having a desire to add complexity to a beautiful simple idea has nothing to do with the idea but rather with the person

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

the art of being unreasonable in business

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

“It didn’t work,” said the King. “The cloak of invisibility didn’t work.”
“Yes, it did,” said the Royal Wizard.
“No, it didn’t,” said the King. “I kept bumping into things, the same as ever.”
“The cloak is supposed to make you invisible,” said the Royal Wizard. “It is not supposed to keep you from bumping into things.”
“All I know is, I kept bumping into things,” said the King.”

—

James Thurber

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

So.

While this is about business in general it certainly taps into entrepreneurs & entrepreneurial attitudes and what happens once a business transitions from startup to ‘gravitas.’

Unreasonableness is very often a matter of perspective. In addition. being unreasonable is often not being some innovative disruptor but rather someone who prioritizes progress over, well, everything else.

Regardless. My favorite unreasonable example on this has to do with successful entrepreneurs. Unreasonable is status quo for becoming successful, yet, once successful, the people around the entrepreneur owner will most likely see the unreasonable as unreasonably risky (this creates some tension). In this situation the biggest issue is often the entrepreneur is comfortable doing things which may appear to have never done before, but once a business is up and running the team tends to seek things that have been done in the past <or “proven practices & things” from the past> to develop action plans. In this situation I am usually the jerk who says “most business success, in general, typically has a layer of idiosyncrasy <and context> that begs the ultimate question – can it really be copied?”

(I usually answer my own question: no)

Look. Here is a thought <to be applied with business book learning before you run off implementing everything you read> … as Henry Kissinger pointed out when discussing learning from history … “if you are seeking examples and exact parallelisms by studying history you will be disappointed. The study of history is the study of analogies.” However, all that said, I actually found an interesting business book. There is a relatively short book called ‘The Art of being Unreasonable” from a guy named Eli Broad.

I liked it for 4 reasons.

1. It was pretty short – I love it.

2. He suggests that rather than be a pioneer it is often better to be second with a new idea. – I love it.

3. He suggests that the best diversification may not be into an industry related to your own. – I love it.

4. The premise of the entire book is that the world has always been shaped by unreasonable people <ultimately they are the ones who force change>. – I love it.

The book did get me thinking and some thoughts which relate to the art of being unreasonable.

Business people often confuse safe with smart.

Safe may not be smart … because it is … well … just safe. Typically safe means less return <combined with less risk of course>. In fact it often translates into less return than the initial idea because it is … well … simply an extension of what is <smaller increments of growth>.

That (in simplistic terms) doesn’t mean bad return but rather diminishing return. Because it is, well, safe <okay … you get the point about safe>. Safe is hedging your bets. It is a sound strategy depending on what you would like to achieve. And it is a reasonable thing to do.

The book’s point is that isn’t what an entrepreneur <or business builders in general> is all about – being reasonable. They simply get convinced to do so by those around after their initial unreasonable-driven success (or sometimes they simply fear losing that has been gained).

Here is a silly thought. Maybe an unreasonable thought.

Entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs. To ask them to be anything other than what they are is fraught with peril.

As Broad points out there is a safe path (extension into a related industry) or a comfortable path (one that is an extension of him). By the way I love the distinction between safe and comfortable in this sense because to some people <me could be included here> safe can make some leaders uncomfortable, conversely, some leaders are quite comfortable with risk.

Now. I am not as smart as Eli.

But I have coached several businesses in a similar fashion. It makes them uncomfortable (the leader group) and excites the one (the leader). I often find myself negotiating between the desires of the organization formed behind the success of the leader/entrepreneur … and the entrepreneur themself.

It is an odd experience.

I would say in my experience that the entrepreneur gets dragged down into the dismal depths of the “reasonable” decision making organization. The main argument is businesses inherently desire to protect their success once they have shifted beyond the intial building. Now. I also admit I often walk away shaking my head in disappointment as the one who “built” defers to those who “protect” an investment under the guise of a “mature business people.”

What many business people don’t recognize is that building & protecting are different skills. Or, actually, they probably do but inevitably decisions need to be made that become a battle between comfortable and uncomfortable … and the seemingly reasonable and the unreasonable.

Last thought.I am not suggesting the unreasonable is always the path to walk because sometimes the unreasonable is really unreasonable <undoable, impractical, insane>.

However, there is an art to being unreasonable. An art that can lead to stunning success if it is fostered properly and encouraged <even if it is uncomfortable>.

The point?

Never totally disregard the unreasonable option & idea. It may not feel safe nor may it feel comfortable, but it may actually be one or both when viewed correctly.

May 7, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

believing in something is powerful enough (leading a business)

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

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

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

―

Will Durant

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

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

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

—-

Golda Meir

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

So.

good bad idea battle for path business This is about leadership & leading with an idea.

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

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

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

it exists truth example life ideas business

……………….. the idea ………………….

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

To be clear. This is more a discussion of the psychology of managing employees. Let’s call it “believing management” more so than motivating employees. This is more about unlocking employees – unlocking potential. I mention potential because that is what ideas do. They are like a powerful chip inserted into people which energizes, focuses and drives individuals <and inevitably the organization itself>. And because of all of what I just said there are a variety of ways to create some energy behind ‘believing’ in an idea.

Us versus them.

War analogies wherein those who don’t believe in our idea are ‘enemies.’

The narrative behind the idea always seems to have a “good versus evil” aspect.

Two thoughts on that.

Selective tactical ‘good versus evil’ leadership is appropriate. Sometimes you need to give an organization some “oomph” <a technical organizational behavior term> and this is an easy way to create some energy around the idea.
Being reliant on “us versus them” narrative is lazy leadership. Yes. Counterpoints always provide some contrast which permits some clarity, however, an idea should be able to stand on a blank page in a blinding spotlight and create enough ‘belief’ in that idea that people will want to fill the blank white space simply because they want to … they choose to … not because they ‘have to.’

people crowd ideas together friends waitbutwhy Bad leaders misunderstand leading with an idea. They always feel like they have to have an enemy which the idea has to slay. Or they feel like they have to divide so that their idea looks bigger. They have it wrong. And dangerously wrong. Good ideas power up on their own. Good ideas have a size to stand up to, well, any size idea out there. Good ideas encourage people to go out and evangelize not destroy or kill or attack. The belief in the idea, in and of itself, is enough to make people go out & sometimes attack bad ideas, more often defend the idea, and all the time presents the idea as some desirable thing that anyone in their right mind should want.

I have always believed that if you have a good idea, and you have people who believe in that good idea, you shouldn’t worry about competition or naysayers & doubters but rather focus all your energy on showcasing the energy of the idea.

Now. To be sure. If you talk with enough people who have managed groups & companies and you will notice that at some point someone will bring up “I have to be a psychologist.”

To be clear.

Do business managers have to be psychologists to be effective? No. not really. But playing the psychologist role on occasion certainly doesn’t hurt. I am chuckling. I am fairly sure what I am discussing has some high falutin’ organizational behavior ‘management principles’ published and formal white papers with long esoteric discussions on employee personality types and some personality testing voodoo and lots of ‘how to energize organizations’ crap.

Anyway.

Most good managers clearly understand that different people are motivated by different things and that different things can inhibit the potential of each employee. Suffice it to say, in my mind, once you move past trying to motivate a specific individual one-on-one it really all comes down to one basic management principle: the idea.

intangibe idea yet to be future business Simplistically every leader’s objective is always to free your employee to be their best and do their best. But sometimes this means stripping something away, and sometimes this means adding something, and it always means giving them something to believe in <not just do or ‘fight’>. By the way. I’m not sure if this is really Purpose or even a Vision but rather it is something internal in each person. An inner fire to be a better version of who they are tomorrow than they are today — which means it is not a destination but rather progress that matters.

More often than not while you are leading your organization you invest gobs of energy focused on the pragmatic ‘here is what you need to do’ underpinnings crap which keeps everybody focused on the shit that keeps the doors open in the business every day. But, at some point, you have to energize the attitude. This is where “idea” comes in. This isn’t really a vision this is the idea of who and what the company is and the ‘belief’ which is kind of the unseen glue which makes “one, out of many.”

This idea becomes almost a heuristic management tool because while leading people certainly can contain some aspects of ‘enthusiasm management’ one of the most basic leader self-survival techniques you learn <or you will die> is how to manage without too much investment of self. Therefore I have always viewed “the idea” as the compass AND engine for the true potential of the organization.

Yeah. As a manager you always hunker down on the pragmatic aspects of what needs to be done first.

Always.

It is kind of your heuristic trick to assess any attitudinal challenges to getting the frickin’ pragmatic aspect done. But you always keep an eye, and an ear, open during the pragmatic ‘whether the shit will actually get done … and done as well as it can be done’ for the employee’s, and organization’s, idea ‘belief factor.’ While Belief can come in all shapes & sizes & behaviors one thing remains constant — make the idea tangible and anyone can see it <rather than have it be some nebulous thing they have to define in their own heads>.

And it can get even tricky. Tricky because the same employee who was bursting with blind belief one day will be the same employee sitting in front of you the next day discussing a completely different project or task — semi-frozen in ‘belief doubt’ or ‘belief confusion.’

Look. The fundamentals of effective management are pretty much the same everywhere. But, ‘idea belief management’ can, unfortunately, sometimes take a fine subtle touch and most of us everyday leader schmucks aren’t always subtle. Therefore, we tend to lean on “us versus them” and “we are at war” to create some sense of “we must defend this idea” rather than instilling the idea, of the idea itself, as having value even in times of ‘non-war.’

Ok.

I imagine I wrote this not to offer any “how to” guide to anyone. I wrote it because I just saw someone aggressively and darkly outline a world in which the business idea was under attack and attempted to drive belief in the idea through ‘threat’ rather than ‘inner belief.’ As I watched I thought “this person has no idea how to articulate an idea in a way that the idea itself exudes energy in and of itself.”

As I watched I thought “this person doesn’t understand that ideas don’t need enemies to be meaningful and powerful … believing in something is power in and of itself.”

Look.

I have different expectations for different levels of leaders and I certainly understand that when presenting or communicating things you gotta deal with what is in front of you and get shit done and get the best out of all employees. And sometimes you do whatever it takes in the context of the situation. But. And this is a big but.

A business cannot always be at war in order to justify, and formalize, the idea it believes in. The idea, in and of itself, should be good enough, and articulated well enough, to be powerful enough for people to just believe in it.

I am not suggesting this is easy but that is what separates a good leader from a crappy leader is the ability to make the most of an idea by fanning the tiny, inner sparks of possibility into flames of achievement.”

I imagine my real point is we should all be wary of the leader who can only articulate an idea through an ‘us versus them narrative’ or a divisive tone.

Why? Because they are either lazy or they don’t know their shit.

April 30, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

angry strategizing

======

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

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

————————-

Tupac Shakur

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

This is hardly worth fighting for

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

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

It’ll be a long time coming

But you got the message now

‘Cause I was never going

You’re the one that’s going down

One of us is going down

I’m not running,

It’s a little different now

‘Cause one of us is going

One of us is going down

—————-

Sick Puppies

<You’re Going Down>

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

Well.

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

Yeah. The Olympics has reminded me about competing angry.

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

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

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

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

some stupid opinions

some stupid attitudes

competitors say and do stupid things

and certainly there is a stupid acceptance of mediocrity.

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

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

To be clear.

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

And you know what?

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

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

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

You get a little angry …

This is stupid … there is a better way.

This is crazy … I have a better product.

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

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

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

So … you know what?

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

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

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

And here is what I know.

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

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

Get a little pissed about perceptions, attitudes and mediocrity.

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

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

Yeah.

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

April 26, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Life thoughts, Personal & Nonsensical, Rants and Observations

I have a lover’s quarrel with the world

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

“I had a lover’s quarrel with the world.”

–

Robert Frost epitaph quoting the last line from his poem “The Lesson for Today”

Well.

I am a bull in a china shop and I know it.

I have a lover’s quarrel with the world and I know it.

And, frankly, I like it. Some people suggest it is just being contrarian and others suggest it is ‘bull in a china shop’ living.

Maybe. Maybe to both.

But think about this. To me ‘bull in a china shop’ kind of implies that there is this random china shop and for some reason a bull wanders in <that bull would be me in this metaphor>. But – suppose it is actually the other way? Suppose you have a bull. The bull is … well … a bull. It lives its life. It’s content. It’s comfortable being a … well … a bull. Then Life comes along and builds a frickin’ china shop around it. Not just surrounded by fences but within a china shop – caged, contained, restrained, pick your word here – the bull is unable to move without breaking something. What does that mean? Simple normal everyday actions are now destructive. And yet … the bull is simply being a bull. Just being kind of what it was brought in this world to be.

Well.

I like turning it around this way <it makes me feel slightly better>. I like it because it permits me to quarrel with the world … and be in the right. Oh. Right being defined as being myself.

Regardless. If you accept the turned around thought I shared … well … this may surprise you but … acceptance becomes a key thought and mindset. Yeah. Acceptance.

I know that sounds odd because we are talking about possibly crashing around and breaking shit. But the thought is that if you are a bull you accept the reality of the world that is constraining the reality of you. Now. Please understand. Acceptance is not the decision to do nothing. Acceptance is simply acceptance. It is simply the intention to agree with reality. Accepting what is <and what is not>.

I say this even as a true Life contrarian … because I honestly can say that have never found a time where it was better to disagree with reality. It is always easier to agree with reality … and then start ‘doing.’ Acceptance simply means permitting the present to exist … no matter how painful. Which then leads me to the thought that there is a difference between pain and suffering. Acceptance suggests you eliminate the suffering aspect because … well … Life is what it is. Maybe painful … but not worth suffering over.

Anyway. Circling back to the bull <as in me>. Life is a china shop and … well … I can’t build a whole new shop for Life … I just have to learn how to live within it.

That is acceptance and acceptance that, in some odd way, makes Life bearable. I can keep moving and taking action. I can keep … well … quarreling with the world.

Even better? My actions are derived from an intent to ‘do’ … whatever that doing is … and with a recognition that I will probably break some shit <and have to pay for it> and not driven by some reactive sense of desperate avoidance to not break shit or be constantly aggravated with Life being a frickin’ china shop.

Now. You would tend to think that accepting the realness of reality is something we would do automatically.

We don’t.

This may sound obtuse … but in actually living it <this acceptance thing> … I can tell you that thinking this way is quite freeing. Because Life can be painful at times and, yet, I have also found that mostly it is painful only because you are in conflict with what Life seems to be demanding of you. So maybe if you can imagine that by accepting the pain as natural as just part of who you are and the choices you make – you actually limit the pain to such a level it is almost unnoticeable. Oh. In the cases in which the pain doesn’t recede? Well … you end up fighting back against Life a little bit. And I will note … in most cases you are simply fighting inertia. Inertia as in ‘the wrong type of acceptance.’ In fact … i am wrong .. its not acceptance … it is acquiescence <acquiescence as an overall societal default mechanism>. This is where people simply cease to fight against what they see as an inevitable outcome.

All that said. It seems like I am talking about some form of ignorance. And I am. In this case it is self ignorance. Ignorant with regard to self-awareness or just ignorant of reality <knowledge and facts and truth and shit like that>.

An ignorance of maybe our personal Life default mechanism. I imagine the real issue behind ignorance is … well … a natural irrationality. We humans like to think of ourselves as a smart thoughtful intuitive group.

In general … we are not.

For example.

A psychologist described how people are fairly good at predicting the outcome of elections based solely on photographs of the candidates. Well. This is slightly disturbing in that it suggests no matter how much we analyze what a person stands for that a significant part of our choice behavior falls back on some subconscious instinctual gut feeling … that are in many cases typically not rational.

Another example.

Think you can change a friend’s mind about an important issue? Think again. Psychological research suggests the existence of something called the ‘backfire effect.’ This is when by simply mentioning facts that another person won’t like … it will cause ‘double down behavior’ on their original position.

Well. That sucks. No wonder all of us have some level of a ‘lover’s quarrel with the world.’

Anyway. This subconscious irrationality seems to reside in the fact that we people are really really good at utilizing an innate default mechanism … either too afraid or too oblivious to make major changes to our attitudes & beliefs. It is an unfortunate truth that it is part of our natural cultural DNA that we do a whole bunch of maintaining, rationalizing, procrastinating and reinforcing … suffice it to call it “embracing the status quo” type stuff.

Sorry to tell you, but, we don’t really do very much thinking about what’s really best for us and the possibly more drastic changes we might need to make to get there. We do some surface type thinking but not the real deep hard thinking.

So what does this mean? If you don’t quarrel with the world on occasion you simply let Life dictate your life.

By the way. Please note the ‘love’ in the quarrel thought.

I love Life. I love the world in which we live.

Does that mean I like it unchanged? Absolutely not. I want to change things and attitudes and behaviors and therefore I have a lover’s quarrel.

Maybe I am crazy. Maybe it comes down to a crazy personal attitude:

==========

“Do I dare … dare disturb the universe?”

TS Eliot

===========

Whoa. Disturbing the universe. Quarreling with Life on occasion. That’s … well … crazy.

Look.

I tend to think it is fairly typical for us to feel like something is missing or unsettled in our lives. I know I do on occasion. I also think it is fairly typical that even though we feel that way … at any given time … the idea of making any type of major change will tend to seem out of the question. I know I do on occasion.

I tend to believe it is is because you believe you are … well … what you’ve been doing this whole time. I know I do on occasion.

I tend to believe we recognize that something missing and yet we make no real meaningful change <for a variety of good and not so good reasons>.

Well. This paradox, which is actually quite natural in our attitudes & behavior, kind of makes the entire thought of continuing with the way things are <maintain the status quo> seem a little absurd. The fact is you are naturally disturbing the universe – at least your own universe. Identity is not static, it is fluid.

You are constantly becoming a new version of yourself – a different person. Yeah. Dramatic changes may actually be necessary to realign with ‘the world.’ In fact what you feel is ‘missing’ may simply a reflection of the fact that your new version is out of sync with the world and Life. In my words, you are quarreling with the world for the wrong reasons. I say all this psychological mumbo jumbo because this takes some self awareness. It certainly takes battling self ignorance. And inevitably this takes into account self doubt and <by the way> self doubt exists in everyone.

Well. Let’s just say it exists within everyone who tries to live their life with some integrity or values.

Because if you don’t care about your ‘output’ <however output is manifested in your daily life … including your actions> being good … and are okay that being bad is just fine … self-doubt has nothing to attach itself to.

Ok. All that said.

Quarreling with the world.

Disturbing the universe.

We humans ignore all sorts of things that don’t fit our conceptual structures <heads and how we think>. Quarreling is often simply natural chafing against paradigms. And paradigms are a reflection of the defaults we fall into. Some psychologist suggested that paradigm shifts in human societies aren’t made incrementally, but rather in great leaps:

————–

During the period of normal science, the failure of a result to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refuting the paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher. As anomalous results build up, science reaches a crisis, at which point a new paradigm, which subsumes the old results along with the anomalous results into one framework, is accepted. This is termed revolutionary science.

This negates the truth value of any given idea — but simultaneously demands adjustments of the most dissonant “truth”. Adjustments can employ tactics such as appeals to spiritual beliefs, peer pressure, neglect or diminishing of significance (and vice versa), discrediting a source or messenger, reliance upon tradition, appeal to authority, etc.

——————-

Well. Those words also apply to us … people .. not just research.

… demands adjustments of the most dissonant “truth.”

Wow. That’s us people. We need a crisis of anomalous data before we accept change. Therefore … dramatic changes are not just quarrels with the world but arguments. Heated debates.

Look.

I imagine my unending quarrel with the world is one that many have. Some are simply more vocal than others … some get tired more easily than others in the quarrel.

I also imagine just to keep my sanity that I embrace the thought that maybe it is simply part of who I am that I see myself freed of what may often be seen as natural boundaries all with the hope to someday reach a larger vision of possibilities. I certainly do not seek to imply simple optimism or a some utopia to be arrived at in the distant future. It is simply the journey to something better.

Better than what is today.

Maybe I quarrel with the world because today’s world can be a harsh and difficult one scattered with cruel weather surrounding character and soul. And I accept the pain as I sometimes stumble down a path can be strewn with ruins of what was and outdated cultural monuments.

I like to think I reject the past and embrace the past at exactly the same time.

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

“Beyond the wall another wall, on the wall stopped dead one sentinel.”

Regina Derieva

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

I accept the walls.

I accept the sentinels who stand watch over the status quo.

I accept the china shop.

Maybe I just like to think of it as larger with new freshly painted walls. And maybe I simply am quarreling with the dead sentinels standing upon the walls.

I have a lovers quarrel with the world.

I do the best that I can.

I take solace in something Augusten Burroughs said:

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

“I myself am made entirely of flaws, stitched together with good intentions.”

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

I am flawed … I have good intentions … and I will quarrel with the world.

Look. I know that the world, itself, is a good ‘quarreler.’

It challenges, tries to push you down and sometimes makes you feel like there is no hope.

No hope for being better. No hope for change.

Me?

In acceptance I find some type of courage <not sure that is the right word> to defeat these feelings.

I am flawed. But I know I have a good intentions. I know I am a bull and I don’t particularly like someone tried to build a china shop around me.

All that said, well, I have a lover’s quarrel with the world.

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

Originally posted 2014

April 20, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

fitting in (to someone’s Life) versus persuading

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

“The aim of marketing is to know and understand the customer so well the product or service fits him and sells itself.”

―

Peter Drucker

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

Disruption. New!. Radical innovation. Hardly a day goes by where someone isn’t claiming the newest, best, different-est, whizbang idea the word had ever seen. Everyone believes they have something to sell you, or the world, which will “disrupt” the way everything is currently done.

Typically, maybe 80+% of the rhetoric is misguided <but often well intended>.

Truth: Success, more often than not, is not creating something new forcing people to do something different, but rather fitting in <in a new way> what they are currently doing. New is not good in and of itself. As I have noted before everyone should always seek “optimal newness.”

Regardless.

Fitting in leads to a discussion on persuasion versus accepting. Persuading someone that they should do, or try, something versus having someone accept something as part of the natural flow of Life & what they do.

This leads to a discussion on Clotaire Rapaille versus Ernest Richter.

Clotaire Rapaille was all about ‘fitting in’ by encouraging marketers & businesses to seek codes & cultural cues so people could see themselves in not only what you say, but in the products/services being offered.

Ernest Dichter was known as the father of focus groups. If you are cynical you could suggest he was the master of persuasion techniques <to manipulate emotional & rational triggers>.

Simplistically I believe this is about leading people to things they want, as opposed to persuading people they want something. This may appear to be semantics but trying to get people to try things often pivots on semantics & nuance. If you want success Innovations, and selling things, is about watching behavior and creating products that people aspire to have <even if they don’t know they truly aspire to it or not>. In fact. I think it was Ford who said that if he asked consumers what they wanted, they’d say a faster horse and carriage. People only have the capacity to tell you what they know.

This leads me to what I call “the unlearning process”. Fitting in, in part, is asking some people to let go of conventional wisdom and, yet, not actually asking anyone to think unconventionally with regard to what they like & want.

When you approach change <or asking someone to do something> this way you begin to find things you often think are really important just aren’t that important. When you start seeing consumers as people <instead of persuasion cues>, you realize you’re not a very big part of their world in the scheme of things and , yet, you CAN become an essential part of the weave of their Life. Looking at it that way suggests you begin by saying “ok, how can I fit?”

This is why I have always hesitated to embrace Richter-like research & persuasion because I believe it’s more important to learn about what people feel than what they think. There’s been enough psychological and biological research done to demonstrate how decision-making really happens. It largely happens in a part of the brain that doesn’t have a capacity for language <people struggle to find words to describe what they feel>, yet, the vast majority of market research requires consumers to use language to describe what are really emotional responses. I call it malpractice, because you’re going to get an answer, and you’re going to get data, and you’re going to feel like you’ve heard from consumers, but you’re asking them questions that they almost can’t give a right response to. They’ll rummage around for rational reasons while the truth is your searching for some gut reasons.

That is where codes, cues and Clotaire become important.

Brands really only exist because of emotion. If products were all commodities, it would just be a rational computation. If salt was really just salt you’d just buy the cheapest. I can’t really tell you why Morton’s is better but I just know it is.

And when you rummage around for reasons, no matter how good a researcher you are, I would suggest reason vary by situation & context <ponder: do you decide where to go for lunch exactly the same way every day?>.

This is where I get a little sideways with most research. Most times we want to talk about us, our product or service or even <sadly> our brand. Yeah. we go thru the motions of talking & asking about them but do so with what we want in mind … not who they are, what they do and what hey want ><regardless of my product or service>. We don’t seek to ‘fit in’ but rather persuade or sell.

You need to sit down with people in the target audience and understand their “codes” – their mental imprints. If you do you begin thinking about how to share your offering to fit into their lives. The better I understand your general codes, the easier it is for me to fit my product into your life. People can’t always give you a reason for why they do what they do, but you’ll see body language, a shrug or the roll of an eye. There’s something in their behavior that begins to tell you what the feeling is.

This all gets me to stories. In general I think we get a lot of shit wrong with regard to storytelling.

Yes. People are attracted to stories. Using tension, using conflict <hero, maybe even a villain, conflict, resolution> is almost necessary to create a story worth paying attention to.

No.

Stories about your product, or even your customer, in and of themselves run the risk of maybe being relevant but miss the bullseye of “fitting in.”

Yes.

There is a difference between relevance & fitting in.

A story can be relevant but without the right codes/cues someone may think “doesn’t fit in with my view of life.” I also believe if you focus on fitting in instead of some uncomfortable persuading your story will naturally access components of life to make it more relatable.

In the end.

I believe we don’t have this discussion – fitting in versus persuading – often enough. I think there would be a lot less misguided, off the mark (and bad) content & less useless (or failed) innovations.

April 14, 2018 by Bruce

Favorite Quotes, Life thoughts, Rants and Observations

was this not what you wanted? (Life version)

====

“Was this not what you wanted?”

—

remnant-thoughts

===

I saw this quote/question posted on a-thousand-words.tumblr.com and I had to stop and think. And, ultimately, the phrase got stuck in my head like a bad 70’s song with a catchy beat.

Ok. Even worse than a bad song … I associate this phrase with a typical incredibly stomach churning feeling. The words “was this not what you wanted?” more often than not creates a angst driven internal churning. Needless to say … not many good feelings get tied to this phrase.

That said. My thoughts crisscrossed between business and Life.

That said. This is the Life version of “was this not what you wanted?”

This can be a question you find asking yourself as you sit alone at the end of a long day, long week, long year.

This can be a question you find yourself actually speaking to someone sitting across the table from you.

Both scenarios suck.

Yet … after some time you don’t really wonder a shitload about the answer to the question itself … you spend more time wondering how you got to where you had to ask the question itself. Not only do you look backwards but inevitably you find that you got it … well .. just backwards.

Somewhere along the way you find that the real things you should have cared about had been filed away as ‘not important enough now’ and you were now refinding them and blowing the dust off of them. And as you re-look at them you wonder why they had been shelved for whatever crap you had focused on instead.

This is one of those times that hindsight is clearer than clear. This is one of those times where hindsight actually reflects some simple truth. The truth is that you shelve what is important because you are chasing something. And in chasing you make decisions that look like you are unburdening some ‘weights’ so that you can get to what you are chasing faster. And, yet, at some point … whether you actually get to what you are chasing or you just get tired of chasing … you notice you hadn’t lessened any burden you had simply shed things you actually need to sustain esteem, happiness & actualization in the chase for what you think you want.

This seems crazy in hindsight. Our blindness to the difference between need and want is sometime stunning and none more so than in everyday Life.

But we all do it <at some point>.

It happens because while ‘in the chase’ you more often than not get to a point where you don’t even know why you want it — you just think you do. And the chase goes on.

Many people start talking about “balance” here.

I will not. Yup. This is actually going to be one of the rare situations in which I will not expound upon balance. Because while I believe balance, in the bigger picture, is the key … in the short view most of us are anything but balanced. Alain de Botton said, “There is no such thing as work-life balance. Everything worth fighting for unbalances your life.”

On this topic, ‘was this not what you wanted’, I am not sure there is a truer statement than what Botton says. When you want something that you have convinced yourself you need … well … there is rarely balance at that point. You are committed, focused and energetically purposeful.

In general, that is actually a good thing.

But. It pays to recognize we suck at discerning between needs & wants and that while you may commit to the ‘what I want’ direction you must keep your head up, your eyes & ears open, and look at options as they naturally occur.

If you do not do that … well … “was this not what you wanted?” is the inevitable question you will speak.

Look.

Some people act with unflinching certainty in Life. They say unequivocally they know what they want. And in their eyes “need” and “want” are one and the same. In part I envy them and in part I wonder of in doing so they are neglecting some important things.

Anyway.

I do not know one person who has not faced the stomach churning “was this not what you wanted?” moment at some point on their Life. Not one.

As with most things I would argue that it isn’t about how you got yourself into that situation it is what you actually DO from that point on that matters. I say that because discerning between need & want when it comes to things you care about is sometimes really hard. Like really hard. And you need a ‘come to Jesus’ moment in order to better define it in your head.

That doesn’t mean “was this not what you wanted?” is not a painful moment. It is.

But if from that moment on you seek happiness by committing on nothing less than doing your best at whatever you want … and what you need … maybe take some calculated risks on the wants and always ask the hard questions of themselves with regard to the needs … well … you will keep moving forward.

Uhm. That is called “progress.”

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

I’ve seen your act & I know all the facts.

I’m still in love with who I wish you were.

It aint hard to see who you are underneath,

but I’m still in love with who I wish you were.

Kate Voegele

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

April 13, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations, Stuff I Like

the heart and the mind & finding business success

==========

“Win the heart and the mind will follow.”

=========

“The philosophy behind much advertising is based on old observation that every man is really two men — the man he is and the man he wants to be.”

William Feather

=======

Well.

I admit. I am constantly surprised that business people, and communications people in general, lose sight of what is important in positioning their business and what they want to say. This thought pertains business to business as well as consumer and analytics driven tracking as well as, well, suffice it to say – everything.

It starts off well.

More often than not conversations begin with ‘what makes us different/distinct’ … good solid practical meaningful “Hey. I got something that can actually provide some value to someone.”

It ends up usually not so well.

More often than not it ends with some version of “here is what we need to say <about us and ‘it’>.”

Let me be clear. That is important. It has to be. Ultimately you need to say something to people to distinguish your space in people’s minds and inevitably make a sale or create some engagement/purchase. You have to offer some practical value to match the dollars forked over. But far far too often the conversation gets dragged down into the sinkhole of practicality. And this seems to happen far far too quickly <like right at the beginning>.

It is like everyone gets stuck on the rational mind aspects. And, frankly, it is a pretty easy place to get stuck. Rational is rational and when it comes to ‘wallet type’ discussions even some fairly experienced behavioral thinking business people get sucked into this back hole of practicality. And, yet, even as this black hole seems to start sucking the entire galaxy of collective thinking in the room, in the back of everyone’s mind they know that if somehow, someway they could connect their business proposition to a potential buyer’s heart, not just their mind, it is better for the business <they may not be able to articulate the exact whys of why it is better … but most business people know in their gut that a ‘heart connection’ is meaningful>.

But this is almost exactly where this whole slippery slope of mediocrity and practicality discussion seems to veer off into the absurdity which actually encourages business people to sat in the practicality zone.

The next often incredibly absurd conversation as everyone ponders how the business can reach into people’s hearts and not just their minds relates to ‘emotional connection.’ As in “we need to get people emotionally engaged if we want to differentiate in the long term.” This is business people’s version of James’ “win the heart and the mind will follow.”

Absurdly, from that point on the conversations inevitably get steered into some practical discussion of how to get people emotionally involved <as if we could pragmatically convince someone to be emotionally involved>.

That looks crazy even as I write it.

Yes. Practicality and rational has a role. In fact its role is essential to the greater need. The rational enables the “heart” possibilities.

But. It is the ‘heart’ aspects which shift success from “we sell something” to “people covet/want our something.”

Yet. Most business people are pretty rationale so they approach emotional connection, uhm, rationally. Words come out of some sage manager like “what can we do to create this emotional connection?” I always want to lean forward and say “well, remember that girl in high school you liked and decided you were going to get her to like you? … how did that work out for you?”

You cannot actively pursue getting someone to like you. you cannot actively, rationally, build an ‘emotional connection.’ You can truly only control you, your business, your product, your organizational culture and the character which embodies all of that. Once you believe in that and it is truth and not something another sage manager has crafted to be in some poster that appears in the cafeteria> you are on your way to … well … start dating potential users & buyers.

====

“You cannot use someone else’s fire; you can only use your own. And in order to do that, you must first be willing to believe you have it. “

Audre Lorde

===

The other aspect of this emotional connection discussion that I seem to always be banging my head against the wall is the … well … let’s call it the aspirational aspect. You can emotionally connect with another person because they are a soul mate … or … you can connect because you see a better version of you with & within them <I am sure there are other ways but let me stick with these two>.

I love the latter in building businesses. By thinking about it, by pursuing it, a business will inevitably find themselves actually aspiring to consistently ‘be it’ day in and day out. In other words … if I find myself actually tapping into ‘the person who I want to be’ aspect of potential users & buyers I tend to kind of feel like I <the business> has some responsibility to actually BE a better version for thebetterment of self <and customers benefit in my self belief>. The business positioning actually feeds the business as well as feeds the business success.

Regardless.

While I babbled about some different dimensions of this discussion inevitably a successful business has to at least think about three aspects of their business:

the aspirational component: how am I making lives better or people better

the emotional component: day in and day out what emotional benefit do I offer <this is like the character or personality to which people will gravitate>

the rational component: day in and day out what functional benefit do I offer <what do I actually do>

You gotta discuss all three. Aspirational keeps the horizon in perspective, the emotional insures you stay true to thineself and the rational insures you keep everyone’s eye on the ‘how we make our money’ ball.

Anyway.

I speak with lots and lots of business people. And this discussion remains one of the most consistently discussed and one of the most consistently mishandled aspects of creating a successful business.

I learned a long long time ago in business it is all about aligning “head, heart & wallet.” That doesn’t mean it is easy … but it is what it is with regard to business success.

April 6, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Life thoughts, Rants and Observations, Stuff I Like

architects of fate (and business)

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

All are architects of Fate,

Working in these walls of Time;

Some with massive deeds and great,

Some with ornaments of rhyme.

Nothing useless is, or low

——-

Architects of Fate

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

I don’t really believe in fate. And it appears good ole HW Longfellow didn’t believe in it either. He wrote a beautiful poem called The Builders (see below) suggesting that we, the people, are architects of fate.

In fact.

The beauty of what he writes (and this is a truly awesome thought) is that everyone does something, no matter how small or how large, that builds the structure of life. Yes. Every one of us, each and every one, plays some role in constructing the great construct of Life we all live in. That is a really nice thought. And a nice reminder that no matter how inconsequential we may feel or the things we do we play a part in the tapestry of life.

Now.

This is also true in business. I say that as a business guy with a long history in the service side of the business world.

The side of the world that you often feel helpless, often having to react, and often being forced to move about at the whim of someone else, and often feeling like you are not really doing anything important (because it is hard to see how what you are doing really matters).

Having said that and knowing that a lot of people really do feel this way I pull Architects of Fate out of my backpack. I use this poem several times with companies to remind us, employees, that all our actions have consequences. Yes. Even the smallest actions.

Longfellow’s words should encourage everyone to believe each action contributes to the structure of who we are as a company and what we do. Now THAT is a valuable thought in every organizational behavior or culture sense. It is an even more important valuable thought a leader should have (because if they do they will inevitably encourage all employee to feel that way).

And when everything is aligned. When everyone believes they can be an architect. It becomes a valuable thought in encouraging each employee to understand that their actions contribute to the architecture of the fate of the organization (no matter how inconsequential they may actually feel buried down in the mailroom or the bottomless pit of account receivables department or the office manager ordering heavy stock paper for the copier because someone is bitching).

I would also point out the practical side – productivity & output. It was my good friend Luke Sullivan who pointed this out in his book “hey whipple squeeze this” – thinking & creating matters but if there is no output there is no satisfaction. Real work. Actual things we do for customers or actions we take in front of customers. Each of these actions is a part of the overall tapestry of the architecture of the company. He also points out that each action often begets another action (in that once you have done something once it begins to feel more ‘okay’ to do it again … I would call that a slippery slope discussion).

Anyway.

As we hustle our way through each day trying to make sure we cross off everything on our to do lists and make our bosses happy and answer customer’s questions and requests it is good to remind ourselves we are truly architects of fate. It is good to remind people tht everything they do contributes to the grater architecture of what is and, maybe most importantly, what will be.

This pertains to your job, personal lie and the greater Life in general.

My advice? Be an architect. Go build.

The Builders

All are architects of Fate,

Working in these walls of Time;

Some with massive deeds and great,

Some with ornaments of rhyme.

Nothing useless is, or low;

Each thing in its place is best;

And what seems but idle show

Strengthens and supports the rest.

For the structure that we raise,

Time is with materials filled;

Our to-days and yesterdays

Are the blocks with which we build.

Truly shape and fashion these;

Leave no yawning gaps between;

Think not, because no man sees,

Such things will remain unseen.

In the elder days of Art,

Builders wrought with greatest care

Each minute and unseen part;

For the Gods see everywhere.

Let us do out work as well,

Both the unseen and the seen;

Make the house, where Gods may dwell,

Beautiful, entire, and clean.

Else our lives are incomplete,

Standing in these walls of Time,

Broken stairways, where the feet

Stumble as they seek to climb.

Build to-day, then, strong and sure,

With a firm and ample base;

And ascending and secure

Shall to-morrow find its place.

Thus alone can we attain

To those turrets, where the eye

Sees the world as one vast plain,

And one boundless reach of sky.

– Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

March 30, 2018 by Bruce

Business Thoughts, Favorite Quotes, Rants and Observations

disruption (make competitors irrelevant)

——-

“’You’re dangerous’, he says.

‘Why?’

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

Simone Elkeles

——-

“Disruption is bad.

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

——

So.

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

Yeah.

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

Now.

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

——-

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

Chris Cleave

—–

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

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

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

——

“Disrupt or be disrupted. Disrupt or die.

Disruption is the most powerful idea in business today.”

Tom Peters

——

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

——

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

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

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

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

Jean Marie-Dru

——

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

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

Doh.

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

That translates into … yikes … change.

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

—–

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

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

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

Matt Shepherd-Smith, CEO, TBWA\London

—–

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

Anyway.

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

—

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

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

—

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

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

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

What do I believe <see: “know”>?

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

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

All of which simply makes it easier to be ignored.

Worse?

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

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

Why would anybody disrupt, and destroy, on purpose?

Well.

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

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

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

<Jean Marie-Dru>

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

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

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

To be clear.

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

It means being bold and taking some risk.

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

Technological disruption re-defines industries.

Cultural disruption always seems to piss people off.

Why?

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

What do I say? Fuck ‘em.

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

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

Look.

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

—-

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

HV Adolt

——-

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

March 13, 2018 by Bruce

Bigger issues Facing Us, Personal & Nonsensical, Rants and Observations

a gun, an individual & a society

===

“Even as we learn how this happened and who’s responsible, we may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this.

Such violence, such evil is senseless. It’s beyond reason. But while we will never know fully what causes somebody to take the life of another, we do know what makes life worth living.

The people we lost in Aurora loved, and they were loved.

They were mothers and fathers. They were husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They had hopes for the future, and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled. And if there’s anything to take away from this tragedy, it’s the reminder that life is very fragile. Our time here is limited, and it is precious. And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it’s not the trivial things, which so often consume us and our daily lives.

Ultimately, it’s how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another.”

–

President Obama after Aurora shooting

===

<originally written & posted October 2, 2015 and again on November 5, 2017 and, yet, appears relevant today>

The shooting at the community college in Oregon.

As the president said last night … we seem to be having this conversation far too often in the United States.

Any shooting of innocent people is bad.

Unexplainable shootings seem worse. And because they seem unexplainable we seem to want to go back and reverse engineer information and try and explain the action of someone who does something which seems unexplainable to the everyday schmuck like me <to be clear … reverse engineering is 99% accurate … its predictive engineering that is less accurate>.

The reengineering always seems to offer possible solutions … and yet … offer no solutions at all.

And, yet, moments like this make us want to do something … to say something … to solve whatever this something is. All the while serious looking overly somber news people all over the country, as well as an obviously aggravated President Obama, comment on and lament what can only be called a tragic situation. That is all good … but what none of these people seem to nail down is a cohesive strategy to address fundamental reasons for the amount of gun violence that has somehow seeped into the everyday American Life.

Please note I said ‘cohesive’ because the voices shouting seem anything but aligned:

One shouts ‘its guns!!!’ <gun control issues>.

One shouts ‘its mental health !!!’ <psychological profiling and privacy issues>

One shouts ‘its domestic terrorism !!! <implying it is some thoughtful effort to change something>

How about we put all the ‘ones’ together and think about a common strategy.

McTague hand drawn relationship on Gun Issue

What do all of these events have in common?

There is a gun.

There is an individual.

There is society <the environment in which the gun and the individual reside>.

Gun control.

I get steamed at both sides on the gun control discussion. Freedom to own a gun does not absolve the freedom from ‘responsible gun ownership.’ On the other side … eliminating guns is just not feasible.

While I certainly don’t have all the political answers I do admit that some aspects of calls for more gun control resonate with me <all the while fully understand that Americans are hardly agreed on the issue with less than 50% wanting stricter gun laws but a majority want better background check>.

And I do know that “a feeding frenzy of new gun legislation is not the answer.” What I do know is that I would rip up all gun control legislation <I believe it is something like over 200 things> and start from scratch.

– I want responsible people who accept the significant responsibility that comes along with owning a gun to be able to own a gun.

It doesn’t seem absurd to demand some level of ‘prove responsibility’ to own a gun. Force registration at police offices or military facilities. Prove you know how to handle a gun <all guns you may have>.

– Any weapon the military uses for military action shouldn’t be in the hands of the everyday citizen. Period. Full stop.

If someone has military experience, then maybe they have earned the right to own an assault like weapon. But I would also make the Military responsible for military trained people who own these guns.

– Ammunition used for hunting or ammunition for non military use.

That’s the only kind of ammunition you can have.

– No more concealed weapons. If you have one, show it.

If I am a non gun owner I want the opportunity to decide to not be near a gun if I want to. If I am a gun owner I want to be fully aware of who else has a gun around me. If I am a police officer I want to be able to see who has what and who doesn’t.

I am sure I am missing something but this whole situation and discussion aggravates my sense so much I leaned in with what I would call the basic common sense thoughts.

The individual <and mental state of mind>.

The flippant “it’s not the gun, it’s the person’ argument is downright silly. Please, PLEASE, everyone just accept it is a symbiotic relationship.

One cannot live without the other.

Next.

The flippant “it’s a mental health issue” … well … suffice it to say “yes” … and then point out if you truly believe we can profile everyone in the entire united states, evaluate them on some set of ‘possibility criteria’ and then track them … well … you are on drugs <which is a completely different issue>.

We cannot institutionalize everyone, or anyone, who has thoughts of suicide, moments of anger at society <or some aspect or group they focus their anger on> or even people with depression and some inclination of some public display of their overall dissatisfaction with Life.

Professional health needs to suck up their pride, and differences, and come up with some basic assessment tool. By the way … has anyone ever heard of ‘social media tracking?’ I can almost guarantee that 90% of all Americans leave an internet footprint … and 99% of the assholes who pick up a gun and shoot some innocent victims certainly do.

I would subjugate one of my privacy freedoms, as a citizen, if the professional health industry said ‘we have a specific assessment tool which will be scanning all online activity which reflects indicators of mental health issues tied with possibility to pick up a gun and kill innocent people.’

C’mon. I have probably met a half dozen social media tracking companies with some technology that tracks words and clicks and even your breathing <it seems> to such a point I am pretty sure they can accurately tell me when I will need to go to the bathroom.

For fuck’s sake. Amazon knows what I want before I want it … certainly we can come up with a tool like this.

Beyond the professionals … there is … well … people … uhm … you & I <and their relationship with potential ‘tragedy creators>. I don’t want to go back to Soviet communism where neighbors reported on neighbors to the KGB … but … for cryin’ out loud … if we simply raised our hands for the people we were 80% sure needed some help … at minimum … they get help … and even better … we cut down on these tragic events by 80%.

To be clear on that last point … perfection may be sought … but will never be attained. Evil does win on occasion <whether we like it or not>.

Society.

Let me begin with …

The picture emerging of Mercer is of a killer who had an interest in mass shootings, having reportedly recently posted on a blog about a gunman who killed two US journalists live on air in August.

He described Vester Flanagan as a man who “wanted the world to see his actions” before adding: “Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.”

Oh. Let me add …

In the usual rush to offer up some breaking information, news reports were embellished with unconfirmed details about the massacre and the assailant that did little but fuel a contagion of fear.

Sigh.

I sometimes think we are our own worst enemy. Regardless. Let me tell ya one thing I know for sure … if someone wants to commit suicide and leave a legacy <be in the limelight> that people will remember forever … just do it, or something, in front of today’s media <and then the entertainment industry will run with it from there with TV specials, movies, docudramas, whatever>.

The core of much of the entertainment industry in America – movies, TV shows and, yes, I consider today’s cable news as entertainment <albeit disturbing entertainment> – is based on killing and violence. We glorify the violence & the violent at the same time as we are saddened by it.

In addition … while we depict the violent as ‘evil’ we just as much showcase them as misguided or ‘faults of society’ <not forcing any accountability or personal responsibility for actions on the asshole who actually pulled the trigger>.

The consequences of this is that our society breeds a sense of ‘victim’ even for the purveyor of the tragedy.

Society?

Shit. Well … we just need to be better dammit.

<sigh>

If not us then who?

Look. The champions for gun ownership point out that the Constitution of the country gives people the right to own guns. I would suggest those people think contextually with regard to that thought … at the time America had no standing army … just citizen militia. Everyone was expected to pick up their gun in defense of this new nation we had just created.

Basically, at that time, everyone served in the military.

I would suggest to the people who suggest ‘more guns’ that maybe if we had a mandatory one year military service <or community service if you do not want military> for everyone then everyone would be properly trained as well as properly assessed.

–

note:

The Swiss require part-time military service from each male citizen between the ages of 18 to 34. Women may serve voluntarily. In a nation of eight million people, about 20,000 soldiers a year attend basic training for 18 to 21 weeks

–

Do I truly want that? No.

Do I truly believe it would resolve a shitload of the issues we have now with regard to guns and violence? Yes.

I am all for maintaining our constitutional rights, but, please, PLEASE, could gun rights people think about the context in which the constitution was crafted.

In the end.

I am all for responsible people owning hand guns. That is their choice and, as a country, we deemed that as one of our inviolate rights.

I am all for responsible mental health profiling.

I am all for a responsible society.

What I am NOT for is irresponsible quibbling and inaction after a shooting tragedy. It is a complex issue that demands something more than a pithy simple solution soundbite. It is a complex issue that demands we do something because that is what adults do to protect their children.

I am sure I am missing something and I am relatively sure I will come back and rewrite portions of this but this topic makes me so angry and so sad at the exact same time I just gotta stop for now.

February 15, 2018 by Bruce

Page 15 of 33« First...10 «141516 17 »20 30...Last »

Meta