Ok. If you want to really get me wound up, just start talking about brands and branding.

It seems every time I read something about marketing, sales, advertising or public relations (heck, nowadays people, organizations, products, interviewing, everyday life ) I am confronted with the word “brand” (brand, branded, branding, br-whatever).

Drives me nuts.

Ok. More than nuts. I cannot tell you how many times people confuse the concept of a brand with product, name, service, advertising or marketing (just to name a few).

Oh. About “name.” Yeah. Name. It seems just because someone has decided to call their product or service something (let’s call it a ‘label’ or, better, how about “Jake” as a code word) they immediately start calling it a brand <insert an ‘aaargh’ here with multiple exclamation points>.

Sometimes it seems there is no understanding of the word, the process, or the original intent behind the concept of ‘brand’. I would like to think it is an indication of the invasion of amateurs (or the apocalypse because I keep looking for those signs) into the marketing industry, but, alas, it is not so.

Even some of the sharpest minds in the marketing world have fallen into the brand buzzword trap in an attempt to simply stay even with the less knowledgeable.

Ok. Maybe it is just me, but what I just typed seems a sign of insanity — where the brightest have to play by the rules of the ignorant to be heard. It’s the kind of stuff that really does drive me nuts <and one would think others>. The “b word” is tossed around so carelessly it has diminished and degraded its value.

Brand is an important little word. For those of us who have spent significant portions of our lives taking innovative products and service and guiding them into a position where they could even qualify to be considered a brand by the finicky user world the misuse and distortion of this little B word undermines us and our abilities.

In the end … it diminishes our expertise.

I would have to assume David Ogilvy and Bill Bernbach and James Webb Young would be appalled. (just to name a few)

So. I dug up a dictionary (not Wikipedia) which says branding is: the promoting of a product or service by identifying it with a particular brand.

Ok. That helps me understand part of the issue. How is that a definition? Its circular meaningless gobbledygook.

Therefore I will set everyone straight and give a Bruce definition <kind of>.

Brands and branding. Here you go. Not a definition. A logic flow:

1. A product or service that offers something distinct as a benefit.
2. It has a “Jake.” (Remember: That is code for a label or name)
3. Someone buys it.
4. More someones buy it.
5. The original someones come back and buy more.
6. Jake starts getting known for that distinct thing (or whatever reason the someones associate with buying Jake)…
7. Jake is becoming a brand.

Over time, Jake has assumed some character the someones have gotten attached to (trust, reliability, strength, etc.) and, well, Jake is a brand.

So. In reality a brand isn’t really a brand until it exists in some way within the hearts and minds of consumers.

By the way <part 1>. Jake can become a brand without advertising or extensive marketing (there are some nice examples of that) as long as enough people ‘interact with/buy from’ what the company offers day in & day out.

By the way <part 2>. If you have a consistently good product/service, becoming a brand is inevitable (or we would face a world of generic products and services with limited selection and little motive for innovation).

The key … the underlying ‘thing’ I am trying to point out … is that this ‘brand’ has been built upon some piece of information or usefulness (functional value) grounded in some company consistency (culture/values/attitude). At some point early on people were educated about something to do with that particular product or service until ultimately the relationship reverses – the brand stands for that education communicated rather than the product or service. The good news? It is a proven fact consumers will pay a premium for a product or service where someones call ‘Jake’ a brand.

It starts with a good product and elevates that product to the status of “brand” by making the consumer aware of product benefits, forming perceptions to wrap around the product (some positive and some negative), and stimulating trial, repurchase and ongoing purchases. In the end that true value is the brand.

Ok.

 The Myth of Building Brands

Let me start simply.

A great brand is a great product or service that people have developed a strong emotional connection with.

Hmmmmmmmmm … that said … it seems like we should be writing less books about “brands” and “branding” and instead investing energy in writing books about building sustainable products and services <just a thought>.

Here is a marketing truth. You don’t build a brand <that is the Myth>. You build a meaningful product or service <or a company that creates those types of things>.

Oh. And contrary to the dictionary definition of the word brand, putting a label (or a Jake) on a product does not make it a brand (but it helps to give it a Jake rather than simply say “pork rinds”).

Oh. Creating a website or running an ad doesn’t do it either.

A product only becomes a brand when the consumer/users (the someones) say so. When they associate a benefit and a set of values (that combination is key). Not until then. The process of ‘branding’ (and I hate that phrase but I assume it is a marketing campaign or activity which highlights what makes Jake a brand) is typically a complex, lengthy, sometimes expensive process. But. It sure would be a boatload easier to simply avoid saying “branding” and call it “building a marketing plan for Jake.”

<Oh. And why do I have to say the intent is to attain brand status…because…when isn’t that the intent or objective? … oh … silly me>

Last thought. Please recognize that judging brands “in generation” is tough.

We are far too quick to call something a brand. I would suggest the true test of a brand is if it can cross generations. Until that time, maybe it is simply a ‘generational brand’ or at its worst simply a ‘fad.’ Many companies-brands do ‘get it’ and are doing the right things – for now that is. Crossing generations is about stewardship. Does the transition to new leaders (the next steward) mean losing focus (meaningless reinvention) or guiding to the next level of relevance (and maintain the brand status)?

In the end.

Great brands are inevitably companies that maintain operational excellence by delivering superior <or just distinct> products meeting expectations day in and day out … and having employees that embrace the vision day in and day out. Operational excellence and centered employees. Everything else falls apart <sales and marketing and culture … even your desired ‘brand’> if that core isn’t solid.

Wavering operationally creates cracks that have seismic effects externally. And, ultimately, when that wavering occurs it becomes a prime example of a “failed brand” <or a ‘dead Jake’ in Bruce terms>.

A lot of bad thinking is being shared under the guise of ‘branding’ these days. My advice is to worry less about ‘brand’ and more about consistently delivering a great product/service wrapped up in some personality day in and day out.

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

Originally posted February 2010

===========

“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.

————————-

“I don’t believe there’s any problem in this country, no matter how tough it is, that Americans, when they roll up their sleeves, can’t completely ignore.”

―

George Carlin

——-

Americans have a way of doing things ‘big.’ We are vocal and loud-ish and unequivocally … well … American.

While it seems like we do it that way every day the 4^th of July is most likely the most vivid demonstration of American loud-ism.

Now. Before I traveled the world I was convinced every country had an Independence Day they celebrated with the same gusto <if not fierceness> as America does. At some point i realized this isn’t the norm everywhere.  That isn’t to say that most countries don’t celebrate <or at least acknowledge> their independence day <a place like Finland

celebrates its independence from Russia> it’s just that no one seems to do it as bombastically as we Americans.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with bombastic patriotism.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with bombastically celebrating independence.

Why?

Independence is a bombastic ideal. One that SHOULD be celebrated loudly, bombastically & vigorously even if the Ideal doesn’t live up to their expectations when faced with reality.

Ideals are ideas.

Ideals are hope.

Ideals are a vision.

Ideals are, well, frustrating on occasion.

If you have ever personally sought the ‘ideal weight’ <not to diminish freedom & independence … just to personalize the discussion> you know progress never comes as fast as you desire, you make mistakes, you have setbacks, you have successes, and the moment you take your eye off the ‘ideal’ you lose progress if not slip backwards a little. Suffice it to say, living with an ideal in mind is difficult. Hopeful but difficult.

Using my metaphor, think of it as 330 million people stepping onto 330 million different scales 365 days of the year, every day evaluating their ideal weight against the ideal weight the country bears.

Sound like its impossible to meet the ideal? Yup. And that is independence. That is the ideal we measure ourselves and our country against.

The bar is high.  But Americans aim high.

Suffice it to say I am grateful for the country I grew up in and the freedoms we have in America that we often take for granted.

Now. I certainly do not subscribe to the theory of blind patriotism some people suggest follow along with holidays like the Fourth. I do not because I believe it is on days like this we are reminded of the work in progress ideal we strive for and our founders strove for.  It is on days like this, while we bombastically celebrate, we are also reminded, sometimes painfully, of the work in progress aspects. We will sit around our barbeques and bitch & moan and picks at the scabs of a wounded Ideal but at the same time we should also be reminded of independence and everything good that comes along with it.

In thinking about it, and the value it has to our souls and hearts (and the fact we know we have flaws and are still, sometimes sluggishly, working towards that ideal) it is natural to become self-conscious in our Americanism.

———

“It is, I think, an indisputable fact that Americans are, as Americans, the most self- conscious people in the world, and the most addicted to the belief that the other nations are in a conspiracy to under-value them.”

Henry James

———–

I have seen someone call this self consciousness — self pity. I don’t. I would argue until my last breath it has nothing to do with pity or any ‘woe is me’ attitude.

I would say it has something to do with that ‘high bar’ I stated earlier.

I would say that having earned independence we have assumed a responsibility to an ideal. It is an ideal most likely truly unattainable <as most ideals are> and, as Americans who like to complete, do and succeed, we are self-conscious about the fact we are still working our way toward that ideal.

That said.

We bombastically celebrate the ideal.

And you know what? That is a big deal.

Many people in other countries do not seem to understand patriotism the way Americans celebrate the 4th.  They see it as our typical over the top celebration of pride.

Yes.

We have parades to celebrate America and being American.

Yes.

We have spectacular firework extravaganzas that everyone goes to.

Yes.

We have massive parties that entire towns attend.

Yes.

Sometimes we go a little wacko with the red, white & blue.

But it’s because we look at America differently than others may look at their own countries.

I am not suggesting it better or worse – just different.

Different in that we vigorously celebrate our ideal maybe, just maybe, to convince ourselves of the Ideal.

Convince? Well. Unlike some other countries who feel like they embody their ‘ideal’ — we do … and we don’t. We know we have an ideal. We know we have not reached the ideal state. We know we worry we may never attain that Ideal.

So, maybe, on the 4^th, oddly, we are celebrating our flaws.

I wish we Americans would say that more often.  Celebrate our flaws. Because in doing so we admit we are celebrating the reach … the aiming high … the place of hope.

Anyway.

Set aside the celebration aspect <which is certainly an American trait>. The 4^th is and is not about pride. If it were solely about pride many would hesitate because we are flawed. But to think the USA has more dirty laundry than other countries is … frankly … is silly <and slightly absurd> and no excuse for not being proud to be an American. We should be proud America holds an ideal out for everyone … just beyond their grasp … and says ‘go get it.’

4th of July is fun.

You should sit around with your family. Millions of beer drinking guys stand and grill the shit out of everything and anything they can get your hands on. Other millions go out and spend an hour blowing things up.

On this day maybe 325 million people <I will allow 5 million curmudgeonly unhappy tools to sit around and gripe about how bad things are and how flawed our country is> set differences aside and have some fun — fun with an ideal in mind.

——-

“Americans… are forever searching for love in forms it never takes, in places it can never be. It must have something to do with the vanished frontier.”

Kurt Vonnegut

——–

What I love about America is the searching.

On the 4^th we celebrate the search. We celebrate the hope. We celebrate the ideal. On the other 364 days we grind it out working toward the ideal in fits & starts, and hugs & pushing, and tears & laughter, and anger & joy, and disappointment & triumph … and failure & success.

Every one of these 364 days we grind thru what is, flaws included, all the while envisioning what could be. And maybe that is why Americans are so damn obnoxious in their 4^th of July celebration.  We are celebrating what could be. A better America.

Well.

I would suggest the attempt to being better than what you are today is worthy of a celebration.

Happy 4^th of July.

“But the brain does much more than just recollect it inter-compares, it synthesizes, it analyzes, it generates abstractions. The simplest thought like the concept of the number one has an elaborate logical underpinning. “

—

Carl Sagan

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

I am constantly trying to communicate something incommunicable, to explain something inexplicable, to tell about something I only feel in my bones and which can only be experienced in those bones.”

—

Franz Kafka

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

This is about ideas and thinking. I am a scribbler. And a sketcher. And a pencil guy. I carry around a stack of index cards & constantly sketch out thoughts for people. My index cards are strewn around the world. I am sure some are used for dart boards, some for a good laugh & some actually was a seed for some idea.

I purposefully used the word “seeds” because I think we would be much better off if we thought of ideas that way. Why? Well. Seeds die or remain underground or get eaten by some squirrel if it isn’t protected, nurtured, watered and pampered in some way to insure it flourishes.

And while there are gobs of articles highlighting ideation process and such , to me, all that matters is an idea doesn’t die with poor articulation. A good idea poorly presented dies. Even great ideas poorly articulated die.

Now.

A shitload of people will want to talk about PowerPoint & presenting & a whole bunch of shit that just gets in the way. Those are simply ways to do it. What matters is how you do it.

Which leads me to the Feynman technique. It is essentially explaining a concept or idea to yourself, on a piece of paper, as if you were teaching it to someone else with little background knowledge. This is all about it’s all making sure you understand it and can you explain it if not simply simple enough to be understood.

I had no clue who Feynman was when I start taking out a piece of paper to find out if what I was thinking made sense on paper. Over time I have found an index card does it for me. it forces the constraint I need to either, well, get it or not get it. If I can’t articulate my idea or thought on an index card I mentally decide it isn’t worth a shit as an idea. Ok. Maybe it is but I know I haven’t figured out a way to articulate it so that it will not die.

Look.

I am not suggesting I am a great idea person or thinker but I am suggesting creating a process to elevate all people’s thinking does not necessarily benefit the smaller group of people who are actually good at thinking & creating ideas. What I mean by that is with the intent to create a better thinking organization we tend to want to throw everyone into the same bucket <I guess we do that to encourage inclusiveness & ‘fairness’>. Unfortunately this means your best of the best get pulled out of what may make them the best & force them into the “unwashed masses” <I am kidding on that phrase but you get the point>.

We should always be thinking two parallel paths. One to elevate the majority and one to empower the minority.

Why? To protect ideas.

Minds work in a variety of ways. It seems to me that organizations should think less about organizing minds but rather freeing minds. If you have someone like me, buy me a stack of index cards & have someone riffle through tem on occasion to see if there is a seed somewhere.

I will say that when I was running a small company I would pin them up on a conference room wall and during meetings anyone at any time could pull it off the wall and say “WTF you thinking?” or “I want to talk about this.”

I learned to articulate better as well as get less defensive about ideas.

The employees learned to articulate better and come up with their own ideas in their own ways. By not having an organizational process but sharing my personal process we ended up having a process.

My point is ideas are seeds. Some don’t deserve to grow & flourish but some do & we should be learning to articulate ideas better to save those seeds.

======

“It’s time we stop worrying, and get angry you know?

But not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds.”

————————-

Tupac Shakur

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

This is hardly worth fighting for

But it’s the little petty shit that I can’t ignore

When my fist hits your face and your face hits the floor

It’ll be a long time coming

But you got the message now

‘Cause I was never going

You’re the one that’s going down

One of us is going down

I’m not running,

It’s a little different now

‘Cause one of us is going

One of us is going down

—————-

Sick Puppies

<You’re Going Down>

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

Well.

Every time I watch the Olympics I am reminded of a topic which is not discussed often enough in business … angry competition. I call it angry strategizing.

Yeah. The Olympics has reminded me about competing angry.

While the Olympics are supposed to be about the love of competition and a better world through sports competition it is actually about determining the best in the world. And that, my friends, is not about love it is about the rage of competition.

While I will surely give a nod to respect shown to other great competitors and the aftermath camaraderie that can only be had among the best in the world who have competed the hardest and recognize greatness around them at the Olympics, and how they do so even in loss, I must point out that the Olympic best carry a certain rage into their competitiveness. It may not be the traditional version of anger but it is most certainly a version of anger.

It drives them to compete with the intent to beat the shit out of whomever they are competing against and be the best they can be so they can actually be the best.

I say all that because I don’t believe enough business people strategize with some anger. Anger that … well … there are some stupid ideas out there …

some stupid opinions

some stupid attitudes

competitors say and do stupid things

and certainly there is a stupid acceptance of mediocrity.

I know that I have sat in a meeting room with some business partners and looked around at the competition and what they were doing and saying and, well, got angry. Angry enough to want and do something about it.

By being angry in business <no, I am not talking about being some anger management candidate> I mean planning angry, developing a strategy thinking with some anger about the status quo, maybe even having some anger toward conventional thinking and certainly some anger against whomever you are competing <but you can still respect the ones who deserve the respect while doing so> is effective and leads to effective business strategy to create real distinction in the marketplace.

To be clear.

Anger, to me, is much more useful than disdain. Disdain breeds some arrogance and certainly diminishes the capabilities of the competition as you think about competing against them. In your scoffing at them it suggests that it is … is … well … just not worth even thinking about. Anger, on the other hand, suggests you are facing what is straight on, in its face, and taking it head on. Anger guides you not toward some flimsy white space but directly into the fray — directly toward the space you want in a market <whether it is already occupied or not> and take it. Or, as Admiral Nelson once said, “you can do no wrong by putting yourself as close to the enemy as possible.”

And you know what?

In business strategy that is smart. So that is why I call this the angry business strategy.

To be clear, there is only one real way to win and that is without cheating. I say that because anger almost forces you to not only recognize that there is no virtue to be found in taking a shortcut <although shortcuts never really exist anyway> but that there is no long cut or shortcut but rather simply getting up and going — and competing to win.

I am sure someone will point out that it may simply be you look around and get aggravated by what you see and decide to do something about it. But I think if you have the team, and you have the product or service and you actually have the means to make your mark in the business world … then … well … it is okay if you look around at the competition and the competitive business world and get a little pissed not just aggravated.

You get a little angry …

This is stupid … there is a better way.

This is crazy … I have a better product.

This is nuts … I can’t believe people believe that shit.

Your anger puts an edge on what you decide to say and do.

Far too often we sit around and have pot after pot of strong coffee and have intellectual discussions on how to smartly effectively compete. We worry through some fairly random details, talk about being the best and then go ahead and be anything but the best.

So … you know what?

If you are better, and have a better offering and are truly worth a shit and want people to know you are worth a shit … well then … there is no real intellectual challenge. You get on with getting on. You just get competitively angry and stand in the middle of the field and say “here I am, and I am not going down.”

I am not suggesting being stupid about competing. Nor am I suggesting bludgeoning the industry and competitors with some dull edged hammer.

But I am suggesting the anger puts some attitude into your strategy and tactics. It puts a sharper edge into your sense of competitive purpose.

And here is what I know.

If it isn’t blind anger but rather competitive anger you won’t tiptoe into your messaging and go to market strategy. You will stride in with some swagger, some confidence and clearly some strong purposeful messaging.

I think … no … I know more businesses would do better to attack their business strategy with some anger.

Get a little pissed about perceptions, attitudes and mediocrity.

Get pissed that people are accepting less than the best and less than real truth.

Get pissed at yourself if you are in a position where you don’t believe enough in yourself and your offering to be able to get pissed.

Yeah.

I do believe more businesses should strategize with some anger. As Tupac said … not angry and pick up a gun, but angry and open our minds.

——-

“’You’re dangerous’, he says.

‘Why?’

‘Because you make me believe in the impossible.’ “

=

Simone Elkeles

——-

“Disruption is bad.

You seem to be using it to mean something good,” she said.

——

So.

This is about disruption and business. This is one of my favorite words & topics. It is one of my favorites for two reasons.

First is that it is an overlooked way to be successful in the marketplace. Far too often businesses simply seek to “compete.” They are satisfied with standing in the ring and bludgeon each other all the while suggesting that this is “smart fighting giving me an edge.” It is not. Shit. “Edges” <in this case> is simply staying in the fight and not a plan to win a fight. Disruption is all about wins and winning.

Second. It is one of the few words in business that if you actually deign to use in a meeting or business discussion will draw a visceral response from your audience. From a ‘fun’ perspective it is maybe even more fun than farting in the middle of a presentation.

Anyway.

Disruption, or disrupt, is an emotive word often creating a very unsettling image. And it is a topic which typically scares the shit out of most businesses <and business people>. The excuses to ‘not being so disruptive’ are too long to list … and some are quite creative. But suffice it to say … almost every excuse is grounded in fear.

Yeah.

All those “whoa … slow down on that whole disruption talk” people may suggest ‘it is expensive to do something like that’ but they are simply shaping excuses in their heads & mouths because the whole thought of disrupting anything … well … scares the shit out of them.

Now.

To be clear on definitions <and purpose> … the aim of disruption is to frame <or reframe> a business <or a brand> so that the market sees it differently. Well. I could suggest it is actually simply turning around and facing reality.

——-

“At some point you just have to turn around and face your life head on.”

Chris Cleave

—–

What I mean by that is disrupting is most typically simply attacking some conventional thinking and tapping into what people really think <when they actually think about it>. And many times it is really common sense stuff. It is common sense because it is many times rooted in the fact we just get stuck either in ‘that’s the way its done’ … or maybe we have become so numb to the fact we have bolted on crap to the brand <or company> in day to day attempts to keep it relevant that it is almost unfamiliar to what people originally thought of it <we just made it too complex or complicated>.

Please note … this whole disruption thing, while I love it, is not my idea.

Jean Marie Dru, the Chairman of TBWA has been talking about the power of “disruption” since the early 1990s. His book, Disruption: Overturning Conventions and Shaking Up the Marketplace, is a must read for anyone who likes this shit <and it is actually a delightful read for a business book>. Interestingly … even Tom Peters <the ‘in search of excellence’ guy> thought the concept of disruption was topical … even decades ago.

——

“Disrupt or be disrupted.  Disrupt or die.

Disruption is the most powerful idea in business today.”

Tom Peters

——

I tend to believe disruption gets a bad rap because it implies wholesale change. Like as in throw out everything and start from scratch. Au contraire. Disrupting is always about leveraging off of something existing. You may turn everything upside down … but you are still using some existing pieces <some existing attitudes & behavior> from which your idea will end up tapping into. I say that to remind everyone that something from nothing equals the same thing as nothing from nothing … uhm … nothing. Smart, or intelligent, disrupting is always about something from something.

——

“If in a company you change nothing, you are sure to fail. If you change everything you are sure to fail as well.

So the art of winning resides in your capacity to draw the fine line between what should be changed and what should not.

Same for a brand.  All brands are in transition.  You can’t build brands by thinking only in a linear way. You have to think of larger futures for them. And to do that, you have to use your imagination. A larger share of the future very seldom comes from an extrapolation of the present.

And that is what Disruption is all about. Disruption is about discovering new futures.”

=

Jean Marie-Dru

——

Let’s be honest here. New futures sound frickin’ awesome.

Uhm. Here’s the problem. Futures are not guaranteed, are they?

Doh.

Success is getting people to think and act differently. <doh again>

That translates into … yikes … change.

Here is the good news about this whole disruptive change topic. Effective disruptive thinking is not some blind irresponsible thinking. It takes into consideration all the levels of change it effects and addresses them. 

—–

“Disruption demands that a company challenges conventional behaviors and finds a new way to act.

If you analyze the behavior of the category in question you will see conventional patterns of activity are apparent on four levels: corporate, marketing, communications and the customer’s point of view.  Some of these conventions are invariably good and necessary, while others are not.

The opportunity lies in seeing how a brand can use its strengths to do something less conventional to change its path and accelerate growth.”

=

Matt Shepherd-Smith, CEO, TBWA\London

—–

To be clear. There is truly a difference in disruption and intelligent disruption. Disruption in and of itself … without thought … is meaningless destruction creating chaos. Intelligent disruption leads change from what exists rather than reacting to what exists and … well … creates something new <not chaos>.

Anyway.

Here are few more thoughts by Jean-Marie Dru about brand building and the importance of disruption:

—

–        Disruption is creating something dynamic to replace something that has become static.

–        I have always believed that a brand has to evolve. It cannot remain motionless. The same, of course, applies to companies.

—

While all those words sound inspiring and thoughtful and … well … what business person WOULDN’T want to do that? Well. Disruption actually is linked to another word which business people tend to really really dislike … destruction. Destruction of the conventional … the comfortable. Conventions train us to do the conventional. And because it is conventional … we tend to not really think about this shit.

Uhm. Yes. Accepted beliefs, where everyone is thinking the same, usually means no one is really thinking. This all translates into destroying some of the accepted beliefs … uhm … which means destroying … well … familiarity.

Yet … within destruction there should be a surge of energy <from people and a business perspective because disruption is actually both strategy and action>.

What do I believe <see: “know”>?

Too much business thinking today is satisfied with maintaining the status quo.

This is doomed thinking. Thinking is at its best when used as a sharp weapon and used to transform business and the way people think <and do things>. Far too much thinking <and the tactics which arise from that thinking> look the same, say the same, and … well … do the same.

All of which simply makes it easier to be ignored.

Worse?

It doesn’t respect people’s intelligence or their sense of <thinking> adventure. Therefore disruption incorporates destructing some of ‘what is.’

Not just for the sake of destruction but rather with the intent to be singular, extraordinary, and even world-changing is inspiring and interesting and adventuresome. Disrupting is done with the intent to stand out from the crowd and get noticed in a way that fundamentally changes perceptions. I imagine I could quite simplistically suggest that great disruptive thinking challenges the prevailing ideas of the present, therefore, disruption sounds difficult, unsettling, painful and fundamentally frightening.

Why would anybody disrupt, and destroy, on purpose?

Well.

Here is the contradiction … you are actually destroying to create.

=

It’s about creation – creating something dynamic to replace something that has become static. 

Disruption is about systematically breaking through the barriers that shape and limit standard business approaches. It’s about challenging conventional wisdom and imagining new possibilities. It’s about destroying the assumptions and biases that get in the way of fresh and visionary ideas.

<Jean Marie-Dru>

=

 This actually means that the other thing where disruption gets a bad rap is that it is used as a verb … when it is actually a noun when done correctly.

Yup. Because disruption is actually a destination … a vision of what could, and should, be … against which all strategic and marketing decisions are measure. This means that disruptive ideas are simply ways to get to the vision as fast as possible.

This also means that you are taking a stand. A stand for not what is … but what will be. You are changing the rules <and frankly doing so in your favor>.

To be clear.

Disruption is not anarchy <nor chaos>. It is a strategically directed shake-up. It’s a way of thinking. It means taking nothing for granted.

It means being bold and taking some risk.

It means you are actually inventing a future in which you not only want to live … but one in which you can prosper.

Anyone in business worth even half a shit knows that the path to truly winning <and winning big> in business is to create new categories or subcategories rather than engaging in brand preference competition in established categories.

The idea of creating a new category, defining its dimensions and becoming its ‘definer’ <of which everyone else has to measure against> is where true success <financially> resides.

Sure. Many businesses need to engage in brand preference competition to retain their relevance and market position. But that is a defensive strategy. And, trust me, someone is going to go on the offensive at some point.

Anyway.

Disruption simply means ‘to challenge.’ And we all need to remember that disruption creates and is not simply to destroy. That doesn’t mean everything is all rosy if you get it right.

Technological disruption re-defines industries.

Cultural disruption always seems to piss people off.

Why?

Challenging people … and the status quo … can make people angry.

What do I say? Fuck ‘em.

Disruption by challenging the status quo improves culture. Is there conflict? You bet.

Does that conflict lead to a spark of energy? You bet. And from the spark comes improvement.

Look.

We are all disruptors. Just that some of us know it and some of us don’t.

—-

“We are all manufacturers – making good, making trouble or making excuses.”

=

HV Adolt

——-

Ok. Frankly. All that really matters despite all I babbled about <typed> … is you either choose to disrupt … or be disrupted.

Well. I have said this before … it seems like today’s world is tough on dreamers.

It is hard to be a dreamer and it seems to be easier and easier to blindly move down a beaten path <because you’ve been beaten up by Life>. By the way. This is not suggesting anyone is a “sheep.” It simply means Life is often a grind and as you make choices with regard to making Lie easier in some ways you simply choose the path most taken.

Regardless. We need to remind ourselves on occasion that it is okay to dream … and dream big and that relentlessly pursuing a dream can be inspiring <not discouraging>.

Now. Being a big dreamer doesn’t mean that you walk around with your head in the clouds. It means that you have a purpose … a big purpose that makes your life bigger and fulfills some promise within you.

Of course … as usual … the key is to find a balance. Think ground and clouds. Feet in the clouds and head on the ground. Pragmatic with no limits. A contradiction? Sure. But big dreams are a contradiction. As a practical relatively pragmatic human race we would never have them … unless some of them defied the odds and actually came true. Some really do happen.

Which reminds me <to remind everyone> that big dreams are things … not intangibles. They are not ‘becoming rich’ or ‘being a star’ … they are achieving greatness with an idea or a thought. Anyway. And while there should be a balance … there should be some big dream in all of us for a lot of reasons:

–          Sense of Self.

Big dreams have a nice habit of increasing the size of your sense of self. You have to be careful it doesn’t become bigger than yourself and consume you … but big dreams remind you that you can make a big impact in some form or fashion. Maybe not today … but a hope of sometime. Big dreams can not only create some interesting self-purpose in life but it also reminds you that anyone, even you, is capable of the extraordinary. Even if it is just in thought.

————————————

“Be daring, be different, be impractical, be anything that will assert integrity of purpose & imaginative vision against the play-it-safers, the creatures of the commonplace, the slaves of the ordinary.“

Sir Cecil Beaton

————————————–

Maybe that is the biggest part of this ‘sense of self’ thought  … it is likely the biggest reason why you wouldn’t want to settle on small dreams … does anyone really want to be a slave of the ordinary?

–          Possibilities.

When you dream big things you will find new roads you may want to explore along the way. It is an adventure and sometimes extremely unpredictable and never ordinary. This is because big dreams can push limits of possibility <or what is possible> because it keeps the impossible in life in sight <if you can actually see something like impossible>. It all happens because big dreams are … well … not quantifiable. If they can be <in your head> I would suggest it is not really a dream but an objective or goal. A dream has to be so big it is just an idea … something difficult to put a number on it or a specific GPS coordinate. it is always somewhere on the horizon. And in reaching toward it the possibilities of new roads not taken <and never envisioned nor on any map as a matter of fact> increase significantly.

–          Achieving stuff.

Yeah. You may not actually get the big one <the big dream> but typically if you dream big, you increase the odds you actually achieve something. It also increases the odds you actually achieve something relatively great in the scheme of things. In fact. You may even end up achieving more than you ever thought you could <even if it isn’t the big dream you began with>.

Big dreams are the reasons why the world changes … and becomes better. And I say ‘world’ as in if you define it in business … or in life. It’s the reason why there have been so many inventions, new ‘out of the box’ ideas, creations or whatevers. As a business guy I love this following quote for the business big dreamers:

————————-

“New business concepts are always, always the product of lucky foresight. That’s right – the essential insight doesn’t come out of any dirigiste planning process; it comes form some cocktail of happenstance, desire, curiosity, ambition and need. But at the end of the day, there has to be a degree of foresight — a sense of where new riches lie. So radical innovation is always one part fortuity and one part clearheaded vision.”

Gary Hamel, Leading the Revolution

——————–

New concepts inevitably come from one part clearheaded big dreaming.

Same with new ideas. Same with anything really new … and really big. Oh. And along the way a lot of good little stuff happens too.

–          Your legacy <and big dreams>

Big dreams give you the opportunity to truly leave your mark on the world in several ways:

You achieve it.

You don’t achieve it <but achieve other shit along the way>.

You don’t achieve it <and it is left for someone else to achieve>.

The first.

The achieving one is obvious. It is satisfying and certainly something at the end of the road you will probably look back on with some satisfaction. I will mention though that most big dreamers update their dreams if they actually attain the original. You never really actually stop dreaming big <but do not tell anyone that>.

The second.

You don’t achieve it but along the road you have veered off on a variety of paths you encountered and did some good shit along the way. Your legacy is strewn with stuff you have left behind. I call this a ‘no regret’ life. You don’t really regret the missed ‘big dream’ cause you lived life doing stuff.

The third.

Oh. And not achieving the big dream … whew … what does happen to big dreams when a dreamer dies?

Here is the good news. A big dream never really dies. Only dreamers do. Someone else grabs it as their own. I think most big dreamers recognize his and are okay with it. Big dreams aren’t really meant to be owned by anyone in particular except Life. They can be achieved by someone <if they are lucky enough to figure out how to do it> but big dreams are visionary.

Some big dreams cannot be fulfilled within a single lifetime. But they are so inspiring that future generations <or someone in that generation> will strive to achieve it.

And last.

Inspiring that future?

Well. Maybe, that in itself is why people should dream big.

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

“It is the moment when what was chaos is now seen as having a center of gravity. There is a shape where a moment ago there was none.”

—-

Peter Elbow 

===================== 

“If one shifts the center of gravity of life out of life into the “Beyond” – into nothingness – one has deprived life as such of its center of gravity.”

―

Friedrich Nietzsche

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

Well.

Given the recent study showing 42 people have the same wealth as maybe 50% of the world’s population I thought I would republish this awesome study completed in late 2010 called “Global Economy’s Shifting Centre of Gravity.”

Ok.

Maybe not awesome to some people … but to me? Fascinating reading <I actually read it over a vacation sipping some cocktails>.

Here is the net:

• In 1980 the global economy’s center of gravity was somewhere in the middle of the Atlantic ocean.
• In 2010 the center of gravity shifted to just east of Helsinki/Bucharest latitude (oddly the longitude doesn’t seem to vary much over time in this modeling).
• In 2049 the center of gravity will shift almost two-thirds of the earth’s radius from the 1980 center to somewhere say in west Asia.

What the heck does his have to do with wealth inequality? Well. Because wealth is accumulating on 2 dimensions – on both the y axis as well as the x axis <just not at the same rate>.

Let’s just say that the x axis is shifting upwards globally <average wealth of global individual is improving>. This is good. This means the overall tide is rising.

Let’s just say that the people on the y axis are disproportionately reaping the benfis of a better global wealth improvement. That is bad. This means few continue to benefit at the overall expense of the many <yes, people will haggle with how I worded that>.

All that said … I would envision most people wouldn’t be surprised by this. But I am fairly sure we talk about the y axis all the time and forget to mention the x-axis … that’s my point here.

Anyway. There are some nuances to the study I mentioned that should make people think a bit.

Don’t panic.

I am not going to go into the modeling analytics … but suffice it to say this researcher at The London School of Economics knows his shit and figured out a way to analyze economic power not by clustering <which is an important distinction> but rather center of gravity <it’s kind of like figuring out how to measure the dynamic behavior of spatial economic distribution rather than simplistic clustering>. The study offered truly fascinating cylindrical spatial global maps in which it is almost like viewing an economic holographic image.

I will spare you. What I won’t spare you is what this analytic stuff means.

Suffice it to say that the income dynamics of the average location of the planet’s economic activity is shifting.

I think we all knew this in our gut but now we have actual proof.  And it’s kind of sobering proof for those of us in the Western hemisphere <I include South America, Latin America and North America into this pot of people. That global economic activity moves east in this graphic fashion shows the rapid growth in incomes going to the large chunks of humanity who live in India, Africa, China and the rest of East Asia.

<note: population itself changes much more gradually therefore this sharp east-directed rise of the rest is not driven by population growth>

Overall this shift is a reflection of a lot of good things happening in the world <not America getting weaker but rather America becoming a smaller larger global component>. For example 600 million people have been lifted from extreme poverty – a large and rapid improvement in the well-being of humanity that is unprecedented in the history of this planet.

And there is more is to come. In particular, Africa and China will remain growth areas <albeit both in different ways> and poverty will continue to be eradicated.

Now.

All of this could be concerning in a variety of ways.

First.

This isn’t just about money, or income, this is about power. Economic shifts lead to governmental shifts … and intellectual shifts.

Second.

Let’s talk “intellectual shifts.” Eliminating poverty <or limiting poverty> means releasing probably the greatest restraint to education. And mind power is the great equalizer.

Yeah. Mind power. Sorry folks … it isn’t democracy <or any real ‘freedom of’ … although some people may debate the cause/effect of that relationship>. When economic shift permits an elevation of intellectual power that tends to be the formula for sustained shift in economical gravitational pull. I even have an example on economic opportunity … and economic opportunity lost.

We have faced a similar foundational economic re-construct situation before … only to have the economic center of gravity remain skewed toward the western hemisphere.  And although the economic center of gravity was threatened at that time … there wasn’t the intellectual shift attached to the economic shift to sustain the movement.

Let’s look back at the last time we may have faced something like this.

The cold war.  Soviet Union versus United States <actually … the rest of the world>. The reality is that while Russia tried to fill the void <of prosperity … or maybe better said … ‘better than what is’> and sought to increase its global engagement under the guise of government doctrine it was actually an economic battle.  Huh? Think people labor versus capitalism <simplistic but you get the point>. Russia was certainly good at destroying governments and economic construct.  However, because of their economic corruption they were unsuccessful in replacing what they destroyed.

Ultimately that was their failure … not a failure of communism but a failure of economy. Which, in the end, meant their failure to sustain an economic shift translated into the fact intellectual power was never maximized.

I promise you that mistake will not happen again. In fact it is happening all over again <not Russia but Eastern Hemisphere & Africa> but … but this economic shift is being sustained. There are two <to me> primary locations pulling the center of gravity. And I will outline each <and why we in the western hemisphere should sit up and pay attention>.

The two? China & Africa <some people may argue India>.

China.

They don’t necessarily destroy.  In fact they do the opposite. They simply take less than successful scenarios and through economic success makes each … well … more successful.

Ok. There is a point here. What most Americans <let’s say ‘outsiders’ in general> fail to see is the “more successful” part. Many people measure success off of what we have <or how high is up>. In fact it is through those eyes that we tend to damn China.

Take a step back.

As Mao suggested for China … success would be enabling the majority to afford another pair of shoes. Not a mansion … heck … not even a house … just another pair of shoes … for a gazillion people. And he did it. And China has continued to grow.

Sure. It becomes more difficult from there. But that’s not the point. Other ‘industrialized’ countries measure them in a different way and are being foolish by doing so. China is being successful <for a number of reasons> but because they have taken what they have done well internally within their own country <helped a segment make the next step up> and go elsewhere and offer the same opportunity. They are creating an infrastructure within emerging countries, and emerging economies, <outside of China> to ‘be better than what is.’

In Africa it is transportation and communication interface. In southeast Asia its internal infrastructure.

China is becoming an enabler rather than a destroyer.

In Africa the picture continues to improve.

Wars have subsided and governments have stabilized and they are also adopting their own quasi capitalist-communist economic attitude, i.e., private subsidized by government. Their average GDP has consistently grown almost 5% annually. Over the past 8 years over 80 million households have been elevated above poverty level – to a level where discretionary spending commences in the household. Telecommunications, banking and retailing is flourishing.

This reflects a significant rise in the African urban consumer. In 1980 28% of Africans lived in an urban environment and today over 40% do. In countries where infrastructure is isolated, typically in more urban environments, this means that a more significant portion of the population has access to education, skills development and jobs <note: remember my point on mind power>. In addition, African governments are increasingly adopting policies to maintain the economic growth as they privatize state-owned businesses, open lines of trade <foreign>, strengthen legal systems and provide well needed physical & social infrastructure (a byproduct of that last factor is an increased labor force and economic distribution among the population).

So.

Having used those examples maybe I am maybe actually suggesting the bigger thought is a new communist-capitalism attitude shifting the economic center of gravity <I am erring on the side in my point of view that USA isn’t doing something wrong but rather that others are doing something well>.

I do find it impressive that traditional & evolving governments have attained this balance of communism embracing capitalism. Historically, the two are ideologically irreconcilable. Yet even the traditional communist based governments are proving to be quite pragmatic in supporting pro-growth economic policies <by non traditional communist means>.

China unapologetically clings to communism in every other sense of government policy. A number of more dictatorial based governments in Africa. Everyone should note it is Africa’s more quickly growing economies, characterized by low, stable business tax rates, responsible government spending, reasonable levels of regulation and incentives for business expansion, which certainly represent the highest growth opportunities.

As a result, their economies are expanding, businesses are thriving …. and maybe more importantly … the population is gaining a better way of living.

Once again … in my words … better than what they had.

Yes.

It is interesting to me that it is the economies of communist <or communist like> governments are thriving due to capitalism and responsible pro-growth economic policies. America has taught them well. And because of all that we are seeing a shift in the economic center of gravity.

Anyway.

Sorry. I digressed.

Getting back to the center of gravity. This study reflects how we should be looking at things. Millions of millions of people in developing countries are becoming more wealthy.

Exorbitantly? Nope.

Wealthier? Yes.

Simply moving all developing countries <or the majority … call it a ‘large mass’> to non-poverty from poverty is a massive shift. And by doing so it enables that population to be more productive. More healthy.  More educated.  More knowledgeable. This is simple shit. But we in the ‘industrialized world’ get caught up in the wrong issues … we assess success by where we are today .. <silly silly people>.

Ok.

Be careful with what I say next.

While USA focuses on government constitutional aspects and “enhancing their constitutional situation” … China is focused on economy.

Now.

I am a HUGE freedom of guy.  But.  If you want to grow and expand your government/country/culture more … a good economy is a really good thing. But having a realistic point of view on economy is an even better thing. Maybe if we look at the shifting economic center of gravity here in the western hemisphere we shouldn’t look at it as a loss of stature but rather maybe we should seek to gain some learning.

Is this post a message to our government and regulators? Nope.

This is a message to you & I that we have it pretty good here in the good ole USofA.

Is it as good economically as it was? Nope. Is it good? Yup.

This is a message to you & I that people in other countries also want their version of ‘self actualization’ and if economically it comes within grasp … they will try and grab it.

This is not a warning or threat but a suggestion this is an attitude issue for ‘we the people.’ Because with the right attitude then we can create the right behavior. But that is my next economic article. A rant on the everyday American’s economic behavior <because other cultures aren’t as addicted to spending & having stuff as we are>.

In the end.

The economic center of gravity was always going to be tugged away from America as the sheer numbers of the ‘rest of the world’ starting generating … well … economy. However, America needs to remember that at the core of economic gravity is not making shit … its mind power. The smarter the population, the healthier the population and, therefore, the more productive the population.

It’s a simple formula I tend to believe we forget.

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

“Biology gives you a brain. Life turns it into a mind.”

—

Jeffrey Eugenides

===========

Ok.

So I thought I had left the whole right brain left brain discussion behind.

And it reared its ugly head again one more time just the other day. And <distressingly> it was in a business environment, with senior people, discussing people’s strengths & weaknesses.

Look.

This whole right brain, left brain thing about creativity versus ‘logical’ thinking has to stop.

Stop … now <please>.

The truth?

We use our whole brain for thinking. Not halves. And right brain left brain mumbo jumbo is just that … a bunch of mumbo jumbo crap.

Yup.

The whole thing is bullshit.

Trust me <you don’t really have to because I will share reasons why you should>. And if you don’t believe me … well … if you ever want to drive a psychologist/psychiatrist/neurologist/any ‘ist’ crazy … bring it up.

With that … a reminder on what his whole thing is. In the right-left mythology … the left brain is logical, ordered, and analytic, and it supports reading, speech, math, and reasoning. In the same myth … the right brain is more oriented towards feelings and emotions, spatial perception, and the arts, and is said to be more creative.

Well.

Interesting myth. And it is just a myth. It is wrong (wrong & wrong … and maybe even wrong again).

And we have actually known for at least 30 years that this characterization is incorrect.

In fact the guy who probably put us all in this mess originally <Mike Gazzaniga who created the study in the 60’s that some pop psychologist used to write some fantasy-like left/right brain business books that became best sellers> who was a pioneer of modern study of brain hemispheric differences immediately tried to put a stop to the craziness as soon as it began with a book chapter titled “Left brain, right brain: A debunking.”

And he did that 25 years ago.

<note: he wrote it because the original crap was begun after he did a brain hemisphere study in the 60’s>

And, yet, there is still plenty of bunk to go around.

Its crazy.

I myself have gnashed my teeth <and sometimes growled> against the “left brain / right brain” myth for years <probably not 25 but a bunch>. It usually is personal <and I believe this is so for most people>. People are always trying to tell me how “right-brained” I am <or left … I get confused>.

Which I always find amusing since whatever I am doing invariably needs whatever the other side of the brain was supposed to be doing.

Plus. I would like to think I am using my whole frickin’ brain.

But.

It mostly aggravates me ,and kind of disturbs me> because it is deliberately misleading.

It has been used to support endless management dialogue telling us that we should liberate ourselves from too much left-brain ‘logical’ thinking and enjoy the fruits of our liberated, right-brained creativity <or vice versa depending on your management belief system>.

Look.

People may be inherently more visual, aural, spatial, sequential, intuitive, rational <or irrational> talented or non-talented … but it ain’t because of anything to do with left versus right brain.

Ok.

If you don’t trust me I pulled this from a medical journal.

A more technical explanation of how the whole thing went haywire:

==

You’ve probably heard this left/ right brain dichotomy before. It goes something like this: the left hemisphere of the brain is logical, deductive, mathematical, etc., while the right hemisphere is artistic, visual and imaginative. The idea stems at least partly from the classic studies of split brain patients performed by Sperry and Gazzaniga in the 1960s.

There are some functional asymmetries in the brain, and it is true that certain regions of both hemispheres are specialized for particular functions. Speech illustrates this, but also shows that nothing is ever so simple when it comes to the brain: in most right-handed people, speech is processed in both hemispheres, but predominantly in the left. In some left-handers, speech is processed either predominantly in the right hemisphere or on both sides.

So the notion that someone is “left-brained” or “right-brained” is absolute nonsense. All complex behaviours and cognitive functions require the integrated actions of multiple brain regions in both hemispheres of the brain. All types of information are probably processed in both the left and right hemispheres (perhaps in different ways, so that the processing carried out on one side of the brain complements, rather than substitutes, that being carried out on the other).

An article was published this week in the venerable (and reliable) psychology journal Psychological Bulletin, which synthesized 67 brain imaging studies of creativity. Among other things, it showed that creativity is not especially a right-brain function. In fact, two of three broad classes of creative thought that have been studied seem not to depend on a single set of brain structures.

What we call “creativity” is so diverse that it can’t be localized in the brain very well.

One might think that this study would put to rest at least part of the left brain/right brain mythology, namely, that the right hemisphere of the brain is more responsible for creative thought than the left.

One would think so, but I wouldn’t count on it.

==

My conclusion?

I put the whole right/left brain thing in the same category as reading a horoscope or reading my own tarot cards. If you give someone a vague positive description in which they can see themselves they will tend to agree with you. And that is dangerous on a number of levels <if people actually believe it>.

Ok.

Here is the main reason I bring this up <beyond the fact it drives me crazy and it is still being seriously discussed in the business world>. It has a detrimental effect on education and how we manage our youth. It is as bad as social profiling when it comes to kids.

Left brain kid.

Right brain kid.

You carry that label and not only does the child begin to see themselves in that label <it is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy> the adults tag the child with the label. And start treating them that way. And expecting things based on the labeling.

All of a sudden the child is placed on the left, or right, brain treadmill <oops … I meant to say moving sidewalk>.

And then they are left there.

Uh oh.

One day the child wants to jump off the treadmill to hop on the other one for a while … <adults> “whoa … get back on your treadmill … you know that other one is only for the right brainers … and you will be much more successful on the left brain treadmill <sidewalk>.”

That, my friends, reads scary even if it seems just a theory.

And we all know that at some place, at some time, with some children … this is actually happening.

We need to squash this left/right brain myth forever. Now <please … again>.

We use all of our brain.

Brains are ambidextrous.

And even if you, personally, do not want to believe this, well, please … at least teach kids that is is so.

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

“Rabbit’s clever,” said Pooh thoughtfully.
“Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit’s clever.”
“And he has Brain.”
“Yes,” said Piglet, “Rabbit has Brain.”
There was a long silence.
“I suppose,” said Pooh, “that that’s why he never understands anything.”

—

Winnie the Pooh

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

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

“Like it or not, we are a part of the world.

What a crummy world if we all retreat inside our borders.”

“To quote a British observer of us from some years ago, bear with us, once we have exhausted all possible alternatives, the Americans will do the right thing.”

———–

James Mattis

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

Well.

Throughout my life & career I have crisscrossed the country walking into mechanic shops, retail stores, supermarkets, numerous hotels/motels/inns and bars & restaurants.

I went to a public high school with a mostly agriculture student attendance and went to a college where the Crips and Hoover Family Blood patrolled the edges of the campus <and had a gang member stabbed 75 times in the alley behind my off campus apartment>.

In addition, I have received glimpses into the lives of Americans, rural/suburban/urban, behind the one way mirrors of research and face-to-face… in rural West Virginia & Kentucky, Wyoming, Ohio, Texas, Wisconsin, New York, California, New Mexico, Colorado and … well … pick your home and I have had a glimpse of your life.

I have met the least educated and the most educated <and you most likely would be surprised at how alike they are behind the façade of education> and felt hopeless at the hopelessness of some and found hope in the stories of those who had so much ‘no quit’ in them I felt less than worthy of my own efforts in Life.

I would suggest that what we all have in common in America is maddening. It is the fact we will exhaust all possible alternatives … and then, in most cases, do the right thing.

Love it or hate it … that is what we Americans do.

We are a stubborn folk we Americans. But I tend to believe the ‘exhausting all our alternatives’ is simply the same gauntlet we run time and time again … “I” to “we”.

What? Almost every single person when pushed into a corner <”no one puts Baby into a corner” type attitude> will defend what is possibly the most tried & true American ideal that every American in every corner of the country can pull out of their hip pocket – individual freedom. Freedom to think what I think, freedom to pray like I want to pray, freedom to say what I want to say, freedom to own a gun if I want, freedom to watch, do or go where I want.

Everything begins there.

That is the entrance to the gauntlet. And unlike Dante’s entrance to Hell which says “Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate” — most frequently translated as “abandon all hope, ye who enter here” — the American entrance says “this way to something better.”

However, I feel compelled to point out that no matter how much you gussy up a gauntlet … it is still a gauntlet and while it may have some pretty pictures on the walls of the tunnel you are still gonna get the crap kicked out of you.

We don’t take the easy path. That’s just what we do. Despite the fact we talk about common sense or “the simplest is the best” incessantly … America inherently explores all and any alternatives, no matter how painful, until we arrive at what is right.

Mattis reminded me of this.

We never make it easy.

I will note Trump may add a painful dynamic to this characteristic but even without him … we exhaust ourselves as we exhaust all alternatives.

Here is the good news. Our history resides with arriving, ultimately, at the right thing. The arc of our gauntlet tunnel curves toward ‘doing the right thing’ versus ‘doing the wrong thing.’

I imagine my thought for today is twofold.

First is that there is no one person, or class of people, or type of person which ultimately places us in this ‘right thing’ place. This one place is arrived at by the fruits of labor of the many — out of many, one.

The second is that far too often we refer to the ‘many’, people, in demeaning or diminishing terms. We look at people who don’t think the way we do, people who voted for someone else or people who want to do something different than what we want to do as ‘stupid’ or ‘idiots’ or ‘ignorant.’ I can honestly say, having traveled the far corners of America, I would suggest we should maybe see other people as ‘good hearted’ or ‘well intended’ or ‘knows things I don’t know.’

I would also suggest that most people are willing to listen if you are respectful enough to listen to them.

I would also suggest that most people have a story and that story impacts how they think about things and how they decide what should be done with … well … “the we.”

I would suggest if we ever want to solve some problems we should think about this a little more often.

Which leads me back to where I began on the gauntlet.

Most people enter the gauntlet with an “I” perspective … even those who fully understand that we are a greater “we.”

We do so because we are part of America which is built upon individual freedoms and each of us value our personal choice. Amusingly <painfully so> it is that individual freedom which permits us the excruciating good conflict that not all the other “I’s” view their individual freedoms the same way. Therefore, the gauntlet is alternative after alternative in which we are painfully bludgeoned into understanding that the “I” makes some compromises for the greater “we”. In addition … we go through the excruciating painful conflict which permits us to see 99% of the other ‘many’ have good hearts, are not really idiots and know shit that we do not know.

We enter the gauntlet as an “I” and come out with a larger respect for the “we.” And it is that gauntlet which hones all the other alternatives into the one alternative which is ‘the right thing.’

Sometimes it helps to remind myself of this.

It helps especially when it doesn’t feel that way … especially when the Warrior Monk, James Mattis, is forced to say it out loud to non-Americans. Because, in my mind, just the fact he has to say it means that we all need to be reminded of it. And, maybe most importantly, as we think about this man … and his words … it permits us to reject the entire concept of “abandon hope all ye who enter” with all of us already who are in this concept called “America.”

Yeah.

It feels painful now. It feels more difficult than it has to be. It feels like there is even less alignment than maybe we had even a year ago.

But maybe it just feels like we are exploring all the alternatives along our way to exhaust all of them n our pursuit to the inevitable – Americans will do the right thing.

Good thought for the day. Well, at least, that is my thought for the day.