—

“Getting over a painful experience is like crossing monkey bars.

You have to let go at some point in order to move forward.”

=

anonymous

—

This is about business leadership but I’ll begin with business itself (because what is business leadership, but understanding the business of people).

Business: the business of monkey bars.

Business is all about monkey bars. Yes. Many people will point out its about process, systems & efficiency and they would be partially right. That’s the foundation for sustainable profitable business. But once that foundation is built, from there on out, it is about monkey bars. Now. A lot of people will not agree with me. They will be the people who see the framework as a network of highways & wireframe in which people & ideas & work traverse making right & left hand turns.

I don’t see it that way.

The process & wireframes are simply hamster wheels. Jump on and you get some speed, but no velocity. The speed & work & going around and around can make an organization feel good, feel like they’re doing a lot, but it really doesn’t get you anywhere.

Inevitably to gain some velocity, get somewhere, achieve some lift, you have to navigate the business of monkey bars. Make the leap from the lanes in your network to new place & new people. Make the leaps outside the existing wireframe to new places & ways of doing things.

Simplistically those leaps are Monkey bars: strategically, tactically, projects & people.

Simplistically those monkey bars are letting go and taking a leap of faith you will grab the next rung.

Well. There is nothing simplistic about that. Businesses don’t like making leaps and they really detest swinging out from the nice safe rung they are holding onto, letting go of a rung and grabbing onto another.

I will say whether a business detests it or not, monkey bars are not meant to hang on to just one rung. The whole idea of monkey bars is getting from one end to another swinging from one rung to another and letting of the past rung to get to the next one.

If that isn’t metaphorically what business progress is about, I do not know what is.

This leads me to Leadership.

Navigating monkey bars with people.

My favorite leadership quote is:

“Consider becoming the type of energy that no matter where you go, or who you’re with, you always add value to the spaces and lives of those around you”

I thought of that quote because that type of energy is different than the business of navigating monkey bars. Navigating monkey bars isn’t really about energy it’s about reaching across from where you are to where you need to be. Its faith. It’s risk. Its uncertainty. Its doubt.

That said. There are so many leadership views, definitions, articles, etc. your head will spin. Go on twitter, hashtag leadership and you will be barraged by a gazillion good, and not so good, leadership thoughts you will wonder which to use.

We all have our favorites. I would argue none of them matter particularly if you want to think about Monkey bars. Monkey Bars is about pragmatic progress. Not inspiration, nor energy, nor necessarily fulfilling meaning or potential, it’s about letting go and moving on.

While most Good leadership articles discuss developing ‘tools’ for the team to verify which actions have value, and, crucially, which have not (affirm & assess behavior) when it comes to Monkey bars it may be more relevant to think of Tupac: “at some point you just have to leave the pieces behind and move the fuck on.”

Monkey bars demands you empower people to move on. But it’s a different moving forward. This one isn’t about walking or taking baby steps or giant leaps, but rather about letting go and having faith you can find another thing to hold onto. And, like monkey bars, it is not just once to get to the other side but a series of ‘letting gos’ to make it where you want to go.

Which leads me to leading in a monkey bar world.

Philosophically it would be great of you, as a leader, could actually place someone’s hands on the next bar and get them going. That ain’t the way it works. A leader’s job is to encourage letting go, have some faith and grab onto the next bar <even if they aren’t sure there is a next bar or know exactly where the next bar is>. To be honest. I’m not sure if this is objection management (eliminate objections to swinging out), unstuck management (getting people to unfreeze) or fear/uncertainty management (it will be okay, there is a safety net, the next rung is solid, etc) or idea management (make the next rung look like such a great idea it actually ‘pulls’ people to swing to it) or some combination of all.

What I do know is that this type of leadership CANNOT be about control, its about faith.

People monkey bars

You are dangling by one hand and reaching for another bar and … well … there will be a moment of uncertainty and reaching. But. That’s the gig. That’s the deal.

Letting go is the monkey bars of life. Letting go also means letting go of “fear” (not sure this is the right word but let me stick with it). Letting go is a double whammy to people:

• Fear of leaving what is known & comfortable. Fear of leaving what you may be good at and what you have proven to others you can do. fear of leaving an environment in which you KNOW you can survive.
• Fear of, well, the unknown. And its 2 unknowns:
  • The space between the rungs
  • The next rung itself

Suffice it to say letting go isn’t simple. In fact, it’s exactly like the first time you try the monkey bars. It takes some faith and confidence and, ultimately, desire to just go and swing out.

—

“All the art of living lies in a fine mingling of letting go and holding on.“

Havelock Ellis

—

I have one thought for people here. You have to stop looking at the space between the bars.

It actually helps to view with things in black & whites. Fear thrives in the gray of unresolved emotion and feelings. It festers there. Eliminate it.

Process monkey bars

Process is inherently not about Monkey bars, but rather concrete solid highways. Well. At least that is the way most businesses view it. They are wrong. Most process is not linear A-B-C-D-etc, but rather solid lily pads which should be used in different configurations depending on challenge and context.

This is counterintuitive to most business people. They see iterative doing and not monkey bar doing. The truth is efficiency & effectiveness are maximized by properly utilizing the Monkey bars.

Ponder that.

I would venture to guess no business school says what I just said.

Ideas (or innovation) monkey bars

80% of innovations and ideation are iterative. They are improvements upon what is. Extensions, shifts, lifts, etc. These are like constantly tuning up the engine. 20% are monkey bar ideas and innovations. None, I may add, are out of the box ideas or innovations.

The 20%. The big ideas are swinging from a rung on a solid construct, letting go and grasping another rung across a space. The rung is separated by space, but the innovation is strong enough for the organization to hold on to. Please note. You are making a leap, but not outside a box. Please note. This actually increases likelihood of success. Just as scary (letting go and grabbing onto something you trust will hold you), yet, the leap is made within a construct the organization can withstand.

Just ponder.

I would venture to guess no innovations guru says what I just said.

In the end.

1. Business loves linear solid tidy things. they are safe, theoretically predictable and typically showcases the characteristics of efficiency. But not everything can be reduced to a 5 step process, a 6 stage model, or even a production schedule. That is why I believe the power of the Monkey bars concept is it is tangible and intangible. Where it gets interesting, is that it enables us to understand how to move away from slow and incremental improvement, to leaps of improvement.
2. People hate change (but mostly for a different reason than you may think).

“A root cause of resistance to change is that employees identify with and care for their organizations. People fear that after the change, the organization will no longer be the organization they value and identify with — and the higher the uncertainty surrounding the change, the more they anticipate such threats to the organizational identity they hold dear. Change leadership that emphasizes what is good about the envisioned change and bad about the current state of affairs typically fuels these fears because it signals that changes will be fundamental and far-reaching. Counterintuitively, then, effective change leadership has to emphasize continuity — how what is central to “who we are” as an organization will be preserved, despite the uncertainty and changes on the horizon.”

https://hbr.org/2018/08/research-to-get-people-to-embrace-change-emphasize-what-will-stay-the-same

Monkey bars maintain their structure you simply swing from one run to another. Same playground, same structure, heck, even the same kids playing with you, just another run. In overcoming resistance to change and building support for change, leaders need to communicate an appealing vision of change in combination with a vision of continuity. Unless they are able to ensure people that what defines the organization’s identity — “what makes us who we are” — will be preserved despite the changes, leaders may have to brace themselves for a wave of resistance.

So. In the end?

Letting go in business is certainly hard – and healthy.

Just be sure you don’t avoid the monkey bars because of this following thought for it would be a shame to suffer solely because it was familiar:

—

“People have a hard time letting go of their suffering.

Out of a fear of the unknown, they prefer suffering that is familiar.”

=

Thich Nhat Hanh

—

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

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.”

F. Scott Fitzgerald

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

Contradictions. My favorite topic (certainly in business). Now. This is a tricky conversation in business because most business people like one-dimensional thinking & ideas. Yeah. That sounds harsh but at its core is the argument of “stand for one thing” combined with “simple is success”. Both of which ignore the fact most people find contradictions interesting (therefore cognitively retain the imprint better) and simple doesn’t necessarily mean ‘one thing’ but rather ‘understandable.’ I would also argue contradictions, or multidiemensional is more relatable. My main example of this is in discussing Brand Personality where the whole idea of ‘one thing’ is absurd.

Regardless. I personally love the idea of ‘owning a contradiction’ because it is a descriptive phrase that invokes people to hold two opposing concepts concurrently.

And more importantly? It is a smart idea. And I don’t care who you are, you like smart ideas <everyone does>.

Everyone likes ideas that make you think. A contradiction, or an idea capturing a contradiction, is an idea that makes you think.

Patient quickness.

Make haste slowly.

Big and fast.

Small but powerful.

Less is more.

That kind of stuff. Literally, I imagine we are simply discussing oxymorons.

But. I will get back to that (because I am curious and looked up all that stuff). Owning a Contradiction is excellent for when you are talking about brand positioning and company’s value propositions and what people think about an organization (or product or service).

A contradiction offers something that may seem counter intuitive and make people cock their heads a little bit and think “how do they do that?”.

From an organization value proposition standpoint (what is it we do best – with a skew toward functional) owning a contradiction is kind of the holy grail.

In particular you love to zero in on some aspect of more for less.

(Think of that as the holy grail value proposition sweet spot)

What do I mean?

That’s like …

More happiness-satisfaction less worry.

Get more Services at less cost.

More nutrition in least (smallest) portion.

Do more with less (plus/minus relationship).

Do most with least amount of money/budget.

Large global resources attention to small details.

“who say you can’t be big and nimble?”

Stuff like that.

If you can build an organizational culture and innovations and attitudinal structure with something like that at the core you are golden. Now and for the future.

Anyway. Whenever I bring up owning a contradiction, at first blush, everyone loves the idea. The challenge is when people want to “understand it.”

So. Inevitably you get the smart(ass) question … ‘are you talking about an oxymoron or a paradox’?

(yikes. Here is where I need to search dictionaries for help)

Oxymoron or Paradox. Here are the two definitions.

An oxymoron as “a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in ‘cruel kindness’ or ‘to make haste slowly’.”

(c’mon … who uses ‘locution’ in a sentence … jerks)

A paradox is defined as “a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth”.

Uh oh. That didn’t help me. Is one a figure of a speech and one a sentence? Geez. ‘Self contradictory but in reality expresses a possible truth.’

Now. That sounds good. Unfortunately if I research oxymoron I get more of what I am talking about with owning a contradiction despite the fact the explanation for a paradox seems … well … righter.

The Oxymoron is a figure of speech that deliberately uses two contradictory ideas. This contradiction creates a paradoxical image (okay. They just used oxymoron and paradox together ???) in the reader or listener’s mind that generates a new concept or meaning for the whole.

Some typical oxymorons are:

–          a living death

–          sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind

–          a deafening silence

–          bitter sweet

–          The Sounds of Silence (song title)

–          make haste slowly

–          conspicuous by his absence

Ok. It gets worse (trying to understand what it is supposed to be) when you look at these.

The following seem more like paradoxes to me, but they all are from a book called “Oxymoronica” by Dr. Mardy Grothe.

—

I can resist everything but temptation.

Oscar Wilde

=

Don’t be too clever for an audience. Make it obvious. Make the subtleties obvious also.

Billy Wilder

=

Just be truthful – If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.

Barbara Stanwyck

=

Please all, and you will please none.

Aesop – 6th century BC

=

Nothing is permanent, except change.

Heraclitus – 4th century BC

=

Okay. Regardless. Owning a contradiction (to me) is not only smart but it articulates something in a way that it actually becomes a figure of Speech (which also has a literal definition by the way)

Uh oh. Another definition. Figure of speech? A figure is worth a thousand words (A picture is worth a thousand words)

—

Figurative language:

One meaning of “figure” is drawing” or “image” or “picture”. Figurative language creates figures (pictures) in the mind of the reader or listener.  These pictures help convey the meaning faster and more vividly than words alone.

We use figures of speech in “figurative language” to add color and interest, and to awaken the imagination. Figurative language is everywhere, from classical works like Shakespeare or the Bible, to everyday speech, pop music and television commercials. It makes the reader or listener use their imagination and understand much more than the plain words.

Anyway. I come back to “expresses a possible truth.” Owning a contradiction (when you aren’t making it up and it is something of value) is figurative, a paradox and most importantly is communicating the possibility of a truth.

Something meaningful but contradictory all to the benefit of whoever you are communicating to.

In a way it is quite possible I like contradictions because they aggressively and interestingly attack people’s ignorance. They make you think of things that may not seem possible, but become an interesting ‘truth’ (and we learn something). To me that is the cognitive power of a contradiction.

Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance.

Confucius – 6th century BC

I will admit. Contradictions are personal to me. Lunch bucket intellectual is my contradiction. Bring a blue collar work ethic day in and day out but relentless intellectual curiosity to seek insights and ‘truth.’ I guess I am also a generalist specialist.

All that said.  Bottom line? Any time you can own a contradiction you are more interesting ... as a product, as a business or even as a person.

So.

This is about marketing and communications and plain packaging versus branding … as well as truth and deceit.

— 

“In theory, everybody buys the best and cheapest commodities offered him on the market.

In practice, if everyone went around pricing, and chemically testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic life would become hopelessly jammed.

To avoid such confusion, society consents to have its choice narrowed to ideas and objects brought to its attention through propaganda of all kinds. There is consequently a vast and continuous effort going on to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or commodity or idea.”

=

Edward Bernays

—-

“All of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society.

We can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it.

Or we can help lift it to a higher level.”

=

Bill Bernbach

———————–

I wrote about this for two reasons:

1. Awhile back the Guardian had a small editorial on plain packaging <because Great Britain is thinking about having plain packaging for cigarettes>. Within the short thought piece it poses the question of “what if there were only plain packaging … for everything?”
2. I have been thinking about the moral responsibility of people in advertising & marketing communications

Well.

Both topics are relevant to anyone in the professional communications industry not just from a true business perspective but rather a philosophical ‘what do I really do for a living’ type perspective.

Why? One of the hot topics among young people when I speak to them is “the moral depravity of capitalism” and its flag bearer “the morally corrupt advertising.”

Regardless. A discussion about plain packaging for everything spans capitalism, brands & branding and people themselves <how much they can actually be influenced to do something they don’t really desire doing>.

I remain steadfast in this discussion.

Capitalism, in and of itself, is not morally corrupt. Only people can be moral or immoral.

Advertising, in and of itself, is not morally corrupt. Only people can be moral or immoral.

Regardless of my steadfastness, plain packaging for everything sparks an interesting discussion about not only the morality of marketing & advertising but the role, and importance, of brands in people’s lives.

I will begin with the Guardian editorial:

—————-

== The Guardian == 

Unthinkable? Plain packets for everything.

Brands allow us to choose, but they also sometimes stop us choosing wisely – perhaps everything should carry a warning

—

Could the plain wrappers, which the government has said it will introduce for cigarettes, be usefully extended, to other potentially harmful products?

Alcopop could be divested of its deceiving glamour, fatty food could be labelled as just that, sugar could be generically dispensed. Whisky would just be a brown liquid in a bottle without pictures of terriers or a chap striding along.  Marmalade would just be a brown substance in a jar (after all, when you buy oranges they often put them in a plain brown paper bag).  Ice cream would no longer carry names reminding you of heavy handguns or novels by Mark Twain. Except, of course, in very tiny letters at the bottom of the pack. High heeled shoes could be stripped of their fashion names and carry a warning about muscle strain and bunions to come.

Fast cars could have their badges pruned.

The more we extend the list the sillier it becomes.

Yet we know how many designs for marijuana packets were patented in the hope that it would be legalised: the magic wand of branding could then be waved over them to bring big profits to these far-sighted entrepreneurs.

Brands allow us to choose, but they also sometimes stop us choosing wisely.

Perhaps the problem could be tackled more directly by simply attaching a label to everything saying that branding should be taken with a pinch of salt. Naturally a label like that on an actual packet of salt could cause confusion, so that one might have to say in that case that branding could be a snare and a delusion.

————–

I imagine beginning the discussion you have to use the end of the editorial – branding could be a snare and a delusion. Those words give this conversation a lot to grapple with.

Brand <and branding>.

Exchange Value.

Deceit.

Caveat emptor.

Influencing.

Information and disinformation.

Now. The issue of morality & responsibility has been discussed for decades.

The most famous public discussion may have occurred sometime in the 1950’s. Printer’s Ink <a magazine I believe> published an editorial Toynbee Vs. Bernbach on Advertising <oddly, in this day & age where you can find almost everything online … I can’t find a copy of it … therefore I am dependent upon a sole bad hard copy I made years ago>.

The summary?

—–

Arnold Toynbee:

Advertising is moral mis-education.

Advertising is an instrument of moral, as well as intellectual, mis – education. Insofar as it succeeds in influencing people’s minds, it conditions them not to think for themselves and not to choose for themselves.

It is intentionally hypnotic in its effect it makes people suggestible and docile. In fact, it prepares them for submitting to a totalitarian regime.

Bill Bernbach:

Only people are moral or immoral.

Advertising, like so many technologies available to man, is neither moral nor immoral. Is eloquence immoral because it persuades? Is music immoral because it awakens emotions? Is the gift of writing immoral because it can arouse people to action?

No.

Yet eloquence, music and writing have been used for evil purpose.

No, advertising is not moral or immoral.

Only people are.

—–

When I discuss capitalism & advertising I place both of these thoughts on screen and suggest people have to make a choice.

Are people sheep … or smart enough to make decisions on their own?

Are all people who do marketing & advertising immoral?

Well. After all those questions you realize that plain packaging isn’t the issue and that the topic is complex.

Suffice it to say, selling shit <marketing or manufacturing>, is always about balancing sales & ethics & values. The moment you lose sight of that is the moment your moral compass, or business, goes off the tracks. And you have to pay attention to your moral compass if you are in the communications business because there is gobs of research showing that the degree of brand loyalty increases sharply from the age of ten, and peaks around the age of 30. There is gobs of research showing that the degree of emotional involvement a person invests with a brand increases their irrationality.

Why the hell did I include those factoids? Because that means if you are in the communications business <this includes packaging by the way> you have a responsibility. That responsibility is being ethical & being truthful and not being deceitful.

Basically people know and love brands.

People know the names of brands, remember what they see and hear about them and form opinions of them.

And people actually do NOT like plain packaging — they like all the wrappings around the shit they buy. And, I would note, the trappings are important because brand value <which creates a version of a relationship> don’t form in a vacuum. To create real brand value you have to create strong attitudinal foundations. Some suggest an attitudinal foundation is a ‘bond’ <I do not but it makes the point>.

I cannot remember who built this “brand loyalty pyramid” but , in general, it says pretty much the same thing as every ‘loyalty pyramid’ you will see when you walk thru the door of any credible communications company:

—

• Presence: does the consumer know anything about the product or service?

• Relevance: does it cater for their needs?

• Performance: does it deliver?

• Advantage: is it better than others in some way?

• Bonding: nothing else can beat it.

—

All consumers, whether kids or adults, form brand relationships in this way.On a side note, interestingly, research shows that among kids, around half of all brands change their typology every two years, highlighting an extremely rapid ‘migration’ of attitudes. But, in general, Millward Brown research shows that brand allegiance changes very little across the generations. In two out of three categories, adults and kids are bonded to the same brands. Many brands manage to tap into needs and desires that transcend the age of the consumer, and many do this through careful product segmentation.

I included a lot of this stuff because we use the word ‘brand’ often in a very simplistic way and it is a very non simplistic concept. It has to do with perceptions, attitude and expectations which inevitably lead to specific behaviors.

All this gets me back to plain packaging and, conversely, discussing ‘brand.’ Plain packaging suggests everything is equal. Toynbee would like that. Everything equally good and equally bad. Unfortunately for Toynbee, whether you believe it or not, the shit we buy varies in quality.

Could we exist, or subsist, on the lowest quality? I am fairly sure we could.

But our everyday existence is made up of more than simply existing. What I mean is … how dull would life be if that is all there was?

To be clear, even within the lowest income purchasers, those who have a heightened sense of survival, there remains hope for something better and the occasional indulgence of something better. Non-plain packaging permits a manufacturer to showcase ‘better’ or ‘different’ so we, the people, can make choices.

Ah. Making choices. People make choices. Non-plain packaging helps them make choices.

Professional communicators also make choices. This leads me to something called … “Do this or die.”

Do this or Die is a manifesto written by Bill Bernbach <one of the founders of the advertising agency Doyle, Dane & Bernbach – DDB> and it is written to those who CREATE advertising and messaging — the professional communicators in the world. It is a directive ‘the creators of messaging’ to create inspiring truthful meaningful messaging. He suggests in his manifesto to the ‘creators’, those who should bear the burden of ‘non deceitful messaging,’ that the people are not a nation, or world, of stupid people.

People are smart. And maybe ‘the people’ can be tricked once, but very very rarely twice.

“DO THIS OR DIE” is a warning, a promise, a call-out to the lazier advertising and marketing and communications professionals.

A warning to the ones who accept and produce mediocrity.

A warning to the ones who don’t understand the power of truth and the ones who compromise ‘truth’ in the interest of sale or ‘false differentiation.’

Do this or Die. What we professionals communicate must be truth:

==

“… the messages we put on those pages and on those television screens must be the truth. For if we play tricks with the truth, we die.

Now. The other side of the coin. Telling the truth about a product demands a product that’s worth telling the truth about. Sadly, so many products aren’t. So many products don’t do anything better. Or anything different. So many don’t work quite right.

Or don’t last.

Or simply don’t matter.

If we also play this trick, we also die.”

==

This means, to me, discussing plain packaging is discussing the symptom of a larger problem. It becomes not a discussion of marketing or communications or even capitalism; it becomes a discussion about people and doing what is right versus what is wrong and choices.

I love this discussion with young people.

It is a hard discussion in which they may approach it with some naiveté but they also approach it with truth in hand. Truth that while there are moral and immoral people in the world and that even moral people will slide down the slippery slope of mediocre ethical behavior under the guise of either <a> not knowledgeable enough to do anything better, or <b> everyone else is doing it.

In the end.

Let me say I despise what Arnold Toynbee suggests with regard to people.

I refuse to believe people aren’t smart enough to make knowledgeable decisions.

I refuse to believe people can be influenced to such an extent they desire things they shouldn’t desire.

I refuse to believe people can be manipulated to do wrong things <but certainly can be inspired to take positive actions>.

I do believe communications can influence attitudes.

I do believe communications, done well, can affect behavior.

But I don’t believe communications can make someone do something they don’t want to do … nor convince them in any consistent way to do wrong things.

Just as you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink, communications can lead someone somewhere <immorally or morally>, but inevitably a person makes the moral or immoral choice.

Now. Here is something I am emphatic with when talking with young people <and as often as I can with older people>.

I do believe professional communicators have a higher responsibility than other folks.

I do believe … all of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society.

We can vulgarize that society.

We can brutalize it.

Or we can help lift it to a higher level.

Plain packaging? Why am I against it?

Well. I would lose an opportunity to help lift society to a higher level.

That’s what I tell people.

And that is what I believe.

===

This old post is not about communicators … but business responsibility to shaping society.

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

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

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

—

Dwight D. Eisenhower

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

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

What am I talking about?

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

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

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

Okay.No one panic.

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

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

C’mon. Admit it.

We have all done it.

We have all thought it.

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

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

First. Reminder.

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

Second. Well.

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

<1> Yourself and … <2> someone else.

Huh?

–          Yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next.

–          Someone else.

Ok.

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

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

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

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

As in discrete. As in mutually exclusive.

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

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

Ok. Beyond dealing with yourself and someone else.

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

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

“Think of value creation, not valuation.”

–

Pranav Marwah

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

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

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

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

Velocity projects fall into 2 slots:

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

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

Regardless.

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

Here you go. Just ponder.

efficiency and effectiveness

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

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

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

structural value creation

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

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

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

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

transactional value creation

This is the Y axis.

Efficiency at the bottom, effective at top.

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

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

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

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

Value Proposition vs. Employee Value Proposition

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

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

Lastly.

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

That’s it.

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

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

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

—-

Daniel Alexander Brackins

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

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

―

Ashly Lorenzana

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway.

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

About Velo

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

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

Abundance versus scarcity attitude

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

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

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

Comunicação and scarcity

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

Criatividade and scarcity

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

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

Think: Value on the Move

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

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

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

——-

Bill Bernbach

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

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

——

Sue Monk Kidd

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

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

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

Not everything has to be done immediately.

Not everything should be done with minimal information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a truth.

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

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

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

Here is another truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All that said.

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

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

===========

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

e.e.cummings

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

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

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

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

Look.

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

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

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

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

Not everyone can do this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“[an] idea is a powerful thing — but it’s just an idea. It’s a sketch before the painting.  The truth is that an idea is rarely an answer. It’s usually a hunch wrapped in a bundle of unanswered strategic, operational, technical, and financial questions.”

———–

Mark Payne

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

“With an apple I will astonish Paris.”

———–

Paul Cezanne

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

So.

Could you ever imagine a business person suggesting surprising the world with one of the most ordinary common things in Life — an apple?

People would think that person was crazy.

“We need something new.”

“We need to be unique.”

Well. Let’s face it.

Most new things suck.

Most new ideas are just bad.

And most new shit just stinks.

Which leads me to say several things upfront:

• The concept of Big ideas in marketing is crap. Yup. Crap.
• Confusing a bunch of tactics with a big strategic idea is just plain stupid.

As a corollary to the above statement — iterative tactics without a strategy idea is insane <it is just a race to the bottom>.

• If you can get paid for having no ideas … do anything to keep that job.
• Small <with sharp edges or points> ideas, even the ordinary looking ones, may be uncool but exponentially cooler than no idea and infinitely better than supposed big ideas.

Look.

I truly believe the entire big idea discussion is crap and misguides organizations to aim for the wrong things <and encourages organizations to overlook some big things>. Success is all about tiny sharp insights. Sharp insights that have the possibility of expanding to something big <unfortunately I now have a visual of one of those stupid little sponges that expand when you put a drop of water on them>.

Yeah. It is quite possible saying Big Ideas are crap is overstating it a little, but I can unequivocally state that the entire process to “find” or “uncover” the Big idea is crap.

Huh?

Simply by starting your thought process out with this question you have complicated your business thinking and in fact you are saying you are seeking the wrong thing. For in seeking something big you have a tendency to discuss hollow good looking concepts which can easily be torn apart into meaningless little nothings. Ideas are good in any shape or size <no ideas have no shape therefore … by this logic … are not good>. I just tend to believe often big things come in very small packages when it comes to ideas. So if all you do is look for big packages … well … you are gonna be sorely disappointed when you open it up and look at the idea.

Maybe <and this is quite possible> I am missing something but what I seem to see in all this Big Idea mumbo jumbo is “hey, I don’t really have any idea so I am going to constantly implement a boatload of little tactics until some of them start working and then write up the idea.”

Pragmatic but not really that … uhm … great an idea.

Yeah. I have certainly seen a great tactical idea generate a honed strategic idea but I can honestly say I have never seen anyone just throw a whole bunch of tactical shit up against the wall and see what sticks and then like a Rorschach test identify the strategic idea from the shape of the tactical shit.

Regardless. It is kind of the way business in general seems to be evolving <to my dismay I may add> but good ideas die not because they aren’t “big” but mostly because they have to run the following gauntlet <with these things standing on each side>:

1. Consensus

———

“A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.”

Abba Eban

———

The consensus & ideas concept gets stated like …“if I have an idea I want to share ownership so it succeeds.” That is kind of the bullshit you hear.

Look.

A good idea is a good idea. A great idea tends to have sharper edges to it <it can hurt a little and make some people feel a little uncomfortable>. All I really know is that gaining consensus will only dull a sharp idea.

No debate on that.

A good idea, in fact, the best ideas, are typically borne of an individual not a consensus.

No debate on that.

Collaboration <not consensus> can nurture an idea to greatness but as an acorn becomes an oak — we should be seeking the acorn. We should be seeking the people who have real ideas and learn to revel in the initial seeming smallness and power of what it is … and understand the gloriousness of what this little thing can become if it is watered and nurtured … not drowned in consensus.

========= 

“Instead of meetings about meetings let’s barge into someone’s office w/ a great idea & figure out how to do it.”

Tom Goodwin

===========

Figure out a way to implement without consensus. Not saying it’s easy but that’s kind of the gig.

2. Fear

To be fearless in a room full of fear is frustrating. Fear is the biggest enemy of any idea … big, medium or small.

===========

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

H. L. Mencken

===========

Fear takes shape in organizations in a couple of ways:

• Fear of being wrong or making a mistake.

This is a tough one. Nowadays with employment being what it is many people are running scared. And scared leadership is putting even more pressure on people to make fewer mistakes <rather than do more right things).

An iterative ideation process is a beautiful way to hide from making a mistake. How can you be wrong if it is baked into an admitted iterative process?

• Use data to make a subjective decision.

Ah. This is where research comes in. In other words “why use common sense and our knowledge when we can implement a congruent multi phase segmentation study that identifies the double helix DNA of our desired customer.” <or some other bullshit you hear in the business world>

I believe big research studies don’t produce big ideas. But. If you have patience and look hard enough typically within this big research study you can probably mine a little sharp looking diamond of an idea that can make a big difference.

But most organizations don’t use research that way. They use research to make a decision for them. They use data out of fear.

All that said. In the end I remind everyone of something I said in the beginning:

“With an apple I will astonish the world.”

I wish more businesses would think this way.

But.

Small & ordinary isn’t sexy in … well .. anything. In today’s business it needs to be Big & extraordinary to be meaningful.

That is just crazy.

We need more people talking about making the ordinary extraordinary and that small sharp ideas are the ones which break through a fairly cluttered world. Within the ordinary always resides a small mundane thing. And it is easy to focus on the mundane as common, useless or even pedantic. Yet each ‘ordinary thing’ also has the capacity, if we are open to it, to usher us into an experience of  something extraordinary & usher us into some new way of looking at the ordinary & usher us into some new way of experiencing the ordinary.

Even the ordinary contains infinite possibilities <if we would only seek it there>.

Within finite often resides the infinite.

Within each of us ordinary people resides something extraordinary.

I mention that last point about us ordinary everyday schmucks <people> because we need to remind ourselves something experts have been trying to tell us for quite some time … “ no one is born a genius … genius takes time and opportunity to develop.” David Shenk <The Genius in All of Us: New Insights into Genetics, Talent, and IQ> described genius as a process, not something someone has or is borne with, but rather something that someone does.

We all have some genius within us. We all have the ability to take something ordinary and surprise the world with something extraordinary. This belief, this understanding of self, far too often is trampled in the rush to get things done and the search for ‘something new’ and gets suffocated in rooms of consensus.

It’s sad that as we rush up & down the hallways of our businesses we tend to overlook the opportunities in the ordinary.

<sigh>

Surprise the world with an apple.

What an amazing thought. Just seek the small sharp insightful seemingly ordinary looking ideas and stick it to the competition.

==

“When written in Chinese, the word crisis is composed of two characters. One represents danger, and the other represents opportunity.”

–

John F. Kennedy

==

Ok.

I love this quote.  And a boatload of business management people do <dozens of books written using it>.

Uh oh. But it isn’t true.

Good ole JFK got it wrong <but he is in good company>.

The usual explanation is that the Chinese ideogram for “crisis” is made up of two characters signifying “opportunity” and “danger.” To us folk on this side of the planet this is a great example of the ancient East wisdom. And teachers, pontificators, self help specialists, motivational speakers and anyone who likes to tell people to find lemonade when given a basket of lemons have used this explanation.

The key lesson shared?

“A crisis provides an opportunity for change and growth as well as a danger of regression or stagnation.”

<but that is too long and complete to be a soundbite>

Yup. This is pretty frickin’ deep.

The truth?

1. In Chinese, the term for crisis is wei ji.

2. Native Chinese speakers tend to think the crisis = danger/opportunity connection is complete bullshit.

The Chinese word <not really an ideogram by the way> for crisis, when translated, literally means “dangerous, or precarious, moment.” That’s it.  No ‘opportunity.’  No benefiting.  Just danger. Or … maybe I should focus on the part I like … “a precarious moment.”

Not a bad lesson in itself. Crisis CAN be bad … but in reality is just all about having a precarious moment … that needs to be managed.

Just to be sure I cover all my bases as I tear down all that self-help mumbo jumbo people have absorbed and are putting in use day-to-day.

(through some research)

A mandarin expert breaks down the word and definition and wisdom mumbo-jumbo:

A whole industry of pundits and therapists has grown up around this one grossly inaccurate statement. A casual search of the Web turns up more than a million references to this spurious proverb. It appears, often complete with Chinese characters, on the covers of books, on advertisements for seminars, on expensive courses for “thinking outside of the box,” and practically everywhere one turns in the world of quick-buck business, pop psychology, and orientalist hocus-pocus. This catchy expression (Crisis = Danger + Opportunity) has rapidly become nearly as ubiquitous as The Tao of Pooh and Sun Zi’s Art of War for the Board / Bed / Bath / Whichever Room.

The explication of the Chinese word for crisis as made up of two components signifying danger and opportunity is due partly to wishful thinking, but mainly to a fundamental misunderstanding about how terms are formed in Mandarin and other Sinitic languages.

<that was awesome …>

Next.

While it is true that wēijī does indeed mean “crisis” and that the wēi syllable of wēijī does convey the notion of “danger,” the jī syllable of wēijī most definitely does not signify “opportunity.”

The jī of wēijī, in fact, means something like “incipient moment; crucial point (when something begins or changes).” Thus, a wēijī is indeed a genuine crisis, a dangerous moment, a time when things start to go awry. A wēijī indicates a perilous situation when one should be especially wary. It is not a juncture when one goes looking for advantages and benefits.

As the Mandarin language expert says quite succinctly … “In a crisis, one wants above all to save one’s skin and neck!”

As well as …

“Any would-be guru who advocates opportunism in the face of crisis should be run out of town on a rail, for his / her advice will only compound the danger of the crisis.”

I loved this guy.

A little wordy in his explanation but he was passionate about telling everyone how far off base they were on the whole crisis/opportunity thing. Sorry.  No Eastern wisdom here. In this case the east and the west agreed that a crisis is bad, dangerous and to be wary of and that’s it.

Ok.

All that said <mostly said to enlighten everyone and piss off a boatload of publishers and book writers> let’s talk about crisis and the opportunities a crisis does actually create. Most of us quickly see the danger in a crisis… and we should … because it is exactly as translated … a precarious moment.  Like its true Chinese definition a crisis is a crucial moment where things begin to go awry.

It is easy to overlook any opportunity within the crisis because, frankly, we are often just trying to survive <in other words … save our skin, neck & ass>.

And what makes this even more difficult is that the opportunity may be well hidden. The danger is always obvious and the most critical in our eye because the crisis creates potential personal harm. So what makes a crisis truly a “precarious moment” is that assuming you are seeking to find that elusive opportunity within the crisis … well … that with danger lurking its not that we forget to look for the opportunity but rather we seek to avoid the danger and the personal harm.

Lets call this for what it is … self preservation.

And that isn’t bad by the way.  Because if you don’t survive the “opportunity” becomes irrelevant. It is natural to avoid danger during a crisis and make that THE priority.  So, no, I am not going to suggest someone become an “opportunity person” when dealing with a crisis.

I believe people who can discover opportunities in a crisis are people who have already successfully managed the ‘precarious moment’ several times in the past. Maybe call it trial by fire.  Maybe call it trial & error.  But suffice it to say you ain’t gonna be seeking opportunities when dealing with your first true crisis.

Yes. Many people say that it was actually a crisis that caused them to make a much-needed change.

Yes. Living through a hard time challenges people to grow in ways that makes them more mature and opens them to new possibilities.

Where I would argue with people on this is that through surviving the crisis they … well … just found a better way to survive. And that’s not being opportunistic.  That is simply survival instinct <compounded by understanding of what makes oneself happiest>.

Look.

Life constantly gives you opportunities … and gives you crisis also <unfortunately> … regardless … you get opportunities not just to take a chance but also just to improve your current state.

Here is the formula (although in this case I am not sure A + B = C).

(A) A crisis is a forced decision making moment (typically survival based).

(B) Decision making moments represent opportunities.

(C) Opportunities typically translate into some type of change.

And everyone, obviously, wants to capitalize on any change (who would choose to have a negative result from a decision?). If someone wants to claim a crisis represents an opportunity go ahead and do so … but please recognize that it is an indirect extended relationship.  And in doing so you could be doing a disservice to people because it ignores what a crisis is truly about – survival.

Ok.

I do believe dealing with a crisis has a lot to do with attitude <which is possibly where many people get confused with this whole opportunity thing>.

A Pollyanna attitude? Nope.

Someone wrote: “Welcoming personal setbacks as rich opportunities for growth can help you survive them. Does that seem like a twisted point of view? After all, problems make us miserable, right? Scott Peck, author of The Road Less Traveled (Touchstone, 2003), considers them a gift — if you look at them in a deeper, less reactive manner. Indeed, they can give us clear perspective.”

Wow.

That is a bunch of bullhockey <bullshit>.

A crisis is just that.  A crisis.  A dangerous moment. A precarious moment.

Should we be seeking opportunities in the middle of a frickin’ crisis? Nope.

We should be seeking survival.

And that is where attitude comes in. Not “lets find the opportunity” or some baloney like that <or find the lemonade out of the lemons> but an attitude capturing a strength of character <I will be strong and overcome> and resiliency <survive>. Afterwards maybe you can look back and discover the opportunities that were an outcome from the crisis (although this has a slightly masochistic point of view in that from pain comes pleasure that kind of creeps me out) but when in a crisis … just deal with it.

Have a good attitude and explore all the possibilities/opportunities … once you have managed the experience itself.

Dealing with a true crisis takes character.  HOW you deal with a crisis says almost as much as what you do to deal with a crisis.  A crisis is a gauntlet. You have to have strength of character.  And strength in resiliency.  Please don’t measure yourself when dealing with a crisis by what opportunity you discovered from the crisis … measure yourself by how you survived.

A crisis.

It is a ‘precarious moment’ … a ‘crucial moment’ … a ‘dangerous moment.’

<East & West agree on this>

Seek to survive the moment. Don’t seek the opportunity for god’s sake. Just try and be aware should an opportunity arise <as you survive>. Leave the ‘opportunistic crisis management approach’ to people who write books and pontificate<but, please do not buy the books and live your life by all their bullshit>.

Oh.

And don’t misuse the Chinese definition of crisis. Because that is where this whole rant started. I am all for seeking opportunities and I have a shitload, too much, experience dealing with crises. But I will be honest … my first response in any crisis is “survival”. Once I can see, or sense, we will survive hen, yeah, I will most likely scan the horizon for some opportunities. But survival first.

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

“Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.”

–

H.L. Mencken

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

So.

This is about standing up for what you believe in <not really about being a pirate>. This is about business. And, sometimes, I imagine some of my thoughts are also about Life.

In fact.

This is about several things:

–          Not always being politically correct

–          Possibly not ‘playing nice’

–          Sacrificing some ‘art of compromise’

–          Being a pirate <yeah … I lied … it is partially about being a pirate>

Alrighty. Before I get to the fun part <slitting throats> … let me tell you how this quote is about business. Because the quote suggests that everyone … even a normal <or quasi sensible> person … is tempted to become a pirate <raise the black flag> and kill <hopefully not literally> conformity, the status quo and those things that may dull the edges in business <and life>.

Now.

This isn’t about making being a pirate a living/career, or a way of life, but rather this is more about suggesting some situations in which you are tempted to pillage all that around you, take no prisoners and get it done your way. Ok. Maybe some situations where being ‘pirate-like’ can benefit you in business.

That said.

Here are the things to think about.

Not being politically correct

Hoisting the black flag in business means you are gonna say and do some things that well behaved polite business people just may not like. In fact … it even means going out on your own, hopefully not on the plank, and sailing independently outside the conformity of what is said to be ‘right.’

Well.

Pirates were entrepreneurs. Pirates got things done fast <or faster than going through bureaucracy of some management>.

The prizes were great.

The losses were mind numbingly abrupt and conclusive.

It is often a business truth that wading your way through all the politically correct steps takes time and can sap energy. Sometimes you gotta simply say “I am a pirate … my crew will look motley … and I am abrasive myself … but this ship is gonna sail today with all those who want to hoist the black flag.”

Now.

You cannot be politically incorrect all the time … that would make you a bigot, ignorant, an asshole … and/or simply stupid <in other words … a bad pirate>. However. Selectively avoiding correctness can cut through bullshit and get the ship out of the harbor.

Oh.

And put you in a position to win a prize. Or get sunk.

But that’s the risk a pirate runs.

Not playing nice.

Being a pirate in business isn’t like playing cricket <as the British would say>. Hoyle isn’t giving everyone the rules.

Pirates cared about one thing … okay … two things.

• Booty <winning the prize>
• Not dying.

Good pirates constantly balanced between the 2. This insured they didn’t do something so incredibly stupid that their <your> own throat wasn’t slit but also insured enough risk to get what you wanted.

It also meant rules were vague at best. I am not suggesting someone be immoral or so ruthless that the integrity of the organization is compromised.

But.

To win there is a loser. And pirates didn’t let the feelings of the loser affect how they played the game. They didn’t care about playing nice. They played to win, get some loot and not get killed. This kind of attitude threaded into how you approach business just ain’t a particularly bad thing.

Sacrificing the art of compromise.

Pirates don’t compromise. They cannot.

It is about winning on their terms or losing on their terms.

Why?

Because if they don’t win they hang.

So what does that mean?

Hang compromise out to dry. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to win the battle. Uhm. Sometimes. This advice is a contextual ‘pick your battle’ thought.

I am not suggesting cheating.

I am not suggesting lying.

I am not suggesting anything nefarious.

I am simply suggesting that negotiating and compromising may need to be sacrificed <on occasion> in order to do what is right. And sometimes it is a truth that there is a better, if not actually best, way of doing something.

Slit the throats of compromise and do it ‘your way.’ It is kind of an all or nothing plan of action.

Oh.

Kind of like being a pirate.

Being a pirate.

No … I am not suggesting you get to wear the cool looking black eye patch or say “aargh matey” but this is about sailing the open seas, being swashbuckling and seeking booty <gold and jewels … not the other type>.

Let’s call it … well … maybe independence. And gathering those around you who want to sail off alone just this once <at least>.

Great leaders are often like the great frigate captains of the old British navy <who were kind of like pirates within a larger organization>. They showcased an ability to effectively participate in the larger organizational activities when required … and an ability to be effective taking off on independent campaigns.

Oh.

And choosing when to be independent. No one can be a pirate 100% of the time <I don’t remember reading of many old pirates> but being a pirate every once in a while can be healthy <and fun and productive>. Individually as well as to a business and organization.

Ok.

All that said. To be clear … H.L. Mencken was an extremely cynical person, disgusted with conformity, and firm in the belief that the majority opinion was pretty much always wrong. He also tended to believe the status quo <customs and traditions > was pretty much always silly if not stupid.

I don’t agree.

Selectively … all of those things are healthy.

If you are a pirate as a standard operating procedure … you are simply an outcast <if not a bitter contrarian>. I tend to believe the type of pirate I am discussing <not a greed driven corporate blood sucking leech> is needed in today’s business world more than ever. Organizations do not encourage individuality and controlled conformity <under the guise of ‘team’> is the typical guiding principle. Boring and stagnant. That’s what I think of when I read what I just wrote.

Lastly.

While I don’t recommend being a pirate and hoisting the flag all the time … I guess I would like to remind everyone that Life is awful short … and you either have to have some fun <in business> or you have to stand up for something at some point or you are just marking time. Being a pirate now and then can remind you that individuality, or non conformity, can define you to yourself a little. It can provide some personal clarity.

Something I think we could all use a dose of on occasion.

Anyway.

I can guarantee only one thing … if you hoist the black flag at least once you will certainly have one memorable moment. Oh. And you get to be a pirate for at least one moment.

That is pretty cool all by itself.