“To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.”
e.e. cummings
Being yourself is tough. Not because you don’t want to be yourself or because you don’t know what you want to be as yourself but because the world around you is constantly suggesting you should be something else. That doesn’t mean that the world is always wrong. Growing up means learning that some things about yourself should change. But I think if I had been there when e.e. wrote this I would have suggested he be more specific … for the hardest battle you are fighting is one of character.
Life and other people are constantly trying to put some thick clouds up in the sky so that north star of “what is right versus wrong” gets more difficult to locate. And that is where it gets tough in the battle for self. Sometimes you just have to know where that star is even if you cannot see it all the time. And you just have to wait for the clouds to depart. And waiting is tough. That to me is sometimes the battle.
“Any idiot can face a crisis; it’s the day to day living that wears you out.”
=
Anton Chekov
—
Ok.
I love this quote.
I love it because so many times in the business world someone touts their ability to be “leader in a crisis.”
Uhm.
God knows I have fallen into that trap.
<sigh>
Sure.
Some people are really good in a crisis.
Sure.
A lot of people look good in a crisis even though they really aren’t .. out of sheer luck of the draw <as well as the fact they figured out how to survive>.
But.
The true test of people is how they manage every day. This is where I mention something else I have written (but may not have been published yet).
Single mothers.
I don’t know how they do it. The way they face the stress of everyday life and responsibilities is an example many of us could learn from if we took the time to do so. Single mothers, parents, have my utmost respect in how they refuse to let “day to day living wear you out.”
Anyway.
I have seen far too many idiots face a crisis.
The true test in Life is facing the day to day crap.
And we should all aspire to not letting life wear you out.
1. It is better to be first than it is to be better.
2. If you can’t be first in a category, set up a new category you can be first in.
Uh oh. Apple has mastered making these laws un-immutable.
(note: I am concerned that is not a word)
I am not sure people have noticed (because I believe when you break one of these laws they don’t make any sound) but Apple has been quite successful by not being first at anything they have done nor created any new categories.
They have possibly become the absolute best “follower” in the history of business. Apple is regularly voted the most innovative company in the world. But I am not sure that is the award they should be winning. Its inventiveness takes a peculiar form in that it is “renovation” rather than building. They should be voted the best “renovator” company in the world (boy, that sounds like a shitty award to win, huh?).
What do I mean? Rather than developing entirely new product categories Apple is excellent at taking existing ideas, which may not be optimally implemented, and showing the rest of the world how to implement them in a much more appealing way.
It has already done this three times.
In 1984 Apple launched the Macintosh. It was not the first graphical, mouse-driven computer, but it employed these concepts in a useful, pleasant appearance product (they kind of not only understand the usability function, but they also understood that their product – most often seen as a desk accessory – was a fashion statement for the user).
In 2001, came the iPod. It was not the first digital-music player, but it was simple and elegant, and carried digital music into the mainstream (and once again they understood the “fashion” aspect of the product).
In 2007 Apple launched the iPhone. It was not the first smart-phone, but Apple succeeded where other handset makers had failed, making mobile internet access and software downloads a mass-market phenomenon (and fashionable again).
Suffice it to say … while they renovated existing ideas they also renovated the entire categories because as competitors rushed to respond to Apple’s approach, the computer, music and telecom industries were transformed.
In 2010?
Here comes their fourth attempt at renovation. The iPad — a thin, tablet-shaped device with a ten-inch touch-screen. Hey. Who knows if it will be successful. Apple has certainly had their share of failures but even in their failures they have been spectacular.
But this isn’t a post on whether they are good at these things.
This is about Apple breaking Immutable Laws and being good at something else – Renovation.
So.
In the end I believe I like, really like (although I don’t own an i-pod and I hate Macs), Apple because they are a renovator and not a builder (sort of like me but they are bigger and better than I am). As a great ‘Renovator,’ Apple has this innate ability to identify the essence of an existing or emerging product category, identify the parts (or pieces…whatever) and then put usability at the core of these pieces, making them famous with a really cool façade feature. Somebody called it “re-hashing half baked concepts” but I call it Renovation.
Apple is the ultimate Renovator (not innovator nor “1st to market”).
So.
With all that said…I think that stupid sounding award I suggested earlier is a valuable award. And nothing to be embarrassed by. Being the best at something is nothing to be embarrassed by. I vote for Apple as Renovator of the Year if not the century (but not innovator).
———————————–
{Note: some people may argue with how I define innovator & innovation, that’s fine. I agree innovation is most often using what exists in different formulations or ways but the majority of people think of innovation as “original.”}
The few employees remaining are being more productive
People are drinking more cheap liquor and not in restaurants.
Am I the only one to conclude that drinking cheap liquor increases productivity in the workplace and may be a key variable in increased unemployment and the recession?
First. The Labor Department says new claims for unemployment insurance rose again (this was 2/4/10 report). Surprise, huh? Oh. And it’s a separate post but what am I counted as? I am not working but I don’t claim unemployment insurance. I cannot envision I am the only one. I guess once again I am just “unclassified.”
Second. In another report Thursday, the Labor Department said worker productivity rose more than expected in the October-December quarter as companies squeezed more output from their employees. All I can say is “cheap bastards.”
Anyway. Productivity rose a seasonally adjusted 6.2% in the fourth quarter, above analysts’ expectations of a 6% rise. The increase follows two quarters of sharply rising productivity. Overall, productivity has risen 5.1% in the past four quarters, the most since the 12 months ending with the first quarter of 2002.
Third. In a third report last year, the lowest-priced liquor segment, with brands such as Popov vodka that can go for less than $10 for a fifth, grew the fastest, with volume rising 5.5%, after edging up 0.6% in 2008. Meanwhile, the most expensive price range, roughly $30 or more for a 750 ml bottle (think Grey Goose, owned by Bacardi), fell the most, tumbling 5.1%. Sales in stores — which make up three-quarters of liquor sales — rose about 2.1%, while sales in restaurants fell 3%.Sales volume for the cheapest versions of tequila rose 21%, the fastest of any type of spirit.
Fourth. Hey. I am no Einstein but I do know that A + B = C (or squared or whatever). So. I conclude cheap liquor is helping create this recession. Eliminate liquor and employees will be less productive and then companies will need to hire more people to maintain their productivity. (Hey, I took Economics in college).
Once again Enlightened Conflict combats ignorance and is the first to tell the truth about the recession.
The strategic foundation is so simple and clearly good it is a worthwhile read for anyone in business. Whether you actually use the disruption methodology or not the idea of positioning in a way to create disruption (and therefore being distinct) is a powerful concept.
Drawing from experiences as the founder and chair of a global advertising agency, Dru gives us this practical, refreshing approach to thinking about advertising, positioning a business in the marketplace and … well … thinking in general.
His compelling concept of “disruption” is a three-step reasoning process for creating a set of new visions for successful growth.
Dru first explores how firms can get in a rut with their advertising strategies.
He then offers hundreds of examples of advertising in Europe, the United States, and Japan to explore cultural differences and government rules and regulations about advertising. Dru’s last section provides more detail and looks toward the future.
Rich with examples, this timely book is recommended for advertising-agency and marketing professionals as well as for corporate executives, consultants, and advanced students and academicians.
I have written on a variety of issues with regard to running a business and effective organizations (Running a Business Part 1 and Part 2, Collaboration & Consensus Part 1 & Part 2).
But I came across this video which discusses “the surprising science of motivation.”
It is a long video (18+ minutes) and Daniel Pink, the presenter, is a little practiced on occasion in his delivery but the information is nice. There were two things in the video which I appreciated.
One I had felt but had never been able to confirm.
The other I already knew but hadn’t written about yet.
1. Motivation Incentives.
Maybe it’s because I have worked with several advertising agency owners who wanted to run their agencies like manufacturing plants, but this issue has been near and dear to my heart for quite awhile. The video talks about “carrot and stick” motivational techniques and crap like that.
He uses some nice simple illustrations and some fact based conclusions for why the typical ways we try to motivate each other fail in business today.
A Daniel Pink Quote:
“There’s a mismatch between what science knows and business does.”
Possibly because most of the organizations I have either consulted for or worked at have been more “idea driven” versus “product output” organizations I have always believed (maybe more a feeling) that financial based reward models sucked. Daniel finally gave me some facts (from studies):
“Once the task called for even rudimentary cognitive skills a larger reward led to poorer performance.”
“As long as task involved only mechanical skills, bonuses worked, i.e., higher pay = better performance.”
Halleluiah.
That isn’t to say people in a cognitive driven business shouldn’t be fairly compensated; it simply states that rewarding financially to increase productivity is not the most effective path.
So if it isn’t financial rewards, what does help productivity?
2. Constructed Autonomy.
This is all about self direction within a solid construct of vision and company ‘direction.’ This is something I have believed to be an effective characteristic of effective organizations for some time. It is most likely embodied within larger franchise organizations (in some form or fashion) but it is easier to see it in those organizations because they are obviously fragmented and local autonomy works within some “rules” construct.
So.
The video.
In addition to talking about motivating employee behavior he also talks about creating an environment for productivity. I wrote about this in Organizational Alignment.
But.
He reminded me when he discusses the idea of autonomy about what I call “constructed autonomy” environments (yup. I do love contradictions).
I used the whole Constructed Autonomy idea in a consulting presentation in early spring (with a source reference) as I discussed organizational alignment and creating the most effective organization.
I apologize but for the life of me I cannot dig up the source for that autonomy business idea but I believe there was a big European based study on organizational behavior that talks about it (if I can find that presentation on some thumb drive I will source it).
My “twist” on the Autonomy thing was to tie it to a tightly constructed organizational vision. To me it’s all about giving employees within the organization lots of freedom within a well defined construct (not a box but rather a guiding star they can always locate).
Ok.
Maybe not lots of freedom but enough freedom on some key things (whatever they may be that is relevant to that particular organization).
Ok.
So here’s the deal with Autonomy.
Every time I have used the word “autonomy” to an organizational owner, President, Sr. VP, whatever…their faces pale, hands grip the table a little harder, they may even gasp a little and their voices quiver slightly with fear.
Autonomy means lack of control.
Autonomy means I need to trust my employees.
Autonomy means “so then what do I do”? (sorry, had to throw that last one in).
But autonomy on the ground:
permits a slight level of localization (if that is relevant to an organization)
certainly creates a higher level of responsiveness (good for customer satisfaction)
actually is a good idea/innovation generator (as long as you have a feedback mechanism)
automatically creates a higher level of energy within an organization
builds a happier organization because it creates a stronger sense of ownership & responsibility
It takes a strong leader with a clearly articulated vision to make autonomy work within an organization (if you don’t, then autonomy simply fragments an organization by permitting pieces to go flying off in every direction aimlessly).
So.
That’s the “Constructed” portion of it. In my Running a Business Part 2 I described this as one end of the bookends. A clearly articulated vision, mission, okay … what ‘the organization is going to be good at’. And ruthlessly good at.
If that is provided as the “North Star,” then Autonomy always knows what direction to steer toward. And because of that North Star, autonomous groups can wander slightly but have an opportunity to course correct (
which, by the way, is also a good evaluation mechanism for employees).
There you go.
A nice video sparking some clarification on my part.
I have always believed the moment you own a contradiction is the moment you capture an emotional and intellectual awareness.
I encountered one on Tuesday.
Letting go and holding on.
That was the day my 15 year old dog died. That morning I was ready to let go and wanted to hold on.
Walking into the vet with my dog’s head resting on my shoulder I had already said goodbye alone at home. I was ready to let go.
And yet.
When I laid him down on his towel at the vet I asked for a couple minutes more.
I wanted to hold on. What I chose to do was scratch him behind his ear and say goodbye. I know he couldn’t feel it. It was more for me then it was for him. But. It was my last time to hold on to him before I let go.
I talk with them about what it takes to be successful in a career (and life).
My favorite topic to discuss is “character.”
I describe it as a fork in the road. Okay. A shitload of forks in the road.
A moment, or moments, where you have a choice which helps define who you will be moving forward in life.
I ceratainly never mean to suggest I know “the right path” … all I mean I that we all have choices to do “the right thing” or “the wrong thing” and those types of decisions go a long way to defining “once and for all who you are.”
The other thing I happen to mention which I oddly enough learned in the advertising world … each moment matters.
If you find an excuse to not do what is best one moment … well … the next moment is even easier to not do the right thing -… and then the next thing you know you are on the slippery slope and you cannot get off.
Anyway.
This is a Life truth. And don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Vendor relationships are always tricky … a vendor is hired for an expertise and yet the ‘hirer’ mentally wants a … well … vendor.
This means most Client/Agency/Service Supplier relationships are a balancing act.
The best relationships represent a combination of two experts constantly challenging each other, finding times when each is, respectfully, right or wrong, and throw in a good dose of actually liking each other. But typically before you get to the relationship part you have to consummate a deal.
It is because of this I call this “the art of the deal” (see the upcoming Client Agency Relationships Part 2: the Art of the Relationships for a relationship point of view) because, philosophically, how you strike ‘the deal’ often dictates what becomes the ultimate client/agency relationship.
In other words, often the success of that relationship is dictated by how well the initial deal was struck.
As for who is responsible for making a good deal?
Well, while I have seen Client/Agency relationships sour because of either party, I would suggest that agencies more often than not are most culpable for failures and bear the brunt of the responsibility in establishing the deal. Having sat down in dozens of meetings between an agency and a prospective client I have seen the good and the bad unfold not only as the deal is being consummated but also after the meeting as the deal unfolds. I have seen how agency people rush towards the finish line saying anything that needs to be said to get there.
And I have seen the expressions on the faces of the people back at the agency when they have seen what promises have been made to make the deal.
And, bottom line, I have seen that I don’t want to go through that disappointment when facing my own people.
It is very simple if you stick to your guns. I suggest there are six critical steps to sealing a good deal (and having a hope of a successful relationship).
Let’s call this what it takes to stand up and feel good about shaking hands on the deal as the contract is ready to get signed.
1. Alignment of Expectations:
Nothing is worse than if either side of the partnership (or dealmakers) is expecting something the other partner is not prepared to do, or even worse, cannot do.
2. Communicate:
Alignment means both parties need to communicate. This means clearly articulating expectations and capabilities to meet expectations.
Am I meeting your needs?
Am I meeting your expectations?
Both sides asking questions. Both sides talking to each other. Sometimes it is a dialogue. Sometimes it is simply asking the correct questions. But each of those options includes speaking versus silence.
3. Honesty:
Good communication requires honesty. Honesty with yourself first and foremost, i.e., can I honestly say we are doing a good job? And, of course, “I need to be honest now or it could continue to build up into big trouble.” Honest discussion on the good and the bad. It’s easy to talk about the good stuff, more difficult on the hard things. ‘Fess up honestly in all cases and you earn trust.
4. Respect:
Honesty is typically best when there is mutual respect. Respect speaks for itself. We all feel good when respected.
5. Compensation:
If you have the 1st four right (alignment, communicate, honesty, respect) then the money discussion becomes easier, not easy, but certainly easier.
It’s a value equation. Agencies need to feel like they are being fairly compensated for actions. Clients need to believe they are receiving valuable activity/action. And there needs to be an alignment on this value equation or it becomes a battle of nickels & dimes and instead of talking business you are constantly talking about money (and that is bad).
6. Chemistry:
Finally, it always helps if you like each other. It doesn’t have to be ‘best friends’ but if each party respects and likes each other than there is at least a fighting chance to make it through the tough times as well as truly enjoying/celebrating the good times. “Double the joys and halve the griefs” as it has been said.
Conclusion:
That is what makes a great deal between a Client and an Agency/Service Supplier.
I know, it sounds simple, but it is harder than it looks. The sight of the finish line makes people do and say funny things (and it can certainly create amnesia with regard to knowing the “right thing to do”).
Agencies want to make the deal (and that desire can blind you to some things).
So.
In the end?
Take a deep breath when you are getting ready to cross the finish line and ask yourself do you really want to win. Ask yourself honestly are you clear on all six criteria. And ask yourself the hard question even if it is at the last minute – did you really want to run this particular race and was it really the right race for you?