Doesn’t matter. You don’t have to find anything. It’s the searching that counts and all the scraps of potential answers you pick up along the way.

So why not ask it to work on the right things? Worrying over shit is wasted energy ayt least questions/answers has the possibility of energy used well.

This permits me to talk about searching. Because how you search for answers <the questioning> will impact how well, or how much you suck, at how you view the answer <and ultimately the decision I imagine>. Yeah. How you view the decision is actually more important than discussing the decision itself.

We don’t discuss this insight-to-decision relationship enough.  Because of that we sometimes ignore how we gather information, assess information, discern information and use the right information to ultimately make a decision. This is relevant to ‘not asking questions’ because if you don’t ask questions you will inevitably lean in on past experience <which is, in this context, existing ‘answers’ you may have to offer>. I will not invest a lot of energy on this because it’s obvious that leaning in solely on past experience is not only fraught with peril, but just plain stupid. Gathering information from one source is always dangerous it just becomes increasing dangerous if your past experience is the sole source.

Regardless. My last point.

Suffice it to say, the best question/answer leaders almost slowdown in gathering information, and ask questions, to speed up <in the decision and its effectiveness>.

Maybe we don’t talk about this because if we did … and described it that way … it sounds … uhm … slow.

Questioning.

Listening .

Responding.

(repeat as needed)

Yeah. It can be slow. It can also be fast. I would argue it should take as long as it should take and no longer. I would also argue that while the past can play a role it will also not be likely to provide “the” answer. It can inform but will not be the answer.

In the end. What I would argue is that:

• Without questions you gain no new learning
• Bad questions lead to wasted energy, bad answers & more fear (it’s a doom loop)
• Questioning & gaining answers has no speed control. it moves at whatever pace is necessary, neither fast nor slow. Directing speed seems silly.
• Recognizing mental models can help limit bias
• Embracing mental models can help unlimited thinking, questions and, inevitably, answers.
• If you thrive on destinations, you will never be happy with questions and answers lifestyle. Each answer begets a new question, therefore, true question & answer is on a never ending infinite loop.
• A mind likes to work. If you do not fill it with questions and answers it will worry at anything, even nonsensical things, like a bored dog with a bone.

We all need new answers all the time. The only way to get a new answer is to ask questions and learn. In other words, be curious.

“The proper method for hastening the decay of error, is not, by brute force, or by regulation which is one of the classes of force, to endeavor to reduce men to intellectual uniformity; but on the contrary, by teaching every man to think for himself.”

=

William Godwin

——–

Thinking for yourself. A topic, if you dare to discuss with an old person, that often facilitates a belief that suggests because of the internet, and games and a whole host of other issues; the young cannot think for themselves.

Well. I have one word for them. Bullshit.

I have some research on this which disproves this perception or belief.

Unfortunately, at the same time, I have some incredibly bad news for everyone <young & old>.

The research points out the majority of us do not like to think for themselves — at all. They think thinking is painful. I almost cried when I read this research. I was absolutely depressed afterwards.

Now. I don’t think thinking is a pain, but apparently 2/3rds of people hate thinking.

How painful? <pretty frickin’ painful>

————-

“What is striking is that simply being alone with their thoughts was apparently so aversive that it drove many participants to self-administer an electric shock that they had earlier said they would pay to avoid.”

the research scientists

————

Yup. I almost cried. How can something so valuable to me <and seems like it should be of at least some value to the majority of people> would be so abhorrent that they would select an electric shock rather than think?

I don’t have an answer to that my friends. But I wish I did.

 ————

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of recent psychology experiments proving the human aversion to thinking is when tasked with sitting in a chair and doing nothing but thinking, two-thirds of men and a quarter of women chose to give themselves electric shocks to pass the time.

————-

Yup. The researchers, with the objective to check whether people might actually prefer something bad to nothing at all, gave participants the option of administering a mild electric shock … instead of thinking.

While it is painful for me to make this point … I want to be clear on the choice made versus thinking in this test.

They had been asked earlier to rate how unpleasant the shocks were, alongside other options, such as looking at pictures of cockroaches or hearing the sound of a knife rubbing against a bottle. All the students picked for the test said they would pay to avoid mild electric shocks after receiving a demonstration.

 Oops.

In the test 12 of 18 men gave themselves up to four electric shocks, as did six of 24 women.

I cried now.

Please.

Thinking has to be the least expensive, with the easiest access, activity anyone can ever find. It is so easily accessible I imagine it is easy to reach a conclusion that if people found it truly stimulating, being lost in thought, I guess you could assume then they would surely do it more often. But the fact is that most people will do anything to avoid sitting down and having a dialogue with their internal voices.

In fact it seems the majority of people find unstructured, uninterrupted thinking as a horrible experience.

Why? My guess is that there is no guarantee where all that thinking might go. In today’s world that sounds purposeless. It sounds like there is a possibility of no outcome, output or achievement. Or a waste of <valuable> time. No ROI. Or simply valueless. Or maybe simply to dependent on random for outcome.

I guess the good news is <said sarcastically> that this information could  suggest mental illness is limited <in quantity of people> because, much of what we call mental illness, is simply a loss of control over thought. In other words. We can’t stop ourselves thinking what we don’t want to think, or we put so much energy into not thinking certain things, that all thoughts just get bent out of shape. In any case we find ourselves suffering unable to escape from the horror inside our heads.

While that sounds like something most of us are quite familiar with <in lesser degrees than true mental illness>, by avoiding any type of thinking something like 2/3rds of people avoid any horror in their head..

That said. People have always been fairly industrious with finding ways to not think, mostly, by doing things. Doing helps us not have to go thru the pain of thinking. In the past we made shit <woodworking, building stuff with our hands, etc,>, we sewed, we farmed, we hunted and we had lots of sex <and had more kids to take care of>. In the research that ‘doing’ came to life in an electric shock.

But why should thinking be such a pain? The old fashioned psychoanalytic answer <which has flaws but is a shitload smarter than the trite mindless ‘blame it on cellphones/technology’> is that culturally we have become more dependent on what, I hesitate to call, an aggressive greedy drive.

I believe I would rather suggest it is a self-actualization <problem solving> aspect – in the form of a tangible foreseen outcome.

Let’s call it self interest in terms of ‘proof of behavior.’

Unfortunately thinking usually means something disorderly and less immediate cause-effect. It is something intangible <or maybe no guarantee of something tangible> therefore less likelihood to conclude in ‘specific proof of behavior.’

——–

“We take flight mentally when we rise above our habitual ways of thinking about things and experience new insights.

This is what it means to open our minds.  Emotionally, we take flight when the strength of our passion exceeds the strength of our blockages; the floodgates open and we are free to feel fully.

Spiritually we take flight when we locate that part of ourselves that is beyond the constraint of linear time and the world of form.

It is in this place that we experience the essential boundlessness that defines the experience of flight. Taking flight is always about freeing ourselves from form, if only temporarily. When we literally fly, in a plane or on a hang glider, we free ourselves from the strength of gravity’s pull.

As we open our minds and our hearts, we free ourselves from habitual patterns of thought and emotional blockages.

As we remember our true nature, we free ourselves from identification with the temporary state of our physical forms. The more we stretch our wings, the clearer it becomes that taking flight is a state of grace that simply reminds us of who we really are.”

Daily Om

——-

Thinking is about taking flight <mentally>. And ‘proof’ often goes counter to flying because
proof” is more relatable to ‘keeping your feet on the ground.’ And I wrote that to get back to the infamous ‘kids don’t think enough’ and ‘youth is too whimsical and not practical enough’ and ‘technology is making people mentally lazy.’

Lets be clear. This is a cultural, metal mindset, issue and not a cultural, or generational, trend issue. The findings that the researchers <at Virginia and Harvard University> report is NOT a reflection of cultural trends weaving their way through society unnoticed and affecting the mental development of young people at a particular stage in their lives <despite what us older folk want to say>. Suffice it to say that in more than 11 separate studies, the researchers showed that people hated being left to think, regardless of their age, education, income or the amount they used smartphones or social media.

Uhm.

Let me repeat that … “people hated being left to think, regardless of their age, education, income or the amount they used smartphones or social media.”

This is not a young person issue. In addition the lead researcher said the findings were not necessarily a reflection of the pace of modern life or increased use of mobile devices and social media. In fact those things might be popular because of our constant urge to ‘do something’ rather than nothing.

<whew … chew on that thought for a second or two>

Why do I get stunned when I find people really do not want to think? Most people take shit at face value.

Most people don’t really think even when they do think <they accept opinion easily>. And then they blame those who make you think <purposefully>.

Huh? I don’t want everyone to be an intellectual. But, whew boy, I find it depressing that over 2/3rds of people don’t want to think.

I am going to go away now and cry.

——-

“I’ve noticed something about people who make a difference in the world: They hold the unshakable conviction that individuals are extremely important, that every life matters.

They get excited over one smile.

They are willing to feed one stomach, educate one mind, and treat one wound.

They aren’t determined to revolutionize the world all at once; they’re satisfied with small changes. Over time, though, the small changes add up.   Sometimes they even transform cities and nations, and yes, the world.” 

= 

Beth Clar

——

This is about responding.

First. What does RSVP mean? In the context of social invitations RSVP is a request for a response from the invited person or people. It is derived from the French phrase répondez s’il vous plaît, meaning ‘please respond’ <”respond if you please”>.

Sticking with the formal aspect of an RSVP … there are some guidelines. 

———

If RSVP is written on an invitation it means the invited guest must tell the host whether or not they plan to attend the party.  It does not mean to respond only if you’re coming, and it does not mean respond only if you’re not coming (the expression “regrets only” is reserved for that instance).   It means the host needs to know who is going to attend, get a definite head count, the planned event … and needs it by the date specified on the invitation.

———–

Second. RSVP also has to do with Life, not just parties.

Think about it. Life, in many ways, says ‘please respond.’ My fear, and belief, is that many of us simply haven’t read the rules of etiquette and do not respond.

Look. I often write about how Life is difficult and how Life is tricky and how Life has a warped sense of humor.

But. Life can also be quite respectful and act with true etiquette and grace. I don’t mean big pomp and circumstance moments, but little moments in which doing the little things well matters. Uhm. Like an rsvp for example.

—–

“When you do something noble and beautiful and nobody notices, do not be sad. For the sun every morning is a beautiful spectacle and yet most of the audience still sleeps.”

John Lennon

—–

I sometimes worry people no longer understand what RSVP means. In social event scenarios as well as Life.

Assuming the best, and that the reason guests don’t RSVP to an invitation is a case of ignorance, not rudeness, let me suggest this.

People have a tendency to not respond because … well … it is safer.

Less chance of conflict. And it may seem like the easiest path but think about it from this quote’s perspective.

—–

“Every time we choose safety, we reinforce fear.”

Cheri Huber

—

Sure. I could simply believe most people don’t get involved with Life because they are too busy.

Or they are ignorant of the fact their absence is not noted or meaningful.

But I can’t. I can’t because I don’t believe it is true.

I think we do it, subconsciously or consciously, because it is safer — we get to avoid possible conflict.

Oh. The risk in doing this over & over & over? We become disengaged with Life.

But. Here is the good news. Life will keep sending you invitations. Over & over & over again.

You just gotta RSVP every once in a while.

To be clear. You are not always being invited to a ‘big party.’ Sometimes the RSVP is just for something small.

Saying that permits me to circle back to where I began … willing to feed one stomach, educate one mind, and treat one wound.  They aren’t determined to revolutionize the world all at once; they’re satisfied with small changes.

Over time, though, the small changes add up.

That’s why you RSVP to life.

Small changes add up.

Small moments add up.

Small gestures add up.

It is true that Life, in general, is indifferent to you and what you want. However. What Life does do is create event after event which you DO get invited to. That means its up to you to respond. And, yeah, I do believe RSVPing matters even in this scenario. Just showing up is good but not as good as telling Life you are gonna show up. Why? Because it increases the odds Life may actually NOT be indifferent when you show up.

My advice? Just make sure you RSVP to Life one response at a time.

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

“You cannot live without establishing an equilibrium between the inner and outer.”

—–

Paul Auster

=========

“I used to think of you that way, you know. Like the sun. My own personal sun. You balanced out the clouds nicely for me.”

He sighed.

“The clouds I can handle. But I can’t fight with an eclipse.”

–

Jacob

=======

“The idea that talent is directly proportional to your trophy cabinet is one I oppose.”

—-

Alex Turner

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

Ok. I have been extremely consistent over the years with regard to my belief that I think balance is the key to almost any successful endeavor – in life & in business.

Suffice it to say I am a big balance person. And, yet, the other day during a business discussion it occurred to me that I may not be using the right word or even have the concept correct.

I may actually be a ‘proportional’ advocate.

Let me explain. Business, more often than not, is about assessing the correct proportional value of a topic, fact or idea and assigning the correct proportional response to that value.

Sure. That may inevitably arrive at something we could call “a balanced response”, but to get to the so-called balance we need to think about proportions.

I imagine, in my head, this means we need to stop viewing things as a zero sum balance, but rather as proportional to the situation in hand.

Now. I did some research and back in 1975 a guy named Piaget described the essential characteristic of proportional reasoning as it must involve a “relationship between two relationships.” I am not really sure what that means, but I am guessing it means that proportional assumes some dimensional aspects while balance is simply a relationship between two more concrete/discrete things.

He also suggested that proportional involves something called “additive reasoning” which, to me, explained my misrepresentation of balance.

Balance suggests an either/or trade off — something like teetering on a balance beam.

Proportional suggests a more spatial trade off or, maybe, ratio based trade off. What I mean by that is I can add one thing as part of a compromise and its true value is a zillion and give up one thing as part of the same compromise and its true value is 1/10^th of a zillion (despite the fact their actual costs may be different).

I balanced my response, but gained a proportional advantage.

There is even something called ‘the constant of proportionality’, but that becomes too complicated for my pea like brain so I will let you google it and see if you can explain it.

I imagine my real point is that most of us, most likely, are proportional thinkers and not balance thinkers <although we say we are balanced>.

More often than not we invariably assess things through assimilation and the synthesis of multiple things <numbers, ratios, tangible, intangible, and … yes … even missing information & components>. Our decisions are a messy mix of analyzing a series of unequal and equal things shaping them into the proper proportions to make a, well, proportional response. This can all make sense but it doesn’t really make it any easier for us. its not easier because balance is easier to assess and judge, balance is almost always associated with ‘fair’ while proportional often looks like something won & something lost and balance gets confused with linear zero sum game decision making.

All that said. Here was the bigger epiphany to me on why we should explore the more difficult pat of proportional thinking.

While balanced may seem like a simple improper term the truth is the more one focuses on balance the higher the likelihood I would actually end up doing the wrong things.

Huh? If you focus on balance you will inevitably try and force equality in all things. That may sound good, but it ain’t really reality. Simplistically it means you are focused on the wrong outcome & objective.

Instead, if you focus on the best proportional response to every situation, you may not end up with a one-to-one balanced relationship on any one comparison you review <which creates issues in its own right>, but you will end up with a balanced relationship on any given series of comparisons.

That last paragraph may actually showcase why most people focus on balance. In a simplistic measurement business world we are almost always demanded to show one-to-one or linear explanations.

Balance does that.

Proportion does not.

This means to embrace being proportional means you will have to accept the burden of explaining the more difficult to explain, to showcase asymmetrical as actually being simple and dimensional can actually reflect symmetry. Nothing in what I just shared in that last paragraph is easy. Particularly in today’s business world.

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

“Divide the target in proportion to the available resources”
―

Sunday Adelaja

==========

All I really know is that, whether I like it or not, I am actually a proportion person and not a balance person. It only took me over 25 years in business to figure that out <no one has ever suggested I am a quick learner>.

Think about it. You may actually be a proportional person too. More importantly, maybe you should be.

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

“Whenever you take an action, decide by both your brain and heart in equal proportions. Balance them as far as possible.”
―

Bikash Bhandari

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

I laughed when I saw this one. Sure. It’s kind of creepy, but it makes the point. Some things just aren’t possible.

Yeah, it is an unfortunate truth that hard work, or diligently trying to look like you are working hard, sometimes just isn’t enough.

Yeah, honestly, you can work your ass off towards something and it still isn’t possible.

The reality is that some things are truly impossible for some people (because if you don’t have the talent for something, you just don’t have the talent to even get close to the impossible).

Now. I am not opposed to hard work. And I do believe hard work:

(1) can improve upon existing abilities

(2) can overcome some deficiencies in actual talent.

Yeah, I guess it’s good to encourage kids to believe anything is possible if they work hard enough, but, well, I don’t know. I worry sometimes we establish some unrealistic expectations about what is possible.

Look. I do know Walt Disney said “It’s fun to do the impossible.” But he wasn’t talking about becoming an Olympic Greco roman wrestler. He was talking about something he was talented in doing and using that talent to show people new boundaries to what could be done.

Regardless.

Do I believe children should have a limitless imagination? Sure.

Do I believe they should think anything is possible? Sure.

Did I laugh at this illustration because it was so simple in pointing out the truth behind what is possible versus impossible? Sure.

I imagine my point is imagination is limitless but reality has some limits.

I imagine my point is that imagination is what pushes reality’s limits, but, at some point, your own reality will dictate some limits of what you can imagine.

Life is tricky. Shit. Business is tricky. Maybe what makes it all tricky is that its complex, not all correlation is causation, not everything imagined can become reality and not all of reality cannot be changed with some imagination and, well, almost nothing is simplistic binary “if this, then that.”

Look. Imagination is a good thing. Working hard is a good thing. And both good lessons.

I just hope we remember all those lessons before jumping out a window to remind us that hard work won’t teach us to actually fly (or defy gravity without a parachute).

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

“… instead of seeking new landscapes, develop new eyes.”

—

Marcel Proust

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

There are probably a zillion interpretations of this thought, but here is mine.

I am a nomad. In part it is because I am a roaming soul seeking new landscapes. Ok. Maybe I am just restless and comfortable with a general sense of impermanence. All of which make me sit back and wonder why.

In part because it is quite possible I fear if I stay in one place too long I just don’t have the ability to see things with new eyes. A fear that all the colors I loved in the beginning will simply fade to grays.

In part because it is quite possible I haven’t found a person or a reason to not be a nomad.

Now. All of those things I mention remain reasons why I envy my friends who are really happy people and not constantly moving (physically). They have had the ability to find a home and love it as much year to year because each year they find something new to love. And they also love the parallel comfort in what they fondly call home.

So somehow someway they have found both comfort & newness (yahoo ! … a contradiction I can love).

Just because they are ‘not roaming’ physically, they are not stale in any way. Their home is not tiresome or bland in any way.

In similar ways I am envious of my friends in long term marriages and relationships.

They don’t seek new landscapes. It seems each year. Each month. And for some each day. They look at the one they love with new eyes seeing not what they were but who they have become.

As well as whom they are. And constantly find new ways to be comforted in the comfort of their relationship and yet see the relationship with new eyes. And because of their ability to look with new eyes their love gets stronger in some ways and it also (I think) helps them bridge the tough times that anything that stays together for long periods of time inevitably face.

Regeadless of how you want to view what I just wrote I would point out this is an ability. Maybe not a skill but certainly a Life ability – remain in ‘one place’ and , yet, have the ability to see it as “many places.”

Anyway. Then I came across something a 20something wrote on their site:

I am home now with the heart full with the dear friends with whom I travelled both physically and mentally. I am home and do not want to let go of the momentum, the openness, and the opportunity to touch others the way they touched me. I am home. Smiling. Warm by those I met and the ones I am still to know. Never so fully aware of the importance of touching and keeping in touch. But how can I explain this attraction for things that are just there, seemingly without purpose, or for those so alive and that so effortlessly stitch themselves to the heart?
For me, there is wholesomeness in the connection to the organic and to the silent life of things, to the fabric of being, all color or the fading of it, the unknown story.

I thought it was well written and captured the essence of the Proust quote. Developing new eyes isn’t just what you can see, but it is the ‘connection to the organic and the silent life of things.”

Maybe that is the inherent ability to be able to not be a nomad and still see things as fresh.

Well. Living life is not a formula. That is for sure.

But what Proust suggests is you can avoid feeling stagnant without feeling restless or have to seek new landscapes.

Be restless in stillness.

It is probably more difficult to do than simply typing it like I just did.

But I also imagine that if we just looked a little closer at things around us … and I mean REALLY looked … you would see something new every time you looked. And still, if it is important to you, you have the comfort of standing in a place you know and love.

Man oh man. When I write something like that I have to ask my self: what is better than having comfort and new all at the same time? It’s kind like finding the optimal newness in Life. That is what good ole Marcel suggests we can all do … if we look with fresh eyes and look anew at what we already have.

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

“We’re in a time of rapidly expanding insights about human motivation and connection, but meanwhile our companies continue to be run with a perspective on human psychology and sociology circa 1970.”

Stowe Boyd

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

My quick response to the “No Boss, no Thanks” piece. I believe there is some misguided thinking (central authority is necessary, buck stops somewhere dependent upon one person, democratic decision making is inefficient/slow), but it was this particular part that galled me:

“Third, while technological miracles such as the internet, cheap and reliable wireless communication, Moore’s law, miniaturisation and information markets have induced sweeping changes in manufacturing, retail, transportation and communication, the laws of economics are still the laws of economics. And human nature hasn’t changed. The basic problem of management and business – how to assemble, organise and motivate groups of people and resources to produce goods and services that consumers want – is still the same. Since the industrial revolution, entrepreneurs have been organising extremely complex activities in firms that are neither completely centralised nor completely flat. Imagine the complexity involved in operating a national railroad, a steel mill or an automobile assembly plant in the 19th and early 20th centuries. These were all ‘knowledge-based activities’ and were conducted in teams organised in various structures. Are things so different today?”

First.

Yes. Things are ‘so different’. The uthors have completely missed what is the same and what is different about today’s business. I would suggest they read my piece, Distribution Revolution,  on what I believe is functionally the same and it also outlines what I believe is different.

Second.

I would highly recommend the authors pick up a copy of Toffler Future Shock, Third Wave and even Powershift, if they have the time, because they would find the answer to “are things so different today?” in books written in 1970 & 1980 if they cared to look. In fact. Part of my whole aggravation with this article is I feel like we have been debating the same ideas Toffler offered us since 1970.

Anyway.

If you ignore everything else I write, pay attention to this. Maximizing people’s potential doesn’t mean doing away with managers; it just means you maximize the potential of people AS managers. I am not naïve enough to believe we will do away with titles and experience based ‘management’. But. People are managers and managers are people. Period.

Anyway.

Let me use some Toffler to point out where the authors of the article went wrong.

context: accelerated world

Solving business challenges can be complicated, but business itself is complex (& always has been). Business people cannot afford to confuse complicated and complex. Now. What technology did is accelerate the complexity. The business atoms were placed into a supercollider. In fact, it accelerated business dynamics beyond the structure of a hierarchy or even centralized “buck stops somewhere” managers. That said. I think we confuse speed and acceleration all the time to the detriment of organizational design and behavior. Organizational design almost seems to inherently have a desire to decelerate to permit some sense of “its okay, you can feel comfortable with the speed of business” where I think we would be better off addressing the larger issue Toffler outlined: overstimulation. Acceleration tests our attention, cognitive skills and ability to discern what is important and what is not – which is actually a ‘speed’ versus velocity discussion. The article, by suggesting the basic business world is the same, ignores that, in a grander context, it is not. In fact, the article is incredibly misguided because it would appear to encourage insular cocooning rather than suggesting the challenge is to fully engage & manage overstimulation. I am not suggesting acceleration & overstimulation is not an issue, but I will suggest it is a reality and hierarchies (centralizing overstimulation) is not the way to increase the likelihood of business success. If I were to choose one aspect I wish organizational psychology would address, this is it.

Which leads me to connectedness.

everything is connected with everything

When I read simplistic tripe like “The basic problem of management and business – how to assemble, organise and motivate groups of people and resources to produce goods and services that consumers want” I can understand how hierarchies have been so resilient to a better way of doing things. In the past it was arranging lego blocks, now it is arranging molecules. Toffler discussed this in a variety of ways, but the most interesting was “porous organizations” in which teams assembled, and reassembled, in order to meet specific challenges. He outlined this in 1970. Nowhere in that concept did he discuss no bosses, but he did suggest in 1990 (Powershift) that the biggest challenge to this idea would be power. The new business normal faces two dynamics: power & interconnectedness. Needless to say, they are connected.

Which leads me to connecting.

the world as a merry go round

We seem to ‘design’ organizations on the playground then demand it to jump on the merry go round. Or, worse, leave it on the playground and suggest business is about plucking opportunities as they spin ‘round the merry go round. The best organizations will jump on the merry go round with the resources they have on hand and meet the demands of the business. The truth is the centrifugal force of the accelerated merry go round demands different configurations at different times. This will demand a variety of ‘bosses’ (albeit I dislike that word). Management is contextual. Unless you happen to have a Swiss army knife person (they exist but are fewer than most businesses have) this means everyone will lead & manage at some point. If the authors don’t understand this I fear they don’t understand today’s business world.

Which leads me to untidiness.

discomfort with untidiness

Businesses inherently love tidiness and hate untidiness. They associate predictability & certainty with being tidy and inefficiency & failures/mistakes with untidiness. Unfortunately, for business, mediocrity (or even slippery slope to irrelevance) resides in tidiness and spectacular success resides in untidiness.

While we like to think of organizations as a ship sailing into a tumultuous sea it is actually a fleet of smaller ships being pushed & shoved by tides and waves through storm & calm all trying to go in one direction together <without crashing into each other>. Each smaller ship has a captain and a crew <often skilled in managing that particular ship if needed>.

The ‘No Boss’ authors seem to associate ‘building a dynamic organization’ or even ‘motivating employees’ by inevitably suggesting one big ship making progress in some direction (although they give a head nod to a matrix organization). If you don’t like that metaphor just accept this: the “No Boss” authors seek tidiness. They are wrong.

I say all that because you invariably need to grow your business unevenly. Yup. Sorry. A business isn’t, probably shouldn’t be and most likely cannot be <and be successful> ‘even.’ Or smooth. Or without any ragged edges. It needs to be grown unevenly <which is actually a natural growth rather than some manufactured growth>.

“Sureness will always elude you.

The detective will always circle around what he wants, never seeing it whole. We do not go on despite this. We go on because of it.”

—–

Claire DeWitt

Which leads me to freedom.

discomfort with freedom

Business, for decades & thru hierarchy, has always been built around selective freedoms – maybe ‘controlled freedom.’ Business people, in general, are much more comfortable building stop signs than they are highways.  Toffler spent almost an entire book outlining how technology will create a freedom ‘shock’ (Future Shock) and an entire book on the shock to the power structures (Powershift).

“No Boss” reflects a fear of freedom & loss of power. Period.

Which leads me to belief.

belief.

Unfettered freedom CAN lead to chaos. So we come up with a number of behavioral & motivational tricks to attach to versions & steps to implement aspects of distributed leadership mostly because we ignore what we know about individual behavior and we have a healthy skepticism toward managers & management in general.

Gamification, carrots & sticks, incentives, milestones are all derivatives of hierarchy thinking trying to adapt to a relentlessly uncertain world. They are attempts to build in some certainty. Yet. Behaviorally we know the most powerful motivation has nothing to do with ‘defeating’ a system/objective/goal, but rather it’s about ‘belief.’ Defeating is someone wins, someone loses. Belief is like hope. It draws people toward it.

That said. It’s a twofold belief challenge.

Business owners, managers as such, need to believe in people. They need to believe if given the opportunity to make choices, do the right things, the arc of people behavior (driven by intentions) will bend toward productivity & profitability. Note. This means business community needs to embrace a lack of output smoothness (a perception & reality challenge in & of itself).

========

“I don’t exactly know what I mean by that, but I mean it.”

The Catcher in the Rye

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

As a corollary. People need to believe in people (themselves). While we may innately know we can make decisions, assume responsibility & do the right things, the business world has not encouraged people to think that way. In fact. It has often penalized us for thinking that way. Many people almost don’t believe they should have responsibility or that they will not benefit by doing the right things. If we can align belief, than construct, as it currently exists, falls apart naturally (as not conducive to the belief) & people will inherently access their potential because barriers to believing they have that potential are stripped away.

Yes. Some of the ‘tricks’ may be useful but looking at the gobs of absurd articles & books with regard to organizational psychology it appears we have missed they are all means to an end and maybe we should seek to identify the end and encourage managers and people to believe in the power of belief.

I ended with Belief because at the core of “No Boss” is a belief that control, in some dimension, is necessary. I wrote in my “Purpose of Business is to benefit People” piece   that this is a reflection of not believing in people. I don’t blame the authors here because, well, there are a shitload of business thought leaders who not only do not believe in people but don’t believe “belief” is enough to guide people.

In the end.

The “No Boss” article is exactly what I hear from 50somethings holding onto the existing business construct with ragged claws.

Self-governing organizations are nothing new, even the Greeks were big fans, and Toffler began the vague outlines of how technology would widen the cracks in what we already knew – hierarchies were standardization models and people, and business, tend to thrive when non standardized. All that said. “No Boss, No Thanks” is tripe. Business drivel. Stowe Boyd called it “misunderstanding the nature of management” ; I call it just another example of fear of freedom couched in some poisoned fortune cookie wisdom. It ignores the most basic principles laid out in Toffler’s Future Shock & Third Wave that business normal was being shaken like an etch a sketch. And, in particular, it ignores Toffler’s third book, Powershift, by thinking power will always reside within some aspect of centralization & centralized thinking. It will not. They confuse centralized thinking with coalesced thinking. Centralized is inside out and coalesced is outside in where it is a reflection of, as Stowe suggests, ‘everyone is management.’

I’m certainly not as smart & insightful as Alvin Toffler, or Stowe Boyd, but even I know this “No Boss” article reflects not only a misunderstanding of distributed leadership but, more concerning, a misunderstanding of ‘business normal’ as it exists today.

Postscript:

I encourage everyone to revisit the Toffler trilogy. He shares a number of interesting thoughts:

• The Electronic Cottage: where remote work force becomes integral part of organizations
• The New Worker: where responsibilities become agile & diverse

=======

“The primary cause of unhappiness is never the situation, but thoughts about it.

Be aware of the thoughts you are thinking.”

–

Eckhart Tolle

====

I am not a big fan of simply saying “it is what it is” mostly because … well … most times it is much much more than that. However. Sometimes. Yes. Sometimes it “is” simply because it, well, is. At these times I would note we get unhappy. Usually not because of the situation, but rather because of the thought behind it.

<please note: I imagine I have just bastardized Tolle’s real thinking, but it fits what I want to say>

Anyway. I attribute the our true unhappiness behind the thinking of “it is what it is” to one of two things:

–          Occam’s razor:

This is the thought that “the simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually right.”

I like to think it is called Occam’s razor probably because the thought cuts straight to the truth, but ‘experts’ suggest the term razor refers to distinguishing between two hypotheses either by “shaving away” unnecessary assumptions or cutting apart two similar conclusions.

Whatever.

Sometimes the simplest explanation is all there is. It is what it is.

And we hate not only Occam, but his frickin’ razor.

–          Illogical pragmatism:

Some things just cannot be explained. It sounds illogical, but, pragmatically, any explanation is illogical. Or just illogically complex. Therefore, there is no explanation. Pragmatically, it is just what it is. Illogical as it may sound. And while we like pragmatism, we hate anything illogical. And we particularly hate if the pragmatic is illogical.

That said. Very few things frustrate us more than when there is no explanation for something. It drives business people frickin’ crazy.

Oh. What do business people hate maybe even worse? That Occam thing. The simple concise explanation. The understanding that simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones is not an idea we really like in business. Yeah. We talk about simplicity in a fond way, but most times we hate it. More often we struggle to accept the simple and revel in the complex.

This love of complex really has nothing to do with solutions but rather we like having things explained to us. That is typically where things get complex. Simple explanations are, well, unbelievable <crazy, huh?>.

Now. I actually believe we manage this fairly well in everyday life, but really suck at this in business.

Whew. “It is what it is” at work? Never. Or maybe at best … rarely.

My point? Most things have an explanation. Let’s say maybe 90% or so.

Most things obviously have real definitive explanations and some things have enough of an explanation that they have some edge or tangibleness to them, but it’s the stuff in the middle that requires a more subtle explanation or even an admittance of sheer uncertainty of “why is this as it is.”

Ah. That’s 10% or so.

Well. Sometimes things just “are.” And explanations are too complex … and frankly … unnecessary <albeit frustrating to not have one>.

Sure. We should be diligent with regard to inevitable straying into a complacent belief believing that things ‘just are’ and there is nothing you can do <or should do> to change it to make it better or to actually avoid true explanations where they are merited. And while it frickin’ kills me to suggest “it is what it is” … some things just are, and no matter how much you wish they were different, they’re not.

That said. We have difficulty in trying to understand that there can be some things that fall in the non-explanation category <that wretched ‘middle’> that it is neither in the good nor the bad category <by the way … not being able to explain does not make it inevitably bad>.

We seem too often to have to have an explanation to satisfy us. And it’s this sense of ‘satisfaction seeking’ that we should be wary of <or maybe it simply leads us astray and we should be wary of getting lost – insert ‘weeds’ here ->.

The unexplained is very unsatisfying. Someone wrote this:

“The Unexplained” has a somewhat sinister connotation to our adult minds because it puts us on shaky ground. Our reason has nothing to hang on to. When circumstances are not to our liking, we are likely to use phrases like, “I demand an explanation” or “You’ve got some explaining to do!” Of course this has not so much to do with shedding some light on the situation as it has to do with making ourselves feel safer, more secure in the midst of something which has inconvenienced us.

We can even become suspicious, paranoid, fearful and neurotic if our dependence on explanations is too strong and we cannot actually find one.

In my words … it can kind of drive us nuts. We need to realize that sometimes we put way too much emphasis on trying to figure out what is right and wrong … or even worse … seeking an explanation for something that just ‘is.’

Look. With so much unpredictability and seeming chaos in business <because shit moves so fast> sometimes the explanation really doesn’t matter.

It just is.

It is the way it’s supposed to be.

It is just the way it happened.

All the over analysis, over thinking, over planning, over explaining doesn’t accomplish anything. While it may make us feel better putting an ultimate <but incredibly convoluted and complex> explanation on something, sometimes it doesn’t accomplish anything <useful>.

In fact all that thinking trying to identify ‘the explanation’ can freeze you to a point where you get stuck over thinking  — all in the attempt in trying to rationalize everything.

You can get overwhelmed not by the situation <or the amount of situations> but simply by the lack of explanation.

You can get overwhelmed not by the chaos of complexity, but rather by the act of ignoring, or even arguing against, the simple solution <the fact it ‘just is’>.

So much of our stress and anxiety comes from our attempts at finding an explanation or even a simpler ‘is it good or bad’ definition to the challenge or situation. Yeah. We like things to be a certain way <mostly not simple>. Yeah. We like the feeling that things in life should be generally good. And, yeah, explanations help us define good or bad <or at least help us define blame or resolution or whatever>. Yeah. We just like explanations. Simple, complex, any size shape or form … we will take anyone we can get.

Regardless.

The bottom line? We are reluctant to accept things that cannot be defined or explained. We hate “it just is what it is” things.

Look. Explanations are good … and bad.

Good in that it helps to have some boundaries and guidelines and … well … definition <or Life would just be some nebulous blob … disgusting thought, huh?>.

Bad in that some things are simply undefinable therefore forcing an explanation into a ‘it is what it is’ scenario creates some unfair & untrue conclusions.

Anyway.

Some things are simpler than we make them out to be.

And  some things just cannot be rationally explained.

And sometimes it just isn’t worth investing the energy trying to rationalize it.

It is what it is.

And it drives us frickin’ crazy.

This is about meetings, but a specific type of meeting: the team presenting to a client type meeting. This is mostly a “I want to sell you something” meeting <sell – ideas, programs, you should consider me, etc>.

I have two pet peeves ,or things that aggravate me, in these business meetings:

(1)    Selling beyond the close.

(2)    Having multiple people say the same thing.

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

This is about “the repeat.”

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

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

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

Yup. That would officially be three opens to the same meeting. Three opens differentiated mostly by the sound of the voices and maybe a word here or there.

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

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

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

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

This one is just frickin’ crazy. It is crazy for 2 reasons <okay, there are more but I will stick with the two most common sense business craziness aspects>:

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

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

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

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

That said.

The open, open, open practice is the worst. Or maybe it just feels the worst because it is delaying the actual meeting.

And it is people just talking.

And most of the words are saying the same thing (in different words).

And. It. Is. Painful.

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

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

And it shows lack of meeting dynamics understanding.

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

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

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

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

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

Just some tricks of the trade <but even they don’t work all the time>:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Stick to the plan & the script.

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

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

The first is ‘I am going to have my best opener and have that person set the tone’ or, the second option, ‘I am going to have the most relevant person open the meeting and have them set the functional groundwork’ <which isn’t exactly ‘tone’ as it is more functional>. And because you have made that decision, either one, you have also made a conscious decision on two additional things for sure: who follows the opening and who will close the meeting <the rest of the speakers are really all about delivering the information>.

The second talker will always know the risks of what happens if opener doesn’t have their “A” game that day. And will move in and do whatever it is their script suggests. Oh. On that thought … people who step in and ‘re-open’ for some reason always seem to be clueless on the affect they have on the second speaker <which constantly amazes me in its lack of awareness>. Not only does a ‘second opening’ undermine the opening statements, but also immediately suggests to the audience that the second planned speaker wouldn’t be smart enough, and aware enough, to know what to do.

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

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

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

You keep on keepin’ on. Because meetings, just as in Life, if you are not going forward you are going backwards.

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

1. No. <or … “nuts to that.”>
   

   Meeting & the Business World

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

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

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

• Have at least two senior great ‘listener/responder’ team members. If you have 2 co-captains who seem like they are two sides of the same coin, you can sometimes pull this off. Adapting in a meeting is hard, usually really hard, but to do it effectively you need a senior person (experience & breadth of knowledge is key) to choreograph any shifts. Yes. Of course the presentation/discussion has to be built to accommodate adapting <typically this means other people on the team have to have ‘pods’ of information to share on demand as well as they understand they can avoid the transition responsibilities deferring to the listener/responder>, but a good team can pull this off if you have ‘the two.’ One? It just becomes harder and most business meetings are ess effective when they always pivot around one person.

In conclusion.

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

It never fails to amaze me how often senior business people just completely miss the boat on some of these relatively simple, but important, things.