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

“Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.

—

Dwight D. Eisenhower

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

Whew. In business, getting out of the way, if you are even mediocrely qualified or actually good at what you do … this may be one of the most difficult things to do.

What am I talking about?

Get out of the way of someone who knows what they are doing.

Now. This isn’t about ‘planting your own ideas in someone else’s head” <which you see a number of articles on if you try and google this topic, by the way, interestingly I couldn’t find one article out of the gazillions on my topic today>.

This is simply getting out of the way of someone who actually knows what the hell they are doing. This topic actually came up from a young person who actually asked ‘why don’t stupid people get out of the way of the people who actually know what they are doing.” My immediate response was relatively flippant: “because most stupid people don’t recognize they are stupid … about something.”

Okay.No one panic.

I followed that quickly with “listen … most people truly aren’t stupid … they are just blind to what they may actually not be as good at versus someone else.”

But. So, often, out of the mouths of babes comes truth. We often sit in our office, or in a meeting with a group of people, and if someone could read the thought bubble over our heads they would stare <mouth agape probably> when they read “why the f%$& won’t these stupid people get out of the way so someone who knows what they are doing can get this done?”

C’mon. Admit it.

We have all done it.

We have all thought it.

But here is the other side of that coin. It is really really difficult to admit you are one of the ‘stupid people’ and should be getting out of the way.

<by the way … I am simply using stupid as a harsher place holder for ‘less qualified’ or ‘not as good as’>

First. Reminder.

Most people are not stupid <even in business> and the odds are you aren’t stupid … it is simply a way of expressing your frustration and it isn’t literal.

Second. Well.

It is difficult to get out of the way for a number of reasons but let’s pick two:

<1> Yourself and … <2> someone else.

Huh?

–          Yourself.

This is ego. As well as society <a little> I imagine. But let’s discuss ego first. Getting out of the way implies you are not good enough or qualified enough … and you will not only feel like shit … you will look bad to everyone else.

You kind of have to discipline yourself a little to be able to get out of the way. This type of discipline is not easy.

Society does not support it and the drive to intervene in the process is rooted in how we were brought up, what we have seen around us and reinforced in our culture … as in … accepted behavior of those who are successful.

It is a difficult challenge to overcome the slightly narcissistic impulse to show off ‘your game’ and instead step out of the way and accept you can simply be there … without everything depending on you.

It is difficult for someone to not only know there are better circumstances you can be in but also that there’s a better way to do something.

It is difficult to think that if you actually step out of the way you may learn something and become better <mostly because you feel if you pass on this opportunity you will never get the opportunity again>.

It is difficult to decide in the moment, from a self interest perspective of actually wanting to better yourself <and do what’s right> that, technically, you are actually getting out of your own way.

None of this is easy because these types of decisions boil down to how you see yourself and how much value yourself. Maybe I could say instead … how comfortable you are with yourself.

If you think about it, if you can shed all the angst and society and all the ‘here is how you are supposed to act’ type bullshit, your actions reflect what you want for yourself and what you feel you deserve. In the end … as with almost everything it seems … getting out of the way and yourself is mostly about character. Oddly enough … it is difficult to be honest with yourself.

Next.

–          Someone else.

Ok.

This is a version of yourself … this is assessing the ‘someone else’ who wants you to get out of the way. Beyond the fact you may be admitting that someone may be better than you at something else … you are actually evaluating that someone else.

Uh oh. Typically, we suck at that. We suck at that because we typically judge our co-workers on the wrong criteria – the past.

Sure. If they have delivered on what they promised in the past, it does count for something. And their resume of past behavior and performance can count <albeit resumes are dubious things at best>.

But how much should it REALLY count? Because, uh oh <a BIG business truth here> most expertise is situational.

As in discrete. As in mutually exclusive.

Uh oh. What that means is you cannot judge based on anything historical but rather you have to judge within the moment and the situation.

Wow. That sucks. And we suck at doing that.

Ok. Beyond dealing with yourself and someone else.

When we do get out of the way we feel compelled to praise <this is actually a self ego thing>. Frankly, praising someone in the work place is … well … sometimes painful <particularly with a peer>. And if it isn’t painful it is certainly uncomfortable. Most of us are not skilled enough to be diplomatic and sincere without being condescending or, I cannot find the right words, suffice it to say most of us just plain suck at praising effectively in the work place.

And honestly … there are some good reasons why we suck at it. The behavioral reason <not the immature reason> is that we worry <and know from research> that the praised-for-every-achievement employee ends up reflecting a happier, more successful and highly self-esteemed employee, but more likely, the employee will become a ‘pleasing mode’ model employee <one who is driven to success not by personal curiosity but rather by the desire to earn praise by simply living up to expectations>.

Whew. Looking back at what I just wrote … that sure sounds cynical. Or maybe it just sounds shallow in referring to how people think or act. Take solace in the fact that it really isn’t because it is mainly a subconscious thing. We all do it to some degree it is only the people who consciously suck up and seek praise by ‘being a sheep’ that aggravate us.

Now. Living up to expectations isn’t a bad thing in the scheme of things, but it also doesn’t represent the kind of dynamics you want in a growing & expanding employee <or in a business in general>. You prefer to inspire someone to WANT to do something not HAVE to do it <for some personal gain>.

Anyway.

Getting out of the way is more difficult than most people think. For some good reasons and some bad reasons. Regardless of the reason, suffice it to say, we suck at getting out of the way.

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

“Think of value creation, not valuation.”

–

Pranav Marwah

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

I believe we need to spend more time these days discussing value creation before we begin talking about, well, anything else. I believe this for three reasons:

1. Today, it’s often about efficiency. Or minimizing to maximize. Minimize what to put in and then how creatively you craft the features. We should remember production is more about economical/efficient input and selling is more about thoughtful ideation. Regardless. I believe we need to talk more about maximizing without just talking about efficiency.
2. I worry we talk about “things” because they seem like the right thing to do, not because they will add value <based on our vision/mission>. I worry we don’t talk more, and understand better, about what value we provide people. Oh. A business typically knows what they see as value provided, but very rarely turn the telescope and see what value a possible customer desires <or receives>. I worry we don’t talk more about value creation.
3. Unless everyone wants to enter into a race to commodity business needs to start engaging in an effectiveness discussion. Efficiency is inherently about attempting to provide value by stripping away obstacles or the unnecessary. Effectiveness is inherently about persuading people some things are actually necessary for quality, enjoyment or substance to meet your outlay of investment (cash).

I would begin with the fact we know there is a relationship between velocity & value creation. As I noted in ‘obsession with velocity’, velocity is always about decisions. What I mean by that is there is never any lack of things to do in a business, but some just aren’t worth doing.

Velocity projects fall into 2 slots:

• value creation initiatives which increase velocity of value offered (transactional value opportunities)
• velocity initiatives which increase the velocity of the organization itself & indirectly enhances value (structural value elevation)

Make your project decisions wisely. Velocity is all that matters not only because it guarantees progress, rather than simple “hamster in a wheel” speed, but it also inherently gravitates toward value creation.

Regardless.

Value creation comes in two basic constructs: structural and transactional and revolves around efficiency and effectiveness.

Here you go. Just ponder.

efficiency and effectiveness

All value begins, and ends, with efficacy or the balance between efficiency & effectiveness. Many people when viewing his grid for the first time ask who would ever want to (a) be in the lower left hand quadrant or (b) be below the line at all.

Many business, and specific products, live & die off of efficiency. There is nothing wrong with that. In addition, a low cost provider will care less about effectiveness because their inherent ‘value’ is found in cheapest. I would argue everyone wants some balance but there will always be at least one incredibly efficient, not as effective, business and there will always be at least one incredibly effective business where efficiency is just not that important. Similarly, I could argue a business in & of itself can have all of these things within their business and the collection of them all make up the larger value creation offering.

Regardless. Look for your unique balance and, well, choose wisely.

structural value creation

This is the x axis. Efficiency to left effective to right.

Structural value can be generated through efficiency or effectiveness. Efficiency means your structural change reduces costs (tangibly or intangibly like time). Effectiveness means your structural change increases value to a point that increases price or offer opportunities for premium transactions/offers.

For example, adding 5G in a city is a structural value creation. It lifts everything to a higher value. Digital transformation is also. It’s an infrastructure change which provides structural value creation.

In addition. A structural value creation may, or may not additionally offer specific transactional value creation situations. What this means is incremental value for a specific transaction over and above the basic structural value creation.

transactional value creation

This is the Y axis.

Efficiency at the bottom, effective at top.

Organizations often seek bite sized improvements, therefore, may explore ways to offer distinct transactional value creation.

From an efficiency standpoint these could be things like frictionless engagement, speed, or any improvement which increases convenience or ease of use.

From an effectiveness standpoint these would be things which increase quality of actual transaction. Better products, more effective outcomes, etc.

For example. You could create a video platform, or an AI platform (to show traditional and technology) which enhances a specific transaction to a point in which you could create value (additional sales) or simply charge a higher price.

Value Proposition vs. Employee Value Proposition

Once identifying the value creation one offers a business you develop a value proposition ( a way to communicate what value you create). I would suggest this is an exercise not just for customers but also as a hiring criteria. You want to attract customers who desire what value you offer and you would like to hire people who contribute to your value creation proposition.

In its simplest terms, a value proposition is a positioning statement that explains what benefit you provide for who and what effective/efficient way you do it. Your value proposition isn’t meant to appeal to everyone, but it should have a value appeal of some distinction (not necessarily differentiation).

Lastly.

Now that maybe I’ve given you some things to ponder let me say, frankly, we don’t speak often enough about value creation dynamics within organizational modeling & business construct. Value creation, at its core, is all about people – what they do as well as what they think. Huh? When an individual feels like they are doing something of value & their value can be maximized, the organizational value creation inevitably is maximized. I would argue if you focus on the value-creation-structure the people will believe they are part of value creation and the formal structure will either fall in place or will be simpler to match up to how the value is created.

That’s it.

Value creation. I just don’t see how any business can have an effective vision or mission if they haven’t gone through this exercise. If you don’t have this conversation and go through the rigor, well, it seems like you run a major risk you will not get what you deserve – revenue, profit, customers or even employees.

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

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

–

J.D. Salinger

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

Well.

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

You have to be doing something that can be seen.

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

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

C’mon. That’s a metaphor.

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

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

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

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

Tangible outcome crap.

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

Ok.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

===========

“Never dare to sell your soul for money, because no amount of wealth would buy you an air conditioner in hell.”
―

Edmond Mbiaka

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

Ok. This isn’t a religious post. Nor is this about selling your soul to the devil. Its nothing really that deep.

Ok. Maybe its deep .. just not that kind of deep.

This is simply about how far someone is willing to go to sell something in business. Or maybe better said how far someone will go to get money, or fame or power or something they desire?

What got me thinking about this? Business life. If you ever want to learn what your soul is worth go work at a smaller to mid sized advertising agency (although I envision a lot of people in sales also face the question at some point or another).

—

“Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company.”

Mark Twain

—-

While I chuckled when I read this quote it was admittedly a painful chuckle. Painful because I cannot tell you how many times (suffice it to say … too many for fingers and toes) I have been in new business meetings when it was painfully obvious that whatever new business we were discussing was so wrong for us as a client.  And yet the conversation kept rolling around and rolling around under the guise of “they would be a good client” (because they have money).

Don’t get me wrong. I like money. But not all money is the same. Some money fills your soul and some empties your soul … by soul I mean your inner value compass.

People who are defined solely by money can argue this until they are blue in the face. In fact … they do … there is even a selling “event” called selling your soul.

“The live Selling Your Soul event in NYC is over, and we’re all rolling on a wave of vivid business-building bliss. It was a high-gloss experience, where we intimately unpacked Burning Questions on messaging, marketing + online money-making, the myth of work-life “balance,” fearless price-raising, prosperous collaborating, and getting Witnessed for what you’re worth.”

Attitudinally one of the owners summarizes it by “I make my own economy” (philosophically, I actually kind of like that thought).

And (to be fair). That same owner uses money to balance her moral compass: “I kicked off GirlUp with their first substantial donation, proving once again that lots of cash can = lots of impact. Philanthropy is the bottom line.”

Yet. Here is my struggle with her philanthropic angle. I would argue with the owner in that philanthropy is not her bottom line. Her bottom line is money. And she uses her money to create her balance (note: although their website is strewn with words & thoughts that their soul is defined by a combination of fame & fortune so it seems like the philanthropy is just a ‘thing’ done to ease their soul angst).

Regardless. I wish it were that easy for me. Because it is not.

Look … I recognize the issue … who wouldn’t want to be recognized or have a generous income or a dream vacation home?

Face it. We all do. But at what price? And does the end justify the means? And, obviously, WHICH end justifies the means? That is what I mean by emptying your soul or filling your soul. Because in the end (whether that be mid life or at ‘the big finish’) you are judging your actions not by tangible things but the intangible balance of self worth (I purposefully chose ‘worth’ because it is some combination of fruits of labor and self esteem).

It is interesting because I have seen a variety of ways people justify how they sell their soul but one word continues to stand up as the face of behavior over & over again:

“winning”

To these people its all about winning. Winning at any cost. Or just being able to say “I won.” But (here is the news) winning is not always good.  There IS such a thing as a bad win. Unfortunately, the people who define their soul by winning don’t see that (or they may but justify their actions based on “we won”). Am I suggesting this aspect should be about fair play? No.  not really. This is about playing by your moral compass.

“money”

The thought that everything leads to some magical pot of money that will erase all of their problems. These people believe that fancy cars, designer clothes and big houses will make life better. This person may try to balance it with some philanthropic aspect (typically toward the end of their lives – see Andrew Carnegie as prime example) but they are consistently willing to ignore any moral compass within their pursuit for money.

“fame”

Yes. The spotlight is a dazzling temptation. And that same spotlight can blind you as to the wreckage around you. But to the one seeking fame maybe that is the beauty of being in the spotlight – the only thing you can see under that glaring light is yourself. What can I say more than that? I guess if you really want someone to worship you maybe consider becoming a benevolent dictator instead.

Oh. And the worst of all?

“being liked”

This is a sneaky one and may sound odd associated with selling your soul. Think about it: maybe its you want people to like you … so you sell your soul to the highest bidder (again, especially IF they are someone who holds a prominent position, this is an action leading to personal moral decay … if not total destruction). This one is insidious in that it creates self definition by having NO self definition. You may as well have sold your soul to the highest bidder … just make sure it isn’t the devil.

Anyway. In the end I know the decision I have made.  And that is always to be true to myself.  Tell the truth.  Seek good wins (not any win).

And I have found I cannot work places that don’t feel the same way. Not really just because of me … but because I find that companies that sell their soul doesn’t create a corporate culture which I like nor a culture which I ultimately believe is healthy.

And lastly. And maybe most importantly to me. I don’t believe it teaches young people growing up in business the right thing.  The senior ‘leaders’ (and I use that term loosely in this situation) simply do not recognize the repercussions of their decision to ‘sell out.’ And that is a shame.

The hell to be endured hereafter, of which theology tells, is no worse than the hell we make for ourselves in this world by habitually fashioned our characters in the wrong way.” -William James

“Habitually fashioned our characters in the wrong way” as the hell we make for ourselves.

Whew.

That is good.  Really good words to think about.

I do not believe ‘what is the value of our soul’ or describing being directed by your inner values compass could ever be articulated better.

Selling your soul, even in business, just to get something to have it (regardless of the practical or unpractical reason) is making your own hell you will have to live in.  And when you get to that hell maybe you can convince yourself you are a warm weather person and enjoy living where it is always hot … but … you are in your own personal hell.

I know I cannot convince all leaders of organizations to recognize this (because when a leader is in a personal hell it reaches out and encompasses his/her organization and poisons it … either slowly or quickly).

But I do know we can make personal decisions about this:

Be yourself.

Say no and mean it.

Subdue that which tries to destroy you.

Avoid the temptation to do what you know is wrong.

Face the truth that you are doing nothing but being untrue to yourself if you get blinded by money or fame.

In the end, in every decision, each person has to hold on to the core value of what defines themselves at their soul. Because every decision either diminishes or grows your personal purpose. And, yes, these decisions in organizations also unify or separate a group of people even more strongly than a similar language or history (at least in my eyes) because, well, this is part of what some people call “a business purpose.”. When people live by their core values and convictions the “center” is stronger.

And. If you don’t have a center, don’t you just fall apart as being just parts?

So. All that said. I am not a big self reflection guy … but I do believe it is worth a minute or two to identify what is your soul, or your core if you don’t want to get hung up on the word soul because, if you don’t, you may end up selling something you don’t want to, uhm, like your soul.

===========

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

—

coral-vellichor

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

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

—

(via madelinemharris)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Somehow delegating equals “absolved of responsibility.”

This is stupid irresponsible thinking.

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

 

You can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do I say that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huh?

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

Yeah.

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

Anyway.

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

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

Well.

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

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

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

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

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

“Any system of ethics must account for scarcity. If it doesn’t, humanity would perish due to misallocation of finite resources, including one’s own body.”

—-

Daniel Alexander Brackins

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

“If somebody never gets enough of you, they will always want more”

―

Ashly Lorenzana

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

I recently was asked to help a Brazilian design & brand consulting company expanding their business into the United State after they read my thoughts on Velocity in business (in particular my thoughts on the Velocity Zone).

It was a fascinating discussion in which I was, once again, reminded of the attitudinal differences between the United States and other countries.

While a Brazilian attitude with regard to how their work should come to life (a stronger attitude with regard to vividness & distinction) in this case it came down to abundance versus scarcity. I often found myself sitting back just thinking about how Brazil viewed the world thru a scarcity lens. It had a sense of urgency with regard to not just ‘use it or lose it’ but rather ‘if I don’t use it I will not survive.’ And that is where I gained my deepest insight – survival. In an abundant world survival may not be accepted as a fait accompli, but it certainly feels like it is more likely. In a scarcity world you almost feel like survival is a moment by moment aspect of life. This isn’t to suggest desperation but it does suggest two things:

• Enjoy the moments you have and maximize them (this comes to life in a business attitude of distinctness, boldness & distinction)
• Not fear of death but more aggressiveness in the moment to survive (this comes to life with grabbing what exists now rather than thinking something better may come along tomorrow)

Anyway.

It led to Velo. It’s a Portuguese spin on Velocity.

About Velo

We made up this word because, to us, its meaning is new. Velo is velocity with a Brazilian twist. Let’s call it the Portuguese version of Velocity.

We arrived at the term because we believe America business view is tainted by the concept of abundance – an abundance of opportunities, resources & money. It doesn’t mean all businesses actual have an abundance of money & resources just that in the back of their minds they believe America is abundant therefore attitudinally they don’t approach things through a scarcity lens. This affects decision making, strategic approaches, brand positioning and messaging, design , messaging and even budget allocation.

Abundance versus scarcity attitude

In an abundant world options are limitless, in other words, miss an opportunity and another will arise. Let’s call this a “limitless supply of water” attitude. Water is abundant so when presented with a glass of it unless I’m desperately thirsty it’s just a glass of water.  In a scarcity world a glass of water can mean life or death.

Now. In America we talk scarcity, but think abundance. This ‘abundance of options’ attitude affects not only our general attitude but also behavioral decisions – business decisions. We sift thru options with a slight lack of urgency. In Brazil one cannot simply talk scarcity but act upon it to insure you get your glass of water. Options are limited and you maximize the ones you do have.

We think of velocity in the same terms. Velocity is a scarce resource and demands a versatile view of communications, design, branding combined with a bold view on crafting a distinctive idea & brand. Velocity falters under an abundance attitude and can quickly become just speed – hamsters on a wheel in an abundant world. Velocity thrives within a scarcity attitude by assembling minimal viable teams with minimal viable products utilizing minimal viable assets & resources applying communications principles & thinking to maximize opportunities as scarce moments in time.  That’s a mouthful but suffice it to say Velocity thrives in a minimalist view.

Comunicação and scarcity

Comunicação is a little different than America communication. It’s a little bit bolder and distinct (remember, resources, including time & money are viewed as scarce therefore need to be maximized). The design has more vividness. The strategy is a little more bold. The branding is more distinct. The communications have a little more edge. Generally speaking the ideas are treated as a scarce resource not to be wasted with ‘safe’ thinking & doing, but rather vivid thinking that demands people pay attention.

Criatividade and scarcity

Criatividade is a little different than American creativity. In a scarcity world everyone is expected to be creative (remember, resources are scare therefore need to be maximized) therefore creativity comes to life from unexpected places in unexpected ways. There are no thinkers and doers in a scarcity Criatividade world, just doers who think & thinkers who do – all the time. Creativity is only abundant if you maximize the scarce resources at hand.

In an abundant world options seem limitless and discussion can actually be infinite all of which just ends with a less creative ‘safer’ solution. In a scarcity driven world options are treated as limited so discussion is finite with bolder, more vivid, creative solutions.

Think: Value on the Move

The essence of Velo is enabling value transactions to happen as effectively and efficiently as possible. By treating the world thru a scarcity lens we maximize time, resources, minds & skills to generate brand velocity.

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

“The fragile structure of logic fades and disappears against the emotional onslaught of hushed tone, a dramatic pause, and the soaring excitement of a verbal crescendo.”

——-

Bill Bernbach

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

“It was the in-between time, before day leaves and night comes, a time I’ve never been partial to because of the sadness that lingers in the space between going and coming.”

——

Sue Monk Kidd

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

Ok. Far too often when talking about pacing in life and business we focus on ‘slowing down.’ We do that because we have convinced ourselves that not only is the world moving at a faster pace than ever before, but that we actually have to move really fast or we are not doing something right.

I will not debate the sheer amount of shit we are faced with in any given moment but I would debate our concept of speed and moving fast is all that matters and our unhealthy belief there is not enough time.

Not everything has to be done immediately.

Not everything should be done with minimal information.

Not every moment has some magical window of opportunity that we will miss out on if we do not act ‘now!’.

Now. This is a little weird when we stop and think about it.

Facing reality, as an individual, it can appear like a speed boat … crashing through waves with any significant milestones flashing by so fast they become a blur.

Facing reality, collectively. It can appear like a fully loaded tanker … plowing its way through the waves where significance is measured, if significance is discernible at all, in broad sweeping miles of slow turns.

That’s life in a nutshell. That is time in a nutshell. That is reality in a nutshell.

Suffice it to say … reality can be a real bastard. Good leaders manage the bastard by managing the pacing of how we deal with all the bastard’s stuff.

Here is a truth.

The truth is that every good self-aware business leader has a panel in their head with a play, pause, rewind and fast forward button.  They have the ability to see things in real time, what has occurred up to that point and, in some way, can envision the ripples of what happens from there. Within that ability they decide to fast forward, or pause, or continue playing at the same speed … or even decide to rewind a little. They see reality and decide how to best take advantage of it.

Some leaders have one speed. There are some who we call ‘the bull in china shop’ asshats who only know forward at some fast speed bludgeoning and blustering their way forward. Some are like golf carts steadily chugging along at steady long play.

Good organizations have a variety of different types of employees, but there is no good functional organization without leaders, or a great leader, with a ‘play/pause’ panel.

Here is another truth.

The other way a good leader uses their ‘play/pause’ panel is how they think about possibilities. But we tend to make reality an even worse bastard. One thing we do that make reality worse is to convince ourselves that ‘the possibilities are infinite in any given moment.’

As I have stated before this is a false premise and a dangerously overwhelming premise. ‘Infinite’ sounds good conceptually, as does possibilities, but when it comes to real pragmatic decision-making the entire idea tends to overwhelm & freeze rather than enhance efficient & effective decision-making.

The reality is that within any given moment possibilities are finite.

And the good leaders & managers recognize that. The great leaders and managers not only see finite possibilities but they see each possibility as a window … some wide open, some slightly cracked and some closed. And in any given moment they have the ability to consistently scan the finite possibilities with a finger poised over their play/pause/rewind/fast forward buttons.

That consistency is at the foundation of any good leader’s value.

Shit. Consistency, in general, may have the highest value it has ever had in the history of Mankind.

Why? Well. Today’s world is structurally hostile to nuance. Subtlety not only doesn’t sell it invokes ‘space’ in which others are more than willing to place something. I mention this because a play/pause panel is all about nuance within the complexity of reality. It is easy to go one speed <or just stop when you get tired>. It takes touch and nuance to pause at the right time, rewind accordingly, fast forward through some difficulties or to take advantage of windows of opportunity or … well … just keep playing <which is sometime tougher than what you would think>.

This actually means great consistency is not about maintaining one speed but rather maintaining a consistent sense for how to adjust pacing accordingly.

This consistency is … well … complex. Business systems, more often than not, are a bit more complicated in their underlying dynamics than simplistic theory or simplistic diagrams attempting to create structure to an organization and its dynamics with the market & consumers/buyers/employees.

I would suggest that you cannot draw a picture for what is <because it is obsolete as soon as it is drawn> and you cannot draw a picture for what will be <because predicting multi-dimensional dynamics is outside the purview of reality>.

All that said.

That is why you cannot pay enough money to a business person who has the ability to know when to slow down to enable effective speeding up … or to pause to accept some responsibility <or explain> … or to fast forward at the right time.

That is why you cannot pay enough money to a business person who has the ability to stand still without really standing still. What I mean by that is the leader with a play/pause panel never really stands till <even though they may be pausing> because even a pause contains some activity and self-awareness to do something within that space.

===========

“She may be going to Hell, of course, but at least she isn’t standing still.”

e.e.cummings

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

I talk about this entire topic often. And it is a difficult thing to explain.

In our business world today we like to have simple formulas and handbook guides. Pacing is more ‘feel’ and awareness and, well, yeah … some humility.

I say humility because no matter how good a leader you are and no matter how good your pacing is there will always be some issues <mostly because you get some things wrong>. Part of the ‘wrong’ portion is you inevitably leave some people behind and some ‘minds’ get a little scattered. And you have to get them back on track and aligned and sometimes you have to step up and show a little humanness and everyone resets when you do that, give you another chance and get a little re energized to pick up their bags and hit the road with you again.

Look.

Real play/pause management is midstream management and not in some grand 5 year, or annual, plan. Midstream where you have some critical learnings and maybe even some momentum or real shit hits the fan. You purposefully do not have everyone stop … just maybe pause … assess … kind of like having a fighter squadron get fuel in flight … and then fast forward on the mission.

I will say one thing about the proper use of pacing. Good pacing business management creates exponential dramatic speed increases — velocity in other words. This occurs even if you pause, rewind or maintain the current play.

I feel confident saying that reality, occurring on its own, shows that these dramatic shifts don’t really happen as part of a business status quo. Dramatic business shifts are situational, contextual and often simply do not happen because a business doesn’t have a business person who sees it, senses it or can steer it … they don’t have a business person with a good play/pause panel.

It is a proven fact <I think> that pacing is one of the most effective tools an organization can wield to effectively run a successful business. I would also suggest that more often than not this pacing is not driven by the market, Reality, but rather driven by one person <or several> who have the ability to sense a contextual shift in the dynamics within a situation. A person who doesn’t have a picture drawn to adapt against but can draw a picture of what they see & sense from which others can leverage from to generate speed.

Not everyone can do this.

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

John Coltrane: “I don’t know what it is. It seems like when I get going, I just don’t know how to stop.”

Miles Davis: “Why don’t you try taking the horn out of your mouth?”

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

What I do know is that a leader who has only one speed and who claims ‘good business instincts’ when it is really only one speed is not a great leader, nor a good leader, but rather a one-trick pony <one speed> leader and they have a habit of making bad choices.

Suffice it to say a one trick pony shouldn’t be a leader, it should be an employee.

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

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

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

―

Will Durant

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

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

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

—-

Golda Meir

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

So.

This is about leadership & leading with an idea.

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

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

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

……………….. the idea ………………….

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