========

“Contagion will seep through almost any coordinated collection of people.”

——

Social Intelligence Daniel Goleman

=======

A ripple effect is a situation in which, like ripples expanding across the water when an object is dropped into it, an effect from an initial state can be followed outwards incrementally. Ripple effect is often used colloquially to mean a multiplier (economics)

=========

This is about how attitudes, behavior & culture spreads. With all the discussion about the impact of social media psychologically and behaviorally, and the impact (positives & negatives) of influencers, I am slightly surprised we don’t talk more about the 100 Monkey Theory.

I thought about this when I recently read an article called “how culture makes us smarter” which shared an idea called ‘cumulative culture.” It immediately made me think of the 100 Monkey Theory and how the internet has amplified the theory.

Then:  Islands of attitudes and behaviors

The 100 Monkey theory:

—–

In 1952, on the Japanese island of Koshima, a monkey named Imo washed a sweet potato before she ate it.  She and her fellow, Macaca Fuscata monkeys were given sweet potatoes by the scientists who studied them.  The monkeys like the taste of the potatoes, yet did not like the dirt.  Imo taught her mother and the other monkeys she came into contact with and over time more and more monkeys were washing their potatoes.

Imo’s practice catches on.

Well, the interesting observation is that after a significant minority (let’s say 100 monkeys to use a number) of the monkeys were washing their potatoes, the scientists observed that very quickly after this, all the monkeys were washing their potatoes.  Like a critical mass had been reached and now all the monkeys were able to access this knowledge somehow even if they did not come into contact with Imo and her friends.  More interesting is that scientists observed that at the same time, on other islands monkeys were also washing their potatoes.

It appears that when 99 monkeys were washing potatoes and one more joined, a critical mass was achieved and this awareness was now available to everyone (please don’t get hung up on the exact 99 or 100 numbers).

This is known as the 100 Monkey Theory.

———-

So. The foundation of the theory is when a certain critical number achieves an awareness of “something” (an attitude or behavior) that this new awareness may be communicated from mind to mind. A derivative of this idea has been called “the Cumulative Advantage.” The interesting aspect of this is the ‘island to island’ aspect.

These monkeys didn’t have internet.

Nor a classroom.

Nor any physical content.

This theory suggests that, although the exact number may vary, this 100 Monkey Phenomenon means that when only a limited number of people know a new behavior it may subconsciously reside as the conscious property of the collective people.

I actually believe it has nothing to do with subconscious, but rather that minds tend to evolve at equal paces and when a critical mass of brains accepts something as a good idea or a mode of behavior that idea is likely to be thought of & adopted elsewhere. I will suggest the internet leverages cumulative advantages like contagion.

Now. I really do not want to get hung up on the actual numbers it is fascinating to think that there is a point at which if only one more person absorbs the new attitude and changes its behavior that somehow this awareness is picked up by almost everyone. 100 monkeys (or any individuals with brains) is enough critical mass to ensure either extensive collaborative thinking or the presence of a superior individual innovative mind.  Either way the group attains the same objective – an innovative idea.

The group dynamic

The other aspect of this (with internet repercussions) is individual reason versus group reasoning. It is in The Enigma of Reason in which they posit individuals reason (but that is inherently biased and lazy), but when ‘reasons’ are encountered socially, in a group dynamic, reasoning expands.

In my own words I call this a ‘Ripple effect.’

Now: islands of information

—–

“Contagion will seep through almost any coordinated collection of people.”

Social Intelligence Daniel Goleman

—–

The internet redefines what islands are. It changes islands from physical to virtual amplifying the overall effects of learning –both useful & non-useful. In the past learning, as a result of the print revolution, was seen as an individual process shared by word of mouth and handing books from one to another. Learning as a result of the Internet revolution is an active process of communication between connected people. This can be shallow (soundbites) or it can be of substance (in-depth pieces, multiple sources).

However. Conceptually the 100 monkey ripple effect is exactly the same, just exponentially faster once traction occurs.

Which leads me to the concept of echo chambers. An article discussing internet echo chambers recently discussed the fact it is the content, not the echo chamber, that matters. I would argue it is a combination. Nothing of one thing is good – even knowledge and facts. Facts becomes stronger the more they are forged by conflict with other facts, lies, & perspective.

generational islands of behaviors

Now. There is an interesting subset of the study in which the ‘older monkeys remained steadfastly ignorant of the new behavior”:

———-

By March, 1958, 15 of the 19 young monkeys (aged two to seven years} and 2 of the 11 adults were washing sweet potatoes. Up to this time, the propagation of the innovative behavior was on an individual basis, along family lines and playmate relationships. Most of the young monkeys began to wash the potatoes when they were one to two and a half years old. Males older than 4 years, who had little contact with the young monkeys, did not acquire the behavior. The older monkeys remained steadfastly ignorant of the new behavior. (source: Elaine Myers)

———–

Adoption of new ideas is the real echo chamber. This suggests there is a resistance to new behavior the more steeped existing behavior is within an individual. Its possible connection between individuals increases adoption across generations, but the internet does not permit that experience – virtual experience is easier to ignore than physical experience.

Conceptually this suggests islands of similarly aged people. Conceptually this also hearkens back to The Enigma of Reason in that if the older individual monkeys do not interact with the younger monkeys their thinking remains biased & lazy (retaining the status quo).

Conclusion:

Trying to explain behavioral transition from specific tactics is very difficult – and it aggravates me when people try to associate specific expenditures or activity to create behavioral activity. This whole idea with 100 Monkeys is about doing things, real behavior, creating enough critical mass so that it gets recognized and absorbed in some subconscious way which inevitably creates the behavioral change desired.

I believe any one even remotely interested in creating cultural change should invest some time thinking about this theory. Instead of needing dollars to create change or wacky ideas to affect attitudes or investing energy trying to create “a wave of change” someone can focus on “the 100.” Creating change by focusing the few. Gosh.  Sure would make life a little simpler huh? (some people, like me for an example, call this creating an influencer base to influence mass behavior).

—————

“Where religious values might be relative, intellectual values fleeting, moral values ambiguous, and aesthetic values dependent upon an observer, the existence of any thing is infinite.”

John Gardner

———–

The last aspect is the lack of limit identification.

100 Monkeys clearly outlines the genesis. But what about the limits? Is contagion finite (beyond the age/generational aspect)? Or is contagion theoretically limitless? Is the existence of any thing truly infinite?

I would argue an idea, psychologically, has few limits. I would also argue behavior does have limits. In other words, anyone can think about doing something but not everyone can, or will, do something. it is within that discussion in which a business discerns the true potential of an idea.

Regardless.

You may not buy it.

You may not think people are related to monkeys.

You may think 100 isn’t enough (on islands or the internet).

But you should think about this because idea & thinking traction is pretty unpredictable but what I do know is that all ideas & behavior don’t arise from nowhere so 100 monkeys, and people, seems like a good place to begin.

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

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

Stowe Boyd

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

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

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

First.

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

Second.

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

Anyway.

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

Anyway.

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

context: accelerated world

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

Which leads me to connectedness.

everything is connected with everything

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

Which leads me to connecting.

the world as a merry go round

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

Which leads me to untidiness.

discomfort with untidiness

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

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

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

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

“Sureness will always elude you.

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

—–

Claire DeWitt

Which leads me to freedom.

discomfort with freedom

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

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

Which leads me to belief.

belief.

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

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

That said. It’s a twofold belief challenge.

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

========

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

The Catcher in the Rye

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

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

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

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

In the end.

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

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

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

Postscript:

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

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

======

“Understanding why was more interesting than understanding who. The story of why things are the way they are is heartbreakingly beautiful.”

———

Keegan Allen

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

Ok. This is a lot about some harsh business truth (a good idea shouldn’t be implemented if it isnt a good fit for a business) as well as a different business perspective on a different “Why” and why this perspective matters.

I admit. I chafe a little on the Simon Sinek “people buy your Why” thought mostly because I believe it is the wrong “Why” question. His Why is a slightly misguided and oft misused Purpose Why. My Why gets to the core of what makes a business a business – its soul not its Purpose. By the way. This ‘soul’ can be an amalgamation of some wacky adopted bad things (beliefs, process, systems) and good things (loyalty, heart, integrity, beliefs).

Regardless. Yeah. I am one of those wacky business people who will listen for hours to stories about why things are the way they are at a business. Even wackier? I am not one of those business people who act surprised when I hear all the “why it is what it is” stories.

Many people want to hear about the people.

Many people want to hear about the ideas … or even what someone thinks or what they want.

Many people want to let others talk about whatever they want to talk about.

All of that is well and good. But me? Give me the story of “why the voodoo you do is done this way.”

I am actually surprised more businesses don’t ask that question or are as curious about it. I am surprised because if you know the ‘why’ you at least have a fighting chance of offering something doable & constructive. In fact. While many business people shake their heads over all the crazy “why shit happens” stories the truth is … well … that crazy stuff actually offers the truth. The ‘why’ gives us reality. Bad reality sometimes? Sure. But reality nonetheless.

Far too often we offer business folk offer solutions, and many times really good solutions, which are simply non practical for the business and people we are offering it to. Crazy as it sounds … not every business can implement a good idea. In fact trying to implement a good idea in a business whose “why it is” doesn’t align with the idea more often than not creates a nightmare idea.

A business is a business. It comes with all the warts and positives gained throughout the years.

To be clear.

Yes. I like to hear the objective.

Yes. I absolutely love to hear the vision <assuming someone actually has one>.

But when push comes to shove while all that stuff is fine and dandy, but if you don’t know why things are the way they are or why that objective hasn’t been attained yet or why that vision has been sitting on some shelf collecting dust for several years, you are screwed. You are screwed because “why things are the way they are”, 99% of the time, have a reason. You may not like the reason, or reasons, but it is a reflection of reality.

It doesn’t mean you cannot change some of the whys.

It doesn’t mean you can’t jump, side step or tunnel under some of the whys.

But why shit is the way it is reflects the realities of that particular business. And you either have to face that fact or ignore at your own peril. Ignoring it most likely means whatever great idea you are offering that business is doomed.

I cannot tell you how many really good ideas I have seen die because they just didn’t take into account the ‘why things are the way they are’ in that business. It is the amateur business consultant who suggests that ‘with the proper internal alignment initiative we can get this idea up & running to the benefit of the business’ for a businesses. They are amateurs because they assume you can reshape all the “why it is” to make it fit the idea.

I don’t think I am that smart, but suffice it to say I am fairly sure most experienced business people can see good solutions for any business fairly quickly once they get up to speed on that business and its situation.

Most people can do that.

But solutions are not all round pegs and businesses are not all round holes. I cannot tell you how many really good solutions I have tossed in the trash simply because they would never be implemented by the business it would have been really good for. Suffice it to say … a lot.

I would note that the opening quote resonated with me mostly because of the last thing I just wrote.

It is heartbreaking to sit in some business meeting and you have the great solution right there at your fingertips and you know after listening to the ‘why things are the way they are’ stories you have to leave it right there on the table and shove it somewhere into some unlabeled folder.

That doesn’t mean you can’t come up with something else that helps. But, oh, it is heartbreaking when the best solution is just not doable.

What helps me get over it?

Maddening or not I find the ‘why things are the way they are’ stories beautiful — beautifully tragic, beautifully fortunate, beautifully doomed and beautifully hopeful. And I think it helps me better find the “beautiful solution.”

In the end … business is almost always a beautiful struggle between “why it is what it is” and “what I would like to do.”

All that said.

Yes. Some “why shit is done this way” should be dismantled. But for today, at this time and on this topic, people should sit back and ponder the thought most businesses need to get shit done now and not dismantle shit now & get shit done later. Ponder that because many of us who get businesses “unstuck” (consultants) cannot afford to offer unusable great ideas to functionally dysfunctional (companies with quirks) businesses. Our job is to elevate them. Sometimes this means holding a great idea that is right for their business until you can figure out how to make the organization right for the idea. Until then? You develop a beautiful idea matched to the beauty of the organization that exists.

===

“What is the difference between unethical and ethical advertising?

Unethical advertising uses falsehoods to deceive the public; ethical advertising uses truth to deceive the public.”

–

Vilhjalmur Stefansson

==

Every year around “Black Friday” I get asked about the value of marketing in a capitalistic society. Here is my view on whether Marketing is evil (or ethical versus unethical). Vilhjamur (from the quote) was a kick ass anthropologist (known for his description of the “Blond Eskimo” which is a Copper Inuit), his discovery of new lands in the Arctic, his approach to travel and exploration, and his theories of health and diet. I am not sure what the hell he knew about advertising, but he did say the quote I used.

I believe marketing people generally fall into three buckets.

1. Those who fabricate unimportant truths and tell you that they are important <these people are hacks and should be fired and told to pick up trash on the sides of highways>

2. Those who use existing unimportant truths and convince you that they are important <this is the largest group and will vary on a spectrum between those who do this knowingly – which puts them close to the highway garbage category – and those who are blissfully ignorant of what they are doing>

3. Those who take important truths and tell you that they are important <scarily this group may have the toughest job because we people are consistently uninterested in many important truths>

It would be nice to suggest this is a simple 1 to 3 scale or, at minimum, a one to 5 scale, but I believe someone could quite successfully argue this three group scoring would be a 1 to 10 scale with lots of broad interpretation and lots of caveats & excuses. Before any marketing person starts blathering about with caveats & excuses please make sure you read Bill Bernbach’s “Do this or Die” advertisement he wrote to advertising & marketing people (see marketing is evil part 2).

All that said I empathize with people who suggest marketing is evil (evil being a broader term for “convincing people to buy shit they don’t really need or want to buy before they saw the marketing”).

I empathize because if I were to do some scoring I believe I would tend to see a lot of 4’s and 5’s.

I empathize because I just don’t see a lot of marketing that seems to approach selling stuff from a “what is in the best interest of the people” perspective.

Look. I am all for capitalism and selling stuff, but a lot of marketing seems to lack a deeper moral/ethical substance. Not all, but some <a lot>. What makes it even more difficult to defend and discuss is that it is really difficult to put your finger on the core issue/rot/compromise that seems to creep into the internal moral compass one would hope marketers would have.

Why? Because of what I called ‘unimportant truths versus important truths.’ Both of which are truths just with some interpretation issues thrown in to make it all fuzzy.

About marketing truths

A beginning thought:

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

“Record companies are in the marketing business. Fashion probably wasn’t evil before marketing people got involved and tried to invent themselves and sell it to America’s youth by convincing them that the rest of America’s youth was already partaking. Fashion probably began as a groundswell of beauty: the tribe enjoying the way the buildings look and music sounds, right now, in this moment.  That’s valuable because it allows for substance to shift styles.  But marketing will do anything to avoid substance and engage only in style. No longer beauty that falls from trees like apples, fashion becomes shiny, scary chemical candy, unnatural and unhealthy.”

Kristen Hersh

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

Ok. There are so many great thoughts within it … well … it is scary.

‘fashion probably began as a groundswell of beauty.”

Think about this one. This is a big thought, much bigger than just about the fashion industry, & relevant to all of marketing. This whole thought revolves around substance versus style as the issue. It suggests marketing has no substance … hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm … or, maybe better said, it thrives less on substance than style. Here is the bigger thought hidden in there … “valuable because it allows for substance to shift styles.”

So. Substance creates beauty all on its own and marketing creates style to showcase that which may, or may not, have substance. Or, as earlier noted, maybe marketing becomes dependent upon unimportant truths.

Oh, even worse, “created truths” (a creative way of saying ‘lies’).

Ok. Does this alone make marketing evil? No. Ok, well, not all the time.

Because the key is substance and the truths that reside within.

Marketing has a habit of “creating truths.” Yeah … yeah .. yeah … someone is gonna come back and suggest “no, we aren’t creating truths, we are simply uncovering truths.”

Semantics.

Marketing is in the business of tearing apart the fabric of thought and identifying specific threads within the fabric that may be worth pointing out to people. In the end? It is a thread. And not the fabric.

An example?

“Stores Create More Holidays; Tissues Made for Summer, Pink Irons for Fall”

(Wall Street Journal in august 2011)

People see 4 seasons (unless you live in California or the North Pole) but retailers see anywhere from 13 to 20 seasons. All designed to get shoppers into their stores and buy stuff.

The fabric? The season. The threads? The 13 to 20 “seasons” retailers see.

Once again, is this evil, or lying, or even “unimportant truths”? This is a really really gray area. Creating more holidays. They are creating more sales, but inevitably they are just trying to create more interest. They do all of this because retailers want impulse purchases (oh, by the way, which naturally happen to any of us … and marketing doesn’t create this … you <your own head> creates this).

Anyway. Suffice it to say what they do is try to get you in the store more often because the more often you visit the more likely you are to buy stuff. Marketing does all of this quite thoughtfully.

So. Research says the average retail shopper visits a store once every two to three weeks. And shoppers go to the grocery store every seven to 10 days. That means traditional retailers added grocery items hoping to make people make more frequent shopping trips.

Do I begrudge retailers this? Nope. They have a business to run. And by being so “thoughtful” are they evil <in their quasi-manipulation of us shopping folk>? Nope.

And are they lying? Nope.

Let’s tear apart the fabric a little more.

In other words, let me try and and help you understand why there are a boatload of people out there who say marketing is evil. Because this next example really starts talking about “unimportant truths” and, in the end, we are talking about some sense of mental manipulation.

Let’s look how they do it to see if its lying or evil. Let’s look at a retailer’s 4, oops, 13 season year:

–          Superbowl

–          New Year’s Resolutions (January)

–          Lawn and Garden (April)

–          Back to School/College(July through August)

–          Gifts for children; early entertaining décor (October, November)

–          Last-minute gifts, stocking stuffers, food/entertaining (December)

–          Health and Wellness January features exercise equipment, supplements and vitamins, items tied to shoppers’ New Year’s resolutions

–          Spring (March to May) includes Easter, Graduation Day, Mother’s Day

–          Pink/Women’s Health October includes displays of pink products and stores offer women’s health screenings.

–          Fall Gatherings (Late September through November)

–          ‘the day after Thanksgiving event,’ aka Black Friday. Includes gifts and splurge items. (November)

–          Holiday Entertaining and Gifting (November, begins the day after black Friday)

–          Organization and Storage(January)

(and I am sure I missed a couple in there as well as I probably got some of the dates wrong, but, you get the point)

Why do they do this? Research shows that people are usually willing to spend more during “special seasons” and even more dollars if they are spending on their children.

Look. I don’t believe marketing is evil, but it is surely “wily smart” in that it is always seeking to find conscious or subconscious triggers to motivate behavior to encourage people to consume things.

But. Here is a truth. Impulse or not, marketing cannot really make someone do something they don’t want to do. I would also point out in today’s world with return guarantees, free return shipping, etc., it is almost next to impossible to maintain what could be construed as impulsive behavior decision (because it can so easily be “undone”).

Marketing is a business. You can certainly expect a retailer, and marketers, to make shopping as much of a science as possible. By “science” I mean by often “managing unimportant truths.” In addition, they will build model stores, displays and end-caps (things at the end of the aisles) to see what makes people buy the most.

Once again, is that evil? Nope. It’s just being smart about your business.

In general I don’t think marketing is the embodiment of the Evil Empire. I think most Marketing people just try to do the best job they can to sell things they represent.

Now. “The best” can be pretty bad at times.

Simplistically. Bad marketing is bad. And ignorance, or doing what you believe is the right thing to do, is no excuse for bad marketing or making the unimportant important. Good marketing sells substance or (still good) expresses the existing emotional relationships people have with products.

On marketing’s good days it ultimately helps the best companies and products win over the bad stuff.

On marketing’s BEST days they actually get people to believe the important truths.

Next.

Evil: confusing evil messaging and evil actions

I brought up the unimportant versus important truths upfront because I believe marketing‘s evilness really should be defined by that. But. issues gets compounded not just by what they say, but also by how and when they say it.

So beyond the message we shouldn’t get confused by marketer’s actions (which are mostly not evil, just absurdly annoying – which I imagine could be construed as some level of evilness). I do wish more marketers would pay attention to information available to them. According to Pitney Bowes research, consumers surveyed in France, Germany, the UK and the U.S. have indicated which marketing activities draw them closer and which act as a repellent. If marketers would pay attention, people are quite clear about what they want from marketing interactions. If marketers would pay attention they would clearly see many of their actions are simply not having the intended effect. Worse, inappropriate communications often diminish a brand’s attractiveness, thereby losing people’s interest and ultimately even existing customers opt out.

So. The good things? Customer satisfaction surveys. 75% were fine with them. Great opportunity for marketers to “not sell” but rather learn and create customized messaging/experiences based on each consumer’s preferences.

“This survey confirms that brands should listen to consumers before they send out their communications. Every interaction must honor the interests of the customer first, only then is a relevant offer or call to action acceptable to consumers. Each conversation between a brand and a customer is an opportunity to delight or disappoint. We’re all learning how to do more of the former and less of the latter.”

PitneyBowes Reasearch

On websites, 59% say they appreciate personalization such as “Welcome <name>.” For transactional sites, especially where purchases are being made, it can be reassuring to know that the site recognizes your personal account details and has a record of interactions to draw upon <note: ‘personalization’ is being discussed in some fairly absurd creepy ways these days>.

Okay. Now the annoying stuff. And where marketing, I believe, just doesn’t help itself. Efforts which are meant to be inviting but are just plain irritating to most consumers.

–          Asking customers to support a brand’s charity or ethical concerns (84%)

–          Sending offers from third-parties (83%)

–          Encouraging interaction with other consumers via an online community (81%).

Is this stuff evil? Of course not. But if you add these actions on top of the fact a marketer is most likely communicating an “unimportant truth” it is not only annoying but it is irrelevant. You have been intrusive and unimportant.

The double kiss of death.

Anyway.

Evil is always associated with people.

Truth or lie.

Annoying actions or relevant actions.

It all comes down to who is pulling the trigger. Here is where marketing runs into its most trouble: marketing people. Ok. Maybe it’s not the people , it’s just their common sense decision-making that seems to run into trouble. All too often it seems the marketing people manage to run into troubling ethical dilemmas and inevitably make some really bad, or certainly questionable, choices (with a consumer’s perspective in mind).

Most of the time these bad choices consist of less than the entire truth … or full disclosure of information the customer would want to know to make a reasonable decision. Let’s call this “selective truth telling.” Or, as earlier pointed out, selecting one thread in the fabric to point out. Or even “trying to convince you an unimportant truth is … well … important.” And, at its worst? Trying to convince you an unimportant truth is REALLY important. This is probably the best example of “the lie of silence” (which I have written about before). It’s all very tricky because most products & services tend to be good, useful products. And the ethical dilemma is how much information is it okay to hide <not tell> from the buyer to make a sale.

Oh. Silence. Omission. This is where many marketers will hide behind the excuse “but we only have so much time to capture someone’s attention.”

Shame on those marketers. You always have time to tell the important truth. And, in your heart of hearts, a good marketer knows that honesty and important truths win in the long run.

In the end, I do believe the thought of marketing as evil (in a true sense) is absurd. In an abstract sense (like Kristen mentions in her quote I used)? Well. Possibly. Evil is a strong word.  It could be truly that marketing, when gone awry, can warp the true essence of the intent. And that may seem evil, but it is just wrong.

However.

Evil or not.

As a marketer myself, I would like to remind all marketers we have a responsibility. What we say and what we do DOES impact what people think and ultimately can affect what they do. With that ‘power’ comes a responsibility.

And it would be evil, yes, evil for us to forget that.

Black Friday seems to bring out the worst in marketing. Maybe it is because on that one day, above all, Marketing people forget their greater responsibility in their pursuit of a business responsibility – sell shit. And maybe that is where I should end. Its not about evil or good, or ethical versus unethical, its about not being a shit while selling shit. Period.

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

Originally posted March 2012

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

“Sometimes, the bravest thing you can do is to never look back.”

—

Anonymous

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

Forward progress, in the mind, is almost a mandatory for success.

Forward progress, in practice, is great theoretically.

Forward progress, in theory, is big business.

For the latter, well, just see the gobs of information and quotes online with regard to “if you aren’t moving forward you are standing still” … “don’t look back or you’ll miss what is in front of you” … “don’t look back you are not going that way” or some fortune cookie wisdom like that <as if no one knows that movement, and progress, is good>. I call this the ‘forward progress theory’ business <I have noted elsewhere Life, like chess, is about facing the entire board and obstacles & opportunities which lie all around you, not just in front of you, & you can move in a variety of directions with progress in mind>.

That said.

With regard to progress, the bravest thing you can do is to not look back. Why do I say ‘brave’? We make it really hard to not look back. Really hard. Day in and day out everything around you pounds on you for ‘what did you learn’ and how are you applying it and ‘if you don’t know learnings from the past how can you be sure that is the right thing to do?” <crap like that>.

Okay. Semi useful thinking crap like that. But what it really means is that anyone truly desiring to move forward, intent on progress, keeps getting dragged back time and again to the past. What, or who, is the main culprit of this almost unhealthy relationship with the past?

“Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to make the same mistakes.”

Christalmighty. “Doomed.”

No wonder people are afraid of some risk or hesitate to move forward keep looking backwards. Doom is never a particularly desirable objective if you care about your career <or anything for that matter>.

====

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

(George Santayana)

“I’ve got news for Mr. Santayana: we’re doomed to repeat the past no matter what.

That’s what it is to be alive.”

Kurt Vonnegut

====

The ‘doomed’ aspect <which older business people toss around like confetti in meetings> means we are almost demanded to not only invest energy in the past but, in some cases, encouraged to hold on to past learning with ragged claws. That said … I will go back to the bravery aspect because I could argue the truest bravery, in this sense, resides in two places:

• Not looking back once you have decided to move forward.
• Not looking back when you purposefully stand still.

Yeah.

First. Move. There are actually times to just go. Go and do. I do not mean ‘go’ as solely leaning on instincts <I call this ‘decision faking by intuition‘>, because research tends to show instincts are less important than experience, but lean on your experience to guide you through the context of your progress. The truth is that the past cannot show you all the shit you need to know as you move forward. It only shows aspects of shit you should be aware of. And, worse, the past has  nasty habit of not encouraging you to reflect on the context of all the aspects just the aspects themselves. Therefore history is truly only important in parts and not the whole.

This means you have to grab the scraps of what you need from the past and create a new whole in moving forward. That is where bravery steps up to the plate. More often than not you are creating a new whole … a slightly different version of what was. Yeah. That is different than the past <it s actually something new>. Yeah. Everyone is actually a creator, a discoverer albeit we don’t like to think about that. While this point is a generalization … if you know your shit … once you have decided to go … to move forward … don’t look back. Bravely face the new world ahead.

Yeah.

Second. Stand still. There are actually times to stop. Stand still. Even amidst activity. Even amidst a crowd which seems like it is moving forward <albeit sometimes all you see is the movement>.

Stillness, strategic stillness, is possibly one of the scariest things anyone can ever do. When everyone and everything is moving you feel like you are ding something wrong in standing still. And, yet, by purposefully doing so you may be adding to the progress rather than taking away from it.

Here is what I know about purposefully standing still.

You have to accept the fact you are offering the type of energy that no matter where you are and no matter that you are still & not moving you are actually adding value to the space and time and progress to that which is around you. I can promise you that this takes a version of bravery.

Anyway.

The entire ‘Forward progress Theory’ is difficult. Difficult in the mind <attitudes> and even in practice <behavior>. I could argue that it is so difficult because our natural instinct is to try and use the past to define what the future will look like. That is slightly crazy when you think about it. While the arc of time suggests the future will most likely replicate the past, well, that is the arc and not the details. It’s kind of like discussing strategy versus tactics. The strategy may remain the same or similar, but the tactics will vary in the context of time & situation.

Progress does take some bravery, some courage. Mostly because the future will always contain something you have never seen before or faced before. In other words … it will not be the same as it was.

I don’t think I am particularly brave but I certainly don’t look back once I decide to go … and I have no qualms with standing still amidst movement. I tend to believe it is not bravery but rather experience.

Ah. Experience. Maybe you need to be brave to gain useful experience?

Ok.

That’s another post for another day ……..

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

“Sometimes people let the same problem make them miserable for years when they could just say, ‘So what’.

That’s one of my favorite things to say. So what.”

Andy Warhol

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

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

“The only real valuable thing is intuition.”

–

Albert Einstein

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

Well.

Einstein is usually smarter than this. He is slightly off the mark here. Uhm. Well. Maybe he did get it right because he also seemed to have said this.

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

“Intuition does not come to an unprepared mind.”

—–

Einstein

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

Okay.

Maybe he was smart <note: tongue in cheek statement>. More likely … Einstein simply never said half the crap that people said he said.

Regardless. Management and decision making by instinct or intuition has reached what I would call a ‘crisis level’ in business today. Let me explain.

First.

Knowledge is good.

Second.

But knowing what to do with it? Let’s call that ‘intuition”, well,that is gooder. Let’s say even excellent. Uhm. But that’s a combo meal. Main entrée is knowledge and the side item is intuition. Don’t like that metaphor?

Knowledge is the science and intuition is the art.

That combination is often called ‘decision making.’

Here is the challenge in today’s business world <and possibly Life>. The gap between what our intuition says and what data & facts actually say is growing wider. What I mean by that is computers and data have the ability to uncover correlation between facts that almost defy common sense or, at minimum, simply make us scratch our heads and say ‘what?” <or “really???”> and that discomfort will inevitably lead to a desire to indulge our intuition <as being better than facts>. Pleasse note I do believe we need to lean in on judgement but shouldn’t confuse it with intuition. When we do it leads to what I call ‘Decision faking.’

Here is where I struggle with intuition.

It’s becoming more and more clear to me that facts are less important to many people. Feelings make decisions, then, and only then, are facts brought in as back up. That’s mixed up. Its the wrong priorities for good decision making.

Yet. It is becoming a common business scenario in which intuition-made-decisions create situations where you end up pulling the trigger first and ask the hard questions later. Yes. This is possibly a general critique of American society, not just business.

Regardless. Think about this.

Thinking and feeling and intuition is actually a business formula. Without doing any research or deep thought … I would suggest great decision making is maybe an 80/20 Pareto rule. 80% thinking & knowledge combined with 20% feeling or intuition creates a great decision. Sure. Statistics and facts can lie. But so can intuition and feeling.

In fact. In business studies the data suggests our instincts & intuition <in business> or ‘going with your gut’ suck. We make bad decisions when based on this. Great thinking combines all the potential lies and sifts thru it all for truth.

Yet. When I look at the business world we seem to have forgotten the difference between thinking and feeling, and worse, we seem to believe feeling is more important.

You feel like you are doing the right thing so you do it.

You feel like it is the best idea so you go do it.

You feel like something is okay because someone told you to do it.

You feel like everything is okay in the end if you can show that why you actually did something was because your feelings were genuine.

You feel like acting on your feelings begets forgiveness for actions and bad decisions.

Well. I feel that’s a bunch of bullhockey.

Intuition is a grown skill. It is not really something you are born with. Well. Maybe better said … people can be born with a good intuition muscle, underdeveloped and awaiting to be strengthened, but no one is born with a well-developed intuition muscle. Therefore you must have the desire to focus on strengthening it. The gym will not come to you, you must go to the gym.

I have also found that business decisions guided by impulse and emotion tend to incorporate a high level of politics and political calculation at exactly the same time.

How will it look?

Who will like it?

Will I benefit?

I imagine taking some time and asking the hard questions won’t alleviate the political aspect, but possibly some time tempers the influence politics have on it. At minimum it shifts the dial slightly away from ‘individual benefit ‘ politics intuition to more ‘group benefit’ intuition.

The debate in business is always on which is better:

• to rely on intuition <feeling>, or
• rely on deliberate thinking while making decisions.

The fact is in some cases it’s better to rely on feeling and in some on deliberate thinking and the trick is to know which to choose when. But in either case you are using both simply relying on one more than other at the end.Intuition should open us to thought not define the thought. Or maybe it could be used a deterrent to avoid things.

Regardless. You should always value what your head & gut are telling you. But it’s the combination, knowledge and intuition, which reaps the highest returns.

Here is what I feel <pun intended>.

We need to defend decision making made through knowledge and thinking.

Why?

Because true thinking is innocent. The deck is stacked against it but in its naiveté it believes if it simply does the right thing <be itself> it will win.

Truth believes if it remains good and just goes out and attend meetings, go to schools, sit down at the kitchen table, go to church and not give a shit about politics and political correctness and just live their lives … well … it will all work out. Truth will win.

Well. Not so much. It won’t.

Thinking needs to be protected. It needs to be protected from intuition as the way to do things. Or maybe we just need to protect ourselves in business from ‘decision by feelings is more important’ type attitudes.

This is not as an easy thing to do nor am I saying it flippantly.

We battle common sense <because sometimes it really doesn’t make sense>.

We battle real knowledge and data <because sometimes it doesn’t look like it makes sense>.

We battle ourselves <we don’t really know what we want>.

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

“Ours is a world where people don’t know what they want and are willing to go through hell to get it.”

Don Marquis

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

Well. We do know what we want. We want our decisions to ‘feel right’ when we make them and sometimes it seems like we are willing to go thru hell to feel that way.

Here is the point about facts and thinking. We have gobs of theories we espouse in business hallways almost ad nausea but the truth is if you have enough facts the correlations are there <if you look and think>.

Even if the correlations don’t seem to make sense, or even meets common sense, the knowledge is there to be plucked from the information available. The difficulty is that, well, two things I imagine

<1> We are constantly bombarded by information therefore we seem to seek refuge in intuition clinging to some ‘gut feeling’ that seem to make the cluttered world of information available clear, and

<2> we like to make hasty decisions under the guise of ‘we cant waste our time overthinking this.’

The trouble is that our gut is infamously consistent in that it is often biased by stereotypes and generalizations and, frankly, experiences <good and bad … or ‘quantity of’ versus ‘lack of’>.

I say that because while some young people may have good natural instincts they will inevitably have great instincts when older if they hone it through experience. The corollary to that is some older more experienced business people will have great instincts and absolutely better instincts than a younger less experienced instinct muscle.

Experience absolutely hones a natural intuition. Heck. Knowledge hones a natural intuition.

Look.

I’m not suggesting you should ignore intuition. Just that real information and real thinking and the rigor that comes along with the ‘real’ versus instinctual ‘feelings’ is first & foremost the key to great decision making.

In other words. If you make intuition your main criteria to making a decision, you are simply decision faking.

===========

“No one is innocent … Life is more about how you bear the guilt.”

–

Silette <a fictional book character>

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

Well.

This quote. I admit. It gave me pause when I saw it in a book I was reading. I stopped and reread it.

No one is innocent.

That means everyone carries some burden of ‘not innocent’. This seems relevant as more and more people in today’s society appear to investing a lot of energy suggesting they are guilty of little, if not anything.

Well. That is kind of bullshit. No one is innocent. We are all guilty of small, medium and even some large things.

Therefore. It within that last sentence of the opening quote in which resides the larger Life thought.

Your life can be defined by how you bear that guilt.

It is the larger Life thought because “defined by” is actually “choices”. All the choices we make everyday in the little and the small as well as in how we judge ourselves, and our actions, and other’s actions. So we make all of these choices, one by one, dozens & hundreds over time, all the while accumulating some, well, ‘non-innocence.’ From that point on it becomes how we define it:

Do you ignore it?

Do you make excuses?

Do you deny it?

Do you worry about it?

Do you keep it secret?

Do you use it to motivate?

These are questions that reside within each of us <whether we elect to admit that they exist or not>.

These are the questions that define how people bear the guilt.

Oh.

The one that is probably most important?

Do you even recognize you are not innocent?

Whew. Yeah. That is why I wrote this quote down.

I think in today’s world where we seem to rush to blame people and judge them guilty of something <often justly> we tend to push our own lack of innocence, in whatever degree it may exist, into some dusty corner of our mind. But I also believe there is an even more dangerous thing many people do … and that is justifying their own past behavior & actions as ‘not so bad’ … which is basically assuming … well … innocence.

What that means is, I imagine, there are many more people who don’t even know they are ‘not innocent’ of something than there are those who bear the guilt. I imagine this because, well, bearing some guilt is a burden. A burden not just as a weight but it also can bear some emotional erosion aspects if you are not careful.

While those who bear the guilt can sometimes be eaten away from the inside as they think about it I would suggest there are many more minds being eroded by the unseen, unrecognized & unaccepted shadow of guilt which dogs each step one takes.

This comes to Life in a variety of ways.

It erodes in a way that when shit happens to them <because the guilt actually affects their behavior in some seemingly small ways> they scratch their head and wonder why.

Some of these people think fate is against them.

Many of these people think Life isn’t fair.

Many of these people never look at themselves, or to themselves, as the issue … just everything else.

Many of these people just look at others as ones who should be guilty <“I never did anything that bad”>.

And all of that is sad to me. Mostly because their burden of guilt is most likely something manageable if they would only take the time to face it — face the guilt and eliminate that weightless, but diminishing, shadow following them and choose to carry it instead.

Look.

We all have guilt for something. None of us are innocent. The something could be big or it could be very small. But that is the funny thing about ‘not innocent’ … its size doesn’t matter.

Normal laws of space & weight do not apply to ‘not innocent’. A sliver of ‘not innocent’ can bear the same weight as a mountain of ‘not innocent’.

We should all take a moment, every day in fact, and remind ourselves, especially before we jump to judging others, that if you ignore the degrees & dimensions of the guilty … none of us are innocent.

But, most importantly, once you accept no one is innocent <self included> what truly matters is how one chooses to bear that weight.

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

Originally posted December 2012

…………………… Jessica Nagy ………….

—

“Character is that which reveals moral purpose, exposing the class of things a man chooses or avoids.”

=

Aristotle

—

Ok. Let me be clear upfront – I believe 90+% of Personal Branding is bullshit. Despite the fact I am a relatively unhireable 50something my resume & credentials are pretty popular with executive search companies <I assume it is because they like to have some fairly robust experienced people on file to round out their library, but never really find them a job>.

Regardless. This means I get a relatively constant flow of emails from executive search companies highlighting insightful podcasts, seminars, luncheons, meet & greets, advice columns and ‘positive thinking’ <“you are awesome and can dominate the world”> messages.

I received one several weeks ago that made me laugh out loud. I laughed mostly because, as noted upfront, I think the whole ‘personal branding’ thing is a bunch of bullshit. I also couldn’t believe they would have a luncheon, with relatively senior people who you would assume already know their shit, to discuss ‘dare to build your personal brand.’

Here is the invite <received without the picture I added>:

—

THE INVITE:

‘Xxx’ is facilitating a networking meeting on Thursday, October 16, 2014 (7:30 AM – 9:30 AM):

cool Club
main Road
big city

–

Platinum Members ($25.00)
Guest ($25.00)
Continental Breakfast Included

–

Topic: DARE TO BE YOUR OWN BRAND!

Speaker: some personal branding guru <I assume>

Personal branding has become a widely popular topic. People from all walks of life are taking the idea more seriously.  What about you? Do you want to make the most of what you have to offer and become more of what you visualize yourself to be?  Are you asking, “What’s the right strategy for me?” and “How do I go about putting a personal brand strategy to work that will bring me greater success?”

Dare To Be Your Own Brand demands that you get clear on what makes you unique and how you want to be viewed by others. Then you have to leverage it with an unwavering commitment in everything you do and be willing to step out of your comfort zone, focus on a clear path for personal brand elevation and stay the course.

–

Please come prepared to:

• Introduce yourself within 60 seconds
• Ask individuals/group for introductions to your targeted companies
• Share information you have to offer others in their job search
• Exchange business cards

——

Look. I fully understand that in today’s business world simply having some skill won’t save you. I imagine only having some “texture” will save you <what your skill is wrapped in>. If all you offer is competence, someone can get it for cheaper from somewhere. Byy texture I mean you will have to create some connection between the work you have actually done and, well, you. To be clear, this “you” isn’t about daring to create a personal brand. It is about figuring out what a great company called DDBNeedham calls ‘personal narrative’ <or a ‘brand narrative>.

Now. Narrative sounds boring. And not edgy. Not true.

It is only boring if you build your personal narrative upon something you do not and cannot control because that has no texture.

That is simply surface information.

So. I say this having seen a shitload of companies that have rich narratives.

What do I mean? Think your typical great stories …“hero/conflict/resolution’ type outline with regard to their narratives. They can do this because companies have people, obstacles, trials, competition and situations in which someone wins or loses. This also means they talk about the character of the organization, about virtues and attributes and all the things necessary to navigate their narrative <and be heroic in some form or fashion>.

Oddly … I have seen a shitload of people who also have incredibly rich narratives … and yet they never share them in an interview or on a resume or anything to do with gaining a position. For some reason most people inevitably decide to not tell a story. They decide to not have a narrative instead they elect to create some ‘personal brand’ instead or they end up gussying up a resume with facts and figures and dates and titles and schools and accomplishments — everything but a narrative.

It seems weird to me that companies invest so much energy in a narrative and people don’t.

It seems weird to me that people don’t talk about personal journeys or character traits.

And it seems weird to me we choose to instead talking about ‘building a personal brand.’ And in building this personal brand (using tried & true branding acumen) we seek to come up with some ‘unique selling proposition’ <USP> for ourselves. This is great for ‘selling’ and selling ourselves.

But. We end up having no texture. We end up having no character. We end up having limited personality <only to the extent type font and layout permit it to happen>.

What’s up with that?

We know there are a lot of talented passionate people doing similar things as we do. Yet we seem to desire either tricks <personal brand> or fooling ourselves into believing our accomplishments are some remarkable unattainable-by-others type feats in order to try and stand out in an insanely crowded market with insanely good people.

This is crazy.

We actually end up sacrificing the one true thing that differentiates ourselves. Yes. Ourselves. Our character. Our narrative.

Look.

You are not a brand.

You are not a Facebook profile.

You are not a list of accomplishments.

You are not a list of job titles.

You are not a list of companies who deemed to hire you in the past.

You are not a list of companies that have deemed to fire you in the past.

You are a person. A person with a personal <and one would assume unique> narrative.

So skip the whole personal branding thing and focus on creating a narrative that makes you interesting.

By the way. The personal narrative you create is not some convoluted narrative that fries the brain wrangling with it … and not so simple it is … well … too simple. Hack away the unnecessary. Hack away the boring shit. Hack away the hyperbole.

Just create an interesting narrative. Simplistically this permits you two basic paths to choose from:

  1. A niche. A specialty skill.

Someone with a special skill in a narrow niche will always beat the pompous boring generalists who are good at everything <a lot of things> but not particularly great at one thing. The more specific you can be the better it will be.

2. Style. Panache.

Stand out by style <but do not sacrifice substance in doing so>. Use your personality and create some distinctness through style. It’s tricky … but you want to have a distinctive style that people link to you … and, hopefully, want to hire you for.

By the way <part 1> whatever the style it has to push to some edge. People don’t share boring shit. They only talk about things distinct <which inevitably is something that resides on the edge>.

By the way <part 2> I consciously did not suggest ‘edgy.’ Edgy implies something disruptive … and while I personally like disruptive … it is not for everyone. Simply seek a distinct style. And clarity is always more achievable on some edge. But it does not have to be edgy.

Anyway.

The whole personal branding or ‘create your own brand’ drives me nuts. And it actually scares me a little that well regarded executive search companies actually hold seminars to those who you would deem worthy of a higher salary <therefore having some credible career experience> to ‘dare to be your own brand.’

Now. I completely understand why this personal brand shit has become so discussed. It can be depressing to think about solely being measured by the actual work you do.

What do I mean? Well.

Based on my experience here is how compensation works these days:

===

do shit work … receive no pay.

do good work …  receive shit pay.

do excellent work …  receive good pay.

do remarkable, insightful, make everyone sit up and pay attention type work …  receive excellent pay.

===

Yes. I made this up.

Yes. It is also kind of reflects reality.

Well … this means we are constantly trying to make the case we did something remarkable <or are someone remarkable>. And what does that mean? I assume it means “dare to create your own personal brand!!!” and make sure while creating it … you create something remarkable.

Bullshit.

If you are an executive going to some executive search company seminar on ‘creating a brand’, you are screwed. The last thing you need to be thinking is personal brand, you should be wondering why you are going to something like that in the first place <trust me … you will see your ‘brand’ is the least of your issues>.

If you are an executive <or anyone worth a shit> you should aim high and be ridiculously persistent with your aspirations.

You should be following the same advice I actually give businesses.

Don’t be afraid to pursue revolutionary ideas and don’t hesitate simply there are ‘unbeatable’ competitors.’

Don’t be afraid to go after competition.

Don’t be afraid to go after what you want <and think you deserve>.

You do not need a personal brand to do that.

“The ability to learn faster than your competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.”

=

Arie de Geus – Dutch business strategist <and assumed pot smoker because he is dutch>

———–

“You do not merely want to be considered the best of the best. You want to be the only ones who do what you do.”

–

Jerry Garcia

Grateful Dead lead singer <and assumed pot smoker because he was the lead singer of the Grateful Dead>

——–

I speak with a lot of business owners. And I can often discern the best of the best with one word <or the words surrounding this one word>.

Unique.

Unique makes my bullshitometer go off. Now. I assume there actually have to be some unique products out there in this wide world of ours because over 500,000 patents are filed every year in the good ole USofA. That said. I admit that I have not run across a whole shitload of these unique products/services in my career even though I have met my foir share of patent owners.

Yes. Having this unique conversation with a patent owner excruciatingly painful. They keep saying “I have a patent therefore it is unique” and you keep saying “yes, sure, and the unique benefit to the buyer is ???” and you often find that this conversation is a deadly doom loop with no conclusion but frustration.

I imagine the real point is that everyone wants to be the best at whatever it is they elect to do the best. Everyone would like to be the only ones who do what you do <assuming what you do is actually of some value to people>. Everyone wants their business to be ‘unique’ in some form or fashion. And, if you try hard enough, I imagine every business can be ‘unique’ at something. I also imagine if you try hard enough you can learn to dance on the head of a pin.

Regardless, the point of me writing this is that I believe somewhere along the way something got lost.

What do I mean? Well. Since the beginning of time (in marketingese) the concept of unique has been important but I believe it was Ted Bates, and Rosser Reeves, who simplified <dumbed it down> for the rest of the world to grasp in a usable form  by developing what he, and the advertising agency, called the USP <the unique selling proposition>.

Excellent idea. Dumbed a great idea down for anyone and everyone to use. Unfortunately it has all gone wrong since then.

The concept was unique “proposition” not “unique” <all by itself>. Their point was  … well … just that simple … proposing to people some kind of proposition that was meaningful and seemingly unique <at minimum creating a perception of uniqueness>.

Please note the nuance. You need not actually be unique in actuality but rather you simply needed to be able to tell people you were unique in some form or fashion. The concept implied how you told your proposition was as important as the product-service proposition itself. The brilliance in the concept is that it recognizes most products and services are not truly unique, however, that didn’t mean you could explain your product-service in a way that wasn’t unique (from a selling perspective).

And here is where it all went awry … in our world of:

(a)    a lack of desire to use someone else’s idea, even if it is a great idea, and

(b)   the belief, the theory, we should be simplifying even the simplified <or even the most dumbed down> whereby we lose the nuance

Ultimately … the ‘experts’ started focusing solely on the ‘unique.’ I envision the conversation went something along these lines … “okay, let me simplify this because it is pretty simply … what makes you unique? Answer that and we can get started.”

Well. Here is the deal. A unique selling proposition is rarely a simple process or outcome and discerning what is truly meaningfully unique is rarely simple.

The point? There is a big difference between “what is your unique selling proposition?” and “what makes you unique?” Both can be valuable discussions, but they are not the same discussions.

I believe the problem is that somewhere along the way marketing, advertising, brand people forgot the nuanced selling proposition concept and simply focused on some (mostly) unattainable facet – unique. And therein lies the bigger problem. Identifying the false unique. Because it is inherent nature (at least in the business world) to find what you seek. If I am told I must find something unique than, dammit, I am sure gonna find something unique … even if I have to quasi make it up.

However, fooling yourself does not mean fooling others (although it is a common trap) in fact consumers/buyers are rarely fooled — and if they are … just once.

Therefore ‘unique’ is one of my trap, or test, words in a business discussion. It forces some brutal honesty into a discussion which can set the platform for the type of business relationship you will have.

Be forewarned <part 1> … many providers of products and/or services misconstrue what is unique. Service or ‘my people’ are not unique.  Well. They are to your company but they aren’t in any discernible way to the outside world. Generalizing … those are features of your company … of any company for that matter … therefore to be truly unique it would have to translate into some discernible benefit <by ‘discernible’ I mean recognizable to the human eye or the average bear>.

Be forewarned <part 2> … many providers of products and/or services lie to themselves in this discussion but in my experience it is mostly ‘white lie’ in that they are truly seeking a real distinctness. To be fair, I also admit that I like it when a company has some vision of grandeur <even if it is slightly delusional>. I find far too many companies do not aim high enough.

In the end, the company’s attitude on ‘unique’ may be slightly aggravating in a discussion, but it is mostly harmless.

The harming of a Profession.

It is the other side of the table that is what I find harmful and actually quite disappointing. It is the groups of professionals who agree to the white lie, maybe facilitate or encourage the white lie <delusions> or, at the worst, are oblivious to the white lie. There are far too many marketing & advertising professionals out there in the business world today who are abusing or are simply oblivious to the reality of unique <the reality thereof as well as the nuance of positioning in a unique way>.  As professionals we should be able to discern between a real uniqueness and a created <perception> uniqueness and should be able to assist a company in understanding it.

Not enough marketing/advertising/branding professionals do. Regardless of that last mini-rant the best example I have seen in my career of a company who understands this nuance between USP and Unique is Proctor and Gamble.

For good or bad (like them or dislike them) they constantly, relentlessly, seek a unique formula, unique product, unique benefit or simply a unique product – thru innovation.

But that is simply a vision and focus. They have the smarts enough so that in lieu of actually having one, i.e.,  they fully recognize when they don’t have one, they are masters at being distinct, i.e., “I may not be truly unique but there will be no doubt what benefit I provide and the value to it.” And truth be told … that last description, being distinct, is almost unique in itself in today’s garbled & complex for the sake of being complex marketing world.  P&G wins simply thru focus and clarity (being distinct) … sometimes thru a real uniqueness and sometimes thru creating a perceived uniqueness.

Smart company those P&G folk.

Now, conversely, oddly enough, the worst at this whole uniqueness thing is maybe Apple. Yeah. Apple. They are solely focused on “unique features” (not benefits). By the way … that is bad as a long term strategy.

Albeit they are an engineering company and not a marketing one, which explains the focus, but making yourself unique thru features means that your sole vision is to <and forever> constantly make your own features obsolete. Because the moment you don’t make yourself obsolete you are no longer ‘unique’ but rather a commodity.

It is a fine line and a dangerously tenuous line. Personally I believe Apple is doomed for eventual failure (albeit if there was ever an industry that could exist on features it would be technology) because all they care about is developing features and marketing the features. But, hey, that’s me.

Ok. Back to unique.

I fully understand everyone wants to be the best at something <which is their uniqueness>.

I fully understand that there are truly some widgets with some meaningful describable benefits that are unique.

I fully understand that what most people are construing as ‘unique’ these days is meaningless drivel. At its worst it is simply mental masturbation.

I fully understand that there are also a lot of missed opportunities for good meaningful “unique selling propositions’ floating out there in the business universe simply because many people just don’t have it on their radar as a meaningful objective.

On that last thought, positioning <using words to create a perception of uniqueness> is valuable and an opportunity. It is not ‘lying’ to the public to create sales. In fact I would argue it is smart and a reflection of your only true competitive advantage … the ability to learn faster than your competition.

Why? Uniqueness is NEVER alone. Standing beside it hugging it closely is someone called “Benefit.” They are inextricably attached as companions for life. And as you learn more about what the buyer of your product really wants <that Benefit person> your ‘uniqueness’ may actually change … radically or nominally … it doesn’t matter. It may change to meet the needs & wants of the buyer.

Let me close by combining Jerry’s thought and Arie’s thought … and, no, I am not going to suggest you have to smoke pot in order to think your way through all of this …

–          being the best, or the only one to do something, is irrelevant if it has no value or benefit to others

–          unique is rare and often fleeting

However, adaptable ‘best’ and adaptable ‘uniqueness’ is neither fleeting nor useless and if sustained will maintain market leadership <although it is extremely difficult to sustain>. And the key to those is to be to be the only fastest learner in your category. Easy? No.  But, remember, business is often not lived best gently.

Heck. If you do focus on being the only fastest learner in your category you may actually not only have a unique selling proposition but a unique product/service to offer.

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

THE CORPORATION OF THE FUTURE

the bigger the world economy, the more powerful will be the smaller players. This is because they are more flexible, faster and more economical – not burdened by layers of bureaucracy. Computers and telecommunications, now affordable to small companies, allow them to compete globally, and deregulation and globalization of financial markets gives them access to capital. Computer-driven technology also makes it possible to produce small runs of customized “higher value-added” products aimed at niche markets. Products produced “just in time” save money on inventory, and they can be quickly improved to compete with rapidly changing technology and tastes. Big companies will break up into confederations of small, entrepreneurial units. Small interacting firms will form themselves into temporary mosaics to be more adaptive and productive.

Alvin Toffler

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

In June 2013 I wrote an incredibly long piece called “inside out leadership” which shared a number of thoughts about the Future of Work. My belief was that after a misguided unhealthy focus on “the customer is king/queen” businesses would refocus their efforts on their “inside” <values, mission, culture, beliefs> in order to not only engage with right customers but also to create their value.

This portion, reprised, focuses on autonomy, distributed leadership and what I was calling ‘agile companies’ back in 2013.

Leadership in the future will be defined by the inside aspect of their businesses not just in producing things but rather knowledge capital, the values surrounding that knowledge application which create the character/personality value, and how it is all managed. Ah. Managed. Maybe better said getting an organization to collectively think in a common direction so that the individuals can be empowered to produce, think & do effectively.

This means organizational leadership will be defined by the ability to not respond to the consumer but rather respond, and adapt, to the organizational inputs & needs <boy, there is a paradigm shift>.

Oddly, this means organizational “power”, in general, will depend on taking advantage of the inevitable cracks in the process created by speed <agility> — not seamless surges forward.

To be clear. Agility will create cracks. The cracks created by the events that were not pre-programmed or foreseen.

I imagine this means true leadership partially depends partially on chance <finding the opportunities to lead within the moment> and managing human behavior in a desired fashion. This doesn’t mean everything is accidental. Not everything is random. In fact power is found within predictability as well as randomness. Organizational Power implies combining chance, necessity, continuity, chaos and order.

To me this means the new inside out leaders will have more of an opportunity to create the necessary attitudinal shift in business world than in recent years. Smaller organizations are easier to create attitudinal and behavioral direction than larger organizations which means creating lots of smaller pieces and parts coalescing in a common direction can affect a larger cultural shift in larger organizations. Conceptually, these different smaller business “teams” will shift traditional power away from manager-bureaucrats forcing the creation of a new type of leader.

That said. I believe organizational morality <or value beyond profit> will become the leadership cornerstone within an organization. While morality and virtue are developed over time <via repeated decisions to choose what is right and to forego what is wrong> which typically means there is no quick fix to any organizational morality problems … lots of smaller pieces can be redirected in the here and now.

Today’s’ inside out leader faces a variety of challenges. I will speak to what I consider the two biggest:

–          Embracing fragmented knowledge while empowering it through  organizational ‘tribes’

–          Discerning between desire for speed and need for speed

inside out leader: Embracing fragmented knowledge while empowering it through ‘organizational tribes‘ <or teams>

There are two portions to this challenge – contradictory but compatible.

Individualism empowered by access to knowledge and organizational tribes embedded within organizations.

First.

Tribes. I didn’t coin this term and in fact Toffler may have used it in 1990 <Godin certainly has>. I have mixed feeling with the term. It exhibits a stronger cultural aspect than simply suggesting the younger generation of employees cluster into groups of likeminded people but it also doesn’t not encourage thoughts of openness/porous/shifting teams.

What I do like is it embraces the communal aspect of being comfortable in ‘tribes’ within a larger organization <organizations are made up of a number of tribes>. Not unlike the Iroquois nation there are various tribes co-existing under a common charter. Each with separate cultural nuances and rituals but clearly aligned on a bigger purpose.

I began there because today’s leader grew up under the ‘dog eat dog’, ‘big fish eat little fish’ and ‘kill or be killed’ every person for themselves organizational upward movement mentality.

Remember I shared these Toffler words earlier in the post:

“Big companies will break up into confederations of small, entrepreneurial units. Small interacting firms will form themselves into temporary mosaics to be more adaptive and productive.”

I would note Toffler didn’t recognize the cultural shift <more of a community/tribal character> but rather focused solely on the power shift <knowledge wealth>. That said. As the two connect <a cultural shift and a business power shift> the words he shared become even more powerful … and meaningful to a new inside out leader.

These smaller units are tribes within an organization <call them a ‘small team’ if you dislike tribe>.

Each with its own ‘power’ to be managed by a leader savvy enough to move pieces seamlessly and have the ability to empower disparate thoughts, and tribes, into an aligned organization. The new inside out leader will need to recognize the balance between managing individuals and managing teams <with tribal cultures>. Neither a one-size-fit –all mentality or a one-by-one management mentality will work and be successful. It will be about empowering tribe without having tribal war and permitting the natural team leaders to arise from the culture.

Second.

Fragmented knowledge <individualized empowerment through knowledge> A truth. Knowledge is the most democratic source of power. The truly revolutionary aspect of knowledge wealth, and the internet, is that it can be grasped by weak & poor as well as strong & wealthy which makes it a continuing threat to the powerful, even as they try and use it to enhance their own power.

Toffler said this:

Bureaucracy is also a ways of groupings “facts”. A firm neatly cut into department according to function, market, region, or products is after all a collection of cubbyholes in which specialized information and personal experience are stored.  The vaunted “rationality” of bureaucracy goes out the window. Power, always a factor, now replaces reason as the basis for decision. The power structure based on control of information was clear, therefore: While specialists controlled the cubbyholes, managers controlled the channels.”

Reading this also explains why every leader in a hierarchy is tempted <if not actually desirable of> to control the quantity, quality, and distribution of knowledge within his or her domain.

The internet has created a power shift by taking it from solely under those with legal or formal position and towards those with the ability to absorb & use knowledge.

It became a command/control leader’s headache that knowledge could slink into any office space and anyone smart enough to use it could become smarter than the person they reported to. It is easy to see that this organization fragmentation driven by real/actual knowledge could easily become chaos unless leaders begin showcasing a different ability than maybe we have valued up until today.

This means today’s leaders need to be assimilators of fragments.

They need to encourage empowered individuals and tribes to accumulate knowledge and then redirecting or gathering disparate pieces of knowledge into new forms in which the organizations, and ultimately, the tribes benefit from. The control of knowledge is the crux of an organization’s struggle for power, and more importantly, effectiveness. It is also then a leader’s biggest challenge in tomorrow’s businesses.

Compounding the issue is that the hyper speed in today’s world is making facts obsolete faster.

Therefore knowledge built upon certain facts becomes less durable. This has 2 key impacts:

–              truth is fleeting <and decision making has small windows of opportunity>

–              business has become more abstract <as knowledge streams non stop into and within an organization>.

Which now leads me to discuss speed.

inside out leader: Discerning between desire for speed and need for speed

Inevitably speed kills <leadership power, decision-making, quality, sense of teamwork, etc.>.

Economics is now all accelerated <even if it isn’t really … we incessantly talk about it as if it is>. And all this accelerated pressure <speed> also shifts power by putting stress, and inevitably undermining, the fixed, bureaucratic chain of command.

Now <taking a step back>.

While everyone talks about a faster world today I would like to point out business has always had a love affair with speed. I would like to remind everyone that the second phase of the industrial revolution was focused on breaking apart production processes <and behavior associated> into the smallest portions with the intent to isolate and shrinking time to the most efficient pace possible.

I point that out because we have always desired speed. But we do not necessarily NEED speed. Speed is not only an addictive objective but an elusive one … the more you get the more you want.

I believe the new inside out leader will learn how to slow organizations down. They will need to be able to discern the difference between desire and need.

I don’t mean make them slow … but rather simply slow them down.

There are a variety of ways to do so but I would suggest the best, and easiest, is to embed the core purpose or vision of the organization within each employee.

Organizations will slow to think, and assess, only to speed up even faster. Only leaders can empower organizations to do this.

In conclusion.

Therefore this will be a new kind of leader stressing the central importance of character and virtue in a culture … focusing everyone on the basics … decency, doing the right thing, cooperation and that actions always have long-term consequences and doing it all as possible.

This changes decision-making from “if it makes money it is good” to “how does this fit within our purpose/direction?” will inevitably lead to smarter decisions and sometimes even adapted decisions <on the ground> all meeting a common purpose. It slows down the organization to think slightly but less so over time as ‘right thing’ becomes more & more obvious organizationally.

Outside in kind of worked because it not only generated money/revenue but in general a happier consumer who felt important <who doesn’t like that?>. But it also worked because this knowledge power created a newer faster ‘responder’ organization which permitted leaders to be lazier. They could build careers based only on responding and not foresight & consistency and makes gobs of money.

But.

 “If its profitable do it” mentality is not an effective business management style because it doesn’t breed the organizational cohesiveness to balance against the individual freedom.

Conversely, “If it feels good do it” mentality is not an effective business management style unless grounded in some character/virtue.

Inside out leadership organizations will encourage individuality and individual freedom in the business decision making because it will also encourage individuals grounded in a vision based on character, virtue & organizational integrity.